here - United Kingdom Parliament

Wednesday Volume 519 

1 December 2010 No. 82 

HOUSE OF COMMONS 

OFFICIAL REPORT 

PARLIAMENTARY 

DEBATES 

(HANSARD) 

Wednesday 1 December 2010 

£5·00

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2010 

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

801 1 DECEMBER 2010 

802 

House of Commons 


The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock 

PRAYERS 

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair] 

Oral Answers to Questions 

SCOTLAND 

The Secretary of State was asked— 

Energy 

1. John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab): 

What (a) recent meetings he has had and (b) meetings 

he plans to have with representatives of Scottish Power 

to discuss the energy industry in Scotland. [26707] 

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore): 

I have regular meetings with the energy industry, including 

with Scottish Power, and will continue to do so, given 

the sector’s importance to the Scottish economy. 

John Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for his 

answer. He says that he has had these meetings, yet 

British Gas, Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern 

Energy have said that on no occasion has he ever 

discussed the price hiking that these companies are 

undertaking. When will he try to support the people of 

Scotland by doing something about the price hikes? 

Michael Moore: What I recognise is the importance 

of ensuring that we get a fair deal for consumers, as well 

as for the shareholders—the companies are concerned 

about that. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Ofgem 

has announced an inquiry into consumer protection 

and competition in the sector. I expect that to be a very 

thorough process. 

Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/ 

Co-op): I am glad to see that the Secretary of State was 

able to get back from Scotland to be here today, despite 

the cold weather and the travel difficulties. Given that 

cold weather, and the increase in energy bills that many 

people have experienced, is he aware of the concern 

among many of my constituents and many others that 

the most vulnerable people will struggle to pay their 

bills, when they should be entitled to be on social 

tariffs? Will he therefore undertake to convene a summit 

of the six energy companies to discuss, in particular, 

what they are doing to ensure that people who should 

be on social tariffs are on them, and that people in 

Scotland are not left cold at home this winter? 

Michael Moore: I am glad of the hon. Gentleman’s 

welcome, and I appreciate, as he will, that many people 

in Scotland, and indeed in the whole of the United 

Kingdom, have been struggling to get to work and go 

about their business today. He rightly focuses on temperature 

and the fact that this will cause extra difficulty for 

people, so I am sure he will welcome the fact that we are 

maintaining the cold weather payments and the winter 

fuel allowance. I am certainly happy to discuss ideas of 

getting together with the different energy companies to 

make sure that they are properly focused on the needs 

of their customers. 

Asylum Seekers 

2. Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab): What 

discussions he has had with the UK Border Agency on 

the cancellation of its contract with Glasgow city 

council to provide services to asylum seekers. [26708] 

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

What recent discussions he has had with the UK 

Border Agency on the welfare of asylum seekers in 

Scotland. [26711] 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland 

(David Mundell): The Secretary of State and I are in 

regular contact with the Home Office on matters relating 

to asylum seekers. I understand that the UK Border 

Agency is working closely with support organisations in 

Glasgow to ensure that there is minimum disruption to 

those affected by the termination of UKBA’s housing 

contract with Glasgow city council. 

Anas Sarwar: I thank the Minister for that answer. 

Does he think it acceptable that no detailed discussions 

were held between UKBA and either Ypeople or the 

Angel Group ahead of the decision to scrap the contract 

with Glasgow city council, even though they will be 

made to take responsibility for more than 1,000 asylum 

seekers in the city? Will he agree to meet representatives 

of all those involved in the dispute, so that he can make 

an informed contribution to the Immigration Minister? 

David Mundell: I will certainly be happy to meet the 

hon. Gentleman and other people who have an interest 

in this matter. I know that he has already had the 

opportunity to meet UKBA, and I think that he will 

share with me the positive view that although the people 

involved will no longer have a contract with Glasgow 

city council and will instead have one with another 

provider, many of them will stay in the same properties 

and that will minimise disruption. 

Pete Wishart: Does the Minister even start to understand 

and appreciate the outrage that exists in Scotland about 

the treatment of asylum seekers? This is not just about 

the Glasgow situation, appalling though that is; it is 

also about the detention of children and the operation 

of the section 4 card. Will he get down to the UKBA to 

explain that we look at these issues very differently in 

Scotland and we expect the UKBA to act accordingly? 

David Mundell: I do recognise that there are concerns 

in Scotland about how the matter in Glasgow was 

handled, and the Immigration Minister accepts that the 

correspondence with those affected could have been 

much better handled. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman 

will welcome, as I do, the inquiry that the Scottish 

Affairs Committee is conducting into relations in Scotland 

with UKBA.

803 Oral Answers 

1 DECEMBER 2010 

Oral Answers 

804 

Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): I welcome 

the Minister’s acceptance that the correspondence could 

have been handled better on the cancellation of the 

Glasgow contract, because as a result of letters sent out 

by UKBA, vulnerable people, including many families, 

were left in a state of extreme anxiety about where they 

would be living. Can he reassure us that lessons will be 

learned from this, so that such mistakes are not repeated 

in future? 

David Mundell: Indeed, I can give the hon. Lady that 

assurance. As soon as these issues came to light, the 

Secretary of State for Scotland was in contact with 

the Immigration Minister. There is a recognition that 

the correspondence was inappropriate, and a number of 

measures have been taken. For example, everyone affected 

will have at least 14 days’ notice if they have to move. 

Progress has been made. The initial letter was regrettable, 

but the situation will be better in future. 

HIV 

3. David Cairns (Inverclyde) (Lab): What recent 

discussions he has had with the (a) Secretary of State 

for Health and (b) Scottish Executive on strategies to 

reduce the incidence of HIV in the UK. [26709] 


(David Mundell): I am in contact with the Secretary of 

State for Health and the Scottish Government on a 

range of matters. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the 

Government published their public health White Paper 

yesterday. As that is taken forward, close attention will 

be paid to the lessons that can be learned from the 

Scottish Government HIV action plan. 

David Cairns: I am grateful to the Minister for that 

answer. On world AIDS day, it is worth reminding 

ourselves of the rather obvious fact that viruses such as 

HIV do not respect borders. Will he reassure me that as 

the Government seek to draw up their sexual health and 

HIV strategy they will work closely with all the devolved 

Administrations to ensure a coherent and joined-up 

approach? That is the only way that we will slow the 

spread of the virus, which has already claimed far too 

many lives. 

David Mundell: It is indeed appropriate that the hon. 

Gentleman has asked his question on world AIDS day. 

He is to be commended for his work as chairman of the 

all-party group on HIV and AIDS and for his work on 

the “Halve It” campaign. The Secretary of State will 

shortly meet the Minister for Public Health in Scotland, 

Shona Robison, and I shall ensure that this matter is on 

the agenda. 

Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con): Will my 

right hon. Friend give an undertaking to discuss with 

the Scottish Government the findings from the eight 

pilot projects that the Department of Health is running 

to extend HIV testing in primary care hospitals and 

community centres? 

David Mundell: I am happy to give that undertaking. 

As the hon. Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns) 

intimated, HIV and AIDS know no borders and the 

rest of the United Kingdom can learn from what has 

happened in Scotland, just as Scotland can learn from 

what is happening elsewhere in the United Kingdom. 

Economy 

4. Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con): What 

recent discussions he has had with the First Minister 

on the relationship between the UK Government and 

Scottish Executive with regard to economic policy 

under the devolution settlement. [26710] 


I have had a number of exchanges with the First Minister 

in recent weeks. Yesterday, the Scotland Bill was introduced 

in this House. If enacted, the Bill will strengthen devolution 

by giving the Scottish Parliament a financial stake in 

the Scottish economy while maintaining the economic 

strength we all desire from being in the United Kingdom. 

Mr Amess: Now that we know that the Scottish 

nationalist party—[HON. MEMBERS: “National party.”] 

It put Holyrood’s tax-raising powers out of commission 

for two years without telling the Scottish Parliament. 

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Scottish 

Government should be made more accountable for 

their financial management to such an extent that there 

should be a closer relationship between economic growth 

and how much money is spent? 

Michael Moore: My hon. Friend makes some interesting 

observations. I can confirm that the Scotland Bill, if 

enacted, will provide exactly what he asks for. It will 

empower the Scottish Parliament, increase its financial 

accountability and secure Scotland’s place in the United 

Kingdom. 

Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): Where the Scotland 

Bill makes a real difference to the lives of people in 

Scotland and to the Scottish economy, it will have the 

support of the SNP. During the passage of the legislation 

in this House, will the Secretary of State and his Tory 

colleagues accept improvements that will deliver additional 

powers that will give the Scottish economy a competitive 

advantage? 

Michael Moore: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s 

initial comments. As he is aware, the Bill introduced 

yesterday and the Command Paper that goes with it are 

the result of the work not just of the Conservative party 

and the Liberal Democrats but of the Labour party and 

others across Scotland. I hope that we will get proper 

engagement. I am confident that the measures in the 

Bill get the balance right for Scotland. They are right 

for this time and I am sure that they will pass the test of 

time. 

Angus Robertson: The Secretary of State knows that 

many of Scotland’s leading businessmen and women 

issued a statement this week, in which they said that 

there must be 

“real economic levers to help sustain recovery and grow the 

economy.” 

Will the Secretary of State and his Tory colleagues 

reconsider their plans and consider improvements to 

the legislation, such as devolving corporation tax to 

help business grow? 

Michael Moore: I listen carefully to a range of opinion 

from business and elsewhere about the future of 

Scotland’s—



Oral Answers 

806 

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the 

Secretary of State. I do not know what the hon. Member 

for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) had for breakfast this 

morning, but I am not sure that it has had the desired 

effect. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman must 

not rant at the Government Chief Whip or anybody 

else. He must calm himself—it is better for his health if 

he does. 

Michael Moore: If I can repeat what I was saying 

before your intervention, Mr Speaker, I listen carefully 

to a range of opinion from across business and different 

sectors of Scottish society. The business community 

was well represented in the Calman commission, which 

produced and supported the proposal. We will continue 

to listen to a range of opinion, but we have no intention 

of devolving powers over corporation tax. 

Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): In 1997, the 

Scottish people voted to give the Scottish Parliament 

tax-varying powers, but in a disgraceful and secret 

decision, the SNP Government gave up those powers. I 

welcome the Scotland Bill. Will the Secretary of State 

assure us that those tax-varying powers will remain 

with the Scottish Parliament and that the Bill will be 

phrased in such a way that, were the SNP ever elected 

again, it would not be able to give up those powers in a 

secret decision? 

Michael Moore: As my hon. Friend knows, the 

consequences of the Scottish Government’s decision 

not to maintain the Scottish variable rate have been 

debated in the Scottish Parliament in recent days. The 

fundamental difference between the existing arrangements 

and what will follow if the Bill is enacted is that the Bill 

will create a Scottish income tax that sits alongside 

United Kingdom income tax, and there will be a 

requirement to set that rate every year. That is a fundamental 

change, and it will bring the accountability and 

empowerment that I discussed earlier, which will be a 

good thing for Scotland. 

Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab): It is shocking 

that both the UK and Scottish Administrations are 

failing to prioritise job growth. While there was a slight 

fall in UK-wide unemployment last month, the jobless 

total for Scotland continued to increase. The latest 

figures show that in Campbeltown an astonishing 

13 claimants are chasing every available job. Our youngest 

people are suffering the most, and if Labour wins in 

2011, we are committed to continuing the future jobs 

fund to help them into work. Why is the Secretary of 

State set on removing that vital support, while at the 

same time supporting tax cuts for our biggest banks, 

which are at the root of our economic problems? 

Michael Moore: That was an interesting insight into 

the Opposition’s economic policy, although I realise 

that Opposition Front Benchers are divided on exactly 

what it should be. I remind the hon. Lady that we are 

dealing with the consequences of the largest deficit in 

peacetime history—£155,000 million. We took urgent 

action to deal with that, which has drawn us back from 

the danger zone. We will announce proposals in due 

course on the Work programme which will replace the 

future jobs fund. We are dedicated to ensuring that we 

create the conditions for growth and for a private sector-led 

recovery to deal with the problems that we inherited. 

Ann McKechin: Unfortunately, yet again Scotland’s 

youth are not the Secretary of State’s priority. His party 

does not think twice about dancing on the head of a 

pin. In its autumn edition of “Scottish News Extra”, 

which is turning out to be one of Scotland’s better 

reads, his colleague, the Business Secretary, is described as 

“launching a scathing attack on the previous government’s unfair 

tuition fees which still have to be paid by Scottish students 

studying elsewhere in the UK. He likened tuition fees to the 

infamous poll tax.” 

Now that his colleague has said that he may abstain on 

the forthcoming vote to increase tuition fees in England 

to £9,000, will the Secretary of State confirm whether 

he will support the increase, whether he will vote against 

it in support of the 3,000-plus Scottish students who are 

directly affected, or whether he will be absent again 

from the vote? 

Mr Speaker: Order. In replying, the Secretary of 

State must bear in mind that we are referring to economic 

policy rather than higher education policy. 

Michael Moore: It is interesting that the hon. Lady 

interpreted the question by seeking to get away from 

anything that might focus attention on Labour’s record 

on the economy and on our determination to create the 

conditions that will get us back to sustainable growth 

for Scotland and the United Kingdom. 

Scotch Whisky 

6. Mr Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con): What 

recent discussions he has had with representatives of 

the Scotch whisky industry; and if he will make a 

statement. [26712] 


I regularly have exchanges with the industry and will be 

meeting the Scotch Whisky Association in the near 

future. 

Mr Holloway: The Prime Minister’s recent trade 

delegation to China succeeded in securing geographical 

indication of origin status for Scotch whisky. How 

much will that be worth to the UK trade balance? 

Michael Moore: The importance of the Scotch whisky 

industry, not just to Scotland but to the United Kingdom, 

is shown by the fact that it contributes roughly £4 billion 

to our economy, £3 billion of which is represented by 

exports. At the moment our exports to China are very 

small in comparison with those to the rest of the world. 

This important new concession—this agreement with 

the Chinese—which we very much welcome, will ensure 

that we can grow our exports in China as we have done 

in the rest of the world. 

Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab): I 

declare an interest as secretary of the all-party group on 

Scotch whisky and spirits. What representations has the 

Secretary of State made to the Treasury in connection 

with the imbalance in the tax on whisky? 

Michael Moore: As the hon. Gentleman will know 

from his distinguished position, the industry is well 

represented in discussions with the Treasury at all times 

throughout the year, as it was under the previous 

Administration. I continue to have discussions with my 

Treasury colleagues on this very important issue, and 

will continue to do so in the months ahead.



Oral Answers 

808 

Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP): The Secretary 

of State will know that only yesterday the Scotch Whisky 

Association said that the Treasury’s review on alcohol 

tax was a missed opportunity. Will he confirm to the 

House today that he will make specific representations 

to his Treasury colleagues for fair taxation of all alcoholic 

drinks based on their alcohol content only, and no 

other spurious issues? 

Michael Moore: The hon. Gentleman has a distinguished 

record of following these issues very carefully. He will 

have made representations, as has the industry. The 

review was concluded a few weeks ago and will report in 

due course. As I said in answer to the earlier question, I 

will continue to discuss these issues with the Treasury. 

Commonwealth Games 

7. Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con): What 

assessment he has made of the lessons learned from the 

2010 Delhi Commonwealth games which could inform 

his Department’s contribution to the 2014 Glasgow 

Commonwealth games. [26713] 


(David Mundell): The Commonwealth Games Federation 

is currently leading a formal review of the Delhi games. 

The Scottish Government and Glasgow 2014 games 

partners are participating in that review, and will be 

seeking to identify the key messages to inform planning 

for the 2014 games. The Scotland Office will do whatever 

we can to contribute to a successful games in 2014. 

Greg Hands: The Minister will know that one of 

Delhi’s troubles was in attracting the top athletes. What 

will the UK Government do to ensure that the best 

from across the Commonwealth come to Glasgow in 

2014? 

David Mundell: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, 

most of the responsibilities in respect of the 2014 

Commonwealth games are devolved and rest with the 

organising committee. I have already met the leader of 

Glasgow city council and assured him that the UK 

Government will do everything that we can to support a 

successful games. 

Economy 

8. Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): What 

recent discussions he has had with ministerial 

colleagues on measures to promote economic growth in 

Scotland. [26714] 


I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues 

on this issue. In the spending review, the UK Government 

took decisive action to reduce the inherited record 

deficit. Along with the June Budget, the spending review has 

set the conditions to promote a balanced economy and 

sustainable economic growth for all parts of the UK. 

Julian Smith: The Scottish Government used to be 

very keen on the economic growth achieved by Ireland. 

Will the Secretary of State assure me that, as well as 

taking measures to promote growth, he will ensure that 

the First Minister has fiscal responsibility at the top of 

his agenda? 

Michael Moore: All of us are very concerned about 

what has happened to Ireland in recent months, and our 

Government have set out some very important steps 

that we are taking to contribute to the recovery in 

Ireland and other parts of Europe. We need to ensure 

Scotland’s place within the stability of the United Kingdom. 

The Scotland Bill, given its First Reading in this House 

yesterday, will ensure that we give Scotland the tools to 

achieve that, and I hope that it will be an Act in due 

course. 

Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab): For 

every job vacancy in Lanarkshire there are 10 people on 

jobseeker’s allowance. Indeed, in Motherwell and Wishaw, 

that figure rises to 12 or 13. What priority will the 

Secretary of State give to the Lanarkshire economy to 

ensure that it gets back on track as quickly as possible? 

[Interruption.] 

Mr Speaker: Order. There are far too many private 

conversations of a noisy character taking place in the 

Chamber. I want to hear the Secretary of State. 

Michael Moore: I recognise the challenges faced by 

Lanarkshire and other parts of the Scottish economy 

and by those who are looking for a job. As the hon. 

Gentleman will be aware, I visited Lanarkshire recently 

and met people who are working their way into 

employment, and students at Motherwell college. We 

have to keep focused, and we have to put in place the 

right conditions to ensure that we achieve a sustainable 

recovery across the country. I believe that the measures 

we are taking will ensure that that happens. 

Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) 

(LD): The Secretary of State will know from his visit to 

the north-east of Scotland just how important the 

region is, not just to the Scottish economy, but to the 

UK economy as a whole. We received a welcome boost 

this week with the announcement of the extension of 

the runway at Aberdeen airport and improvement in 

that transport link, but will he emphasise to the Scottish 

Government that all transport links in the north-east 

need to be improved? They do not need new levers to 

improve Scotland’s economy; they need to use the existing 

levers, as well. 

Michael Moore: My hon. Friend makes an important 

point. Our Government here in the United Kingdom 

are committed to ensuring that we invest in infrastructure 

that will support growth, and we have produced other 

support for business that is geared towards growth, but 

I take his points about the Scottish Government. His 

points will have been heard, and I am sure that they will 

form the basis of further discussions between myself 

and Scottish Ministers. 

VAT 

9. Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab): What 

recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of 

the Exchequer on the effect on average household 

outgoings in Scotland of raising the rate of value 

added tax to 20%. [26715] 


(David Mundell): The VAT rise is part of the Government’s 

credible plan to tackle the largest deficit in peacetime 

history. Difficult decisions are necessary, but as a



Oral Answers 

810 

consequence we will get our country back on a sustainable 

economic footing, to the benefit of everyone. 

Pamela Nash: Does the Minister not agree that the 

rise in VAT—the most regressive tax, by his party 

leader’s own admission—will hit the poorest in our 

society hardest, particularly in Scotland, where incomes 

are lower and jobs continue to be lost? 

David Mundell: What I acknowledge is that the Labour 

Government left us with a deficit £12 billion larger than 

they had told us, and that if we do not tackle that deficit 

everyone in Scotland will be worse off. [Interruption.] 

Mr Speaker: Order. This sort of noise is very 

discourteous. I want to hear Fiona O’Donnell. 

Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab): Thank you, 

Mr Speaker. 

The voluntary sector in Scotland plays a vital role in 

supporting some of our most vulnerable families. The 

increase in VAT will cost Scotland’s voluntary sector 

dearly. What is the Minister actually doing to support 

that sector, so that it can deliver his vision of a big society? 

David Mundell: This Government are committed to 

supporting the voluntary sector in Scotland and elsewhere 

in the UK, but the hon. Lady should tell people in that 

sector and elsewhere in Scotland that the rise in VAT is 

a consequence of her party’s Government’s overspending. 

MOD Hospital Unit 

10. Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab): 

What discussions he has had with ministerial 

colleagues on commissioning a Ministry of Defence 

hospital unit in Scotland. [26716] 


(David Mundell): Although there are currently no plans 

to extend the existing network of Ministry of Defence 

hospital units, I can assure the hon. Lady that the 

Government recognise the importance of maintaining 

world-class medical services for our armed forces in 

the UK. 

Katy Clark: Despite the increase in the number of 

injured coming back, we have no MOD hospital unit in 

Scotland. Organisations such as the Royal British Legion 

Scotland believe that there should be one. Will he meet 

the Royal British Legion Scotland, myself and any 

interested colleagues to discuss the matter? 

David Mundell: Indeed, I am happy to meet the hon. 

Lady and any colleagues. It is important to say, though, 

that many military personnel are treated extremely well 

in non-military hospitals in Scotland, where they are 

closer to their friends and family. 

Employment 

11. Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op): 

What recent assessment he has made of trends in the 

level of employment in Scotland; and if he will make a 



In recent months, the numbers in employment have 

been rising in Scotland, though overall labour market 

trends remain mixed. This Government will continue to 

create the conditions to foster sustainable and balanced 

economic growth. 

Mr Davidson: What steps are the Government taking 

to ensure that unemployment in Scotland does not rise 

to the level in the Republic of Ireland—part of the 

circle of misery? Does he agree with me that a small 

country and bad banks result in misery for working 

people? 

Michael Moore: I am happy to agree with the hon. 

Gentleman that Scotland benefits hugely from being 

part of the United Kingdom, and under our proposals 

set out in the Scotland Bill, it will firmly stay within the 

United Kingdom. 

Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con): Does the 

Secretary of State agree that current levels of unemployment 

in Scotland are the fault of 13 years of mismanagement 

by the previous Labour Government and that the people 

of Scotland need to back this coalition Government to 

give Scotland a chance again? 

Michael Moore: Since this Government came to office, 

they have taken decisive action to tackle the issues that 

we inherited—a record deficit of £155,000 million. We 

have pulled Britain back from the danger zone, we are 

setting out the conditions for sustainable economic 

growth, and that is the right way for this country. 

Economy 

12. Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con): What recent 

estimate he has made of levels of economic growth and 

inward investment in Scotland. [26719] 


The latest official statistics show strong economic growth 

in Scotland in the second quarter of this year. We are 

determined to ensure that Scotland will benefit as the 

Government tackle the deficit to secure growth, and 

provide the confidence that businesses and individuals 

need to invest. 

Mel Stride: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House 

whether those figures support the claim made by the 

last Labour Secretary of State for Scotland that the 

right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) would be 

a “kamikaze” Prime Minister who would “plunge” 

Scotland “back into recession”? 

Michael Moore: Funnily enough, I completely disagree 

with that assessment. I am pleased to say that not only 

has the Prime Minister led the Government’s efforts to 

get us away from the danger zone that the economy was 

in, but he has set out a constitutional path for Scotland 

that will enhance its economic growth and keep it 

within the United Kingdom. 

PRIME MINISTER 

The Prime Minister was asked— 

Engagements 

Q1. [27558] Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab): If 

he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 

1 December.



Oral Answers 

812 

The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron): This morning 

I returned from Zurich, where I have been meeting 

decision makers, aiming to convince them of what a 

brilliant World cup England could host in 2018. On my 

return, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and 

others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall 

have further such meetings later today. 

Margaret Curran: May I give the Prime Minister 

Glasgow’s best wishes in the bid for England? I mean 

that most sincerely. 

In a recent Lib Dem leaflet in Scotland, the Business 

Secretary compares tuition fees to the poll tax. Is it 

acceptable for the Business Secretary to say one thing in 

the House and, when campaigning for votes in Scotland, 

to condemn that policy? 

The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Lady for what 

she says about the England 2018 World cup. I know she 

would never mislead the House, so I know that what she 

said was utterly sincere, and I am sure it is shared by 

Members, whatever part of the United Kingdom they 

represent. 

On tuition fees, let us look at the system that we are 

introducing. Under the new system, nobody pays anything 

up front. Every single student will pay less per month 

than they do currently. Half a million students will 

benefit from the increase in maintenance loans. It is 

time we started looking at the substance of the issue, 

rather than just the process. 

Q2. [27559] Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con): The 

Prime Minister explained how he is shuttling between 

London and Zurich in support of England’s World cup 

bid. Can he update the House on how that bid is 

progressing, please? 

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for that question. 

England 2018 has a very strong bid. With regard to the 

technical aspects, we have the stadiums, the facilities 

and the transport networks. We have the enthusiasm in 

our country for football and we can put on an absolutely 

first-class World cup. I know that many people will ask, 

“Are you spending too much time on something that 

might not succeed?” I would say, “If you don’t get on to 

the pitch, you have no chance of winning.” We should 

all get behind the bid. 

Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab): I start by 

wishing the Prime Minister well as he plays his part in 

efforts to secure England’s bid for the 2018 World cup. 

As he says, ours is a fantastic bid and all of us will be 

hoping for a successful outcome tomorrow. 

We note that the Deputy Prime Minister is away on 

official business, and left the country before the tuition 

fees vote, but of course we understand that he had 

urgent business to attend to in Kazakhstan and we wish 

him well in that. 

The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast on 

Monday was hailed as a great sign of success by the 

Chancellor, but I want to test out what it will mean for 

families up and down the country. The Prime Minister 

has been telling us for months that under his plans 

unemployment will fall next year, but on Monday the 

OBR said that unemployment would rise next year. Can 

he explain why that is the case? 

The Prime Minister: First, I thank the right hon. 

Gentleman for his kind remarks about the England 

2018 bid. I know that the former Prime Minister worked 

extremely hard on it, and I know that there is cross-party 

support for it. We need to maintain that as we go into 

the vital last 48 hours. 

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the OBR 

forecast, which the Chancellor announced on Monday. 

Let me stress again that these are independent forecasts, 

published for the first time independently, and not 

interfered with by a Chancellor of the Exchequer. On 

unemployment, what the Office for Budget Responsibility 

found is that unemployment this year will be lower than 

previously forecast. It has not altered its forecast for 

unemployment next year, for which it is forecasting a 

rate of 8%, but it is forecasting increases in employment 

all the way through the forecast period. Above all, what 

the forecasts showed is that our policy of trying to cut 

the deficit and get growth at the same time is working. 

Edward Miliband: What the OBR actually shows is 

that growth will slow next year compared with the 

forecast, and that is what will mean that unemployment 

will rise. What the Prime Minister needs to explain is 

why unemployment will fall next year in the USA, in 

Germany and in other major industrial countries, but 

will rise in the United Kingdom. Why is that the case? 

The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. 

Gentleman is determined to talk down the economy, 

but even he will find difficulty in finding depressing 

statistics in the OBR’s report, because, generally speaking, 

what it reported was good news for the UK economy. It 

finds, and the last European Commission forecast report 

found, that average UK growth for the next two years 

will be higher than in Germany, France, the US, Japan, 

and the eurozone, or the EU average. It would be more 

worth while for us to debate across the Dispatch Box 

how we get the country’s growth rate up. What reforms 

do we make to try to make our economy more efficient? 

Has he got something to say about that, or is it another 

blank page? 

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister asks how we 

get the growth of the economy up—absolutely right. 

What we should not do is put up VAT next year from 

4 January and cut public spending by £20 billion. That 

is why the OBR says that we will have the weakest 

recovery from recession for 40 years. I come back to my 

point about unemployment. Can he tell us when, over 

the five years of the Parliament, unemployment will 

return to pre-crisis levels? That tests the strength of the 

recovery. When will it return to the levels before the 

recession? 

The Prime Minister: We inherited an 8% unemployment 

rate, and the OBR says that it will be 6% by the end of 

the Parliament. He asked the question, he gets the 

answer. Let me just remind the right hon. Gentleman of 

something. At the last election, the Labour party, himself 

included, said that if we cut £6 billion out of the 

Budget, it would end in catastrophe for the British 

economy. He was proved completely and utterly wrong. 

Edward Miliband: Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard a 

more complacent answer to a question? Families up and 

down the country are worried about their jobs and



Oral Answers 

814 

unemployment will rise next year, and all the Prime 

Minister can say is that it is some kind of rosy scenario. 

Let us take the rise in VAT, because that is one of the 

reasons why unemployment will rise next year. Can the 

Prime Minister tell us what impact that will have on 

economic growth and jobs next year? 

The Prime Minister: First of all, let me deal with VAT 

precisely. The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member 

for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) said: 

“VAT would have allowed you to pay off a sizeable chunk of 

the deficit.” 

That is the policy that the last Chancellor supported. 

If we had followed over the last six months the advice 

of the Leader of the Opposition, we would be linked 

with Portugal, with Ireland—[HON. MEMBERS: “No.”] 

Yes. We would not be standing here today discussing 

how we will get faster growth and lower unemployment; 

we would be sitting around discussing how to rescue 

and bail out Britain. 

Edward Miliband: Okay, Mr. Speaker—[[HON.MEMBERS: 

“Ooh!”] You can rewrite history for only so long. Let us 

be—[Interruption.] Let us be absolutely clear about 

this—[Interruption.] 

Mr Speaker: Order. We are wasting the time of Back- 

Bench Members. Let us hear the Leader of the Opposition. 

Edward Miliband: The deficit was 2.5% of national 

income before the crisis—the recession—hit all around 

the world. It went up all around the world; it was a 

global economic recession. The question is: should we 

cut too far and too fast, which is what the Prime 

Minister is doing, so that there are four years of sluggish 

recovery—the most sluggish recovery from recession in 

40 years? Why does the Prime Minister not answer the 

question? Is this the most sluggish recovery from recession 

in Britain for the last 40 years? Yes or no? 

The Prime Minister: This is one of the fastest recoveries 

in Europe, and the point is, if we had followed the right 

hon. Gentleman’s advice we would not be discussing 

recovery; we would be discussing meltdown. He can 

have a blank sheet of paper about the future; he cannot 

have a blank sheet of paper about the past. We know we 

were left a record budget deficit; we remember “no 

more boom and bust”; we remember all the things that 

he was responsible for. I have to say to him that, after all 

that—and he has been doing the job for the last three 

months—people are beginning to ask, “When’s he going 

to start?” 

Edward Miliband: With that answer, it is no wonder 

that today we learn that the Foreign Secretary describes 

this gang as the “children of Thatcher”. It sounds just 

like the 1980s—out of touch with people up and down 

the country. Why does the Prime Minister not admit 

that he is complacent about the recovery and complacent 

about the people who will lose their jobs? And it is they 

who will pay the price. 

The Prime Minister: Not waving, but drowning. My 

mother is still with us, so she is able to testify that what 

the right hon. Gentleman has just claimed is not literally 

true, but let me say this: I would rather be a child of 

Thatcher than a son of Brown. [Interruption.] 

Mr Speaker: Order. I call Tobias Ellwood. 

Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con): Thank 

you, Mr Speaker. 

The Prime Minister will be aware that British citizens 

affected by the 7/7 bombings were supported by the 

criminal injuries compensation scheme. However, when 

such attacks take place abroad, such as in Bali, Mumbai 

or Sharm el Sheikh, no such compensation for things 

such as prosthesis and long-term care exists. Does the 

Prime Minister agree that any Britons caught up in 

terrorist attacks deserve our support, no matter where 

in the world that attack takes place? 

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right 

to raise that issue. People who are victims of terror, 

whether at home or overseas, deserve our support, as he 

says. People might not know, but my hon. Friend’s 

brother was tragically killed in the Bali bombing—that 

horrific attack that took place some years ago. We are 

looking at this very difficult issue of trying to make sure 

that, when we consider criminal injuries compensation 

and what has been proposed for injuries overseas, we 

have a fair and reasonable system. The Justice Secretary 

is looking at that, and we will come forward with 

proposals. 

Q3. [27560] Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab): The 

Prime Minister’s Government are spending £4 billion 

so that councils can promote wellness, £2 billion on 

reorganising the NHS, £100 million on electing police 

commissioners and £2 million on a happiness survey. 

Does that not demonstrate that the Prime Minister has 

lost touch with reality? 

The Prime Minister: No, it does not. Let me take— 

[Interruption.] Generally speaking, I think the hon. 

Gentleman should cheer up a bit. Let me take the issue 

of NHS reform. Even with the settlement that we have 

set out for the NHS, which involves real-terms increases 

each year, if we stand still with the NHS and keep the 

current system, we will find it running into very severe 

problems each and every year. So, it is necessary to 

reform the NHS, it is necessary to cut out bureaucracy 

and it is necessary to reduce management costs, so that 

we have a system where we actually try to create a 

healthier nation and, therefore, reduce the demands on 

our NHS. That is what our reforms are all about. 

Q4. [27561] Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): 

Along with Jamaica, Nigeria and Vietnam, the Irish 

Republic has one of the largest groups of foreign 

national prisoners in the UK. Given that we are about 

to lend it more than £7 billion, could the Irish Republic 

be persuaded to pay for the incarceration of those 

people by taking them back to jails in their own 

country? 

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an extremely 

good point. We are looking at how we can transfer 

prisoners who are foreign nationals from the UK to 

other countries. Obviously with Ireland the situation is 

slightly different, because of the long relationship between 

our countries. The previous Government announced 

that they would not routinely support the deportation 

of Irish nationals from the UK; that was announced in 

February 2007. Since then, there has been a European 

directive that is helpful, because it makes more automatic 

the removal of prisoners to other countries. But there is



Oral Answers 

816 

still the specific issue with Ireland, and I will ask my 

right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary to 

look at it to see whether we can do a little better. 

Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op): 

The Government are cutting their teaching grant to 

Liverpool university by 30%, to Liverpool John Moores 

university by 70%, and to Liverpool Hope university by 

97%. Is this a policy for closing down opportunity? 

The Prime Minister: No, this is a policy to make sure 

that we have a strong university sector in this country. 

[Interruption.] Opposition Members can object, but it 

was the Conservatives and the Labour Government 

who set up the Browne review. I would recommend that 

hon. Members read the Browne review, because with 

the alternative of staying where we are now, we would 

either have to cut student numbers or find universities 

struggling. What Browne has come up with is a proper 

answer for a strong university sector for the future. 

Q5. [27562] Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) 

(LD): Does the Prime Minister agree that when this 

Government are devising policy they should look at the 

evidence of what works in tackling reoffending, 

substance abuse and youth crime, rather than relying 

on the tub-thumping, shroud-waving, ambulancechasing 

antics that pass for a policy-making process in 

the Labour party? 

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a 

very good point. The fact is that with the difficulties of 

the budget deficit and the spending problems that we 

have, we do not have any choice but to look at the 

evidence and make sure that what we do works and is 

cost-effective. I think that we should start with the issue 

of drug rehabilitation, because if we can reduce drug-related 

crime and cut those costs we will make very great 

progress. 

Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab): Will the 

Prime Minister carry out an urgent check on the satellite 

navigation system used in ministerial cars? My concern 

is that just a few short months ago the Deputy Prime 

Minister could not be stopped from driving himself 

from university campus to university campus, but since 

he has got his chauffeur-driven ministerial car, he has 

not been seen near a student union. Is the sat-nav broke, 

or has he simply lost his political direction? 

The Prime Minister: That was a wonderfully involved 

metaphor. At least the Deputy Prime Minister can 

make up his mind whether to join a demo or not—the 

Leader of the Opposition cannot even decide whether 

to sit on the fence. 

Q6. [27563] Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con): 

Last week the governors of Christleton high school in 

my constituency made the decision to apply for 

academy status. However, before they made that 

decision, they faced a barrage of opposition from trade 

unions and local Labour party activists. What message 

would the Prime Minister send to those who seek to 

undermine much needed reforms of public services in 

order to fulfil old-fashioned, outdated, left-wing 

ideology? 

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. 

The academy movement—just like the city technology 

colleges before it—has brought greater independence 

and greater authority to head teachers and has led to an 

improvement in educational standards. If Labour Members 

have got any sense, they will not back off from it, and 

they should tell their friends in the trade union movement 

to stop objecting to new academies. 

Q7. [27564] Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab): I have recently 

come across workers in Wigan who were forced by 

gangmasters to work 12 hours a day, seven days a 

week, below the minimum wage, and were threatened 

and bullied when they complained. Why have the Prime 

Minister’s Government failed to take any action to 

tackle this issue? Will he join me in supporting the 

Gangmasters Licensing (Extension to Construction 

Industry) Bill and help to bring an end to this appalling 

abuse? 

The Prime Minister: This is a problem, and it is not 

one that has arisen suddenly under this Government—it 

has been a problem for many years. There are problems 

with gangmasters not paying the minimum wage, and 

we need to make sure that this is properly policed. 

Q8. [27565] David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): 

Does the Prime Minister agree that the Olympics 

offer a golden opportunity to encourage more disabled 

people to take part in sport? Would he like to pay 

tribute to the Welsh Paralympic team, who we hope 

will be visiting the Welsh Affairs Committee in 

February? Should my right hon. Friend be available on 

that day, he would be very welcome to come and give 

his best regards. 

The Prime Minister: I am happy to endorse what my 

hon. Friend says. As to his invitation, as he is an 

amateur boxer, I should probably say yes immediately. 

It is great that the Paralympics are returning to their 

birthplace for London 2012, and I am sure that it will be 

a great showcase for sporting talent. Obviously, I wish 

the Welsh team well. 

Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): As the happy son 

of Paisley, may I too wish the Prime Minister well in his 

bid to bring the World cup to the United Kingdom? 

Will he support the campaign of the historic town of 

Ballymena in County Antrim to achieve city status 

during Her Majesty’s jubilee year? 

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is not only 

metaphorically, but biologically the son of Paisley—he 

is on safe ground there. I shall certainly look at the 

matter that he raises. I know that campaigns for city 

status can gain great traction. Before I start endorsing 

every single one, I shall look at what he has said, but I 

am sure that there is a strong case. 

Q9. [27566] Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con): The Prime 

Minister may have noted that the Leader of the 

Opposition approaches economic questions with the 

acumen of a novice out of his depth. By the next 

general election, families in my constituency will each 

have paid back £21,000 in Government debt. Will the 

Prime Minister resist Opposition demands to scale 

back on the deficit-reduction measures?



Oral Answers 

818 

The Prime Minister: I will certainly resist those demands. 

The fact is that we inherited a situation that was completely 

unsustainable. Not just the Conservative party made 

that point; the Governor of the Bank of England, the 

CBI, the Institute of Directors, the OECD and the IMF 

were all saying that the previous Government did not 

have a proper plan. We needed a plan, we have got a 

plan and we should stick to that plan. 

Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab): I wish the 

Prime Minister well in his efforts in Zurich and hope 

that we will get the right result tomorrow. There was a 

great debate in the House yesterday on school sport 

partnerships and there was consensus that something 

needed to be done. There was an offer from the shadow 

Front-Bench team to try to come to an arrangement on 

the issue. Will he look at it urgently with the Secretary 

of State for Education? I am sure that we can resolve 

this matter, because it is important that sport is available 

to all. 

The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman 

was a very successful Sports Minister in the previous 

Government. I thank him for his endorsement of the 

2018 bid and all that we are doing to win for England. 

The hon. Gentleman’s point about school sport is 

important. I am looking carefully at yesterday’s debate. 

We all have a shared interest: we all want good sport in 

schools and more competitive sport, and we all have to 

ensure that money is spent well. Everyone accepts that 

not every penny was spent well in the past. There is a 

quite bureaucratic system. The Secretaries of State for 

Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and for Education 

are working hard on this issue. We are talking with head 

teachers to ensure that what we come up with works on 

the ground. I hope that we will be able to make an 

announcement soon. 

Q10. [27567] Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con): The 

plans to link London and Manchester by high-speed 

rail will bring huge economic benefits to my 

constituency and the greater north-west. Does the 

Prime Minister agree that anyone who wants to 

eliminate inequality between north and south should 

support High Speed 2? 

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes the right 

point in the right way. I understand that there will be 

difficulties with High Speed 2 in terms of the impact on 

some hon. Members’ constituencies and on some 

neighbourhoods. However, it is true to say that 

Governments of all parties for 50 years have tried to 

deal better with the north-south divide and to bring our 

country closer together. I profoundly believe that high-speed 

rail and good transport links are a really good way of 

making that happen. This measure could succeed where 

others, frankly, have failed. 

Q11. [27568] Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab): 

The community of Collyhurst in Manchester has 

waited patiently and stoically with its insecure doors 

and draughty windows, while it has seen huge 

regeneration across large parts of Manchester. The 

Prime Minister will understand the sense of anger and 

despair in that community last week when the Minister 

for Housing and Local Government announced that its 

regeneration will not go ahead. Will the Prime Minister 

or the Minister for Housing and Local Government 

meet my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and 

Broughton (Graham Stringer) in Collyhurst with 

tenants’ representatives to see how the matter can be 

taken forward? 

The Prime Minister: I will make sure that the Minister 

for Housing and Local Government does as the hon. 

Gentleman says. The regional growth fund will be available 

for investment in those sorts of areas, and the replacement 

of regional development agencies—the local enterprise 

partnerships—will, partly because they will be more 

locally based, have a finer-tuned ear to local problems 

such as the one that the hon. Gentleman raises. 

Q12. [27569] Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con): 

With the renewed prospect of travel chaos for British 

Airways passengers, will the Prime Minister condemn 

the leader of Unite’s implied threat to families when he 

said to them, “Don’t go on holiday”? 

The Prime Minister: Opposition Members do not 

seem to think it is serious that we now have trade union 

leaders who actually say that there is no such thing as 

an irresponsible strike. There is such a thing, and those 

who are bankrolled by the unions ought to speak up 

about it. 

Q13. [27570] Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) 

(Lab): Every year, about 25,000 people die from 

thrombosis in hospitals, which is two to three times 

greater than the number of people who die from 

hospital-acquired infection, yet many of those deaths 

are avoidable if hospitals follow the NHS guidance on 

blood clot risk-assessment. What are the Prime 

Minister’s Government doing to ensure that the UK’s 

No. 1 hospital killer becomes the NHS’s No. 1 health 

priority? 

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes an 

extremely important point, and I know that he is chair 

of the all-party group on thrombosis. In answer to his 

question about what we are going to do, the first thing is 

to make available more information. It was a freedom 

of information request by the all-party group that showed 

that only 14 acute trusts in England were even close to 

meeting the goals for risk-assessing patients submitted 

to hospital for the dangers of thrombosis and blood 

clots. He is right, and the best thing that we can do is 

provide more information. That will help us to ensure 

that hospitals are coming up to the mark. 

Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD): The Prime 

Minister will be aware, I am sure, that today is world 

AIDS day. What are the coalition Government doing to 

ensure that the tide of HIV is stemmed both at home 

and abroad? 

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely 

right to raise that issue, and to say that we need to look 

at what is happening both at home and abroad. Abroad, 

the biggest decision was to maintain the commitment to 

0.7% of gross national income going to our aid budget, 

and we make a very big contribution out of that budget 

to the battle against AIDS globally and to ensuring that 

antiretroviral drugs are made available. We also have to 

look at home, where there are worrying signs of infection 

rates that are still extremely high. We need to get the 

message out today and on other days about the importance 

of safe sex and the precautions that people should take.



Oral Answers 

820 

Q14. [27571] Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab): I 

have just got back from a visit to Israel and the west 

bank, and I was shocked to witness with my own eyes 

13-year-old Palestinian children in leg irons and 

manacles in Israeli military prisons. That is one of 

numerous breaches of the UN charter and of article 49 

of the fourth Geneva convention. Whether or not the 

Prime Minister is the legitimate son of Thatcher, I am 

sure that as a father he would join me in condemning 

that appalling practice, but what will the British 

Government do to put pressure on the Israeli 

Government to comply with their obligations under 

international law and to relieve the suffering of the 

Palestinian people in both the west bank and Gaza? 

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman raises an 

extremely important point. Every country should obey 

the Geneva convention and the other conventions that 

it has signed, and Israel should be no exception to that. 

Ministers in the Government I lead raise those issues 

with Israeli Ministers, as we should, and that is extremely 

important. The fact is, what we really need is a long-term 

settlement of the Palestinian issue, and we want a 

two-state solution. It is very important that we put 

pressure on both sides at all times to ensure that we 

make progress. The lack of progress only plays into the 

hands of the extremists, and we can see that all the 

moderates in the middle east who are trying to make 

progress are being undermined by our failure to do 

better. 

Q15. [27572] Priti Patel (Witham) (Con): If the Human 

Rights Act is 

“a glaring example of what is going wrong in our country”, 

when will the Government put the human rights of the 

law-abiding majority above those of dangerous convicted 

criminals? 

The Prime Minister: It is right that we should be 

replacing the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of 

Rights. I have personally looked at the matter long and 

hard and believe that there is no better solution than 

that. We are committed to starting a process of looking 

at that to see whether we can remove some of the 

nonsenses that have grown up over recent years and 

show that we can have a commitment to proper rights, 

but they should be written down here in this country. 

Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab): The Government have 

announced an injection of £50 million of new money 

into the interim cancer drugs fund. Can the Prime 

Minister say whether there will be Barnett consequentials 

for Scotland, because that is new money? 

The Prime Minister: We have not made any changes 

to the Barnett formula, so if that is Barnett-able, as it 

were, there will be consequentials, and if it is not, there 

will not be. 

Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): Does the Prime Minister 

think it fair that a war widow has to pay income tax on 

her war widow’s pension? 

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises a very 

good point. We need to look at all those sorts of issues 

under the work that we are doing on the military 

covenant—there are very complicated issues of pensions 

and interaction with taxes. I do not want to give a flip 

answer from the Dispatch Box; we have a proper process 

of looking at the military covenant, which is the right 

way to do things. 

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): Climate 

finance will be critical at the ongoing climate summit at 

Cancun. Although I welcome the fact that the Government 

have pledged £2.9 billion to the global climate fund, will 

the Prime Minister confirm that any future money 

pledge will be additional to existing aid budgets, and 

can he say what further innovative funding mechanisms 

he plans to employ to deliver the UK’s share of the 

annual $100 billion pledged at Copenhagen? 

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is absolutely 

right to raise that. Although Cancun will not achieve 

the binding global agreement that we want, it can make 

important steps towards that, so we can stay on track. 

On climate finance, first, we will stick to what was set 

out previously on the limit in the aid budget for money 

used for climate change purposes, although there are 

very real connections between climate change and poverty; 

and secondly, there is a commitment, which we will 

keep to, of £2.9 billion for climate change finance. 

Britain is a leader on that, but as she said, we must look 

at innovative ways of levering in more money from 

other parts of the world, including—frankly—from 

some fast-growing areas which, when Kyoto was first 

thought of, were very underdeveloped and are now 

fast-developing countries. We need to help them, but 

the finance should not flow only from us. 

Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con): 

Will the Prime Minister have urgent talks with the 

Leader of the House and the Business Secretary on 

introducing legislation for a national regulator or 

ombudsman for supermarkets before more suppliers 

are decimated by their conduct? 

The Prime Minister: We have new arrangements in 

terms of ensuring that supermarkets treat farmers fairly. 

All of us as constituency MPs have heard stories about 

supermarkets behaving very aggressively towards farmers, 

and it is right that there is a proper way of trying to 

police that independently, so that our farmers get a fair 

deal for the food that they produce.


822 

Point of Order 

12.32 pm 

Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab): 

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I should like to secure 

advice on an answer that was provided to me yesterday 

during questions to the Attorney-General. In response 

to my question—[Interruption.] 

Mr Speaker: Order. May I appeal to hon. and right 

hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so 

quickly and quietly? It would be helpful if I could hear 

the point of order from the hon. Lady—I might then be 

in a position to respond to it. 

Chi Onwurah: I asked the Solicitor-General about the 

UK’s failure to sign up to the proposed EU directive on 

preventing and combating the trafficking of human 

beings. He said that the UK was a signatory, and 

repeated that in response to a question from my hon. 

Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma 

Doyle). However, that is not the case: the UK has opted 

out of the proposed directive. Could you advise me, 

Mr Speaker, on what is the best way for the Solicitor- 

General to correct his mistake? 

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her 

point of order. The short answer to her question is that 

the best way for a mistake to be corrected is for the 

Minister, if he has made a mistake, to correct it. We are 

about to hear from the hon. and learned Solicitor-General. 

The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier): There 

was a degree of confusion; the hon. Lady’s question was 

too general. I answered the question correctly. There are 

two European directives, one of which is signed, and 

one of which is not, hence the confusion. The former 

right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts, now Lord 

Reid, signed on behalf of the Government the European 

directive to which I referred in my answer yesterday. 

The hon. Lady may have referred to a different directive 

that has not yet been signed, so we were both right and 

we were both wrong. 

Mr Speaker: I do not want in any sense to treat this 

matter with levity, but I hope the Solicitor-General will 

understand if I say that that absolutely ingenious response 

is proof of the argument that no reply from a lawyer is 

ever simple. 

The Solicitor-General rose— 

Mr Speaker: Order. We are grateful to the hon. and 

learned Gentleman. The hon. Lady has put her view 

very fairly and squarely on the record. We will leave it 

there for today. I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and 

indeed to the Solicitor-General. 

Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 

(Amendment) 

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order 

No. 23) 

12.34 pm 

Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab): I beg to 

move, 

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Public 

Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to broaden the scope of the 

general duty of library authorities so as to include a duty to 

provide related cultural facilities alongside the library service; and 

for connected purposes. 

At a time of global economic turmoil, it may seem 

strange to some to want to talk about culture. However, 

I would like to quote in favour of doing so one of this 

country’s finest economists, Maynard Keynes. On the 

publication of the first annual report of the Arts Council 

in 1945, he said: 

“The day is not far off when the economic problem will take 

the back seat where it belongs, and the arena of the heart and the 

head will be occupied…by our real problems—the problems of 

life and of human relations, of creation”. 

He was right about that. The economic problems that 

we face are real, many and serious; however, culture and 

its role in our towns and cities is highly important. I 

want to raise the matter in my ten-minute rule Bill, in 

order to put on record my concerns about what could 

happen to culture in some of our towns, cities and 

counties in Britain. 

There is real fear out there that there could be not just 

cuts in the arts sector—everybody appreciates that there 

will be cuts and that the cultural sector will need to bear 

its share of efficiencies—but the total withdrawal by 

some local authorities from providing cultural services. 

I give the example of Somerset, which recently cut all 

160,000 of its direct grants to arts and cultural bodies, 

while Bedfordshire looks set no longer to fund its music 

service. I draw on my own experience as a councillor in 

the London borough of Southwark, where I had to 

watch the local authority close the only children’s museum 

in London. That showed me the importance of ensuring 

that local authorities continue to prioritise culture. 

Of course local funding choices are important. I 

would not dream of telling local authorities what to 

do—by and large. The Government’s role in giving local 

authorities enough funding will have a massive part to 

play in determining whether they can provide decent 

cultural services. Nor do I want to be prescriptive. I am 

not introducing my Bill in order to tell local authorities 

that one kind of culture is good for them. Diversity in 

the cultural services provided by our local authorities is 

a truly good thing. In my experience, great local authorities 

lead on culture in places as diverse as Kent, Merseyside—my 

part of the world—and Leicester. We have some visionary 

local authorities. I pay tribute to what they do in 

ensuring that our towns and cities are places we can be 

proud of, and where there are public spaces that bring 

people together to share in their history and heritage. 

The reason for my suggestion is to start a debate. The 

Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 gives the Culture 

Secretary an important role. It enables the Culture 

Secretary, if they feel it necessary, to say to a local 

authority, “You’re in danger of not providing sufficient 

library services. I want you to stop with those plans.

823 Public Libraries and Museums Act 1 DECEMBER 2010 Public Libraries and Museums Act 824 

1964 (Amendment) 

1964 (Amendment) 

[Alison McGovern] 

They’re not good enough for the people in your area. 

They need a library service that provides public 

education”—and for a very good reason. My argument 

is that this public education role should be extended to 

the wider cultural service. There are lots of people in 

local authorities up and down the country who are 

fearful of what is to come. My question is what kind of 

country do we want to be? Do we want to be the kind of 

country where culture is, by and large, for those who 

already access it? Or do we want to be the kind of 

country where culture is for everybody and where local 

authorities fulfil their responsibility in involving people? 

I know that there is a real appetite among local 

authorities to take on that role. When I put the word 

out that I was seeking to ask leave to introduce my Bill, 

I asked people to come forward with examples. I would 

like to quote Councillor John Warmisham from Salford. 

I do not know whether Councillor Warmisham agrees 

with my Bill—he might not—but he told me that the 

best example of what can be done is that of Salford 

Quays: 

“First we had the Lowry, which attracted the Imperial War 

museum in the north, and this laid the foundation for MediaCity. 

This will give us more jobs than when we had the docks in 

Salford”. 

That, coming from a local councillor, is a powerful 

example of the good that culture can do. 

There is sometimes a view in the cultural sector that 

local authorities do not care about cultural services 

because they do not consider them to be as important 

as housing or social services, but there are many councillors 

out there who really do care. I want this Bill to start a 

debate, to highlight those councils that do great work 

and to determine whether we need protection in law for 

the cultural services provided by local authorities. I 

think that we do; and we at least need to have that 

discussion. 

In Merseyside, we know—probably better than many 

other parts of the country—the massive value of culture 

to places. Of course, this is about the economy, and I 

must mention the impact that City of Culture ’08 had 

on Liverpool, Merseyside and the wider north-west. I 

know that people will understand the importance of 

that, but this is also about the strength of community 

that was created at the time. People have pointed out to 

me examples of the work that went on to bring culture 

not only to Liverpool city centre but to the wider area 

of Merseyside. I know from experience in my own 

constituency how empowering it was for the young 

people and older people in our communities when the 

cultural services in the local authorities brought them 

together to discuss their history and their heritage. We 

need to ask whether that needs some protection in law. 

The 1964 Act has been a vital backstop to our library 

services at a time when they feel under constant threat 

of being de-prioritised, driven down and questioned. I 

have every sympathy with local authority leaders, who 

are having to make terribly difficult decisions, but the 

1964 Act is an important check on what might happen. 

It ensures that we will never have to face the situation 

that my own grandfather faced when he was growing up 

in the inter-war years. He used to go to Liverpool 

central library and, I confess, he used to steal books 

because it was not possible to borrow library books for 

free at that time. The Act is important because it provides 

a backstop and enables the Government to question 

any local authority that is proposing to decimate its 

library services. 

We all know the importance to our own constituencies 

of the local art gallery, the museum and the local 

theatre. We have all seen young people from our schools 

gain confidence from coming into the theatre for their 

first performance. My reason for introducing the Bill is 

simply to ask whether we want to be the kind of 

country in which those services are available to everybody. 

Do we want the Secretary of State to take responsibility 

for those services? Such a task need not be prescriptive 

or demanding, and it would not require a large amount 

of funding, but it would allow local people to appeal to 

the Secretary of State and say, “Please stop. We don’t 

want our local cultural services to close.”That is important 

for all of us. 

Question put and agreed to. 

Ordered, 

That Alison McGovern, Tristram Hunt, Stephen Twigg 

and David Miliband present the Bill. 

Alison McGovern accordingly presented the Bill. 

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

Friday 17 June 2011, and to be printed(Bill 118).

825 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 826 

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 

[3RD ALLOCATED DAY] 

Further considered in Committee 

[DAWN PRIMAROLO in the Chair] 

Clause 2 

EARLY PARLIAMENTARY GENERAL ELECTIONS 

Amendment proposed (24 November): 5, page 2, line 11, 

leave out from ‘Government’ to end of line 14. 

—(Mr Cash.) 

Question again proposed, That the amendment be 

made. 

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means 

(Dawn Primarolo): With this it will be convenient to 

discuss the following: 

Amendment 22, page 2, line 12, leave out ‘14’ and 

insert ‘ten working’. 

Amendment 36, page 2, line 14, at end insert— 

‘(2A) In reckoning for the purposes of subsection 2(b), no 

account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is 

prorogued or during which the House of Commons is adjourned 

for more than four days.’. 


‘(2B) Where the House of Commons passes a motion of no 

confidence in Her Majesty’s Government, the Prime Minister 

shall tender his resignation to Her Majesty within a period of 

seven days of the motion being passed. 

(2C) On tendering his resignation under subsection (2B), it 

shall be a duty on the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty to 

appoint as his successor the person who appears to him most 

likely to command the confidence of the House of Commons.’. 

Amendment 25, page 2, line 24, at end add— 

‘(6A) In this section a “motion of no confidence in Her 

Majesty’s Government” shall be— 

(a) in the terms “This House has no confidence in Her 

Majesty’s Government” or 

(b) in the terms “This House has no confidence in the 

Prime Minister”.’. 

12.44 pm 

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark 

Harper): Being in this position almost persuaded me of 

the merits of knives, which at least enable us to conclude 

debates at approximately the point at which everyone 

else has spoken. 

I remind the Committee that the amendments deal 

with the mechanism providing for an early general 

election following a vote of no confidence, as set out in 

clause 2(2). Last week, on the second day of this Committee 

stage, we engaged in a wide-ranging discussion both of 

the merits of the various amendments and of the Bill. 

Before I deal with the amendments, let me respond to 

some of the questions raised by Members last week. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest 

(Mrs Laing), who is present and who speaks for the 

Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, asked 

a number of questions relating to the constitutional 

consequences of a vote of no confidence under the Bill. 

She was particularly concerned about the possibility of 

a Government’s forcing a general election by refusing to 

act both in accordance with conventions and in the 

spirit of the Act. She gave the example of a Government 

who engineered a vote of no confidence in themselves, 

or who sought to trigger a series of elections close to 

one another by refusing to resign after an election result. 

If a Prime Minister who would presumably be seeking 

to be re-elected in a subsequent election engaged in such 

constitutional shenanigans, he or she would first suffer 

a political penalty at that election. If a Prime Minister 

behaved in an absolutely unconstitutional fashion, there 

would always be the ultimate long stop: Her Majesty 

the Queen could dismiss the said Prime Minister. That 

is the ultimate check and balance in our system. Clearly 

it would require an extraordinary set of circumstances, 

but it is the position that would obtain if our unwritten 

or other conventions were breached in a really appalling 

fashion. 

Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con): 

By what constitutional authority does the Minister cite 

the extraordinary proposition that the long stop of the 

constitution is that the Queen may dismiss a Prime 

Minister? 

Mr Harper: Her Majesty the Queen appoints the 

Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister were to behave in 

an unconstitutional fashion, the Queen would have the 

right to dismiss the Prime Minister. 

Mr Shepherd: So that is the Minister’s new interpretation 

of a constitution, or of defined practice over the years. 

Mr Harper: It is not an invention; it is the constitutional 

position. 

Mr Shepherd: No, it is not. 

Mr Harper: Yes, it is. 

Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): I 

cannot think of an example of such a position since the 

reign of Queen Victoria, who refused to accept Robert 

Peel as Prime Minister, and I think it inconceivable that 

it would arise in a modern constitution. 

Mr Harper: I did say that there would have to be an 

extraordinary set of circumstances for the Prime Minister 

to behave in such a constitutionally outrageous way. 

They would be circumstances in which a Prime Minister 

was abusing and stretching the constitution in order to 

stay in office and avoid the consequences of losing a 

vote of confidence in Parliament. 

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think that that is extraordinarily 

unlikely. It is theoretically possible that the Queen could 

refuse assent to a Bill, but that has not happened since 

the reign of Queen Anne. Such constitutional anomalies 

remain theoretical, but so theoretical that it is inconceivable 

that they would arise whatever the emergency. I really 

feel that to rely on that for the passage of the Bill is 

most unsatisfactory. 

Mr Harper: I am not relying on it for the passage of 

the Bill. I was referring to the issue raised by my hon. 

Friend the Member for Epping Forest, who last week, 

on behalf of the Political and Constitutional Reform 

Committee, raised some potential scenarios with which 

she was uncomfortable. I believe, and the Government 

believe, that those scenarios are indeed, as my hon.

827 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 828 

[Mr Harper] 

Friend says, theoretical, and extremely unlikely to happen. 

My point is that if a Prime Minister behaved 

unconstitutionally in such a theoretical and extremely 

unlikely way, a mechanism that already exists would be 

invoked. However, the Government contend—and I 

agree with my hon. Friend on this—that both sets of 

circumstances are highly unlikely. It is our contention 

that the eventuality to which my hon. Friend has referred 

would not be necessary, because a Prime Minister would 

not behave in a way that stretched constitutional convention 

to breaking point. 

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): I must say that this is 

the second very worrying route the Minister has gone 

down. He is saying that if the Prime Minister were to 

behave unconstitutionally, the monarch would act. How 

would the monarch know whether the Prime Minister 

had acted constitutionally or unconstitutionally? 

Mr Harper: I am not setting out anything that is 

groundbreaking; this is the position that exists now. I 

agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North East 

Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that there would have to 

be an extraordinary set of circumstances; indeed, I said 

as much. I did so because I was referring to a point my 

hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest made last 

week in raising some concerns of the Select Committee’s 

concerns. My view is that those concerns are not well 

founded because the events they address are extremely 

unlikely to happen and are only really theoretical in 

nature, but there is a response to them if they were to 

happen. 

Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con): Will my 

hon. Friend reassure the Committee that it is the 

Government’s intention to fulfil their duty and that of 

Parliament to protect the Crown from being put in a 

position where the monarch would ever have to make 

such an important constitutional decision? 

Mr Harper: Absolutely. I can certainly say on behalf 

of this Government that this Government and this 

Prime Minister would never wish to put Her Majesty 

the Queen in such a position. Clearly, I cannot speak for 

Governments of the future, however. 

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

I think it would help the Committee if the Minister 

could cite an academic paper, some judicial text or 

something else that bears out this notion that Her 

Majesty the Queen would interfere in politics in the way 

he is suggesting she would. Can he quote anything? 

Mr Harper: The position is that Her Majesty the 

Queen appoints Prime Ministers and the ultimate 

constitutional long-stop is that if a Prime Minister 

behaves in a way that is outwith the constitutional 

position, the monarch can dismiss the Prime Minister—but 

that is the long-stop constitutional safeguard in our 

system. 

Mr Jenkin: Her Majesty would have to take advice on 

such occasions. From whom would she take advice? 

Mr Harper: Her Majesty would, indeed, take advice 

from, for example her Privy Council and her other legal 

advisers. 

Chris Bryant: Let us be absolutely clear: as I understand 

it, the Minister is saying that if the Prime Minister were 

“unconstitutionally”—to borrow the Minister’s word—to 

engineer a motion of no confidence in himself, for 

instance by tabling a motion of confidence in himself 

and urging his supporters to abstain, the monarch 

would sack him. 

Mr Harper: I am not setting out particular scenarios. 

I was making the point that we can set out some 

theoretical propositions that have not happened and 

that we think are extremely unlikely to happen. I was 

simply setting out that if such a theoretical and unlikely 

event, to use the words of my hon. Friend the Member 

for North East Somerset, were to happen there is a 

constitutional long-stop. That was all I was saying, and 

I think the hon. Gentleman is making rather too much 

of it as it is not a new point. 

Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester South) (Lab): Although 

we may well accept that the scenarios we are talking 

about are unlikely, they are none the less possible, and 

while they remain possible would it not be desirable for 

the Government either to accept the Select Committee’s 

amendments or, indeed, to bring forward some of their 

own to make sure that should such unlikely events 

occur, there is a clear road map for the sovereign to 

follow? 

Mr Harper: The fact is that some of these things can 

happen under our existing constitutional position; they 

are not triggered by anything we are providing for in 

this Bill. Our flexible constitution has worked rather 

well over the years in dealing with events that have not 

been thought of in advance, and I see no reason to 

undertake a rather more significant constitutional rewrite. 

This Bill is intended to do one specific thing, which is 

remove from the Prime Minister the power to seek a 

Dissolution of Parliament. It makes the necessary changes 

to do that, but it does not seek to make changes that are 

not necessary to do that; it does not seek to go wider 

than achieving that particular change, and I think that 

is very sensible. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest also 

asked last week how the Bill strengthened the power of 

the House to throw out a Government. Giving statutory 

effect to the vote that could bring about a general 

election, rather than simply relying on the conventions, 

strengthens the power of the House. The Bill transfers 

from the Prime Minister to this House the power to 

decide whether there will be an early general election. If 

I remember rightly, my hon. Friend did, however, say 

that she is broadly supportive of the measures in the 

Bill, as, I think, is the Select Committee. 

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) asked 

a number of questions last week. He asked whether the 

Bill should contain a provision to ensure that a motion 

of no confidence is given precedence so it is debated 

without delay. He is aware—he mentioned this last 

week—that there is a convention that the Government 

find time to debate a motion of no confidence tabled by 

the official Opposition. That is a long-standing convention, 

which has been followed by Governments. Also of


course, it would always be open to the Opposition to 

table an amendment to a Government motion, changing 

it to one of no confidence to ensure that that was debated. 

The hon. Gentleman also raised a number of related 

points about whether particular votes could be considered 

motions of no confidence and whether it was appropriate 

for the Speaker to rule on such matters. I think I am 

right in saying that he was concerned that the Bill would 

give too much discretion to the Speaker. The Government 

do not consider that to be the case. We would expect the 

Speaker by and large to take a fairly literal approach to 

clause 2(2). We do not think the Speaker would be left 

with appreciably more discretion in dealing with this 

sort of question than he already has, for example under 

the Parliament Act 1911 when he has to certify whether 

a Bill is a money Bill. That is a decision he makes; it is 

for him. It seems to me that that is a sensible amount of 

discretion for the Speaker to have, although I accept it is 

on a different issue. 

Chris Bryant: The Minister is right, of course. In fact, 

at present Members of the House of Lords are fiercely 

contesting the Speaker’s decision on whether certain 

Bills are money Bills. My point, however, is that all that 

that determines is whether or not it can be debated in 

another Chamber, whereas under this measure it would 

determine whether or not we had a general election and 

the Government had fallen. That is a very big decision 

to be placing in the hands of the Speaker, which heretofore 

has never been in the hands of the Speaker. 

Mr Harper: There are two issues there. I will not 

dwell on the money Bill issue to any great extent, 

because if I were to do so you would rule me out of 

order, Ms Primarolo, but I have read the account of the 

debate in the other place to which the hon. Gentleman 

refers and the other place is not challenging the Speaker’s 

ability to rule on whether a Bill is a money Bill. It is 

simply disagreeing with the consequences of that, and 

arguing that if something is a money Bill it is perfectly 

appropriate for the upper House to debate it in Committee 

and pass amendments to it, recognising that legally 

those amendments will have no effect if the House of 

Commons chooses not to take them into account. The 

upper House is therefore not challenging the Speaker’s 

right to make that decision. 

The hon. Gentleman is also not right to say that this 

is about the Speaker deciding, effectively, whether to 

bring down the Government. That would be a decision 

for the House. The Speaker would have to make a 

decision about certifying something as a vote of confidence. 

As we debated last week, it would be extraordinary if 

the House were debating a motion of confidence—which 

the Speaker would certify as such—with everybody 

remaining in ignorance of the fact that it was a motion 

of no confidence in the Government. I simply do not 

think that would happen. Everyone would be very well 

aware of the fact that it was a motion of confidence—that 

it had that import to it. It would be for the House to 

vote on the matter, and the Speaker would then certify 

in a way that means the decision is outside the ambit of 

the courts. 

Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): As the Minister just 

appeared to touch on, under the Bill the Speaker issues 

the certificate only after the vote has taken place, not 

before. Therefore, would not the Labour amendment 

that specifies what is and what is not a vote of confidence 

be much better in everybody’s terms? 

1pm 

Mr Harper: I shall deal with the specific amendments 

shortly, when I set out why the Government think that 

they are unnecessary and that their drafting makes 

them flawed. If the hon. Gentleman does not think I 

have adequately dealt with his point, he will be able to 

intervene on me and I will happily take such an intervention. 

We have debated the fact that there is also a purpose in 

the Bill’s not specifying the exact words in legislation, 

because such an approach gives the House some necessary 

flexibility. I will return to that in a moment. 

Let us consider the amendments in order. Amendment 5 

was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone 

(Mr Cash), who is not able to be here today because he 

is away on other parliamentary business. He explained 

that his amendment would remove the 14-day period 

before an early election was called in the event of the 

Speaker certifying that the House had passed a vote of 

no confidence. It is right to say that there would be 

circumstances in which it would be appropriate to move 

to an early election when the House determined that we 

should do so, and the Bill provides for that in clause 2(1). 

But it is perfectly possible that there may be circumstances 

within a fixed term in which a legitimate Government 

could be formed from the composition of the House as 

it then stood, so it would not be appropriate to insist on 

an election. Members will have been elected for five 

years, and they are able to give their approval to a 

Government formed from within their ranks without 

the need necessarily to go to the country. The House 

can decide to do so, because under our proposals if a 

vote of confidence is lost and no Government can be 

formed within 14 days who subsequently receive a vote 

of confidence, a general election would take place. It 

seems sensible to give the House the opportunity to test 

whether a Government can be formed. 

My hon. Friend’s amendment contained a fundamental 

misunderstanding about what a Prime Minister should 

do in the event of a Government losing the confidence 

of the House. Two things can happen. One possibility, 

under our current system, is that a Prime Minister 

remains in office but invites Her Majesty to dissolve the 

House and call a general election. Thus the Prime 

Minister does not resign immediately, and that is what 

happened when the House expressed its lack of confidence 

in the Government in 1979. Mr Callaghan did not 

resign when he lost the vote of confidence; he resigned 

only when he lost the subsequent election. Alternatively, 

the Prime Minister could resign almost straightaway 

after losing a vote of confidence, as happened in 

January 1924 when the Government’s motion for the 

Loyal Address after the Queen’s Speech was amended: 

Prime Minister Baldwin resigned and the Labour 

Opposition formed a Government. This Bill seeks to 

encapsulate that double-sided convention. 

At the moment, if a general election has an unclear 

outcome, the Prime Minister is able to test his support 

in the House of Commons. If the House then signalled 

that it did not have confidence in that Government, that 

Prime Minister would go and a new one could be 

appointed. Amendment 5 would insist that another 

general election took place, and if the result of that


[Mr Harper] 

general election was unclear, we could end up having a 

succession of general elections. Amendment 5 would 

force such elections to be held. In countries that have 

fixed-term Parliaments it is very common for there to 

be a period of Government formation after a vote of no 

confidence before an election is triggered. That is what 

happens in Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain and Sweden, 

so we are proposing an approach that has much precedent, 

which we think is sensible. We cannot ask my hon. 

Friend the Member for Stone to withdraw his amendment, 

because he is not here and thus unable to do so. However, 

we urge Members who are here not to insist on it being 

pressed to a Division. 

Mr Jenkin: I have been in touch with my hon. Friend 

the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who makes things 

complicated because he does not text people. He is in 

Budapest representing the European Scrutiny Committee, 

but he has suggested that it would be in the interests of 

the scrutiny of this Bill to press the amendment to a 

Division, and one or two of us will attempt to do so. 

Mr Harper: As I said, my hon. Friend the Member 

for Stone is away on parliamentary business and, as he 

has perhaps not reached 21st century methods of 

communication, my words are unlikely to reach him in 

a timely way. So I can only urge him not to press his 

amendment to a vote, but I suspect that the decision on 

that will be for others, not for him. 

Chris Bryant: As it happens, I agree with the Minister 

on this amendment. However, the one area that it will 

be worth considering on Report is whether it would be 

sensible to have a motion of confidence on the forming 

of a new Government after a general election, which 

should be treated in a slightly different way. Such an 

approach would address the 1924 situation that he 

suggests. 

Mr Harper: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, 

which has been raised by others. I believe I am right in 

saying that the hon. Member for Nottingham North 

(Mr Allen), the Chairman of the Select Committee on 

Political and Constitutional Reform, has said he is keen 

on the idea of installing Prime Ministers with an explicit 

vote in the House—he was speaking for himself there, 

not for the Committee. That would be a further change 

to our system and, as I said in answer to the hon. 

Member for Leicester South (Sir Peter Soulsby), we 

have made the necessary changes in the law to take away 

the Prime Minister’s right to call an early general election, 

but we have not gone further. I shall think about what 

the hon. Member for Rhondda said and see whether we 

think it has merit. 

The hon. Gentleman’s amendment 22 seeks to replace 

the 14 days that we set out in the Bill for that Government 

formation period with a period of 10 working days. He 

is supportive of a Government formation period, because 

he would not be attempting to keep one through this 

amendment were he not. I think he was wanting to 

understand why we chose the period that we did, using 

calendar days rather than working days. The reason 

why we did so was because the calendar day period is 

fixed and certain, whereas working days are not, as they 

are dependent on things such as bank holidays. 

Two legitimate concerns are involved here, and they 

were touched on last week. There is a concern that the 

number of business days in the 14-day period would be 

curtailed or that the date of the no confidence vote 

could mean that the date for the Government formation 

vote fell on a non-working day. Our view—I am interested 

to hear the hon. Gentleman’s—is that discussions on 

Government formation would not stop on weekends 

and bank holidays; I suspect that they would continue, 

given that having a Government is probably the most 

important thing for the country. 

There are two ways around a scenario where the vital 

14th day when the vote of confidence is due falls on a 

day when the House would conventionally not be sitting. 

The first is to arrange that the no confidence motion be 

taken on a day that means that the House will be sitting 

14 days later. The alternative is for the House simply to 

sit on what would traditionally have been a non-sitting 

day. There is nothing to prevent the House from sitting, 

if it chooses to do so, on a bank holiday, a Saturday or a 

Sunday. Non-working days are not days when the House 

cannot sit, even though it does not do so. There are 

precedents for the House sitting on such days when 

emergencies have happened. I believe I am right in 

saying that the House was recalled to sit on a Saturday 

when the Falkland Islands were invaded by the Argentines. 

Holding a vote on whether a new Government did or 

did not have the confidence of the House would be 

sufficiently important that it would be in order for the 

House to sit that day, even if it was not a conventional 

day. 

Chris Bryant: The Minister is right in relation to the 

Falkland Islands, and I believe that the House has also 

sat on a Sunday on the demise of the monarch. That is 

precisely why we did not specify “sitting days” in this 

amendment; we used the term “working days” because 

that is the language used throughout the rest of the Bill. 

We sought to provide a degree of flexibility; otherwise, 

over Easter, when there are bank holidays on the Friday 

and the following Monday, there might be a sustained 

period when the House would find it inconceivable to 

sit but the Government might, none the less, want to be 

able to do their business. 

Mr Harper: For the purposes of this particular set of 

motions, the only business that we would be talking 

about the House undertaking would be holding a vote 

on whether or not a new Government who had been 

formed had the confidence of the House. Given the 

things that the Government are responsible for, it would 

be important to have a clear Government in place for 

the financial markets and at difficult times. We know 

from experience and we can see it from what happens in 

other countries. Therefore, the Government formation 

negotiations would want to be concluded and it would 

benefit the country, the Government and the House for 

the House to vote on that without inordinate delay. If 

there were a number of bank holidays or other holidays 

in the way, that could be dealt with. [Interruption.] The 

hon. Gentleman asks about Good Friday. As I have 

said, the alternative is that we could arrange things by 

moving the no confidence vote so that it was 14 days 

before a sitting day. 

Conventionally, no confidence motions are given time 

in the House very soon after they are tabled, but as long 

as the Government were prepared to table such a motion


very soon and agreed that with the Opposition, it would 

not necessarily have to be tabled the next day. I do not 

think that it is an inordinate problem. We think that it is 

sensible for there to be a fixed timetable for a Government 

to be formed so that everyone has some certainty. That 

is why we picked the time period that we have. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest spoke 

in support of amendments 36 and 37, which are also 

tabled in the names of other members of the Select 

Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform. 

Amendment 36 would make the 14 days in a period 

following a Government defeat a period that would not 

include periods of Prorogation or Adjournment for 

more than four days. Although I do not think that this 

is the intention behind the amendment, its effect would 

be to permit the 14-day period for Government formation 

to be prolonged potentially indefinitely if the House 

was prorogued or adjourned. The Government do not 

think that that is appropriate. We think that the 14-day 

period strikes the right balance between giving parties 

in this House time to discuss and see whether a Government 

can be formed and not allowing things to go on for so 

long that the country is plunged into a period of uncertainty. 

We do not think that amendment 36 is acceptable. 

Amendment 37 provides that a Prime Minister must 

resign within seven calendar days of losing a vote of no 

confidence and recommend to the monarch a successor 

who appears to them to be the person most likely to be 

able to command the confidence of the House. I think I 

am right to say—my hon. Friend the Member for 

Epping Forest will correct me if I am wrong—that the 

purpose of the amendment is to avoid a situation in 

which a Prime Minister who has lost a no confidence 

vote wishes to remain in power and asks the monarch to 

prorogue Parliament to avoid an alternative Government 

receiving a vote of confidence, thereby forcing a general 

election. 

Mrs Laing: Yes. 

Mr Harper: My hon. Friend says that that is indeed 

the purpose of the amendment. However, I think 

amendment 37 is defective, because it rules out the 

possibility of what happened in 1979 occurring again. 

As I have said, Prime Minister Callaghan did not resign 

as a result of the no confidence motion. He remained in 

office, asked Her Majesty the Queen to dissolve Parliament 

and resigned when he lost the subsequent general election. 

That outcome remains a possibility under the Bill. My 

hon. Friend’s amendment would have meant that he 

would have been forced to resign before the result of the 

election was known. I do not think that that would have 

been a sensible outcome. 

Mrs Laing: I fully appreciate the Minister’s point. 

Amendments 36 and 37 might well be technically 

defective—in any case, I have no intention of pressing 

them to a vote, as I said—but the Select Committee’s 

purpose was to ensure that this issue was properly 

discussed and scrutinised on the Floor of the House. 

Will the Minister reassure the House that he and his 

colleagues are satisfied that it would not be possible 

under the Bill’s provisions for the Government to seek 

indefinite prorogation in order to avoid a vote of confidence 

and a general election? 

Mr Harper: I think I have set out why I do not think 

that that is likely. As we have heard, there are lots of 

theoretical possibilities that are very outlandish—I do 

not propose to rehash the conversations that we had 

at the beginning of this debate—but the Government 

do not think that they are realistic risks and that is why 

we do not think that amendments 36 and 37 are acceptable. 

Let me turn now to the last amendment in this group, 

amendment 25, which was also tabled by the Opposition. 

It specifies the wording of motions of no confidence for 

the purposes of clause 2(2). It aims to remove the 

discretion of the House over its wording and that of 

the Speaker in his certifying of a motion of no 

confidence. The Government recognise that no 

confidence motions might take different forms, as they 

do now, but we do not want to remove the flexibility 

entirely. That raises an issue, which we will come to in 

the next group of amendments, to do with the House’s 

exclusive cognisance. 

If we try to set out in statute the precise form of a no 

confidence motion, that could raise the risks to which 

the Clerk of the House has alluded. We think it is better 

for the Speaker’s certificate to be conclusive and for the 

Speaker to determine the nature of that certification. 

As I said when we touched on this matter in debating a 

previous group of amendments, if there were doubt—I 

think it unlikely that there would be—about whether 

what the House was discussing was a motion of no 

confidence, it would seem to be sensible for the Government, 

the Opposition and the Speaker to ensure that Members 

were clear on that point when they were debating it. I 

cannot believe that there could ever be a debate in this 

House about a motion of no confidence in the Government 

in which Members were sitting there completely unaware 

that they were debating the future of the Government 

of our country. 

1.15 pm 

Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): Of course, 

the Minister is right about the reality and the politics of 

the situation. He should remember, however, that we 

are talking about a situation in which legislation has 

been introduced and that legislation is always challengeable 

in the courts. Once things get into the courts, who 

knows what will happen regarding the interpretation of 

the provisions? For the sake of clarity and certainty, 

what is wrong with setting out the precise terms that 

must be used so that there can be no doubt? That goes 

to the issue in amendment 6, tabled by the hon. Member 

for Stone (Mr Cash), which sets out provisions for the 

avoidance of doubt. Surely there is merit in making it 

absolutely clear and plain. 

Mr Harper: I shall not attempt to rush forward to the 

certification procedure, because we will debate it when 

we discuss the next group of amendments. 

Let me turn to the specific amendment before the 

Committee. I do not think amendment 25 achieves the 

certainty that the right hon. Member for Belfast North 

(Mr Dodds) suggests would be desirable. It states that a 

motion of no confidence “shall be”, not “must include”, 

so it is not clear whether the motion would have to 

consist exclusively of the specified text or whether that 

text could be part of a motion, such as if it were added 

to a Government motion by amendment.


[Mr Harper] 

The Opposition’s amendment tries to specify the text 

of the no confidence motion, but does not try to achieve 

equivalent clarity as regards the motion of confidence 

that would have to be passed within 14 days by an 

alternative Government in order to avoid a general 

election. The amendment is trying to achieve some 

certainty—that was what the hon. Member for Rhondda 

said—but I do not think it does. I also do not think it is 

desirable or appropriate to try to set out the text of the 

motions in the Bill. 

The Government think that clause 2(2) provides a 

clear and practical mechanism that gives statutory effect 

to a vote of no confidence. I have set out the Government’s 

concerns about the amendments and I hope that hon. 

Members will not seek to press them to a vote. 

Mr Shepherd: I should like to press amendment 5 to a 

vote, with the consent of my hon. Friend the Member 

for Stone (Mr Cash). 

The Second Deputy Chairman: The question is, that 

the amendment be made. 

Hon. Members: Aye. 

Hon. Members: No. 

The Second Deputy Chairman: I think the Noes have it. 

Mr Shepherd: We wanted to press the amendment to 

a Division, Ms Primarolo. 

The Second Deputy Chairman: I need to hear you 

pressing the amendment, Mr Shepherd. I need you to 

shout louder for me. I am happy to do it again, but I 

need to hear the vote. 

Question put, That the amendment be made. 

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 498. 

Division No. 136] 

[1.17 pm 

Campbell, Mr Ronnie 

Davies, Philip 

Hollobone, Mr Philip 

Robertson, Mr Laurence 

Shepherd, Mr Richard 

Abbott, Ms Diane 

Adams, Nigel 

Afriyie, Adam 

Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob 

Aldous, Peter 

Alexander, rh Danny 

Alexander, rh Mr Douglas 

Alexander, Heidi 

Ali, Rushanara 

Andrew, Stuart 

Arbuthnot, rh Mr James 

Austin, Ian 

Bacon, Mr Richard 

Bain, Mr William 

Baker, Norman 

Baker, Steve 

AYES 

NOES 

Turner, Mr Andrew 

Tellers for the Ayes: 

Mr Bernard Jenkin and 

Mr David Nuttall 

Baldry, Tony 

Baldwin, Harriett 

Banks, Gordon 

Barclay, Stephen 

Barker, Gregory 

Barron, rh Mr Kevin 

Barwell, Gavin 

Bayley, Hugh 

Bebb, Guto 

Beith, rh Sir Alan 

Benn, rh Hilary 

Benyon, Richard 

Beresford, Sir Paul 

Berger, Luciana 

Berry, Jake 

Betts, Mr Clive 

Bingham, Andrew 

Birtwistle, Gordon 

Blackman, Bob 

Blackman-Woods, Roberta 

Blackwood, Nicola 

Blears, rh Hazel 

Blenkinsop, Tom 

Blunkett, rh Mr David 

Blunt, Mr Crispin 

Boles, Nick 

Bottomley, Peter 

Bradley, Karen 

Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben 

Brady, Mr Graham 

Brake, Tom 

Bray, Angie 

Brazier, Mr Julian 

Brennan, Kevin 

Bridgen, Andrew 

Brokenshire, James 

Brooke, Annette 

Brown, Lyn 

Brown, rh Mr Nicholas 

Brown, Mr Russell 

Browne, Mr Jeremy 

Bruce, Fiona 

Bryant, Chris 

Buck, Ms Karen 

Buckland, Mr Robert 

Burden, Richard 

Burley, Mr Aidan 

Burnham, rh Andy 

Burns, Conor 

Burrowes, Mr David 

Burstow, Paul 

Burt, Lorely 

Byles, Dan 

Byrne, rh Mr Liam 

Cable, rh Vince 

Cairns, Alun 

Campbell, Mr Alan 

Campbell, Mr Gregory 

Carmichael, Mr Alistair 

Carmichael, Neil 

Carswell, Mr Douglas 

Caton, Martin 

Chapman, Mrs Jenny 

Clappison, Mr James 

Clark, rh Greg 

Clark, Katy 

Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth 

Clarke, rh Mr Tom 

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey 

Coaker, Vernon 

Coffey, Ann 

Coffey, Dr Thérèse 

Collins, Damian 

Colvile, Oliver 

Cooper, Rosie 

Cox, Mr Geoffrey 

Crabb, Stephen 

Crausby, Mr David 

Creagh, Mary 

Crockart, Mike 

Crouch, Tracey 

Cruddas, Jon 

Cunningham, Alex 

Cunningham, Mr Jim 

Cunningham, Tony 

Curran, Margaret 

Dakin, Nic 

Danczuk, Simon 

Darling, rh Mr Alistair 

Davey, Mr Edward 

Davidson, Mr Ian 

Davies, David T. C. 

(Monmouth) 

Davies, Geraint 

Davies, Glyn 

Davis, rh Mr David 

de Bois, Nick 

De Piero, Gloria 

Dinenage, Caroline 

Djanogly, Mr Jonathan 

Dodds, rh Mr Nigel 

Donohoe, Mr Brian H. 

Doran, Mr Frank 

Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen 

Dorries, Nadine 

Doyle, Gemma 

Doyle-Price, Jackie 

Dromey, Jack 

Duddridge, James 

Dugher, Michael 

Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain 

Dunne, Mr Philip 

Durkan, Mark 

Eagle, Ms Angela 

Eagle, Maria 

Edwards, Jonathan 

Efford, Clive 

Ellis, Michael 

Ellison, Jane 

Ellman, Mrs Louise 

Ellwood, Mr Tobias 

Elphicke, Charlie 

Engel, Natascha 

Esterson, Bill 

Evans, Chris 

Evans, Graham 

Evans, Jonathan 

Evennett, Mr David 

Fabricant, Michael 

Fallon, Michael 

Farron, Tim 

Fitzpatrick, Jim 

Flint, rh Caroline 

Foster, Mr Don 

Fovargue, Yvonne 

Francis, Dr Hywel 

Francois, rh Mr Mark 

Freeman, George 

Fullbrook, Lorraine 

Fuller, Richard 

Gale, Mr Roger 

Gapes, Mike 

Gardiner, Barry 

Garnier, Mr Edward 

Garnier, Mark 

Gauke, Mr David 

George, Andrew 

Gibb, Mr Nick 

Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl 

Gilmore, Sheila 

Glass, Pat 

Glen, John 

Goggins, rh Paul 

Goldsmith, Zac 

Goodman, Helen 

Goodwill, Mr Robert 

Gove, rh Michael 

Graham, Richard 

Grant, Mrs Helen 

Grayling, rh Chris


Greatrex, Tom 

Green, Damian 

Green, Kate 

Greening, Justine 

Greenwood, Lilian 

Grieve, rh Mr Dominic 

Griffith, Nia 

Griffiths, Andrew 

Gummer, Ben 

Gwynne, Andrew 

Hague, rh Mr William 

Halfon, Robert 

Hames, Duncan 

Hamilton, Mr David 

Hammond, rh Mr Philip 

Hammond, Stephen 

Hancock, Matthew 

Hands, Greg 

Hanson, rh Mr David 

Harman, rh Ms Harriet 

Harper, Mr Mark 

Harrington, Richard 

Harris, Rebecca 

Harris, Mr Tom 

Hart, Simon 

Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan 

Heald, Mr Oliver 

Healey, rh John 

Heath, Mr David 

Heaton-Harris, Chris 

Hemming, John 

Henderson, Gordon 

Hendrick, Mark 

Hendry, Charles 

Hepburn, Mr Stephen 

Herbert, rh Nick 

Hermon, Lady 

Heyes, David 

Hillier, Meg 

Hilling, Julie 

Hinds, Damian 

Hodge, rh Margaret 

Hodgson, Mrs Sharon 

Hollingbery, George 

Holloway, Mr Adam 

Hopkins, Kris 

Horwood, Martin 

Hosie, Stewart 

Howarth, Mr Gerald 

Howell, John 

Hughes, Simon 

Huhne, rh Chris 

Hunt, Tristram 

Huppert, Dr Julian 

Hurd, Mr Nick 

Illsley, Mr Eric 

Irranca-Davies, Huw 

Jackson, Mr Stewart 

James, Mrs Siân C. 

Jamieson, Cathy 

Johnson, rh Alan 

Johnson, Diana 

Johnson, Gareth 

Johnson, Joseph 

Jones, Andrew 

Jones, Mr David 

Jones, Graham 

Jones, Helen 

Jones, Mr Kevan 

Jones, Mr Marcus 

Jones, Susan Elan 

Jowell, rh Tessa 

Joyce, Eric 

Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald 

Kawczynski, Daniel 

Keeley, Barbara 

Keen, Alan 

Kelly, Chris 

Kendall, Liz 

Khan, rh Sadiq 

Knight, rh Mr Greg 

Kwarteng, Kwasi 

Laing, Mrs Eleanor 

Lamb, Norman 

Lammy, rh Mr David 

Lancaster, Mark 

Latham, Pauline 

Lavery, Ian 

Laws, rh Mr David 

Leadsom, Andrea 

Lee, Jessica 

Lee, Dr Phillip 

Leech, Mr John 

Lefroy, Jeremy 

Leigh, Mr Edward 

Leslie, Charlotte 

Leslie, Chris 

Lewis, Brandon 

Lewis, Mr Ivan 

Lilley, rh Mr Peter 

Lloyd, Stephen 

Lloyd, Tony 

Llwyd, Mr Elfyn 

Long, Naomi 

Lopresti, Jack 

Lord, Jonathan 

Loughton, Tim 

Love, Mr Andrew 

Lucas, Caroline 

Lucas, Ian 

Luff, Peter 

Lumley, Karen 

Macleod, Mary 

MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan 

Mactaggart, Fiona 

Mahmood, Mr Khalid 

Mahmood, Shabana 

Main, Mrs Anne 

Mann, John 

Marsden, Mr Gordon 

May, rh Mrs Theresa 

Maynard, Paul 

McCabe, Steve 

McCarthy, Kerry 

McCartney, Jason 

McCartney, Karl 

McClymont, Gregg 

McDonagh, Siobhain 

McDonnell, Dr Alasdair 

McFadden, rh Mr Pat 

McGovern, Jim 

McGuire, rh Mrs Anne 

McKechin, Ann 

McKinnell, Catherine 

McPartland, Stephen 

McVey, Esther 

Mearns, Ian 

Menzies, Mark 

Metcalfe, Stephen 

Michael, rh Alun 

Miller, Andrew 

Miller, Maria 

Mills, Nigel 

Milton, Anne 

Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew 

Moon, Mrs Madeleine 

Mordaunt, Penny 

Morden, Jessica 

Morgan, Nicky 

Morrice, Graeme (Livingston) 

Morris, Anne Marie 

Morris, David 

Morris, Grahame M. 

(Easington) 

Morris, James 

Mosley, Stephen 

Mowat, David 

Mudie, Mr George 

Mulholland, Greg 

Mundell, rh David 

Munn, Meg 

Murphy, rh Paul 

Murray, Ian 

Murray, Sheryll 

Murrison, Dr Andrew 

Nandy, Lisa 

Neill, Robert 

Newmark, Mr Brooks 

Newton, Sarah 

Nokes, Caroline 

Norman, Jesse 

O’Brien, Mr Stephen 

O’Donnell, Fiona 

Offord, Mr Matthew 

Ollerenshaw, Eric 

Onwurah, Chi 

Opperman, Guy 

Ottaway, Richard 

Owen, Albert 

Paice, Mr James 

Paisley, Ian 

Patel, Priti 

Paterson, rh Mr Owen 

Pawsey, Mark 

Pearce, Teresa 

Penning, Mike 

Penrose, John 

Percy, Andrew 

Perkins, Toby 

Perry, Claire 

Pincher, Christopher 

Poulter, Dr Daniel 

Pound, Stephen 

Prisk, Mr Mark 

Pritchard, Mark 

Pugh, Dr John 

Qureshi, Yasmin 

Raab, Mr Dominic 

Randall, rh Mr John 

Raynsford, rh Mr Nick 

Reckless, Mark 

Redwood, rh Mr John 

Rees-Mogg, Jacob 

Reid, Mr Alan 

Reynolds, Emma 

Reynolds, Jonathan 

Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm 

Robertson, John 

Robinson, Mr Geoffrey 

Rogerson, Dan 

Rotheram, Steve 

Roy, Mr Frank 

Roy, Lindsay 

Ruane, Chris 

Ruddock, rh Joan 

Ruffley, Mr David 

Russell, Bob 

Rutley, David 

Sanders, Mr Adrian 

Sandys, Laura 

Sarwar, Anas 

Scott, Mr Lee 

Seabeck, Alison 

Selous, Andrew 

Shannon, Jim 

Shapps, rh Grant 

Sharma, Alok 

Sharma, Mr Virendra 

Sheerman, Mr Barry 

Shelbrooke, Alec 

Sheridan, Jim 

Shuker, Gavin 

Simmonds, Mark 

Simpson, David 

Simpson, Mr Keith 

Singh, Mr Marsha 

Skidmore, Chris 

Skinner, Mr Dennis 

Slaughter, Mr Andy 

Smith, rh Mr Andrew 

Smith, Angela 

Smith, Miss Chloe 

Smith, Julian 

Smith, Nick 

Smith, Owen 

Smith, Sir Robert 

Soames, Nicholas 

Soubry, Anna 

Soulsby, Sir Peter 

Spellar, rh Mr John 

Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline 

Stanley, rh Sir John 

Stephenson, Andrew 

Stevenson, John 

Stewart, Bob 

Stewart, Iain 

Stewart, Rory 

Streeter, Mr Gary 

Stride, Mel 

Stringer, Graham 

Stuart, Ms Gisela 

Stuart, Mr Graham 

Stunell, Andrew 

Sturdy, Julian 

Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry 

Swales, Ian 

Swayne, Mr Desmond 

Swinson, Jo 

Swire, Mr Hugo 

Syms, Mr Robert 

Teather, Sarah 

Thomas, Mr Gareth 

Thornberry, Emily 

Thurso, John 

Timms, rh Stephen 

Timpson, Mr Edward 

Tomlinson, Justin 

Trickett, Jon 

Truss, Elizabeth 

Turner, Karl 

Twigg, Derek 

Twigg, Stephen 

Umunna, Mr Chuka 

Uppal, Paul 

Vaizey, Mr Edward 

Vara, Mr Shailesh 

Vaz, Valerie 

Vickers, Martin


Walker, Mr Charles 

Walker, Mr Robin 

Wallace, Mr Ben 

Walley, Joan 

Watkinson, Angela 

Watson, Mr Tom 

Watts, Mr Dave 

Weatherley, Mike 

Webb, Steve 

Wheeler, Heather 

White, Chris 

Whiteford, Dr Eilidh 

Whitehead, Dr Alan 

Whittaker, Craig 

Whittingdale, Mr John 

Wiggin, Bill 

Willetts, rh Mr David 

Williams, Hywel 

Williams, Mr Mark 

Williams, Roger 

Question accordingly negatived. 

Williams, Stephen 

Williamson, Chris 

Williamson, Gavin 

Willott, Jenny 

Wilson, Phil 

Wilson, Mr Rob 

Wilson, Sammy 

Winnick, Mr David 

Winterton, rh Ms Rosie 

Wollaston, Dr Sarah 

Wright, David 

Wright, Mr Iain 

Wright, Simon 

Yeo, Mr Tim 

Young, rh Sir George 

Zahawi, Nadhim 

Tellers for the Noes: 

Mark Hunter and 

Jeremy Wright 

The Second Deputy Chairman: When, after voting, 

Members remain in the Lobby behind the Speaker’s 

Chair, they need to be quiet; otherwise it is impossible 

to hear the vote in the Chamber. 

Amendment proposed: 36, page 2, line 14, at end 

insert— 

‘(2A) In reckoning for the purposes of subsection 2(b), no 

account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is 

prorogued or during which the House of Commons is adjourned 

for more than four days.’.—(Sir Peter Soulsby.) 




[1.35 pm 





Austin, Ian 


Banks, Gordon 


Bayley, Hugh 

Bell, Sir Stuart 






Blomfield, Paul 




Brown, Lyn 



Bryant, Chris 





Cairns, David 



Caton, Martin 

AYES 


Clark, Katy 


Clwyd, rh Ann 


Cooper, Rosie 


Creagh, Mary 

Cruddas, Jon 





Dakin, Nic 








Doyle, Gemma 

Dromey, Jack 


Durkan, Mark 


Eagle, Maria 

Efford, Clive 




Evans, Chris 





Gapes, Mike 



Glass, Pat 



Greatrex, Tom 

Green, Kate 


Griffith, Nia 








Hermon, Lady 

Heyes, David 

Hillier, Meg 





Howarth, rh Mr George 





Jenkin, Mr Bernard 



Jones, Graham 

Jones, Helen 




Joyce, Eric 



Keen, Alan 

Kendall, Liz 



Lavery, Ian 

Leslie, Chris 

Lloyd, Tony 

Long, Naomi 






Mann, John 


McCabe, Steve 





McGovern, Jim 


McKechin, Ann 


Meacher, rh Mr Michael 

Mearns, Ian 


Miliband, rh Edward 






(Easington) 

Munn, Meg 

Murphy, rh Mr Jim 


Murray, Ian 

Nandy, Lisa 

Nash, Pamela 

Nuttall, Mr David 


Onwurah, Chi 

Owen, Albert 


Perkins, Toby 









Roy, Mr Frank 

Roy, Lindsay 

Ruane, Chris 


Sarwar, Anas 




Sheridan, Jim 

Shuker, Gavin 





Smith, Angela 

Smith, Nick 

Smith, Owen 









Trickett, Jon 


Turner, Karl 

Twigg, Derek 



Vaz, rh Keith 

Vaz, Valerie 

Walley, Joan 







Wright, David 



Phil Wilson and 

Mr David Hamilton


Adams, Nigel 

Afriyie, Adam 

Aldous, Peter 




Bagshawe, Ms Louise 

Baker, Norman 

Baker, Steve 

Baldry, Tony 





Bebb, Guto 




Berry, Jake 



Blackman, Bob 



Boles, Nick 




Brake, Tom 

Bray, Angie 






Bruce, Fiona 



Burns, Conor 


Burstow, Paul 

Burt, Lorely 

Byles, Dan 


Cairns, Alun 

















(Monmouth) 

Davies, Glyn 


de Bois, Nick 







NOES 




Ellison, Jane 



Evans, Graham 





Farron, Tim 

Featherstone, Lynne 








Garnier, Mark 



Gibb, Mr Nick 

Glen, John 






Gray, Mr James 

Grayling, rh Chris 

Green, Damian 




Gummer, Ben 



Hames, Duncan 



Hands, Greg 




Hart, Simon 





Hemming, John 




Hinds, Damian 



Hopkins, Kris 




Howell, John 

Hughes, Simon 



Hurd, Mr Nick 




Jones, Andrew 




Kelly, Chris 




Lamb, Norman 




Lee, Jessica 












Luff, Peter 

Lumley, Karen 

Macleod, Mary 




Maynard, Paul 




McVey, Esther 

Menzies, Mark 

Mercer, Patrick 


Miller, Maria 

Mills, Nigel 

Milton, Anne 



Morgan, Nicky 


Morris, David 

Morris, James 


Mowat, David 





Neill, Robert 


Newton, Sarah 


Norman, Jesse 




Opperman, Guy 



Paisley, Ian 

Patel, Priti 


Pawsey, Mark 

Penning, Mike 

Percy, Andrew 

Perry, Claire 





Pugh, Dr John 






Reid, Mr Alan 



Rogerson, Dan 


Russell, Bob 

Rutley, David 


Sandys, Laura 

Scott, Mr Lee 


Shannon, Jim 


Sharma, Alok 







Smith, Julian 







Stewart, Bob 

Stewart, Iain 

Stewart, Rory 


Stride, Mel 




Swales, Ian 


Swinson, Jo 




Thurso, John 




Uppal, Paul 


Vickers, Martin 

Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa 






Webb, Steve 


White, Chris 



Wiggin, Bill 




Williams, Roger






Wilson, Sammy 


Wright, Jeremy 


Wright, Simon 

Yeo, Mr Tim 





Mr Shailesh Vara 

Mr Jenkin: I beg to move amendment 6, page 2, line 

15, leave out subsection (3) and insert— 

‘(3) Any certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons 

given under this section shall be conclusive for all purposes and 

shall not be presented to or questioned in any court of law 

whatsoever.’. 

