PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

Wednesday Volume 545 

9 May 2012 No. 1 

HOUSE OF COMMONS 

OFFICIAL REPORT 

PARLIAMENTARY 

DEBATES 

(HANSARD) 

Wednesday 9 May 2012 

£5·00

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2012 

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

available online through The National Archives website at 

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-licence-information.htm 

Enquiries to The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; 

e-mail: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk

Chronology of 

The Parliamentary Debates 

The Parliamentary History contains all that can be collected of the Legislative History of this country from the 

Conquest to the close of the XVIIIth Century (1803), 36 vols. The chief sources whence these Debates are derived 

are the Constitutional History, 24 vols.; Sir Simonds D’Ewes’ Journal; Debates of the Commons in 1620 and 1621; 

Chandler and Timberland’s Debates, 22 vols.; Grey’s Debates of the Commons, from 1667 to 1694, 10 vols.; 

Almons Debates, 24 vols.; Debrett’s Debates, 63 vols.; The Hardwicke Papers; Debates in Parliament by Dr. Johnson, 

&c. &c. 

THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES commenced with the year 1803, and the contents are set forth in the 

following Chronological Table:— 

HISTORY 

CONQUEST TO 34 GEO. II.—1066 to 1760 

Vol.1to15.1Will.Ito34Geo.II 

1066-1760 

REIGN OF GEO. III.—1760 to 1820 

Vol. 15 to 35. Geo. III to 40 Geo. III. 

1760—1800 

PARLIAMENTS OF UNITED KINGDOM OF 

GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 

(FIRST PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 35.........................41 GEO. III. ...........1801 

— 36.........................42 — ...........1802 

(SECOND PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 36.........................42 GEO. III. .......1802-3 

DEBATES 

First Series 

(SECOND PARLIAMENT—cont.) 

Vol. 1 & 2....................44 GEO. III. .......1803-4 

— 3 to 5 ...................45 — ...........1805 

— 6 & 7....................46 — ...........1806 

(THIRD PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 8 & 9....................47 GEO. III. .......1806-7 

(FOURTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 9 to 11 .................48 GEO. III. .......1807-8 

— 12—14 .................49 — ...........1809 

— 15—17 .................50 — ...........1810 

— 18—20 .................51 — ......1810-11 

— 21—23 .................52 — ...........1812 

(FIFTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 24 to 26 ...............53 GEO. III. ......1812-13 

— 27 & 28................54 — ......1813-14 

— 29—31 .................55 — ......1814-15 

— 32—34 .................56 — ...........1816 

— 35 & 36................58 — ...........1817 

— 37—38 .................58 — ...........1818 

(SIXTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 39 & 40................59 GEO. III. ...........1819 

— 41.........................60 — ......1819-20 

Second Series 

REIGN OF GEO. IV.—1820 to 1830 

(SEVENTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 1 to 3 .....................1 GEO. IV. ...........1820 

— 4 & 5 .....................2 — ...........1821 

— 6— 7......................3 — ...........1822 

— 8— 9......................4 — ...........1823 

— 10—11 ...................5 — ...........1824 

— 12—13 ...................6 — .......1825-6 

— 14—15 ...................7 — ...........1826 

(EIGHTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 16 ..........................7 GEO. IV. ...........1826 

— 17 ..........................8 — ...........1827 

— 18 & 19..................9 — ...........1828 

— 20—21 .................10 — ...........1829 

— 22 to 25 ...............11 — ...........1830 

Third Series 

REIGN OF WILLIAM IV. —1830 to 1837 

(NINTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 1 to 3 .....................1 WILL. IV. .......1830-1 

(TENTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 4 to 8 .....................2 WILL. IV. ...........1831 

— 9—14.....................3 — ...........1832 

(ELEVENTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 15 to 20 .................4 WILL. IV. ...........1833 

— 21—25 ...................5 — ...........1834 

(TWELFTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 26 to 30 .................6 WILL. IV. ...........1835 

— 31—35 ...................7 — ...........1836 

— 36—38 ...................8 — ...........1837 

REIGN OF VICTORIA. —1837 to 1901 

(THIRTEENTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 39 to 44 .................1 VICTORIA ...........1838 

— 45—50 ...................2 — ...........1839 

— 51—55 ...................3 — ...........1840 

— 56—58 ...................4 — ......(a)1841 

(FOURTEENTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 59 ..........................4 VICTORIA ......(b)1841 

— 60 to 65 .................5 — ...........1842 

— 66—71 ...................6 — ...........1843 

— 72—76 ...................7 — ...........1844 

— 77—82 ...................8 — ...........1845 

— 83—88 ...................9 — ...........1846 

— 89—94 .................10 — ......(a)1847 

(FIFTEENTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 95.........................10 VICTORIA ......(b)1847 

— 96—101 ...............11 — ...........1848 

— 102—107..............12 — ...........1849 

— 108—113..............13 — ...........1850 

— 114—118..............14 — ...........1851 

— 119—122..............15 — ......(a)1852 

(SIXTEENTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 123.......................15 VICTORIA ......(b)1852 

— 124 to 129............16 — ...........1853 

— 130—135..............17 — ...........1854 

— 136—139..............18 — ...........1855 

— 140—143..............19 — ...........1856 

— 144.......................20 — ......(a)1857

ii 

CHRONOLOGY OF THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES—cont. 

(SEVENTEENTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 145 to 147............20 VICTORIA ......(b)1857 

— 148—151..............21 — ...........1858 

— 152 & 153 ............22 — ......(a)1859 

(EIGHTEENTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 154 & 155 ............22 VICTORIA ......(b)1859 

— 156 to 160............23 — ...........1860 

— 161—164..............24 — ...........1861 

— 165—168..............25 — ...........1862 

— 169—172..............26 — ...........1863 

— 173—176..............27 — ...........1864 

— 177—180..............28 — ...........1865 

(NINETEENTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 181 to 184............29 VICTORIA ...........1866 

— 185—189..............30 — ...........1867 

— 190—193..............31 — .......1867-8 

(TWENTIETH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 194 to 198............32 VICTORIA .......1868-9 

— 199—203..............33 — ...........1870 

— 204—208..............34 — ...........1871 

— 209—213..............35 — ...........1872 

— 214—217..............36 — ...........1873 

(TWENTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT) 


— 222—226..............38 — ...........1875 

— 227—231..............39 — ...........1876 

— 232—236..............40 — ...........1877 

— 237—243..............41 — ...........1878 

— 242—249..............42 — .......1878-9 

— 250 & 251 ............43 — ......(a)1880 

(TWENTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 252 to 256............43 VICTORIA ......(b)1880 

— 257—265..............44 — ...........1881 

— 266—273..............45 — ......(a)1882 

— 274 & 275 ............45 — ......(b)1882 

— 276 to 283............46 — ...........1883 

— 284—292..............47 — ...........1884 

— 293—301..............48 — .......1884-5 

(TWENTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT) 


(TWENTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 308 & 309 ............49 VICTORIA ......(b)1886 

— 310 to 321............50 — ...........1887 

— 322—332..............51 — ...........1888 

— 333—340..............52 — ...........1889 

— 341—348..............53 — ...........1890 

— 349—356..............54 — .......1890-1 

Fourth Series 

(TWENTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT—cont.) 

Vol. 1 to 6 ...................55 VICTORIA ...........1892 

(Twenty-Fifth Parliament) 

Vol. 7 ..........................56 VICTORIA ...........1892 

— 8 to 21 .................57 — .......1893-4 

— 22—29 .................57 — ...........1894 

— 30—35 .................58 — ...........1895 

(TWENTY-SIXTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 36.........................59 VICTORIA ...........1895 

— 37 to 44 ...............59 — .......1895-6 

— 45—52 .................60 — ...........1897 

— 53—65 .................61 — ...........1898 

— 66—76 .................62 — ...........1899 

— 77.........................63 — ...........1899 

— 78—83 .................63 — ...........1900 

— 84................63 & 64 — ...........1900 

— 85—87 .................64 — ...........1900 

(TWENTY-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 88.........................65 VICTORIA ...........1900 

REIGN OF EDWARD VII.—1901 to 1910 

(TWENTY-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT—cont.) 

Vol. 89 ..........................1 EDWARD VII. ...........1901 

— 90 to 100 ...............1 — ...........1901 

— 101..................1 & 2 — ...........1902 

— 102—117 ...............2 — ...........1902 

— 118—128 ...............3 — ...........1903 

— 129—140 ...............4 — ...........1904 

— 141—151 ...............5 — ...........1905 

(TWENTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 152 to 168..............6 EDWARD VII. ...........1906 

— 169—182 ...............7 — ...........1907 

— 183—199 ...............8 — ...........1908 

Fifth Series—Official Report 

Lords Debates 

(TWENTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT—cont.) 

Vol. 1 to 4 .....................9 EDWARD VII. ...........1909 

(TWENTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 5 & 6....................10 EDWARD VII. ...........1910 

and1GEO. V. 

Commons Debates 

(TWENTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT—cont.) 

Vol. 1 to 13 ...................9 EDWARD VII. ...........1909 

(TWENTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 14 to 20 ...............10 EDWARD VII. ...........1910 

and1GEO. V. 

REIGN OF GEORGE V.—1910 to 1936 

Lords Debates 

(THIRTIETH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 7 to 10 ............1 & 2 GEO. V. ...........1911 

— 11—13..............2—3 — ......1912-13 

— 14.....................3—4 — ...........1913 

— 15—17..............4—5 — ...........1914 

— 18—20..............5—6 — ......1914-16 

— 21—23..............6—7 — ...........1916 

— 24—28..............7—8 — ...........1917 

— 29—32..............8—9 — ...........1918 


(THIRTIETH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 21 to 33 ..........1 & 2 GEO. V. ...........1911 

— 34— 49 ............2—3 — ...........1912 

— 50— 57 ............3—4 — ...........1913 

— 58— 67 ............4—5 — ...........1914 

— 68— 79 ............5—6 — ......1914-16 

— 80— 88 ............6—7 — ...........1916 

— 89—102............7—8 — ...........1917 

— 103—111..........8—9 — ...........1918


iii 

(THIRTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 33 to 38.........9 & 10 GEO. V. ...........1919 

— 39—43..........10—11 — ...........1920 

— 44—47..........11—12 — ...........1921 

— 48 (2nd Session) ..12 — ...........1921 

— 49—51..........12—13 — ...........1922 

(THIRTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 52 (2nd Session) ..13 GEO. V. ...........1922 

— 53—55..........13—14 — ...........1923 

(THIRTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 56 to 59.......14 & 15 GEO. V. ...........1924 

(THIRTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 112 to 124.....9 & 10 GEO. V. ...........1919 

— 125—137 ......10—11 — ...........1920 

— 138—148 ......11—12 — ...........1921 

— 149 (2nd Session).12 — ...........1921 

— 150—158 ......12—13 — ...........1922 

(THIRTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 159 (2nd Session).13 GEO. V. ...........1922 

— 160—168.....13 & 14 — ...........1923 

(THIRTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 169 to 178 ...14 & 15 GEO. V. ...........1924 

PARLIAMENT OF UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND 

(THIRTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 60 to 62.......15 & 16 GEO. V. ......1924-25 

— 63—65..........16—17 — ...........1926 

— 66—69..........17—18 — ...........1927 

— 70 & 71 ........18—19 — ...........1928 

— 72 to 74 ........19—29 — ......1928-29 

(THIRTY-FIFTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 75 to 78.......20 & 21 GEO. V. ......1929-30 

— 79—82..........21—22 — ......1930-31 

(THIRTY-SIXTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 83 to 85.......22 & 23 GEO. V. ......1931-32 

— 86—89..........23—24 — ......1932-33 

— 90—94..........24—25 — ......1933-34 

— 95—98..........25—26 — ......1934-35 

(THIRTY-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 99.........................26 GEO. V. and ......1935-36 

EDWARD VIII. 

(THIRTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 179 to 190 ...15 & 16 GEO. V. ......1924-25 

— 191—201 ......16—17 — ...........1926 

— 202—212 ......17—18 — ...........1927 

— 213—221 ......18—19 — ...........1928 

— 222—228 ......19—20 — ......1928-29 

(THIRTY-FIFTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 229 to 243 ...20 & 21 GEO. V. ......1929-30 

— 244—258 ......21—22 — ......1930-31 

(THIRTY-SIXTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 259 to 271 ...22 & 23 GEO. V. ......1931-32 

— 272—282 ......23—24 — ......1932-33 

— 283—294 ......24—25 — ......1933-34 

— 295—306 ......25—26 — ......1934-35 

(THIRTY-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 307.......................26 GEO. V. ......1935-36 

REIGN OF EDWARD VIII.—1936 

Lords Debates 

(THIRTY-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT—cont.) 

Vol. 99 to 102 ................. EDWARD VIII. ...........1936 

— 103 .......................... — ......1936-37 



Vol. 308 to 316 ............... EDWARD VIII. ...........1936 

— 317 .......................... — ......1936-37 

REIGN OF GEORGE VI.—1936 to 1952 

Lords Debates 


Vol. 104 to 106..............1 GEO. VI. ......1936-37 

— 107—110 ........1 & 2 — ......1936-38 

— 111—114..........2—3 — ......1938-39 

— 115—117..........3—4 — ......1939-40 

— 118—120..........4—5 — ......1940-41 

— 121—124..........5—6 — ......1941-42 

— 125—129..........6—7 — ......1942-43 

— 130—133..........7—8 — ......1943-44 

— 134—136..........8—9 — ......1944-45 

(THIRTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 137 to 143.....9 & 10 GEO. VI. ......1945-46 

— 144—151 ......10—11 — ......1946-47 

— 152—158 ......11—12 — ......1947-48 

— 159—165 ......12—14 — ......1948-49 

(THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 166 to 168............14 GEO. VI. ...........1950 

— 169—173.....14 & 15 — ......1950-51 

(FORTIETH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 174 ..............15 & 16 GEO. VI. and ......1951-52 

1ELIZ. II. 



Vol. 318 to 327..............1 GEO. VI. ......1936-37 

— 328—340 ........1 & 2 — ......1937-38 

— 341—354..........2—3 — ......1938-39 

— 355—366..........3—4 — ......1939-40 

— 367—375..........4—5 — ......1940-41 

— 376—384..........5—6 — ......1941-42 

— 385—394..........6—7 — ......1942-43 

— 395—405..........7—8 — ......1943-44 

— 406—412..........8—9 — ......1944-45 

(THIRTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 413 to 429.....9 & 10 GEO. VI. ......1945-46 

— 430—442 ......10—11 — ......1946-47 

— 443—456 ......11—12 — ......1947-48 

— 457—471 ......12—14 — ......1948-49 

(THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 472 to 479............14 GEO. VI. ...........1950 

— 480—492.....14 & 15 — ......1950-51 

(FORTIETH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 493 to 495 ...15 & 16 GEO. VI. and ......1951-52 

1ELIZ. II.

iv 


REIGN OF ELIZABETH II.—1952 to 

Lords Debates 

(FORTIETH PARLIAMENT—cont.) 

Vol. 174 to 178..............1 ELIZ. II. ...........1952 

— 179—183 ........1 & 2 — ......1952-53 

— 184—189..........2—3 — ......1953-54 

— 190—192..........3—4 — ......1954-55 

(FORTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 193 to 199.......4 & 5 ELIZ. II. ......1955-56 

— 200—205..........5—6 — ......1956-57 

— 206—211..........6—7 — ......1957-58 

— 212—218..........7—8 — ......1958-59 

(FORTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 219 to 225.......8 & 9 ELIZ. II. ......1959-60 

— 226—234....... 9—10 — ......1960-61 

— 235—243 ......10—11 — ......1961-62 

— 244—252 ......11—12 — ......1962-63 

— 253—260 ......12—13 — ......1963-64 

(FORTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 261 to 269 ...13 & 14 ELIZ. II. ......1964-65 

— 270—273 ......14—15 — ......1965-66 

(FORTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 274 to 285 ...15 & 16 ELIZ. II. ......1966-67 

— 286—296 ......16—17 — ......1967-68 

— 297—304 ......17—18 — ......1968-69 

— 305—310 ......18—19 — ......1969-70 

(FORTY-FIFTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 311 to 324 ...19 & 20 ELIZ. II. ......1970-71 

— 325—335 ......20—21 — ......1971-72 

— 336—345 ......21—22 — ......1972-73 

— 346—349 ......22—23 — ......1973-74 

(FORTY-SIXTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 350 to 353............23 ELIZ. II. ...........1974 

(FORTY-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 354 to 365 ...23 & 24 ELIZ. II. ......1974-75 

— 366—377 ......24—25 — ......1975-76 

— 378—386 ......25—26 — ......1976-77 

— 387—395 ......26—27 — ......1977-78 

— 396—399 ......27—28 — ......1978-79 

(FORTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 400 to 414 ...28 & 29 ELIZ. II. ......1979-80 

— 415—424.....29 & 30 — ......1980-81 

— 425—435.....30 & 31 — ......1981-82 

— 436—442.....31 & 32 — ......1982-83 

(FORTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 443 to 456 ...32 & 33 ELIZ. II. ......1983-84 

— 457—467.....33 & 34 — ......1984-85 

— 468—481.....34 & 35 — ......1985-86 

— 482—487.....35 & 36 — ......1986-87 

(FIFTIETH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 488 to 501 ...36 & 37 ELIZ. II. ......1987-88 

— 502—512.....37 & 38 — ......1988-89 

— 513—522.....38 & 39 — ......1989-90 

— 523—531.....39 & 40 — ......1990-91 

— 532—536.....40 & 41 — ......1991-92 

(FIFTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 537 to 549 ...41 & 42 ELIZ. II. ......1992-93 

— 550—558 ......42—43 — ......1993-94 

— 559—566 ......43—44 — ......1994-95 

— 567—574 ......44—45 — ......1995-96 

— 575—579 ......45—46 — ......1996-97 


(FORTIETH PARLIAMENT—cont.) 

Vol. 495 to 506..............1 ELIZ. II. ...........1952 

— 507—519 ........1 & 2 — ......1952-53 

— 520—534..........2—3 — ......1953-54 

— 535—541..........3—4 — ......1954-55 

(FORTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 542 to 559.......4 & 5 ELIZ. II. ......1955-56 

— 560—576..........5—6 — ......1956-57 

— 577—593..........6—7 — ......1957-58 

— 594—611..........7—8 — ......1958-59 

(FORTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 612 to 628.......8 & 9 ELIZ. II. ......1959-60 

— 629—647....... 9—10 — ......1960-61 

— 648—665 ......10—11 — ......1961-62 

— 666—683 ......11—12 — ......1962-63 

— 684—700 ......12—13 — ......1963-64 

(FORTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 701 to 719 ...13 & 14 ELIZ. II. ......1964-65 

— 720—726 ......14—15 — ......1965-66 

(FORTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 727 to 752 ...15 & 16 ELIZ. II. ......1966-67 

— 753—771 ......16—17 — ......1967-68 

— 772—789 ......17—18 — ......1968-69 

— 790—802 ......18—19 — ......1969-70 

(FORTY-FIFTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 803 to 824 ...19 & 20 ELIZ. II. ......1970-71 

— 825—844 ......20—21 — ......1971-72 

— 845—862 ......21—22 — ......1972-73 

— 863—869 ......22—23 — ......1973-74 

(FORTY-SIXTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 870 to 879............23 ELIZ. II. ...........1974 

(FORTY-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 880 to 900 ...23 & 24 ELIZ. II. ......1974-75 

— 901—920 ......24—25 — ......1975-76 

— 921—937 ......25—26 — ......1976-77 

— 938—956 ......26—27 — ......1977-78 

— 957—966 ......27—28 — ......1978-79 

(FORTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 967 to 993 ...28 & 29 ELIZ. II. ......1979-80 

— 994—1000...29 & 30 — ......1980-81 

Sixth Series 

Vol. 1 to 12 .................30 ELIZ. II. ......1980-81 

— 13—30 ........30 & 31 — ......1981-82 

— 31—43 ........31 & 32 — ......1982-83 

(FORTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 44 to 66.......32 & 33 ELIZ. II. ......1983-84 

— 67—85 ........33 & 34 — ......1984-85 

— 86—104.......34 & 35 — ......1985-86 

— 105—117.....35 & 36 — ......1986-87 

(FIFTIETH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 118 to 141 ...36 & 37 ELIZ. II. ......1987-88 

— 142—161.....37 & 38 — ......1988-89 

— 162—179.....38 & 39 — ......1989-90 

— 180—197.....39 & 40 — ......1990-91 

— 198—206.....40 & 41 — ......1991-92 

(FIFTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 207 to 232 ...41 & 42 ELIZ. II. ......1992-93 

— 233—249 ......42—43 — ......1993-94 

— 250—266 ......43—44 — ......1994-95 

— 267—283 ......44—45 — ......1995-96 

— 284—293 ......45—46 — ......1996-97


v 

REIGN OF ELIZABETH II.—1952 to 

Lords Debates 

(FIFTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 580 to 594 ....46—47 ELIZ. II. ....1997-98 

Vol. 595 to 606 ....47—48 ELIZ. II. ....1998-99 

Vol. 607 to 619 ....48—49 ELIZ. II. 1999-2000 

Vol. 620 to 625 ....49—50 ELIZ. II. 2000-2001 

(FIFTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 626 to 640 ....50—51 ELIZ. II. 2001-2002 

Vol. 641 to 654 ....51—52 ELIZ. II. 2002-2003 

Vol. 655 to 666 ....52—53 ELIZ. II. 2003-2004 

Vol. 667 to 671 ....53—54 ELIZ. II. 2004-2005 

(FIFTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 672 to 686 ....54—55 ELIZ. II. 2005-2006 

Vol. 687 to 695 ....55—56 ELIZ. II. 2006-2007 

Vol. 696 to 705 ....56—57 ELIZ. II. 2007-2008 

Vol. 706 to 714 ....57—58 ELIZ. II. 2008-2009 

Vol. 715 to 718 ....58—59 ELIZ. II. 2009-2010 

(FIFTY-FIFTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 719 to 736 ....59—61 ELIZ. II. 2010-2012 


(FIFTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 294 to 320 ....46—47 ELIZ. II. ....1997-98 

Vol. 321 to 338 ....47—48 ELIZ. II. ....1998-99 

Vol. 339 to 358 ....48—49 ELIZ. II. 1999-2000 

Vol. 359 to 369 ....49—50 ELIZ. II. 2000-2001 

(FIFTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 370 to 393 ....50—51 ELIZ. II. 2001-2002 

Vol. 394 to 414 ....51—52 ELIZ. II. 2002-2003 

Vol. 415 to 427 ....52—53 ELIZ. II. 2003-2004 

Vol. 428 to 433 ....53—54 ELIZ. II. 2004-2005 

(FIFTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 434 to 452 ....54—55 ELIZ. II. 2005-2006 

Vol. 453 to 466 ....55—56 ELIZ. II. 2006-2007 

Vol. 467 to 484 ....56—57 ELIZ. II. 2007-2008 

Vol. 485 to 500 ....57—58 ELIZ. II. 2008-2009 

Vol. 501 to 509 ....58—59 ELIZ. II. 2009-2010 

(FIFTY-FIFTH PARLIAMENT) 

Vol. 510 to 544 ....59—61 ELIZ. II. 2010-2012

House of Commons 

Alphabetical List of Members 

[Returned at the General Election, 6 May 2010] 

A 

Abbott, Diane Julie (Hackney North and Stoke 

Newington) 

Abrahams, Debbie (Oldham East and Saddleworth) 

[By-election, January 2011] 

Adams, Gerard (Belfast West) [Resigned, January 2011] 

Adams, Nigel (Selby and Ainsty) 

Afriyie, Adam (Windsor) 

Ainsworth, Rt Hon. Robert William (Coventry North 

East) 

Aldous, Peter (Waveney) 

Alexander, Daniel Grian (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch 

and Strathspey) 

Alexander, Rt Hon. Douglas Garven (Paisley and 

Renfrewshire South) 

Alexander, Heidi (Lewisham East) 

Ali, Rushanara (Bethnal Green and Bow) 

Allen, Graham William (Nottingham North) 

Amess, David Anthony Andrew (Southend West) 

Anderson, David (Blaydon) 

Andrew, Stuart (Pudsey) 

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon. James Norwich (North East 

Hampshire) 

Ashworth, Jonathan (Leicester South) [By-election, May 

2011] 

Austin, Ian Christopher (Dudley North) 

B 

Bacon, Richard Michael (South Norfolk) 

Bagshawe, Louise Daphne (Corby) 

Bailey, Adrian Edward (West Bromwich West) 

Bain, William Thomas (Glasgow North East) 

Baker, Norman John (Lewes) 

Baker, Steven John (Wycombe) 

Baldry, Antony Brian (Banbury) 

Baldwin, Harriett Mary Morison (West Worcestershire) 

Balls, Rt Hon. Edward Michael (Morley and Outwood) 

Banks, Gordon Raymond (Ochil and South Perthshire) 

Barclay, Stephen Paul (North East Cambridgeshire) 

Barker, Gregory Leonard George (Bexhill and Battle) 

Baron, John Charles (Basildon and Billericay) 

Barron, Rt Hon. Kevin John (Rother Valley) 

Barwell, Gavin Laurence (Croydon Central) 

Bayley, Hugh (York Central) 

Bebb, Guto ap Owain (Aberconwy) 

Beckett, Rt Hon. Margaret Mary (Derby South) 

Begg, Anne (Aberdeen South) 

Beith, Rt Hon. Sir Alan James (Berwick-upon-Tweed) 

Bell, Sir Stuart (Middlesbrough) 

Bellingham, Henry Campbell (North West Norfolk) 

Benn, Rt Hon. Hilary James (Leeds Central) 

Benton, Joseph Edward (Bootle) 

Benyon, Richard Henry Ronald (Newbury) 

Bercow, Rt Hon. John Simon (Buckingham) 

Beresford, Sir Alexander Paul (Mole Valley) 

Berger, Luciana Clare (Liverpool Wavertree) 

Berry, Jake (Rossendale and Darwen) 

Betts, Clive James Charles (Sheffield South East) 

Bingham, Andrew Russell (High Peak) 

Binley, Brian Arthur Roland (Northampton South) 

Birtwistle, Gordon (Burnley) 

Blackman, Robert John (Harrow East) 

Blackman-Woods, Roberta Carol (City of Durham) 

Blackwood, Nicola Claire (Oxford West and Abingdon) 

Blears, Rt Hon. Hazel Anne (Salford and Eccles) 

Blenkinsop, Thomas Francis (Middlesbrough South and 

East Cleveland) 

Blomfield, Paul (Sheffield Central) 

Blunkett, Rt Hon. David (Sheffield, Brightside and 

Hillsborough) 

Blunt, Crispin Jeremy Rupert (Reigate) 

Boles, Nicholas Edward Coleridge (Grantham and 

Stamford) 

Bone, Peter William (Wellingborough) 

Bottomley, Peter James (Worthing West) 

Bradley, Karen Anne (Staffordshire Moorlands) 

Bradshaw, Rt Hon. Benjamin Peter James (Exeter) 

Brady, Graham Stuart (Altrincham and Sale West) 

Brake, Thomas Anthony (Carshalton and Wallington) 

Bray, Angie (Ealing Central and Acton) 

Brazier, Julian William Hendy (Canterbury) 

Brennan, Kevin Denis (Cardiff West) 

Bridgen, Andrew James (North West Leicestershire) 

Brine, Stephen Charles (Winchester) 

Brokenshire, James Peter (Old Bexley and Sidcup) 

Brooke, Annette Lesley (Mid Dorset and North Poole) 

Brown, Rt Hon. James Gordon (Kirkcaldy and 

Cowdenbeath) 

Brown, Lyn Carol (West Ham) 

Brown, Rt Hon. Nicholas Hugh (Newcastle upon Tyne 

East) 

Brown, Russell Leslie (Dumfries and Galloway) 

Browne, Jeremy Richard (Taunton Deane) 

Bruce, Fiona Claire (Congleton) 

Bruce, Rt Hon. Malcolm Gray (Gordon) 

Bryant, Christopher John (Rhondda) 

Buck, Karen Patricia (Westminster North) 

Buckland, Robert James (South Swindon) 

Burden, Richard Haines (Birmingham, Northfield) 

Burley, Aidan (Cannock Chase) 

Burnham, Rt Hon. Andrew Murray (Leigh) 

Burns, Conor (Bournemouth West) 

Burns, Simon Hugh McGuigan (Chelmsford) 

Burrowes, David John Barrington (Enfield, Southgate) 

Burstow, Paul Kenneth (Sutton and Cheam) 

Burt, Alistair James Hendrie (North East Bedfordshire) 

Burt, Lorely Jane (Solihull) 

Byles, Daniel Alan (North Warwickshire) 

Byrne, Rt Hon. Liam Dominic (Birmingham, Hodge 

Hill) 

Cable, John Vincent (Twickenham) 

Cairns, Alun Hugh (Vale of Glamorgan) 

Cairns, John David (Inverclyde) [Died, May 2011] 

Cameron, Rt Hon. David William Donald (Witney) 

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) 

Campbell, Gregory Lloyd (East Londonderry) 

C

viii Alphabetical List of Members 9 MAY 2012 


Campbell, Rt Hon. Sir Walter Menzies (North East 

Fife) 

Campbell, Ronald (Blyth Valley) 

Carmichael, Alexander Morrison (Orkney and Shetland) 

Carmichael, William Neil (Stroud) 

Carswell, John Douglas Wilson (Clacton) 

Cash, William Nigel Paul (Stone) 

Caton, Martin Phillip (Gower) 

Chapman, Jennifer (Darlington) 

Chishti, Atta-Ur-Rehman (Gillingham and Rainham) 

Chope, Christopher Robert (Christchurch) 

Clappison, William James (Hertsmere) 

Clark, Gregory David (Tunbridge Wells) 

Clark, Katy (North Ayrshire and Arran) 

Clarke, Rt Hon. Kenneth Harry (Rushcliffe) 

Clarke, Rt Hon. Thomas (Coatbridge, Chryston and 

Bellshill) 

Clegg, Rt Hon. Nicholas William Peter (Sheffield, 

Hallam) 

Clifton-Brown , Geoffrey Robert (The Cotswolds) 

Clwyd, Rt Hon. Ann (Cynon Valley) 

Coaker, Vernon Rodney (Gedling) 

Coffey, Margaret Ann (Stockport) 

Coffey, Therese Anne (Suffolk Coastal) 

Collins, Damian Noel (Folkestone and Hythe) 

Colvile, Oliver Newton (Plymouth, Sutton and 

Devonport) 

Connarty, Michael (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) 

Cooper, Rosemary Elizabeth (West Lancashire) 

Cooper, Rt Hon. Yvette (Normanton, Pontefract and 

Castleford) 

Corbyn, Jeremy Bernard (Islington North) 

Cox, Charles Geoffrey (Torridge and West Devon) 

Crabb, Stephen (Preseli Pembrokeshire) 

Crausby, David Anthony (Bolton North East) 

Creagh, Mary Helen (Wakefield) 

Creasy, Stella Judith (Walthamstow) 

Crockart, Michael Bruce (Edinburgh West) 

Crouch, Tracey Elizabeth Anne (Chatham and 

Aylesford) 

Cruddas, Jonathon (Dagenham and Rainham) 

Cryer, John Robert (Leyton and Wanstead) 

Cunningham, Alexander (Stockton North) 

Cunningham, James Dolan (Coventry South) 

Cunningham, Thomas Anthony (Workington) 

Curran, Margaret Patricia (Glasgow East) 

Dakin, Nicholas (Scunthorpe) 

Danczuk, Simon Christopher (Rochdale) 

Darling, Rt Hon. Alistair Maclean (Edinburgh South 

West) 

Davey, Edward Jonathon (Kingston and Surbiton) 

David, Wayne (Caerphilly) 

Davidson, Ian Graham (Glasgow South West) 

Davies, David Thomas Charles (Monmouth) 

Davies, Edward Glyn (Montgomeryshire) 

Davies, Geraint Richard (Swansea West) 

Davies, Philip Andrew (Shipley) 

Davis, Rt Hon. David Michael (Haltemprice and 

Howden) 

de Bois, Geoffrey Nicholas (Enfield North) 

De Piero, Gloria (Ashfield) 

Denham, Rt Hon. John Yorke (Southampton, Itchen) 

Dinenage, Caroline Julia (Gosport) 

Djanogly, Jonathan Simon (Huntingdon) 

Dobbin, James (Heywood and Middleton) 

Dobson, Rt Hon. Frank Gordon (Holborn and 

St Pancras) 

D 

Docherty, Thomas (Dunfermline and West Fife) 

Dodds, Nigel Alexander (Belfast North) 

Doherty, Pat (West Tyrone) 

Donaldson, Rt Hon. Jeffrey Mark (Lagan Valley) 

Donohoe, Brian Harold (Central Ayrshire) 

Doran, Francis (Aberdeen North) 

Dorrell, Rt Hon. Stephen James (Charnwood) 

Dorries, Nadine Vanessa (Mid Bedfordshire) 

Dowd, James Patrick (Lewisham West and Penge) 

Doyle, Gemma (West Dunbartonshire) 

Doyle-Price, Jacqueline (Thurrock) 

Drax, Richard—see Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax, Richard 

Grosvenor 

Dromey, Jack (Birmingham, Erdington) 

Duddridge, James Philip (Rochford and Southend East) 

Dugher, Michael Vincent (Barnsley East) 

Duncan, Alan James Carter (Rutland and Melton) 

Duncan Smith, Rt Hon. George Iain (Chingford and 

Woodford Green) 

Dunne, Philip Martin (Ludlow) 

Durkan, John Mark (Foyle) 

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) 

Eagle, Maria (Garston and Halewood) 

Edwards, David Jonathan (Carmarthen East and 

Dinefwr) 

Efford, Clive Stanley (Eltham) 

Elliott, Julie (Sunderland Central) 

Ellis, Michael Tyrone (Northampton North) 

Ellison, Jane Elizabeth (Battersea) 

Ellman, Louise Joyce (Liverpool, Riverside) 

Ellwood, Tobias Martin (Bournemouth East) 

Elphicke, Charles Brett Anthony (Dover) 

Engel, Natascha (North East Derbyshire) 

Esterson, William Roffen (Sefton Central) 

Eustice, Charles George (Camborne and Redruth) 

Evans, Christopher James (Islwyn) 

Evans, Graham Thomas (Weaver Vale) 

Evans, Jonathan Peter (Cardiff North) 

Evans, Nigel Martin (Ribble Valley) 

Evennett, David Anthony (Bexleyheath and Crayford) 

Fabricant, Michael Louis David (Lichfield) 

Fallon, Michael Cathel (Sevenoaks) 

Farrelly, Christopher Paul (Newcastle-under-Lyme) 

Farron, Timothy James (Westmorland and Lonsdale) 

Featherstone, Lynne Choona (Hornsey and Wood 

Green) 

Field, Rt Hon. Frank (Birkenhead) 

Field, Mark Christopher (Cities of London and 

Westminster) 

Fitzpatrick, James (Poplar and Limehouse) 

Flello, Robert Charles Douglas (Stoke-on-Trent South) 

Flint, Rt Hon. Caroline Louise (Don Valley) 

Flynn, Paul Phillip (Newport West) 

Foster, Donald Michael Ellison (Bath) 

Fovargue, Yvonne Helen (Makerfield) 

Fox, Liam (North Somerset) 

Francis, David Hywel (Aberavon) 

Francois, Mark Gino (Rayleigh and Wickford) 

Freeman, George (Mid Norfolk) 

Freer, Mike (Finchley and Golders Green) 

Fullbrook, Lorraine (South Ribble) 

Fuller, Richard Quentin (Bedford) 

E 

F


9 MAY 2012 


ix 

G 

Gale, Roger James (North Thanet) 

Galloway, George (Bradford West) [By-election, April 

2012] 

Gapes, Michael John (Ilford South) 

Gardiner, Barry Strachan (Brent North) 

Garnier, Edward Henry (Harborough) 

Garnier, Mark Robert Timothy (Wyre Forest) 

Gauke, David Michael (South West Hertfordshire) 

George, Andrew Henry (St Ives) 

Gibb, Nicolas John (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) 

Gilbert, Stephen David John (St Austell and Newquay) 

Gildernew, Michelle (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) 

Gillan, Cheryl Elise Kendall (Chesham and Amersham) 

Gilmore, Sheila (Edinburgh East) 

Glass, Pat (North West Durham) 

Glen, John Philip (Salisbury) 

Glindon, Mary Theresa (North Tyneside) 

Godsiff, Roger Duncan (Birmingham, Hall Green) 

Goggins, Rt Hon. Paul Gerard (Wythenshawe and Sale 

East) 

Goldsmith, Frank Zacharias Robin (Richmond Park) 

Goodman, Helen Catherine (Bishop Auckland) 

Goodwill, Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) 

Gove, Michael Andrew (Surrey Heath) 

Graham, Richard (Gloucester) 

Grant, Helen (Maidstone and the Weald) 

Gray, James Whiteside (North Wiltshire) 

Grayling, Christopher Stephen (Epsom and Ewell) 

Greatrex, Thomas James (Rutherglen and Hamilton 

West) 

Green, Damian Howard (Ashford) 

Green, Kate (Stretford and Urmston) 

Greening, Justine (Putney) 

Greenwood, Lilian Rachel (Nottingham South) 

Grieve, Dominic Charles Roberts (Beaconsfield) 

Griffith, Nia Rhiannon (Llanelli) 

Griffiths, Andrew James (Burton) 

Gummer, Benedict Michael (Ipswich) 

Gwynne, Andrew John (Denton and Reddish) 

Gyimah, Samuel Phillip (East Surrey) 

H 

Hague, Rt Hon. William Jefferson (Richmond (Yorks)) 

Hain, Rt Hon. Peter Gerald (Neath) 

Halfon, Robert Henry (Harlow) 

Hames, Duncan John (Chippenham) 

Hamilton, David (Midlothian) 

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds North East) 

Hammond, Philip (Runnymede and Weybridge) 

Hammond, Stephen William (Wimbledon) 

Hancock, Matthew (West Suffolk) 

Hancock, Michael Thomas (Portsmouth South) 

Hands, Gregory William (Chelsea and Fulham) 

Hanson, Rt Hon. David George (Delyn) 

Harman, Rt Hon. Harriet (Camberwell and Peckham) 

Harper, Mark James (Forest of Dean) 

Harrington, Richard (Watford) 

Harris, Rebecca Elizabeth (Castle Point) 

Harris, Tom (Glasgow South) 

Hart, Simon Anthony (Carmarthen West and South 

Pembrokeshire) 

Harvey, Nicholas Barton (North Devon) 

Haselhurst, Rt Hon. Sir Alan Gordon Barraclough 

(Saffron Walden) 

Havard, David Stewart (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) 

Hayes, John Henry (South Holland and The Deepings) 

Heald, Oliver (North East Hertfordshire) 

Healey, Rt Hon. John (Wentworth and Dearne) 

Heath, David William St John (Somerton and Frome) 

Heaton-Harris, Christopher (Daventry) 

Hemming, John Alexander Melvin (Birmingham, 

Yardley) 

Henderson, Gordon (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) 

Hendrick, Mark Phillip (Preston) 

Hendry, Charles (Wealden) 

Hepburn, Stephen (Jarrow) 

Herbert, Nicholas Le Quesne (Arundel and South 

Downs) 

Hermon, Sylvia Eileen (North Down) 

Heyes, David Alan (Ashton-under-Lyne) 

Hillier, Meg (Hackney South and Shoreditch) 

Hilling, Julie Ann (Bolton West) 

Hinds, Damian Patrick George (East Hampshire) 

Hoban, Mark Gerard (Fareham) 

Hodge, Rt Hon. Margaret Eve (Barking) 

Hodgson, Sharon (Washington and Sunderland West) 

Hoey, Catharine Letitia (Vauxhall) 

Hollingbery, George Michael Edward (Meon Valley) 

Hollobone, Philip Thomas (Kettering) 

Holloway, Adam James Harold (Gravesham) 

Hood, James (Lanark and Hamilton East) 

Hopkins, Kelvin Peter (Luton North) 

Hopkins, Kristan Frederick (Keighley) 

Horwood, Martin Charles (Cheltenham) 

Hosie, Stewart (Dundee East) 

Howarth, Rt Hon. George Edward (Knowsley) 

Howarth, James Gerald Douglas (Aldershot) 

Howell, John Michael (Henley) 

Hoyle, Lindsay Harvey (Chorley) 

Hughes, Simon Henry Ward (Bermondsey and Old 

Southwark) 

Huhne, Christopher Murray Paul (Eastleigh) 

Hunt, Jeremy Richard Streynsham (South West Surrey) 

Hunt, Tristram Julian William (Stoke on Trent Central) 

Hunter, Mark James (Cheadle) 

Huppert, Julian Leon (Cambridge) 

Hurd, Nicholas Richard (Ruislip, Northwood and 

Pinner) 

Illsley, Eric Evelyn (Barnsley Central) [Resigned, 

February 2011] 

Irranca-Davies, Ifor Huw (Ogmore) 

I 

J 

Jackson, Glenda May (Hampstead and Kilburn) 

Jackson, Stewart James (Peterborough) 

James, Margot (Stourbridge) 

James, Siân Catherine (Swansea East) 

Jamieson, Catherine Mary (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) 

Jarvis, Dan (Barnsley Central) [By-election, March 

2011] 

Javid, Sajid (Bromsgrove) 

Jenkin, Bernard Christison (Harwich and North Essex) 

Johnson, Rt Hon. Alan Arthur (Kingston upon Hull 

West and Hessle) 

Johnson, Diana Ruth (Kingston upon Hull North) 

Johnson, Gareth Alan (Dartford) 

Johnson, Joseph Edmund (Orpington) 

Jones, Andrew Hanson (Harrogate and Knaresborough) 

Jones, David Ian (Clwyd West) 

Jones, Graham Peter (Hyndburn) 

Jones, Helen Mary (Warrington North)

x Alphabetical List of Members 9 MAY 2012 


Jones, Kevan David (North Durham) 

Jones, Marcus Charles (Nuneaton) 

Jones, Susan Elan (Clwyd South) 

Jowell, Rt Hon. Tessa Jane Helen Douglas (Dulwich and 

West Norwood) 

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk) 

Kaufman, Rt Hon. Sir Gerald Bernard (Manchester, 

Gorton) 

Kawczynski, Daniel Robert (Shrewsbury and Atcham) 

Keeley, Barbara Mary (Worsley and Eccles South) 

Keen, Alan (Feltham and Heston) [Died, November 

2011] 

Kelly, Chris (Dudley South) 

Kendall, Elizabeth Louise (Leicester West) 

Kennedy, Rt Hon. Charles Peter (Ross, Skye and 

Lochaber) 

Khan, Rt Hon. Sadiq Aman (Tooting) 

Kirby, Simon Gerard (Brighton, Kemptown) 

Knight, Rt Hon. Gregory (East Yorkshire) 

Kwarteng, Kwasi Alfred Addo (Spelthorne) 

K 

L 

Laing, Eleanor Fulton (Epping Forest) 

Lamb, Norman Peter (North Norfolk) 

Lammy, Rt Hon. David Lindon (Tottenham) 

Lancaster, John Mark (Milton Keynes North) 

Lansley, Andrew David (South Cambridgeshire) 

Latham, Pauline Elizabeth (Mid Derbyshire) 

Lavery, Ian (Wansbeck) 

Laws, David Anthony (Yeovil) 

Lazarowicz, Marek Jerzy (Edinburgh North and Leith) 

Leadsom, Andrea Jacqueline (South Northamptonshire) 

Lee, Jessica Katherine (Erewash) 

Lee, Phillip James (Bracknell) 

Leech, John (Manchester, Withington) 

Lefroy, Jeremy John Elton (Stafford) 

Leigh, Edward Julian Egerton (Gainsborough) 

Leslie, Charlotte Ann (Bristol North West) 

Leslie, Christopher Michael (Nottingham East) 

Letwin, Rt Hon. Oliver (West Dorset) 

Lewis, Brandon Kenneth (Great Yarmouth) 

Lewis, Ivan (Bury South) 

Lewis, Julian Murray (New Forest East) 

Liddell-Grainger, Ian Richard (Bridgwater and West 

Somerset) 

Lidington, David Roy (Aylesbury) 

Lilley, Rt Hon. Peter Bruce (Hitchin and Harpenden) 

Lloyd, Anthony Joseph (Manchester Central) 

Lloyd, Stephen Anthony Christopher (Eastbourne) 

Llwyd, Elfyn (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) 

Long, Naomi Rachel (Belfast East) 

Lopresti, Giacomo (Filton and Bradley Stoke) 

Lord, Jonathan George Caladine (Woking) 

Loughton, Timothy Paul (East Worthing and Shoreham) 

Love, Andrew McCulloch (Edmonton) 

Lucas, Caroline (Brighton, Pavilion) 

Lucas, Ian Colin (Wrexham) 

Luff, Peter James (Mid Worcestershire) 

Lumley, Karen Elizabeth (Redditch) 

M 

Malhotra, Seema (Feltham and Heston) [By-election, 

December 2011] 

Maskey, Paul (Belfast, West) [By-election, June 2011] 

McCabe, Stephen James (Birmingham, Selly Oak) 

McCann, Michael (East Kilbride, Strathaven and 

Lesmahagow) 

McCarthy, Kerry Gillian (Bristol East) 

McCartney, Jason Alexander (Colne Valley) 

McCartney, Karl Ian (Lincoln) 

McClymont, Gregg (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and 

Kirkintilloch East) 

McCrea, Robert Thomas William (South Antrim) 

McDonagh, Siobhain Ann (Mitcham and Morden) 

McDonnell, Alasdair (Belfast South) 

McDonnell, John Martin (Hayes and Harlington) 

McFadden, Rt Hon. Patrick Bosco (Wolverhampton 

South East) 

McGovern, Alison (Wirral South) 

McGovern, James (Dundee West) 

McGuinness, Martin (Mid Ulster) 

McGuire, Rt Hon. Anne Catherine (Stirling) 

McKechin, Ann (Glasgow North) 

McKenzie, Iain (Inverclyde) [By-election, June 2011] 

McKinnell, Catherine (Newcastle upon Tyne North) 

Macleod, Mary (Brentford and Isleworth) 

McLoughlin, Rt Hon. Patrick Allen (Derbyshire Dales) 

MacNeil, Angus Brendan (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) 

McPartland, Stephen Anthony (Stevenage) 

MacShane, Rt Hon. Denis (Rotherham) 

Mactaggart, Fiona Margaret (Slough) 

McVey, Esther Louise (Wirral West) 

Mahmood, Khalid (Birmingham, Perry Barr) 

Mahmood, Shabana (Birmingham, Ladywood) 

Main, Anne Margaret (St Albans) 

Mann, John (Bassetlaw) 

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool South) 

Maude, Rt Hon. Francis Anthony Aylmer (Horsham) 

May, Rt Hon. Theresa Mary (Maidenhead) 

Maynard, Paul Christopher (Blackpool North and 

Cleveleys) 

Meacher, Rt Hon. Michael Hugh (Oldham West and 

Royton) 

Meale, Joseph Alan (Mansfield) 

Mearns, Ian (Gateshead) 

Menzies, Mark Andrew (Fylde) 

Mercer, Patrick John (Newark) 

Metcalfe, Stephen James (South Basildon and East 

Thurrock) 

Michael, Rt Hon. Alun Edward (Cardiff South and 

Penarth) 

Miliband, Rt Hon. David Wright (South Shields) 

Miliband, Rt Hon. Edward Samuel (Doncaster North) 

Miller, Andrew Peter (Ellesmere Port and Neston) 

Miller, Maria Frances Lewis (Basingstoke) 

Mills, Nigel John (Amber Valley) 

Milton, Anne Frances (Guildford) 

Mitchell, Andrew John Bower (Sutton Coldfield) 

Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Great Grimsby) 

Moon, Madeleine (Bridgend) 

Moore, Michael Kevin (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and 

Selkirk) 

Mordaunt, Penelope Mary (Portsmouth North) 

Morden, Jessica Elizabeth (Newport East) 

Morgan, Nicola Ann (Loughborough) 

Morrice, Graeme (Livingston) 

Morris, Anne Marie (Newton Abbot) 

Morris, David (Morecambe and Lunesdale) 

Morris, Grahame Mark (Easington) 

Morris, James George (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) 

Mosley, Stephen James (City of Chester) 

Mowat, David John (Warrington South) 

Mudie, George Edward (Leeds East)


9 MAY 2012 


xi 

Mulholland, Gregory Thomas (Leeds North West) 

Mundell, David Gordon (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and 

Tweeddale) 

Munn, Margaret Patricia (Sheffield, Heeley) 

Munt, Tessa Jane (Wells) 

Murphy, Conor Terence (Newry and Armagh) 

Murphy, Rt Hon. James Francis (East Renfrewshire) 

Murphy, Rt Hon. Paul Peter (Torfaen) 

Murray, Ian (Edinburgh South) 

Murray, Sheryll (South East Cornwall) 

Murrison, Andrew William (South West Wiltshire) 

N 

Nandy, Lisa Eva (Wigan) 

Nash, Pamela (Airdrie and Shotts) 

Neill, Robert James MacGillivray (Bromley and 

Chiselhurst) 

Newmark, Brooks Philip Victor (Braintree) 

Newton, Sarah Louise (Truro and Falmouth) 

Nokes, Caroline Fiona Ellen (Romsey and Southampton 

North) 

Norman, Alexander Jesse (Hereford and South 

Herefordshire) 

Nuttall, David John (Bury North) 

O’Brien, Stephen Rothwell (Eddisbury) 

O’Donnell, Fiona (East Lothian) 

Offord, Matthew James (Hendon) 

Ollerenshaw, Eric (Lancaster and Fleetwood) 

Onwurah, Chinyelu Susan (Newcastle upon Tyne 

Central) 

Opperman, Guy (Hexham) 

Osborne, George Gideon Oliver (Tatton) 

Osborne, Sandra Currie (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) 

Ottaway, Richard Geoffrey James (Croydon South) 

Owen, Albert (Ynys Môn) 

O 

P 

Paice, James Edward Thornton (South East 

Cambridgeshire) 

Paisley, Ian Richard Kyle (North Antrim) 

Parish, Neil Quentin Gordon (Tiverton and Honiton) 

Patel, Priti (Witham) 

Paterson, Owen William (North Shropshire) 

Pawsey, Mark Julian Francis (Rugby) 

Pearce, Teresa (Erith and Thamesmead) 

Penning, Michael Alan (Hemel Hempstead) 

Penrose, John David (Weston-Super-Mare) 

Percy, Andrew (Brigg and Goole) 

Perkins, Matthew Toby (Chesterfield) 

Perry, Claire Louise (Devizes) 

Phillips, Stephen James (Sleaford and North Hykeham) 

Phillipson, Bridget Maeve (Houghton and Sunderland 

South) 

Pickles, Eric Jack (Brentwood and Ongar) 

Pincher, Christopher (Tamworth) 

Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax, Richard Grosvenor (South 

Dorset) 

Poulter, Daniel Leonard James (Central Suffolk and 

North Ipswich) 

Pound, Stephen Pelham (Ealing North) 

Primarolo, Rt Hon. Dawn (Bristol South) 

Prisk, Mark Michael (Hertford and Stortford) 

Pritchard, Mark Andrew (The Wrekin) 

Pugh, John David (Southport) 

Q 

Qureshi, Yasmin (Bolton South East) 

R 

Raab, Dominic Rennie (Esher and Walton) 

Randall, Alexander John (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) 

Raynsford, Rt Hon. Wyvill Richard Nicolls (Greenwich 

and Woolwich) 

Reckless, Mark John (Rochester and Strood) 

Redwood, Rt Hon. John Alan (Wokingham) 

Reed, Jamieson Ronald (Copeland) 

Rees-Mogg, Jacob William (North East Somerset) 

Reevell, Simon Justin (Dewsbury) 

Reeves, Rachel Jane (Leeds West) 

Reid, Alan (Argyll and Bute) 

Reynolds, Emma Elizabeth (Wolverhampton North 

East) 

Reynolds, Jonathan Neil (Stalybridge and Hyde) 

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Sir Malcolm Leslie (Kensington) 

Riordan, Linda June (Halifax) 

Ritchie, Margaret (South Down) 

Robathan, Andrew Robert George (South Leicestershire) 

Robertson, Angus Struan Carolus (Moray) 

Robertson, Hugh Michael (Faversham and Mid Kent) 

Robertson, John Webster (Glasgow North West) 

Robertson, Laurence Anthony (Tewkesbury) 

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry North West) 

Rogerson, Daniel John (North Cornwall) 

Rosindell, Andrew Richard (Romford) 

Rotheram, Steven Philip (Liverpool Walton) 

Roy, Frank (Motherwell and Wishaw) 

Roy, Lindsay Allan (Glenrothes) 

Ruane, Christopher Shaun (Vale of Clwyd) 

Rudd, Amber (Hastings and Rye) 

Ruddock, Joan Mary (Lewisham, Deptford) 

Ruffley, David Laurie (Bury St Edmunds) 

Russell, Robert Edward (Colchester) 

Rutley, David Henry (Macclesfield) 

S 

Sanders, Adrian Mark (Torbay) 

Sandys, Laura Jane (South Thanet) 

Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow Central) 

Scott, Lee (Ilford North) 

Seabeck, Alison Jane (Plymouth, Moor View) 

Selous, Andrew Edmund Armstrong (South West 

Bedfordshire) 

Shannon, Richard James (Strangford) 

Shapps, Grant V (Welwyn Hatfield) 

Sharma, Alok (Reading West) 

Sharma, Virendra Kumar (Ealing, Southall) 

Sheerman, Barry John (Huddersfield) 

Shelbrooke, Alec (Elmet and Rothwell) 

Shepherd, Richard Charles Scrimgeour 

(Aldridge-Brownhills) 

Sheridan, James (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) 

Shuker, Gavin (Luton South) 

Simmonds, Mark Jonathan Mortlock (Boston and 

Skegness) 

Simpson, Keith Robert (Broadland) 

Simpson, Thomas David (Upper Bann) 

Singh, Marsha (Bradford West) [Resigned, March 2012] 

Skidmore, Christopher James (Kingswood) 

Skinner, Dennis Edward (Bolsover) 

Slaughter, Andrew Francis (Hammersmith) 

Smith, Rt Hon. Andrew David (Oxford East)

xii Alphabetical List of Members 9 MAY 2012 


Smith, Angela Christine (Penistone and Stocksbridge) 

Smith, Chloe Rebecca (Norwich North) 

Smith, Henry Edward Millar (Crawley) 

Smith, Julian Richard (Skipton and Ripon) 

Smith, Nicholas Desmond John (Blaenau Gwent) 

Smith, Owen (Pontypridd) 

Smith, Sir Robert Hill (West Aberdeenshire and 

Kincardine) 

Soames, Arthur Nicholas Winston (Mid Sussex) 

Soubry, Anna Mary (Broxtowe) 

Soulsby, Sir Peter Alfred (Leicester South) [Resigned, 

April 2011] 

Spellar, Rt Hon. John Francis (Warley) 

Spelman, Caroline Alice (Meriden) 

Spencer, Mark Steven (Sherwood) 

Stanley, Rt Hon. Sir John Paul (Tonbridge and Malling) 

Stephenson, Andrew (Pendle) 

Stevenson, Andrew John (Carlisle) 

Stewart, Iain Aitken (Milton Keynes South) 

Stewart, Robert Alexander (Beckenham) 

Stewart, Rory (Penrith and The Border) 

Straw, Rt Hon. John Whitaker (Blackburn) 

Streeter, Gary Nicholas (South West Devon) 

Stride, Melvyn John (Central Devon) 

Stringer, Graham Eric (Blackley and Broughton) 

Stuart, Gisela Gschaider (Birmingham, Edgbaston) 

Stuart, Graham Charles (Beverley and Holderness) 

Stunell, Robert Andrew (Hazel Grove) 

Sturdy, Julian Charles (York Outer) 

Sutcliffe, Gerard (Bradford South) 

Swales, Ian Cameron (Redcar) 

Swayne, Desmond Angus (New Forest West) 

Swinson, Jo (East Dunbartonshire) 

Swire, Hugo George William (East Devon) 

Syms, Robert Andrew Raymond (Poole) 

T 

Tami, Mark Richard (Alyn and Deeside) 

Tapsell, Sir Peter Hannay Bailey (Louth and Horncastle) 

Teather, Sarah Louise (Brent Central) 

Thomas, Gareth Richard (Harrow West) 

Thornberry, Emily (Islington South and Finsbury) 

Thurso, John Archibald (Caithness, Sutherland and 

Easter Ross) 

Timms, Rt Hon. Stephen Creswell (East Ham) 

Timpson, Anthony Edward (Crewe and Nantwich) 

Tomlinson, Justin Paul (North Swindon) 

Tredinnick, David Arthur Stephen (Bosworth) 

Trickett, Jon Hedley (Hemsworth) 

Truss, Elizabeth Mary (South West Norfolk) 

Turner, Andrew John (Isle of Wight) 

Turner, Karl (Kingston upon Hull East) 

Twigg, John Derek (Halton) 

Twigg, Stephen (Liverpool West Derby) 

Tyrie, Andrew Guy (Chichester) 

Umunna, Chuka Harrison (Streatham) 

Uppal, Paul Singh (Wolverhampton South West) 

U 

V 

Vaizey, Edward Henry Butler (Wantage) 

Vara, Shailesh Lakhman (North West Cambridgeshire) 

Vaz, Rt Hon. Keith Anthony (Leicester East) 

Vaz, Valerie (Walsall South) 

Vickers, Martin John (Cleethorpes) 

Villiers, Theresa Anne (Chipping Barnet) 

W 

Walker, Charles Ashley Rupert (Broxbourne) 

Walker, Robin Caspar (Worcester) 

Wallace, Robert Ben Lobban (Wyre and Preston North) 

Walley, Joan Lorraine (Stoke-on-Trent North) 

Walter, Robert John (North Dorset) 

Ward, David (Bradford East) 

Watkinson, Angela Eileen (Hornchurch and Upminster) 

Watson, Thomas Anthony (West Bromwich East) 

Watts, David Leonard (St Helens North) 

Weatherley, Michael Richard (Hove) 

Webb, Steven John (Thornbury and Yate) 

Weir, Michael Fraser (Angus) 

Wharton, James Stephen (Stockton South) 

Wheeler, Heather Kay (South Derbyshire) 

White, Christopher (Warwick and Leamington) 

Whiteford, Eilidh (Banff and Buchan) 

Whitehead, Alan Patrick Vincent (Southampton, Test) 

Whittaker, Craig (Calder Valley) 

Whittingdale, John Flasby Lawrance (Maldon) 

Wicks, Rt Hon. Malcolm Hunt (Croydon North) 

Wiggin, William David (North Herefordshire) 

Willetts, David Lindsay (Havant) 

Williams, Hywel (Arfon) 

Williams, Mark Fraser (Ceredigion) 

Williams, Roger Hugh (Brecon and Radnorshire) 

Williams, Stephen Roy (Bristol West) 

Williamson, Chris (Derby North) 

Williamson, Gavin Alexander (South Staffordshire) 

Willott, Jennifer Nancy (Cardiff Central) 

Wilson, Philip (Sedgefield) 

Wilson, Robert (Reading East) 

Wilson, Samuel (East Antrim) 

Winnick, David Julian (Walsall North) 

Winterton, Rt Hon. Rosalie (Doncaster Central) 

Wishart, Peter (Perth and North Perthshire) 

Wollaston, Sarah James (Totnes) 

Wood, Mike (Batley and Spen) 

Woodcock, John Zak (Barrow and Furness) 

Woodward, Rt Hon. Shaun Anthony (St Helens South 

and Whiston) 

Woolas, Phillip James (Oldham East and Saddleworth) 

[Declared not duly elected by Election Court, 

December 2010] 

Wright, David (Telford) 

Wright, Iain David (Hartlepool) 

Wright, Jeremy Paul (Kenilworth and Southam) 

Wright, Simon James (Norwich South) 

Y 

Yeo, Timothy Stephen Kenneth (South Suffolk) 

Young, Rt Hon. Sir George Samuel Knatchbull (North 

West Hampshire) 

Z 

Zahawi, Nadhim (Stratford-on-Avon)

HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT 

MEMBERS OF THE CABINET 

(FORMED BY THE RT HON. DAVID CAMERON, MP,MAY 2010) 

DEPARTMENTS OF STATE AND MINISTERS 

PRIME MINISTER, FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY AND MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE—The Rt Hon. David Cameron, MP 

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL—The Rt Hon. Nick Clegg, MP 

FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS—The Rt Hon. William 

Hague, MP 

CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER—The Rt Hon. George Osborne, MP 

LORD CHANCELLOR AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE—The Rt Hon. Kenneth Clarke, QC, MP 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT AND MINISTER FOR WOMEN AND EQUALITIES—The Rt Hon. Theresa 

May, MP 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE—The Rt Hon. Philip Hammond, MP 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS—The Rt Hon. Vince Cable, MP 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS—The Rt Hon. Iain Duncan Smith, MP 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE—The Rt Hon. Edward Davey, MP 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH—The Rt Hon. Andrew Lansley, CBE, MP 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION—The Rt Hon. Michael Gove, MP 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT—The Rt Hon. Eric Pickles, MP 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT—The Rt Hon. Justine Greening, MP 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS—The Rt Hon. Caroline Spelman, MP 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT—The Rt Hon. Andrew Mitchell, MP 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND—The Rt Hon. Owen Paterson, MP 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND—The Rt Hon. Michael Moore, MP 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WALES—The Rt Hon. Cheryl Gillan, MP 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CULTURE, OLYMPICS, MEDIA AND SPORT—The Rt Hon. Jeremy Hunt, MP 

CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY—The Rt Hon. Danny Alexander, MP 

LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER—The Rt Hon. Lord Strathclyde 

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO—The Rt Hon. Baroness Warsi 

DEPARTMENTS OF STATE AND MINISTERS 

Business, Innovation and Skills— 

SECRETARY OF STATE AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE—The Rt Hon. Vince Cable, MP 

MINISTERS OF STATE— 

The Rt Hon. David Willetts, MP (Minister for Universities and Science) 

John Hayes, MP (Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning) § 

Mark Prisk, MP 

The Rt Hon. Greg Clark, MP § 

Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint (Minister for Trade and Investment) 

PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE— 

Norman Lamb, MP 

Edward Vaizey, MP § 

Baroness Wilcox 

Cabinet Office— 

MINISTER FOR THE CABINET OFFICE AND PAYMASTER GENERAL—The Rt Hon. Francis Maude, MP 

MINISTER OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Oliver Letwin, MP 

PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES— 

Mark Harper, MP 

Nick Hurd, MP 

Communities and Local Government— 

SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Eric Pickles, MP 


The Rt Hon. Greg Clark, MP § 

The Rt Hon. Grant Shapps, MP (Minister for Housing and Local Government) 


Andrew Stunell, OBE, MP 

Robert Neill, MP 

Baroness Hanham, CBE

ii 

HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT—cont. 

Culture, Media and Sport— 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CULTURE, OLYMPICS, MEDIA AND SPORT—The Rt Hon. Jeremy Hunt, MP 


John Penrose, MP 

Hugh Robertson, MP (Minister for Sport and the Olympics) 

Edward Vaizey, MP § 

Defence— 

SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Philip Hammond, MP 

MINISTER OF STATE—Nick Harvey, MP (Minister for the Armed Forces) 


Gerald Howarth, MP 

The Rt Hon. Andrew Robathan, MP 

Peter Luff, MP 

Lord Astor of Hever, DL 

Duchy of Lancaster— 

LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER—The Rt Hon. Lord Strathclyde 

Education— 

SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Michael Gove, MP 


Sarah Teather, MP 

Nick Gibb, MP 

John Hayes, MP (Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning) § 


Tim Loughton, MP 

Lord Hill of Oareford 

Energy and Climate Change— 

SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Edward Davey, MP 


Charles Hendry, MP 

Gregory Barker, MP 

PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE—Lord Marland 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs— 

SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Caroline Spelman, MP 

MINISTER OF STATE— The Rt Hon. James Paice, MP 


Richard Benyon, MP 

Lord Taylor of Holbeach, CBE 

Foreign and Commonwealth Office— 

SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. William Hague, MP 


Jeremy Browne, MP 

The Rt Hon. David Lidington, MP (Minister for Europe) 

The Rt Hon. Lord Howell of Guildford 


Henry Bellingham, MP 

Alistair Burt, MP 

Government Equalities Office— 

MINISTER FOR WOMEN AND EQUALITIES—The Rt Hon. Theresa May, MP § 

MINISTER FOR EQUALITIES—Lynne Featherstone, MP § 

Health— 

SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Andrew Lansley, CBE, MP 


Paul Burstow, MP 

Simon Burns, MP 


Anne Milton, MP 

Earl Howe 

Home Office— 

SECRETARY OF STATE AND MINISTER FOR WOMEN AND EQUALITIES—The Rt Hon. Theresa May, MP § 


Damian Green, MP (Minister for Immigration) 

The Rt Hon. Nick Herbert, MP (Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice) § 

Lord Henley (Minister for Crime Prevention and Antisocial Behaviour Reduction) 


Lynne Featherstone, MP (Minister for Equalities) § 

James Brokenshire, MP


iii 

International Development— 

SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Andrew Mitchell, MP 

MINISTER OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Alan Duncan, MP 

PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE—Stephen O’Brien, MP 

Justice— 

LORD CHANCELLOR AND SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Kenneth Clarke, QC, MP 


The Rt Hon. Lord McNally 

The Rt Hon. Nick Herbert, MP (Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice) § 


Crispin Blunt, MP 

Jonathan Djanogly, MP 

Law Officers— 

ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The Rt Hon. Dominic Grieve, QC, MP 

SOLICITOR-GENERAL—Edward Garnier, QC, MP 

ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND—The Rt Hon. Lord Wallace of Tankerness, QC 

Leader of the House of Commons— 

LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND LORD PRIVY SEAL—The Rt Hon. Sir George Young, MP 

PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY—David Heath, CBE, MP 

Northern Ireland— 

SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Owen Paterson, MP 

MINISTER OF STATE— The Rt Hon. Hugo Swire, MP 

Privy Council Office— 

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL—The Rt Hon. Nick Clegg, MP 

Scotland Office— 

SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Michael Moore, MP 

PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. David Mundell, MP 

Transport— 

SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Justine Greening, MP 

MINISTER OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Theresa Villiers, MP 


Norman Baker, MP 

Mike Penning, MP 

Treasury— 

PRIME MINISTER, FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY AND MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE—The Rt Hon. David Cameron, MP 

CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER—The Rt Hon. George Osborne, MP 

CHIEF SECRETARY—The Rt Hon. Danny Alexander, MP 

FINANCIAL SECRETARY—Mark Hoban, MP 

EXCHEQUER SECRETARY—David Gauke, MP 

ECONOMIC SECRETARY—Chloe Smith, MP 

COMMERCIAL SECRETARY—Lord Sassoon 

PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY—The Rt Hon. Patrick McLoughlin, MP 

LORDS COMMISSIONERS— 

Michael Fabricant, MP 

Angela Watkinson, MP 

Jeremy Wright, MP 

Brooks Newmark, MP 

James Duddridge, MP 

ASSISTANT WHIPS— 

Philip Dunne, MP 

Stephen Crabb, MP 

Robert Goodwill, MP 

Shailesh Vara, MP 

Bill Wiggin, MP 

Mark Hunter, MP 

Greg Hands, MP 

Jenny Willott, MP

iv 


Wales Office— 

SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Cheryl Gillan, MP 

PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE—David Jones, MP 

Work and Pensions— 

SECRETARY OF STATE—The Rt Hon. Iain Duncan Smith, MP 


The Rt Hon. Chris Grayling, MP 

Steve Webb, MP 


Maria Miller, MP 

Lord Freud 

Her Majesty’s Household— 

LORD CHAMBERLAIN—The Rt Hon. Earl Peel, GCVO, DL 

LORD STEWARD—The Earl of Dalhousie 

MASTER OF THE HORSE—Lord Vestey, KCVO 

TREASURER—The Rt Hon. John Randall, MP 

COMPTROLLER—The Rt Hon. Alistair Carmichael, MP 

VICE-CHAMBERLAIN—The Rt Hon. Mark Francois, MP 

CAPTAIN OF THE HONOURABLE CORPS OF GENTLEMEN-AT-ARMS—The Rt Hon. Baroness Anelay of St Johns, DBE 

CAPTAIN OF THE QUEEN’S BODYGUARD OF THE YEOMEN OF THE GUARD—Lord Newby, OBE 

BARONESSES IN WAITING—Baroness Garden of Frognal, Baroness Northover, Baroness Rawlings, Baroness Stowell, 

Baroness Verma 

LORDS IN WAITING—Earl Attlee, Lord De Mauley, TD, Lord Wallace of Saltaire 

§ Members of the Government listed under more than one Department 

SECOND CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSIONER, REPRESENTING CHURCH COMMISSIONERS—Tony Baldry, MP

HOUSE OF COMMONS 

THE SPEAKER—The Rt Hon. John Bercow, MP 

CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS—Lindsay Hoyle, MP 

FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS—Nigel Evans, MP 

SECOND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS—The Rt Hon. Dawn Primarolo, MP 

PANEL OF CHAIRS 

Mr David Amess, MP, Hugh Bayley, MP, Mr Joe Benton, MP, Mr Clive Betts, MP, Mr Peter Bone, MP, 

Mr Graham Brady, MP, Annette Brooke, MP, Martin Caton, MP, Mr Christopher Chope, MP, Katy Clark, MP, 

Mr David Crausby, MP, Philip Davies, MP, Jim Dobbin, MP, Nadine Dorries, MP, Sir Roger Gale, MP, 

Mr James Gray, MP, Mr Mike Hancock, MP, Mr Dai Havard, MP, Mr Philip Hollobone, MP, Mr Jim Hood, MP, 

The Rt Hon. George Howarth, MP, Mr Edward Leigh, MP, Dr William McCrea, MP, Miss Anne McIntosh, MP, 

Mrs Anne Main, MP, Sir Alan Meale, MP, Sandra Osborne, MP, Albert Owen, MP, Mrs Linda Riordan, MP, 

John Robertson, MP, Andrew Rosindell, MP, Mr Lee Scott, MP, Jim Sheridan, MP, Mr Gary Streeter, MP, 

Mr Andrew Turner, MP, Mr Charles Walker, MP, Mr Mike Weir, MP, Hywel Williams, MP 

SECRETARY—Simon Patrick 

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION 

The Rt Hon. The Speaker (Chairman), Sir Paul Beresford, MP, Mr Frank Doran, MP, Ms Angela Eagle, MP, 

MP, John Thurso, MP, The Rt Hon. Sir George Young, MP 

SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION—Robert Twigger 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY—Joanna Dodd 

ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATE AUDIT COMMITTEE 

Alex Jablonowski (Chairman), Ms Angela Eagle, MP, The Rt Hon. Sir Alan Haselhurst, MP, John Thurso, MP, 

Stephen Brooker, Mark Clarke 

SECRETARY OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE—Gosia McBride 

CLERK OF THE HOUSE AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE—Robert Rogers 

PRIVATE SECRETARY—Gosia McBride 

PERSONAL SECRETARY—Caroline Nicholls 

LIAISON COMMITTEE 

The Rt Hon. Sir Alan Beith, MP (Chair), Mr Graham Allen, MP, The Rt Hon. James Arbuthnot, MP, 

Mr Adrian Bailey, MP, The Rt Hon. Kevin Barron, MP, Dame Anne Begg, MP, Mr Clive Betts, MP, 

The Rt Hon. Malcolm Bruce, MP, Mr William Cash, MP, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, MP, Mr Ian Davidson, MP, 

DavidTCDavies, MP, The Rt Hon. Stephen Dorrell, MP, Mrs Louise Ellman, MP, Natascha Engel, MP, 

Dr Hywel Francis, MP, The Rt Hon. Sir Alan Haselhurst, MP, The Rt Hon. Margaret Hodge, MP, 

Mr Bernard Jenkin, MP, The Rt Hon. Greg Knight, MP, Miss Anne McIntosh, MP, Andrew Miller, MP, 

Mr George Mudie, MP, Richard Ottaway, MP, Mr Laurence Robertson, MP, Mr Graham Stuart, MP, 

Mr Robert Syms, MP, John Thurso, MP, Mr Andrew Tyrie, MP, The Rt Hon. Keith Vaz, MP, Joan Walley, MP, 

Mr John Whittingdale, MP, Mr Tim Yeo, MP 

CLERKS—Andrew Kennon, Philippa Helme 

MANAGEMENT BOARD 

Robert Rogers (Clerk of the House and Chief Executive), David Natzler (Clerk Assistant and Director General, 

Chamber and Committee Services), John Pullinger (Director General, Information Services), Andrew Walker 

(Director General, HR and Change), John Borley, CB (Director General, Facilities), Myfanwy Barrett (Director of 

Finance), Joan Miller (Director of Parliamentary ICT) (External Member), Alex Jablonowski (External Member) 

SECRETARY OF THE MANAGEMENT BOARD—Matthew Hamlyn 

OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER 

SPEAKER’S SECRETARY—Peter Barratt 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY TO THE SPEAKER—Ian Davis MBE 

TRAINBEARER—Jim Davey 

DIARY SECRETARY—Briony Potts 

SPEAKER’S COUNSEL—Michael Carpenter 

SPEAKER’S CHAPLAIN—Rev. Rose Hudson-Wilkin

vi 

HOUSE OF COMMONS—cont. 

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR STANDARDS 

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR STANDARDS—John Lyon, CB 

REGISTRAR OF MEMBERS’ FINANCIAL INTERESTS—Heather Wood 

PARLIAMENTARY SECURITY CO-ORDINATOR 

PARLIAMENTARY SECURITY DIRECTOR—Peter Mason 

ASSISTANT TO PARLIAMENTARY SECURITY DIRECTOR—Emily Baldock 

PRIVATE SECRETARY—Leonora Chiddicks 

OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS 

SECRETARY TO THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS—Sara Howe 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

HEAD OF OFFICE—Matthew Hamlyn 

CORPORATE RISK MANAGEMENT FACILITATOR—Rachel Harrison 

HEAD OF CENTRAL COMMUNICATIONS—Marianne Cwynarski 

HEAD OF INTERNAL AUDIT—Paul Dillon-Robinson 

HEAD OF PARLIAMENTARY PROGRAMME AND PROJECT ASSURANCE— Jane Rumsam 

STRATEGY, PLANNING AND PERFORMANCE MANAGER—Jane Hough 

DEPARTMENT OF CHAMBER AND COMMITTEE SERVICES 

CLERK ASSISTANT’S DIRECTORATE 

CLERK ASSISTANT AND DIRECTOR GENERAL—David Natzler 

PERSONAL ASSISTANT—Charlotte Every 

DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENTAL SERVICES—Nick Walker 

Overseas Office—— 

PRINCIPAL CLERK—Crispin Poyser 

DELEGATION SECRETARIES—Nick Wright, Jyoti Chandola 

INWARD VISITS MANAGER—Susan Pamphlett 

NATIONAL PARLIAMENT REPRESENTATIVE, BRUSSELS—Edward Beale 

DEPUTY NATIONAL PARLIAMENT REPRESENTATIVE, BRUSSELS—Sarah Clarkson 

Vote Office—— 

DELIVERER OF THE VOTE—Catherine Fogarty 

DEPUTY DELIVERER OF THE VOTE—Owen Sweeney (Parliamentary), Tom McVeagh (Production) 

COMMITTEE DIRECTORATE 

Committee Office—— 

CLERK OF COMMITTEES—Andrew Kennon 

CLERK OF DOMESTIC COMMITTEES—Robert Twigger 

PRINCIPAL CLERKS OF SELECT COMMITTEES—Philippa Helme, Mark Hutton, Chris Stanton 

BUSINESS MANAGER—Kevin Candy 

OPERATIONS MANAGER—Karen Saunders 

Departmental Select Committees—— 

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS: CLERKS—James Davies, Neil Caulfield 

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: CLERKS—Glenn McKee, Edward White 

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT: CLERKS—Elizabeth Flood, Sarah Heath 

DEFENCE: CLERKS—Alda Barry, Judith Boyce 

EDUCATION: CLERKS— Lynn Gardner, PhD, Elisabeth Bates 

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE: CLERK— Sarah Hartwell-Naguib 

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS: CLERKS—Richard Cooke, Lucy Petrie 

FOREIGN AFFAIRS: CLERKS— Kenneth Fox, Eliot Barrass 

HEALTH: CLERKS—David Lloyd, Martyn Atkins 

HOME AFFAIRS: CLERKS— Tom Healey, Richard Benwell, 

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: CLERKS—David Harrison, Marek Kubala 

JUSTICE: CLERKS—Tom Goldsmith, Sarah Petit 

NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS: CLERK—Mike Clark 

POLITICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM: CLERK – Joanna Dodd 

REGULATORY REFORM: CLERK—Neil Caulfield 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: CLERK—Stephen McGinness


vii 

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS: CLERK—Eliot Wilson 

TRANSPORT: CLERKS—Mark Egan, PhD, Jessica Montgomery 

TREASURY: CLERKS—Chris Stanton, Lydia Menzies 

WELSH AFFAIRS: CLERK—Adrian Jenner 

WORK AND PENSIONS: CLERKS—Carol Oxborough, Catherine Tyack 

Domestic Committees—— 

ADMINISTRATION: CLERK—David Weir 

FINANCE AND SERVICES: CLERK— 

Other Committees—— 

ARMS EXPORT CONTROLS (COMMITTEES ON): CLERK—Keith Neary 

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT: CLERKS—Simon Fiander, Nick Beech 

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS: COMMONS CLERK—Mike Hennessy 

LIAISON: CLERKS—Andrew Kennon, Philippa Helme 

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS: CLERK—Phillip Aylett 

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: CLERKS—Emily Commander, Charlotte Pochin 

Scrutiny Unit—— 

HEAD OF UNIT—Chris Shaw 

DEPUTY HEAD OF UNIT (FINANCE)—Larry Honeysett 

CHAMBER BUSINESS DIRECTORATE 

CLERK OF LEGISLATION—Jacqy Sharpe 

Public and Private Bill Office 

CLERK OF BILLS, EXAMINER OF PETITIONS FOR PRIVATE BILLS AND TAXING OFFICER—Simon Patrick 

James Rhys, Steven Mark, Kate Emms, Sarah Thatcher, Alison Groves 

PRIVATE BILL OFFICE—Annette Toft 

Committees— 

COURT OF REFEREES: CLERK—Simon Patrick 

SELECTION: CLERK—Annette Toft 

STANDING ORDERS, UNOPPOSED BILLS: CLERK—Sara Howe 

Delegated Legislation Office 

EUROPEAN SCRUTINY COMMITTEE: CLERK—Sarah Davies 

CLERK ADVISERS— Peter Harborne, David Griffiths, Leigh Gibson, Terry Byrne 

JOINT COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS: COMMONS CLERK—Charlotte Littleboy 

Journal Office—— 

CLERK OF THE JOURNALS—Liam Laurence Smyth 

Mark Etherton, Elizabeth Hunt, Eve Samson, Huw Yardley, Lloyd Owen, Anne-Marie Griffiths (Clerk of Public 

Petitions) 

PROCEDURE COMMITTEE: CLERK—Huw Yardley 

STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE: CLERK—Eve Samson 

SPEAKER’S COMMITTEE FOR IPSA: CLERK—Elizabeth Hunt 

SPEAKER’S COMMITTEE ON THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION: CLERK— Elizabeth Hunt 

Table Office—— 

PRINCIPAL CLERK—Paul Evans 

Rob Cope, Sue Griffiths, Tracey Jessup, Gordon Clarke, Francene Graham, Robin James, Richard Ward, 

Lynn Lewis (Editorial Supervisor of the Vote) 

BACKBENCH BUSINESS: CLERKS— Sue Griffiths 

OFFICIAL REPORT DIRECTORATE 

EDITOR—Lorraine Sutherland 

DEPUTY EDITOR—Alex Newton 

DIRECTOR OF BROADCASTING—John Angeli 

MANAGING EDITORS—Paul Hadlow, Clare Hanly, Deborah Jones, Ann Street, Jon Prawer, Vivien Wilson, 

Jack Homer, Ross Gunby, Adele Dodd 

SUB-EDITORS—Eira Gregory, Kate Myers, Juliet Levy, Victoria Hart, Tony Minichiello, Emma Kirby, Paul Kirby, 

David Hampton, Jez Oates, Barry Geall, Jonathan Hoare, Portia Dadley, Elaine Harrison, Joanna Lipkowska, 

Richard Purnell, Bran Jones, Patricia Hill 

SENIOR REPORTERS—Emily Morris, Mayah Weinberg, Jude Wheway, Felicity Reardon, Paul Underhill, 

Angus Andrews, Saul Minaee, Jim Barr, Cara Clark, Ian Oakhill, Steve Habberley, Will Holdaway, 

Paul Owen, Luanne Middleton, Tom Martin, Keith Brown 

LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICER—Jon Prawer 

HEAD OF ADMINISTRATION—Stephen O’Riordan

viii 


SENIOR HANSARD ADMINISTRATORS—John Brake, Brian Harrison 

HANSARD PRODUCTION MANAGER—Stuart Miller 

ANNUNCIATOR SUPERINTENDENT—Richard Quirk 

SERJEANT AT ARMS DIRECTORATE 

SERJEANT AT ARMS—Lawrence Ward 

DEPUTY SERJEANT AT ARMS—Mike Naworynsky, OBE 

ASSISTANT SERJEANT AT ARMS— 

CLERK IN CHARGE—Laura Castillo 

ADMISSION ORDER OFFICE—Samantha Howlett 

PRINCIPAL DOORKEEPER—Robin Fell 

PASS OFFICE MANAGER—Hannah Evans 

MEMBERS’ STAFF VERIFICATION OFFICE MANAGER—Guy Turner 

LEGAL SERVICES OFFICE 

SPEAKER’S COUNSEL—Michael Carpenter 

COUNSEL—Peter Davis (Legislation), Paul Hardy (European Legislation) 

DEPUTY COUNSEL—Peter Brooksbank, Philip Davies, Daniel Greenberg 

ASSISTANT COUNSEL—Helen Emes, Debbie Sayers 

DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 

DIRECTOR GENERAL/LIBRARIAN—John Pullinger 

DIRECTOR OF SERVICE DELIVERY—John Benger 

Curator’s Office— 

CURATOR OF WORKS OF ART—Malcolm Hay 

Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology (POST) — 

HEAD—Chandy Nath (temporary) 

Central Support Services— 

HEAD OF CENTRAL SUPPORT—Ed Potton 

Office Services— 

OFFICE SERVICES MANAGER—Gabrielle Hughes 

RESEARCH AND LIBRARY DIRECTORATE 

DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH SERVICES—Bryn Morgan 

Business and Transport— 

HEAD OF SECTION—Tim Edmonds 

LIBRARY CLERKS—Louise Butcher, Antony Seely, Djuna Thurley, Jacky Parker 

Economic Policy and Statistics— 

HEAD OF SECTION—Adam Mellows-Facer 

LIBRARY CLERKS—Grahame Allen, Lorna Booth, Daniel Harari, Lucinda Maer, Christopher Rhodes, 

Gavin Thompson, Dominic Webb 

Home Affairs— 

HEAD OF SECTION—Pat Strickland 

LIBRARY CLERKS—Sally Lipscombe, Lorraine Conway, Catherine Fairbairn, Gabrielle Garton-Grimwood, 

Melanie Gower, Alexander Horne, Philip Ward, PhD, John Woodhouse, Jacqueline Beard 

International Affairs and Defence— 

HEAD OF SECTION—Vaughne Miller 

LIBRARY CLERKS—Louisa Brooke-Holland, Jon Lunn, DPhil, Ben Smith, Arabella Thorp 

SENIOR LIBRARY EXECUTIVES—Emma Clark, Julia Keddie 

Parliament and Constitution Centre— 

HEAD OF SECTION—Oonagh Gay 

LIBRARY CLERKS—Paul Bowers, Richard Kelly, Keith Parry, Chris Sear, Isobel White 

Reference Services— 

HEAD OF SECTION—Dora Clark 

LIBRARY CLERKS—Katharine Gray, Mark Sandford 

SENIOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS—Amina Gual, John Prince, Catrin Owens 

DEPOSITED PAPERS &RESOURCE MANAGER—Greg Howard 

Science and Environment— 

HEAD OF SECTION—Christopher Barclay 

LIBRARY CLERKS—Elena Ares, Oliver Bennett, Farrah Bhatti, Grahame Danby, Emma Downing, Patsy Richards, 

Louise Smith


ix 

Social and General Statistics— 

HEAD OF SECTION—Richard Cracknell 

LIBRARY CLERKS—Gavin Berman, Paul Bolton, Rachael Harker, Oliver Hawkins, Matthew Keep, 

Feargal McGuinness, Rod McInnes, Tom Rutherford 

Social Policy— 

HEAD OF SECTION—Christine Gillie 

LIBRARY CLERKS—Manjit Gheera, Susan Hubble, Tim Jarrett, Steven Kennedy, Robert Long, Tom Powell, 

Wendy Wilson 

DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT—Steve Wise 

Indexing and Data Management— 

HEAD OF SECTION—Gini Griffin/Catherine Meredith 

Library Resources— 

HEAD OF SECTION—Katharine Marke 

PUBLIC INFORMATION DIRECTORATE 

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INFORMATION—Edward Wood 

House of Commons Information Office/Parliamentary Outreach— 

HEAD OF PUBLIC INFORMATION & OUTREACH—Clare Cowan 

Web and Intranet Service— 

HEAD OF ONLINE SERVICES—Tracy Green 

Media & Communications Service— 

SENIOR MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS ADVISER—Lee Bridges 

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT DIRECTORATE 

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT—Aileen Walker 

Public Engagement and Events 

HEAD OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND EVENTS—Tom O’Leary 

Education Service— 

EDUCATION SERVICE MANAGER—Emma-Jane Watchorn 

Visitor Services— 

HEAD OF VISITOR SERVICES—Deborah Newman 

Spire Programme— 

SPIRE PROGRAMME DIRECTOR—Helen Wood 

DEPARTMENT OF HR & CHANGE 

Director General’s Office— 

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HR&CHANGE—Andrew Walker 

ASSISTANT TO DIRECTOR GENERAL—Tara Cullen 

PERSONAL ASSISTANT—Yvonne Carson 

DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS AND CAPABILITY—Janet Rissen 

DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES—Heather Bryson 

DIRECTOR OF CHANGE—Selven Naicker 

DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS AND FINANCE MANAGER—Andy Vallins 

HEAD OF PEOPLE DEVELOPMENT—Patricia Macaulay-Fraser 

HEAD OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, PAY AND POLICY—Reg Perry 

HEAD OF HR OPERATIONS—Alix Langley 

HEAD OF DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION—Anne Foster 

BUSINESS PARTNERS—James Bigwood, Johan van den Broek, Soraya Ounssi 

Members’ Advisory Service and Members’ Personnel Advice Service (PAS) — 

SENIOR HR MANAGER—Dapo Coker 

Information Rights and Information Security Services (IRIS)— 

HEAD OF IRIS—Victoria Payne 

Safety, Health and Wellbeing— 

HEAD OF SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELLBEING—Marianne McDougall 

CONSULTANT OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PHYSICIANS—Dr Ira Madan, Dr Mary Sherry 

HEALTH AND SAFETY ADVISERS— Elizabeth Cameron-Taber, Amanda Hastings 

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND WELLBEING MANAGER—Anne Mossop 

WELFARE OFFICER – Tanya Harris 

CLINICAL NURSE ADVISERS—Karen St Cyr, Lucy Walsh, Sally Nightingale

x 


Trade Union Side— 

TRADE UNION SIDE ADMINISTRATORS—Sandra Deakins, Denise Eltringham 

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 

DIRECTOR—Myfanwy Barrett 

PERSONAL ASSISTANT—Yvonne Carson 

Pensions Unit — 

HEAD OF PENSIONS— Lucy Tindal (Acting) 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT DIRECTORATE 

DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT—Christopher Ridley 

HEAD OF FINANCIAL PLANNING—Anthony Hindley 

FINANCIAL CONTROLLER—Julia Routledge 

CORPORATE ACCOUNTANT—Debra Shirtcliffe 

SYSTEMS ACCOUNTANT—Colin Lewis 

COMMERCIAL SERVICES DIRECTORATE 

ACTING DIRECTOR OF COMMERCIAL SERVICES—Veronica Daly 

PROCUREMENT MANAGERS—Sue Parr, Sheila Brightwell 

SAVINGS DIRECTORATE 

DIRECTOR OF SAVINGS — Elizabeth Honer 

HEAD OF SAVINGS REVIEWS – Martin Trott 

DEPARTMENT OF FACILITIES 

DIRECTOR GENERAL—John Borley, CB 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER—Katy Gray 

COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER— Rina Odedra 

DIRECTOR OF FINANCE—Philip Collins 

DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT—John Greenaway 

PARLIAMENTARY ESTATES DIRECTORATE 

PARLIAMENTARY DIRECTOR OF ESTATES—Mel Barlex, BSc, MBA, MCR, MRICS, MBIFM 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR &HEAD OF PROJECTS—Christine Sillis, MBA, DipBldgCons, FRICS 

HEAD OF DIRECTOR’S OFFICE— Georgina Holmes-Skelton 

DEPUTY HEAD OF DIRECTOR’S OFFICE AND BUSINESS MANAGER—Deborah Taylor 

HEAD OF MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS—Lester Benjamin, BEng, CEng, MCIBS 

HEAD OF PROGRAMME &PLANNING MANAGEMENT—Steve Beck 

HEAD OF FIRE, SAFETY &ENVIRONMENT—Charlotte Simmonds 

FIRE SAFETY MANAGER—David Kaye, GIFireE 

PRINCIPAL, INTERIOR DESIGN AND FURNISHING— Mary-Jane Tsang (Acting) 

PRINCIPAL ARCHITECT —Adam Watrobski 

PRINCIPAL ESTATES MANAGER—Helen Arkell 

PRINCIPAL ENGINEER—Keith Gregory, BTech, CEng, MCIBSE 

PRINCIPAL SURVEYOR—Jon Prew, BSc, MIStrucE, MAPM 

ASSET MANAGER—Andrew Geehan 

ESTATES ARCHIVIST—Dr Mark Collins 

CATERING AND RETAIL SERVICES 

DIRECTOR OF CATERING AND RETAIL SERVICES—Sue Harrison 

EXECUTIVE CHEF—Mark Hill 

OPERATIONS MANAGER—Robert Gibbs 

CATERING MANAGER, TERRACE COMPLEX—Denise Durkin 

BANQUETING &EVENTS MANAGER— Lee Holt 

BANQUETING &EVENTS OFFICE MANAGER—Jason Bonello 

FOOD &BEVERAGE MANAGER (ACTING)— Martyn Westcott-Wreford 

CATERING MANAGER, 1PARLIAMENT STREET &PRESS COMPLEX —James Ellis 

CATERING MANAGER, 7MILLBANK—Vacancy 

RETAIL MANAGER—Eric Darengosse 

PURCHASING &STORES MANAGER—Antony Avella


xi 

ACCOMMODATION AND LOGISTICS SERVICES 

DIRECTOR OF ACCOMMODATION AND LOGISTICS SERVICES—James Robertson 

PARLIAMENTARY LOGISTICS MANAGER—Wesley Auvache 

MEMBERS ACCOMMODATION MANAGER—Fiona Channon 

ACCOMMODATION MANAGER—Susanna Lumsden 

HEAD OFFICE KEEPER—Brendon Mulvihill 

SENIOR OFFICE KEEPERS—Doreen Irving, Simon Mansfield (Acting), Les Stockwell 

CLEANING MANAGER—Carol Hill 

POSTMASTER—Mark Morrish 

PARLIAMENTARY ICT SERVICE (PICT) 

DIRECTOR OF PICT—Joan Miller 

DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS AND MEMBER SERVICES—Matthew Taylor 

DIRECTOR OF RESOURCES—Fergus Reid 

DIRECTOR OF TECHNOLOGY—Steve O’Connor 

DIRECTOR OF NETWORK PROGRAMME—Innis Montgomery 

DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMMES AND DEVELOPMENT—Simon Nicholls 

MEMBERS’ COMPUTING OFFICER (COMMONS)—Andrew Morrison 

MEMBERS’ COMPUTING OFFICER (LORDS)—Loraine Midda 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGER—Caroline Robertson 

OTHER PRINCIPAL OFFICERS 

CLERK OF THE CROWN IN CHANCERY—Sir Suma Chakrabarti, KCB 

COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL—Amyas Morse 

PARLIAMENTARY AND HEALTH SERVICE OMBUDSMAN—Ann Abraham 

9 May 2012

THE 

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 

OFFICIAL REPORT 

IN THE SECOND SESSION OF THE FIFTY-FIFTH PARLIAMENT OF THE 

UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND 

[WHICH OPENED 18 MAY 2010] 

SIXTY-FIRST YEAR OF THE REIGN OF 

HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II 

SIXTH SERIES VOLUME 545 

FIRST VOLUME OF SESSION 2012-2013 

House of Commons 


The House met at twenty-five minutes past 

Eleven o’clock 

PRAYERS 

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair] 

MESSAGE TO ATTEND HER MAJESTY 

Message to attend Her Majesty delivered by the Gentleman 

Usher of the Black Rod. 

The Speaker, with the House, went up to attend Her 

Majesty; on their return, the Speaker suspended the sitting. 

Speaker’s Statement 

2.30 pm 

Mr Speaker: The House has agreed that the Speaker 

should make a statement at the beginning of each 

Session about the duties and responsibilities of hon. 

Members. May I begin by reminding Members of the 

House’s code of conduct, which we recently agreed to in 

a revised form? All Members are under a duty to 

observe it in letter and in spirit. Members are answerable 

for their conduct in this place, not just to the House but 

to the public. 

Our ancient privileges allow us to conduct our debate 

without fear of outside interference. Parliamentary privilege 

underpins proper democratic debate and scrutiny. It 

will be under renewed scrutiny over the next few months, 

with the Government’s consultation on the subject. In 

particular, we enjoy freedom of speech in Committee 

proceedings and in debate. Freedom of speech in debate 

is at the very heart of what we do here for our constituents, 

and it allows us to conduct our business without fear of 

outside interference. But it is a freedom that we need to 

exercise responsibly in the public interest and taking 

into account the interests of others outside this House. 

It is also important that our constituents feel free to 

come to us no matter what the circumstances, and that 

they suffer no disadvantage as a result. Each hon. 

Member is here to represent the views of his or her 

constituents and to participate in the process of 

parliamentary democracy. We should ensure that every 

Member is heard courteously, regardless of the views 

that he or she is expressing. I and my Deputies seek to 

ensure that as many Members as possible can participate 

in our proceedings. That ambition will be greatly aided 

by brevity in questions, speeches and interventions by 

all hon. Members. 

Every member of the public has a right to expect that 

his or her Member of Parliament will behave with 

civility, in the best traditions of fairness, with the highest 

level of probity and with integrity. We are also under an 

obligation to try to explain to our constituents how 

Parliament works. In this mission we are ably assisted 

by the staff of the House. House staff, who are vital in 

supporting the work of this House and who do so with 

dedication and courtesy, are likewise entitled to be 

treated with dignity, courtesy and respect. 

Finally, I should like also to remind all hon. Members 

that the security of this building and those who work 

and visit here depends upon all of us. Please be vigilant 

and tell the Serjeant at Arms about any concerns you 

have on the subject. Wear your photo identity pass 

while you are on the parliamentary estate—this is 

particularly important over the next 24 hours, as there 

will be a number of police officers on duty, covering for 

absent security officers, who cannot be expected to 

recognise Members. Remember that you are responsible 

for the behaviour of your visitors and for ensuring that 

they are escorted in non-public areas of the estate. 

Before moving to the first business of the new Session, 

I would like to express my very best wishes to all hon. 

Members and staff for the 2012-13 Session of Parliament. 

OUTLAWRIES BILL 

A Bill for the more effectual preventing Clandestine 

Outlawries was read the First time, and ordered to be read 

a Second time.

3 9 MAY 2012 Queen’s Speech 

4 

Queen’s Speech 

Mr Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that this 

House has this day attended Her Majesty in the House 

of Peers, and that Her Majesty was pleased to make a 

Most Gracious Speech from the Throne to both Houses 

of Parliament, of which I have, for greater accuracy, 

obtained a copy. 

I shall direct that the terms of the Gracious Speech 

be printed in the Votes and Proceedings. Copies are 

available in the Vote Office. 

The Gracious Speech was as follows: 

My Government’s legislative programme will focus on 

economic growth, justice and constitutional reform. 

My Ministers’ first priority will be to reduce the deficit 

and restore economic stability. 

Legislation will be introduced to reduce burdens on 

business by repealing unnecessary legislation and to limit 

state inspection of businesses. 

My Government will introduce legislation to reform 

competition law to promote enterprise and fair markets. 

My Government will introduce legislation to establish 

a Green Investment Bank. 

Measures will be brought forward to further strengthen 

regulation of the financial services sector and implement 

the recommendations of the Independent Commission on 

Banking. 

My Government will introduce legislation to establish 

an independent adjudicator to ensure supermarkets deal 

fairly and lawfully with suppliers. 

A Bill will be introduced to reduce burdens on charities, 

enabling them to claim additional payments on small 

donations. 

My Government will propose reform of the electricity 

market to deliver secure, clean and affordable electricity 

and ensure prices are fair. 

A draft Bill will be published to reform the water 

industry in England and Wales. 

My Government will bring forward measures to modernise 

the pension system and reform the state pension, creating 

a fair, simple and sustainable foundation for private saving. 

Legislation will be introduced to reform public service 

pensions in line with the recommendations of the independent 

commission on public service pensions. 

A draft Bill will be published setting out measures to 

close the Audit Commission and establish new arrangements 

for the audit of local public bodies. 