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be 

convenient to discuss the following: 


‘(4A) The Speaker shall issue a certificate under subsection (1) 

or (2) within 24 hours of the relevant conditions being met under 

subsection (1) or (2).’. 

Mr Jenkin: Amendment 6 stands in the name of my 

hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who, as I 

mentioned earlier, is abroad on other House business as 

Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee. 

We are at a curious juncture in the Bill and, indeed, in 

our constitutional history. The background to the 

amendment is the tension, since time immemorial, between 

this House’s ability to function immune from judicial 

interference, and the courts, which periodically have 

sought to limit the extent to which we can continue our 

business unimpeded by the courts. That was, of course 

settled—to a degree—in the Bill of Rights in 1789— 

Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) 

(Con): 1689. 

Mr Jenkin: Sorry, 1689. My hon. and learned Friend 

will keep me up to the mark, because he is much more 

of a lawyer than I am. 

In recent years, however, the tension between the 

courts and the independence of this House has been 

thrown into relief. I remind the Committee of cases 

such as the one brought by Lord Rees-Mogg for judicial 

review of the ratification of the Maastricht treaty after 

this House had passed an Act of Parliament. 

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I would like to clarify that the 

judicial review case brought by my noble kinsman was 

not in any way to challenge what had happened in this 

House. It was to challenge the use by Ministers of the 

royal prerogative, which is why the judicial review was 

allowed by the courts. 

Mr Jenkin: I stand corrected—again. I fear that that 

may occur rather often during my presentation. The 

case relating to the Hunting Act 2004 was certainly an 

attempt to impede the free functioning of Parliament in 

its judicial function. In addition, an attempt was made 

to judicially review the lack of a referendum on what 

was then the Lisbon treaty. There are other examples of 

that tension, not least over the arrest of my hon. Friend 

the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), and I believe 

that only today, in connection with another matter, are 

the limits of the courts being resolved. 

The present situation begs for something that many 

have recommended for some time: that this Parliament 

should have a privilege Act to delineate clearly the 

immunities of Parliament in relation to the functioning 

of the courts, but we are in an even more tense situation 

because we are arranging our constitution in other 

areas that question the very sovereignty of the House. 

We now have a Supreme Court and it is widely known 

that many jurists who serve at various levels of the 

judiciary take differing views of the notions of 

parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary privilege. 

There was recently a case concerning the possible effective 

expulsion of an hon. Member as a result of a judicial 

decision. I do not comment on its merits as it is still sub 

judice. I merely advert to the fact that it represents 

another testing of the boundaries between the courts 

and Parliament. 

We are told not to worry—the Bill’s provisions are 

immune from the courts, and nobody is going to interfere 

in what we decide is a Speaker’s certificate, certificating 

a vote of no confidence that satisfies the majority. 

When we are blandly and bluntly told that by the 

Government and at the same time told by the Clerk of 

the House who has bravely and independently—in his 

constitutional capacity as an independent guardian of 

our constitutional arrangements—issued a memorandum, 

to which I shall refer later, that flatly contradicts the 

Government’s view, we are obliged to take the matter 

very seriously. 

I cannot think of a precedent, other than the 

Parliamentary Standards Bill, where a Government flatly 

refused to accept the advice of the Clerk of the House 

on a question of the potential justiciability of legislation 

before the House. The Bill before us is a major change 

to the constitutional settlement of this country, and it is 

backed by people in the Government who we know 

favour a written constitution—an entirely different 

constitutional settlement. That raises the question whether 

the Government have got it right when they say that the 

Clerk’s fears are to be disregarded. 

With the indulgence of the Committee, I shall quote 

rather extensively from the memorandum submitted by 

the Clerk as written evidence to the Political and 

Constitutional Reform Committee. He states that the 

Bill is 

“to make statutory provision for matters which fall within Parliament’s 

exclusive cognizance and which may affect the established privileges 

of the House of Commons as well as upsetting the essential 

comity which has been established over a long period between 

Parliament and the Courts.” 

Erskine May makes it clear that “cognizance” refers to 

the right of both Houses 

“to be the sole judge of their own proceedings, and to settle—or 

depart from—their own codes of procedure.” 

The Clerk is clear in a bald statement in paragraph 12 

of his memorandum: 

“The Bill brings the internal proceedings of the House into the 

ambit of the Courts, albeit indirectly by the route of Speaker’s 

certificates.” 

He goes on to explain how that occurs under clause 2(2), 

which we have already debated. In paragraph 16 he 

states: 

“The provisions of this subsection make the Speaker’s consideration 

of confidence motions and the House’s practices justiciable questions 

for determination by the ordinary courts.”


That should be obvious. We know that Crown 

prerogative, as exercised by the Prime Minister, is subject 

to judicial review. We know that statute is subject to 

judicial review. We know that proceedings in the House 

and Standing Orders have not hitherto been subject to 

judicial review or judicial question. The Bill provides a 

connection between what happens in the House and in 

the rest of the world. We are providing a bridge of law 

that brings the courts into the House. 

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

the hon. Gentleman think, therefore, that the amendment 

goes far enough? The solution, as the Clerk of the 

House sees it, is for the Speaker’s certificate to be 

provided for not in statute but under a Standing Order, 

which would prevent the courts from interfering in the 

proceedings of the House. 

Mr Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely 

important point, to which I shall return. The entire Bill 

could be dealt with through Standing Orders. The only 

reason we have a Bill is either that a Bill is favoured by 

those who want to move towards a written constitution—I 

do not remember that being in anybody’s manifesto— 

Chris Bryant: Ours. 

Mr Jenkin: There we are. Perhaps that is why the 

Opposition support the Bill. We have just had a Division 

in which 400 right hon. and hon. Members were in the 

No Lobby and only a handful of us in the Aye Lobby. 

That underlines the curious consensus in favour of 

certain principles of the Bill. I do not think either of the 

elected parties in the coalition was in favour of a written 

constitution—[Interruption.] That is two parties, but 

the one that won the election certainly did not— 

Chris Bryant: To clarify, I think the Liberal Democrats 

were in favour of a written constitution, and we were in 

favour of looking at a written constitution. 

Mr Jenkin: I do not remember that being a great issue 

in the general election, but we are, in effect, creating one 

of the standard features of a written constitution, thereby 

tempting the courts to start interfering in the internal 

workings of the House. 

Mr Harper: For the avoidance of doubt, the 

Government’s position is that they are not in favour of 

moving to what is more accurately said to be a codified 

constitution. Many of our constitutional principles are, 

of course, written down, just not in one document. It is 

not the Government’s position to do so. I hope that 

cheers my hon. Friend up. 

Mr Jenkin: I am grateful for that assurance. The 

Minister, who in all these debates has shown impeccable 

manners and tact despite the pressure he is under, 

should be looking for an alternative way of delivering 

this part of the coalition agreement, to which the hon. 

Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) 

alluded. 

The Speaker’s decisions will be taken under immense 

political pressure, as he decides what constitutes a confidence 

motion, what amendments might be tabled to amend a 

confidence motion, whether, if carried, that would invalidate 

the motion, whether the amendment could constitute a 

motion of confidence, and the consequences of 

amendments being carried or the motion being carried. 

I quote again from the Clerk’s memorandum: 

“As these would become justiciable questions, the courts could 

be drawn into matters of acute political controversy.” 

I respect the fact that many in the House think we 

should have a Supreme Court like the European Court 

of Justice in the European Union or the Supreme Court 

of the United States, which is essentially a political 

court, but that is a very big constitutional change. We 

ought to have a royal commission about it, there ought 

to be debates on the Adjournment about it and the 

implications of drawing the courts into politics, if that 

is what we are going to do, ought to be properly 

explored. The way in which the Supreme Court is 

appointed to make it accountable for its political judgments 

is another important question. 

We are importing continental and American-style 

jurisprudence into our judicial decision making. Some 

judges are becoming more and more adventurous about 

how they interpret statute and where they feel entitled 

to make judicial interpretations, and the Bill invites 

them to decide when there might be a general election 

under particular circumstances. 

Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) 

(Con): Will my hon. Friend distinguish between two 

things: judicial activism, where there is extraordinarily 

little evidence that judges in this country are overreaching, 

although the same is not necessarily true in Europe and 

in the European Court, and impingement on the 

prerogatives of Parliaments, which is what the Bill 

covers? We should be focusing on the latter point. 

2pm 

Mr Jenkin: I am perfectly prepared to accept that 

point. I refer to judicial activism only because there are 

champions of judicial activism who would like the 

courts to be more judicially activist. The Bill creates 

circumstances whereby we tempt judicial activism, which 

is contrary to our legal traditions. It increases the 

danger of the Government’s assurances simply not being 

delivered, or of their not being able to make these 

assurances with any confidence. 

The Clerk, in his memorandum, specifically says: 

“In the case of Clause 2(3) it would be for the court to 

determine whether a document issued by the Speaker was a 

‘certificate’ for the purposes of that clause. It is not impossible for 

a court to take the view that what appeared to be a certificate was 

not a ‘certificate’”. 

The memorandum has been considered by the Select 

Committee, which attempted, in the short time available, 

to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny. It reached two principal 

conclusions. Paragraph 8 states: 

“The Government needs to respond to the concerns expressed 

by the Clerk of the House of Commons about the potential 

impact of clause 2 of the Bill on parliamentary privilege. 

Paragraph 9 states: 

“The purpose of the Bill needs to be achieved without inviting 

the courts to question aspects of the House’s own procedures or 

the actions of the Speaker, except where this is absolutely unavoidable 

and clearly justifiable.” 

The qualification reflects the fact that on the Committee 

there was some disagreement about the seriousness of 

the threat and between those who are in favour of a 

written constitution and those who are in favour not of 

a written constitution but of the settlement that relies 

upon our immunity.


[Mr Jenkin] 

On whether there are alternative ways of achieving 

the Bill’s intentions without the risk of judicial interference, 

the Committee noted, in paragraph 38: 

“As the Committee has noted, setting out the requirement in 

Standing Orders would not be satisfactory because Standing 

Orders can be amended, suspended or revoked by a single simple 

majority vote of the House of Commons only.” 

That is not correct. I have taken further advice from the 

Clerks and I have a letter from the Clerk Assistant and 

Director General, Mr Robert Rogers, which, if the 

Committee will indulge me, I will quote. He explains 

that there is a precedent of super-majorities in Standing 

Orders being used, for example, on closure motions in 

the 1880s. He says: 

“As to the practical issue of a “super-majority” SO being able 

to be amended or repealed only by a super-majority, I see no 

difficulty. The Speaker would be the arbiter of whether a 

motion…either was (a) orderly and (b) had been agreed to; he 

would be bound by the Standing Order (which should perhaps 

contain an explicit prohibition on “notwithstanding”-type Motions), 

and his decision would be beyond any external review.” 

That neatly and devastatingly removes the need for the 

entire Bill. We could be operating entirely through 

Standing Orders, which would be protected by the 

super-majority that the Government want to embed in 

legislation for general elections. It leaves the question of 

why the Government are resisting this advice. 

Amendment 6 is a more elaborate way of saying what 

the Government have already put in the Bill. I would be 

the first to accept that it may be regarded as a more 

elaborate bit of sticking plaster, because the clause will 

be subject to judicial interpretation. A certificate could 

not be presented to the courts—not even the Speaker 

could present one to a court for adjudication. The word 

“whatsoever” in the amendment means that we are 

referring not just to our own courts, but to the European 

Court of Human Rights, which is not just a figment of 

some Eurosceptic’s imagination. The Clerk himself has 

adverted to the fact that the ECHR, under article 10, 

could be adverted to as a cause for judicial review. 

If a Member of Parliament was prevented from 

voting in the motion of confidence, they could say that 

their vote should be taken into account for a valid 

certificate to be issued by the Speaker. They could 

therefore mount a challenge saying that the certificate 

was not valid because they were prevented from voting. 

A question also arises if sick colleagues cannot get into 

the Lobby and are nodded through. Would that constitute 

a ground for challenging a vote of confidence? 

Jesse Norman: Was not there an example in the 1970s 

of whether a Member had been able to vote? There was 

a tied vote and Harold Lever, I think I am right in 

saying, felt that he had not been able to exercise his 

vote? He might have had grounds under this Bill, if the 

Clerk is right, to invoke the care and attention of the 

courts. 

Mr Jenkin: My hon. Friend adverts to an extremely 

relevant precedent. What would happen if a two-thirds 

majority was obtained, or not obtained, by just one 

vote, or the Speaker interpreted the result as a vote of 

confidence where there was one vote in it that was 

represented by somebody who was or was not present 

for whatever reason? These are very dangerous areas. 

I have two final points, and I am grateful for the 

indulgence of the Committee in allowing me to quote 

extensively from documents. The Bill is being driven by 

an extraordinary consensus on some issues and by the 

fact that it is so close to the survival of the coalition that 

it is difficult openly to debate it. The Prime Minister 

said before the election that Committee stages of Bills 

should not be whipped, so that what a Committee 

thought can be understood. The Whips are out in force 

today, and I do not think that we will really find out 

what Members think about it. However, that invites the 

other place to look at the privilege and immunities of 

the House, and to propose comprehensive amendments 

that protect Parliament from judicial review. 

Mark Durkan: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that 

either the Bill or amendment 6 would protect against 

judicial intervention on the ground of failure to issue a 

certificate—a controversy that could easily arise, particularly 

in the light of provisions in respect of a motion of no 

confidence? The certificate issues only after the 14-day 

period has been allowed—it does not issue at the time 

of the debate or just after the vote, but later on—and 

there could be controversy about the failure to issue a 

certificate or about whether a certificate could be issued. 

Someone might try to bring that to the court. 

Mr Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. 

The amendment, as drafted by my hon. Friend the 

Member for Stone, deals with only one aspect of the 

matter, and, given our limited time to scrutinise this 

enormously important Bill, I explicitly invite the other 

place to look carefully at all the aspects and the advice 

of the Clerk. One of its own Committees is considering 

the matter and might well come up with different 

conclusions from those of the Commons Political and 

Constitutional Reform Committee. The Lords sorted 

out the IPSA Bill, under which they kept our proceedings 

immune from the courts, and I very much hope that 

they will do the same with this Bill. 

My concluding point is a general one about the Bill 

but is relevant to the amendment. I do not think that I 

can recall a major constitutional measure that was so 

closely associated with the survival of one Administration. 

We have to pinch ourselves when we think of what we 

are doing in reality: we are completely changing our 

constitutional settlement at the behest of a coalition, so 

that it can remain in power for five years. I do not even 

think that that is ethical. Parliament’s immunity is 

basically being screwed up, and, although a Bill can at 

least be repealed, once the courts have been allowed 

into our proceedings, we will never get them out again 

without a major break in the constitution such as 

in 1689. 

All that can be forestalled if the Minister simply says, 

“These matters cannot be resolved today,” because they 

cannot be resolved on the basis of parliamentary counsel’s 

advice to Ministers about the drafting of Bills. We need 

the other place to give the highest and most independent 

legal advice to ensure that we do not inadvertently 

bring about what the Government themselves do not 

want to see. 

Chris Bryant: Many thanks are due to the hon. Member 

for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who has 

done us a great favour by pointing out some of the


problems in this small aspect of the legislation. He is 

absolutely right to say that large parts of the Bill exist 

only for the preservation of a single Administration. I 

do not know the appropriate Latin equivalent of ad 

hominem legislation, but this is “ad administrationem” 

legislation, which is why some provisions will not stand 

the test of time. The best that we can do is try to ensure 

that the elements of real peril are tidied up. 

The hon. Gentleman was right in several regards, but 

not in one. He talked about the IPSA Bill having been 

miraculously improved in the other place, but none of 

us really thinks that we ended up with a perfect situation 

or that nirvana arrived by virtue of that Bill. However, 

on the Bill before us—I suspect this would also apply to 

the other constitutional Bill that we recently scrutinised—he 

is right that if there were a free vote, none of the 

legislation would go through at all. 

Mr Jenkin: If the Parliamentary Voting Systems and 

Constituencies Bill had been separate Bills, I do not 

think that either would have gone through. 

On the IPSA Bill, at one stage there was a proposal to 

allow IPSA to adjudicate on and punish Members for 

breaching the rules. That would have driven a coach 

and horses through our traditional immunities under 

the Bill of Rights, but it was removed in the other place. 

Chris Bryant: Indeed. As the hon. Gentleman said 

earlier, a privileges Act will be needed at some point, 

and I hope that the Government turn to such legislation. 

I realise that there are problems with any written or 

“codified”—to use the Minister’s term—constitution, 

because one risks making it justiciable and must then 

decide what will be the justice that oversees it. Will it be 

a supreme court or a constitutional court, such as many 

other countries have? That is a debate for another day, 

however. 

2.15 pm 

The issue of the Speaker’s certificate can be addressed 

only in relation to how it is operated in motions of no 

confidence, so I do not intend to stray far, Mrs Primarolo, 

from the specific issues involved. Nevertheless, in the 

previous debate the Minister said that all the amendments 

dealt with wildly hypothetical situations. Those were 

not his precise words, but broadly speaking that is what 

he meant, and he was right in a sense. When one starts 

writing bits of the constitution into statute, however, 

one has to provide for the hypothetical situation that 

suddenly arises when, for example, voters have cast 

their votes not so conveniently as to provide for a single 

majority party in government, or when a party—as has 

happened regularly over the past 200 years—has collapsed 

into two parties and is not able to sustain itself in 

power. 

It is important that we consider the unlikely outcomes 

that might transpire, because if they were to transpire 

they would provide us with an enormous constitutional 

headache, and we would have literally no means of 

sorting them out, because we would have no other court 

to appeal to in order to sort out the constitutional row. 

For instance, if the monarch decided to sack the Prime 

Minister—this point was raised earlier—other than 

revolution I know of no other means that we would 

have to enforce what we all understand to be the proper 

constitutional settlement. 

I presume that the Government have drawn up the 

provision on the Speaker’s certificate as they have done 

in an attempt to mirror provisions in the Parliament 

Act 1911, as amended of course in 1949. In an attempt 

to ensure that in accordance with the Bill of Rights the 

courts did not interfere in parliamentary proceedings, 

that legislation tried to provide a cast-iron process 

whereby the Speaker could certificate that certain Bills 

were money Bills and did not, therefore, have to go 

through the same process in the House of Lords as 

other Bills. It also provided that if a money Bill were 

amended or not passed by their Lordships within a 

certain period—I think it is a month—it would be 

automatically be sent to Her Majesty for Royal Assent. 

I also presume that the Government have used that 

legislation to draw up the legislation before us, because 

section 1(3) of the 1911 Act states that 

“the Speaker shall consult, if practicable, two members to be 

appointed from the Chairmen’s Panel at the beginning of each 

Session by the Committee of Selection.” 

That process still occurs, and Mr Speaker doubtless 

went through it before he recently certified several Bills 

as money Bills. 

There is a difficulty, however, with transposing that 

provision directly into provisions for a situation in 

which the Government have lost a motion of no confidence, 

or into measures that provide the Speaker with a series 

of fairly significant powers. The Speaker will get to 

decide when to issue that certificate. As the hon. Member 

for Harwich and North Essex has already said, that 

means that the Speaker will decide whether nodding 

people through when Members are on the parliamentary 

estate and a Whip, by agreement between the Whips 

from both sides, nods them through at the end of a vote 

by saying, “And two more,” is allowed. 

The Speaker will decide also, for instance, whether 

14 days have passed since the no confidence motion has 

been carried. That is important, because past debates 

on a motion of no confidence might have started at 

3.30 in the afternoon, but they certainly did not finish 

by midnight; sometimes, they took up the whole of the 

next day’s business. In parliamentary terms, Members 

were still on the first day, so the question whether 

14 days had transpired would be a moot point. 

Further, the Speaker will decide what is a motion of 

no confidence. I therefore presume that, similarly, he 

will decide what is a motion of confidence. The hon. 

Gentleman is absolutely right that many of those issues 

could be dealt with in Standing Orders. That would be 

very helpful to the House on the question of what 

counts as a motion of no confidence or of confidence, 

in particular, because this is a matter not of partisan 

advantage or ideological divide, but of trying to ensure 

that there are practical measures to obviate a constitutional 

disaster should the moment arise. 

It would be helpful if the Minister were able to tell us 

whether he is minded to suggest to the Deputy Leader 

of the House that there should be motions to change 

the Standing Orders of this House to make some of the 

conventions that currently exist part of Standing Orders. 

For instance, there is the question whether we should 

have in Standing Orders the provision that when the 

Opposition demand a motion of no confidence it should 

usually be provided, say, within 24 or 48 hours, or 

provision concerning how the Speaker goes about the 

certification process.


Mr Shepherd: I am a little puzzled as to why the hon. 

Gentleman comes to the conclusion that this needs to 

be codified in any way. Our history demonstrates quite 

openly that this House comes to such a resolution by 

the processes of the House. When Mr Chamberlain 

won the famous Norway debate, he recognised that 

there was no confidence in him personally. These matters 

are eventually decided by the House and by the judgment 

of individuals. Surely that is the better way of doing it. 

Chris Bryant: In a sense, that is an argument against 

the whole Bill which I understand. I know that the hon. 

Gentleman is not saying that this is a conspiracy, but I 

think that the hon. Member for Harwich and North 

Essex feels that a bit of a cosy consensus has developed 

around the fact that there should be a codification of 

fixed-term Parliaments. We agree with that codification. 

However, once one starts to codify one element, one has 

to codify rather a lot of them. That is why I have wanted 

to codify what counts as a motion of no confidence and 

what should be a motion of confidence. Perhaps we 

should have tried to codify it in a slightly different way 

so that, for instance, a motion to amend the Loyal 

Address could also be considered as such, as in 1924. 

Mr Jenkin: What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting 

might well be sensible in one respect, but I fear that it 

will not prevent the courts from having a go at this. 

Indeed, if what constitutes a motion of confidence is 

codified in our Standing Orders, the courts will then be 

interpreting whether our Standing Orders reflect what 

could be regarded as such. If he wants clarity and is 

seeking to provide a better definition, this has to be put 

into the legislation. Of course, that reflects the point 

that we are tempting the courts to interfere in the 

proceedings of this House. 

Chris Bryant: That is an interesting point. The Bill of 

Rights refers, I think in section 9, to the fact that 

proceedings in Parliament shall not be touched by any 

other court. The moot point then is what constitutes a 

proceeding in Parliament. There have been many discussions 

about this over the past couple of years, not least in 

relation to the arrest of the hon. Member for Ashford 

(Damian Green). The hon. Member for Harwich and 

North Essex is right in one sense. However, I have 

presumed—this is the advice that I had when I sat on 

the Government Benches as Deputy Leader of the 

House—that parliamentary privilege covers proceedings 

in Parliament and the whole of the Standing Orders of 

this House, because that how this House chooses to 

proceed. I think that there is greater security in the 

Standing Orders of the House. 

Another issue is how we ensure that the Speaker is 

not dragged into a partisan contest, particularly at a 

moment of great political drama. As I said in an earlier 

debate, my concern is that if it is left for the Speaker to 

have to determine all these elements, the Speaker’s 

impartiality is compromised. 

Another strange element of the Bill is the provision 

that says that before the Speaker issues his certificate, he 

shall consult the Deputy Speakers. That mirrors the 

provision in the 1911 Act whereby the Speaker, before 

issuing his certificate on a money Bill, has to consult 

two members of the Panel of Chairs. What happens if 

all the Deputy Speakers disagree with issuing the certificate? 

Why should the Speaker have to consult? One presumes 

that it is simply a matter of fact, although I suppose we 

all know that facts are rarely clearly delineated and are 

rather more subjective than most people would want to 

admit. The point is, however, that this puts the Speaker 

and potentially the House in peril, because people may 

want to contest any one of the various elements of the 

Speaker’s decision. One of the matters that would almost 

certainly arise if there were any contest as to whether 

the certificate was being rightly issued is what the Deputy 

Speakers had said. That is an unfortunate direction for 

us to take. 

We have tabled an amendment, on which I hope to 

divide the Committee, on the timing of when the Speaker 

issues the certificate. At the moment, the Bill makes no 

provision whatsoever on when the Speaker’s certificate 

should be issued. One therefore presumes that it could 

be a month, two months or several months after the 

passage of two weeks. Let us say, for instance, that after 

a motion of no confidence has been carried, the 

Government try to reform themselves with a different 

concatenation of political parties and do not manage to 

secure a new motion of confidence, but there are still 

patently ongoing negotiations that are nearing their 

closing phase. Would it then be all right for the Speaker 

not to issue a certificate at that point but to wait until 

such time that another Government had been formed? 

The difficulty is that if the Speaker chose not to do so, 

who is to gainsay the Speaker? There is no provision in 

the Bill for what would happen if the Speaker has not 

done what the Bill requires. 

For all those reasons, I believe that this element of 

the Bill is flawed. I also believe that certain elements 

should not be in statute but should be in Standing 

Orders in order to provide greater certainty for the 

House by taking them within the concept of proceedings 

of this House. Above all, I want to ensure that there is 

no uncertainty about the specific provision as to when 

the Speaker has to act and when the Speaker may act. 

Jesse Norman: I wish to speak in favour of the 

amendment. First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend 

and neighbour the Minister on the very calm and effective 

way in which he has steered this legislation through the 

House? 

None the less, it seems to me that a basic issue with 

the legislation remains unresolved. It has been described 

in this House as a matter of parliamentary privilege, 

but in fact it concerns the fundamental principle of 

parliamentary sovereignty. One thinks of the magisterial 

words of A.V. Dicey: 

“The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means neither 

more nor less than this, namely that Parliament thus defined”— 

by which he means the King or Queen in Parliament, 

rather than just Parliament itself— 

“has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake 

any law whatever: and, further, that no person or body is recognised 

by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the 

legislation of Parliament.” 

That is the cardinal principle at issue today. It is worth 

saying that our parliamentary sovereignty remains intact 

in principle. It remains open to this House to repeal, if 

it so wished, the Act of Settlement 1701 by simple 

majority. The sovereignty of Parliament can thus be 

deliberately limited in its effects by this House—for


example, by treaty—but it should not be limited by 

accident, by inadvertence or by over-confidence. There 

is a risk—a small risk—that this will happen under 

these provisions. 

The Clerk of the House has advised in writing and in 

testimony that to include parliamentary voting procedure 

in statute would risk judicial scrutiny of the proceedings 

of this House, and possible legal challenge. It is important 

to note that this is not merely the view of the Clerk of 

the House, but also the view of Speaker’s Counsel, and 

it has legal authority behind it. That is simply because 

the functions described under the clause are statutory 

functions, and it would therefore be for the courts to 

determine whether those functions are lawfully exercised. 

That is, of course, advice rendered to the House, not to 

the Government. 

2.30 pm 

This issue was rightly taken up by the Political and 

Constitutional Reform Committee in its report on the 

Bill. In response, the Government relied on expert witnesses 

to show that the Bill would avoid unwarranted legal 

challenge. As has been discussed, the Clerk recommended 

a way past the problem, which was that the procedure 

should be written into Standing Orders, but that was 

rejected by the Government. In my judgment, it is 

perfectly legitimate for the Government, after due 

consideration and on legal advice, to insist on their 

preferred approach of including the relevant procedures 

in the legislation, rather than in Standing Orders. 

Nevertheless, we are discussing a separate issue—related, 

but separate. 

I believe that the Government would be well advised 

to accept the amendment for three reasons. First, as 

with all legal issues, this issue is not absolutely clear; it 

does not admit of certainty. The Government have 

relied on expert advice, but when Dawn Oliver and 

Anthony Bradley gave testimony to the Political and 

Constitutional Reform Committee, both experts 

acknowledged the small but clear risk of judicial challenge. 

They stated that precedent and statute are being relied 

on that may themselves require new legislative support. 

As has been noted today, that risk would be magnified 

by the heat and time pressure of an election. 

I would like to correct something that I said earlier to 

the Committee with reference to Harold Lever, by quoting 

from the evidence of the Clerk of the House before the 

Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: 

“I won’t bore the Committee with too many precedents, but I 

couldn’t resist this one. This is from 1974 and it’s to do with the 

passage of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill. I will read 

a very short extract from the Journal of that year. ‘Mr Harold 

Lever, Member for Manchester Central, acquainted the House, 

That in the Divisions on Amendments…to the Trade Union and 

Labour Relations Bill…he was recorded as having voted with the 

Noes, but he had to inform the House that he was not within the 

Precincts of the House at the time of those Divisions and that in 

consequence his vote ought not to have been so recorded.’” 

The Clerk continued: 

“In this case, when Mr Lever came to the House and acquainted 

the House about his absence, the whole procedure was declared 

null and void, including the Third Reading of the Bill. The Bill 

had to be called back from the House of Lords and the whole 

process had to happen again.” 

He concluded: 

“I don’t think I need labour the point of what this would mean 

in terms of a no confidence vote.” 

Secondly, I think that the Government should accept 

the amendment because there is a clear trend of more 

public decisions falling under the scrutiny of the courts. 

I do not think that that is currently happening in 

domestic law, and in my view fears over judicial activism 

are misplaced. Nevertheless, we now have an independent 

Supreme Court that might not always exercise the restraint 

and care that has been shown by the present generation 

of judges in acknowledging and preserving the principle 

of parliamentary sovereignty. 

The European Courts are taking a greater interest in 

domestic matters. The European Court of Human Rights 

has heard at least one case that the British courts would 

not consider on the grounds that it fell under parliamentary 

jurisdiction. European judges have expressed concern 

over the lack of remedies against the exercise of 

parliamentary privilege. 

Mr Jenkin: My hon. Friend is making an extremely 

important point about the European Court of Human 

Rights. As soon as something gets into the Court, it 

respects no immunities whatsoever—nor does the European 

Court of Justice, but that is not adverted to in this case. 

Once a case is in that system, we do not know where it 

will lead. The European Court of Human Rights certainly 

would not respect the limitations of the 1689 Act. 

Jesse Norman: I do not wish to comment on the 

procedure or intention of the European Courts, but I 

note merely that it is true historically that their scrutiny 

has extended itself over time. It is noted less than it 

should be that European judges have expressed concern 

about the exercise of parliamentary privilege and about 

the lack of remedies that people possess against its 

exercise. 

The final reason why the Government should look 

again at the amendment is that the consequences of a 

mistake could be momentous. In the short term, a 

dissolution of Parliament and thereby an election could 

hang on it. In the longer term, there could be wider 

political and constitutional implications of judicial scrutiny 

of our power. 

The amendment is simply worded, it offers an additional 

layer of protection for Parliament against a serious 

threat, and it does so at little or no additional cost. I 

urge the Minister to give it serious consideration. 

Tristram Hunt: I, too, shall speak to amendment 6, 

which would take us some way in the direction in which 

we should be heading to protect this place from the 

actions of the courts. 

Every day, as the hon. Member for Harwich and 

North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said, we see growing evidence 

of interference by and elements of activism in the 

courts. We now have the Supreme Court in Parliament 

square, and large buildings tend to have large consequences. 

The emeritus professor of public administration at 

University college London, Professor Gavin Drewry, 

has recorded a major shift towards cases of public law, 

with some high-profile cases having a constitutional air: 

“The establishment of the Supreme Court is an important 

constitutional landmark, and it would be surprising if the Court 

itself were to stand completely aside from the ongoing process of 

constitutional development.” 

There is a strong sense of certainty that the Supreme 

Court will be involved.


[Tristram Hunt] 

It is apposite to be discussing this Bill after this 

morning’s judgment in the case of three former Members 

of this House, Morley, Chaytor and Devine, and also a 

peer, against their claim of parliamentary privilege. In 

his summation, Lord Phillips noted that 

“extensive inroads have been made into areas that previously fell 

within the exclusive cognisance of Parliament.” 

His statement should be of major concern to 

parliamentarians when considering the Bill, and in 

particular to Ministers, who I hope have read and 

digested the judgment and are coming to sensible 

conclusions about it. 

If I may, I shall quote Lord Phillips at greater length: 

“Where a statute does not specifically address matters that are 

subject to privilege, it is in theory necessary as a matter of 

statutory interpretation to decide a number of overlapping questions. 

Does the statute apply within the precincts of the Palace of 

Westminster? If it does, does it apply in areas that were previously 

within the exclusive cognisance of Parliament? If so, does the 

statute override the privilege imposed by article 9? In practice 

there are not many examples of these questions being considered, 

either within Parliament or by the courts. If Parliament accepts 

that a statute applies within an area that previously fell within its 

exclusive cognisance, then Parliament will, in effect, have waived 

any claim to privilege.” 

Those are damaging and dangerous comments, which 

have wide repercussions. 

Lord Phillips argues that the ultimate judgment of 

such matters rests with the courts. He quotes approvingly 

a letter written on 4 March 2010 by the Clerk of the 

Parliaments to the solicitor acting for Lord Hanningfield 

which had been approved by the Committee for Privileges: 

“Article 9 limits the application of parliamentary privilege to 

‘proceedings in Parliament.’ The decision as to what constitutes a 

‘proceeding in Parliament’, and therefore what is or is not admissible 

as evidence, is ultimately a matter for the court, not the House.” 

We should consider that evidence and the actions of a 

growing number of judges in considering the Bill. 

Mr Jenkin: Bluntly, what the hon. Gentleman is 

averting to is a power struggle. The question is whether the 

House will stand up for its immunities or give them up. 

The Bill is an indication that we want to give them up. 

Tristram Hunt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and 

with the fundamental basis of his analysis, which is that 

the constitutional reform programme is driven by the 

immediate necessities of the Government in the context 

of this Parliament. We are making major decisions that 

will have wide ramifications in the functioning of the 

constitution of the United Kingdom, based on a political 

programme and timetable. That is never the best way in 

which to develop deep consensus thinking about the 

constitution. 

I would finally raise a point that the Clerk of the 

House has also raised. As he put it in a note to the 

Committee in the other place, 

“given that a draft Parliamentary Privileges Bill has now been 

announced, why deal in advance and separately with a matter 

affecting the proceedings of the House of Commons in legislation”, 

if it is not for the specific political purposes of the 

current Government? 

Mr Shepherd: I am more and more puzzled about the 

Bill as we go on, but there are two propositions in this 

group of amendments. I support amendment 6, in the 

name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), 

and I am grateful for the important contribution of my 

hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South 

Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). Indeed, I was elated at 

the time of the election to hear that Jessye Norman had 

been elected to the House. I spent six months seeking 

out that fantastic opera singer—I got the wrong individual, 

as you will appreciate, Ms Primarolo, and I am very 

grateful to have encountered my hon. Friend on the 

Floor of the Committee. 

Jesse Norman rose— 

Chris Bryant: He wants to sing. Sing for Britain. 

Jesse Norman: No. Hon. Members will be pleased to 

hear that I do not propose to sing, but I am pleased to 

report that I have managed to overcome the quadruple 

handicaps of being tall, white, English and male. 

Mr Shepherd: And formidable handicaps they often 

are. 

The endeavour of my hon. Friend the Member for 

Stone and those who support the amendment was to 

provide some form of belt-and-braces approach. None 

of us is confident that it can work, because the aspirations 

and ambitions of several of our lords justices have 

given one an uncertainty as to where they are heading in 

the rewriting of the constitution. I am also mindful of 

the European Court of Human Rights. We have an 

inferior court that we call a Supreme Court and a 

superior court that we call a court of human rights, and 

on top of all that we have another court called the 

European Court of Justice. Somewhere in there I can 

see a demented Prime Minister making an application 

for unfair dismissal as a result of a vote to every one of 

those courts in turn, while we watch on, as though it 

were a Gilbert and Sullivan pantomime. I shall support 

the amendment. 

Similarly, I will support amendment 23. The matter 

has to be determined quickly and appropriately, so I 

shall not waste the House’s time having indicated the 

actions that I will take. 

Mark Durkan: Like the hon. Member for Aldridge- 

Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), I shall speak in support of 

amendments 6 and 23, which are both attempts to earth 

the Bill against some of the dangerous shocks that 

could be created for the House in the future. To make 

some of my points, I will have to refer to what the 

Minister said about the previous group of amendments. 

In the debate on the previous group, the Minister said 

that he could think of no circumstances in which a 

debate on a motion of no confidence would take place 

without the House knowing that it was a motion of no 

confidence, even though the Bill requires the Speaker to 

issue a certificate only after a period of 14 days has 

elapsed—it does not specify how long after. That creates 

a situation that we all have to consider before we even 

go into the danger of what will happen when the matter 

goes to the courts. Let us first look at the difficulties and 

controversies that will be created in this House. 

If a motion of no confidence can be played like a wild 

joker, and any motion can be converted into one, then 

whenever there is a controversial issue or one involving 

Opposition or rebel tactics, the Speaker will be asked 

early in a debate, “Will you signal whether you would be


minded to say that this debate is certifiable? Will you 

declare that we are going through a potentially certifiable 

chain of political and constitutional events?” Of course, 

the Speaker might wish to say, “You are trying to draw 

me into a matter of controversy”, because he might not 

be privy to what Whips are saying to Members about 

the significance of a particular motion. 

2.45 pm 

What would happen if the Speaker said that a motion 

was not certifiable, and the Prime Minister subsequently 

decided that the nature, colour and content of the 

debate meant that it had been a motion of no confidence 

in him rather than in the Government, as in the example 

of the 1940 debate mentioned by the hon. Member for 

Aldridge-Brownhills? Somebody could announce from 

the Dispatch Box, on either the Opposition or Government 

side of the House, that as far as they were concerned, 

there had been a motion of no confidence. Would that 

mean that the Speaker’s ruling was somehow removed 

or overturned? If anybody wanted to contest in court 

either the issuing of a certificate or the failure to issue 

one, that sequence of events involving the Speaker and 

Front Benchers could become relevant. It could become 

a matter of contest and controversy being presented in 

court. 

Even short of the matter getting to the courts, we are 

already potentially compromising the Speaker. He will 

constantly be hostage to inquiries as to whether a 

particular motion could be treated as a motion of no 

confidence, and his ruling could at any time be upstaged 

from the Treasury Bench. 

Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): My children 

once asked me, “What does a heffalump look like?” I 

said, “You’ll know one when you see one.” Has that 

not been the case with confidence motions throughout 

history? The House has known one when it has seen 

one, and we are in danger of over-complicating the 

process in the Bill. 

Mark Durkan: I have a lot of sympathy with what the 

hon. Gentleman says, and that was why I indicated my 

support for earlier amendments that would have narrowed 

the ambiguity and reduced the possibility of political 

and procedural chicanery, with which the Bill is riddled. 

Chris Bryant: Will my hon. Friend point out to the 

hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) that there is 

a picture of the heffalump in several of A. A. Milne’s 

books? 

Mark Durkan: I accept that point fully. 

Mr Walker: I shall admonish my children for not 

being better read. 

Mark Durkan: I will acknowledge these interventions 

no further. 

To return to the matter at hand, let us be clear that 

the Bill’s provisions are open to all sorts of contests, 

questions and controversies. As I have said, I believe 

that the Minister was wrong to say that the House will 

know in all circumstances when something is a vote of 

confidence. If he wanted to make that incontrovertibly 

so, he would need to provide either in Standing Orders 

or in the Bill for a formal indication by the Speaker that 

a certificate could be issued prior to the period set out 

in the Bill, which starts 14 days after a motion. That, in 

turn, would bring the Speaker into areas of political 

controversy and intervention. Amendment 6 is clearly 

aimed at ensuring that those difficulties do not make 

the issuing of a certificate, or possibly the failure to 

issue one, a matter of controversy that can be brought 

to the courts. 

In discussing previous amendments, Members alluded 

to affairs currently in Oireachtas Éireann and in the 

Dail. Those affairs may be relevant this week, because 

an opposition party there has indicated that it might 

take to the courts the question whether, under the 

constitution, the agreement that the Irish Government 

have entered into has to be subject to a vote of the Dail. 

Let us not rule out circumstances in which a party here, 

possibly a party of Opposition, could feel that the 

Speaker had wrongly declined to issue a certificate, or 

that the Government were using all sorts of procedural 

chicanery to prevent certificates being issued and to 

reset the clock. That party might then feel obliged to 

take the matter to court if it felt that it faced dead ends 

and chicanery in Parliament. That is exactly the situation 

that was threatened in Dublin this week given what the 

Irish Labour party justice spokesman said. Let us not 

join the Minister in completely dismissing all such 

possibilities. 

I do not want to move from Dublin to Northern 

Ireland affairs, but I have some experience of what 

happens in practice. I was involved in negotiating and 

implementing the Good Friday agreement, including as 

a Minister and Deputy First Minister. Ministers told 

this House that procedures would follow their own 

course and that political matters would not end up in 

the courts, but then I found that my election as Deputy 

First Minister was taken to court—when I was jointly 

elected with David Trimble—because all sorts of rules 

were bent and twisted and the clock was reset by 

Secretaries of State and others. 

The Northern Ireland Act 1998 set a clear six-week 

period, but Secretaries of State discovered that if they 

suspended things for 24 hours, there would be a new 

six-week period. Whenever there is a facility to contrive 

a completely new situation and dispose of a statutory 

deadline, it is used—whenever Ministers are told that in 

case of emergency they can smash the glass, they do so. 

Completely contrary to the assurances and explanations 

given to the House when we debated the 1998 Act, a 

number of Secretaries of State found themselves doing 

that. In addition, Assembly Members redesignated to 

pass particular votes, even though they said that they 

would not, and so on. 

In the context of the Bill, people have said that a 

Government would never put themselves in the 

embarrassing position of activating a vote of no confidence 

in themselves or cutting corners, ignoring rules or resetting 

clocks so that they can bypass dates and deadlines, but 

the Northern Ireland experience shows that that is not 

so. The exigencies of the moment, and the demands for 

stability and good governance, can be used as circumstantial 

excuses. Let us not pretend otherwise. If we are trying 

to provide for fixed-term Parliaments with clear, fixed 

and guaranteed arrangements, we must go further than 

the Bill does. It leaves too much power in the hands of 

the Prime Minister and the Executive when there has 

been a motion of no confidence, and in respect of their 

influence over the decision of whether a motion is one 

of no confidence or otherwise.


[Mark Durkan] 

I therefore ask the Minister to acknowledge that 

there are shortcomings in the Bill. Some of the amendments 

have their own shortcomings, but they do not diminish 

the serious problems with the Bill. If he will not accept 

amendments 6 and 23, will he agree to work in another 

place and in the House at another time to make his own 

amendments, so that the Bill does not create those 

difficulties and controversies? 

Under the Bill, the Speaker could be the subject of 

controversy. What if there are differences between the 

Speaker and Deputy Speakers on the question whether 

to indicate in advance that a motion is certifiable? More 

importantly, as the hon. Member for Harwich and 

North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said, I believe that such matters 

could find themselves before a court, not only because 

somebody might want to contest the fact or content of 

a certificate, but more importantly because people might 

want to contest the failure to issue a certificate or the 

fairly questionable proceedings in advance of it. We do 

not want the Speaker of the House of Commons to be 

caught in the same position as Scottish football referees. 

They have been accused of taking and changing decisions 

in relation to subsequent arguments and events. Let us 

protect the office of the Speaker and this House. 

Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con): I rise to 

make a brief contribution. I have listened with great 

interest to the debate and I await with even greater 

interest the Minister’s response to the very well advocated 

position on amendment 6, with which I have great 

sympathy. 

It seems blindingly simple to me. Clause 2(3) stops at 

the words, “for all purposes.” The comparison with 

section 3 of the Parliament Act 1911 has been made, so 

why not include the extra words, 

“and shall not be questioned in any court of law”? 

The amendment proposes the use of the word “whatsoever”, 

which was no doubt an attempt by my hon. Friend the. 

Member for Stone (Mr Cash) to deal with the European 

question—that is perfectly legitimate and I understand 

entirely the reason for his wording—but the point is the 

same: if such a provision was good in 1911, why is it not 

good now? If anything, the balance between Parliament 

and the courts has deteriorated, as the hon. Member for 

Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) eloquently outlined. 

The balance is now extremely fine, and it is in danger of 

being overturned in favour of judicial activism. 

It may well be that reliance will be placed upon the 

residual powers of article 9 of the Bill of Rights, but as 

an Act of Parliament, that too is subject to judicial 

interpretation. Over the years, it has been interpreted in 

a variety of ways by the courts. Notably, it has been 

impliedly waived or restricted by this House. Section 13 

of the Defamation Act 1996 is a good example of 

Parliament deciding, in effect, to allow its privilege to 

be qualified. I have strong views on the wisdom of that 

legislation—it was foolish and has led to unintended 

consequences, which are at the heart of this debate. 

No Member of Parliament wants a diminution of its 

authority or power. This is an elected Chamber and we 

represent the people of this country. Sovereignty means 

just that. It is right that all hon. Members worry—even 

if it is sounds like lawyers’ caution—about any further 

unintended diminution of our authority. That is why I 

support amendment 6. Why not change clause 2(3) to 

put things as far beyond doubt as possible, mirroring 

what legislators did in 1911, to ensure that the spectre of 

the judiciary questioning and second-guessing the 

proceedings of the House does not become a reality? 

Mr Cox: I had not intended to speak, and I shall be 

extremely brief. Most of my remarks will be addressed 

to the Minister in the hope that he can provide the 

clarification in substance to the questions asked by my 

hon. Friends and Opposition Members, which I should 

like to reinforce. 

My first question is precisely that which my hon. 

Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) 

just asked. Why not add the proposed words? If clause 2(3) 

is intended to be an instruction to the courts that a 

certificate shall not be challenged, on the face of it there 

could be no real reason, unless the Minister has thought 

of something that others have not thought of or been 

advised otherwise, why the injunction of my hon. Friend 

the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), which is more expressive, 

explicit and detailed, should not be added. Will the 

Minister elucidate the purpose of stopping short at the 

word “purposes” and not going on to be as explicit as 

possible? 

I ask that because historically, ouster clauses in 

administrative law have not been conspicuously successful. 

The courts have not paid very much attention to interpreting 

their duty to examine such issues, and often even where 

the ouster clause has been passed. [Interruption.] I see 

from the sedentary reaction of my hon. Friend the 

Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath)—the 

Deputy Leader of the House—that the reason may be 

that such provisions are so pointless that there is no 

point in going any further. If that is the reason, it would 

be helpful if the Government made that clear, so that 

Members could consider that. I have to tell him that I 

do not consider the provision to be pointless—I would 

not imagine that the Government would do anything 

that was pointless in drafting the legislation. 

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of 

the House of Commons (Mr David Heath) indicated 

assent. 

Mr Cox: I see my hon. Friend nodding sagely. That 

provision therefore must have a function. If that function 

can be increased in its effect and efficacy by adding the 

proposed words, why not incorporate them? 

3pm 

That brings me to my second point. If it is necessary 

under clause 3(3) to try to instruct the courts that the 

certificate should not be justiciable—that it should not 

be considered—that must imply, as does my hon. Friend’s 

reaction from the Front Bench, that the Government 

are aware that the courts may well, even in remote and 

possibly extreme circumstances, become ensnared in the 

examination of these issues. One can see considerable 

skill and intelligence at work in the drafting of the Bill. 

One sees that it is intended not to be tempting to the 

courts. If we codify too much in statute, the danger is 

that the courts would be drawn into examining whether 

the preconditions for a motion of confidence had been 

met, whether the definitions were properly complied 

with and so on. What the legislation seems to be doing—if


this is the intention, it is a laudable one—is enacting, in 

broad outline, so as to make it clear to the courts, that 

the critical questions of definition and discretion are 

still for the House and the proper authorities of the 

House. It is a statute that is intended to preserve a 

certain flexibility and suppleness so that the courts are 

not drawn into examining such issues, whereas they 

would be if we laid down too precise a definition of the 

concepts that they involve. 

I appreciate that, and I see the point of it. It no doubt 

forms part of the Government’s confidence that the 

courts will not ordinarily enter into that territory. However, 

the mere presence of that ouster clause suggests that the 

Government are aware that in some circumstances they 

might. As the Government have indicated—albeit via a 

sedentary reaction—they are plainly aware that ouster 

clauses do not always work. That suggests to me that 

the Government are content—or at least have made a 

strategic decision—that in certain circumstances the 

judicial authorities may come to interpret and consider 

this legislation. I accept that that is highly unlikely in 

the ordinary case, given the amount of discretion, the 

amount of territory left to the Speaker and the ill-defined 

nature of many of the concepts. It would be a bold 

court indeed that entered into a discussion of such 

issues and allowed them to become the subject of a 

judicial review. 

Mr Jenkin: We all know that we are talking about 

heated and potentially controversial circumstances. If 

there was a raging controversy about alleged malpractice 

in our proceedings or surrounding them, and if public 

opinion was strongly supportive of one view or the 

other, there would be intense pressure on a court to 

intervene. Does my hon. and learned Friend not think it 

would be difficult for a court not to intervene under 

such circumstances? 

Mr Cox: No, I do not think that. Intense pressure is 

precisely what an independent judiciary is set up to 

resist. One would expect and hope for that from a senior 

judge. We are fortunate in the judiciary we have in this 

country. I hope that hon. Members will reflect carefully 

on some of the language that we have used in this 

debate today. It is not the case that the judiciary have an 

appetite to assume the powers of this House. Indeed, in 

my experience the preponderance in the judiciary is to 

be careful and scrupulous in the way they observe the 

parameters of judicial power. 

The problem is—if I can extend this parenthesis as 

briefly as I may—that we have invited the judiciary into 

the territory time after time, since the European 

Communities Act 1972, which fundamentally altered 

the constitutional arrangements in this country. It essentially 

meant that there was a higher constitutional court, 

namely the European Court of Justice—we already 

have it—which presupposes and believes it is capable of 

trumping domestic law. That ultimately led to a decision 

in a case called Factortame, in which an Act of Parliament 

was set aside by the House of Lords, on the basis of the 

seniority—or superiority—of the European Union’s law. 

Then we had the Human Rights Act 1998, which 

preserves—or attempts to preserve—a careful balance. 

Nevertheless, it invites the courts into consideration of 

the policies and legislative objectives—almost on the 

basis of their merits—that this House has always considered 

to be its prerogative and to fall within its exclusive 

sphere. The courts are careful, but they themselves 

acknowledge that the Human Rights Act has invited 

them further into that territory. 

Chris Bryant: The hon. and learned Gentleman is 

making an important contribution, and he is right 

about the reluctance of the courts, for the most part, to 

intervene and tread on our toes, as it were. However, the 

truth is that those elements of parliamentary privilege 

that attach because of not wishing to interfere with 

proceedings in Parliament get very fuzzy at the edges. 

Indeed, there are areas where others want the courts to 

express a view. My anxiety is not that there would be a 

challenge when the Speaker had issued a certificate, but 

that a challenge would be far more likely when the 

Speaker had decided not to do so. 

Mr Cox: I have heard that observation made, and I 

hope that the Minister will be able to address it. I do not 

feel quite as concerned as hon. Members who have 

expressed their views on that point, and I will say why. 

A court would very soon see through an argument that 

went: “The Speaker has not issued a certificate in 

circumstances where we”—the party bringing the 

application to the court—“think he should have done.” 

The reason is that if a certificate is conclusive for all 

purposes, so must the absence of a certificate be. I do 

not believe for a moment that a court would see the 

matter any other way when the Speaker had chosen not 

to make a certificate. Otherwise, we would have to have 

a provision in the Bill saying that if the Speaker chooses 

not to certify, that should not be challenged either. It 

must be implied that if a Speaker made a deliberate and 

conscious choice not to certify, the absence of the 

certificate—that choice—must equally be conclusive, 

and I think that most courts would see it that way. One 

could argue that that should be explicit in the Bill, but 

for my purposes, I would not have thought a court 

would find impressive an argument that said that a 

Speaker who decided not to certify could be judicially 

reviewed, whereas if he had certified—let us say, in the 

negative—he could not be. That would be pointless. 

Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab): The issuing 

or non-issuing of a certificate is a slightly false comparison. 

The issuing of a certificate would result in action—providing 

that it was not challenged successfully in a court—whereas 

the non-issuing of a certificate would, I presume, simply 

preserve the status quo. 

Mr Cox: What is the point of a certificate? It is not 

going to be challenged in a court, because the Government 

and this House will instruct the courts not to look at it. 

The point of the certificate is merely to express in 

writing the Speaker’s view that something had been a 

motion of confidence. If he does not issue a certificate, 

it is plainly the case that he has reached the view that it 

is not a motion of confidence. However, it is highly 

unlikely that the mere fact that a Speaker had produced 

that view but not committed it to a piece of paper 

would induce the courts to enter that territory and issue 

what used to be called a writ of mandamus—it is now 

called a mandatory order—to force him to do so. I find 

that improbable and implausible. I hope that the Minister 

will draw some comfort from that, but he should not 

draw complete comfort from it, because the mere fact


[Mr Cox] 

that we are considering whether the courts would or 

would not be able to enter this territory will induce 

litigants, lobby groups and political groups to bring 

these very applications before the courts to test out the 

territory. It will not be long before the courts start to 

consider the extent to which the Bill allows them in, and 

the extent to which it does not. That is where the hon. 

Gentleman of whose constituency I am shamefully 

ignorant— 

Chris Bryant: Stoke-on-Trent. 

Mr Cox: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central 

(Tristram Hunt) quoted the recent judgment of Lord 

Phillips, and that is important because Lord Phillips 

made it plain that the courts will reserve the power to 

define the parameters of parliamentary prerogative and 

privilege. If the Bill remains enacted in the law of this 

country for a long period, which I rather doubt, there 

will inevitably be a point at which the courts are invited 

in and at which they will start to examine the extent to 

which they can and cannot become involved. Their view 

might not entirely coincide with that of the Government. 

For example, the question of whether a certificate is 

valid might arise. The Bill states: 

“A certificate under this section is conclusive for all purposes.” 

A court might well feel entitled to consider whether, as a 

matter of law, it is in fact a certificate. In the past, that is 

the way in which ouster clauses have been outflanked. 

I am asking the Minister to consider this matter, and 

I am asking from the heart. I have noticed that, from 

time to time, he has found many of the interventions by 

Members not altogether to his taste. Perhaps the smile 

of the Cheshire cat is always seated on his face during 

these debates simply because of his serene command of 

his brief and his sublime confidence in the merits of this 

legislation. However, I ask him to address the consciences 

of many of the Members on his own side who have deep 

and sincere concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for 

Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) is among them, 

and when he rises to speak on matters of the constitution, 

he must always be listened to with respect. He may not 

be a lawyer but, by Jove, his instincts on the constitution 

are proud and honoured by a long tradition in this 

House. I pay tribute to him for standing up with such 

integrity and for such a long time for the traditional 

view of the constitution in this House. It is not a bad 

thing to stand up for tradition. It is not wrong to 

honour the way in which our forefathers constructed 

the constitution, the wisdom of it and the value that it 

has conveyed down the ages to the inhabitants of this 

country. 

Will the Minister address this matter? I hope that I 

have expressed myself modestly by saying that I do not 

endorse or adopt many of the more exaggerated flights 

of fantasy that have occasionally been bandied about 

the Floor of the House. However, it surely cannot be 

denied that there is some risk and some legitimate cause 

for concern, when this matter seems to prey on the 

minds and the consciences of so many Members of this 

House who are motivated by entirely sincere reasons, 

rather than merely by the need to hear the sound of 

their own voice. I ask the Minister to address those 

concerns with the sincerity with which they have been 

expressed. 

Mr Harper: I am grateful for those kind words from 

my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge 

and West Devon (Mr Cox). 

When Mr Hoyle was in the Chair last week, he made 

it clear that he did not intend to have a stand part 

debate on this clause as we will have touched on all 

parts of it when debating the amendments. Before I 

move on to considering the amendments, it is worth 

putting into context the parts of the clause about which 

Members are concerned. 

I think I am right in saying that the concerns expressed 

about privilege and about whether the courts should 

intervene have almost exclusively related to clause 2(2), 

which deals with motions of confidence. Interestingly, 

the Clerk of the House, in his evidence and in conversations 

with me, was not concerned about subsection (2), given 

that it uses a perfectly well-precedented certification 

procedure. His concern—I think I explain it accurately—was 

with subsection (1), which covers the certification of an 

early general election, rather than with the certification 

procedure in principle. His concern was with the nature 

of the procedure that had to take place before the 

Speaker certified. In other words, not only would the 

House have had to pass a motion on a Division, but a 

particular number of Members would have had to vote. 

3.15 pm 

Members expressed concern about motions of no 

confidence and the extent to which courts would want 

to interfere in them, but the Clerk of the House was 

exclusively concerned about clause 2(1), which deals 

with the House voting on a motion for an early general 

election, because of the two-thirds majority. 

Mr Jenkin: At the risk of repeating what I have 

already read out from the Speaker’s memorandum, I 

want to ensure that we are not speaking at cross-purposes. 

In paragraph 16 of the Committee’s report, the Clerk 

makes it very clear, in discussing clause 2(2), that 



for determination by the ordinary courts.” 

I do not think that the Clerk could have been clearer: it 

is subsection (2) that he is concerned about. 

Mr Harper: I had a conversation with the Clerk 

about the certification, with the majority being specified. 

The Government decided to place the provisions on the 

early general election in statute rather than relying on 

Standing Orders because, as I stated in the memorandum 

I placed in the Library on 13 September, we cannot 

achieve the policy objective by relying on Standing 

Orders, which can be changed by a simple majority— 

Mr Jenkin: That is not true. 

Mr Harper: Let me just finish this point, then I will 

take an intervention from my hon. Friend. 

Standing Orders can be changed by a simple majority. 

The Government’s view was that, if that was the case, 

the power to dissolve Parliament early would effectively 

be left with the Prime Minister. 

Mr Jenkin: I beg to suggest that, if the Minister had 

listened carefully to what I said earlier, he would have 

heard me reading from a letter I had received from


Mr Robert Rogers, who made it absolutely clear that it 

is possible to entrench a Standing Order of this House 

with its own super-majority. I am astonished that the 

Government do not understand that, and that the whole 

basis of this Bill seems to rest once more on the denial 

of advice given by the Clerks of the House. 

Mr Harper: My hon. Friend cited in the letter from 

Robert Rogers a reference to existing Standing Orders, 

which require a particular majority for an event to take 

place. I think he mentioned the requirement for 

100 Members to vote for a closure motion. There is no 

precedent for a Standing Order, passed by a simple 

majority, to entrench itself and require that it cannot be 

changed, other than by a vote of this House on a 

different majority. The Government know of no precedent 

for that, and no Member has given an example of one. 

If a Standing Order provided that an early general 

election could be held only after a vote with the specified 

majority, and if that Standing Order could be changed 

by a simple majority vote in the House, it would be 

open to the governing party, at the behest of the Prime 

Minister, to change the Standing Order and to trigger 

an early election based on the whim of the Executive. 

That is exactly what we are trying to remove under the 

Bill. The Government believe that if the policy objective 

is to be achieved, the procedure must be specified in 

statute. 

Mr Shepherd: If that is so—and I accept it as such—why 

does it not apply to the statute itself? 

Mr Harper: I think we have touched on that before. 

Once the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, it cannot 

be changed purely by a majority vote in the House of 

Commons. The decision would have to be made by 

Parliament, which would also engage the other place, in 

which the Government do not have a majority. Even 

after—[Interruption.] I anticipated that reaction. Even 

after the appointment of the new list of working peers, 

the governing parties together will have only 40% of the 

peers in the upper House; 60% will be Labour peers, 

Cross Benchers or Lords Spiritual. The fact that this 

will be an Act of Parliament makes it impossible for a 

majority vote of a governing party to bring about an 

early general election, which is our policy objective. 

Chris Bryant: The Minister is right in saying that the 

main difference is that the matter would have to be dealt 

with in the second Chamber. As I understand it, however, 

the coalition agreement states clearly that the Government’s 

aspiration is to create enough peers to meet the proportions 

formed by each of the parties in the general election. 

That would provide a majority of 56%—quite apart 

from the fact that, as far as I can see, virtually every 

remaining Liberal Democrat Member in the country 

will be a member of the Second Chamber. 

Mr Harper: I will not dwell on this issue at length, 

Mr Evans, because if I did so you would rule me out of 

order, but the coalition agreement does not say that. It 

says that we want to make the upper House more 

representative of the result in the general election, not 

exactly in line with it. The hon. Gentleman simply is not 

right. 

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram 

Hunt) quoted from a judgment. I will not be drawn into 

the specifics of the Chaytor case—although the Supreme 

Court has given its judgment, there are ongoing criminal 

trials—but the flaw in the hon. Gentleman’s argument 

lies in the fact that the case concerns the administration 

of the expenses scheme. The House of Commons has 

never asserted exclusive cognisance of the expenses 

scheme. It has never said that the scheme, its administration 

and the matters that flow from it are parliamentary 

proceedings, which is why that is not a good example. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court’s judgment recognises 

the exclusive right of each House of Parliament to 

manage its own affairs without interference from the 

other, or from outside Parliament. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North 

Essex quoted the views of the Clerk of the House. If the 

Government were alone in their view and the Clerk’s 

views were shared by everyone else, my hon. Friend 

would have a stronger case. The Political and Constitutional 

Reform Committee and the Lords Constitution Committee 

have taken a great deal of evidence, and the weight of 

independent expert evidence has supported the 

Government’s view. For example, Professor Robert 

Blackburn of King’s college London said—and I think 

that this is in line with the comments of my hon. and 

learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West 

Devon (Mr Cox)— 

“In my view, the government’s Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill 

has been technically well-drafted by the Cabinet Office’s parliamentary 

counsel, particularly in avoiding judicial review of its provisions 

on early elections by way of Speaker’s certificates”. 

The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), 

the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform 

Committee, said: 

“In the very limited time that we had to look at this matter, the 

Clerk was the only person to raise this question, and the academics 

who have been referred to—Professor Hazell, Professor Blackburn 

and others—completely disagreed with the view put forward by 

the Clerk.”—[Official Report, 13 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 632-3.] 

Tristram Hunt: The point was that we did not have 

enough time to hear other voices that might have agreed 

with the Clerk of the House, owing to our having to 

rush our consideration of the Bill and to the speed with 

which the Government are pushing it through. 

Mr Harper: That was also the experience of the 

Lords Constitution Committee—and, in fact, we have 

not been rushing the consideration of this Bill. We 

published it in July, Second Reading was in September, 

and this is the third day of the Committee stage, in 

December. We are hardly rushing forward at an enormously 

swift pace. Months have elapsed. I feel sure that if 

hundreds of constitutional lawyers and academics agreed 

with the Clerk and disagreed with the Government, we 

would have heard from them. 

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): Does my 

hon. Friend understand that the Committee had to rush 

through its work on this Bill and the Parliamentary 

Voting System and Constituencies Bill at the same time? 

Mr Harper: I am prepared to accept that consideration 

of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies 

Bill has been proceeding faster than consideration of 

this Bill, but I cannot accept that this Bill is being 

considered at a great pace. It was published five months 

ago, we have reached only the third day of the Committee 

stage, and the Report stage is still to come. I believe that


[Mr Harper] 

we have been proceeding at a sensible pace. Indeed, 

today’s proceedings were added when the Government 

realised that Members wished to engage in the debate at 

greater length. 

Chris Bryant: The Minister seems to suggest that all 

the evidence apart from that of the Clerk of the House 

falls into the other camp. The Committee listened to the 

various witnesses and reached a rather different 

conclusion—that the purpose of the Bill needed to be 

achieved without the courts being invited to question 

aspects of the House’s own procedures or the actions of 

the Speaker—and urged us to move in a rather different 

direction from the one advocated by the Government. 

Mr Harper: The Committee was quite right. I agree 

that we need to ensure that the courts do not question 

those matters. In a moment I will deal with the amendments 

and the Government’s reason for believing that the 

language we have used about the well-precedented use 

of Speaker’s certificates prevents the courts from questioning 

the Act. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North 

Essex observed that judges were not more interventionist. 

I believe there is evidence that there has been more 

judicial activism in judicial reviews of Executive decisions, 

but as far as I am aware there is no evidence that the 

courts have become more interventionist in challenging 

parliamentary proceedings. Executive decisions and 

decisions of Parliament are quite different from each 

other. Although the Supreme Court has a new name, it 

has no greater powers than the judicial Committee of 

the House of Lords that it replaced. I do not think that 

my hon. Friend’s concerns are well judged. 

My hon. Friend also referred to the European Court 

of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. 

The European Court of Justice can deal with matters 

related to European Union law; nothing in the Bill 

would engage it. Similarly, the functions of the Speaker 

under the Bill do not engage any of the rights conferred 

by the European Court of Human Rights. I think it was 

only last week that the Joint Committee on Human 

Rights agreed with that when it said that the Bill’s 

provisions did not need to be brought to the attention 

of either House on human rights grounds. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South 

Herefordshire (Jesse Norman)—who is not in the Chamber, 

as he has had to fulfil a long-standing and important 

engagement to attend a meeting elsewhere in the House— 

expressed concern about the European Court of Human 

Rights. In fact, it has shown the utmost respect for 

parliamentary privilege. In a 2003 case, A. v. United 

Kingdom, it was specifically held that article 9 of the 

Bill of Rights did not violate the convention by preventing 

an applicant from taking defamation proceedings against 

an MP for words said in parliamentary proceedings. 

The European Court of Human Rights strongly supported 

the contention that courts would not become involved 

in these matters. 

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member 

for Torridge and West Devon, who said that owing to 

the very nature of these events—the fact that they 

would be politically highly charged—judges would not 

be keen to rush in and engage in questions that are 

rightly to be resolved by political rather than legal 

means. I have heard no evidence, apart from assertion, 

that courts would do anything different. 

Mark Durkan: I gave the example from 2001 when, 

on the third attempt, David Trimble and I were jointly 

elected as First and Deputy First Minister by the Northern 

Ireland Assembly. That was taken to the courts. Yes, the 

courts did not touch on issues connected with 

the Assembly’s standing orders, but they did entertain 

the suggestion that the Secretary of State had failed to 

use the power and duty, given to him under law, to set a 

date for an election if no First and Deputy First Minister 

have been elected after six weeks. The Secretary of State 

did not do so, claiming that because he had notice of 

the potential to elect us, which had been issued by the 

end day of the six-week period, he could interpret 

the deadline differently. The court did not throw out the 

case and the judges—competent, serious, senior judges— 

divided on the issue. In the light of that precedent, the 

assurance of the hon. and learned Member for Torridge 

and West Devon (Mr Cox) does not stand. 

3.30 pm 

Mr Harper: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for 

me. He accurately sets out the fact that at issue was not 

a proceeding in Parliament—a decision of this House—but 

an executive decision by the Secretary of State. As I 

have said, there is lots of evidence that courts will 

challenge Ministers’ decisions, and one can argue about 

whether they will be right to do so; Ministers would 

probably argue they are not, but everyone else would 

probably argue that they are. The case the hon. Gentleman 

raises involved an executive decision; it was not a decision 

of this House or a proceeding in Parliament, and it is 

not protected under article 9. 

Mark Durkan: But what we are talking about is 

related to the closest equivalent in the Northern Ireland 

Act 1998 of the certificate powers being given to the 

Secretary of State. Sections 31 and 32 of the 1998 Act 

provide for the early Dissolution of the Assembly and 

early elections. They are the exact same powers, except 

that in Northern Ireland the Secretary of State has the 

powers of an “over-Speaker”, rather than their being 

vested in the Presiding Officer. They are the equivalent 

powers, however. 

Mr Harper: No, I think there is a rather crucial 

difference. The powers in that Act are given to a Minister— 

they are not proceedings in Parliament. That leads me 

nicely on to amendment 6— 

Chris Bryant rose— 

Mr Harper: But the hon. Gentleman is keen to get in. 

Chris Bryant: Sorry, but the Minister is using the 

phrase “proceedings in Parliament” as though it were a 

self-evidently clear concept, but a great deal of legislation 

and case law has analysed various different aspects of it 

and it is nowhere near as clear as he might presume. 

Mr Harper: No, and that leads to where I was going, 

which was to turn to amendment 6 and to explain why 

we are using the language of the device of a Speaker’s


certificate. There are precedents that have stood the test 

of time, which is why Professor Blackburn expressed 

the feeling in the quotation I read that parliamentary 

counsel had drafted the Bill well. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) 

tabled amendment 6 and my hon. Friend the Member 

for Harwich and North Essex spoke to it. I can see why 

they would want to use the wording in the Parliament 

Act 1911, but the Bill says the Speaker’s certificate is 

“conclusive for all purposes” and the Government do 

not think inserting the words 

“shall not be…questioned in any court of law” 

adds anything. The 1911 wording has, indeed, stood the 

test of time, but it used the language of the early-20th 

century. Later legislation used different wording. The 

House of Lords Act 1999 used exactly the wording we 

have used, which provides that certificates of the Clerk 

of the Parliaments on questions of whether an hereditary 

peer is one of the excepted 92 hereditary peers are 

conclusive. The provisions have worked well in practice, 

whereas wording consistent with the Parliament Act 1911 

could bring into question whether protections in more 

recent Acts were meant to be an inferior sort of protection. 

We think that would be undesirable. 

Provided certificates are conclusive for all purposes, it 

is perfectly adequate to show that it is for the Speaker to 

decide whether the conditions for an early election have 

been satisfied, not for the courts or the Executive. The 

effect and the intention of the drafting are perfectly 

clear. Although the additional words in amendment 6 

might appear attractive, they would not add anything to 

the protection in the Bill. There is no evidence or reason 

to think the courts would want to trespass on what 

would effectively be highly politicised issues or that they 

would not continue to regard matters relating to the 

internal operation of the House as “proceedings in 

Parliament”. 

I should also like to deal with the wording in 

amendment 6 that seeks to prevent a Speaker’s certificate 

issued under clause 2 from being “presented” to a court. 

I can see why my hon. Friend the Member for Stone is 

trying to do that, but it seems to me that that takes a 

step backwards. Being able to present the certificate to 

the court is the simplest and easiest way of informing 

the court that the conditions for an early election exist 

and the Speaker has made the decision. That stops the 

court being tempted to dwell on proceedings in Parliament; 

it has a clear piece of paper that explains that the 

Speaker has made that determination and the court 

need go no further. 

Mr Cox: Let us suppose that the Speaker issued a 

certificate that omitted one of the matters that the 

statute required him to certify. Would it not be open to a 

petitioner to argue in court that there had been a failure 

to comply with the conditions that made a certificate 

valid and that the court was entitled to examine whether 

it was a certificate before obeying the ouster that prevents 

it from challenging the certificate? 

Mr Harper: My hon. and learned Friend makes a 

point that relates to the use of certificates, but what he 

describes would be perfectly true of the certificate that 

the Speaker issues on money Bills and the certification 

that he issues under the Parliament Act. Those are well 

precedented and have stood the test of time. The courts 

have been content to hold that the fact that the certificate 

has been issued by the Speaker is indeed conclusive for 

all purposes and they have not sought to challenge it. 

Mr Cox: We are dealing with a fundamentally different 

sphere here. Whether or not a Bill is a money Bill is the 

kind of decision that is suitable only for a legislative 

Assembly, but on this matter the courts would regard 

themselves as guarding the right to an election, which is 

a fundamental right of the population of this country. 

If Parliament had prescribed that an election should 

take place and a certificate was defective because it did 

not stipulate one of the requisite terms, the courts may 

regard that as an area into which they ought to go to 

safeguard the right to an election. 

Mr Harper: If a certificate was issued by the Speaker, 

we would be having an election, not stopping one 

taking place. I do not think that my hon. and learned 

Friend’s concern that the courts would hold that the 

population were being deprived of an election would 

apply. The language used in the Bill was chosen for 

exactly the reasons I have suggested. We have used 

well-precedented, tried and tested language; it has stood 

the test of time. It is perfectly true to say that people can 

make groundless applications to courts on all sorts of 

things, but courts quickly dismiss them and prevent 

them from proceeding further. We are confident that 

these proposals are robust and will not have the effect 

that hon. Members suggest. 

In the few minutes remaining, I wish to discuss 

amendment 23, because the hon. Member for Rhondda 

(Chris Bryant) suggested that he wanted to ask you, 

Mr Evans, whether he could press it to a Division. The 

amendment proposes a 24-hour time limit for the issuing 

of the Speaker’s certificate. I can superficially see why 

that might be attractive, but it sets some conditions that 

might introduce elements casting doubt on the validity 

of the certificate if it were delayed, even if it were by 

only a few minutes, or if it were issued close to the time 

limit. Thus, the amendment would enable people to 

question the certificate. We should therefore rely on the 

standard practice, whereby the Speaker’s certificate is 

the conclusive provision. 

Given what I have said, I hope that hon. Members 

will not seek to press their amendments to a Division 

and that we are able to proceed with the debate. 

Mr Jenkin: I am most grateful, Mr Evans, for the 

opportunity to reply to the debate. 

I regret that I feel compelled to press this matter to a 

vote, but I feel that the Minister’s response has been 

wholly unconvincing. We are faced with adamant and 

clear advice from the Clerk of the House that the 

Minister has chosen to dismiss as irrelevant. Let me 

remind the House what the Clerk said: 



for determination by the ordinary courts.” 

That includes 

“what constitutes a confidence motion, the selection of amendments 

to such Motions and the consequences of their being carried”. 

He goes on to say: 

“As these would become justiciable questions, the courts could 

be drawn into matters of acute political controversy.” 

The Minister has not responded with anything substantive 

to defeat that advice.


[Mr Jenkin] 

Moreover, the Minister has rested his justification for 

the Bill on the assertion that it would not be possible to 

write these provisions into the Standing Orders, which 

would be automatically immune. Let me read from the 

Clerk’s memorandum again. He said that 

“a Standing Order regulating the matters in the Bill could provide 

for its staying in effect unless repealed by a specified majority”, 

meaning that it could be entrenched, 

“for example by…equal to or greater than two thirds of the 

number of seats in the House. Not only is the principle of 

specifying majorities already written into the Standing Orders of 

the House, but in the past the House has also required a relative 

majority for reaching decision.” 

My hon. Friend the Minister also dismissed the 

comments that I read from Mr Robert Rogers, the Clerk 

Assistant and Director General, who made it clear that 

we can not only write into our Standing Orders provisions 

requiring super-majorities, but entrench a—[Interruption.] 

I am rather distressed that the Minister is not even 

listening to what I am saying. We can entrench a Standing 

Order with its own super-majority so that it could be 

removed only by a super-majority, if that is what the 

House chose to do. The whole basis of the Government’s 

advice remains contested by the Clerks. The basis of the 

Bill—that this has to be done through statute—also 

remains contested by the Clerks. 

I doubt that we will win the vote in the Committee 

this afternoon, but the Minister has failed to give a full 

response or to acknowledge any of the points that have 

been made. His subsection refers to a Speaker’s “certificate 

under this section”, which is very unspecific. At least 

the amendment states 

“Any certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons 

given under this section shall be conclusive for all purposes”. 

That word “any” and the reference to the Speaker make 

it clear that whatever the Speaker issues is uncontested, 

rather than leave it open to the courts to determine 

whether the certificate presented by the Speaker complies 

with the legislation. I am afraid that the Minister has 

not satisfied me and I do not think that he has satisfied 

a great many of my colleagues on the Government 

Benches or in the official Opposition. I want to press 

the amendment to a vote. 


The Committee proceeded to a Division. 

Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD): On a point of order, Mr Evans. 

At lunchtime today I was sitting in the Terrace cafeteria 

and, for the second time in a fortnight, I was unable to 

hear the Division bells at all. There was nothing to 

indicate that a vote was taking place. Can you facilitate 

Members’ ability to vote if they are sitting in that area, 

perhaps by asking the Badge Messengers to inform 

them that a vote is taking place while the problem is 

sorted out? 

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel 

Evans): Thank you for that point of order. I must say 

that I have taken a number of points of order in a 

similar vein since taking the Chair on 8 June, and this is 

clearly worrying for Members as well as irritating for 

the Chair. I will instruct that the matter be fully investigated, 

not just in the area that the hon. Lady has spoken 

about, but throughout the parliamentary estate. Clearly, 

it could affect the outcome of a vote. In the short term, 

I ask that, every time there is a Division today, a 

messenger goes particularly to that part of the House to 

ensure that Members are made aware that a Division is 

taking place. 

The Committee having divided: Ayes 231, Noes 295. 


[3.42 pm 






Austin, Ian 


Balls, rh Ed 

Banks, Gordon 


Bayley, Hugh 





Blackman-Woods, 

Roberta 







Brown, Lyn 



Bryant, Chris 






Cairns, David 



Caton, Martin 


Clark, Katy 


Clwyd, rh Ann 


Coffey, Ann 

Cooper, Rosie 

Corbyn, Jeremy 


Creagh, Mary 

Creasy, Stella 

Cruddas, Jon 





Dakin, Nic 





Dobson, rh Frank 




AYES 

Doyle, Gemma 

Dromey, Jack 


Durkan, Mark 


Eagle, Maria 


Efford, Clive 




Evans, Chris 

Field, rh Mr Frank 





Gapes, Mike 



Glass, Pat 

Godsiff, Mr Roger 



Greatrex, Tom 

Green, Kate 


Griffith, Nia 


Hain, rh Mr Peter 




Havard, Mr Dai 




Heyes, David 

Hillier, Meg 













Jones, Graham 

Jones, Helen 




Joyce, Eric 



Keen, Alan 

Kendall, Liz




Lavery, Ian 

Leslie, Chris 

Lloyd, Tony 




Lucas, Ian 

MacNeil, Mr Angus 

Brendan 





Mann, John 


McCann, Mr Michael 





McGovern, Jim 


McKechin, Ann 



Mearns, Ian 


Miliband, rh David 






(Easington) 


Munn, Meg 



Murray, Ian 

Nandy, Lisa 

Nash, Pamela 



Onwurah, Chi 

Owen, Albert 

Paisley, Ian 


Perkins, Toby 



Raynsford, rh Mr 

Nick 




Riordan, Mrs Linda 

Robertson, Angus 

Adams, Nigel 

Aldous, Peter 






Baker, Norman 

Baker, Steve 

Baldry, Tony 

NOES 




Roy, Mr Frank 

Roy, Lindsay 

Ruane, Chris 


Sarwar, Anas 


Shannon, Jim 




Sheridan, Jim 

Shuker, Gavin 





Smith, Angela 

Smith, Nick 

Smith, Owen 









Trickett, Jon 


Turner, Karl 

Twigg, Derek 



Vaz, rh Keith 

Vaz, Valerie 


Walley, Joan 







Wilson, Phil 

Wilson, Sammy 


Wishart, Pete 

Woodcock, John 

Woodward, rh Mr Shaun 

Wright, David 



Mr David Hamilton and 

Mr Bernard Jenkin 





Bebb, Guto 




Berry, Jake 



Blackman, Bob 



Boles, Nick 



Brake, Tom 

Bray, Angie 






Bruce, Fiona 

Bruce, rh Malcolm 


Burns, Conor 


Burstow, Paul 

Burt, Lorely 

Byles, Dan 


Cairns, Alun 

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies 















(Monmouth) 

Davies, Glyn 


de Bois, Nick 







Duncan Smith, rh Mr 

Iain 



Ellison, Jane 



Evans, Graham 





Farron, Tim 


Field, Mr Mark 


Fox,rhDrLiam 







Garnier, Mark 



Gibb, Mr Nick 

Gilbert, Stephen 








Green, Damian 




Gummer, Ben 


Hames, Duncan 



Hands, Greg 




Hart, Simon 

Harvey, Nick 





Hemming, John 




Hermon, Lady 

Hinds, Damian 



Hopkins, Kris 



Howell, John 

Hughes, Simon 


Hunter, Mark 


Hurd, Mr Nick 




Jones, Andrew 




Kelly, Chris 




Lamb, Norman 





Lee, Jessica 







Lilley, rh Mr Peter



Long, Naomi 



Loughton, Tim 

Luff, Peter 

Lumley, Karen 

Macleod, Mary 

Maynard, Paul 



McLoughlin, rh Mr 

Patrick 


McVey, Esther 

Menzies, Mark 



Miller, Maria 

Mills, Nigel 

Milton, Anne 


Moore, rh Michael 


Morgan, Nicky 


Morris, David 

Morris, James 


Mowat, David 



Munt, Tessa 



Neill, Robert 


Newton, Sarah 





Opperman, Guy 



Patel, Priti 

Paterson, rh Mr 

Owen 

Pawsey, Mark 

Penning, Mike 

Penrose, John 

Percy, Andrew 

Perry, Claire 





Pugh, Dr John 





Reid, Mr Alan 


Robathan, Mr Andrew 


Rogerson, Dan 

Rosindell, Andrew 


Russell, Bob 


Rutley, David 


Sandys, Laura 

Scott, Mr Lee 



Sharma, Alok 






Smith, Julian 


Soubry, Anna 

Spelman, rh Mrs 

Caroline 




Stewart, Bob 

Stewart, Iain 

Stewart, Rory 


Stride, Mel 




Swales, Ian 


Swinson, Jo 




Thurso, John 



Tredinnick, David 


Tyrie, Mr Andrew 

Uppal, Paul 








Webb, Steve 

Wharton, James 


White, Chris 


Wiggin, Bill 









Wright, Simon 

Yeo, Mr Tim 




Jeremy Wright and 


More than three hours having elapsed since the 

commencement of proceedings, the proceedings were 

interrupted (Programme Orders, 13 September and 

24 November). 

The Chair put forthwith the Questions necessary for 

the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time 

(Standing Order No. 83D). 

Amendment proposed: 23, in clause 2, page 2, line 17, at 

end insert— 

‘(4A) The Speaker shall issue a certificate under subsection (1) 

or (2) within 24 hours of the relevant conditions being met under 

subsection (1) or (2).’.—(Chris Bryant.) 




[3.56 pm 






Austin, Ian 


Balls, rh Ed 

Banks, Gordon 


Bayley, Hugh 












Brown, Lyn 



Bryant, Chris 





Cairns, David 



Caton, Martin 


Clark, Katy 


Clwyd, rh Ann 


Coffey, Ann 

Cooper, Rosie 



Creagh, Mary 






Dakin, Nic 



AYES 








Doyle, Gemma 

Dromey, Jack 



Eagle, Maria 


Efford, Clive 




Evans, Chris 

Farrelly, Paul 






Gapes, Mike 



Glass, Pat 




Greatrex, Tom 

Green, Kate 


Griffith, Nia 









Hermon, Lady 

Heyes, David 

Hillier, Meg 






Howarth, rh Mr George








Jones, Graham 

Jones, Helen 




Joyce, Eric 



Keen, Alan 

Kendall, Liz 



Lavery, Ian 

Lazarowicz, Mark 

Leslie, Chris 


Lloyd, Tony 




Lucas, Ian 





Mann, John 







McGovern, Jim 


McKechin, Ann 



Mearns, Ian 








(Easington) 


Munn, Meg 


Murray, Ian 

Nandy, Lisa 

Nash, Pamela 



Onwurah, Chi 

Owen, Albert 

Paisley, Ian 


Perkins, Toby 

Adams, Nigel 

Afriyie, Adam 

Aldous, Peter 


NOES 











Roy, Mr Frank 

Roy, Lindsay 

Ruane, Chris 


Sarwar, Anas 


Shannon, Jim 




Sheridan, Jim 

Shuker, Gavin 





Smith, Angela 

Smith, Nick 

Smith, Owen 









Trickett, Jon 


Turner, Karl 

Twigg, Derek 



Vaz, rh Keith 

Vaz, Valerie 

Walley, Joan 







Wilson, Phil 

Wilson, Sammy 



Wishart, Pete 



Wright, David 



Mark Hendrick and 

Mr David Hamilton 





Baker, Norman 

Baker, Steve 

Baldry, Tony 





Bebb, Guto 



Berry, Jake 



Blackman, Bob 



Boles, Nick 




Brake, Tom 

Bray, Angie 






Bruce, Fiona 




Burns, Conor 


Burstow, Paul 

Burt, Lorely 

Byles, Dan 


Cairns, Alun 

















(Monmouth) 

Davies, Glyn 


de Bois, Nick 








Iain 



Ellison, Jane 



Evans, Graham 





Farron, Tim 










Garnier, Mark 



Gibb, Mr Nick 



Glen, John 







Green, Damian 




Gummer, Ben 


Hames, Duncan 



Hands, Greg 




Hart, Simon 

Harvey, Nick 

Haselhurst, rh Sir 

Alan 




Hemming, John 




Hinds, Damian 



Hopkins, Kris 



Howell, John 

Hughes, Simon 



Hurd, Mr Nick 




Jones, Andrew 




Kelly, Chris 


Kwarteng, Kwasi



Lamb, Norman 




Lee, Jessica 









Long, Naomi 



Loughton, Tim 

Luff, Peter 

Lumley, Karen 

Macleod, Mary 


Maynard, Paul 




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 


Norman, Jesse 




Opperman, Guy 



Patel, Priti 


Pawsey, Mark 

Penning, Mike 

Penrose, John 

Percy, Andrew 

Perry, Claire 





Pugh, Dr John 






Reevell, Simon 

Reid, Mr Alan 




Rogerson, Dan 



Russell, Bob 

Rutley, David 


Scott, Mr Lee 



Sharma, Alok 






Smith, Julian 



Soubry, Anna 

Spelman, rh Mrs 

Caroline 




Stewart, Bob 

Stewart, Iain 

Stewart, Rory 


Stride, Mel 




Swales, Ian 


Swinson, Jo 




Thurso, John 






Uppal, Paul 









Webb, Steve 



White, Chris 



Wiggin, Bill 










Wright, Simon 

Yeo, Mr Tim 







Amendment proposed: 25, in page 2, line 24, at end 

add— 

‘(6A) In this section a “motion of no confidence in Her 

Majesty’s Government” shall be— 

(a) in the terms “This House has no confidence in Her 

Majesty’s Government” or 

(b) in the terms “This House has no confidence in the 

Prime Minister”.’.—(Chris Bryant.) 




[4.08 pm 






Austin, Ian 


Banks, Gordon 


Bayley, Hugh 






Roberta 







Brown, Lyn 



Bryant, Chris 





Cairns, David 



Caton, Martin 


Clark, Katy 


Clwyd, rh Ann 


Coffey, Ann 

Cooper, Rosie 



Creagh, Mary 


Cruddas, Jon 


AYES 




Dakin, Nic 








Donohoe, Mr Brian 

H. 


Doyle, Gemma 

Dromey, Jack 



Eagle, Maria 


Efford, Clive 




Evans, Chris 







Gapes, Mike 



Glass, Pat 




Greatrex, Tom 

Green, Kate 


Griffith, Nia 





Harris, Mr Tom





Hermon, Lady 

Heyes, David 

Hillier, Meg 













Jones, Graham 

Jones, Helen 




Joyce, Eric 



Keen, Alan 

Kendall, Liz 



Lavery, Ian 


Leslie, Chris 


Lloyd, Tony 


Long, Naomi 



Lucas, Ian 

MacNeil, Mr Angus 

Brendan 




Mann, John 







McGovern, Jim 


McKechin, Ann 



Mearns, Ian 








(Easington) 


Munn, Meg 


Murray, Ian 

Nandy, Lisa 

Nash, Pamela 



Onwurah, Chi 

Owen, Albert 

Paisley, Ian 


Perkins, Toby 











Roy, Mr Frank 

Roy, Lindsay 

Ruane, Chris 


Sarwar, Anas 


Shannon, Jim 



Sheridan, Jim 

Shuker, Gavin 





Smith, Angela 

Smith, Nick 

Smith, Owen 









Trickett, Jon 


Turner, Karl 

Twigg, Derek 



Vaz, rh Keith 

Vaz, Valerie 

Walley, Joan 







Wilson, Phil 

Wilson, Sammy 



Wishart, Pete 



Wright, David 




Mark Hendrick 

Adams, Nigel 

Afriyie, Adam 

Aldous, Peter 






Baker, Norman 

Baker, Steve 

Baldry, Tony 





Bebb, Guto 



Berry, Jake 



Blackman, Bob 



Boles, Nick 




Brake, Tom 

Bray, Angie 






Bruce, Fiona 




Burns, Conor 


Burstow, Paul 

Burt, Lorely 

Byles, Dan 


Cairns, Alun 
















(Monmouth) 

Davies, Glyn 


de Bois, Nick 







NOES 




Ellison, Jane 



Evans, Graham 





Farron, Tim 










Garnier, Mark 



Gibb, Mr Nick 



Glen, John 






Green, Damian 




Gummer, Ben 


Hames, Duncan 



Hands, Greg 




Hart, Simon 

Harvey, Nick 





Hemming, John 




Hinds, Damian 



Hopkins, Kris 



Howell, John 

Hughes, Simon 


Hunter, Mark 


Hurd, Mr Nick 



Johnson, Joseph


Jones, Andrew 




Kelly, Chris 




Lamb, Norman 




Lee, Jessica 










Loughton, Tim 

Luff, Peter 

Lumley, Karen 

Macleod, Mary 


Maynard, Paul 




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 


Norman, Jesse 




Opperman, Guy 



Patel, Priti 


Pawsey, Mark 

Penning, Mike 

Penrose, John 

Percy, Andrew 

Perry, Claire 





Pugh, Dr John 







Reid, Mr Alan 




Rogerson, Dan 



Russell, Bob 

Rutley, David 


Sandys, Laura 

Scott, Mr Lee 



Sharma, Alok 





Smith, Julian 



Soubry, Anna 





Stewart, Bob 

Stewart, Iain 

Stewart, Rory 


Stride, Mel 



Swales, Ian 


Swinson, Jo 




Thurso, John 






Uppal, Paul 










Webb, Steve 



White, Chris 



Wiggin, Bill 









Wright, Simon 

Yeo, Mr Tim 




Miss Chloe Smith and 

Jeremy Wright 


Question put (single Question on successive provisions 

of the Bill), That clauses 2 to 4 stand part of the Bill. 



[4.21 pm 

Adams, Nigel 

Aldous, Peter 





Baker, Norman 

Baker, Steve 

Baldry, Tony 





Bebb, Guto 




Berry, Jake 



Blackman, Bob 



Boles, Nick 




Brake, Tom 

Bray, Angie 






Bruce, Fiona 




Burns, Conor 


Burstow, Paul 

Burt, Lorely 

Byles, Dan 

Cairns, Alun 










AYES 








(Monmouth) 

Davies, Glyn 


de Bois, Nick 









Iain 



Ellison, Jane 



Evans, Graham 





Farron, Tim 










Garnier, Mark 



Gibb, Mr Nick 



Glen, John 






Grayling, rh Chris


Green, Damian 




Gummer, Ben 


Hames, Duncan 



Hands, Greg 




Hart, Simon 

Harvey, Nick 





Hemming, John 




Hermon, Lady 

Hinds, Damian 



Hopkins, Kris 



Howell, John 

Hughes, Simon 


Hunter, Mark 


Hurd, Mr Nick 




Jones, Andrew 




Kelly, Chris 




Lamb, Norman 




Lee, Jessica 









Long, Naomi 



Loughton, Tim 

Luff, Peter 

Lumley, Karen 

Macleod, Mary 


Maynard, Paul 



McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick 


McVey, Esther 

Menzies, Mark 



Miller, Maria 

Mills, Nigel 

Milton, Anne 

Mitchell, rh Mr 

Andrew 



Morgan, Nicky 


Morris, David 

Morris, James 


Mowat, David 



Munt, Tessa 



Neill, Robert 


Newton, Sarah 


Norman, Jesse 




Opperman, Guy 



Paisley, Ian 

Patel, Priti 

Paterson, rh Mr 

Owen 

Pawsey, Mark 

Penning, Mike 

Penrose, John 

Percy, Andrew 

Perry, Claire 





Pugh, Dr John 







Reid, Mr Alan 



Rogerson, Dan 



Russell, Bob 

Rutley, David 


Sandys, Laura 

Scott, Mr Lee 


Shannon, Jim 


Sharma, Alok 






Smith, Julian 



Soubry, Anna 





Stewart, Bob 

Stewart, Iain 

Stewart, Rory 


Stride, Mel 




Swales, Ian 


Swinson, Jo 




Thurso, John 






Uppal, Paul 







Austin, Ian 


Banks, Gordon 


Bayley, Hugh 






Roberta 







Brown, Lyn 



Bryant, Chris 





Cairns, David 



Caton, Martin 


Clark, Katy 


NOES 









Webb, Steve 



White, Chris 


Whittingdale, Mr 

John 

Wiggin, Bill 








Wilson, Sammy 


Wright, Simon 

Yeo, Mr Tim 




Miss Chloe Smith and 

Jeremy Wright 

Clwyd, rh Ann 


Coffey, Ann 

Cooper, Rosie 



Creagh, Mary 


Cruddas, Jon 





Dakin, Nic 







Donohoe, Mr Brian 

H. 


Doyle, Gemma 

Dromey, Jack 



Eagle, Maria 


Efford, Clive 




Evans, Chris 



Fitzpatrick, Jim





Gapes, Mike 



Glass, Pat 




Greatrex, Tom 

Green, Kate 


Griffith, Nia 









Heyes, David 

Hillier, Meg 












Jones, Graham 

Jones, Helen 




Joyce, Eric 



Keen, Alan 

Kendall, Liz 


Lavery, Ian 


Leslie, Chris 


Lloyd, Tony 




Lucas, Ian 





Mann, John 







McGovern, Jim 


McKechin, Ann 



Mearns, Ian 








(Easington) 


Munn, Meg 



Murray, Ian 

Nandy, Lisa 

Nash, Pamela 



Onwurah, Chi 

Owen, Albert 


Perkins, Toby 











Roy, Mr Frank 

Roy, Lindsay 


Sarwar, Anas 




Sheridan, Jim 

Shuker, Gavin 




Smith, Angela 

Smith, Nick 

Smith, Owen 








Trickett, Jon 

Turner, Karl 

Twigg, Derek 



Vaz, rh Keith 

Vaz, Valerie 

Walley, Joan 







Wilson, Phil 



Wishart, Pete 



Wright, David 




Mark Hendrick 

Question accordingly agreed to. 

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Schedule 

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS ETC 

Amendments made: Government amendment 14, page 4, 

line 9, at end insert— 

‘Parliament Act 1911 (c. 13) 

3A In the Parliament Act 1911 omit section 7.’. 

Government amendment 15, page 4, line 16, at end 

insert— 

‘7A In section 119(2) after “mourning” insert “(but, in relation to 

a parliamentary general election, excluding any day to which 

rule 2 of the parliamentary elections rules does not apply by 

virtue of rule 2(2A))”.’. 


insert— 

‘(3A) Omit paragraph (2)(ii) and the “and” before it.’. 


insert— 

‘But, in relation to any proceedings commenced afresh by 

reason of a candidate’s death, this paragraph is to be ignored.”.’. 


insert— 

‘9A In rule 6A(4) in Schedule 1 after “rule 2(1)” insert “(subject 

to rule 2(2A))”.’. 


insert— 

‘15A In section 22(2A) after “1983” insert “(subject to 

rule 2(2A))”.’.—(Mr Harper.) 

Schedule, as amended, agreed to. 

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair. 

Bill, as amended, reported. 

Bill to be considered tomorrow 

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): I now have to 

announce the results of the Division deferred from a 

previous day. In the Division on the Question relating 

to the Scottish Parliament, the Ayes were 317 and the 

Noes were 212, so the Ayes have it. 

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s 

debates.]

889 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 890 

National Policy Statements 

[Relevant documents: The Third Report from the Energy 

and Climate Change Committee, Session 2009-10, on 

The proposals for national policy statements on energy, 

HC 231, and the Government’s response thereto, and the 

Minutes of Evidence taken before the Energy and Climate 

Change Committee on 30 November, HC 648-i.] 

4.35 pm 

The Minister of State, Department of Energy and 

Climate Change (Charles Hendry): I beg to move, 

That this House has considered the matter of the draft Energy 

National Policy Statements. 

The revised draft national policy statements for energy 

set out national policy, which must be considered in 

determining whether consent should be granted to 

infrastructure projects that are examined by the 

Infrastructure Planning Commission. As right hon. and 

hon. Members will be aware, the previous Administration 

consulted on a suite of draft energy national policy 

statements between November 2009 and February 2010. 

Alongside that consultation, Parliament undertook scrutiny 

of the draft national policy statements. Scrutiny in this 

House was undertaken by the Select Committee on 

Energy and Climate Change, which held a number of 

oral hearings, requested written evidence and published 

a report of its findings, together with 30 recommendations 

and conclusions. I would like to take this opportunity to 

thank the then members of the Committee for the 

important work that they undertook and the thoroughness 

with which they approached it. 

This afternoon’s debate is part of Parliament’s scrutiny 

of the draft energy national policy statements, so I will 

talk about the purpose of national policy statements 

and the changes that we have made to them, the 

parliamentary scrutiny process required for national 

policy statements, and the coalition Government’s proposals 

for planning reform. The statements are complicated, 

lengthy documents that cover all aspects of energy 

policy, so I will talk at some length in introducing them. 

I hope that the House will bear with me. I will also give 

way to any interventions from hon. Members wishing 

to raise concerns. However, before going into the detail 

of the national policy statements, I would like to take a 

moment to set out the background to the coalition 

Government’s energy policy and the need to build new 

major energy infrastructure, as it is against that background 

that such massive new investment is required. 

Our energy policy is based on four pillars: energy 

saving, more renewables, new nuclear, and clean coal 

and gas. That includes the green deal, which we believe 

will help to bring existing buildings up to 21st-century 

efficiency standards. We are taking steps to reduce 

demand for gas through both energy efficiency measures 

to help improve our energy security, and demand-side 

response, through interruptable contracts for large users 

that will ensure that domestic users are prioritised in an 

emergency. A reduction in demand will also help to 

improve our energy security. Under the green deal, 

home owners and businesses will be able to get energy 

efficiency improvements without having to pay cash in 

advance. The private sector will provide the up-front 

funding, receiving its money back from the energy 

savings on household bills. That will help to save energy, 

reduce carbon and protect energy consumers from price 

rises through greater energy savings. 

John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab): I commend 

the hon. Gentleman on the work that he did on the 

Energy and Climate Change Committee, and on which 

he congratulated everyone involved—they say that selfpraise 

is no praise, but there we go. My great worry, and 

that of many of my colleagues on the Opposition 

Benches, is that the poor will always suffer. While 

everybody else is looking for ways of saving money, 

they cannot do so. What will his Government do to help 

people who perhaps cannot afford to do what is necessary 

to make the savings that he is talking about? 

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman has often raised 

this issue in the Select Committee in the past, and it 

should be at the heart of our thinking. At this time of 

year, when people are struggling to pay their bills, how 

they will pay them in the future is a matter of great 

concern to us. 

The nature of the green deal is that it does not 

depend on the creditworthiness of the individual 

householder. A charge will be set against the future 

energy bills of their property, with the condition that 

the total cost of the energy efficiency measures should 

be such that it can be repaid through that extra charge 

over a period of 20 or 25 years. So the people living in 

those properties will get the immediate full benefit in 

terms of warmth and reduced energy consumption, but 

the charge will be brought back over time. We think that 

this policy has been devised in a way that has at its heart 

the interests of those who are fuel poor and have 

difficulty in paying their bills. The hon. Gentleman is 

absolutely right to say that, in all these issues, there are 

massive costs for consumers. Our job as a Government 

is to find ways of trying to drive down the number of 

units that consumers will be using. The green deal is 

part of that process, as is smart metering. 


Co-op): May I issue an appeal to the Minister and his 

colleagues that, as the green deal mechanism is being 

finalised and formulated, it should not be targeted at 

only cavity wall and loft insulation? There are many 

properties in my constituency and elsewhere for which 

that would be no use at all, and some of those properties 

are among the least fuel efficient. 

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman brings to the 

House a huge amount of expertise on these issues and I 

very much welcome his contribution. He has touched 

on an issue that is at the core of our thinking on how to 

take the green deal forward. He is absolutely right to say 

that, while a significant number of houses would be 

helped if it were to address issues of cavity wall and loft 

insulation, there are many that do not have cavity walls 

and many that need additional measures. We are looking 

at the role that boilers can play in regard to energy 

efficiency, because that area has not been given sufficient 

attention in the past. The key will be to find a range of 

measures that are relevant to each individual property, 

the savings from which will justify the investment over 

time. I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance 

that the type of houses that he is talking about in his 

constituency, in mine, and in many others across the 

country will be very much included as the green deal is 

developed.

891 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 892 

Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): In my 

constituency, many properties are not on the gas network, 

and there are no plans to expand the network into many 

of the small villages there. Will those properties be able 

to access alternative sources of heating through the 

green deal, perhaps through air source heat pumps and 

so on? 

Charles Hendry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for 

the work that he has done to highlight issues such as 

these. We said in the coalition agreement that prioritising 

off-grid customers would be an important part of what 

we are seeking to do. However, the help for them will 

not come through the measures in the green deal. His 

constituents will of course be eligible for support for 

energy efficiency measures through the green deal, but 

the renewable heat incentive will give them support for 

other mechanisms such as air source heat pumps, ground 

source heat pumps and solar thermal installations. There 

will be a different funding mechanism for that, and we 

have confirmed that £860 million will be made available 

for the renewable heat incentive. We will set out the 

precise details of that in the next few weeks, and it will 

target precisely the people that he is most concerned 

about in that respect. 

Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab): The Minister has 

been very effective in campaigning for the extension of 

the gas network throughout the United Kingdom, but 

what he has just said will be of little comfort to people 

in many areas who simply want a choice. At present, 

they have oil or liquefied petroleum gas, but they want 

mains gas, which is often located only a few hundred 

yards away from their village or hamlet. Do the Government 

understand their frustration? Given that the market is 

failing them, would it be possible for incentives to be 

given in this regard, and for the regulator to ensure that 

those gas connections can take place? 

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman raises an important 

point. Certainly, encouraging people to install renewable 

heat sources, particularly in off-grid properties, is part 

of the solution. He is absolutely right to say, however, 

that for many people, the convenience of being on the 

grid will be their primary concern. It must be extremely 

frustrating to live in a house close to the grid that is 

unable to benefit from it. Ofgem is working to ensure 

that the grid is extended, but that is obviously a gradual 

process. We are considering different ways of dealing 

with the problem. Grid development is mentioned in 

the planning policy papers, but we are introducing 

other measures such as the renewable heat incentive, to 

help people who currently have no alternative to heating 

oil or liquefied petroleum gas. I hope that it can be said 

that we are dealing with the issue comprehensively. 

Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con): Do not 

local councils also have an important role to play? 

Cornwall council, for example, is undertaking a project 

involving feed-in tariffs. It will work with the third 

sector in using the money that it earns from installing 

solar panels in the county to help those in the greatest 

fuel poverty—who, as other Members have pointed out, 

are often off grid—not only through energy-efficiency 

schemes but by providing heat from more appropriate 

sources, such as ground-source heat. 

Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend is right to draw that 

to the House’s attention. As a result of one of the 

changes that we have made, local authorities are now 

allowed to sell electricity directly to the grid. Rather 

than merely being able to host new facilities, they can 

now become involved in these processes as partners. 

They can sell the electricity that is generated, and benefit 

from the feed-in tariffs or other financial packages that 

are available. I hope that, in difficult times, councils 

throughout the country will see such measures as an 

important potential income-earner and a way of 

encouraging their communities to move in a low-carbon 

direction. That is a critical part of Government policy. 

We have said that there will be special help for the 

most vulnerable. The new energy company obligation 

will provide additional funds for those who are most in 

need and for homes that are hard to treat, which may 

need additional support. Our policy also involves the 

electricity market reform programme, which is a wholesale 

redesign of our electricity market. There is no doubt 

that that process, which will begin in a few weeks, is the 

most fundamental reform of the market for 30 years. It 

involves a new way of encouraging people to invest in 

electricity generation, and I cannot over-emphasise the 

importance that we attach to it. The power sector needs 

to lead the way when it comes to cutting carbon. 

Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): Many of my least 

well-off and most vulnerable constituents fear that in 

five years’ time the lights may go out. What action can 

the Government take to deal with the backlog of 

infrastructure repairs? 

Charles Hendry: I am keen to reassure my hon. 

Friend. A couple of years ago, the outlook was a cause 

for great concern. The recession reduced demand by 5% 

or 6%, and, although it has grown again, it has not 

reached its previous level. What appeared to be a serious 

pinch point now seems to have been pushed further out, 

but that does not give grounds for complacency. We all 

know that cold winters and, in particular, cold still days 

place immense demand on the system, and we need to 

take action to deal with that. 

As much as £200 billion of new investment may be 

required in our electricity infrastructure. We have to 

rebuild it. It would have been much better for the 

country if more of that work had been done before 

6 May, and it would have been much better had there 

not been a five-year moratorium on new nuclear and a 

delay of some years in new installations. I applaud the 

conversion of the last Administration, which began to 

put us back on track, but a number of years were lost. 

John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op) 

rose— 

Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab) rose— 

Charles Hendry: I will give way shortly, but I hope I 

shall be forgiven if I do not do so immediately, as I am 

in full flight. 

We need to establish a structure that will give people 

an incentive to invest in new nuclear, clean coal, coal 

with carbon capture, renewables—in regard to which 

we have great potential—and new gas plant, along with 

gas storage. We are alive to all the challenges, and we 

are moving forward on all fronts.


John Woodcock: The Government talk a great deal 

about blank pages. Have they whitewashed their time in 

opposition, when one party was dead set against nuclear 

and the other wanted it to be a last resort? If they have 

converted, that is fine, but let us at least have a bit of 

candour about the process through which the Minister 

has got to where he is now. 

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman is new to the 

House and he might therefore be unaware of the extent 

to which we worked very constructively with the previous 

Secretary of State, the now noble Lord Hutton, and 

others to try to ensure that we took this agenda forward. 

As the hon. Gentleman has been a special adviser 

however, he will be aware that nuclear was taken off the 

agenda for five years. There was a Government White 

Paper that said, in effect, “We do not see a need for new 

nuclear in this country.” There were no qualifications to 

that statement; it was just stated that there was no 

requirement, full stop. For five years, that delayed the 

development of new nuclear. 

I completely applaud the work of the previous Secretary 

of State, which has contributed to our country becoming 

one of the most exciting in the world for new nuclear 

development. The reality is that we were constructively 

involved in that process, but for five years nuclear was 

taken off the agenda. 

Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): To be candid, 

the Minister may know that, as per the coalition agreement, 

many Liberal Democrat Members are still absolutely 

opposed to nuclear power. Will he confirm that at no 

point in the last 30 years has it been impossible for 

private investment for nuclear to come forward, and if 

Government policy was not preventing that, why does 

he think no private investment did come forward in the 

last 30 years? 

Charles Hendry: The Government are seeking to 

address a comprehensive range of issues to do with new 

nuclear. There have been planning issues; for example, 

the Sizewell B project took five or six years just to go 

through the planning stage. Also, regulatory justification 

is a legal requirement, and that process had to be gone 

through. Last week, a measure on that passed through 

this House with a massive majority of over 500 to a 

couple of dozen, so there has been a significant step 

forward in that respect. The long-term cost of waste 

management also needs to be known, and that figure is 

now being made clear and given to the industry. Other 

barriers to investment are also now being addressed. 

Therefore, although it is technically right that there was 

nothing to stop people investing in new nuclear, it is 

also absolutely clear that the circumstances did not 

encourage people to come forward with new proposals. 

John Robertson: I should declare an interest: I am 

chair of the all-party group on nuclear energy. I think 

the Minister is being slightly disingenuous towards the 

Opposition. It was Labour who led the fight to put 

nuclear back on to the table. It was not that it had been 

taken off the table; it was just that nobody really 

wanted to touch it, including Ministers who were Members 

of this House at the time. Therefore, in a spirit of 

cross-party coalition, will the Minister accept that we 

did our bit in getting nuclear back on to the agenda, 

and does he agree that now is the time to make sure 

that these new power stations are built for the benefit of 

this country 

Charles Hendry: I am keen that this coalition should 

get larger and grander every day, so I am delighted to 

welcome the hon. Gentleman to it. I agree with what he 

said. I have already twice given credit to the previous 

Secretary of State. I am very happy to pay tribute to 

him and the previous Prime Minister for the role they 

played in putting nuclear back on the agenda. 

In response to the question of my hon. Friend the 

Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), I think it is true 

that the challenges we face today are in part a result of 

not enough construction having been carried out early 

enough. If there had been more construction in our 

energy infrastructure over recent years, we would not 

now be faced with the mountain of needing £200 billion 

of new investment. 

Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab): I 

am glad to hear that the future of the nuclear industry 

in the UK will be a good one. Will there, however, be a 

good future for the UK supply chain for the nuclear 

industry, particularly in terms of the construction of 

these stations? What will the Government do to support 

the supply chain? 

Charles Hendry: We are very keen indeed to see the 

supply chain benefit. We talk to the companies that are 

looking to invest in this area, and they are very keen to 

use British know-how, skills and businesses. The 

Westinghouse approach is to buy where it builds. Therefore, 

together with Arriva, it has been setting up workshops 

around the country to encourage people to show the 

contributions and skills they can bring. From our point 

of view, this is a critical part of the project. We want 

them to partner British companies and, as part of that 

process, we believe there is an opportunity for them to 

sell that package internationally as well. That is absolutely 

at the heart of what we want. 

Angela Smith: Why, therefore, do the Government 

refuse to support Forgemasters in its bid to play a 

strategic part in the development of the supply chain 

for the future of our power stations? 

Charles Hendry: The hon. Lady is very familiar with 

the argument. We have said that we looked at the issues 

as we came into government and we identified those 

that were based on affordability, not on their importance. 

We believe that Sheffield Forgemasters makes an extremely 

important contribution in this area. The Government’s 

position has been clear and what we now do not understand 

is the Opposition’s position. 

We had a vote on regulatory justification last week, 

which approved two specific reactor types, the Westinghouse 

and the Areva designs. In that vote the shadow Business 

Secretary, the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Energy 

Secretary voted against the approval of those designs. 

How can the shadow Business Secretary make a case for 

Sheffield Forgemasters when he has voted against the 

exact design that it is supposed to be supporting? There 

is a complete hole in the Opposition’s policy in this 

area. I hope that this shadow Minister will rise to his 

feet to give us clarity on those issues, but when three 

members of the shadow Cabinet vote against the heart 

of the nuclear policy, the Opposition’s policy is in 

tatters.


Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman would not 

expect me to agree that our position is in tatters. As I 

made clear to him in the debate on the justification 

orders in Committee, when they went through with our 

support, we would very much welcome an opportunity 

for the Minister, alongside his colleagues, to go back to 

Sheffield Forgemasters and argue the case for making 

sure that it can be part of the supply chain. He is 

continually reluctant to do so. I suspect that that is not 

necessarily because of his reluctance, but because his 

colleagues are reluctant to argue the case. 

Charles Hendry: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman, 

for whom I have the highest regard, was going to 

explain what his shadow Cabinet colleagues had done 

in that vote. During that debate two weeks ago, we had 

agreed fundamentally on the need for regulatory justification 

and he was speaking officially on behalf of the Opposition, 

yet when it came to the deferred Division in this House 

a week ago today three of the most senior members of 

the shadow Cabinet voted against those reactor designs 

being approved. If they had won that debate, the whole 

nuclear programme in this country would have been 

brought to a standstill. If the Opposition are to have 

credibility in this area, we need to understand why the 

shadow Chancellor, the shadow Business Secretary, who 

is the one who will lead on issues relating to Sheffield 

Forgemasters, and the shadow Education Secretary, 

who is one of the most senior members of the Labour 

party, chose to try to stop nuclear power in its tracks. 

Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): Is the 

stark contrast between those on the two sides of the 

House not shown in the fact that the financing arrangements 

for Sheffield Forgemasters were cobbled together in the 

dying weeks of the Labour Government whereas just 

five months into a Conservative-led coalition Government 

we have a comprehensive, coherent national infrastructure 

plan for the next five to 10 years? That is the difference 

between government and opportunism. 

Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend makes a very important 

point. In the months just before the election an enormous 

number of commitments were made, and one of the 

first things that we had to do as an incoming Government 

was to identify which of them were affordable. We went 

through that process extremely thoroughly—I think we 

have been robust about it—and Sheffield Forgemasters 

entirely understands the decisions that we have made. 

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 

leads on supporting businesses in these areas and my 

Department feeds closely into that process. We want 

Sheffield Forgemasters, which is an outstanding example 

of a British manufacturing company, to have a key role 

to play in the future. However, on the basis that I have 

outlined, we did not believe it was appropriate for the 

loan to go ahead. 

John Woodcock: I hope the Minister will accept that 

it is important to correct what the hon. Member for 

Peterborough (Mr Jackson) said if the Government 

are to retain credibility on this issue. Does the 

Minister accept that the issue of this loan was being 

negotiated for more than a year, including the time 

when Lord Hutton was Business Secretary, and that it 

was very carefully considered by that Department over 

that period? 

Charles Hendry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman 

for that intervention. As a new Government coming in, 

we had to look at the financial commitments that we 

were inheriting. We had to decide which were bad 

decisions—the Sheffield Forgemasters loan absolutely 

did not come into that category—and which were the 

decisions we viewed as simply not affordable. Of course 

we would love to be able to shower money on a range of 

good projects around the country, but there is no scope 

for doing so. As we know from the former Chief Secretary 

to the Treasury, there was no money left. That was what 

the outgoing Government told us. 

Several hon. Members rose— 

Charles Hendry: I am keen to get back to some of the 

areas where there is consent and general agreement, but 

I will of course give way to the Opposition spokesman. 

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for 

giving way. Will he acknowledge that this issue is pertinent 

to our debate on our national infrastructure and the 

supply chain? It is my clear understanding, unless the 

Minister can disabuse me of this, that only one other 

global supplier makes the piece that Sheffield Forgemasters 

was going to make. If the company had been given that 

repayable loan, which would have been repaid to the 

Government in short order, it would have led the global 

supply chain—not just for the UK but for export—in 

the reactors that we passed the justification orders for 

last week. It is a clear own goal. I ask the Minister to go 

back to his BIS and Treasury colleagues to see whether 

there is still an opportunity to bring the measure forward. 

It is not too late. 

Charles Hendry: The hole in the argument is that the 

hon. Gentleman makes that case on behalf of the 

Opposition when the shadow Business Secretary, shadow 

Chancellor and shadow Education Secretary voted against 

the nuclear programme. As long as the shadow Cabinet 

has anti-nuclear sentiments at its highest level, any 

suggestion that the Opposition want a nuclear renaissance 

is fundamentally questionable. 

Albert Owen rose— 

Charles Hendry: I am keen to move on to other 

issues, but as the hon. Gentleman has such a strong 

constituency interest in new nuclear I shall give way. 

Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman and I were both 

very solid on nuclear power in the last Parliament when 

the then Leader of the Opposition thought that it 

should be a last resort. I am pleased that the new 

Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have made 

their journey and are in the same position as the Minister 

and I. The point about the supply chain is important. I 

know—the shadow spokesman is right—that if this 

work does not go ahead in Sheffield, Korea is the next 

port of call. That is not in the British interest. Will the 

Minister consider that as we go through these new 

policies and talk about infrastructure, so that we can 

keep British jobs and British business in the supply 

chain to help the nuclear industry? 

Charles Hendry: I have said several times that our 

decision is no reflection on the quality of the workmanship 

at Sheffield Forgemasters. The Government came in,


identified that £1 in every £4 of Government spending 

was borrowed, believed that that position was unsustainable 

and had to make difficult, tough choices about the right 

way forward. 


Charles Hendry: I would give way to my hon. Friend 

the Member for Dover, but he was the one who made 

me depart from my extremely consensual speech into 

this area of great contention. I am keen that we should 

get on to the issues of planning policy that are at the 

heart of our debate. 

Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con): To come 

back to the future of nuclear power in the UK and the 

comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for 

Dover (Charlie Elphicke) about keeping the lights on, 

Germany is now considering extending the lives of its 

reactors by up to 12 years. I am a great supporter of the 

idea that we need to replace our nuclear reactors with 

new nuclear reactors, but is there any scope in the 

Department’s plan to extend the lives of our current 

reactors to try to bridge that gap? 

Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend raises an important 

issue. The situation in Germany is very different from 

the situation here. The plan in Germany had been to 

have an artificially early closure of the nuclear fleet, and 

Chancellor Merkel’s Government have allowed them to 

operate for their full lives. They have reversed a decision 

that would have brought about early closure. The approach 

that we have always taken in the United Kingdom is 

that plants should operate for their safe life. If there is 

an independent assessment that they can operate for 

longer than had been planned, that should be considered. 

The case here is based on safety and security issues and 

some recent life extensions have been given, which we 

welcome. At the end of the day the extensions are a 

bonus rather than a building block in energy policy, but 

my hon. Friend makes an important point. 

I want to get back to some of the key areas of the 

debate. Our concern is that the existing market framework 

will not deliver the scale of investment needed in renewables, 

nuclear and carbon capture and storage, all of which 

have significant up-front costs. Our electricity market 

reform programme will examine the reforms necessary 

to restructure the electricity market to decarbonise the 

power sector by the 2030s while maintaining security of 

supply and affordable prices. We must move quickly to 

give investors certainty about our reforms because of 

the long lead-times in developing new generation capacity. 

Our reform of the planning system for major infrastructure, 

including for major energy infrastructure, also has an 

important role, as does the consultation on the revised 

draft energy national policy statements. 

Reducing demand for electricity wherever possible is 

important in meeting our energy objectives. Our 2050 

pathways analysis shows that total UK energy demand 

from all sources will need to fall significantly by 2050. 

As I have mentioned, the green deal will save energy in 

the home and non-domestic buildings. We will also roll 

out smart meters to help to reduce demand. However, 

those savings will be offset by increases in other areas, 

such as the increased use of electricity in industrial and 

domestic heating and in transport. Our 2050 pathways 

analysis suggests that demand for electricity may even 

double by 2050, as we plug into the grid to power our 

cars and heat our homes. 

Decarbonising surface transport is essential to meet 

our target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 

2050, as we are required to do by law. We expect 

electrification to play a major role in achieving that. 

While electric vehicles can be powered up overnight by 

fluctuating electricity generation, trains, for example, 

will need more base load generation. We have already 

announced £900 million of investment in the electrification 

of train lines from London to Didcot, Newbury and 

Oxford, and for lines serving Liverpool, Manchester, 

Preston and Blackpool. In the new year, we will consult 

on the next steps for building a national high-speed rail 

network, which will free up capacity to allow a shift of 

freight from road to rail and provide an attractive 

low-carbon option for travelling between our major 

cities. 

Some 80% of journeys in the UK are currently made 

by car, and cars will continue to play an essential part in 

our national transport infrastructure. The Government 

announced in the spending review investment of more 

than £400 million in measures to promote the uptake of 

ultra-low-carbon vehicle technologies. That includes the 

plug-in car grant, which will be available from January 

2011 and which will provide a grant of 25% of the 

vehicle price up to £5,000. We are also continuing 

the plugged-in places programme, which supports the 

development of electric vehicle recharging infrastructure 

in strategic locations. As part of the coalition agreement, 

we have also undertaken to mandate a national network 

of vehicle recharging facilities. 

We want to see more decentralised and community 

energy systems, such as microgeneration, make a 

contribution to our targets on reducing carbon emissions 

and increasing energy security. However, we do not 

believe that decentralised and community energy systems 

are likely to lead to the significant replacement of 

large-scale energy infrastructure, which is why there is 

an urgent need for new major energy infrastructure. 

Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con): I have flicked through 

the plans, and I cannot see any reference to hydro-power 

in the context of micro-schemes. Do the Government 

intend to support hydro-power and particularly small-scale 

projects? 

Charles Hendry: The Government are committed to 

taking us forward, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s 

support in that respect. Hydro has an important 

contribution to make. The Minister of State, Department 

of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the 

Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), who 

has responsibility for climate change, set out how we 

can hope to achieve that ambition in his recent speech 

on the subject. Most issues that we are discussing today 

relate to major applications of more than 50 MW. Most 

hydro schemes will fall below that threshold and will 

therefore be subject to local planning decisions. 

The section of the energy policy statement that deals 

with renewable energy does not cover major hydro 

schemes, such as major schemes involving tidal flow, 

because at this stage there is no evidence of a serious 

application for such a scheme of more than 50 MW. If 

that happens, we will need either to review the national


[Charles Hendry] 

policy statement or to introduce one specifically for 

marine technologies. In this country, we have a network 

of rivers, which are a potential source for electricity 

generation that we are keen to see harnessed. 

Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD): The Minister has discussed 

the urgent need for new renewable electricity generation 

capacity. If that is the case, why is the banding review of 

renewables not reporting until August 2012 with 

implementation in March 2013? Will he consider speeding 

up that process, so that we can get the capital that is 

waiting for, for example, biomass power stations released 

and get such projects under way? 

Charles Hendry: One of the issues for investors in this 

area is certainty. They want to be able to plan for the 

long term and to know what rate of support they will 

get under whatever mechanism is in place. A date of 

2013 enables people to plan a transition to whatever the 

banded level will be after that. I understand the need for 

early clarity, and if there are ways we can provide that, 

we shall seek to do so. We seek to work constructively 

because we understand that the alternative can be a 

hiatus in investment, with investment dropping off for a 

period of years in advance of the threshold and the 

level of support changing. It is important, in terms of 

national interest, to have a continuous flow of investment. 

I turn now to the issues that have been covered in the 

energy national policy statements. Perhaps it would be 

helpful if I briefly set out the purpose of the documents 

before us today. The revised draft energy national policy 

statements consist of a suite of six national policy 

statements and a number of associated documents. 

They are not intended to set out new energy policy. 

They are consistent with and explain current energy 

policy and how it relates to the planning consent process. 

Similarly, we are not using national policy statements to 

change the standard for consenting projects. They neither 

raise nor lower the bar on how a major energy infrastructure 

project is examined and consented. They are there to 

explain how such decisions should be made. They set 

out the consenting policies that need to be considered in 

the examination of major energy infrastructure and the 

decision on whether to grant or decline consent. At the 

same time, they will ensure that new major energy 

infrastructure projects respect the principles of sustainable 

development. They will allow not only the Infrastructure 

Planning Commission but developers and local residents 

to see the basis on which applications must be considered. 

There is an overarching energy national policy statement 

that sets out the Government’s policy on energy and 

energy infrastructure development; an energy need 

statement on the need for new nationally significant 

energy infrastructure projects; the assessment principles 

that need to be taken into account in examining and 

deciding on proposals for energy infrastructure 

development; and generic impacts for all energy 

infrastructure, and how they should be assessed and 

mitigated to ensure that the right balance is reached 

between securing our energy needs and protecting the 

environment. 

There are also five technology-specific energy national 

policy statements, covering fossil fuel electricity generation; 

renewable energy infrastructure, which deals with onshore 

wind, offshore wind and energy from biomass and/or 

waste; gas supply infrastructure and gas and oil pipelines; 

electricity networks infrastructure; and nuclear power 

generation. 

David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con): 

We know that we are legally required to reduce carbon 

emissions by about 80% in the next 40 years. Can we 

fulfil that requirement, given that of the 59 GW of new 

capacity required in the next 25 years, 33 GW of which 

is needed from renewables, we have only 2 GW currently 

under construction? The other 26 GW that is needed 

will, presumably, come from low-carbon nuclear. The 

Government have made enormous progress in this area—I 

acknowledge that—but would there be more scope to 

look at nuclear if we, for whatever reason, did not hit 

those targets? 

Charles Hendry: I pay tribute to the work that my 

hon. Friend has done as an ardent supporter of the 

Heysham plant in his constituency and of the case for a 

new plant in that area. The role for nuclear has been set 

out clearly in the national policy statements. We believe 

that it has a fundamental role, but we also have to be 

realistic about what is achievable. We have identified 

sites that could be used for 16 GW of new nuclear 

power, but that is as much as the energy companies 

believe can be constructed over the next 15 years, which 

is the time scale that the national policy statements 

cover. That is not necessarily the end of the ambition, 

but it looks like what is achievable and realisable over 

those 15 years. There is no doubt about the Government’s 

ambition in terms of new nuclear. 

Martin Horwood: On the subject of what is realistic, 

and referring back to what the Minister was saying 

about sustainability, is he aware that the Chartered 

Institution of Water and Environmental Management 

has said that current known reserves of economically 

extractable uranium may last only between 40 and 

85 years? Given that other economies are also investing 

in new nuclear, we may be looking at the lower end of 

that scale rather than the higher, so new nuclear cannot 

be regarded as sustainable in any real sense. 

Charles Hendry: I have certainly heard that point 

before. The OECD has a fundamentally different view 

of the availability of uranium stocks, and there is work 

to be done in plutonium reprocessing, which would 

provide an additional source of fuel. Furthermore, work 

is being done on the development of thorium reactors, 

which do not give rise to many of the concerns that 

people have about uranium reactors. A great deal of 

progress can be made and, at the end of the day, the 

decision is for investors to make. If they do not believe 

that there is sufficient uranium to power their plants for 

their lifetime, they will not make that investment. They 

will base their decision on the facts available to them 

and they will need to be reassured about the availability 

of stocks. 

The overarching national policy statement contains 

information on the impacts that need to be considered 

for all energy infrastructure, while the technology-specific 

NPSs contain additional information on the impacts 

that are specific to each technology. They take into 

account the appraisals of sustainability. We have revised 

the AOSs for the non-nuclear NPSs substantially, which 

is why we are a carrying out a fresh consultation.


We believe that the revised appraisals put readers in a 

much better position to evaluate the revised draft NPSs. 

The revised AOSs give a clear picture of the likely 

significant impacts at the strategic level of consenting 

energy infrastructure projects in accordance with the 

NPSs, by reference to a wide range of relevant 

environmental, social and economic factors. They also 

explain more clearly why we have not chosen a number 

of alternative policies that others proposed, but which 

would not have been as good in meeting our overall 

objectives of maintaining safe, secure and affordable 

energy supplies while moving to a low carbon economy 

and reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. 

We have made significant changes to the statement of 

need in the overarching national policy statement. It 

now includes research that was not available for the first 

draft, including more detailed analysis of scenarios to 

achieve an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. 

We have also included more detail on what is required 

for an economic feasibility assessment to ensure that 

fossil fuel generating stations are carbon capture-ready. 

Neil Carmichael: The NPS gives great support to 

those of us who support a green investment bank 

because it provides a framework for investment, which 

is necessary to the platform of support that investors 

might require. How important does the Minister think 

the green investment bank will be in delivering some of 

the outcomes? 

Charles Hendry: The Government have committed 

£1 billion to the green investment bank, with additional 

funding to follow in due course. I am extremely pleased 

that the Environmental Audit Committee is to examine 

how the bank might work. Infrastructure banks in 

other countries—for example, the one in Holland, which 

was funded with ¤2 billion of initial capital, but brought 

in ¤100 billion of additional finance—can play a critical 

role, particularly in getting business through the so-called 

valley of death. 

Returning to the technology-specific NPSs, we have 

revised the fossil fuels policy statement—document 

No. 2—to clarify the requirements for carbon capture 

readiness in terms of technical and economic feasibility 

in line with the request made by the Energy and Climate 

Change Committee. 

Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab): On carbon capture 

and storage, will new applications for gas-fired power 

stations be treated the same as applications for new 

coal-fired power stations in that they will have to be 

carbon capture-ready before they can be accepted at the 

planning stage? 

Charles Hendry: A new coal plant will have to be 

equipped with some degree of carbon capture and 

storage capability—we have made it clear that there will 

be no role for unabated coal in the future—whereas a 

new gas plant will have to be carbon capture-ready, 

because of the much lower levels of emissions associated 

with modern gas plants. Emissions from the most efficient 

coal plant are perhaps 750 grams per kWh, whereas the 

figure for the most sophisticated gas plant is perhaps 

350 grams per kWh. Given the significant difference in 

emission levels, we are looking at requiring CCS to be 

part of the programme. That is why we have allocated 

£1 billion, which is more than any Government anywhere 

in the world have allocated to a single plant. We are 

keen to take forward the development, but we have also 

said that as part of the subsequent pilot projects 2 to 4, 

we are keen to see whether that can be applied to gas. 

Ian Lavery: The Minister said that £1 billion had 

been invested in the carbon capture and storage programme. 

There were four initial demonstration plants, the first of 

which is to be a coal-fired demonstration plant. The 

contract will be awarded, I believe, in December 2011. 

Will that not take most of the £1 billion? If so, is he 

confident that moneys will be available to secure the 

phase 2, 3 and 4 carbon capture and storage projects? 

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman makes an 

important point. The £1 billion is specifically and only 

for that project. As I said, that is more than any Government 

anywhere in the world have allocated to a single project. 

The additional plants will be funded either by the levy 

introduced in the Energy Act 2010, or from general 

taxation. We are looking at the best way forward in 

terms of deliverability and the Treasury is examining 

the issue. The funding of projects 2 to 4 is separate from 

the funding of project 1, which has the £1 billion 

available to it. 

The revised renewables NPS has taken particular 

account of comments on biomass sustainability for 

generating stations using biomass as fuel. We have also 

revised the text regarding noise from onshore wind 

farms, which is different from general industrial noise, 

so a specific assessment methodology is used to take 

that into account. 

The method of assessing noise from a wind farm is 

described in “The Assessment and Rating of Noise 

from Wind Farms”, known as ETSU-R-97. The report 

recommends noise limits that seek to protect the amenity 

of those living close to wind farms. The recommended 

noise levels are determined by a combination of absolute 

noise limits and noise limits relative to the existing 

background noise levels around the site at different 

wind speeds. 

Policy document 4 relates to gas supply and oil 

pipelines. We have clarified that the gas supply infrastructure 

and gas and oil pipelines NPS covers only oil and 

natural gas pipelines and not CO 2 pipelines, which will 

be an important matter in relation to carbon capture 

and storage development. We have also added a new 

section describing the impacts on gas emissions due to 

the flaring or venting of gas. 

Policy paper 5 relates to electricity networks. We have 

tried to make sure that Government policy on 

undergrounding and the need to treat each application 

case by case is expressed more clearly. I welcome the 

decision by the Institute of Engineering and Technology 

to make an authoritative investigation of the costs of 

undergrounding, particularly in relation to the issues 

that the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) has 

raised, so that we can have a clear fact-based assessment 

of the different costs involved. 

Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD) rose— 

Charles Hendry: I thought that might encourage the 

hon. Lady.


Tessa Munt: Thank you. Will that investigation examine 

the cost of under-sea infrastructure as well? I understand 

that the project will look at networks not just underground, 

but under-sea. Is that correct? 

Charles Hendry: That is my understanding of the 

report. We are all keen to have a fact-based scientific 

assessment of the relative costs. I know that in the hon. 

Lady’s constituency and many others there has been 

great concern and a need to know the costs of different 

ways of dealing with the issues, so I hope the report will 

examine the under-sea aspects as well. 

Tessa Munt rose— 

Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) rose— 

Charles Hendry: I will give way to my hon. Friend, 

who has some issues in Suffolk. 

Dr Coffey: Thank you. We do indeed have issues in 

East Anglia, and in Suffolk in particular. We have an 

enormous number of offshore wind farms, yet the green 

impact of pylons across our countryside is hardly palatable. 

I welcome the changes being made, and hope that we 

will have more detailed calculations of the costs and the 

impact of the benefits. 

Charles Hendry: I shall give way again to the hon. 

Member for Wells and deal with both issues together. 

Tessa Munt: How can I and my constituents be 

assured that the study is wholly independent and is not 

in any way informed or directed by National Grid? 

Charles Hendry: I would hope that the nature of the 

Institute of Engineering and Technology, and its track 

record for independence and fact-based assessment, 

would be sufficient to assure everyone that a thorough 

approach will be taken. There is no doubt in any of our 

minds that if anybody tried to steer its conclusions one 

way or the other it would publicly require them to go 

away. I am absolutely satisfied that the process will be 

independent and robust, but in due course the institute 

will publish the full report so that it can be peer-reviewed. 

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): Before 

the hon. Gentleman leaves EN-5, will he reflect on the 

question that he raised previously about investment in 

new infrastructure through the electricity markets as 

they stood, and the extent to which that investment 

stayed in existing equipment to shore up the electricity 

market? In the new circumstances, where investment in 

infrastructure will increasingly be required before the 

replacement of plant, will EN-5 reflect that change 

fully? If not, could the energy market reforms that he 

will undertake shortly inform a revision of EN-5 to take 

those new circumstances into account? 

Charles Hendry: We have to see the national policy 

statements as part of the process. They are an integral 

part of an improved planning process, but they are not 

the full package. Electricity market reform will also be a 

key element in incentivising people to invest. Let me 

give an example of how things are changing. I was 

recently with Ofgem launching the second round of 

offshore grid transmission infrastructure bids. More 

than 100 different organisations, most of which were 

new players in this area, were keen to take part in that 

process, which was started by the previous Administration. 

A number of new organisations—new financial 

institutions—want to invest in our energy infrastructure, 

which is extremely encouraging, but to see the full 

package of these measures it will be necessary to ensure 

that they see the planning changes and the funding 

mechanisms that will drive it forward. 

Andrew Percy rose— 

Charlie Elphicke rose— 

Charles Hendry: I shall take a couple of interventions 

and then seek to conclude my remarks. 

Andrew Percy: While we are on the subject of new 

players coming into our energy industry, I invite the 

Minister to visit north Lincolnshire and the site of the 

South Humber Gateway project, where we hope to 

cluster a number of offshore wind farm manufacturers 

with the potential to create 5,000 jobs initially, possibly 

rising to 20,000. It will be incredibly important to our 

region, so I invite the Minister to join me and my hon. 

Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) 

on a visit some time soon. 

Charles Hendry: I know that both my hon. Friends 

have done sterling work in pushing the case for the 

South Humber Gateway. I would be delighted to see 

the planned work to get a clearer understanding of the 

ambition. It is typical of many of the ambitions of 

people who see a fantastic new opportunity emerging in 

the energy sector, and we are keen to encourage that. I 

imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover 

(Charlie Elphicke) will make a similar plea for a visit. 

Charlie Elphicke: I do not wish to trouble the Minister 

to come down to east Kent, but for the benefit of the 

House will he say how many power stations were brought 

into operation during the last Parliament? The only one 

that we in Kent can recall is the dirty Kingsnorth power 

station. On the need for more funding and the need to 

build infrastructure and green infrastructure, I recall 

that during the last Parliament not many power stations 

were brought on line. 

Charles Hendry: A number of gas powered plants 

were brought on stream. The last nuclear power station 

was Sizewell in the 1990s. There has not been a new 

clean coal plant yet because people need to know how 

the carbon abatement technology will move forward. 

Gas has been the fuel of choice: 60% of the consented 

plant—12 out of 20 GW—is gas. What people want to 

build remains to be seen, but there is significant interest. 

We now need the policies to drive this forward. 

I want rapidly to conclude my remarks with a few 

additional points— 

Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) rose— 

Charles Hendry: An enormous number of colleagues 

are keen to speak in the debate, but with your forbearance, 

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will allow my hon. Friend to 

intervene as he is a member of the Select Committee.


Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend 

for being so generous. May I take him back to his earlier 

remarks about energy security and how the national 

policy statements will feed into our energy security? 

Energy security not only relates to the Department of 

Energy and Climate Change, but has an impact on the 

Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth 

Office, the Department for International Development 

and the Department for Transport. How do the threads 

in our national policy statements interweave to ensure 

that across all those Departments we have a holistic 

approach to energy security? 

Charles Hendry: One thing that has struck and impressed 

me most as an incoming Minister has been the extent to 

which Departments work constructively together, with 

information shared appropriately and buy-in from every 

Department on policy proposals. My Department clearly 

leads on the energy market and the Treasury is critically 

involved in setting a carbon price, which we believe is 

part of the process, but there is a holistic approach and 

investors are looking at that to make sure that there is 

joined-up government. 

I want to close, so perhaps I can respond in my 

winding-up speech to any additional points about the 

exact way in which we will take the process forward. 

Having spoken for the best part of an hour, I feel that 

many hon. Members on both sides of the House will 

wish to have a chance to contribute fully to the debate. 

In conclusion, our reforms of the major infrastructure 

planning process will ensure much greater democratic 

accountability. Ministers will be responsible for decisions 

to consent to or refuse major infrastructure development, 

and there will be a binding vote in the House on 

whether to approve national policy statements. Our 

debate today is about whether the House has considered 

the matter of the draft energy national policy statements, 

and I look forward to listening to it and having the 

chance to hear the expertise that so many hon. Members 

have to offer. 


Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Order. As the 

Minister says, a number of Members will be trying to 

catch my eye during this debate. Therefore, I am introducing 

a seven-minute limit on speeches. 

5.31 pm 

Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): Thank you, 

Mr Deputy Speaker. I have indicated to you through the 

usual channels that, if it is your wish, I am more than 

happy to forgo any concluding remarks so that more 

people have time to make their contributions. 

I welcome this general debate about national policy 

statements, which is timely and necessary. I thank the 

Energy and Climate Change Committee for its continuing 

effort and expertise and, of course, the Committee on 

Climate Change for its recommendations and analysis. 

We share much of the Minister’s analysis of the challenges, 

but that is not surprising because, as I say with some 

humility, my predecessors laid the groundwork that he 

is continuing. We are glad to see him and his colleagues 

taking up the baton with such relish, because they do so 

at a critical juncture, when delay and dithering would be 

terminal to investor certainty, UK energy security and 

our low-carbon future. There is a real need to get on 

with that work. 

On that thought, the shadow Front-Bench team and 

I—and I am sure the whole House—send our best 

wishes to the Secretary of State and his team on their 

negotiations in Cancun. In government, Labour adopted 

the world’s first legally binding framework to cut emissions, 

by 80% by 2050, signalling our clear intent and leadership 

on tackling climate change. My right hon. Friend the 

Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) played 

a difficult hand with some great skill and not insignificant 

personal commitment at Copenhagen when he was 

Secretary of State, and although the job has not become 

any easier, we hope that the new Secretary of State will 

keep the momentum going. 

Let us reprise where we are, as laid out in the documents 

before us. One quarter of the UK’s generating capacity 

will close by 2018, and as much as 30% will need to be 

replaced by 2020. Without prompt action we face an 

electricity generation gap in the next 10 to 15 years as 

our nuclear and coal-powered stations are retired. World 

energy demand is rising and often highly politicised; as 

North sea reserves decline, we are increasingly reliant 

on imported oil and gas; and, as the Minister says, 

electricity demand is forecast to double over the next 

40 years. That will require rapid decarbonisation of the 

electricity sector, diversification of the energy sector 

with a decreasing reliance on fossil fuels and unabated 

combustion, and an increasing reliance on renewables, 

low-carbon energy and decentralised energy. 

We will also require development of carbon capture 

and storage and renewables technology for the UK and 

for international markets. We will need to create sufficient 

capacity to meet electricity generation needs at all times, 

and we will need to put the necessary supply chains in 

place. I will not go over the issue of Sheffield Forgemasters 

again, as it has been well aired already. We will require 

the development of smart grid and electricity networks 

to meet the needs of a reconfigured, smart and diverse 

electricity infrastructure and, of course, investment in 

gas infrastructure. 

Ian Lavery: The doubling of the electricity recovery 

rate over the next 40 years is vital. As was mentioned, 

the first phase of the four demonstration plants will 

cost up to £1 billion. Does my hon. Friend agree that it 

is essential that funding is found from somewhere to 

fund phases 2, 3 and 4 if we are to meet our electricity 

requirements over that period? 

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, I agree entirely. It was 

wonderful news that after a slight delay to do with the 

coalition agreement, getting things in order, and some 

wrangling with the Treasury, we had the announcement 

that £1 billion would be available—the commitment 

that the Labour Government had made to the first 

phase of CCS on a commercial scale. However, it is 

equally essential that we have phases 2, 3 and 4. I am 

sure that the Minister is committed to continuing that 

wrangling with the Treasury to ensure that we find the 

mechanisms that will allow that to happen, and promptly. 

We need it for coal, but we also need it for gas. I 

welcome the in-principle announcements that have been 

made about phases 2, 3 and 4, but what we are waiting 

for, as with so much else, is the detail to make it certain.


Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con): Given 

that the previous Government had a complete lack of 

policy on energy, threatening constituents such as mine 

with the possibility of their lights being switched off for 

long periods in the next 10 years or so, I find it a bit rich 

that the hon. Gentleman is lecturing us somewhat, 

although I appreciate the consensus on some issues. 

Does he at least agree that the national policy statements 

brought forward by this coalition Government are a 

great step forward in attracting the kind of investment 

that we need to ensure that the lights are left on? 

Huw Irranca-Davies: Well, we can debate who can 

claim credit for the NPSs. Of course, they were instigated 

and developed under the last Labour Government, but 

I give credit where it is due; I will come to that in a 

moment in looking at some of the detail. We agree that 

there has been some improvement in the intervening six 

months—it will be nine months by the time they are 

eventually signed off—but they were in darn good 

shape before, and they were ready to go. The hon. Lady 

pushed me on trying to claim the credit entirely, but 

these are the Labour Government’s documents. They 

have been refined and improved, but they were already 

in place. 

Charlie Elphicke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? 

Huw Irranca-Davies: Let me make a tiny bit of progress. 

This short debate is informed by the ongoing 

consultation—or perhaps I should say, for the benefit of 

the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie 

Bray), reconsultation—on the national policy statements. 

The coalition Government have taken this opportunity 

to pause, to reflect, and to revise them. In a way, that is 

a good thing, because it has allowed more time for 

deliberation, but—let us be frank—it will also have cost 

a vital eight or nine months by the time that the final 

NPSs are produced in January. That is a luxury that has 

inevitably led to a delay in our national efforts to secure 

a long-term energy security future. 

Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con): Is it not the 

case, though, that the report by the Energy and Climate 

Change Committee criticised the previous Government 

for leaving it quite so long to get to the stage where the 

NPSs were being considered? It published its report in 

March 2010, when the Government had had from 2005 

onwards to put them in place. 

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed. The hon. Lady will have 

noticed that between March 2010 and now an election 

got in the way. The national policy statements were in 

place, and this Government, had they so chosen, could 

have picked them up and run with them, or alternatively, 

as happened when we came into office in 1997 and had 

our policies ready to go having worked them up with 

the civil service, they could have got on with it straight 

away. We will be nine months delayed by the time we 

have these documents before the House for full 

consideration. 

Dr Thérèse Coffey rose— 

Huw Irranca-Davies: I will make a little progress. 

Although I welcome this debate, we now have only 

one hour and 20 minutes to debate issues that, as I am 

sure the Minister will agree, are critical to our national 

strategic energy needs and to the balance between those 

needs and democratic accountability at national and 

local levels. Unlike the over-long process of reconsultation, 

this short debate demonstrates all speed, but limited 

accountability. It will therefore be impossible to do 

justice to the six core energy documents and the 

accompanying materials. This must be seen instead as a 

useful staging post to a much longer debate in this place 

in Government time. 

I will begin with some points on the reform of planning 

in relation to NPSs, in response to the Minister’s opening 

remarks. 

Martin Horwood: Before we leave the question of 

Labour’s legacy, can the hon. Gentleman put a figure 

on the unfunded liabilities for cleaning up the last 

generation of nuclear power? Some estimates put it as 

high as £160 billion. Does that sound accurate to him? 

Huw Irranca-Davies: That question should probably 

be put to the Minister. I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s 

long-held position on nuclear power. I pay credit to the 

Minister and the Government for pulling the coalition 

into a semblance of agreement on nuclear—albeit with 

the odd person against it—which means that we can 

move forward. 

Labour’s Planning Act 2008, which underpins this 

matter, made the planning system for major infrastructure 

quicker, more efficient and much more predictable. It 

laid the conditions for essential new investment in the 

UK’s infrastructure, including large-scale, low-carbon 

energy projects. The coalition Government have a 

responsibility to ensure that their plans, which include 

scrapping the Infrastructure Planning Commission, do 

not add delays or remove the clarity and certainty that 

industry needs to invest in new renewable and nuclear 

capacity, and low-carbon energy. I give credit to the 

coalition Government and the Minister, because they 

have wisely decided, despite the unnecessary delay, to 

continue with the Labour Government’s national policy 

statements, with the revisions, rather than wait for 

wholesale reform of the planning system. That is a 

welcome recognition of the excellent work of the Labour 

Ministers who formerly occupied the Minister’s office 

and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster 

North. 

Christopher Pincher: The hon. Gentleman waxes eloquent 

about the right hon. Member for Doncaster North 

(Edward Miliband). Can he therefore explain why the 

Public Accounts Committee, when it reviewed the 

Department of Energy and Climate Change, said that it 

lacked a definite sense of energy and purpose under the 

now Leader of the Opposition? 

Huw Irranca-Davies: The ball is now firmly in the 

court of the Minister. There is an issue with the urgency 

and delivery of some the Government’s ambitions that 

we share. They must get on with it. 

Rather than take further interventions, I will get into 

the nitty-gritty. Some of my questions for the Minister 

arise from his appearance yesterday before the Energy 

and Climate Change Committee, which, as usual, did a 

very good job.


When we return to this matter with the finished 

articles in front of us—the final, beautifully honed, 

polished NPSs—will we be afforded adequate time? 

Will each national policy statement have adequate, separate 

parliamentary time in line with the coalition Government’s 

stated aim of enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of NPSs 

in their planning reforms, or will they be mixed together 

like a bag of all-sorts? If the coalition Government are 

true to their aims, the Minister should help us through 

the usual channels to push for days, not hours, to debate 

the NPSs. Much as we dearly love the Secretary of State 

for Communities and Local Government—we may ask 

who would not do so, when he is described on the front 

page of his website as “an absolute star” and a “saintly 

figure”, among other less self-effacing and more humorous 

things—when it comes to debating energy NPSs, we 

want the Minister of State, Department of Energy and 

Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles 

Hendry), or the Secretary of State for Energy and 

Climate Change. We want them—no one else will do. 

Can the Minister guarantee that he and his DECC 

colleagues will not be squeezed out of their seats by the 

right hon. and saintly Member for Brentwood and 

Ongar? 

In the coalition’s drive for parliamentary scrutiny, I 

am sure that the Minister will be able to confirm today 

that there will be a separate vote on each NPS, having 

been unable to confirm it yesterday to the Energy and 

Climate Change Committee. To mix the nuclear issue 

with those of fossil fuels, renewables, pipelines and the 

electricity network infrastructure would tax the wit of 

Wilde and the wisdom of Solomon. For us mere mortals, 

will he make representations through the usual channels 

to ensure that the votes are separate? 

Will the Minister explain to the House why he has set 

against the calls to make an NPS amendable? We 

understand that there will be a take-it-or-leave-it vote. It 

would be interesting to hear the justification for taking 

scrutiny so far but no further. He might have a very 

strong rationale for that position, such as wanting to 

avoid the unpicking of an NPS that has been through 

exhaustive consultation, but we need to hear it. 

There is a more fundamental point to be made about 

the parliamentary scrutiny of the NPSs, which goes to 

the very heart of the planning reforms that the Government 

are developing. The argument advanced by the coalition 

is that democratic accountability is best assured by 

laying the NPSs in front of the House and making a 

Minister, hopefully this Minister, answerable for them. 

In fact, he said back in June: 

“A fast and efficient planning system is critical for facilitating 

investment in much needed new energy infrastructure. By abolishing 

the Infrastructure Planning Commission we will ensure that vital 

energy planning decisions are democratically accountable.” 

His colleague the Minister of State, Department for 

Communities and Local Government, the right hon. 

Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), went further, 

saying: 

“Today the coalition is remedying those deficiencies by putting 

in place a new fast track process where the people’s elected 

representatives have responsibility for the final decisions about 

Britain’s future instead of unelected commissioners.” 

Yet we understand that for the Minister, the consideration 

of the NPSs is a quasi-judicial decision. He has described 

it as such. Ministers, formerly myself included, are used 

to making quasi-judicial decisions and are made aware 

of the very strict limitations that bind them. His decision 

is strictly limited, involves the application of policy to a 

particular set of facts and requires the exercise of discretion 

and the application of the principles of natural justice. 

It is not a prescription for localism, political interference 

or ministerial hokey-cokey. It is about policy and facts. 

May we safely assume that the NPSs, once presented 

to the House by the Minister in January, will be a fait 

accompli? May we assume that he will have satisfied 

himself, in a quasi-judicial role, that the NPSs presented 

are fit for purpose? He will listen to fellow MPs, but his 

mind will be made up. On that basis, will he tell us, first, 

what is the point of putting the NPSs to the House if 

they represent his full and final view? Secondly, if he 

has a mind to amend them, what specific examples can 

he give that would cause him to change his quasi-judicial 

view and alter the documents, and what further time 

delay would ensue? 

Charles Hendry: I hesitate to intervene on the hon. 

Gentleman after my own comments went on for quite a 

while, but I wonder whether I can provide clarity on 

that issue now. The quasi-judicial aspect relates to a 

ministerial decision on a planning application, not to 

the approach taken to the national policy statements 

themselves. We are in the course of a three-month 

consultation, which will finish on 24 January. There will 

quite possibly be amendments to the NPSs after that, 

which will be in the final version put before the House 

for debate, assessment and a vote. We do not have a 

quasi-judicial capacity in that respect. My comments 

about acting in a quasi-judicial capacity related to 

ministerial decision making on individual planning 

applications under the rules set out in the NPSs. 

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the Minister for that 

intervention, but will he clarify two things? Has he just 

said that NPSs will be amendable on the Floor of the 

House. He will sign off and present NPSs to the House, 

but will he sign them in a quasi-judicial role, or will he 

perform such a role only in respect of individual planning 

applications? 

Charles Hendry: There is confusion between the approval 

process for NPSs and the role that Ministers will take in 

respect of individual planning decisions when the IPC 

has been abolished. On individual planning decisions, 

Ministers will act in a quasi-judicial capacity, but on 

NPSs, a revised consultation period to take account of 

the initial representations—we felt that improvements 

needed to be made—will end in January. If further 

revisions are necessary, a document will be put to the 

House for its final consideration and approval. 

Huw Irranca-Davies: Is the Minister suggesting that 

the final document will be amendable and subject to a 

decision by the House, as I think I heard him say from a 

sedentary position? It would be helpful if he could 

clarify that, because we are talking about significant 

decisions over the future energy needs of this country. It 

is important that the House knows whether it is voting 

on a batch of NPSs or on each one individually and for 

how long they will be debated. It is also important that 

the House knows whether it has the ability to amend 

NPSs. If so, would that cause delays? My assumption is 

that if the House changes any individual NPS, it will 

need further consideration and possibly consultation.


[Huw Irranca-Davies] 

The Minister’s officials would certainly become involved, 

and relevant stakeholders would need to be consulted. 

There would be a minimum of 13 weeks’ consultation, 

as recommended by civil service guidelines, but possibly 

a heck of a lot more. It would be helpful to get some 

clarity on those issues before we debate NPSs. 

Charlie Elphicke: Speaking of clarity, can the shadow 

Minister explain why we are threatened with the lights 

going out in 2015? Should he and his party not apologise 

for that shocking situation? 

Huw Irranca-Davies: If the hon. Gentleman is seeking 

apologies, may I suggest that he starts by knocking on 

the door of No. 10? He should ask the Prime Minister 

why it took so long for him to move from a position of 

equivocation on nuclear new build to a position of 

indifference. Following Labour’s leadership, the Prime 

Minister finally rowed in behind on the need for nuclear 

new build. The five-year hiatus to which the Minister 

referred happened, as someone remarked earlier, 

because there was no appetite in the country or among 

the body politic to move forward on new nuclear. We 

showed leadership; certain individuals rowed in behind, 

but it took them a long time to do so. 

For the sake of taxpayers, who are always in the mind 

of the coalition Government, will the Minister tell us 

what he knows about the cost of abolishing the IPC? 

What are the costs of the transition to the new major 

infrastructure unit within the planning inspectorate? 

Will there be savings for the taxpayer, and if so, will he 

or the Government publish those figures after the debate? 

In the absence of the much anticipated localism Bill, 

where in the reformed process does localism rear its 

lovely head? Will the Minister explain how parliamentary 

scrutiny of NPSs, which represent the Minister’s 

opinion on the strategic needs of the UK, allows for 

localism? If the answer to that question is not in the 

Government’s response and if we will not be told in 

January, where is it? 

What is the expected lifespan of NPSs? I ask that for 

a very good reason. The Minister recently spoke with 

clarity and purpose at a meeting of the World Coal 

Association, which I was pleased to attend, and made a 

bold prediction. He said with certainty that next spring, 

he would draw a line in the sand on his forthcoming 

decisions on a range of market mechanisms and incentives, 

including electricity market reforms, carbon floor-pricing, 

emissions performance standards, capacity payments 

and so on. The NPSs are part of that line in the sand, 

giving investors certainty for years ahead, yet they do 

not stand alone. There are so many “What ifs?”, and the 

Minister has to take these into account—it is like multidimensional 

chess. 

I know that the Government do not particularly like 

the idea of school sport, as we discovered yesterday, but 

the Minister has been indulging in his favourite sport 

with his ministerial colleagues—an extreme sport known 

as Treasury-wrangling. After some delay, he came out 

with a partial win, announcing the first stage of commercial 

CCS—carbon capture and storage—which has delivered, 

after a slight delay of six months, the first part of 

Labour’s commitment to CCS. We look forward to him 

rapidly bringing forward not only that pilot, but the 

three others, including a pilot on gas CCS. However, 

may I urge—or should it be “nudge”, in the Government’s 

new lexicon?—the Minister to get on with that pronto? 

He has honestly and publicly acknowledged that there 

is no future for coal in the UK unless that technology is 

made to work. However, there is also a global imperative, 

as developing nations rush towards their own coal-powered 

futures. As such, this Government must avoid any further 

delay on the complete CCS programme of work. 

However, what if CCS on a commercial scale does 

not work? What if there are delays because of cost, lack 

of funds or complexity, or because the technology to 

bring it forward is not available on time, or even not at 

all? We all want CCS to succeed—we all say that it has 

to succeed—and we are full of hope that it will, both for 

UK energy security and abating the global exploitation 

of fossil fuels. However, a reasonable man—and a 

reasonable Minister—cannot just assume that that will 

happen, and must therefore make contingency plans. 

Martin Horwood: Given that carbon capture and 

storage technology has been in use on a commercial 

scale in the United States for some 40 years—albeit not 

on the same scale as that envisaged for the power 

stations in question—what does the hon. Gentleman 

imagine the technical barriers will be? 

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am glad to say that I am not 

an engineer, but that is exactly the point behind the 

large-scale commercial CCS pilots. That is exactly why 

we are running them, and we all hope that CCS will 

work. Indeed, I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s confidence 

that it definitely will work. However, there are some 

nagging “What ifs?”. What if CCS is not delivered on 

time, or cannot happen because of the technology, the 

scale or the investment? 

In my short time in this post, I have come to realise 

that the Minister’s Front-Bench colleague, the hon. 

Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), positively 

exudes enthusiasm. Indeed, he leaves a trail of enthusiasm 

wherever he goes, and for every conceivable energy 

source. His enthusiasm is demonstrated in photo-ops 

around the country and around the world, but what if 

the latest enthusiasm for decentralised energy, which 

the Minister mentioned, and combined heat and power 

is not realised, because the electricity grid is not smart 

enough to make it work locally or because the right 

incentives are not in place, or for other reasons? 

I have a final “What if?” for the Minister: the nuclear 

“What if?”. He has been categorical in recent days— 

heroically categorical—that new build nuclear is on 

schedule for 2017-18. Yet he knows that the Health and 

Safety Executive will not be issuing final certificates 

next year on the two designs that this House has taken 

through in the past few days through justification orders, 

but will instead issue interim certificates. There is more 

work to be done on the designs and, equally importantly, 

the build speed of new nuclear, as evidenced by delays 

internationally, in Europe, the US and Asia. 

The coalition Government have struggled to come to 

terms with their identity crisis on nuclear—do they love 

it or hate it, and will they unequivocally support it or sit 

on the fence—but the Minister deserves some credit for 

helping his Lib Dem comrades down off the fence. 

However, the industry still waits for the long-term certainty 

of market signals that will bring forward the investment 

at all, let alone on time. So, there are “What ifs?” on


nuclear, decentralised energy and CCS, as well as on 

other things, if only we had the time to discuss them in 

this short debate. 

Martin Horwood rose— 

Huw Irranca-Davies: I will not take another intervention 

because there are other people waiting to speak. 

Meanwhile, part 3 of the overarching energy policy 

statement details new electricity projections. It outlines 

the need for 59 GW of new capacity by 2025, of which 

as much as 33 GW will be from renewables, thus leaving 

a significant potential gap, on top of the energy gap 

that we already acknowledge, if the Minister’s best laid 

plans do not come to fruition. This raises the question 

of how the Minister can avoid re-carbonising instead of 

de-carbonising the energy sector if an unabated dash 

for expensive imported gas rushes in to fill the looming 

energy gap. The dash for gas and the energy gap could 

be made far worse if any of the “what ifs” were to 

happen. The Minister has honestly and openly accepted 

that gas will form part of our journey to a de-carbonised 

future, but how will he ensure that we do not stumble 

into a new generation of unabated gas use by default? 

As a former Minister, I recognise the problem of 

dealing with highly complex issues and scenario planning. 

I therefore ask the Minister to share with the House his 

scenario planning and risk analysis for the energy market, 

before we come to debate the national policy statements 

in detail on the Floor of the House in January. If there 

is to be real democratic accountability, the House needs 

to see the complete assumptions on which the Minister 

is making his case for the NPSs and for the energy 

market underpinning them. We assume that these have 

been done. If nuclear, CCS, decentralised energy or a 

whole host of other variables were delayed or undeliverable, 

what is plan B, plan C or plan D, and would any of 

them allow us still to reach our aims on energy security 

and low carbon energy? 

In that regard, what is the Minister’s response to the 

recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change, 

in response to the proposals for national policy statements 

on energy, that the Government act on the Committee’s 

proposal that the widely accepted concept of fully 

de-carbonising the electricity sector by 2030 should be 

made explicit in Government policy and NPSs? It has 

been widely accepted anyway, and it would drive the 

achievement of the 2050 targets on greenhouse gases. 

The Committee asserts that making explicit that 

commitment would drive forward decision making on 

new generating capacity and give certainty to investors 

regarding the Government’s overarching energy policy. 

Dan Byles: The shadow Minister has highlighted the 

concern that many of the Government’s plans are predicated 

on CCS working and on investment in nuclear coming 

through, and he has asked what plan B is. Can we look 

forward to hearing from those on his own Front Bench 

what their plan B would be if they were in government? 

Huw Irranca-Davies: I can give the hon. Gentleman a 

guarantee that we are committed to assisting the 

Government to deliver this, but to ignore the potential 

scenarios of not making good in any one of these areas 

would be to bury our head in the sand. There are real 

concerns that there could be delays in one of these 

areas, and if that were to happen, we, as a constructive 

Opposition would have to work jointly with the Government 

to fathom a way in which we could still deliver de-carbonised 

energy, hit our carbon reduction targets and deliver 

energy security and affordable energy. I have not even 

touched on the issues of the green deal and the green 

investment bank that were raised by other Members 

earlier. That is why we need to see the Government’s 

working assumptions, the detail behind the Minister’s 

development of these NPSs and, as soon as possible, 

the proposals for electricity market reform. 

I am pleased that the Minister is talking a lot about 

the intentions behind the NPSs, but we are really up 

against time. I know that he will once again stand up 

and say that that is all the fault of the previous 

Administration, but actually it was the previous 

Administration who put in the foundations for what the 

coalition Government are now rightly taking forward. 

We will look to the Government to make good, and we 

will be constructive in helping them, but the House and 

the Energy and Climate Change Committee need to be 

able to wrestle with the facts as well as with the broad 

thrust of the statements. I have spoken longer than I 

intended to, and I look forward to hearing the comments 

of other Members. 

6.3 pm 

Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con): We 

have had a tour de force from the Minister and the 

shadow Minister on many of the issues in the national 

policy statements for energy. I shall restrict my comments 

to an issue that affects my constituency, which is the list 

of suggested nuclear new build sites and, in particular, 

the Dungeness site. At present, there is an A station and 

a B station at Dungeness, and the site was included on 

the previous Government’s original list of 11 sites to be 

consulted on. Before the general election, it was removed 

from the list after the initial stage of the consultation, 

and it has remained off the list of potential sites to be 

taken forward within the national policy statement in 

the draft consultation that has been presented to Parliament. 

I have already discussed the issue in debates in the 

House and in Westminster Hall and I do not want to go 

over all the ground again, but I do want to deal with 

some specific points raised by the draft national policy 

statement which may be of interest to other Members. 

Let me say first that I am grateful to the Minister for the 

interest that he has taken in the subject, for his time, and 

for agreeing to meet me later in the month, along with 

representatives of Shepway district council and Kent 

county council, to establish whether any progress can be 

made. 

I note from the draft statement that the Government 

consider the site of Dungeness nuclear power station to 

be a credible site for a new power station should the 

principal concerns about it be addressed during the rest 

of the consultation period. Those concerns lie chiefly 

with Natural England’s objection to the development in 

a special protected area, a Natura 2000 reserve with a 

European designation. Dungeness is the only site under 

consideration in the initial consultation in which 

development would take place within a protected area. 

There are problems with the other sites that the Government 

believe can be solved, but the problems affecting Dungeness 

remain.


[Damian Collins] 

My constituents have particular concerns. They are 

typical of many communities living alongside nuclear 

power stations who have grown used to them, and are 

gratefully respectful not only of the energy that they 

contribute but of the large amount of employment that 

they bring to the communities that they serve. The 

existing Dungeness B station brings about £20 million a 

year into the local economy in Romney Marsh and in 

my constituency. That is not to be sniffed at: it would be 

difficult for a community to obtain the same amount of 

investment from any other source. 

My constituents’ concerns lie with Natural England’s 

objections, with which the draft statement deals in some 

detail. The statement gives an answer, but it does not 

provide much further consideration that could help us 

to address some of those concerns. One objection is 

that building on the vegetated shingle at Dungeness 

would damage the site, and that that damage could not 

be mitigated. The counter-argument is that there would 

be a relatively small amount of development, and that a 

new nuclear power station would take up less than 

1% of the entire protected area and thus could not be 

said to damage the integrity of the whole site. Natural 

England, however, believes that the damage will be 

greater, and that it will be impossible to mitigate. 

We would like to know what further study could be 

conducted. Some of the land that would be lost has 

been developed before: it is not virgin territory that has 

never been disturbed. Much of the area that would be 

disturbed by the building of a new power station was 

disturbed when the existing power station was built. We 

would like any further study to consider the areas 

containing flora and fauna, and the vegetation on the 

shingle, which is the reason for the designation. Natural 

England says that if that vegetation is lost, it would not 

come back, but in parts of the peninsula it can be seen 

that where vegetation has been disturbed and lost, it has 

grown back. 

Is a further study possible? Could it be said that 

Natural England’s concerns are not as great as it would 

have us believe, and that there is room for mitigation? 

We would welcome some guidance, either from the 

Government or through the process that is taking place. 

At present, the response seems to be an absolute “no”, 

although there have been a series of detailed considerations. 

EDF Energy, the owner of the current site, has made 

three presentations to the Government during the 

consultation, and Shepway district council has presented 

the Department with its own report, written by Ian 

Jackson. I know that those views have been considered, 

but we have been given no further detailed information 

about why they have been rejected, and we would like to 

know how we can make progress. 

The behaviour of Natural England raises a different 

concern. A view is developing among local people that 

Natural England is not particularly interested in the 

opinions of others, but is interested only in its own 

opinion, and that that colours its desire to extend the 

protected areas beyond the current Dungeness site. At 

the end of last month, Shepway district council passed 

a motion which includes the following paragraph: 

“This Council therefore rejects any need for the extension of 

the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay area nature conservation 

designations. It further looks to Natural England to work with 

the local population and businesses to find a more collaborative 

and integrated approach in preference to the prescriptive approach 

it is currently favouring.” 

We would certainly welcome that. 

Turning to the nature of the national policy statements, 

the site report on Dungeness states: 

“Given the nature of the issues at Dungeness, it may be easier 

to ascertain that there will not be adverse effects on the integrity 

of the SAC at the detailed project level of an application for 

development consent.” 

My concern in that respect is that no energy company 

would take forward such a proposal for Dungeness if it 

were not included in the list of preferred sites. The 

Minister said to the Energy and Climate Change Committee 

yesterday that national policy statements 

“set the framework for major planning decisions. I think that the 

thoroughness with which they address those issues gives investors 

a significant amount of security.” 

I agree; that is what the national policy statements are 

for. However, if a site is not included in a list, even 

though it can in theory be taken forward, no one will do 

so without a degree of certainty. I therefore wonder 

whether Dungeness could be included within the draft 

NPS, but with caveats listing the concerns of Natural 

England, which could then be addressed at a later stage. 

I would like us to be able to get to that stage first, 

however. 

6.10 pm 

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): We 

have a scandalously short time in which to address these 

issues this evening. I have calculated that if we were to 

stack vertically the documents we are talking about this 

evening—important documents fundamental to the future 

of our energy planning—the pile would be 7 inches 

high. We have therefore been allocated 21 minutes per 

inch of document. As I have seven minutes, I will 

address just one third of the documents by focusing on 

EN-1 and EN-5. However, I hope the powers that be 

will press through the usual channels for a lot more 

time in the Chamber to discuss these documents as 

they go through the consultative phase, because it is just 

not right that we have such a short time to get to grips 

with them. 

EN-1 is an overarching policy document setting out 

our energy planning framework for the future. It deals 

with our climate change commitments, and our 

commitments to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions 

by 80% by 2050. That, in turn, means the documents 

have to address the decarbonisation of the UK’s energy 

supply. The Committee on Climate Change wrote to the 

Secretary of State for Energy on 17 June, stating baldly: 

“The path to meeting the UK’s 2050 target to reduce emissions 

by 80% requires that the power sector is largely decarbonised in 

the period to 2030 (e.g. average emissions should be about 100 g/kWh 

in 2030 compared to around 500 g/kWh currently).” 

I assume that the Government largely agree with the 

Committee on Climate Change that to meet the 

requirements of our climate change budgets this, or 

something like it, should be the scenario and that that 

will be reflected in the planning documents that are 

published. After all, if we are to achieve these goals we 

cannot just hope they will happen; we need to plan for 

them, and to achieve them through a combination of 

planning signals, market incentives and supply and 

trading arrangements.


EN-1 states that under some of our pathways some 

revisions have taken the scenario beyond 2025 towards 

the 2050 targets. It states: 

“Under some of our 2050 pathways, energy would need to be 

virtually emission-free”. 

Tessa Munt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the 

Infrastructure Planning Commission successor body 

appears to be carbon-blind in its decision making under 

the arrangements? The IPC successor body should give 

significant weight to any project’s carbon emissions and 

ensure that cumulative emissions from the various projects 

do not jeopardise the UK’s carbon targets and their 

budgets. The national policy statement should provide 

an additional safeguard to that process. 

Dr Whitehead: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. In 

response to the Energy and Climate Change Committee 

report examining the previous national policy statements 

the Government have accepted they need to undertake 

some sort of spatial planning arrangement which will 

look at the cumulative impacts between various 

arrangements as they progress. She is also absolutely 

right that in this NPS that question of decarbonisation 

of supply needs to be part of the process, not anterior 

to it. The current level of emissions of our energy 

supply means that if we are to get to that position, gas 

at about 450 grams per kWh unabated probably will 

have no part to play in the energy economy by 2030—when 

abated, it comes in at about 100 grams per kWh. 

What are we planning? What are we looking for in 

these overarching documents? According to EN-1, we 

are planning to require a capacity of about 113 GW of 

installed power sources by 2025, which is a substantial 

increase on 2010 levels because of the penetration of 

wind, in particular. According to the scenario of that 

capacity projection, wind needs greater capacity to balance 

its variability. So the 113 GW, which is an increase on 

the about 80 GW of installed capacity that we have at 

the moment, will need to be installed by that point. 

However, 22 GW are expected to go offline, including 

most nuclear plants and a number of power plants, 

under the large plant directive and the industrial emissions 

directive. So 59 GW of new power will need to be built 

between now and 2025, one way or another. 

If we reach the renewables targets for wind, and we 

probably will, given the amount of wind power already 

in planning, we will have about 33 GW of wind power 

on the grid. That means that we will need 26 GW of 

new build non-renewables or non-wind. Of whatever 

type, they will, for the reasons I have outlined, need to 

be low-carbon or lowish-carbon. Some 8 GW are under 

construction and almost all that construction relates to 

gas. That leaves a balance of 18 GW. Some 9 GW is not 

under construction but has planning permission. The 

Government dismiss that as uncertain, but 5 GW of 

that relates to gas; plans for a further 7 GW are under 

consideration, most of which also relates to gas. So it 

appears that most of the current gap is set to be 

made up by gas. As the Select Committee has been 

told by the Committee on Climate Change, more gas is 

in the pipeline in terms of planning, permissions or 

build than we need for that future decarbonisation 

strategy to work. 

The NPS says that 

“it would be for industry to determine the exact mix of the 

remaining 26 GW of required new electricity capacity, acting 

within the strategic framework set by the Government”. 

If industry decides as it appears to be deciding, it will 

choose gas. If it is to be gas and that gas is unabated or 

only partially abated, the decarbonisation of our electricity 

supply will not happen. 

David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con) rose— 

Dr Whitehead: I am sorry but I have to make progress 

because I will not get injury time for the second intervention 

I take. 

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): You will, 

Alan. 

Dr Whitehead: Okay, then I will take the intervention. 

David Mowat: Thank you for your help on that 

matter, Mr Deputy Speaker. I agree with the hon. 

Gentleman’s point about decarbonisation, but it prompts 

the question: how much cost penalty would he advocate 

as reasonable in order for us to go down the route of a 

totally carbon-free mix in the way he is suggesting? 

Each household in the country already pays about 

£50 for the renewables obligation. The implication of 

his remarks is that the sum should be very much higher. 

I wonder whether he has thought about that. 

Dr Whitehead: Indeed I have. I think we will find out 

considerably more about that in the material that will 

come out on energy market reform, particularly the 

details on what a carbon floor price will look like and 

what capacity payments will look like to keep the energy 

balance more decarbonised in future. Yes, that will add 

costs to the system and there need to be circumstances 

in which those can be abated for the public, but that is a 

particular issue for the energy market reform material 

to address. 

When the Minister was asked in the recent Energy 

and Climate Change Committee sitting about the gap 

that I have mentioned he said that it is possible that 

16 GW of the 18 GW gap could be new nuclear. That 

represents 10 new nuclear power stations by 2025, and 

although that would solve the gap problem it has the 

unfortunate downside of being inherently implausible. 

The Minister may want to rectify what he said in the 

light of that implausibility at a future date. 

The Committee on Climate Change’s estimate for the 

nuclear roll-out, produced in 2009, said that there would 

be a maximum of three nuclear power stations online 

by 2020, even based on optimistic build and planning 

time scenarios. Indeed, as we have seen, the timing of 

the justification process has already slipped. 

That leaves a gap that is not filled by nuclear. It is 

clear at the moment that there is an apparent contradiction 

in our national planning statements. We want to decarbonise 

our supply, but for 2025 we are pushing towards having 

a majority of gas as opposed to a small amount of 

peripheral gas at peaking periods, which is what our 

future energy supply should be based on. 

That is compounded by NPS EN-5, which attempts 

to collate permissions for plant and line. It will therefore 

replicate the question of providing grid capacity for 

plants as they stand and not provide new grid capacity


[Dr Whitehead] 

for plants that are not yet completed and that will be 

needed for a decentralised and decarbonised future 

energy supply. 

I do not have time to go into the matter of electricity 

storage, but I hope that the NPSs will pay some attention 

to that question. It is not true that electricity cannot be 

stored, as NPS EN-1 says. It can be stored and storage 

must be a future part of our increased capacity, as the 

Minister mentioned in the Select Committee yesterday. 

I hope that the Minister will reflect on that. 

6.21 pm 

Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): Thank you, 

Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute to 

this stimulating debate, which is fundamentally focused 

on the process of establishing the Government’s important 

plan for the greatest increase in energy capacity and 

generation that we will see in our lifetimes. It is required, 

of course, to avoid a situation such as the one described 

by the line, “The lights are going out all over Europe; we 

may not see them lit again in our lifetimes.” That phrase 

was used by Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign 

Secretary at the beginning of the first world war, as a 

metaphor for the catastrophe that was enveloping our 

continent, but by 2014 it could be the reality of our 

energy situation. 

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on leading 

us towards a plan and through a process that will attract 

the enormous new investment of some £200 billion that 

is required to replace a third of all power stations in the 

next 10 years. I want to touch briefly on one aspect of it, 

which is the nuclear energy part. I am conscious that the 

shadow Minister said earlier that our overall energy 

situation was in “darn good shape” and “ready to go”. 

If new nuclear power stations had been under starter’s 

orders for 13 years, there must have been a terrible 

problem with the starter’s pistol. 

Today those plans are closer to becoming reality, not 

least because of the contribution made by EDF and its 

plan for a new nuclear power station. It is worth reminding 

Members that EDF took over the eight existing nuclear 

power stations previously operated by British Energy 

from Barnwood in my constituency. It is also worth 

noting EDF’s considerable investment, which will benefit 

people all over this country, of £20 billion towards the 

next new power station. That is almost twice EDF’s 

initial investment in buying British Energy. 

With the new generation of nuclear power stations 

come one or two other things I want to make the House 

aware of. First, the Barnwood nuclear power academy 

is becoming the training academy for nuclear engineers 

not just from this country but from all over Europe, and 

it brings thousands of young engineers to learn their 

trade in the centre of England. It is also running the 

country’s leading apprenticeship scheme, with some 

400 apprentices studying on a four-year course. I am 

optimistic that before the Gloucestershire apprenticeship 

fair in February of next year, the academy will offer 

more apprenticeships in finance and human resources 

as well as in the core business of engineering on the 

operations side. Nuclear power is critical to the future 

of our energy supply and to employment opportunities 

in the energy sector—EDF will create some 2,000 jobs 

over the next 10 years. It is also important in terms of 

employment opportunities for our young through an 

ever-expanding apprenticeship scheme. That illustrates 

how important it is, first, to attract foreign investment 

to Britain; and secondly, to set up a framework and a 

robust plan so investors have the confidence to fulfil 

their part in the important new energy capabilities that 

the Minister is shaping us towards. 

I conclude by saying that I hugely look forward to 

hosting a visit by the Minister to Barnwood soon to see 

at first hand the enthusiasm in my constituency both for 

tackling the energy shortages in our country and for 

building new nuclear power stations. Overall, the national 

policy statements will contribute hugely to having a 

more robust process, and I will certainly vote in favour 

of them this evening. 

6.26 pm 


Co-op): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in 

this debate. I served for a short time on the Energy and 

Climate Change Committee before being moved on to 

other things. 

As the Minister and the shadow Minister, my hon. 

Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), 

made clear in their opening remarks, the policy statements 

are important, and it is crucial that we have the opportunity 

to debate them—I hope that we will have more opportunity 

to debate them than the short time that is available this 

evening. Bearing in mind that several Government Members 

want to speak, I will try to curtail my remarks to less 

than seven minutes, if possible. 

As the Minister has said, policy statements are crucial 

to energy security, our capacity and our ageing plant, 

which needs to be replaced. As the hon. Member for 

Gloucester (Richard Graham) said, they are crucial to 

investment, which can create and sustain jobs in the 

industry and the supply chain—I know that many Members 

on both sides of the House have a definite interest in 

that. 

I will not repeat the issues with Sheffield Forgemasters, 

other than to say that it is a crying shame that opportunities 

to develop, nurture and create jobs and skills will be 

enjoyed by other parts of the world, when we are 

focused on trying—in the words of the Prime Minister—to 

“rebalance the economy”. 

I want to touch on a couple of issues, to which I hope 

the Minister will respond. Many Members are more 

than aware of the huge frustration at the time it takes to 

move an infrastructure project from planning to building 

and to being ready for use—the clock is, as we all know, 

ticking. The previous Government looked to address 

that frustration through the Infrastructure Planning 

Commission. There are concerns that by choosing a 

different route—by making the IPC part of the Planning 

Inspectorate—the Government might be subjecting the 

certainty that investors need to further delays. In moving 

to that model, I hope that some reassurance will be 

given that delays will not result in investment decisions 

not being taken or in investment being taken elsewhere. 

That is absolutely crucial. 

The Minister knows from our discussions that I 

welcome the Government’s commitment to carbon capture 

and storage and to the pilot project at Longannet. That 

is the right project, given the speed with which existing 

coal technology can be retrofitted and be up and running.


As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian 

Lavery) said in an intervention, it is also important that 

gas forms part of future carbon capture and storage 

projects. I have heard the Minister refer to that, but I 

would be grateful if he reaffirmed it and gave further 

information. Otherwise, we will miss out on technology 

that can be developed, tested and used in this country, 

which goes back to my earlier point about some of the 

jobs and skills that can be nurtured in this country but 

exported elsewhere. When the Prime Minister and others 

go off to China, India and other parts of the world 

evangelising for UK manufacturing industry, there is 

potential for jobs to be created in the whole of the UK, 

not only in one part. That can help to join up the parts 

of the policy agenda. 

I want to touch on some of the issues of electricity 

market reform. I know that I am getting a reputation 

for being able to bore on about transmission charging 

for ever, but I have about two minutes, so I will bore on 

about it briefly. As the Minister will be aware, there is 

considerable concern in some parts of the industry that 

investment decisions are being limited by the current 

transmission charging regime. Although the Ofgem review 

is being conducted—I welcome Ofgem’s recent change 

in stance—we have to be absolutely clear that as the 

electricity markets are reformed the transmission charging 

regime changes too. It was designed primarily for the 

pre-renewables world and is not serving our interests in 

achieving our overall targets for reducing carbon. There 

is potential for that industry to develop, partly, but not 

entirely, in Scotland, where investors could be put off 

making a number of decisions on projects as a result of 

the current transmission charging regime. 

There has been a lot of talk about the importance of 

the green investment bank. The idea originated under 

the previous Government and has been carried forward 

under this Government. It is crucial that we get the 

model right. It has to be about levering in green investment 

on a certain scale if it is to have any positive impact. 

I use my last few seconds to reiterate my plea to the 

Secretary of State for Scotland—which he seemed to 

begin to agree with—that the green investment bank be 

based in Scotland, given the industry and the expertise 

that is there. 

6.32 pm 

Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con): I am 

pleased to be called to speak in this important debate. 

Like many MPs, I believe that the first responsibility of 

any Government is the security of its citizens, and I take 

that responsibility very seriously. Securing our energy 

supplies is vital for the well-being and prosperity of the 

people who sent us here to represent them. The failure 

of the previous Government to invest, despite the so-called 

boom years and their great appetite for spending other 

people’s money, has led to our being far too dependent 

on imports to supply our national energy needs. Why? 

As we are discovering from so many other areas of 

policy that we have inherited, the reason is the previous 

Government’s failure to fix the roof while the sun was 

shining. There has been a lack of coherent and consistent 

policy to enable the UK to have a secure energy supply. 

Like any industry, the providers of energy need a 

clear and timely planning process, and the national 

policy statements are a step in the right direction. Along 

with proposals that we anticipate in the localism Bill, 

they will create the right processes that will enable the 

development of sustainable and secure energy supplies 

for the UK. I believe that the new policies should 

provide an efficient and democratically accountable 

system, and a fast-track process for major infrastructure 

projects. There is no doubt that there is an urgent need 

for a new energy structure in the UK. In developing that 

structure, the right balance must be struck between 

consenting to and building new energy infrastructure 

and the importance of protecting our environment and 

the quality of life for those who live in the communities 

where that important infrastructure is located. 

Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): I 

wonder whether my hon. Friend might also emphasise 

the great importance of ensuring that energy is affordable 

for the poorest people in the country. There are some 

high-falutin’ ideas that seem to add cost for consumers, 

and they should be opposed. 

Sarah Newton: I very much agree. Far too many 

people in constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s and 

mine, especially in rural areas, are living in real fuel 

poverty and enduring the hardship associated with high 

energy bills. 

In establishing the right balance between environmental 

protection and the need to build new infrastructure, my 

hon. Friend the Minister must take very seriously the 

points my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and 

Hythe (Damian Collins) made about Natural England. 

Many of us up and down the country face the problems 

he described. 

I welcome in the draft statement the recognition of 

the important role that local authorities will play in the 

development and consideration of proposed major energy 

projects. The extent to which local authorities wish to 

be involved in the planning process has always been, 

and will continue to be, up to them, but the new regime 

is a significant improvement, giving local government 

statutory rights in the process and ensuring that its 

views are adequately taken into consideration. In addition, 

rather than imposing additional costs, there are potential 

savings for local government from the new regime, as 

shorter hearings and quicker decisions should ensure 

that in future local authorities do not incur the costs 

incurred now. 

As hon. Members will be aware, I represent a constituency 

in Cornwall, where we aspire to be world leaders in the 

new low carbon industrial revolution. As a result I have 

a particular interest in how the relevant parts of the 

NPS support the development of renewable energy. We 

are blessed with an abundance of natural resources that 

make us ideally situated to develop significant quantities 

of low carbon electricity to feed into the national grid. 

In the universities of Exeter and Plymouth and the 

Camborne school of mines, we have a world-leading 

knowledge base in renewable and sustainable energy. In 

local companies such as GeoScience and Kensa 

Engineering, we have pioneering and highly skilled 

engineering companies. The wave hub off Cornwall’s 

north coast is the first of its kind in Europe and it 

enables the testing of prototype wave and tide devices. 

We have great light for photovoltaics, an abundance of 

onshore wind and the hottest rocks in the UK. What we 

do not have is a national grid infrastructure able to take


[Sarah Newton] 

the anticipated volumes of electricity that can be generated 

locally to be fed into the grid. I believe that the NPS will 

help to tackle that wholly unsatisfactory situation. 

Although I understand the Government’s reasons for 

feeling that there is no urgency about including technologies 

such as wave and tide in the NPS until large-scale 

commercially viable schemes have been developed, I 

urge the Minister to keep them in mind for the next 

round and subsequent revisions and, in the meantime, 

to do all he can to support that sector of renewable 

energy generation and to keep a watching brief on how 

the Marine Management Organisation handles its 

responsibilities. He will not be surprised to hear a 

similar plea from me for deep geothermal energy generation, 

which has the potential to contribute 5% of the UK’s 

electricity. That technology, which is tried and tested in 

other countries—often developed by UK engineers—is 

yet to receive the support it deserves from Government 

in this country. With my hon. Friend’s assistance, I hope 

to reverse that. 

Given the scale of the challenge ahead, it is vital that 

NPS is capable of being revised and updated, so that, as 

we learn more about new and emerging technologies 

and develop an evidence base for their capacity to 

deliver energy into the grid and to contribute to the 

Government’s aim of decarbonising electricity production, 

they are supported and given the chance that inclusion 

in the NPS will provide. 

6.39 pm 

Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): It is a delight 

to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and 

Falmouth (Sarah Newton), who spoke about the energy 

potential of the hot rocks of Cornwall. I shall say 

something about the energy potential of the East Riding 

of Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire, which it is my 

privilege to represent. My rocks may be a little colder, 

however. 

We already contribute significantly to the energy 

infrastructure of this country, not least through the 

power stations just outside my constituency and the 

constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for 

Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), at Drax and 

Eggborough, as well as through the coal-fired power 

station at Keadby in my constituency. There are also the 

potential opportunities that I raised with the Minister 

earlier with regard to offshore wind at the South Humber 

Gateway. I shall not mention in the presence of my 

neighbour, my right hon. Friend and the Member for 

Haltemprice and Howden, onshore wind turbines, as he 

and I are engaged in a number of skirmishes with 

various developers. 

I welcome today’s debate, which has ranged much 

broader than simply the national policy statements. We 

have gone into many wider areas of energy policy. The 

national policy statements will contribute to putting 

our energy policy on a much more secure footing, which 

we recognise is essential if we are to attract the necessary 

investment to keep the lights on in this country, as other 

Members have mentioned. 

I shall speak about two issues associated with the 

potential for offshore wind. I mentioned earlier the 

potential for clustering the manufacturing for offshore 

wind at the South Humber Gateway, which has been 

progressing somewhat slowly through the planning system, 

owing to similar problems to those mentioned by other 

Members in relation to Natural England. In fairness to 

both Natural England and the developers, I should say 

that there has been significant movement in recent days 

and we may well get agreement. The planning structure 

is a problem for us because the developers are looking 

at sites not just in the UK, but internationally. Unless 

we get that right, we risk losing a potentially huge 

amount of investment, in this case to other countries in 

Europe. 

I was pleased to hear the Minister talk about the 

review of overhead lines, which are another massive 

issue in my constituency. The national grid seems to 

criss-cross all over some beautiful Lincolnshire and east 

Yorkshire countryside. I shall follow the proceedings 

with interest. 

On the relationship between national policy statements 

and local councils, I echo some of the concerns expressed 

by the Energy and Climate Change Committee, which 

said: 

“We are concerned that the current status of the NPSs within 

the wider planning system is, at best, ambiguous.” 

I note the Government’s response, which states that 

“the degree to which Government policy, including the policy in 

the NPS, or draft NPS, is relevant to any particular planning 

application...isnotforGovernment to prescribe.” 

They go on to say that they therefore do not believe that 

any additional guidance is necessary. 

I ask the Minister to reconsider that. Having served 

as a local councillor for 10 years, I know that it is an 

undeniable attraction to planning officers to look for 

leadership from national Government in local planning 

decisions. Could we have a clearer statement that the 

NPSs will not impact on local planning decisions and 

should not be used as an excuse? We saw regional 

spatial strategies often being drawn into planning 

applications, where they had no real role. The temptation 

is irresistible to many planning officers to look to 

national policy for guidance. Perhaps that can be considered 

in more detail when we debate national policy statements 

next year. 

I welcome the general direction of policy. The debate 

today has been interesting, with the Minister and the 

shadow Minister working on a consensual cross-party 

basis on many topics. That is significant on a subject 

that is so important to the country. I look forward to 

seeing the Minister at the South Humber Gateway 

shortly, and I thank him for that. 

6.43 pm 

Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con): I shall keep 

my remarks brief, as I am conscious of time. 

It is extremely important that we get energy policy 

right. It is right that the Department has reconsulted on 

it, rather than rushing ahead, as it might have done. If 

we get energy policy wrong, we will live with the 

consequences for decades to come. There is a huge 

infrastructure challenge. As has been mentioned, we 

need to replace about one third of our entire energy 

generating capacity in the next 10 years. 

All our nuclear power stations bar one will be off line 

by 2023, and we need to rebuild substantially, if not 

completely, our energy transmission infrastructure if


we are to move towards a smart grid, which we will need 

to enable the 21st century energy infrastructure that we 

are trying to put in place to work. This huge infrastructure 

challenge translates into a huge investment challenge. 

Some £200 billion of investment is required in the 

coming years. To put that into context, I point out that 

it is approximately one third of the entire investment in 

energy infrastructure that the whole of Europe will 

require. EDF is looking at spending some £20 billion on 

what we hope will be the first of a new generation of 

nuclear power stations. That £20 billion represents the 

largest single investment by a French company outside 

France, I think ever, but certainly since the second 

world war. We need another nine just like that if we are 

to hit our £200 billion. 

At the risk of over-emphasising this issue, let me say 

that we absolutely have to get the investment climate 

right. We need to put in place a stable regulatory and 

investment climate that will give investors the confidence 

to invest staggering sums of money for 30 or 40-year 

timelines and beyond. The investment challenge here is 

probably the biggest single part of the issue that we are 

discussing today. I therefore strongly welcome the broad 

degree of cross-party consensus that we have on our 

emerging energy policy. Investors must have the confidence 

that we will not lurch from one energy policy in this 

country to another with potential changes of Government, 

but work together and put something in place that will 

give the confidence for 10, 20, 30, 40 years or more. 

That is all I want to say. It is a plea as much to those 

on the Opposition Front Bench as to those on the 

Government Front Bench. We must ensure that we put 

together an investment and regulatory regime that will 

not change, that will be stable and give the confidence 

that is necessary if we are to have the investment that we 

need. 

6.46 pm 

Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD): I will return to my favourite 

subject of the electricity grid, particularly as it affects 

Somerset, Suffolk and the other areas that have been 

mentioned today. Electricity networks have a significant 

effect on the beauty and tranquillity of the countryside, 

and to date the industry has been guided by a set of 

principles called the Holford rules in routing new overhead 

lines. I particularly want to note that the second draft of 

the NPS on electricity networks proposes to weaken the 

standing of the Holford rules. The latest draft says only 

that decision makers 

“should bear them in mind”. 

That is likely to mean that there will be no requirement 

on either the electricity companies to demonstrate that 

they have sought to avoid damaging impacts on important 

areas of landscape, or that the decision maker should 

base its evaluation for proposed overhead transmission 

line schemes on whether the Holford rules have been 

met. Neither does there seem to be an expectation 

that the mitigation measures suggested in EN-5, at 

paragraph 289, should be carried out for schemes where 

one or more of the Holford rules are not met. The effect 

of this will be seriously to weaken the protection of the 

countryside from unnecessary or intrusive energy 

infrastructure. 

The other minor points that I would like to make 

include the wording of several sections of the NPS 

where minor changes of wording could have major 

impacts. I will write to the Minister in detail about those 

if I may, but certainly there are paragraphs in EN-1 that 

relate to the historic environment where there is weakened 

protection for non-designated but still important heritage 

assets, and there are impacts on the visual landscape 

that relate to the regional economy departing from 

existing protections for nationally designated areas such 

as national parks or areas of outstanding national 

beauty. In addition, EN-1 also seems to advise applicants 

on how to circumvent green belt protection. 

Finally, I cannot reflect the comments that were 

made earlier, and I should like to be sure that there is 

some way in which local authorities can negotiate a 

realistic contribution from developers, especially, for 

example, for residents in my area, which will be 

providing a storage facility for nuclear waste on a 

temporary basis that I understand to be somewhere in 

excess of 100 years. 

6.49 pm 

Charles Hendry: We have had a good debate. It has 

been brief, but it is part of the process, not the end, and 

there will be further opportunities to discuss the issues 

at length when the House returns in the new year. We 

have had a very good mix, involving national interest 

and a great tour of the energy opportunities horizon in 

the constituencies of many Members on both sides of 

the House. One of the most encouraging outcomes of 

the debate is the recognition that, throughout the country, 

people are looking at how we can generate electricity in 

a new way. Where are the new opportunities? The hot 

rocks in Cornwall and the cold rocks in Yorkshire—the 

great opportunities that we find around us—are something 

that we should truly celebrate as we look at the issue. 

The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), 

who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, talked 

about who should take the credit, Labour Ministers or 

Conservative Ministers? I do not think it should be any 

of us, because it should be our incredibly hard-working 

officials, who have done almost all the work in getting 

us to our current position and an outstandingly good 

job on a very complex set of documents. 

The hon. Gentleman talked about the delay. We wish 

that there had not been one, but we recognised that in 

the previous draft statement there was a flaw in the 

appraisal of sustainability, and we felt it right to re-interpret 

that in order to make it stronger and clearer. Because 

that was so fundamental and in the overarching national 

policy statement, it seemed right that we should re-consult 

on all the statements, and it has been absolutely the 

right way to take the matter forward. 

On the question of how the process will move forward, 

we have assumed that there will be a debate about the 

national policy statements overall and, at the end of the 

day, votes on the individual statements, but we do not 

anticipate the scope for hundreds of amendments to 

them. We have changed the previous Government’s 

decision that there would be no vote at all, because we 

believe it important that, as part of this democratic 

process, the House should have the chance to vote on 

them. 

The hon. Gentleman asked also about the role of 

localism. There is a difference between the nationally 

critical strategic infrastructure, which we deal with in 

the national policy statements, and the local agenda,


[Charles Hendry] 

where we believe that local authorities should have 

significantly more power when deciding on the issues 

that come to them below the 50 MW. Of course, the 

views of local people, directly and through their local 

authorities, will be an integral part of individual planning 

applications, and they will be heard. 

I shall pick up on some of the other points that have 

been raised during the debate. My hon. Friend the 

Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) 

talked about Dungeness, and from our conversations 

and his consistent representations, I understand where 

he is coming from. We recognise that the development 

of a new nuclear power station at Dungeness would be 

a continued source of employment and bring economic 

benefits to the surrounding area, but the Government 

are obliged by law to consider adverse affects on the 

integrity of European-protected sites which might be 

caused by development and to consider alternative sites 

if those impacts cannot be mitigated. 

Dungeness is not on the NPS, because we have not 

yet been persuaded that a new nuclear power station 

could be built there without having adverse impacts on 

the integrity of the Dungeness special area of conservation, 

or that adverse impacts could be avoided or mitigated. 

The Dungeness SAC is the most important shingle site 

in Europe, so after careful consideration of the 

representations made so far our view that Dungeness 

should be excluded has not changed. The consultation 

is continuing, and, if additional evidence that changes 

that conclusion emerges in the course of the meeting 

that I will have with my hon. Friend and his local 

authority’s representatives, or in written submissions, 

we will take it into account. 

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test 

(Dr Whitehead), who speaks with such authority, raises 

several issues, but I shall focus on the role of gas. We see 

a need for gas, but part of the issue is that we have 

inherited a situation in which new nuclear cannot be 

built until the end of the decade, because its construction 

did not start earlier. Further, when it comes to the 

mass roll-out of renewables, we are third from bottom 

in the whole EU. We have great ambition but start from 

a long way behind. Carbon capture and storage on a 

major commercial scale cannot play a massive role until 

the end of the decade, although our ambitions for that 

are high. 

Gas will therefore have to be part of the process; that 

is the simple, practical reality. Gas-powered stations can 

be built quickly; gas requires lower capital expenditure 

than other technologies, so the write-off period is lower; 

and importantly it is flexible, so it can back up other, 

more inherently variable technologies. 

Of course, the issue of emissions will be critical. That 

is why we are taking forward the work on the carbon 

floor price and looking at emissions performance standards 

and the other measures that will be brought to bear, 

which investors will need to take into account as they 

make decisions on these critical investments. The time 

scale of that is now almost upon us. In the next few 

weeks, before Christmas, we will set out how the electricity 

market reform process will work. 

My hon. Friends took me on a fascinating tour of the 

country. We heard about the nuclear opportunities in 

Gloucester and the great training opportunities at the 

Barnwood EDF facility. My hon. Friend the Member 

for Gloucester (Richard Graham) is absolutely right to 

talk about the skills agenda and the supply chain 

opportunities that we are determined to realise. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth 

(Sarah Newton) focused on energy security and the 

issues surrounding the wave hub and deep geothermal 

resources. I look forward to visiting those facilities with 

her in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for 

Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) talked about the supply 

chain and his concerns about power lines, which we 

completely understand. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) 

spoke about the Holford rules. We will reflect on the 

concerns that she expressed, but we must also have 

clarity about what benefit local areas will achieve from 

these new investments. That is at the heart of the 

localism Bill. Thinking about how local communities 

should benefit in terms of business rates and other 

direct benefits coming into their communities will 

completely transform the relationship between these 

facilities and the communities who host them. That will 

be an important element as we move forward. 

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West 

(Tom Greatrex) speaks with great authority on these 

issues, and the House benefits from his expertise. He is 

absolutely right that time is not on our side. The whole 

purpose of what we are trying to do is to remove the 

barriers to new investment in these areas. We are absolutely 

clear that there will be no public subsidy for new nuclear, 

but we must then remove the other potential barriers—the 

regulatory barriers—to ensure that that investment can 

go ahead. On carbon capture and storage, I can absolutely 

give him the assurance that we are looking to gas as part 

of the next projects. The market-sounding exercise showed 

a significant interest in gas, and we will therefore open 

up this competition to gas plants as well. 