My Government will strive to improve the lives of 

children and families. 

My Government will propose measures to improve 

provision for disabled children and children with special 

educational needs. New arrangements will be proposed to 

support children involved in family law cases, reform court 

processes for children in care and strengthen the role of 

the Children’s Commissioner. 

Measures will be proposed to make parental leave more 

flexible so both parents may share parenting responsibilities 

and balance work and family commitments. 

A draft Bill will be published to modernise adult care 

and support in England. 

My Government will continue to work with the fifteen 

other Commonwealth Realms to take forward reform of 

the rules governing succession to the Crown. 

Legislation will be brought forward which will introduce 

individual registration of electors and improve the 

administration of elections. 

A Bill will be brought forward to reform the composition 

of the House of Lords. 

My Government will continue to work constructively 

and cooperatively with the devolved institutions. 

Members of the House of Commons 

Estimates for the public services will be laid before you. 

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons 

My Government is committed to reducing and preventing 

crime. A Bill will be introduced to establish the National 

Crime Agency to tackle the most serious and organised 

crime and strengthen border security. The courts and 

tribunals service will be reformed to increase efficiency, 

transparency and judicial diversity. 

Legislation will be introduced to protect freedom of 

speech and reform the law of defamation. 

My Government will introduce legislation to strengthen 

oversight of the security and intelligence agencies. This 

will also allow courts, through the limited use of closed 

proceedings, to hear a greater range of evidence in national 

security cases. 

My Government intends to bring forward measures to 

maintain the ability of the law enforcement and intelligence 

agencies to access vital communications data under strict 

safeguards to protect the public, subject to scrutiny of 

draft clauses. 

My Government will seek the approval of Parliament 

relating to the agreed financial stability mechanism within 

the euro area. 

My Government will seek the approval of Parliament on 

the anticipated accession of Croatia to the European Union. 

My Government will work to support a secure and 

stable Afghanistan, to reduce the threat of nuclear 

proliferation, including in Iran, and to bring greater stability 

to the Horn of Africa. 

In the Middle East and North Africa, my Government 

will support the extension of political and economic freedom 

in countries in transition. 

My Government has set out firm plans to spend nought 

point seven per cent of gross national income as official 

development assistance from 2013. This will be the first 

time the United Kingdom has met this agreed international 

commitment. 

My Government will build strategic partnerships with 

the emerging powers. 

The United Kingdom will assume the Presidency of the 

G8 in 2013: my Government will use this opportunity to 

promote international security and prosperity. 

In the year of the Diamond Jubilee, Prince Philip and 

I will continue to take part in celebrations across the 

United Kingdom. The Prince of Wales and other members 

of my family are travelling widely to take part in festivities 

throughout the Commonwealth. Prince Philip and I look

5 Queen’s Speech 

9 MAY 2012 

6 

forward to the London Olympic and Paralympic Games 

and to welcoming visitors from around the world to London 

and venues throughout the country. 

Other measures will be laid before you. 

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons 

I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon 

your counsels. 

Debate on the Address 

[1ST DAY] 

Mr Speaker: Before I call the mover and seconder, I 

want to announce the proposed pattern of debate during 

the remaining days on the Loyal Address: Thursday 

10 May—home affairs and justice; Monday 14 May— 

business and the economy; Tuesday 15 May—foreign 

affairs and international development; Wednesday 16 May 

—cost of living; Thursday 17 May—jobs and growth. 

2.35 pm 

Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con): I beg to 

move, 

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as 

follows: 

Most Gracious Sovereign, 

We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons 

of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 

in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to 

Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has 

addressed to both Houses of Parliament. 

In this year of the Queen’s diamond jubilee, I am 

deeply honoured to move the Loyal Address. For six 

decades, Her Majesty has provided us with a peerless 

example of duty, dignity and service to the nation. And 

it was the subject of “peerlessness” that was immediately 

on my mind when I was called into the Chief Whip’s 

office last week. I really thought that he wanted to have 

a full and frank discussion with me on the reform of 

the other place. I ran to No. 9 Downing street, in the 

pouring rain, clutching my folder of briefing notes, 

while continuously repeating, “More effective, but not 

elected. More effective, but not elected.” I can announce 

to this House that having a small glass of water, without 

the biscuits, with the Chief Whip has allowed us to 

reach agreement; as our manifesto demanded, a consensus 

on this thorny issue has been reached. 

It was only later that I remembered something important: 

the accepted convention is that this Address is usually 

delivered by an hon. Member of this House just as their 

illustrious career is starting to approach its expiry date— 

perhaps my right. hon. Friend the Prime Minister was 

gently hinting that I had a great future behind me. 

Equally, the Loyal Address is usually seconded by a 

young, ambitious, thrusting Back Bencher who is hungry 

for promotion, and it is in that spirit that I warmly 

congratulate the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm 

Bruce), who has that happy role today. 

Although I have rarely seen the Chamber this full, 

this will probably not be my most watched speech. Not 

many Back-Bench MPs can boast more than 130,000 

downloads on YouTube, for a few lines uttered during 

an Opposition day debate. To any colleagues in the 

House seeking a wider audience for their speeches, my 

advice is: spend less time thinking about what you are 

going to say and more time thinking about what you are 

going to wear. I recommend a loud tie—preferably one 

with a soundtrack. 

The last person to move this motion was my right 

hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden 

(Mr Lilley), and I seem to recall that he informed this 

House that he was able to trace his lineage back to the 

village of Lilley, which has existed in his constituency 

since Anglo-Saxon times. With a name like mine, I was 

never going to convince the voters of Stratford-on-Avon

7 Debate on the Address 

9 MAY 2012 


8 

[Nadhim Zahawi] 

that my ancestors fought the Normans at the battle of 

Hastings. In fact, Stratford-on-Avon is a constituency 

in the heart of England, in the county of Warwickshire, 

that is 90% white. If I may say so, Mr Speaker, this is 

not a kaleidoscope county. But it is testament to the 

values of that constituency, and of this country, that it 

chose me as its representative, and it is on its behalf that 

I deliver this address. 

During the election, I canvassed every one of Stratfordon-Avon’s 

79 villages and hamlets, as well as its four 

principal towns. It became clear to me that people were 

not interested in my ethnicity, or in where I had gone to 

school. What they wanted to know was: was I on their 

side, and was I up to the job? For us politicians, and for 

this Government, those are the questions that really 

matter. Our different backgrounds were certainly a point 

of curiosity, but what made the difference was our 

shared values, and in that the people of Stratford represent 

the very best of modern Britain. 

Mr Speaker, my family arrived on these shores with 

only £50 in their pockets—immigrants from a land in 

the grip of a cruel and murderous regime. This great 

country offered us the priceless gifts of freedom and 

opportunity, and the ultimate proof of that opportunity 

is that I can stand before you today as a Member of 

this, the oldest and greatest of all Parliaments. 

Today, the task before us all is to spread that opportunity 

further. To do so, we must strengthen enterprise and 

deliver a more affordable state. It will not be easy. As 

my hon. Friend, and co-author, the Member for West 

Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) well knows, over the past 

decade or more our banks have been managed not by 

the masters of the universe, but by the masters of 

nothing. I am therefore pleased that the Gracious Speech 

has announced measures to implement the Vickers 

recommendations on banking reform. We should not 

make the mistake of thinking that this is merely a 

technical issue, of no interest to the public. It matters to 

people, because they want a fairer and stronger financial 

system, not one of cosy cartels and taxpayer bail-outs. 

What is happening right now in the eurozone will 

matter, too. In Greece, hardliners and extremists are 

threatening to take over the political mainstream, but it 

is comforting that there are early signs of a reverse 

trend here in the UK. In Britain, extremists and hardliners 

are rejoining the mainstream. Only yesterday my right 

hon. Friend the Business Secretary issued a clarion call 

for the repatriation of powers from Brussels. After such 

a far-sighted and decisive intervention, by such a senior 

member of the Government, no one can say that this 

coalition is not working. But there is a serious point 

here. People at home watching the political mayhem in 

Europe would be utterly dismayed if we failed to maintain 

a strong and focused Government to deal with this 

crisis. 

There is a real opportunity beyond the crisis, and I 

therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to 

build strategic partnerships with the emerging powers. 

Over the next 10 years the global economy is forecast to 

grow by $9 trillion—and $6 trillion of that growth will 

come from one country: China. In fact, China is growing 

so quickly that it creates an economy the size of Greece 

every three months. On current trends, we might have to 

revise that upwards. 

In my own constituency, I see even small businesses 

grabbing hold of the opportunities that those huge 

numbers represent. Reforms that unleash the creative 

power of our small and medium-sized businesses are 

the best growth strategy that this country could possibly 

have. 

In business, we soon learn that the world owes us 

nothing; historic ties, patient diplomacy, shared values 

and even shared language will not get us that contract 

unless we can also beat our rivals on quality, service and 

price. That is a lesson that we ignore at our peril. Yet 

there is one area in which the world does owe Britain—one 

field in which we remain both a net creditor and a 

leading exporter. It is more stable than finance and 

more enduring than oil. I am describing our extraordinary 

cultural industries. Indeed, as the Member for Stratfordon-Avon, 

I cannot proceed any further without a mention 

of William Shakespeare, my most famous former 

constituent. 

Members of the House will doubtless be familiar 

with Shakespeare’s warning in Act I of “Hamlet”: 

“Give thy thoughts no tongue, 

Nor any unproportion’d thought his act”— 

valuable advice indeed for those of us who use Twitter, 

Mr Speaker. 

The House will be aware of not only Shakespeare the 

playwright and poet, but Shakespeare the industry—another 

area in which our fame resounds across the world. 

When the Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, visited Britain 

for two days last summer, one day was reserved for 

high-level strategic talks in Whitehall, but the other—at 

his own request—was spent with the Shakespeare Birthplace 

Trust in Stratford. The thought of one of the world’s 

most powerful men wearing special white gloves, so that 

he could handle a Shakespeare first edition with reverence, 

is a striking reminder of just how far our cultural reach 

extends. And the traffic is not just one-way; for the 

many Chinese visitors to Stratford, a park bench where 

Premier Wen took a short rest has become a major 

tourist attraction. 

In summing up, I should say that it is Shakespeare the 

man who resonates with me the most. As well as creating 

great art, Shakespeare built a great business. Uniquely 

among Elizabethan playwrights, he owned a share in 

the theatre company for which he wrote. Like all good 

business owners, he invested in his company. In 1608, he 

helped to finance a second theatre in Blackfriars, just 

across the river from the more famous Globe. Lacking 

family connections, but possessed of a great grammar 

school education, his achievement is all the more 

remarkable. 

As well as being the greatest writer in our language—in 

any language, I would say—there is no better embodiment 

of British values than this self-taught, self-made, and 

indeed self-created, man. He was a man who worked his 

utmost to put on earth and in our hearts a source of 

wealth that endures to this day. In fact, more than that, 

I would go as far as to say that the great bard was in his 

soul and actions a natural Tory. I commend the motion 

to the House. 

2.47 pm 

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD): I am very privileged 

to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon 

(Nadhim Zahawi); the House will be glad that he left his


9 MAY 2012 


10 

loud tie and accompanying soundtrack behind. But he 

did manage to make a powerful and entertaining speech. 

I remind him, however, that he and I would be considerably 

disadvantaged in our task today had we not been elected 

to this House. Law-makers should be held accountable 

to law-obeyers. 

It is an honour to be asked to second the Loyal 

Address and a great surprise to be doing so. I realise I 

am the old guard following the young blood, but I hope 

that the kinder Members of the House might see a little 

wisdom tempering youthful exuberance. A great deal 

has changed in the 29 years since I entered the House, 

but some things do not change. I made my maiden 

speech in a Queen’s Speech debate on the health service. 

The Health Minister who replied was the right hon. and 

learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who has 

proved himself a survivor in Government, even if he is 

now more rounded and more mellow—even if we are 

talking only about his shoes and his figure. 

I represent part of the north-east of Scotland, which 

is characterised by a dry, understated sense of humour. 

For the past 30 years, we have been entertained by a 

talented trio known as Scotland the What? and they 

invented a number of kooky characters, one of whom 

was the Member of Parliament for Aucherturra wi’ 

Clatt, which is a name that resonates across Gordon, if 

nowhere else; indeed, I think that you are looking at 

that hon. Member. Less salubrious was Councillor Swick, 

which means “swindle” in the local dialect. In one 

sketch, he plays a justice of the peace, and he instructs 

the procurator fiscal to bring in the first criminal. When 

he is told that the accused is innocent until proved 

guilty, he demands of the procurator fiscal, “Whose 

side are you on?” At the end of his presiding over the 

court, he concluded, “In my court, justice has not only 

to be done but has to be seen to be believed.” 

The constituency of Gordon has changed a great 

deal. For a start, it has experienced four boundary 

changes. Nevertheless, the voters of Gordon have done 

me the honour of electing me seven times. Currently, 

one third of the population lives in the northern part 

of the city of Aberdeen, which includes the airport— 

the fastest-growing airport in the UK. That airport 

is crucial to our dynamic economy. We have two 

renowned universities and food and agricultural research 

centres of world repute, while Rowett research institute 

has produced no fewer than three Nobel laureates, 

and of course there is the global energy industry. Like 

most people in Gordon, I did not support the oil tax 

changes in last year’s Budget, but I appreciate the 

engagement with the industry by all relevant Ministers 

and Departments, which led to further tax measures in 

this year’s Budget that have gone a long way towards 

restoring confidence. 

The other two thirds of the population of Gordon 

live in central Aberdeenshire—a productive farming 

and food producing region notable for prime beef promoted 

by ANM Group, Scotch Premier Meat, and innovative 

mail order pioneer Donald Russell. We also have quality 

ice cream makers Mackie, who also produce a range of 

crisps, and Rizza’s of Huntly, which is also the home of 

Dean’s, makers of melt-in-the-mouth shortbread and 

biscuits. [Interruption.] They did not pay me to say 

that, I promise. Many of those food producers, and our 

mixed livestock and arable farmers, will welcome the 

Bill to establish a groceries code adjudicator. 

People often ask me where Gordon is. The trouble is 

that the constituency derives its name not from a place 

but from the Gordon family. Lady Aberdeen, June 

Gordon, who died in 2009 at the age of 95, was well 

beloved as a great patron of the arts at Haddo house. At 

an event shortly after my re-election in 1997, she told 

me that she was delighted that I had been re-elected 

given my small majority in 1983. “I was so concerned 

that you might not get back”, she said, “that I nearly 

voted for you.” The Gordon family have also produced 

one Prime Minister, the fourth Earl of Aberdeen, who 

led a Liberal-Conservative Government and included 

Palmerston and Gladstone in his Cabinet. 

Of course, we are also famous for fine malt whisky. 

[HON.MEMBERS: “Hear, hear!”] That is going down well 

at the back. One commentator described me as the 

Member for Gordon, the home of malt gin; and in fact 

it is the same Gordon family who were responsible for 

that most English of drinks—gin. We have some fine 

distilleries, including Glendronach, Ardmore and Glen 

Garioch, which won an award for the best Highland 

single malt this March—so go out and get it! 

Scotland’s First Minister has stated that he will not 

wear a kilt in Scotland until independence has been 

achieved. Of all the economic, historical, legal, cultural 

and social arguments for rejecting independence, surely 

the most overwhelming must be to protect the people of 

Scotland from the sight of Alex Salmond in a kilt. 

No Member on the Government Benches needs telling 

that this is a difficult time to be in government. We 

inherited an unsustainable level of public debt and a 

recession across developed economies. The coalition 

agreement took as its mantra “freedom, fairness and 

responsibility” and we must work harder on that. 

In the two years since the first Queen’s Speech of this 

Parliament, a great deal of heavy lifting has been carried 

out. When there is no money left, it is impossible not to 

make painful decisions to turn around a huge debt and 

lay the foundations of a more sustainable future. However, 

I believe that we have strived hard to be fair. Raising the 

tax threshold to £9,205 a year by the end of this Session 

and increasing pensions and most benefits with inflation 

at a time of no growth is, I believe, an extraordinary 

achievement. 

On the core agenda, the coalition has still much to 

do. This is not a time to be distracted by unproductive 

arguments between left and right or to deepen our 

divisions with the rest of Europe, whose problems 

profoundly affect us. There is more than enough that 

unites us. 

Our reform agenda, far from being some right-wing 

conspiracy to destroy our welfare system and public 

services, is aimed at ensuring that we can maintain in 

the long term the viable, fair and inclusive welfare 

system on which our civilised society depends. For that 

to happen, we need to secure growth in the private 

sector. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment 

to banking and financial services reform. Apart from 

restoring confidence in retail banking and preventing 

casino banking from bringing down our financial system 

again, we must find more ways to stimulate investment 

and bank lending to get the economy moving. I also 

welcome the commitment to electricity market reform 

and to getting the Green investment bank and the green 

deal fully invested.


9 MAY 2012 


12 

[Malcolm Bruce] 

I have long argued that Governments tend to produce 

too much legislation, often to placate the “something 

must be done” school or cultivate the tabloids, and we 

know where that has led us. I therefore strongly welcome 

the repeal of statute law that will get rid of more than 

200 unnecessary laws. However, I do not accept the 

argument that the economic crisis means we should set 

aside our commitment to political reform in the shape 

of the recall of MPs or the democratisation of our 

second Chamber, which has been deferred for nearly 

100 years. 

Twenty years ago, the Loyal Address was seconded 

by the current Secretary of State for International 

Development. I suppose that encouragingly demonstrates 

that seconding it can lead to greatness, but as the 

current Chair of the Select Committee on International 

Development, an honour I very much cherish, I am 

disappointed at the omission of legislation to enact the 

UK’s commitment to 0.7% of gross domestic product 

being provided for overseas development assistance. 

However, I recognise that legislation is not required for 

us to meet that commitment next year, and I very much 

welcome the fact that it was reinforced in the Queen’s 

Speech. 

As chair of the all-party group on deafness, may I 

pay tribute to Jack Ashley following his passing? He 

was a great support and encouragement to me, and he 

was always courteous, charming and humorous. He will 

be missed by many, but especially by the deaf community. 

It is 50 years ago this year that I joined the Liberal 

party and almost 29 years since I entered the House, so 

for all but the last two years I have been in opposition. 

The Leader of the Opposition is about to make his first 

reply to the debate on the Loyal Address. I know from 

experience that it is often easier to oppose, but the left in 

Europe is about to be tested on whether it has coherent 

and credible alternative policies. We need deficit reduction 

and growth. We are living through perhaps the most 

challenging times in living memory, but I came into 

politics to make a positive difference, to promote reform 

and to achieve a fairer, more liberal society. That remains 

my objective, and I commend the Loyal Address to the 

House. 

2.58 pm 

Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab): I am sure 

the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute 

to those who have died in Afghanistan since we last 

met: Guardsman Michael Roland of 1st Battalion 

the Grenadier Guards, and Corporal Andrew Roberts 

and Private Ratu Silibaravi of 23 Pioneer Regiment, the 

Royal Logistics Corps. They all showed the utmost 

bravery, and our thoughts are with their family and 

friends. Let me also say from this House that we support 

our mission in Afghanistan and will also support 

the Prime Minister in the important efforts that he is 

making to secure a political settlement there for when 

our troops have left. 

As is customary, I would also like to pay tribute to 

those Members who have died since the last Queen’s 

Speech. First, Alan Keen was hugely popular with 

Members of all parties. A football scout turned MP, he 

had faith in the power of sport and politics to change 

lives. He is missed sorely by his wife, Ann, and his 

family and friends. 

I also pay tribute to David Cairns, who was able to 

enter the House only because the law was changed to 

allow a former Catholic priest to sit in Parliament. He 

was funny, warm and principled, and his death one year 

ago today was a tragedy particularly for his partner, 

Dermot, and his many, many friends. 

In her diamond jubilee year, I would also like to pay 

tribute to Her Majesty the Queen. We are reminded yet 

again today of her tireless service to the people of this 

country, and we are all looking forward to the national 

celebrations later this year. 

My understanding is that, by tradition, the Loyal 

Address is proposed by a rising star of the governing 

party, who is thrusting his way forward on to the rungs 

of the ministerial ladder. Hon. Members of all parties 

can therefore agree that there could be no better choice 

than the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim 

Zahawi). He spoke eloquently, movingly and with 

confidence, and I congratulate him on his remarks. 

I believe that the hon. Gentleman is the first Member 

of the House to have been born in Iraqi Kurdistan. He 

spoke about the people of Stratford-on-Avon and said 

that his background was not the issue. However, he said 

in an interview that I read: 

“What Britain gave my family was freedom and opportunity…to 

my family they weren’t just words, they changed our whole life.” 

He brings to the House a perspective that enriches us 

all. 

The hon. Gentleman also has the distinction of being 

the founder of the polling company YouGov. Let me 

say that I have spent much of the past 18 months 

thinking that he has a lot to answer for. No doubt, after 

recent weeks, the Prime Minister feels the same. 

I am used to seeing the hon. Gentleman as an enthusiastic 

Back Bencher—if I can put it like that—braying at me 

with particular vigour from a sedentary position during 

Prime Minister’s questions, so I am very happy to give 

him the endorsement he no doubt craves and recommend 

unequivocally that the Prime Minister give him ministerial 

preferment whenever the reshuffle comes. It would be 

his gain and mine. 

I also congratulate the seconder of the Loyal Address, 

the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). 

He brought his years of distinguished service and wisdom 

to the job. He brings great skill and experience to the 

House, including, as he said, as an assiduous and 

enthusiastic Chairman of the International Development 

Committee. In doing research on his background, I got 

extremely excited when someone in my office turned up 

a biography from the internet, which stated: 

“Malcolm Bruce also worked early in his career with Ozzy 

Osbourne and recently performed a Jimi Hendrix Birthday tribute.” 

Sadly for me and for him, it turned out to be a different 

Malcolm Bruce. 

However, the right hon. Gentleman continues to serve 

the Liberal Democrats in important ways, not least as 

their president in Scotland—I am sure he is very proud 

of that just now. No doubt he will play a crucial role in 

the inquest into that local election result in Edinburgh, 

where the Liberal Democrat candidate was beaten by a 

penguin. [Laughter.] Tory Members should not laugh 

too much because there are more pandas than Tory 

MPs in Scotland. I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman 

that he will have to do better than the explanation 

offered locally in Edinburgh that 

“it wasn’t a target ward”.


9 MAY 2012 


14 

The right hon. Gentleman has had a long and 

distinguished parliamentary career, which, under normal 

circumstances, would end up with service in the House 

of Lords, if it was not for his leader’s determination to 

abolish it. However, I pay tribute to him for his excellent 

speech. 

On the Gracious Speech, first, let me say that we will 

work with the Government on the Green investment 

bank, the defamation Bill and flexible parental leave, all 

of which sound remarkably like Labour ideas—because 

they are Labour ideas. 

This is the speech that was supposed to be the 

Government’s answer to the clear message from the 

electorate last week, but on today’s evidence, they still 

do not get it. For a young person looking for work, this 

speech offers nothing; for a family whose living standards 

are being squeezed, this speech offers nothing; for the 

millions of people who think the Government are not 

on their side, this speech offers nothing. “No change, no 

hope” is the real message of this Queen’s Speech. 

The Prime Minister and the Chancellor appear to 

believe that people are turning against them because 

they have not understood the Government’s economic 

policy, but the truth is that people have turned against 

them because they have understood it only too well. 

What did the Government promise two years ago? The 

Chancellor could not have been clearer in his emergency 

Budget, when he said there would be 

“a steady and sustained economic recovery, with low inflation 

and falling unemployment…a new model of economic growth”.— 

[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 168.] 

What has he delivered? He has delivered the worst 

unemployment in 16 years, 1 million young people out 

of work and the first double-dip recession for 37 years. 

They promised recovery, but they delivered recession—a 

recession made in Downing street. They have failed. 

As if a failing plan was not bad enough, the Government 

added insult to injury in the Budget, by making millions 

pay more so that millionaires could pay less. There is no 

change on that in the Queen’s Speech either. I say to the 

Prime Minister that he should listen to people such as 

Linda Pailing, the deputy chair of Harlow Conservative 

party, who said of her constituents: 

“They don’t like the fact that he didn’t keep the 50p tax…people 

feel here that he is not working for them, he is working for his 

friends”. 

She said these elections are 

“to do with what Cameron and his cronies are doing”. 

It comes to something when even lifelong Tories do 

not believe that this Prime Minister is on their side. Last 

Thursday, the British people delivered a damning verdict 

on the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and their economic 

strategy. The Prime Minister says he gets it, but if he 

really does, the first thing—[Interruption.] Government 

Members say, “What about London?”, which is interesting. 

What did the Mayor of London say? He said he had 

“survived” the wind, 

“the rain, the BBC, the Budget and the endorsement of David 

Cameron”—[Laughter.] 

I think they walked into that one. 

Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): The right hon. Gentleman 

talks about the 50p tax, but I am slightly confused as to 

why he did not vote against the change when he had the 

opportunity to do so. 

Edward Miliband: We had a whole amendment on 

that. I wish the hon. Gentleman, having listened to his 

constituents, had joined us in the Division Lobby to 

vote against the 50p tax change. 

The Prime Minister says he gets it. If he really did get 

it, the first thing he would have done in this Queen’s 

Speech was drop his tax cut for millionaires, but he has 

not done so. They are carrying on with a Finance Bill to 

put the 45p tax rate into law. Why are they doing that? 

Because they really believe that their problems are not 

those of policy, but those of public relations. 

What did the part-time Chancellor say at the weekend? 

He said: 

“I know the way the Budget was presented meant this message 

wasn’t heard.” 

The Deputy Prime Minister said: 

“An impression has formed that this was a budget for the rich”. 

It is insights like that which got him where he is today. 

The Government just do not get it. The problem is 

not the presentation of a tax cut for millionaires; it is 

the reality: £40,000 for every millionaire in Britain. It 

is not the presentation of cuts in tax credits; it is the 

reality. On the granny tax, the churches tax, the charities 

tax and the whole Budget omnishambles, it is not the 

presentation; it is the reality. 

Several hon. Members rose— 

Edward Miliband: I will give way later. 

Yes, the Government have a communication problem, 

as the Prime Minister said this morning: the problem is 

that the electorate have spoken, and they are not listening. 

But to solve his communication problem, the Prime 

Minister has a new way of explaining his policy. To the 

policeman or woman being fired, to the young people 

looking for work, to the small business going under, 

what was his message yesterday? He said: 

“You call it austerity, I call it efficiency.” 

Here it is from the Prime Minister, Cameron Direct, to 

hundreds of thousands of people being made redundant: 

“The bad news is you’ve lost your job. The good news is 

you’re a key part of our efficiency drive.” In two years, 

he has gone from David Cameron to David Brent. That 

is the reality. 

Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con): If 

the right hon. Gentleman is on the side of hard-working 

people, why does he oppose the benefit cap equivalent 

to a salary of £35,000 a year? 

Edward Miliband: This is very interesting. I will tell 

the hon. Gentleman why we wanted it done a different 

way—[HON.MEMBERS: “Ah!”] I will tell him. It is because 

the Secretary of State for Communities and Local 

Government said, in a letter to his colleagues, that the 

way in which the benefit cap was done would cost more 

money, put more people into temporary accommodation 

and fail to solve the problem. The Government did not 

listen to advice because they wanted to grab a political 

headline—typical of this Prime Minister. 

If the Government did not have the courage to reverse 

their Budget, they should have put an economy that 

works for working people at the centre of this Queen’s


9 MAY 2012 


16 

[Edward Miliband] 

Speech, but they have not. Utility bills, water bills and 

the cost of getting to work are worrying families up and 

down the country— 


Edward Miliband: Opposition Members should calm 

down: I will give way later. 

What have the Government got to say about those 

issues? Absolutely nothing. The energy Bill has nothing 

to help people struggling to make ends meet. No legislation 

this year on water or on train fares—nothing to relieve 

the squeeze on ordinary families. 

Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): I, too, am concerned 

about utility bills—we are all concerned about utility 

bills—but let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that 

when he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate 

Change he proposed the renewable heating initiative 

that would have put £193 on people’s bills. Why was 

that not in his alternative Queen’s Speech? 

Edward Miliband: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what 

we did in government: we introduced the winter fuel 

allowance and took action on pre-payment meters—far 

more than this Government have ever done. 

Let us talk about those at the top of society, executive 

pay and multi-million pound bonuses—[Interruption.] 

It is very interesting that Conservative Members are 

groaning about that, because a few months ago, the 

Prime Minister said that he was outraged about crony 

capitalism. He told us that he was grossly offended by it 

and that it was not what he believed in. Such was his 

strength of feeling that in the entire Queen’s Speech, the 

issue did not merit a single mention. 

I have a suggestion for the Prime Minister. He should 

accept the recommendation of the High Pay Commission 

to put an ordinary worker on the remuneration committee 

of every company in Britain. I say, “If you can’t look 

one of your employees in the eye to justify that you’re 

worth it, then you shouldn’t be getting the salary.” Come 

to think of it, why not start with the Government? I 

have the ideal candidate to be the employee on the board 

judging the Cabinet. She stands ready to serve—the hon. 

Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries). Let us 

remind ourselves why she is so well qualified. She said: 

“They are two arrogant posh boys who show no remorse, no 

contrition, and no passion to understand the lives of others.” 

She is only saying what so many people are thinking: it 

is high time the shareholder spring came to the Conservative 

party. 

On the economy, on living standards, and on executive 

pay— 

Louise Mensch (Corby) (Con): The right hon. Gentleman 

is coming on to the economy, so, since the shadow 

Chancellor cannot enlighten us, will he tell the House 

how he is coming along with costing his economic 

programme? 

Edward Miliband: I am glad that the hon. Lady 

intervened, because this is what she said about the 

election results: 

“As Conservatives, we have to learn lessons…In the spirit of 

non-spin, my benchmark for Labour was 700 seats”. 

I think we slightly outperformed her expectations. 


Edward Miliband: I have been generous in giving way. 

On all the major issues, the Government have shown 

that they are out of touch. If we need any further proof, 

let us consider what they have done on crime—taking 

police off the streets with 20% cuts and stripping back 

powers on antisocial behaviour. 

Let me turn to one of the biggest omissions in the 

Queen’s Speech. There is no bigger challenge facing 

families up and down the country than care for elderly 

relatives, and there was no clearer promise from the 

Government than that they would legislate on it. 

[Interruption.] I know Government Members do not 

want to talk about what is happening in the Government, 

but in their foreword to the health White Paper, the 

Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister said that 

there would be 

“legislation in the second session of this parliament to establish a 

sustainable legal and financial framework for adult social care”. 

Instead, we have nothing. [Interruption.] The Prime 

Minister says there is a draft Bill, but he said he would 

legislate in this Session, and he has failed to do so. They 

have totally failed to do so. There was a clear promise. 

[Interruption.] The Prime Minister should calm down. 

They promised a Bill on social care, but they chose not 

to include one. 

There is room in the Queen’s Speech for House of 

Lords reform, however. I am a supporter of House of 

Lords reform and a referendum, but I thought that a 

Queen’s Speech was supposed to define a Government’s 

priorities. So there is a mystery that the Prime Minister 

needs to explain in his reply. Over the weekend, the 

Chancellor said that House of Lords reform 

“is certainly not my priority, it is not the priority of the Government.” 

So it is not the Conservative party’s priority. But the 

mystery deepens, because the Deputy Prime Minister 

said yesterday that there were many, many other things 

he cared far more about. So apparently it is not his 

priority either. [Interruption.] Government Members 

ask if it is our priority. No, it is not. I am bound to ask, 

though: if it is not a priority, how on earth did it end up 

in the Queen’s Speech? I thought the Queen’s Speech 

was supposed to define the priorities for the Government’s 

legislative programme. Why is it in there? How did it get 

into the speech? 

What about the things that did not make it into the 

Queen’s Speech? How about the manifesto promise—the 

Prime Minister’s detoxification promise—to enshrine 

in law spending 0.7% of national income on aid. 

[Interruption.] They are not putting it in law. [Interruption.] 

The Prime Minister keeps saying he is doing it, when all 

he is doing is publishing draft Bills. And what has 

happened to something that used to be a big priority for 

the Prime Minister? He said in 2010 that lobbying was 

“the next big scandal waiting to happen.” 

He was right. It did happen—to him: Adam Werritty, 

whose lobbying caused the downfall of the Defence 

Secretary; Peter Cruddas, Tory party treasurer, offering


9 MAY 2012 


18 

Downing street dinners to donors; and Fred Michel and 

the 163 pages of e-mails. Three lobbying scandals, but 

no Bill! 

Last week, the Prime Minister applied to have prior 

access to the evidence of Leveson as a core participant. 

I have to say that he is one of the few people left who 

did not already think he was a core participant in the 

whole News Corporation scandal: he hired the editor, 

he sent the texts, he even rode the horse, and his Culture 

Secretary backed the bid. It does not get much more 

core than that. This is not just a Westminster story because 

it shows whose side the Prime Minister is on. What did 

he say to Rebekah Brooks after she was forced to resign 

following revelations that Milly Dowler’s phone had 

been hacked? We learn from the newspapers that he said: 

“Sorry I couldn’t have been as loyal to you as you have been to 

me.” 

That goes to the very heart of the problem with this 

Government and this Prime Minister: they stand up for 

the wrong people. Two years ago in the rose garden they 

promised change. Yesterday in the tractor factory all 

they could offer was more of the same. The Prime 

Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister: two leaders 

out of touch with the country, out of touch even with 

their own parties, locked together not on principle or 

policy but in determination to hang on to office for 

another three years. So halfway through this Government 

and particularly after last Thursday, is it not time that 

the Government stopped governing for the few and 

started listening to the many? 

3.19 pm 

The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron): Let me begin, 

as the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward 

Miliband) did, by paying tribute to those servicemen 

who have tragically lost their lives in Afghanistan: 

Guardsman Michael Roland of 1st Battalion the Grenadier 

Guards, and Corporal Andrew Roberts and Private 

Ratu Silibaravi of 23 Pioneer Regiment, the Royal 

Logistic Corps. They acted heroically and died serving 

their country, and we must always honour their memory. 

We have just finished the longest Session of Parliament 

for more than 100 years, and I am proud to say that 

in that Session we brought down the deficit, capped 

welfare, scrapped ID cards, introduced free schools, 

accelerated academies, brought in the pupil premium, 

binned the jobs tax, raised the personal allowance and 

froze the council tax. That was just the start of clearing 

up the mess left by the Labour party and demonstrating 

that this will be a Government on the side of people 

who work hard and do the right thing. 

Let me say something that I hope will unite hon. 

Members on both sides of the House. The last Session 

of Parliament also made an impact not just at home but 

around the world. We fed more than 2.5 million people 

facing famine and starvation, we supported over 5.5 million 

children to go to school in the poorest countries of our 

world and we immunised a child against diseases every 

2.5 seconds of the last parliamentary Session. And, yes, 

it was in the last Session that Parliament stood up to 

Colonel Gaddafi, backed the action that stopped him 

slaughtering his own people and showed once again 

that when it comes to the cause of democracy, all sides 

of this Parliament can unite in defence of freedom. 

As the Leader of the Opposition said, during the last 

parliamentary Session we also lost two much-respected 

and hard-working Members of the House. David Cairns 

gave up his first vocation as a Catholic priest for his 

second, which was to serve his constituents and sit on 

these Benches. He was an exceptionally kind man whose 

quick wit enlivened our debates, and I know that he is 

widely missed. Alan Keen served in this House for 

almost two decades and made many firm friendships on 

all sides of the House. He was passionate about the way 

in which sport can change young people’s lives, and his 

leadership of the all-party parliamentary football group 

is remembered with much affection. I am sure that he 

will be looking down at the incredible months of sport 

that lie ahead over the next few months. Both Members 

represented the very best of this House. 

I also think that the Leader of the Opposition was 

right to pay tribute in his remarks to Her Majesty the 

Queen. It is one of the greatest privileges of this job to 

see Her Majesty every week to discuss what has happened 

here and across the world. In terms of service and 

dedication to our nation, she quite simply has no equal. 

Let me turn now to the proposer of the Gracious 

Speech. When the Chief Whip phoned me and told me 

his suggestion for the role, it came as a bit of a shock. It 

was a slightly bad line, and I thought that he had said, 

“I’ve asked Nadine to do it.” Although I am always 

ready to take it on the chin, there was a slight sense of 

relief when he explained that he was talking about my 

hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim 

Zahawi) rather than my hon. and close Friend the 

Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries). 

In the past, there has been a tradition that the proposer 

should be a shy and retiring type—the type who keeps 

their head down, gets on with the job and loathes the 

limelight. I am pleased to say that, on this occasion, 

that tradition has been well and truly broken. As my 

hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon told us, 

he has a remarkable story. In the 1970s, his family fled 

Iraq and the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, arriving at 

Heathrow with literally only the bags they carried and 

the clothes on their backs. But they picked themselves 

up and made an incredible future in this country. My 

hon. Friend put himself through university, built a 

business from scratch and in just one generation has 

made it here to Parliament. There is such a thing as the 

British dream, and he embodies it. 

My hon. Friend’s name has, at times, caused confusion. 

As a new Member of Parliament, he was invited to a 

dinner in honour of a delegation from Iraq, and was 

seated next to my predecessor but one in Witney, the 

former Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd. During the 

main course, Lord Hurd turned to him and asked, “So, 

Mr Zahawi, what do you do?” My hon. Friend replied, 

“I’m a Member of Parliament,” to which Lord Hurd 

inquired, “And which constituency in Iraq do you 

represent?” Not surprisingly, my hon. Friend replied, 

“Stratford-on-Avon.”His speech was in the finest traditions 

of the House—witty, wise, entertaining and erudite. 

I praise him for what he said. 

Let me turn to the seconder of the Gracious Speech. 

Again, when I was told the name, I was not too sure. 

The first things I heard were “Scottish MP” and 

“Gordon”—I see some nervous looks on the Opposition 

Front Bench, too. I refer to one of the House’s most 

distinguished Members, the right hon. Member for 

Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) who, as a Liberal Democrat, 

takes very seriously the motto inspired by his namesake 

Robert the Bruce: “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try 

and try again”—although as he told us in his case he


9 MAY 2012 


20 

[The Prime Minister] 

has tried and succeeded in no fewer than seven general 

elections. He lives in a charming constituency dotted 

with the finest whisky distilleries. I want to be absolutely 

clear that when he was shadow Treasury spokesman 

and frequently advocated extraordinary cuts in whisky 

duty at each and every Budget, he was speaking wholly 

in the national interest. 

From my researches, I can tell the Whips something 

else, which I hope they realise: my right hon. Friend 

does not always respond well when people do him a 

favour. He asked—and the request was granted—the right 

hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) 

to be best man at his wedding in 1998, and a year later 

he stood against him for leadership of the Liberal 

Democrat party. As the Leader of the Opposition can 

testify, things can get worse—you could, of course, be 

brothers. My right hon. Friend has been forthright in 

his views: he has been a powerful voice for the disabled 

and a passionate advocate of foreign aid. I hear absolutely 

what he says about a Bill for 0.7% of GDP on aid, but 

what I would say is that what matters most of all is that 

we reach the target in terms of the money spent. 

Both speeches were in the very best traditions of this 

House, and I pay tribute to the people who gave them. 

The Gracious Speech sets out our foreign policy 

priorities, and the first of these is, of course, Afghanistan. 

Let me be clear: our troops will no longer be in a 

combat role beyond the end of 2014. That is our deadline 

and I will not waver from it. 

Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): The Prime 

Minister generously rolled out the red carpet for Mr Jaroslaw 

Kaczynski, the candidate of his sister party in Poland 

who was badly defeated. In February, the Prime Minister 

endorsed Mr Sarkozy, who was defeated on Sunday. 

Will the Prime Minister, from this Dispatch Box, endorse 

Governor Mitt Romney—and thus ensure that the curse 

of Cameron gets President Obama re-elected? 

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is 

not careful, I might endorse him. When the Conservatives 

take Rotherham, modernisation will be complete. 

Let me tell the House that by the middle of next year 

British forces will have shifted their focus from combat 

to support in all three of the districts of Helmand for 

which we are responsible: Lashkar Gah, Nad Ali and 

Nahri Sarraj. So the Afghans will have lead responsibility 

for security a full year before our troops leave their 

combat role. When we came to that country, there was 

no one to hand over to—no proper army, no proper 

police force. Today we have built up the Afghan national 

security forces and we are on track and on target for 

them to take over full security responsibility. 

From the outset, our approach has been hard-headed 

and strategic, overseen in detail by the new National 

Security Council I established on my first day in office. 

The role of that council is to ask which areas of the 

world pose the greatest threat to Britain. Just last week, 

we were advised that the most immediate international 

terrorist threat to our country now comes not from 

Afghanistan, but from Yemen—and that is clearly 

confirmed by the news from the US yesterday. 

Andrew Selous: Does the Prime Minister agree that, 

given the details of the Yemen plane bomb plot, we 

need to expand the range of measures available to us to 

combat terrorism, while also protecting our historic 

freedoms? 

The Prime Minister: I do agree with my hon. Friend 

about that. Perhaps we will come on to discuss what is 

difficultandcontentiouslegislationondatacommunications; 

I know this will be debated and there will be draft 

clauses. The point I make to the House is that what we 

are trying to do here is not to look at the content of 

people’s telephone calls, but to update the necessary 

measures for finding out who called whom and when, 

because it is that information that has solved almost 

every serious crime and certainly almost every serious 

terrorist offence. 

I say to people, let us of course look at the detail, let 

us of course consult, but I do not want to be the Prime 

Minister standing at this Dispatch Box saying “I could 

have done more to prevent terrorist acts, but we did not 

have the courage to take difficult steps”. Imagine, for a 

minute, what would have happened if, when mobile 

phones came along, the House had simply said “No, we 

will stick to data communications on fixed-line phones; 

we will not touch mobile phones”. If we had done that, 

there would be many, many unsolved cases in comparison 

with what we have experienced. 

Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): Will the Prime Minister 

give way? 

The Prime Minister: Iamhappytogivewaytomy 

right hon. Friend. [Interruption.] 

Keith Vaz: I am most grateful to the Prime Minister 

for giving way, and I am glad that he has kept the focus 

on Yemen. In the context of what has happened this 

week, will he confirm that both London and Washington 

will be supporting the new Government of Yemen? The 

front line against terrorism is not our country, but 

Sana’a and Aden, and without that practical support 

we cannot defeat al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula. 

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is 

entirely right, and we are supporting the new Government 

in Yemen. We are helping them with their transition, we 

are helping to build up the Yemeni security forces, and 

we are supporting the development of more effective 

state institutions. That is absolutely vital work. We will 

also remain focused on the challenges in Iran and Syria. 

These are the critical months during which the world 

must deal with the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. 

While we take nothing off the table, we have specifically 

said to Israel, both publicly and privately, that the 

option of further pressure and further sanctions on the 

regime is the right way forward. We have led the imposition 

of an EU oil embargo, which many believed would not 

be possible, and we are ready to negotiate in good faith. 

I know that everyone in the House is appalled by the 

violence that is taking place in Syria and frustrated that 

we cannot do more to stop it, but I believe that the Annan 

plan of getting more observers in to stop the killing is 

the right answer. Today there are just 60 observers in a 

country more than 70,000 square miles in size. We are


9 MAY 2012 


22 

working with our allies, including the Turks and the 

Arab League, to get hundreds more into that country to 

stop the bloodshed. 

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): The Prime 

Minister talks of threats to our national security. In that 

context, can he explain why, given the urgency of the 

climate crisis that faces us, the Queen’s Speech contains 

nothing to deal with it except provision for a Green 

investment bank that will still not be able to borrow, 

and a Bill that is likely to lock us into high-cost, 

high-carbon gas production? Is it because he does not 

want to show climate leadership, or because he has been 

overruled by his Chancellor? 

The Prime Minister: I am a bit disappointed by what 

the hon. Lady has said, because the Green investment 

bank has £3 billion to spend on green investments. This 

is the sort of proposal that has been included in Labour 

manifestos, Conservative manifestos and Liberal Democrat 

manifestos for years. Now we are delivering it on the 

ground, and that will make a difference. 

We should always, in this country, stand on the side 

of freedom, and we should remember that it is 30 years 

since our taskforce landed on the Falkland islands to 

defend the islanders’ right to remain British. I am sure 

that the House will join me in paying tribute to the 

255 British servicemen who gave their lives in the defence 

of freedom. Three decades have not dimmed our memories 

of their bravery, nor have they dimmed this country’s 

resolve. Make no mistake: for as long as the people of 

the Falkland islands wish to remain British, that is 

exactly how it will be. 

Let me say exactly what this Queen’s Speech is about. 

It is about a Government making the tough, long-term 

decisions to restore our country to strength—dealing 

with the deficit, rebalancing the economy, and building 

a society that rewards people who work hard and do the 

right thing. 

Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab): The Prime Minister 

will be aware that the Minister for Immigration said last 

week, in the wake of the election results, that the 

Government must start to demonstrate more competence. 

Was the Prime Minister disappointed to discover yesterday 

that the Deputy Prime Minister does not understand 

the difference between the debt and the deficit? 

The Prime Minister: What the Deputy Prime Minister 

said yesterday, and what I said yesterday, is that we 

inherited a deficit that was bigger than the deficits of 

Greece, Spain or Portugal. What we have had to do is 

deal with that deficit, deal with the debt, and get our 

country moving again. We are recovering from the mess 

that the hon. Gentleman’s party left. 

We are reforming welfare so that it pays to have a job, 

but we want to do more to reward responsibility. We are 

lifting 2 million people out of tax, but we want to go 

further to help Britain’s strivers. We have introduced 

free schools and created more than 1,000 academies, 

but we want to do more to spread opportunity. That is 

what this Queen’s Speech is about. 

Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): I am 

sure that the Prime Minister listened as carefully as I 

did to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. Did 

he detect anything resembling a solution to the problems 

that the country faces? 

The Prime Minister: I listened very carefully. There 

was almost nothing in terms of a costed, credible alternative. 

The Opposition have now had two years to work out 

what their alternative is, and we heard absolutely nothing 

apart from a string of press releases put together, which 

we have all read over the last few weeks. 

Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab): Can the 

Prime Minister explain to the nation why he is pursuing 

economic policies that have led to a double-dip recession 

and have frozen every inch of growth out of the economy? 

The Prime Minister: As I have said, we have been 

dealing with an economy that had the biggest boom 

and bust in our banks, the biggest deficit in Europe and 

the longest and deepest recession in anyone’s memory. 

What we have to do is get our economy to rebalance, 

and I will explain exactly how the Queen’s Speech is 

going to help, because it is a Queen’s Speech for the 

doers, the strivers and those who work hard and play by 

the rules. 

On cutting the Budget deficit, all across Europe the 

countries being hit are the ones that do not have proper 

plans in place. In the last Session, we cut the nation’s 

overdraft—the gap between what we receive in tax and 

what we spend—by £30 billion. With this Queen’s Speech 

we continue that work with, for instance, the vital 

public service pensions Bill. Not only does that offer 

guaranteed pensions that are still more generous than 

those in the private sector, but it saves tens of billions of 

pounds over the coming decades. Through this Queen’s 

Speech we are also making sure the UK is taken out of 

the eurozone bail-out fund. We are not in the euro, we 

are not joining the euro, so we should not be bailing out 

the euro. 

The reason why we are doing these things on the 

deficit is simple: we want to keep interest rates down for 

hard-working families up and down the country. Let us 

be clear: higher interest rates would mean higher mortgages, 

lower employment and more of people’s money, which 

they have worked so hard to get, wasted by being spent 

on interest on our national debt. Two years ago, Britain 

had exactly the same interest rates as Spain; today, its 

interest rates were touching 6% and ours were below 

2%. That is because we have a credible plan to get the 

country out of the mess it was left in by the last 

Government. 

Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) 

(Con): I am very appreciative of the Prime Minister’s 

words today. On the issue of Lords reform, the Government 

have made long and strenuous efforts, including through 

a draft Bill, a White Paper and a Joint Committee. Does 

the Prime Minister share my view that since a consensus 

has not proved to be available, Lords reform cannot be 

a priority now, and does he also share my view that any 

measures presented to this House should be put to the 

people in a referendum? 

The Prime Minister: First, let me make this point, 

answering also the Leader of the Opposition: reforming 

the House of Lords is not the most important priority


9 MAY 2012 


24 

[The Prime Minister] 

for the Government—that is dealing with the deficit, 

getting our economy moving, increasing the level of 

responsibility in our society and getting on the side of 

hard-working people. Those are the things that matter 

the most, but I think it is perfectly possible for Parliament 

to do more than two things at the same time. At the last 

election, all political parties put forward in their manifestos 

proposals for a partly, or mainly, elected House of 

Lords, but let me say this: this is only going to proceed if 

the political parties will agree to work together and take 

a responsible attitude towards this reform. I think it is 

possible, and it would be a good reform if we could 

achieve it; it would be better if we had a smaller House 

of Lords and if it had an elected element. So I ask 

people to work together across party lines to try to 

make that happen. 

Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab): The Prime 

Minister referred to the deficit in Europe, and he will 

recall that he declined to sign the fiscal compact entered 

into by 25 of the 27 EU member states. I presume he 

will go to the conference on 23 May with his fellow 

leaders in Europe, who will begin working on a growth 

compact. Will he be prepared to sign that? 