The hon. Gentleman talked about EMR and the cost 

of transmission. We have to look at this in a new way. 

People will not build power plants if they do not believe 

that they can get their power to market. Historically, 

power plants were built in the coal centres or outside 

the big industrial centres; now, we are looking at new 

places for them to be built. We have to look at this 

afresh, and I am delighted with the work that Ofgem is 

doing to look at the best structure for the process. I will 

leave others to deal with the issue of the location of the 

green investment bank. 

Finally, I want to deal with some of the points made 

by the hon. Member for Ogmore. He mentioned “what 

if?” scenarios. He was right to do that, but we are in that 

“what if?” environment because of the situation that we 

inherited. After 13 years, we have to get £200 billion of 

new investment coming into the infrastructure. If more 

decisions had been made to take forward the role of 

nuclear and not to have the five-year moratorium, we 

would be significantly further advanced, and the challenging 

energy situation in the middle of this decade would not 

have applied in the same way. 

My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire 

(Dan Byles) talked extremely clearly and effectively 

about the energy security needs that we have to address. 

It is possible that CCS may not work, or that the price 

may be too high, but if we do not push the process 

forward and take advantage of the extraordinary 

opportunities that we have in this country, we will


930 

always be followers and never be leaders. That is why we 

have been so keen to take forward that technology. 

The hon. Member for Ogmore suggested that 

decentralised energy may be unable to deliver as much 

as we hope, and he may be right. However, we are right 

to try to look at what can be done locally, although we 

are doing it against the backdrop of how much more 

should have been done historically. In the end, this all 

comes back to the broad portfolio of policies that we 

are putting forward—the need to have clarity on national 

planning issues, which is exactly what these documents 

are about, and the need to have clarity on the market 

structure that will exist. 

The hon. Gentleman talked almost as if EMR—the 

market reform process—was his own idea. Seven months 

ago, Labour Members were saying that there did not 

need to be a price on carbon, that there should not be 

an emissions performance standard, and that we did 

not need capacity payments. We are having to reinvent a 

market in order to take us forward and give us the 

security that we need. This is part of a package. I hope 

that he is in no doubt about our determination to 

achieve that and to drive it forward. Let me assure my 

hon. Friends, and all hon. Members that we totally 

understand everything that needs to be done to drive 

forward investment in this area. We will take nothing 

for granted. Our goal is to make this the most attractive 

place in the world in which to invest in new energy 

infrastructure. We are determined to do that and we 

look for consensus and partnership to take it forward. 

This debate has been a constructive and important part 

of that process. I hope we can conclude that we have 

had a good debate on these issues— 

7pm 

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)). 

Business without Debate 

DELEGATED LEGISLATION 

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing 

Order No. 118(6)), 

OFFICIAL STATISTICS 

That the draft Official Statistics Order 2010, which was laid 

before this House on 13 October, be approved.—(Mr Goodwill.) 

Question agreed to. 

Libel Law 

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House 

do now adjourn.—(Mr Goodwill.) 

7pm 

Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): If 

the world has a capital of free speech, it is Britain. If it 

has a centre of free speech, it is this Chamber, as you 

know well, Mr Speaker. Yet in the last few years, Britain 

has become a watchword for something else—the use of 

our libel law to suppress free speech. 

This is not an esoteric philosophical issue. Free speech 

is the mother of freedom of thought and freedom of 

thought is the mother of many virtues, including integrity, 

individualism and creativity. That is why Britain has a 

vigorous and successful tradition of high culture and 

science, as well as of democracy. As I will demonstrate, 

all those virtues of British culture have been suppressed, 

to a greater or lesser extent, by our libel law. 

As a Parliament, we have failed to defend one of our 

nation’s primary virtues—free speech. We have also 

failed in the duty to protect the weak and vulnerable 

from the rich and powerful. More often than not, it is 

the rich and powerful who use the libel laws to intimidate 

the less wealthy and the less powerful, as I shall demonstrate. 

Perhaps the best demonstration that English libel law 

has become a weapon of the rich and powerful is the 

extent to which they choose to use the English courts 

over any other option and over the courts of any other 

country. When Boris Berezovsky sued a Russian TV 

company, he did so not in Russia, where the deed 

occurred, but in England. Similarly, Roman Abramovich 

chose to sue an Italian newspaper not in Rome, but in 

London. 

In 2004, the Saudi billionaire, Khalid bin Mahfouz, 

launched a libel action against Rachel Ehrenfeld, the 

American author of “Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is 

Financed—and How to Stop It”. The book claimed 

that Mahfouz financed al-Qaeda. It was not published 

here, but it was available online. Mahfouz brought the 

case not in America or Saudi Arabia, but in Britain, 

and the court awarded him substantial damages. As a 

direct result, New York law was changed to prevent 

British judgments applying in the US and American 

national law is undergoing the same change. 

Those rich men each brought their cases under the 

English judicial system, rather than in the appropriate 

forum, because English libel law is complex, clumsy, 

expensive and draconian. It is 140 times more expensive 

to defend a libel case in England than in other European 

nations. As a result, it favours the wealthy man who has 

the most financial stamina and can afford the most 

expensive lawyers. Although libel tourism is not the 

most important weakness in English libel law, it is the 

starkest symptom of how unfair it can be, compared 

with every other jurisdiction in the modern world. 

Perhaps the best domestic example of this grotesquely 

expensive system is the Naomi Campbell case. A newspaper 

wrote about her drug problem. It was sued and lost on 

the grounds of breach of confidentiality. Although the 

story was true, the legal fees alone cost more than 

£1 million. 

How did all that come about? English libel law was 

largely developed centuries ago by English judges, as an 

alternative to duelling to protect the honour of gentlemen.

931 Libel Law 


Libel Law 

932 

[Mr David Davis] 

I am sure that no Member wants to see Hampstead 

heath littered with the bodies of dead journalists, but I 

am not sure how much of an improvement that new law 

was. It has been compounded with undoubtedly well 

intentioned European Union and European Court of 

Human Rights law, and we have ended up with dreadful 

unintended consequences. 

One of the most egregious consequences has been the 

rise of the so-called super-injunction, which bans any 

reporting of a case at all. The most extreme of those 

was the Trafigura case, which you will remember, 

Mr Speaker. Trafigura was accused of dumping toxic 

waste on the Ivory Coast, and for a while its lawyers 

secured a ban on the reporting even of questions in 

Parliament. In so doing, they overturned the absolute 

right to free speech fought for and won more than two 

centuries ago by John Wilkes. That is a suppression of 

free speech in this country that no one in the House 

should countenance or tolerate. 

There is worse yet: the crushing of free speech in 

science and medicine. Both those disciplines advance by 

conjecture and refutation, through the advancing of 

theories and the testing of them by experiment. Free 

dispute and unfettered argument are essential to that 

process. Yet we are witnessing, time and again, the use 

of English libel law by powerful commercial interests to 

suppress legitimate discussion of scientific fact and 

medical effectiveness. 

That is not entirely new. A famous member of this 

House, William Cobbett, was bankrupted by a lawsuit 

in 1797 after he pointed out that the practice of bleeding 

victims of yellow fever probably killed a number of 

them. He fled the lawsuit and the victims continued to 

be bled, and of course continued to die. 

In modern times, the starkest example was the 

thalidomide case. For some time, The Sunday Times 

was prevented from publishing articles alleging negligence 

in the manufacture and distribution of the drug, which, 

as Members will remember, caused terrible deformities 

in the children of women who took it in pregnancy. 

That judgment was eventually overruled, and the law 

was rebalanced slightly to favour free speech in the 

Contempt of Court Act 1981. Unfortunately, however, 

there are still actions by commercial companies and 

other vested interests to suppress criticism of medical 

products and practices. 

I shall give an example. Henrik Thomsen, a Danish 

radiologist, raised concerns that Omniscan, a drug used 

to enhance medical scanner images, was causing crippling 

pain and even death in a few patients. Despite the fact 

that medicine advances by a process of critical appraisal, 

the maker of the drug, GE Healthcare, sued him in the 

British courts, clearly in order to silence him. The suit 

has been resolved, but another medical specialist, the 

eminent cardiologist Peter Wilmshurst, has faced similar 

treatment. At a cardiology conference not in Britain but 

in Washington DC in 2007, he criticised a product made 

by an American company, NMT Medical, to deal with 

symptoms of hole-in-the-heart syndrome. NMT sued 

Mr Wilmshurst not in America but in the English 

courts. He courageously decided to fight the case, 

specifically to defend free speech. 

Time and again, commercial companies take such 

action to silence critics. The proper, responsible, 

scientific way of dealing with criticism in medicine is 

tousb present the data and confront the argument. 

Using the law to silence legitimate criticism is to put 

shareholder interest above public health and, sometimes, 

public safety. 

The best known case in England, of course, is that of 

Simon Singh, who essentially called some of the claims 

of chiropractors bogus. The British Chiropractic 

Association sued him and, after a protracted legal battle, 

lost. Nevertheless, he ended up hundreds of thousands 

of pounds out of pocket in addition to losing two years 

of his life—two years of stress, anxiety and the prospect 

of financial ruin. A less courageous man would have 

buckled, and indeed most do. That, of course, is the 

purpose: to intimidate critics out of saying anything, or 

to force a humiliating retraction, effectively gagging the 

press from reporting such criticism. 

The tactics used are carefully refined. They are known 

as “lawfare” and are designed to focus the financial 

intimidation on the individual who is least able to bear 

it. The most recent demonstration of that nasty tactic 

would be ludicrous—bordering on the farcical—were it 

not so serious in its wider implications. It involves a 

product, elegantly called “Boob Job”, sold at £125 a jar 

and produced by a company called Rodial. The Daily 

Mail sought the advice of a leading consultant plastic 

surgeon, Dr Dalia Nield, of the London Clinic. As one 

might expect, she questioned its effectiveness and suggested 

that if it had the physiological effects claimed for it by 

its producers, it might be dangerous. 

Rodial threatened Dr Nield with legal action. It has 

not threatened the Daily Mail, which carried her comments, 

because it has the resources to fight back, just Dr Nield, 

to get the maximum intimidation for the minimum risk. 

The proper response of any self-respecting company 

would be to publish the detailed composition of its 

product and the data supporting its claims, and engage 

experts to test those claims and carry out safety tests. 

That would be the approach of a respectable company, 

but I am afraid that Rodial has not taken such an 

approach—it has taken instead the approach of a charlatan 

and a bully. 

Of course, Rodial is not alone. When NMT threatened 

Peter Wilmshurst with a lawsuit, it did not threaten the 

BBC, which broadcast his comments, because the BBC 

can fight back. When the chiropractors sued Simon 

Singh, they did not sue The Guardian, which published 

his comments, because The Guardian can fight back. 

That is why it is called ″lawfare″—it is the deployment 

of judicial shock tactics against the most defenceless 

part of the opposition. It is a disgraceful tactic, and it 

should not be possible under any decently balanced 

judicial system. 

The effect of “lawfare” is to chill free speech in 

science, medicine and many other areas. In this age of 

the internet, that chilling effect does not stop at our 

borders. We should remember that English is the language 

of science. The impact of our dysfunctional laws will 

become more global as more corporations come to 

understand what they can do to use our laws to suppress 

criticism. 

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): I wanted to highlight 

the fact that “lawfare” operates not merely in 

science. My constituent, Hardeep Singh, has been 

battling for four years in the ludicrously named case of

933 Libel Law 


Libel Law 

934 

His Holiness v. Singh. He has been accused by a sex cult 

leader in the Sikh tradition of libel, and it has taken up 

four years of his life and thousands of pounds to 

defend his claim in a religious dispute that, in my view, 

is not able to be decided by the courts. 

Mr Davis: The hon. Lady is entirely right. I used 

science and medicine to demonstrate the starker effects 

of “lawfare”, but she has demonstrated one of the 

reasons why we debated the law on religious hatred: to 

allow unfettered discussion of religion, which is another 

great tradition of British democracy. I apologise to her 

constituent because I think of his case as Singh II, but it 

is just as important as the Singh case I cited, because 

both demonstrate only too clearly that we must get a 

grip on British libel law to prevent it damaging every 

aspect of our culture and tradition of free speech. 

That brings me to what we should do. Regrettably, 

there is no single, simple solution. This week is the first 

anniversary of the Libel Reform Campaign, which 

encompasses campaigning organisations such as PEN, 

Index on Censorship, Sense About Science and others. 

There are a variety of issues that we need to address. 

The cost of defending libel cases should be brought 

down. One step would be not to remove jury trial, but 

to introduce a tribunal process to deal with all but the 

most serious cases. The Minister might also care to tell 

us about his Green Paper—published a few weeks ago, I 

think—in which he talks about contingent fee arrangements 

and their possible reform, which might be another way 

of reducing costs. The law should focus on protecting 

individual reputation, without allowing heavy-handed 

commercial intimidation. One step towards that might 

be not to allow commercial companies above a certain 

size—in fact, really rather a small size—to bring such 

suits unless they can, in advance, demonstrate financial 

damage. 

The public interest defence—again, this is something 

that the hon. Lady will be interested in—is too vague 

and unhelpful to authors of legitimate criticism. A 

stronger and clearer defence than that provided by the 

so-called Reynolds defence should be instituted. In 

particular, there should be a broader definition of what 

constitutes fair comment. In the light of what I have 

said about scientific and medical concerns, such a definition 

should be designed to exclude scientific and medical 

dispute from the courts completely. There should be 

intelligent limits on what constitutes multiple publication. 

For a court case to be brought in Britain, a significant 

proportion—certainly more than 10%—of the publication 

should have been in Britain. As the House can see, there 

are many proposals—I have given only a short list—that 

need to be considered. I should like the Minister to 

confirm that the Government will be introducing a Bill 

in 2011; that he will consult Index on Censorship, PEN, 

Sense About Science and other campaigners before 

publishing it; and that the Government will correct this 

unintended and unwanted systemic failure in our judicial 

system. 

I shall finish by quoting the Appeal Court judges in 

the Simon Singh ruling. Speaking about the words used 

by Simon Singh in his criticism of the chiropractors, 

they said that his 

“opinion may be mistaken, but to allow the party which has been 

denounced…to compel its author to prove in court what he has 

asserted by way of argument is to invite the court to become an 

Orwellian ministry of truth.” 

The judges went on to quote Milton, writing about his 

visit to Italy, from 1683 to 1689: 

“I have sat among their learned men…and been counted 

happy to be born in such a place of philosophic freedom, as they 

supposed England was, while themselves did nothing but bemoan 

the servile condition into which learning among them was 

brought…that nothing had been there written now these many 

years but flattery and fustian. There it was…I found and visited 

the famous Galileo, grown old a prisoner of the Inquisition, for 

thinking in astronomy otherwise than the Franciscan and Dominican 

licensers thought.” 

When the judges had finished quoting Milton, they 

said: 

“That is a pass to which we ought not to come again.” 

I say to the Minister: it is a pass that the coalition 

Government ought not to allow to come again. To 

achieve that, we need clearly thought through and thorough 

reform of this bad law, to put free speech back at the 

pinnacle of public life in Britain. 

7.18 pm 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice 

(Mr Jonathan Djanogly): I am grateful to my right hon. 

Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden 

(Mr Davis) for securing today’s debate on such an 

important and contemporary issue. Let me start by 

confirming that the Government are firmly committed 

to reviewing the law on defamation in order to protect 

free speech, and that is reflected in our coalition agreement. 

My noble Friend Lord McNally confirmed that 

commitment in July by announcing on behalf of the 

Government that we will publish a draft defamation 

Bill for consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny in the 

first Session of this Parliament, with a view to introducing 

a substantive Bill as soon thereafter as parliamentary 

time allows. 

Our core aim in reviewing the law is to ensure that 

responsible journalism, academic and scientific debate 

and the valuable work of non-governmental organisations 

are properly protected, and that a fair balance is struck 

between freedom of expression and the protection of 

reputation. We want to ensure that the right balance is 

achieved, so that people who have been defamed are 

able to take action to protect their reputation where 

appropriate, but that free speech is not unjustifiably 

impeded. 

Ensuring that the right balance is struck is a difficult 

and sensitive exercise. It raises complex issues on which 

a wide range of differing views are likely to be held. In 

recognition of that, I can confirm to my right hon. 

Friend that we believe that any reform proposals will 

need to be the subject of extensive consultation, and 

that publication of a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny, 

together with a full public consultation, represents the 

most effective approach to achieving substantive provisions 

that focus on core issues of concern where legislation 

can make a real difference. 

Since Lord McNally’s announcement, the Ministry 

of Justice held informal discussions with a range of 

people and organisations with an interest in defamation 

law to ensure that their views are taken into account. 

These included: non-governmental organisations and 

libel reform campaigners; claimant representatives and 

members of the legal profession; representatives of the 

media and the publishing industry; internet service 

providers and other internet-based organisations; and

935 Libel Law 


Libel Law 

936 

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly] 

representatives of the science community. I can confirm 

to my right hon. Friend that they included, as he 

requested, Index on Censorship, PEN and Sense About 

Science. 

My right hon. Friend featured the position of the 

science community very strongly in his remarks. It 

would be inappropriate for me to comment on many of 

the cases that he mentioned, given that proceedings are 

pending. I can confirm, however, that we are very much 

aware of the concerns about the harmful impact that 

the current law is having on scientific debate. The case 

of Simon Singh and his brave stand for his beliefs have 

been widely reported, and I was pleased to hear his 

position being clearly explained this evening by his MP, 

the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). We 

want to ensure that any provisions that we introduce 

will help to address those concerns and enable robust 

scientific and academic debate to flourish without being 

hampered by the threat of libel proceedings. 

The discussions that we held were extremely helpful 

in identifying areas in which concerns exist and the 

possible approaches to tackling the difficulties that 

arise with the current law. We have also had the benefit 

of being able to consider the range of issues raised in 

the private Member’s Bill on defamation that was introduced 

earlier in the year by Lord Lester of Herne Hill. That 

Bill was also the subject of a debate called by my hon. 

Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) in 

Westminster Hall in July this year on behalf of the 

Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which he chairs. 

It is good to see him here this evening. 

It is not possible for me to indicate today precisely 

what provisions might be included in the Government’s 

draft Bill on defamation. However, a range of issues 

have been the subject of much discussion and debate 

over recent months, and I can confirm that we are 

giving careful consideration to them, to assess whether 

it is appropriate to include provisions in the draft Bill. 

They include the need for a statutory defence relating to 

the public interest and responsible journalism. Concerns 

have been expressed by non-governmental organisations, 

the scientific community and others that there is a lack 

of certainty over how the common law defence established 

in Reynolds v. Times Newspapers applies outside the 

context of mainstream journalism, and that this creates 

a chilling effect on freedom of expression and investigative 

reporting. This is a complex area of the law, and we are 

considering whether and how a statutory defence could 

be framed in a way that is beneficial and appropriate for 

a range of different contexts. 

We are also considering libel tourism. My right hon. 

Friend gave various examples of that. There is a widespread 

perception that the English courts have become the 

forum of choice for those who wish to sue for libel, and 

that that is having a chilling effect on freedom of 

expression. I have to say to him, however, that there are 

mixed views over the extent to which libel tourism is a 

real problem. Research conducted in the context of the 

libel working group’s consideration of this issue did not 

show a significant number of actual cases involving 

foreign litigants in the High Court in 2009. However, 

non-governmental organisations have indicated that a 

major problem arises from the threat of libel proceedings 

by wealthy foreigners and public figures, which is used 

to stifle investigative journalism, regardless of whether 

actual cases are subsequently brought—hence the fact 

that the number of cases alone might not accurately 

reflect the extent of the problem. 

We are considering possible options carefully in reaching 

a decision on the way forward, including the proposal 

of the Ministry of Justice libel working group for 

procedural steps to tighten the rules and practice in 

order to head off inappropriate claims at the earliest 

possible stage, in cases where court permission is required 

to serve a defamation claim outside England and Wales. 

In doing so, we are of course keeping in mind the fact 

that there is relevant European legislation—in particular 

the Brussels I regulation—on jurisdictional matters. 

We are also considering the difficulties caused by the 

“multiple publication rule”—whereby each publication 

of defamatory material gives rise to a separate cause of 

action subject to its own limitation period—in relation 

to online material. The effect of the rule is that publishers 

are potentially liable for any defamatory material published 

by them and accessed online. That applies however long 

after the initial publication the material is accessed, and 

whether or not proceedings have already been brought 

in relation to the initial publication. We are considering 

how we could frame a single publication rule to remove 

the current threat of open-ended liability. 

We are also considering a range of other aspects of 

the law. They include the possible need for provisions 

on renaming and codifying the existing defences of 

justification and fair comment; on the basis on which 

an action for defamation can be brought and whether it 

should be necessary for claimants to show that they 

have suffered substantial harm; on the ability of 

corporations to bring defamation actions; on trial by 

jury; on defamation in the context of internet publication; 

and on issues relating to absolute and qualified privilege. 

There is much ground to cover 

My right hon. Friend asked about the use of superinjunctions. 

I can tell him that the Master of the Rolls 

has set up a committee to examine their use. We look 

forward to seeing the outcome of its work soon. 

We are pressing ahead with our work to ensure that 

publication of the draft Bill and the accompanying 

consultation paper takes place on as timely a basis as 

possible in the new year. As well as considering the 

substantive law, we are determined to ensure that costs 

in all civil proceedings, including defamation, are 

proportionate. In that context, the Secretary of State 

for Justice announced to the House on 15 November 

that the Government were consulting on proposals for 

reform of civil litigation funding and costs in England 

and Wales. We are seeking views on the implementation 

of a package of recommendations made by Lord Justice 

Jackson in his “Review of Civil Litigation Costs”. The 

Government are grateful for Sir Rupert Jackson’s report, 

in which he argues cogently that the costs of civil 

litigation are too high and are often disproportionate to 

the sums at issue. I also accept his fundamental argument 

that achieving proportionate costs and promoting access 

to justice go hand in hand. 

The key proposal on which we are consulting is the 

one to abolish recoverability of success fees and “after 

the event” insurance premiums under conditional fee 

agreements. Defendants who lose their cases are currently 

liable for those additional costs, which are often substantial. 

Abolishing recoverability would mean that claimants

937 Libel Law 


Libel Law 

938 

had to pay their lawyers’ success fees, and would therefore 

take an interest in the costs being incurred on their 

behalf. It is clear that if the current situation continues, 

and claimants continue to have no interest in the legal 

costs of their own lawyer if they win or in those of the 

defendant’s lawyer if they lose, the “have a go” 

compensation culture can only grow. 

As well as consulting on that key proposal for reform 

of CFAs, we are seeking views on implementing a 

package of Sir Rupert’s recommendations that balances 

measures for defendants with measures affecting claimants. 

They include introducing qualified one-way cost shifting, 

increasing general damages by 10%, strengthening part 

36 arrangements, which encourage parties to make and 

accept reasonable offers, and allowing damages-based 

agreements in civil litigation, otherwise known as 

contingency fees. It is hoped that the proposals will 

result overall in more proportionate costs in all civil 

proceedings including defamation, while enabling those 

who need access to justice to obtain it. The consultation 

on reform of civil litigation funding and costs closes on 

14 February 2011, and in due course the Government 

will publish a response setting out the next steps. 

I hope that I have reassured my right hon. Friend and 

other colleagues that we are taking focused and 

proportionate action that takes account of many of the 

issues involved. I believe that it is very important to 

ensure that the law achieves a fair balance between 

freedom of expression and the protection of reputation, 

and that steps are taken to bring the cost of proceedings 

under control. I thank my right hon. Friend again for 

the valuable contribution to the ongoing debate on 

these issues that he has made today. 


7.29 pm 

House adjourned.

939 1 DECEMBER 2010 Deferred Division 

940 

Deferred Division 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 

That the draft Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010, 

which was laid before this House on 25 October, be approved. 

The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 212. 


Adams, Nigel 

Afriyie, Adam 

Aldous, Peter 


Amess, Mr David 





Baker, Steve 

Baldry, Tony 





Bebb, Guto 




Berry, Jake 


Blackman, Bob 



Boles, Nick 




Brake, Tom 

Bray, Angie 





Bruce, Fiona 



Burns, Conor 


Burstow, Paul 

Burt, Lorely 

Byles, Dan 


Cairns, Alun 

Cameron, rh Mr David 

















AYES 



(Monmouth) 

Davies, Glyn 



de Bois, Nick 







Drax, Richard 




Ellison, Jane 



Evans, Graham 





Farron, Tim 



Fox,rhDrLiam 







Garnier, Mark 



Gibb, Mr Nick 



Glen, John 








Green, Damian 




Gummer, Ben 



Hames, Duncan 




Hands, Greg 




Hart, Simon 





Hemming, John 




Hermon, Lady 

Hinds, Damian 




Hopkins, Kris 



Howell, John 

Hughes, Simon 


Hunter, Mark 


Hurd, Mr Nick 


Jenkin, Mr Bernard 



Jones, Andrew 




Kelly, Chris 



Lamb, Norman 





Lee, Jessica 






Lewis, Dr Julian 



Long, Naomi 



Loughton, Tim 

Luff, Peter 

Lumley, Karen 

Macleod, Mary 


Maude, rh Mr Francis 


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 


Norman, Jesse 





Opperman, Guy 

Osborne, rh Mr George 



Paisley, Ian 

Patel, Priti 


Pawsey, Mark 

Penning, Mike 

Penrose, John 

Percy, Andrew 

Perry, Claire 




Pugh, Dr John 





Reid, Mr Alan 



Rogerson, Dan 



Russell, Bob 

Rutley, David 


Sandys, Laura 

Scott, Mr Lee 


Shannon, Jim 


Sharma, Alok 








Smith, Henry 

Smith, Julian 



Soubry, Anna 


Stanley, rh Sir John

941 Deferred Division 

1 DECEMBER 2010 Deferred Division 

942 



Stewart, Bob 

Stewart, Iain 

Stewart, Rory 


Stride, Mel 




Swales, Ian 


Swinson, Jo 




Thurso, John 







Uppal, Paul 








Austin, Ian 


Banks, Gordon 


Bayley, Hugh 

Begg, Miss Anne 











Brown, Lyn 






Cairns, David 



Caton, Martin 


Clark, Katy 


Clwyd, rh Ann 


Coffey, Ann 

Cooper, Rosie 


Creagh, Mary 

Cruddas, Jon 

NOES 








Webb, Steve 



White, Chris 



Wiggin, Bill 










Wright, Simon 







Dakin, Nic 






Denham, rh Mr John 




Doyle, Gemma 

Dromey, Jack 


Durkan, Mark 


Eagle, Maria 


Efford, Clive 




Evans, Chris 





Gapes, Mike 



Glass, Pat 



Greatrex, Tom 

Green, Kate 


Griffith, Nia 



Hamilton, Mr David 






Heyes, David 

Hillier, Meg 







Illsley, Mr Eric 





Jones, Graham 

Jones, Helen 




Joyce, Eric 


Keen, Alan 

Kendall, Liz 



Lavery, Ian 


Leslie, Chris 


Lloyd, Tony 




Lucas, Ian 





Mann, John 


McCabe, Steve 






McGovern, Alison 

McGovern, Jim 


McKechin, Ann 


Mearns, Ian 






(Easington) 


Question accordingly agreed to. 

Munn, Meg 



Murray, Ian 

Nandy, Lisa 

Nash, Pamela 


Onwurah, Chi 

Owen, Albert 


Perkins, Toby 










Roy, Mr Frank 

Roy, Lindsay 

Ruane, Chris 


Sarwar, Anas 




Sheridan, Jim 

Shuker, Gavin 





Smith, Angela 

Smith, Nick 









Trickett, Jon 

Turner, Karl 

Twigg, Derek 



Vaz, rh Keith 

Vaz, Valerie 

Walley, Joan 







Wilson, Phil 

Wilson, Sammy 



Wishart, Pete 


Wright, David 

Wright, Mr Iain

269WH 

1 DECEMBER 2010 Candour in Health Care 

270WH 

Westminster Hall 


[MR JAMES GRAY in the Chair] 

Candour in Health Care 

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting 

be now adjourned.—(Jeremy Wright.) 

9.30 am 

Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): It is a pleasure to 

serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I start with 

an apology: I cannot possibly do justice in this debate to 

all those who have suffered as a result of mistakes made 

by the national health service. I know that a lot of 

people are paying attention to this debate, and I will do 

my best to make the case for a duty of candour in health 

care, particularly a statutory duty. That would be progress. 

In the House, if an hon. Member makes a mistake, 

however outrageous, everybody thinks that it is fair 

enough as long as they apologise quickly. I want to put 

forward the arguments for why honesty is the best 

policy and why it is best to acknowledge that mistakes 

are made in medicine and in the health service. That is 

part of the medical process. If people inform relatives, 

put their hands up and say, “We made a mistake”, that 

is a far better way to proceed than what seems to have 

happened in the past. 

I would like to thank Peter Walsh from Action against 

Medical Accidents for assisting me as I prepared for 

this debate. Over the next few weeks, Ministers are due 

to decide on their preferred option for honouring a 

commitment to require openness when things go wrong 

in health care. During the 2010 general election, the 

Liberal Democrat manifesto stated: 

“We will: require hospitals to be open about mistakes, and 

always tell patients if something has gone wrong.” 

I do not often quote from the Liberal Democrat manifesto, 

but it is probably important to do so under current 

circumstances and the coalition. That pledge was also 

included in the coalition programme for government: 

“We will enable patients to rate hospitals and doctors according 

to the quality of care they received, and we will require hospitals 

to be open about mistakes and always tell patients if something 

has gone wrong.” 

That has clearly been lifted from the Liberal Democrat 

manifesto. The White Paper, “Liberating the NHS”, 

stated: 

“We will enable patients to rate hospitals and doctors according 

to the quality of care they received, and we will require hospitals 

to be open about mistakes and always tell patients if something 

has gone wrong.” 

That shows consistency running from the original Liberal 

Democrat manifesto to the coalition programme for 

government and the White Paper produced by the 

Department of Health. 

Those commitments have been widely interpreted 

and welcomed as going some way towards the introduction 

of a statutory duty of candour in health care. Such a 

move has been advocated for many years by patient 

groups and others, including the ex-chief medical officer, 

Sir Liam Donaldson. Recently, Ministers have made it 

clear that as well as the possible introduction of an 

explicit statutory duty of candour, they are also considering 

not altering or adding to the statutory regulations, but 

merely issuing new or refreshed guidance to existing 

regulations contained in the Care Quality Commission 

(Registration) Regulations 2009. 

It is implied that that is more likely to be the favoured 

option because there is an extreme reluctance to add 

or alter statutory regulation. I will speak about those 

two options, with a view to encouraging support for the 

introduction of a statutory duty of candour. Action 

against Medical Accidents has campaigned on that 

matter for a number of years, and representatives from 

that charity met with a Health Minister to try to put 

forward their case about the right way to proceed. 

Put simply, the situation is unacceptable. It comes as 

a shock to most people, particularly patients and members 

of the public, to know that health care organisations 

are in breach of no rules and will face no sanctions if 

they cover something up or decide not to inform a 

patient—or, in the case of a fatality, their relatives—that 

something went wrong during an operation or health 

care. 

Probably more by accident than design, the current 

system tolerates cover-ups and denials. People ask how 

that can happen in a modern, ethical health service, and 

the vast majority of people would agree that honesty 

with patients and their relatives is a moral and ethical 

requirement. There is an abundance of guidance on the 

issue, and best practice dictates that honesty, or being 

open, is the only course of action. 

We know that there are a million incidents in the 

national health service each year, about half of which 

cause some harm. Within those cases, there are many 

serious incidents, so it is a large problem. When something 

goes wrong, most people want someone to explain what 

happened to their relative, mother, father or daughter. 

In part, such behaviour is part of the professional code 

for individual doctors and nurses, and is recognised as a 

central component of an open and fair patient safety 

culture. However, the failure to be open and honest 

when things go wrong is not uncommon. 

Although many trusts or PCTs do act openly, a 

significant minority tell patients nothing. Something 

must be done to provide parents and relatives with 

a flow of information and an honest approach. Patients 

and their families are unfairly denied crucial information 

about what happened during their health care procedure, 

and they may never learn the truth. If they do, they are 

often deeply traumatised by the initial dishonest response 

to something going wrong. It is not unusual to find 

people who have spent decades campaigning under 

difficult circumstances to find out what happened to 

one of their relatives. 

If patients suspect that something has gone wrong 

but have to fight to get the truth, they lose all confidence 

in the health care system and are more likely to take 

legal and disciplinary action. The NHS and health care 

organisations have failed to develop a learning culture 

and the ability to learn from errors and make things 

safer. Instead, they have developed a culture of defence 

or denial; they do not want to see themselves in the 

newspapers. 

The situation in England became even worse when 

the previous Government introduced the Care Quality 

Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009, which came

271WH 




272WH 

[Mr Robert Syms] 

into force in April 2010. That introduced a statutory 

requirement on health care organisations to report 

anonymously incidents that caused harm to the national 

incident reporting system. However, it did not include 

an equal requirement on the organisation to inform the 

patient or their relatives. 

Therefore, an organisation is not currently in breach 

of the regulations if it covers up an incident from 

patients or relatives. It may be bad practice, but there is 

no real sanction as long as it sends an anonymous 

report to the system. An organisation will be ticked off 

if it does not send a report for the purposes of national 

measurement, but it will not be ticked off it fails to be 

open and honest with a patient or their relatives. Let me 

draw the Chamber’s attention to a document produced 

by Action against Medical Accidents entitled “The 

need for a statutory duty of candour in healthcare.” It is 

a good article for those who want to look at the more 

detailed requirements involved. 

I pay tribute to my constituents, Derek and Joan Bye. 

As MPs, we deal with many constituents, but Mr and 

Mrs Bye have had to put up with a horror story following 

the death of their daughter, Helenor Bye, who died on 

27 April 1978 in south Wales. There was a catalogue of 

medical errors. The parents were lied to, records were 

altered and their MP, John Morris, then the right hon. 

Member for Aberavon, held a debate in the House of 

Commons on 27 November 1979, volume 974, columns 

1253-64. He called for a public inquiry, although that 

was turned down. 

The situation was compounded by the fact that body 

parts were taken from Helenor Bye, some of which have 

been returned over the years. The last time body parts 

were received by the parents was in 2005. They have 

been through the most horrific period because of what 

happened to their daughter, what happened subsequently 

and, more importantly, because all along the line they 

felt that they were being lied to and that people were not 

being open and honest. Mr and Mrs Bye have become 

doughty campaigners for a more honest and honourable 

system of health care. They have also campaigned on 

their concerns about the drug Epilim. I cannot do 

justice to that campaign today, but if any journalist 

wants to know what can go wrong, I advise them to 

look at the case of Mr and Mrs Bye. They have had a 

very rough time. 

Action against Medical Accidents calls for a change 

in the law and the introduction of a statutory duty of 

candour. It is called “Robbie’s law” because of the case 

of Robert Powell, who died on 17 April 1990, aged 10. 

His parents have campaigned for over 20 years to try 

and get justice. Similar things happened to them, such 

as changed medical records, and there was a catalogue 

of events, but they still do not feel that they have justice. 

Their campaign has continued under several Secretaries 

of State. The case is currently with the Welsh Assembly, 

and Mr and Mrs Powell are waiting to hear whether 

there will be a public inquiry into what happened to 

Robbie. Will Powell, who feels passionately about putting 

right what happened to his son and getting to the truth, 

has been a doughty campaigner for a long time. I pay 

tribute to him. 

All the people whom we are talking about are, in their 

own way, fighting for the truth, not only to find out 

what happened to their loved ones, but so that such 

things do not happen again to someone else. This 

debate is about setting out a context and a better way of 

doing things, so that we have a much more honest and 

honourable system and families do not have to spend 

10, 20 or 30 years going through absolute hell. Mr Bye 

told me that the start of the healing process is learning 

the truth and knowing what has happened to one’s 

relative. That is a very important point. 

The Government have two options to consider. They 

can go for an explicit duty or for more guidance. Ministers 

often go down the guidance route. When the NHS 

constitution was being debated in the previous Parliament, 

the then hon. Member for Wyre Forest, Dr Richard 

Taylor, who served with me on the Health Committee, 

raised the issue of openness and whether we could go 

further down that route. He was informed by the then 

Minister of State, Mike O’Brien, “No, we can do it all 

through guidance,” yet guidance so far has not produced 

the results that we need. 

Department of Health officials met representatives 

of Action against Medical Accidents and other stakeholders 

on 16 November 2010, when the two options were 

discussed in some detail. I shall go through the pros and 

cons of both. Option 1 is no new statutory duty but 

refreshed guidance in respect of the existing CQC 

regulations. The pros of that are that it would require 

no new legislation or change in the regulations. 

Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD): Is not the difficulty 

with guidance the fact that guidance is already in place 

and any other guidance would simply reiterate what it 

says? Clearly, guidance by itself is not doing the trick in 

this case. 

Mr Syms: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important 

point, because we have to change the whole culture of 

the national health service and I am not sure whether 

guidance will do that. 

An argument can be made that the existing CQC 

regulations, backed up by clearer guidance, could be 

interpreted as making it a requirement to be open. For 

example, regulation 17 has been cited. It says that 

service users should be provided with adequate information 

and support in relation to their care or treatment. The 

guidance could clarify that that includes telling them if 

something has gone wrong. However, one of the cons is 

that, as the hon. Member for Southport (Dr Pugh) said, 

that would be in effect no different from the current 

situation. Such guidance and the existing regulations 

already existed when the policy to introduce a requirement 

was agreed. They were clearly not seen as sufficient 

then. 

Given that the Department of Health was of the firm 

opinion previously that the existing regulations, even 

with the guidance alongside them, did not constitute a 

statutory duty to be open with patients when things go 

wrong—because at that stage they were not supporting 

a statutory duty—it is hard to see how that could be 

credible now. 

Such a measure would be unlikely to be enforceable. 

Lawyers would no doubt have a field day if, given the 

above, the CQC tried to impose sanctions on a trust 

based on such a tortuous and dubious interpretation 

when the opportunity to be clear and specific had not 

been taken. Even if such a measure were enforceable, 

the CQC would be unlikely to give it a high priority,

273WH 




274WH 

given the number of clear statutory obligations already 

spelt out in the regulations themselves, rather than 

developed by supporting guidance. 

Option 1 would not have anything like the same 

impact as introducing a specific statutory duty, if it had 

any impact at all. The Department of Health would be 

trying to say, “This has always been the case, but we 

didn’t realise it and didn’t think it was important enough 

to make it clear.” That option would fail to deliver 

positive opportunities for sending a clear, unequivocal 

message about the importance of being open and would 

fail to support a major culture change. It would not deal 

with the bizarre situation whereby there has already 

been, since April 2010, a statutory obligation to report 

anonymously to the national incident reporting system 

patient safety incidents that cause harm, but there is no 

equal requirement to tell the patient or a relative. It 

would send the message that being open with patients is 

not important enough to justify a minor amendment to 

the regulations. 

Option 2, which I prefer and think should be given 

serious consideration by the Government, is to introduce 

a specific statutory duty by amending the existing CQC 

registration regulations. That would send a clear, 

unequivocal message about the importance of being 

open, which would support and underpin other initiatives 

to develop a more open and fair culture. It would be 

enforceable. The CQC has confirmed that it would be 

practical for it to enforce such a measure. Of course, it 

would be a condition of registration with the CQC. It 

would have real impact: boards and management could 

not escape noticing the change or recognising the need 

to comply. At the moment, even when doctors or nurses 

want to be open with patients, sometimes the management 

of PCTs or of hospitals are less keen. We must send a 

clear message so that the whole organisation undergoes 

a major culture change in how it deals with patients. 

Option 2 would balance out the existing statutory 

regulation where it is a statutory obligation to report 

anonymously patient safety incidents that cause harm 

but there is no equal requirement to tell the patient or a 

relative. It would not add to the regulatory burden on 

health care organisations, and I think that it would 

enjoy public confidence, which is a very important thing 

to have in this area. That option would be relatively 

easy to achieve. The con is that it would require a 

change in the regulations, so there would possibly be 

some legislation. 

In my opinion, option 2 is the best way to go. It is not 

something that is supported only by a few oddbods; 

such a change has the support of many people, including 

many senior people in the medical profession. I know 

that there are concerns about compensation and litigation, 

but the evidence from the United States, where many 

insurers now do insist on a more honest system, is that 

when people receive an apology, they are less likely to 

sue. When they find out what happened to their relative, 

they accept that mistakes are sometimes made and they 

are less likely to pursue lengthy and costly legal action. 

People are sometimes pushed into legal action by the 

sense of injustice that they feel when their relative has 

undergone harm or perhaps died in the course of treatment. 

They feel a sense of injustice and are then driven to take 

that action. Of course, many of the costs to the NHS 

are from the legal fees, not necessarily the money paid 

out in compensation. 

I shall go through a list of some of those who would 

support a statutory duty of candour. I have already 

mentioned Sir Liam Donaldson, the ex-chief medical 

officer, who formally recommended a statutory duty in 

2003. Harry Cayton, chair of the Council for Healthcare 

Regulatory Excellence, has also supported such a duty. 

The late Claire Rayner, who was a doughty campaigner 

on behalf of patients, and a former nurse, supported it. 

Professor Aidan Halligan, the former deputy chief medical 

officer for England, who is currently chief of safety at 

Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, 

is completely supportive of the proposal. There is also 

Sir Graeme Catto, the immediate past president of the 

General Medical Council; Sir Donald Irvine, a past 

president of the GMC; Sally Taber, director of Independent 

Healthcare Advisory Services; Cure the NHS; Patient 

Concern; and Sufferers of Iatrogenic Neglect. There is 

broad support in the LINks—local involvement 

networks—organisation for the view that what has been 

described is an important thing to do. 

In recent years, we have become aware of a major 

disaster at Stafford hospital. It has affected not one or 

two people, but hundreds of them. Of course, it has 

been the subject of much debate, many statements in 

the House and a lot of real concern, but had there been 

a statutory duty of candour, the management of Stafford 

hospital would not have been able to get away with the 

poor standards of treatment and nursing and the fact 

that many hundreds of people lost their lives. Such a 

duty is a very important and practical measure, and if 

the NHS is to mean anything to the people of this 

country, being open and honest with those who have 

suffered as a result of what are sometimes unavoidable 

accidents is the best way to proceed. 

There are clear benefits to introducing a statutory 

duty, and there is an historic opportunity in that regard. 

I listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State 

talking over the weekend about more transparency. 

Introducing such a duty would be a brave step, because 

all the advice from people in the Department of Health 

would be, “Careful, Minister. Don’t do anything that 

might have long-term costs.” 

However, in the modern age—an age of freedom of 

information, when thousands of documents appear on 

the internet—it is not unreasonable that a cornerstone 

of the NHS in this century should be that people are 

up-front and honest, and tell the truth when something 

goes wrong. Things inevitably do go wrong—not necessarily 

deliberately, but simply because that is the way of the 

world and medical science. People can then understand 

what has happened to their relatives. 

As my constituent Mr Bye said, “The start of the 

healing process after the loss of a loved one is to know 

the truth of what happened.” It is a very poor thing if 

Governments cannot tell the truth. One has to acknowledge 

that truth has not always been the essential component 

of the NHS that it should be. I propose that the Government 

give serious consideration to a statutory duty of candour, 

because that is the best protection for those who use the 

health service and for higher standards. The best protection 

is that all of us believe in honesty in public life. 

9.50 am 

Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): It is a 

pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, 

Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member

275WH 




276WH 

[Tom Brake] 

for Poole (Mr Syms) on securing the debate and on 

lucidly and concisely setting out precisely why the 

Government should look carefully at a statutory duty 

of candour. I have not heard any effective arguments 

against it, but I will come on to some arguments from 

opponents. My hon. Friend set out why the duty would 

boost public confidence and he rightly pointed out that 

an apology—as we have probably all experienced—often, 

first, helps to secure closure for a family if a loved one 

has been involved in a tragic accident, and, secondly, 

can defuse a difficult situation that could end up in the 

courts for years afterwards. He has rightly set out the 

reasons why a duty of candour is a necessity. 

My hon. Friend started by quoting from the Liberal 

Democrat manifesto, and I would expect nothing less in 

the coalition, so there is no need for me, as a Liberal 

Democrat, to do so. He also mentioned that the proposal 

has been carried through to the coalition agreement 

and, subsequently, into the NHS White Paper, which— 

although it perhaps does not contain a proposal as 

specific as a duty of candour—certainly makes it clear 

that hospitals need to be open about mistakes and 

always tell patients if something has gone wrong. One 

development to which he did not refer was the fact that 

legal aid will no longer be available in cases of clinical 

negligence, which I hope the Minister will pick up on in 

her response. I wonder whether that will have an impact 

and whether that strengthens the case for a duty of 

candour. 

As I said in my opening remarks, there are opponents 

of a duty of candour. A briefing has been sent to 

Members by the Medical Protection Society, which is a 

“leading provider of comprehensive professional indemnity and 

expert advice to…health professionals around the world.” 

The briefing states that the society is committed to 

promoting openness in health care and supports the 

principle in the NHS White Paper that hospitals should 

be open about mistakes and always tell patients if 

something has gone wrong. However, it goes on to say 

that the MPS strongly believes that a change in culture 

would be more effective than a statutory duty. However, 

I agree with Action against Medical Accidents, which 

also briefed me for the debate. It said that perhaps the 

MPS is missing the point: it is not a question of a duty 

of candour or a change in culture, as it is perfectly 

possible to have both. Indeed, the duty of candour is 

one way of supporting and underpinning a change of 

culture so that health care organisations are always 

open and honest with patients when things go wrong. 

The MPS says that it has been advocating that change 

in culture, and it is true that a number of organisations 

have been advocating it for the past 50 years or so, but 

the desired change has not happened. I am not sure how 

much longer one can wait for it. 

There is an issue about guidance and about how 

seriously organisations take guidance when they are 

statutorily required to do other things. There is always a 

risk that guidance gets left aside while organisations 

focus on statutory duties. As the MPS said, it is correct 

that there is a professional duty for doctors and nurses 

to be open with patients in the event of a mistake, but 

there is a wider issue about there being no statutory 

duty on all health care organisations to promote and 

support that practice in their organisations. As my hon. 

Friend the Member for Poole said, the medical professionals 

may want to be open but, unfortunately, they are being 

advised by managers, who are not subject to the same 

professional codes and perhaps believe that less openness 

is the best course of action. My hon. Friend referred to 

the Stafford case, and, as I understand it, it was a legal 

officer who sought to suppress the doctor’s report in 

that case. When the General Medical Council was asked 

to confirm how many cases it had brought against 

a doctor specifically for a breach of this part of its code, 

it confirmed that it has not brought a case against a 

single one. 

My hon. Friend also referred to the very sad case of 

Robbie Powell and the sterling efforts that the family 

have made. I am pleased to see that Mr Powell has 

joined us here today. 

Mr James Gray (in the Chair): Order. 

Tom Brake: I am sure that Mr Powell will be listening 

carefully to what is said and reading the remarks in 

Hansard later. That family have played a major role 

in bringing this issue to our attention and are working 

with AvMA to promote what they hope will become 

Robbie’s law. 

The MPS has provided information that I think 

works against its case. Its research shows that, at the 

moment, a third of doctors are not prepared to be open 

and honest when an accident occurs. If so many doctors 

feel constrained from or concerned about being open 

when an accident has occurred, it supports the case for 

a culture of candour. The MPS also refers to states in 

the United States where there is a duty of candour and 

where it perceives that there may be a difficulty in 

enforcing the duty. In his remarks, my hon. Friend the 

Member for Poole made it clear that the Care Quality 

Commission has confirmed that it could and would 

enforce a statutory duty, and would be in a position to 

do so, if that were part of its regulations. 

Another issue that the MPS raised, which we need to 

respond to, is that the proposed duty would not include 

near misses. It is arguing against the duty of candour, 

but at the same time saying that it would be a problem if 

near misses were not included. I understand that there 

is a general agreement that, although it might the norm 

for near misses to be reported to the patient, there 

would be discretion in cases in which reporting a near 

miss might cause unnecessary harm. There is recognition 

that the near miss issue needs to be addressed carefully. 

One important fact is that, whether it is a duty or a 

requirement, it must apply to all health care organisations. 

If there was one thing in the coalition agreement that 

was slightly remiss, it was the fact that it referred only to 

hospitals, but there is a wider health body that we need 

to include. I am sure that the Minister will clarify in her 

response that the duty of candour, or the requirement, 

would need to apply not only to the patient but, sadly, if 

the patient has died as a result of the accident, more 

widely to include family members. It should not be 

strictly restricted to the person who had the misfortune 

of suffering the accident. 

Dr Pugh: My hon. Friend mentions hospitals, but 

does he not accept that there are severe diagnostic 

failures at primary care level? Failures to refer can 

seriously imperil life, so they, too, need to be encompassed 

in the duty of candour.

277WH 




278WH 

Tom Brake: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, 

and I entirely agree. A duty of candour must not be 

restricted simply to hospitals, because, as he rightly 

says, GPs in primary care and other health care providers 

regrettably also make mistakes. A duty would need to 

encompass more than simply hospitals, as was initially 

proposed in the coalition agreement. 

I entirely support the points that my hon. Friend the 

Member for Poole made in opening the debate. There is 

strong, overwhelming evidence in support of a duty of 

candour. Guidance has not done the job, and a duty 

of candour really would open up the system and make 

sure that families and those who have suffered are, and 

know they are, entitled to receive information about an 

accident. That would make it much easier for them to 

arrive at closure. Regrettably, under the current system, 

people must all too often use great energy and perseverance 

to extract with great difficulty information that they 

should be entitled to from the outset. 

10 am 

Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD): I thank the hon. 

Member for Poole (Mr Syms) for introducing this important 

and timely debate and for putting the Government’s 

dilemma so succinctly and accurately. I also pay tribute 

to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and 

Wallington (Tom Brake), who has done as much as 

anybody in this place to raise the issues of a duty of 

candour and patient rights. 

I do not know whether anybody caught Ian Hislop’s 

programme about do-gooders on the BBC this week, 

but in it he described the creation of the journal The 

Lancet. It was set up by a young doctor, who, among 

other things, wished to expose some of the deficiencies 

in the appalling surgical practices at that time. He was 

greeted with wholesale acrimony from much of the 

medical profession and he was successfully sued. That 

shows that there is resistance in most businesses and 

professions to acknowledging error. 

In an excellent book published some time ago, the 

sociologist Erving Goffman suggested that people in all 

organisations—whether in health, business, teaching or 

policing—have a vested interest in supporting their 

colleagues, playing as part of a team and working 

together to minimise the reputational loss that their 

organisation can suffer. He analysed in particular detail 

how that can happen in health services right across the 

world, although it must be said that such things do not 

always happen for bad reasons. People have duties of 

loyalty to colleagues and a genuine concern for the 

organisation to which they belong—for its reputation 

and, where admitting to errors might seriously imperil 

it, for its very survival. 

People inside organisations often recognise that mistakes 

will happen in their organisations. I have worked in the 

teaching profession all my life, and I have not always 

been very overt about my colleagues’ deficiencies, even 

when that sometimes has involved people suffering from 

alcoholic intoxication when they should not. There are 

therefore circumstances in which people cover up. There 

is also probably a belief in many organisations that the 

internal resolution of problems is the best way to proceed. 

However, there is a huge downside; confidence is 

eroded by simply taking such a path. Worse still, false 

confidence persists; in other words, there are palpable 

and demonstrable errors in organisations, but nobody 

finds out about them until it is too late. Errors remain 

uncorrected, and poor performance is undeterred or, in 

some cases, it worsens. 

That is where the duty of candour fits in, because it 

will, on a voluntary or simply a request basis, lessen the 

problems. There is an enormous amount of evidence 

not only that patients want the NHS to be candid with 

them, but that the NHS finds it hard to be candid. The 

Department of Health itself spoke of a culture of 

denial in the NHS—denial about error and, more seriously, 

about negligence. 

No one believes that things will necessarily improve if 

nothing is done. No willing provider entering the frame 

will find it easier to be more candid than NHS organisations; 

in fact, they might have other motives for covering up. 

They might be answerable to others apart from members 

of the public, such as shareholders and the like. There is 

therefore a genuine concern to get things right. 

Every Member of the House of Commons has probably 

come across a case, or several cases, where they feel that 

things have gone badly wrong. In my intervention on 

my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington, 

I mentioned primary care. A young man in my 

constituency—he was a relative of a friend of my 

daughter’s—went to his GP five times to complain of 

listlessness, a lack of energy and so on. He was brushed 

off with suggestions that he needed more rest and less 

stress. He was told that he perhaps had glandular fever, 

but no blood test was done. Eventually, when one was 

done, it was discovered that he had late-stage leukaemia. 

My children attended his funeral. That clearly was a 

failing. 

I am also familiar with the ongoing case in my 

constituency of a TV soap star with a disabling condition 

that was brought on by receiving the wrong diagnosis 

and the wrong treatment. Similarly, I had the long-running 

case of a lorry driver with severe hypertension who was 

prescribed Viagra for other complaints, even though 

Viagra increases blood pressure. The thought of a lorry 

driver being prescribed a drug that can imperil not only 

him but members of the public is quite disturbing. 

A woman in my constituency was falsely diagnosed 

with cancer and treated for it until, on the spur of the 

moment, she decided to request a check of the X-rays. 

Staff then found that the X-rays that they had been 

using, and which they had assumed were correct, were 

those of another person. That woman had spent a year 

in absolutely harrowing circumstances. More disturbingly, 

we do not know whose X-rays were assigned to her. 

Presumably, that person was not given the treatment 

that this woman was wrongly given. 

Each of those cases leads to a prolonged complaints 

procedure, involving the ombudsman and the Care 

Quality Commission. In other cases, as other Members 

have indicated, there have been accusations that records 

have been altered. The whole process is inordinately 

cumbersome and difficult. To some extent, it exists 

because there is no candour where candour would 

probably be the solution. 

On top of that, there are the systemic failures—the 

Mid Staffordshires, the Bristol heart babies and so on. 

To be fair, the Government recognise that this all comes 

with the territory of running the modern health service, 

and they are, to some extent, endeavouring to deal with

279WH 




280WH 

[Dr John Pugh] 

the problems. Lots of things are going on, and we all 

want to applaud and support what the Government are 

doing on quite a few issues. We also applaud the previous 

Government for having initiated some of these things. 

Incident reporting has got better, which is wholly 

desirable. Complaints are monitored, which is good and 

a move wholly in the right direction. There is more 

intensive recommending of procedures. The NHS is 

more of a learning body than it ever used to be; good 

practice is disseminated, while bad practice is identified 

and controlled. There is a general beefing-up across the 

piece of NHS guidance—particularly to the secondary 

care sector—about things not to do, things that will 

help and things that will avoid mishap. 

Right across the profession, there is a constant stressing 

of professional ethics, as spelt out by the General 

Medical Council or whoever. In the past few days, we 

have had the phenomenon of publicising outcomes, 

with efforts by Dr Foster and, presumably, the Department 

of Health to see that outcomes are properly tracked. 

Mr Syms: It is interesting that it is sometimes non-NHS 

organisations such as Dr Foster, rather than the NHS 

itself, that put their finger on the things that go wrong. 

The NHS is a wonderful organisation generally, but 

most of my constituents would be surprised that there is 

not a duty of candour already. One reason why we have 

not got one is that we find out that we do not only when 

we actually have a problem. 

Dr Pugh: Dr Foster is probably doing what the 

Government will eventually get around to doing, and it 

will presumably prompt the Government to do that 

more expeditiously. 

In some cases, private organisations may find it slightly 

easier than the Department of Health to progress such 

matters, but a lot of internal consultations and procedures 

will need to take place. Such organisations do not need 

to be answerable for how they treat the bodies within 

the NHS. A recent key development is the Government’s 

willingness to ensure immunity for whistleblowers, and 

to encourage whistleblowing when appropriate. That is 

a good thing, but there is evidence that whistleblowers 

still take genuine risks. For instance, they may not be 

sacked or redeployed, but they may experience difficulties 

getting employment elsewhere in the health service. I 

know of cases in which genuine whistleblowers have 

regretted the professional outcome that has resulted. 

Such Government measures are self-evidently to the 

good, but they are not the same, equivalent to or a 

substitute for a duty of candour. Frankly, not all errors 

will be reported and not all complaints will get bottomed 

out. As others have said, guidance is ignored, professional 

ethics can be flexibly interpreted, and outcomes, whether 

published by Dr Foster or others, often come too late or 

are too general for individual cases. As I pointed out, 

although whistleblowers may have temporary immunity, 

that may not last. The Department of Health spoke of 

a culture of denial; but if such a culture exists, it needs 

to deal with it. 

The argument against a statutory duty of candour—that, 

in a sense, the simple duty to be open with patients or 

relatives when requested is otiose or redundant—is not 

sustainable. It cannot be used as a genuine reason for 

Government reticence or hesitation. I therefore ask why 

the Government are hesitating when they are going 

ahead with so much else. A duty of candour is a 

disincentive to cover up, and it takes away the risk for 

whistleblowers. 

Statutory duties are important. I give a parallel example. 

Local authority reporting officers, usually directors of 

finance, have the job of identifying when a council is 

spending money in a reckless and improvident way. 

They have always been in that position, but prior to 

there being a statutory duty to show the council the red 

card they were often bullied by the political establishment. 

As a result, they unwillingly had to consent to the 

deployment of council resources in ways that were 

reckless. Without a statutory duty, the same sort of 

thing can happen in health institutions. People can be 

put under a lot of pressure, and unless they can say, 

“But I have the statutory duty to report this,” they will 

find themselves in appreciable difficulties. 

If we all believe in transparency—and we do at the 

moment—the duty of candour must be part of it. It 

keeps patients informed of their genuine situation. It is 

entirely in line with what the Secretary of State says 

again and again—it is a good quote, which I paraphrase, 

about no action being done to me without my consent. 

That is the gist of what he says. Why, then, do we 

hesitate, given the coalition agreement? The Liberal 

Democrats are clearly on board, and many Conservative 

Members genuinely support it. Indeed, the coalition 

agreement is emphatic. 

I have the perception that somewhere in the background 

in the Department of Health the voice of Sir Humphrey 

can be heard. Just as the Minister is about to initiate a 

statutory instrument on the subject, someone in the 

civil service—I do not accuse the Permanent Secretary— 

says, “That is a very brave decision, Minister.” The 

Minister is thus persuaded that his decision may not be 

as positive as appeared at first sight. 

If one thinks about it, a candid admission of error or, 

worse still, of negligence is intrinsically damaging and 

potentially expensive. I have seen stats suggesting that 

the potential damage to the NHS, if every person who 

had a complaint pursued it legally to the nth degree, 

might be a bill of something like £10 billion. That is half 

of the internal savings that the NHS needs to make. 

However, the stats also show that litigation costs 

against the NHS are far less than that. The unnerving 

feeling inside the Department of Health is that if it goes 

for a statutory duty—I believe that it should—that 

picture might change dramatically, as the number of 

complaints that end up in successful and expensive 

litigation mushrooms. 

Tom Brake: Does my hon. Friend agree that, because 

the information is now in the public domain, another 

consequence might be that the number of accidents will 

reduce because people will take the necessary action to 

ensure that such things do not happen? 

Dr Pugh: One sincerely hopes so. I was a member 

of the Committee that considered the NHS Redress Act 

2006, which I believe is not yet in force. The sort of 

thinking suggested by my hon. Friend was behind that 

Act, but the same forces that are delaying the duty 

of candour are probably responsible for delaying its 

implementation. I cannot recall there being much dissent

281WH 




282WH 

among the parties as to the merits of that legislation. 

The idea was that complaint costs would reduce if we 

had an open policy of admitting errors, patients 

surrendering none of their legal rights but simply being 

given the apology and the explanation that they wanted. 

As the hon. Member for Poole said, people who wish 

to pursue a complaint against the NHS if they believe 

that their treatment has gone wrong are not looking for 

money. They are looking not only for an explanation 

and an apology; they are looking for an assurance that 

whatever happened to them or their relative will not 

happen to others. 

Prior to the NHS Redress Act 2006, we looked hard 

at the costs of litigation in the NHS. Yes, it cost the 

NHS a lot of money; and, yes, something could have 

been done to reduce it. The really depressing thing, 

however, was that the bulk of the money went into the 

lawyers’ pockets on either side. The NHS is not about 

helping to boost lawyers’ profits. 

The 2006 Act seemed to offer an alternative to litigation, 

which everyone would support, but the nagging fear in 

the Department of Health was that it would become 

a platform for litigation—that if someone admitted a 

fault it might be a sound basis for taking legal action. 

Are those fears well grounded? I believe that we do not 

precisely know, but we all have our own feelings on the 

subject. People cite the Michigan case in the United 

States, where they went outright for a duty of candour, 

and litigation costs to the health service have declined. 

The duty of candour is not something that can be 

piloted, and once it has been done one cannot withdraw 

it. To go ahead with it is almost an act of faith. I am 

very keen on the concept of evidence-led policy, but I 

see evidence-led policy debates taking place in the 

Department of Health. If we go ahead with a statutory 

duty of candour—and I firmly believe that we should—it 

will be a statement about what sort of NHS we want. 

I conclude by quoting Sir Liam Donaldson, the former 

chief medical officer for England. He said, 

“To err is human, to cover up is unforgivable”. 

Regardless of the risks, I doubt whether the Government 

want to do what is unforgivable. 

10.19 am 

Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab): It is a pleasure to 

serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. Every 36 

hours, NHS services are used by some 1 million people, 

the vast majority of whom receive safe and effective 

care. None the less, as in every other health care system 

in the world, not all care in the NHS is as safe as it could 

be, and too many patients are harmed by it, sometimes 

seriously and even fatally. 

Modern health services are delivered in a highly 

complex, often pressurised, environment, and involve 

the care of many vulnerable and seriously ill patients. 

More than any other environment in which risks occur, 

health care is reliant on people taking difficult decisions 

that rely on judgments that are not always straightforward 

or clear cut. In such circumstances, things can and do 

go wrong. Sometimes, as I know from my own experience, 

the consequences can be very serious for the patient, 

their family and their carers. 

Patients and their families have a right to know if 

something has gone wrong, to get an explanation of 

what has happened and to receive an apology and, 

if appropriate, compensation. As hon. Members have 

mentioned, it is also vital that professionals and NHS 

organisations learn lessons from mistakes to improve 

care for patients and, wherever possible, to save taxpayers’ 

money by reducing the cost to the NHS from clinical 

negligence claims. 

During the past decade, important progress has been 

made on improving patient safety in the NHS. Last 

year, the Health Committee’s report on patient safety 

acknowledged that the previous Government became 

one of the first in the world to make it a priority to 

address patient safety across the whole health care 

system. A unified system for reporting incidents and 

learning from them was introduced, and it was centred 

on the national reporting and learning system and the 

National Patient Safety Agency. The creation of this 

system was, in a large part, down to the pioneering 

work of Sir Liam Donaldson, and I should like to pay 

tribute to him for his work on this vital issue. 

Since the establishment of the data reporting system, 

the number of reported incidents has increased significantly, 

which is a good thing. At the last count, more than 

3 million incidents had been reported, ranging from 

very minor incidents to the more serious ones. The 

NPSA has worked hard to improve patient safety, both 

nationally and within individual NHS trusts. I personally 

experienced such work when I was director of the 

Ambulance Service Network at the NHS Confederation. 

We set up a programme of work, with patient safety 

leads in ambulance service trusts, front-line paramedics, 

PCT commissioners of ambulance services and the 

NPSA to identify the particular areas of care where 

mistakes were being made—it is often in the handover 

period—and to share best practice to prevent such 

mistakes. 

I question some of the comments that have been 

made this morning about managers wanting to cover up 

problems. In my experience, both managers and 

professionals have difficulties in blowing the whistle on 

their colleagues. I just want to put it on the record that 

the ones that I have worked with have wanted to be 

open and to learn the lessons. 

My experience has shown me that the NHS needs to 

do more to improve patient safety. As identified by the 

Health Committee’s report and Ara Darzi’s next stage 

review, there is still huge under-reporting across the 

system, because, as hon. Members have said, there is 

too often a “blame culture” in the NHS. 

I agree with the hon. Member for Carshalton and 

Wallington (Tom Brake) that this is not just an issue 

about hospitals. Primary care, which accounts for 95% 

of patient contacts with the NHS, accounts for only 

0.25% of reported incidents. Although substantial progress 

has been made, patient safety is still not always a top 

priority for NHS boards. Most importantly, patients 

still too often feel that the NHS is not genuinely open 

and honest with them when a mistake is made. 

In 2005, the National Audit Office’s 2005 report, “A 

safer place for patients” found that only 25% of NHS 

trusts routinely inform patients when an incident has 

taken place, and an astonishing 6% admit to never 

informing patients. Like other hon. Members, I have 

seen such practice in my own constituency. Patients feel 

that mistakes are not promptly or openly admitted to 

and they have to battle the system to—in the words of

283WH 




284WH 

[Liz Kendall] 

the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms)—“get at the 

truth”, which, so often, is the start of the healing 

process. 

Last week, I went to a meeting at the University 

Hospitals Leicester NHS Trust with two of my constituents, 

Mr and Mrs Harkisan-Hall, who lost their son in the 

hospital’s neo-natal unit. It was only at the coroner’s 

inquiry that they found out that the two qualified 

nurses on the unit were both on a break at the same 

time, leaving a nursery nurse in charge of very vulnerable 

children. They felt that they had to battle to get that 

information, and they still have not seen the full reports 

of what the staff said. Like them, I believe that that is 

unacceptable. 

Mr Syms: The hon. Lady makes a good point. One 

point that I meant to make was that if people do not 

hear what has happened, coroners can find it difficult to 

determine how someone has died. If people are not 

honest about what has happened to a particular individual, 

coroners do not have the full information. 

Liz Kendall: In this particular case, interviews were 

conducted with the two qualified nurses. The trust did 

not read both transcripts together and did not see that 

both nurses were on a break at the same time. People 

are astonished that such simple things happen, and it is 

vital that we learn from this process. 

Before I go on to talk about the duty of candour, I 

want to discuss two concerns about the Government’s 

policy in relation to patient safety. It is important that 

hon. Members do not look just at the duty of candour 

in isolation from what is going on in the rest of the 

NHS, including on patient safety. My first concern is 

the Department of Health’s decision to abolish the 

National Patient Safety Agency and to move responsibility 

for this issue to the new national NHS Commissioning 

Board. There are real concerns about whether the 

board will have the necessary skills, experience and time 

to focus on such a vital issue when it will also be 

responsible for setting NHS outcomes, assessing whether 

GP consortiums are delivering on those outcomes, 

commissioning a whole range of specialist services and 

managing contracts for all primary medical services. 

That is a huge agenda for any board, even without 

adding responsibility for patient safety. 

Will the Minister tell us what resources and how 

many staff from the NPSA will be transferred to the 

NHS Commissioning Board? Which NPSA activities 

will the board take on? For example, will NPSA continue 

to publish patient safety alerts and bulletins and other 

guidance to identify key problems and help spread best 

practice? Will it also run workshops with leads for 

patient safety in individual providers, such as those I 

was involved with in the Ambulance Service Network? 

Will the national Patient Safety First Campaign, which 

was launched last year, and the annual patient safety 

week, which was held early this month, have the staff 

and resources to continue? 

My second concern relates to the Government’s 

reorganisation of the NHS and fact that the service 

needs to make efficiency savings worth some £20 billion 

over the next three years, as the NHS chief executive 

said. The first report on adverse incidents in the NHS 

was drawn up by Sir Liam Donaldson in 2000. Its key 

recommendation was that the NHS must be open and 

honest and learn from its experiences. To do that, the 

NHS must become, as the report’s title suggests, “An 

organisation with a memory”. But the Government 

plan to abolish many of the very organisations that 

have worked hard to build this memory and understanding 

of how to improve patient safety. 

If the NHS has to make efficiency savings worth 

some £20 billion, there will inevitably be job losses and 

posts frozen, some of which could include those staff 

who have worked hard to learn lessons from the mistakes 

that have been made in the NHS. How will the Minister 

ensure that the NHS retains its “memory” on patient 

safety when PCTs and strategic health authorities are 

being abolished, new GP consortiums are being established, 

community services are being transferred to different 

providers and staff posts are being frozen and reduced? 

In particular, what steps has she taken to ensure that 

managers and front-line staff who have knowledge and 

expertise in patient safety are retained in the NHS at a 

time when the Government want to cut management 

costs by 45% and make efficiency savings of £20 billion? 

Finally, I want to talk about the duty of candour. As 

hon. Members have said, the introduction of a statutory 

duty of candour was first recommended by Sir Liam 

Donaldson in his 2003 report, “Making Amends”. I 

agree with hon. Members that there is a strong case to 

look again at this issue, as a Health Committee report 

recommended in 2009. 

I think that it was the hon. Member for Carshalton 

and Wallington who said that too often the debate is 

split between those who want a statutory duty of candour 

and those who think the NHS should instead focus on 

creating a culture of candour. Of course, changing the 

practice of individual staff and organisations does not 

require legislation, but I think that we can see from 

existing laws, such as those that helped to reduce drinkdriving, 

those that introduced the smoking ban and 

others, that legislation often plays a vital role in changing 

culture and behaviour. 

Some professional bodies are concerned that a duty 

of candour would make it less likely that incidents 

would be reported. I am not convinced that that would 

be the case, particularly if the duty is combined with an: 

“exemption from disciplinary action for those reporting adverse 

events or medical errors—except where there is a criminal offence 

or where it would not be safe for the professional to continue to 

treat patients”. 

That was the recommendation of Sir Liam Donaldson 

back in 2003. 

Others question whether a statutory duty could be 

imposed when it might be difficult to specify or enforce 

sanctions. That concern has not prevented other parts 

of the world from introducing legal duties, including 

some US states, Sweden, France and Denmark. It is 

also worth noting that the Equality Act 2010, which 

was introduced by the last Government, imposes a 

number of legal duties on public bodies to consider the 

impact of their policies and decisions on different groups, 

without specifying what the sanctions will be if those 

duties are not complied with. 

The final argument against a statutory duty of candour 

is that patients might end up trusting professionals less, 

because they have to report a mistake rather than

285WH 




286WH 

because they want to. I think that the far greater risk for 

doctor-patient trust is the perception, and too often the 

reality, that professionals do not tell patients when 

things go wrong. I know that if a mistake was made in 

my own care, or in the care of one of my family or 

friends, I would want to know—and indeed I believe 

that I have the right to know. 

To conclude, I think that the NHS has made important 

progress on improving patient safety and it has started 

to try to change its culture, to become more open and 

honest. However, the evidence shows and hon. Members 

have clearly demonstrated in this debate that the NHS is 

still not as open as it should be, not only with its own 

staff, but—crucially—with patients. The abolition of 

the NPSA, the huge reorganisation that the NHS is 

about to undergo and the future cuts in numbers of 

staff actually make a stronger case for having a duty of 

candour in place. 

The White Paper, “Liberating the NHS”, says that 

the Government will: 

“require hospitals to be open about mistakes and always tell the 

patient when something has gone wrong”. 

It also says that that requirement will be implemented 

by summer 2011. So I just want to ask the Minister to 

clarify if that means that the Government are proposing 

a statutory duty of candour? Also, will she now agree to 

bring together patient groups, professional bodies, experts 

on the duty of candour in this country and abroad, as 

well as those who represent NHS trusts—such as the 

NHS Confederation—to discuss how we can all best 

move forward on this vital issue? 

10.34 am 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health 

(Anne Milton): Thank you very much, Mr Gray. It is a 

pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first 

time. I also want to congratulate my hon. Friend the 

Member for Poole (Mr Syms) on securing this debate. 

As Chairman of the Regulatory Reform Committee, he 

is no doubt acutely aware of some of the issues that 

exist around regulation, not least those that exist around 

the duty of candour. His humility and recognition of 

the impossible task that we face here today—to truly 

reflect the pain and suffering of those who have suffered 

as a result of medical harm—does him considerable 

credit. 

We take candour and openness in the NHS extremely 

seriously. Everybody does, because it is a vital issue. As 

anyone who has ever been treated knows, a health care 

system is not just about how quickly someone is seen or 

how quickly their stitches come out; it is also about 

trust. Trust is fundamental—between patients, the patient’s 

family and health care professionals—and we must do 

everything we can to ensure that that trust is upheld. 

As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, one of the 

early references to a statutory “duty of candour” was 

included in “Making Amends”, a 2003 report, which I 

know hon. Members have referred to. It was a consultation 

paper from the then chief medical officer, Liam Donaldson, 

and it set out proposals for reforming the approach to 

clinical negligence in the NHS, suggesting 

“a duty of candour requiring clinicians and health service managers 

to inform patients about actions which have resulted in harm”. 

The paper also proposed to foster an environment of 

openness and honesty among all NHS staff; it encouraged 

“integrity”, which is a word that we perhaps do not use 

often enough, and it proposed exempting those who 

report adverse events or medical errors from disciplinary 

action, unless there are serious extenuating circumstances. 

It is a key belief of the coalition, and I would hope all 

Members of the House, that the focus should be on the 

performance of the organisation rather than on penalising 

individuals who bring matters of concern out into the 

open. The hon. Member for Southport (Dr Pugh) has 

already mentioned whistleblowing. I think that the point 

is that this debate is not necessarily about the protection 

of whistleblowers or a right to whistleblow; it is perhaps 

about a duty to whistleblow. 

It is important to note the good work that is currently 

being done to promote candour. The previous Government 

should be congratulated for providing staff with advice 

and support to help them to communicate with patients, 

their families and carers following harmful incidents. 

The Health Act 2009 requires all NHS organisations to 

be aware of the NHS constitution, which places a duty 

on NHS staff to acknowledge mistakes, apologise for 

them, explain what happened and put things right. The 

professional codes of practice for doctors and nurses 

contain a similar duty. 

As somebody who trained as a nurse and worked in 

the NHS for 25 years, I think that professional codes of 

practice and professional standards are not talked about 

often enough. We look for someone to blame: we look 

for the organisation to blame; we look for the board to 

blame, and we look for the chief executive to blame. 

What we do not talk about is individual professional 

standards and I feel particularly strongly that we need 

to do everything that we can to raise those standards 

right up. 

The National Patient Safety Agency has been running 

its own campaign to promote candour in the NHS, as 

the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) said. 

That campaign, entitled “Being Open”, is a long-term 

process rather than a short-term push. It encourages 

the provision of verbal and written apologies to patients, 

their families and carers; it promotes continual 

communication with those involved in incidents, and it 

requires thorough record-keeping of all “Being Open” 

discussions and documents. 

However, we all know that still more needs to be 

done, as hon. Members have said and as I know myself 

from my own constituency casework; I have a number 

of people who have continually fought to try to get the 

truth about what happened to their relatives. The recent 

White Paper, “Liberating the NHS”, states that 

“we will require hospitals to be open about mistakes, and always 

tell patients if something has gone wrong”. 

It is quite simple: we expect the NHS to admit to errors; 

apologise to those affected, and ensure that lessons are 

learned to prevent errors from being repeated. 

In one year, the NPSA receives notification of more 

than one million incidents. Most of those incidents 

result in no harm and we welcome the high level of 

reporting. However, the incidents that result in harm 

obviously cause distress and anguish for the patients 

and families involved. In those cases, it is even more 

important that the lessons are learned and that organisations 

are open with those who have been affected. 

Dr Pugh: I want to ask about the future of the NPSA. 

If it is going to be brought within the national 

commissioning body, will a Chinese wall be established

287WH 




288WH 

[Dr Pugh] 

between the NPSA and the other operations of that 

body? It crosses my mind that risks can allegedly be 

increased or decreased by commissioning decisions 

themselves. 

Under those circumstances, the NPSA has got to be 

free to impute itself, as it were, if the national commissioning 

body is going to be part and parcel of the same organisation. 

So, can the Minister assure me that there will be no 

conflict of interest when the NPSA is placed within the 

national commissioning body, which may itself—through 

its commissioning procedures—be one of the risk factors? 

Anne Milton: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. 

That is terribly important. It is not only important to 

have Chinese walls and be seen to be separate; it is 

important to be separate. I will come to that point in 

detail in a minute. 

Measuring openness is not as straightforward as 

measuring reporting. We welcome high levels of reporting, 

as they are an indicator of an open and supportive 

culture of patient safety, but there are still reasons why 

people within the NHS and organisations shy away 

from openness. Without a doubt, professionals who 

strive for excellence are reluctant to admit errors. The 

higher up the tree one is, the harder it is to say, “I’ve 

made a mistake.” All of us face that issue in our 

professional lives. 

People may have unfounded concerns about possible 

admissions of liability, even though apologising when 

something has gone wrong is not in any way an admission 

of liability. The fine line between the two sometimes 

prevents people from saying what relatives want to hear: 

“I am so sorry this happened.” That is not necessarily 

saying, “I have made a mistake.” It is such a shame 

when professionals resort to a defensive stance, often 

encouraged by myths about where liability lies. Also, at 

times, they may fear reprisal, blame and even bullying. 

We are considering options for introducing a requirement 

for openness and will make a decision in due course. 

The hon. Member for Southport felt that we were 

hesitating, and was concerned about possible evidence 

of Sir Humphreys in the Department. We are considering, 

not hesitating. It is important to get it right. Members 

have discussed the three options, but I will run through 

them quickly and mention a few relevant issues. 

The first option is using what is in the existing Care 

Quality Commission registration requirement regulations. 

It is already mandatory for NHS trusts to report all 

serious patient safety incidents. We could also require 

organisations to demonstrate that they have met the 

openness requirement, which would not require new 

legislation. It makes sense to use existing means to 

detect and investigate trusts that are not as open as they 

should be. The counterargument is that that approach is 

not specific enough, and that the wording of the guidance 

would need to be made more explicit. We have seen 

many cases in which guidance has failed. 

The second option involves introducing a new legal, 

statutory duty of openness explicit within the CQC 

regulations. That would send a clear signal about the 

importance of openness and provide patients and 

campaigners with a single clear duty that they could use 

to demand full disclosure. However, the Government 

want to create new legislation only when absolutely 

necessary, although when necessary, it should be done. 

We would need to ensure that any new legislation or 

new approach was not counter-productive. We want to 

make it easier for staff to come forward; we do not want 

new legislation to have unintended consequences. 

The third option involves incorporating an openness 

requirement into the new NHS contractual, performance 

and commissioning processes, to which the hon. Members 

for Leicester West and for Southport referred. It certainly 

appears possible to pursue openness through the new 

commissioning arrangements. For instance, it could be 

written into standard NHS commissioning board 

requirements that providers commit to being open. The 

hon. Member for Leicester West asked whether the 

NHS commissioning board would have time to take a 

role on patient safety. In many ways, safety underpins 

all commissioning decisions. Any decision on any service 

commissioned should have safety wrapped around it. 

That is fundamental. 

As with any complex matter, each of the options has 

its pros and cons. It is imperative that a decision on the 

issue is not rushed. I reassure the hon. Lady that 

campaigners and organisations have good access to 

officials within the Department, and I am sure that all 

their views will have been taken into account when a 

decision is made, because we are aware of the importance 

of getting it right. It is terrible to think that the first 

duty of the NHS is to do no harm. Safety wraps around 

everything that we do. 

The hon. Lady also mentioned the decision to abolish 

strategic health authorities. I understand that SHAs are 

the performance managers of trusts, yet that did not 

help in Staffordshire. In many ways, bringing commissioning 

decisions closer to the patient within general practice 

will mean that decisions about care and its consequences 

rest where they should. 

Liz Kendall: The Minister raises the important issue 

of Stafford and the lessons to be learned there, and says 

that the SHA did not take action. Obviously, we will 

wait for the outcome of the independent inquiry, but as 

responsibility will move to GP commissioning consortiums, 

can she tell us whether any of the GPs in the area raised 

concerns about Stafford, or whether any of them have 

submitted evidence to the inquiry? I am not aware that 

they have. 

Anne Milton: I did not point a finger at the SHA; I 

pointed out that SHAs were performance managers. 

Where performance fails, one must ask oneself what 

was happening in the management of that performance 

that it could fail so abysmally. The hon. Lady must not 

forget that the GP consortiums will involve a much 

wider range of professionals in commissioning decisions 

than just GPs, including a lot of people involved in care. 

They will not necessarily consist only of NHS professionals. 

Voluntary bodies and other organisations that provide 

care will also have input. 

The sad truth is that when things go wrong, relatives 

want to know what happened, as my hon. Friend the 

Member for Poole pointed out, but they do not always 

find out. They want the truth and honesty, but we often 

see precisely the opposite. Doors close, the shutters go 

down and NHS organisations resort to a defensive 

stance, sometimes quite aggressively. My hon. Friend

289WH 




290WH 

mentioned his constituents the Byes and the Powells, 

who have campaigned endlessly for the truth and continue 

to campaign. I pay tribute to all the people, some of 

whom we do not know about, who use their own tragic 

circumstances to ensure that the same thing does not 

happen to others. Their efforts should never be 

underestimated. 

Tom Brake: The Minister said that the NHS sometimes 

adopts an aggressive stance. I remind her of my question 

to her about the possible impact of withdrawing legal 

aid in clinical negligence cases. Often, families use such 

cases as a way of trying to secure an apology because 

one has not been forthcoming. If that option is not 

available to them, it reinforces the need for a duty of 

candour. 

Anne Milton: The hon. Gentleman pre-empts me by a 

second; I was about to come to legal aid. My experience 

is that even with legal aid, the courts are rarely an 

option for most people. Allowing discretion on the 

reporting of near misses would, I fear, open another 

minefield beyond which people could hide, as he also 

mentioned. 

I have certainly brokered meetings between NHS 

organisations and my constituents to try to bring them 

together and make the NHS organisations stop feeling 

so defensive. I have been an advocate for people in my 

constituency just so they could hear what happened. I 

should think that many hon. Members rely on personal 

relationships, particularly within hospital trusts, for 

such purposes. Maybe they know a supportive medical 

director to whom they can say, “Look, this family, this 

couple or these relatives just want to know what happened; 

this isn’t going to go anywhere.” That is a leap of faith. 

The NHS organisation has to say, “Fair enough”. When 

that happens, closure can follow. 

The hon. Member for Southport rightly pointed out 

that accidents occur across the NHS and mentioned, in 

particular, the failure to diagnose in general practice. 

That is an ongoing, rumbling issue that I hear about not 

only as a constituency MP, but as a Minister. I thank 

him for recognising that the solution to getting to a 

situation where we have effective measures in place to 

ensure candour is a dilemma. It is not an easy decision. 

He is also right to point out that the NHS is not alone in 

protecting itself. My goodness me, we know a lot of 

professions that close their doors when one of their 

members is under attack—the legal profession is one. 

People just want the truth, but sadly the shutters go 

down and the doors close, and closure cannot be achieved. 

Mr Syms: I am pleased with the way the Minister is 

responding to the debate and recognise that a statutory 

duty of candour is one of a range of measures that the 

Government are considering. However, if they decide 

not to take that route initially, it is important that they 

do not rule it out, because the culture change that is 

needed might not come about as a result of what they 

are doing, but we will still need to get there at some 

point. I still think that a statutory duty of candour 

would be the biggest and most successful leap towards 

that goal—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington 

made a good point on that—but even if the Government 

choose not to go there, they should not rule it out, 

because I think that ultimately that is where we will 

end up. 

Anne Milton: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention 

and am sure that the report of this debate will aid 

people in making their decisions on the matter. 

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Carshalton 

and Wallington on legal aid, I understand that the 

Ministry of Justice proposal on restructuring and refocusing 

the scope of legal aid is currently out for consultation. 

There will still be an exceptional funding route for those 

not eligible for legal aid, but he might want to raise that 

specific point with the MOJ because it is important. 

The hon. Member for Southport rightly picked up on 

the fact that we included in the White Paper the principle 

of “No decision should about me, without me”, and 

that probably needs to be extended to situation where 

harm happens. 

A few Members mentioned international precedents, 

but we must be slightly careful, because what happens 

abroad cannot necessarily be transported to this country. 

Those precedents tell us that there can be problems in 

adopting a statutory duty of candour. It can be difficult 

to measure success and, therefore, find any evidence of 

where success or failure has occurred. We must also be 

mindful of the differing health care and legislative 

environments that exist around the world when looking 

at international examples. In Pennsylvania, for example, 

we have been told that a complicated set of requirements 

makes enforcing its version of a statutory duty particularly 

problematic. 

In conclusion, there are complex issues at play in 

relation to a statutory duty of candour, and views are 

held on both sides of the argument for and against such 

a duty. What we can say, as has been documented in the 

White Paper, is that we are absolutely set on achieving 

that change in culture to achieve openness and candour 

in the NHS and all organisations that provide care. We 

are exploring those complex issues carefully. The culture 

of secrecy and denial is a disease that needs to be cured, 

but to do so we need to understand and treat its causes 

at their source, rather than simply treating the symptoms 

with an ineffective plaster. 

As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole stated, the 

start of the healing process is about learning the truth. 

The Government will need to decide how we can provide 

the environment, with or without legislation, in which 

the truth can come out immediately—in a timely fashion— 

and openly. We need inspirational leadership and highly 

developed management skills in our NHS leaders to 

create that change in culture to create an open atmosphere 

among staff, not the closed culture that we have seen. 

We need a culture that replaces the fear of the consequences 

of openness with the courage to recognise that openness, 

honesty and truth will, ultimately, not only give families 

what they need to heal their wounds and achieve closure, 

but allow staff to learn from their mistakes, raise their 

standards and raise the bar on their professional standards. 

The Government will consider all that when making 

the decision, but Members should rest assured that 

everything that has been said today and all the effort to 

highlight the issue will be taken in account to ensure 

that we get the right system in place to give people what 

works. 

10.55 am 

Sitting suspended.

291WH 

1 DECEMBER 2010 PACE (Stop and Search) 

292WH 

PACE (Stop and Search) 

11 am 

Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con): I appreciate the 

opportunity to have this debate. The shorthand definition 

of the code of practice that I wish to consider is “stop 

and search”, but it also includes “stop and account”. 

The draft guidelines recently issued by the Government 

state: 

“The primary purpose of stop and search powers is to enable 

officers to allay or confirm suspicions about individuals without 

exercising their power of arrest.” 

We would all recognise that that is an important part 

of policing powers, but some issues arise from it and I 

have some questions to which I should appreciate a 

response from the Minister. My interest arises partly 

from my membership of the all-party parliamentary 

group on race and community and from conversations 

that I have had with the Runnymede Trust and the 

StopWatch coalition, both of which have alerted me to 

issues of the context in which the proposed changes and 

guidelines are being made. The most significant issue is 

disproportionality between people of different ethnic 

origins. 

A black person is at least six times as likely as a white 

person to be stopped and searched by the police. It is 

twice as likely to happen to an Asian. That is grossly 

disproportionate and those ratios have remained stubbornly 

constant in the past five years. The report “Stop and 

think”, which was produced earlier this year by the 

Equality and Human Rights Commission, included 

research findings that 

“black and ethnic minority youths were over-represented in the 

criminal justice system. This over-representation started at the 

point of entry into the system, and largely continued as young 

suspects and defendants passed through it.” 

If the very first part of a person’s interaction with the 

criminal justice system is disproportionate, there may 

be consequential effects at other stages in that system. 

The black population of England and Wales is 

approximately 2.6%, but black people represent 14.8% 

of incidents of stop and search, 7.6% of arrests and 

14.4% of the prison population. I think that anyone 

would find those statistics chilling. It is a rare thing for 

me to say I agree with Bernie Grant, the former Member 

of Parliament for Tottenham, but in 1997 he said: 

“Nothing has been more damaging to the relationship between 

the police and the black community than the ill judged use of stop 

and search powers. For young black men in particular, the humiliating 

experience of being repeatedly stopped and searched is a fact of 

life”. 

Of course society has moved on in 13 years, but, as the 

statistics have shown, disproportionality is still significant. 

Stop and search is not a power that is used occasionally. 

Last year, there were more than 2 million instances of 

stop and account by police and more than 1 million of 

stop and search. That amounts to more than 10,000 a 

day, which is not only disproportionate, but shows 

widespread and pervasive use in our society. 

I accept—and this is probably much of the intent 

behind Government moves—that the recording of 

information accounts for considerable police time. It is 

estimated by the Daily Mail that the proposed changes 

will save 450,000 hours of police time by eliminating the 

stop-and-account element and 350,000 hours of police 

time by reducing stop-andsearch forms. Those are 

welcome savings in police time, to enable our police to 

spend more time in their jobs on the beat, and in 

helping citizens by combating crime. 

However, against a backdrop of considerable community 

concerns, and severely disproportionate impacts, perhaps 

the Minister could assist with the answer to some questions. 

The first is about the removal of the requirement to 

record stop and account. As I have said, that represents 

2 million actions by the police each year, so it is certainly 

clear that removing the requirement to record stop and 

account will save considerable police time. However, as 

we have not yet ended disproportionality, is the Minister 

concerned that we would lose an important source of 

information on fairness? 

I understand that it would be possible for chief constables 

to re-institute stop-and-account searches if local concerns 

were expressed. That is a very welcome part of the 

proposals, but how will the local pressure be voiced? 

What would constitute a valid local concern and how 

would it be differentiated from concerns thought to be 

invalid? 

I would also appreciate the Minister’s views on the 

decision by Suffolk police to de-fund the stop-and-search 

reference group. What message does that send to people 

who have concerns about disproportionality and the 

reliance on the raising of concerns by local voices? On 

the same point, what role does the Minister see for the 

Equality and Human Rights Commission? Are steps 

such as the enforcement action warning that it issued 

this week to Thames Valley police and other forces seen 

as part of the community response to disproportionality 

in stop and account and stop and search? 

The Government have—and I welcome this—removed 

parts of the justification for section 60 stop and search 

on the grounds of race. The National Black Police 

Association said the original draft proposal 

“opens the door to racial targeting that could be based on gossip, 

malice and outright racial prejudice.” 

Perhaps I might use this opportunity to thank the 

Minister for, and congratulate him on, the changes, and 

for his statement: 

“Previous guidance did not place any restrictions on use but 

now it will make clear than an individual characteristic such as 

ethnicity should never be the sole basis for any search.” 

That shows the direction of travel of the Government. 

They will look at areas where there is disproportionality 

and seek to eliminate that. They will look at areas where 

ethnicity is misused in policing, and ensure that that no 

longer happens. I would welcome the Minister’s comments 

on the background to the draft guidelines and the 

change. 

Section 60 stop and search is a very significant power 

that we provide to the police. It enables the police to 

stop and search an individual where there are no grounds 

for suspicion of the particular individual, in a designated 

area, for a period of 24 hours. Nationally the black 

population of the country, as I said earlier, is about 

2.6%, but they represent 32% of stops and searches 

under section 60. That means that under the police 

power to stop and search with no grounds for suspicion 

of the individual concerned, a black person is 26 times 

more likely than a white person to be stopped. That is a 

shocking statistic and everyone, including members of 

the police force, will want that ratio to be changed.

293WH 




294WH 

The usage of this blanket power, which does not rely 

on individual assessment or suspicion, has grown over 

the past few years. In 2004-05, there were 45,600 incidences 

of section 60 stop and search being used. Just three 

years later, in 2008-09, the figure had more than trebled 

to 149,955. This is a specialised, exceptional power akin 

to those available under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 

2000. Does the Minister believe that there should be 

specialist oversight of the authorisations that chief 

constables are using to invoke this power? I am not 

aware of any areas where there is currently national 

oversight over particular actions by chief constables, 

but given that the use of these authorisations is growing 

and disproportionate, and given that these very powerful 

measures are targeted on an area, not an individual, I 

would greatly appreciate it if the Minister could tell us 

what oversight, if any, there could be over them. 

Other issues are related to the information collected 

on the stop-and-search form. Again, I think that the 

proposals are being introduced with the good intention 

of reducing the amount of police time that is spent on 

form filling. The Minister may, in an offhanded way, 

have called it box ticking, but I am sure that he accepts 

that some of this information is valuable. I want to alert 

him, therefore, to some reasons why some of the information 

that will be lost from these forms might be valuable, and 

he might want to consider how such concerns could be 

addressed. 

The first piece of information that will be lost from 

the stop-and-search form is the name of the person who 

has been stopped and searched. How will it be possible 

to identify and measure repeat stops and searches that 

might amount to harassment? If an individual is stopped 

and searched routinely by the police, that will be evident 

from the current form because the individual’s name 

will have been collected, but it will not be evident under 

the proposed change. How might we deal with concerns 

about harassment if that information is lost? 

Secondly, as a result of the targeting of individuals in 

a community, there might be community concerns. How 

will the community have the information that it needs 

to identify and measure whether particular individuals 

are being targeted? There is, therefore, not only the 

individual concern; there will also be a community 

concern if four or five individuals are routinely stopped 

and searched and people feel that their community is 

being unfairly targeted. 

The second piece of information that will be lost is 

whether injury or damage was caused as a result of the 

search. If that information is not collected, my concern 

is that we might leave the police open to allegations that 

some injury or damage was caused. How will it be 

possible to identify and account for incidents of the 

misuse of force? The corollary of that is the issue of 

how the police will be guaranteed protection against 

allegations that an injury did occur. 

The third piece of information that will be lost relates 

to whether anything was found as a consequence of the 

search. One of the concerns about the use of stop and 

search relates to how effective it is in tackling crime. 

With so few stops and searches resulting in an arrest, 

how will we know how effective stop and search is likely 

to be if we have no information about whether anything 

is found as a consequence of a search? Overall, stops 

and searches have resulted in an arrest rate of about 

10% to 13%, which means that nine out of 10 stops and 

searches—3 million in total—do not result in an arrest. 

Three million is a widespread trawl through our 

communities, and that can have counter-productive effects 

by separating the police from the communities that they 

serve. 

Over the past few years, since the quote from Mr Grant, 

progress has been made. Our police have done an 

enormously good job of reaching out to communities. 

We need to do more of that, but stop and search is not 

necessarily one of the main ways to do it. We need look 

only at the effectiveness of one of the important powers 

in section 60 in tackling knife crime. A review of statistics 

from 11 London boroughs with a high incidence of 

knife crime showed a broad correlation between the 

incidence of knife crime and the number of stops and 

searches—when there are a large number of knife crimes, 

the police carry out more stops and searches. However, 

there is no correlation between the number of stops and 

searches and a reduction in knife crime. 

Let me give an example. In 2008-09, Tower Hamlets 

and Islington both experienced approximately 305 knife 

crimes. The police in Tower Hamlets responded with a 

stop-and–search rate that was two and a half times that 

of Islington. Although knife crime fell by 11% in Tower 

Hamlets, it fell by nearly 25% in Islington where such a 

large number of stops and searches were not carried 

out. 

People in those communities want knife crime dealt 

with. However, stop and search does not appear to be a 

tool that helps and we must look at alternatives. In his 

response, perhaps the Minister will talk about initiatives 

other than stop and search that can be used to reduce 

the disproportionality of the statistics on ethnicity in 

our criminal justice system. 

For example, the practice-oriented package initiative 

that was introduced in Stoke-on-Trent reduced the 

disproportionality ratio from six times the national 

average to just 1.5 times that average. In Cleveland, the 

number of stop and searches was reduced by 80%. That 

reduced the disproportionality in stop and search and 

also reduced the crime rate. Will the Minister also 

endorse police innovations in tackling drugs without 

the use of stop and search, which has been done to 

good intent? 

I understand, appreciate and support the Government’s 

efforts to reduce the waste of police time spent collecting 

information that is not helpful in tackling crime. I 

believe and understand that the Minister shares my 

concerns about disproportionality and wishes to ensure 

that police powers are used correctly. I welcome the 

change to the draft guidelines that have stopped ethnic 

profiling from being written into our legislation. That 

move is welcome, but considerations and concerns remain 

about the continuation of stop and account without the 

recording of information, and about the reduction of 

information in the stop-and-search forms. I look forward 

to hearing the Minister’s response. 

11.17 am 

The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick 

Herbert): First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend the 

Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) on securing the 

debate and on raising the issues in such a forceful way? 

Such matters continue to generate a significant amount 

of public interest and highlight some of the concerns 

about front-line policing that we are keen to address.

295WH 




296WH 

[Nick Herbert] 

We are keen to ensure that officers strike the right 

balance between necessary bureaucracy for the sake of 

accountability—which is important—and irrelevant form 

filling that wastes the time of the police and the public, 

and impacts unduly on citizens going about their business 

by asking unnecessary questions. 

It is important to understand how policing, and the 

bureaucracy that surrounds it, impacts on community 

relations. Procedures such as stop and account and stop 

and search are most effective when local communities 

understand them and support their use. There is a 

difference between stop and account and stop and 

search, and we must be mindful of ensuring that the 

processes associated with them are not confused. Stop 

and account is where an individual is asked to account 

for their presence, actions and so on, but they are not 

searched. It can be one step on from the general 

conversations that officers have with members of the 

public every day. Stop and search clearly goes further 

than that. It is an intrusive procedure and therefore a 

cause of more concern among local communities. 

Many of the proposed changes to the Police and 

Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code of practice A are 

necessary to reverse the increase in paperwork generated 

by the last Government. In our judgment, that paperwork 

hampers police operations and leads to encounters with 

the public that are ineffective, bureaucratised and poorly 

understood. We need officers on the street to record 

only information that is of value, and it may differ from 

situation to situation and from force to force. I do not 

want to see in place measures that discourage proper 

interaction between police officers and members of the 

public. 

Let me explain the rationale behind our stop-and-account 

proposals. The abolition of the national recording 

requirement for stop and account will potentially free 

up around 450,000 hours of police time, allowing officers 

to increase the quality—and shorten the duration—of 

these brief encounters, and enabling forces to be more 

responsive to the communities that they serve. 

I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the level of 

disproportionality in the use of police powers. However, 

when the statistics for stop and account are examined 

more closely, it appears that it is not used in a 

disproportionate manner across England and Wales. It 

is also fair to say that there is less concern about the 

operation of stop and account than there is about stop 

and search. That is why we are removing fully the 

national requirement for recording stops and accounts, 

leaving local recording to a local decision where a local 

need is identified. 

Individual police forces know their own communities 

better than Whitehall. Increasingly, they will be answerable 

to their local communities, as we have set out today 

with the introduction of the Police Reform and Social 

Responsibility Bill. Those forces should know the extent 

to which the operation of stop and account is a matter 

of particular local concern. They are best placed to 

analyse their own statistics and understand how they 

use the tactic and how it impacts on ethnic minority 

groups locally, and they should be held to account by 

their elected police and crime commissioners, with the 

scrutiny of new police and crime panels to ensure the 

proper use of such procedures. 

The Government understand that stop and search is 

a very different tool and is far more intrusive. It is right 

that its monitoring and use should continue, both nationally 

and at a local level. We are reducing the number of 

pieces of data to be completed on a stop-and-search 

record from 12 to seven, saving more than 300,000 

hours of officers’ time every year as well as reducing the 

duration of these encounters for those stopped and 

searched. 

My hon. Friend expressed concern about some of the 

pieces of data that will be removed. However, key 

information about each encounter will still be recorded, 

including the self-defined ethnicity of the person stopped, 

which is obviously the critical information, and we 

have made minor amendments to code A to encourage 

the further use of mobile technology to reduce even 

further the time taken to record each stop and search. 

The 12 recording requirements used during a stop-andsearch 

encounter will be reduced to seven: ethnicity, the 

object of the search, the grounds for the search, the 

identity of the officer carrying out the stop and search, 

the date, the time and the place. Such requirements do 

not prevent police officers from recording information 

that they feel would be useful intelligence, but it is not 

necessary as a Government requirement for such 

information to be held in a stop-and-search record. 

Our amendments to the guidance on the use of 

section 44 stop-and-search powers follow the Home 

Secretary’s announcement on 8 July, which curtailed the 

use of this power in the light of the judgment of the 

European Court of Human Rights in the case of Gillan 

and Quinton v. United Kingdom. My hon. Friend also 

raised issues around section 60 stop-and-search powers, 

both in terms of the guidance supporting officers’ use 

of this power, and the disproportionality figures that 

have been reported in the press recently. 

Let me assure my hon. Friend and all hon. Members 

that there was never any intention on the part of the 

Government to encourage the use of ethnic profiling or 

unlawful discrimination in the use of this power—far 

from it. The original draft of the guidance contained 

wording that had been introduced in code A by the 

previous Government in 2003 in relation to the police’s 

use of section 44 powers. The original draft explained 

that all authorisations had to be supported by clear 

intelligence and that, on occasion, intelligence could 

suggest a possible suspect description that included 

characteristics such as race, age, sex and so on. However, 

it also stipulated that race should never be the sole 

reason for stopping someone under section 60. 

The guidance was evidently not clear enough and was 

misconstrued. We therefore considered the responses to 

the statutory consultation and have redrafted the relevant 

paragraphs to include all protected characteristics under 

the Equality Act 2010. We have stated clearly that 

unlawful discrimination will not be tolerated. 

I must, however, warn against judging the use of a 

key tool such as section 60 purely on a national statistic. 

The figures cited in the press about black people being 

26 times more likely than white people to be stopped 

and searched under section 60 are potentially misleading 

if they are not examined a little more closely. In 2008-09, 

76% of all section 60 stops and searches were conducted 

by the Metropolitan Police Service in London. Therefore, 

to assess the use of that power against the national 

population’s ethnicity breakdown is deceptive. We need

297WH 




298WH 

to compare that 76% with the ethnicity of the population 

of London and the remaining 24% with the rest of the 

country. When we do that, we find that the use is not so 

disproportionate. 

The power is used to tackle specific issues relating to 

serious violence and, in particular, knife crime. The 

Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, 

my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup 

(James Brokenshire), who is responsible for crime 

prevention, recently responded to a debate in this Chamber 

on youth violence and was very clear about how we 

need to protect our communities against violent crimes. 

The use of section 60 as one of the many tools that 

the Metropolitan police use as part of their continuing 

action against knife crime receives significant support 

from communities in London. The Metropolitan police 

have gone to great lengths since the start of Operation 

Blunt 2—their programme of action against knife crime—to 

increase community engagement. An example of that is 

the young Londoners engagement programme, which 

explains why the powers are so important and the 

dangers of carrying knives. The Metropolitan police are 

in the process of reviewing their operational use of the 

power, and all boroughs have been reminded that they 

must be proportionate in their use of section 60. 

Neighbourhood policing—such a rare thing at the 

time of the Macpherson inquiry in the late 1990s—is 

now embedded throughout the country in such a way as 

to give the public far greater confidence in the way in 

which their police service operates. The Government 

are determined to do everything that they can to ensure 

that neighbourhood policing is protected, despite the 

budgetary challenges that confront forces. We are also 

determined that the British tradition of policing by 

consent should flourish, and that can happen only if the 

public understand why the police do what they do and, 

just as importantly, if the police understand how their 

actions are perceived by the public. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford referred to 

the role of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. 

The commission has praised the “Next Steps” process 

developed by the National Policing Improvement Agency, 

which is being used by the police in, for example, 

Merseyside and Dorset, as well as Lewisham in London. 

It helps the police to understand the way in which they 

use stop and search and how the population of an area 

and the apparent levels of disproportionality might in 

some circumstances not present a true picture. The 

early feedback on “Next Steps” is positive, and we hope 

to be able to expand it to other areas shortly. 

I have been impressed by the way in which my hon. 

Friend has raised these issues. Since the general election, 

there has not been a great deal of debate in the House 

about these issues or the changes that we propose to 

make. There may be debate in relation to the orders that 

we have laid to change the PACE codes, but I would 

welcome the opportunity for further discussion with my 

hon. Friend and other hon. Members. I would be happy 

to convene a meeting with key representatives of the 

police, including the deputy commissioner of the police 

in London if he would be willing, in order to talk about 

their use of stop and search, why they believe that it is 

such an important tool in their fight against knife 

crime, why they believe that it has public consent and 

how they are alive to the important issues of 

disproportionality that can be raised. 

In summary, stop and search is a vital tool. The 

challenge for the Government and the police is to 

ensure that the powers are used fairly and with the 

support of the community, and it is a challenge that I 

am confident we will meet. 

11.30 am 

Sitting suspended.

299WH 

1 DECEMBER 2010 HIV 

300WH 

HIV 

2.30 pm 

Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair): The sitting is resumed. 

Hon. Members: Hear, hear! 

David Cairns (Inverclyde) (Lab): That might be the 

best cheer I get all day. I welcome you to the Chair, Mr 

Leigh. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship 

in this important debate. I also thank Mr Speaker for 

allowing this debate on HIV services in the UK to take 

place on world AIDS day. I have been in Parliament for 

nine years, but I am still ignorant about how debates are 

selected—whether there is a lottery or whether Mr Speaker 

has a say in the matter. If he does, I thank him; if it was 

a lottery, I thank the Fates for timetabling this debate 

on 1 December. 

I begin with a point of clarification. This is not for 

the benefit of hon. Members present in the Chamber, as 

they are well aware of the procedures of this place, but 

for those who are watching the debate on television or 

the internet, and those who will read the account of the 

debate in days to come. This debate will focus mainly on 

HIV in the UK, but that is not because we think that 

HIV outside the UK is not a problem, or because we are 

unaware of the scale of HIV in the developing world. 

Africa has 10% of the world’s population but 72% of 

the deaths from AIDS, and we are aware of that. 

However, parliamentary procedure means that different 

Departments respond to the debates on different days, 

and today it is the turn of the Department of Health, 

not the Department for International Development. 

Therefore, although an enormous number of points 

could be raised about the global AIDS epidemic, I will 

in the main restrict my comments to HIV in the UK. 

With your indulgence, Mr Leigh, I might also sneak in a 

few comments about the international scene; I alerted 

the Minister about that in advance. 

If colleagues are anxious to hear about the international 

aspects of the HIV epidemic, I should say that a world 

AIDS day reception will be held this evening at 7 pm in 

the CPA Room. You are invited, Mr Leigh, as are all 

hon. Members, friends and colleagues. 

Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op): My 

hon. Friend is performing a service by raising the issue 

of HIV/AIDS in the UK. Does he also recognise that 

many people, both inside and outside the country, want 

to know what the UK Government intend to do about 

the future funding of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, 

Tuberculosis and Malaria? That body has an excellent 

record in getting drugs to people with TB, malaria and 

particularly AIDS, many of whom are still in desperate 

need. 

David Cairns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who 

was a distinguished and long-serving Minister at DFID. 

In a sense, it is a false dichotomy to say that there is an 

AIDS epidemic in the UK and an AIDS epidemic in 

Africa and never the twain shall meet. One of the 

largest at-risk populations in the UK is the African 

community––people who come from Africa and are 

HIV positive, or those who contract the disease in the 

UK within the African community. I will speak about 

that in a moment. 

My hon. Friend is correct to highlight the need to 

address the problem of the AIDS epidemic in Africa. 

Over the past few years, one of the most effective ways 

of doing that has been through the Global Fund to 

Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The last 

Government had a good record in ensuring that the 

global fund was initiated, then adequately resourced. 

During the most recent meeting of the fund in October, 

high, medium and low targets were set for the level of 

replenishment. Unfortunately, the global community 

failed to hit the low target, let alone the medium or high 

targets. 

I understand why the Government do not come forward 

and state the exact figures for the replenishment of the 

fund. Through DFID, they are conducting a multilateral 

aid review, and until they decide their priorities, they 

cannot say how much will be made available for the 

global fund. Until we can provide a figure, I encourage 

Ministers to let the world know, at least with rhetoric, 

that we remain committed to the global fund. 

Much of the world looks to the UK for an international 

lead in tackling AIDS, and other countries will be 

looking to our figures for the replenishment of the 

global fund before making their commitments. The 

Government have an excellent opportunity to set a 

global lead. I was going to make those points about the 

international community at the end of my speech, but I 

have made them now. 

Let me return to matters for which the Minister is 

responsible—she will be pleased to hear that—rather 

than the rest of the world. I will make three points 

about how we should respond to the ongoing HIV 

epidemic in the UK and our public policy priorities. 

First, I will speak a little about prevention, secondly I 

will discuss testing and treatment and thirdly I will say 

something about care and support. Those three things 

do not exist in isolation; they are not, to use fabled 

management-speak, in “silos.” One point leads into 

another, but for the purposes of the debate I will say a 

little about each issue in turn. 

The backdrop to this debate is not only the ongoing 

financial constraints under which all Governments around 

the world are operating, but the NHS reconstruction 

and reconfiguration that the Government have embarked 

on, as well as the messages contained in the public 

health White Paper, launched yesterday by the Secretary 

of State. Because the national health service is undergoing 

a process of change and transition, there is some uncertainty. 

Until we get answers to some of the questions that we 

raise, that uncertainty will continue. 

As I pointed out in the main Chamber this afternoon, 

although the Minister’s responsibility on such matters is 

constrained to the NHS in England, the HIV virus does 

not respect geographical borders. It is incredibly important 

for the Government to work closely with the devolved 

Administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast to 

ensure a coherent, joined-up approach. That is the only 

way to tackle the virus in a way that will see a reduction 

in the number of people affected and reverse the rate of 

increase in new cases of the disease. Therefore, although 

I am addressing the NHS in England, the message must 

be heard by those who configure the NHS in the devolved 

Administrations. I was pleased to hear that the Secretary 

of State for Scotland will meet the Minister responsible 

for health in Scotland tomorrow, and will put that 

important issue on the agenda.

301WH 

HIV 


HIV 

302WH 

The first issue that I mentioned was prevention. In 

the early days of the epidemic, not much was known 

about the virus. There were no drugs and no effective 

treatment. Messaging was, by necessity, extensive and 

untargeted. Those of us old enough will remember the 

adverts with the collapsing tombstones and the gravelly 

voice telling us about the new virus—AIDS—and how 

dangerous it was. We remember the posters and the 

radio adverts, which were essentially blanket advertising 

for the whole UK. People debate the relative impact of 

those messages, but we remember that campaign many 

years after it happened, so it did have some impact. 

The situation of those who have HIV in the UK 

today means that that type of mass media advertising is 

not perhaps the best way of getting a message to those 

most at risk. That point was made in the foreword to the 

“Halve It” document, by Lord Fowler, about which I 

will speak shortly. Lord Fowler was a distinguished 

former Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, 

and he is remembered very fondly by people who work 

on behalf of and alongside those with HIV and AIDS 

for the forward-looking approach that he took. As he 

acknowledges, such mass communication messages are 

no longer relevant, and the campaign must be more 

targeted. 

Will the Minister tell us whether the Government’s 

strategies on sexual health and HIV propose to target 

messages on specific, at-risk communities, and particularly 

but not exclusively on younger gay men, for whom some 

of the safe sex messages may have been lost in time, and 

the African community? Those communities are not 

mutually exclusive, of course, but the messaging to each 

will have to be different. Particularly now that more 

heterosexual people are contracting the virus, many of 

whom are in the African community, there is a pressing 

need to develop messaging that speaks to that community 

and to its values and structures, whether through Church 

or faith networks or whatever, so that we can overcome 

some of the ignorance and stigma in the black African 

community in this country. I would be grateful for the 

Minister’s comments on what she proposes to do about 

that. 

Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) rose— 

David Cairns: I am happy to give way to a vice-chair 

of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS. 

Pauline Latham: Does the hon. Gentleman accept 

that, in addition, white heterosexual people who perhaps 

have got divorced recently, after having had a monogamous 

relationship for many years, are now going out into the 

world of single dating and getting into a mess because 

they do not realise that HIV/AIDS is out there in the 

heterosexual community? Is that not an expanding area 

that we should also be targeting? 

David Cairns: The hon. Lady is right. I was saying 

that the messaging should not go exclusively to gay men 

and to people in the African community. There must be 

a message for everyone, but the messaging needs to be 

differentiated. There will need to be different messages 

to different people, within relative constraints. I hope 

that the Minister will deal with her point. 

There is concern. I am of the generation that came to 

maturity at the time when the AIDS epidemic—well, I 

might not have come to maturity yet; it is probably up 

for debate whether I have reached maturity. 

Mr Thomas: Don’t do yourself down. 

David Cairns: Yes, I am doing myself down here. I am 

of the generation that came to adulthood when the 

virus was making its first big impact, so those messages 

really stayed with me. I wonder whether that is the same 

today, particularly, although not exclusively, for young 

gay men of 17, 18 or 19. We cannot be squeamish about 

this issue. We must speak a language that they hear and 

will listen and respond to. I do not expect the Minister 

necessarily to go into that in detail today, but I want an 

assurance from her in that regard. I know, particularly 

given her former career, that she is not squeamish about 

these things, and we cannot be squeamish when people’s 

lives are at stake. 

Of course, one way to prevent the spread of the virus 

is to ensure that everyone who is HIV-positive knows 

that they are HIV-positive—knows their status—and is 

receiving the correct drug treatment. It is not widely 

appreciated that when someone who is HIV-positive is 

on the correct level of antiretroviral drug treatment, 

they become significantly less infectious. I had not 

appreciated that—I must confess that that was ignorance 

on my part—until fairly recently. It means that treatment 

for one person is prevention for another. 

When an individual is on ARVs and is less infectious, 

that helps to constrain the spread of the epidemic and 

when people know their HIV status, it alters their 

sexual practices. Most of the evidence and studies show 

that. The more people we can test and the more HIVpositive 

people who know their status and are receiving 

the right treatment, the more we will do to prevent the 

spread of the virus. 

Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD) rose— 

David Cairns: I am happy to give way to another 

vice-chair of the all-party group. 

Jenny Willott: I have just had a baby and I was tested 

automatically for HIV during my pregnancy. Does the 

hon. Gentleman agree that extending such automatic 

testing could play a valuable role in identifying cases 

very early so that people can receive the treatment that, 

as he said, will not only help them with their own 

medical needs, but prevent them from spreading the 

condition? 

David Cairns: The hon. Lady makes an excellent 

point. I think that it was my right hon. Friend the 

Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), 

when he was Secretary of State for Health, who introduced 

automatic testing in pregnancy. If we look at the graph, 

we see that the tail-off is quite astonishing: once opt-out 

testing was introduced for pregnant women, the numbers 

of babies being born HIV-positive plummeted. 

Of course, the issue is not just about babies. Quite 

often when we are talking about the prevention of 

mother-to-child transmission, we focus on the baby, but 

a woman is involved as well. As the hon. Lady rightly 

says, if a woman’s own HIV-positive status has been 

diagnosed at the beginning of pregnancy, she can be 

put on the correct course of ARVs. That is why, in 

the northern world, mother-to-child transmission has 

been, if not completely eliminated, massively reduced— 

because not only ARVs but the correct education about

303WH 

HIV 


HIV 

304WH 

[David Cairns] 

breastfeeding are making an enormous difference. 

However, almost 500,000 babies born in Africa every 

year are HIV-positive. That is completely preventable— 

entirely avoidable. If pregnant women are tested and 

put on ARVs, they do not need to pass on the virus. It is 

one of the great scandals of our age that something that 

is solvable—we have solved it here—could be solved 

throughout the world with the correct financial support 

and the political will, but it has not been. 

Mr Thomas: Is not one of the conclusions that can be 

drawn from the comments made by the hon. Member 

for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), as well as from my 

hon. Friend’s point about mother-to-child transmission, 

that we need to ensure that the Department of Health 

and DFID work closely together so that the lessons of 

success in dealing with HIV in this country can be 

properly worked into our development policy abroad? 

Is it not therefore a concern that DFID’s HIV/AIDS 

team seems to have shrunk very small—if indeed 

any cadre of skills in this area is left in the Department 

at all? 

David Cairns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He 

has far greater knowledge of these matters from within 

DFID than I have. If what he says is true, clearly it is a 

very worrying development. I was fortunate enough to 

meet some members of the HIV/AIDS team in DFID a 

few weeks ago. Whether or not the team is smaller than 

it used to be, it is certainly very committed. I also met 

some DFID workers when I was in Kenya a few months 

ago, and they are doing a tremendous job. 

It is to the credit of the Government that they have 

protected the international development budget, but of 

course there will be reprioritising within that budget. 

Part of what we are doing as an all-party group is 

ensuring that these issues are not lost in the reprioritisation. 

This is what people find very frustrating about the 

international dimension of this issue. Enormous progress 

has been made and the tide is beginning to turn. If we 

withdrew funding or support or lost the political will at 

this stage, it would be a disaster and a tragedy, not least 

because in five years’ time we would have to return to 

the matter, because we could not let the number of 

deaths and new infections let rip as we saw happen in 

the 1980s and 1990s. 

Mr Thomas: Will the all-party group, as part of its 

thinking about the Government’s multilateral aid review, 

also consider funding for the new UN women’s agency? 

I ask that in the context of the comments from a 

previous UN Secretary-General, who said that AIDS in 

many parts of the developing world has an increasingly 

female face and that we need to ensure that we continue 

to champion efforts to tackle issues relating to gender 

equality—for many reasons, of course, but in particular 

to help with the fight against AIDS. 

David Cairns: My hon. Friend makes an excellent 

point. The new agency has real potential to make a 

difference. We are all relieved that some of the world’s 

appalling, oppressive, anti-women regimes that were 

muscling in have been set to one side, which will allow 

the agency to focus on the issues that he mentioned. 

A saying that we hear over and again now in Africa is 

that the face of the epidemic is female. That is not just 

because of mother-to-child transmissions, but because 

of the disempowerment of women and the limiting of 

women’s ability to make choices about their own sexual 

and reproductive health. Of course, that is not the case 

solely in Africa; it is the case elsewhere in the world as 

well. However, it is a particularly pressing problem in 

Africa and one that we must not lose sight of. 

I was talking about the need to ensure that people 

who are HIV-positive know that they are HIV-positive. 

That is why the all-party group is pleased to support the 

Halve It campaign, which is composed of many agencies, 

clinicians and groups advocating on behalf of people 

with HIV. It is campaigning to halve the number of late 

diagnoses by 2015. That is an ambitious target, but the 

document sets out steps that can be taken to meet it, 

and I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on 

them. 

Yesterday, I was pleased that when I urged the Secretary 

of State for Health, while he was making his statement 

on the public health White Paper in the House, to look 

at the Halve It campaign, he gave an undertaking to do 

so and see whether it could form part of the HIV and 

sexual health strategy. I would be grateful if the Minister 

confirmed that she will look at the campaign’s document, 

particularly at the steps that can be taken to halve the 

numbers of late diagnoses and of those living with 

undiagnosed HIV by 2015. 

I shall press on because I know other hon. Members 

are keen to take part and I want to hear the Minister’s 

reply. Once a person is diagnosed––I shall speak about 

some of the hurdles in a moment––the virus changes 

from being in its potentially lethal undiagnosed state, 

which poses a wide public health risk due to how it can 

be transmitted, to being a more normal—I use that 

word advisedly—long-term managed condition. That 

brings different challenges with it. 

One thing that we are looking for in the detail of the 

NHS restructuring plan is how people will access services 

in the long-term managed phase of the condition. Who 

will commission those services, particularly in lowprevalence 

areas? Until those questions are answered, 

there will be uncertainty in the community. I want the 

Minister to answer specifically the question of who will 

commission HIV services in the new restructured NHS. 

Will it always be the GP? Is the GP the best placed 

person to do so? Do GPs have the time and the expertise, 

particularly in low-prevalence areas? I am sure that GPs 

in much of London, Brighton, Manchester or Glasgow 

have the necessary expertise because they have the caseload, 

but in other areas that might not be the case. Is a 

one-size-fits-all approach across the NHS the right 

solution or is something a little more granulated necessary 

to deal with the full complexity of the issue? 

We have to face up to the fact that a lot of people who 

are HIV-positive simply do not want to access services 

through their local GP. Whether it is wise or unwise, it is 

understandable in some areas, particularly in smaller 

towns or villages, where everyone knows everyone else, 

and you know who works in your GP’s surgery and they 

know everybody and everything about you. Under those 

circumstances and given that the stigma prevails, and 

the myths, misunderstandings and prejudice that people 

with HIV face, it is understandable that there are those 

who will not want their status to be known in their own

305WH 

HIV 


HIV 

306WH 

community. In evidence put forward yesterday by the 

National AIDS Trust, we saw how many people face 

discrimination in the workplace due to their HIV status. 

AIDS is a complex condition. It affects people physically, 

emotionally and psychologically. In that complex mix, 

it is important that the NHS is responsive to that and 

allows people pathways to treatment that might not 

always be the same in every place. I would be grateful 

for the Minister’s views on that. 

Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab): I 

congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. 

Because stigma is still attached to this condition, people 

in rural localities, such as mine, will seek advice and 

help from further afield, thereby distorting the figures 

on the prevalence of the condition in certain parts of 

the country. 

David Cairns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He 

represents an area that is not only largely rural but on 

the borders of Scotland and England, which brings me 

to the point I mentioned at the very beginning. I imagine 

that many of his constituents will be accessing HIV 

services in Carlisle, for all sorts of reasons, but partly 

due to the stigma still associated with the condition. 

They do not want to access services in small villages and 

towns. Ultimately, we have to get to a situation in which 

there is no stigma, prejudice or discrimination and 

people can happily access GP services for a long-term 

managed condition, as people with diabetes, asthma 

and other long-term managed conditions can. Until 

such a time, we have to be sensitive to these issues. 

Another reason why people are wary about always 

accessing services through GPs is the lack of awareness 

and understanding that many GPs demonstrate. Part of 

the reason why we have so many late diagnoses is that 

GPs do not pick up the telltale signs often enough. An 

alarming number of people had seen their GP on many 

occasions during the 12 months before they were eventually 

diagnosed as HIV-positive, and it was not picked up 

that they might have been HIV-positive. An astonishing 

number of people had been in-patients in the 12 months 

preceding their diagnosis; they were almost certainly 

HIV-positive while they were in hospital, but it was not 

picked up. 

A lady recently got in touch with the all-party group—a 

middle-aged, professional, white lady—who had suffered 

serious recurrent health problems for two years and had 

seen numerous clinicians, including a GP on many 

occasions, before anyone thought to offer her an HIV 

test, which brings me back to the point that the hon. 

Member for Cardiff Central made. That lady was a 

textbook case: she had every symptom and yet her GP 

never thought to offer her an HIV test. That is clearly 

happening across the country, which explains why we 

have 22,000 people who are HIV-positive, but do not 

know it. It is not the case that none of them ever visits 

their doctor—they regularly visit their GPs, perhaps 

they even go into hospital as in-patients, and yet their 

status is not picked up. That is a public health disaster 

because the ability of those people to infect others is 

much greater than it would be if they were receiving the 

correct course of ARVs. 

We need assurance that, within the restructuring, 

GPs will get very good guidelines and necessary training, 

and be encouraged to offer people an HIV test in the 

routine manner suggested earlier, to tackle undiagnosed 

HIV. 

Jenny Willott: Will the hon. Gentleman also suggest 

that we need to tackle the stereotypes about the kind of 

person who might have HIV? That is one issue for 

people who do not go to their doctor, or who do go but 

whose GP does not pick up on it. As the hon. Member 

for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) mentioned earlier, 

GPs may not think that a middle-aged, heterosexual 

white woman is likely to be HIV-positive. We need to 

tackle those stereotypes. 

David Cairns: The hon. Lady is correct. Part of the 

education of GPs must be about looking at the symptoms, 

not only what the GP imagines a typical at-risk person 

would be. Having said that, we need to show that those 

within high-risk groups of people are being tested as well. 

The tremendous progress that has been made in 

testing in the past few years is truly astonishing. Someone 

can be tested and have the result in less than a minute. I 

hope that he will not mind me mentioning it, but the 

hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) 

saw this first-hand last night when he received a test 

through the services provided by the Terrence Higgins 

Trust in the House, and he had the result in less than a 

minute. Testing is not the long drawn-out process it was 

years ago, but can be done much more quickly. 

Finally, on care and support, people are living longer 

with the virus, which is a very good thing, but it brings 

with it challenges and complications—physical, emotional 

and mental. It is very important that we understand the 

need to have a strategy for people living longer with 

HIV. The AIDS support grant is no longer ring-fenced, 

and I am not arguing that it should be re-ring-fenced, 

but I am arguing strongly for it to stay within the grants 

that go to local government as a specified budget line. 

In that way, local people can hold their local authority 

to account in exactly the way that the Secretary of State 

outlined yesterday. It is his belief that local people 

should be able to see the services being provided for 

them, and argue for services. If the AIDS support grant 

disappears as a title altogether and is subsumed into the 

general pot of money that local government gets, local 

people will not be empowered to come forward and 

demand the kind of services for which money is being 

made available. 

In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will address 

some of the concerns about the AIDS support grant 

and the Government’s vision for it. I hope too that she 

will be able to calm some of the fears and uncertainties 

out there on how HIV services are to be commissioned, 

how they will be accessed, and how they will be supported 

under the new NHS that the Government have in mind. 

Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair): Order. Five Back 

Benchers have intimated that they wish to take part. I 

intend to call the wind-ups at about 3.30 pm. Hon. 

Members can do the maths, so I ask for brief speeches 

from now on. 

3pm 

Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con): I congratulate the 

hon. Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns) on securing 

this important debate, whether by skill or fortune. 

The Hove and Brighton area has one the highest rates 

of HIV in the UK. Many of my constituents live with 

the virus, and others have friends and colleagues that do 

so. It is a great privilege to speak up for them on any 

day, but especially on world AIDS day.

307WH 

HIV 


HIV 

308WH 

[Mike Weatherley] 

I wish to make two clear points. First, HIV does not 

always conform to stereotypes. HIV does not affect 

only young men on the gay scene, or people in or from 

Africa. As we heard earlier, it also affects white, middle-aged 

and older straight men and women. Until politicians, 

policy makers, doctors and the general public take that 

fact on board, dealing with HIV will continue to be 

hard work. Secondly, 26% of all who live with HIV in 

the United Kingdom are undiagnosed. Tackling this 

must be a priority. 

In Brighton and Hove City primary care trust, about 

450 people are HIV positive without knowing it. The 

Government and local services must do everything that 

they can to bring the number down, and I am determined 

to do what I can to support the NHS at the local level in 

this task. 

My two earlier points are linked, because it is precisely 

those who are not in what are known as high-risk 

groups who get diagnosed the latest. Heterosexual men 

have the worst rates of late diagnosis, at 65%. That is 

possibly because they are less likely to consider themselves 

at risk, as we heard earlier, and unlike women they will 

never be tested in ante-natal settings. It could also be 

because clinicians may not consider them to be at risk. 

Heterosexual men over 50 years old have the worst rates 

of diagnosis; 73% of those not diagnosed until over the 

age of 50 are diagnosed late. 

HIV comes in many shapes and sizes. At 54%, more 

than half of new diagnoses in 2009 were among 

heterosexuals, something that surprised me when 

researching for the debate. At 51%, more than half of 

HIV-diagnosed individuals accessing HIV care in 2009 

were infected through heterosexual sex. The proportion 

of heterosexual diagnoses in which people are believed 

to have been infected in the UK has risen year on year 

throughout the epidemic. From 2003 to 2007 it doubled 

from 12% to 24%, and it continues to rise. It is now 

about 32%. The over-50s represent one in five of all 

adults seen for HIV care in 2009. That is due to an 

ageing cohort of people diagnosed previously, as well as 

an increase in new diagnoses among older people. 

I dwell for a moment on the growing cohort of people 

of more than 50 years of age that live with HIV. This 

cohort will be bringing new needs to the NHS, and it 

should be ready for them. As people get older, they see 

more of their GPs. Many older people living with HIV 

suffer side effects from treatment; overall, they report 

twice as many other long-term non-HIV conditions as 

their non-HIV positive peers. As a consequence, they 

need to spend more time in health care, including 

primary health-care settings, than their peers. That makes 

their relationship with non-HIV specialist doctors almost 

as important as their relationship with HIV doctors. 

The Terrence Higgins Trust surveyed about 400 people 

aged over 50. It found that 

“respondents repeatedly told stories of discrimination, ignorance 

and poor clinical treatment in generalist healthcare, particularly 

in primary settings.” 

The survey concluded that there was important work to 

be done to address HIV discrimination in primary care 

settings, as doctors there may not be so familiar with 

people that have the virus. 

In Hove and in Brighton, we have some of the most 

HIV-aware clinicians in the country, and our specialists 

are among the best in the world. However, we must not 

be complacent, as parts of the NHS in our area will be 

less HIV-aware, as we heard earlier. I urge the Minister 

to work with her colleagues, the all-party group on HIV 

and AIDS and charities such as the Terrence Higgins 

Trust to tackle the problem. Training for GPs and 

surgery staff could be one way to do so. 

Medical care is not the only service needed by older 

people. In the same Terrence Higgins survey, fewer than 

one in 12 older people with HIV said that they would 

approach a mainstream organisation for older people 

for support. Age UK and the Terrence Higgins Trust 

are working to change attitudes and to improve 

understanding of HIV in mainstream social care and 

social networks for older people. Again, I hope that the 

Minister will listen to the views of people living with 

HIV as her Department moves to create a social care 

system fit for the 21st century. 

I turn next to late and undiagnosed HIV. Of all adults 

diagnosed with HIV in 2009, 52% were diagnosed late, 

when their CD4 count dropped below 350. People with 

the worst rates of late diagnosis are over the 50s. Recent 

research suggests that the majority of those people will 

have had previous contact with their doctors. Late 

diagnosis, whatever the age, is a problem; if treatment is 

not started promptly, it can do serious damage to the 

body and severely cut life expectancy. 

HIV treatment is excellent, and if diagnosed promptly, 

one can live to an old age. It is not right that some of my 

constituents will not have this opportunity by being 

diagnosed too late to benefit from it. It even makes 

financial sense to treat people early; it is much cheaper 

to have people someone stable on HIV treatment than it 

is to treat them for the endlessly recurring serious 

conditions that can result from undiagnosed HIV. HIV 

treatment also reduces viral load; as a result, those who 

are diagnosed and on treatment are less likely to pass on 

the virus. 

Now is the time, while we are focusing on public 

health and while we are worrying about public finances, 

to take action to tackle late diagnosis and undiagnosed 

HIV. I am proud to say that people in Brighton and 

Hove are not sitting back waiting for someone to come 

up with a solution but are already working hard to 

tackle the problem. There have been two pilot studies in 

our area looking into ways of reducing undiagnosed 

HIV, using clinicians in the area. Of 596 people tested, 

only two positives were found. However, even more 

people were identified through an anonymous survey 

done by the university of Brighton. I urge as many 

people as possible to be tested, because of the 3,872 

anonymous tests 54 were positive. 

My constituency is proof that HIV can affect anybody, 

whatever their background, age or sexuality. As more 

people with HIV grow to old age, we must ensure that 

they receive services of which we can be proud. Such 

services should include prompt diagnosis. 

3.6 pm 

Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab): I am delighted to 

take part in this debate. First, it gives me the opportunity 

to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde 

(David Cairns) not only on securing the debate but on 

the important work that he does in chairing the all-party 

group on HIV and AIDS. Secondly, it gives me the

309WH 

HIV 


HIV 

310WH 

opportunity to recommend to the Minister the work of 

Summit House Support. It is a fantastic charity, led by 

its chair Claire Pennell and its chief executive Suzanne 

Callen; for the last 18 years, the organisation has provided 

phenomenal services and support for people with HIV 

and AIDS in Dudley and Sandwell. 

Thirdly, it gives me the opportunity to thank the 

Minister and her Department for the support that Summit 

House receives from the Department of Health through 

the Dudley and Sandwell primary care trusts. Finally, it 

gives me the opportunity to raise a number of points 

that I know are of interest to the staff at Summit House 

Support and those who work in the field. 

I am delighted that the Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government has written to 

local authorities promising to increase spending on 

AIDS support over the next 10 years—I understand by 

£10.5 million. Is the Minister able to tell us how 

organisations in the HIV sector such as Summit House 

Support can safeguard the way in which local authorities 

decide to spend their grants? Will there be criteria for 

allocation, a needs assessment or some sort of ring-fencing 

process that considers the real needs of those with HIV? 

We have heard that is often a hidden group, so it needs 

to be done through specialist agencies, and it is fair to 

say that some of those working in the field are extremely 

concerned that money could be sidelined for other uses 

by local authorities if things are not monitored correctly. 

As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde said, 

people living with HIV are worried about the GP 

commissioning proposals now being considered. HIV is 

clearly a specialist area, and GPs historically have not 

had much interaction with those who have to live with 

it. In some cases, there is not the relationship of trust 

that should exist. Many people living with HIV are 

genuinely frightened or concerned about the proposals. 

The current sexual health strategy will end shortly. 

What plans do the Government have to write a new 

strategy, given that the sexual health agenda has changed 

since 2004? Has the Minister also considered the extent 

to which NHS employees are routinely trained in HIV 

routes of transmission? I understand from the service 

users I met at Summit house that staff who have received 

such training and who understand the facts about 

transmission and infection are likely to be able to deal 

with people infected with HIV more effectively than 

those who have not had such training. Does the Minister 

think that training in HIV routes of transmission should 

be incorporated into employees’ standard training if is 

not already part of it? 

Finally, would the Minister be prepared to visit Dudley 

to see first hand the fantastic work done at Summit 

house? If her diary does not allow her to do that, would 

she be prepared to let me bring people from Summit 

house to meet her in London? 

3.10 pm 

Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con): May I say what a 

pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, 

Mr Leigh? I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde 

(David Cairns). I am rather reassured that, after seven 

years, he does not know how these debates are chosen, 

because I certainly do not have a clue after seven 

months. 

This is a significant day. It is a day to remember those 

who are no longer with us, it is a day to acknowledge 

and pay tribute to those who have worked so hard on 

this issue and, crucially, it is a day to raise awareness. 

On the first of those issues, the scars on those who have 

lost people, particularly in the early years, are clearly 

raw. Thankfully, I do not know anybody who has died 

from AIDS, but I have friends who do, and they recall 

the pain and suffering vividly. 

It is important that we remember those who have 

died and acknowledge their suffering. There is a wonderful 

quote in the film “Philadelphia”, where someone says 

that social death precedes physical death. That was 

certainly true in the early days, but I hope that things 

will get a lot better as time goes on. It is important, 

however, to look at how far we have come. 

This is also a day to acknowledge those who have 

done so much. I pay tribute to each and every person 

and organisation for their work. There are too many 

organisations to mention, but I would like to pay tribute 

to the National AIDS Trust and the Terrence Higgins 

Trust. I would also like to mention two individuals. The 

first is the chief executive of the Terrence Higgins Trust, 

Sir Nick Partridge, who is here. He has done a tremendous 

amount of work over the years, and he should be 

acknowledged. The second is Lord Fowler, and I was 

pleased last night when he was acknowledged for the 

work that he did in the very early years. 

Perhaps most importantly, today gives us an opportunity 

to raise awareness of HIV and AIDS here and abroad. 

I know that we are concentrating on the UK today, but 

I hope that we will have an opportunity to talk about 

the issues abroad, because they are significant. 

The latest figures from the Health Protection Agency 

show that more people than ever are living with HIV. 

Last year, there were more than 6,000 new diagnoses, 

which is fewer than the year before, but only slightly. 

That emphasises that this is still a major problem. As 

many Members have mentioned, statistics also show 

that slightly more than half of new diagnoses are among 

heterosexuals, but the rate of infection in the gay community 

is still very high. Worryingly, there is an increase in 

diagnoses among those over 50, as my hon. Friend the 

Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) rightly 

said. We have also heard about the quarter of people 

with HIV who are undiagnosed. That is a huge problem, 

which really needs addressing. 

I represent a constituency in Leeds, where the prevalence 

of HIV cases is average for England, with about 850 

people receiving treatment and care in the city. Again, 

however, many of those people have been diagnosed 

very late, which highlights the need for early diagnosis. 

We also have a growing African population in the city, 

and there is a real link between HIV abroad and in the 

UK, as more and more people move around the world. 

In addition, we have one of the most vibrant gay scenes 

in Yorkshire, and I hope that we can encourage as much 

focus as possible on those two groups, because prevention 

really is the key. 

It is important to mention the campaigns of the 

1980s. The Conservative Government of the mid-1980s 

faced a massive challenge on an emerging issue, and 

even the best experts were learning day to day. Those 

campaigns were scary. I was at school at the time, but I

311WH 

HIV 


HIV 

312WH 

[Stuart Andrew] 

remember them, and they still have an impact on me. As 

the hon. Gentleman said, those old campaigns were not 

exactly targeted, but they were highly effective. 

Developments in medicine these days mean that people 

with HIV can expect to live well into old age. This 

generation could be forgiven for thinking that the problem 

has gone away, and that is a big problem, particularly in 

the young, at-risk groups. In the 1980s, HIV had already 

taken root among gay men in this country. Meanwhile, 

a devastating HIV/AIDS epidemic was about to take 

off in Africa, with inevitable consequences for this 

country and others. It is now estimated that, by 2012, 

there could be close to 100,000 people with the virus in 

this country. That is a tenfold increase on the 1980s 

figures, so the problem has not gone away. 

I pay tribute to groups such as CHAPs, which have 

worked with community groups all over the country, 

and I am lucky that we have such groups in my constituency. 

[Interruption.] I notice, however, that I need to get a 

move on, so I will get rid of some of the pages of my 

speech. 

Let me quickly say that I am delighted that we are 

highlighting some of the work that has been done over 

the past few years, although I should emphasise that 

work still needs to be done to save lives. There needs to 

be foreign aid, education and greater testing. Let me 

also say how happy I am that HIV and sexual health 

have featured highly in the public health White Paper, 

and that is important. It is also important that we 

acknowledge the problem in socially disadvantaged cases. 

Finally, there is no one silver bullet when it comes to 

preventing HIV transmission, but we can, through a 

range of interventions, start to reverse this epidemic. 

Like the Government of the 1980s, the coalition faces a 

considerable challenge in tackling HIV. Unlike that 

Government, however, the coalition can draw on 25 years 

of experience in dealing with the epidemic and in 

understanding what works and what does not. I wish 

them well. 

3.17 pm 

Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab): I 

congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde 

(David Cairns) on securing a debate on such an important 

topic. HIV policy has long been close to my heart, and 

it is a pleasure to be able to speak in the debate. It is 

important that I can speak on an issue that affects my 

constituency so greatly. Although we are discussing the 

effects of HIV in the UK, we cannot do so in isolation; 

we need to discuss many global issues as well, and I am 

sure that we will have an opportunity to do so. Today, 

however, I want to address issues relating to the UK 

and particularly to my constituency. 

Ealing primary care trust has the seventh highest 

prevalence of HIV in a country that has more people 

living with the disease than ever before. Rates of new 

infections in the UK remain high, and, as my hon. 

Friend said, the number of over-50s infected with HIV 

trebled between 2000 and 2009. It is obvious that a new 

policy has to be developed to deal with these pressing 

new issues. 

One of the most important factors in this complex 

issue, which we must acknowledge straight away, is 

diagnosis. Roughly one in four people with HIV in 

Ealing do not even know that they have it. That is 

roughly the same ratio as at the national level. When 

HIV is discovered early, people can be treated and go on 

to live normal lives with near-normal life expectancies. 

On the other hand, late diagnosis leads to more AIDSrelated 

illnesses, increased pressure on the NHS and a 

higher rate of onwards transmission. We have too high 

a rate of diagnoses being made at a point when treatment 

should already have started. As hon. Members have 

said, in 2009 52% of people diagnosed with HIV were 

diagnosed too late, and 73% of those who died were 

diagnosed too late as well. 

What can we do to ensure early diagnosis for all cases 

of HIV? The Health Protection Agency believes that all 

new members of GP surgeries in PCTs with high prevalence 

rates, including Ealing, should be offered an HIV test. 

We need to go further, and provide incentives to GPs 

and other health care workers to encourage HIV testing. 

We also need to improve antenatal testing. We already 

have good provision for HIV testing of unborn babies. 

Even though one in 450 women who give birth is 

HIV-positive, only 30 babies born last year had the 

virus. However, we could go further. 

I want to comment briefly on the growing link between 

HIV cases and mental health. Obviously, meeting the 

mental health needs of a population is important in 

itself, but concentrating on people with HIV can have a 

particularly beneficial effect, both clinically and in costeffectiveness. 

People with depression have a more adverse 

reaction to their HIV treatment in general. It is cheaper 

for the NHS to invest in 10 sessions with a clinical 

psychologist than to pay for costly treatments further 

down the line because someone did not take the initial 

treatment properly. 

Those sufferers receiving the right psychological support 

are less likely to miss their medication, more likely to 

react positively to treatment, and less likely to pass on 

the disease by engaging in unsafe sex; such aspects of 

the matter can cost more in the long run if the right 

support is not established immediately on diagnosis. It 

is therefore important for the Department of Health to 

integrate HIV sufferers into long-term mental health 

strategies. 

Although I am pleased that drugs for HIV sufferers 

will be ring-fenced in the health budget, social care and 

protection for HIV sufferers, which is often provided 

through local authorities, will not be. Social services are 

hugely important for people with HIV, and a squeeze 

on their budget is likely to have a detrimental effect on 

the mental health status of many HIV sufferers and cost 

much more in the long term. I am aware that through 

the CSR an announcement was made of an increased 

allocation to social care for people with HIV. 

I now want the Department of Health to inform local 

authorities of their likely budgets as soon as possible, so 

that councillors can start to plan a thorough care plan 

for people living with HIV. Only through that long-term 

planning for mental health cases, more social care and a 

greater push for early diagnosis can we really start to 

tackle the problem of HIV in this country, and ensure 

that nothing stops people with HIV living normal lives. 

3.23 pm 

Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con): I am delighted 

to be speaking under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh, 

and I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde

313WH 

HIV 


HIV 

314WH 

(David Cairns) on obtaining this timely debate on world 

AIDS day. What is good about the debate is the unanimity 

between the parties. We often have heated debates, but 

we all appreciate the importance of today’s debate for 

people suffering from HIV/AIDS. 

Now that the recent tough economic choices have 

been laid on the table, we are able to take an opportunity 

to review what is and is not working in the UK and try 

to make improvements. HIV/AIDS is a serious virus 

that poses a risk not only for those who are already 

suffering from it but also those around them. The ease 

of transmission of the disease means that, if we do not 

bring the number who have it back down from 83,000 

or so, we run the possibility of letting the virus dictate 

our actions, instead of taking pre-emptive measures. 

Unfortunately, as a member of the Select Committee on 

International Development, I have seen at first hand 

that once the virus gets into sections of society where it 

becomes more prevalent, it can, left unchecked, destroy 

countless lives and families. 

Britain is a world-leader in international development, 

and central in the international community’s voice and 

actions against HIV/AIDS worldwide. However, to be a 

credible voice and to make an inroad into the virus 

worldwide we need a credible tactic of beating the virus 

at home. Funding has been flatlining in recent years and 

we risk, if we are not careful, losing more than two 

decades of progress that has been made in fighting the 

epidemic. 

The White Paper offers more flexibility to the health 

service, by offering GPs more control over the budgets 

that they inherit and how they spend the money allocated 

to them. Perhaps outlining the financial rewards of 

early screening will help to strengthen the argument. 

The Health Protection Agency recently estimated that 

the prevention of one new HIV infection saves the 

public purse between £280,000 and £360,000 in direct 

lifetime health care costs. That is a staggering amount 

per new diagnosed case. In 2008, had all of the UK’s 

3,550 acquired infections been prevented it would have 

saved approximately £1.1 billion in direct health care 

costs. 

Alternatively, we can look at the money that could be 

made, not saved, by early diagnosis. People living with 

HIV who have an early diagnosis can contribute wealth 

to the nation by staying in work for longer and therefore 

paying more in taxes; they are able to manage their 

health better, which results in their taking fewer days off 

sick. They can plan for their financial future so as not to 

require incapacity benefit in such large numbers, and by 

having quick access to antiretroviral drugs they can 

ensure that they do not require full-time carers, who are 

often family members, for so long. That means that 

their family can go out and work and contribute to the 

national purse. 

Of course, financial reward is not the only benefit 

of diagnosing HIV early. The significant social benefits 

to early diagnosis are equally if not more important. 

For instance, a 35-year-old male diagnosed early with 

HIV, and with quick access to antiretroviral therapy, 

would now be expected to live to 72—only a few years 

less than someone who would be deemed a perfectly 

healthy man. 

Early diagnosis enables people who are HIV-positive 

to take positive steps in protecting others through safe 

sex. A recent study of newly diagnosed HIV-positive 

men who have sex with men reported that 76% had 

eliminated the risk of onward transmission three months 

after diagnosis. If the test comes back negative, of 

course, it allows the recipient a wake-up call and a 

chance to change their habits and think about the risks 

that they have been taking. In that way they are more 

than likely to help to prevent a future case of HIV in 

the UK. 

Early diagnosis also allows the correct antiretroviral 

drugs to be prescribed. That in turn reduces the viral 

load and subsequently reduces the chances of transmitting 

HIV. By giving people the opportunity to take quick 

and effective measures against the virus we are putting 

them back in charge of their lives; they are not having 

their lives dictated by HIV. I should like the Minister to 

take note that women, and indeed men, who have been 

raped should automatically be monitored to ensure that 

if they suffer from HIV/AIDS it will be diagnosed 

extremely early; that is not something that they have 

chosen. 

The truth of the matter is that the male gay community 

and the black African community are most susceptible 

to HIV infection owing to cultural sexual practice. 

There is a role for civil society in bringing UK levels of 

HIV down by bringing early diagnosis to those groups 

and deconstructing the stigma attached to screening for 

the virus. Everyone gets scared, intimidated and 

embarrassed from time to time and those natural feelings 

might be a barrier, preventing people in those at-risk 

communities from seeking early diagnosis. 

Coming out of the financial turmoil of the past few 

years, it is important that we should take every opportunity 

that is given to us to make positive changes to the 

previous norm. We have the opportunity to put early 

screening at the heart of the public health White Paper 

and to create a social practice in which the stigma of 

screening is broken down through the participation of 

civil society. However, I believe that there is only one 

mention of HIV/AIDS in the White Paper. I simply ask 

that we do not let the opportunity slip away. Positive 

changes to the current HIV strategy can and should be 

made: most importantly, they need to be made. 

3.29 pm 

Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) 

(Lab): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in 

this important debate on world AIDS day, and I 

congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde 

(David Cairns) on securing the debate. 

Let us remember that some people who are suffering 

from HIV/AIDS, or suspect that they are, will have 

supportive partners, be in supportive communities and 

face the future with some positivity. Many, however, 

will be very frightened and very alone. It is a good thing 

that we in this Chamber can openly debate this issue 

and its ramifications, because it will reassure not just 

communities, activists and lobbyists but individuals who 

may read and see the debate this afternoon. 

We must remember that we have moved some way 

since the early frightening adverts in the 1980s. No one 

who saw those adverts, with the tombstones collapsing 

and the voice of doom, has ever forgotten them. We 

should congratulate Norman Fowler on taking up the 

cause and using the power of his Department to put it 

in front of the public.

315WH 

HIV 


HIV 

316WH 

[Ms Diane Abbott] 

When we look at some of the indices around HIV/AIDS, 

we see that there has been an increase in HIV testing 

among gay men. Testing rose from 58% in 1997 to 72% 

in 2008. We have seen a plateau in new diagnoses 

among gay men, and we now see a consistently high rate 

of condom use among them—at least nine out of 10 

now use condoms. The fact that we have seen such 

progress is partly a tribute to the people who took up 

the issue all those years ago. It is also a continuing 

tribute to the communities, activists and health providers 

who provide both care and commitment, and we need 

to acknowledge that today in this debate. 

However, there is still some way to go. How we go 

forward on HIV/AIDS will be a test of the reorganisation 

of both the NHS and public health that has been 

announced in recent months. In principle, I do not 

think that anyone in this Chamber is opposed to the 

reorganisation, but it is just this sort of issue, which is 

not consistent across the country, that is not necessarily 

well represented in GPs’ lists and has different levels of 

information across the country; there may not be as 

much information in rural areas as there is in Brighton 

and London. That will be a test of the reorganisation’s 

effectiveness. 

We know that AIDS can affect anyone, and that 

apart from the gay community the largest community 

affected by HIV/AIDS is that made up of black African 

men and women; currently, 38% of new HIV diagnosis 

is among that group. The stigma attached to HIV in 

that community cannot be overstated, and it very much 

hampers efforts to reach out to people and achieve early 

diagnosis. 

The problem among black African men and women— 

and among other groups, as well—is that they present 

late and are therefore diagnosed late. That not only 

gives them a poor prognosis; it means that the cost of 

treatment is much more expensive than it need be. That 

is true of any individual or any group that presents late. 

Another issue with black African men is that even 

though they may be having sex with men, they refuse to 

consider themselves as gay. They think that HIV is 

something for the gay community and not for them, so 

they end up presenting very late indeed. They are more 

likely to be undiagnosed and to live in areas in which a 

relatively high proportion of the population are not on 

their GP’s list, so they are not really interacting with the 

authorities. 

I should like to use this debate to stress the importance 

of educational and informative work generally and with 

the black and African community in particular. We 

must do more with the Churches, because that is probably 

the most effective way to reach those groups. Any 

Sunday morning, there will more people in African-led 

churches in Hackney than at any political party meetings 

for 12 months of the year. 

We need to normalise testing and offer it in a much 

wider range of settings—not just for black and African 

men and women, but for the population as a whole. I 

was routinely tested when I had my son 19 years ago 

and thought nothing of it. We need to make testing 

more routine so that people do not think, “If I go for 

this test, it will badge me as someone at risk.” Universal 

testing may well be a step too far, but we need to make 

testing available in a wider range of contexts. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde said that 

he did not want to talk about international issues, but 

given that 38% of new HIV diagnosis is among black 

African men and women, I do not apologise for raising 

the issue of funds for the Global Fund to fight AIDS, 

Tuberculosis and Malaria. I know that that is not a 

matter for the Minister and I do not expect her to 

respond on the specific point. None the less, will she 

pass on to her colleagues the very concerning fact that 

the global fund is £13 billion short of what it needs? If 

the UK was to raise its pledged amount in line with 

France and other western European countries, the fund 

would be able to go to private sector donors such as the 

Gates Foundation and reach the amount of money it 

needs. 

In that context, I should like to mention—again, I do 

not expect the Minister to respond on this point—that 

in the next few weeks we will have EU trade talks with 

India in Brussels. There is a great concern that as a 

consequence of the trade talks, India might not be able 

to produce the cheap generic drugs that have played 

such a huge role in the fight against AIDS in Africa. 

That would be a blow not so much for Indian industry, 

but for the millions of people in Africa who have 

benefited from access to cheap generic drugs. 

HIV/AIDS is no longer a death sentence, which is 

good news. Thanks to new drugs, research and greater 

understanding, people are now living with HIV. As one 

of my hon. Friends said earlier, we have 65,390 people 

in the community living with HIV. In fact, it is increasing 

faster among the over-50s than among any other group, 

which raises new issues that were not considered in the 

era of the adverts with the crashing tombstones and the 

voice from above. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall 

(Mr Sharma) mentioned the issue of depression and 

how that interconnects with sufferers of HIV/AIDS 

and the support that they need in relation to that. There 

are ongoing concerns about care and support that were 

not an issue 20 years ago. If we are to offer sufferers 

from HIV/AIDS equity of health care and, as far as 

possible, a good quality of life, we must consider care 

and support, within the new health service and local 

authority structures, as we have not in the past. 

As I said at the start of my remarks, the reorganisation 

of the commissioning of health care and of the public 

health service will be tested by this issue. Many ordinary 

people on the ground will judge the reorganisation by 

how issues such as this are dealt with. I stress, as my 

hon. Friends have stressed, the importance of a national 

strategy. We need to consider how it can go forward 

under the new arrangements. Will the Minister tell us 

who will be responsible for commissioning and funding 

the information work that is needed now more than 

ever—in particular, the specific education work that 

goes into the communities that I have mentioned? Who 

will be responsible for commissioning preventive work, 

care, treatment and support? I will listen with interest to 

the Minister’s responses to those questions. 

I welcome the new public health arrangements in 

principle. Public health has been a core activity of local 

government since the 19th century and so, as a former 

local councillor, I am glad that public health has “come 

home” to local authorities. However, because I know

317WH 

HIV 


HIV 

318WH 

local authorities and how they work, I want to be 

convinced that it is possible effectively to ring-fence the 

public health funds that they will receive. 

I imagine that what some local authorities will do—or 

will be tempted to do, conceiving themselves to be 

under financial pressure—is to rebadge existing work in 

the areas of social care and environmental health as 

public health expenditure, and the new funds that all of 

us in Westminster Hall imagine are there for public 

health will melt away in the current climate. So this will 

be a test, as much as anything else, of how far it is 

possible effectively to ring-fence public health funds 

once they fall to local authorities. 

Then there is GP commissioning, and the issue of 

HIV/AIDS will be a test of that system. The important 

thing with GP commissioning is that GPs should 

commission for their community and not for their list. 

As an east end Member of Parliament, I know that 

there are many public health issues that manifest themselves 

more extensively among people who are not actually on 

GPs’ lists, for a whole number of reasons. Tuberculosis 

is a case in point. A disproportionately high number of 

people who suffer from TB are not on a GP’s list, for a 

number of reasons. HIV will be a test of the extent to 

which GP commissioning consortia will commission for 

the community as a whole and not just for the people 

who are on GPs’ lists and present themselves for treatment. 

It will be important to know what will happen to 

some of the survey work that is carried out by organisations 

such as the London Health Observatory; I had a meeting 

with representatives of that organisation this morning. 

That survey work is the only way of seeing what the 

trends are in issues such as HIV. It is easy for us to say 

this afternoon that 43% of HIV/AIDS sufferers are in 

London, many more are in Brighton and so on. However, 

we live in a globalised environment and there are trends 

and changes. Only survey work—not only national 

survey work, but sometimes precise survey work—can 

track what is really happening with HIV/AIDS. 

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): I understand that 

some of the figures that have been released in the past 

year for those who have just been diagnosed with HIV 

show that it is not just a young person’s disease any 

more; it also affects those who are 50-plus or 55-plus. I 

wonder whether the hon. Lady is aware of that. If she 

is, what does she feel should be done to address that 

issue of those in an older age bracket who are now 

succumbing to the disease? 

Ms Abbott: That is an important point, and it is one 

that I touched on earlier. It shows that anyone can find 

themselves— 

3.42 pm 

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 

3.51 pm 

On resuming— 

Ms Abbott: In conclusion, I congratulate all those 

who have campaigned, worked and raised consciousness 

on this issue over 20-odd years. Improvements have 

been made, partly through the efforts of communities 

and campaigners and partly through the commitment 

of people in the House, but we face new challenges due 

to the reorganisation of the NHS and the fact that a 

generation of people are now living with AIDS. 

I look to the Minister to answer some of the questions 

asked in this debate, particularly about how the 

reorganisation will affect the treatment of HIV/AIDS, 

and to reassure us that the information needed in a 

range of communities will be publicised. I will listen 

with interest to her response. 

3.52 pm 


(Anne Milton): It is a pleasure to serve under your 

chairmanship, Mr Leigh; I do not believe that I have 

been in this position before. I am grateful to the hon. 

Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns) for securing this 

debate. I congratulate him on his chairmanship of the 

all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS, and I 

congratulate the group itself on continuing to raise 

awareness in Parliament, in the UK and internationally. 

Today, as we all know, is world AIDS day, so this 

debate is timely; I believe that Mr Speaker has some 

influence over when debates occur. It is an opportunity 

to reflect on what we have achieved, where we stand and 

the challenges ahead, many of which have been mentioned. 

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart 

Andrew) for his gracious comment that this is a chance 

for us to pay tribute to those whom we have lost along 

the way to the present improvements in life expectancy 

for those with HIV/AIDS. A dear friend, Eric, with 

whom I worked in the 1980s, died from AIDS; I am sure 

that many of us know people who lost their lives. It is so 

tragic when we consider the advances made. 

The hon. Member for Inverclyde focused on the 

situation in the UK. The hon. Member for Hackney 

North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) mentioned 

the global situation. It is important to note that the 

number of new infections decreased by 19% between 

2009 and 2001. Today, more than 5 million people have 

access to life-saving antiretrovirals. That is more than a 

thirteenfold increase in five years, but significant challenges 

remain. More than 33 million people are living with 

HIV, 2.1 million children are infected and the World 

Health Organisation estimates that at least 10 million 

people still need treatment. There is a great deal more to 

be done, and no room for complacency. 

I would like to mention my noble Friend Lord Fowler, 

and welcome the announcement of next year’s inquiry 

into HIV and AIDS. Like the hon. Member for Inverclyde, 

I am old enough to remember when the disease came on 

the scene. A great friend of mine, a professor of virology 

who went over to the States, came back and said that it 

was extraordinary to see an acquired deficiency, as the 

disease’s name suggests. He talked about a curious 

illness that people were getting. 

At that time, a tremendous amount of work was 

being done by many people, not least my noble Friend, 

to fight HIV/AIDS. It is still a powerful model for 

public health campaigns; we cannot forget those 

tombstones. Such images enabled a lot of the preventive 

work from which we still benefit. I reassure the hon. 

Member for Inverclyde that mass communication had 

an effect. The rate of sexually transmitted diseases 

decreased across the board. However, he also mentioned 

targeted messages, which is where we need to focus 

our efforts.

319WH 

HIV 


HIV 

320WH 

[Anne Milton] 

Although prevalence is relatively low in the UK 

population as a whole, some groups are disproportionately 

affected, including men who have sex with men, and 

black African communities. In 2009, they accounted for 

42% and 36% respectively of the 65,000 individuals 

living with diagnosed HIV infection. However, as my 

hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) 

rightly pointed out, stereotypes are dangerous, and the 

figures that I have quoted must be used with caution. 

3.56 pm 


4.4 pm 


Anne Milton: My hon. Friend the Member for Hove 

also mentioned the specific problems with late diagnosis, 

which I shall return to. The outlook for most people 

with HIV in the UK is more positive than it used to be, 

and the vast majority can now plan for their future with 

a great deal more certainty, which is to be welcomed. 

We must not forget that we have the dedicated work of 

many scientists around the world to thank for that, 

along with action from Governments from both sides of 

the House. 

However, challenges remain. As Members have pointed 

out, despite our successes, a quarter of people with HIV 

do not know that they are infected and so are unable to 

benefit from the treatment available, and they can 

unwittingly infect others. Around half of the newly 

diagnosed infections are diagnosed late, after the point 

at which people should have started treatment. The 

hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) raised 

that as an ongoing and growing problem, along with the 

fact that many of the people affected have serious 

mental health problems. The mental health and well-being 

of people with HIV and AIDS is seldom mentioned, 

but it is extremely important to recognise. 

I share the concerns raised in the debate about the 

need to reduce the number of people with HIV who are 

undiagnosed or diagnosed late. We need to increase 

testing, especially in those areas that have a higher 

prevalence of HIV. We have seen a good uptake of HIV 

testing in sexual health clinics and antenatal settings, 

but all health care professionals need to be alert to the 

importance of offering appropriate HIV tests. 

Ms Abbott: Does the Minister have any practical 

proposals for increasing testing, such as different contexts 

in which it can occur? 

Anne Milton: I thank the hon. Lady for raising that 

point, which is important. I will return to it later in my 

remarks. The hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny 

Willott) mentioned the automatic testing when she had 

her baby. The Department of Health has funded eight 

pilot projects, which have now been completed, that 

looked at the feasibility and, importantly, acceptability 

of providing an HIV test as part of routine services 

offered to newly registered adults. I am encouraged by 

the findings from those projects, which confirm that 

offering HIV tests in GP practices, hospitals and community 

settings is acceptable to patients. 

The pilots picked up a significant number of previously 

undiagnosed people in high prevalence areas. It is good 

news that people are happy to be tested, because it 

means that we can pick up cases of HIV that would 

otherwise be missed. We are working on the best approaches 

to expand HIV testing in a variety of settings and, as 

the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington 

said, that is really important. If a wide variety of 

settings was available, a GP practice is not necessarily 

where people would go for a test—far from it, I would 

say. 

I am also pleased to note that, thanks to the leadership 

and drive of local HIV clinicians and others, findings 

from the pilots in Brighton, Lewisham and Leicester 

have now been embedded in local practice, which is to 

be congratulated. The Health Protection Agency will 

publish its final report on the pilots early next year, 

which many people will look forward to seeing. We 

need to see what we can do to put into practice what we 

have learnt. It is vital to increase testing for HIV, as it is 

for a number of sexually transmitted diseases, so we 

continue to fund targeted programmes for the groups 

most at risk from HIV in the UK. We have also funded 

the Medical Foundation for AIDS and Sexual Health 

to provide training resources for health care professionals 

in secondary care. 

I would like to thank the hon. Member for Dudley 

North (Ian Austin), who kindly sent me a note to 

explain that he has had to leave the debate, for raising 

the work of Summit House Support. We will be looking 

at the findings of the pilots I have mentioned, and I 

would certainly not like to miss an opportunity to go to 

Dudley, should the opportunity arise, to have a look at 

what Summit House Support is doing. 

For HIV, as for all STIs, prevention remains the most 

important response. In the UK, the majority of HIV 

infections are sexually transmitted, and the vast majority 

of those could have been prevented; that is a message 

that we really must hang on to. 

4.9 pm 


4.15 pm 


Anne Milton: We need to ensure that safer sex messages 

are clearly communicated and understood by all. 

I think that we also have to clamp down a bit on 

irresponsible marketing. I have been approached by 

those who are unhappy about the promotion of DVDs 

and other material promoting “bareback” sex. We need 

to address such issues and I know that a lot of people 

and organisations, such as the Terrence Higgins Trust, 

are doing all they can to stop the promotion of such 

material. To those who are most at risk of HIV in the 

UK, I say that the Government work very closely in 

partnership with the Terrence Higgins Trust, the African 

Health Network and a huge number of other voluntary 

and community groups. 

Yesterday we published a White Paper on public 

health and later this month we will publish a number of 

supporting documents, including a public health outcomes 

framework. We will be thinking about what the best 

outcomes might be for HIV and they will be included in

321WH 

HIV 


HIV 

322WH 

that document. I know that Members will look at that 

document with care and feed back to us their feelings 

on it. In the spring, we will publish a position paper on 

sexual health which will, of course, include HIV. That 

paper will take into account many of the issues that 

have emerged this afternoon. 

David Cairns: I will let the Minister catch her breath 

and I appreciate that we are really up against the clock. 

She says that there will be a position paper in the spring. 

Does she envisage that that will lead to a full new HIV 

strategy, or will it just remain a position paper? 

Anne Milton: No, it will be a sexual health strategy. 

The Government and the NHS need to play their part, 

and we need to support individuals to make responsible 

lifestyle choices. We continue to provide the very best 

HIV treatment services, but others have a role to play 

and they are often better placed than the Government 

to make a difference. The hon. Member for Hackney 

North and Stoke Newington mentioned the role of 

churches in that regard and they can have a significant 

impact. 

Voluntary community groups, industry, responsible 

media, churches and faith groups all have a part to play. 

That collaboration is so important in tackling stigma 

and discrimination, which is still a very real issue for 

many people affected by HIV. That is particularly important 

within those communities who find sexual health issues 

more challenging than other communities. 

Stigma means that people refuse tests, do not take 

precautions and do not go for treatment. I was delighted 

to see that the Prime Minister highlighted the issue of 

stigma in his world AIDS day podcast. Tackling HIV is 

everyone’s business and we can all make a difference to 

reduce stigma, reduce new infections and enable people 

living with HIV to lead full and productive lives. 

The hon. Member for Inverclyde raised issues about 

global funds. I am sure that he will also raise those 

issues with my colleagues in the Department for 

International Development. However, as my ministerial 

brief also covers EU health, it may be of note for him to 

realise that such issues are recognised by many people 

within Europe and across the world, and we continue to 

work both nationally—within our own member states—and 

internationally, because collectively we can do a great 

deal to help each other. 

The hon. Gentleman also said that generally a onesize-fits-all 

approach does not work and, as my hon. 

Friend the Member for Hove said, anonymous testing 

and treatment is often crucial. We will announce our 

commissioning intentions soon. However, the hon. 

Gentleman’s point is well made. 

I think that it was the hon. Member for Dumfries and 

Galloway (Mr Brown) who mentioned the issue of 

commissioning services in rural areas, which poses particular 

challenges and very real problems. It is absolutely crucial 

that we get that commissioning right. We will announce 

our intentions soon and I hope that they will address 

some of the points that he raised. 

We need to talk about sex. We need to talk about 

people’s sexual health. We need to talk about people’s 

responsibilities in looking after their sexual health, and 

we all have something to offer and we all have something 

that we can do personally, particularly those of us 

who are Members of Parliament. As MPs, we have 

unprecedented access to media, particularly in our local 

areas. We need to do everything that we can to express 

the fact that this is everybody’s business and that people 

need to take responsibility for their sexual health. Their 

sexual health not only affects them; it affects the others 

around them and their families too. Only then will we 

be able to see a future for people living with HIV/AIDS 

that we all want to see.

323WH 

1 DECEMBER 2010 Metal Theft 

324WH 

Metal Theft 

4.20 pm 

Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab): It is a 

pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh. 

You remain the fastest voter I have ever seen, so if there 

is another Division I will attempt to keep up with you. 

I am here to talk about 

“the second biggest threat to our infrastructure after terrorism”. 

Those are the words that Paul Crowther, of the British 

Transport Police, used to describe the growing problem 

of metal theft in the UK. It is my contention that, if 

al-Qaeda or militant student demonstrators perpetrated 

some of the attacks to critical UK infrastructure on the 

scale and frequency that we are currently seeing, the 

Home Office would be taking this matter far more 

seriously than it currently appears to be taking it. 

4.21 pm 


4.28 pm 


Mr Watson: Whether it is copper from the side of a 

railway line, broadband cable, a drain gully or lead 

flashing from a school roof, not a day goes by when 

metal theft does not feature in the daily crime roster for 

police in the UK’s towns and cities. I seek to make the 

case to the Minister that metal theft is a national 

problem needing urgent attention. It is eroding our 

critical infrastructure and therefore the economic capacity 

of the nation. After outlining the issues, I will make the 

case for the need to collect more accurate data on metal 

theft incidents, for amending the Scrap Metal Dealers 

Act 1964 and for protecting uniformed British Transport 

police. I will also make the case for new regulations to 

deal with the rise of unscrupulous dealers in precious 

metals. 

The Minister has gained a reputation for being hardworking 

and fair-minded. I hope to convince him to 

focus in the coming months on the increasing problem 

of metal theft. Many businesses and police officers to 

whom I have spoken are frustrated with the progress 

made in the past, including—dare I say—under my own 

Government. Six months into the coalition Government, 

I hope that he has found his feet and will be able to 

move up a gear in that policy area. 

The Home Office line appears to be that the police 

have the necessary tools and powers to tackle metal 

theft: I will make the case that they do not. The problem 

is great for two important reasons: soaring commodity 

prices and the ineffectiveness of the Scrap Metal Dealers 

Act 1964. In the past two years, for example, the price of 

refined copper has more than doubled on international 

markets. Part of the problem faced by the Minister is 

that his Department has found it difficult to understand 

the scale of the problem because it has not collected the 

appropriate data. 

Using the Freedom of Information Act, I have 

undertaken a comprehensive assessment into the effects 

of metal theft in local authorities up and down the 

country in 2007, 2008 and 2009. It is not an exact 

picture, but it provides a more comprehensive view of 

the scale of misery caused by metal theft throughout 

the country. The results are shocking, but since a number 

of authorities have not responded to my FOI request, I 

fear that my newly compiled figures are just the tip of 

the iceberg. 

We found 1,873 reported instances of schools being 

targeted by metal thieves, predominantly for the lead 

from their roofs. We know that 185 leisure centres and 

156 community centres have been targeted, as have— 

shockingly—71 cemeteries and crematoriums. Thirty-three 

local authorities told me that metal theft has cost them 

more than £100,000 in insurance claims and repair 

costs. My borough of Sandwell has suffered the highest 

losses of any authority—more than £720,000. It is 

closely followed by Leicester, which lost £530,000, and 

Greenwich, which lost more than £470,000. 

Last October alone, Sandwell council lost £20,000. 

Such thefts have cost Sandwell, and councils in Birmingham, 

Wolverhampton and Walsall, nearly £1.6 million over 

the past three years. The scale is huge and it is getting 

bigger. It is not taking place just in the country’s metalbashing 

heartlands: the London boroughs of Greenwich, 

Sutton, Bexley, Bromley, Barking, Dagenham, Enfield, 

Havering and Redbridge estimate that between them, 

they have lost £1.9 million as a result of metal theft. 

Anything can go. Three stainless steel slides were 

stolen from Birmingham, and the city also lost £30,000 

worth of goal posts. Durham council raised 97 repair 

orders for its schools, and admitted that that may not 

even begin to dig into the problem. Sheffield lost a 

swimming pool roof that cost £200,000, and Thurrock 

council lost the eternal flame from the East Tilbury war 

memorial. The cost of replacement was so great that a 

fibreglass replica had to be made. 

More worryingly, I have uncovered an increasing 

problem of thieves targeting our key infrastructure 

networks. The most recent police estimate of the cost of 

such thefts to communication, energy, transport and 

water industries is £770 million per annum. This year 

alone has seen more than 5,000 reported thefts from the 

railway, gas and electricity networks. Such thefts have 

resulted not only in the loss of services to vulnerable 

customers, but have included attacks on 999 services 

and communication services that are provided to the 

various police forces and military establishments. 

In the past six months, BT has seen more than 900 

attacks on its network, which has affected more than 

100,000 customers. It has lost more than £5 million in 

the past year, and on current trends, it looks as if it will 

lose £6 million in the current financial year. In one 

attack in Scotland last week, 32 tonnes of copper cable 

were stolen in a single night. Energy company E.ON 

faces similar problems. Last year, substation theft cost 

the company £1.3 million, and by the end of May it had 

already seen 175 reported incidents. The figures speak 

for themselves. It is not just the monetary cost that is 

worrying, but the danger in which the thieves are putting 

both themselves and the engineers who work for companies 

such as BT and E.ON, through their illegal activities. 

Today, Gwent police superintendent Harry Gamlin, 

head of the taskforce that deals with metal theft in 

Wales, said that the problem is now so bad that it 

threatens to “fracture social cohesion.” He added: 

“There is a common perception of metal thieves being loveable 

rogues, old-man-Steptoe-type characters...People need to wake 

up to the fact that they are in fact highly organised and skilled 

gangs of criminals who more than likely have links to other forms 

of serious and organised crime.”

325WH 

Metal Theft 


Metal Theft 

326WH 

The taskforce in Wales is a welcome step, but tougher 

laws are needed. 

It is not just the seasonal “wrong type of snow” and 

leaves on the track that are holding up our train network: 

commuters now have to contend with the regular misery 

of year-round signalling thefts. Network Rail tells me 

that commuters and operators have lost 19,417 hours in 

delays since 2006-07. Overall, it estimates that it has 

spent £35 million since then on metal theft-related 

crime. That includes £25 million of schedule 8 costs. 

That is £25 million that could have been spent on 

improving the railway network that has been diverted to 

essential maintenance because of metal theft alone. 

I travel to Westminster from Sandwell and Dudley 

station every week. Between September 2009 and this 

October there have been five serious incidents of cable 

theft in the Tipton area alone and I have been late for 

meetings and nearly missed votes. These incidents in 

Tipton caused £485,000 worth of damage to the rail 

network causing hundreds of hours of delays for 

commuters. I find these figures staggering. Across the 

whole of the west midlands in the last 18 months there 

have been 52 cable thefts on the railway causing 1,500 

trains to be cancelled. I am told by Network Rail that 

the route between London and Scotland up the east 

coast is by the far the worst affected, especially in 

Yorkshire and the north-east. That route has recorded 

days on which up to 40 thefts have taken place. Commuters 

and British business are the people who are really losing 

out as metal theft soars. 

I have unearthed other examples that are shocking in 

their scale and audacity. There are the thieves who cut a 

heavy copper cable used to link an MRI scanner to the 

main electricity supply in Northamptonshire. Thieves 

stole cable twice in a week meaning 70 patients had to 

have their diagnostic appointments rearranged. Lives 

could have been lost. I have been told of the sick thieves 

who stole two brass plaques listing the names of the 

Blackley men who fell during the first world war in 

Manchester. The community had to unite to make sure 

that the 215 war heroes could be honoured on 

Remembrance Sunday. 

Just as sickening was Linda Smith’s story. Linda 

contacted me to tell me about the theft of metal containers 

for holding flowers from graves from Abney park in 

Stoke Newington. The Minister may not be aware that 

the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group, the leading church 

insurers, report that they have received more than 7,000 

claims for metal theft since the start of 2007 at an 

estimated total cost of £23 million. 

Councillor David Sheard of Kirklees council has 

been in touch. He told me about the £18,000 worth of 

litter bins that the council had stolen in a single week. 

The case of Tom Berge who escaped a jail sentence for 

stealing lead worth £100,000 from some of the most 

historic properties in Sutton in Croydon has also been 

brought to my attention. He used Google Earth to 

identify listed buildings, churches and schools that he 

could target. In Sandwell, two people have already lost 

their lives trying to steal cabling from a disused factory 

after an explosion. 

Five-year-old Keanu Jones of Dudley road in Tipton 

could so nearly have been the third life lost last week. 

He fell down an exposed drain when out with his mum. 

The cover had been stolen. It left him shaken and 

covered in bruises. Keanu’s case is important. It highlights 

the fact that thieves do not just target high-value, precious 

and commodity metals. The resale value of what can be 

stolen can often be minimal. To quote Tony Glover, 

spokesman of the Energy Networks Association: 

“It is pathetic, quite frankly. As a crime it is sometimes as little 

as £5, £10 or £20… But its impact is enormous—it’s almost like 

an act of vandalism. Some of our equipment is oil-insulated and 

a £5 brass valve—that’s all they stole— resulted in 30,000 litres of 

oil coming out of some equipment.” 

Just to illustrate the point, this week I was visited by 

my constituent Ravi Kumar who told me that thieves 

had stolen his old, rusty metal table from his front 

garden. Ravi had put the table out for collection by 

Sandwell council. Thieves looking to make a quick cash 

return made off with the table before the council van 

arrived. There is a black market price list for this 

stuff—£10 for Ravi’s table, £20 for a stolen manhole 

cover, £80 for a catalytic converter. These items are 

being stolen because they are easy prey to thieves to sell 

on to rogue scrap metal dealers. 

More worryingly, West Midlands police and the Black 

Country chamber of commerce continue to alert me to 

the rise in the number of burglary dwelling offences 

across the country in which the offenders are stealing 

the victim’s gold or silver jewellery. There is currently no 

legislation covering the buying and selling of gold and 

silver by independent retailers, which are becoming 

increasingly common in most towns and cities. Despite 

some franchises still following good practice, in which 

no transaction can take place without a series of identity 

checks, some of the rogues are beginning to make an 

impact on communities. 

I would like to see two minor changes to the law to 

tackle the problems that I have outlined. One change 

would deal with commodity metals such as copper, lead 

and brass, and the second change would deal with 

precious metals such as gold and silver. The Scrap 

Metal Dealers Act 1964 needs to be made fit for the 

modern age. It is outdated, it is not well understood, 

and, in its current form, it simply fails in its purpose. 

Many hon. Members may not be aware of the legislation 

to which I refer. As it stands, the Act requires dealers to 

keep a simple book detailing all scrap metal received at 

the place of purchase. The book must also show that all 

scrap metal is either processed at or dispatched from 

that place. That is inadequate. 

In the Sandwell area, and across the country, I repeatedly 

hear stories of some unscrupulous scrap metal dealers 

opening as early as 5 am. Cash in hand is given to the 

seller, and it is not unusual for them to turn up with a 

wheelie bin full of manhole covers. The unscrupulous 

scrap metal dealer, who does not check too closely 

where the metal has come from or who the seller is, then 

sells it on to legitimate dealers, who have no idea that 

they are buying stolen metal. In some cases, the metal is 

exported to the far east due to global demand. Some 

dealers will let sellers get away with giving their name as 

Joe Bloggs or Mr Smith. Scrap metal is big business, 

and the record keeping among rogue dealers can be very 

poor or even non-existent. One police force has told me 

that records kept by metal merchants do not always 

provide them with a good enough audit trail to track 

back such thieves, and I know police forces across the 

country feel the same. 

Although I appreciate that recent dialogue between 

the British Metals Recycling Association and ACPO 

has resulted in the development of a code of practice,

327WH 

Metal Theft 


Metal Theft 

328WH 

[Mr Watson] 

which includes measures that go beyond those prescribed 

by the 1964 Act—including requesting proof of identity, 

limits on cash payments and guidance on best practice 

for deploying CCTV—I have real doubts that those go 

far enough. Unscrupulous metal dealers have already 

made it clear that they are unwilling to abide by good 

practice, and a voluntary code is extremely unlikely to 

change the mindsets of those people in the industry. My 

preferred option would be to make scrap metal dealers 

operate under a cashless system. If thieves cannot make 

a quick profit, the incentive to steal in the first place 

would be dramatically reduced. I draw the Minister’s 

attention to the state of Oregon, which did that in 2009. 

All the signs from Oregon suggest that the beefed-up 

regulations have caused a drop in the number of people 

looking to sell stolen materials. Many police forces are 

also seeking powers to close down suspected rogue 

dealers on the spot, and they want metal users to 

consider embossing their metal to make it less attractive 

to steal. I hope that the Minister will seek ways to make 

that happen. 

It strikes me that there is a need for precious metals, 

such as gold and silver, to be brought within the scope 

of the 1964 Act. We cannot allow the situation to 

continue in which there is no legislation covering the 

buying and selling of such metals. The Black Country 

chamber of commerce tells me that it would like precious 

metal dealers to register their business with the local 

authority every three years; it would like to see registered 

dealers required to keep a written record at each precious 

metal store of all items received, processed and dispatched 

from that store; and it would like deeper proof of 

identity from those who sell precious metals. I support 

the Black Country chamber of commerce in its call, and 

I hope that the Minister will take its suggestions seriously. 

Based on new figures that I have made public today, I 

believe that the Government should arrange for data on 

metal theft to be better collected and to be presented in 

a clearer format. The failures of local authorities and 

police forces to accurately chronicle every incident make 

contributions to public policy and finding solutions on 

this subject more difficult for Ministers and stakeholders. 

It is time for the courts to get tough. The Home Office 

should ask the Ministry of Justice to issue specific 

guidance on metal theft to magistrates, as the Ministry 

of Justice did with home repossessions. 

Analysts tell me that they expect a 62% rise in copper 

prices over the next few years. Coupled with the 

Government’s announced cuts to policing budgets and 

the fact that the future budget of the British Transport 

police is in doubt, that could see a further rise in metal 

thefts. If the UK adopted a cashless approach to scrap 

metal sales, I am certain that thieves would be deterred. 

There would simply be no quick cash incentive for them 

to steal commodity metals and there would be a proper 

audit trail. I hope that the Minister will look seriously 

at the proposals of the Black Country chamber of 

commerce on precious metals. Metal thieves erode UK 

resilience. They undermine communities and threaten 

businesses. They have to be stopped. 

The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry) 

rose— 

Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair): Order. This is a short 

Adjournment debate. Does the Second Church Estates 

Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony 

Baldry), have the permission of the Minister and the 

hon. Gentleman to speak? 

Mr Watson: Yes. 

4.45 pm 

Tony Baldry: I sought the permission of everyone, 

Mr Leigh, including Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for 

West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) has done the House 

an enormous service and what he has had to say is truly 

shocking. I am grateful to him and to the Minister for 

allowing me to intervene briefly in this debate. I do so in 

my capacity as the Second Church Estates Commissioner. 

Lead theft is one of the most serious threats at 

present to the Church of England’s 1,600 churches, 

many of them grade I listed buildings. Indeed, 45% of 

all grade I listed buildings are churches, and other faiths 

have similar concerns. Night after night, lead is being 

stolen from church roofs, and thieves now use Google 

Earth to identify targets, including church roofs. 

Since 2007, the main insurer of ecclesiastical churches 

has received 8,000 claims for lead theft, at a cost of 

about £23 million. That represents only the insurance 

claims; the total cost, including damage to churches, is 

much greater. In many instances, churches that have 

replaced their roofs at considerable expense have been 

repeatedly targeted—14 times, in the case of one church. 

Of course, if they have had the lead stripped from their 

roofs, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to get 

re-insured. As the House can imagine, the effect on the 

morale of parishioners and communities is devastating. 

In spite of that, there have been very few prosecutions. 

Congregations feel that the police regard metal theft as 

a victimless crime and that they are reluctant to investigate 

or take action, even when there is an established pattern 

of theft taking place on consecutive nights. I understand 

that the Home Office does not even record the theft of 

lead as a separate offence. Although some of the thefts 

may be opportunistic, there is growing evidence that 

organised gangs are involved, and the graph of the 

incidence of theft mirrors, with remarkable consistency, 

the price of lead on the world metal markets. The 

higher the price of lead, the more churches are stripped 

of it. 

A number of things need to be done. Scrap metal 

yards need to be more regularly spot-checked by local 

authorities and the police. Local authorities have a 

responsibility to inspect the registers of scrap metal 

yards. The hon. Gentleman’s suggestion of a cashless 

transaction is interesting, and I hope that the Minister 

will take it seriously. This is a crime that has to be taken 

seriously. I am sure that Home Office Ministers take it 

seriously and that they will ensure that it is consistently 

taken seriously by police forces and local authorities 

throughout the country. 

The Church of England’s Church Buildings Council, 

chaired by Anne Sloman, has set up a working group to 

address the problem urgently. It is taking evidence from 

police, scrap metal merchants, the legal profession and 

other interested parties. When it reports early next year,

329WH 

Metal Theft 


Metal Theft 

330WH 

I hope that the Government will consider its conclusions 

carefully and endorse what it has to say as a way 

forward. 

4.48 pm 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the 

Home Department (James Brokenshire): May I thank 

you, Mr Leigh, for ensuring that this debate started 

promptly despite all of this afternoon’s Divisions? May 

I also congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich 

East (Mr Watson) on securing this Adjournment debate 

about the important subject of preventing and tackling 

metal theft, and on the measured and detailed way in 

which he has rightly highlighted the issues? I am sure 

that the House will appreciate the information that the 

hon. Gentleman has advanced. I assure him that I 

regard the issue as serious. I take a personal interest in it 

because of my own experiences as a constituency MP. I 

know the impact that metal thefts can have. 

May I also thank the Second Church Estates 

Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury 

(Tony Baldry), for his speech on churches and the 

challenges facing the Church community? I hope that I 

will be able to comment on that in the time remaining. 

Metal theft is an issue about which I am concerned, 

and I give the assurance that the Government take it 

seriously. The need to reduce this crime is important, 

and I thank hon. Members for raising the issue. Let me 

be clear: we recognise the serious consequences of metal 

theft. It is not a victimless crime. We have seen the 

significant disruption that metal theft causes to critical 

national infrastructure throughout the United Kingdom. 

That includes power and transport networks, with 

the stealing of live copper cable, which has resulted in 

death and serious injury for people involved. In addition, 

as hon. Members highlighted, a number of historic 

buildings, including churches, are being targeted for 

their lead roofs and damaged. Many other examples 

were given, but the time available means that I must try 

to deal with the relevant points that have been highlighted 

this afternoon. 

I recognise that the constituency of the hon. Member 

for West Bromwich East has a specific issue. I was 

recently in Sandwell, talking to the community safety 

partnership and the police. They underlined to me the 

importance that they place on dealing with and responding 

to metal theft. I congratulate them on the work that 

they are doing in dealing with the problem. 

The police, other law enforcement agencies and industry 

are making efforts to tackle metal theft, providing a 

strong foundation on which to build a future partnership 

approach. There are excellent examples of effective 

multi-agency partnerships that have come together in 

affected areas to tackle their local metal theft problem. I 

am keen to ensure that the practical impact of that 

work, which shows how much difference can be made 

by motivated and committed partnerships that take the 

problem seriously, is shared more widely. We need to 

build on it. Many scrap metal dealers are doing excellent 

work in supporting law enforcement activity and reporting 

suspicious behaviour. We need to support their efforts, 

while bearing down on those who operate outside the 

law. 

At national level, the Association of Chief Police 

Officers metal theft working group, chaired by Deputy 

Chief Constable Paul Crowther, provides leadership to 

police forces and a forum in which industry and the 

police can share information and good practice, which 

is extremely valuable work. I welcome the recent distribution 

of the ACPO tactical guidance to police forces. That 

provides, in clear detail, examples of effective practice 

in tackling metal theft. 

The nature of metal theft means that joint working is 

just as important at national level as at local level. That 

is why the recent work by the telecommunications and 

utilities industries, in working on joint enforcement 

operations with local police forces, is so important. 

I particularly welcome the efforts of industry in designing 

out this crime. For example, BT has been working to 

improve the protection of metal assets through improved 

security at storage sites. There are other examples of 

industry partners reviewing and tightening up their 

planned disposal of waste metal through the use of 

approved contractors and scrap metal dealers. 

On the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, I am grateful 

to the hon. Gentleman for bringing to the House’s 

attention the issue regarding the effectiveness of the 

existing legislation. The Act contains a number of 

requirements relating to the regulation of the scrap 

metal dealer industry—namely, the requirement for each 

dealer to register with their local authority; the fact that 

all seller details are to be recorded; and the fact that 

metal cannot be accepted for sale from the under-16s. 

We have seen excellent examples in Avon and Somerset 

and elsewhere of how the existing legislation can be 

used. 

I note and welcome the British Metals Recycling 

Association code of practice, which it has recently 

issued to its members and to which the hon. Gentleman 

referred. However, although we welcome such attempts 

at self-regulation, we are also seeking to join up the 

existing regulatory framework better by contributing to 

the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 

review of waste policies—due to report in the summer 

of next year—to see what changes, if any, need to be 

made to legislation in this area. 

Environmental and waste regulations cover the operation 

of the scrap metal dealer industry, as well as the 

transportation and storage of waste materials. Those 

regulations are mostly enforced by the Environment 

Agency. Therefore it is vital that the police and the 

Environment Agency continue to work together to ensure 

that all the existing legislation is used effectively. 

The hon. Gentleman will no doubt appreciate that 

the lead on funding for the British Transport police is 

the Department for Transport, rather than the Home 

Office. I know that Westminster Hall debates are not 

the arena in which to make party political points about 

the economic situation, but I note what the hon. Gentleman 

said and I am sure that colleagues at the Department 

for Transport will note it when they refer to the report 

of the debate. 

As the Minister responsible for crime prevention, I 

am determined to develop a joint plan of working with 

law enforcement agencies, Departments and industry to 

tackle metal theft at every stage, from theft to disposal. 

Because joint working is so important, I want the plan 

to be jointly owned by the Home Office and the Association 

of Chief Police Officers multi-agency metal theft working 

group. We also need to consider the intelligence arena. 

We are looking at how regional intelligence units can

331WH 

Metal Theft 


332WH 

[James Brokenshire] 

share intelligence effectively on the more serious organised 

thefts of metal. That is an important subject that needs 

further examination. 

On the cashless model, I share the concern that 

criminals are able to turn up at scrap-metal yards and 

walk away with unlimited sums of cash in exchange for 

metal. We will examine that in developing our work 

plan in this arena, including establishing a cashless 

model. As part of a review of the industry standards, it 

requires further examination. 

I believe that the Church Buildings Council is producing 

a report on metal theft, and I would welcome sight of 

the report once it is complete. I hope that we will be able 

to incorporate its recommendations, when appropriate, 

in our forthcoming work plan. 

I apologise that my comments have been so brief, but 

I reiterate the importance that I place on this matter. We 

are committed to preventing and tackling metal theft. I 

am certain that we have a real opportunity to tackle this 

crime by working together in partnership with law 

enforcement agencies and the industry. By working 

together and having a joint working plan, I am sure that 

we will be able to tackle all aspects of metal theft and 

provide the catalyst for a concerted effect by all agencies 

to reduce this crime. 

Health Care (North Yorkshire and York) 

4.56 pm 

Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con): It is a pleasure, 

Mr Leigh, to serve under your chairmanship. Naturally, 

I am grateful to those hon. Members attending this 

debate and to the Minister. 

More than 800,000 people are fortunate enough to 

live in our beautiful part of the country, the North 

Yorkshire and York region. It is part of God’s own 

county, as some would say. Quality of local health care 

is of the utmost importance to many, if not all. Local 

health care provision is often viewed alongside other 

criteria such as employment and crime. It is a measure 

of the local community’s economic well-being and 

happiness—a word that seems to be floating around in 

many debates at the moment. 

It is in our moral and economic interests to ensure 

the widest availability of health services, the shortest 

waiting lists and the most impressive health outcomes, 

and they should be implemented in each and every 

region. Ensuring such health care standards for all is 

truly one of the most essential roles of Government. 

Indeed, I am sure that all those Members here today 

will agree that health-related concerns crop up frequently 

in our constituency mail. That is certainly so in my 

constituency of York Outer. 

When it comes to health, I often have nothing but 

sympathy with the majority of my constituents who are 

affected. Many of them feel betrayed by the system, 

weighed down by the bureaucracy, frustrated by the 

delays and ultimately let down by those supposedly in 

charge. In my experience, it is easy to comprehend such 

frustration. After all, our national health service is a 

national treasure. We champion it, and rightly so. However, 

when patients report negative experiences and local 

health funding concerns, our national treasure is in 

danger of being tarnished, to the detriment of health 

care users and service deliverers. That, in my view, 

should not be allowed to happen. 

The health service has some of the most caring, 

compassionate and hard-working nurses and doctors in 

the world. That is certainly true in North Yorkshire and 

York. Our health care personnel carry out tremendous 

work, often in tough circumstances, and they do so out 

of a sense of public duty, kindness and compassion. I 

cannot commend these individuals highly enough. However, 

I am concerned about health care provision in North 

Yorkshire and York because of the representations that 

I have received from NHS employees and local patients. 

The region faces some real health care difficulties. In 

truth, extremely serious concerns are growing about the 

capability and performance of the region’s primary care 

trust and related bodies. Local residents have good 

reason to believe that a huge range of treatments will be 

withdrawn, if they have not been withdrawn already. 

For example, I have received letters regarding the future 

of IVF treatments, counselling services, broken voluntary 

sector contracts and the withdrawal of pain relief injections. 

It also appears that about £2 million will be cut from 

GPs’ budgets for prescribing medications, and that some 

physio services are at risk. 

Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): I congratulate 

my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He might be 

about to discuss this, but my experience from my

333WH 

Health Care (North Yorkshire and 

York) 

constituency is that North Yorkshire and York PCT’s 

way of dealing with voluntary organisations in the past 

few months has been a disgrace, breaching the voluntary 

compact between those organisations and the PCT. It 

has caused problems for those important parts of the 

big society that have been operating in North Yorkshire 

for so long. 

Julian Sturdy: Absolutely. I agree entirely with my 

hon. Friend. The time limit given by the PCT to those 

voluntary organisations is despicable, and it has caused 

fear and concern in the sector. Not only that, if the 

organisations lose funding for six months, which might 

be seen as only a short period, the problem is that they 

might not start up again. That is my concern, and I will 

go on to discuss it in more detail. 

Local residents have good reasons to believe that a 

huge range of treatments will be withdrawn, as I said. If 

the truth be told, the status quo is not only unacceptable 

but frightening, particularly for the most vulnerable 

members of our communities. Even describing the current 

situation as a postcode lottery is too generous. I fear 

that our patch is in danger of becoming an area of 

health deprivation. 

Several different factors require deep consideration 

as we piece together this somewhat depressing picture. 

First, we must accept that the region has to some extent 

been underfunded in the past. Before 2008, the North 

Yorkshire and York PCT did not exist. Instead, four 

separate PCTs covered the area. Nevertheless, for the 

purposes of this debate, I have amalgamated funding 

data to show the PCT’s current funding allocation and 

the annual figures stretching back to 2003-04. For 2010-11, 

our region’s PCT received just over £1.1 billion, an 

allocation that places it in the lowly position of 140th 

out of 152 PCTs. From a starting point of 127th in 

2003-04, it has dropped down the funding table each 

year. The current funding level is the lowest allocation 

per head of all Yorkshire and Humber PCTs. 

PCT funding is currently allocated according to a 

complex funding formula, often referred to as the weighted 

capitation formula. In essence, the formula determines 

the target share of resources to which PCTs should 

theoretically be entitled, based on a broad range of 

criteria including population, the local cost of health 

care provision and the level of need and health inequality 

in the area. Unfortunately, most PCTs never receive an 

allocation equal to their deemed target share according 

to the formula. Rather, they move towards it over time, 

some faster than others. 

Personally, I am slightly critical of the current formula. 

It often results in greater funding disparities between 

different regions, which provoke a profound sense of 

unfairness. Less deprived areas often seem to get a 

certain tag as well. For example, according to the formula, 

North Yorkshire and York does not have adequate need 

for additional resources, particularly compared to the 

needs of more urban areas such as Hull. I am not 

convinced that approaching regional health funding 

consideration with that mentality—judging whether areas 

are deprived enough—is a sufficiently robust methodology 

in current circumstances. We must look more deeply at 

the funding stream. 

I agree that the funding shortfall has increased the 

strain on our local PCT and its ability to deliver the best 

possible health outcomes and equity access for local 



York) 

334WH 

residents. I would appreciate the Minister’s comments 

on whether the coalition Government will review the 

funding formula at some future date. However, I also 

suggest that excusing our health care failings in our 

region on past funding alone would be somewhat naïve. 

Over the past few years, North Yorkshire and York PCT 

has accumulated an overspend of some £17.9 million. 

Thus, despite the coalition’s welcome commitment to 

protect the wider health budget, services are being cut 

in our region to pay for the fiscal irresponsibility of the 

PCT. Moreover, the PCT seems to be intent on resolving 

this deficit immediately because the previous Government 

imposed a statutory obligation on all primary care 

trusts to break even by the beginning of 2011. Such a 

target-focused piece of bureaucracy has now resulted in 

the PCT cutting too many services too quickly, possibly 

leading to a diminished health care package for our 

local residents. 

I have already listed some of the services that are 

under threat of withdrawal. My hon. Friend the Member 

for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) has named the 

services in the voluntary sector as well. I shall expand 

on a few examples. First, there is the withdrawal of the 

pain relief injections. As Members from neighbouring 

constituencies know—my hon. Friend the Member for 

Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) has campaigned with 

me on this—the PCT’s decision to restrict the provision 

of back pain relief injections has provoked a huge 

reaction from both patients and health care professionals 

alike. 

Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con): I, too, 

congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I 

am not sure whether I should declare an interest, having 

received several back pain relief injections in the past. 

The injections are a big issue in the north Yorkshire 

area, as evidenced by the huge postbags that my hon. 

Friend and I receive, and we have spoken to the Secretary 

of State on the matter. Can my hon. Friend recall a 

discussion with the Secretary of State in which he said 

that one of his officials would look into the York PCT’s 

interpretation of the NICE guidelines on back pain 

relief injections? Has he received any notification 

of those discussions or heard from the Secretary of 

State’s office? 

Julian Sturdy: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. 

We did indeed meet, and I have not yet received a 

response from the Secretary of State. I hope that the 

Minister will hear our message here and chase up that 

response, because it is important that we get an answer 

to our question. 

My hon. Friend mentioned the back pain relief 

injections, and the issue is causing real concern among 

our constituents. Members of the public came to my 

last surgery to discuss the matter. The PCT, as my 

hon. Friend said, based its decision to cut back pain 

injections on its interpretation of the NICE guidelines. 

Unfortunately, almost every other PCT interprets the 

same guidelines in a different way. As such, countless 

local people are being forced to suffer enormous and 

unnecessary levels of pain. 

Alongside other hon. Members from the region, I 

have lobbied the Secretary of State. Campaign groups 

such as York and District Pain Management Support 

Group have been leading the way on this as well. I have

335WH 

[Julian Sturdy] 


York) 

also received representations from concerned health 

professionals. Only last week, Dr Peter Toomey, a consultant 

anaesthetist at York hospital wrote to me, stating: 

“I consider that the PCT have made serious errors of judgement 

in coming to their decision to restrict access to spinal injections 

for the relief of pain. The PCT will not reimburse York Hospital 

for any injection into any part of the spine for any diagnosis 

unless it has been approved by the PCT’s Funding Request 

Panel.” 

We know—my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and 

Ainsty will back me up on this—that many people are 

being refused by that request panel. Dr Toomey and a 

number of his colleagues have fought hard to challenge 

the PCT’s policy, but—alas—their medical expertise 

seems to have fallen upon deaf ears. 

Patients and medical professionals are united in the 

view that this pain relief service should not have been 

withdrawn. It has been taken away for the wrong reasons 

and should be reinstated without delay. The withdrawal 

of such vital services is causing me great concern, as is 

the withdrawal of funding for numerous voluntary services. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon 

touched on that matter earlier. The York Council for 

Voluntary Service has been informed of a 37% in-year 

cut, which has been issued by the PCT with just one 

month’s notice. Angela Harrison, the chief executive of 

the YCVS, summed up the whole situation quite aptly 

when she said: 

“These cuts have already had a disastrous effect on front-line 

voluntary groups who serve some of the most vulnerable members 

of society. At the same time, the infrastructure groups who 

support them have had their funds withdrawn at very short 

notice, reducing their capacity at a time when it is most needed.” 