The Prime Minister: I want to work with everyone in 

Europe to try to deliver better policies for growth. That 

is why we have been saying, “Let’s complete the single 

market in energy; let’s finish the single market in services; 

let’s complete the single market in digital.” Those are 

the things we are putting on the table. Britain is not in 

the euro, so we are not bound by the terms of the fiscal 

pact; I have made that very clear. 


The Prime Minister: I will give way in a moment, but 

I want to make one point about the Leader of the 

Opposition’s response. They have had two years to work 

out what their answer is. What is their answer to too 

much borrowing, too much spending and too much 

debt? Their answer is more borrowing, more spending 

and more debt. Because the right hon. Gentleman did 

not mention his alternative Queen’s Speech, let me go 

straight to its centrepiece. The centrepiece of the alternative 

Queen’s Speech is, I believe, a bonus tax to pay for a 

jobs fund. Never mind that the last Chancellor in the 

Labour Government said that a bonus tax would not 

work; let us look at the detail. The deputy leader of the 

Labour party was asked in a big set-piece interview how 

much money that would raise, and this was her response: 

“I haven’t got quite the, er, er, I know that we have worked out 

that figure. I’ll have to get back to you on that.” 

She went on to say: 

“I haven’t got that actual figure to hand but I can absolutely 

assure you that Ed Balls has”. 

Ah—[Interruption.] The plot thickens. The shadow 

Chancellor was interviewed this weekend—I know, I 

need to get out more—and he said that he was sorry, 

but 

“I have not costed the whole programme”. 

So there we have it. We have a deputy leader who 

does not have a clue and a shadow Chancellor who does 

not have the figures, and I can tell the House why: they 

have spent their bonus tax 10 times over. They have 

used it to reverse the VAT increase, to reverse the child 

benefit change, to reverse the tax credits change, to 

boost the regional growth fund, to boost capital spending 

and even to turn empty shops into community centres. 

They have no idea whatsoever about how to deal with 

this deficit. They give in to every single interest group—it 

is the bank tax that likes to say yes from the Front 

Benchers who cannot say no. 

Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab): May I take the 

Prime Minister back to what he said about reform of 

the House of Lords? As someone who spent four years 

working very co-operatively with his colleagues and the 

Liberal Democrats to find a solution, I say to him that 

it is palpable that each party is divided on the issue and 

work between the Front Benchers will not resolve it. It 

is right in principle that the British people should 

decide, and that would also avoid a train wreck in the 

business of this House. Will the Prime Minister look 

carefully and positively at the idea of having a pre-legislative 

referendum on reform of the Lords? 

The Prime Minister: I very much respect the work—often 

painstaking, careful and difficult—that the right hon. 

Gentleman did in a range of different roles to try to 

move House of Lords reform on. He is absolutely right 

that all parties are divided on this matter—we should 

be frank about that—so we will only achieve reform if 

people work together. I do not believe that a pre-legislative 

referendum is a good move. On the whole, that is a 

weapon that has been used by slightly unsavoury regimes 

over the years. On the question of a referendum more 

generally, I will merely say that every political party 

went into the election with a pledge to reform the 

House of Lords so I do not personally see a referendum 

as having much to recommend it. The House of Commons 

can discuss this matter and the House of Commons 

must decide. If we are going to achieve reform, we will 

have to work together across the parties to try to deliver 

what I think will be progress for our constitution—a 

reformed and smaller House of Lords. 

Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) 

(Lab): The Prime Minister might be aware that I was 

one of those who, since last July, served on the Joint 

Committee that considered the future of the House 

of Lords. We were not given any indication of the 

Government’s thinking on funding or costing. Can he 

tell us today what costing has taken place on the proposal 

in the Queen’s Speech and will he share that with the 

House? 

The Prime Minister: Certainly, the cost of a stand-alone 

referendum would be significant and it is worth taking 

that into account. 

Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): Will 

the Prime Minister take it from me, after a lot of 

canvassing last week, that many people in this country 

are astounded that in the Queen’s Speech there is nothing 

about youth unemployment or providing jobs, no higher 

education Bill and nothing to address the large number 

of unemployed graduates we now have in this country? 

The Prime Minister: The youth contract, which is 

going to do enormous amounts on youth unemployment, 

started last month. We achieved 450,000 apprenticeships


9 MAY 2012 


26 

last year. The Work programme is well under way now, 

helping half a million people, and it is the biggest 

back-to-work programme in this country since the 1930s. 

Let me explain that there are a number of important 

measures in this Queen’s Speech to promote growth and 

jobs. As well as the Work programme and the youth 

contract, we have the national loan guarantee scheme, 

with £20 billion to get cheaper loans flowing to small 

businesses. The most important work of the Government 

is implementing all those schemes and programmes, but 

we must do more to rebalance our economy. It is clear 

what went wrong. The public sector grew too large, our 

economy became unbalanced between north and south 

and we ended up too dependent on financial services. 

So we know what we need to do as a country. We must 

revive the private sector, spread growth and jobs across 

the country and make sure that financial services truly 

serve the economy—not the other way around. 

To expand the private sector we need to cut the 

burdens on business and make it easier for employers to 

take people on. That is in our enterprise Bill. To make 

the most of growth in the energy sector, including gas, 

nuclear and renewables, we need to reform the energy 

market, and that is what the energy Bill will do. To 

make the most of green investment, we need to legislate 

properly for the Green investment bank, with £3 billion 

of money in its coffers. That will be done through the 

measures announced in the Queen’s Speech as well. 

Another key issue is the need to clean up the financial 

system, and I have to say to the shadow Chancellor, 

who sat and did nothing while the financial sector 

melted down, that he ought to focus on this part of the 

Queen’s Speech. As the Governor of the Bank of England 

said last week, there are three vital steps to take, and we 

will be taking all of them: proper regulation at last by 

the Bank of England, the banks being made to hold 

enough capital to keep them safe, and a regime that 

means that if they do fail they can fail without the 

taxpayer picking up the bill. Those are all things that 

the shadow Chancellor never did when he was the City 

Minister. 

Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/ 

Co-op): The right hon. Gentleman talks about supporting 

small and medium-sized businesses, but the loan guarantee 

scheme is a very small drop in the ocean, because the 

banks simply will not lend to small businesses in my 

constituency. If they will not lend at the current percentages, 

they will not lend at lower percentages. That is the 

problem. When will he wake up to the fact that Operation 

Merlin did not wave a magic wand and did not work? 

The Prime Minister: I make two points to the hon. 

Lady. First, she may not believe that the national loan 

guarantee scheme is big enough, but it is £20 billion of 

lending. That is far bigger than anything contemplated 

by the previous Government. Secondly, the Merlin 

agreement did secure additional lending to big and 

small businesses; lending went up. As ever, the shadow 

Chancellor is wrong. 

As well as introducing vital measures such as banking 

reform and the Financial Services Bill, the Government’s 

mission is to help families who work hard and do the 

right thing. We have cut fuel duty and frozen council tax 

and we are lifting 2 million people out of tax. In the 

coming months people will see more. There will be a 

benefit cap so that people cannot get more on benefits 

than the average family earns; there will be higher tax 

thresholds so that hard-working families keep more of 

their money; and our pensions Bill, announced in the 

Queen’s Speech, is set to deliver a £140 basic state 

pension that will massively reduce means-testing and 

reward those who work hard and save hard all their 

lives. 

Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con): Was the 

Prime Minister as disappointed as I was that the Leader 

of the Opposition again refused to support the benefits 

cap, which is already at a level above the average wage 

of people in Great Yarmouth who work hard? Will 

my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will 

continue to make sure that it will always pay to work? 

The Prime Minister: I have to say that this was about 

the only interesting point in the Leader of the Opposition’s 

speech. When he is asked very clearly whether he supports 

a benefit cap and whether he thinks it is right that 

people can get more than £26,000 a year on benefits, his 

answer is that it is just fine—carry on claiming. That is 

Labour’s message to the hard-working people of this 

country. 

As the Leader of the Opposition covered so little of 

the detail, for the benefit of the House I want to run 

through some of the Bills in the Queen’s Speech and the 

steps we are taking. One thing we are doing is helping 

the most vulnerable of all in our society—children who 

do not have a family, who are stuck in the care system 

and who, in too many cases, have been left there for too 

long. That is why we are legislating on adoption, as set 

out in this Gracious Speech. We are going to publish 

detailed information on how councils perform, setting 

clear time limits for cases to get through the courts and 

making it illegal to turn down an adoptive family on the 

basis of race. We say it is time to end the patronising, 

politically correct prejudice that says that black parents 

cannot bring up white children and that white parents 

cannot bring up black children. It is time to make the 

system colour blind. 

Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): Given the recent 

scandals that have engulfed the Government, why is a 

lobbying Bill not included in the Queen’s Speech? 

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman’s party had 

13 years to produce a register of lobbyists. We have now 

published our proposals for a register of lobbyists and 

we will legislate for a register of lobbyists. [Interruption.] 

I hate to add to hon. Members’ misery, but we have a 

Queen’s Speech for the 2012-13 Session that is packed 

with great Bills and we will have one for the 2013-14 

Session that is packed with great Bills. We will also have 

one for the 2014-15 Session that is packed with great 

Bills, and when we have beaten the rabble in opposition 

at the next election, we will have another one all over 

again. 

Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab): 

Another group of vulnerable people are the 800,000 who 

struggle without care and the millions of over-burdened 

carers. They will be disappointed if not angry that there 

is no Bill in this Session, as promised, to legislate for a


9 MAY 2012 


28 

[Barbara Keeley] 

new financial framework, so they will have to struggle 

on. What does the Prime Minister say to those vulnerable 

people? 

The Prime Minister: It is vital that we take action on 

social care. That is why there are proposals for a draft 

Bill in the Queen’s Speech. It is something that has been 

getting worse for decade. The previous Government 

had 13 years to deal with the issue and they did absolutely 

nothing. Within two years, we are producing proposals 

and a draft Bill, and taking action. 

Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con): Does my 

right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that we have 

all-party support for this critically important issue? It is 

essential to have a draft Bill so that we do the hard work 

in this Parliament to make sure that we can legislate for 

carers in our country. 

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a very 

good point. Genuinely to crack the issue, which has 

dogged Governments for decades, we will need cross-party 

working to deliver the social care changes we need. 

Let me turn to some of the crime measures, as they 

are extremely important. The police do a fantastic job, 

and we should pay tribute to their work, but we need to 

accept that there are some crimes that our existing 

police forces cannot deal with on their own: the cyberattacks 

that threaten our national security, the organised 

gangs supplying drugs to children on the streets and the 

massive industry of human trafficking. Today, we have 

seen the horrific case in Rochdale of children being 

groomed for sex—modern-day slavery in our own country. 

That is why we need a national crime agency—a British 

FBI, if you like—and with this Queen’s Speech we will 

deliver it. 

I want to see tough community sentences that are a 

real punishment, and we shall be legislating for them as 

well. Without such measures, we will never convince the 

police, the courts or the public that these sentences are 

proper alternatives to prison. 

Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab): The Prime 

Minister has mentioned a couple of doubles today. He 

quite rightly referred to the mover and the seconder of 

the speech; there was also the double-dip recession. 

In 1970, Lynn Anderson sang about promises in a 

rose garden: 

“Smile for a while and let’s be jolly 

Love shouldn’t be so melancholy 

Come along and share the good times while we can.” 

Given that the Prime Minister and his Deputy made 

promises of transparency in the rose garden, does he 

now regret not releasing the risk register for the NHS? 

The Prime Minister: In terms of the money we spend 

and the decisions we make, this Government have been 

the most transparent in our country for the last 50 years. 

That is what matters. 

Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con): On behalf 

of my constituents Gary and Natasha Groves, whose 

daughter Lillian was killed outside her home by a driver 

who was under the influence of drugs, I thank the 

Prime Minister for meeting them at No. 10, listening to 

what they had to say and including in the Queen’s 

Speech measures to tackle the menace of drug driving. 

Will he join me in paying tribute to Gary and Natasha 

for responding to a personal tragedy by trying to make 

it less likely that other people endure the terrible loss 

they suffered? 

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right 

to raise the case again. I pay tribute to his work. We will 

be legislating properly for drug-related driving. It is 

right that it is put on to the statute book in the same 

way as drink driving, and it would not be happening 

were it not for the very strong campaign he has fought. 

The context for the Queen’s Speech is a world that is 

becoming ever more competitive. The countries that 

succeed will be those that know they have to deal with 

debts and deficit, and that in a competitive world they 

have to have competitive tax rates and the best climate 

for business investment. They have to back entrepreneurs. 

They need light regulation and lean government. They 

need to reform every part of government, from schools 

to the planning system, so that they get on the side of 

wealth creation, job creation and a growing economy. 

That is what we are doing. 

This is a Government who confront the long-term 

challenges we face, and that is what our country needs—a 

Government who roll up their sleeves to deal with the 

deficit, not an Opposition who think they can borrow 

their way out of debt. We are a coalition Government 

determined to unleash the private sector, spread growth 

around our country and sort out our financial services, 

not a Labour one who bloated the public sector and sat 

back while an unregulated banking sector brought our 

country to its knees. This is a Government who are 

backing hard-working people, not an Opposition who 

say they are on their side but refuse to make work pay, 

refuse to cap welfare and want to heap debts on to our 

children. This is a Government taking the tough decisions 

to help families who work hard and do the right thing. 

We are acting for the long term and governing in the 

national interest. This is a Queen’s Speech to rebuild 

Britain, and I commend it to the House. 

3.55 pm 

Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab):All hon. Members 

will have spent the past few weeks and months knocking 

on doors and will recognise that this Queen’s Speech is 

hugely important for many families across our country. 

Also, many in this House who are baby boomers—that 

does not include our current political leaders—and have 

benefited from free education, affordable housing and 

pretty good pensions will recognise that for those of 

younger generations, many of whom are currently 

unemployed, this is a critical Queen’s Speech. It is 

against that backdrop that I wish to make my comments. 

I will start by welcoming the aspects of the Queen’s 

Speech that deal with family policy. It is absolutely right 

that we do something to support the many families in 

this country struggling with children with disabilities. 

Frankly, it is poor that successive Governments have 

not done enough, so I am pleased to welcome changes 

in that area of policy. Love is a key ingredient for any 

parent raising a child, and the hearts of all Members of 

the House must go out to young people who find


9 MAY 2012 


30 

themselves in circumstances in which they do not have 

parents. For that reason, it must be wrong that children 

from black and ethnic minority backgrounds languish 

in local authority queues waiting for adoptive parents. 

As the parent of two children from a mixed-race 

background, I know that such children fare particularly 

badly on those adoption lists. I welcome the changes 

that will make it easier for parents of any background 

to adopt young people in need of a loving home. 

Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con): I 

join the right hon. Gentleman in welcoming wholeheartedly 

the measures to try to improve adoption in this country 

for children from all backgrounds. Does he agree that it 

is also important not to forget that there are children 

who are brought into the care systems who might have 

other permanency solutions to their upbringing that 

might involve long-term fostering or residential care 

and that we must also do more for those children to 

ensure that they do not miss out on the best possible 

childhood we can give them? 

Mr Lammy: The hon. Gentleman makes an important 

point about foster care and the need to support the 

many people across this country who give up their 

homes and time and offer love to the many children 

who pass through their homes. 

May I also say, as chair of the all-party group on 

fatherhood, that it is important that in this House, on a 

cross-party basis, we make a renewed commitment to 

the importance of fatherhood? I also welcome the changes 

to care proceedings. If it is right and in the interests of a 

child, we must make it easier for fathers to have contact 

with their children. It is now well understood that the 

outcomes for young people without fathers are not 

good enough. In parts of this country and in parts of 

constituencies such as mine there is the phenomenon of 

the “baby-father”, whereby it is acceptable to have 

children but not be a father to them, and I welcome any 

moves in legislation to deal with that issue. 

Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): I pay 

tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s courageous stance 

on many of those issues over the years. Does he echo 

my view that we should also pay tribute to the love, care 

and courage of grandparents and extended kin, and 

that we should remove the impediments that they have 

to caring for their flesh and blood, owing to various 

difficult circumstances involving their own children, 

including drug and alcohol abuse? 

Mr Lammy: The hon. Gentleman has taken up those 

issues in his constituency, and I too underline my support 

for grandparents, particularly given the complexities 

within families of drug and alcohol addiction. 

But in the end the critical issues for most people, in 

relation to this Queen’s Speech and over the coming 

years, will be the reality that we are in a double-dip 

recession, will be what we are doing to get to grips with 

growth in this country, to provide jobs and to support 

small businesses, and will be how we are supporting 

young people. I am afraid that there has just not been 

enough in this Queen’s Speech to address those issues. 

I do not have to tell the Prime Minister what happened 

in my constituency, as we have spoken on many occasions, 

but I say to him that currently in Tottenham 6,500 people 

are unemployed and 28,000 are on out-of-work benefits. 

The figures have actually got worse since the riots, and, 

although I have heard him at the Dispatch Box speaking 

about the Work programme, the youth contract and 

apprenticeships, I find that in all three policies there are 

weaknesses and flaws. 

The Work programme is straining at the edges, 

particularly with the third sector attempting without 

funds to provide placements, and in Tottenham 90% of 

those who are unemployed are not eligible for it. How 

can it be the biggest programme since the 1930s, when 

most people who are unemployed in Britain are not 

eligible to participate in it? While the right hon. Gentleman 

lauds the youth contract, I warn him of a previous era, 

when we saw the failed youth training scheme and, as a 

consequence, many young people who graduated with 

certificates but no jobs. People in my constituency have 

a long memory, and what they want are genuine jobs. 

As a former skills Minister, I am pleased to see the 

growth in apprenticeships, but the right hon. Gentleman 

will know that the scheme, to reach the figure of 450,000, 

includes many that people would not recognise as an 

apprenticeship. An apprenticeship should surely be a 

programme that lasts for at least one year. Currently, 

apprenticeships last for a maximum of 16 weeks, and 

many young people do not want something that is, 

in fact, a very short opportunity in customer services 

dressed up as a genuine apprenticeship, so I ask the Prime 

Minister to look at what is behind such apprenticeships 

if we are genuinely to retain the trust of young people. 

I and other Opposition Members will of course scrutinise 

the enterprise Bill in its entirety, but, when I think of 

those shopkeepers on Tottenham high road who saw 

their businesses destroyed, I recall, as will the Prime 

Minister, that they faced hardships even before the riots. 

There were hardships with business rates and with 

footfall on the high road, and they were concerned 

about issues such as regulation—2,900 of them in the 

Tottenham constituency, paying their VAT and employing 

30,000 people. 

The number of self-employed people in my constituency 

has fallen from 14% to 7% in the past year. It is going in 

the wrong direction. I warn him that his absolute dedication 

to slashing public services is having a major effect in 

adding to the dole queues in constituencies such as mine. 

We are not seeing more businesses flourishing or 

coming in and taking up the slack from the public sector; 

we are seeing something much worse. Look underneath 

the figures. The whole House should have serious concerns 

about anyone—young people, particularly—who faces 

unemployment. However, when the unemployment rate 

is three times higher among young black men, we 

should be gravely concerned. 

We should also be particularly concerned that many 

women—older women, often black—are now joining 

their sons on the unemployment queues, having been 

employed in the health service, local government or other 

areas. I say to the Prime Minister that some communities 

depend on those mothers being employed and I am 

worried about the emergence of a picture worse than 

some of the scenes that hon. Members will recognise 

from the United States of America. 

That is why we needed a Queen’s Speech that would 

seriously address those issues—stimulate the economy 

in the way required; wrestle with the issue of growth;


9 MAY 2012 


32 

[Mr Lammy] 

and move our economy from over-dependence on financial 

services and retail. When I heard the Business Secretary 

arguing the case for the Sunday trading Bill, it was 

again apparent that the Government would rely once 

more on retail, consumerism, shopping and spending to 

get us out of this mess. We will need far more than that 

in this economy if we are to respond to the problems in 

constituencies such as mine. 

What about the gaps in the Queen’s Speech? Given 

the importance of higher education to the UK economy 

and all we have invested to support young people making 

their way to university, why have the Government decided 

that a higher education Bill is not appropriate? The 

issue has been kicked into the long grass. Vice-chancellors 

and young people face uncertainty because we have not 

seen any Bill in that area of policy at all. Why are we 

going to spend hours, in this House and the other place, 

debating House of Lords reform when every Member 

knows that no one raised that issue with any political 

party on the doorstep during the campaign of the past 

few weeks? Is House of Lords reform really where our 

priorities should be? 

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

right hon. Gentleman agree that the whole matter of 

House of Lords reform could be dealt with quickly in 

this House if, as the Prime Minister said a short while 

ago, the Government brought forward a Bill that simply 

brought the House of Lords into the 21st century 

without trying to create another House of Commons at 

the other end of the corridor? 

Mr Lammy: I get where the hon. Lady is coming 

from, but I want to bring the Government into the 

21st century. For that to happen, we need some real 

answers for the millennial generation who face decades 

of unemployment in this country. We have to say something 

about what we can expect for our graduates; we must 

not just talk the talk in terms of families, but recognise 

that the cost of living is going up, and we expect a 

Queen’s Speech that will address those issues. 

Against that backdrop, this Queen’s Speech fails. I 

suspect that there are areas that the Opposition will be 

able to accept, but there are many holes in this Queen’s 

Speech. As the Prime Minister reflects and gets into the 

detail, I hope that the House can expect a bigger, more 

ambitious and more visionary legislative framework in 

the next Queen’s Speech. 

4.9 pm 

Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): It 

is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for 

Tottenham (Mr Lammy). While I may differ with his 

analysis, there is never any doubt that he holds his views 

passionately. He certainly supports his constituency 

and community passionately, and has done so in the 

past several years in which I have watched him in this 

House. 

Let me say to the Prime Minister that it is also a 

pleasure to talk about the real Queen’s Speech as against 

the one that I and others proposed last week. This 

Queen’s Speech has enormous merits to it, particularly 

in the context of growth. I am particularly supportive, 

as he will be unsurprised to hear, of his proposals on 

bank reforms, competition law, and joint enterprise law 

reform, including labour law reform. He will be happy 

to hear me mention those, but I am afraid that it goes 

downhill from here on in. [HON. MEMBERS: “That was 

less than a minute!”] Well, I will make up the whole 

minute by saying that the Government can be proud of 

most of their record in the past couple of years on the 

issues of liberty and justice, which the Prime Minister 

knows I hold very dear. Their actions on identity cards, 

on cutting down on the amount of detention without 

charge, and on the misuse of counter-terrorism stop-andsearch 

powers are all matters of pride for them. 

Beyond that, however, I have three concerns: one 

about a constitutional issue, one about state power, and 

one about justice. Let me start with the constitutional 

issue on which the right hon. Member for Tottenham 

finished—the House of Lords. One of my concerns 

about our whole approach to the House of Lords is that 

we are arguing about its composition without worrying 

enough about its purpose, which we have not done 

enough to consider. There is a great deal of talk about 

the House of Lords as a revising and reforming Chamber, 

but it has a much greater function than that. Historically, 

the House of Lords has been a serious check on excessive 

Executive power. It was a check on the Government of 

Margaret Thatcher when she had a very large majority, 

on the Government of Tony Blair, and on the Government 

of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath 

(Mr Brown), and no doubt it will be a check on this 

Government as time goes on. 

It is very important in Britain that we have this check, 

because we are different in one respect from most other 

democracies. Without any separation of Executive and 

legislature, the power of the Executive in this House 

means that this House is less good than it could be at 

defending the rights of individuals when the Executive 

impinge too much on them. We saw that very often with 

the previous Government. There were a great number 

of occasions when I am sure that many Labour Members 

did not want to support some of their Government’s 

more illiberal actions. That is why the House of Lords is 

incredibly important. 

Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con): My right 

hon. Friend is making a case from a Conservative point 

of view against reforming the make-up of the House of 

Lords. If the House of Lords has the distinguished 

record of preventing excessive use of Executive power 

that he is suggesting, why does he think that Margaret 

Thatcher’s first Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, delivered 

a speech roughly 50 years ago in which he said that we 

did not have sufficient checks and balances in our 

constitution, which he characterised as an elective 

dictatorship? 

Mr Davis: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, 

because he goes right to the central point. The House of 

Lords is not perfect, and there are many things that it 

has wrongly allowed to happen. I am in favour of 

reform of the House of Lords, but we must be very 

careful to get it right. If, in our reform, we do away with, 

or weaken or mitigate to any great extent, the check that 

it provides, that check will never be returned, because 

no Government will ever bring back a restraint on their 

own powers. 

I think it was the Deputy Prime Minister who 

characterised his preferred state of the House of Lords 

as being one that more reflected the political composition


9 MAY 2012 


34 

of the House of Commons. That is precisely what I 

would not want it to do. A House of Lords that exactly 

reflected the political composition of the House of 

Commons would not be very much of a check on the 

Executive, and that would be a really serious problem. 

We must be very careful about what we do. 

I do not believe that a referendum, of itself, will solve 

the problem, because it is a subtle and difficult matter 

and will be very hard to argue in public. However, it is 

very important. 

Mrs Laing: I agree with my right hon. Friend that 

providing a check on the Government is Parliament’s 

most important role. Does he agree that having an 

elected House of Lords would undermine the position 

of the elected Members of the House of Commons and 

make them less likely to be able to hold the Government 

to account in this House, where the Prime Minister sits? 

Mr Davis: I take my hon. Friend’s point, although I 

believe the greater problem would be legislative gridlock 

if too much legitimacy were given to the House of 

Lords. The simple fact is that over the course of the past 

century, these Houses have managed a pretty effective 

balance without crippling government. The position 

that we have arrived at still needs reform, but very 

careful reform. 

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): I agree with the right 

hon. Gentleman that we have to consider two things 

hand in hand, the composition of the House of Lords 

and its function. Although I am passionately in favour 

of an elected second Chamber, one of my criticisms of 

the draft Bill is that clause 2 will not reinforce the 

primacy of this Chamber. Some kind of concordat 

would have to be agreed by both Houses and written 

into their Standing Orders. Does he accept, though, 

that the current situation is unsustainable? We already 

have far too many Members down the other end of the 

building, and if there is no reform, there will be another 

200. There will be more than 1,000 Members, the vast 

majority of them appointed by party leaders on a party 

Whip. Surely that is unsustainable. 

Mr Davis: I agree with the last point, but the hon. 

Gentleman should not let the best be the enemy of the 

good. 

I will finish my points about the Lords, because I 

want to talk about two other significant issues of justice 

and freedom. For me, the test is to look back and see 

what would have happened in the past decade if we had 

introduced whatever new reform we will come up with. 

As the Deputy Prime Minister will be only too conscious, 

in the past decade the Lords have stopped the curbing 

of jury trials and a number of other measures, including 

the extension of detention without charge. That would 

not have happened if we had had too politically similar 

a House of Lords. When the House considers the 

matter in some detail, my test will be whether a reform 

will achieve the same check on the Government. 

John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Will the 

right hon. Gentleman give way? 

Mr Davis: I want to move on, but I will give way later 

if the hon. Gentleman still wishes to intervene. 

The second issue that I want to mention is state 

power and what has become known colloquially as the 

snooper’s charter. The Queen’s Speech stated that the 

Government intended 

“to bring forward measures to maintain the ability of the law 

enforcement and intelligence agencies to access vital communications 

data under strict safeguards to protect the public, subject to 

scrutiny of draft clauses.” 

I take the last part to mean that how it will happen is up 

for argument. That is a good thing, because I am afraid 

the proposal is very similar to what the Labour Government 

came up with. I will give way to the Deputy Prime 

Minister if he really wants to argue the point, but I do 

not recommend it, because the Government have already 

consulted heavily with internet service providers and 

producers and talked to them about what they want to 

do. They want to require companies to maintain large 

databases of contact information. If I have telephoned 

somebody, there will be information about who the call 

was to, when it was made and where from. That will 

lead to extremely large databases, which the state then 

wants to be able to access relatively freely. 

Frankly, I am surprised that the Government have 

made the proposal, because both coalition parties opposed 

it in opposition, and as far as I can see, it goes against 

the thrust of the coalition agreement. It certainly goes 

against the thrust of a comment that my right hon. Friend 

the Prime Minister made when we were in opposition. 

He said: 

“Faced with any problem, any crisis—given any excuse—Labour 

grasp for more information, pulling more and more people into 

the clutches of state data capture…And the Government doesn’t 

want to stop with the basic information…Scare tactics to herd 

more disempowered citizens into the clutches of officialdom, as 

people surrender more and more information about their lives, 

giving the state more and more power over their lives. If we want 

to stop the state controlling us, we must confront this surveillance 

state.” 

We opposed those measures in opposition, not just 

because they were illiberal or risked turning our country 

into a nation of suspects, but because we believed that 

they were ineffective. Nearly every measure that we 

opposed when I was my right hon. Friend’s shadow 

Home Secretary we opposed because we thought that it 

would not work against terrorism. That is also true of 

the measure that we are considering. 

I took advice from experts. I asked them a simple 

question: “If you were a terrorist, how would you avoid 

this scrutiny?” I stopped them when they got to the fifth 

method. It is pretty straightforward: for terrorists, everything 

from proxy servers to one-off mobile phones means 

that such scrutiny is easy to avoid. For criminals, it is 

also easy and quite cheap to avoid. However, for ordinary 

citizens, that scrutiny is not easy and cheap to avoid. We 

will therefore create something, which some Ministers 

said will cost £2 billion—the London School of Economics 

suggests that it will cost £12 billion—that will not be 

effective against terrorism, but constitutes general-purpose 

surveillance of the entire nation. 

Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): Sometimes terrorists 

make a mistake. If we save lives through having the 

information, that balances my right hon. Friend’s argument. 

Mr Davis: The simple truth is that when the House 

reacted understandably to the horrific events of 9/11 

and the preceding terrorist events, such as the USS Cole


9 MAY 2012 


36 

[Mr David Davis] 

and the east African embassy bombings, and introduced 

a couple of measures: the Regulation of Investigatory 

Powers Act 2000 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and 

Security Act 2001, it took away many previous protections. 

Before RIPA, the agencies would approach British Telecom 

or Cable & Wireless and ask for the data, which were 

sometimes—not always—handed over voluntarily. The 

companies exercised some responsibility. In about two 

thirds of cases, the agencies got warrants, and the 

information had to be handed over. The central, though 

not the only issue is whether the databases are available 

to the agencies of the state without a warrant. They are 

currently available without a warrant. If we want to 

make such practices acceptable in a civilised, liberal 

state, we should have warrants first. 

Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): As a Liberal 

Democrat, but also as the MP for Cheltenham, I ask the 

right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that it should 

be possible to strike a perfectly good balance between 

the absolute need to protect civil liberties and traditional 

British freedoms and apply the principles behind the 

existing legislation that he mentioned to new and fastdeveloping 

technologies to prevent our security services 

from falling behind. 

Mr Davis: Of course, but frankly, talk about falling 

behind is a bit of a red herring. The security services 

today can collect more data by several orders of magnitude 

than they could when I first became a Member of 

Parliament, simply because technology allows that. In 

1987, one pretty much had to get a BT engineer to plug 

in a bug in the local exchange. People do not do that 

now—they could almost do it from my office through 

software. I could listen to all hon. Members at once— 

[Interruption.] Hon. Members’ conversations are too 

boring to bother with. 

Of course, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin 

Horwood) is right and there is a balance to strike. No 

one has ever been foolish enough to suggest that I 

favour helping terrorists, making it easier for them or 

harder for our agencies. However, we must act under 

judicial control and return to the prior warrant process 

that applied before RIPA for the systems to work. 

Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con): Will my right hon. 

Friend give way? 

Mr Davis: No, I am about to finish that part of my 

speech. The prior warrant process would ensure that we 

stop the great overuse of the new powers, which has 

happened dozens of times in the past decade. If we do 

not, the public reaction will be one of outrage, because 

the measure will affect not just a few people, but tens of 

millions of people, and they will not take it quietly. 

My last point is on a justice measure, but it is not a 

measure like the snooper’s charter, which will create a 

tsunami of reaction as it goes through the House—I am 

confident of that, because we already have 137,000 

signatures on the online petition. Secret courts affect 

only tens and perhaps hundreds of people, but they 

bring against those people a serious injustice. I take the 

view—a very unfashionable one in modern politics, 

with too many polls and focus groups—that an injustice 

against one is an injustice against all, and the secret 

court proposals undoubtedly propose an injustice. 

I say that with complete confidence, but for a rather 

obscure reason. A secret court procedure is proposed, 

but we already have such procedures. They are called 

special immigration appeal courts—SIAC—and they 

have existed since 1997, when the Labour Government 

introduced them to deal with people they thought they 

could not deal with in open court. Of course, no hon. 

Member has ever been in one or seen one in operation. 

No hon. Member knows how they work, including all 

Ministers of this Government and the previous one. 

One group alone understands how those courts work: 

special advocates. There are 69 special advocates, of 

whom 32 have had detailed exposure to the proposed 

closed material procedure. The procedure involves 

the Executive—a Minister—saying to a court: “This 

information can be heard only in very close camera.” It 

cannot be heard in court as a whole in secret: the judge 

and the Government advocate of the argument can 

hear the evidence, but only the special advocate—a 

lawyer who cannot talk to the defendant or litigant in 

the case—can challenge it. 

Tony Baldry: We had a system of special advocates in 

courts in Northern Ireland for a very long time—a 

number of members of my chambers were special advocates 

in such circumstances—and I do not recall my right 

hon. Friend when we were in government ever complaining 

about those procedures, which we had to use in Northern 

Ireland given the particular circumstances there. 

Mr Davis: I am sorry to correct my hon. Friend’s 

memory, but I did complain. I actually appeared in a 

Diplock court as a witness, so I know exactly how they 

work from that point of view. 

The simple truth is not my view, but the view of the 

32 special advocates who have had such experience. 

Virtually all of them signed a document that challenged 

the Government’s Green Paper, in quite robust terms. 

The special advocates said that closed material procedures 

“represent a departure both from the principle of natural justice 

and from the principle of open justice. They may leave a litigant 

having little clear idea of the case deployed against him, and 

ultimately they may prevent some litigants from knowing why 

they have won or lost. Furthermore, and crucially, because the SA 

appointed on his behalf is unable to take instructions in relation 

to that case, they may leave the SA with little realistic opportunity 

of responding effectively to that case. They also systematically 

exclude public, press and Parliamentary scrutiny of parts of our 

justice system…Our experience as SAs involved in statutory and 

non-statutory closed material procedures leaves us in no doubt 

that CMPs are inherently unfair; they do not ‘work effectively’, 

nor do they deliver real procedural fairness. The fact that such 

procedures may be operated so as to meet the minimum standards 

required by Article 6 of the ECHR, with such modification as has 

been required by the courts so as to reduce that inherent unfairness, 

does not and cannot make them objectively fair.” 

That is the view of the only people who understand this 

system. 

The secret courts measure is being held up as a 

proposal to improve our security. It would undermine 

and corrode our justice system, and it would not improve 

our security, because the other point made by special 

advocates is that the public interest immunity system as 

it now stands—again this is not properly understood by


9 MAY 2012 


38 

Ministers—works perfectly well, and much better than 

what is proposed. Indeed, one special advocate has 

pointed out that this proposal is less good than that 

available to the terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay. 

That is how poor this procedure is. In fact, there are 

many other procedures abroad that would work better 

than this one. Sadly, this is not a measure that I will 

support in the coming months. 

The Government came in with a grand, important 

and liberal—both small “l” and big “l”—tradition to 

uphold. That tradition supported both freedom and 

justice in this country. These two measures—putting the 

Lords to one side, as that is a matter for argument—would, 

if we are not very careful, undermine that tradition and 

our reputation, and do nothing to improve the protection 

of Britain against terrorism. Indeed, just the reverse—they 

would make it worse. 

4.31 pm 

Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): I am pleased 

to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and 

Howden (Mr Davis). He has eloquently set out the 

arguments on the balance between the need to protect 

national security and the need to protect individual 

freedoms. He mentioned internet surveillance and my 

party will look closely at the proposals and support 

whatever measures are necessary to protect national 

security, but we will also be conscious of the need to 

protect individual freedoms and privacies. That means 

not giving the Government any more powers than are 

absolutely and strictly necessary in the fight against 

terrorism, but if powers are thought to be absolutely 

necessary, we would be remiss if we did not proceed to 

implement them. 

At the outset, I join others in paying tribute to Her 

Majesty the Queen in her diamond jubilee year. We in 

Northern Ireland look forward to her coming to the 

Province later this summer, and I have no doubt that she 

will be welcomed as warmly as she has been on previous 

visits. 

I also wish to join the Prime Minister and other right 

hon. and hon. Members in paying tribute to the service 

in the two years of this Parliament of our brave servicemen 

and women in theatres of conflict abroad and in the 

work that they do to protect us all here in this country 

and in the fight against terrorism. 

I welcome several measures in the Queen’s Speech. 

The briefing that went on before the Gracious Speech 

referred to a greater focus on family-friendly measures. 

My party welcomes measures to support and strengthen 

families and family life, such as speedier adoption and 

help for parents of children with disabilities to cut 

through red tape. We will support such measures, because 

strong families are important and supporting them is 

key. The Government have been slow so far to implement 

tax allowance changes for married couples, which were 

in the Conservative manifesto and the coalition agreement. 

We look forward to their coming forward with proposals 

in that area in due course. 

We also welcome the banking reform Bill, which will 

split the retail and investment sides of businesses. That 

is overdue, it is good news for consumers and will help 

to protect them, and so will receive our support. There 

are issues with the speed of implementation—we would 

like the reforms to happen a little quicker—but we will 

come to that during the debate on the Bill. 

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): Banking reform 

is important for the United Kingdom as a whole but 

especially important for Northern Ireland. We have a 

dysfunctional banking system, because so many banks 

have been caught up with bad property loans and so on. 

Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and people in 

Northern Ireland that the Government need to focus 

more on how measures to ease banking will affect 

banks in Northern Ireland and ensure that we get our 

fair share of credit easing and so on? 

Mr Dodds: As Minister for Finance and Personnel in 

the Northern Ireland Executive, my hon. Friend deals 

with such issues on a daily basis, and he and his colleagues, 

including Arlene Foster, the enterprise Minister, and 

others are working hard to deal with them. He points, 

rightly, to the particular issues in Northern Ireland. 

Two of our banks are based in the Irish Republic. The 

property collapse in the Irish Republic and its eurozone 

problems are impacting strongly on the Northern Ireland 

economy. He is right, therefore, that particular attention 

needs to be given to how credit easing plays through to 

Northern Ireland, where we have peculiar circumstances 

that do not affect other parts of the UK. 

One reason we have been pushing strongly—we have 

received a reasonably warm response—on the need to 

reduce corporation tax in Northern Ireland is that we 

share a land frontier with the Irish Republic, which has 

a much lower rate of corporation tax. I look forward to 

an announcement on that and other issues in this Session 

and perhaps to legislation in the next Session. 

We welcome the emphasis on cutting business regulation. 

The Business Secretary’s remarks yesterday about the 

need to roll back the EU regulatory burden were also 

most welcome. We also support moves on executive pay. 

The recent revolts by shareholders in companies such 

as Aviva and Barclays brought cheer to hard-working 

families, but more needs to be done to empower 

shareholders through binding votes on pay at the top 

level. Such measures matter to people out there in the 

country, and they want action taken on them. That is 

where the focus needs to be. 

We welcome the fact that driving under the influence 

of drugs will become a specific offence with appropriate 

punishment. I have received communication on that 

issue, as other right hon. and hon. Members will have, 

and although this measure will be of little comfort to 

those who have already lost family members in tragic 

circumstances—we have heard some very brave people 

speaking in the media about this—it will, I hope, prevent 

more deaths and injuries on our roads in the future. 

Likewise, I welcome the much-needed groceries code 

adjudicator Bill. It will be warmly welcomed by farmers 

and other suppliers in my part of the world—not necessarily 

in my constituency, because at last count only three 

farmers were living within its boundaries, but in Northern 

Ireland, which is largely a rural area, it will be warmly 

welcomed. 

Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con): I, too, 

much support the groceries code adjudicator Bill. If 

there is no problem with how our big buyers and 

supermarkets use their muscle, they will have nothing 

to fear from the adjudicator. It will be a check and 

balance.


9 MAY 2012 


40 

Mr Dodds: Absolutely, but the adjudicator must have 

teeth. We look forward to hearing the details as they 

come forward. However, if that and other measures we 

have talked about are implemented, they will receive 

broad welcome. 

Having said that, I want to come to several areas on 

which I disagree with the Government. Some relate to 

issues that were in the Queen’s Speech, but some relate 

to matters that were not. The verdict on the Gracious 

Speech must be that, although it contains useful measures 

that we will support, overall it lacks substance in heavyweight 

measures to deal with the big issue confronting 

us. There is to be a measure on House of Lords reform. 

Many people call me or come to my constituency office, 

but few, if any, have ever raised that issue with me. Even 

in these days of e-mails, Twitter and Facebook, very 

little of our correspondence relates to the matter. 

There are, however, many issues on which I get a large 

amount of e-mails and other correspondence. People 

are concerned about our net contribution to the European 

Union, for example. They are worried about the cost of 

implementing regulations from Brussels. They are angry 

about our inability to reject unwanted EU law, and they 

want Parliament to be able to decide on behalf of the 

people of the United Kingdom what our laws should be, 

who we should have in our country and who we should 

be able to deport. Those are the issues that people raise 

with Members of Parliament all the time. They might 

not be the issues that Members want to face up to, but 

unless we face up to the concerns that people raise on a 

daily basis, we shall become ever more disconnected 

from the people we are supposed to represent. 

Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab): A couple of weeks 

ago, some small business owners from my constituency 

came down to see me. They talked about the difficulties 

relating to bank lending and to the high rate of VAT. 

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that they will take 

little comfort from what has been said in today’s Queen’s 

Speech? 

Mr Dodds: I agree with the hon. Lady. I shall come to 

the issue of VAT shortly, as people have raised that with 

me. VAT and fuel costs are of real concern to them. The 

hon. Lady also mentioned banking. It is clear that a real 

problem for economic growth in this country is that 

many viable businesses that have a future and an order 

book and that can trade are having to deal with banks 

that are moving the goalposts on lending conditions 

and what they require businesses to pay. They often do 

that at short notice, having agreed on a programme of 

repayments and interest rates only a few months previously. 

Suddenly, the goalposts are moved and the businesses 

are bereft of any means of continuing. They are forced 

into liquidation and into laying people off. Much more 

needs to be done about the lack of bank lending to 

businesses, because that is strangling a great deal of the 

potential growth in our economy. 

Meg Hillier: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree 

that the fact that banks have become so far removed 

from the communities that they serve is causing some of 

these challenges? There is agreement across the House 

on the need for reform of the banking system. Would he 

welcome more mutualisation in the banking sector, and 

does he share my regret that that does not appear in the 

Gracious Speech? 

Mr Dodds: The hon. Lady puts forward an important 

issue for our consideration. Many of the banks are 

largely owned by the public at the moment. One leading 

business man in Northern Ireland told me recently that 

he regretted that we had not gone the whole way and 

taken complete control of the banks, to ensure that all 

the necessary lending could take place. Members of 

the public, taxpayers, ordinary hard-working families, 

individuals and businesses are pumping billions of pounds 

into the banking system, yet the banks are not doing 

what needs to be done to ease credit and lend in the way 

that they should. 

I was talking about House of Lords reform, and 

other Members have rightly raised issues that are of real 

concern to the people and the communities that they 

represent. Before we get on to the reform of the House 

of Lords, I would like to see this House deal with an 

issue relating to the House of Commons. The Prime 

Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 

said on record during the last Session that they believe 

that it is wrong that Members who do not take their 

seats in the House of Commons are still able to receive 

full expenses, allowances and representational moneys, 

which puts them in a much more advantageous position 

than those of us who do take our seats. Sinn Fein, for 

instance, gets the equivalent of parliamentary Short 

money—what is called representative money—and is 

free to spend it, not on parliamentary activities, of 

course, because they do not engage in any parliamentary 

activities, but on party political activities. Whereas we 

as right hon. and hon. Members would rightly be called 

to account by the authorities for any spending—even a 

penny’s worth—for party political purposes, a group of 

Members who do not take their seats are quite free to 

spend that money to the disadvantage of their political 

opponents. Let us be frank: it does not particularly 

affect our votes, but it affects those of others in the 

House who are not here today and no doubt can speak 

for themselves in due course. The fact is that Members 

who do not take their seats are given an enormous 

advantage. 

We know that back in 2001, Betty Boothroyd, the 

former great Speaker of the House, resisted all this for a 

long time. Ultimately, the decision was taken to proceed 

with the concessions because the then Labour Government 

said—it was bitterly opposed by Conservative Members— 

that it was important to bring people into the peace 

process and the political process. Whatever the arguments 

at that time, the fact of the matter is that there is no 

longer any need for this special category of expenditure 

on the basis of encouraging people to be part of the 

peace process. It is clear that people are involved in the 

Executive and in the Assembly at Stormont. I welcome 

that, and think it enormously to the credit of parties in 

this House and in Northern Ireland that progress has 

been made, but it would not make the slightest difference 

to the political process—nobody believes that it would—if 

these special arrangements were withdrawn in line with 

what was promised before the election and in the last 

parliamentary Session. 

Bob Stewart: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for 

giving way. I want entirely to endorse every single point 

he has made on the matter of Short money for people 

who do not take their seats in this House. Those days 

are over; let us get this sorted out.


9 MAY 2012 


42 

Mr Dodds: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s 

support. What I am proposing does not require legislation, 

so I did not necessarily expect it to be reflected in the 

Queen’s Speech today, but I look forward to steps being 

taken in this Session to tackle this long overdue issue. 

I want to come to another issue on which we have not 

received many demands for legislation, but about which 

we have heard many complaints and expressions of 

concern. The issue has not been raised in the debate so 

far, but it received an enormous amount of coverage in 

the run-up to the Gracious Speech: so-called gay marriage. 

I have to say that I am pleased that no Bill on so-called 

gay marriage has been proposed for this Session, but I 

understand that it is the Government’s clear intention 

to introduce a Bill at some point. I hope that they will 

reconsider that in light of the fact that well over 

500,000 people have signed the Coalition for Marriage’s 

petition against changing the definition of marriage. 

That is more people than have signed any petition on 

the Government’s own website. I hope that there will be 

a solemn and sincere reconsideration of any suggestion 

to bring forward such a measure. 

Once again, this issue highlights the question of 

whether we are prepared to connect with the views of 

the vast majority of the people we purport to represent 

in this House or we remain disconnected from the 

concerns of ordinary people in the community. We have 

already legislated for civil partnerships, and this issue of 

gay marriage does not have the support of people out in 

the country. Rather than fixating on issues like that, if 

the Prime Minister were to come to my constituency—no 

doubt other hon. Members will hear the same thing in 

their constituencies—he would hear about the issues 

that matter, such as the high and rising price of petrol 

and diesel, and the high and rising price of energy. In 

Northern Ireland, where we suffer higher petrol and 

diesel costs than any other part of not just the United 

Kingdom but the European Union—hard as that is to 

believe—this is a very important matter indeed, but I 

am sorry to say that the Gracious Speech contained no 

reference to any measure that would tackle the high and 

rising price of fuel. 

I know that people will say that the Government have 

taken action to deal with the problem, and I accept that 

measures have been taken that have made the price of 

fuel lower than it would otherwise have been. However, 

people are inundating me and other DUP Members 

with complaints about the proposed 3p rise in fuel duty 

next August, which will undoubtedly make things very 

difficult for families and businesses. It will, for instance, 

have knock-on effects on the price of food. People 

simply cannot understand why we are seeing these taxes 

go up while taxes on millionaires are coming down. 

There is no doubt that the increase in VAT, which has 

already been mentioned today, has added enormously 

to the burden on families. In November 2008, the present 

Chancellor said that he would remind the then Government 

about the Labour party’s plans to increase VAT from 

18.5% 

“every single day between now and the next general election.”— 

[Official Report, 26 November 2008; Vol. 483, c. 741.] 

He said that it was a shame, and all the rest of it. The 

tune has changed dramatically since the Opposition 

became the Government, but what was said then about 

the burden that the increase would inflict on individuals, 

businesses and families was absolutely true, and it is still 

true today. The VAT increases have added considerably 

to the cost of living, but I do not believe that VAT has 

been used to help stimulate the economy. 

Businesses are facing extreme pressures as a result of 

bank lending policies and credit tightening. The Greek 

and French elections have taken place in recent days, 

and the results have shown a desire to move away from 

nothing but austerity to an emphasis on growth. Of 

course we need to deal with the deficit, but I for one am 

glad that emphasis is now being placed on the need to 

secure growth in the economy. We cannot deal with the 

deficit only by cutting expenditure or raising taxes; we 

must have economic growth as well. The priority of this 

parliamentary Session must be growth, growth, growth, 

and we will support the Government in respect of 

measures that deliver that essential, but so far elusive, 

piece of the economic jigsaw. 