One specific voluntary case vividly highlights the 

poor management of the way the PCT has handled this 

situation. On 19 October, Yorkshire MESMAC received 

a letter from the PCT, informing the organisation that 

its contracted health care funding was to be withdrawn 

within one month. Such blunt and definitive notice is 

absolutely outrageous. Not only has an agreement been 

broken, but no consultation took place with the 

organisation, which—knowing the PCT’s overspend— 

would have been happy to sit down and reach a more 

amicable agreement. As Tom Doyle, the director of 

Yorkshire MESMAC, said: 

“I want to express my deep frustration at how the process has 

been handled, which was, in my opinion, unlawful, disrespectful 

and showing an arrogant disregard for the PCT’s own agreements 

and processes.” 

It is now feared that Yorkshire MESMAC will be forced 

to close. 

On a wider note, the voluntary services budgets are 

expected to lead to a saving of some £150,000 for the 

PCT this year. Given that that is a small drop in the 

£17 million overspend, I would urge the PCT to look 

internally for structural and efficiency savings, rather 

than merely reducing the funding of voluntary groups, 

whose work often plays such as vital role in our health 

service. If our voluntary health services are forced to 

close, I predict that far greater numbers of patients will 

actually require more hospitalised, long-term and expensive 

treatments through the NHS, thus undermining the 

PCT’s initial savings. 

Due to the overspend and service reductions, there 

now exists a lack of trust in the PCT and a complete 

absence of confidence over its future intentions, and I 



York) 

336WH 

fear that local people are simply paying too high a price 

for that. In the long term, I am more optimistic about 

health care provision in north Yorkshire and York, 

largely due to the contents of the health White Paper. 

The localised drive to ensure that PCTs are, at some 

point, abolished altogether and replaced by GP-led 

commissioning bodies, which are influenced by local 

patients, is a measure that I wholeheartedly welcome. 

At long last, local patients will have a say in their 

local services, holding the decision makers to account 

and freeing up our nurses, doctors and health providers 

from the red-tape that so often binds them and takes 

them away from the front line. I hope that the Minister 

can reassure me that the transition from PCTs to GP-led 

commissioning will be carried out swiftly to ensure that 

the interim transitional period will not see a lack of 

leadership or direction for local health care services— 

especially in our area. 

I believe that the PCT will continue to operate until 

2013, and I plead with the Minister to review to the 

situation in north Yorkshire and York in the mean time. 

Our constituents simply cannot afford to wait three 

years for the situation to be remedied. Most specifically, 

I would welcome any comments from the Minister on 

the previous Government’s imposition of a statutory 

obligation on PCTs to break even by the end of this 

year. Could that deadline be extended to soften the 

blow of the cuts over a greater time period? 

The people of north Yorkshire and York depend 

upon their health care services, and many are extremely 

worried at present. I hope that hon. Members from the 

region—I was going to say “regardless of political 

allegiances”, but as we only have coalition Members 

here I will not say that. To give the hon. Member for 

York Central (Hugh Bayley) credit, he did say that he 

would try and be at the debate today. 

We must protect the essential health care services and 

funding that our region deserves. I ask and urge hon. 

Members to fight and to campaign for that. We must 

ensure that, before GP-led commissioning starts, the 

PCT delivers the best service that it can within its 

budget. It must focus on service delivery and the outlying 

services to our communities, rather than cutting. 

I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration 

to the issues that I have raised. I am grateful for his time. 

I know that it has been a hectic day thanks to the 

Divisions, but I am grateful to him for giving us the 

time, and I hope that he will give the matter serious 

consideration. 

5.15 pm 

Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con): 

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York 

Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing this important debate, 

and I add my support to his recognition of the excellent 

work that the health care professionals do in our area. 

He has highlighted that our health grant in North 

Yorkshire is low, which impacts on the services that we 

receive. 

When facing the challenge of low funding, the PCT 

has to look hard at its priorities, particularly with 

regard to mental health services. I am always concerned 

about mental health provision, because I think that 

for far too long in our country it has been a bit of a 

Cinderella service. In my constituency, the community

337WH 


York) 

mental service has closed the Hawthorn day unit, which 

was extremely popular with its service users and well 

respected across the community. It is claimed that the 

closure is temporary, but the reasons for its closure run 

on and on, and it seems endless. 

While the excuses mount up, some of the most vulnerable 

people in my constituency—many of whom I have 

met—have seen their contact time with counsellors, or 

their time in respite care, decrease from three or four 

days a week to half an hour a fortnight. I am worried 

about the impact of the change on some of the most 

vulnerable members of the community. In some cases, 

those constituents have severe mental health problems 

and can periodically be a danger to themselves. I hope 

that our PCT will consider that and, even at this late 

stage, find a way to reopen the Hawthorn day unit at the 

earliest opportunity. 

5.16 pm 

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul 

Burstow): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member 

for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing this debate, 

and I note the cross-party support that he has gained, 

with the arrival of the hon. Member for York Central 

(Hugh Bayley). I note the presence of my hon. Friends 

the Members for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), for 

Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) and for Scarborough 

and Whitby (Robert Goodwill), and I know that they 

are all interested in and concerned about the issues that 

my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer has raised. 

He has made a powerful case for why we need the 

radical reforms across the NHS to which the Government 

are committed. 

Before I turn to the points that my hon. Friend has 

raised, I join him in praising the work of NHS staff 

across Yorkshire. They do an excellent job, often in the 

most trying circumstances, and he is right that the NHS 

is a national treasure. Our White Paper reforms are, first 

and foremost, about freeing those hard-working 

professionals from the bureaucracy that stands in the 

way of good patient care. 

We will be cutting management costs by a third, 

moving decisions closer to patients through new GP 

consortia and giving local councils more responsibility 

for the health of their communities. All those will help 

to create a more flexible, efficient, interconnected and 

accountable health service. 

We are now entering a transition to the new system, 

which brings its own challenges for all parts of the 

NHS. The descriptions that my hon. Friend has given of 

circumstances in his constituency demonstrate the challenge 

that is exacerbated by the fragile state of the local NHS 

finances. The Government have inherited that fragility 

and they will have to address it. 

I understand from the strategic health authority that 

the North Yorkshire and York PCT is likely to end the 

year with a significant deficit unless it takes drastic 

action of the sort that my hon. Friend has described, 

and to which others have referred in this debate. That 

process clearly involves some tough decisions, which 

will have a distressing impact on his constituents, and I 

will return to those in a moment. I want to answer his 

concerns about funding allocations for the NHS in this 

part of the country. 



York) 

338WH 

At present, as my hon. Friend has described, the 

NHS uses a funding formula based on objectives set by 

the previous Government and developed by the independent 

Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. I know 

that one of the big frustrations for North Yorkshire is 

whether its rural nature is taken fully into account in 

the funding formula, and my hon. Friend has alluded to 

that. As a Government, we have asked for that formula 

to be examined. The Secretary of State has asked ACRA 

to review how NHS resources are distributed, and has 

explicitly requested that consideration be given to the 

issues that face rural communities. 

Looking ahead, from 2013-14 we will have moved to 

the new system of the independent NHS commissioning 

board allocating resources to general practice consortiums. 

How it does that will be up to the commissioning board 

itself, but we are clear that it must do it fairly and 

consistently across the country. For places such as his 

constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for York 

Outer is right—real pace and purpose are vital to getting 

the NHS on to a more stable financial footing. I can 

assure him that we are keen to make fast progress on 

GP commissioning consortiums taking on responsibilities. 

In that regard, shadow allocations for GP consortiums 

will be published late next year for 2012-13, giving the 

new organisations the time and space to test financial 

plans before the full system goes live in 2013-14. 

My hon. Friend asked whether GP consortiums would 

have to take on PCT debt. I have heard that anxiety 

expressed around the country. The NHS operating 

framework, which we will publish in a few weeks, will 

set out the rules on legacy debt to ensure that no debts 

carry forward into the new system. That is challenging, 

and we are keen to work through it effectively. 

I shall now come back to the present and say a few 

words about the current financial position in North 

Yorkshire and York. The strategic health authority tells 

me that the local PCT has had a problematic financial 

history stretching back many years, which may be an 

understatement. [Interruption.] I can see colleagues 

nodding. 

Over the past 12 months, its situation has deteriorated 

due to a number of factors, including a significant 

overspend on community services and the fact that its 

QIPP programme has not delivered the expected savings. 

As a result, the trust is having to take radical steps to 

put its finances in order, including temporary reductions 

to some non-urgent health services. I very much regret 

that. 

I regret that the fragility of the organisation has 

placed my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer’s 

constituents in a position where they face these service 

changes. I hope he will understand that it is not for me 

to give a running commentary on every aspect of what 

the PCT is doing. On the issues that he highlights— 

particularly about the QIPP programme implementation, 

which I have looked at carefully—there are lessons for 

how we ensure that we get a proper grip on financial 

management in local NHS organisations. 

It is striking, for instance, that the neighbouring 

PCTs with similar populations to North Yorkshire’s 

and York’s are not facing the same financial challenge, 

nor are they having to resort to the desperate actions 

that the trust is taking. My hon. Friend is right to say

339WH 

[Paul Burstow] 


York) 

that the trust should not seek excuses in how the funding 

formula works. None the less, we need to look at the 

formula. 

Equally, it is important to bear in mind that the QIPP 

programme in North Yorkshire and York has not delivered. 

I understand that it set some ambitious and challenging 

plans; the problem was that the implementation has not 

been as robust as the plans. I understand that one issue 

appears to be a failure to bring on board the full range 

of stakeholders to deliver on the improvement plans. 

That is a significant failing, because where the PCT is 

doing that, the signs are extremely positive. For instance, 

local GPs are working with the trust on prescribing 

practices—together they are looking to cut costs by 

more than £1 million, while protecting quality and 

service. I highlight that because it shows the power of 

GPs in managing efficiencies, and is a sign of how our 

reforms will help in the future. 

Perhaps most troubling of all is the fact that the PCT 

has slammed the brakes on funding for the voluntary 

sector in a way that may have serious consequences for 

the future. The PCT may, technically, be within its 

rights to give the minimum of notice to providers, but 

pulling the plug on small organisations with just a 

month’s notice—or in some cases, less—is alien to the 

spirit of collaboration and partnership that we want 

the NHS to cultivate. As my hon. Friend the Member 

for Skipton and Ripon said, it seems to be against the 

notion of the compact. 

There is an important general point here. As we move 

through transition there will be difficult choices, and 

the NHS needs to be clear about what it needs to 

protect and how best to maintain vital voluntary community 

services. Therefore, in response to this debate, I have 

asked the NHS chief executive, Sir David Nicholson, to 

consider how to ensure that local NHS organisations 

act responsibly towards voluntary sector organisations 

during any period of retrenchment. My hon. Friend is 

right: we need candour and early discussion. Discussions 

about where there are cost pressures are in the system, 

because, given the opportunity, the voluntary sector can 

contribute to managing them. 

Reference has been made to the issues of pain relief 

injections and of treating chronic back pain. The hon. 

Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) asked a 

question about the discussions that he has had with the 

Secretary of State, as did the hon. Gentleman who 

secured this debate. I am not cited in regard to those 

discussions, but I will undertake to ensure that we look 

very carefully at the issue and come back to both hon. 

Members who raised it, to satisfy them and ourselves 

that NICE guidance is being followed properly. 


However, I believe that the PCT understands that its 

decision has affected a significant number of patients 

with chronic back pain, and that it has written to a 

number of those patients, commissioned a series of 

initiative clinics where patients are fully assessed and 

given new treatment options to manage their pain. 

Nigel Adams: Just on that point, it is worth remarking 

that the reason given by the PCT for the withdrawal of 

the procedure is not a financial one, which is very 

difficult for colleagues to comprehend. Apparently, it is 

based on medical advice via the NICE guidelines, but 

the PCT seems to be the only one in the country that 

has adopted that stance. Does the Minister agree that 

that sort of logic is a perfect reason why our reforms 

must come through in terms of GP commissioning, so 

that decisions can be made by health professionals 

rather than bureaucrats? 

Paul Burstow: There is no doubt in my mind that 

getting clinicians far more engaged in commissioning 

will be a key driver to a significant improvement in 

quality and outcomes in the system in future. I certainly 

undertake to ensure that we have a proper look at this 

issue of the guidance, and I will come back to both the 

hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend, the hon. Member 

for York Outer, on that point. 

I certainly share the belief that those reforms are 

needed to ensure that the NHS in north Yorkshire, and 

Yorkshire in general, moves in the positive direction 

that we all want to see it move in. Our proposals will 

bring the right leadership and purpose to sustain and 

improve the services that the constituents of the hon. 

Member for York Outer, and those of the other hon. 

Members who have come to support him in this debate, 

expect the NHS to deliver. 

Decisions that are made much closer to the patient 

will ensure that health care is shaped in the best interests 

of the community and the general population. By 

introducing greater transparency and democratic 

accountability, we will ensure that the local NHS is far 

more answerable to the people whom it serves and that 

there will be much more scrutiny and community 

involvement in the decisions that it takes. 

That is something that I am sure all hon. Members 

want to see. It is how we can move our NHS forward, 

maintaining it as a national treasure but one that really 

delivers the best possible outcomes—outcomes that are 

among the best in the world. That is what we really 

want to see. 


5.27 pm 

Sitting adjourned. 


York) 

340WH

73WS 

Written Ministerial Statements 



74WS 

Written Ministerial 

Statements 


TREASURY 

Fair Pay in the Public Sector 

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne): 

Will Hutton has today published the interim report of 

his review of Fair Pay in the Public Sector. The Government 

welcome the publication of this report and will give 

careful consideration to the findings so far. The Government 

look forward to the outcome of the final report in 

March and will respond in more detail once they are in 

receipt of this. 

The report is available in the Vote Office and in the 

Printed Paper Office and it has been deposited in the 

Libraries of both Houses. 

Periodic updates of the review’s work will be made 

available through the website located at: http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/indreview_willhutton_fairpay_tor.htm. 

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS 

Telecoms Council 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, 

Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey): Iam 

pleased to confirm the agenda items for which BIS has 

responsibility at the forthcoming Telecommunications 

Council in Brussels on 3 December 2010. I intend to 

represent the UK at this Council. 

There are four substantive agenda items: 

1. Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament 

and of the Council establishing the first Radio Spectrum 

Policy Programme (RSPP): A Progress Report and 

Exchange of Views. 

This item is an exchange of views on the presidency 

report and questions for the discussion in relation to the 

Commission’s proposed RSPP (EM 13872/10). This is a 

proposal for draft legislation which codifies policy and 

legislative actions necessary for the efficient management 

of spectrum in the EU up to 2015. 

The RSPP is seen by the Commission as a necessary 

key contributor towards broadband targets, especially 

for those geographically rural and remote areas that 

would rely on wireless technology to receive broadband 

services. This view is generally shared by the Council 

and the European Parliament. It follows on from 

the agreements reached on spectrum during the 

communications framework review. 

Progress had been made in debating the draft legislation 

in the Council but the European Parliament is yet to 

start deliberations. 

The questions tabled for discussion range from how 

spectrum management contributes to economic growth 

through issues related to a proposed inventory of spectrum 

in the EU to the deadlines related to the release of 

certain spectrum. 

As efficient spectrum management is a key component 

of the Coalition’s broadband strategy, the main points 

of my intervention, taking into account the questions 

posed, will be: 

to broadly welcome the proposals from the Commission 

which we do indeed think are important in terms of economic 

growth within the EU and for the development of mobile 

broadband services; 

to welcome the breadth of the proposal but to caution any 

legislation mandating the use of spectrum for particular 

social or community purposes; 

to welcome the approach by Commission of ensuring that 

spectrum for mobile broadband is made available as early as 

possible but caution on the imposition of rigid timelines that 

may not be realistic or match national circumstances; and 

to wish the Hungarian presidency well in their deliberations 

on this important dossier with a hope that we might see an 

agreement before the summer of next year. 

2. Proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation (EC) 

No 460/2004 establishing the European Network and 

Information Security Agency (ENISA) as regards its 

duration—A Progress Report 

Proposal for a Regulation concerning the European Network 

and Information Security Agency (ENISA)—A Progress 

Report 

These two items are progress reports from the 

Commission on the current status of the above two 

recently issued documents. (EM 14322/10) 

The first progress report covers the proposal to amend 

the existing regulation, which established ENISA, in 

order to extend its duration for 18 months. (The purpose 

of the extension is to allow the continued operation of 

ENISA under its current remit whilst the new regulation 

is negotiated). 

The second progress report covers the new regulation 

that renews and updates the mandate of ENISA. 

As these items are progress reports and it is anticipated 

that no debate will take place, I am not planning an 

active intervention. However, should there be a debate; 

my intervention will reaffirm Her Majesty’s Government’s 

(HMG) current policies that are detailed in the relevant 

EM noted above. 

3. Cross-fertilisation between the Europe 2020 flagship 

initiatives “A Digital Agenda for Europe” and “Innovation 

Union”—Adoption of Council Conclusions 

This item covers the adoption of the above Council 

conclusions. These conclusions are member states’ views 

on the synergies between two of the EU Commission 

flagship agendas, namely the Innovation Union (EM14035/ 

10) and the European Digital Agenda (EM 9981/10). 

Thus, the conclusions contain elements of both flagship 

agendas, including stressing the need for accelerating 

the roll out of high-speed broadband which will help 

drive innovation, as well as recognising the importance 

of increasing EU spend on ICT research and development. 

In the main, HMG welcomes these conclusions, and I 

intend to make the following comments: 

welcome the adoption of these conclusions and pleased to 

see joined up thinking in linking together these two critical 

flagship agendas;

75WS 




76WS 

pleased to see that these conclusions recognise the importance 

of digital technologies as one of the key economic drivers 

for Europe’s future prosperity; 

welcome the emphasis on the re-use of public sector data as 

a potential driver of private-sector led innovation; and 

welcome the “active and healthy ageing” EIP pilot that will 

be jointly developed by DG-INFSO and DG-SANCO (the 

latter being the part of the Commission that deals with 

health issues). 

4. European Broadband: investing in digitally driven growth— 

Adoption of Council conclusions 

The last substantive item on the agenda is the adoption 

of the Council conclusions that specifically cover the 

European broadband strategy (EM 13874/10). This strategy 

is another component of the Commission’s “Broadband 

Package”. 

The importance of broadband roll-out is noted under 

item 1 above and I plan to make the following interventions 

during the planned discussion on these conclusions: 

HMG welcomes the adoption of these conclusions and hope 

that they will be taken note of by member states and the 

Commission to aid them in the rollout of super-fast broadband; 

The UK recognises the value of these conclusions and will 

shortly publish a UK-wide broadband strategy, detailing 

HMG’s plan to ensure every UK citizen is able to access 

broadband; and 

The EU broadband objectives are challenging, but by working 

together, and alongside the private sector, we can achieve 

them. 

I will inform the House of the outcome of the discussion 

on this, and the preceding item in my post-Council 

statement. 

This concludes the formal substantive business items 

for Council. However, there are three items that are 

covered by “Any Other Business”. 

They are: 

A. A report on the state of development of roaming 

services within the European Union—Presentation by the 

Commission. 

This item will be coupled with a discussion over 

lunch preceding the Council. These items will be centred 

around the Commission’s recent Interim Report on the 

State of the Roaming Market (EM11711/10) 

During the lunch, Ministers have been asked to consider 

and discuss three questions. In summary they cover 

issues relating to stimulating competition, the impact of 

technological change and the introduction of a price 

cap on the retail price of data while roaming. 

During my lunch time discussion and any debate 

following the presentation from the Commission, I intend 

to make the following points: 

we look forward to proposals from the Commission on how 

they intend to deal with the roaming issue when the current 

regulation expires in June 2012; 

we fully support the call by the Commissioner for a functioning 

single market in mobile roaming services; especially with 

respect to data (which is of increasing importance for EU 

citizens); and 

we would welcome high-level but detailed discussions between 

all interested parties on this issue to try—possibly using the 

same format as the recent meeting on net neutrality—and 

find a way forward that benefits consumers but also does not 

undermine competition, investment or innovation in the 

mobile sector. 

B. Internet Governance Forum (IGF)—Briefing by the 

Commission and the Presidency. 

I do not plan an intervention on this item but if the 

opportunity arises, I will reaffirm HMG’s policy lines 

that: 

supports the multi-stakeholder approach on internet governance; 

welcomes the agreements reached at the recent ITU 

plenipotentiary; and 

anticipates a positive outcome to a vote in the UN General 

Assembly later in December to extend the mandate of the 

IGF for another five years. 

C. The next presidency’ programme and events—Briefing 

by the Hungarian delegation 

This item is a presentation from the Hungarian delegation 

on their plans once they assume the presidency of the 

EU (1 January 2011 to 30 June 2011). 

I do not plan an intervention for this item but you 

may wish to note that my officials are in the final stages 

of planning a bilateral meeting with Hungarian officials 

so that we are able to capitalise upon any opportunities 

that may be presented by Hungary assuming the presidency. 

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

London Reforms and the Localism Bill 

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local 

Government (Mr Eric Pickles): I am today announcing 

a new settlement for London which includes a package 

of measures to be included in the forthcoming localism 

Bill. 

These far reaching proposals include measures which 

will significantly devolve power to the Greater London 

Authority, London boroughs and beyond and they will 

streamline the plethora of agencies in London’s public 

sector landscape. They are based on proposals put 

forward by the Mayor and London boroughs themselves. 

We have listened to key players in the capital and 

responded to their ideas. 

The measures include: 

The devolution of executive powers over housing investment 

from the Homes and Communities Agency to the GLA so 

that there is more decentralised control over housing investment 

decisions in the capital. 

The abolition of the London Development Agency, with its 

city-wide roles on regeneration and management of European 

funding to be transferred to the GLA so that the mayor is 

directly accountable. 

New powers for the Mayor of London to create Mayoral 

Development Corporations to focus regeneration where it is 

needed most, such as to help secure East London’s Olympic 

legacy, in partnership with London boroughs. 

London boroughs will be given greater control over key local 

planning decisions that affect their local communities. The 

mayor will only consider the largest planning applications in 

future. 

A more streamlined approach to mayoral strategies and 

increased powers of scrutiny for the London Assembly over 

these strategies, including the power to reject final strategies 

by a two thirds majority. 

A new requirement for the GLA Group to publish details of 

all expenditure over £500 and openness rules will be extended 

to Transport for London.

77WS 




78WS 

These reforms will drive decision making back into 

the hands of the mayor and locally elected London 

leaders, streamlining the way London is run and paving 

the way for further devolution to London boroughs. 

CABINET OFFICE 

Diamond Jubilee Civic Honours Competitions 

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark 

Harper): I am pleased to announce that the Government 

are today launching UK-wide competitions for a grant 

of city status and a grant of Lord Mayoralty (or Lord 

Provostship) to mark Her Majesty the Queen’s Diamond 

Jubilee in 2012. Local authorities throughout the United 

Kingdom who believe that their district, borough, town 

or city deserves consideration for either of these rare 

honours are invited to apply by the closing date of 

27 May 2011. 

Entry guidelines have been posted on the Diamond 

Jubilee section of the Department for Culture, Media 

and Sport’s website, www.culture.gov.uk. Copies have 

also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, the 

Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office. The document 

provides guidance on the contents of applications, as 

was the case for the competitions held for Her Majesty’s 

Golden Jubilee, as well as full details on the submission 

of entries. 

In addition, for the first time in such competitions, 

the entry guidelines specify a standard format for entries. 

Local authorities are urged to use the standard format, 

which is intended to limit the costs of entering the 

competition and to introduce a fair basis for comparison 

between entries. 

The honours will, however, continue to be rare marks 

of distinction conferred, on ministerial advice, under 

the royal prerogative, rather than rights to be earned by 

the meeting of specific criteria. All valid entries will 

receive individual consideration on their merits and the 

Government look forward to announcing the results of 

the competitions in the early months of 2012. 

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS 

Single Payment Scheme 

The Minister of State, Department for Environment, 

Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice): The Rural 

Payments Agency (RPA) will today begin payments 

under the 2010 single payment scheme (SPS). Over the 

next few days payments totalling over £1 billion are 

expected to be made to some 80,000 claimants. This 

represents over 75% of eligible claimants. 

Further progress towards the agency’s 2010 SPS payment 

targets—to pay 85% of eligible SPS claimants by the 

end of December 2010 and to pay 95% of the value of 

SPS payments by the end of March 2011—is being 

closely monitored by the RPA oversight board which I 

chair. Against the background of the additional workload 

created by the update last year to Rural Land Register 

and reduced staff numbers, it is clear that meeting those 

targets represents a significant challenge. 

Farmers may be assured that outstanding payments 

will be made as individual claims are verified. But that 

will not mean cutting corners: I am determined to bring 

a renewed focus on accuracy to the administration of 

the scheme so that legacy issues are addressed once and 

for all and the agency is then able to deliver a better 

quality of service to farmers in the medium term. 

Equally, we need to ensure taxpayers, interests are 

safeguarded by ensuring our actions represent good 

value for money and further discussions will take place 

with the National Audit Office to that end. 

As we progress through the payment window, I will 

keep the House informed on the agency’s progress towards 

its targets and any related decisions by the RPA oversight 

board. At an individual level, the RPA are writing to 

farmers where it appears unlikely that payment will be 

made during the course of December. 

HEALTH 

Stem Cell Transplant Services 


(Anne Milton): As part of the Government’s desire to 

see improved services for NHS patients, the Department 

asked the NHS Blood and Transplant Authority to lead 

a review of stem cell transplant services. 

The authority duly established the UK Stem Cell 

Strategic Forum, an advisory group of national and 

international experts, service providers, clinicians, patients 

and charities which has now reported on its findings. 

The report, “The Future of Unrelated Donor Stem Cell 

Transplantation in the UK”, contains 20 recommendations 

on how we can better deliver this type of stem cell 

technology for the benefit of NHS patients. 

The Department welcomes the report. We will now 

begin work, in collaboration with the NHS, NHS Blood 

and Transplant and the Anthony Nolan Trust to develop 

improved partnership working and consider how the 

findings and recommendations in the report can be best 

translated into real service improvements. 

A copy of the report has been placed in the Library 

and copies are available to hon. Members in the Vote 

Office. 

HOME DEPARTMENT 

Local Licensing Act 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the 

Home Department (James Brokenshire): Today, alongside 

the publication of the Police Reform and Social 

Responsibility Bill, we are publishing the Government’s 

response to the Rebalancing the Licensing Act consultation 

which was conducted earlier this year and includes the 

full analysis of consultation responses. Our response 

sets out which proposals we will be taking forward from 

the consultation document, and how; explains why we 

have decided not to proceed with some proposals; and 

outlines new proposals that we have introduced in response 

to suggestions received during the consultation. 

The Government believe that local communities should 

have a greater role in determining local licensing. The 

package of measures that we are introducing through 

the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill and 

the additional changes we will make through secondary 

legislation and guidance will rebalance the Licensing

79WS 




80WS 

Act in favour of local communities, ensuring that local 

residents’ views and concerns are heard and considered 

and they get the type of night-time economy they want. 

The measures being introduced will also provide the 

police and licensing authorities with the tools they need 

to more effectively address alcohol-related crime and 

disorder in the night-time economy. Tackling alcohol-related 

crime and disorder is not something that can just be 

done centrally. These measures will enable issues to be 

addressed at a local level, with local communities taking 

greater responsibility for tackling problems in their own 

areas. 

The full Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill 

is today being published on the Parliament website: 

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/. The Government 

response to the Rebalancing the Licensing Act consultation 

will be available on the Home Office website: http:// 

www.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs/alcohol/rebalancingconsultation 

and copies will be placed in the House 

Library. 

Policing in the 21st Century 

The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick 

Herbert): Today, alongside the publication of the Police 

Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, we are publishing 

the Government’s response to the “Policing in the 

21st Century” consultation, which set out the most 

radical reforms to policing in at least 50 years, putting 

the public at the heart of policing. 

Directly-elected Police and Crime Commissioners 

are central to our proposals to replace bureaucratic 

accountability with democratic accountability. The 

Government are confident that Police and Crime 

Commissioners will make forces truly accountable to 

the communities they serve, ensuring that resources are 

properly targeted to where they are needed and giving 

the public a greater say in measures to reduce crime and 

improve community safety. 

We are also clear that the long held principle of 

operational independence, where those operating in the 

office of the constable are able to make independent 

decisions on how to use their legitimate coercive powers 

on behalf of the state will continue to remain the 

cornerstone of the British policing model. 

We received approximately 900 responses to the 

consultation and we are grateful to all those who responded. 

The response document we are publishing today summarises 

the views that we received and sets out next steps in 

implementing our reforms, which include: 

replacing existing police authorities with directly elected 

Police and Crime 

Commissioners (PCCs), who will hold forces to account and 

strengthen the bond between the police and the public; 

new police and crime panels to provide important scrutiny 

of PCC functions, with membership including both top-tier 

and district councils—giving district councils formal involvement 

in the governance of policing for the first time; 

a framework of checks and balances to scrutinise PCCs and 

a more independent Inspectorate of Constabulary; 

strengthening professional discretion, cutting bureaucracy 

and freeing up police officers’ time; 

greater collaboration between police forces to increase public 

protection and save money; and 

phasing out the National Policing Improvement Agency and 

creating a powerful new National Crime Agency to lead the 

fight against organised crime and strengthen our border 

security. This will be supported by a clearer framework for 

local PCCs and their forces, set out in a new strategic 

policing requirement (in response to some of the feedback 

we received during the consultation). 

We have listened closely to what people have had to 

say and our final proposals take this in to account. For 

example, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility 

Bill that we are also publishing today provides more 

detail on the powers and duties that PCCs and police 

and crime panels will have and how PCCs will work 

with their force and other local providers. 

The full Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill 

is published on the Parliament website. The Government 

response to the “Policing in the 21st Century”consultation 

will be available on the Home Office website and will be 

placed in the House Libraries. 

Justice and Home Affairs Pre-Council Statement 

The Secretary of State for the Home Department 

(Mrs Theresa May): The Justice and Home Affairs 

Council is due to be held on 2 and 3 December in 

Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State 

for Justice and I intend to attend on behalf of the 

United Kingdom. As the provisional agenda stands, the 

following items will be discussed: 

The Council, beginning in Mixed Committee with 

Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU 

Schengen States), will receive an update from the presidency 

on the state of play of the Schengen Information System 

II (SIS II) project. 

Next there will be a discussion of the Commission 

report on the implementation of the Council conclusions 

on 29 measures for reinforcing the protection of the 

external borders and combating illegal immigration. 

The UK has not yet received a copy of the report; 

however, we expect that the Commission will use this 

item to inform member states of progress regarding 

these measures. The measures include: Frontex working 

arrangements; exchange of relevant information between 

FRONTEX, other EU agencies and member states; 

development of the European Surveillance System— 

EUROSUR; exchange of information on illegal 

immigration, trafficking in human beings and falsification 

of documents; and solidarity and the integrated 

management of external borders by member states. 

After Mixed Committee the Council will receive an 

update from the presidency on the progress being made 

on asylum and legal and illegal migration and seek to 

ensure that the following four presidencies (Hungary, 

Poland, Cyprus and Denmark) remain on course to 

meet the Commission’s 2012 deadline for delivery of the 

Common European Asylum System (CEAS). The UK 

Government believe that the challenges that Europe 

faces on asylum and illegal immigration are better 

addressed by practical co-operation than by further 

legislation. We do not consider the adoption of a common 

EU asylum policy to be right for Britain. But we do 

believe there are many issues in the area of asylum and 

migration on which all EU member states have much to 

gain by working together. We will be active in promoting 

effective cooperation, and will consider participation in

81WS 




82WS 

legislative proposals on their merits in consultation with 

our European partners and relevant EU institutions. 

The Council will then receive updates from the 

Commission on the Mediterranean Office for Youth, 

the Greek national action plan on asylum and migration 

and a legal migration conference held on 26 November. 

The Mediterranean Office for Youth supports circular 

migration for educational purposes. The UK is not a 

participant in the Mediterranean Office for Youth, which 

is restricted to members of the Union for the 

Mediterranean. The UK considers the Greek national 

action plan on asylum and migration (the “Greek Action 

Plan”) to be key in increasing the ability of Greece to 

act as an efficient partner in countering illegal migration. 

Alongside other EU member states we have offered 

practical assistance to Greece, however we would like to 

see the establishment of an effective Commission-led 

process to ensure co-ordination and prioritisation; avoid 

duplication of member states’actions; ensure the availability 

of clear, accessible funding streams to support the 

action plan; and the setting of clear timescales for 

action and milestones for progress. The presidency will 

also present their conclusions following the conference 

on legal migration. 

Over lunch Interior Ministers will be asked to agree a 

regulation to create an agency for large-scale IT systems 

in the JHA field. This would be accompanied by a 

Council decision ensuring full UK participation in the 

agency, which was a Government priority as the agency 

will manage a number of existing systems in which we 

participate (Eurodac and the second generation of the 

Schengen Information System). While the Government 

are content with the text as drafted some member states 

have maintained reserves which will need to be resolved 

before the Council, in particular concerning the location 

of the agency. Also during lunch Ministers will discuss 

alternatives to detaining children for immigration purposes. 

The UK Government are committed to ending the 

detention of children in the UK and a review is currently 

underway to consider how this can be done in a way 

which protects the welfare of children and ensures that 

families leave when they have no right to be in the UK. 

This will be an opportunity to share experience and 

ideas with other member states who are also dealing 

with this difficult issue. 

After lunch, the Commission will present their draft 

action plan on combating heavy arms trafficking. Should 

this plan be endorsed during this Council, the EU will 

have an integrated approach to combating arms trafficking, 

and more particularly heavy fire arms. 

Next the presidency will present for agreement Council 

conclusions on itinerant gangs which seek to define the 

problem of itinerant crime groups and agree an 

administrative approach to tackle the problem, including 

increased cross-border co-operation. The Council will 

also be asked to agree draft Council conclusions on 

preventing and combating identity related crimes and 

on identity management. 

The Council will be asked to agree negotiating mandates 

which will authorise the start of negotiations between 

the EU and the United States, Canada, and Australia 

for the transfer and use of passenger name records 

(PNR) to prevent and combat terrorism and other 

forms of serious cross-border crime. Clear PNR agreements 

between the EU and Australia, Canada and the US will 

play a vital role in removing legal uncertainty for air 

carriers flying to those third countries. It will also help 

ensure that, where appropriate, PNR data can be shared 

quickly and securely with all necessary data protection 

safeguards in place. The Government are content with 

the proposed negotiating mandates but has yet to take a 

decision on whether or not to opt in. The Government 

strongly believe that early publication of an EU PNR 

Directive covering intra-EU as well as external flights is 

vital to the safety and security of EU citizens. 

Next the EU CT co-ordinator will present a discussion 

paper to Council on an EU CT strategy which covers 

transport security, terrorist travel, cyber threats, the 

external dimension of CT and fighting discrimination 

and social marginalisation of Muslims. 

The UK welcomes the paper as a useful starting 

point for further policy discussions. The EU CT 

co-ordinator will also provide an update on progress 

against the EU action plan on combating terrorism to 

date. 

The presidency will seek agreement on a paper on a 

system for sharing information on terrorist threat levels 

in the member states. The UK supports improvements 

to the information sharing mechanisms on terrorist 

threat levels at the EU level while maintaining that 

changes to threat levels remain a member state competence. 

The Council will also be asked to reach agreement on 

a paper recommending proposals to strengthen aviation 

security following the incident at East Midlands airport. 

This paper will go jointly to the Transport and JHA 

Councils on 02 December for agreement. The UK 

welcomes this report and will press for early, effective 

and co-ordinated action. 

Commissioner Malmström will present her EU Internal 

Security Communication, which looks to translate the 

Council’s EU internal security strategy into action points 

and will seek initial views from member states. The text 

was published on 23 November. The Government are 

therefore considering the detail of what is proposed and 

will set out their initial views at the Council. 

On the justice day, the Council will be asked to agree 

the text of the EU directive on human trafficking. In 

June, the Government made a decision not to opt in to 

the directive, but to review its position after adoption, 

at which point the UK could apply to opt in retrospectively. 

The directive is in its final stages of negotiation; there 

is a qualified majority in the Council and should the 

European Parliament also agree the text in December 

adoption will follow. 

The presidency will then seek a general approach on 

the draft directive on combating sexual exploitation 

and abuse of children and child pornography. This draft 

directive aims to update existing EU legislation in the 

area of combating child sexual exploitation and 

pornography in line with technological developments 

such as the use of webcams to bully children into sexual 

posing (a pornographic performance). The Government 

are seeking scrutiny clearance to enable the UK to 

support the presidency in reaching a general approach. 

There will be a state of play report on the European 

Investigation Order (EIO), which is a draft directive 

aimed at streamlining the system of mutual legal assistance 

between participating EU member states. The presidency 

will report progress on negotiations but is not expected 

to seek agreement on any issues at this time. The 

Government will take the opportunity to press for 

further detailed work on the grounds for refusing assistance.

83WS 




84WS 

The presidency will also seek a general approach on 

the right to information in criminal proceedings. This is 

the second measure in the roadmap to strengthen procedural 

rights in criminal proceedings. It aims to set common 

minimum standards and improve the rights of suspects 

and accused persons by ensuring that they receive 

information about their rights. The presidency has taken 

on board the Government’s concerns in relation to 

article 7 of the draft directive. The Government are 

seeking scrutiny clearance to enable it to agree to the 

general approach. 

The presidency will then seek agreement among 

participating member states on the regulation implementing 

enhanced cooperation in the field of law applicable to 

divorce—Rome III. The European Parliament will adopt 

its opinion by the end of the year. The UK is not 

participating in this measure. 

The presidency held a seminar on 14 October to 

discuss issues around resolving child abduction disputes 

by mediation. At the end of the seminar the presidency 

produced conclusions aimed at encouraging EU law 

makers and member states to consider promoting mediation 

in such cases. The presidency is seeking agreement to 

these conclusions at the Council. 

There will be a discussion on the Commission’s 

communication on “A comprehensive approach on personal 

data protection in the European Union”. The 

Communication is intended to serve as a basis for 

further discussions between the Commission, other 

European institutions and interested parties with a view 

to developing a new data protection legislative framework. 

It is anticipated that the Commission will publish a 

legislative proposal in mid-2011. 

The presidency will seek agreement to the adoption 

of a negotiating mandate for an EU-US Agreement on 

data protection. The agreement would clarify data 

protection safeguards for the transatlantic exchange of 

personal data for law enforcement purposes. 

Ministers will then be provided an information point 

on the outcomes of and proposed follow up to the 

EU-Russia Permanent Partnership Council (PPC) (freedom, 

security and justice) (18-19 November), and the Western 

Balkans Ministerial Forum (23-24 November). The PPC 

agreed steps forward on visa liberalisation (the top 

priority for Russia). They agreed to work on a list of 

common steps towards negotiations on an EU-Russia 

visa waiver agreement. This does not directly affect the 

UK as we are not part of the Schengen visa arrangements. 

The UK did not attend the Western Balkans Ministerial 

Forum. Ministers will be updated at the JHA Council. 

Ministers will then be presented with a report on the 

activities of the e-justice working party during the 

Belgian presidency. The main focus of this work so far 

has been the development of a European e-justice portal 

which is a website (launched at the July Informal JUA. 

Council) that acts as a point of access to a range of 

information on justice matters across the EU. 

Over lunch, there will be a discussion about the 

forthcoming directive, access to a lawyer. This is the 

third measure on the roadmap to strengthening criminal 

procedural rights, which is likely to be published in June 

2011. The Commission is still in the early stages of 

drafting the proposal. It is considering provisions on 

the right to waiver legal advice, consequences of violations, 

the competence and quality of lawyers and provisions 

for European arrest warrant proceedings.

799W 

Written Answers 



800W 

Written Answers to 

Questions 


INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Departmental Sponsorship 

Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for International 

Development what expenditure his Department incurred 

on sponsorship in each year since 1997 for which figures 

are available. [27524] 

Mr O’Brien: The Department for International 

Development (DFID) is not able to provide details of 

expenditure which may have been incurred on sponsorship 

without incurring a disproportionate cost. 

Developing Countries: Education 

Mr Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for 

International Development whether the needs of disabled 

people informed the ministerial review of his Department’s 

Education Strategy 2010-15; and what steps his Department 

plans to take to ensure such needs inform any further 

such review. [27555] 

Mr O’Brien: The Department for International 

Development (DFID) published its Learning for All 

Education Strategy in March 2010. The strategy recognised 

that disability is a major factor in excluding children 

from school and the importance of reaching those 

currently marginalised if the education millennium 

development goals and Education for All goals are to 

be achieved. 

DFID recently published a guidance note on supporting 

access to education for children with disabilities, “Education 

for Children with Disabilities—Improving Access and 

Quality”, which is available on the DFID website. This 

note has been used by country teams during the bilateral 

aid review, which will inform our ongoing policy, including 

that on education for children with disabilities. 

Developing Countries: HIV Infection 

Mr Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for 

International Development what recent assessment he 

has made of the effectiveness of his Department’s 

programmes in reducing the global incidence of 

HIV/AIDS; what plans he has for the future of such 

programmes; and if he will make a statement. [27747] 

Mr O’Brien: Figures from the UNAIDS Report on 

The Global Aids Epidemic 2010 demonstrate steady 

progress in the reduction of HIV incidence. In 33 countries, 

of which 22 are in Sub-Saharan Africa, HIV incidence 

has fallen by more than 25% between 2001 and 2009. In 

the countries most severely effected by the epidemic in 

Sub-Saharan Africa—Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Africa, 

Zambia and Zimbabwe—incidence have either stabilised 

or are showing signs of decline. These are all countries 

where the Department for International Development 

(DFID) has supported national HIV prevention 

programmes. 

DFID is reviewing all its bilateral and multilateral 

aid programmes to ensure UK aid is effective, represents 

value for money for the UK taxpayer and accelerate 

progress towards the millennium development goals. As 

set out in DFID’s business plan 2011-15, we will specify 

our objectives on restricting the spread of diseases like 

TB, HIV, and malaria by May 2011. 

EU Law 


Development 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. [27507] 

Mr O’Brien: There are currently no EU directives 

waiting to be transposed into domestic legislation by 

the Department. 

Football: South Africa 

Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for 

International Development how much his Department 

spent on entertainment activities related to the 2010 

FIFA World Cup. [27360] 

Mr Duncan: The Department for International 

Development (DFID) spent no money on entertainment 

relating to the activities of the 2010 FIFA World Cup. 

Trade Unions: Finance 


Development how much his Department has given to 

trade unions in the UK and overseas through (a) the 

Civil Society Challenge Fund, (b) the UK Trades Union 

Congress Strategic Grant Agreement, (c) the Strategic 

Framework Partnership Agreement, (d) the partnership 

programme agreements, (e) the Development Awareness 

Fund and (f) other programmes in each of the last 

three years; which trade unions received such funds; 

and for what reason the award was made in each case. 

[27381] 

Mr Andrew Mitchell: I will arrange for the requested 

information to be placed in the Library of the House. 

The Department for International Development (DFID) 

is reviewing all of its aid programmes including aid 

channelled through trade unions, to ensure that it makes 

a real difference to the world’s poorest people. 

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS 

Agricultural Wages Order 

Mr Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, 

Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many grants of widow’s 

or widower’s bereavement allowances were made under 

the Agricultural Wages Order in each of the last five 

financial years; [27417]

801W 




802W 

(2) what the average sum payable as a grant of 

widow’s or widower’s bereavement allowance under the 

Agricultural Wages Order was in each of the last five 

financial years. [27418] 

Mr Paice: The Agricultural Wages Order provides 

agricultural workers with an entitlement to paid 

bereavement leave on the death of a close relative, 

including a spouse or civil partner. However, it does not 

include provision for the payment of a lump sum grant 

in addition to this. 

The Government do not keep records of the amount 

of bereavement leave taken by agricultural workers. 

Therefore, it is not possible to provide details of the 

average amount of bereavement leave pay received in 

each of the past five years. 


Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many grants of dog 

allowances were made under the Agricultural Wages 

Order in each of the last five financial years; [27419] 

(2) what the average sum payable as a grant of dog 

allowances under the Agricultural Wages Order was in 

each of the last five financial years. [27421] 

Mr Paice: The dog allowance is a weekly amount 

added to the minimum rate for a worker whose employer 

requires them to keep a dog or dogs. The allowance is 

paid in respect of each dog. 

The Government does not have information on the 

number of allowances paid to workers required to keep 

a dog or dogs for the better performance of their work. 

Nor is it possible to state what the average sum payable 

to such workers was in each of the last five financial 

years. 

The level of the weekly dog allowance payable to a 

worker required to keep a dog or dogs in each of the last 

five years was as follows: 

2010 7.21 

2009 7.01 

2008 6.86 

2007 6.58 

2006 6.30 

Note: 

All allowances are effective from 1 October of the relevant year. 

Biofuels 

Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much wood 

was imported for burning as biomass fuel in (a) 2007, 

(b) 2008 and (c) 2009. [27552] 

Gregory Barker: I have been asked to reply. 

Information collated by HM Revenue and Customs 

as part of its statistics on overseas trade do not indicate 

the final use for imported wood. 

The 2010 edition of the Digest of UK Energy Statistics 

contains estimates of the total quantities of wood and 

waste wood that were used for energy purposes during 

2007, 2008 and 2009. Copies of this publication are 

available in the House Library. The publication shows 

the following information: 

£ 

Wood for energy 

purposes 

Waste wood for 

energy purposes 

Thousand tonnes of oil equivalent 

2007 2008 2009 

332 359 375 

101 162 165 

Additionally, the publication contains the following 

estimates of straw, short rotation coppice, and other 

plant based biomass imported for energy purposes: 

Total imports of straw, short rotation coppice 

and other plant-based biomass for energy 

purposes 

British Waterways 

Thousand tonnes of oil equivalent 

2007 2008 2009 

378 416 415 

Andrew Stephenson: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent 

discussions she has had on the future of British 

Waterways. [25906] 

Richard Benyon: On 14 October, the Government 

announced that British Waterways will move from being 

a public corporation to a charitable body within civil 

society from April 2012. Government’s intention is to 

issue a full public consultation on the scope and model 

of the new waterways charity early in 2011. Key 

stakeholders will continue to be kept closely involved 

through ongoing discussions, workshops and meetings 

with myself and DEFRA officials. 

Carbon Emissions: Businesses 

Naomi Long: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she plans 

to introduce mandatory reporting of carbon emissions 

by UK-listed companies. [27113] 

Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is 

on the introduction of mandatory carbon reporting for 

businesses under section 85 of the Climate Change Act 

2008. [26349] 

Mr Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State 

for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will 

assess the merits of introducing mandatory reporting of 

carbon dioxide emissions by listed UK companies; and 

if she will make a statement. [27200] 

Mr Paice: I refer the hon. Member and my hon. 

Friends to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for 

Hartlepool (Mr Wright) on 27 October 2010, Official 

Report, column 319W. 

Common Agricultural Policy 

Amber Rudd: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent 

assessment she has made of the effect on UK food 

security of the operation of the Common Agricultural 

Policy. [20736]

803W 




804W 

Mr Paice: The best guarantors of UK food security, 

as detailed in DEFRA’s UK food security assessment, 

are an open trading system with other countries, and 

farmers at home and overseas being able to respond to 

market price signals. We believe that there needs to be 

reform of the Common Agricultural Policy to facilitate 

this. 

Departmental Policy 

Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what departmental 

policy reviews her Department has undertaken since 6 

May 2010; on what date each such review (a) was 

announced and (b) is expected to publish its findings; 

what estimate she has made of the cost of each such 

review; who has been appointed to lead each such 

review; to what remuneration each review leader is 

entitled; how many (i) full-time equivalent civil servants 

and (ii) seconded staff are working on each such review; 

from which organisations such staff have been seconded; 

and how much on average such seconded staff will be 

paid for their work on the review. [21883] 

Richard Benyon: The information requested is set out 

in the following table. 

Ofwat review 

Waste review 

Animal Welfare 

Act 

Animal welfare 

inspections 

Task force on 

farm regulation 

Review of 

national park 

governance 

arrangements 

Announcement 

date 

26 August 2010 15 June 2010 June 2010 

(reconfirmed 

earlier decision 

taken by 

previous 

Administration) 

1 May 2010 9 June 2010 A full public 

consultation was 

launched on 

9 November 

2010 

Publication date 

Spring/summer 

2011 

May 2011 

Command Paper 

to publish in 

December 2010. 

EFRA 

Parliamentary 

Select 

Committee to 

consider its 

findings. 

1 May 2011 April 2011 A Ministerial 

announcement 

on the 

consultation 

outcome, 

proposals for 

changes to the 

governance 

arrangements 

andwaysof 

improving 

accountability 

will be made by 

the end of 

March 2011. 

Estimated cost 

£55,000 not 

including staff 

costs 

Undertaken by 

civil servants in 

the course of 

normal duties 

Undertaken by 


the course of 

normal duties 

Undertaken by 


the course of 

normal duties 

£35,000 (not 

including staff 

costs) 

Undertaken by 


the course of 

normal duties 

Appointed 

reviewer and 

remuneration 

David Gray. 

£50,000 plus 

expenses. 

n/a n/a n/a Richard 

Macdonald. 

Daily rate £300 

and entitled to 

reasonable 

expenses. 

Estimated input 

80 days. 

n/a 

Number of civil 

servants working 

on the review 

2.2 full-time 

employees 

4 full-time 

employees 

5 full-time 

employees 

4.6 full-time 

employees 

6 full-time 

employees 

2 civil servants 

but with 

significant input 

from the 

national park 

authorities. 

Number of 

secondees 

workingonthe 

review 

None 

1 part time 

(2 days per week) 

None None None None

805W 




806W 

Ofwat review 

Waste review 

Animal Welfare 

Act 

Animal welfare 

inspections 

Task force on 

farm regulation 

Review of 

national park 

governance 

arrangements 

Secondees home 

organisation 

n/a 

Waste and 

Resources 

Action 

Programme 

(WRAP) 

n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Secondees pay 

rates 

n/a 

On loan from 

WRAP 

n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Farming Futures: Finance 


Food and Rural Affairs how much funding Farming 

Futures received from her Department in each of the 

last four years; and how much funding she plans to 

allocate to Farming Futures in each of the next four 

years. [27031] 

Mr Paice: Farming Futures was set up in 2007 to 

build greater awareness and provide advice to farmers 

on the impacts of climate change and actions they can 

take to deal with this, to increase efficiency, profitability 

and competiveness. DEFRA has provided Farming Futures 

with core funding of over £850,000 covering a four year 

period: 

2007-08 171,000 

2008-09 250,000 

2009-10 150,000 

2010-11 285,000 

DEFRA funding for Farming Futures was a substantial, 

time-limited contribution to allow them to establish 

themselves in playing a central role in supporting the 

industry’s action on climate change, whilst they sought 

alternative long-term funding. After four years, DEFRA’s 

financial support will come to an end in March 2011. 

Genetically Modified Organisms 

Mr Meacher: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the 

opinion of the Council of Ministers on the proposal to 

amend the GMO Deliberate Release Directive 2001/18 

by introducing a new article 26b has been received by 

her Department; and if she will make a statement. 

[26331] 

Mr Paice [holding answer 25 November 2010]: All 

member states have received the opinion of the Council 

Legal Service on the proposal to amend Directive 2001/18. 

Opinions on this matter are also expected to be made 

available soon from both the European Parliament and 

the Commission legal services. Following this, further 

discussions will be held at EU level on the legal implications 

of the Commission’s proposal. 

Mr Charles Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy 

is on the commercial growing of genetically-modified 

crops; and if she will make a statement. [26878] 

£ 

Mr Paice [holding answer 29 November 2010]: The 

details of the Government’s policy on GM crops are 

currently under consideration, but all policies will be 

based on robust scientific evidence. 

National Parks 

Mary Creagh: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what visits on 

what dates for what purposes (a) she and (b) other 

Ministers in her Department have made to (i) national 

parks and (ii) national nature reserves since 11 May 

2010. [26156] 

Richard Benyon [holding answer 24 November 2010]: 

I have expressed a keen interest in visiting all of the 

English national parks to see at first hand the valuable 

work being undertaken. So far I have been to 

Northumberland national park on 15 June and the 

Peak District national park on 27 July. 

During my visit to Northumberland national park I 

also went to Greenlee Lough national nature reserve to 

see how national park and national nature reserve 

designations can work together. 

Other national nature reserves I visited are Holme 

Fen and Woodwalton Fen on 10 November as part of 

the Great Fen project which is designed to link up the 

land between the two nature reserves. 

I was also able to see Leigh Woods national nature 

reserve from the Avon Gorge site of special scientific 

interest which I visited on 19 July. 

The Minister of State, Department for Environment, 

Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member 

for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice) visited Dartmoor 

national park on 11 November to discuss uplands issues. 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department 

for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the noble 

Lord, Lord Henley visited the Lake District national 

park on 25 August regarding future changes needed to 

adapt to climate change. 

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and 

Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for 

Meriden (Mrs Spelman) has met with key representatives 

from the English national parks authority association 

and spoken with a number of people who have an 

interest in national parks and national nature reserves. 

We are currently putting together a programme of visits 

for 2011, which includes visits to our national parks.

807W 




808W 

Salmon: Rivers 


Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) whether her 

Department has made an estimate of the number of 

salmon returning to the river (a) Test, (b) Itchen and 

(c) Hampshire Avon in each of the past five years; and 

if she will make a statement; [26235] 

(2) what assessment her Department has made of the 

future capacity of the river (a) Test, (b) Itchen and (c) 

Hampshire Avon to support viable stocks of migratory 

salmonoids; and if she will make a statement. [26236] 

Richard Benyon: The Environment Agency (EA) operates 

fish counters on the Rivers Test, Itchen and Hampshire 

Avon and uses these to derive annual estimates of the 

number of salmon returning to each of these rivers. The 

following table shows the estimated number of salmon 

returning in each of the past five years, although such 

estimates have only been possible on the Hampshire 

Avon since 2006. 

Test 

Itchen 

Hampshire 

Avon 

2005 1,117 411 n/a 

2006 1,058 419 1,319 

2007 664 301 1,135 

2008 1,487 500 810 

2009 

(provisional) 

903 276 743 

The EA estimates the Conservation Limits (CLs) for 

salmon stocks in each of the 64 principal salmon rivers 

in England and Wales; including the Test, Itchen and 

Hampshire Avon. CLs are described as ‘the minimum 

desirable spawning stock levels, below which stocks 

should not be allowed to fall’. The salmon stocks in the 

Rivers Test, Itchen and Hampshire Avon were all below 

their CLs in 2009, and are classified as being ‘At Risk’ 

or ‘Probably at Risk’. They are also expected to remain 

in one of these categories until at least 2014. There are 

no similar indicators of the status of other salmonid 

species. 

Stocks may still be sustainable at levels below their 

CL, but they are at greater risk. The EA and the Centre 

for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science 

are investigating the significance of impacts on salmon 

and will seek ways to manage the effects. An understanding 

of these key factors will be important in estimating the 

future potential of these southern chalk streams for all 

salmonid species. 

Woodland Grants Scheme 

Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she 

has for the future of the Woodland Grants Scheme 

following the outcome of the comprehensive spending 

review; and if she will make a statement. [21955] 

Mr Paice: Expenditure on the Rural Development 

programme for England will be maintained over the 

spending review period. We will work with the Forestry 

Commission to ensure the England Woodland Grant 

Scheme, which provides for the stewardship of existing 

woodlands and the creation of new woodlands, is more 

effective and better targeted. I also refer the hon. Gentleman 

to the Welsh Assembly Government which administers 

woodland grant schemes in Wales for information on its 

plans. 

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE 

Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency 

Scheme 

Jeremy Lefroy: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Energy and Climate Change what progress his Department 

has made on inclusion of a proportion of electricity 

generated from energy from waste in the Carbon Reduction 

Commitment. [27286] 

Gregory Barker: All electricity supply arrangements 

to a CRC participant which meet the CRC’s supply 

criteria must be reported under the scheme, irrespective 

of how, where and by whom the electricity is generated. 

This ensures the scheme’s focus is on energy efficiency 

measures. 

CRC participants which operate an energy from waste 

plant will also need to report their input fuel to the 

generational process, where that waste supply meets the 

CRC supply definitions. 

Departmental Contracts 

Nicola Blackwood: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Energy and Climate Change what steps his Department 

plans to take to encourage and support small and 

medium-sized enterprises and third sector organisations 

to compete for departmental contracts in line with 

value-for-money policy, UK regulations and EU 

procurement directives. [28114] 

Gregory Barker: The Department of Energy and 

Climate Change is following all the requirements of the 

Transparency Agenda and openly advertising all 

procurements above £10,000. 

In circumstances where an applicant is unsuccessful 

with their bid the Department provides full feedback to 

all companies as requested. 

Energy: Prices 

Huw Irranca-Davies: To ask the Secretary of State 

for Energy and Climate Change what steps he is taking 

to assist energy-intensive industries with rising energy 

prices. [27120] 

Charles Hendry: In order to help UK energy intensive 

industries, DECC is working closely with BIS, industry 

representatives, academics and other experts on an Energy 

Intensive Industry Strategy. The Strategy is assessing 

the impact of climate change and energy policies on the 

cost of energy for these industries, greenhouse gas 

abatement opportunities within key energy intensive 

sectors and is considering policy options where further 

cost-effective abatement opportunities are not available 

in the short term. 

The Government also provide businesses with enhanced 

tax relief for investments in equipment that meets published 

energy-saving criteria via enhanced capital allowances.

809W 




810W 

Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Energy and Climate Change whether he plans to seek 

additional data-sharing powers to enable people with a 

terminal illness automatically to receive assistance 

from the mandatory social price support scheme. 

[27741] 

Gregory Barker: Energy suppliers will be required 

from April 2011 to provide greater help with the financial 

costs of energy bills to more of the most vulnerable fuel 

poor households—with total support of £250 million in 

2011-12 rising to £310 million in 2014-15. 

We anticipate that data matching methods, similar to 

those which were used successfully in the Energy Rebate 

Scheme, will be used to target the available assistance 

towards more of the most vulnerable households. 

We intend to consult on the detailed policy design, 

including eligibility and targeting methods, shortly and 

would welcome views and input on these issues during 

that process. 

Natural Gas 

Graham Stringer: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Energy and Climate Change what recent estimate he 

has made of the level of reserves of shale gas in the 

UK. [27752] 

Charles Hendry: The British Geological Survey estimates 

that there could be worthwhile shale gas resources in 

the UK. However it is not possible to make an estimate 

of reserves without drilling and production testing, and 

it is not yet clear that the success elsewhere can be 

replicated in the UK. 

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES 

Black Asian and Minority Ethnic Women Councillors 

Taskforce: Expenditure 

Priti Patel: To ask the Minister for Women and 

Equalities pursuant to the answer of 22 November 

2010, Official Report, columns 81-2W, on ethnic minorities, 

who the speakers were at each of the 16 events. [27469] 

Lynne Featherstone: A total of 16 Black, Asian and 

Minority Ethnic (BAME) Women Councillors’ Taskforce 

events were held across Britain. The speakers at each of 

the events were as follows: 

Tower Hamlet—23 July 2008: 

Councillors: Dr Anwara AN, Shirley Marshall and Lurline 

Champagnie; Barbara Follett MP and Deputy Minister for 

Women; former Councillor Neelam Bakshi. 

Birmingham—17 October 2008: 

Councillors: Salma Yaqoob, Karen Hamilton and Paulette 

Hamilton; Francine Fernandes; Carol Coombes CEO. 

Harrow—21 November 2008: 

Councillors: Lurline Champagnie, Mimi Harker, Nana Asante 

and David Ashton. 

Swansea—12 December 2008: 

Former Councillor Yvonne Jardine; Nia Griffith MP; Salma 

Abbasi; Mari Rees. 

Islington—9 January 2009: 

Councillors: James Kempton, Jyoti Vaja, Anjana Patel, Ruth 

Polling, Berenice Vanier; Mouna Hamitouche. 

TUC event central London—3 February 2009: 

Sarah Veale; Dinah Cox; Councillors: Anwara Ali and Lurline 

Champagnie. 

Glasgow—13 February 2009: 

Former Councillor Neelam Bakshi; Angela O’Hagan; Councillor 

Paulette Hamilton; Loretta Mordi; Ann Henderson. 

Gloucester—19 February 2009: 

Former Councillor Carol Francis; Councillors: Barry Dare, 

Lorna Campbell and Lady Mavis Dunrossil; Parmjit Dhanda 

MP. 

Newcastle—20 March 2009: 

Former Councillor Thea Khamis; Councillors: David Faulkner 

and Lurline Champagnie; Baroness Sandip Verma; Ranjana 

Bell. 

Leicester—17 April 2009: 

Councillors: Manjula Sood, Ross Willmott, Sarah Russell and 

Ramilla Shah; Sheila Lock CEO; Liz Reid-Jones; Anita Patel. 

Camden—24 April 2009: 

Councillors: Maya de Souza, Keith Moffitt and Geethika 

Jayatilaka; Dame Jane Roberts; Simon Woolley. 

South London—21 May 2009: 

Councillors: Lorna Campbell; Nicholas Stanton, Eliza Mann, 

Mimi Harker and Dora Dixon Fyle; Dawn Butler MP; Harriet 

Harman QC, MP and Minister for Women and Equalities. 

Liverpool—29 May 2009: 

Former Councillor Mia Jones; Councillors: Warren Bradley 

and Anna Rothery; Amina Ismail; Maria Eagle MP and Deputy 

Minister for Women and Equalities. 

Chilterns, Maidenhead and Berkshire—26 June 2009: 

Councillors: Mimi Harker, Humaira Khan, John Warder, Meral 

Ece, Denise Headley. 

Luton—17 July 2009: 

Councillors: Sherma Batson, Joan Bailey, Jacqui Burnett and 

Anjana Patel; Dr Nazia Khanum; Kate Belinis CEO. 

Bradford—22 July 2009: 

Adeeba Malik; Councillors: Dale Smith, Naveeda Ikram and 

Alison Lowe; Marcia Churley. 

Note: 

This information is in the public domain through the BAME 

Women Councillors’ Taskforce report. The full report is available 

at the following link: 

http://www.equalities.gov.uk/pdf/ 

Task%20Force%20Report%20Oct%202009.pdf 




how the (a) attendees and (b) delegates at each event 

were (i) invited and (ii) selected for invitation. [27471] 

Lynne Featherstone: A total of 16 events were held 

across Britain reaching nearly 1,100 women. These events 

were promoted using a wide range of organisations. 

This included working closely with existing local equalities 

group networks and political parties. 

The Government Equalities Office (GEO) sent e-mails 

including the event details and also telephoned organisations 

who helped to promote the events on behalf of the 

GEO. These organisations included local women’s 

organisations, equalities organisations, local authorities, 

local political parties, strategic partners, local Libraries 

and business networks.

811W 




812W 

Attendees signed up to attend the events online. The 

selection of attendees was based on a first come first 

served basis where the numbers were dependent on the 

size of the venue. 




what steps she plans to take to evaluate the (a) outcome 

and (b) value for money of each event. [27473] 

Lynne Featherstone: Action has been taken to evaluate 

the work of the Black, Asian Minority Ethnic (BAME) 

Women Councillors’ taskforce and an evaluation report 

will be published in the new year, with an executive 

summary. The report will assess the short- and longer-term 

impacts of the taskforce as a whole, and by each of the 

three strands of work covering the support and development 

element of the programme, which are the outreach 

events, the shadowing and mentoring scheme and the 

community leadership course. 

The specific research objectives are: 

1. To identify and examine the outcomes and effectiveness of 

the BAME taskforce 

2. To identify the strengths and limitations of the BAME 

taskforce programme of work 

3. To assess the value of the taskforce programme of work, 

including how to make this agenda sustainable in the longer term 

4. To follow-up and track participants’ progress in getting 

involved in political and public life. 

HOME DEPARTMENT 

Aviation: Security 

Steve McCabe: To ask the Secretary of State for the 

Home Department who informed (a) her and (b) the 

Prime Minister of the discovery of a bomb on board a 

UPS courier aircraft at East Midlands airport; and 

what the reasons were for the time taken to inform each 

Minister of that discovery. [22219] 

Mr Maude: I have been asked to reply. 

The Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. 

Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) 

informed about an incident at East Midlands airport at 

8.10 am on 29 October. In his capacity as Secretary of 

State for Transport he is routinely informed of incidents 

having the potential to disrupt air transport, even when 

no specific threat materialises. The Prime Minister, the 

Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right 

hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) 

and the Minister of State for Security and Counter-terrorism 

(Baroness Neville-Jones) were all informed at lunchtime 

on 29 October. 

Crime 

Ed Balls: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home 

Department what the change in overall crime levels has 

been between 1997 and the latest date for which figures 

are available in terms of the methodology used in 

collecting information for (a) police recorded crime 

and (b) the British Crime Survey. [24606] 

Mrs May [holding answer 16 November 2010]: Both 

the police recorded crime statistics and the British Crime 

Survey provide an incomplete picture of crime. 

Statistics from the two sources are published annually 

in the Home Office statistical bulletin, Crime in England 

and Wales, a copy of which is available in the House of 

Commons Library. 

Homosexuality: Criminal Records 


the Home Department if she will bring forward legislative 

proposals to change requirements for the disclosure of 

historic convictions for homosexual intercourse for the 

purpose of preventing discrimination. [27241] 

Lynne Featherstone: As set out in the Home Office 

Business Plan, the Freedom Bill, to be introduced by 

February 2011, will include provisions so that those 

who were prosecuted for consensual gay sex at a time 

when this was illegal may apply to have their conviction 

record deleted from police records and will no longer be 

required to disclose their conviction in any circumstances. 

Immigration 

Mr Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for 

the Home Department what procedures are available to 

her to restrict the level of immigration from other EU 

member states. [26882] 

Damian Green [holding answer 29 November 2010]: 

The right to free movement is not unlimited; European 

Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA) nationals 

must be exercising a Treaty right as a worker, a self-employed 

or self-sufficient person or a student if they wish to 

reside in the UK beyond three months. 

The EU Accession Treaties for countries that have 

joined the EU since 2004 include a temporary derogation 

that allows individual member states to restrict accession 

workers’ access to the labour market for up to five years, 

or up to seven years if justified on labour market 

grounds. This Government are committed to applying 

transitional controls on access to the UK labour market 

as a matter of course in the future to all new EU 

member states. 

Under transitional arrangements currently in place, 

workers from the Central and Eastern European countries 

that acceded to the EU in 2004 must register their 

employment in the UK within one month. This scheme 

must end by 30 April 2011. 

Workers from Romania and Bulgaria, which acceded 

to the EU on 1 January 2007, must seek authorisation 

to work from the UK Border Agency and meet the 

required criteria. These restrictions will remain in force 

until 31 December 2011 and may be extended for a 

further two years. 

Migration 

Mr Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for the 

Home Department pursuant to the oral statement of 

23 November 2010, Official Report, columns 169-71, 

on controlling migration, what the minimum amount is

813W 




814W 

which any applicant must be able to deposit in a 

UK-based financial institution prior to becoming 

eligible for an entrepreneur visa. [27758] 

Damian Green: The minimum amount an applicant 

to the tier 1 (entrepreneur) route must have available to 

deposit in a UK-based financial institution is currently 

£200,000. We will announce details of the revised criteria 

for entrepreneurs in due course. 

Vetting 

Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for the 

Home Department (1) what recent representations she 

has received from accredited guardianship organisations 

on her Department’s review of the vetting and barring 

regime; [27681] 

(2) what account she took of accredited guardianship 

organisations in her Department’s review of the 

Independent Safeguarding Authority. [27684] 

Lynne Featherstone [holding answer 30 November 2010]: 

The review and remodelling of the Vetting and Barring 

Scheme is still under way. Representations from various 

organisations including those involved with the private 

and independent schools sector have been received, and 

will be taken into account as the review progresses. 

Norman Baker: The environmental impacts of biofuel 

production are included in the lifecycle assessment of 

biofuels awarded renewable transport fuel certificates 

(RTFCs). 

Biofuel producers who wish to claim RTFCs for the 

fuel they produce must register with the Renewable 

Fuels Agency (RFA). In the 2009-10 reporting period 

33 non-obligated biofuels producers were awarded RTFCs. 

The RFA quarterly reports list all biofuel producers 

awarded RTFCs during the reporting period, but do 

not distinguish between small and large suppliers. The 

volume of fuel supplied is commercially sensitive data. 

The RFA requires fuel suppliers claiming RTFCs to 

submit monthly reports on the lifecycle greenhouse gas 

(GHG) saving and the sustainability of the biofuels 

they supply. Summaries of the data supplied are published 

in the RFA’s quarterly reports. In the 2009-10 reporting 

period all biofuels-only suppliers reported meeting a 

qualifying environmental standard in 90% or more of 

the biofuel supplied and all reported on the fuel 

characteristics (feedstock, country of origin, sustainability 

and previous land use) for more than 95% of the fuel 

supplied, although in many cases environmental data 

were reported using RFA default values. 

The RFA quarterly reports are available at: 

www.renewablefuelsagency.gov.uk 

WALES 

Grants 

Anas Sarwar: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 

what grants have been awarded by her Department in 

(a) 2009-10 and (b) 2010-11 to date; what grants she 

plans to award in each of the next two years; what the 

monetary value is of each such grant fund; and to 

which organisations such grants have been made. 

[27861] 

Mr David Jones: I refer the hon. Gentleman to 

my answer of 30 November 2010, Official Report, 

column 737W. 

UN Food and Agriculture Organisation 

Mr Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 

what assessment she has made of the compliance of 

her Department with the UN Food and Agriculture 

Organisation’s criteria for sourcing sustainable timber. 

[27851] 

Mr David Jones: The Wales Office obtains its support 

services through the Ministry of Justice and comes 

under that Ministry’s sustainable development framework, 

where there is a requirement for all timber to be from 

sustainable sources. 

TRANSPORT 

Biofuels 

Mr Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 

what assessment he has made of the effects on the 

environment of (a) small-scale biodiesel production 

and (b) competition within the biodiesel market. 

[26932] 

East Midlands Airport: Security 

Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 

at what time on 29 October 2010 he was informed of the 

security incident at East Midlands airport. [22480] 

Mr Hurd: I have been asked to reply. 

The Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. 

Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge 

(Mr Hammond) was informed about an incident at 

East Midlands airport at 8.10am on Friday 29 October. 

In his capacity as Secretary of State for Transport he is 

routinely informed of incidents having the potential to 

disrupt air transport, even when no specific threat 

materialises. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State 

for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the 

Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and the Minister 

of State for Security and Counter-terrorism (Baroness 

Neville-Jones) were all informed at lunchtime on Friday 

29 October. 

Lake Windermere: Speed Limits 

Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 

what the speed limit is for motorised transportation 

across Lake Windermere in (a) miles per hour, (b) 

nautical miles per hour and (c) kilometres per hour. 

[26475] 

Mike Penning: Speed limits for motorised transportation 

across Lake Windermere are a matter for the Lake 

District National Park Authority (LDNPA). 

The LDNPA’s website states 

“There is a 10 nautical miles per hour speed limit on Lake 

Windermere, dropping to 6 miles per hour in some areas.”

815W 




816W 

Official Cars: Liquefied Natural Gas 

Paul Maynard: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Transport whether he has made an estimate of the 

potential cost savings likely to be made from converting 

a Government Car Service vehicle to be fuelled by 

liquefied petroleum gas autogas. [27204] 

Mike Penning: The cost-effectiveness of a conversion 

to liquid petroleum gas (LPG) can only be realised with 

vehicles that cover high mileage using primarily LPG 

and without incurring the associated reliability issues 

that the conversion creates. The mileage profile and 

replacement cycle of a Government Car Service vehicle 

would not permit full recovery of the conversion costs. 

Parking: Fines 

Mr Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 

how many local authorities (a) responsible for London 

boroughs and (b) outside London have contacted his 

Department to seek an increase in charges for parking 

penalties. [27114] 

Norman Baker [holding answer 29 November 2010]: 

Penalty charges in London are the responsibility of the 

London Mayor. The British Parking Association has 

raised this matter with Ministers of behalf of their local 

authority members. In addition six local authorities 

have written to the Department for Transport. 

Stourbridge to Walsall Freight Rail Line 

Margot James: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Transport what progress has been made on reinstating 

the Stourbridge to Walsall freight rail line; and if he 

will make a statement. [27799] 

Mrs Villiers: There is no current project to reinstate 

the Stourbridge to Walsall line. However, Network Rail 

has published the West Midlands and Chilterns Route 

Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation in November 

2010. It has established that there may be a case for 

re-opening the Stourbridge to Walsall line to accommodate 

future freight growth. 

Transport: Expenditure 

George Eustice: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Transport what changes his Department has made to 

its formula for assessing benefit-to-cost ratios in 

respect of transport schemes since May 2010. [27328] 

Norman Baker: The Department for Transport has 

not changed its definitive appraisal guidance since May 

2010. The guidance, along with planned changes released 

“in draft” in January 2010 (which included a new benefitcost 

ratio formula), are available at: 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/index.php 

Spending review decisions were informed by a valuefor-money 

measure which was consistent with two of 

the proposed changes to the guidance: introducing the 

latest monetary values of carbon and adopting the new 

benefit-cost ratio formula. 

The Department for Transport’s business plan for 

2011-15 states it will reform the way transport projects 

are assessed, and funding prioritisation decisions are 

made, so that the benefits of low carbon proposals are 

fully recognised. This includes reviewing and revising its 

guidance on appraising transport projects, as well as its 

processes for assessing schemes and supporting ministerial 

decisions. We will announce the scope and timetable of 

this review shortly. 

DEFENCE 

Afghanistan: Peacekeeping Operations 

Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Defence whether the remit of the Defence Reform 

Units review includes forces and operations in Afghanistan. 

[26292] 

Dr Fox: The remit of the Defence Reform Unit’s 

review does not include our current forces or operations 

in Afghanistan. 

Armed Forces: Aircraft 

Mr Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Defence what estimate his Department has made of the 

likely effect of implementing his decision to procure 

the non-STOVL variant of the joint strike fighter on 

the number of jobs. [27614] 

Peter Luff [holding answer 30 November 2010]: The 

decision to purchase the carrier variant (CV) of the 

joint strike fighter (JSF) was made on the basis of its 

advantages offered in terms of interoperability with 

allies, range, and pay load and through life costs over 

the short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant. 

The industrial implications of the key strategic defence 

and security review choices were given careful consideration, 

but we have not made a specific assessment of the 

impact on the jobs in the UK of the decision to proceed 

with the CV of the JSF. Many UK companies continue 

to be heavily involved in the overall JSF programme. 


Defence which engines have been chosen to be fitted on 

the joint strike fighter; and if he will make a statement. 

[27615] 

Peter Luff: Pending the US decision as to whether to 

continue funding for the completion of development of 

the alternative General Electric/Rolls Royce F136 engine, 

it is too early to determine which engines will be fitted 

to the joint strike fighter. 

Armoured Fighting Vehicles 


Defence with reference to the strategic defence and 

security review, page 24, what estimate he has made of 

the cost to his Department of introducing protected 

support vehicles to replace unprotected versions that 

are no longer suitable. [26794] 

Peter Luff: There are a number of future planned 

programmes for both protected and unprotected support 

vehicles. The protection level of any given vehicle is very 

much driven by the capability the vehicle is designed to 

meet and the threat level it is expected to face. To

817W 




818W 

maintain flexibility many of the vehicles are designed 

and procured with the ability to be fitted with additional 

protection in order to match specific threats. 

The Wolfhound, Coyote and Husky tactical support 

vehicles have been procured specifically for Afghanistan 

and over 500 will enter service at an approved cost of 

over £500 million. 

The new Foxhound light protected patrol vehicle will 

replace Snatch Vixen on operations and an initial tranche 

of 200 vehicles has been approved at a cost of around 

£180 million excluding VAT. 

The cost of the Operational Utility Vehicle System 

will be determined after the main investment decision 

point. 

Defence Exports Group 

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Defence when the Defence Exports Group was established; 

what its terms of reference are; who its members are; 

how many times it will meet per year; and when it will 

next meet. [22652] 


Defence when he expects to establish the Defence 

Export Group; and whether a decision has been made 

on its composition. [25615] 

Dr Fox: The Defence Exports Support Group (DESG) 

was established on 22 October. The core DESG membership 

is the Secretary of State for Defence; the Minister for 

Defence Equipment, Support and Technology; the Minister 

for International Security Strategy; and Head, Defence 

and Security Organisation, UK Trade and Investment. 

Ministers and/or senior officials from the Foreign and 

Commonwealth Office and the Department for Business, 

Innovation and Skills will also attend as appropriate. 

The DESG will be a forum through which Ministers 

will plan and focus their support to UK Defence exports. 

The intention is to hold the first DESG meeting before 

Christmas at which its terms of reference and frequency 

of meetings will be discussed. 

Nimrod Aircraft 

Mrs Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 

(1) if he will estimate the cost to the public purse of 

making alternative arrangements for (a) protection of 

the carrier fleet and (b) provision of strategic deterrent 

against submarines compared to the cost of retaining 

the Nimrod MRA4; and if he will make a statement; 

[26944] 

(2) what assessment he has made of the 

consequences for (a) intelligence, surveillance, target 

acquisition and reconnaissance support, (b) maritime 

protection and (c) search and rescue capability in 

respect of (i) protection of merchant shipping and (ii) 

protection of coastal waters following the decision to 

cease the use of Nimrod MRA4 aircraft; what estimate 

he has made of changes to the cost to the public purse 

in the provision of such services as a result; and if he 

will make a statement; [27016] 

(3) what assessment he has made of the cost to his 

Department of C130 and C130K aircraft as a 

replacement for the Nimrod MRA4 for (a) intelligence 

surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance, (b) 

maritime protection and (c) search and rescue; and if 

he will make a statement. [27026] 

Peter Luff: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I 

gave on 28 October 2010, Official Report, columns 

450-51W, to the right hon. Member for Coventry North 

East (Mr Ainsworth) and the hon. Members for East 

Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann), 

and North Durham (Mr Jones). 

The UK’s requirement for Anti-Submarine Warfare 

and Intelligence surveillance, target acquisition and 

reconnaissance (ISTAR) capability was assessed during 

the Strategic Defence and Security Review and will be 

kept under regular review. I can confirm that we have 

judged the implications of the decision not to bring the 

Nimrod MRA4 into service to be acceptable. We are in 

the process of developing a longer-term plan to mitigate 

the impact of cancellation on our continuing military 

tasks and capabilities. This will include an assessment 

of costs. 

Rescue Services 

Michael Dugher: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Defence whether the concept of operations underpinning 

the search and rescue (helicopter) requirement included 

the assumption that a search and rescue helicopter fleet 

would operate in conjunction with Nimrod maritime 

patrol aircraft. [26669] 

Dr Fox: The Search and Rescue Helicopter project 

includes the requirement that the helicopters would be 

able to interface with any other assets that might also be 

involved in dealing with an incident. 

Strategic Defence and Security Review 


Defence (1) to whom his Department’s document 

entitled SDSR: Lessons Identified, 3 November 2010, 

was submitted; [26297] 

(2) who commissioned his Department’s document 

entitled SDSR: Lessons Identified, 3 November 2010; 

[26301] 

(3) if he will publish his Department’s document 

entitled SDSR: Lessons Identified. [26312] 

Dr Fox [holding answer 25 November 2010]: The 

document was proposed and a draft prepared by the 

strategic defence and security review (SDSR) core 

co-ordination team in charge of day-to-day management 

of the Review, to draw together working-level views 

from individuals involved in the SDSR process in the 

Ministry of Defence. The draft was a working document 

distributed to members of the SDSR programme board 

for comment: The Government have no intention to 

publish it. 

Trident Submarines 

Dr Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 

how much his Department spent on long lead items for 

Vanguard submarines prior to the final decision to 

proceed with construction of the submarines. [26415]

819W 




820W 

Dr Fox: Details of the cost of long lead items for the 

Vanguard class are not held centrally and could be 

provided only at disproportionate cost. 

Dr Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Defence what estimate he has made of the proportion 

of the cost of replacing Trident likely to be incurred 

prior to a decision of the House at Main Gate Stage on 

submarine replacement in 2016. [26416] 

Dr Fox: The likely expenditure will be dependent on 

the Initial Gate decision which we expect to finalise 

shortly. I do, however, propose to update Parliament on 

progress, including costs, after the Initial Gate decision 

through the publication of a report. 

USA: Nuclear Weapons 

Tessa Munt: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Defence with reference to his plans to co-operate on 

nuclear warhead testing with France, whether the UK 

will continue to (a) participate in or (b) receive the 

results of US sub-critical nuclear tests undertaken at 

the Nevada nuclear test site. [27415] 

Dr Fox: The recently signed treaty with France on 

proposed nuclear co-operation does not address “nuclear 

warhead testing” but delivers hydrodynamic experiments 

that provide a key element of assurance for the safety 

and reliability of the UK’s nuclear stockpile. 

I am satisfied that the treaty is complimentary to our 

nuclear co-operation with the US under the 1958 Mutual 

Defence Agreement and the nuclear exchanges made 

possible through that agreement. 

Warships: Decommissioning 

Mr Scott: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 

whether HMS Ark Royal will be offered for sale to 

foreign navies following her decommissioning. [27188] 

Peter Luff: HMS Ark Royal is due to formally leave 

service with the Royal Navy in early 2011. It is too early 

to determine the future plans for HMS Ark Royal. 

Any decision will be in line with the Ministry of 

Defence’s policy for handling surplus assets. 

SCOTLAND 

Elections 

13. Jim McGovern: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Scotland when he last met the Electoral Commission to 

discuss the management of elections in Scotland. 

[26720] 

David Mundell: My right hon. Friend and the Advocate- 

General for Scotland met the Electoral Commission on 

13 October. 

I will be meeting the new Convener of the Electoral 

Management Board later this month to discuss preparations 

for next year’s elections and referendum on the UK 

parliamentary voting system. 

VAT 

14. Fiona O’Donnell: To ask the Secretary of State 

for Scotland what discussions he has had with the 

Chancellor of the Exchequer on the likely effect on 

families in Scotland of the proposed increase in value 

added tax. [26721] 

David Mundell: The VAT rise is part of the Government’s 

credible plan to tackle the largest deficit in peacetime 

history. Difficult decisions are necessary but, as a 

consequence, we will get ourselves back on a sustainable 

economic footing. 


Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 

what expenditure his Department incurred on sponsorship 

in each year since 1997 for which figures are available. 

[27521] 

David Mundell: The Scotland Office was established 

on 1 July 1999. The only expenditure it has incurred 

since then by sponsoring others outside Government to 

promote a cause or provide a service was £3,296 in 

2002-03. 

Devolution 

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the 

Advocate-General on devolution issues. [26717] 

David Mundell: The Secretary of State and I discuss 

devolution issues with the Advocate-General on a regular 

basis, and we have all worked together on preparations 

for the new Scotland Bill which will deliver the 

Government’s commitment to strengthening the devolution 

settlement for Scotland. 

JUSTICE 

Arrest Warrants 


Justice what timetable he has set for the implementation 

of his proposals to amend the law on universal jurisdiction. 

[27240] 

Mr Blunt: The Police Reform and Social Responsibility 

Bill, which was introduced into this House yesterday, 

contains a provision requiring the consent of the Director 

of Public Prosecutions to be given before an arrest 

warrant can be issued in a private prosecution for an 

offence of universal jurisdiction alleged to have been 

committed outside the United Kingdom. This requirement 

would ensure that, whilst private individuals could still 

apply for an arrest warrant, a warrant could be issued 

only where there was a prospect of successful prosecution. 

Departmental Grants 

Anas Sarwar: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

what grants have been awarded by his Department in 

2010-11 to date; what grants he plans to award in each 

of the next two years; what the monetary value is of 

each such grant; and to which organisations such grants 

are made. [27214]

821W 




822W 

Mr Kenneth Clarke: Between April and October 2010 

the MoJ awarded grants worth £70 million to external 

organisations. The organisations who were awarded 

grants are listed in the following table. 

For 2011-12, the MoJ is still exploring funding options 

for external organisations and charities. The MoJ 2012-13 

funding is subject to the 2010 spending review and is 

not yet finalised. NOMS has estimates in place for 

2011-12 and 2012-13 but these are subject to change 

based on funding levels from MoJ. 

The MoJ also provides grants-in-aid to its NDPBs. 

For the year 2010-11, the gross provisions 1 for these are: 

NDPB Grant-in-Aid (£000) 

Legal Services Commission 2,175,331 

Information Commissioner’s 

7,990 

Office 

Judicial Appointments 

6,860 

Commission 

Parole Board 10,948 

Youth Justice Board 448,131 

Criminal Injuries Compensation 

238,823 

Authority 

Criminal Cases Review 

6,496 

Commission 

1 

As per the 2010-11 winter supplementary estimates 

Note: 

These figures are subject to change following end of year audit. 

The MoJ is currently working out specific funding 

requirements for NDPBs in 2011-12 and 2012-13. 

Organisation or Umbrella term 

Grant awarded by MoJ or 

executive agency (£000) 

Writers in Prison Network Ltd 47 

Partners of Prisoners and Families 

16 

Support Group 

Koestler Trust 35 

NACRO 1,149 

SOVA 248 

Prisoners Abroad 146 

CVS Pre-release Volunteer Scheme 79 

National Assoc, of Prison Visitors 6 

RCJ (Miscarriages of Justice) 90 

Mubarek Trust 23 

Prison Video Trust 29 

Action for Prisoners’ Families 187 

Samaritans 55 

United Synagogue Visitation 

12 

Committee 

Sikh Chaplaincy Service UK 17 

Angulimala 17 

ADFAM 84 

Magistrates’ Association 37 

Operation Black Vote 70 

John Smith Memorial Trust 320 

UK Subscription for the Hague 

161 

Conference 

GRECO ID contribution 30 

Great Britain China Centre 190 

China Law Council 328 

Plenet for running costs between 

50 

Apr-Jun 

Money Advice Trust 750 

The Helplines Association 25 

Organisation or Umbrella term 

Grant awarded by MoJ or 

executive agency (£000) 

Family Drug and Alcohol Court 

35 

pilot 

Reunite 128 

National Mediation Helpline 90 

Family Mediation Helpline 40 

Coroners’ Support Service 48 

Development Trust Association 50 

Women In Prison 80 

Women’s Community Projects 

6,200 

(umbrella) 

CLINKS 548 

Local Criminal Justice Boards 7,375 

Victim Support 51,566 

Total 70,271 

Anas Sarwar: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

what the monetary value of grants awarded by his 

Department was in 2009-10; and how much he expects 

to award in grants in (a) 2010-11 and (b) 2011-12. 

[27215] 

Mr Kenneth Clarke: In 2009-10 the Ministry of Justice 

awarded grants to external organisations to the value of 

£81.4 million. 

For the full financial year of 2010-11, the MoJ anticipates 

a total expenditure of £71.8 million to be made in 

grants to external bodies. 

The grants to external organisations for 2011-12 have 

yet to be decided. 

Note: 

All future figures are estimates only and are subject to change. 

EU Law 

Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

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. 

[27506] 

Mr Djanogly: The Ministry of Justice is responsible 

for two directives that are currently pending transposition 

into domestic legislation: 

Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the 

Council on Certain Aspects of Mediation in Civil and Commercial 

Matters. The introduction of this directive will not impose additional 

regulatory burdens on businesses. The procedures it will introduce 

will be optional to those wishing to conduct EU cross-border 

mediations, and are expected to lead to greater legal certainty for 

those involved. The main costs envisaged to implement the directive 

are in relation to the necessary facilitative amendments to court 

rules and minimal costs in training court staff and the judiciary. 

Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the 

Council on the Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal 

Proceedings. We are currently considering the most cost-effective 

ways of transposing and implementing this directive, with the 

result that estimated costs cannot currently be provided. 

Prisons: Visits 

Lady Hermon: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Justice how many registered prison visitors there were 

in each of the last five years; and whether he plans to 

take steps to increase the number of such visitors. 

[27667]

823W 




824W 

Mr Blunt: Statistical information on the number of 

official prison visitors (OPVs) is not collated centrally. 

OPVs are independent volunteers appointed by prison 

governors to visit prisoners and offer friendship. They 

are neither paid civil servants nor religiously affiliated 

volunteers. The appointment of OPVs is a matter for 

the governing governor of each establishment. 

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION 

Meat: Ritual Slaughter 

Keith Vaz: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, 

Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of 

Commons Commission, what checks are made with 

suppliers to ensure that halal and kosher meat are not 

supplied as ordinary meat intended for general 

consumption in canteens and restaurants of the House 

of Commons. [27688] 

John Thurso: Incumbent suppliers and suppliers bidding 

for the award of the contract for the future supply of 

fresh meats and poultry to the House of Commons 

catering service have confirmed that kosher meat does 

not enter the mainstream supply chain to catering 

establishments and, on that basis, they are confident 

that kosher meat has not been, nor will be, supplied to 

the House as ordinary meat. 

As stated in the reply given on 16 November 2010, 

Official Report, column 761W, by the hon. Member for 

Middlesbrough (Sir Peter Stuart Bell) to the hon. Member 

for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), incumbent suppliers 

have admitted that it is highly likely that halal-slaughtered 

poultry has in the past been supplied to the House of 

Commons instead of ordinary meat. Henceforth, all 

suppliers have agreed, as a condition of contract, that 

halal-slaughtered meats and poultry will not be supplied 

unless expressly ordered or agreed to by the House of 

Commons catering service. This requirement has been 

added to the contract currently being tendered. 



Commons Commission, whether meat used in canteens 

and restaurants in the House of Commons in the last 

12 months had been slaughtered by kosher methods. 

[27689] 

John Thurso: No kosher meat has been served in the 

House of Commons cafeterias and restaurants in the 

last 12 months. 



Commons Commission, whether kosher meat has been 

used in non-kosher dishes in the restaurants or canteens 

in the House of Commons in the last 12 months. [27696] 

John Thurso: No kosher meat has been used in nonkosher 

dishes in the House of Commons restaurants or 

cafeterias in the last 12 months. 

Parliamentary Archives: Manpower 

Mr Amess: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, 


Commons Commission how many staff at each grade 

are employed in the Parliamentary Archives; and if he 


John Thurso: The Parliamentary Archives, a shared 

service of both Houses, employs 23.5 staff at the following 

House of Lords’ grades: 

Number 

Senior band 1 1 

A2 3 

B1 6 

B2 5.5 

C2 2 

C3 6 

Smartphone Applications 

Priti Patel: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, 


Commons Commission, what estimate the Parliamentary 

Information and Communications Technology Office 

has made of the cost of developing a mobile smartphone 

application for Parliament; what the cost will be holding 

focus group meetings on 30 November 2010 and 

1 December 2010; and when the smartphone application 

is due to be available. [27382] 

John Thurso: The development of a new mobile 

application, designed primarily for those visiting Parliament, 

is being led from within the Department of Information 

Services. The procurement for the smartphone mobile 

application is currently running, and to publish the 

budget might influence the responses from potential 

suppliers. 

Only one focus group is now being run, on 30 November. 

The focus group planned for 1 December is not going 

ahead. The participants are coming in on a voluntary 

basis and are not being paid. The cost of holding the 

focus groups will depend on the number of participants, 

and will be restricted to the provision of refreshments 

and any claims for reasonable travel costs. Refreshments 

are expected to cost £17.50, and a maximum of £20 per 

person is being set for travel claims. At present, seven 

people have registered an interest. 

It is expected that the smartphone application will be 

available from April 2011. 

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION 

Departmental Written Questions 

Sir Paul Beresford: To ask the Chairman of the 

Public Accounts Commission how many and what 

proportion of questions tabled to the Public Accounts 

Commission for answer on a named day were answered 

substantively before or on the day named for answer 

(a) in Session 2009-10 and (b) since May 2010; how 

many such questions tabled between May 2010 and 

12 November 2010 had not received a substantive

825W 




826W 

answer by 18 November 2010; and what estimate he has 

made of the average cost to the Commission of 

answering a question for written answer on a named 

day on the day named for answer in the latest period 

for which figures are available. [25991] 

Mr Tyrie: In Session 2009-10, there was one question 

tabled to the Public Accounts Commission for answer 

on a named day. This received a substantive answer four 

days after the day named, which was the next sitting 

day. Since May 2010 there have been no named day 

questions. 

The Public Accounts Commission has not made an 

estimate of the average cost of answering a named day 

question on the day named for answer but it is noted 

that HM Treasury has established the cost of a written 

PQ as £154.00. See paragraph 7.27 at the following link: 

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/parliamentary-clerk-guide/ 

chapter7.aspx 

Sir Paul Beresford: To ask the Chairman of the 

Public Accounts Commission how many and what 

proportion of questions tabled to the Public Accounts 

Commission for ordinary written answer (a) in Session 

2009-10 and (b) since May 2010 were answered within 

(i) seven days and (ii) 14 days of tabling; how many such 

questions tabled between May 2010 and 12 November 

2010 remained unanswered by 18 November 2010; and 

what estimate he has made of the average cost the 

Commission of answering a question for ordinary written 

answer within seven days of tabling in the latest period 


Mr Tyrie: In Session 2009-10, there were two questions 

tabled to the Public Accounts Commission for ordinary 

written answer, of which both were answered within 

seven days. Between May 2010 and 12 November 2010 

there were no questions tabled for ordinary written 

answer. 

The Public Accounts Commission has not made an 

estimate of the average cost of answering an ordinary 

written question within seven days of tabling, but it is 

noted that HM Treasury has established the cost of a 

written PQ as £154.00. See paragraph 7.27 at the following 

link: 

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/parliamentary-clerk-guide/ 

chapter7.aspx 

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE 

Akmyrat Rejepow 

Neil Parish: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign 

and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his 

Department has made to the government of 

Turkmenistan on the (a) fate and (b) whereabouts of 

Akmyrat Rejepow. [27314] 

Mr Lidington: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office 

has made no representations to the Turkmen Government 

on the fate and whereabouts of Akmyrat Rejepow, nor 

are we aware of a request for us to do so. We understand 

that Mr Rejepow (a former general in the Turkmen 

security apparatus) was sentenced to 20 years’imprisonment 

in May 2007, having been convicted on charges of 

corruption. We understand he is being held in secure 

detention in Ashgabat or in a prison colony not far 

from Ashgabat. Mr Rejepow’s son, Nurmurad—arrested 

at the same time—was pardoned in 2007. 

We continue to have a regular and constructive dialogue 

with the Turkmen Government on human rights issues, 

both bilaterally and through international fora such as 

the European Union. Monitoring and raising individual 

cases forms an important component of this dialogue. 

British Council: Finance 

Mr Frank Roy: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much funding 

was provided by his Department to the British Council 

in each year since 2005. [23459] 

Mr Jeremy Browne: I refer the hon. Member to the 

answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Mid 

Sussex (Nicholas Soames) on 27 July 2010, Official 

Report, column 970W. 

Cayman Islands: Loans 

Emma Reynolds: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conditions 

were placed on the loan of £217 million to the Cayman 

Islands authorised in 2009. [27742] 

Mr Jeremy Browne: The Government gave permission 

for the Cayman Islands Government to borrow Cayman 

Island $275 million in October 2009, subject to the 

Cayman Islands Government (CIG): 

including further savings/efficiency measures in 2009-10 budget 

plans; 

undertaking an urgent independent impact assessment of the 

community enhancement fee, alternative forms of payroll tax, 

property tax and any other tax that would genuinely broaden 

the revenue base; 

introducing substantial new tax(es) or fee(s) as identified in the 

impact assessment study as soon as possible and certainly no 

later than financial year 2010; and 

taking swift action to further cut expenditure and/or raise 

additional revenue if a greater than expected deficit was recorded. 

Emma Reynolds: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conditions 

he placed on the loans to the Cayman Islands authorised 

in June 2010. [27743] 

Mr Jeremy Browne: The Government gave permission 

for the Cayman Islands Government to borrow Cayman 

Island $155 million in June 2010, subject to: 

The measures in the Cayman Islands Government’s 

(CIG) three year plan being fully implemented, which 

included measures to make significant savings/efficiencies, 

and raise revenue by increasing fuel duty over the three 

years; 

CIG using the proceeds of divestment activity to establish a 

dedicated “sinking fund” within the next year to rebuild reserves 

and offset debt attached to the recent bond issue; 

CIG restructuring existing loans to put in place arrangements 

to pay down debt over the longer term; and 

CIG ensuring that the Cayman Islands have a full, up-to-date 

set of audited accounts by the end of the next financial year; 

and 

No further requests for borrowing being made over the next 

financial year.

827W 




828W 

Diplomatic Service: Domestic Staff 

David Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what regulations 

govern the (a) working conditions and (b) remuneration 

of domestic staff employed by foreign diplomats accredited 

to the UK. [28045] 

Mr Bellingham: Article 41 of the Vienna Convention 

on Diplomatic Relations 1961 states that, without prejudice 

to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all 

diplomats 

‘to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State’. 

This includes employment laws. Diplomatic missions 

and international organisations in the UK are periodically 

reminded of their responsibilities with regard to the 

employment of domestic workers; in August 2010, Protocol 

Directorate of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office 

issued a note to all missions highlighting their obligations. 

Government Departments work together and with nongovernmental 

organisations to monitor the employment 

rights of domestic workers in foreign diplomatic households 

in the UK. 

European Union 

Mr Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign 

and Commonwealth Affairs what powers have been 

ceded to the EU and in what areas of policy jurisdiction 

has been ceded since 10 May 2010 and in each case 

specifying whether such cession was by (a) EU legislative 

instrument, (b) judicial decision, (c) operation of a 

passerelle provision, (d) the ending of an opt-out, (e) 

an agreement to opt-in, (f) treaty amendment and (g) 

other means. [26626] 

Mr Lidington: All of the legislative measures that 

have been adopted since 10 May 2010 have been based 

on the existing powers and competences conferred on 

the EU under the existing EU treaties, which have been 

approved by Parliament. None of the passerelles under 

the existing EU treaties have been exercised since 10 

May 2010. There have been no treaty amendments. We 

are not aware of any judicial decisions which have 

resulted in a transfer of competence or power from the 

UK to the EU. The whole of Title V is an area of shared 

competence. This position is not altered by the exercise 

of a UK opt-in. 



Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his 

Department spent on attendance at the 2010 FIFA 

World cup. [26149] 

Mr Jeremy Browne: No Foreign and Commonwealth 

Office (FCO) Ministers or officials visited South Africa 

to attend the 2010 World cup, and no money was spent 

by the FCO on purchasing match tickets. 

Government Hospitality: Wines 

Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign 

and Commonwealth Affairs how many bottles of (a) 

red wine, (b) white wine, (c) champagne and (d) 

fortified wine there are in the Government wine cellar. 

[26387] 

Mr Bellingham: The Government Hospitality wine 

cellar has held between 38,000 and 39,000 bottles of 

wine for the last five years. The most recent independent 

stock-take in October 2010 showed that the Government 

Hospitality wine cellar contained: 

(a) 25,721 bottles of red wine 

(b) 7,624 bottles of white wine 

(c) 1,661 bottles of champagne 

(d) 2,937 bottles of fortified wine. 

This excludes non-vintage reception wines. 