4.52 pm 

Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) 

(LD): It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member 

for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), and it is a privilege to be 

the first Liberal Democrat to speak in this Session of 

Parliament. [Interruption.] Apart, that is, from my right 

hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), 

to whom I am about to pay tribute. Let me start, however, 

by paying tribute to the soldiers whom we remembered 

at the beginning of the Session—and all who serve in 

places of danger in Afghanistan and elsewhere—and to 

our colleagues who died during the last Session. 

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on- 

Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) for his speech, and for his 

reminder of how diverse a country we are and how we 

benefit from that. I also thank my right hon. Friend the 

Member for Gordon, whom I ignored only accidentally 

and briefly, for his speech. He has served in this place 

continuously for nearly 29 years, and has been the most 

loyal and steadfast friend and colleague for all that 

time. He has been a wonderful representative of Aberdeen, 

of Aberdeenshire, of his constituency and of his country. 

He has served this Parliament with great distinction, 

not least today. We are very grateful for his public 

service, and I think we would all like to put that on the 

record. [HON. MEMBERS: “Hear, hear.”] He is a very 

valued colleague. 

On the second Wednesday in May two years ago, the 

coalition agreement was signed—within five days of the 

last election result being declared and within 24 hours 

of the new Prime Minister taking over at the request of 

the Queen, the deal was done. Two years later, I say on 

behalf of all my colleagues that I am perfectly clear that 

that was the right decision at the time. It was the right 

decision at the time for us to enter the coalition, in the 

national interest; and it was the right decision to continue 

for the past two years in the coalition, in the national 

interest; and it will continue to be the right decision to 

remain in the coalition, in the national interest, for the 

remaining three years of this Parliament. When we 

joined together, we did so knowing it would be a five-year 

programme, and knowing we were committed to seeing 

it through, and it absolutely is in the national interest 

thatwedoso. 

It was obvious from the beginning that returning 

Britain to economic stability would not be achieved in 

one year or in two years, and that instead a full five-year 

Parliament would be needed. That was the truth then


9 MAY 2012 


44 

[Simon Hughes] 

and that is the truth now. We were therefore right to 

legislate to make the constitutional reform necessary to 

have a fixed-term Parliament, in order to give the certainty 

that the county needed. If anyone does not believe that 

political certainty is a good thing, they should look at 

what is happening on the other side of this continent at 

this very moment. In five days, we were able to bring 

certainty to our country, despite an indecisive election 

result. 

May I remind the House what the election achieved? 

The Conservatives won 306 seats, and got the support 

of just over a third of those who voted. 

Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): Are we 

talking about the council elections? 

Simon Hughes: No, this was two years ago. Labour 

won 258 seats and just under 30% of public support. We 

won 57 seats with 23% of public support. Labour and 

the Liberal Democrats combined did not make a majority. 

Indeed, Labour and the Liberal Democrats along with 

the next largest party, the Democratic Unionists, would 

not have made a majority—we would still have been 

short—whereas the Conservatives plus the Liberal 

Democrats made a majority, and the country needed a 

majority Government. We therefore did our duty, by 

agreeing to work with people who were normally our 

opponents, in the national interest, to deliver a common 

programme. We have done that twice in Scotland, working 

with Labour in the national interest, and once in Wales, 

again working with Labour in the national interest. I 

believe it was right to do so on all those occasions, and 

that it was right to do so on this occasion, too. 


Co-op): Given the Prime Minister’s not-so-ringing 

endorsement of Lords reform from the Dispatch Box, is 

the right hon. Gentleman absolutely sure that the coalition 

is still joined together in a common purpose? 

Simon Hughes: The answer is yes, and if the hon. 

Lady will bear with me, I will deal later with Lords 

reform, as it is in the Queen’s Speech and the programme 

for the coming year. 

We need to remember where we were two years ago: 

there was turmoil in Greece and in the eurozone, and 

our constituents were paying out of their money—not 

our money—£120 million a day just in servicing the 

interest repayments on our debt. That is not a way to 

use taxpayers’ money for the good. There was a financial 

crisis caused by a banking system that was entirely 

focused on short-term gain for the people at the top—as 

my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, 

Innovation and Skills said regularly in the previous 

Parliament—rather than on creating long-term value 

for the many small businesses that provide work for 

most people across the country. The public finances 

were out of control, we had the largest public deficit in 

the developed world and the living standards of those 

on low and middle incomes were being eroded, which 

had been gradually reducing the spending power of the 

British consumer over the previous decade. The cost of 

living was spiralling; for younger people, certainly in 

constituencies such as mine, a home had become an 

unaffordable dream. The economic system often encouraged 

people to take as much as possible for themselves rather 

than incentivising them to create long-term value and 

spread wealth and work as widely as possible, and the 

economy was reliant on energy from scarce resources, 

the price of which was rising year after year. 

Two years later, we are still not where we need to be. 

We have unacceptably high unemployment, especially 

youth unemployment, which started long before this 

Government came to office and was on a significant upward 

trend in the last years of the Labour Administration. 

We are in an economic recession and banks are still not 

lending enough to viable small businesses, as we all 

know from our constituency casework, whereas the pay 

of those at the top is rising more than can possibly be 

justified by their performance. We heard the figures just 

this week: an 11% increase in salaries at the top last 

year, whereas the increase for the working population as 

a whole was 1%. 

It is therefore absolutely right that the Government 

continue to focus on doing all we can to promote 

economic growth and recovery, it is right that we continue 

with the programme we set out and it is right that we 

have a programme that, as the last Budget did, seeks to 

put more money into the pockets of those low and 

middle income working people and to make work pay. 

The programme should regulate the banks, encourage 

the growth of renewable energy and put the public finances 

back on a sustainable footing so that the spending 

priorities of the Government, about which we care—health 

care, education and support for the less well-off—can 

be adequately financed. No Government have ever invested 

in better schools or hospitals by bankrupting themselves. 

It has been difficult and we on the Liberal Democrat 

Benches know that. There was no parliamentary majority 

for getting rid of tuition fees and we were not able to 

deliver that—it just became undeliverable. The Health 

and Social Care Bill, the Welfare Reform Bill and the 

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders 

Bill needed significant changes and we changed them 

and made them hugely better—all of them. The evidence 

is there in the legislation that is now on the statute book. 

The Budget was grossly misrepresented. Its most 

significant element was that many millions of people 

were taken out of paying tax. Many more will be lifted 

out of tax next year and the year after, so that nobody 

will have to pay anything in tax on their first £10,000 of 

income. It was also forgotten that last month pensioners 

had the largest increase ever in the state pension since it 

was introduced by the post-war Government. Then there 

was the youth contract, the huge growth in the number 

of apprenticeships, and the support for further education. 

There has already been huge success, but we must 

ensure that we focus on the priorities. The Gracious 

Speech started by setting them out very clearly: economic 

growth, justice and constitutional reform. We are proud 

on the Liberal Democrat Benches that the Secretary of 

State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. 

Friend the Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), will 

see through the creation of the Green investment bank 

in Edinburgh, for which some of us, as members of an 

environmental party, have argued for many years and 

will now see delivered. We are proud that the Secretary 

of State for Energy and Climate Change, our right hon. 

Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), 

will introduce an energy Bill to give us low-carbon 

energy generation and to develop renewables, which


9 MAY 2012 


46 

have a fantastic future—not just onshore, but offshore, 

tidal, wind and wave, and not just around Scotland but 

in the whole of the United Kingdom. We are determined 

to deliver cheaper electricity and greater security of supply. 

My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) 

and others have campaigned for ages for a grocery code 

adjudicator Bill, and we are delivering that. It will 

ensure that farmers, local suppliers and local growers 

get good value for their products and are not trampled 

on by the power of the monopoly supermarket in their 

area. The Minister of State, Department for Work and 

Pensions, my good and hon. Friend the Member for 

Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb)—a Liberal Democrat 

Minister for Pensions—and his right hon. Friend the 

Secretary of State, with whom he works so well, are 

determined to deliver the new single tier pension to ensure 

that by the end of this Parliament people will have, 

rather than the sum of just under £100 a week they get 

as the state pension at the moment, about £140 a week. 

That is particularly valuable to women, the low paid 

and those who have been self-employed. After 30 years 

of work, people will have a citizen’s pension, for which 

we have always fought. 

The Minister of State, Department for Education, 

my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah 

Teather)and others are determined, as the Deputy Prime 

Minister has been, that we should have flexible parental 

care leave, flexible parental leave and the right to flexible 

working. Why? They are not just good for the parent 

and the child, but they allow the parent to stay in work 

rather than giving it up and to be able to mix work, 

home, children and a career. That is really important for 

women’s equality in this country. Why do we not have 

many women in this place or on boards? It is partly 

because we do not have those flexible arrangements. 

Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con): 

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those provisions 

on shared parental leave also provide choice for families 

at a very important time, when they are having children? 

Simon Hughes: Absolutely, and I pay tribute to my 

hon. Friend for her commitment to families and women 

in her profession. She is right—we absolutely need to do 

that. 

We outline in the Gracious Speech the support for 

those with special educational needs, adding to early-years 

places for the rising fives so that there is a commitment 

that 40% of rising fives will be able to have support 

before they go to school. So, there is much for hard-working, 

ordinary families and their children in the programme. 

It is not a programme without legislative plans at all—quite 

the reverse. 

A defamation Bill will deal with the fact that our libel 

laws still restrict the liberty of speech in this country. I 

pay tribute in particular to my hon. Friend the Member 

for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who has worked very 

hard to make sure that this Bill is in the legislative 

programme. There is a strong proposal for a National 

Crime Agency to deal with terrorists and people who do 

not have the interests of this country at heart. We also 

have proposals for community sentences for restorative 

justice. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickupon-Tweed 

(Sir Alan Beith) has been absolutely clear 

about the value of such sentences not just in reforming 

people but in value-for-money terms. 

We have been careful about the difficult issue that 

the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden 

(Mr Davis) raised about data and how to deal with it. It 

is perfectly reasonable, as my hon. Friend the Member 

for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said, to respond to 

the security services’ request that we make all species of 

communication areas of consideration for regulation of 

data control—not so that people can know what one is 

saying but so that we do not have no-go areas for the 

security services. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches 

will not sign up to legislation that will add to the 

intrusion into citizens’ lives that we saw so often from 

the Labour party when it was in government. Under 

Labour, we had a Big Brother state with identity cards 

and proposals for 90-day detention. Neither we nor the 

Conservatives are going down that road, and that is why 

there is a draft proposal, which we will look at carefully. 

Only if it is acceptable will it get through. 

Let me say a word about the comments of the right 

hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) on gay 

marriage. May I say, as a member of the Church, that I 

think it is entirely reasonable that in a modern society in 

which we have accepted that both gay and straight 

couples should be able to have permanent, recognised 

relationships, the state should allow that to happen in 

an equal way? It happens in many other places in the 

world and it does not mean that any denomination of 

the Church or any other faith group has to accept that, 

endorse it or carry out such ceremonies in its buildings—it 

is simply about saying that the state recognises it when 

two people want to live their lives as adults together. 

This is not in the Gracious Speech and was never going 

to be, because the consultation has not ended. However, 

we should recognise that there is a civil liberties issue at 

stake for many of our constituents. We should not 

forget that. I bet there are people in every constituency 

in the United Kingdom who want us to make sure that 

this issue remains on the agenda. 

Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con): 

Many people will have written to the right hon. Gentleman, 

as they have written to me, about this issue. Does he 

agree that when it is explained to people that there is a 

clear difference between a civil marriage and a religious 

marriage in terms of what is proposed, most of them 

are reassured? It is our duty to point that out. 

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right; 

that is exactly the experience I have had. I have Evangelical 

Christian friends who are concerned about this issue, 

but when one explains that it does not suddenly make 

something sacramental if that is not what the Church 

or what the individual believes, they are reassured. It is 

a similar issue—I say this respectfully—as that of tax 

advantages for people who are married and those who 

are not married. In our book, if a couple have lived 

together for 25 years but have not married, they should 

enjoy the same position in the tax system as those who 

have chosen to marry. We have to respect people’s different 

life choices as adults. 

Those issues are all important, but the most important 

legislative proposal for my constituents in a constituency 

that faces the City of London from across the river is 

none of those—it is banking reform. It is about making 

sure that we divide the banks into retail banks that will 

deal with people’s day-to-day business and separate


9 MAY 2012 


48 

[Simon Hughes] 

them from the speculative, international playing with 

money that has brought us to the state we are in. In my 

view, the most important aspect of that Bill, for which 

my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary’s Department 

is also responsible, is that which allows shareholders to 

control the scandal of executive pay. This week, we have 

at last seen the beginning of a change in attitudes at the 

top; shareholder power has at last begun to be exerted. 

We absolutely need to give shareholders the power not 

only to advise and express their view but to say, “I’m 

sorry—if you don’t perform, you are not getting the 

money.” What has happened previously has resulted 

from an “if you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours” 

attitude in the boardrooms, with people offering each 

other packages and salaries that are beyond the 

comprehension of most of our constituents. It was 

obscene and it is unacceptable, but it was allowed, 

encouraged and developed under a Labour Government, 

and that should be to their eternal shame. 

Malcolm Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that 

shareholders have come to their senses? They recognise 

that paying directors bonuses for reduced share prices 

and dividends is not a good deal for anybody. 

Simon Hughes: Absolutely. If we can have a real rise 

of shareholder power over the next few years—individuals 

and pension funds—it will be a really good thing. 

There are two more things I want to say. The first is 

about constitutional reform, in part to answer the hon. 

Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). 

We are right not to forget constitutional reform. The 

Liberal Democrat party is a party of reform. We have 

agreed fixed-term Parliaments—a good thing. We have 

agreed that there should be no transfer of powers to the 

European Union without a referendum, which is an 

absolutely reasonable thing. We have agreed that whatever 

the number of constituencies, they should at least have 

the same size electorate—a good thing. We have agreed 

to look at devolution to England, which I have argued 

for a long time, because there is unequal devolution. 

Since I have been in this place we have had fantastically 

successful devolution in Wales, Scotland and Northern 

Ireland, and I welcome it. England needs a bit of the 

same. 

We have agreed that Back Benchers should be more 

powerful in determining the agenda in this place—a 

good thing. We have agreed that there will be a change 

in the laws of succession to the Crown—absolutely a 

good thing. I hope it will soon be part of the legislative 

programme. We have more work to do, to make sure we 

scrutinise legislation better in this place. We do not do it 

well enough in either place; often we do not have 

enough time here and we leave it to the other end of the 

building. That is not a plea for more legislation. In 

every Parliament I have sat in, we have asked for less 

legislation and I am glad that we are not trying to jam in 

all sorts of things that the public do not want. We want 

fewer regulations and less legislation, but we want to do 

it better. 

Tony Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend think that 

the Opposition have suddenly started mischief-making 

over Lords reform, by asking for a referendum? Is it 

because they hope that in so doing they will cause 

Liberal Democrat Members to go slow on the equalisation 

of constituency boundaries? As Labour Members do 

not want equalisation of constituency boundaries, they 

hope that by frustrating Lords reform they can frustrate 

that idea. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House 

that he and his colleagues are committed to ensuring 

that a vote in Southwark is worth the same as a vote in 

Banbury, or in Wales or Scotland? 

Simon Hughes: I am keen that we have a system whereby 

votes in all parts of the country are fair. Of course 

I would like a proportional system, but I accept that I 

shall not have that in this Parliament. Friends on the 

Plaid and other Benches know of my Welsh background. 

The Welsh have the most advantageous position at the 

moment, because many constituencies have far fewer 

electors. We need a fair system. 

I do not know what the motives of Labour Members 

are, but if they try to play silly games and prevent the 

other place from changing from an entirely nominated 

or hereditary Chamber to a democratic one, it will be to 

their eternal discredit. This is the best opportunity they 

have ever had—especially as they did not do it—to 

change our Parliament. Why? There are only 15 countries 

in the world that still have a predominantly appointed 

second Chamber; I am sure Labour Members would 

think that Belize and Burkina Faso are good examples. 

In only one other country is heredity a determinant for 

membership of the legislature—Lesotho. It is a lovely 

country, but I am not sure that it is the best model for 

democratic, 21st-century politics. 

There are more Members down the other end of 

the corridor who are over 90 than under 40. There are 

818 Members there already—92 hereditary—and the 

balance between men and women is 638 to 180. The 

Chamber is not representative by gender, ethnicity or 

age. It is not representative in any way. Why not? Because 

it exists by patronage and heredity. We just have to 

move on. It has been on the agenda for 100 years and 

we have to finish the business. 

John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Will the 

right hon. Gentleman give way? 

Simon Hughes: No. 

I say to hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches 

who are not entirely persuaded about Lords reform that 

I understand that it is a lovely place, that they look 

lovely, some of them are lovely, and that it is part of our 

great, historic constitution and offers a job for life— 

I am not going there, but they might want to—so I 

understand why it touches a soft spot, but come on, 

guys: we have to move on. If the Tory party is to be the 

modern party that it wants to be and that the Prime 

Minister says it needs to be, it, too, must deliver. We can 

talk about the detail, the percentages and the length of 

the term of office, but we must end up with a second 

Chamber that is predominantly democratically elected. 

Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab): 

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the regional 

variations are significant. On the point his hon. Friend 

the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) made about the 

reduction in the number of constituencies, is the right 

hon. Gentleman telling the House this afternoon that


9 MAY 2012 


50 

what we are all seeing on social network websites is 

wrong and that there will be no frustration as a result of 

that reduction? 

Simon Hughes: First, I am surrounded by colleagues 

who say that those who believe social network websites 

are in trouble. Secondly, most things on them are wrong. 

Thirdly, they are sometimes libellous. Seriously, I understand 

the general point the hon. Gentleman is making. I am 

not a member of the Government and so cannot speak 

for them, but I can speak for my colleagues here. What 

we want is a package of constitutional reform that has a 

fair constituency system. There is an argument about 

how many constituencies there should be—I was never 

in favour of the number going down quite as far as it 

has done, but there was an argument for making it 

smaller—and there is a strong argument for having 

equal numbers, but there is an equally strong argument 

for Lords reform. I hope that Labour will support us in 

delivering both, and we will be watching. 

Meg Hillier: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? 

Simon Hughes: No, because other colleagues wish to 

speak and I am bringing my comments to a close. 

The new President of France said after he was elected 

on Sunday that his two priorities were a fairer country 

and support for the next generation, the young people 

of France. I think that those are good things for us to 

champion for our country from these Benches. We need 

a redistribution of wealth and of work, an end to the 

obscenity of top pay and a closing of the gap between 

rich and poor. We need to make sure that work always 

pays, to create more apprenticeships and a more skilled 

work force, to give more opportunities for employment 

and self-employment and to build the largest opportunity 

for infrastructure investment that we can manage, in all 

countries and regions of the UK, and the largest affordable 

programme for housing that we can deliver, particularly 

social rented housing, which is desperately needed in 

my constituency and elsewhere. I guess that there is not 

a single colleague who does not have constituents coming 

to their surgery every week pleading with them to find 

somewhere where they and their partner, or they and 

their parents, or they and their children can live. Young 

people need a decent careers and youth service, decent 

work experience, decent mentoring, good apprenticeships 

and good further and higher education. 

To the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, I say, 

“You were right, of course, to take as many poor people 

out of tax as you have, but please do not again reduce 

tax rates for the well-off.” Whatever the balance of 

equity, it came across very badly, it did not look as if we 

are all in this together and the evidence does not show 

that any further reduction will do any greater good for 

the economy. We have had one Budget which does this 

and we know the outcome, but no more please. Let us 

take the poorer out of tax, not the people at the top. 

To colleagues here who sometimes have disagreements 

with the Government—we all do—I say that we have to 

remain strong, united, determined, liberal and radical. 

We have to be committed to the things we came here 

for: the spreading of wealth and power and a cleaner, 

greener, safer and, above all, fairer Britain. 

To the people outside who wonder what we are doing 

in this difficult coalition, I say that we are clear that we 

cannot achieve everything we want because in a coalition, 

by definition, that is not possible, but it is better to be in 

government influencing a huge amount than in opposition 

influencing nothing. We are determined to use our 

influence not unfairly, disproportionately or unreasonably, 

but this is a partnership of two parties. That is the deal 

and that is what we will stick to. 

We won 16% of the vote in the local elections the 

other day; we won 23% in the general election. It is not 

an impossible task over three years to build confidence, 

but it depends on whether we can get the economy going, 

help growth, make sure that we are seen to be economically 

competent and deliver a fairer Britain. 

I think that we can do it, and Asquith gave us something 

100 years ago this year as an encouragement on our 

way. In his speech in Nottingham to our party conference, 

at a time when he was leading one of the greatest 

Governments in British history, he said this— 

Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab): Were you there? 

Simon Hughes: I was not there, no—not even in my 

previous life! 

Asquith said: 

“If we have—and I believe you will see that we have—concentration 

of purpose, unity of spirit, and unshaken firmness of resolve, 

then, long and stormy though the voyage may have been before it 

comes to an end, the ship will find her way with a full cargo into 

the desired haven.” 

Liberal Democrats are determined to deliver us safely 

on the other side and, much more importantly, to 

deliver our constituents to a better Britain, with better 

prospects, higher employment, lower unemployment 

and a much more secure economy for the five years 

following 2015 than the one we inherited when we took 

over in 2010. 

5.20 pm 

Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab): It is a pleasure to 

follow the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old 

Southwark (Simon Hughes), who I know takes a great 

interest in Hartlepool—largely because he spent most 

of the 2004 by-election there trying to stop me becoming 

a Member. 

In his opening and closing remarks, the right hon. 

Gentleman mentioned elections both general and local, 

and I have to tell him that after Thursday’s local elections, 

on Hartlepool borough council the Liberal Democrats 

now have no representation whatever, which shows the 

scale of the challenge that he and his party face in terms 

of getting into bed with the Conservatives. 

Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD): I am confused 

by this continuing slur of “getting into bed with the 

Conservatives”, because in Scotland we now have coalitions 

of every possible hue, including Labour and Tory coalitions. 

Does the hon. Gentleman attack those coalitions with 

the same vigour that he attacks this one here? 

Mr Wright: I use the phrase “getting into bed with 

the Tories” not because it is of my own making, but 

after speaking to my constituents and people elsewhere 

who were thinking about voting Liberal Democrat, who 

might have fallen out of love with Labour following the 

2005 general election and who wanted to consider 

something else in 2010, but who now feel let down and


9 MAY 2012 


52 

[Mr Iain Wright] 

betrayed. That is the scale of the challenge that the hon. 

Gentleman’s party faces with regard to reinvigorating 

the trust of the people. 

Almost the first words that Her Majesty said in her 

speech today were: 

“My Ministers’ first priority will be to reduce the deficit and 

restore economic stability.” 

Those words were almost identical to the ones that the 

Queen uttered in the first Session of this Parliament, 

two years ago, when she stated: 

“The first priority is to reduce the deficit and restore economic 

growth.” 

In the intervening two years, the Government have 

done little that they set themselves on both counts. They 

have had to borrow about £150 billion more than they 

originally forecast back in 2010, and they have failed to 

deal effectively with the deficit and to restore economic 

growth, because they have focused exclusively—some 

might say almost obsessively—on the former, reducing 

the deficit, instead of giving sufficient priority to the 

latter, economic growth. It should not be an either/or 

game. Tax revenues are lower because of weak demand 

and reduced consumer spending, while expenditure is 

rising because of the need to pay out more in unemployment 

benefits. The British economy is now in a more perilous 

state than when the Government took office two years ago. 

The Prime Minister and the Chancellor will trot out 

the excuse of the difficulties experienced in the eurozone, 

and there is some truth in that, but they cannot escape 

the fact that the retreat into recession has been caused 

almost directly by their actions and policies. We are 

experiencing this country’s longest downturn since the 

1920s. Britain is emerging from the deep global recession 

of 2008-09 more slowly than from previous recessions and, 

crucially, more slowly than our main economic competitors, 

meaning that our rivals in the global marketplace are 

stealing a march on us. The actions of this Government 

today are compromising our competitiveness in the 

global economy of tomorrow. 

The US economy grew by 3% in the last quarter of 

2011 and by 2.2% in the first quarter of this year. 

Alongside Greece and Italy, Spain is generally—almost 

universally—acknowledged to be one of the economic 

basket cases of the eurozone, but even the Spanish 

economy grew more in 2011 than Britain’s. Today’s 

publication of UK retail figures, which show a 3.3% fall 

year on year—the largest fall in more than a year— 

demonstrates the general weakness of the economy, the 

lack of demand and the fragility of consumer confidence. 

Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con): Will the hon. 

Gentleman congratulate the Government on maintaining 

our triple A credit rating status and acknowledge the 

fact that we have among the lowest long-term interest 

rates in the world at the moment? That is a major 

achievement. 

Mr Wright: We do have those things, but we have no 

growth. I fear that the rehashing of phrases in the 

Gracious Speech today—often word-for-word repeats 

of what was said in 2010—will mean that the Government 

will continue to insist on economic policies that consign 

the country to a decade of stagnation, anaemic growth, 

mass unemployment and rising social division. 

Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con): 

Will the hon. Gentleman explain how high interest rates 

will stimulate growth? 

Mr Wright: High interest rates do not stimulate growth, 

but, equally, low interest rates indicate that there is no 

economic stimulus whatever. We need a rounder, more 

holistic approach to economic policy that focuses not 

solely on reducing the deficit, but on making sure that 

we can stimulate the economy to embark on jobs and 

growth. 


Co-op): Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the 

challenges is the issue of businesses not being able to get 

loans? The Prime Minister spoke with enthusiasm about 

Project Merlin and the loan guarantee scheme, but that 

is not delivering to businesses. There is no contradiction 

between cutting a deficit and getting banks to lend. It is 

in the Government’s power to do so, but they are not 

acting. 

Mr Wright: I absolutely agree. Later, I want to mention 

that we need more investment and to unlock investor 

confidence and provide more business investment. That 

is at terminally low rates at the moment. 

Emphasis should have been given to a new finance 

Bill with measures to boost demand in the economy 

and put more money in the pockets of millions, rather 

than prioritising tax cuts for millionaires and tax rises 

for pensioners. Communities such as mine in Hartlepool 

and the wider north-east see a Government presiding 

over unprecedented cuts to income, living standards 

and public services, huge rises in unemployment and 

matters being made worse by Government measures 

such as the rise in VAT, hikes in student fees, cuts to tax 

credits and increased taxes for pensioners. 

At the same time, the Chancellor is insisting that the 

country can afford to give those earning more than 

£150,000 a year a tax cut and that, in the current 

climate, millionaires should be given priority and pay 

about £40,000 a year less in tax. A new finance Bill 

could have set about repairing some of the damage 

from the previous Finance Bill, which has been carried 

over into this Session; it could have put us on the path 

to economic recovery, jobs and growth. 

Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) 

rose— 

Mr Wright: I hope that the hon. Lady will agree. 

Andrea Leadsom: It seems rather astonishing that the 

hon. Gentleman should be suggesting that the Government 

should be spending more money. Does he run a household 

budget as I do? When people are trying to feed a family, 

it is clear that if they borrow lots of money and pay 

extremely high interest rates—because their intention is 

to borrow even more money—that will not get them 

into any position to balance their budget or move on 

from the parlous state in which they find themselves. Is 

the hon. Gentleman not aware that we are already 

paying £200 million a day in interest, just to service the 

debt that his Government incurred? 

Mr Wright: What I am suggesting is that if the 

Government were serious about economic growth and 

promoting the conditions for competitiveness and enterprise,


9 MAY 2012 


54 

they would be doing a lot more to stimulate growth and 

job creation. For example, they could have announced a 

British investment bank Bill, which would have provided 

a clear and welcome acknowledgement that active 

partnership between Government and productive businesses 

will allow the state to ensure that growth capital is 

provided to the small and medium-sized businesses that 

need it, for which the market has failed. 

Active partnership between Government and businesses 

can work. Successful modern economies such as Singapore 

and Germany do it, and their economies will see long-term, 

sustainable business success and economic growth as a 

result. Even the US, supposedly the most free market 

economy on earth, does it; we saw the likes of fast-growing 

young companies such as Apple and Intel receive growth 

funding through the US Government’s small business 

investment company programme. On the subject of 

active government in the US, why did not the Gracious 

Speech include the British equivalent of President Obama’s 

Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, which is designed 

to increase the number of jobs and to kick-start initial 

public offerings for companies and ensure that they 

have access to finance for growth? We should be doing 

the same here. 

Mel Stride: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that 

according to Companies House there were more new 

business start-ups in the last quarter than at any time 

since this Government came to office? 

Mr Wright: You will never hear from me, Mr Deputy 

Speaker, any criticism of trying to get as many start-ups 

as possible. I would welcome a culture of enterprise and 

allowing businesses to grow, but firms that are starting 

up are being penalised by not being given access to 

finance and capital to allow them to do so. 

The Gracious Speech referred to the introduction of 

“legislation to reform competition law to promote enterprise and 

fair markets.” 

I hope that the Government will confirm that that Bill 

will contain measures to curb excessive executive 

remuneration and encourage increased shareholder activism, 

as that was not specifically mentioned in the Queen’s 

Speech. I also hope that they will legislate to implement 

all—I emphasise all—the sensible and widely accepted 

recommendations of the High Pay Commission earlier 

this year on matters such as simplification of executive 

remuneration, standardisation of reporting to ensure 

that meaningful comparisons can take place, and, 

importantly, the inclusion of employee representation 

on remuneration committees. Recent events at the likes 

of UBS, Trinity Mirror, Barclays, AstraZeneca and 

Aviva have shown that there is shareholder appetite for 

ensuring that poor performance is not rewarded through 

excessive pay. I hope that the High Pay Commission’s 

recommendations will be implemented in full. 

I hope that the reference in the Queen’s Speech to 

“repealing unnecessary legislation”will not mean stripping 

away workers’ rights. Making it easier to fire people 

does not create jobs, employment or economic growth; 

instead, such an environment creates a Victorian-mill-owner 

culture of bad bosses being accepted and enshrined in 

legislation. It will do nothing to stimulate consumer 

confidence or growth in demand, which are so very 

vital. It is also wrong to suggest that the level of 

employment protection and rises in unemployment are 

closely correlated, as David Blanchflower points out in 

his article in The Independent today. He argues that 

Germany and the Netherlands have much higher levels 

of employment protection than the UK but experienced 

a much smaller rise in unemployment during the recession 

and its aftermath. 

Andrea Leadsom rose— 

Mr Wright: I hope that the Government will recognise 

that point in taking forward legislation, and that the 

hon. Lady will recognise it as well. 

Andrea Leadsom: I agree that we have got into a 

position in this country whereby certain big businesses 

have behaved extremely badly towards their employees, 

and towards capitalism itself. That has not been about 

true entrepreneurism but just money for old rope. Does 

the hon. Gentleman agree that the answer to that is to 

change the way in which we do corporate governance by 

introducing new powers for shareholders to ensure that 

they can hold to account the chief executives and boards 

of such companies? 

Mr Wright: I would certainly agree with making 

improvements to this country’s corporate governance 

model. Germany has a good model, and although it 

cannot be replicated exactly, it is something that we 

should consider. I have mentioned the recommendations 

of the High Pay Commission, which referred to employee 

involvement in remuneration. I hope that that approach 

will continue. By having a responsible capitalist agenda, 

we can make improvements to secure long-term sustainable 

growth in this country. Perhaps the hon. Lady and I can 

agree on that. 

Mrs Grant: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that 

extreme and unreasonable levels of employment protection 

can be a disincentive to enterprise? 

Mr Wright: I speak to businesses in my constituency 

and elsewhere virtually every day, and they are not 

telling me that they are hindered in that way. This goes 

to a wider point about the Queen’s Speech and about 

the Government’s having the wrong priorities and the 

wrong values in this respect. I am arguing that we 

should be concentrating on increasing employment and 

having a system whereby we can secure long-term 

sustainable business growth for this country. We should 

be making it easier for people to hire workers, not fire 

them. 

I hope, too, that the reference in the Queen’s Speech 

to the limiting of state inspection of businesses will not 

serve as a cover for further cuts to the Health and Safety 

Executive’s budget or an undermining of the safety 

regime in the workplace. On 28 April we commemorated 

workers memorial day and were reminded that 

20,000 people would die prematurely this year from 

injuries sustained or diseases contracted as a result of 

unsatisfactory health and safety in the workplace. Fatalities 

in the construction industry have risen in the past year, 

and responsible Governments and businesses recognise 

that a comprehensive safety regime, suitably audited, 

actually enhances productivity and efficiency and ultimately 

has a beneficial effect on the bottom line. I therefore 

hope that workers’ health and safety rights will not be 

stripped away.


9 MAY 2012 


56 

[Mr Iain Wright] 

The Queen’s Speech referred to the Government’s 

commitment to 

“improve the lives of children and families”, 

with which the whole House would agree. However, 

today’s report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation forecasts 

that child poverty will increase in the next decade. It 

concludes by stating that the Government should take a 

more targeted approach to employment programmes 

and aim them at families in my constituency and elsewhere 

who often have not seen meaningful or sustained work 

for three generations or so. That could break the cycle 

of unemployment, poverty, deprivation and the loss of 

ambition and aspiration. There was nothing in the 

Queen’s Speech to allow that to take place. 

The most serious issue facing Hartlepool both socially 

and economically is the level of unemployment, which 

is higher now than it was at the height of the global 

recession in 2008. Youth unemployment is a particular 

concern. One in four young men in my constituency are 

out of work, which will cause immense social and 

economic problems in the next 20, 30 or 40 years. The 

Government really need to deal with that, and measures 

such as the abolition of the future jobs fund, the cancellation 

of education maintenance allowance and the hike in 

tuition fees do not help young people in my constituency. 

I wanted to see in the Gracious Speech something like a 

future jobs fund or a skills and retraining Bill, to ensure 

that my constituency and others were best placed to 

come out of their economic difficulties in a better 

position than when they went into them. Sadly, the 

Queen’s Speech was lacking in that regard. 

Mrs Grant: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree, 

though, that policies on flexible working and shared 

parental leave will have the effect of keeping people in 

work? 

Mr Wright: I believe the balance that the Labour 

Government struck was probably about right. There 

will always be different emphases, but I reiterate the 

point that I made in answer to a previous intervention. 

Businesses say to me, “We want to have the conditions 

for growth. We want to be able to hire workers. The issue 

is not about being able to fire workers more easily—that 

is not what we are about.” The emphasis and priorities 

that the Government have set out in the Gracious 

Speech and elsewhere are completely wrong. 

It astonishes me that after only two years, the 

Government seem to have run out of steam. The rehashing 

of words and phrases in the Queen’s Speech is evidence 

of that. It is difficult to think of the big reforming 

Governments of the past century—the right hon. Member 

for Bermondsey and Old Southwark mentioned Asquith, 

and we can think about Attlee, Thatcher or Blair—being 

devoid of policy areas only 24 months after being elected. 

Governments used to talk about relaunches after two 

terms of office, not after two years. The Government 

have no sense of national mission and have not set out 

the values that are really needed or what they want the 

British economy to look like in 2020 or 2030. They lack, 

in the eloquent words of the Business Secretary, a 

“compelling vision” of where they want to take the 

economy. 

As The Sunday Times stated this weekend: 

“People now regard this as a government that fails on the three 

i’s: it is incoherent, incompetent and has run out of ideas.” 

Today’s Queen’s Speech provided the opportunity for a 

true and meaningful relaunch, which could have ensured 

that the Government reassessed their values and priorities 

and tried again. They failed to do that. This country 

and my constituency, particularly its young people, will 

suffer the consequences of that missed opportunity for 

decades to come. 

5.39 pm 

Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con): The hon. 

Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) was on stronger 

ground when he talked about the importance of policies 

and opportunities to create growth to address the 

unemployment that affects his constituency and many 

others. Although I did not agree with many of his policy 

prescriptions, I agreed with his definition of the challenge—I 

think, from his speech earlier, that my right hon. Friend 

the Prime Minister did, too. However, I did not follow 

the hon. Gentleman into the closing stages of his speech 

because he is simply wrong to say that the Government 

do not have a clear view about what they are trying 

to do. 

I welcome the Queen’s Speech precisely because it 

refocuses the minds of hon. Members and supporters of 

the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, and 

more importantly, of those beyond the political world, 

on the objectives that we set ourselves when the coalition 

Government were formed. To me, that is the key win in 

the Queen’s Speech. 

Some members of my party have, in the past few weeks, 

and particularly in the past few days, sought opportunities 

to strengthen the Conservative flavour, as they see it, in 

the coalition. I want to offer one or two responses to 

that, based on the Queen’s Speech, and comment on 

one or two specific proposals. 

As a lifelong Conservative, I have no problem in 

arguing the case for Conservative ideas. However, I have 

a problem with those who seek to reinterpret the 

Conservative case excessively narrowly. There is nothing 

in the Queen’s Speech that cannot be argued full heartedly 

as a mainstream Conservative proposal. All the measures 

can be traced to proper Conservative roots and, indeed, 

to roots in the Liberal Democrat tradition. 

There has been much debate, including in the House 

this afternoon, about House of Lords reform and whether 

there is a proper Conservative narrative for it. I argue 

strongly that there is. I intervened on my right hon. 

Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden 

(Mr Davis) to remind him that it is nearly 50 years since 

Lord Hailsham, who happened to be Margaret Thatcher’s 

first Lord Chancellor, described our system of government 

as possessing inadequate checks and balances on the 

powers of the Executive. He described it as an “elective 

dictatorship”, so when my right hon. Friend the Leader 

of the House of Lords is quoted in today’s Financial 

Times as arguing the case for reform of another place 

on the ground that it will make that Chamber, 

“‘stronger, more independent’ and better able ‘to challenge the 

decisions of the Commons’”, 

I allow myself a gentle cheer. I think that Lord Hailsham, 

from his grave, would cheer the prospect of our seeking 

a structure that allows Parliament to be a more effective 

check on the Executive.


9 MAY 2012 


58 

We either believe in the case for less and better 

government, and more checks and balances in government 

—as a Conservative, I do; that Governments should be 

subject to checks and balances and accountability is a 

core Conservative belief—or we do not. My right hon. 

Friend the Leader of the House of Lords clearly does. I 

am delighted that the Government, from both Conservative 

and Liberal Democrat traditions, believe in the case for 

more effective checks and balances and accountability 

to Parliament. I look forward to the conversion of that 

big idea into precise legislation as the Session goes on. 

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

listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, who 

makes a strong case. I do not know what we will end up 

with, but does he agree that one way of improving the 

checks and balances would be through avoiding the 

strict timetabling of every single measure that comes 

before the House? 

Mr Dorrell: I have much sympathy for that point of 

view. I have been here for perhaps rather more years 

than I should, but I remember long debates when 

parliamentary scrutiny was more effective than it often 

is now. Before the last general election, there were 

repeated occasions on which complex legislation passed 

through on a timetable that suited the Government 

rather than provided for proper parliamentary scrutiny. 

There will be those—I am certainly among them—who 

will look for ways to strengthen the voice of the House 

of Commons, as we should. I agree with my right hon. 

Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark 

(Simon Hughes), who referred to the strengthening 

during this Parliament of the Back-Bench voice, which 

has been a step forward and a good thing. However, 

those who look for effective checks within the legislature 

on Executive enthusiasms do well to look at another 

place as part of the answer to that, in addition to reform 

of House of Commons procedure. 

Therefore, to those in the Conservative party who 

ask, “Where is the Conservative provenance for House 

of Lords reform?” I say, “Read the history books.” I 

will certainly be uncomfortable if we are manoeuvred 

into a position in which we appear to defend what I 

regard as a wholly unacceptable Blairite compromise, 

which we opposed vigorously at the time of the legislative 

proposals at the beginning of the Labour Government. 

Having said all that, it is clearly true that such reform 

is an important internal process within the Westminster 

village, but not the key issue that our constituents look 

to the Government, the Queen’s Speech and the House 

to address. To again pick up a theme developed by my 

right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and 

Old Southwark, we should remind ourselves that the 

Government are a coalition. Because they are a coalition, 

they have a large working majority in the House of 

Commons, which is a good thing in terms of the stability 

and strategic purpose it provides. However, the majority 

is more important in another respect: the two parties 

that make up the coalition have a broader electoral base 

in the community outside Westminster than has been 

the case for any recent Government. We have a stable 

Government with a clear purpose, which was redefined 

and re-emphasised in the Queen’s Speech and in the 

speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and 

not just a Government cobbled together in the immediate 

aftermath of the last general election. 

At the very heart of the purpose of the coalition 

Government is the intention to create a stable economic 

base not merely to address the deficit, but to move on 

from that to create the environment in which growth 

begins to re-emerge, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool 

said. The purpose of economic policy is not to make the 

books balance—as the Prime Minister said over the 

weekend, it is not an exercise in accountancy—but to 

create the environment in which interest rates are low, 

confidence returns, and growth starts the process of 

creating jobs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and 

elsewhere. 

I find the argument of the shadow Chancellor wholly 

unpersuasive. He appears to believe that we lack a 

Government appetite to borrow. How a British Government 

deliver stability in the Europe of 2012 by building on 

their already excessive borrowing rate and building 

more borrowing into our public finances is simply beyond 

me. I believe that that is unrealistic, but more seriously, 

I also believe that the shadow Chancellor knows it is 

unrealistic. If he does, it is not only unrealistic, but dishonest. 

The purpose that brought the Government together, 

which enlists the support of every Conservative and 

Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, is the prime 

objective of recreating economic stability to create growth, 

so that we can deliver the wealth required to deliver 

improving standards of living and improving public 

services. How do we do that? The hon. Member for 

Hartlepool argued that what we need is a state bank 

that would make better investment decisions than the 

private banking sector. I do not agree with that. 

What I do agree with are the two key Bills in the 

Queen’s Speech, one of which is the Bill on banking 

reform, to address some of the failings that have been 

identified, not just by politicians but by the Governor of 

the Bank of England last week and by many commentators. 

One of the learning experiences of the events of 2005-09 

was that the banking system did not have proper risk 

assurance to reduce the risks that the taxpayer ended up 

picking up. The process of banking reform is important 

and I welcome the fact that the Government are pressing 

forward with it. 

I also welcome the fact that the Government are 

pressing forward with the reform and accentuation of 

competition policy, because I strongly believe that, once 

the Government’s finances are under control, the real 

answer to the question of how to recreate growth, 

confidence and prosperity in the economy is through a 

banking system that works and a competitive, free-enterprise 

economy. That is at the heart of the Queen’s Speech. It 

has obvious provenance in the Conservative tradition, 

and it has equally obvious provenance in the Liberal 

Democrat tradition, and that is why this stream of ideas 

comes together to create a strong coalition Government. 

The Government are not, I am pleased to say, just 

about economics. They also have a broad-based programme 

for the reform of public service delivery—in which my 

right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education 

in particular is carrying forward a programme of reform 

that will deliver strong improvements in our school 

system and our wider education system as a result of 

the ideas that we share across the coalition. We also 

have a shared commitment to the promotion of 

environmental policies through the Green investment 

bank. That such ideas are shared across the coalition is 

the key point that I want to draw out of the Queen’s 

Speech.


9 MAY 2012 


60 

[Mr Dorrell] 

I wish to focus on one specific policy—social care. 

This is a more techy point than a political ideas point, 

but it is an extremely important point from the perspective 

of the people who rely on our health and social care 

system. There was, of course, an expectation of legislation 

on social care reform in this Session. What we now have 

is a commitment in the Queen’s Speech to a draft Bill 

reflecting a continuing thinking process within the 

Government—I am pleased to see that the hon. Member 

for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), the Minister 

with responsibility for social care, is in his place. I shall 

not seek his comments on what I am about to say, but 

I am glad that he will hear it. 

Tony Baldry: In the briefing that hon. Members were 

sent before this debate by organisations including Carers 

UK, they actually asked for a draft Bill so that it could 

be properly considered before final legislation was eventually 

brought forward. 

Mr Dorrell: My hon. Friend leads me neatly to my 

next point. It seems to me to be an odd argument to 

suggest that if the Government have not yet clearly 

made up their mind precisely how they propose to 

deliver the important issue of social care reform, it then 

becomes a source of criticism that there is not a Bill 

with a commitment to legislate. I am old-fashioned 

enough—as my hon. Friend suggests most of us interested 

in this issue are—to think that the most important issue 

is to deliver a clear policy and then to legislate. I do not 

criticise the insistence that we have a clear policy before 

we have a Bill and a commitment to legislate. 

I welcome the fact that the process of clarification of 

policy is continuing, provided that it takes us beyond 

discussion about funding. While Dilnott made some 

important points about the need for a fairer system of 

distributing the cost burden among those who pay for 

social care—some of those ideas will be part of the 

eventual conclusion on health and social care—the 

problem is that he was asked to answer the wrong 

question, and that is becoming increasingly obvious as 

the public discussion continues. The question put to 

Dilnott was how to restructure the payment arrangements 

for the existing structure of social care. But if we step 

back from the question of funding and look at how care 

is actually delivered in each locality—between the social 

care system, the primary health care system and the 

community health care system—the inescapable conclusion 

is that the structure is no longer fit for purpose. It was 

designed primarily to deliver health care to people who 

had a burden of disease that was the pattern 30, 40 or 

50 years ago, whereas today’s health and care system 

needs to meet the needs of a very different group of 

patients. It is a difficult thing to measure, but depending 

on how one chooses to do so, between two thirds and 

three quarters of the resources employed in the health 

and care system are devoted to people with long-term, 

complex needs. Their requirement is for joined-up care 

that supports them and enables them to lead lives that 

are as full as possible during the period of their longer 

life expectancy. 

Meg Hillier: As a former carer for two adults with 

complex needs, I counted that at one point I was dealing 

with 13 different agencies to provide their care. The 

right hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that simplification 

of the system is as important as proper funding. Funding 

may be a big challenge, but simplification is vital if we 

are to deliver the domiciliary aspect of care. 

Mr Dorrell: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady’s view. 

Reform of social care is not the same thing as reforming 

the funding system. In my view, we cannot deliver a 

good value, high quality health and care system just by 

changing funding flows. What is required is something 

more fundamental, which is changing the way in which 

care is delivered in each locality, in order—as the hon. 

Lady rightly says—to reduce the number of competing, 

and often non-communicating, bureaucracies in the system. 

If the time that the Government are taking will be 

used to answer the question of how to deliver more 

integrated, joined-up care, and then how to pay for it, it 

will be time extremely well spent. If it is simply a delay 

while we try to solve the problems of how to pay for the 

existing system, we will continue to ask the wrong, 

unanswerable question. 

On social care, I have made a specific point, but on 

the Queen’s Speech as a whole, I have made a more 

important point with a broader political reach. The 

Government have a clear purpose, both in our economic 

policy and in our broader views about the type of 

society that we are seeking to create. It is not a coincidence 

that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice 

and Howden spoke today about liberty and justice, or 

that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old 

Southwark focused on the importance of individual 

responsibility and rights as opposed to the collective 

tradition that comes from parties on the political left. I 

support the Queen’s Speech and this Conservative-led 

coalition, because it already has achievements of which 

both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats can be 

proud. The Queen’s Speech makes clear the continuing 

commitment on the part of the Government to build on 

and follow through the achievements of our first two 

years. 

5.59 pm 

Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC): It is a 

great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for 

Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), who has once more shown 

that he is a master of his brief. His remarks about care 

were thoughtful. Over the coming weeks, we can develop 

some of the thoughts he has expounded, and undoubtedly 

he will make an important contribution to this debate, if 

he has not done so already. 

I am tempted into the arena of reform of the other 

place. I will be honest: it is the least of my worries. As 

we all know, it began in 1911, and for all I know, in the 

next century we will still be talking about it—well, we 

will not, but others will be. I recall the valiant efforts of 

the late Robin Cook, for example, who was effectively 

stitched up to fail by the Labour Whips. There are very 

powerful forces at work within and without the usual 

channels, so let us not get too excited about sudden 

reform. 

I am sure that Members will recognise, however, that 

the other place needs reform. Clearly, any Chamber 

with even a partly hereditary principle has got to be 

wrong and due for reform, but how do we reform it? 

Each suggestion seems to have consequences we have 

not thought about. For example, would elected or appointed


9 MAY 2012 


62 

Members next door have the same validity, legitimacy 

and so on? If we empower the other Chamber, will we 

have a political boxing match with them all the time as 

we often have within this Chamber? I am sure that we 

will address those questions, but personally I will not 

hold my breath in expectation of imminent reform— 

although I might be wrong, as I often am. 

That is not to say that I favour the status quo, but I 

do foresee problems—some visible ones, some undercurrents 

—that could stymie our debate. We might come up with 

wonderful solutions, but with the best will in the world, 

will they happen? [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member 

for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) wish to intervene? 

I would be pleased to accept an intervention. [Interruption.] 

It was just the way he was sitting. I beg his pardon. 

Dr Murrison: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for 

his invitation to intervene. He referred to excitement in 

his remarks. How much did he detect across the country 

in the run-up to the recent elections? I looked but could 

not find any. 

Mr Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman has hit an interesting 

note. The good people of Dwyfor Meirionnydd were 

hugely underwhelmed at the thought of House of Lords 

reform, given that there were at least another 210 subjects 

they wanted to talk about first. 

For what they are worth, I shall leave those comments 

on Lords reform up in the air—pointless, as they may 

well be. 