Cellar stock levels are regularly reassessed and the 

cellar’s performance and value for money are reviewed 

throughout the year. 

Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign 

and Commonwealth Affairs at which events held 

between 11 May and 11 November 2010 wine from the 

Government wine cellar was served. [26388] 

Mr Bellingham: Events held between 11 May 2010 

and 11 November 2010 at which wine from the Government 

Hospitality wine cellar was served are as follows. 

The following were on a repayment basis: 

13 May 2010: Dinner for British-American business hosted by 

my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, Investment and Small 

Business. 

8 June 2010: Diplomatic reception hosted by my right hon. 

Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth 

Affairs. 

9 June 2010: Dinner for Israeli judges hosted by my right hon. 

Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. 

5 July 2010: Reception for the Young Offenders Programme 

led by the National Grid hosted by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary 

Under-Secretary of State for Justice. 

28 July 2010: Reception for energy security hosted by my hon. 

Friends the Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth 

Office and the Minister of State at the Department of Energy and 

Climate Change. 

13 September 2010: Lunch for Dr Henry Kissinger hosted by 

my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and 

Commonwealth Affairs. 

21 September 2010: Reception for Eid hosted by my right hon. 

Friends the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Communities 

and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under- 

Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 

and other Government Ministers. 

9 November 2010: Dinner for the Secretary of Defence for the 

Republic of South Africa hosted by my right hon. Friend the 

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Security 

Strategy. 

The following were funded by Government Hospitality 

Fund: 

3 June 2010: Lunch for the Prime Minister of Canada hosted 

by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. 

3 June 2010: Dinner for the EU High Representative for 

Foreign Affairs hosted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of 

State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. 

3 June 2010: Dinner for the Judicial Conference hosted by my 

right hon. Friends the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for 

Justice. 

8 June 2010: Lunch for the Secretary of Defence of the United 

States of America hosted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary 

of State for Defence. 

16 June 2010: Lunch for the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the 

United Arab Emirates hosted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary 

of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

829W 




830W 

18 June 2010: Lunches for the President of the Republic of 

France and his Ministers hosted by my right hon. Friends the 

Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. 

23 June 2010: Dinner for Reconnaissance Visit from the Holy 

See hosted by my noble Friend the right hon. Lord Patten of 

Barnes CH PC (Chancellor of the University of Oxford). 

28 June 2010: Lunch for the Minister of Defence of the 

Federal Republic of Germany hosted by my right hon. Friend 

Secretary of State for Defence. 

28 June 2010: Dinner for the Five Country Conference hosted 

by my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration. 

5 July 2010: Lunch for the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the 

Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan hosted by my right hon. Friend 

the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. 

7 July 2010: Dinner for the international energy forums hosted 

by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Climate 

Change. 

8 July 2010: Lunch for the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the 

Republic of Turkey hosted by my hon. Friend the Secretary of 

State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. 

20 July 2010: Reception for Indian Government/industry officials 

who attended the Farnborough International Air Show hosted by 

my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for 

International Security Strategy. 

28 July 2010: Lunch for the State Secretary of Labour and 

Social Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany hosted by my 

hon. Friend the Minister of State for Employment. 

5 August 2010: Dinner for the President of Pakistan hosted by 

my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. 

6 September 2010: Dinner for the capital markets climate 

initiative hosted by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for 

Energy and Climate Change. 

8 September 2010: Dinner for the Deputy Prime Minister and 

Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

hosted by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Commonwealth 

Affairs. 

17 September 2010: Dinner for Pope Benedict XVI’s delegation 

hosted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign 

and Commonwealth Affairs. 

27 September 2010: Lunch for the Minister for Roads, Transport 

and Highways of the Republic of India hosted by my right hon. 

Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. 

27 September 2010: Lunch for the Reconnaissance Party for 

the state visit of the Emir of Qatar. 

21 October 2010: Lunch for the UK/Mexico high level talks 

hosted by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Foreign 

and Commonwealth Office. 

21 October 2010: Lunch for the Minister of Foreign Affairs of 

the Republic of Poland hosted by my right hon. Friend the 

Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. 

25 October 2010: Lunch for the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi 

hosted by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. 

25 October 2010: Lunch for the Finance Minister for the Swiss 

Confederation hosted by my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary 

to the Treasury. 

26/27 October 2010: Lunch and state banquet for the state visit 

of the Emir of Qatar hosted by Her Majesty the Queen. 

27 October 2010: Dinner for the Secretary for Policy, Strategy 

and International Affairs of the Federative Republic of Brazil 

hosted by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of 

State for International Security Strategy. 

30/31 October 2010: Lunch and dinner for the Chancellor of 

the Federal Republic of Germany hosted by my right hon. Friend 

the Prime Minister. 

2 November 2010: Lunch for the UK-France summit hosted 

by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. 

8 November 2010: Dinner for the International Energy Forum 

hosted by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Energy and 

Climate Change. 

11 November 2010 Lunch for the Minister for Foreign Affairs 

of the Republic of Austria hosted by my right hon. Friend the 

Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. 

Iraq: Christianity 

Mr MacNeil: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign 

and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer to 

the hon. Member for the Wrekin of 15 November 2010, 

Official Report, column 631W, on Iraq: Christianity, 

what the outcomes were of his meeting with the Iraqi 

Foreign Minister; and if he will take further steps to 

seek to secure protection for institutions in Iraq. [27860] 

Alistair Burt: Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari confirmed 

to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 10 

November that the protection of minorities was the 

responsibility of the Iraqi Government. This responsibility 

has been recognised more widely by the Iraqi Prime 

Minister and the newly elected Speaker of the Council 

of Representatives Usamah Al-Nujaifi. The Speaker 

has requested that Christian MP Yonadam Kanna form 

a parliamentary committee to prepare recommendations 

for protecting Christians and follow up investigations 

into the recent attacks. The Iraqi Council of Representatives 

has also called for increased recruitment of Christians 

into the Iraq security forces. 

During my visit to Iraq from 22-25 November I 

raised the need to improve the protection of Christians 

and other minorities with all his interlocutors. The 

British Government will continue to press the Iraqi 

Government to ensure that Iraqi constitutional 

commitments to guarantee the rights and freedoms of 

citizens is respected and protected. We will also continue 

to urge the Iraqi Government to protect all communities, 

especially vulnerable minority groups and to deal 

appropriately with those who are found responsible for 

any acts of violence and intimidation because of political, 

ethnic or religious affiliation. 

Israel: OECD 

Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the UK 

representation is on the Organisation for Economic 

Co-operation and Development (a) Committee of Statistics 

and (b) study team quantifying the effects on Israeli 

macro-economic statistics of the inclusion of the Golan 

Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the 

West Bank. [25635] 

Mr Jeremy Browne: The UK Statistics Authority 

represents the UK on the Organisation for Economic 

Cooperation and Development Committee on Statistics. 

The authority will also represent the UK on the study 

team quantifying the effects on Israeli macro-economic 

statistics of the inclusion of the Golan Heights, East 

Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank. 

This work is expected to begin in early 2011. 

Palestinians: International Assistance 

Mr Offord: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign 

and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how much funding his 

Department provided to non-governmental organisations 

within the Palestinian Authorities of the West Bank and 

Gaza in each financial year since 2003; and for what 

purposes such funds were allocated; [21986]

831W 




832W 

(2) how much funding his Department has provided 

to non-governmental organisations located in the 

Palestinian authorities of the West Bank and Gaza in 

each financial year since 2003; and for what purposes 

such payments were made. [25737] 

Alistair Burt: Between 2003-04 and 2009-10 financial 

years, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) 

has provided £2,420,960 to non-governmental organisations 

within the West Bank and Gaza. The breakdown is as 

follows: 

2003-04 1 

— 

2004-05 122,000 

2005-06 104,482 

2006-07 542,328 

2007-08 484,113 

2008-09 604,824 

2009-10 563,213 

1 

No allocation 

The list of organisations and project funding for 

2010-11 is an indicative list, as funding cannot be confirmed 

at this point of the financial year. 

The FCO utilises a number of funding programmes 

with the purpose of (a) strengthening the bilateral 

relationship (b) helping to manage or mitigate conflicts 

and (c) developing the capacity of non-state actors in 

the West Bank and Gaza to provide oversight of the 

Executive and its actions including monitoring of human 

rights, access to justice and social welfare. 

Piracy 

Mr Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign 

and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he 

has had with his NATO counterparts on the development 

of policy to counter international piracy. [27107] 

Mr Lidington: There have been no recent meetings at 

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) at ministerial 

level specifically to discuss counter piracy. But, in the 

communiqué of its recent Lisbon summit, NATO renewed 

its commitment to counter piracy in the Gulf of Aden 

and Indian Ocean through its Operation Ocean Shield. 

NATO works closely alongside the EU’s Operation 

Atalanta and the Combined Maritime Forces so as to 

respond effectively and coherently to the threat of piracy, 

including on allocation of assets to the large area of 

operations. NATO is also a key partner in the Contact 

Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia, working 

comprehensively to address operational, legal and regional 

capacity concerns to ensure that piracy is tackled on a 

sustainable basis, including at its roots. 

The UK continues to support the operation, which 

has recently has had its mandate extended until 2012. 

The Royal Navy currently has a frigate and auxiliary 

vessel allocated to Operation Ocean Shield. 

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS 

Agriculture: Training 

Dr Poulter: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, 

Innovation and Skills (1) how much funding from the 

public purse will be available for (a) apprenticeship 

schemes and (b) vocational courses in the agricultural 

£ 

sector (i) nationally and (ii) in Central Suffolk and 

North Ipswich constituency in 2011-12. [26866] 

(2) how many places will be available for (a) 

apprenticeship schemes and (b) vocational courses in 

the agricultural sector (i) nationally and (ii) in the 

Central Suffolk and North Ipswich constituency in 

2011-12. [26867] 

Mr Hayes: “Investing Skills for Sustainable Growth” 

was published on 16 November. In the 2011-12 financial 

year, we plan to invest £3.9 billion in FE skills for post 

19 learners. This includes £3.7 billion for over three 

million adult training places funded through the Skills 

Funding Agency. In the 2011-12 financial year, £605 million 

is earmarked for adult apprenticeships. Spend on adult 

apprenticeships will increase by up to £250 million, 

relative to the previous Government, by the end of the 

spending review period, supporting an additional 75,000 

people to start an apprenticeship by 2014-15. 

In support of the coalition Government’s principle 

of greater freedom, “Skills for Sustainable Growth and 

Investing in Skills for Sustainable Growth” set out the 

abolition of central targets and increased freedom and 

flexibility for further education colleges and training 

organisations to respond effectively to the needs of 

employers, learners and their communities. It will be for 

individual colleges and training organisations, working 

directly with their local partners, to determine the offer 

that best meets the needs of their communities. 

From the 2011/12 academic year, there will be a single 

adult skills budget, with earmarked delivery for 

apprenticeships. As part of its allocations process later 

this year, the Skills Funding Agency will set out a 

minimum expectation of apprenticeships delivery. Further 

Education colleges and training organisations will be 

able to use their single adult skills budget allocation to 

expand apprenticeships. However, any diversion of funding 

away from apprenticeships is to be agreed with the 

Agency. 

Information on learner participation and achievement 

in further education is published in a quarterly statistical 

first release (SFR). The latest SFR was published on 16 

November and can be viewed at: 

http://www.thedataservice.org.uk/statistics/ 

statisticalfirstrelease/sfr_current 

Credit: Regulation 

Stella Creasy: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, 

Innovation and Skills whether his Department has made 

an estimate of the numbers of UK residents who have 

been refused access to credit through banks and building 

societies in the last 10 years. [26472] 

Mr Prisk [holding answer 30 November 2010]: The 

Government do not collect data on the number of UK 

residents refused credit by banks and building societies. 

The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills 

commissions a quarterly survey (carried out by YouGov), 

which monitors the latest consumer credit and debt 

trends. The following table has been produced from this 

survey, showing the proportion of the population who 

have applied for credit (broken down by credit type) in 

the last six months and the outcome of this application.

833W 




834W 

Proportion of the population who have applied for unsecured credit and 

the outcome of this application (where the outcome is known) in the 

last six months 

Credit 

product 

Proportion of the 

population who 

applied for credit/ 

loans 

(percentage) 

Application 

was rejected 

(percentage) 

Percentage of 

total population 

Credit card 8 24 1.9 

Unsecured 

3 33 0.7 

loan 

Overdraft 

2 29 0.8 

facility 

Store card 1 19 0.3 

Mail order 1 14 0.2 

Car finance 

1 9 0.1 

loan 

Notes: 

1. Based on 2009-10 YouGov data, sample size 13,172. 

2. The statistics in the table need to be interpreted with caution. Due 

to data limitations, we are unable to say how many individuals were 

refused credit completely in the last six months. For instance, a 

borrower may have refused a credit card, but was able to secure an 

overdraft facility. In addition, the values in the table cannot be 

summed, to produce statistics on the proportion of the population 

refused credit. This is because some borrowers may have been rejected 

for more than one credit product. Certain credit products have been 

excluded such as payday loans and home credit, which are unlikely to 

be offered by banks and building societies. 

Departmental Food 

Julian Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, 

Innovation and Skills whether his Department has 

guidelines on ensuring that food used for his Department’s 

official functions is of domestic origin. [25438] 

Mr Davey: The Department’s contracted catering 

and conference supplier Baxterstorey are accredited to 

the Red Tractor Farm Assurance Scheme and are fully 

compliant, demonstrating robust support for enhanced 

animal welfare, environmental responsibility, quality 

produce and supporting British producers. 

The Department adheres wherever possible to the 

five key objectives of the Public Sector Food Procurement 

Initiative (PSFPI). These objectives run in parallel to 

those of Baxterstorey, which form part of the policies 

that result in the approach to sustainable and ethical 

procurement. For example all eggs used on the departmental 

estate are British, Lion Brand standard and free range 

and 99% of all pork and bacon products are British and 

supplied by Red Tractor accredited suppliers. 

Higher Education: Admissions 

Elizabeth Truss: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Business, Innovation and Skills what the participation 

rate was of people aged 18 years in each income 

quintile entering higher education for the first time in 

the latest period for which figures are available. [27759] 

Mr Willetts: The Department does not publish 

information in the form requested. Latest figures show 

that 15% of pupils aged 15 in 2003/04 who claimed free 

school meals (FSM) at English maintained schools 

progressed to HE by the age of 19 in 2007/08. The 

equivalent figure for young people who did not claim 

free school meals is 33%. 

FSM eligibility is means tested and the majority of 

FSM young people are from households in receipt of 

some form of income support. Some 14% of young 

people claim free school meals. 

These figures have been estimated using matched 

data from the National Pupil Database, the Higher 

Education Statistics Agency Student Record and the 

Learning and Skills Council Individualised Learner 

Record. Figures for 2008/09 will be available next year. 

The Department uses a number of measures to monitor 

progress on participation of disadvantaged students, 

such as those from low participation neighbourhoods, 

and low socio-economic groups. However, figures in 

this answer have been provided as receipt of FSM is 

directly related to family income. 

Higher Education: Finance 

Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the answer 

of 11 November 2010, Official Report, column 480W, 

on higher education: finance, what the outcomes were 

of his discussions with the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions. [27309] 

Mr Willetts: The Secretary of State for Business, 

Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member 

for Twickenham (Vince Cable) and I have discussed the 

proposed changes to higher education funding and 

student finance at Cabinet. Our statements to the House 

of Commons on this subject reflect the Government 

position, as agreed at these meetings. 

Local Enterprise Partnerships 

Alex Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Business, Innovation and Skills what plans he has to 

fund the development of Local Enterprise Partnerships; 

by what mechanisms such partnerships will he be able 

to bid for funds from his Department to fulfil their 

duties; and if he will make a statement. [27714] 

Mr Prisk: No central Government spending has been 

allocated specifically to fund the activities of local 

enterprise partnerships. As set out in the White Paper 

on Local Growth local enterprise partnerships will be 

expected to fund their own day-to-day running costs 

and will also want to consider how they can obtain the 

best value for public money by leveraging in private 

sector investment. The mechanisms for how local enterprise 

partnerships may bid for centrally available funds, such 

as the regional growth fund, will be specific to the fund 

itself. Details regarding how to access the regional 

growth fund can be found on the Department’s website 

at the following address: 

http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/regional-economicdevelopment/regional-growth-fund 

Manufacturing Industries: Trade Competitiveness 

Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State 

for Business, Innovation and Skills what plans he has to 

support competitiveness in the manufacturing sector. 

[27090]

835W 




836W 

Mr Prisk: The Government are supporting 

manufacturing by creating a stable business environment 

that will give businesses the confidence they need to 

plan and invest. We are doing this by creating a more 

supportive tax environment, freeing up credit through 

the banking system, reducing regulation, maximising 

the flexibility of the labour market and focusing on 

training and apprenticeships. The Government announced 

in the spending review that they will invest up to £200 

million to support manufacturing and business development 

focusing on high growth business and innovation 

particularly among small and medium sized businesses. 

The Government have launched their comprehensive 

growth review and this will ensure that all Departments 

are actively removing barriers faced by industry. 

As part of the phased reporting process, we will 

conduct a detailed look into barriers to growth within 

advanced manufacturing. 

Also on 6 December we will be launching a new 

approach to manufacturing that will highlight key 

ambitions, identify growth opportunities and set out a 

new framework of actions for both Government and 

industry. 

raise awareness of opportunities in Bahrain, including a 

middle east road show in February and a financial 

services road show in September. UKTI also staged a 

‘Britain in the Region’ event in Dubai in November 

aimed at encouraging British companies with regional 

headquarters in Dubai into other markets in the middle 

east, including Bahrain. 

ATTORNEY-GENERAL 

EU Law 

Priti Patel: To ask the Attorney-General how many 

EU directives are pending transposition into domestic 

legislation by the Law Officers’ Departments; and what 

estimate he has made of the cost of each such transposition. 

[27482] 

The Attorney-General: The information is as follows: 

1. None 

2. None. 

Regional Growth Fund 


Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the answer 

of 11 November 2010, Official Report, column 485W, 

on the Regional Growth Fund, what types of proposals 

will meet the criteria to be considered as strategic 

investment programmes. [27335] 

Mr Prisk: There will be a separate bidding form and 

guidance for programme proposals, which will be made 

available in early 2011. Programme proposals are therefore 

not included within the first bidding round. 

UK Trade and Investment: Bahrain 

Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, 

Innovation and Skills what steps UKTI is taking to 

increase trade and investment with the Kingdom of 

Bahrain. [27807] 

Mr Prisk: UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) supports 

business with Bahrain through trade and investment 

teams based in the British embassy in Manama and in 

the UK. UKTI provides a broad range of support for 

British companies—from conferences and trade missions 

to support for trade fairs and exhibitions—and also 

oversees annual trade and economic talks with Bahrain 

aimed at prioritising opportunities and improving the 

environment for bilateral trade and investment. The 

most recent talks resulted in the signature of a bilateral 

Double Taxation Agreement in March 2010. 

Recent examples of support for business with Bahrain 

include visits by the Lord Mayor of the City of London 

in February; and by the UK’s Special Representative 

for International Trade and Investment, HRH The Duke 

of York, in May. UKTI organised scoping visits to 

Bahrain in the spring of 2010 focused on the creative 

industries and sports infrastructure sectors; and also 

organised a UK pavilion of 18 companies at the World 

Islamic Banking Conference in Manama in November. 

Regular events are organised by UKTI in the UK to 

PRIME MINISTER 

Pupils: Bullying 

Mrs Glindon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will 

establish a Cabinet Sub-Committee on the prevention 

of and responses to bullying in schools. [27708] 

The Prime Minister: The Schools White Paper made 

clear our expectation that all schools should take a zero 

tolerance approach to bullying. Bullying in schools is 

discussed by the relevant Cabinet Committees. 

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT 

Arts: Cumbria County Council 

Tony Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what recent 

assessment he has made of the effect of local authority 

funding reductions on arts organisations based in the 

Cumbria county council area. [27729] 

Mr Vaizey: It is central Government’s role to empower 

local communities and local authorities to make the 

decisions that they feel are most appropriate for their 

area. 

The Department will continue to fund the arts through 

Arts Council England, who provide support to a number 

of regularly funded organisations across the country. 

Arts: Sunderland City Council 

Mrs Hodgson: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what recent assessment 

he has made of the likely effects of local authority 

funding reductions on arts organisations in the Sunderland 

city council area. [27805]

837W 




838W 

Mr Vaizey: It is central Government’s role to empower 

local communities and local authorities to make the 

decisions that they feel are most appropriate for their 

area. 

The Department will continue to fund the arts through 

Arts Council England, who provide support to a number 

of regularly funded organisations across the country. 

Broadband 

Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, 

Olympics, Media and Sport what estimate he has made 

of the cost to the economy of the introduction of 

high-speed broadband services across the UK by 2015; 

and if he will make a statement. [27683] 

Mr Vaizey [holding answer 30 November 2010]: Overall, 

we believe there will be a net benefit to the economy 

from introduction of superfast broadband. The 

Government have made no recent estimate of the costs 

of deploying superfast broadband. The Broadband 

Stakeholder Group recently published a complementary 

report on the costs of fixed wireless and satellite broadband. 

The Government have committed £530 million to 

facilitate the delivery of universal broadband and stimulate 

private sector investment to deliver the best superfast 

broadband network in Europe by 2015 

Co-production Agreement between the UK and Israel 


Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what estimate he 

has made of the revenue likely to be raised as a result of 

the co-production agreement between the UK and 

Israel in (a) 2010, (b) 2011, (c) 2012, (d) 2013 and 

(e) 2014. [27239] 

Mr Vaizey: We have estimated an average annual 

benefit of between £0.5 million and £2.5 million. The 

monetised benefits reflect spending on films which would 

not have occurred without the treaty being in place. The 

range reflects a lower case scenario where one film is 

made every two years with £1 million UK spend, and 

the upper case involves five films with £1 million spend 

made every two years. 

In addition, research indicates that film locations can 

get up to a 30% boost in bookings from fans visiting 

locations from their favourite film (e.g. the Harry Potter 

films have helped boost tourism in the Northumberland 

area by 16%). As well as clear tourism potential, there 

are cultural benefits to the UK of greater film diversity. 

Given that the film industry largely comprises Single 

Purpose Vehicles it is difficult to predict in advance how 

many businesses will make use of the treaty. We do not 

believe it will be significantly higher than projections, 

particularly in the first few years. 


Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport whether he has 

assessed the merits of extending to other countries the 

provisions of the co-production agreement agreed with 

Israel. [27248] 

Mr Vaizey: The recently signed film co-production 

agreements with Israel, and with the Palestine Liberation 

Organisation (PLO) on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, 

were the ninth and tenth agreements respectively to be 

signed in full. The Department for Culture, Media and 

Sport also has similar co-production agreements with 

Australia, Canada, France, Jamaica, New Zealand, South 

Africa, India and Morocco—the Moroccan treaty was 

signed last year but has yet to be fully ratified by the 

Moroccan authorities. 

Copyright: Recordings 


Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport if he will assess 

the likely effect on the British music industry of the 

expiry of 50 years copyright on recordings in the next 

10 years. [27347] 

Mr Davey: I have been asked to reply. 

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 18 

November 2010, Official Report, columns 889-890W. 

There are no plans to undertake the work described. 


Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, 

Olympics, Media and Sport what expenditure (a) his 

Department and (b) its non-departmental public 

bodies incurred on sponsorship in each year since 1997 


John Penrose: The Department does not provide 

corporate sponsorship or branding for events but it 

does encourage sponsorship of its sectors from the 

world of business. 

Data on expenditure incurred by non-departmental 

public bodies is not held centrally. Accordingly, I have 

asked the chief executive of each non-departmental 

public body to respond to the hon. Member for Witham 

directly. A copy of the responses will be placed in the 

Libraries of both Houses. 

Newsquest Media Group 

Katy Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, 

Olympics, Media and Sport what recent meetings (a) 

Ministers and (b) civil servants in his Department have 

had with directors of the Newsquest Media Group on 

local media provision. [27336] 

Mr Vaizey: As part of Nicholas Shott’s review of 

local TV he undertook a visit to Scotland where he met 

with a range of interested parties including Newsquest. 

He was accompanied by a member of his steering group 

and an official from the Department. 

TREASURY 

Air Passenger Duty 

Richard Fuller: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

(1) if he will change the basis for calculating air passenger 

duty banding from London to capital city of destination 

to London to destination; [26546] 

(2) if he will change the air passenger duty banding 

for destinations in the Caribbean to be the same as that 

for destinations on the east coast of the United States. 

[26545]

839W 




840W 

Justine Greening: The June Budget stated that the 

Government will explore changes to the aviation tax 

system, including switching from a per-passenger to a 

per-plane duty. Major changes will be subject to 

consultation. 

Banks: Finance 

Frank Dobson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

what the monetary value is of (a) loans and (b) guarantees 

given to UK banks by his Department since 2007. 

[26984] 

Mr Hoban: A full breakdown of financial support 

provided to UK banks is published by the Treasury on a 

financial year basis. Details of the support provided for 

the years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are set out in 

the Treasury’s Resource Accounts for 2007-08 (HC 

539), 2008-09 (HC 611) and 2009-10 (HC261), respectively. 

Banks: Loans 

Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Chancellor of the 

Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 18 November 

2010, Official Report, column 894W, on banks: loans, if 

he will undertake an assessment of trends in the criteria 

for setting personal guarantees for loans over the last 

10 years. [27308] 

Mr Hoban: In response to the Government’s Green 

Paper on business finance, the British Bankers; Association 

(BBA) published the outcomes of their Business Finance 

Taskforce, which was written in conjunction with the 

six major UK banks. 

As part of these commitments, the banks have agreed 

to fund and establish an independent business survey. 

This survey will provide more information of the experience 

of small businesses in applying for finance. 

Copyright: Music 

Mike Weatherley: To ask the Chancellor of the 

Exchequer if he will estimate the additional revenue to 

the Exchequer attributable to an extension to 75 years 

of musicians’ copyright in the last 10 years. [27346] 

Mr Gauke: I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer 

I gave him on 22 November 2010, Official Report, 

column 84W. 

Employers’ Liability: Asbestos 

Andrea Leadsom: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

if he will bring forward proposals for a requirement for 

employers to insure themselves against potential harm 

caused to employees by asbestosis. [24112] 

Chris Grayling: I have been asked to reply. 

The Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) 

Act 1969 requires employers carrying on business in 

Great Britain to insure their liability to their employees 

for bodily injury or disease sustained in the course of 

their employment. This Act ensures that those with 

asbestos-related diseases can claim compensation against 

their Employers’ Liability insurance, where the employer 

has been negligent in exposing them to asbestos while at 

work. 

However, a recent Court of Appeal case has considered 

how the wording of these Employers’ Liability insurance 

policies affects civil compensation for mesothelioma 

sufferers and we had hoped that the judgment would 

have provided a general principle on how these policies 

should deal with their mesothelioma claims. The court 

decided that the policies should be interpreted based on 

the actual policy wording, which means that some 

sufferers may not be able to claim compensation if the 

insurance policy was worded in such a way that prevents 

a claim from being made. We expect this judgment to be 

appealed to the Supreme Court. 

In February 2010 the previous Government published 

their consultation document, Accessing Compensation— 

Supporting people who need to trace employers’ liability 

insurance, which set out proposals for people who need 

to find their Employers’ Liability insurance policies in 

order to claim compensation. The consultation closed 

on 5 May 2010. There were two proposals; firstly an 

Employers’ Liability Tracing Office, that would manage 

a database of EL policies. Secondly, an Employers’ 

Liability Insurance Bureau which would be a compensation 

fund of last resort for those individuals who are unable 

to trace EL insurance records, ensuring they are able to 

receive compensation for injuries or diseases sustained 

during the course of their employment. We are in active 

discussions with all stakeholders on how this situation 

can be addressed and we will publish our response to 

the consultation in due course. 

Income Tax 

John Mann: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

what estimate he has made of the amount of revenue 

which accrued from income tax from employees in each 

business sector in each of the last three years. [27548] 

Mr Gauke: A sectoral breakdown of income tax 

revenues for the latest three years is not available. 

Estimated shares of pay as you earn tax liabilities 

deducted from pay (excluding pensions) by industry to 

2007-08 are published in table 2.10 on the HMRC 

website: 

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/table2-10.xls 

Total PAYE tax (excluding pensions) is estimated at 

£107.2 billion, £115.7 billion and £123.3 billion in respect 

of liabilities for 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. 

Members: Correspondence 

Kevin Brennan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury plans to respond 

to the letters of 17 September 2010 and 1 November 

2010 from the hon. Member for Cardiff West. [27753] 

Mr Hoban: I have replied to the hon. Member. 

Mortgages 

Harriett Baldwin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

(1) whether he has assessed the effect of the mortgage 

market proposals made by the Financial Services Authority 

on small businesses with a turnover under £1 million; 

[27483]

841W 




842W 

(2) what assessment he has made of the likely effect 

on house prices of the mortgage market proposals 

made by the Financial Services Authority; and if he 


Mr Hoban: The Government are committed to a 

healthy housing and mortgage market. 

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is conducting 

a wholesale review of mortgage regulation in the UK, 

the ‘Mortgage Market Review’. 

The Government believe that it is right for the FSA 

to ensure that the UK mortgage market has responsible 

lending practices. We will continue to work with the 

FSA, mortgage lenders and intermediaries, and consumer 

groups to ensure a mortgage market that is sustainable 

for all participants. 

The FSA published ‘Mortgage Market Review: 

Responsible Lending’ in July which sets out the detail of 

some of the proposed changes. This paper forms one 

part of an ongoing consultation process. 

The FSA has stated that they will fully assess the 

potential impact on the market before implementing 

any rule changes. Further, the FSA will consult in 2011 

on transitional measures to help mitigate any adverse 

effects on existing borrowers. 

Mr Syms: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

(1) whether he has assessed the effect of the mortgage 

market proposals made by the Financial Services 

Authority on small businesses with a turnover under 

£1 million; [27533] 

(2) whether he has assessed the effect of the Financial 

Services Authority’s mortgage market review proposals 

on the (a) availability of mortgages and (b) operation 

of the housing market; and if he will make a statement; 

[27534] 

(3) whether he has discussed with the Council of 

Mortgage Lenders the proposals on responsible lending 

made by the Financial Services Authority and their 

likely effect on the housing market; [27535] 

(4) if he will take steps to ensure that the implementation 

of the Financial Services Authority’s mortgage market 

review proposals does not have a negative effect on 

home-buyers and the housing market; [27536] 

(5) what estimate he has made of the number of 

borrowers who may not be able to take out remortgages 

following the introduction of the Financial Services 

Authority’s proposals for the mortgage market; and if 

he will bring forward measures to assist such borrowers; 

[27539] 


mortgages granted since 2005 which would not have 

been issued under the Financial Services Authority’s 

proposals for the mortgage market; [27540] 

(7) if he will take steps to ensure that (a) self-employed 

and (b) other homebuyers with variable incomes will be 

able to obtain mortgages under the Financial Services 

Authority’s proposals for the mortgage market; [27544] 

(8) what assessment he has made of the likely effects 

of implementation of the Financial Services Authority’s 

proposals on availability of mortgage finance on homeownership 

in the UK. [27537] 

Mr Hoban: The Government are committed to a 

healthy housing and mortgage market. 

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is conducting 

a wholesale review of mortgage regulation in the UK, 

the ‘Mortgage Market Review’. 

The Government believe that it is right for the FSA 

to ensure that the UK mortgage market has responsible 

lending practices. We will continue to work with the 

FSA, mortgage lenders and intermediaries, and consumer 

groups to ensure a mortgage market that is sustainable 

for all participants. 

The FSA published ‘Mortgage Market Review: 

Responsible Lending in July’, which sets out the details 

of some of the proposed changes. This paper forms one 

part of an ongoing consultation process. 

The FSA has stated that they will fully assess the 

potential impact on the market before implementing 

any rule changes. Further, the FSA will consult in 2011 

on transitional measures to help mitigate any adverse 

effects on existing borrowers. 

Treasury Ministers and officials have discussions with 

a wide variety of organisations in the public and private 

sectors as part of the process of policy development 

and delivery. As was the case with previous Administrations, 

it is not the Government’s practice to provide details of 

all such discussions. 

Private Finance Initiative: Newton Abbot 

Anne Marie Morris: To ask the Chancellor of the 

Exchequer what schemes under the Private Finance 

Initiative there are in Newton Abbot constituency. 

[26022] 

Danny Alexander: A list of signed and in procurement 

PFI projects can be found on HM Treasury’s website at: 

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/ppp_pfi_stats.htm 

For each PFI project, this list details the project name, 

the capital value, the constituency, the procuring authority 

and whether it is on or off balance sheet; as used by the 

ONS in calculating public sector net debt. This indicates 

that there are currently no PFI projects in the Newton 

Abbot constituency. 

Revenue and Customs: Marketing 

Priti Patel: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

pursuant to the answer of 23 November 2010, Official 

Report, column 274W, on incentives, from which of its 

budgets HM Revenue and Customs funds expenditure 

on promotional material; and how much has been 

spent from each such budget in each of the last three 

years. [27477] 

Mr Gauke: In HMRC, promotional items may be 

printed paper, office supplies or non paper items. These 

items will have been purchased via a range of budgets 

including commodities such as print, paper/stationery. 

From these budgets promotional materials are not 

identifiable from other items and cannot be disaggregated 

except at disproportionate cost. No central record is 

held of the spend on promotional materials and is not 

available except at disproportionate cost.

843W 




844W 

Tax Yields 

Mr Byrne: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

how much revenue his Department raised through (a) 

personal, (b) direct business, (c) consumption, (d) 

property and (e) environmental taxes from the (i) 

business services, (ii) education, health and social work, 

(iii) financial intermediation, (iv) manufacturing, (v) 

other wholesale and retail trade, (vi) transport services, 

(vii) construction, (viii) real estate and renting, (ix) 

public administration, (x) oil and gas extraction, (xi) 

insurance and pension funding, (xii) hotels and 

restaurants, (xiii) recreational and social activities, (xiv) 

postal and telecommunications, (xv) other services, 

(xvi) energy, gas and water supply, (xvii) agriculture, 

forestry and fishing and (xviii) mining and quarrying 

except oil and gas sector in each financial year since 

1997-98. [22559] 

Mr Gauke: The full breakdown of tax receipts outlined 

in the question is not available. 

HMRC produce a breakdown by broad industrial 

sector for corporation tax, PAYE income tax and class 1 

national insurance contributions (NICs) and value added 

tax (VAT). 

Historical figures for corporation tax receipts paid by 

several broadly-defined business sectors are regularly 

updated and published in table 11.1 on the HMRC 

National Statistics website. Receipts information is available 

from 1997-98 to 2009-10. The sectors are defined by 

HMRC’s Summary Trade Classifications. The latest 

update is available here: 

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/corporate_tax/table11_1.pdf 

PAYE income tax and class 1 NICs received by 

HMRC in respect of employee and employer liabilities 

are split by sector as follows: 

£ billion 

Sector 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 

Agriculture, Hunting 

664 630 598 617 676 730 

and Forestry 

Mining and Quarrying 701 762 675 673 654 669 

Manufacturing 24,185 24,752 23,925 23,731 25,133 25,696 

Electricity, Gas and 

1,225 1,229 1,118 1,089 1,098 1,135 

Water Supply 

Construction 6,981 7,597 8,200 8,974 10,164 10,751 

Wholesale and Retail 

14,944 15,824 15,978 17,025 18,733 19,729 

Trade 

Hotels and Restaurants 2,314 2,457 2,558 2,806 3,200 3,450 

Transport, Storage and 

8,779 9,801 10,139 10,104 10,912 11,939 

Communication 

Financial 

11,866 15,525 15,115 15,536 17,001 18,739 

Intermediation 

Real Estate, Renting 

22,830 26,582 28,050 27,948 29,567 32,221 

and Business Activities 

Public Administration 

6,086 5,899 5,994 6,293 7,525 10,544 

and Defence 

Education 11,441 12,442 13,206 14,105 16,274 17,498 

Health and Social Work 8,648 9,035 9,659 10,845 12,959 14,598 

Other Community, 

Social and Personal 

Service Activities 

4,060 4,527 4,747 5,026 5,691 6,169 

Occupational Pensions 5,989 6,300 6,561 6,671 6,752 7,166 

Other 645 1,384 2,385 1,920 1,547 1,676 

Total 131,358 144,748 148,905 153,363 167,887 182,709 

£ billion 

Sector 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 

Accounting Adjustment 765 782 839 865 858 

Sector 757 829 864 961 982 

Agriculture, Hunting and Forestry 25,898 26,570 27,355 26,056 23,464 

Mining and Quarrying 1,135 1,253 1,429 1,519 1,514 

Manufacturing 11,575 12,428 14,236 13,779 11,896 

Wholesale and Retail Trade 20,554 21,512 22,895 22,574 21,339 

Construction 3,640 3,891 4,046 3,857 3,732 

Wholesale and Retail Trade 12,676 12,826 13,125 13,062 12,289 

Hotels and Restaurants 20,673 24,085 26,160 23,691 23,184 

Real Estate, Renting and Business Activities 35,182 38,996 44,009 45,581 43,286 

Public Administration and Defence 11,324 11,658 11,965 11,821 12,476 

Real Estate, Renting and Business 18,456 19,422 20,133 20,487 20,747 

Public Administration and Defence 16,167 17,454 17,735 18,385 19,530

845W 




846W 

£ billion 

Sector 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 

Other Community, Social and Personal 

6,585 7,025 7,344 7,531 7,257 

Service Activities 

Occupational Pensions 7,609 8,402 9,195 9,449 10,058 

Other 1,627 352 -43 70 -263 

Total 194,623 207,484 221,286 219,690 212,350 

Data are available back to 1999-2000 only. The sectors 

are defined by the Office for National Statistics’ Standard 

Industrial Classification 2003. The occupational pensions 

figures include all income tax on occupational pensions 

regardless of the sector in which the person was previously 

employed. 

Declared VAT is published by trade group in the VAT 

factsheet, table 2-3: 

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/index.cfm?task=factvat 

Given that sectors for corporation tax, VAT and 

PAYE income tax and class 1 NICs are defined differently 

these sets of figures are not directly comparable. 

Taxation: Music 

Mike Weatherley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

how much tax revenue was raised in respect of the 

UK-based music industry in (a) 2005, (b) 2006, (c) 

2007, (d) 2008 and (e) 2009. [27232] 

Mr Gauke: The information required to answer the 

question is not available. 

Mike Weatherley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

whether he has made a recent assessment of the merits 

of tax incentives to encourage the development of UK 

musical talent. [27234] 

Mr Gauke: The Government seek to provide a 

competitive environment and tax system for businesses 

and individuals across the economy. 

The Government believe that simplicity and stability 

are features of good tax policy, and that in general a tax 

system with fewer reliefs and allowances will provide 

the best incentive for economic growth. 

VAT: Churches 

Henry Smith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

if he will seek agreement from the Council of Ministers 

to zero-rate value added tax on repairs to historic 

church buildings. [27098] 

Mr Gauke: EU legislation agreed by successive 

Governments does not provide any scope for the 

introduction of new zero rates or the extension of 

existing zero rates. There is therefore no realistic prospect 

of securing agreement to the introduction of a new zero 

rate for repairs to historic church buildings. However, 

the Department for Culture, Media and Sport operates 

a scheme which makes grants equivalent to the VAT 

incurred in making repairs to listed buildings primarily 

used for worship. The Listed Places of Worship Grant 

Scheme will continue until 2014-15 with a fixed annual 

budget of £12 million. 

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

Affordable Housing: Construction 


for Communities and Local Government what assessment 

he has made of the effects of the proposed changes to 

rules under which new social housing can be constructed 

on the potential for small housing associations who do 

not construct new housing to amalgamate with other 

(a) large and (b) small housing associations; and if he 


Grant Shapps: We continue to encourage housing 

associations to explore models for management or 

ownership rationalisation if this will deliver better valuefor-money 

and improved services for tenants. 

The Government do not have a fixed view about what 

size a Housing Association should be. There are excellent 

large and small Housing Associations in existence. 

Decentralisation and Localism Bill 


Communities and Local Government when he plans to 

publish the Localism Bill. [27245] 

Greg Clark: The Localism Bill contains a wide range 

of measures to shift power from central Government 

into the hands of individuals, communities and councils. 

The Bill frees local government from central and regional 

control and strengthens local democracy. In addition, it 

gives greater power over planning, housing and other 

services and allows councils and councillors to be better 

held to account. 

The Bill will be published imminently. 

Housing: Construction 

Dr Whitehead: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government what estimate he 

has made of the number of new houses which would 

need to be built in Southampton unitary authority area 

in each of the next five years in order for the authority 

to establish a net income gain under the terms of the 

New Homes bonus scheme. [27192] 

Grant Shapps: The New Homes Bonus will start in 

April 2011 and will match fund the additional council 

tax raised for new homes and properties brought back 

into use for the following six years, with an additional 

amount for affordable homes. 

The Department has set aside almost £l billion over 

the comprehensive spending review period for the scheme, 

including nearly £200 million in 2011-12 in year one. 

Funding beyond these levels will come from formula 

grant.

847W 




848W 

The New Homes Bonus consultation is available at; 

http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingsupply/ 

newhomesbonus 

This is accompanied by a calculator which will enable 

you to estimate grant from the New Homes Bonus for 

Southampton. This can be found at: 

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/xls/ 

1767709.xls 

We will announce our proposals for the local government 

finance settlement for 2011-12, in the usual manner, in 

due course. 

Housing: Costs 


Communities and Local Government what information 

his Department holds on the average (a) cost of 

management charges, (b) cost of maintenance and (c) 

return on capital expenditure in respect of the housing 

stock in each sector in each region. [26690] 

Andrew Stunell: The following table provides estimates 

of the average annual routine and planned maintenance 

costs per unit for social landlords, based on data provided 

to the Tenant Services Authority. Cost figures are derived 

from published financial statements, include only landlords 

managing more than 1,000 social homes and use end of 

year stock numbers to produce average costs. This 

information is not available on a regional basis. 

Routine 

maintenance 

costs 

Planned 

maintenance 

costs 

Management 

costs 

£’s per unit 

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 

606 614 630 685 

258 264 271 302 

731 779 844 893 

There is no suitable measure with which to calculate 

the return on capital invested for this sector. This is 

because most social landlords are non-profit making 

organisations and the valuation of assets across the 

sector at both historic cost and current value prevents a 

valid aggregation of such measures. 

The following table gives data on local authority 

expenditure on supervision and management and repairs, 

for council housing in 2007-08 and 2008-09 by region. 

This is taken from local authorities’ annual second 

advance housing revenue account subsidy claim forms 

submitted to the Department for Communities and 

Local Government. The regional split in the table is 

derived from the ‘Live tables on housing finance and 

household expenditure, Table 652’ available on the 

Department’s website at: 

http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/ 

housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/housingfinance/ 

livetables/ 

North 

East 

Supervision and 

management: 

Average per dwelling (£) 

2007-08 2008-09 


management: 

General Special Repairs General Special Repairs 

624 364 753 653 401 790 

North 

West 

Yorkshire 

and the 

Humber 


management: 

Average per dwelling (£) 

2007-08 2008-09 


management: 

General Special Repairs General Special Repairs 

878 512 918 677 403 979 

756 188 795 769 200 811 

East 

601 238 850 637 243 889 

Midlands 

West 

689 298 1,067 651 267 953 

Midlands 

East 701 387 924 681 393 893 

London 1,536 606 1,185 1,591 606 1,259 

South 

859 414 1,032 719 363 933 

East 

South 

654 277 814 750 294 821 

West 

National 

Average 

858 367 902 902 380 974 

Notes: 

General management includes expenditure on supervision and management of 

housing revenue account (HRA) property, eg policy and management, 

managing tenancies, rent collection and accounting. 

Special services include services (mainly shared) to HRA tenants, eg 

caretaking, cleaning, communal lighting, lifts, communal heating, laundry 

services, concierge schemes, ground maintenance and welfare services 

(excluding essential care and other special services). 

There is no suitable measure with which to calculate 

the return on capital invested for this sector. 

Mortgages 

Mr Syms: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities 

and Local Government what his policy is on financial 

assistance to first-time homebuyers who commit a large 

proportion of their income in mortgage payments in 

order to get on to the property ladder. [27541] 

Grant Shapps: The Government are committed to 

helping those who aspire to own their own home, through 

ensuring a return to economic and financial stability. 

The Government are seeking to achieve this through a 

programme of debt reduction and a commitment to 

abolish the structural deficit in the life of this Parliament. 

This will help to keep mortgage interest rates low and 

improve credit availability. 

The coalition agreement included a commitment to 

promote shared ownership. While grant funding under 

the new investment model for affordable housing announced 

in the spending review will primarily target the new 

affordable rented product, there may be some scope for 

delivery of low cost home ownership as part of the 

contractual arrangements with providers where this is 

appropriate for local circumstances. 

Park Homes: Caravan Sites 

Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government how many residential 

park homes there are on licensed park home sites in 

each county. [27180] 

Grant Shapps: These data are not collected. 

The Department has made no official estimate on 

this, but soundings in the sector suggest there are 

approximately 85,000 park homes on 2,000 sites in 

England and 5,000 homes on 100 sites in Wales.

849W 




850W 

Poverty: Children 

Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government if he will take 

steps to ensure that local authorities are allocated the 

resources to meet their obligations under the Child 

Poverty Act 2010; and if he will make a statement. 

[23042] 

Sarah Teather: I have been asked to reply. 

The Government are committed to ending child poverty 

by 2020 and recognises the critical role of local authorities 

and other partners in achieving that aim. Part 2 of the 

Child Poverty Act 2010 introduced new duties for local 

partners to cooperate and carry out local child poverty 

needs assessments and develop joint child poverty strategies. 

In recognition of the potential costs of carrying out 

that work the Government have made an additional 

£9.5 million available this year to ensure local authorities 

have the resources to meet the local duties. 

Funding will be provided for the remainder of this 

implementation year (2010-11) to support local authorities 

in England who are leading the co-operation around 

the duties. Payments will be distributed to all ‘top-tier’ 

local authorities via the area based grant and the first 

payments were made in October. 

Squatting 


Communities and Local Government how many incidents 

of squatting were recorded (a) in Brighton and Hove 

constituency and (b) nationally in (i) 2007, (ii) 2008, 

and (iii) 2009. [27236] 

Grant Shapps: Information on the number of dwellings 

that are occupied by squatters is not held centrally. 

Tenancy Deposit Schemes 

Jeremy Lefroy: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government what proportion 

of disputes in respect of tenancy deposit protection 

schemes resulted in a decision in favour of the tenant in 

(a) 2007-08, (b) 2008-9 and (c) 2009-10. [27750] 

Grant Shapps: My Department does not hold this 

information. My hon. Friend may wish to contact the 

three companies running the tenancy deposit protection 

schemes directly. 

Travellers: Caravan Sites 

Mr Burley: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities 

and Local Government what steps he is taking to reduce 

the number of (a) squatters and (b) unauthorised 

encampments. [27311] 

Grant Shapps: In relation to squatting, on 8 November 

I published an online guide for home owners affected by 

squatters. This sets out their rights and the action they 

can take. We are also taking steps to help get empty 

homes back into productive and lawful use, thus reducing 

the scope for squatting. 

In relation to Parliament square, I refer my hon. 

Friend to my answer of 25 November 2010, Official 

Report, column 439. 

In relation to unauthorised encampments, I refer my 

hon. Friend to the press notice of the Secretary of State 

for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. 

Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr 

Pickles) on 29 August 2010, a copy of which is in the 

Library. It outlines the new Government’s approach of 

providing incentives and support for authorised Traveller 

sites, while removing the counter-productive regime of 

top-down planning and ensuring fair play in the planning 

system. 

The forthcoming Localism Bill and changes to secondary 

legislation will include provisions to end the abuse of 

retrospective planning permission and will give councils 

stronger powers to tackle unauthorised development in 

all its forms. 

Working Neighbourhoods Fund 

Mr Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities 

and Local Government what assessment he has made 

of the likely effects of the closure of the Working 

Neighbourhoods Fund on the most deprived communities 

in the country; and what sources of funding will be 

available to support such areas in the spending review 

period. [27456] 

Robert Neill: The Working Neighbourhoods Fund 

was a time-limited, three year programme scheduled to 

run from 2009-11. In line with our equalities duties, an 

equality impact assessment into the completion of the 

Working Neighbourhoods Fund has been carried out 

and will be published in due course. 

Businesses and local authorities in areas which currently 

receive the Fund will now be able to bid into the £1.4 

billion Regional Growth Fund to kick-start private 

sector-led growth. The Department for Work and Pensions 

is also to introduce the Work Programme which will 

provide an integrated package of support providing 

personalised help for people who find themselves out of 

work. 

The Government are also giving communities and 

neighbourhoods new rights, flexibilities, powers and 

tools that they could use to drive forward local regeneration 

and growth. For example through de-ringfencing of 

local budgets, and introducing incentives through the 

New Homes Bonus to direct more money to councils 

that build houses. The hon. Member should be aware 

that as outlined in the March 2010 Budget, the last 

Government was planning in-year cuts to the Working 

Neighbourhood Fund. 

EDUCATION 

Business: Education 

Lorely Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for Education 

what plans his Department has for the future of enterprise 

education in primary schools; and if he will make a 


Mr Gibb: The Department currently has a contract 

with the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust (SSAT) 

to run the Enterprise Network to support the extension

851W 




852W 

of enterprise education from a secondary school focus 

to the primary and FE sectors. The network is made up 

of Enterprise Learning Partnerships (ELPs), each chaired 

by a head teacher with representatives on the Board 

from two secondary schools, two primary schools, a 

special school, a further education college and an employer. 

There are currently 54 ELPs covering 99.6% of local 

authority areas in England. To date, 7,002 primary 

schools have been involved in the Enterprise Network 

activities. Lead practitioners for each sector of education, 

including primary, have been identified in each region 

to share their ideas for enterprise education with their 

peers. 

The contract with SSAT ends in March 2011. Beyond 

that date, we expect the ELPs to become self-sustaining 

without Government funding, ensuring a network of 

local and teacher-led groups to support enterprise education 

in schools, including primary schools. 

Departmental Redundancy 

Ms Angela Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Education what estimate he has made of the number of 

redundancies arising from the spending reductions 

proposed in the comprehensive spending review in 

respect of (a) his Department, (b) its nondepartmental 

public bodies and (c) other public bodies 

which are dependent on his Department for funding. 

[21515] 

Tim Loughton: Determining optimal work force reforms 

in order to live within the Department’s spending review 

resource DEL settlement will be an ongoing process. 

Detailed decisions regarding the number of redundancies 

that may be required have yet to be finalised. 

Free School Meals: Ealing 

Mr Virendra Sharma: To ask the Secretary of State 

for Education how many children in each ward in 

Ealing Southall constituency are eligible for free school 

meals; and whether he has made a recent estimate of 

the proportion of those children in each such ward who 

are claiming free meals. [23576] 

Mr Gibb: The Department collects information on 

the number of pupils who meet the free school meals 

criteria and make a claim. Information is not available 

on the number of pupils who may be eligible but do not 

make a claim. 

The number of pupils known to be eligible and 

claiming for free school meals is shown in the table. 

Maintained nursery, maintained primary 1 , state-funded secondary 1, 2 

and special 3 schools: School meal arrangements 4, 5 . As at January 

2010—by each ward within Ealing Southall parliamentary 

constituency 

Ward name 

Number on 

roll 4, 5 

Number of 

pupils known to 

be eligible for 

free school 

meals 4, 5 

Percentage of 



free school 

meals 

Dormers Wells 2,224 721 32.4 

Elthorne 2,358 526 22.3 

Lady Margaret 943 211 22.4 

Northfield 1,498 78 5.2 

Maintained nursery, maintained primary 1 , state-funded secondary 1, 2 

and special 3 schools: School meal arrangements 4, 5 . As at January 

2010—by each ward within Ealing Southall parliamentary 

constituency 

Ward name 

Number on 

roll 4, 5 

Number of 



free school 

meals 4, 5 

Percentage of 



free school 

meals 

Norwood 

1,674 501 29.9 

Green 

Southall 

2,448 598 24.4 

Broadway 

Southall Green 2,105 690 32.8 

Ealing Southall 

(all wards) 

13,250 3,325 25.1 

1 

Includes middle schools as deemed. 

2 

This term generally covers local authority maintained secondary 

schools, city technology colleges and academies, however there are no 

city technology colleges or academies in this constituency. 

3 

Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools. Excludes 

general hospital schools. 

4 

Includes sole and dual (main) registrations. 

5 

Pupils who have full-time attendance and are aged 15 and under, or 

pupils who have part time attendance and are aged between five and 

15. 

Source: 

School Census 

Kristallnacht: Education 

Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Education 

(1) whether the study of Kristallnacht is included in the 

curriculum at secondary school level; and if he will 

make a statement; [24890] 

(2) what recent representations he has received on 

the inclusion of Kristallnacht in the curriculum at 

secondary school level; and if he will make a statement. 

[24891] 

Mr Gibb: The teaching of the Holocaust is a compulsory 

part of the National Curriculum at secondary school 

level, but it is up to schools to determine whether the 

study of Kristallnacht should be included in this. As 

Kristallnacht was a key moment in the events leading 

up to the Holocaust, it is expected that most secondary 

schools would teach this. 

The Department has provided funds, with the Pears 

Foundation, for a national programme of courses to 

help teachers address the concerns and issues they 

encounter when teaching about the Holocaust. Kristallnacht 

features prominently in one of the training activities for 

this programme. 

The Secretary of State has not recently received any 

representations on the inclusion of Kristallnacht in the 

curriculum at secondary school level. 

The Government are committed to reviewing the 

National Curriculum to restore it to its original purpose—a 

core national entitlement organised around subject 

disciplines. We plan to consult a wide range of academics, 

teachers and other interested parties to ensure that our 

core curriculum can compare with those of the highest 

performing countries in the world. More details about 

our plans to review the curriculum will be announced 

later in the year. As part of the consultation process 

there will be a number of opportunities to contribute.

853W 




854W 

Pre-School Education: Special Educational Needs 


Education what measures are in place to identify pupils 

in pre-school education with special educational needs. 

[22918] 

Sarah Teather [holding answer 9 November 2010]: 

We believe it is vital that children who have special 

educational needs and disabilities, including the needs 

of pre-school children, are identified as early as possible 

if they are to make the most of their education experience. 

There are currently provisions in place that impose legal 

requirements to identify, assess and make provision for 

these pre-school needs, for example through the Special 

Educational Needs Code of Practice and the Early 

Years Foundation Stage statutory framework. We want 

to strengthen the system so that all children are ready to 

engage in learning when they start formal schooling. 

The Tickell review is considering how young children’s 

early learning should best be supported and the forthcoming 

Green Paper on Special Educational Needs and Disability 

will consider how we can achieve better educational 

outcomes and life chances for children and young people 

with special educational needs from the early years 

through to transition to adult life and employment. 

Pupils: Disadvantaged 

Paul Maynard: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Education how many children who attended (a) 

maintained primary schools, (b) Catholic maintained 

primary schools, (c) maintained secondary schools 

and (d) Catholic maintained secondary schools lived 

in (i) the 10% most deprived super output areas 

(SOAs), (ii) the 20% most deprived SOAs, (iii) the 30% 

most deprived SOAs and (iv) the 10% least deprived 

SOAs as measured by the Income Deprivation 

Affecting Children Index in the school year 2009-10. 

[24895] 

Mr Gibb: The requested information is shown in the 

following table: 

Number of pupils resident in each IDACI decile attending maintained 

schools and maintained Catholic schools by phase of education—2010 

Primary 1 Secondary 1, 2 

IDACI-3 

decile of pupil 

residence 

All 

schools 

Catholic 

schools 

All 

schools 

Catholic 

schools 

0-10 % most 584,313 75,460 377,687 52,831 

deprived 

10-20% 498,615 54,953 347,214 40,363 

20-30 % 435,191 46,009 329,527 35,685 

30-40 % 398,675 39,965 316,620 31,208 

40-50 % 379,238 35,948 314,931 27,761 

50-60 % 366,354 33,154 312,916 26,264 

60-70 % 356,050 28,988 313,310 23,746 

70-80 % 357,340 28,745 318,667 24,578 

80-90 % 356,608 29,775 319,923 25,228 

90-100 % least 348,800 31,941 318,017 27,603 

deprived 

1 

Maintained schools only, includes middle schools as deemed. 

2 

Secondary includes academies and city technology colleges. 

3 

Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index 2007. 

Source: 

School Census 2010 

Schools: Holocaust Memorial Day 


what arrangements his Department has made to mark 

Holocaust Memorial Day in schools in 2011; and if he 


Mr Gibb: The Department funds the Holocaust 

Educational Trust’s Lessons from Auschwitz project, 

which provides for two students (aged 16 to 18) from 

every school/sixth form college in England to visit 

Auschwitz-Birkenau. Many of the students who participate 

in the project will be marking Holocaust Memorial Day 

in their schools and local communities across the country. 

Schools: Reading 

Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Education 

what recent assessment he has made of the effects on 

attainment levels in reading and mathematics among 

the lowest achieving six and seven year olds of the 

Every Child a Reader programme; and if he will make a 


Mr Gibb: We regularly evaluate the progress of the 

programme against a range of management information. 

Evidence shows that Every Child a Reader has had a 

positive impact in raising the attainment of pupils in 

the programme, as well as indications of a positive 

whole-school effect. 

All three Every Child programmes are currently 

undergoing robust independent evaluations, to report 

in late 2010 or early 2011, which will give a substantive 

view of the impact of the programmes. 

Schools: Standards 

Laura Sandys: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Education what recent assessment he has made of 

educational standards in secondary schools in (a) South 

Thanet constituency and (b) England. [24585] 

Mr Gibb: In 2009 (the most recent year for which 

constituency level data are available) 52.4% of pupils in 

maintained schools in South Thanet achieved five or 

more GCSEs at grade A*-C or equivalent including 

English and maths, compared to 50.9% in England. 

We remain concerned that almost half of young 

people are leaving compulsory education without meeting 

this standard. That is why we are reforming the school 

system to give schools more freedom and introducing 

the pupil premium to support children from disadvantaged 

backgrounds. 

Laura Sandys: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Education what recent assessment he has made of 

educational standards in primary schools in (a) South 

Thanet constituency and (b) England. [24586] 

Mr Gibb: In 2009, the most recent year for which 

constituency level data are available, 62% of pupils in 

maintained schools in South Thanet achieved Level 4 

or above in English and maths combined at Key Stage 2, 

compared to 72% in England. 

We want all children, whatever their background, to 

achieve high standards in reading, writing and mathematics.

855W 




856W 

That is why we are introducing a pupil premium which 

will provide extra funding for those schools with the 

most challenging intakes. 

Special Educational Needs: Children in Care 


Education what steps his Department is taking to reduce 

the incidence of special educational needs among lookedafter 

children. [22917] 


Just over half (52%) of looked after children have 

special educational needs (SEN). We are publishing a 

Green Paper which will set out how we will improve 

identification of and support for all children with SEN, 

including looked after children with SEN. All looked 

after children are required to have a care plan which is 

drawn up and reviewed by the local authority which 

looks after them. This overall plan must include a plan 

describing how the child’s educational needs will be met 

and whether s/he has a statement. 

Special Educational Needs: Lancashire 

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Education how many teachers in Lancashire have a 

mandatory qualification in teaching deaf children; and 

what recent estimate he has made of the number of 

children in Lancashire who are deaf. [22810] 


We do not routinely collect data regarding the number 

of British sign language qualified teachers teaching 

deaf children in mainstream schools either nationally 

or by region. Local authorities are responsible for ensuring 

that teachers of hearing impaired and deaf children 

possess the appropriate mandatory qualification to 

undertake the role. It is a matter for local authorities to 

ensure that they have enough qualified teachers to meet 

their statutory commitments. 

Regarding the estimate of the number of children in 

Lancashire who are deaf, these figures are available 

from the Statistical First Release ‘Special Educational 

Needs in England: January 2010’. This shows that there 

were 426 pupils in Lancashire at School Action Plus or 

with statements that had hearing impairment as a primary 

need and were being educated within the maintained 

sector or at special schools as at January 2010. 

At the end of the year the Government plan to 

publish a Green Paper on special educational needs and 

disabilities, which will explore how we can improve 

support for all children with special educational needs 

and disabilities, including those who are deaf or hearing 

impaired. 

It is a priority to improve the educational outcomes 

for all children and we recognise the important role 

specialists, such as Teachers of the Deaf, play in meeting 

this goal. 

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 


Education if he will bring forward legislative proposals 

to incorporate the provisions of the UN Convention on 

the Rights of the Child into his Ministerial responsibilities. 

[21731] 


The Government are committed to the implementation 

of the United Nations convention on the rights of the 

child (UNCRC) and takes their obligations to the 

convention seriously. 

In March 2010, the previous Administration published 

an analysis setting out how legislation, policy and practice 

comply with the UNCRC. That analysis is being reviewed 

in order to assess how broader changes in legislation 

and policy align with the UNCRC and will decide if any 

further action is needed to give further effect to the 

convention. 

World War II: Education 


whether his Department has taken steps to promote (a) 

knowledge of and (b) interest in the 70 th anniversary of 

the Battle of Britain in schools; and if he will make a 


Mr Gibb: The battle of Britain was a significant event 

in the second world war; and the second world war is a 

compulsory subject in the secondary school curriculum. 

Schools determine whether to include the battle of 

Britain as part of their studies, and the Government 

believe that schools should be free to decide how best to 

mark the 70 th anniversary of the battle of Britain. 

Youth Services: Manpower 

Toby Perkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education 

how many full-time equivalent youth support workers 

there are in each local authority area. [21377] 

Tim Loughton: The Department for Education does 

not collect these data. However, the Children’s Workforce 

Development Council (CWDC) published an audit of 

the workforce in December 2009 and this includes some 

national level estimates of the numbers of youth and 

community workers. The report is available on CWDC’s 

website at: 

http://www.cwdcouncil.org.uk/young-peoples-workforce/ 

state-of-the-young-peoples-workforce-report 

WORK AND PENSIONS 

Atos Healthcare 


Work and Pensions what services Atos is providing 

under contract to his Department; and whether he 

plans to renew his Department’s contract with Atos in 

2012. [26484] 

Chris Grayling: The information is as follows. 

Medical Services 

Following a competitive tender exercise the medical 

services agreement between Atos Healthcare and the 

Department for Work and Pensions was awarded on 

15 March 2005 by the Secretary of State for Work and 

Pensions. The contract went live on 1 September 2005, 

for a period of seven years, with options to extend for a 

further three and two years. On 1 November 2010 the 

Minister of State for Employment awarded a contract

857W 




858W 

extension to 31 August 2015 to facilitate the delivery of 

incapacity benefit reassessment. The new disability living 

allowance assessment service from 2013, is not included 

in the extension contractual arrangements but will be 

awarded through a competitive tendering process. 

The scope of the medical services agreement is to 

provide medical advice to Department for Work and 

Pensions; Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; Service 

Personnel and Veterans Agency and Tribunals Service 

to support decisions in relation to a number of benefits 

and pensions, including but not limited to: 

Incapacity benefits 

Employment and support allowance 

Industrial injuries disablement benefits 

Disability living allowance (to be competed in 2013) 

Attendance allowance 

Statutory sick pay/statutory maternity pay 

Child trust fund 

War pension 

Vaccine Damage Payment scheme 

Financial Assistance scheme 

Compensation Recovery scheme 

Appeals tribunal service 

Occupational Health 

Following a competitive tender exercise the occupational 

health framework agreement between Atos Healthcare 

and the Department for Work and Pensions was awarded 

on 30 May 2008 by the Secretary of State for Work and 

Pensions. 

The framework agreement went live on 3rd August 

2008 and was for a period of three years, with an option 

to extend for a further two years. The Department for 

Work and Pensions is currently considering the option 

to extend. 

The scope of the occupational health framework 

ensures the Department has access to professional 

occupational health guidance, enabling obligations under 

the Equality Act (especially in respect of disabled workers) 

to be fulfilled and also to prevent or resolve instances of 

sickness absence. Such guidance will normally be about 

the applicability of the Equality Act; the effect of illness 

on an employee’s functional capability; and measures 

that can be taken to reduce the effects of illness on 

functional capability or to rehabilitate an employee 

from sick leave to work. Services available via the agreement 

include but are not limited to: 

Attendance management support 

Pre-employment health screening 

Audiology screening 

Absence related case conferences 

Atos also provide IT services to the Department 

under the Stand Alone Support Services (SASA) Contract. 

The covers the provision of development, support, 

enhancement and consultancy services for mostly small 

scale DWP IT applications. 

Children: Maintenance 

Alok Sharma: To ask the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions what estimate he has made of the average 

difference between the amounts paid by clients of the 

Child Support Agency on the (a) pre-2002 and (b) 

post-2002 scheme. [24372] 

Maria Miller: The Child Maintenance and Enforcement 

Commission is responsible for the child maintenance 

system. I have asked the Child Maintenance Commissioner 

to write to the hon. Member with the information 

requested and I have seen the response. 

Letter from Stephen Geraghty: 

In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the 

Child Support Agency, the Secretary of State promised a substantive 

reply from the Child Maintenance Commissioner as the Child 

Support Agency is now the responsibility of the Child Maintenance 

and Enforcement Commission. 

You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what 

estimate he has made of the average difference between in amounts 

paid by clients of the Child Support Agency on the (a) pre-2002 

and (b) post-2002 scheme. [24372] 

The table shows average collections on cases administered 

under old scheme rules compared to average collections on cases 

administered under current scheme rules for each quarter. 

Average collections have been calculated by dividing the total 

amount of maintenance collected and arranged under each scheme 

by the number of cases paying maintenance as at the end of each 

quarter. 

Total collections and caseload figures include cases administered 

on the CS2 and CSCS computer systems as well as cases administered 

off system. However, the value of maintenance direct payments 

within the collections figure only include off system cases from 

April 2008. 

Average collections and arrangements will be directly impacted 

by the average assessment value. The average assessment of Old 

Scheme cases is significantly lower than Current Scheme cases 

due to differences in policy between the schemes. The majority of 

cases in receipt of benefit on the Old Scheme are nil-assessed, 

whereas cases in receipt of benefit on the Current Scheme are 

given a weekly assessment of £5.00. 29% of cases on the Current 

Scheme have an assessment between £0.01 and £5.00, which 

significantly reduces the average assessment value. 

I hope you find this answer helpful. 

Table 1: Average monthly collections and arrangements by scheme 

£ 

Month 

Average monthly 

collections/ 

arrangements old 

scheme 

Average monthly 

collections/ 

arrangements 

current scheme 

Difference 

December 

179 125 54 

2006 

March 2007 184 129 55 

June 2007 181 128 53 

September 

186 135 51 

2007 

December 

186 142 44 

2007 

March 2008 192 142 50 

June 2008 194 137 56 

September 

199 142 57 

2008 

December 

197 142 54 

2008 

March 2009 200 138 62 

June 2009 194 136 57 

September 

195 137 59 

2009 

December 

196 136 60 

2009 

March 2010 184 135 48 

June 2010 180 133 47 

Notes: 

1. Figures rounded to the nearest £1. 

2. Figures include value of maintenance collected as well as value of 

maintenance direct arrangements.

859W 




860W 

Jessica Lee: To ask the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions in how many assessed cases currently 

being dealt with by the Child Support Agency child 

maintenance liability is abated to take account of shared 

care arrangements; and what proportion of these cases 

are abated by (a) one seventh, (b) two sevenths, (c) 

three sevenths and (d) one half. [26442] 

Maria Miller: The Child Maintenance and Enforcement 

Commission is responsible for the child maintenance 

system. I have asked the Child Maintenance Commissioner 

to write to my hon. Friend with the information requested 

and I have seen the response. 

Letter from Stephen Geraghty: 

In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the 

Child Support Agency, the Secretary of State promised a substantive 

reply from the Child Maintenance Commissioner as the Child 

Support Agency is now the responsibility of the Child Maintenance 

and Enforcement Commission. 

You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in 

how many assessed cases currently being dealt with by the Child 

Support Agency child maintenance liability is abated to take 

account of shared care arrangements; and what proportion of 

these cases are abated by (a) one seventh (b) two sevenths (c) three 

sevenths and (d) one half. [26442] 

Information is not available on the value that maintenance 

assessments have been abated by when taking into account shared 

care arrangements. 

Information is available on the number of nights each qualifying 

child on cases administered on the CSCS computer system spends 

with the parent with care. Information is also available on the 

number of current scheme cases administered on the CS2 computer 

system with a shared care arrangement in place. However, no 

robust information is available for old scheme cases administered 

on the CS2 computer system or for cases administered off system. 

A shared care arrangement is defined for current scheme cases 

as those cases where the qualifying child or children spends at 

least 52 nights per year with the non-resident parent. As at 

September 2010 there were 145,500 such cases, which is 22% of 

the assessed caseload. 

The table shows the number of cases administered on the 

CSCS computer system with a shared care arrangement in place. 

They are shown split by the number of nights spent with the 

parent with care for the qualifying child that spends the least 

nights with that parent. 

I hope you find this answer helpful. 

Table 1: CSCS cases with a shared care arrangement: September 2010 

Nights spent with parent with care 

per week 

Number of assessed cases 

2 100 

3 1,200 

4 6,400 

5 14,600 

Notes: 

1. Figures rounded to nearest 100. 

2. A case where the child spends one night per week with the parent 

with care is recorded on the CSCS computer system as 0 nights. 

Likewise, cases where the child spends six nights per week with the 

parent with care are recorded on the CSCS computer system as seven 

nights. These categories can therefore not be separated and are 

therefore not shown. 

3. Management information on cases administered on the CSCS 

computer system records the number of nights each individual child 

spends with the parent with care. It is possible that the number of 

nights is different for children within the same case. Therefore, in the 

attached response, the child which spends the least number of nights 

with the parent with care has been used in the table. 

Cold Weather Payments 

Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions whether he made an estimate of the 

number of people with cancer who received the cold 

weather payment in (a) 2007, (b) 2008 and (c) 2009. 

[27866] 

Steve Webb: The information requested is not available. 

Cold weather payments are paid automatically to 

people receiving pension credit and to those receiving 

certain income related benefits who are disabled, have a 

disabled child or a child under age five. 

Departmental Contracts 

Andrew Bingham: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of 

the effectiveness of quality management statements in 

assisting with contract decisions by his Department; 

and what assessment he has made of the effects on the 

prospects for small businesses winning of contracts of 

such statements. [19014] 

Chris Grayling: DWP, as part of its selection criteria, 

will assess a bidder’s technical or professional ability, 

including quality management. As part of the tender 

evaluation process, procurement staff must include, within 

the published evaluation criteria, details of any weighting 

system used and how the tender will be scored with 

reference to quality management. 

Bidders are required to describe what quality 

management measures they operate relevant to the bid 

specification. Where specific quality standards are required 

to meet technical contract requirements, bidders are 

permitted to provide evidence of equivalent or comparable 

processes or systems. 

Evaluation criteria will clearly state the scoring attached 

to quality management and the minimum acceptable 

standard required to deliver the contract. Provided a 

bidder can demonstrate their capability to deliver a 

contract, there are no barriers that impact on the likely 

success of small businesses winning contracts. 

Commercial activities in DWP are determined by EU 

procurement rules. One of the primary objectives of the 

European Union is the prevention of discrimination 

and restriction on the movement of goods or services. 

Any specification, even those not subject to the EU 

rules, must ensure that they comply with this objective. 

A member state or contracting authority, such as DWP, 

cannot adopt measures that are, even potentially, restrictive. 

Sustainable procurement considerations ensure that 

opportunities for small businesses to bid for DWP 

contracts are maximised. Use of electronic procurement, 

division of requirements into local/regional lots and 

supplier briefings all help to improve access. 


Anas Sarwar: To ask the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions (1) what grants have been awarded by his 

Department in 2010-11 to date; what grants he plans to 

award in each of the next two years; what the monetary 

value is of each such grant fund; and to which 

organisations such grants have been made; [27862]

861W 




862W 

(2) what the monetary value was of grants awarded 

by his Department in 2009-10; and how much he 

expects to award in grants in (a) 2010-11 and (b) 

2011-12. [27865] 

Chris Grayling: Grants made by the Department for 

Work and Pensions in 2009-10 and 2010-2011 are shown 

in the table. 

£ million 

Description of grant Paid to 2009-10 2010-11 1 2010-11 2 

Grants to support expenditure on Financial 

Inclusion 

Factory Support Grant 

Credit Unions and Community 

Development Financial Institutions 

A range of businesses to support the 

employment of disabled people 

18.0 4.6 7.9 

0.5 — 0.2 

Future Jobs Fund Employers to create new jobs 82.5 274.9 420.0 

Access to Work 

employers for adaptations to premises and 

1.1 0.8 1.7 

equipment 

Deprived Areas Fund 

City Strategy Pathfinders and other 

7.7 5.5 9.7 

partnership organisations 

Ageing Well Grant 

Local Government Improvement and 

0.5 0.7 1.7 

Development (LGID) 

Active at 60 

Individuals, via the Community 

— — 1.0 

Development Foundation 

Get Digital Project 

The National Institute of Adult Continuing 

1.0 1.9 1.9 

Education via the Department for 

Communities and Local Government 

Sure Start Maternity Grants (SSMG) individuals 138.8 82.7 142.0 

Community Care Grants (CCG) individuals 140.7 83.2 142.0 

1 

To 31 October 

2 

Full year forecast 

Notes: 

1. Factory Support Grant was a small scale aspect of Workstep intended to help improve specialist disability employment services by providing 

funding for supported businesses to, for example, buy new machinery or modernise the services they offer. 

2. Current year figures are based on actual spend, as shown in the departmental general ledger, and forecasts which are subject to change. 

3. For the purposes of this answer, grants are interpreted to be one-off payments to individuals or other entities to support the objectives of 

the Department. Payments which are on-going in nature, for example subsidies to local authorities for housing benefit administration, or 

grants in aid to non-departmental public bodies have not been included. 

4. Funding for the Factory Support Grant, the Future Jobs Fund, and the Deprived Areas Fund have either already ended or will end this 

financial year. 

5. The Department is now working through the financial implications of its spending review settlement and details are not available on future 

funding amounts for particular grants at present. 

Departmental Regulation 

Mr Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions what regulations sponsored by his 

Department have been revoked in the last six months. 

[24382] 

Chris Grayling: The Employment and Support Allowance 

(Transitional Provisions, Housing Benefit and Council 

Tax Benefit) (Existing Awards) Regs 2010 (S.I. 2010/ 

875) were revoked by the Employment and Support 

Allowance (Transitional Provisions, Housing Benefit 

and Council Tax Benefit) (Existing Awards) (Revocation) 

Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/1906) 

The following regulations were revoked by the Equality 

Act 2010 (Disability) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/2128): 

The Disability Discrimination (Meaning of Disability) Regulations 

1996 (S.I. 1996/1455) 

The Disability Discrimination (Providers of Services) (Adjustment 

of Premises) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/3253) 

The Disability Discrimination (Blind and Partially Sighted 

Persons) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/712) 

The Disability Discrimination (Employment Field) (Leasehold 

Premises) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/153) 

The Disability Discrimination (Educational Institutions) (Alteration 

of Leasehold Premises) Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/1070) 

The Disability Discrimination (Service Providers and Public 

Authorities Carrying Out Functions) Regulations 2005 (S.I. 

2005/2901) 

The Disability Discrimination (Private Clubs etc) Regulations 

2005 (S.I. 2005/3258) 

The Disability Discrimination (Premises) Regulations 2006 

(S.I. 2006/887). 

The Vaccine Damage Payment (Specified Disease) 

Order (S.I. 2009/2516) was revoked by the Vaccine 

Damage Payments (Specified Disease) (Revocation and 

Savings) Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/1988). 

The Transfer of State Pensions and Benefits Regulations 

(Northern Ireland) 2007 (SR (NI) 2007/286) were revoked 

by the Transfer of State Pensions and Benefits 

(Amendment) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/1825). 

Disability Living Allowance: Care Homes 

Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number 

of children likely to be affected by the implementation 

of the proposed withdrawal of the mobility component 

of disability living allowance from claimants living in 

residential care. [24704] 

Maria Miller: The spending review announced that 

the mobility component of disability living allowance 

would be removed from adults in residential care and 

children in residential schools. 

Proposals for disability living allowance reform will 

be informed by responses to the consultation document 

which we will publish shortly.

863W 




864W 

We will be making clearer as we move towards the 

Bill exactly how the measure to cease paying mobility 

component of DLA to people in care homes will affect 

particular groups. 

Employment Schemes 

Mr Douglas Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State 

for Work and Pensions how many companies have 

expressed an interest in applying for contracts under 

the Work Programme. [26262] 

Chris Grayling: 102 organisations, SPV or consortia 

submitted bids in respect of the DWP Framework for 

the Provision of Employment Related Support Services. 

A list of organisations that submitted bids can be found 

on the Supplying DWP website 

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/supplying-dwp/ 

Those organisations that were accepted onto the 

framework were notified on 25 November and a list has 

also been published on the Supplying DWP website. 

Only those organisations that have been successful in 

being admitted to the framework as prime contractors 

will be invited to tender for Work Programme contracts. 

Organisations will only be able to bid in lots where they 

have been successful in the framework competition. 


for Work and Pensions what (a) assumptions and (b) 

calculations his Department made when formulating 

its estimate of the market value of Work Programme 

contracts contained in the framework agreement for 

the provision of employment-related support services. 

[26263] 

Chris Grayling: Assumptions and calculations on the 

estimated value of Work Programme contracts and 

indeed other contracts which will be let from the framework, 

were developed from information on the value of existing 

welfare to work programmes. These took into account 

the intention to radically simplify the array of existing 

employment programmes and deliver coherent, integrated 

support more capable of dealing with complex and 

overlapping barriers to work. Estimates were broad in 

order to provide transparency to the market and to 

ensure that the framework would be able to meet 

requirements to be the principal vehicle for sourcing all 

employment related support services for the full life of 

the Framework, not just for DWP, but also for other 

eligible contracting authorities. Calculations also took 

into account the need to deliver greater value for money 

on future welfare to work contracts. 


for Work and Pensions whether he plans to place any 

restrictions on sub-contracting within the procurement 

processes for the Work Programme. [26264] 

Chris Grayling: There are no plans to place any 

restrictions on sub-contracting within the procurement 

processes for the Work Programme. Evaluation of bids 

will, at least in part, depend on the quality of their 

supply chain. 


for Work and Pensions what the geographical areas are 

for contracting for each type of back-to-work 

provision; and what geographical areas there will be for 

contracts under the Work Programme. [26265] 

Chris Grayling: The DWP Framework for the Provision 

of Employment Related Support Services will be divided 

into 11 geographical lots. The lots are: South East, 

South West, London, East of England, East Midlands, 

West Midlands, North West, Yorkshire and the Humber, 

North East, Scotland, Wales. Contracts let under the 

framework may be across all lots, cover a specific lot or 

a smaller geographical area(s) within a lot. 

Employment Schemes: Scotland 

Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for 


the likely effect of the proposed universal credit on 

work incentives in Scotland. [25774] 

Chris Grayling: Universal credit will make work pay. 

It will enable workers to retain more of their earnings 

when they enter work, providing stronger financial incentives 

to take job opportunities than under the current system. 

Establishing a single withdrawal rate and eliminating 

the hours rules currently present in working tax credit 

has the potential to create a much more flexible labour 

market, where workers will be able to work the number 

of hours that most suits their needs and those of their 

employer. 

The integration of in and out of work support through 

universal credit will also greatly reduce the risks people 

perceive around the continuity of financial support as 

they move into and leave work. 

We expect the impacts in Scotland to be broadly the 

same as for Great Britain as a whole. 

Housing Benefit 


for Work and Pensions pursuant to the contribution 

by the Minister of State for Work and Pensions of 

9 November 2010, Official Report, column 154, on 

housing benefit, what the evidential basis was for his 

assessment of the change in private rents since November 

2008. [26345] 

Steve Webb: The source of the private rental data was 

the Find A Property index. This has been used by the 

DWP and wider Government since 2008, when CLG 

stopped producing their own private rental index. The 

Office for National Statistics does not publish up-to-date 

private rental data. 

Further details of the evidential base are available at: 

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wpsc-analytical-supp.pdf 

Graham Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for 


the likely effects on levels of housing benefit payments 

of the implementation of his Department’s decision to 

merge high rental and low rental areas; and if he will 

make a statement. [26379] 

Steve Webb: We will be considering the areas in which 

local housing allowance rates are set in the context of 

our proposal to uprate local housing allowance rates

865W 




866W 

according to the consumer price index from April 2013. 

We have not as yet made any decisions on the constitution 

of these areas. 

Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions whether the proposed changes to local 

housing allowance will apply to people who are part 

way through a tenancy which was signed prior to the 

changes coming into effect. [26632] 

Steve Webb: Changes to local housing allowance 

rates apply to customers at the anniversary of their 

claim. The anniversary may coincide with the date they 

are due to renew a tenancy or it could fall part way 

through the tenancy. For existing customers who will be 

affected by changes to local housing allowance rates 

from April 2011, we are allowing an additional period 

of up to nine months from the anniversary of their 

claim during which they will be protected from a reduction 

in their local housing allowance rate. This will allow 

them extra time to renegotiate their rental commitment 

or, if necessary, look for alternative accommodation. 


and Pensions whether he plans to issue further 

guidance to local authorities on the allocation of 

discretionary housing benefit. [26654] 

Steve Webb: We are reviewing our discretionary housing 

payment good practice guidance to local authorities 

and plan to issue a revised version early next year. 


and Pensions whether he plans to make exceptions to 

the proposed limits on payments of local housing 

allowance to claimants under 35 years to a shared 

room rate in respect of those with (a) learning 

difficulties and (b) mental health disorders. [26698] 

Steve Webb: The shared room rate already has 

exemptions which will continue to apply for people in 

vulnerable situations. The exemptions include local authority 

and housing association tenants and those in certain 

supported accommodation. 

Customers who receive the middle or higher rate care 

component of disability living allowance and where no 

one gets a carer’s allowance for them are also exempt. 

We are currently considering the detailed design of this 

proposal, which is not due to be implemented until 

April 2012. 

Housing Benefit: Newham 

Lyn Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions how many working families in Newham 

are in receipt of housing benefit. [26489] 

Steve Webb: The following table shows the number of 

housing benefit recipients in Newham which are non 

passported and in employment, August 2010. 

Housing benefit recipients by family type and employment status in 

Newham, August 2010 

Of which: In 

HB non passported 

employment 

Single no child 

dependents 

4,550 1,690 

Housing benefit recipients by family type and employment status in 

Newham, August 2010 

Of which: In 

HB non passported 

employment 

Single with child 

3,370 2,690 

dependents 

Couple no child 

800 410 

dependents 

Couple with child 

4,160 3,940 

dependents 

Total 12,880 8,730 

Notes: 

1. The figures have been rounded to the nearest 10. Totals may not 

sum due to rounding. 

2. Housing benefit figures exclude any extended payment cases. An 

extended payment is a payment that may be received for a further 

four weeks when they start working full-time, work more hours or 

earn more money. 

3. Single Housing Benefit Extract (SHBE) is a monthly electronic 

scan of claimant level data direct from local authority computer 

systems. It replaces quarterly aggregate clerical returns. The data are 

available monthly from November 2008 and August 2010 is the latest 

available. 

4. People claiming housing benefit not in receipt of a passported 

benefit are recorded as being in employment if their local authority 

has recorded employment income from either the main claimant, or 

partner of claimant (if applicable), in calculating the housing benefit 

award. 

5. Passported status does not include recipients with unknown 

passported status. 

Source: 

August 2010 Single Housing Benefit Extract (SHBE) 

Housing Benefit: North East 

Grahame M. Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions what assessment his Department 

has made of the likely effect on (a) the economy of the 

North East and (b) housing provision of planned 

reductions in the level of housing benefit and council 

tax benefit payments. [17752] 

Steve Webb: Work is under way to ascertain the 

impacts of the proposed measures and we will publish 

an economic impact assessment at the time amendments 

to legislation are laid in Parliament. 

Housing Benefit: Worcestershire 

Mr Robin Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions how many people in (a) Worcestershire 

and (b) Worcester were in receipt of housing benefit of 

more than £400 per week in the latest period for which 

figures are available. [17631] 

Steve Webb: At July 2010, for housing benefit claims 

in the private rented sector our records show that there 

are no households in Worcestershire receiving over £400 

per week. 

Source: 

Single housing benefit extract for July 2010. 

Industrial Accidents: Construction 

Miss Begg: To ask the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions what plans the Government has to implement 

the recommendations of the Rita Donaghy report entitled 

One death is too many: enquiry into the underlying 

cause of construction fatal accidents [26399]

867W 




868W 

Chris Grayling: The Government are committed to 

addressing the heavy toll of deaths in the construction 

industry which was highlighted in Baroness Donaghy’s 

report. We will therefore progress those of the Donaghy 

recommendations accepted by the previous Administration 

which we consider are supported by the available evidence. 

For example, consistent with recommendation eight of 

the Donaghy report, the Government have actively 

supported the new specification for “pre-qualification” 

criteria in the construction industry, introduced by the 

British Standards Institution in October and which has 

the potential to radically simplify the prequalification 

process for small firms tendering for construction work. 

Where, however, we lack firm evidence for particular 

recommendations—for example, that directors’ health 

and safety duties need to be further strengthened—we 

do not propose to take further action at this time. 

Industrial Health and Safety: Inspections 


Work and Pensions what recent representations he 

has received on the work of the Health and Safety 

Executive (HSE); and how many sites were formally 

inspected by a HSE inspector after a serious accident in 

the latest period for which figures are available. [26624] 

Chris Grayling: The Secretary of State has the principal 

responsibility to Parliament for the Health and Safety 

Executive and routinely receives representations on their 

work. Recent representations are concerned with a range 

of matters relating to the formulation and development 

of Government policy. 

HSE’s inspectors have investigated 2,021 serious accidents 

that occurred between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2010, 

although some of these investigations are still under 

way. 

These serious accidents are categorised as fatalities 

and major injuries, such as amputations and fractures, 

that were reported under the Reporting of Injuries, 

Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 

(RIDDOR 95). 

Jobcentre Plus: Rural Areas 


Work and Pensions what assistance his Department 

plans to give to those living in remote rural areas to (a) 

access jobcentres to see what vacancies are available 

and (b) access the labour market in areas with poor 

local transport. [26596] 

Chris Grayling: The administration of Jobcentre Plus 

is a matter for the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus, 

Darra Singh. I have asked him to provide the hon. 

Member with the information requested. 

Letter from Darra Singh: 

The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question 

about what assistance his Department plans to give to those living 

in remote rural areas to (a) access jobcentres to see what vacancies 

are available and (b) access the labour market in areas with poor 

local transport. This is something that falls within the responsibilities 

delegated to me as Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus. 

Jobcentre Plus is committed to providing all customers, including 

those in rural areas, with the help they need to find work as 

quickly as possible. We do this through a combination of the 

largest network of offices within Government, which is used 

primarily to provide face-to-face advice and guidance at the 

outset of the claim and at key stages thereafter; and alternative 

means of service delivery such as telephony and the Internet. 

In terms of plans to help those in remote areas access vacancies, 

everyone receives information, advice and guidance at the new 

claims interview about how to make best use of appropriate 

vacancy sources. As part of this, people receive information about 

the Directgov Internet Job Bank and Jobseeker Direct (the Jobcentre 

Plus telephony-based vacancy matching service), both of which 

provide remote, fast and easy access to thousands of jobs. As a 

further development, we have also launched a new application for 

the iPhone and Google Android systems, which offers people an 

innovative way to search for a job through their telephone handset. 

Looking ahead and in transforming our labour market services 

still further, we aim to provide a much improved, more efficient 

automated service to help employers post and fill vacancies and 

jobseekers access available jobs. As part of this, the intention is to 

extend the current job search facility to include vacancies from 

employer websites and other job boards; and to create secure 

customer profiles, which will be used to automatically notify 

employers of suitable applicants and individuals of suitable jobs. 

In terms of helping people access the labour market in areas 

with poor local transport, Jobcentre Plus advisers will offer 

information, advice and guidance to claimants and provide access 

to measures such as the Travel to Interview Scheme to help with 

the cost of attending interviews. We also administer the Adviser 

Discretion Fund, which is used to help customers overcome small 

challenges preventing them from taking-up the offer of employment. 

In appropriate circumstances, the Fund can help with travel to 

work costs until receipt of first wages. All awards are at adviser 

discretion, taking into account individual customer circumstances 

and all awards must represent good value for taxpayer’s money. 

Following the coalition Government’s announcement of a 

new, integrated work programme coupled with a more flexible 

Jobcentre Plus delivery model, we aim to build upon the discretionary 

funding currently available to give local managers the ability to 

tailor services to local and individual need. This could include the 

provision of more help to overcome travel costs and difficulties in 

appropriate locations. 

Over and above the schemes administered directly by Jobcentre 

Plus, there are a number of agreements in place (nationally and 

locally) to provide people with discounted travel, for example, in 

England and Wales, we have an agreement with the Association 

of Train Operating Companies, which offers a 50% discount on 

rail travel for longer-term unemployed people. A similar scheme is 

in place with Scot Rail and while there is no UK wide discount 

scheme for bus travel, many local operators do offer discounted 

services to unemployed people. 

Jobseeker’s Allowance: Fraud 

Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions how many people were prosecuted 

for offences relating to fraudulent claims for jobseeker’s 

allowance in Kilmarnock and Loudoun constituency in 

each of the last three years. [22958] 

Chris Grayling: The information requested is not 

available. 

Information on the numbers of people prosecuted for 

benefit fraud in Scotland for the last three years for all 

DWP administered benefits is available in the following 

table. 

Number prosecuted for benefit 

fraud in Scotland 

2007-08 168 

2008-09 139 

2009-10 489 

Notes: 

Information extracted from the Fraud Referral and Intelligence 

Management Information System.

869W 




870W 

Jobseeker’s Allowance: Hearing Impaired 

Mary Macleod: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions what provisions are in place at 

Jobcentre Plus centres to assist jobseekers with hearing 

impairments; and whether interpreters are provided at 

each such location. [24953] 

Chris Grayling: The administration of Jobcentre Plus 

is a matter for the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus, 

Darra Singh. I have asked him to provide my hon. 

Friend with the information requested. 

Letter from Darra Singh: 

The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question 

asking what provisions are in place at Jobcentre Plus centres to 

assist jobseekers with hearing impairments and whether interpreters 

are provided at each such location. This is something that falls 

within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of 

Jobcentre Plus. 

In Jobcentre Plus we recognise the diverse range of customers 

we serve and we are fully committed to providing equal accessibility 

and availability of services to all customers. Customers arriving in 

a Jobcentre are met by a Customer Services Manager who identifies 

the reason for their visit and who is able to direct them appropriately. 

When a deaf or hard of hearing customer arrives at an office 

the Customer Services Manager takes the customer to the Customer 

Service Support Leader who will communicate with them at a 

desk set up with a hearing loop facility, if this is appropriate. 

If the customer is profoundly deaf or cannot use a hearing aid, 

a member of staff who is British Sign Language (BSL) qualified 

will act as interpreter. If no qualified member of staff is available, 

we will arrange for a communicator, for example a BSL interpreter, 

lip speaker or deaf/blind interpreter as appropriate, to attend the 

office and book an appointment for the customer to return then. 

If customers wish, they may bring their own interpreters. If a 

customer provides their own professional qualified interpreter, 

they can be reimbursed with reasonable travel costs. Customers 

often choose to bring friends and relatives to interpret. 

If the customer attends the Jobcentre to look for work, touch 

screen Jobpoints are available in our offices to search for and 

access vacancies. Staff will support the customer in progressing 

any applications for work, for example, by making contact with 

the employer. 

For customers with an appointment requiring an interpreter 

we currently have three contracted providers that provide BSL 

interpreters nationally. 

Jobcentre Plus is committed to providing a first class service 

and ensuring we fully support our most vulnerable customers. 

I hope this information is helpful. 

Mobility Allowance: Children 

Stephen Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions (1) whether the removal of mobility 

allowance for disabled children after 84 days in residential 

care will also apply to children in residential education 

settings; [24964] 

(2) whether residential schools for disabled children 

will be classified as care homes for the purposes of the 

proposed changes to the mobility element of disability 

living allowance. [24965] 

Maria Miller: The spending review announced that 

the mobility component of disability living allowance 

would be removed from adults in residential care and 

children in residential schools. 

Proposals for disability living allowance reform will 

be informed by responses to the consultation document 

which we will publish shortly. 

We will be making clearer as we move towards the 

Bill exactly how the measure to cease paying mobility 

component of DLA to people in care homes will affect 

particular groups. 

Mortgage Payments 

Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions whether his Department plans to provide 

support to households with disabled residents who can 

no longer afford their mortgage payments as a result of 

changes to the rate of support for mortgage interest to 

fund alternative accommodation. [23663] 

Steve Webb: We have no plans to increase the amount 

paid by way of support for mortgage interest, or to 

change the current standard interest rate for this group. 

It was necessary for the Government to put support 

for mortgage interest on a more sustainable footing, 

and to better reflect mortgage costs, which is why we set 

the standard interest rate at a level equal to the Bank of 

England’s published monthly average mortgage rate 

from 1 October. The rate is currently 3.63%. The previous 

rate of 6.08% was too generous and resulted in the vast 

majority of people getting more than their eligible 

mortgage interest liability, which was unfair to taxpayers. 

The plans of the previous Government would have 

meant that the standard interest rate would have reverted 

to a formula—the Bank of England base rate plus 

1.58%—which, at present, would produce a rate of 

2.08% from January 2011. 

There are other funding streams available to households 

with disabled residents, for example, Disabled Facilities 

Grants and the Mortgage Rescue Scheme. 

Disabled Facilities Grants are provided by local 

authorities to help meet the cost of adapting a property 

for the needs of a disabled person. The Mortgage 

Rescue Scheme was introduced in 2009 to help people 

in priority need, including those who are vulnerable 

because of old age or a physical/mental impairment. 

The scheme involves a Housing Association taking on 

full or part ownership of the property being repossessed. 

Poverty: Children 

Richard Fuller: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions how many children in (a) England, 

(b) the East of England and (c) Bedford constituency 

were living in families with no parents in employment 

in October each year from 2000 to 2010. [26539] 


The information requested falls within the responsibility 

of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority 

to reply. 

Letter from Stephen Penneck, dated November 2010: 

As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I 

have been asked to reply to your question asking how many 

children in a) England b) East of England and c) Bedford 

Constituency were living in families with no parents in employment 

in October each year from 2000 to 2010. (26539) 

The figures requested come from the Annual Population Survey 

(APS) household datasets. These are currently available for 2004 

to 2009. The attached table shows estimates for England and East 

of England for these years.

871W 




872W 

It is not possible to provide reliable estimates for Bedford 

constituency because of small sample sizes. 

As with any sample survey, estimates from the APS are subject 

to a margin of uncertainty. This is captured in a confidence 

interval, defined by lower and upper bounds, such that the 

interval formed between the bounds would contain the true value 

of 95% of all possible samples. 

Table: Children 1 living in families with no parent in employment in 

England and East of England 

Thousand 

January to 

December 

Estimate 

Lower 

bound 2 

Upper 

bound 2 

England 2004 1,639 1,591 1,687 

2005 1,630 1,582 1,678 

2006 1,645 1,596 1,693 

2007 1,613 1,564 1,662 

2008 1,670 1,620 1,721 

2009 1,707 1,655 1,759 

East of 2004 126 111 141 

England 

2005 124 109 140 

2006 128 112 144 

2007 130 114 147 

2008 141 123 158 

2009 133 115 150 

1 

Children refers to children under 16. 

2 

95% confidence interval which means that from all samples 

possible there would be 95% certainty that the true estimate would 

lie within the lower and upper bounds. 

Source: 

APS household dataset 

Private Finance Initiative Scheme 

Alun Cairns: To ask the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions how many of his Department’s properties 

that are managed under a private finance initiative 

scheme are empty. [20810] 

Chris Grayling: DWP does not have any empty properties 

managed under a private finance initiative. 

Social Rented Housing: Reform 

Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions whether he has had discussions with the 

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 

on the implications for the social rented housing market 

of his Department’s welfare reforms. [18432] 

Steve Webb: A number of discussions have been held 

between the Department for Work and Pensions and 

Communities and Local Government at, both ministerial 

and official level. These discussions will continue as we 

develop our plans. 

Social Security Benefits 


for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of 

the level of civil service staffing resources which were 

allocated to the preparation of the White Paper on 

universal credit. [26249] 

Chris Grayling: A number of civil servants in DWP 

and other Departments were involved in preparing the 

White Paper over a three-month period. The main work 

was done by members of the universal credit policy 

team in DWP which has a total of 20 staff. 


for Work and Pensions what (a) assumptions and (b) 

calculations his Department made when modelling the 

likely effects of the implementation of the universal 

credit; and if he will place in the Library a copy of each 

briefing document on these calculations provided to (i) 

Ministers and (ii) external bodies. [26250] 

Chris Grayling: Chapter 7 of the recent White Paper, 

‘Universal Credit: Welfare That Works’, and the 

accompanying impact assessment set out the assumptions 

and calculations used to model the effects of universal 

credit. The briefing documents provided to Ministers 

that covered these calculations are restricted policy 

development documents. The Department’s Ministers 

and officials have had numerous discussions over recent 

months with external bodies on the Government’s proposals 

for benefit reform. 


for Work and Pensions how much funding he plans to 

allocate to the implementation of the universal credit 

in 2011-12. [26260] 

Chris Grayling: The Treasury has allocated £2 billion 

investment funding to the Department of Work and 

Pensions for universal credit over the spending review 

period. Plans on the allocation of funding are in 

development. 


Work and Pensions what timetable he has put in place 

for the introduction of the universal credit; and if he 


Chris Grayling: Introducing universal credit will be a 

very substantial exercise with around 19 million individual 

existing awards of benefits and tax credits becoming 

part of the new benefit. The provisional timetable is as 

follows, subject to detailed design work done in partnership 

with HMRC and local authorities. The current intention 

is to manage transition to universal credit in three 

stages: 

October 2013 to April 2014: all new claims for out of work 

support will be treated as claims to universal credit. No new 

jobseekers allowance, employment and support allowance, income 

support and housing benefit claims will be accepted. Customers 

transitioning from out of work benefits into work will move 

onto universal credit if they are eligible. 

April 2014: no new claims will be made to tax credits. 

April 2014 to October 2017: we would begin to work through 

transferring existing case to the new benefit. 