The Gracious Speech contained several interesting 

proposals, but as always the devil is in the detail. 

Nevertheless, I shall speak on the basis of what I know 

now of the speech. First, though, I would like to 

congratulate Her Majesty on her reign and on having 

been an excellent monarch for many years. I fully welcome 

the Government’s intention to bring in the groceries 

ombudsman—I think that is what it is called—in the 

Gracious Speech. Many of us throughout the House have 

championed such a thing for a long time. I first came to 

it in about 2004—2005 possibly—and many people in 

the Chamber and outside have argued similarly. 

As we know, a draft Bill was published and scrutinised 

during the last Session and might well be the basis of 

the legislation coming before us shortly. Ministers in the 

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 

I and everyone in the Chamber are aware of the crisis in 

the milk industry, for example. We need an ombudsman 

with real powers and teeth to tackle these problems, as 

the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) 

said. We owe it not only to the farming community but 

to the many other suppliers to ensure that the ombudsman 

can act to good effect. Unless we do that, I am afraid 

that the measure might prove a damp squib. 

Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op): Does the 

right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be sensible to 

seek amendments to ensure that the ombudsman’s powers 

are in the Bill and not kept in reserve? 

Mr Llwyd: I am always in favour, where possible, of 

putting the powers in the Bill, because many things 

happen by way of secondary legislation that slip through 

on the nod, and suddenly we have unintended consequences 

and law that is not as workable or useful as we might 

have thought. I agree, therefore, with the hon. Gentleman. 

I have heard it said that there will be a power to name 

and shame. That is one thing that supermarkets, for 

example, would be concerned about, but equally there 

must be a power to impose substantial financial penalties. 

Small financial penalties will not do the office justice; 

they must be substantial if they are to mean anything 

at all. 

I referred to the dairy industry. The problems are not 

unique to Wales—they are across the board—but since 

1999 the number of Welsh dairy farmers has halved. 

This week’s tuppence cut by Dairy Crest has wreaked 

havoc on many people in north, mid and south Wales. It 

is said that a cut of between 3p and 4p, for example, 

means a loss of £65 million to the Welsh dairy sector. I 

would like the EU dairy package on contracts introduced 

on a compulsory rather than a voluntary basis, and 

I hope that DEFRA Ministers will hold a full and frank 

discussion with devolved Ministers on that basis. 

This issue does not only concern dairy farmers, however; 

suppliers in general are being hammered by the unfair 

contract terms and pressures being applied. I remember 

seeing several Ministers about this matter, including Lord 

Bach, who said, candidly, “I need six or seven names and 

examples of pressure being applied”, but dairy farmers, 

concerned about being victimised and losing their contracts, 

were not prepared to put their heads above the parapet. 

As one said to me, “Half a loaf is better than no loaf at 

all.” So, there we are. I understand that there will now 

be a right to complain anonymously. 

I will give the House the example of a farmer in the 

constituency whom I have the privilege to represent 

who bottles water—the purest water in Wales, apparently. 

On occasion, I have even drunk it. 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice 

(Mr Crispin Blunt): When desperate. 

Mr Llwyd: Well, with something else. [Interruption.] 

The farmer came to an agreement with one of the 

large supermarkets. Believe it or not, it came out like 

this: the supplier was allowed 1.5p profit per litre of 

water, but the water was sold by the supermarket for 

more than 80p. He declined to do it. That 1.5p included 

travelling from mid-Wales across to Shropshire to deliver 

the water every day. It simply was not worth his while, 

yet apparently those terms are typical. We need to get to 

grips with these issues, otherwise all our home producers 

—of good vegetables, apples and so on—will say, “Well, 

it’s not worth it. We’re packing up.” That is the last thing 

we want. 

Dr Murrison: I agree absolutely with the right hon. 

Gentleman’s remarks about producers and farmers. Of 

course, my constituents, many of whom farm, would 

expect me to say that. However, my constituents also 

require good value for money from supermarkets. Does 

he agree that it is important that supermarkets can 

apply pressure to large multinational chains that produce 

goods and from which consumers need good value? 

There is a clear difference between the two. 

Mr Llwyd: Yes, and one hopes that the ombudsman 

will be involved in that scenario as well. We shall no 

doubt consider the Bill shortly, and I hope that that 

aspect will be covered; otherwise, we will be doing only 

half the job. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says.


9 MAY 2012 


64 

[Mr Llwyd] 

I shall move on swiftly to the notion of televising 

court proceedings, which has not yet been mentioned. 

As a lawyer, I am not in favour of televising advocates, 

because there could be a danger of their playing to the 

gallery. I am not saying that many would do so, but 

some might. I understand, however, that the proposals 

will follow the Scottish model, which would be very 

sensible. They would confine the televising to the judge’s 

summing up and sentencing remarks. That would be 

helpful, because sentencing remarks give out not only a 

warning to the public but an indication to practitioners 

of the penalties that certain offences attract. A period 

of experimentation would be helpful in this regard. 

Much has been said about the recent flurry of activity 

from active shareholders in companies such as Trinity 

Mirror and Aviva. I will not rehearse those arguments, 

but I hope that we will see a strengthening of shareholder 

democracy. It is abominable that share values can go 

down while bonuses go up. That makes no sense whatever. 

We also believe in a maximum wage, with a set differential 

between those at the top of a company and those at the 

bottom. That is not a new idea. In fact, it was first floated 

by the successful financier J. P. Morgan more than 

100 years ago. It seems to work well in many spheres, 

and I would like to see it happening in this context. I 

would also support workers’ representation in the 

boardroom, to provide perspective for companies on 

remuneration and on the business of the company in 

general. Perhaps we can learn from structures that are 

already in place in successful countries such as Germany. 

I wholeheartedly welcome the notion of the separation 

of retail and investment banking. The Chancellor will 

know that that proposal has the support of the whole 

House; it is long overdue. 

Proposals have been put forward for a single-tier 

pension and, from what I have heard, that seems a good 

idea. We floated the idea in 2010, with what we called 

the living pension. This seems to be a similar idea and, 

whatever it is called, if it is pitched reasonably, it will be 

a good measure. We all have examples of widows telling 

us that they have missed three or four years’ work while 

they brought up their children, and that they are now 

condemned to receiving a much lower state pension. A 

single-tier pension would be simpler to administer and 

better all round. I welcome the notion, at least, although 

we will need to look into the details that will no doubt 

appear before long. 

On the proposals for procedural changes to adoption, 

there is certainly a case for ensuring that youngsters 

who come up for adoption are taken care of with the 

minimum of fuss and delay. Delay only adds to the 

heartache. I have no doubt that we all have the best 

interests of the children at heart, but we must remember 

that 40% of our courts have now been shut down and 

tens of thousands of court staff have been laid off. 

Those staff would have assisted families in their first 

encounter with the court process. In addition, hundreds 

of people at the Children and Family Court Advisory 

and Support Service—which prepares reports on families 

involved in placement and, ultimately, adoption—have 

also gone, and there have been huge cuts in the probation 

service. There have been cuts in social services as well. 

How are we going to improve the adoption service 

against the background of those cuts? I think that there 

will be problems ahead. I hope that we will be able to 

achieve those improvements, because there is certainly 

a case for doing so, but I am afraid that there will be 

problems. 

I can add nothing to what the right hon. Member for 

Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said about the 

proposals for internet surveillance. He put forward his 

views on them in the clearest possible way. I actually 

believe that there is a case for surveillance to enable the 

security services to carry out their work, but there must 

be safeguards in place. I am sure that we will be able to 

discuss that matter further. The proposals for secret 

courts are doomed to failure from the beginning. What 

the right hon. Gentleman did not say—unintentionally, 

no doubt—was that several special advocates have resigned, 

over the years, because they find the concept so one-sided 

and unjust that they do not want to be part of it. 

Should we be perpetuating and extending that system? 

The answer, quite frankly, is no, and anyone with any 

concern for the court process would undoubtedly say 

that that is the proper response. 

I am surprised that there was no mention in the 

speech of the High Speed 2 rail link. We have heard a 

lot about it over the past few months, but it seems to 

have gone to ground for the time being. I was rather 

looking forward to Wales receiving a Barnett formula 

consequential of around £1.9 billion, which could be 

spent on improving transport infrastructure across Wales 

and electrifying the lines that sorely need it. 

Geraint Davies: I agree that we should be campaigning 

for that £1.9 billion consequential for Wales. Does the 

right hon. Gentleman agree that, in addition to the case 

for electrification, there is a case to be made for a 

reduction in the Severn bridge toll? Traffic across the 

bridge was reduced by 7% last year, but we need that 

connectivity to the south-west if we are to build the 

economy of south Wales. 

Mr Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman is right; that is 

becoming an issue. The decrease in traffic across the 

bridge in the past two years has been quite stark, and 

that is not going to help anyone’s economy. I am sure 

that there is a case for such a reduction, and we should 

look carefully at it. Otherwise, there could be a drag on 

further development in that part of Wales, if not the 

whole of the country. 

I would have welcomed further steps towards devolving 

powers relating to energy generation projects over 50 MW 

to the Welsh Government. Some of us who took part in 

the deliberations on the last Wales legislation did not 

understand how the figure of 50 MW had been arrived 

at. The result has been that potential developers, often 

multinationals, can get their developments—windmills, 

for example, which not everyone is in favour of—pushed 

through on the nod by the Department in London over 

the heads of those in the Welsh Government. That is 

not right. The other side of that coin is that several 

thousand people in mid-Wales make their living out of 

developing sustainable energy materials and projects. 

I would like to see that expanded, which is why I would 

like the limit of 50 MW to be removed. We need to 

develop that industry further. It is already moving forward; 

mid-Wales is like a mini-silicon valley, with thousands 

of jobs involved. We need to carry on encouraging that, 

and we are well placed to do so.


9 MAY 2012 


66 

I would also like to see Jobcentre Plus devolved to 

Wales, provided that the relevant budget was also devolved, 

and there has been talk of that happening. The closer to 

home that all these matters can be dealt with, the better. 

The buzz word in European circles used to be “subsidiarity”. 

The devolution of the jobcentre system to Wales would 

be an example of subsidiarity at work. There was no 

mention of it in the Queen’s Speech, but I understand 

that there is talk of it happening. I can tell the House 

that, if the system had been devolved, the Remploy 

factories in Wales would not now be under threat; that 

is for sure. I believe that that provides a stark example of 

what not to do in such circumstances. 

I do not see any one particular policy in the Gracious 

Speech to develop economic growth, as the hon. Member 

for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) said in a speech that 

concentrated on that point. I think economic growth 

should have been in there. That said, there are some 

good elements in the Gracious Speech, and I look 

forward to participating in the debates over the coming 

months to strengthen some aspects and bring them 

forward. There is, however, precious little to work on 

when it comes to creating growth. I believe, as the hon. 

Member for Hartlepool and others believe, that if cuts 

are necessary, we need a parallel movement to increase 

economic growth—otherwise we are tilting to just one 

side. However, as I said, there are some good things in 

this Queen’s Speech and I look forward to participating 

in the debates over the coming weeks and months. 

6.20 pm 

Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): I think that Members 

of all parties would endorse the support of the right 

hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) for 

the Queen’s Speech proposal to introduce legislation to 

establish an independent adjudicator to ensure that 

supermarkets deal fairly and lawfully with suppliers. That 

is clearly one of many proposals that will have all-party 

support. 

In reflecting on the Queen’s Speech, it is probably 

sensible to consider where we are and where we have 

been. In recalling where we are, it is important to 

remember that the Prime Minister’s party does not have 

a parliamentary majority. After the general election, it 

was clearly in the nation’s interest to form a coalition. A 

coalition, however, requires compromise every day. To 

govern, the Prime Minister has to agree policy initiatives 

with a political party very different from his own. In 

practice, the coalition is working a lot better than many 

would have imagined. The fact is that the Conservative 

party did not win enough seats or votes to enable us to 

deliver all our manifesto pledges. The solution is not 

to blame the coalition, but to seek to win more votes 

next time. 

Notwithstanding the challenges of the coalition, the 

Government have, since the general election, embarked 

on a vast reforming programme unprecedented in modern 

times to reduce the structural deficit and to put through 

reforms of the NHS that will enable GPs better to 

design local NHS services for their patients. The 

Government have reformed primary and secondary 

education, introduced a new system of university tuition 

fees and completely overhauled the welfare system to 

ensure that as many people as possible can live responsible 

and worthwhile lives free of state dependency. The 

Government have capped housing benefit and passed 

the European Union Act 2011 so that in future any 

EU treaty that transfers powers to the European Union 

will be subject to a referendum, and never again will a 

Government be able to surrender sovereignty to Brussels 

without the full consent of the British people. On 

Europe, too, the Prime Minister and the Government 

have vetoed the fiscal pact. Ministers have swept away 

pages and pages of planning regulations, but in so 

doing have still managed to protect the green belt, while 

providing local councillors and local communities with 

the opportunity to design and develop their own local 

plans free of top-down Whitehall directives such as 

regional spatial strategies. 

The Government are introducing elected police 

commissioners and reforming public sector pensions 

thatwouldotherwisebecomeunaffordableandunsustainable. 

Importantly, the Government have taken millions of the 

low paid out of income tax and have cut corporation 

tax. We inherited corporation tax at 28% , but by 2014, it 

will be reduced to 22%. As a result, the UK will have the 

lowest main corporation tax rate in the G7 and the 

fourth lowest in the G20. To help businesses further, the 

Government have introduced a £20 billion national loan 

guarantee scheme to get cheaper loans to businesses. 

These have been bold reforms and they have all been 

achieved without a Conservative majority. 

It is not only that the Prime Minister has had to 

govern with a party that does not have a parliamentary 

majority, as the second reality is that the Government 

have no money—and it is not unreasonable to think 

that a Government with no majority and no money will 

have problems. We should never forget that the Labour 

Government left Britain with a deficit that, at £160 billion, 

was bigger than Greece’s. The Labour Government gave 

us the longest and deepest recession on record, so that 

we were one of the first countries into recession and one 

of the last countries coming out of recession. We should 

never forget the telling letter left to his successor by the 

former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. 

Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne): 

“Chief Secretary, I’m afraid there is no money. Kind regards—and 

good luck!” 

That pithy 13-word message—whether it was tongue in 

cheek or not—well summed up the 13 years of the Labour 

Government. 

Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD): Does my 

hon. Friend think it important to remind the House and 

the country that we are only two years into this historic 

coalition Government, and considering the economic 

mess that we were left, it is remarkable how many 

positive things are in this Queen’s Speech? 

Tony Baldry: Yes, this Government have probably 

achieved more in two years than the Blair Government 

achieved in the whole of the first term of the Blair 

Government. 

Gavin Shuker: Why does the hon. Gentleman believe 

that we are in the first double-dip recession for 37 years? 

Tony Baldry: The hon. Gentleman has just heard me 

comment on the legacy of his Government, so I find it 

extraordinary that he has the cheek and audacity to ask 

such a question. The Labour Government left the country 

with no money and the biggest debt crisis of our lifetime.


9 MAY 2012 


68 

[Tony Baldry] 

Indeed, over many years, this country built up massive 

debts, which we have to pay off. Of course, it is much more 

difficult to do that when so much of the rest of Europe 

is in recession. As I suspect France will soon demonstrate, 

trying to pile debt upon debt is what got Britain and 

Europe into such difficulties in the first place. It did not 

work for Britain over 13 years of a Labour Government 

and would not work now. The eurozone’s troubles are 

caused by too much debt, the burden of excessive public 

spending and the burden of excessive public borrowing. 

It is not surprising that Government are seeking the 

approval of Parliament relating to the agreed financial 

stability mechanism within the euro area. 

It is no mean task recovering from the deepest recession 

in living memory, accompanied as it was by a debt 

crisis. Our banks had too much debt; our households 

had too much debt; and the Government had too much 

debt. As Sir Mervyn King, commenting on the performance 

of the last Government, observed in “The Today Lecture” 

that he gave last week while the House was in recess: 

“Bailing out the banks came too late though to prevent the 

financial crisis from spilling over into the world economy. The 

realisation of the true state of the banking system led to a 

collapse of confidence around the world...unemployment in Britain 

rose by over a million....to many this will seem deeply unfair and 

it is. I can understand why so many people are angry.” 

One can speculate only that perhaps more than a million 

people may have lost their jobs unnecessarily because 

the previous Government failed to act on warnings 

from the Bank of England. 

Notwithstanding the challenge, Britain has so far 

hung on to our triple-A credit rating. We have kept a lid 

on borrowing costs and, compared with other countries 

in the eurozone, many of which are in the process of 

changing leaders or just starting to tackle their debts, 

we are thriving. 

John Cryer: I thank the hon. Gentleman—or is it 

right hon. Gentleman? [Interruption.] Well, I am sure 

he should be right hon., and I shall put down an 

early-day motion tomorrow to achieve it! Returning to 

the last election, is the hon. Gentleman aware that at 

that time both unemployment and the deficit were 

falling, yet they are both now rising? The Office for 

Budget Responsibility predicts that the deficit is going 

to be a lot higher at the end of this Parliament than was 

predicted two years ago. 

Tony Baldry: I think we need a bumper book of excuses 

from the Labour party, explaining why it was not responsible 

for getting us into the difficulties we face. Let us develop 

a bumper book of excuses and put all these various 

contributions into it, saying “Nothing to do with us, guv”! 

That would be impressive. We must not be complacent. 

The UK has to rebalance its economy. We need a bigger 

private sector; we need more exports; and we need more 

investment. In short, we need to do everything possible 

to boost growth, competitiveness and jobs. 

Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that 

the big debate is the balance between the need for 

growth and the need for cuts to lower the deficit? Does 

he accept that, as we entered 2010, two thirds of the 

deficit was caused by the banks and the remaining third 

by the then Labour Government—who had invested 

more than they were earning, but who had done so with 

good reason to project a positive growth trajectory? In 

hindsight, does he accept that the balance between 

growth and cuts is wrong, and that we should act on the 

mandate in Europe and invest more in growth and less 

in cuts? 

Tony Baldry: Since the general election the Labour 

party has engaged in a wonderful exercise in propounding 

the motif that cuts are being made too far and too fast. 

In his autobiography, the former Chancellor of the 

Exchequer responsibly acknowledges the mistakes made 

by the last Labour Government. Opposition Members, 

however, have tried to develop a line that will enable 

them simultaneously to go around the City of London 

saying “We are being sensible and responsible about the 

deficit and about the need to reduce public spending” 

and, when campaigning, to present the impression privately, 

on the doorstep of every household in the country, that, 

given their own way, they would not reduce any individual 

item of public expenditure. That is a circle that the 

Opposition cannot square, and until they get real in 

explaining to the country and the markets how they will 

actually tackle the budget deficit, they will not be taken 

seriously as an Opposition, let alone as a Government 

in waiting. 

We must never forget that the present Government 

inherited a budget deficit of 11%—bigger than Greece’s, 

bigger than Spain’s, and bigger than Portugal’s. We all 

know that if we do not deal properly with our debts and 

with the nation’s deficit it will be impossible to keep 

interest rates low, and that, quite apart from the benefit 

that low interest rates provide for businesses and those 

paying mortgages, they offer us the best prospects of 

getting out of our present difficult economic situation. 

The Government and the Chancellor inherited a deeply 

dysfunctional economy in which, all too often, the taxes 

generated by the financial and property sectors in the 

south paid for higher public spending in the north. As 

Sir Mervyn King so tellingly testified in his speech last 

week, it was an economy in which the City had been 

poorly policed, and in which growth was too dependent 

on debt. Making clear that we intended to have a 

credible fiscal plan has helped us in Britain to maintain 

our top international credit rating and has brought 

interest rates to record lows, making family mortgages 

and business loans cheaper. Sticking to the deficit plan 

means that, having inherited a deficit larger than those 

of Spain or Greece, we have interest rates similar to 

those in Germany. Indeed, the IMF’s latest forecast for 

the UK expects it to grow faster than France or Germany. 

In considering where we are now, we should not forget 

that the recent Budget cut taxes for 24 million working 

people. 

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? 

Tony Baldry: I love the hon. Member for Rhondda 

(Chris Bryant)! He left the Chamber for a considerable 

period, has been back for two seconds, and now wants 

to intervene. However, because he is very supportive on 

Church matters, I am happy to give way to him. 

Chris Bryant: So much excitement was being engendered 

by the hon. Gentleman that I felt the need to return to 

the Chamber. Then I started to listen, which is where


9 MAY 2012 


70 

I made my mistake. I think the hon. Gentleman said 

that the present Government had cut interest rates. Can 

he tell us when they did so? My understanding is that 

they have been entirely flat since they changed under a 

Labour rather than a Conservative Government. 

Tony Baldry: The hon. Gentleman was so excited by 

my speech that he misheard me. I made no reference to 

the Government’s cutting interest rates. What I said was 

that the Government’s financial and economic policies 

had enabled us, and were still enabling us, to keep 

interest rates low, while also ensuring that our interest 

rates compared with those of Germany. I have absolutely 

no doubt that if we followed the economic policies 

advocated by Opposition Front Benchers, we would 

soon see interest rates, including mortgage interest rates, 

soaring as a consequence. 

The Government have taken 2 million people out of 

tax, they have continued to freeze council tax, and—as 

I have already observed—they have cut corporation tax 

so that we can compete with the rest of the world. 

Moreover, notwithstanding the challenges at home, Britain 

is meeting its commitments overseas. We are behaving 

as one would expect of a permanent member of the UN 

Security Council, honouring our obligations in Afghanistan, 

seeking to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation— 

particularly with Iran—and helping to bring greater 

stability to the horn of Africa. We are supporting 

democrats in Libya, and, through the Department for 

International Development, we are helping to tackle 

poverty around the world. 

We should be proud that Britain is sticking to its aid 

promises. We are a friend to the world’s poorest, and 

giving aid represents the best of British values. Some 

40 years after they first promised to give 0.7% of their 

national income in aid, rich countries are less than 

halfway there. Among the major economies, only we in 

the UK are on target to meet our commitments. Some 

of the more Poujadist elements of the press claim that 

public support for aid is diminishing. I suspect that that 

is because some two thirds of the public think that we 

spend up to 20 times more on foreign aid than we 

actually do. Once people know that our aid budget is 

just over a single penny in every pound spent by the 

Government, they are much more supportive. 

Understandably, the Session of Parliament since the 

general election has been unusually long, but it is still 

impressive that the Government have passed more than 

30 main programme Bills since the election to help to 

reduce the UK’s budget deficit and reform our public 

services. Their programme has been guided by the three 

core values of responsibility, fairness and freedom. The 

new Session will be shorter, so it will provide scope for 

fewer Bills. I do not think that there was any doubt on 

the doorsteps about what our constituents want us to 

focus on. They want us to continue to get the economy 

going, continue to improve the NHS, and continue to 

sort out welfare and education; and, importantly, they 

want us to demonstrate that we are on the side of those 

who are working hard and doing the best they can for 

their families. 

One of the best kept secrets of the last Budget is that 

the Chancellor raised personal allowances—the amount 

that people can earn before being taxed—so that 24 million 

middle-earning taxpayers will keep more of their money, 

and, from next April, 2 million low-paid people will not 

pay income tax at all. I can tell those who call for tax 

cuts that this year we have already made the largest tax 

cuts for more than a decade. I think everyone would 

agree that we should be doing all that we can to help 

families who are trying to do the best for themselves. 

Of course we need to focus on jobs and economic 

growth. I am very glad that the proposals in a report by 

my constituent Adrian Beecroft for streamlining of the 

rules that make it hard for businesses to hire and fire 

employees are to be taken up. Redundancy rules, 

employment tribunals and rules about unfair dismissal 

all need to be changed, as Adrian Beecroft’s well-researched 

and well-argued report clearly demonstrates. We should 

be doing everything possible to encourage employers to 

expand and employ more people. 

It is good news that the Government will reduce burdens 

on businesses by repealing unnecessary legislation and 

legislating to limit the state inspection of businesses. It 

is also good news that they will reform competition law 

in order to promote enterprise and fair markets. I think 

that many businesses will welcome the news that there is 

to be strengthened regulation of the financial services 

sector, and that the recommendations of the Independent 

Commission on Banking are to be implemented. 

I also welcome the proposals relating to pensions. 

I think everyone agrees on the need to modernise the 

pensions system and reform the state pension, and on 

the importance of creating a fair and sustainable foundation 

for private saving. Governments must always seek to be 

on the side of those who save for retirement. I do not 

think that anyone seriously believes that it is possible to 

avoid reforming public service pensions in line with the 

recommendations of the Independent Public Service 

Pensions Commission. 

As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on 

carers, I particularly welcome the news that a draft Bill 

is to be published to modernise adult care and support 

in England. The health White Paper of July 2010 promised 

legislation on adult social care in a second session of 

the present Parliament. We have all had plenty of time 

in which to read and digest the Dilnot report, which 

recommended a system under which people would pay 

the first chunk of nursing care costs and the state would 

pay after that. Given our increasingly ageing population, 

we need clarity, and cross-party talks have been taking 

place for a long time. 

I also welcome the news that this is to be a draft Bill. 

Given such a major overhaul of social care legislation 

that needs to stand the test of time, and given the 

number of Select Committee reports on the issue, it is 

vital that we have an opportunity to get it right by 

co-operating with the Government, the Opposition and, 

indeed, every party in the House to produce legislation 

that seeks to achieve the right outcomes for everyone 

concerned. 

Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab): I agree about 

the need for cross-party agreement on care for the 

elderly. We do not want a repeat of what the Conservatives 

did when they were in opposition, however; they played 

games over this issue to try to gain short-term political 

advantage. What we need is a long-term solution. 

Tony Baldry: I think we all want a long-term solution, 

which is why it is sensible for a draft Bill to be published 

so that everyone can agree the way forward, and so that 

when a Bill is presented to the House it has all-party 

support.


9 MAY 2012 


72 

[Tony Baldry] 

May I say in my capacity as Second Church Estates 

Commissioner that I welcome the introduction of a Bill 

to reduce the burdens on charities by enabling them to 

claim additional payments on small donations? Many 

Members of Parliament are involved in charities, perhaps 

as trustees or patrons. Church groups often rely on 

Sunday collections and small giving by large numbers 

of people. This move will allow extra support for charities. 

Like all Members of Parliament, a fair amount of my 

constituency casework involves helping families with 

disabled children and children with special educational 

needs, so I greatly welcome the proposals in the Queen’s 

Speech to introduce measures to improve provision 

for such children, and the arrangements for supporting 

children in family law cases and reforming court processes 

for children in care. That is important, painstaking and 

detailed work that should improve the lives of many 

children. 

I do not think too much should be read into the fact 

that the Queen’s Speech does not contain a specific 

proposal for a hybrid Bill on High Speed 2. The matter 

is now before the High Court, which is having to 

consider several applications on judicial review involving 

points of law on both the process and substance of 

the HS2 project. Notwithstanding any judicial review 

proceedings, however, I continue to hope that the 

Government will reflect that the economic case for HS2 

simply does not stack up. 

It is clear that in this Session of Parliament the 

Government will continue to strive for smaller government, 

freer competition and greater international trade, and 

they will continue to pursue policies that have been 

proven to work in the past and that will also work in 

the future. 

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. 

On 25 April, I told the House that the Leveson inquiry 

had published certain information regarding meetings 

that had been held between Rupert Murdoch and the 

Prime Minister. I believed at the time that that was the 

case, but it has subsequently turned out not to be true. 

I have, of course, apologised to Lord Justice Leveson, 

but I thought I should take this opportunity to apologise 

to the House as well. I hope the apology will be accepted. 

I had no intention of misleading the House; that was 

purely inadvertent. 

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): I am grateful 

to you, Mr Bryant, for your point of order and for 

putting that apology on the record. 

6.42 pm 


Co-op): I had not intended to talk about Lords reform 

today, but I have been provoked to do so by the right 

hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark 

(Simon Hughes). He said that one of the reasons for 

House of Lords reform was to encourage more gender 

diversity in the Lords. He is no longer in his place, but I 

would point out to him that there are more men in the 

House of Commons today than the number of women 

ever elected. We must look at parliamentary reform 

across the board, not just in the House of Lords. 

Greg Mulholland: I agree with the hon. Lady’s point, 

but does she also agree that we should have a fairer 

system of voting for Members of both Houses of 

Parliament? 

Meg Hillier: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to 

continue for a short while? 

One of my principal objections to the current House 

of Lords reform proposals is that I do not agree with 

the argument that we are making the House of Lords 

more accountable by having Members elected for a 

single term of 15 years without being able to stand for 

re-election. I cannot see how, in a democratic system, 

that is accountable. Members of the House of Commons 

have to face the electorate once every five years, and we 

have witnessed colleagues losing their seats as the electors 

have made that decision based either on the individual 

or their party. That is true accountability, although it 

has been weakened by proposals to change the boundaries 

every five years, as some electors will therefore never 

have the chance to vote again for the MP who has 

represented them. The Government are doing great 

damage by reducing the accountability of the Members 

of both Houses. That is a backward step, but it is being 

dressed up as reform. We must reflect and improve on 

these proposals if we are to have real change. 

I come at this subject as a democrat. I believe that it is 

beyond the pale to have even an element of heredity in 

the House of Lords, and that that is rightly out of kilter 

with modern attitudes. We must not rush headlong into 

trying to improve the situation and see any change as 

an improvement. Instead, we must take measured steps 

and ensure that Parliament properly represents the people, 

and that we do not fill the House of Lords with stooges 

who have been selected by party leaders and who never 

have to face the electorate. 

Although I look forward to our debates on this 

subject, I have to say that it was not raised even once on 

the doorsteps in my constituency during the most recent 

election campaign. Indeed, I am usually out on doorsteps 

while on roving surgeries a couple of times every month, 

and the last time I canvassed opinion on this topic 

everybody said they supported a democratically elected 

House of Lords save for one person who was of Nigerian 

origin and believed there was some merit in the hereditary 

principle. His was a lone voice, however. We need 

democracy, but not in the way that is being proposed. 

The Queen’s Speech was a big disappointment. When 

I was watching it, I suddenly realised that it was nearly 

over, but many of the issues I had hoped it would 

address had not been mentioned. It is flimsy and expresses 

no compelling vision of what the Government want to 

achieve for this country. We agree with the opening 

sentence, but its sentiments were not backed up by 

proposed legislation. There is also no strategic approach 

to the economic crisis. We repeatedly hear about the 

need to tackle the deficit, but there are other issues that 

need to be tackled alongside dealing appropriately with 

the Government’s finances. 

The Queen’s Speech demonstrates that the Government 

are out of touch and unfair, and we are also increasingly 

seeing signs of incompetence. The Prime Minister 

acknowledged that the economy is a higher priority 

than House of Lords reform, but the Queen’s Speech 

does little to tackle the economic problems, and I am 

particularly concerned for the businesses in my constituency 

and about unemployment.


9 MAY 2012 


74 

The unfairness is seen in the retention of the cut in 

the 50p tax rate, helping the top 1% of earners in this 

country, while many of my constituents are keen to 

work but are unable to find the extra eight hours they 

will need to continue to receive tax credits. At one end, 

therefore, families who are doing everything they should— 

they are working hard and trying to work more, but are 

unable to find those extra hours—are losing out. What 

they need is some extra hours from their employer, as it 

is currently very hard to find another job. At the other 

end, however, millionaires are saving thousands of pounds 

in tax. That does not strike me or my constituents 

as fair. 

Fortunately for the Government, I do not have sufficient 

time to dwell on their increasing incompetence. I might 

mention, however, the border controls fiasco that has 

been going on since last autumn. It is continuing now, 

which is especially serious given that we are in the 

run-up to the Olympics. I might also mention the youth 

unemployment figures. The Government’s incompetence 

in that regard will affect a generation of our young 

people and their families. There are also the ministerial 

dalliances with BSkyB, which demonstrate a real lack of 

appropriateness, to put it politely. 

There were some announcements in the Gracious 

Speech that I welcome. I have long been a supporter of 

the Green investment bank. My big concern is that it 

is being introduced too late, even though there will be 

£3 billion of funding—although not all of it is certain. 

Will the bank be able to move quickly enough to ensure 

we secure the green investment required to help businesses 

grow and create the jobs we so desperately need? The 

environmental ship might have already sailed to other 

ports in Germany, China and other countries, whose 

Governments are far ahead of ours. 

I also welcome the flexible parental leave proposals. 

It is important that people have that choice, but it must 

be couched in the right way so that women do not feel 

forced to go back to work and pass over the care of the 

child, whom they may still be nursing, to their partner. 

The principle of allowing families freedom over how 

they manage their own affairs is important, however. 

Overall, the Government’s economic policy is hurting 

and it is not working—not in my constituency. 

Unemployment is rising. It is the worst we have seen for 

16 years and of course, youth unemployment—I am on 

the record as having spoken about this a number of 

times before—is a real scourge of our society. 

There are a couple of proposals I welcome. I welcome 

the intention to ensure through the children and families 

Bill that there is an all-through assessment for children 

and young adults. Too often, my constituents have 

experienced breaks in the support for their children, 

either at the age at which they transfer to a different 

school or when they transition into adulthood. Personal 

budgets provide a real opportunity for those young 

people and their families to have control as long as there 

are safeguards for the many families with whom I deal 

who would not be able to manage those budgets themselves. 

We must not throw out the baby with the bathwater and 

although I welcome the personal budgets, we must 

ensure that there is a safety net and support for those 

who are unable to do the necessary paperwork and to 

manage the employment side of it. The detail will 

matter if the good intentions in the Bill are to be met, 

and I look forward to working with my colleagues on 

my Front Bench to ensure that those needs are considered. 

I hope that the children and families Bill will talk 

about ensuring that children are protected and supported. 

That seems to be the general feeling. I am concerned, 

however, that although the Government are considering 

protecting and supporting certain groups of children 

on the one hand, actions by other Ministers on 

safeguarding—such as the suggestion that faith leaders 

should be exempt from vetting and, if necessary, exempt 

from being barred from working with children—are a 

very worrying step. We must be vigilant about ensuring 

that we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. 

The Government are very keen to talk about rolling 

back the frontiers of the state and rolling back red tape, 

but as far as the protection of children is concerned, 

when we put our children—and vulnerable adults, too—in 

the presence of a stranger, we need some surety that 

that stranger has been properly vetted. It is not acceptable 

to rule out one group simply on the basis that they are 

faith leaders. 

Businesses in Hackney have been struggling for 

some time. We have had some great successes—Silicon 

roundabout is in my constituency—but they are largely 

small start-ups and are finding it hard to grow. We have 

some very innovative business models in a very innovative 

part of London, but businesses in Hackney are struggling 

to get loans and even, in many cases, an overdraft 

facility from their bank. The Prime Minister spoke 

earlier about Project Merlin, saying that it had worked 

and that the loan guarantee fund was generous. It is not 

so much the level of a loan that is an issue, however, but 

the fact that banks will not loan in the first place. There 

is an opportunity that has perhaps not yet been missed 

in the Gracious Speech—we will see whether it has 

when we have the detail of the legislation—to consider 

alternative funding methods for businesses. Innovators 

out there are prepared to fund innovative businesses in 

a different way and we must ensure that they are properly 

supported and regulated so that investors and businesses 

are protected. There are opportunities for more mutuals 

in the banking sector, which ought to focus on investment 

in their own areas, helped by their understanding of 

their locality. They would, of course, be owned by their 

members. 

That brings me on to one thing that was missing from 

the Gracious Speech. As a Co-op and Labour MP, I 

was keen to hear the co-operatives consolidation Bill 

debated during the next Session, but it is not here. 

Where has that Bill gone? It would have been supported 

across the House. The previous Government did a great 

deal to change the law on co-operatives and to provide 

new legislation that made it easier to set them up, but 

as that was done piecemeal through different Acts of 

Parliament, there was room to bring it all together. 

Consolidation Bills, by their nature, are complicated 

and difficult, but it would have provided the platform 

for the introduction of yet more opportunities for mutuals 

and co-operatives. There is a feeling across this House, 

shared by members within every party—although it is 

not necessarily the view of every party—that there 

needs to be a different way of doing business in this 

country. If there is a better way of doing business than 

mutuals, which are owned by their members, who benefit 

from and see the direct outcomes of that ownership, 

Idonotknowwhatitis. 

There is no commitment in the Queen’s Speech to 

introduce any mutual models at all, as far as we can see. 

The water Bill would have offered such an opportunity


9 MAY 2012 


76 

[Meg Hillier] 

and the energy Bill might have offered opportunities for 

some mutual solutions, as would, of course, the banking 

Bill. We need new measures on demutualisation and we 

have already missed an opportunity through the selling 

off to the highest bidder, rather than remutualisation, 

of Northern Rock. If the House is united on the need 

for banking reform, why not join that up with the idea 

of the mutual model and ensure that businesses as well 

as individuals are supported by mutuals? 

Another element missing from the Bill that is a concern 

to my constituents and to me is the antisocial behaviour 

legislation that we had hoped might be introduced. The 

message is very confused. One whole year ago, the 

Government’s consultation on antisocial behaviour finished. 

They have done the work, yet 12 months on there is no 

Bill in the Gracious Speech to deal with those issues. A 

year ago, the Government all but announced their 

intention to end antisocial behaviour orders, but there is 

no Bill to do that and the police and residents are left 

confused about where they stand. 

The Government regularly pass the buck to local 

police forces when challenged on crime issues, but they 

are robbing them of the tools to do the job. We know 

that ASBOs require better enforcement and we accept 

that they are not perfect in every way, but they could be 

strengthened to deal better with the problem of repeat 

victimisation. The Government should be trying to 

build on what is in place and on what has been shown to 

work, rather than starting again from scratch. We hear 

that the Government has a plan for a community trigger, 

which would only guarantee action if five different 

households reported the same incident. For me, if one 

person complains that incident of antisocial behaviour 

needs to be tackled. It should be taken seriously and 

investigated. 

We also have an alphabet soup of other proposals. 

The crime prevention injunction and criminal behaviour 

orders do not do what they say on the tin. I know from 

experience with gang injunctions in Hackney that it can 

take a very long time for agencies on the ground to get 

used to the new powers, for the Crown Prosecution 

Service to deal with them properly, for courts to understand 

them and for them to embed. ASBOs might not have 

been perfect, but they were in the language of my 

constituents and of constituents up and down the country. 

People understood them and so did the system. To 

throw them out without having proper plans in place to 

replace them is a big mistake. 

My constituency has a number of challenges. We 

have heard from others about youth unemployment. In 

my constituency, one in four young people under the 

age of 24 is out of work. Our overall unemployment 

rate is 12.7%. Those challenges have a major impact on 

child poverty. There are still children in my constituency 

who turn up to school after a long summer holiday 

malnourished in September because their parents have 

chaotic lifestyles and have been unable to get them fed. 

We all support measures to get people into work, but to 

have a whole generation of young people who are 

unable to get work or work experience will, I fear, lead 

to greater challenges for their children. 

I do not have time to go into the figures for the ethnic 

breakdown of unemployment, but let us just take the 

example of young black men. About 55% of young 

black men are out of work, which is a staggering figure 

and much higher than the general norm. It risks becoming 

a real divide in this country if it is not tackled. It might 

not be an issue for every hon. Member in this House—as 

the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) 

said, his is not a kaleidoscope county—but let me tell 

hon. Members that my constituency is a kaleidoscope 

constituency, as are many others. It is a great strength of 

our area, but we must not have one group of people so 

badly affected by Government policy. 

Other issues have not been tackled. Housing benefit 

levels have been cut, rents have continued to rise by a 

great deal in my constituency and house prices have 

risen, too. That means that my constituents face a real 

challenge on housing and homes and nothing in this 

Queen’s Speech will tackle that, which is a serious 

mistake. It demonstrates again how the Government 

are very much out of touch with what really matters to 

people. Families want to be in a position to support 

themselves and my constituents’ requirements are very 

limited in many respects. They are not as demanding as 

they should be, I believe, but they want a job, a good 

school for their child, a health service that will work 

and to know that they can afford a roof over their 

heads. The job and the roof over their heads are particular 

challenges at the moment, so although we have these 

esoteric debates in the Westminster village about House 

of Lords reform—an issue not once raised on the 

doorstep—and as much as I think we need to reform 

the House of Lords, right now the energy of this place 

should be focused on how to move this country forward, 

invest in jobs and growth and ensure that we create job 

opportunities and homes for constituents in my constituency 

and up and down the country. 

6.59 pm 

Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con): I congratulate 

the Government on the Gracious Speech and the measures 

in it. There are two proposals about which I am 

concerned—House of Lords reform and the televising 

of court proceedings—which I shall address in a moment. 

First, however, I have to say how lucky we are to have a 

monarchy in this country. We tried a presidency under 

Tony Blair, and what a disaster it was: indeed, we are 

still suffering the consequences of that presidency, which 

took us into an illegal war with Iraq, destroying the 

United Kingdom. How I wish that I and the other 

17 Members of the House who wished to impeach him 

at that time had been successful. Now, he is going 

around not only our country but the rest of the world 

still earning money at our expense. 

Charlie Elphicke: Has my hon. Friend noticed that as 

well as earning money at our expense Tony Blair does 

not seem to pay an awful lot of tax either? 

Mr Amess: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of 

course, Tony Blair gave evidence at the inquiry last year 

and I hope that when the report comes out, the matter 

will be dealt with. To have him as a special peace envoy 

in the middle east is absolutely ridiculous. 

So, I rejoice in the fact that we have a monarchy. I 

always think that Conservative Queen’s Speeches are 

better than Labour Queen’s Speeches and today is no 

exception. I am delighted that we heard today that the 

Prime Minister is determined to reduce the deficit and


9 MAY 2012 


78 

restore economic stability. I enjoyed the speech of my 

hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) 

who was right to remind the House what a disastrous 

economic legacy Labour left us. 

I absolutely agree with the remarks that a number of 

Members made about policies that we talk about in this 

House that are not mentioned on the doorstep by our 

constituents. Last Monday, some Conservative Members 

got together and had a party to celebrate the 20th 

anniversary of the election of a Conservative Government 

on 9 April 1992. At that party, which the Prime Minister 

attended, we were delighted to launch a pamphlet called 

“Basildon—Against all Odds”. The Prime Minister 

generously referred to the victory in Basildon, and I was 

delighted that he visited my old constituency yesterday 

and talked broadly about policies because I think we 

need to reflect on the things that took us back to 

government in 1992. There in Basildon, 20 years ago, 

voters locally wanted to support what were then the 

Conservative party’s policies. What were those policies? 

Giving every woman, man and child the opportunity to 

make the most of their God-given talents. I know that 

20 years later our country and the world have changed 

but I say to my Conservative colleagues that we should 

reflect on the policies that brought us back to government 

in 1992 and I recommend that they read “Basildon— 

Against all Odds”, which is a very good pamphlet. 

Meg Hillier rose— 

Geraint Davies rose— 

Mr Amess: Ladies first. 

Meg Hillier: The hon. Gentleman might regret giving 

way. It seems to me that he is living in the past. Why is 

he having to celebrate an electoral victory from 1992? Is 

it because there were not enough electoral victories to 

celebrate on Thursday? 

Mr Amess: I am very happy to talk about Thursday. 

I think that during the whole day the BBC’s parliamentary 

programme broadcast pieces about the 1992 election. It 

was something worth celebrating. 

Speaking of irrelevant issues, last week I got a phone 

call from someone about the Leveson inquiry and so 

I got quite excited. 

Geraint Davies: On the 1992 election, will the hon. 

Gentleman give way? 

Mr Amess: Of course. 

Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that 

in 1992 his party was laying the siege for 1997—doubling 

crime, cutting the health service and having 15% interest 

rates with soaring debt and unemployment? That is 

precisely the same template as his Government are 

adopting now, so for once I find myself agreeing with 

him. 

Mr Amess: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman 

says but I am sure that you would get a little tired, 

Mr Deputy Speaker, if I were to rehearse all that has 

gone on in this place in terms of the Conservative party 

leadership. 

I hope that the House will be interested in the telephone 

call I got regarding the Leveson inquiry. I thought, 

“Fantastic—someone has hacked my phone: I’m in the 

money.” But instead I was told that my phone number 

had been found in a journalist’s phone book. Well, for 

goodness’ sake—so what. I am sure that many journalists 

have our phone numbers. I was very disappointed to 

learn that my phone had not been hacked. Frankly, I 

cannot think that some of the politicians whose phones 

were hacked would have had any conversation worth 

listening to. I am interested in colleagues’ phone calls 

only if they happen to concern me. There is an obsession 

with hacking at the moment. The hon. Member for 

Rhondda (Chris Bryant) just came and apologised about 

something to do with the Leveson inquiry, but none of 

our constituents are raising these matters on the doorstep. 

Honestly, the amount that this inquiry is going to cost 

us—millions of pounds—is crazy. 

Similarly, no one on the doorstep is mentioning House 

of Lords reform. I go back to the point that what 

people were concerned about in 1992 was the fact that 

they did not trust the noble Lord Kinnock and the 

Labour party to run the country because of their economic 

policies. 

John Cryer: On economic competence, I hope that 

the hon. Gentleman had a good celebration in 1992 but 

does he remember that a few months later we had Black 

Wednesday when £20 billion was spent on propping 

up the currency and interest rates rose twice in a day, 

ending up at 15%? Does he recall that with the same 

fondness? 

Mr Amess: I remember that only too well because I 

happened to be in Japan with the now Foreign Secretary 

who was then the parliamentary private secretary to the 

Chancellor, whereas I was the PPS to Michael Portillo, 

and we got called back. The hon. Gentleman wants to 

lead me down a track to do with Europe and shadowing 

the Deutschmark, but I shall not succumb to that. 

I congratulate the Government on the banking reform 

Bill. Shortly after the election, the Chancellor announced 

the creation of the Independent Commission on Banking, 

which was asked to consider structural and related 

non-structural reforms to the UK banking sector to 

promote financial stability and competition. Any reforms 

should be implemented by 2019. No doubt there will be 

lots of discussion about this legislation, which I hope 

will at long last bring about fundamental reform of the 

banking system. It will include the ring-fencing of retail 

banking and measures on capital adequacy requirements. 

There will be radical reforms in the Bill which are 

needed entirely because the Labour Government and 

the previous Prime Minister completely destroyed the 

banking sector through what went on with the Financial 

Services Authority. They should be absolutely— 

[Interruption.] Some Labour Members, although not 

all, have a very short memory about what happened at 

that time. The financial crisis originated in the financial 

sector and so I believe that regulation is very important. 

London is the capital of the financial world and we 

need to lead the globe in these reforms. 

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): The hon. Gentleman 

has mentioned the legislation on changes to banking, 

which we agree with and look forward to. Does he think


9 MAY 2012 


80 

[Jim Shannon] 

the banks should be listening to what is happening now 

so that they can make changes in anticipation of the 

legislative changes to enable small and medium-sized 

businesses to acquire the money they should already 

be able to get but which is being denied them at the 

moment? We hope the new legislation will give those 

businesses that opportunity. 

Mr Amess: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. 

Some of the banks have forgotten everything that happened. 

They are not lending particularly to small businesses 

and I agree with him that they should act now rather 

than waiting until the Bill becomes an Act. 

The right hon. Member for—it is a Welsh constituency 

—[HON. MEMBERS: “Dwyfor Meirionnydd.”] Well, it is 

in Wales. I am glad that the right hon. Member for 

Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) mentioned the draft 

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill. In 2008, the Competition 

Commission conducted an inquiry into the UK grocery 

market, because of concerns that supermarkets were 

exploiting their supply chains. The right hon. Gentleman 

was spot-on with the points he raised. The draft Bill was 

published last year and will establish an adjudicator. 

The right hon. Gentleman expressed some concerns 

about the powers, and another Member—I think it was 

the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker)—asked 

whether they should be in the Bill. It is good that an 

adjudicator will be appointed, with the power to investigate 

a grocery firm with revenue in excess of £1 billion if it is 

suspected of breaching the code relating to its suppliers. 

It is vital that we do everything we can to help small 

businesses in these troubling times of austerity. That 

certainly includes grocery suppliers that are often family-run 

local businesses. There is no doubt that the major 

supermarkets have a monopoly in the United Kingdom 

grocery market, so I welcome any steps to prevent them 

from using their powers to leave their suppliers out of 

pocket. 

Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman is right to mention 

the importance of having a grocery ombudsman. Over 

the last three years, 3,000 small businesses related to 

farming and the supply of large stores have gone out of 

business. That is a real concern. Does he feel that 

legislative change will prevent that and does he think it 

will come quickly? 

Mr Amess: I believe that the Bill will achieve that end 

and that it will be effective. I know how tough things 

have been for farmers, particularly in Northern Ireland. 

It is important to have a balanced grocery market, 

where suppliers get a fair deal. There will be further 

benefits for consumers, because they will be able to buy 

the best of British produce, which will make the market 

more sustainable. 

The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch 

(Meg Hillier), among others, mentioned adoption and 

family matters. Pro-life Members will have been sad to 

hear that Phyllis Bowman died at the weekend. With the 

late Lord Braine, she did iconic work on pro-life matters 

and I pay tribute to her. 

I was delighted to see that there will be a Bill on 

adoption and family matters. Some years ago, my hon. 

Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) introduced 

a measure on adoption, but we badly need updated 

legislation. It will remove the absurd barriers that make 

the adoption process difficult. A new six-month limit 

on care proceedings will be introduced in England and 

Wales, and the law will be changed to ensure that more 

children have a relationship with their father after family 

break-up. All Members get letters from constituents 

about that difficult issue. 

I welcome the provision for mothers and fathers to 

swap their parental leave allowance after the birth of a 

child. The Leader of the Opposition said that the 

Opposition would support the measures. The Prime 

Minister is right to be passionate about giving children 

a good start in life. 

I welcome the measures to deal with the royal succession 

that were announced by Her Majesty in the Gracious 

Speech. Very much in the future, when there is a change 

of monarch we shall have King Charles, but if Princess 

Anne had been the oldest child she would not have 

succeeded. Anyone who knows Princess Anne applauds 

her hard work; she does a wonderful job. I am delighted 

that there will be a change to the law on royal succession. 

As a Catholic, I suppose I am biased, but I am also 

delighted that Catholics will finally be allowed to marry 

into the royal family. 

I am already sick to death of hearing about Lords 

reform, even before we spend 18 months going on about 

it. If anyone wants to know what is wrong with the 

House of Lords, it is the Labour party, which completely 

messed up the House of Lords without a plan for 

dealing with it. I do not address my remarks to Labour 

Members elected in recent years, but it was a bit rich to 

listen to speech after speech from Labour Members 

who condemned the House of Lords and everything it 

stood for, when the next minute they accepted a peerage. 

There is no consistency. 

When the Labour Government took office in 1997, 

they thought for narrow class reasons that they would 

get rid of the House of Lords—all those hereditaries, 

all terribly posh—but there was no actual plan for 

reform. As a Conservative Member of Parliament, I am 

totally against the Americanisation of our system, so 

I am opposed to a wholly elected second Chamber, 

which would definitely be in competition with this 

place. I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney South 

and Shoreditch who asked how it could be fair to have 

Members elected for 15 years. It certainly is not fair. I 

hope that we shall not waste hours and hours of precious 

time arguing about House of Lords reform. I know that 

the Liberals are keen on it— 

Martin Horwood rose— 

Mr Amess: Herewego. 

Martin Horwood: On the subject of consistency, House 

of Lords reform was in the Conservative manifesto. 

Surely, if we all agree on a predominantly elected second 

Chamber, it should not take that much time. 

Mr Amess: I suppose the get-out clause is that we did 

not have a solely Conservative Government, but a coalition, 

so there was a compromise. I certainly was never in 

favour of reform. In the other place, there are women 

and men of wonderful experience, who bring great


9 MAY 2012 


82 

value as a revising Chamber. I am totally opposed to 

having the second Chamber in competition with this 

place. 

Charlie Elphicke: My hon. Friend is being extraordinarily 

generous in taking interventions. Is not part of the 

problem that the House of Lords used to be a brilliant 

revising Chamber but then Tony Blair, who is now to be 

found in various parts of the world making money and 

not paying tax, stuffed it full of cronies and wrecked the 

flavour and excellence of that House? He made it the 

broken place it is today because of Labour’s galactic 

incompetence in government. 

Mr Amess: I agree with my hon. Friend that there are 

now so many peers that apparently they cannot all even 

find a place for prayers. It is crazy. There are too many 

Members in the House of Lords—nearly 1,000. It is a 

complete mess and I do not want this Chamber to waste 

hours and hours talking about something on which we 

will never agree. It is certainly not No. 1 in the list of 

priorities of the British people. 

I welcome the proposal for a national crime agency. 

My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and 

Howden (Mr Davis) is an expert in such matters and I 

shall not compete with him; I will speak in more simplistic 

terms. Phasing out the National Policing Improvement 

Agency is a good thing. Creating a new national crime 

agency will help further to tackle serious crime in the 

UK. As we have seen over the past year, our border 

forces and urban police forces can be overwhelmed, so 

the establishment of the agency will help to ease the 

burdens and protect us against one of the most serious 

threats facing this country—organised crime. It costs 

the United Kingdom between £20 million and £40 million 

in social and economic terms, and affects the most 

vulnerable people in society. Only yesterday, we heard 

the judgment in the terrible case of girls who had been 

groomed. I hope that the Bill can deal with that sort of 

issue and tackle it head-on. I hope the whole House will 

come together to support such welcome measures. 

On the defamation Bill, I do not know how honourable 

colleagues feel, but I am certainly libelled morning, 

noon and night but do not have the money to defend 

myself. A range of concerns has been raised about the 

detrimental effects that the current law on libel is having 

on freedom of expression, particularly in academic 

and scientific debate, the work of non-governmental 

organisations and investigative journalism, and about 

the extent to which this jurisdiction has become a 

magnet for libel claimants. I do not want to upset my 

hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and 

West Devon (Mr Cox), who is a Queen’s counsel, but 

the law has become so expensive in this country that I 

do not know how ordinary women and men can possibly 

defend themselves. 

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our constitution, 

but it does not mean that people should be able to ride 

roughshod over the reputations of others. When someone 

writes to the newspapers these days, the letter is published 

on the internet and in no time at all there are very 

insulting comments posted on the website, particularly 

if the letter is about a politician, and we do not seem to 

have any legislation to deal with that. Therefore, our 

defamation laws must strike the right balance between 

protecting freedom of speech and protecting people’s 

reputations, and that includes those of Members of 

Parliament. I know that we are No. 1 on some people’s 

hate list, but the overwhelming majority of Members of 

Parliament are here for the right reason and do a jolly 

good job, and I am getting a little fed up with our being 

continually insulted and considered fair game, which 

I think is very wrong indeed. I want slander on the 

internet to be prevented. Her Majesty said that legislation 

would be laid before us. I know that we already have 

14 Bills and four further measures, but I hope that there 

will be time to introduce legislation to deal with slander 

on the internet relating to comments on media articles. 

I think that there should be much tighter controls and 

more severe punishments. 

There is no point in any of us being Members of 

Parliament unless we have some real power, and over 

recent years our heads have been down and we have lost 

so much of our power, so we need to reassert it. I hope 

that the Government will consider introducing a measure 

to enable far greater scrutiny of public bodies. I will give 

the House one example. I have been on a mission in 

relation to Essex police—two Essex colleagues on the 

Government Benches are present—because I knew from 

the outset that the chief constable of Essex was chosen 

from a shortlist of one, which is absolutely outrageous. 

It has happened and nothing has been done about it; we 

just accepted it because we are more concerned about 

hacking and reform of the House of Lords. How could 

the Essex police authority allow the chief constable to 

be chosen from a shortlist of just one? That is unacceptable. 

Charlie Elphicke: Is that not why elected police and 

crime commissioners are such a good idea, because we 

can get the right chief constables and make police forces 

much more effective and responsive in cracking down 

on crime? 

Mr Amess: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and 

that is what I was about to say. I hope that in November 

there will be a huge turnout in Essex and we will elect a 

very good commissioner. 

Another point about Essex police is that I have had to 

resort to using the Freedom of Information Act to get 

confirmation that the chief constable was chosen from 

a shortlist of one. Why should a Member of Parliament 

have to use the Freedom of Information Act? Then 

there is the closure of police stations. When the Leighon-Sea 

police station was closed there was no consultation. 

The consultation took place in the car park of a large 

supermarket in the constituency of my hon. Friend the 

Member for Rochford and Southend East (James 

Duddridge), which is on the other side of town, and 

received about 20 responses, which meant that they 

could close the police station. That is not good enough, 

which is why I think Members of Parliament should get 

power back from some of these public bodies. I have 

been trying to find out more information about Essex 

probation service, the Crown Prosecution Service in 

Essex and a range of public bodies. Members of Parliament 

are scrutinised all the time and have to submit themselves 

to the electorate. Why cannot we have more scrutiny of 

at least the management of public bodies? I hope that 

the Government might consider introducing a Bill to 

deal with that matter. 

I said earlier in my speech that I was concerned about 

the proposal to introduce the televising of sentencing in 

major criminal trials. I thought that the right hon.


9 MAY 2012 


84 

[Mr Amess] 

Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, who mentioned it 

earlier, was going to agree with me entirely, but he threw 

me when he said that it works well in Scotland. As far as 

I am concerned, once the TV cameras get into our 

courts it will not end there. Coverage will get wider and 

soon we will be like America, with coverage for the trial 

of the basketball player who shot someone, or whatever 

it was he did, and the cameras panning across to see the 

jurors. I think that cameras would be a very retrograde 

step. 

Mr Llwyd: I clearly understand the hon. Gentleman’s 

fears, but if he looks at what has happened in Scotland 

over the past seven or eight years, he will see that 

televised coverage is strictly confined to sentencing remarks 

and possibly the summing up by the judge and there is 

nothing whatsoever outside that remit. Given that there 

will be only an experimentation period, his fears might 

well be allayed. Clearly, I would share his concerns if 

coverage were to be extended in any way, but it is 

limited to an experimental period and confined strictly 

to such use. 

Mr Amess: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is 

right—he obviously knows much more about the proposal 

and where it came from than I do—but I am puzzled 

about who thought it was a good idea; has the proposal 

somehow come from the media? At first, televising this 

place was going to be static, but all that has gone out 

the window. Once we let the TV cameras into our 

courts, it will become an opportunity for voyeurism of 

the worst possible kind. I cannot understand why we 

need to see the judge deliver the sentence. Will it be 

shown on “News at 10”, or will there be a dedicated 

channel? 

Mr Llwyd: The limited televising would help with 

legal education and it would help practitioners. For 

example, when we had the awful riots in August, some 

courts were not sure how to deal with the circumstances, 

which were exceptional. If anything of that kind happened 

again—God forbid—televised remarks of sentencing in 

the courts would be available so that people would 

know exactly where they are going and what the going 

rate is. It would be a deterrent to those members of the 

public who might otherwise get involved and it would 

also have an educative process. I seem to be defending 

the Government on this, and I really should not be. 

Mr Amess: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is 

right, but I have grave concerns about the proposal. 

Will it be like the guillotine, with everyone standing 

around gathering heads, and will it become gory? We 

will have to see what happens. 

In conclusion, I welcome the measures in the Gracious 

Speech concerning the energy Bill, the interception of 

communications Bill—I thought that a co-operative 

Bill would be included—public sector pensions, individual 

electronic registration, EU accession treaties and the 

justice and security Green Paper. I think that this will be 

a year of real celebrations for our country. We have the 

diamond jubilee, the Olympic games and the Gracious 

Speech leading our country back to recovery. 

7.29 pm 

John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): It is always 

a pleasure to follow the sane and balanced observations 

of the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess). 

Given that the hon. Gentleman brought up the issue of 

the Iraq war and the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, 

I remind him that I voted against the war—I think 

seven times, but certainly six. I did not have any particular 

prescience or a crystal ball, but some of us could very 

early on see that it was going to be an horrendous 

mistake. It was entirely wrong, and we opposed it every 

step of the way. 

I remember the hon. Gentleman asking the then Prime 

Minister during Prime Minister’s questions: 

“What plans he has to visit Southend, West.” 

The answer was: 

“I have no plans to visit Southend—and I rather think that the 

hon. Gentleman did not either, until he saw the writing on the 

wall in Basildon.—[Official Report, 19 May 1999; Vol. 331, 

c. 1061.] 

That might explain his criticism of the former Prime 

Minister. 

I, like many hon. Members, note that House of Lords 

reform is not exactly the centre of my universe. I do not 

lie awake at night fretting about it, but a number of 

speeches today have prompted me to make a few comments 

on it. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old 

Southwark (Simon Hughes), at the end of his remarks, 

seemed to imply that the Government will come along 

with proposals meaning that the new upper House, 

whatever it is called, will be 100% elected. I suspect that 

that is wrong, and that the proportion will be 60%, 70% 

or perhaps 80%—a range of options, just like the previous 

Government gave the House some years ago. 

I have always voted for 100% elected when the 

opportunity has come along. I have never sought that 

opportunity, but when it has come along I have always 

voted for 100% and against anything less than that, and, 

if the opportunity arises again, I personally—I do not 

speak on behalf of my party—will oppose anything less 

than 100% elected, although I would rather not spend 

any time on the issue at all. 

On a related issue, the Chamber that requires more 

urgent reform than the House of Lords, which after all 

is just a revising Chamber, is this one. I agree with the 

earlier comments of my hon. Friend the Member for 

Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), but another 

problem with this Chamber—to which many references 

have been made for many years—is that power has 

flowed from it to Whitehall, Downing street and Brussels 

for about 40 years or even more. 

In conversation a while ago with the right hon. Member 

for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), I mentioned 

that power had been flowing from the elected Chamber 

to unelected institutions for the past 40 years, but he 

said, “It’s been much longer than that. Power has been 

taken away from the House of Commons since roughly 

1880.” I do not know whether he was around in 1880; 

I certainly was not! I am sure that if he had been he 

would have told MPs then that their proposals were an 

absolute outrage and a betrayal of the parliamentary 

principle, but prior to that Back Benchers dictated all 

business on the Floor of the House. It never happened 

again; it was taken away during that period.


9 MAY 2012 


86 

In the relatively recent past, we have had the Jopling 

proposals, in 1994 under John Major’s Government, 

followed by the more rigid measure of timetabling, 

which was introduced post 1997 and which, by the way, 

I also voted against. Those two things—particularly the 

Jopling proposals—have cemented a relationship between 

this place and Whitehall which is entirely unbalanced 

and needs to be brought back into balance. 

That leads me on to an incident that occurred when 

I was an MP previously, for Hornchurch, with Eric 

Forth, the much missed, late Member for Bromley and 

Chislehurst, who was a great parliamentarian and a 

terrific speaker. He was speaking against everything 

that had happened since 1994, against timetabling and 

guillotining, and I pointed out from a sedentary position 

on the Government Benches that he had actually supported 

the Jopling proposals. I probably used some fairly Anglo- 

Saxon language when doing so, but Eric’s response was, 

“Well, I regret it now and wish I had voted against 

them.” Funnily enough, he was in opposition at the 

time. 

I shall move on to two issues that do concern my 

constituents. Like many in the Chamber, I have worn 

myself out over the past few months knocking on 

doors, and, as everybody else who has spoken today has 

said, nobody on the doorstep or at street surgeries 

mentioned House of Lords reform, but two issues that 

were mentioned day in, day out were, first, housing and 

the appalling state of accommodation—certainly in my 

constituency and many others in England, Scotland 

and Wales—and, secondly, economic insecurity. Those 

two things were right at the top of the agenda day in, 

day out during the campaign. 

The Queen’s Speech mentions housing in passing, 

I suppose. It states: 

“My Government will strive to improve the lives of children 

and families.” 

The problem is that the lives of children and families in 

my constituency are not being improved; they are going 

in the opposite direction. In Leyton and, to some extent, 

in Leytonstone, both of which are in my constituency, 

we are seeing almost Victorian levels of overcrowding, 

with appalling cowboy private landlords treating people 

terribly, and the waiting list in Waltham Forest, which 

makes up most of my constituency, is now more than 

20,000. 

Meg Hillier: I do not know whether my hon. Friend 

has the same problem in his constituency as I have in 

mine, but, with the housing benefit cap, many of my 

constituents, including working families and those with 

children, are being forced out of their homes and I am 

not sure where in London they can go to find 

accommodation at the right level in the private sector. 

Surely this too is a concern and rather flies in the face of 

his generous reading of that one line in the Queen’s 

Speech. 

John Cryer: I completely agree, and I see exactly the 

same experience. Owing also to the acute shortage of 

public housing in my constituency, people are being 

told, “You’ll have to move to Walsall,” “You’ll have to 

move to Derby,”—here, there, right across the country. 

One woman who was in emergency accommodation 

and had suffered a bereavement—her husband had died 

and her daughter was in a terrible state—came to see 

me, having been told, “You’ve got to move to Walsall, 

and next Tuesday, by the way.” That was on a Thursday, 

and she was being told that she had to move to Walsall 

the following Tuesday. In a civilised society, that is a 

pretty appalling way to treat somebody. 

That brings me on to economic insecurity. Since the 

general election alone, 70,000 to 80,000 construction 

jobs have been lost in Britain, and in fact it is probably 

more than that by now; those are the latest figures I 

have. The stagnation of the economy is also an enormous 

worry to an awful lot of my constituents. 

On the eurozone, the Government, rather than helping 

to prop up a currency that is clearly collapsing, should 

encourage countries such as Greece to leave the euro 

and get their economies moving again, because that is 

the best way to stimulate our economy—through exports 

to eurozone countries, which at the moment do not have 

the cash or resources to buy goods from this country or 

others, such as Germany and North America. The idea, 

which the Prime Minister reiterated this afternoon, that 

we are not bailing out the eurozone is simply a myth. 

We are giving increasing amounts of money to the 

International Monetary Fund, which then hands over 

increasing amounts of money to the eurozone, so the 

idea that we are not in one way or another bailing out 

eurozone countries is an absolute myth. It simply is 

happening. 

There was also a line in the Queen’s Speech that quite 

disturbed me. It stated: 

“My Government will seek the approval of Parliament relating 

to the agreed financial stability mechanism within the euro area.” 

There must be elements of the fiscal compact within 

that stability mechanism, and as sure as eggs is eggs the 

fiscal compact will be included in the Bill that this place 

and the other place will have to pass. In reality, that too 

will go in the direction of the eurozone, meaning the 

centralisation of power in Brussels, increased austerity 

throughout Europe and increased poverty. I find it 

extraordinary that Governments in western Europe will 

do almost anything to prop up the euro. 

Charlie Elphicke: The hon. Gentleman has long been 

known in this place for his passion on the matter of 

Europe. Does he believe that, with the elections in 

Greece and France and the problems in Spain, the euro 

is sustainable however much money is now pumped 

into it? 

John Cryer: My own view is that, no, the euro is not 

sustainable, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, rather 

than helping to sustain what is effectively a broken 

system, should encourage countries such as Greece and 

Spain to find a way out and a way of exerting power 

over their own economies, because that is how the 

eurozone more disparately is going to move forward. 

I remember listening to an interview with a European 

Commissioner on the “Today” programme a few months 

ago, just as Greece was being plunged into the crisis 

that it is still in. The questioner said that there was 

increasing unemployment and poverty in Greece—even 

then, there were reports of malnutrition among Greek 

children—and asked whether it was fair that the people 

involved should pay the price for saving the euro. The 

Commissioner said, “Well, life’s not fair.” That is 

extraordinary. She expanded on the comment, because 

she realised that she had made a mistake and let the cat


9 MAY 2012 


88 

[John Cryer] 

out of the bag, but her initial comment was that life was 

not fair—in other words, that ordinary people had to 

pay the price for mistakes made by the wealthy and 

powerful. 

Sadly, our Government are pursuing a slightly less frenetic 

version of the “Eurosadist” economic policy practised 

in Greece, Spain, Portugal and one or two other countries. 

Yet what we are seeing everywhere across Europe is a 

rebellion against that austerity. The latest example, obviously, 

is France, where Hollande has specifically rejected the 

austerity programme. In Greece, the party that came 

from nowhere to second in the poll has specifically 

rejected the programme and is now in the process of 

trying to form a Government. 

What people told me continually on the doorsteps 

during the recent campaign was that those who caused 

the crisis and who made the decisions years ago—the 

bankers, the wealthy and the powerful—are getting 

away with it and that those paying the price are the most 

vulnerable and least able to pay during this crisis. 

Increasingly, I see home repossessions, economic 

insecurity and less confidence in spending money because 

of that economic insecurity. Just to make the situation 

that bit more insecure, the Government now propose to 

attack rights at work, make it easier to sack people and 

reduce health and safety inspections at work. That will 

make people even less confident, because they will be 

worrying about losing their jobs. It will be easier to sack 

people and there will be fewer health and safety controls, 

particularly in the construction industry and other 

dangerous industries. The result will be an increasing 

turn in the downward spiral, further into recession—and 

perhaps, over the next couple of years, even into depression. 

What really worries me, although not so much in 

respect of this country, is that in many countries across 

western Europe—particularly Greece, Spain and Portugal 

—we are starting to see the beginnings of the rise of the 

far right. Take Golden Dawn in Greece, for example. If 

we think that the British National party and the English 

Defence League are a dangerous bunch of fascists, we 

should see what Golden Dawn are like—they are 10 times 

worse. For the first time ever, Golden Dawn has 

representation in the Greek Parliament. That is a direct 

result of the appalling austerity measures unleashed on 

the Greek people. Unless there is a change of direction 

in the eurozone and this country, my fear is that right 

across Europe we will see the rise of the far right. 

7.42 pm 

Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): It is a delight 

to be called to speak in this debate on the Gracious 

Speech. I want to dwell on one or two of its themes that 

are of great interest to my constituents and on one that 

is of absolutely no interest to them. Before I do, I 

should reflect a little on what has been achieved by the 

Government and where there is still room for improvement. 

Like most Members, I came to the House to do 

good—not as a do-gooder, but to do good for my 

constituents. I came here as a Conservative in the belief 

that I would be able to rebalance how hard-working 

folk in Brigg and Goole, and beyond, are treated. In some 

respects, the Government have made progress; some of 

the changes to the benefit system have made work pay, 

and I support those wholeheartedly, as do my constituents. 

When they speak to me in the street or I knock on their 

doors, they generally say that they support the benefit 

cap and changes to entitlement programmes. Similarly, 

I am delighted that the Government have been able to 

freeze council tax, which doubled under the previous 

Government, for the past two years. 

However, there have also been things that I have not 

felt comfortable with and which I do not think have in 

any way rebalanced fairness or rewarded those who try 

hard and want to do the best for themselves and their 

families. That is why I have voted against a number of 

measures, although I have voted with the Government 

on the vast majority of occasions—about 90% of the 

time. In any other job, I would be a slavish loyalist out 

for promotion, but in this place if a Government Member 

votes a couple of per cent. of the time against the 

Government, they are a serial rebel. 

On issues such as the bedroom tax and changes to 

council house tenancies, I think that the Government 

got it wrong. Similarly, I do not yet think that the 

Government have rebalanced things as they should 

have in favour of hard-working citizens on issues such 

as immigration and law and order. Some of that, of 

course, is because we find ourselves in a coalition 

Government. 

The other day, I was asked on Radio Humberside, 

which I am sure many hon. Members listen to, whether 

it was right for my colleagues to say that the Government 

were not Conservative enough. I said that that was 

right. It is a simple fact. Just as the Government are not 

Lib Dem enough for Lib Dems, they are not Conservative 

enough for Conservatives. 

I say to Conservative Front Benchers that many of 

the pitfalls and traps into which we seem to have walked 

in the past few months—indeed, the past couple of 

years—have been those that our coalition colleagues 

have advised us to advance towards. Perhaps the message 

should be that sometimes we should stick with our gut. 

I hope that, in so far as anybody in this place listens to 

speeches from Back Benchers, that message will be 

taken back to the powers that be in Whitehall and 

elsewhere. 

I welcome much in the Gracious Speech. I mentioned 

the themes of particular interest to my constituents. 

I welcome the draft social care Bill. Social care is the 

biggest challenge facing our country and, like many 

Members who have spoken, I hope that we will be able 

to advance on it on a cross-party basis. In my view, 

there is one opportunity to get the issue right. There are 

huge pressures, not only on the NHS but on local 

authorities, and they will only increase. I say to Front 

Benchers that we must advance in a way that protects 

those who have tried to make provision for themselves 

and have worked hard. 

Many in my constituency have worked hard, got a 

private pension and tried incredibly hard during their 

working lives but now face the prospect of having to sell 

their homes to pay for care. That absolutely has to be 

taken into account. Labour Front Benchers have made 

it clear that the matter should not be kicked into the 

long grass, and they are right—although I question 

whether they made any progress on the issue when they 

were in power. We must not rush, either, because we 

must get it right.


9 MAY 2012 


90 

I look forward to the reforms on special educational 

needs and support for disabled people. As I know from 

my previous employment as a schoolteacher, those issues 

definitely need to be addressed. We have to improve 

how the statementing process works and that is why I 

welcome its replacement with the integrated education, 

health and care plans. If those simplify the process for 

families and young people, as I hope a single assessment 

will, that will be all to the better. I also say to Ministers, 

whom I am sure are listening, that we must ensure that 

those plans are supported with proper statutory obligations 

across the various agencies involved, including academies 

and free schools. 

I look forward to the changes to access rights for 

divorced fathers, and I hope that they will provide 

another opportunity for us to push forward the issue of 

grandparents’ rights, which are supported on both sides 

of the House. 

What are the most important issues? I have heard a 

lot from people on my side about what happened in the 

local elections last week. We did not have any on my 

patch, but I have heard a great deal about them. People 

have talked about House of Lords reform and other 

issues, but such matters are not why the coalition parties 

did so badly. The people of Brigg and Goole are not 

worried about House of Lords reform or other matters; 

they are worried about the economy and job creation, 

both of which are struggling at the moment. 

As I have watched this debate in my office and in the 

Chamber, I have been surprised by some of the comments 

from Labour Members about what they left to this 

country. I know that they will attempt to gloss over 

their record, but given the area that I represent—the 

Humber, east Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire; only 

two or three Members representing that area were born 

and bred there—I do not recognise the glory days of the 

previous Administration. During their time in power, 

the Humber lost manufacturing jobs and the number of 

private sector jobs was lower in 2010, when they left 

office, than it was in 1997. We also faced the prospect of 

Labour’s dreaded ports tax, which would have killed 

jobs in our successful ports such as Goole, Immingham 

and Hull. We also saw no action regarding the Humber 

bridge, which, since its creation, has divided our sub-regional 

economy. Now this Government have acted to halve the 

tolls on the Humber bridge. 

Ministers are absolutely right to tell us that they want 

to prioritise jobs and economic growth, and I hope that 

they will continue do so. I have two warnings for them 

from my region, one of which they will have heard 

plenty about recently—the prospect of the caravan tax. 

Some 90% of manufacturing in this industry is located 

in east Yorkshire, and thousands of jobs are involved. 

Many of the people working in that industry are already 

on three-day weeks. The Government’s own projections 

for the impact of the tax suggest a further 30% reduction 

in static caravan sales. This is a successful industry, 

most of which is deployed in the United Kingdom. The 

supply chain is almost wholly within the UK, and there 

are thousands of jobs on caravan parks up and down 

the country. I hope that the Government will listen to 

what is being said about this, and I think that they are 

starting to do so. 

I completely support a lot of the changes that have 

been made in the public sector, including on pensions. 

I would be happy to defend those to my former colleagues, 

some of whom are probably not too keen to drink with 

me these days as they see the proposed changes to 

teachers’ pensions. I defend all those changes, because it 

is clear that in the past few years the state became too 

big and the gap between public sector pensions and 

private sector pensions became too wide. However, the 

Government need to proceed extremely carefully on 

regional pay. In the Humber, we have struggled to 

attract people into teaching. When I was a local councillor 

in Hull, we had to come up with the so-called Hull offer 

whereby we had to pay people more to come and teach 

in local schools. A few weeks ago, when my hon. Friend 

the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), the hon. 

Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), the hon. 

Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and I were at a 

meeting with our local hospital trust, we were told that 

the trust was unable to attract doctors to come and 

work in our NHS trust area and would possibly have to 

consider paying more as a consequence. 

Some people in the public sector understandably feel 

that they are being targeted at the moment. There is 

undoubtedly an issue with pay in the south-east of 

England, but it would be morally wrong to take money 

from public sector workers in the north of England to 

solve a problem that exists in the south. Taking money 

out of the public sector in an area such as Yorkshire 

and northern Lincolnshire, which is very reliant on it, 

can only have a knock-on effect on the private sector. 

Ministers need to be very careful as they move forward 

on this issue. I do not rule the policy out completely, but 

we need to see more detail. When the previous Government 

introduced academies, they conceded the principle of 

allowing schools to set their own pay and conditions, 

and they introduced that in HM Courts and Tribunals 

Service. 

House of Lords reform is one issue in the Gracious 

Speech that is of absolutely no interest to my constituents. 

I have not been regularly stopped while doing my 

shopping in Goole and elsewhere by people saying, 

“But Andrew, what we really want is for you to get on 

and reform the House of Lords.” As it happens, I think 

that the Government are right to raise the issue, as I 

support reform of the House of Lords. When I came 

here, I was told that it was packed full of talent and the 

debates were wonderful. Doubtless there are some very 

good people in there, but there are also people who have 

absolutely no legitimacy and no right to sit there, and 

are perhaps not necessarily as in touch with the country 

as it is today as they should be. However, by reforming 

something one can make it a lot worse. The Government’s 

proposals for 15-year non-renewable terms would do 

nothing to inject democracy into the House of Lords. I 

would like a 90% to 100% elected Chamber with those 

elections taking place at the same time as the general 

election and people serving five-year terms. I say that as 

a history teacher and somebody who does not like to see 

traditions swept aside lightly. Indeed, were it not for the 

House of Lords in these past few months, the Government 

might not have seen sense on matters such as the chief 

coroner and, recently, on mesothelioma. 

I understand the important role that the House of 

Lords plays in our democracy, but the Government’s 

proposals do not stand up to much scrutiny and would 

not do much to inject democracy. They should press 

ahead with having a debate on the issue, but the current 

proposals would not enjoy my support, especially as


9 MAY 2012 


92 

[Andrew Percy] 

they involve using a voting system—the single transferable 

vote—on which the public have had no say. I think that 

we can safely say after last year’s referendum on the 

alternative vote that the public have voted against moving 

to a more proportional system and want to retain first 

past the post; certainly, that was their choice. 

I look forward to many of the proposals in the 

Queen’s Speech, which has three policy areas of which I 

am particularly supportive. I commend the Government 

for prioritising jobs and the economy. I also commend 

them for taking the action that we have already seen in 

the Humber, where in many areas they have done an 

awful lot of good—although there is a risk that that 

could be undone by the caravan tax and regional pay. 

Broadly speaking, I welcome this Gracious Speech and 

look forward to the forthcoming debates. 

7.56 pm 

Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): I was 

interested to listen to the hon. Member for Brigg and 

Goole (Andrew Percy), whose speech was remarkable 

for one thing, as has been the case with so many 

speeches. We are currently seeing a fundamental clash 

in Europe between democracy and austerity that has 

been reflected in the polls in France and Greece, and 

indeed in Britain in the local government elections, with 

a choice between growth and making cuts to get down 

the deficit. There seems to be no acknowledgement of 

the fact that we are hurtling towards a fundamental 

change that will mean the end of the euro and perhaps 

the end of Europe as we know it. We need to focus on 

the need for proactive growth to invest in the capacity 

for productivity across Europe and to change course 

while we see the emergence of the far-right-wing parties 

that have been mentioned by my colleagues. Instead, 

however, the main preoccupation is still with the House 

of Lords. 

I am sure that people like to talk about the intricacies 

of the House of Lords—about whether having someone 

elected for 15 years without re-election is really democracy, 

whether there will be a clash of democracies between 

the different Chambers and so on—but I think we all 

know that this is a very difficult issue, and that this is 

not the time to confront it when we are facing such 

severe economic issues on our doorsteps and such 

fundamental changes in the nature of Europe and our 

exporting prospects. 

Andrew Percy: I am not sure whether my accent was 

the problem, but I think I made it very clear that House 

of Lords reform was a completely marginal issue of 

absolutely no interest to my constituents. As I said time 

and again, my constituents expect that the economy 

and growth should be the priority. 

Geraint Davies: I am not talking about whether the 

hon. Gentleman and others referenced growth, but 

whether they took any notice at all of the fact that 

across Europe we are seeing these fundamental changes. 

The economic orthodoxy wants to ignore the wishes of 

people who are being downtrodden by these austerity 

measures, and we are facing a real challenge as regards 

the future of democracy in parts of Europe, the future 

of the euro, and the future of the European Community. 

In this year of her diamond jubilee, the Queen should 

have been given the opportunity to demonstrate that 

the Government are showing greater leadership by example 

in developing a proper, coherent strategy for delivering 

growth instead of cuts to get the deficit down. Instead, 

we have had the same old medicine with the familiar 

side effects of less money being spent in the public 

sector, leading to less money in the private sector and a 

downward spiral of unemployment and poverty. We 

have seen that across Europe. 

What we need in the UK and Europe is a combination 

of fiscal stimulus and co-ordinated investment. The 

party with the best record on growth is of course the 

Labour party. Between 1997 and 2008 there was 

unprecedented and continuous growth that we had not 

seen since the war. In 2008, of course, we faced the 

financial tsunami, and to the credit of my right hon. 

Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath 

(Mr Brown) and Barack Obama, the introduction of 

the fiscal stimulus enabled the world to avoid depression 

and deliver shallow growth into 2010. Then the 

Conservatives took over a deficit that was two-thirds 

caused by financial institutions and one-third caused by 

the Labour party investing beyond earnings to continue 

growth. Their immediate response was to announce 

half a million job cuts, which deflated consumer demand 

and led to negative growth. Indeed, the deficit projection 

is up by £150 billion. 

Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con): 

Does the hon. Gentleman think an 11% annual budget 

deficit was sustainable? 

Geraint Davies: No, of course not. The question is 

what is the most effective way of reducing the deficit is 

and what the balance should be between growth and 

cuts. By way of a simple example, I spoke to a business 

person in Uplands in Swansea, and he said, “I run a 

business. If I were to make a loss and I sold my tools 

and laid off all my workers, I’d have no business. I need 

to tighten up my costs and focus on developing more 

products and selling them in the marketplace”. The idea 

that we can solve the deficit just through making cuts is 

barmy. The focus should be on balancing the books 

through jobs and growth. 

Let us examine the situation in Greece. Given the 

draconian cuts to pensions and jobs, it is no surprise 

that people cannot see any obvious upside. The money 

that is being put into Greece is being used to pay down 

the debt rather than to invest in productive infrastructure 

that can generate growth. I am not saying that there 

should be extra money for Greece, but we must consider 

the balance between the two. 

The EU could invest in solar forests in Greece to 

generate energy for the rest of Europe, in connectivity 

such as railways and roads to boost the holiday industry, 

in infrastructure in the holiday industry, or in broadband 

across Greece. At the moment, the £13 billion a year 

that the EU spends on research and innovation is all 

spent in the north of Europe. The centres of excellence 

in Germany, at Oxford and Cambridge and the like get 

the money, and Greece is regarded as having underdeveloped 

academic resources. Such policies need changing, 

because we are a community, not just a market. The 

way through for Greece is to negotiate a settlement in 

which debt reduction is balanced by investment in 

productive infrastructure that can deliver growth and


9 MAY 2012 


94 

help Greece pay its way. It is not for the EU simply to 

say, “You are poor, you’ve spent too much, we’ll make 

you poorer”. 

Britain should take a lead and invest in growth in our 

own backyard and in team GB. We should work together 

to provide coherence about economic growth. In my 

area, I am instrumental in bringing together stakeholders 

from the Swansea bay city region. Swansea council, 

Neath Port Talbot council, which is next door, and 

Pembrokeshire and Cardiganshire have made a joint 

submission to the Welsh Government saying that they 

want to work together within a city region of some 

750,000 people rather than operate independently. They 

want to have joint marketing and inward investment 

strategies and put more pressure on the Government to 

provide the infrastructure to deliver growth. 

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd 

(Mr Llwyd) mentioned that if Wales had the £1.9 billion 

that is equivalent to what is being spent on High Speed 2, 

it could invest in, for example, the electrification of the 

railway to Swansea or reducing the toll on the Severn 

bridge, as the Government have done on the Humber 

bridge. That would stimulate trade coming into south 

Wales and enable a coherent, joined-up approach to 

economic development, working in tandem with industry 

and academia to move economic growth forward. Alongside 

a fiscal stimulus, such joining up of the economic 

capabilities of councils across Britain, targeting emerging 

consumer markets, is the basis of a coherent growth 

plan that can move us forward. That is better than the 

Conservative party’s preoccupation with savage cuts 

affecting the most vulnerable, which are also happening 

in Greece. 

I hope that there is a golden future for the Swansea 

bay city region. Increasingly, people will realise that it is 

a great location to go to. It has environmental beauty, 

and the roll-out of broadband means that people can 

move out there. The costs of setting up a business are 

much lower than in London, and I hope that Swansea’s 

premier division status—it has the premier football 

team in Wales—will help us move forward. I say that 

with no disrespect to Cardiff, who I know did not get 

into the premier league, so there is just one premier 

league team in Wales. 

The region is a cultural centre. It was the birthplace 

of Dylan Thomas, whose centenary will be acclaimed in 

2014. It is a centre for tourism and for sport, so there is 

a package of activity that makes people want to visit the 

Swansea bay city region, invest in it and move there. 

The future is bright. We ask the Government for a bit 

more support for infrastructure, as part of a growth 

plan, so that we can work together to create jobs and 

wealth. That is the only real solution to getting the 

deficit down, rather than simply cutting again and 

again. 

What we need now is to follow the example given in 

2008 by Obama and my right hon. Friend the Member 

for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, who averted a depression. 

We must have a co-ordinated approach across Europe 

so that we can move forward together before it is too 

late. We all know the adage: give a man a fish—I should 

say give a person a fish, or in this case give Greece a 

fish—and he can eat for a day, but give him a rod and he 

can eat for a year. Now, we are cutting the fish in half so 

that he is hungry by lunchtime. We need to get the 

balance right between investment in infrastructure and 

cuts. I would have liked at the centre of the Queen’s 

Speech bold new initiatives for Britain that could provide 

leadership for Europe and help us move forward in the 

world. 

8.7 pm 

Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): It is a pleasure, as 

ever, to follow the hon. Member for Swansea West 

(Geraint Davies), who gave a particular view of economic 

theory and how to get economies growing. He will not 

be surprised to know that I completely disagree with 

most of his prescriptions. 

Geraint Davies: I’m an economist and you’re not. 

Charlie Elphicke: He is an economist. 

Andrew Percy: All the more reason to ignore him. 

Charlie Elphicke: Yes, and no doubt five different 

views could be advanced. 

We all agree about the key point of the Queen’s 

Speech and the challenge facing this country. When I 

talk to my constituents in Dover and Deal and ask, 

“What is your priority?”, they say, “It’s the economy, 

stupid”—President Clinton made much of that point in 

his first election campaign. The economy is the heartland, 

and it is essential that we have more jobs and money in 

Britain. We have had a very difficult time for the past 

four years, and the situation is challenging for many 

families in my constituency, who are struggling to get by 

and have not had a pay rise for a very long time. They 

are struggling to keep hold of a job while we seek to 

rebuild out of the mess that went before. I therefore 

particularly welcome the fact that the Government’s 

first priority is to reduce the deficit and restore economic 

stability. 

The hon. Member for Swansea West has a prescription 

along the lines of saying that if we did not cut so far and 

so fast, all would be fine. The difficulty with that is that 

we would need to borrow more money. If we did that, 

we would threaten our economic credibility, which would 

mean rising interest rates on Government debt. If that 

happened, interest rates would increase for businesses 

and home owners. 

We have been lucky because we have same level of 

deficit as Greece, but the markets trust our economic 

policy and our cracking down on and reducing the 

deficit. That means that our interest rates are similar to 

those in Germany, while we still have a deficit the size of 

Greece’s, albeit one that is falling. 

Andrew Percy: There is another point to be made. 

The Opposition position is almost like telling someone 

with a £10,000 credit card bill, “Go and get another 

£5,000 on the credit card because you’ll feel a bit better 

today.” However, at some time in the future, the credit 

card company will come knocking. The Labour party 

wants us to increase the £120 million in debt interest 

every day by borrowing even more, which would mean 

that we had even less to invest in the public services that 

our constituents want and deserve. 

Charlie Elphicke: My hon. Friend is right. One does 

not fix a debt crisis by borrowing more money—it 

makes no sense. It is the economics of the madhouse,


9 MAY 2012 


96 

[Charlie Elphicke] 

because we would have more debt to service over the 

long term. It would take us longer to pay it, thereby 

mortgaging our children’s futures for longer, and interest 

rates would rise. Under the Government, interest rates 

have fallen, and that has done much to ensure that we 

have more money to invest in public services than would 

have been the case under the previous Government. 

Geraint Davies: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept 

that, because we do not have growth, deficit projections 

have risen by £150 billion? Secondly, interest rates are 

the same as those inherited from Labour. Under the 

previous Tory Government, they were 15%. The hon. 

Gentleman’s comments are simply factually untrue. 

Charlie Elphicke: The hon. Gentleman supposes that 

if the previous Government’s economic policies had 

continued, the markets would have played along, and 

the music would have kept playing. Greece, Ireland, 

Spain, Portugal and Italy are evidence against that. We 

are very lucky that we had a change of Government. We 

had a close shave, but we have managed so far, goodness 

willing, to escape the position into which we would 

otherwise have fallen. Without a shadow of a doubt, 

the previous Government would have taken us the way 

of Greece and we would have been plunged into serious 

economic chaos. We would not be talking about a 

technical double-dip recession, but a minus 5 or minus 

6 double-dip recession, of the sort and on the scale that 

is happening in Greece. I hope that when the Office for 

National Statistics reviews the figures in a few months, 

we will see that we skirted recession, but were not in 

recession. Many of us feel that confidence is already 

rebuilding. From other surveys, many of us suspect that 

the ONS figures will be revised upwards, and we will 

find that we did not go into recession and that we may 

just be starting to recover. 

I hope that that is the case because our constituents 

have had and are having a difficult time trying to keep 

hold of their jobs, get a pay rise and pay their bills, 

which have been increasing ever faster. The Government’s 

policies, which focus on the economy like a laser beam, 

are right. We need a more flexible labour market—not a 

right-wing, “Let’s have the ability to hire and fire at 

will” policy. The OECD growth project investigated the 

matter at length and in detail and concluded that a 

flexible labour market was a key driver of economic 

growth. It identified another key driver as lower corporation 

taxes, which the Government are delivering. It also said 

that a certain and credible financial services and competition 

regulation regime, which we are rebuilding, was another 

key driver. 

I think that the House accepts that the Financial 

Services Authority system—the tripartite regulation 

system—was an unmitigated disaster. The brainchild of 

the former Prime Minister and the shadow Chancellor, 

when it was put to the test, it was found entirely 

wanting. The Bank of England managed to save the 

secondary banking system and our general banking 

system in the 1970s, but this time, we had to have 

massive state-funded bail-outs, which cost the taxpayer 

a fortune. That need not and would not have happened 

had the FSA and the tripartite regulatory regime not 

been in place. 

The OECD growth project is also clear that increased 

competition to promote enterprise and fair markets is 

also important. Promoting competition, free enterprise, 

fair markets and a level playing field for market entrants 

is vital. We have pro-growth policies on all those. I make 

no bones about the fact that I should like the Government 

to be more pro-growth to get the economy moving even 

quicker. I should like them to lever in more private 

investment sooner so that we can grow more quickly. 

However, I recognise that all government is a negotiation, 

and it is clearly a challenge in a coalition to have 

everything that we would like. From a Conservative 

point of view, I would like a more pro-growth policy so 

that we grow the economy even more quickly. 

I am realistic about what we can do, but I think that 

we are doing a lot, and as much as we can. I can look 

my constituents in the eye and say that we are trying to 

get the economy growing as quickly as possible, that we 

are focused on it and that nothing matters to us more 

than jobs and money. 

It is real cheek for the Opposition to talk about youth 

unemployment, for two reasons. First, it rose massively 

under the previous Government. Although it has increased 

under this Government, it has done so at a much slower 

rate than in the previous Parliament. Secondly, when I 

knock on the doors in Dover and ask people what their 

key concern is, they reply, “Immigration and I want my 

kid to have a future.” They are furious that the open 

borders policy that the previous Government pursued 

means that their children are finding it harder to get 

a job. 

Andrew Percy: When my hon. Friend talked about 

youth unemployment figures rising under the previous 

Government, he failed to mention that they increased 

when unemployment generally was falling. For youth 

unemployment to be increasing now is bad enough, but 

for it to rise when unemployment generally is falling is a 

national tragedy. We have heard no apology for that. 

Charlie Elphicke: My hon. Friend is right. Not only 

that, but if we examine the figures for job creation since 

the early 2000s, we see that people from the EU accession 

eight countries had a massive increase in the number of 

jobs, that that also applied among foreign nationals—people 

born overseas—but that employment hardly increased 

at all for those born in the UK. 

Priti Patel (Witham) (Con): Does my hon. Friend 

agree that one of the previous Government’s biggest 

failures was to address the skills deficit in this country, 

and that they also failed to tackle apprenticeships? Is it 

therefore any wonder that, at the time, the jobs were not 

going to British-born workers? 

Charlie Elphicke: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is 

the central point, which I was about to address. Employers’ 

difficulty is finding the right person with the skills for 

the job. It is incumbent on the Government to create a 

framework whereby people—particularly our young 

people—can get the skills so that they qualify and are 

eligible for a job, and that they have the skills that 

employers need. Instead of dealing with the skills deficit 

in our population, the previous Government thought it 

was easier to put sticking plaster on it and have an open 

borders policy to enable employers to take people with


9 MAY 2012 


98 

the skills that they wanted from anywhere, rather than 

ensuring that our children and young people had the 

skills for the labour market and therefore a better 

future. 

It is important to have stronger border control in the 

UK. It is also important to skill up our children because 

the previous Government sold us a pass on the hopes 

and aspirations of our young people and people who do 

not have great skills to get a job, promotion, more 

money and more skills. The Government’s emphasis on 

apprenticeships is essential. That is what I hear on the 

doorsteps in Dover. For many in the House and in 

the metropolitan elite, that is a difficult message, but the 

opinion polls show that unemployment and immigration 

are linked, and we should be honest about that. We 

should be honest with people, and tell them that we 

understand their concerns and are acting on them. One 

of the greatest things about the Government is that we 

have taken such strong action on apprenticeships to 

ensure that our people have the skills to have a job and 

do well in life. 

The Government are nothing if they are not about 

aspiration, but they are also about understanding the 

pressures of utility bills and the costs of modern life. 

One really important policy in that respect is the proposed 

reform of the electricity market to deliver clean, secure 

and affordable electricity and ensure that prices are fair. 

The Leader of the Opposition chooses these days to 

forget that he was Secretary of State for Energy and 

Climate Change, and that he planned, with the renewable 

heat initiative, to load £193 on to the bills of every 

household in this country. He chooses to forget that, 

with the electricity renewable energy obligation to which 

he signed up, he was going to increase our power prices 

by 20%, and those of businesses by 30%. He goes on 

about the costs of living and the pressure on households, 

and yet chooses to forget that the responsibility for 

much of the increase in the cost of living lies at his door, 

because when he was Secretary of State, he loaded bills 

and balanced our carbon commitments on the backs of 

the poor, which was a disgusting and disgraceful thing 

to have done. 

We cannot balance our carbon commitments on the 

backs of the poor, as the Labour Government wanted. 

We need to ensure that our carbon commitments are 

executed in the most cost-effective way. That means not 

that we should back winners or favour this or that 

technology, but that we should favour technologies that 

reduce carbon emissions at the most effective and best 

possible price, regardless of whether we happen to like 

or dislike them. That is what we owe the least well-off in 

our communities, and our hard-pressed families and 

electors. 

From the detailed list of Bills in the Queen’s Speech, 

I want to pick out the children and families Bill, which 

contains an acceptance of the important principle I 

proposed in a ten-minute rule Bill last year: that children 

have the right to know, and have a relationship with, 

both their parents following separation. I believe that 

that is right and in the interests of the child and their 

welfare, but let me explain why. The Bill does not set out 

with complete clarity reasons for that provision or for 

the shared parental leave provision, but they are linked, 

because families have changed. There is a new norm, 

and we need to accept modern families. 

Let me set out how families have changed. One can 

have an “olde worlde” image of the family—a bloke 

goes to work while the mother bounces the child on her 

knee or does the washing up at home. That is perhaps 

how it was in the 1950s, but things have not been like 

that for a very long time. Just about everyone I know 

from my generation joint works. I looked at the figures, 

because many of our policies seem to be aimed at 

people who live that kind of traditional family life, 

rather than at families who joint work, which is the 

reality. 

Some things jump out from the figures on parental 

employment rates. Back in 1986, half of partnered 

mothers were in the workplace; today, 71% of them are. 

Whereas 25 years ago five out of 10 partnered mothers 

went to work; seven out of 10 now do so. The overwhelming 

majority of couples with children under the age of 16 

both work, which has led to a wider change in respect of 

juggling the work-life balance. 

It is not just that there are more mothers in the 

workplace. What about the number of men who work 

part time? Some people go around saying, “Only women 

ever look after children,” but that is also old fashioned 

and archaic. Things have been changing. Notably, the 

number of all parents in part-time work has changed, 

which is basically accounted for by the fact that the 

number of men in part-time work has risen. Official 

statistics from the Office for National Statistics show 

that 25 years ago, 696,000 men were in part-time work. 

That number has risen nearly fourfold to more than 

2 million today. To my mind, that indicates that parents 

are increasingly juggling work and child care, and that 

there has been something of a seismic shift. 

Many think, “Mothers go back to work when the 

child is a bit older,” but let us look at the figures. When 

do people go back to work? Do they wait until the child 

is about five and going to school, or do they go back 

before that? Twenty-five years ago, 27% of partnered 

women went back to work when the youngest child was 

under three years of age. In other words, two thirds of 

women stayed at home and brought up the child until 

they were at least three, and then considered going back 

to work. That position has reversed. Now, 63% of 

partnered women go back to work when the youngest 

child is under three. 