Social Security Benefits: Adoption 

Lyn Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions whether his Department provides financial 

support for adoptive parents who are classified as casual 

employees. [24148]

873W 




874W 

Maria Miller: Statutory adoption pay enables adopters 

to take a period of leave from work when a new child 

joins the family. It is paid by employers to employees 

who satisfy qualifying conditions based on length of 

employment and a minimum level of earnings. Casual 

employees may receive statutory adoption pay if they 

can satisfy the qualifying conditions. 

Income support is available in certain circumstances. 

Single people who have a child placed with them prior 

to an adoption have access to income support. Once the 

adoption has taken place an adoptive parent can continue 

to receive income support if they fall within another 

prescribed group, for example if they are a lone parent 

or a carer. A parent may also be entitled to income 

support if they are taking leave from their employment 

under the parental leave provisions. 

Social Security Benefits: Fraud 

Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 10 November 

2010, Official Report, column 350W, on social security 

benefits: fraud, what the (a) monetary value was of the 

suspected fraud in the 550 warrant cases, (b) average 

monetary value per case was of suspected fraud and 

(c) monetary value was of the suspected fraud in each 

of the 10 cases where that value is highest; and what the 

dates of issue were of the 10 longest standing arrest 

warrants. [24549] 

Chris Grayling: Of the 550 warrants held by the 

Department on 14 October 2010, information was held 

centrally on 188 cases. This number has now been 

reduced to 156 following the execution of 32 warrants. 

Information on the remaining 362 warrants not held 

centrally can be provided only at disproportionate cost. 

(a) The total monetary value of fraud in the 156 cases is 

£1,273,314.26. 

(b) The average monetary value of fraud in the 156 cases is 

£8,162.27 

(c) The monetary value in each of the 10 cases where that 

value is highest is shown in the following table. 

10 highest value warrant cases 

£ 

1. 58,550.01 

2. 55,494.13 

3. 54,864.22 

4. 53,319.36 

5. 46,406.20 

6. 39,906.59 

7. 37,465.39 

8. 33,735.64 

9. 32,121.02 

10. 28,253.76 

Total 440,116.32 

Source: 

FRAIMS 

Information on the dates of issue of the 10 longest 

standing arrest warrants is not available centrally and 

can be provided only at disproportionate cost. 




benefits: fraud, what benefits were involved in the 

suspected frauds; how many cases involved each type 

of benefit; and how many cases involved suspected acts 

of fraud relating to more than one type of benefit. 

[24550] 

Chris Grayling: Information on the following is held 

but would incur disproportionate cost to collate: 

(a) what benefits were involved in the suspected frauds, 

(b) how many cases involved each type of benefit, and 

(c) how many cases involved suspected acts of fraud relating to 

more than one type of benefit.. 




benefits: fraud, how many of the defendants have 

convictions or police cautions for other offences. 

[24551] 

Chris Grayling: The information on how many of the 

defendants have convictions or police cautions for other 

offences is held but can be provided only at disproportionate 

cost. 




benefits: fraud, what were the (a) names of the persons 

issued with arrest warrants, (b) their last known 

addresses or whereabouts and (c) the monetary value 

of the suspected fraud in each case. [24719] 

Chris Grayling: The Data Protection Act 1998 and 

Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights 

provide no legal gateway to release information containing: 

(a) names of the persons issued with arrest warrants 

(b) their last known addresses or whereabouts. 

Of the 550 warrants held by the Department on 

14 October 2010, information is held centrally on 188 

cases. Information on the remaining 362 cases is not 

held centrally, warrants having been issued prior to roll 

out of an IT case management system in November 

2009. 

The monetary value of the 362 cases is held but can 

be provided only at disproportionate cost. 

Of the 188 arrest warrants mentioned above, 32 have 

been executed since 14 October 2010, reducing the 

number to156, on which information is held centrally. 

(c)The monetary value of the 156 cases can be found 


Number and monetary value of 156 warrant cases 

Number Amount of overpaid benefit (£) 

1-13 0 

14 77.95 

15 259.28 

16 328.29 

17 409.50 

18 429.66 

19 517.07 

20 587.88 

21 776.81 

22 841.44 

23 854.62 

24 862.30

875W 




876W 



25 866.00 

26 890.40 

27 936.44 

28 939.12 

29 1,066.65 

30 1,148.21 

31 1,253.76 

32 1,417.60 

33 1,483.54 

34 1,548.10 

35 1,617.01 

36 1,711.84 

37 1,817.75 

38 1,831.06 

39 1,847.75 

40 1,968.29 

41 2,005.51 

42 2,028.74 

43 2,110.33 

44 2,124.84 

45 2,158.64 

46 2,203.43 

47 2,207.51 

48 2,209.20 

49 2,249.04 

50 2,314.50 

51 2,323.34 

52 2,428.39 

53 2,429.41 

54 2,431.22 

55 2,478.56 

56 2,533.40 

57 2,674.32 

58 2,816.69 

59 2,867.64 

60 2,917.10 

61 2,962.23 

62 2,976.41 

63 2,995.07 

64 3,014.35 

65 3,265.20 

66 3,311.41 

67 3,342.81 

68 3,389.50 

69 3,473.29 

70 3,536.55 

71 3,598.53 

72 3,632.38 

73 3,662.47 

74 3,678.02 

75 3,821.10 

76 3,840.90 

77 3,845.21 

78 3,860.88 

79 3,924.65 

80 4,036.68 

81 4,131.49 

82 4,234.76 

83 4,367.23 

84 4,396.97 

85 4,422.05 

86 4,430.69 



87 4,765.10 

88 4,815.42 

89 4,927.90 

90 4,928.80 

91 5,461.84 

92 5,463.05 

93 5,512.54 

94 5,599.80 

95 5,711.28 

96 6,011.93 

97 6,116.89 

98 6,120.89 

99 6,487.05 

100 6,487.53 

101 6,859.82 

102 7,017.09 

103 7,150.94 

104 7,201.96 

105 7,356.10 

106 7,674.28 

107 7,815.00 

108 7,829.00 

109 7,972.47 

110 8,034.17 

111 8,267.87 

112 8,336.33 

113 8,406.11 

114 8,489.62 

115 9,038.97 

116 9,081.42 

117 9,575.76 

118 9,768.85 

119 9,931.33 

120 10,349.52 

121 10,421.42 

122 10,540.63 

123 11,261.49 

124 12,110.54 

125 12,175.86 

126 12,387.59 

127 12,620.73 

128 12,819.05 

129 13,015.24 

130 13,893.95 

131 14,007.92 

132 14,140.00 

133 15,339.59 

134 15,353.00 

135 16,105.99 

136 16,332.74 

137 17,146.00 

138 17,225.54 

139 17,820.01 

140 18,368.30 

141 19,481.46 

142 20,816.00 

143 21,049.35 

144 21,239.32 

145 25,286.04 

146 25,722.59 

147 28,253.76 

148 32,121.02

877W 




878W 



149 33,735.64 

150 37,465.39 

151 39,906.59 

152 46,406.20 

153 53,319.36 

154 54,864.22 

155 55,494.13 

156 58,550.01 

Source: 

FRAIMS 

The Department will instigate criminal proceedings irrespective of 

the amount of overpayment where it is in the public interest to do so. 

For example, an attempt by a fraudster to falsely obtain a national 

insurance number to gain access to the benefit system may have 

criminal proceedings instigated against them whether or not there was 

an overpayment. 




benefits: fraud, what steps are being taken to recover 

the suspected fraud identified in the cases; what steps 

he plans to take to recover from them the legal and 

other costs of pursuing those cases; what estimate he 

made of the cost to the public purse of taking legal and 

other action to pursue those cases; and what steps are 

being taken to arrest the persons concerned in the 550 

cases. [24720] 

Chris Grayling: Once a decision has been made that 

an overpayment is recoverable the steps taken to effect 

recovery include deductions from ongoing benefits, 

instalments, a lump sum or through the courts. 

Overpayments are not written off if the debtor cannot 

be immediately located. Comprehensive efforts are made 

to trace debtors and debts may be pursued over a 

considerable period of time. 

The Department seeks prosecution costs awards in 

all cases: it is not limited to those dealt with by warrant. 

Standard costs are £100.00 in guilty plea and £250.00 in 

not guilty plea cases heard in the magistrates courts. In 

the Crown court, applications for prosecution costs 

start at £350.00 and rise substantially depending on the 

seriousness, complexity and plea entered. Decisions to 

award prosecution costs are made by presiding magistrates 

or judges on a case by case basis. 

Information is not available of the cost to the public 

purse of taking legal and other action to pursue the 550 

cases. 

The Department has nominated staff whose duties 

include checking all outstanding warrants every month 

against departmental records and informing the warrant 

holder, who is normally either based at the local police 

or court, of changes and requesting immediate execution 

of warrants. The responsibility to arrest rests with the 

police. 

Social Security Benefits: Reform 


Work and Pensions what the evidential basis is for the 

estimate in his Department’s White Paper on welfare 

reform that his proposed benefit reforms will take 

300,000 people out of poverty; and over what period he 

expects this to be achieved. [26169] 

Chris Grayling: We expect that by the time it is fully 

implemented, universal credit will have moved 350,000 

children and 500,000 working-age adults out of poverty, 

due to increased benefit entitlement and improved take-up 

rates. This is estimated using the Department’s policy 

simulation model. These poverty impacts do not take 

any account of any positive impacts of more people 

moving into work. 


Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the 

number of people who will no longer be in poverty in 

(a) Haslingden and (b) Hyndburn as a result of 

implementation of his proposed reforms to the welfare 

system. [26170] 

Chris Grayling: The information is not available for 

the geographical areas requested. 

We estimate that for Great Britain, by the time it is 

fully implemented, the impact of universal credit will be 

a net poverty reduction of 350,000 children and 500,000 

working-age adults. 


Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the 

number of people likely to have their (a) housing 

benefit, (b) incapacity benefit and (c) jobseeker’s allowance 

withdrawn as a result of implementation of the proposals 

in his Department’s White Paper on welfare reform. 

[26189] 

Chris Grayling: No one will experience a reduction in 

the benefit they are receiving as a result of the introduction 

of universal credit. At the point of transition onto the 

new system, those households whose circumstances remain 

unchanged and who would otherwise experience a reduction 

in income will receive cash protection to make up the 

difference. 

Universal Credit: Welfare 

Grahame M. Morris: To ask the Secretary of State 

for Work and Pensions with reference to paragraph 14 

of his White Paper entitled Universal Credit: welfare 

that works, when he plans to set out proposals for a 

new system of financial sanctions to provide greater 

incentives for people to meet their responsibilities. 

[24900] 

Chris Grayling: Our current proposals for financial 

sanctions are set out in chapter three of our White 

Paper, ‘Universal Credit: welfare that works’. 

Universal credit will make sure that work pays. In 

return, claimants can reasonably be expected to look 

for and prepare for work. 

We also believe that it is fair to ask some claimants to 

do more to find work in return for receiving current 

benefits and ahead of the introduction of universal 

credit we intend to increase the level of labour market 

conditionality applied to some claimants; introduce a 

claimant commitment to ensure claimants fully understand 

what is expected of them; improve the sanctions regime 

so that it more effectively encourages claimants to meet 

their responsibilities; and introduce full-time mandatory 

work activity.

879W 




880W 

These changes will form the basis of the labour 

market conditionality and sanctions system under universal 

credit. 

Those measures that require primary legislation will 

form part of the Welfare Reform Bill to be introduced 

in the new year. 

Vacancies: Peterborough 

Mr Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State 

for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of 

the number of vacancies for (a) full-time and (b) 

part-time employment in Peterborough city council 

area on (i) 1 April 2008, (ii) 1 April 2009, (iii) 1 April 

2010 and (iv) 1 September 2010; and if he will make a 


Chris Grayling: The information requested is in the 

following tables. 

The figures provided relate just to vacancies notified 

to Jobcentre Plus and, as such, represent a market share 

of vacancies throughout the whole economy. 

Comprehensive estimates of all job vacancies and not 

just those notified to Jobcentre Plus, are available from 

the ONS Vacancy Survey. However, the ONS survey is 

currently designed to provide national estimates only. 

August 2010 is the most recent available data. 

Number of notified vacancies for the months of April 2008, April 

2009, April 2010 and August 2010: Peterborough local authority 

Date Full-time vacancies Part-time vacancies 

April 2008 973 198 

April 2009 608 228 

April 2010 1,113 278 

August 2010 1,451 420 

Number of live unfilled vacancies for the months of April 2008, April 

2009, April 2010 and August 2010: Peterborough local authority 

Date Full-time vacancies Part-time vacancies 

April 2008 1,336 221 

April 2009 500 146 

April 2010 813 252 

August 2010 918 419 

Source: 

Jobcentre Plus Labour Market System. 

Asbestos: Employers’ Liability 

Andrea Leadsom: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions if he will bring forward proposals to 

ensure that those with asbestos-related illnesses are 

eligible to claim on employers’ insurance if the exposure 

to asbestos occurred while at work. [24113] 

Chris Grayling: The Employers’ Liability (Compulsory 

Insurance) Act 1969 requires employers carrying on 

business in Great Britain to insure their liability to their 

employees for bodily injury or disease sustained in the 

course of their employment. This Act ensures that 

those with asbestos-related diseases can claim compensation 

against their employers’ liability insurance, where the 

employer has been negligent in exposing them to asbestos 

while at work. 

However, a recent Court of Appeal case has considered 

how the wording of these employers’ liability insurance 

policies affects civil compensation for mesothelioma 

sufferers and we had hoped that the judgment would 

have provided a general principle on how these policies 

should deal with their mesothelioma claims. The court 

decided that the policies should be interpreted based on 

the actual policy wording, which means that some 

sufferers may not be able to claim compensation if the 

insurance policy was worded in such a way that prevents 

a claim from being made. We expect this judgment to be 

appealed to the Supreme Court. 

In February 2010 the previous Government published 

their consultation document, ‘Accessing Compensation— 

Supporting people who need to trace employers’ liability 

insurance’, which set out proposals for people who need 

to find their employers’ liability insurance policies in 

order to claim compensation. The consultation closed 

on 5 May 2010. There were two proposals; firstly an 

Employers’ Liability Tracing Office, that would manage 

a database of EL policies. Secondly, an Employers’ 

Liability Insurance Bureau which would be a compensation 

fund of last resort for those individuals who are unable 

to trace EL insurance records, ensuring they are able to 

receive compensation for injuries or diseases sustained 

during the course of their employment. We are in active 

discussions with all stakeholders on how this situation 

can be addressed and we will publish our response to 

the consultation in due course. 

CABINET OFFICE 

Banks: Finance 

Mr MacNeil: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office whether the Office for National Statistics calculation 

of public sector net debt takes account of the recapitalisation 

of banks. [27859] 

Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the 

responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have 

asked the authority to reply to the hon. Member. A 

copy of their response will be placed in the Library. 

Big Society Bank 

Roberta Blackman-Woods: To ask the Minister for 

the Cabinet Office by what date he expects the Big 

Society Bank to (a) be established and (b) commence 

distributing funds. [27275] 

Mr Hurd: The Government aim to have some functions 

of the Big Society Bank in place by April, then building 

towards a fully operational Bank. It will be ready to 

make initial investments by early summer, which is 

when we expect the first dormant accounts money will 

become available. 

Charity Commission 

Mrs Ellman: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office what assessment he has made of the proposed 

changes to the operation of the Charity Commission; 


Mr Hurd: The Charity Commission, like other 

Government Departments, is facing tough decisions 

about its future priorities following the spending review. 

It is undertaking a strategic review to focus on the key

881W 




882W 

priorities for its future work, including seeking the 

views of the public and other stakeholders. In addition, 

the statutory review of the Charities Act 2006 which is 

due to take place in 2011 will consider potential changes 

to the legislative framework for charities and the Charity 

Commission. 

The Charity Commission’s strategic review is currently 

under way and it would be premature to speculate on 

the outcome, but I am confident that the Charity 

Commission can be an effective regulator of charities in 

England and Wales within the resources allocated in its 

spending review settlement. 

Community Organisers 

Alex Cunningham: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office what roles and responsibilities the proposed 

community organisers will have; and what mechanisms 

he plans to put in place to monitor and assess their 

effectiveness. [27300] 

Mr Hurd: Community organisers will act as a catalyst 

for more social action, supporting all parts of the 

community (including under-represented and disadvantaged 

groups and individuals), to express their needs and 

issues, as well as identify opportunities and resources. 

Through supporting communities to take action, they 

will: 

(a) Build capacity of the community they serve by helping the 

community take action on the issues that matter most to them; 

(b) Help the community challenge vested interests and drive 

change in public and private sector organisations and in the 

community; 

(c) Build self-reliance, individual and collective responsibility; 

(d) Encourage diverse people to work with others to improve 

the quality of life locally; 

(e) Identify local leaders who can carry forward actions; 

(f) Support and link new and existing neighbourhood groups 

(thereby supporting the activity of the Community First programme, 

a targeted grants programme, currently under development). 

The Office for Civil Society is currently procuring a 

national partner to further develop, manage and implement 

the community organisers programme at arms length 

from Government. This ensures that community organisers 

will be accountable to the national partner, while remaining 

free from political influence. 

The effectiveness of the community organisers will 

also be measured by the success they have in enabling 

the communities to take successful actions for change, 

on the priorities that the communities have identified. 

Community organisers will be accountable to the 

community they are supporting as well as any institutions 

which support them. 

Deaths: Winter 

Valerie Vaz: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office what recent discussions he has had with ministerial 

colleagues on responsibility for steps to prevent excess 

winter deaths. [26283] 

Mr Maude: Officials from all key Departments are in 

regular contact on a wide range of winter resilience 

issues, including steps to reduce the number of excess 

deaths over the winter period. 

Emergencies 

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office what assessment he has made of the likely effects 

of the outcomes of the comprehensive spending review 

on his Department’s civil contingencies programmes. 

[26629] 

Mr Maude: The Government’s plans for changes in 

the United Kingdom’s civil contingencies programmes, 

within the resources available through the 2010 spending 

review, are set out in chapter 4 of the strategic defence 

and security review published on 19 October. 

The need for resilience to all kinds of emergency is 

identified in the National Security Strategy as a priority 

task. The role of the Cabinet Office is to co-ordinate 

Government-wide resilience planning and programmes, 

and will continue therefore to be an important task for 

the Department. 


Graham Evans: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office how much his Department spent on attendance 

at the 2010 FIFA World cup. [26151] 

Mr Hurd: The Cabinet Office did not spend any 

money on attendance at the 2010 FIFA World cup. 

Iraq Committee of Inquiry: Public Appointments 

Mr Llwyd: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office 

(1) what skills and experience were identified as being 

required for the role of Secretary to the Iraq Inquiry; 

how many candidates were identified as having such 

skills and experience; and on what basis the successful 

candidate was selected; [26897] 

(2) what steps were taken in the process of appointment 

of the Secretary to the Iraq Inquiry (a) to identify 

potential conflicts of interest and (b) to ensure that any 

such conflicts did not affect the independence of the 

inquiry. [26898] 

Mr Hurd: The Cabinet Secretary decided to nominate 

the Secretary to the Iraq Inquiry and agreed the 

appointment with the Chairman of the Inquiry. Both 

the Cabinet Secretary and the Chairman of the Inquiry 

agreed that the Secretary to the Inquiry should be a 

senior individual in the civil service ideally with previous 

involvement in Iraq issues. 

The Chairman of the Inquiry has told the Cabinet 

Secretary that, in agreeing to the appointment, he was 

aware of the candidate’s role in the Foreign and Defence 

Policy (formerly the Defence and Overseas Policy) 

Secretariat in the Cabinet Office from November 2004, 

and, given the professional standards of the senior civil 

service, saw no potential conflict of interest with her 

appointment as Secretary to the Inquiry that would, in 

his view, affect the independence of the Inquiry. 

Mr Llwyd: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office 

which of his Department’s human resources procedures 

were followed in the selection of the (a) secretary and 

(b) press secretary to the Iraq Inquiry. [26899]

883W 




884W 

Mr Hurd: The roles were filled by applying the managed 

move policy in accordance with the Cabinet Office 

human resources procedures. 

National Citizen Service 


the Cabinet Office on what dates Ministers in the 

Cabinet Office have met Lord Wei to discuss the 

National Citizen Service. [27274] 

Mr Hurd: Ministers in the Cabinet Office meet with 

Lord Wei frequently to discuss many subjects in his 

capacity as Government adviser on Big Society, including 

National Citizen Service (NCS). Information relating 

to internal discussions and advice is not normally disclosed. 

Alex Cunningham: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office what plans he has for the role of the National 

Citizen Service in providing public services; and what 

plans he has to monitor and assess the service’s performance 

in that role. [27299] 

Mr Hurd: National Citizen Service (NCS) is a scheme 

to help young people to serve their communities and to 

develop personally. It is not envisaged that NCS will be 

used to provide public services, although as part of 

their summer NCS experience there may be opportunities 

for young people to volunteer with, and learn more 

about, public service providers in their area. 

An independent evaluation will be conducted to assess 

the impact of National Citizen Service during the pilot 

phase. 


the Cabinet Office what procurement process his 

Department undertook for the pilots of the National 

Citizen Service. [27450] 

Mr Hurd: Cabinet Office conducted a fully open and 

competitive process to select the providers of 2011 

National Citizen Service (NCS) pilots. This involved a 

public invitation of expressions of interest from any 

organisation or group of organisations interested in 

running NCS pilots in 2011, followed by the invitation 

of full proposals from organisations and consortiums 

shortlisted at the expression of interest stage. 

Third Sector: Finance 

Alex Cunningham: To ask the Minister for the 

Cabinet Office what steps his Department plans to take 

to monitor the effectiveness of the transition fund for 

charities, voluntary groups and social enterprises. 

[27302] 

Mr Hurd: The Transition Fund is a significant fund 

that will provide much needed and immediate support 

for charities, voluntary groups and social enterprises to 

help them take on an even bigger role in this country in 

the medium to long term. Our key aim is to make this 

support available quickly, so that organisations can 

make the necessary changes to make the transition to a 

tighter funding environment and take advantage of the 

opportunities presented by the Big Society. The Office 

for Civil Society has worked with the fund manager, 

BIG Fund, to develop arrangements for monitoring the 

outcomes achieved by successful applicants. 

The Transition Fund was launched on 30 November 

and is open for applications until 21 January 2011. 

Lindsay Roy: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office what assessment he has made of the potential 

contribution to the Big Society initiative of proposed 

changes in his Department’s funding of community 

groups and charities. [27445] 

Mr Hurd: Civil Society cannot be immune from the 

need to reduce the deficit, but the allocation of around 

£470 million to the Office for Civil Society within the 

Cabinet Office budget shows our support in very tight 

circumstances. 

Charities, communities and social enterprises have a 

tremendous role to play in building the Big Society, 

through their ability to galvanise community action, 

provide better public services and represent and empower 

communities. We will use our settlement to support 

them in this work, making it easier to set up and run a 

charity or social enterprise, and easier for such organisations 

to access finance and work with the state. 

While Big Society opens up many opportunities for 

the sector, we recognise however that the sector is 

exposed during the transitional period leading up to 

them, and so the spending review settlement therefore 

includes a £100 million transition fund for the sector in 

England. Funding for Charities and community Groups 

outside England is largely a matter for devolved 

administrations. 

Lindsay Roy: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office what assessment he has made of the likely effects 

on (a) community groups and (b) charities of changes 

to their funding as a result of the outcome of the 

Comprehensive Spending Review. [27451] 

Mr Hurd: It is currently too early to evaluate the 

impact of the comprehensive spending review on (a) 

community groups and (b) charities. However the Cabinet 

Office has worked with partners in the sector, across 

Government and the Third Sector Research Centre to 

examine the exposure of the sector to public spending 

reductions and to mitigate potential impacts. 

The Big Society presents a great opportunity for 

voluntary and community groups, as we open up public 

services and devolve power; and the Government are 

therefore committed to supporting the sector through 

this transitional period. This includes: a £100 million 

Transition Fund to help organisations with shortfalls in 

the short-term; publishing evidence and best practice to 

support government at all levels to make cuts wisely and 

in partnership with the sector; and, setting out policy 

measures to open up new sources of funding and help 

the sector maximise new opportunities in the strategy 

document ‘Building a Stronger Civil Society’. 

Funding for charities and community groups outside 

England is largely a matter for devolved Administrations. 

Written Questions: Government Responses 

Mr Amess: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office 

(1) if he will make it his policy that guidance on 

answering round robin questions produced by his

885W 




886W 

Department in respect of questions tabled in (a) the 

House of Lords and (b) House of Commons is 

circulated to departments within three days of the 

question being tabled; and if he will make a statement; 

[26648] 

(2) what recent estimate he has made of the number 

of questions to Government tabled in the House of 

Lords that remain unanswered after 10 working days as 

a result of the timing of circulation of guidance on 

answering round robins; what recent representations he 

has received from Cabinet colleagues about the issue; 


Mr Maude: All Ministers are responsible and accountable 

for the answers given to parliamentary questions within 

specified deadlines. In the case of questions that are 

deemed to be “round robin”, The Guide to Parliamentary 

Work, published by the Leader of the House of Commons 

www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/government-business/ 

parliamentary-business.aspx 

states that Departments should not delay preparing an 

answer until “round robin” advice is provided, and 

should not miss the target deadlines for this reason. 

HEALTH 

Answers received for publication on 

Monday 29 November 2010. 

Abortion 

Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

how many women aged (a) 18 to 24 years and (b) 25 

to 30 years in each strategic health authority area who 

had had (i) one, (ii) two, (iii) three, (iv) four, (v) five, (vi) 

six, (vii) seven, (viii) eight, (ix) nine and (x) 10 or more 

previous abortions had an abortion in 2009. [26652] 

Anne Milton: Information on previous abortions by 

age group and strategic health authority in 2009 is 

shown in the following table. The data have been provided 

for age groups 25 to 29 years for consistency with data 

published in the Department’s statistical bulletin. 

Information on previous abortions is extracted from the 

HSA4 abortion notification forms submitted to the 

chief medical officer (CMO). These data show the total 

number of abortions notified to CMO and not data for 

individual women as more than one form may be received 

for a woman in a calendar year. 

Abortions by age group, strategic health authority and number of 

previous abortions, residents of England and Wales, 2009 

Age group 

Strategic 

health 

authority 

England and 

Wales 

Number of 

previous 

abortions 18-24 25-29 

0 55,086 23,817 

1 17,746 12,392 

2 — 3,262 

3 — 828 

4 — 242 

5 — 70 

6ormore — — 



Age group 

Strategic 

health 

authority 

East of 

England 

East 

Midlands 

Number of 

previous 


Total 76,900 40,634 

0 4,616 1,969 

1 1,434 1,020 

2 — 277 

3ormore — 98 

Total 6,383 3,364 

0 3,898 1,485 

1 1,021 660 

2 — 164 


Total 5,121 2,366 

London 0 10,691 6,505 

1 4,556 3,662 

2 — 1,103 

3 or more — 462 

Total 16,555 11,732 

North East 0 2,490 883 

1 630 415 

2 — 102 


Total 3,230 1,428 

North West 0 8,070 3,078 

1 2,467 1,530 

2 — 353 

3 or more — 108 

Total 11,016 5,069 

South Central 0 3,190 1,392 

1 993 631 

2 — 176 


Total 4,402 2,252 

South East 0 3,671 1,429 

1 1,212 865 

2 — 219 


Total 5,172 2,594 

South West 0 4,209 1,520 

1 1,096 702 

2 — 144 


Total 5,520 2,410

887W 




888W 



Age group 

Strategic 

health 

authority 

West 

Midlands 

Yorkshire and 

the Humber 

Number of 

previous 


0 6,028 2,361 

1 2,044 1,303 

2 — 354 


Total 8,546 4,113 

0 5,295 2,045 

1 1,527 1,065 

2 — 258 


Total 7,101 3,463 

Wales 0 2,928 1,150 

1 766 539 

2 — 112 


Total 3,854 1,843 

‘—’ = Suppressed value less than 10 (between 0 and 9) or where a 

presented total would reveal a suppressed value when used with 

previously published tables. This is in line with Office for National 

Statistics guidance for the release of abortion statistics 2005. 

Abortion: Marriage 


what proportion of women who had an abortion in 

2009 were married at the time of the abortion; what the 

modal (a) age of the women, (b) length gestation of 

the pregnancy, (c) number of previous children born 

to the women and (d) number of previous abortions 

undergone by the women was; and what the most 

common legal grounds was under which such abortions 

were performed. [26413] 

Anne Milton: The information requested can be found 


Most likely 1 conditions for married women 2 having abortions in 2009, residents 

of England and Wales 

England 

and 

Wales 

Total 

abortions 

to 

married 

women 

Age 

Gestation 

weeks 

Number 

of 

previous 

children 

Number 

of 

previous 

abortions Ground 

3 

26,971 29 7 2 0 C 

1 

Statistical mode (highest frequency). 

2 

Includes civil partnership. 

3 

15% of total abortions. 

Note: 

Ground C: that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that 

the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk: greater than if the 

pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the 

pregnant woman. 

Accident and Emergency Departments 

Mr Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

how many people were treated in the accident and 

emergency department in (a) Queen Mary’s Hospital, 

Sidcup (b) Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich and 

(c) Princess Royal Hospital, Farnborough in each of 

the last five years. [26266] 

Mr Simon Burns: This information is not collected in 

the format requested. The information that is available 

is shown in the following table. 

Attendances at accident and emergency departments, 2005-06 to 2009-10 

First attendances 

Org name 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 

Bromley Hospitals 

NHS Trust 

Queen Elizabeth 

Hospital NHS Trust 

Queen Mary’s Sidcup 

NHS Trust 

South London 

Healthcare NHS 

Trust 

82,418 86,132 84,202 84,162 — 

98,280 98,798 99,534 98,224 — 

71,241 71,802 74,060 80,273 — 

— — — — 274,634 

Notes: 

1. Data is provided by NHS Trust. 

2. Data provided are first attendances at the trusts A&E departments. 

Source: 

Department of Health form Quarterly Monitoring of Accident and 

Emergency 

Barnet General Hospital: Private Finance Initiative 

Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what proportion of the running costs of Barnet 

General Hospital was paid to the private finance 

initiative provider in each year from 2005 to 2009; and 

if he will estimate the proportion to be paid to the 

private finance initiative provider in (a) 2010 and (b) 

2011. [26643] 

Mr Simon Burns: The information is not available in 

the format requested. However, data for net operating 

expenses for Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals National 

Health Service Trust in respect of its private finance 

initiative (PFI) scheme are set out in the following table. 

Data are not held centrally for 2010-11 or 2011-12. 

Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust: Proportion of total 

operating expenses relating to PFI 

Percentage of total revenue 

expenditure relating to PFI 

2005-06 5.5 

2006-07 4.8 

2007-08 4.0 

2008-09 3.6 

2009-10 3.3 

Notes: 

1. The source of the data is the audited summarisation schedules of 

the trust for 2005-06 to 2009-10. 

2. The percentages provided represent the net operating expenses in 

respect of PFI schemes as a proportion of total operating expenses. 

3. 2005-06 to 2008-09 figures compiled under UK generally accepted 

accounting practice. 

4. 2009-10 accounts were compiled under international finance reporting 

standards. 

Basophobia: NHS 


(1) what treatments for basophobia are available on the 

NHS; whether he expects new treatments to be available 

in the next two years; and if he will make a statement; 

[26493]

889W 




890W 

(2) what steps his Department has taken to increase 

the standard of healthcare for people diagnosed with 

basophobia since 1990; and if he will make a 

statement; [26494] 

(3) whether he has made an estimate of the number of 

(a) men and (b) women in each age group in each 

health authority area who were diagnosed with basophobia 

in each of the last three years; [26495] 

(4) whether his Department has commissioned research 

into (a) basophobia and (b) conditions related to 

basophobia in the last three years; and if he will make a 


(5) whether his Department has commissioned research 

into the (a) causes and (b) prevention of basophobia 

since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [26497] 

Paul Burstow: Basophobia, a fear of falling, is one of 

a large number of specific phobias that generally respond 

well to cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) although it 

is important that physical health issues that might make 

someone more likely to fall, such as low blood pressure, 

are checked out before psychological treatment is started. 

CBT is now increasingly available on the national health 

service as a result of the Improving Access to Psychological 

Therapies programme which began in 2008 and is about 

half-way through its nationwide roll-out. The Chancellor 

announced further funding in the spending review to 

complete this roll-out by 2014-15. These local psychological 

therapies services, which are delivered in primary care, 

are ideal for patients with specific phobias like basophobia 

because of the ease with which therapists can link with 

the patient’s general practitioner. 

With regard to research into the condition, the usual 

practice of the Department’s National Institute for 

Health Research (NIHR) is not to ring-fence funds for 

expenditure on particular topics: research proposals in 

all areas compete for the funding available. 

British Medical Association: Competition 

Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what representations he has received from the (a) British 

Medical Association, (b) Royal College of Nursing 

and (c) Royal Colleges on competition in the provision 

of health services. [26533] 

Mr Simon Burns: The Department received over 6000 

responses to the White Paper consultation and these are 

being considered carefully. The Government’s response 

will be published in due course. 

The British Medical Association, Royal College of 

Nursing and other Royal Colleges responded to 

Government’s consultation document: “Liberating 

the NHS: Regulating healthcare providers”. A copy of 

the consultation document has already been placed in 

the Library. 

Details of their responses to consultation can be 

found at: 

British Medical Association: 

www.bma.org.uk/healthcare_policy/nhs_white_paper/ 

consultationpaperswp.jsp 

Royal College of General Practitioners: 

www.rcgp.org.uk/policy/liberating_the_nhs.aspx 

Royal College of Midwives: 

www.rcm.org.uk/college/policy-practice/consultations/pastconsultations/nhs-white-paper-consultations/ 

Royal College of Psychiatrists: 

www.rcpsych.ac.uk/policy/policyandparliamentary/projects/ 

live/whitepaper.aspx 

Cancer: Waiting Lists 


(1) what estimate he has made of the average waiting 

time to see a cancer specialist in each year of the 

comprehensive spending review period; [26526] 

(2) what the average waiting time to see a cancer 

specialist was in each primary care trust area in England 

in the latest period for which figures are available. 

[26527] 

Paul Burstow: The Department has made no projections 

of performance for the all cancer two week wait and 

does not hold information on average waiting times for 

these services. In the most recent period for which 

statistics are available (Quarter 1 2010-11) 95.5% of 

patients urgently referred with suspected cancer by their 

general practitioner (GP) were seen within two weeks. 

Statistics on average waiting times for cancer services 

are not collected centrally. However, primary care trust 

(PCT) based performance statistics for the all cancer 

two week wait were published for the first time in 

September this year and can be found at the following 

link: 

www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/ 

PublicationsStatistics/DH_119478 

The most recent statistics available are for the year 

2009-10 and show that between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 

2010 94.9% of patients urgently referred by their GP 

with suspected cancer were first seen by a specialist 

within two weeks. Information on the number of patients 

urgently referred by their GP with suspected cancer 

who were first seen by a specialist within two weeks, 

broken down by PCT in England, has been placed in 

the Library. 

Cataracts: Surgery 


Health what steps he is taking to widen choice for 

patients undergoing cataract surgery in the NHS; and if 

he will make a statement. [26281] 

Mr Simon Burns: We are committed to extending 

choice for all national health service patients and service 

users, including those who are referred for elective care 

such as cataract treatment. We are currently consulting 

on proposals for giving patients and service users greater 

choice and control over their care and we will publish 

our response along with more detailed policy proposals 

early next year. 

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 

Nick Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

whether his Department made an estimate of the effect 

on the number of (a) emergency hospital admissions 

and (b) inpatient bed days of increasing the rate of 

early diagnosis for chronic obstructive pulmonary 

disease. [26125]

891W 




892W 

Mr Simon Burns: The consultation on a strategy for 

services for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 

published earlier this year, included publication of an 

impact assessment which included estimates of the impact 

of the strategy as a whole on the numbers and costs of 

emergency hospital admissions. No explicit estimates 

were made relating to in-patient bed days, or to the 

specific impact of improving the rate of early diagnosis 

of the disease. The consultation documents have already 

been placed in the Library, and can be found on the 


http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/ 

en/Consultations/Liveconsultations/DH_112977 

Nick Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what recent assessment he has made of the stage of 

disease at which chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 

is most frequently diagnosed; and whether his Department 

holds information for benchmarking purposes on the 

diagnosis of that disease in other EU member states. 

[26128] 

Mr Simon Burns: The information the Department 

holds on the stage at which chronic obstructive pulmonary 

disease is diagnosed was published as part of the 

Department’s consultation on a strategy for services for 

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in England and 

is included in the consultation impact assessment. The 

consultation documents have already been placed in the 

Library and can be found on the Department’s website 

at: 

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/ 

en/Consultations/Liveconsultations/DH_112977 

The Department does not hold information for 

benchmarking purposes on the stage of diagnosis in 

other European Union member states. 

Clostridium Difficile 

Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what penalties may be imposed on NHS hospital trusts 

which fail to meet his Department’s targets for reducing 

the incidence of clostridium difficile. [26395] 

Mr Simon Burns: Poor performance in relation to 

Clostridium difficile is covered within the NHS Standard 

Contracts that commissioners are expected to use for 

NHS funded services as a basis for setting out their 

expectations in terms of performance by their providers. 

It falls into the Nationally Specified Events aspect of 

the contract, which introduces a sliding scale of deductions 

of up to 2% of the annual contract value if the provider 

breaches the number of cases of Clostridium difficile 

infections in a contract year compared with the previous 

year’s performance. The primary care trust is required 

to make the year-end deduction under the provisions of 

the relevant clause within the contract. 

Clostridium Difficile: Screening 


what steps he is taking to increase the proportion of 

patients screened for the early detection of clostridium 

difficile. [26394] 

Mr Simon Burns: For patients who develop diarrhoea, 

existing guidance, ‘Clostridium difficile infection: How 

to deal with the problem’, published by the Department 

and the Health Protection Agency, makes clear prompt 

testing is crucial. A copy has been placed in the Library. 

Expert advice is that screening of patients without 

symptoms for Clostridium difficile infection is unnecessary, 

as current evidence indicates that it is not clinically 

effective. 

Day Care: Greater London 

Lyn Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

whether he has made an estimate of the likely change in 

the number of (a) daycare centres and (b) residential 

homes in (i) West Ham constituency and (ii) Newham 

in the next 12 months. [26485] 

Mr Simon Burns: Care homes are operated by local 

councils or independent—private and charitable/ 

voluntary—organisations. Day care is not a regulated 

service; councils are free to take their own decisions on 

its provision. 

It is for local councils to ensure, through their planning 

and commissioning of all social care services, that there 

is sufficient capacity to meet local need. Therefore no 

such estimate has been made by the Department. 

In recognition of the pressures on the social care 

system in a challenging fiscal climate, the Government 

have allocated an additional £2 billion by 2014-15 to 

support the delivery of social care. 

This means, with an ambitious programme of efficiency, 

that there is enough funding available both to protect 

people’s access to services and deliver new approaches 

to improve quality and outcomes. 

Dental Services: Yorkshire and Humber 

Jason McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what steps his Department is taking to increase 

the number of NHS dental service centres available in 

Yorkshire and the Humber; and what steps he is taking 

to improve provision for emergency treatment. [26547] 

Mr Simon Burns: It is for primary care trusts to 

decide how local services, including dental access centres 

and urgent care, should develop to meet local needs and 

service priorities. 


Anas Sarwar: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

(1) what the monetary value of grants awarded by his 

Department was in 2009-10; and how much he expects 

to award in grants in (a) 2010-11 and (b) 2011-12; 

[27261] 

(2) what grants have been awarded by his 

Department in 2010-11 to date; what grants he plans to 

award in each of the next two years; what the monetary 

value is of each such grant; and to which organisations 

such grants are made. [27264] 

Paul Burstow: Information about grants awarded to 

voluntary organisations is routinely published on the 



PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_118373

893W 




894W 

Specific information about all of the Departments 

grant awards for 2009-10 and 2010-11 has been placed 

in the Library. In 2009-10 the total value of grants 

awarded to voluntary organisations was £104,942,584. 

In 2010-11 the total value of grants awarded to voluntary 

organisations was £109,843,051. 

The monetary value of the Department’s grants to 

third sector organisations in 2011-12 will not be agreed 

until primary care trust allocations have been decided. 

However, the Government are committed to ensuring 

that appropriate support is available to voluntary 

organisations to enable them to contribute to improving 

health and well-being, building strong and resilient 

communities as part of the Big Society. 

Departmental Postal Services 

Brandon Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what steps his Department has taken to identify 

those of its services that could be provided through the 

Post Office network. [24931] 

Mr Simon Burns: “Securing the Post Office Network 

in the Digital Age” published on 9 November 2010 set 

out the Government’s policy for the Post Office and the 

provision of government services. The Department is 

currently consulting on an information revolution for 

health and social care. One of the key challenges will be 

to ensure that information can reach all sections of 

society. We want to hear from people as to how that can 

happen and very much welcome responses and ideas, 

including any views on how or whether making specific 

services available through Post Offices can play a role 

within that broader strategy. 

A copy of the consultation document, “Liberating 

the NHS: An Information Revolution” has already 

been placed in the Library and is available on the 

Department’s website at 

www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Liveconsultations/ 

DH_120080 

Diabetes 

Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

how many people have been diagnosed with diabetes 

through the NHS vascular screening programme; and 

what steps the NHS is taking to inform members of the 

public of their entitlement to screening. [26918] 

Paul Burstow: The primary purpose of the programme 

is risk assessment and risk management rather than 

diagnosis. However, the modelling undertaken by the 

Department indicates that, at full roll out, as well as 

preventing over 4,000 people a year developing diabetes, 

the programme will detect a significant amount of 

hitherto undiagnosed disease. 

Primary care trusts (PCTs) began phased implementation 

of the programme from April 2009 and it is for them to 

decide how to inform local eligible populations about it. 

Most PCTs have been inviting people individually and 

informing them of their entitlement to an NHS health 

check by letter of invitation. As they become more 

experienced in managing demand for the risk assessment 

element of the check and confident about their capacity 

to deliver the risk management, PCTs are increasingly 

running awareness campaigns. 

Disability: Children 

Bridget Phillipson: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what plans he has for his Department’s funding 

of disabled children’s services (a) after March 2011 

and (b) in Sunderland from 2010 to 2015; and if he 


Anne Milton: Primary care trust (PCT) revenue 

allocations are not broken down by policy or service 

area. Once allocated, it is for PCTs to commission the 

services they require to meet the health care needs of 

their local populations, taking account of both local 

and national priorities. 

PCTs have been informed of their revenue allocations 

up to 2010-11. Sunderland Teaching PCT received revenue 

allocations of £510 million in 2009-10 and £538 million 

in 2010-11. 

PCT revenue allocations post 2010-11 will be announced 

in December 2010. 

Freedom of Information 


with reference to the answers of 1 July 2008, Official 

Report, column 862W, and 1 September 2008, Official 

Report, column 1675W, on departmental freedom of 

information, if he will place in the Library a copy of the 

information provided on each topic in respect of which 

the request was (a) agreed to and answered in full and 

(b) agreed to and answered in part since November 

2009; and if he will make a statement. [26412] 

Anne Milton: Copies of the information requested by 

my hon. Friend have been placed in the Library. 

General Practitioners 


which private health providers (a) he, (b) Ministers in 

his Department and (c) officials in his Department 

have met to discuss the proposed GP consortia since 6 

May 2010. [26521] 

Mr Simon Burns: There have been several meetings 

with private health providers specifically to discuss general 

practitioner (GP) consortiums and issues such as 

commissioning support for them. 

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my 

noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State 

held a meeting with a group of companies who provide 

commissioning support to GP consortiums. The companies 

represented were UnitedHealth UK, Tribal UK, Humana 

Europe, Aetna UK and Ingenix. 

Departmental officials have met with The Practice, 

Aetna UK, Tribal, Dr Foster Intelligence, PPP-Axa 

Healthcare, NHS Shared Business Services, UnitedHealth 

UK, and GE Healthcare. 


whether the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings 

(Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 will apply 

in respect of the transfer of staff from primary care 

trusts to GP consortia. [26524]

895W 




896W 

Mr Simon Burns: For those staff transferring from 

primary care trusts to general practitioner (GP) 

commissioning consortiums, transfers will be covered 

by either the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of 

Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) and/or the Cabinet 

Office Staff Transfers in the Public Sector Statement of 

Practice which provides terms that are overall no less 

favourable than if TUPE was applied. 


(1) which reserve powers will be retained by his Department 

following the transfer of commissioning from primary 

care trusts to GP consortia; [26525] 

(2) what powers his Department will have to take 

action in respect of a GP consortium becoming 

financially unsustainable after the implementation of 

his proposals for practice-based commissioning. [26532] 

Mr Simon Burns: General practitioner (GP) 

commissioning consortia will be authorised and held to 

account by the NHS Commissioning Board. The NHS 

Commissioning Board will have powers to intervene in 

the event that a consortium is failing to manage their 

finances effectively or deliver acceptable outcomes for 

their patients. 

The Secretary of State for Health will remain accountable 

for the health service with powers to set the legislative 

framework within which the NHS Commissioning Board 

and GP consortia will operate but will not have powers 

to intervene in relation to individual consortia. Further 

details will be set out in the Government’s forthcoming 

response to the consultation on the White Paper “Equity 

and Excellence: Liberating the NHS”. 

Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what estimate he has made of the likely average 

amount of time per week GPs will allocate to running 

GP consortia as a result of his proposals to transfer 

commissioning from primary care trusts to GPs. 

[26531] 

Mr Simon Burns: The Department has not made an 

estimate of the likely average amount of time per week 

general practitioners (GPs) will allocate to running GP 

consortia. 

A fundamental principle of the new commissioning 

arrangements will be that every GP practice will be a 

member of a consortium and contribute to its goals. 

However, our proposed model will mean that not all 

GPs have to be actively involved in every aspect of 

commissioning. Their predominant focus will continue 

to be on providing high quality primary care to their 

patients. It is likely to be a smaller group of primary 

care practitioners who will lead the consortium and 

play an active role in the clinical design of local services. 

Consortia are likely to carry out a number of 

commissioning activities themselves. In other cases, 

consortia may choose to act collectively, adopting a 

lead commissioner arrangement. They may also choose 

to buy in support from external organisations, including 

local authorities and private and voluntary sector bodies, 

which might include analytical activity to profile and 

stratify healthcare needs, support for procurement of 

services, and contract monitoring. 

Haemophilia 

Mr Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

(1) whether the NHS took steps to advise haemophiliacs 

that plasma pool samples from factor VIII and IX 

products produced by the NHS for their use had been 

tested for pathogens; and if he will make a statement; 

[26354] 

(2) whether he plans to release further information 

held by his Department on the potential pathogenic 

side effects on haemophiliacs of factor VIII and IX 

products produced by the NHS for their use; and if he 


Anne Milton: It was and still is the responsibility of 

individual clinicians to advise their patients of the risks 

associated with their treatment. In addition, knowledge 

of both HIV and hepatitis C emerged gradually, over a 

period of time in the late 1970s and early 1980s. 

All of the relevant Government papers that are available 

from the period before 1985, when heat treatment for 

such products was introduced, are on the Department’s 

website at: 

www.dh.gov.uk/en/FreedomOfInformation/ 

Freedomofinformationpublicationschemefeedback/ 

FOIreleases/DH_076693 

Given the level of public interest in this matter, the 

Government are ready to release any more relevant 

documents should any come to light. 

Help is at Hand 

Mrs Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

(1) what estimate he has made of the number of copies 

of his Department’s leaflet entitled Help is at Hand 

distributed by (a) primary care trusts, (b) police forces 

and (c) local authorities in each of the last four years; 

and if he will make a statement; [26842] 

(2) what steps he has taken to ensure that his 

Department’s publication Help is at Hand is received 

by those whom it is intended to assist; and if he will 


Paul Burstow: Help is at Hand is a resource pack to 

support people bereaved by suicide or other sudden or 

traumatic deaths, which was launched in 2006. We have 

not collected data in the format requested by the hon. 

Member. However, data provided by the Department’s 

publications orderline, PROLOG, were analysed to show 

the number of copies of each edition of the resource 

pack supplied to public institutions and private individuals 

between 12 September 2006 and 31 December 2009. 

The total number of packs distributed over this time 

period was 44,765. 

To ensure effective promotion and dissemination of 

this bereavement pack we undertook a full and 

comprehensive evaluation of this resource. This evaluation 

is now complete and will be published before the end of 

December. Once we have published this evaluation we 

will consider how best to ensure it is available to all of 

those who need it. 

Support for those bereaved by suicide is a priority for 

the new suicide prevention strategy currently being 

developed and due for publication in the new year.

897W 




898W 

Hemofil T: Clinical Trials 

Alun Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health pursuant to the answer of 23 November 2010, 

Official Report, column 251W, on Hemofil T: clinical 

trials, what consideration his Department has given to 

obtaining information on the proportion of patients on 

the Hemofil T trial that were mild, moderate or severe 

haemophiliacs; and what assessment he has made of 

the levels of interest in the issue among (a) the public 

and (b) hon. Members and Members of the House of 

Lords. [27280] 

Mr Simon Burns: The Department and the Medicines 

and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency do not 

hold records of the Hemofil T trial and have not 

received previous correspondence regarding this specific 

trial from either the public or Members of the House of 

Commons or the House of Lords. 

Hereditary Diseases 

Jim Fitzpatrick: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health pursuant to his answer of 8 November 2010, 

Official Report, column 147W, on hereditary diseases, 

whether his Department collects information on 

genetic conditions causing increased morbidity and 

mortality in children born to first cousin parents. 

[26003] 

Anne Milton: As stated in my previous answer, 8 

November 2010, Official Report, column 147W, the 

Department of Health does not routinely collect this 

specific type of information centrally. 

The Department recognises the value of adequate 

surveillance of congenital anomalies in order to detect 

any unforeseen increase of genetic defects due to this or 

any other causes. Surveillance helps develop local services 

specifically designed to deal with consanguineous 

relationships. This includes initiatives delivered through 

regional NHS genetic counselling services that work to 

raise awareness of the risks associated with cousin 

marriage. 

Most couples in consanguineous relationships will 

have healthy children. Overall the risk of a couple 

having a child with a severe genetic condition is still 

relatively small, estimated at 4% for cousin marriages 

compared to 2% for unrelated parents. 

Hereford County Hospital: Private Finance Initiative 

Jesse Norman: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what proportion of the total running costs for 

Hereford county hospital (a) was paid to the private 

finance initiative provider in each year from 2005-09 

and (b) is projected to be so paid in (i) 2011 and (ii) 

2011. [26280] 


the format requested. However, data for the proportion 

of total revenue expenditure by Hereford Hospitals 

NHS Trust in respect of its private finance initiative 

(PFI) scheme is set out in the following table. 

Data is not held centrally for 2010-11 or 2011-12. 

Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust—Proportion of total revenue 




2005-06 13.3 

2006-07 13.3 

2007-08 13.3 

2008-09 12.0 

2009-10 1 10.8 

1 

2009-10 accounts were compiled under International Finance Reporting 

Standards under which PFI costs in the audited summarisation 

schedules of trusts are split between capital repayments and revenue 

expenditure elements, which does not make a precise like for like 

comparison with earlier years in this table possible. However, an 

estimate of the PFI unitary payment for 2009-10 is held centrally by 

the Department as well as the audited outturn revenue expenditure 

figure for the Trust for this year and the percentage figure for this year 

is calculated using these two figures 

Notes: 



2. The percentages provided represent the net revenue expenditure in 

respect of PFI schemes as a proportion of total revenue expenditure. 

3. 2005-06 to 2008-09 figures compiled under UK Generally Accepted 

Accounting Practice. 

Medical Schools 


how many medical school places were available in 2009-10. 

[26544] 

Anne Milton: The intake to medical schools in England 

in autumn 2009, was 6,453 students, as shown in the 

following table. 

Medical school intake in England—2009-10 academic year 

University/college 

Total intake of students 

University of Birmingham 428 

University of Brighton 147 

University of Bristol 268 

University of Cambridge 306 

University of Durham 98 

University of East Anglia 169 

University of Hull 160 

Imperial College 309 

Keele University 135 

King’s College London 417 

University of Leeds 280 

University of Leicester 284 

University of Liverpool 397 

University of Manchester 406 

University of Newcastle 259 

University of Nottingham 348 

University of Oxford 185 

Peninsula School of Medicine 

218 

and Dentistry 

Queen Mary, University of 

387 

London 

St George’s Hospital Medical 

274 

School 

University of Sheffield 255 

University of Southampton 252 

University College London 285 

University of Warwick 186 

Total 6,453 

Note: 

These figures are provisional until November/December 2010 when 

revised figures will be reported to HEFCE. 

Source: 

Higher Education Funding Council for England—November 2009

899W 




900W 

Medical Schools: Public Expenditure 


what estimate he has made of the number of medical 

school places that will be available in each year of the 

Comprehensive Spending Review period. [26543] 

Anne Milton: There are no current plans to change 

numbers but they will be kept under review based on 

forecast future demand with the advice of the Centre 

for Workforce Intelligence. 

Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus: Screening 


what progress has been made towards meeting his 

Department’s 2011 deadline for the screening of 

non-elective patients for MRSA. [26390] 

Mr Simon Burns: As outlined in the “NHS Operating 

Framework 2010/11”, there is a requirement to introduce 

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus screening. 

Good progress is being made by organisations to implement 

screening for this cohort of patients, with some organisations 

already having declared full implementation of the policy 

and all organisations planning to implement emergency 

screening for relevant emergency admissions within the 

expected time scale. Strategic health authorities will 

continue to monitor delivery towards the requirement 

by 31 December 2010. 

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus 


what steps his Department is taking to reduce the 

incidence of MRSA. [26392] 

Mr Simon Burns: This Government are determined 

to do all they can to support the health and adult social 

care providers reduce Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus 

aureus (MRSA). From the outset, through the Coalition 

Agreement, this Government made clear that they expected 

the national health service to adopt a zero tolerance 

approach to all health care associated infections (HCAIs), 

including MRSA. 

In the revision of the 2010-11 Operating Framework 

published in June, it was made clear that the NHS 

should continue prioritising the achievement of the 

MRSA objective. The successful implementation of this 

objective will deliver both an overall reduction nationally 

and, importantly, will reduce variation by moving all 

organisations towards the performance of the best. 

At the same time, the revision of the Operating 

Framework confirmed that it expected and required the 

NHS to implement MRSA screening of all relevant 

emergency admissions by the end of this year. 

[n terms of using the availability of data as a driver to 

supporting further reductions in MRSA, we have introduced 

weekly data publication of both MRSA blood stream 

infections and Clostridium difficile infections at hospital 

site level. 

We are also committed to ensuring that the NHS 

continue to have access to evidence based guidance in 

order that they can reduce the number of all HCAIs, 

including MRSA, through the implementation of effective 

infection prevention and control practices. This guidance 

is available on the Department of Health’s “Clean, Safe 

Care” website. 

The Health and Social Care Act 2008 “Code of 

Practice for health and adult social care on the Prevention 

and Control of Infections and related guidance”, which 

the Care Quality Commission use as a basis for assessing 

compliance with the registration requirement on cleanliness 

and infection control has been a driver for improvement 

in the hospital setting. The scope of the Code has 

already been extended to adult social care settings and 

will include primary care in due course so that we can 

ensure that all settings where patients receive care and 

treatment operate comparable infection prevention and 

control practices. 

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Screening 


what information his Department collates for the 

purpose of monitoring rates of MRSA. [26391] 

Mr Simon Burns: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus 

aureus (MRSA) bacteraemia are subject to mandatory 

reporting to the Health Protection Agency. The Department 

uses the outputs from this system to assess and monitor 

rates of MRSA bacteraemia at both national and local 

levels. 

Multiple Sclerosis: Health Services 

Liz Kendall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

(1) what the membership is of the independent scientific 

advisory group of the multiple sclerosis risk-sharing 

scheme; [26893] 

(2) how many patients have taken part in the multiple 

sclerosis risk-sharing scheme; and what estimate he has 

made of the cost to the public purse of administering 

drug treatments under the scheme; [26894] 

(3) which organisation is responsible for monitoring 

outcomes for patients involved in the multiple sclerosis 

risk-sharing scheme; and when the results of the 

scheme will be published. [26895] 

Mr Simon Burns: The scientific advisory group of the 

multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme (MS RSS) comprises 

individuals with expertise in clinical research, epidemiology 

and trials and health economics. The group is chaired 

by Richard Lilford, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology 

at Birmingham university and receives specialist advice 

from neurologists who specialise in the treatment of 

multiple sclerosis. 

The MS RSS collects data from a cohort of over 

5,000 patients. There are an estimated 12,000 people 

receiving drug therapy in the United Kingdom through 

the scheme. Total national health service spend in England 

on the four drugs covered by the scheme is estimated at 

£50 million a year. The Department contributes £200,000 

per year to running the scheme. 

Parexel Ltd, a specialist clinical research organisation, 

is responsible for data collection, management and 

analysis for the MS RSS. Analysis of four year data 

from the scheme is due to be completed in 2011.

901W 




902W 

Muscular Dystrophy: Yorkshire and Humber 

Diana Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health if he will meet the Yorkshire and Humber 

Specialist Commissioning Group to discuss the 

proposed appointment of a muscular dystrophy care 

advisor for Hull. [27029] 

Paul Burstow: The appointment of a muscular dystrophy 

care adviser in Hull is a matter for the local national 

health service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of 

State currently has no plans to meet the Yorkshire and 

the Humber Specialised Commissioning Group to discuss 

this matter. 

NHS 


what assessment he has made of the likely ability of 

NHS foundation trusts to meet patient safety targets in 

each of the next three financial years. [26393] 

Mr Simon Burns: We are informed by the Chairman 

of Monitor (the statutory name of which is the Independent 

Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts) that the safety 

of patients at NHS foundation trusts is assessed by a 

number of bodies, principally the Care Quality Commission 

(CQC). The CQC registers providers of regulated activities, 

including NHS foundation trusts and monitors their 

compliance with the essential safety and quality 

requirements. Where there is evidence of material safety 

concerns, CQC and Monitor will jointly consider the 

appropriate action. 

NHS: Armed Forces 


how many armed forces reservists employed by the 

NHS have had requests for leave to undergo operational 

training refused by NHS trusts in the financial year 

2010-11 to date. [26534] 

Mr Simon Burns: This information is not collected 

centrally. 

We do not centrally monitor the number of national 

health service (NHS) staff serving in the reserve forces. 

There is an option on the electronic staff record (ESR) 

to record reserve forces training as a reason for absence, 

however, entry of these data is not mandatory (although 

it is recommended as ESR best practice). Last year 

around 100 NHS organisations recorded reserve forces 

training as a reason for absence but we cannot be sure 

of a national figure or how many requests for this type 

of leave have been refused. 

NHS: Public Finance 

Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what the budget deficit or surplus was for each 

NHS trust on the latest date for which figures are 

available. [26499] 

Mr Simon Burns: The latest figures available on the 

surplus or deficit positions for each national health 

service trust are the 2010-11 Quarter 1 forecasts, which 

were published on the Department’s website on 19 

November 2010. 

These figures can be found by region in annexes 1 to 

10 of David Flory’s, ‘The Quarter: quarter 1 2010-11’ 

at: 


PublicationsStatistics/DH_087335 

and a copy has been placed in the Library. 

Nurses: Public Expenditure 


(1) what estimate he has made of the number of nurses 

who will leave the NHS in each year of the Comprehensive 

Spending Review period; [26537] 


nurses to be recruited in each year of the Comprehensive 

Spending Review period. [26540] 

Anne Milton: The information requested is not collected 

by the Department 

The precise numbers of national health service nurses 

required over the next five years will not be known until 

the new organisations that will underpin the new system 

have been designed in more detail. 

The Department of Health has consulted on how the 

new organisations should be designed and is analysing 

responses. Information on how the new organisations 

should be designed will be announced in due course. 

The Government have fulfilled their commitment to 

give the NHS a real terms increase in funding each year. 

The demands on the service are rising and to meet 

these, the NHS must make up to £20 billion of efficiency 

savings by 2014, by reducing bureaucracy and doing 

things differently. Savings will be reinvested to support 

the delivery of quality health care. 

Social Services: Elderly 

Catherine McKinnell: To ask the Secretary of State 

for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the likely 

percentage reduction in funding for social care for 

older people in Newcastle upon Tyne as a result of the 

comprehensive spending review; and if he will make a 


(2) what assessment he has made of the likely effect 

of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review 

on the quality of social care services provided for older 

people in Newcastle upon Tyne; and if he will make a 


Paul Burstow: The spending review recognised the 

importance of social care to hundreds of thousands of 

adults of all ages, backgrounds and identities: supporting 

their independence and helping them to make full and 

active contributions to their communities. 

In recognition of the pressures on the social care 

system in a challenging local government settlement, 

the coalition Government have allocated an additional 

£2 billion by 2014-15 to support the delivery of social 

care. 

We have achieved this by: 

The national health service transferring some funding from the 

health capital budget to health revenue, to be spent on measures 

that support social care, which also benefits health. This funding 

will rise to £1 billion in 2014-15, and will promote improved joint 

working between the health and social care systems. Further 

details will be set out in the NHS Operating Framework 2011-12.

903W 




904W 

Additional grant funding, rising to £1 billion by 2014-15, will 

be made available for social care. This funding will be allocated in 

addition to the Department’s existing social care grants, which 

will rise in line with inflation. Total grant funding from the 

Department for social care will reach £2.4 billion by 2014-15. In 

order to support local flexibility and to reduce administrative 

burdens, this funding will go to authorities through the revenue 

support grant. 

This means that, with an ambitious programme of 

efficiency, there is enough funding available both to 

protect people’s access to care and deliver new approaches 

to improve quality and outcomes. 

A key priority for the Government is a radical devolution 

of power away from central Government, freeing local 

government from central control and empowering local 

people to take an active role in services. Decisions on 

spending at a local level must be considered in the 

context of local priorities, which are crafted by local 

authorities in response to the needs and wishes of the 

people they serve. Spending on social care will therefore 

be a decision for the relevant local authority, and it is 

not possible to provide a central estimate. 

South London Healthcare NHS Trust 


what recent assessment he has made of the financial 

performance of South London Healthcare NHS Trust. 

[26268] 

Mr Simon Burns: The Department has identified six 

trusts as financially challenged, including South London 

Healthcare NHS Trust. The Department will continue 

to work with London strategic health authority to 

ensure that, during 2010-11, South London Healthcare 

NHS Trust has plans in place to return to financial 

balance, whilst at the same time maintaining and improving 

services to patients. 

Surgery: Waiting Lists 


what estimate he has made of the average waiting time 

for elective surgery by the end of the comprehensive 

spending review period. [26528] 

Mr Simon Burns: Clinical priority will remain the 

main determinant of when patients should be treated. 

Patients should not experience undue delay at any stage 

of their treatment and would not expect a return to long 

waiting times for operations. 

The national health service (NHS) will be accountable 

locally to the public it serves and provide information to 

patients which will drive choice and competition in the 

NHS. 

Tuberculosis: Greater London 

Number of tuberculosis cases reported in the London borough of 

Bexley, 2007-09 

Number of cases 

2007 27 

2008 23 

2009 17 

Source: 

Health Protection Agency 

University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS 

Trust 

Mark Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what his estimate is of the proportion of the 

running costs of University Hospital Coventry and 

Warwickshire (a) which was paid to the private finance 

initiative provider in each year from 2005-06 to 2009-10 

and (b) will be paid to that provider in 2010-11 and 

2011-12. [26153] 


the format requested. However, data for the proportion 

of total revenue expenditure by University Hospitals 

Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust in respect of its 

private finance initiative (PFI) scheme, is set out in the 

following table. 

Figures for 2005-06 and 2006-07 are not comparable 

with later years as the PFI hospital did not fully open 

until part way through 2006-07. 

Data are not held centrally for 2010-11 or 2011-12. 

University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust— 

proportion of total revenue expenditure relating to PFI 



2005-06 4.3 

2006-07 12.7 

2007-08 14.6 

2008-09 14.6 

2009-10 1 14.3 

1 

2009-10 accounts were compiled under International Finance Reporting 

Standards under which PFI costs in the audited summarisation 

schedules of trusts are split between capital repayments and revenue 

expenditure elements, which does not make a precise like for like 

comparison with earlier years in this table possible. However, an 

estimate of the PFI unitary payment for 2009-10 is held centrally by 

the Department as well as the audited outturn revenue expenditure 

figure for the trust for this year and the percentage figure for this year 

is calculated using these two figures. 

Notes: 



2. The percentages provided represent the net revenue expenditure in 

respect of PFI schemes as a proportion of total revenue expenditure. 

3. 2005-06 to 2008-09 figures compiled under UK Generally Accepted 

Accounting Practice. 

Young People: Autism 


how many cases of tuberculosis have been diagnosed in 

the London Borough of Bexley in each of the last three 

years. [26267] 

Anne Milton: The information requested is shown in 

the following table. 

Jessica Lee: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

whether his Department issues guidance on referring 

young people with autism who receive support from 

child and adolescent mental health services and do not 

fulfil the criteria for adult mental health teams to 

appropriate support from other services on reaching 

adulthood. [26443]

905W 




906W 

Paul Burstow: The Autism Act 2009 requires that the 

Government produce statutory guidance for health and 

social care bodies to support delivery of the autism 

strategy. The strategy highlights the need to improve 

transition planning to give people with autism the right 

start as adults and the guidance will include advice on 

the transition from child to adult services. I will launch 

this guidance at a meeting hosted by the National 

Autistic Society on 17 December 2010. 

Answers received for publication on 

Wednesday 1 December 2010. 

Cancer: Drugs 


how much his Department has allocated to each strategic 

health authority from the NHS funding for cancer 

drugs announced on 10 November 2010. [27395] 

Paul Burstow: With regard to the additional funding 

for national health service cancer drugs in 2010-11, I 

refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. 

Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on 26 October 

2010, Official Report, column 297W. 

We are currently consulting on our proposals for the 

Cancer Drugs Fund to be introduced from April 2011, 

including on the most appropriate allocation of the 

£200 million per annum funding. 

Child Birth: Greater London 


how many (a) hospital and (b) home births took place 

in the London borough of Bexley in each of the last 

five years. [26269] 


The information requested falls within the responsibility 

of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority 

to reply. 

Letter from Stephen Penneck, dated November 2010: 

As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I 

have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many 

(a) hospital and (b) home births took place in the London 

Borough of Bexley in each of the last five years. (26269) 

The table below shows the numbers of live births occurring to 

mothers usually resident in the London Borough of Bexley in 

each year 2005 to 2009. These are presented by place of birth: 

NHS hospital, at home or other. 

Place of birth 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 

NHS hospital 2,977 2,894 2,882 2,707 2,635 

At home 46 74 61 73 43 

Other 1 6 7 4 8 8 

Total live births 3,029 2,975 2,947 2,788 2,686 

1 

‘Other’ live births include those taking place in non-NHS establishments 

such as private maternity units, military hospitals, and private hospitals. 

They also include births occurring ‘elsewhere’, for example in private 

residences that are not the mother’s own, or those occurring on the 

way to the hospital. 


Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what expenditure (a) his Department and (b) its nondepartmental 

public bodies incurred on sponsorship in 

each year since 1997 for which figures are available. 

[27515] 

Paul Burstow: The Department does not account for 

sponsorship separately within its accounting system. It 

would take disproportionate time and incur a 

disproportionate cost to collect the information requested. 

The Department does not collect sponsorship information 

from its non-departmental public bodies and this would 

also take a disproportionate time to commission the 

request. 



Health how much his Department spent on entertainment 

activities related to the 2010 FIFA World cup. [27361] 

Mr Simon Burns: The Department has not funded 

entertainment related to the activities of the 2010 FIFA 

World cup. 

General Practitioners 


for Health whether GP consortia commissioning healthcare 

services by tender will be able to accept tenders from 

other NHS organisations; and if he will make a statement. 

[27093] 

Paul Burstow: It is essential that general practitioner 

(GP) consortia have the freedom to make commissioning 

decisions that they judge will achieve the best outcomes 

within the financial resources available to them. At the 

same time, the economic regulator and NHS 

Commissioning Board will need to develop and maintain 

a framework that ensures transparency, fairness and 

patient choice. We propose that, wherever possible, 

services should be commissioned that enable patients to 

choose from any willing provider. 

The NHS Commissioning Board will be responsible 

for providing a framework to support GP consortia in 

commissioning services. This will include setting standards 

for the quality of NHS commissioning and procurement. 

Health Services 

Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

whether the proposals in respect of commissioning of 

health services in the Health White Paper will lead to 

(a) podiatry and (b) similar services being commissioned 

as single services. [27158] 

Paul Burstow: The White Paper ‘Equity and Excellence: 

Liberating the NHS’ set out our proposals to devolve 

power and responsibility for commissioning services to 

local consortiums of general practitioner (GP) practices.

907W 




908W 

GP consortiums will be responsible for commissioning 

the great majority of national health service services. 

We will expect consortiums to involve relevant health 

and social care professionals from all sectors in helping 

design care pathways or care packages that achieve 

more integrated delivery of care, higher quality, and 

more efficient use of NHS resources. This will create an 

effective dialogue across all health, and where appropriate, 

social care, professionals. 

To support GP consortiums in their commissioning 

decisions, we will also create an independent NHS 

Commissioning Board. 

‘Liberating the NHS: Commissioning for Patients’ 

invited views on a number of areas of the commissioning 

agenda. The engagement exercise closed on 11 October 

and the Department is now analysing all of the 

contributions received. 

Health Services: Standards 


how many and what proportion of patients spent (a) 

four hours or less and (b) more than four hours from 

arrival to admission, transfer or discharge at accident 

and emergency departments in each (i) month and (ii) 

quarter of (A) 2009 and (B) 2010 to date. [27637] 


the format requested. Such information as is available is 

in the table. 

Quarterly data on the number and proportion of 

patients who spend four hours or less from arrival to 

admission, transfer or discharge at accident and emergency 

(A&E) departments is available and published quarterly 

via the Department’s Quarterly Monitoring Accident 

and Emergency Services (QMAE) dataset. QMAE is 

the official source for monitoring performance against 

the four hour A&E waiting time standard. 

Monthly data on the number and proportion of 

patients who spend four hours or less from arrival to 

admission, transfer or discharge at A&E departments 

are only available monthly for August to October 2010 

from situation report (SitRep) management data. These 

data do not undergo the same validation processes as 

official QMAE data. 

For the months prior to August 2010 SitRep data 

were collected on a weekly basis and monthly figures 

would be difficult to obtain from the weekly data as 

different months would contain different numbers of 

weeks, meaning a month on month comparison would 

be distorted. 

A&E attendances and performance, England, calendar year, 2009 and 2010 by quarter, 2010, August, September, October 

All A&E/Minor Injuries Unit/Walk in Centre (Type 1, 2, 3) 

Calendar year Quarter Month OrgID Name 

Attendances where patient 

spent: 

Four hours 

or less in 

A&E 

More than 

four hours 

in A&E 

Percentage of attendances 

where patient spent: 

Four hours 

or less in 

A&E 1,2 

More than 

four hours in 

A&E 1,2 

QMAE data 

2009 1 — Eng England 4,591,401 108,816 97.7 2.3 

2009 2 — Eng England 5,113,295 74,693 98.6 1.4 

2009 3 — Eng England 5,025,722 66,023 98.7 1.3 

2009 4 — Eng England 4,925,381 110,738 97.8 2.2 

2010 1 — Eng England 4,731,558 102,163 97.9 2.1 

2010 2 — Eng England 5,396,369 86,501 98.4 1.6 

2010 3 — Eng England 5,214,746 106,710 98.0 2.0 

Monthly SitRep data 

2010 — August Eng England 1,723,360 33,180 98.1 1.9 

2010 — September Eng England 1,701,826 41,151 97.6 2.4 

2010 — October Eng England 1,753,711 47,414 97.4 2.6 

1 

From Q1 2010-11 (calendar year 2010 Q2), the calculation of quarterly A&E performance on the QMAE has changed. Prior to 2010-11 the 

calculation has identified the proportion of breaches with respect to all A&E attendances, irrespective of whether the time spent in A&E was 

known. The new calculation shows the breaches as a proportion of total attendances for which the time spent in A&E is known. Any attendances 

for which the time spent in A&E is unknown are excluded from the total attendances for the purpose of the calculation. 

2 

The calculation of monthly A&E performance on the Monthly SitReps identifies the proportion of breaches with respect to all A&E 

attendances, irrespective of whether the time spent in A&E was known. 

Notes: 

Attendances with an unknown total time are not included in the quarterly QMAE data. 

Source: 

Department of Health dataset QMAE, Monthly SitReps 


how many and what proportion of patients (a) 

received treatment within and (b) waited longer for 

treatment than 18-weeks after referral in each (i) month 

and (ii) quarter of (A) 2009 and (B) 2010 to date. 

[27638] 

Mr Simon Burns: The information is shown in the 

following table:

909W 




910W 

Calendar year Quarter Month 

Referral to treatment (RTT) national statistics (England) 

Completed admitted adjusted RTT consultant-led pathways 

Number of patients 

who started treatment 

within 18-weeks 



after 18-weeks 

% of patients who 

started treatment 





2009 — January 273,184 20,751 92.9 7.1 

2009 — February 261,111 20,364 92.8 7.2 

2009 — March 300,703 22,483 93.0 7.0 

2009 1 — 834,998 63,598 92.9 7.1 

2009 — April 267,357 19,295 93.3 6.7 

2009 — May 263,030 17,634 93.7 6.3 

2009 — June 299,763 20,350 93.6 6.4 

2009 2 — 830,150 57,279 93.5 6.5 

2009 — July 303,148 20,532 93.7 6.3 

2009 — August 262,624 17,986 93.6 6.4 

2009 — September 297,343 21,401 93.3 6.7 

2009 3 — 863,115 59,919 93.5 6.5 

2009 — October 299,077 22,478 93.0 7.0 

2009 — November 294,662 22,918 92.8 7.2 

2009 — December 260,308 18,811 93.3 6.7 

2009 4 — 854,047 64,207 93.0 7.0 

2010 — January 263,501 20,996 92.6 7.4 

2010 — February 275,335 24,172 91.9 8.1 

2010 — March 322,462 27,921 92.0 8.0 

2010 1 — 861,298 73,089 92.2 7.8 

2010 — April 265,895 22,774 92.1 7.9 

2010 — May 270,648 20,662 92.9 7.1 

2010 — June 300,549 22,440 93.1 6.9 

2010 2 — 837,092 65,876 92.7 7.3 

2010 — July 292,098 21,120 93.3 6.7 

2010 — August 268,301 19,553 93.2 6.8 

2010 — September 289,261 23,542 92.5 7.5 

2010 3 — 849,660 64,215 93.0 7.0 

Completed non-admitted RTT consultant-led pathways 














2009 — January 811,077 22,252 97.3 2.7 

2009 — February 739,427 20,390 97.3 2.7 

2009 — March 873,636 23,407 97.4 2.6 

2009 1 — 2,424,140 66,049 97.3 2.7 

2009 — April 824,755 21,682 97.4 2.6 

2009 — May 793,540 18,005 97.8 2.2 

2009 — June 936,590 21,294 97.8 2.2 

2009 2 — 2,554,885 60,981 97.7 2.3 

2009 — July 928,721 21,549 97.7 2.3 

2009 — August 785,914 18,393 97.7 2.3 

2009 — September 913,825 22,784 97.6 2.4 

2009 3 — 2,628,460 62,726 97.7 2.3 

2009 — October 893,394 21,233 97.7 2.3 

2009 — November 887,612 20,488 97.7 2.3 

2009 — December 792,428 17,221 97.9 2.1 

2009 4 — 2,573,434 58,942 97.8 2.2

911W 




912W 

Completed non-admitted RTT consultant-led pathways 














2010 — January 794,900 18,346 97.7 2.3 

2010 — February 827,198 18,559 97.8 2.2 

2010 — March 955,792 21,050 97.8 2.2 

2010 1 — 2,577,890 57,955 97.8 2.2 

2010 — April 822,550 17,662 97.9 2.1 

2010 — May 842,612 15,557 98.2 1.8 

2010 — June 942,117 17,252 98.2 1.8 

2010 2 — 2,607,279 50,471 98.1 1.9 

2010 — July 921,418 18,036 98.1 1.9 

2010 — August 859,515 17,278 98.0 2.0 

2010 — September 927,225 20,583 97.8 2.2 

2010 3 — 2,708,158 55,897 98.0 2.0 

Note: 

The quarterly figures are calculated from an aggregation of the monthly data. 

Source: 

Department of Health RTT waiting times. 

Health Services: Weather 


(1) whether any NHS trusts have reported issues related 

to (a) capacity of critical care services and (b) bed 

availability under his Department’s winter reporting 

arrangements since 2 November 2010; [27349] 

(2) whether he has received any reports of problems 

in patient handover between ambulance and acute 

services under his Department’s winter reporting 

arrangements during November 2010; [27350] 

(3) whether any (a) daily situation reports and (b) 

NHS trusts have identified services operation problems 

under his Department’s winter reporting arrangements 

since 2 November 2010. [27351] 

Mr Simon Burns: It is for individual local health 

areas, working with their strategic health authorities 

(SHAs), to ensure that appropriate services are available 

for their patients during winter. 

Where operational issues are identified through daily 

winter reporting, the Department works closely with 

SHAs to ensure local winter plans are escalated to 

mitigate operational risks. 

There will, on occasion, be peak demands on services 

in certain places. This can mean temporary measures 

are necessary, but these are kept to an absolute minimum 

and patient safety and quality of care are always paramount. 

Hip Fractures: Older People 

Emily Thornberry: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what steps he is taking to reduce the variation 

in number of older people with hip fractures between 

different local authority areas. [27455] 

Paul Burstow: There is a significant programme of 

work in development to address variation. This Government 

intended the commissioning toolkit to support 

organisations’ establishment of effective falls and fracture 

prevention and management, the best practice tariff 

that is in place which incentivises high quality care; 

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence 

guidance on hip fracture care and the focus on outcomes 

within the national health service. 

Insulin 

Julian Sturdy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what plans his Department has for the future provision 

of testing strips for insulin users. [27100] 

Paul Burstow: Prescribing decisions about blood testing 

strips are for local determination. It is for the local 

national health service to ensure that they are 

commissioning for a comprehensive diabetes service 

that includes patient education as well as access to 

blood testing strips. 

In 2002, the National Institute for Health and Clinical 

Excellence issued clinical guidelines on ‘Management 

of Type 2 Diabetes—Management of Blood Glucose’. 

The guidelines include advice on the self-monitoring of 

blood glucose, and state that self-monitoring can have 

benefits, but it should be carried out as part of an 

integrated self-care package and if the purpose is clear 

and agreed with the patient. People with non-insulin-treated 

Type 2 diabetes, who believe it to be beneficial, and have 

clearly defined goals and objectives, should be encouraged 

to continue to monitor. 

Local Involvement Networks: Finance 

Ms Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what arrangements he plans to put in place to ensure 

continuity of funding to local authorities for Local 

Involvement Networks prior to the establishment of 

local HealthWatch organisations; and if he will make a 


Mr Simon Burns: I refer the hon. Member to the reply 

given to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry 

McCarthy) on 18 November, Official Report, columns 

957-958W.

913W 




914W 

NHS Commissioning Board 


Health whether the NHS Commissioning Board will 

commission salaried primary dental care services. 

[27167] 

Mr Simon Burns: Yes, that is our intention. The 

White Paper “Equity and excellence: Liberating the 

NHS” proposed that the NHS Commissioning Board 

would commission primary care dental services. 

NHS Foundation Trusts 


for Health what steps he plans to take to ensure that 

NHS trusts continue to provide equal access for all 

patients upon becoming foundation trusts; and if he 


Mr Simon Burns: Each primary care trust (PCT) 

needs to ensure equality of access to national health 

service services through the providers it contracts with, 

including NHS foundation trusts (NHSFTs). Through 

contracting with a plurality of health service providers, 

PCTs should be able to secure improved access for the 

patients they serve. 

In the future, general practitioner consortia will 

commission the services that patients receive, helping 

them to navigate the system and ensure they get the best 

care. 

The general right to access NHS services will remain 

unchanged as NHS Trusts become authorised to operate 

as NHSFTs. 

NHS Litigation Authority 

Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

whether the NHS Litigation Authority will provide 

insurance cover for private providers of NHS services 

after the implementation of the proposals in the NHS 

White Paper. [27160] 

Mr Simon Burns: The NHS Litigation Authority 

does not currently provide insurance cover, but provides 

a discretionary indemnity to members of the statutory 

schemes established under section 71 of the National 

Health Service Act 2006. Membership of the schemes is 

voluntary. 

The Department is committed to making sure the 

same arrangements that provide clinical negligence cover 

to NHS bodies are also available to other providers that 

deliver NHS care, including other public sector providers 

and private providers. Changes will be implemented 

alongside the White Paper reforms. 

Osteoporosis: Health Services 


Health what estimate he has made of the number of 

GP practices which have met the minimum thresholds 

set out in the Osteoporosis Directed Enhanced Service. 

[27181] 

Paul Burstow: The Department does not hold 

information on the number of practices that participate 

in the Osteoporosis Directed Enhanced Service. The 

information is held by primary care trusts (PCTs) who 

hold a contract with those general practitioner practices 

who have chosen to enter into an arrangement with a 

PCT to provide this service. 


Health if he will fund a national programme of audits 

of falls and bone health in primary care. [27186] 

Paul Burstow: We already fund a national clinical 

audit of falls and bone health, delivered by the Royal 

College of Physicians. The audit measures the organisation 

of services and care provided to older people for falls 

prevention, bone health and fracture management. It 

provides national benchmarking data, using evidence 

based quality standards, for a variety of healthcare 

settings: acute, primary care, care homes and mental 

health care. 

Strokes: Health Education 


(1) when he plans to release the remaining tranche of 

funding for the Act F.A.S.T. campaign; [27168] 

(2) what recent assessment he has made of the 

effectiveness of his Department’s Act F.A.S.T. campaign 

in raising stroke awareness. [27169] 

Mr Simon Burns: Approval has been received recently 

from the Cabinet Office Efficiency and Reform Group 

for a further wave of the Act FAST Stroke awareness 

campaign to go ahead. The current intention is for the 

television adverts to run in March 2011, supported by 

distribution of other materials locally. 

The evaluation we commissioned from the advertising 

agency which was awarded the contract for developing 

the stroke awareness campaign, showed that the campaign 

successfully achieved a rapid change in behaviour: within 

a year, an estimated 9,864 more people reached hospital 

faster, 642 of whom were saved from death or serious 

disability by receiving thrombolysis. The evidence 

demonstrated that the campaign achieved a payback of 

£3.16 for every £1 spent. On this basis the agency 

submitted an entry to the 2010 Institute of Professional 

Advertisers Effectiveness Awards and, in November, 

achieved a Gold Award. 

Tobacco: Sales 


what timetable he proposes for implementation of any 

proposals requiring the sale of tobacco products in 

plain packaging; and if he will make a statement. 

[27434] 

Anne Milton: The Government’s consideration of 

policy on the plain packaging of tobacco products is in 

its early stages. The Government will look at whether 

the plain packaging of tobacco products could be an 

effective way to reduce further the numbers of young 

people taking up smoking and to help those who are 

trying to quit smoking. The Government want to make 

it easier for people to make healthy choices, but will 

clearly need to consider both the benefits and the costs 

of any new policy.

915W 




916W 


with reference to his press statement of 22 November 

2010, what the evidential basis was for his statement 

that (a) packaging helps to recruit smokers and (b) 

that children are being attracted to smoking by glitzy 

designs on packets; what plans he has to implement 

legislative provisions prohibiting the display in retail 

outlets of tobacco product packaging; and if he will 


Anne Milton: A large number of documents, reports 

and studies have been published about the effect of 

packaging in the marketing and promotion of tobacco 

products, and support the statements made by the Secretary 

of State. 

For example, the RAND Europe study “Assessing 

the Impacts of Revising the Tobacco Products Directive” 

commissioned by the European Commission Health 

and Consumer Directorate-General to support their 

assessment of the impacts of revising the Tobacco 

Products Directive 2001/37/EC and published in September 

2010, includes a section examining the evidence on the 

plain or generic packaging of tobacco products. 

The RAND report can be found at: 

http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/docs/ 

tobacco_ia_rand_en.pdf 

Also, the Australian Government have announced 

their intention to introduce a legislative requirement for 

the plain packaging of tobacco to commence on 1 

January 2012. The evidence supporting their action is 

summarised in their technical report “Australia: the 

healthiest country by 2020—Technical report 2 Tobacco 

Control in Australia”. 

The Australian technical report can be found at: 

www.preventativehealth.org.au/internet/preventativehealth/ 

publishing.nsf/Content/tech-tobacco 

The Government are looking at options around the 

display of tobacco in shops, recognising the need to 

take action both to reduce tobacco consumption and to 

reduce burdens on businesses. No decisions have yet 

been made.

ORAL ANSWERS 


Col. No. 

PRIME MINISTER .................................................. 810 

Engagements.......................................................... 810 

SCOTLAND.............................................................. 801 

Asylum Seekers...................................................... 802 

Commonwealth Games.......................................... 807 

Economy................................................................ 804 

Economy................................................................ 807 

Col. No. 

SCOTLAND—continued 

Economy................................................................ 810 

Employment .......................................................... 809 

Energy.................................................................... 801 

HIV........................................................................ 803 

MOD Hospital Unit .............................................. 809 

Scotch Whisky ....................................................... 806 

VAT ....................................................................... 808 

WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 


Col. No. 

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS ............. 73WS 

Telecoms Council................................................... 73WS 

Col. No. 

HEALTH................................................................... 78WS 

Stem Cell Transplant Services ................................ 78WS 

CABINET OFFICE................................................... 

Diamond Jubilee Civic Honours Competitions...... 

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.. 

London Reforms and the Localism Bill ................. 

77WS 

77WS 

76WS 

76WS 

HOME DEPARTMENT........................................... 

Justice and Home Affairs Pre-Council Statement .. 

Local Licensing Act ............................................... 

Policing in the 21st Century ................................... 

78WS 

80WS 

78WS 

79WS 

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL 

AFFAIRS............................................................... 77WS TREASURY .............................................................. 

Single Payment Scheme.......................................... 77WS Fair Pay in the Public Sector .................................. 

WRITTEN ANSWERS 

73WS 

73WS 


Col. No. 

ATTORNEY-GENERAL .......................................... 836W 

EU Law.................................................................. 836W 

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS............. 831W 

Agriculture: Training ............................................. 831W 

Credit: Regulation.................................................. 832W 

Departmental Food................................................ 833W 

Higher Education: Admissions .............................. 833W 

Higher Education: Finance .................................... 834W 

Local Enterprise Partnerships................................ 834W 

Manufacturing Industries: Trade Competitiveness. 834W 

Regional Growth Fund .......................................... 835W 

UK Trade and Investment: Bahrain ....................... 835W 

CABINET OFFICE................................................... 880W 

Banks: Finance ...................................................... 880W 

Big Society Bank.................................................... 880W 

Charity Commission .............................................. 880W 

Community Organisers .......................................... 881W 

Deaths: Winter....................................................... 881W 

Emergencies ........................................................... 882W 

Football: South Africa ........................................... 882W 

Iraq Committee of Inquiry: Public Appointments . 882W 

National Citizen Service......................................... 883W 

Third Sector: Finance ............................................ 883W 

Written Questions: Government Responses ........... 884W 

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.. 846W 

Affordable Housing: Construction......................... 846W 

Decentralisation and Localism Bill ........................ 846W 

Housing: Construction........................................... 846W 

Col. No. 

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT— 

continued 

Housing: Costs....................................................... 847W 

Mortgages.............................................................. 848W 

Park Homes: Caravan Sites.................................... 848W 

Poverty: Children ................................................... 849W 

Squatting ............................................................... 849W 

Tenancy Deposit Schemes...................................... 849W 

Travellers: Caravan Sites ........................................ 849W 

Working Neighbourhoods Fund ............................ 850W 

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT .......................... 

Arts: Cumbria County Council.............................. 

Arts: Sunderland City Council............................... 

Broadband ............................................................. 

Co-production Agreement between the UK and 

Israel.................................................................. 

Copyright: Recordings ........................................... 

Departmental Sponsorship .................................... 

Newsquest Media Group ....................................... 

DEFENCE................................................................. 

Afghanistan: Peacekeeping Operations .................. 

Armed Forces: Aircraft .......................................... 

Armoured Fighting Vehicles .................................. 

Defence Exports Group ......................................... 

Nimrod Aircraft..................................................... 

Rescue Services ...................................................... 

Strategic Defence and Security Review .................. 

Trident Submarines................................................ 

USA: Nuclear Weapons ......................................... 

836W 

836W 

836W 

837W 

837W 

838W 

838W 

838W 

816W 

816W 

816W 

816W 

817W 

817W 

818W 

818W 

818W 

819W

Col. No. 

DEFENCE—continued 

Warships: Decommissioning .................................. 819W 

EDUCATION............................................................ 

Business: Education ............................................... 

Departmental Redundancy .................................... 

Free School Meals: Ealing ..................................... 

Kristallnacht: Education........................................ 

Pre-School Education: Special Educational Needs. 

Pupils: Disadvantaged............................................ 

Schools: Holocaust Memorial Day ........................ 

Schools: Reading.................................................... 

Schools: Standards................................................. 

Special Educational Needs: Children in Care......... 

Special Educational Needs: Lancashire.................. 

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child ........... 

World War II: Education........................................ 

Youth Services: Manpower .................................... 

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ..................... 

Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy 

Efficiency Scheme .............................................. 

Departmental Contracts ........................................ 

Energy: Prices ........................................................ 

Natural Gas ........................................................... 

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL 

AFFAIRS............................................................... 

Agricultural Wages Order ...................................... 

Biofuels.................................................................. 

British Waterways .................................................. 

Carbon Emissions: Businesses ............................... 

Common Agricultural Policy ................................. 

Departmental Policy .............................................. 

Farming Futures: Finance...................................... 

Genetically Modified Organisms............................ 

National Parks....................................................... 

Salmon: Rivers....................................................... 

Woodland Grants Scheme...................................... 

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE..... 

Akmyrat Rejepow .................................................. 

British Council: Finance ........................................ 

Cayman Islands: Loans.......................................... 

Diplomatic Service: Domestic Staff........................ 

European Union .................................................... 

Football: South Africa ........................................... 

Government Hospitality: Wines............................. 

Iraq: Christianity ................................................... 

Israel: OECD ......................................................... 

Palestinians: International Assistance .................... 

Piracy..................................................................... 

HEALTH................................................................... 

Abortion ................................................................ 

Abortion: Marriage................................................ 

Accident and Emergency Departments .................. 

Barnet General Hospital: Private Finance 

Initiative............................................................. 

Basophobia: NHS.................................................. 

British Medical Association: Competition ............. 

Cancer: Drugs........................................................ 

Cancer: Waiting Lists............................................. 

Cataracts: Surgery.................................................. 

Child Birth: Greater London ................................. 

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease................ 

Clostridium Difficile .............................................. 

Clostridium Difficile: Screening ............................. 

Day Care: Greater London .................................... 

Dental Services: Yorkshire and Humber ................ 

Departmental Grants............................................. 

850W 

850W 

851W 

851W 

852W 

853W 

853W 

854W 

854W 

854W 

855W 

855W 

855W 

856W 

856W 

808W 

808W 

808W 

808W 

809W 

800W 

800W 

801W 

802W 

802W 

802W 

803W 

805W 

805W 

806W 

807W 

807W 

825W 

825W 

826W 

826W 

827W 

827W 

827W 

827W 

830W 

830W 

830W 

831W 

885W 

885W 

887W 

887W 

888W 

888W 

889W 

905W 

890W 

890W 

905W 

890W 

891W 

891W 

892W 

892W 

892W 

Col. No. 

HEALTH—continued 

Departmental Postal Services................................. 893W 

Departmental Sponsorship .................................... 906W 

Diabetes ................................................................. 893W 

Disability: Children................................................ 894W 


Freedom of Information ........................................ 894W 

General Practitioners ............................................. 894W 

General Practitioners ............................................. 906W 

Haemophilia .......................................................... 896W 

Health Services ...................................................... 906W 

Health Services: Standards..................................... 907W 

Health Services: Weather........................................ 911W 

Help is at Hand...................................................... 896W 

Hemofil T: Clinical Trials....................................... 897W 

Hereditary Diseases ............................................... 897W 

Hereford County Hospital: Private Finance 

Initiative............................................................. 897W 

Hip Fractures: Older People................................... 911W 

Insulin.................................................................... 912W 

Local Involvement Networks: Finance................... 912W 

Medical Schools..................................................... 898W 

Medical Schools: Public Expenditure..................... 899W 

Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus: 

Screening ........................................................... 899W 

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus........... 899W 

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: 

Screening ........................................................... 900W 

Multiple Sclerosis: Health Services......................... 900W 

Muscular Dystrophy: Yorkshire and Humber ........ 901W 

NHS....................................................................... 901W 

NHS: Armed Forces .............................................. 901W 

NHS Commissioning Board .................................. 913W 

NHS Foundation Trusts......................................... 913W 

NHS Litigation Authority...................................... 913W 

NHS: Public Finance ............................................. 901W 

Nurses: Public Expenditure.................................... 902W 

Osteoporosis: Health Services ................................ 913W 

Social Services: Elderly .......................................... 902W 

South London Healthcare NHS Trust ................... 903W 

Strokes: Health Education ..................................... 914W 

Surgery: Waiting Lists............................................ 903W 

Tobacco: Sales........................................................ 914W 

Tuberculosis: Greater London ............................... 903W 

University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire 

NHS Trust ......................................................... 904W 

Young People: Autism............................................ 904W 

HOME DEPARTMENT........................................... 811W 

Aviation: Security................................................... 811W 

Crime..................................................................... 811W 

Homosexuality: Criminal Records ......................... 812W 

Immigration........................................................... 812W 

Migration............................................................... 812W 

Vetting ................................................................... 813W 

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION.............. 823W 

Meat: Ritual Slaughter........................................... 823W 

Parliamentary Archives: Manpower....................... 824W 

Smartphone Applications ...................................... 824W 

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.................... 799W 


Developing Countries: Education .......................... 799W 

Developing Countries: HIV Infection .................... 799W 

EU Law.................................................................. 800W 


Trade Unions: Finance........................................... 800W 

JUSTICE................................................................... 

Arrest Warrants ..................................................... 

820W 

820W

Col. No. 

JUSTICE—continued 

Departmental Grants............................................. 820W 

EU Law.................................................................. 822W 

Prisons: Visits......................................................... 822W 

PRIME MINISTER .................................................. 836W 

Pupils: Bullying...................................................... 836W 

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION ................... 824W 

Departmental Written Questions ........................... 824W 

SCOTLAND.............................................................. 819W 


Devolution............................................................. 820W 

Elections ................................................................ 819W 

VAT ....................................................................... 820W 

TRANSPORT ........................................................... 813W 

Biofuels.................................................................. 813W 

East Midlands Airport: Security ............................ 814W 

Lake Windermere: Speed Limits ............................ 814W 

Official Cars: Liquefied Natural Gas ..................... 815W 

Parking: Fines........................................................ 815W 

Stourbridge to Walsall Freight Rail Line................ 815W 

Transport: Expenditure.......................................... 815W 

TREASURY .............................................................. 838W 

Air Passenger Duty ................................................ 838W 

Banks: Finance ...................................................... 839W 

Banks: Loans ......................................................... 839W 

Copyright: Music................................................... 839W 

Employers’ Liability: Asbestos............................... 839W 

Income Tax ............................................................ 840W 

Members: Correspondence .................................... 840W 

Mortgages.............................................................. 840W 

Private Finance Initiative: Newton Abbot.............. 842W 

Revenue and Customs: Marketing ......................... 842W 

Tax Yields .............................................................. 843W 

Taxation: Music ..................................................... 845W 

VAT: Churches....................................................... 845W 

Col. No. 

WALES...................................................................... 813W 

Grants.................................................................... 813W 

UN Food and Agriculture Organisation ................ 813W 

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES.................................. 809W 

Black Asian and Minority Ethnic Women 

Councillors Taskforce: Expenditure................... 809W 

WORK AND PENSIONS ......................................... 

Asbestos: Employers’ Liability............................... 

Atos Healthcare ..................................................... 

Children: Maintenance .......................................... 

Cold Weather Payments ......................................... 

Departmental Contracts ........................................ 

Departmental Grants............................................. 

Departmental Regulation....................................... 

Disability Living Allowance: Care Homes ............. 

Employment Schemes ............................................ 

Employment Schemes: Scotland ............................ 

Housing Benefit ..................................................... 

Housing Benefit: Newham ..................................... 

Housing Benefit: North East.................................. 

Housing Benefit: Worcestershire ............................ 

Industrial Accidents: Construction ........................ 

Industrial Health and Safety: Inspections .............. 

Jobcentre Plus: Rural Areas ................................... 

Jobseeker’s Allowance: Fraud ................................ 

Jobseeker’s Allowance: Hearing Impaired .............. 

Mobility Allowance: Children................................ 

Mortgage Payments ............................................... 

Poverty: Children ................................................... 

Private Finance Initiative Scheme .......................... 

Social Rented Housing: Reform............................. 

Social Security Benefits.......................................... 

Social Security Benefits: Adoption......................... 

Social Security Benefits: Fraud .............................. 

Social Security Benefits: Reform ............................ 

Universal Credit: Welfare....................................... 

Vacancies: Peterborough ........................................ 

856W 

879W 

856W 

857W 

860W 

860W 

860W 

861W 

862W 

863W 

864W 

864W 

865W 

866W 

866W 

866W 

867W 

867W 

868W 

869W 

869W 

870W 

870W 

871W 

871W 

871W 

872W 

873W 

877W 

878W 

879W

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 519 

Wednesday 

No. 82 1 December 2010 

CONTENTS 


Oral Answers to Questions [Col. 801] [see index inside back page] 

Secretary of State for Scotland 

Prime Minister 

Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 (Amendment) [Col. 822] 

Motion for leave to bring in Bill—(Alison McGovern)—agreed to 

Bill presented, and read the First time 

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill [Col. 825] 

Further considered in Committee 

National Policy Statements [Col. 889] 

Motion—(Charles Hendry) 

Motion lapsed 

Libel Law [Col. 930] 

Debate on motion for Adjournment 

Constitutional Law [Col. 939] 

Motion, on a deferred Division, agreed to 

Westminster Hall 

Candour in Health Care [Col. 269WH] 

PACE (Stop and Search) [Col. 291WH] 

HIV [Col. 299WH] 

Metal Theft [Col. 323WH] 

Health Care (North Yorkshire and York) [Col. 332WH] 

Debates on motion for Adjournment 

Written Ministerial Statements [Col. 73WS] 

Written Answers to Questions [Col. 799W] [see index inside back page]

here - United Kingdom Parliament

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?