There has been a massive social change, and we need 

to understand modern families and how they live. If 

most women are going back to work when the child is 

pre-school age, there is a lot of juggling and work-life 

balancing. Who takes the kid to school or nursery? 

Who collects the kid? Who looks after the child? Who 

takes primary responsibility in the workplace and in the 

home? Increasingly, most people whose children are 

grown up will know from their children’s lives that there 

is much more of a juggle and a balance of work and life. 

The rate of increase of lone parents has been very 

great. In 1986, 15% of lone parents went back to work 

when their child was under three; by 2011, that had 

doubled to 32%. We can therefore see substantial change 

in families, which has consequences for family policy. 

The flexible parental leave provision in the children and 

families Bill is justified because it is necessary. It is a 

recognition that families juggle work and child care. It 

is not just a case of saying, “The mother has a baby, 

therefore she has maternity leave.” The situation is


9 MAY 2012 


100 

[Charlie Elphicke] 

much more complicated, and provision should be balanced 

so that men and women in a family can balance that 

equation. 

More work needs to be done on child care, for two 

reasons. First, the number of child care places has been 

broadly static for years. In 2001, there were more than 

300,000 places with child minders and about 300,000 day 

nursery places—about 600,000 places in total. The number 

of places with child minders stayed static, but the number 

of nursery places—full day care—increased to about 

600,000. In 2001, there were 600,000 places in total, but 

in 2008, there were around 900,000 places. The number 

has remained static since. 

What does it mean if there are now 900,000 places? 

Are we catering for all the children in the country who 

are in need of child care? I did some back-of-the envelope 

calculations, and it struck me that there is potentially a 

shortage of child care places. There are about 13 million 

children in the UK, of whom roughly 3 million are 

pre-school age. The numbers indicate that 55% of children 

at pre-school have parents who both work. In other 

words, about 2 million children need child care, but 

there are only 900,000 child care places. What is happening 

to the other million children? Who is looking after 

them? Is it grandparents or neighbours? There is a kind 

of child care apartheid. On the one hand, there is a 

system of nurseries that are so heavily regulated that 

most people cannot afford them, and on the other hand 

there is a system of child care for the other half that is 

completely unregulated. We know nothing about what 

is going on in that half. The right balance would be to 

reduce the regulation on our nurseries, increase the 

number of places and bring the cost of child care down 

so that more people can access it, because one of the 

biggest pressures on modern families is affording the 

cost of child care for pre-school children. It is an 

absolute nightmare— 

Andrew Percy: My hon. Friend questions whether it 

is grandparents doing the caring and, as I said a few 

moments ago, they are increasingly involved in families 

and are the unsung heroes of child care. Does he agree 

with my hope that additional rights for grandparents 

will be introduced in the next Session? 

Charlie Elphicke: My hon. Friend is a passionate 

campaigner on behalf of grandparents. When grandparents 

are constructive, they can make a powerful contribution, 

but a balance inevitably needs to be struck. Some 

grandparents like to interfere and meddle, and they can 

be really annoying. All parents know that some 

grandparents are not quite the saints that my hon. Friend 

suggests. Nevertheless, if grandparents play a constructive 

role in a child’s life, there is a lot to be said for them. My 

hon. Friend has been a passionate and trenchant 

campaigner in the cause of constructive grandparents—as 

opposed to destructive grandparents, whom we could 

all do without. We all know people who know them—I 

hope my hon. Friend understands where I am coming 

from on that point. 

We need more availability of nursery places and 

deregulation of the system. The figures show that dads 

are more involved in children’s lives than ever before. 

Father is no longer sitting behind a newspaper at the 

breakfast table, oblivious to the world: instead, dads are 

deeply engaged in children’s lives. So when it comes to 

separation, the question is what is in the interests of the 

children. What best serves the child’s welfare? I think 

that it is stability and the continuation of what they 

have known. So if a parent who has been heavily involved 

in the child’s life—as they are in the overwhelming 

majority of families—suddenly disappears off a cliff 

edge, it makes no sense. That is why the Government are 

right to enshrine in legislation the principle that children 

have the right to know and have a relationship with their 

parents. The way in which modern families live indicates 

strongly that that is what best serves child welfare. 

I recognise that the judiciary and the legal system are, 

as always, about 30 years out of date and are astonishingly 

weak-kneed when it comes to ensuring the rights of 

children to know both their parents. That is wrong, and 

we need to send a clear legislative message, not just to 

anti-dad social workers but to the court system, that 

society has changed. We in Parliament get that society 

has changed. We get that we need stability for our 

children and that child welfare is best served by having 

minimum disturbance to that which they have been used 

to. If we send that message, real and positive change could 

be made. 

Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD): The hon. Gentleman 

mentioned that in some way the status quo might be 

maintained. Does he agree that in fact there is evidence 

that one parent is often excluded from the life of the 

child by the parent with care, and that therefore the 

status quo may become a pattern of one-parent family 

life as opposed to two-parent? Does he therefore agree 

that the Government should say that children have an 

absolute right to life with both their parents unless that 

is unsafe? 

Charlie Elphicke: Yes, I do. If I understand her correctly, 

the hon. Lady refers to the concept of shared parenting. 

I am personally a fan of that, but it is a difficult 

argument to advance at the moment because the Norgrove 

report looked into what happens in Australia and managed 

to become completely and utterly muddled about the 

difference between quantity of time and quality of time. 

Every parent knows that quality of time is what counts. 

In Australia, it seems to have become an issue of quantity 

of time and an insistence on 50:50 time, but that misses 

the point altogether and, therefore, misled the entire 

Norgrove report. Before the report was published, I 

spent an hour putting that case passionately to members 

of the panel, but they published it anyway. It will 

therefore be difficult to persuade the legislature that 

shared parenting is the right way to go, but the social 

changes in modern families will mean that it is almost 

certain to end up that way in five years’ time. 

For now, the best win that can be had is to ensure that 

children have the right to know, and a right of access to, 

both their parents. If the parent with care tries to 

subvert that, they are not having a go at the parent 

without care but undermining their child and attacking 

the rights that their child should have. If we frame it 

that way, parents with care will more quickly understand 

that they need to think about their children, rather than 

themselves. 

Tessa Munt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, therefore, 

that the courts have the ultimate solution in that, if a 

parent with care prevents a child from accessing his or


9 MAY 2012 


102 

her other parent, the care can be taken up by the parent 

who is excluded, and that that is the ultimate sanction 

and might encourage parents to stick to the rules and 

ensure that their children have absolute access to both 

parents? 

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. 

May I remind the hon. Lady of Mr Speaker’s 

announcement at the beginning of the debate about 

parliamentary convention for this Session and the need 

for interventions to be brief, not substantive speeches or 

long points, interesting as they may be? 

Charlie Elphicke: I thank the hon. Lady for her 

interesting intervention. The full tool box needs to be 

available to the court system, but the legislature also 

needs to send a strong message to the court system, 

social workers and everyone involved in child care and 

child care access about what we expect it to look like, 

which is that people who stand in the way of their 

children’s rights should have the book thrown at them 

and should not be allowed to do so anymore. 

I want to make a brief point about the education of 

children with special educational needs. These children 

have been badly let down for too long. They find it very 

hard to access the right school. I chaired a summit 

recently to which, I am delighted to say, came the leader 

of Kent county council, a cabinet member for Kent 

county council and a group of parents of children with 

severe special educational needs—many of them high 

on the autistic and Asperger spectrums—who have had 

a very difficult time. It is wrong in principle that parents 

facing the significant challenges of looking after a child 

with special educational needs should, on top of that, 

have to battle the education system to get the right 

education for their child. It is wrong in principle that, in 

many cases, it has taken two or three years for those 

parents to find the right school for their children. 

Several things became clear to me during the summit. 

The statementing process is too slow and cumbersome. 

That is wrong. It should be more fast-tracked, efficient 

and effective in looking at children’s needs and diagnosing 

them correctly. Once that is done, each county council 

or education authority needs to maintain a decent 

database of which schools in their authority area can 

cater for which needs. Too often, it seems, there is 

muddle and confusion in the bureaucracy over which 

schools can cater for which needs. The whole system 

should be fast-tracked so that parents are offered schools 

appropriate to their child’s needs, rather than schools 

that are not appropriate. That happens in many education 

authorities. Everyone knows that. It is wrong and needs 

to be dealt with. 

Furthermore, on special educational needs, there must 

not be an apartheid between the state sector and the 

private sector. We need to put the children first. If a 

private, independent school caters best for the special 

needs of children, parents should be offered that school 

and not just told that a maintained school has to take 

yet more pupils because the education rules and laws 

are such that pupils can be shoved into a school, whether 

the school likes it or not or does not have enough places. 

In my constituency, there is the perverse situation in 

which one independent school catering brilliantly for 

special educational needs has 20 spare places, while 

another special needs school doing an outstanding job 

in the maintained sector needs a portakabin in the 

playground to cater for the number of special educational 

needs children, because it has been told by the education 

authority to take yet more children. We need to strike 

the right balance: we need to give parents much greater 

say and choice, use the places available in the system 

most appropriately and ensure that the statementing 

process is as quick as it can be. In education, when it 

comes to looking after our children, we need to put the 

parents first. We need to ensure that they can make the 

decisions that are right for their children, because, broadly, 

they know best because they know their children best 

of all. 

I am delighted to support the Queen’s Speech. It 

focuses on the economy, on utility bills, on the cost of 

living and on helping hard-pressed families. It focuses 

on families and children, and on helping families to 

bring forward the next generation. 

8.39 pm 

Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op): It is 

a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie 

Elphicke). I enjoyed his speech very much—even the 

more provocative parts. I suspect that many of our 

constituents who have children with special needs will 

empathise with his comments. I confess that I did not 

understand his reference to grandparents occasionally 

being annoying, but perhaps that is Conservative party 

code for something else. I also empathised with his 

description of many of his constituents not having had 

a pay rise for years and struggling to keep their jobs. I 

therefore say gently to him that I do not understand 

how he can say with a straight face that the Budget was 

good for those families. Nevertheless, I enjoyed listening 

to his speech. 

Two years into the coalition, it is striking that the 

Queen’s Speech has so little to offer to solve the challenges 

that our country faces. Its measures show that the 

Prime Minister and the Chancellor did not listen to the 

anger of Britain’s citizens last week and that they are 

ignoring the now considerable economic evidence that a 

new direction is needed. Equally clearly, the confident 

communities that our constituents want to live in will 

seem further away than ever, with declining levels of 

social capital, public services under greater pressure 

than ever, and the opportunity to have real influence 

over how key services are run at local level growing ever 

more distant. 

My constituents tell me that they are now seeing 

fewer police officers than for a long time. The fact that 

the Government are announcing legislation to set up 

the new National Crime Agency when police numbers 

are dropping, and that the Metropolitan police want to 

close all the cells at Harrow police station with little 

notice and even less discussion, suggests that Ministers 

are out of touch with what is happening at the grass 

roots to the services that our constituents depend on. 

Given the present Home Secretary’s now notorious 

description of the Conservative party, it is perhaps 

appropriate to wonder, in the light of the Queen’s 

Speech and the Budget, whether the “nasty party” is 

very much back in evidence. Over the next 12 months, 

we will see more cuts that will once again hit the most 

vulnerable and those least able to help themselves. If the 

measure in the Queen’s Speech goes through, it will 

become easier to sack the strivers, the hard workers,


9 MAY 2012 


104 

[Mr Gareth Thomas] 

those who speak out, those who blow the whistle on bad 

practice and those who, for just one period in their lives, 

are at their most vulnerable through illness, if their face 

does not fit. 

There has also been a tax cut for millionaires, which 

hard-working families and pensioners are being made 

to pay for. To cap it all, the Conservative party is 

agonising once again about all things foreign. It is again 

anti-European in tone, and predominantly anti-aid, 

too. Above all, it is on the economy that the Prime 

Minister needs to tell the Chancellor to change course. 

Bank lending continues to fall as businesses continue to 

struggle. Year on year, net lending to businesses has 

now fallen in every single month since the coalition 

came to power. How many times have we heard the 

Prime Minister promise to get the banks lending? Despite 

all the hype that Project Merlin and, then, banking 

reform were the answer, bank lending continues to fall; 

it was down 3.5% last year alone. 

My right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench 

have consistently warned that the Government’s austerity 

plan was self-defeating, and that cutting spending too 

far and too fast at the same time as putting up taxes 

such as VAT would backfire. America, and indeed a 

series of countries in Europe, have taken a far more 

balanced approach to reducing their deficits, with strong 

plans to produce jobs and deliver economic growth. 

Why could the Chancellor and Prime Minister not have 

listened to and looked at what is happening in those 

countries? As a result of their mistakes, my constituents 

are suffering. Their bills are up because Ministers will 

not really challenge the big energy companies. There is 

certainly a Bill to introduce electricity market reform, 

but it will come far too late in this Parliament to make a 

real difference to the size of the bills my constituents 

will have to pay. 

In many cases, mortgage rates are rising, while tube 

fares have never been so expensive. In Harrow town 

centre in the heart of my constituency, I have never seen 

as many empty shops as there are now—a daily 

demonstration of a recession that has been made in 

Downing street. Harrow council, told by the Mayor of 

London to plan for a huge increase in housing units 

over the next decade or so—half in Wealdstone and 

Harrow-on-the Hill—is seeking to use this open door 

policy for developers to try to redesign, reinvigorate 

and redevelop the heart of our borough, despite the 

recession. It is, however, striking how difficult it is at the 

moment to persuade developers to put affordable housing 

at the centre of their plans—for example, on the Kodak 

site, set to be home to a potential 3,000 housing units. 

For those in Harrow who want to get on the housing 

ladder, the prospect of being able to buy their first 

home in the Harrow community where they grew up seems 

ever further away. 

The next generation, hammered by the high cost of 

tuition fees from October this year, will wonder why 

there is so little to help them in this Queen’s Speech. 

There is nothing to make the cost of going to university 

easier—just cuts in the funding that their university is 

receiving. They face higher living costs while they are at 

university, and now there is the possibility, as announced 

in the Budget, of a tax give-away for private universities, 

many of which are run by hedge funds. 

Equally striking is the recent absence of “big society” 

language from the rhetoric of the Prime Minister’s 

speeches. Community groups that were championed 

when the Conservatives were in opposition are now left 

very much on the sidelines. Huge cuts in funding that 

began to hit hard last year will hit even harder this year. 

Last week, the head of Volunteering England warned 

that the network of volunteer centres across the country 

is beginning to fragment, with a number set to close this 

year. Why, at a time when we need national renewal, are 

we set to make it harder for people to give something 

back through volunteering? The National Children’s 

Bureau has warned that 25% of the charities it contacted 

that help young people and children believed that they 

might have to close next year. Charities that were promised 

Government contracts will now know that they were 

hollow words when Ministers spoke them. 

The Work programme, run by the Department for 

Work and Pensions, has seen the private sector winning 

90% of the prime contracts. Charities that were told 

that they would get 35% to 40% of the referrals under 

the Work programme are seeing at best half that—fewer 

than under the Future Jobs Fund. More than 100 charities 

have lost confidence and walked away, yet there is 

nothing in the Queen’s Speech to seek to address those 

problems. Indeed, an independent audit published by 

Civil Exchange and the Joseph Rowntree Charitable 

Trust at the weekend argued that there is 

“an implicit bias towards the private sector in tendering” 

and that 

“it is particularly hard for small, local voluntary organisations to 

compete for contracts.” 

I suggest that this is the Serco society, not the big 

society, so it is hardly surprising that some 70% of 

charity chief executives did not think that the Government 

respected or valued their sector. 

Arguably, the most fundamental challenge identified 

by the audit is how to extend social action to a younger 

population and across socio-economic groups. The core, 

it says, of those who provide the majority of volunteering 

are more likely to be middle-aged, to have higher educational 

qualifications, to practise their religion actively and to 

have lived in the same neighbourhood. There is nothing 

in the Queen’s Speech to suggest that the Government 

understand how to get more people enrolled in their 

communities or even the desire to do so. 

Where, indeed, is the co-ops Bill that the Prime 

Minister once promised? This comes on the back of no 

serious effort to remutualise Northern Rock over the 

past 12 months, no serious interest in encouraging more 

energy co-ops to emerge, no sustained effort to encourage 

real involvement in the running of football clubs by 

football fans through football supporters’ co-operatives, 

and no requirement to promote a diverse market in 

financial services for the Financial Services Authority 

or its replacement to help financial mutuals. Sadly, the 

Queen’s Speech confirms that once again the Government 

have walked away from the real practical measures that 

could have helped the co-op and mutual movement to 

grow. 

One of the Bills that will be before the House during 

this Session will be a crime and courts Bill, the details of 

which I shall examine especially carefully. As I made 

clear earlier, my constituents will be sceptical about the 

benefits of such a top-down change when they are 

seeing fewer police officers on the ground. I recently


9 MAY 2012 


106 

organised meetings between constituents who are 

experiencing challenging antisocial behaviour problems 

near the Racecourse estate in Northolt, which my hon. 

Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) 

will know particularly well— 

Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab): It wasn’t me. 

Mr Thomas: It also occurs in south Harrow. What 

frustrated those residents was the lack of visibility, at 

key times, of police officers who could have moved on 

local troublemakers, and, indeed, could have deterred 

them from gathering in the first place. Constables are 

routinely deployed away from their wards, and are 

rarely available for standard safer neighbourhood team 

duties in those areas. 

What is most worrying, however, is the threat to close 

the custody suite at Harrow police station. With no 

consultation, the Metropolitan police have decided to 

shut the custody suite, which consists of 13 cells, in 

mid-September. There will then be no more cell capacity 

in Harrow. All those who are arrested will have to be 

transported to out-of borough police stations—to Kilburn 

and Wembley—by a minimum of two officers, more if 

there is a possibility that the prisoners could turn violent. 

Given the number of annual visits to Harrow’s cells by 

alleged criminals—an average of 5,000, I believe—and 

given the time that it takes to travel from my constituency 

to Kilburn and Wembley, that represents a loss of 

between 10,000 and 20,000 police officer hours. Officers 

will be wasting time by acting as transport couriers for 

alleged criminals when they could be investigating, detecting 

and, better still, preventing crime in Harrow. 

Stephen Pound: I do not want to hijack the Queen’s 

Speech into matters of custody accommodation in west 

London, but is my hon. Friend as surprised as I was to 

learn that a place called Polar Point has opened at 

Heathrow airport to receive those who used to be in 

custody in Harrow and Ealing, and that the decision was 

made by a company called Emerald, which is apparently 

the privatised cell provider and which doubtless refers 

to the prisoners as “customers”? 

Mr Thomas: I am indeed very surprised by that 

information. One is always grateful when additional cell 

capacity is provided elsewhere in London, but it is 

hugely disappointing that there is still a threat of closure 

of the custody suite in Harrow. 

I have not received any formal explanation from the 

Metropolitan police of why they think that the closure 

is necessary, let alone been consulted. Given that CID 

officers tend to be based where custody suites are housed, 

and given that space is to be set aside at Wembley police 

station for Harrow CID officers, it does not look good 

for the future of borough-based policing in Harrow, 

and it certainly does not look good for the long-term 

future of the 110 CID officers who are currently based 

there. Almost a third of our own police officers will 

have to spend some of their time out of the borough if 

the cells shut. Let me ask this question of the Metropolitan 

police, and indeed of Ministers: why should my constituents 

have any confidence that those 110 CID officers will 

continue to be based in Harrow in the long term? I hope 

that, even at this late stage, the Home Secretary will 

encourage the Metropolitan police to think again. 

This Gracious Speech is striking in that it does not 

include a Bill to fulfil the commitment that 0.7% of our 

national income should be spent on development assistance. 

The three major parties all committed to legislating on 

that. Indeed, before the last general election, I had the 

honour of taking such a Bill through the pre-legislative 

scrutiny process. There is a strong case for Britain 

continuing to set an example on the provision of 

international aid for people in less well-off countries. 

We should think of the current west Africa food crisis 

and the huge numbers of people at risk of dying of 

hunger there, and of the considerable remaining health 

challenges in respect of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and 

malaria. 

The lack of action by the Government parties in 

respect of the ancient, yet still very important, United 

Nations commitment that every rich country should 

give 0.7% of its income to help the world’s poorest is a 

huge missed opportunity. In the forthcoming debate on 

the Gracious Speech, I look forward to hearing the 

Secretary of State for International Development give a 

clear and detailed explanation as to why he has failed to 

convince his colleagues to introduce legislation to that 

effect. 

8.55 pm 

Priti Patel (Witham) (Con): It is an honour to follow 

the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas). I 

listened to his speech with great interest. 

I shall focus on three specific sets of proposals in the 

Queen’s Speech that build on many of the strong reforms 

the Government introduced in the previous Session: the 

measures on children and families—which my hon. 

Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) has 

already touched on—crime and the courts, and enterprise 

and regulatory reform. 

As a Conservative, I believe in stronger families forming 

the foundation of a stronger society, so I welcome the 

measures to support families. As my hon. Friend said, 

arranging child care is one of the biggest challenges 

working parents face. Those of us who daily do the school 

run know all about the pressures of juggling child care 

commitments with work. For households in which both 

parents are working, that can be a great struggle. Whether 

in respect of babysitting toddlers, looking after unwell 

children, doing the school run or attending school 

assembly, it can be very difficult for working mums and 

dads, especially those in traditional working arrangements, 

to support their children fully and meet their needs. We 

must not forget that young children—whether attending 

nursery, pre-school or school—have active lives and 

social lives, too, and that there are therefore also other 

commitments such as taking kids to after-school activities 

Many households now need two parents to be working 

and bringing in full-time incomes in order to pay the 

bills because—let us face it—life is tough at the moment 

and the cost of living is high and is rising. Many 

Members have spoken about the rising utilities and fuel 

bills. 

Suitable child care provision in this country is incredibly 

costly. Many of us could give examples of the average 

bill for sending a child to nursery in normal working 

hours exceeding £800 a month. That is equivalent to a 

monthly mortgage repayment in some households, so is 

it any wonder that two parents have to go out to work to 

cover child care costs in addition to the cost of living?


9 MAY 2012 


108 

[Priti Patel] 

The Government are to be congratulated on recognising 

the challenges families face and the barriers to family 

life in this country, but more needs to be done across 

government and all the political parties. We must take a 

pragmatic and rational approach and introduce some 

positive, proactive measures to alleviate the struggles 

and challenges families face and to remove the barriers 

that are often in place in respect of child care and 

employment. 

I know that many households across the country, and 

certainly in my constituency, will welcome the proposals 

outlined today. We need to give parents more flexibility 

over working time and over maternity and paternity 

leave, too. I can only speak from my own personal 

experience, but I was one of those parents who went 

back to work three weeks after having my son and, 

quite frankly, had I had the opportunity to swap with 

my husband, that really would have been great. 

The Government should be commended for considering 

relationships between children and both parents. Fathers 

should absolutely have equal, fair and the right kind of 

access to their children when the family relationship has 

broken down. In my time as a Member of Parliament 

thus far, brief though it has been, many fathers have 

come to me who feel that their children are being used 

in the court system as an emotional and financial 

weapon, which is unacceptable. We need to bring some 

sanity back to the situation. Shared parenting is absolutely 

the right thing and, if nothing else, we have to start 

putting the rights of children first, not the rights of 

warring parents or warring mothers against warring 

fathers. Children come first and children’s rights are 

key. 

That brings me on to adoption. In my view, the 

Government should be congratulated on their commitment 

to supporting the adoption process. I personally feel 

that it is nothing short of scandalous that the number of 

adoptions last year totalled just 60 when thousands of 

children are going through the care system in local 

authorities up and down the country. That is simply 

wrong. They deserve loving families and loving homes 

and hundreds of loving families want to provide good, 

stable homes for children. It is a shame on our society 

and on the system that red tape and bureaucracy get in 

the way and prevent children from being put into loving 

families. I welcome the change and hope that the 

Government will ensure that we can start to address the 

scandal and start to put children into proper loving 

homes. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover talked about 

bureaucracy and red tape and I welcome the steps being 

taken to support children with special educational needs. 

As a local MP I have met dozens of families who have 

been let down by the system. Those mums and dads 

naturally want the best for their children but all too 

often bureaucracy, officialdom and, sometimes, bad 

practice in schools and local authorities let them down 

and damage the prospects of their children. They are 

left fighting hard, going through assessment after 

assessment, just to get the extra help that their children 

need. More often than not, in many cases, the needs of 

their children are recorded or summarised through some 

sort of tick-box process. The real understanding of the 

emotional or physical needs of the child is often ignored. 

One school in my constituency has a very poor record 

on special educational needs provision and is the source 

of many complaints from parents to me. Rather than 

helping an autistic child, the school has classified him 

as having average communication skills. It is completely 

failing that poor child and failing to understand his 

needs because the school does not want to be seen to 

have too many children with special educational needs 

on its books, which is wrong and appalling. I would like 

more to be done to empower parents and I welcome the 

proposals to do that and to simplify the assessment 

process with the introduction of the single assessment 

process and education, health and care plans. 

We also need to encourage the spread of best practice 

to get good results in the running of special educational 

needs services in other schools. A very positive example 

of that in my constituency is set by the inspirational 

head teacher, Jane Bass, at Powers Hall junior school in 

Witham. She sets a good leadership example and works 

tirelessly to help children with learning difficulties and 

special educational needs. I think she should be commended 

for her work. She has a strong track record of supporting 

children who have come to her school with very challenging 

problems and seeing them through their time there so 

that they leave with more skills and greater independence. 

That is good for the children and is genuine relief for 

their parents. Importantly, the parents know that their 

children’s needs are being met. In taking through the 

relevant Bill that will be introduced this Session, we 

should learn from schools that have a good track record 

of working with children and their parents to understand 

how to meet a child’s needs and relate that to the 

legislation. We need more head teachers like Jane Bass and 

I am optimistic that the legislative programme can deliver 

positive changes to special educational needs provision. 

I welcome the Government’s tough stance on drug 

drivers, which I hope will lead to robust legislation. It is 

shameful that our criminal justice system sentences 

perpetrators for these offences—people who have taken 

away lives and ruined the lives of victims’ families—to 

just a few weeks behind prison bars instead of the 

lengthy spells in prison totalling many years that they 

should receive. I know that Ministers have listened 

closely to people’s concerns about this issue. Indeed, my 

right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today spoke about 

the many representations from families that he has 

listened to and the campaigns fought by victims’ families. 

Clearly, the Government have responded positively to 

those representations, but many more victims of other 

crimes have been excluded by the criminal justice system. 

Ministers need to listen to their concerns and introduce 

positive changes. 

Victims and the public are being put in danger by a 

criminal justice system that, from the top down, sets 

free far too many offenders so that they end up roaming 

our streets and committing more crimes. There are 

more than 250 offenders with more than 100 convictions, 

more than 3,500 with 50 or more convictions and more 

than 2,000 offenders who have served 25 or more separate 

spells in prison. In addition, there are rapists and sex 

offenders who are never sentenced to serve a day behind 

bars. That should change. Some 20,000 offenders who 

are let off with community orders are out on the streets 

committing 50 crimes a day, including offences against 

children. The Government’s reforms to community 

sentences are a positive step forward, but there are tens


9 MAY 2012 


110 

of thousands of offenders on our streets for whom prison 

is the best place. Importantly, if they are in prison the 

public will know that they are being kept safe. Keeping 

the public safe should be fundamental to any criminal 

justice reforms we make in this Session. 

We should also do more to support the victims of 

crime. I have seen from the work I have done with 

victims—let me refer hon. Members to my private Member’s 

Bill in the previous Session on championing victims’ 

rights—that victims are fed up with seeing policy makers 

and the courts focusing their efforts on appeasing offenders 

instead of helping victims to get through the horrific 

experiences they have faced. The former victims 

commissioner, Louise Casey, did a good job of highlighting 

this issue alongside charities such as Victim Support, 

the National Victims Association and Support After 

Murder and Manslaughter Abroad. The Government’s 

response to the consultation on its “Getting it right for 

victims and witnesses” strategy is due later this year, 

and I very much hope that they will recognise where the 

proposals need beefing up and that they will show some 

flexibility and deliver the new and improved services 

that victims of crime need. At the moment, my constituent 

Marie Heath and her family are being subjected to the 

horrendous ordeal of travelling to Germany every week 

for the ongoing trial of the defendants alleged to have 

brutally murdered her son. The family face huge logistical 

challenges and thousands of pounds in costs. The 

Government are aware of that case and I hope that in 

the Bill they will learn from the experience of the 

Heaths and many other victims of crime. 

Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con): My hon. 

Friend is making a powerful point about people’s need 

to feel secure, to feel that sentencing is appropriate and 

to feel that those who should be behind bars are. Does 

she, like me, want the Government to take steps to 

ensure that sentences mean that if someone is sentenced 

to four years, for example, they serve those four years as 

opposed to perhaps just two? 

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We 

are talking about public confidence in the criminal 

justice system, which should do what it says on the tin. 

If an offender is sentenced to four years, the public do 

not want them released within 18 months or a shorter 

time. They want to know that the full sentence will be 

served. This is a good opportunity for the Government 

to restore public confidence in our criminal justice system. 

I welcome the proposals the Government have outlined 

to free up businesses and scrap costly and unnecessary 

burdens on them. I refer to regulation. As the daughter 

of a small shopkeeper, I have recognised throughout my 

adult and teenage working life how important small 

businesses are for jobs and economic growth. I have 

also become very aware of regulation. As shopkeepers, 

my parents have owned a range of small shops—post 

offices, supermarkets and newsagents. We have been 

through many iterations of health and safety legislation, 

business and small shop regulation, Sunday trading, 

opening hours and particularly employment legislation. 

You name it, Madam Deputy Speaker, and we have 

been there, seen it and done it. 

Small and medium-sized enterprises are the bedrock 

of our economy. We were once described as a nation of 

shopkeepers, but we do not feel like that any more, as 

small and independent retailers are decimated in our 

high streets. More needs to be done. SMEs support two 

thirds of jobs throughout the country. In my constituency, 

the figure rises to 83%, which is high and I should like it 

to be higher. With greater economic liberalisation and 

less regulation I am sure that will happen. 

The ability of business owners and entrepreneurs to 

create even more jobs has been compromised by the 

unrelenting growth of regulation from both Whitehall 

and Brussels. In 2011, 84% of businesses reported that 

they spent more time dealing with legislation than in 

2009. The annual cost to SMEs of that compliance is 

about £17 billion, which is equivalent to the cost of 

Crossrail, and 12 times the Government’s budget for 

apprenticeships. 

The Government are committed to the red tape challenge; 

they have already identified more than 600 regulations 

to be scrapped or overhauled. The sooner the process 

begins, the better. Freeing business from the costs imposed 

by regulation will allow them, importantly, to invest in 

more jobs and economic growth. 

I urge the Government to take more robust action on 

EU red tape. For me as a new Member of Parliament, 

one of the most disappointing aspects of EU regulation 

was the enforcement in the previous Session of the 

agency workers regulations, which unfortunately the 

Government could do nothing about because the previous 

Government had done the deal. That has cost business 

£1.5 billion. Such regulations do far more to create 

unemployment and block job creation than they do to 

support workers’ rights. 

In my constituency and throughout Essex, more people 

are prepared to take risks and set up their own business. 

As many Members may have seen in the news over the 

past 24 hours, there has been a great deal of political 

focus on Essex; one might argue that the only way is up 

in Essex. It is indeed a county of dynamic entrepreneurs. 

Many of my constituents are prepared to go out on a 

limb and do the right thing, which is to take risks and 

set up a business. In the county of entrepreneurs, there 

are 6,000 new enterprise births a year. The figure is 

high, and I hope that it will grow higher. 

As the Prime Minister saw on his visit yesterday, 

those wealth creators will be key to the future economic 

success not just of the county of Essex but of our 

country. By taking steps to empower them to create 

more wealth, jobs and prosperity, we can once again 

restore dynamism and strength in the British economy, 

and as a country we shall start to regain our rightful 

place in the world economic league tables. That is why I 

support the Queen’s Speech and everything the Government 

are doing on economic and regulatory reform. 

9.14 pm 

Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con): It is an honour, 

although a daunting one, to follow that excellent speech 

by my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti 

Patel), who speaks with a wealth of expertise as both a 

parent of young children, a job she juggles very well 

with her other abilities, and an excellent parliamentarian. 

She spoke about businesses in Essex, again with a 

wealth of expertise as the daughter of shopkeepers, and 

gave a thorough going over of the Queen’s Speech. 

It also feels odd to speak on the first day of a 

parliamentary Session. It reminds me of when I turned 

up here in the previous Session hoping to make my


9 MAY 2012 


112 

[Chris Skidmore] 

maiden speech. I wanted to make it as soon as possible 

so that I could get into the cut and thrust of debate, so 

I put in and waited to make it on several occasions. I 

will never forget my first moment in Parliament. I was 

sitting in the corner of the Chamber and waiting, and 

new Members on both sides bobbed up and down to say 

how beautiful their constituencies were—it was funny 

how that theme kept coming up. I waited from half-past 2, 

without having a drink of water or going to the toilet, 

until half-past 10. I sat there for eight hours, so afterwards 

I went over to the Chairman of Ways and Means and 

explained that I had hoped to be called that day. “Oh 

no”, he replied, “You weren’t going to be called at all. 

You should have come and seen me and I could have 

told you that you were never going to make it today.” 

That was the first lesson I learnt here. 

Priti Patel: Welcome to Parliament. 

Chris Skidmore: Absolutely. There is a lot of waiting 

going on here, but we do not have to wait long for the 

contents of the Queen’s Speech, which I will come to 

shortly. 

To continue with my anecdote for a moment, I remember 

still wanting to make my maiden speech as soon as 

possible, and sitting in the Tea Room looking through 

the draft of what I hoped to say when a more senior 

Conservative Member came over and asked, “Oh boy, 

you’re looking to make your maiden speech, are you?” I 

replied that I was and explained that I had waited to be 

called for eight hours the day before. “Oh well, there’s 

only one piece of advice I can give you about making 

your maiden speech,” he said. I was a young newbie and 

so asked what it was. “Well, just don’t muck it up,” he 

said, before wandering off laughing. He actually used 

stronger language, but I will not use it in the Chamber— 

[Interruption.] Yes, indeed, it rhymes with muck. 

Stephen Pound: Don’t say it. 

Chris Skidmore: Oh dear; hopefully the Hansard reporters 

can delete that for me— 

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. 

To help the hon. Gentleman, I think that his colleague 

was telling him, “Good luck in making your maiden 

speech.” 

Chris Skidmore: Indeed, and I wish the hon. Member 

for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) the best of luck in 

contributing to this excellent debate on the Queen’s Speech. 

The first line of the Queen’s Speech refers to the 

importance of growth in the economy, but one of the 

sectors in which we know there will certainly be growth 

is social care, because we have an ageing population. We 

used to say that there are two certainties in life: death 

and taxes. We now know that our population is getting 

ever older; by 2030 the number of 85-year-olds will 

double and 11% of the population living today will 

reach 100. Therefore, we have an enormous cost—not a 

burden—that society will face as a result of the population 

getting older, which is inevitably a good thing. The 

Queen’s Speech recognises this, importantly, by proposing 

a draft Bill that will seek to modernise adult social care 

and support, which I absolutely welcome, but it is worth 

reflecting on the word “modernise” and on what we 

need to do to modernise adult social care and support. 

The Government recognise that tackling social care is 

not just an issue of tackling the funding of social care, 

important though that is. The Health Committee, of 

which I am a member, has already produced a report on 

the Dilnot commission and recommended it to the 

Government, and I hope that the Government will look 

at it in the forthcoming White Paper and that we will 

have proposals on the table. I know that there is cross-party 

support for looking at the Dilnot commission proposals 

and that we had a Backbench Business debate on that in 

the previous Session. Members from across the House, 

regardless of their party colours, are passionate about 

tackling this issue and the impending crisis. 

Dr Coffey: My hon. Friend makes a really important 

point, but is he concerned that the Dilnot commission 

and the risk of open liabilities could make the process 

unaffordable, or are Members being misinformed on 

that? 

Chris Skidmore: The Dilnot issue, which is one of 

presentation, is that the Government commissioned a 

report that addressed the specific question, “How do we 

fund social care as it currently stands?” That is why I 

want to turn to the issue of modernisation, but we have 

to remember the important tenet that Dilnot does not 

cover all forms of social care. It does not cover domiciliary 

care or living costs, so it is not a panacea, and we as 

parliamentarians must ensure that we work together 

and at the same time—Dilnot was very strict on this—come 

up with a proper system by which we can inform not 

only elderly people now but the elderly people of tomorrow 

that they need to begin to save. Only by developing a 

savings culture and a culture of contribution, which I 

shall turn to also in my speech, will Dilnot work and 

will we ensure that the social care system works tomorrow 

as well as today—although today it is beginning to fail, 

as I shall explain. 

In modernising social care, we need to recognise that 

the current system is not working on several levels. 

Personally, I feel that local authorities are becoming not 

the best places in which to deliver social care. Last week 

I published a report on local authorities and their 

delivery of social care, demonstrating from a series of 

freedom of information requests to every local authority 

in the country that local authorities have already written 

off £400 million of debts owed to them by families—and 

are still owed more than £1 billion. 

Put simply, we have a system in which local authorities 

are not only struggling to provide care, but for financial 

reasons have lowered the bar and reduced their eligibility 

criteria. They have done so principally because they 

have to juggle social care with the services on which 

people really want to focus when they pay their council 

tax. For instance, people want their bins emptied or 

potholes filled, and that, for democratically elected 

local authorities, can take priority over those citizens 

who are most vulnerable but who, unfortunately for 

them, form a small minority. So roads and bins take 

precedence over social care. That should not be the case, 

but at the same time local authorities are deeply mired 

in debt because of their services, and we desperately 

need them to break out of that.


9 MAY 2012 


114 

The current system also does not work because the 

failure of social care ends up rebounding in only one 

place: the NHS. We need to make the point strongly 

that the NHS and social care are two sides of the same 

coin, and that if there is a crisis in social care there will 

soon be a crisis in the NHS. Even the IMF has produced 

figures on the NHS will look by 2050 if we do not 

manage our ageing population and work out ways of 

prevention. We must also look not only at how elderly 

people can be given the life and dignity that they 

deserve, but at early intervention. If any problems that 

they may have, such as diabetes or a disability, are dealt 

with soon enough, it costs the NHS less. The IMF 

predicts that the NHS will end up costing £230 billion 

by 2050, and that is completely unaffordable. It means 

that the NHS will go broke unless we solve the social 

care crisis now. 

Dr Coffey: Does my hon. Friend agree that cross-party 

consensus on the draft social care Bill is critical? That is 

why a draft Bill is appropriate. Does he agree also that, 

as long as somebody is in hospital the NHS pays for 

them, the draft Bill needs to tackle the key issue whereby 

local authorities sometimes delay a person’s exit from 

hospital so that they do not have to pick up the bill in 

the interim? 

Chris Skidmore: That is an interesting point. Obviously, 

one of the first moves that the Government made when 

they came into office was to create an output measure 

of 30 days’ discharge from hospital. Although that was 

created in August 2011, it is already controversial because 

we are seeing the scale of the problem. The problem is 

not new; it has always been there, but the Government 

are for the first time providing the figures on how many 

people are leaving hospital and rebounding back into 

hospital. We should have solved that problem sooner. 

My hon. Friend argued for a cross-party approach, 

and I entirely agree. We must achieve cross-party support 

on social care. We are talking about a settlement that 

must last decades, so it cannot be a patchwork solution 

or a plaster over a wound that might open up in several 

years’ time. We need to come up with a binding compact 

on social care. I hope that the draft Bill will aspire 

to that. 

I have talked about the relationship between the NHS 

and social care. The Government have recognised that 

the future of saving the NHS will come through a 

consideration of social care. We focus very much on the 

NHS, and the Health and Social Care Bill of the 

previous Session tried to address the matter. Funds 

were placed in the hands of GPs; for the first time, GPs 

are taking responsibility for patients. Rather than sending 

patients directly to hospital, GPs have to look at what 

preventive measures they must take to cure illness or 

disability. Over the past three years, the number of 

over-80-year-olds who have been admitted into A and E 

has risen by about 40%. We know that 65% of unplanned 

NHS bed admission stays involve the elderly. If we can 

solve that, we will solve a huge issue within the NHS. 

I am a member of the Health Committee, which 

recently wrote a report on social care. We visited Torbay, 

which was instructive. The authorities there have ensured 

complete integration between social care and health 

care services. They have done that by pooling budgets; 

when they have team meetings, there is no empire 

building in which people say, “This is my budget for the 

primary care trust, this is mine for the GPs and this is 

mine for the hospital.” People sit down and consider 

their overall budget. They have in mind an 85-year-old 

lady called Mrs Smith, and they ask what treatment 

pathway they could create to ensure that Mrs Smith 

gets the best possible care. 

The authorities in Torbay recognise that social and 

community care is the best way to prevent unplanned 

admissions to NHS hospitals. The result is that Torbay 

has the fastest-decreasing and lowest number of unplanned 

hospital bed day admissions in the country. The approach 

there clearly works, so the modernisation of social care 

must also be about proper, true integration between 

social care and health care. 

We also need to recognise that to modernise social 

care is not to speak of the elderly as some homogenous 

group. Above all, senior citizens are individuals with 

individual needs. Each will have their own particular 

pathway through the later years in life. As a Government, 

we must recognise that to ensure that the individual has 

the best possible life in old age, we must give them a 

chance to lead their life as they would like to. 

To do that, the Government have built on the work of 

the previous Government in introducing personalised 

services. Above all, we have seen the rise of personal 

budgets. In England, their uptake doubled, from April 

2010 to March 2011, to almost 340,000 service users. 

That is still only about 35% of eligible users and carers. 

Although the increase in personal budgets is welcome, it 

has come in the form of local authority managed budgets, 

rather than individual direct payments, which make up 

only 26% of that 340,000—that is, 26% of the 35% of 

eligible users. 

Although there has been an increase in personalisation, 

there has not been a proper increase in individuals 

being given freedom in how they would like to use their 

budgets. In other words, councils are offering a menu 

to choose from but they are not offering a choice of 

restaurants. 

Key to the modernisation of social care will be the 

introduction of direct cash payments. At present, individual 

budgets cannot be paid to a spouse or partner to 

provide care, and that limits uptake and entrenches the 

difficulty that millions of people have in wanting to care 

for a loved one in their old age. If we look across to the 

continent, we see that places such as Germany have a 

far more liberalised social care system. In Germany, 

people are assessed as needing care at one of three 

levels, and they are then offered a choice between an 

individual budget cash payment with services in kind, 

including residential care, and a tailored combination 

of the two. Interestingly, the individual budget cash 

payment is of significantly lower value than the social 

care package. In 2007, people who needed considerable 

care, or care level 1, received ¤384 per month; those in 

need of intensive care, or level 2, received ¤921 per 

month; and those in need of highly intensive care, or 

level 3, received ¤1,432 per month. They were also 

offered the choice of claiming direct individual budget 

cash payments that were about two thirds lower than 

the payments in the social care package, which meant 

that people at care level 1 received ¤205 per month, 

those at care level 2 received ¤410 per month and those 

at care level 3 received ¤665 per month.


9 MAY 2012 


116 

[Chris Skidmore] 

One might have expected the population to opt for 

the higher payment, given that the social care package 

seems to be more sophisticated and pays more in euros, 

but in fact 49% of Germans decided instead to opt for 

the direct cash payment, which gave them greater choice 

and freedom in how they spent the money, or spent it 

for their relative. That control is every bit as valuable to 

individuals as money. It gives them the opportunity to 

stay in their own home and receive informal care from 

relatives. They can purchase the service they need without 

an additional layer of bureaucracy getting in the way. 

We can learn from what Germany did in modernising 

social care. Local authorities have traditionally focused 

on a one-size-fits-all response, in effect acting as a 

single, inflexible state supplier that cannot hope to offer 

the choice that people approaching their old age 

nowadays—baby boomers who have lived their lives 

having choice—will want equally as they get older. 

What would happen if we introduced such a system 

in this country? In 2009-10, local authorities spent 

£3.4 billion on residential elderly care. On that basis, if 

the same thing happened here as in Germany, with half 

this group opting instead for cash payments and staying 

at home, we would save £1.14 billion a year, with people 

receiving £566 million instead of £1.7 billion. We could 

free up £1.1 billion or £1.2 billion a year, which could go 

a significant way towards producing the money that 

might then implement Dilnot. 

Above all, the way in which people contribute to their 

care must be something that they can control rather 

than something that is done to them. We need to ensure 

that in modernising social care we make the best possible 

services available. People will not put up with paying for 

the current levels of services if they do not think that 

they are good enough. If we are going to expect people 

to pay more for their social care in old age, knowing, as 

we do, that it has never been free of charge—it is a bit of 

a nasty shock for some people when they find out that it 

is not provided free—then they need to have the best 

possible services for their money, and that, essentially, 

means choice. 

With choice comes competition. We must ensure that 

there is thriving competition between social care providers. 

We must not only introduce direct cash budget payments 

but ensure that agencies are available to guarantee a 

level playing field. The Good Care Guide website is a 

fantastic resource, but we should be looking to introduce 

a TripAdvisor-type service into social care so that people 

can analyse which are the best care homes and write 

about their own experiences of what they are like. We 

should trust the people to make those judgments. 

I want to end by reflecting on this year. Many Members 

have spoken about it being the year of the diamond 

jubilee, but it is also 70 years since William Beveridge 

published the Beveridge report on 1 December 1942. 

On that day, there were queues at the shops to purchase 

the report, and in the first week 600,000 people did so. 

The report set out what the welfare state would look 

like for most of the 20th century. 

In many ways, Beveridge still casts a shadow over us. 

The NHS and pensions were established, but when 

Beveridge wrote his report the average life expectancy 

was 69. When people received their pension at 65, their 

pensionable age was only meant to last an average of 

four years. Beveridge never gave any thought to how we 

should care for the elderly. It was assumed that families 

would look after their elderly loved ones. Somewhere 

along the line, we have gone wrong. I am not blaming 

any one political party, but why is it that in many 

countries it is a mark of honour for people to look after 

those who have brought them into this world? Why do 

we pay people child benefit in recognition of being 

parents but not focus on rewarding carers who look 

after their parents? There is an imbalance, and I hope 

that by focusing on social care, as all parties must in this 

Parliament, we can try to redress the balance. 

I wish to end with a quote from Beveridge. The odd 

thing is, the Beveridge report cannot be found online, 

but I managed to dig out from the Library a copy of the 

original 1942 report. Everyone remembers the five giants— 

Idleness, Squalor, Want, Ignorance and Disease—but 

in the passage after that famous part Beveridge stated 

that 

“social security must be achieved by co-operation between the 

State and the individual. The State should offer security for 

service and contribution. The State in organising security should 

not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility; in establishing a 

national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for 

voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that 

minimum for himself and his family.” 

Beveridge understood 70 years ago that we needed a 

contributory principle in our public services. Somewhere 

along the line, that has been lost. Only through individuals 

making contributions towards their elderly care will we 

achieve the best social care services. I hope that as we 

consider how to modernise social care, the draft Bill 

that will be published as a result of the Queen’s Speech 

will focus on all the matters that I have mentioned. 

Much of the media’s focus has been on the other 

place, which we might call a retirement home for rather 

successful eminent politicians, but what we actually 

need to focus on, and what our constituents want to 

focus on, is retirement homes for the elderly population 

as a whole and what is happening to them. We would do 

well to remember that. I recognise that I have spoken 

only about one specific point in the Queen’s Speech, but 

I believe it was possibly the most important one. 

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(James 

Duddridge.) 

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

117 9 MAY 2012 Universal Credit 

118 

Universal Credit 

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House 

do now adjourn.—(James Duddridge.) 

9.38 pm 

Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op): May I 

say what a lucky honour it is to have the first Adjournment 

debate of the new Session? 

In October 2013, we will see one of the biggest 

changes to the welfare benefits system since the second 

world war with the introduction of the new universal 

credit. The Welfare Reform Act 2012 has gone through, 

and there was a lot of focus on the fairness and unfairness 

of various benefit changes, but there was not much 

focus on the administrative changes involved in the 

move to universal credit—the changes to the process of 

applying for benefits and being assessed for them. We 

should all welcome to some extent the rationalisation of 

a series of disparate benefits that have grown up over 

the decade. The administrative components of universal 

credit will include the tax credit system, housing benefit, 

income support, income-based jobseeker’s allowance, 

employment and support allowance and so on. 

Tonight, we are not debating the principle of universal 

credit, but considering the roll-out of the administration 

for the new arrangement and, of course, the massive 

consequences for our constituents. If it goes well—hopefully, 

it will—they may not notice anything untoward, but 

there are massive risks if the administrative transition is 

not handled competently and carefully. That is essentially 

the purpose of my set of questions for the Under-Secretary 

in the short time available today. I sent a list of the 

issues that I broadly wanted to raise to her private office 

earlier today because some of the questions are technical. 

I hope that we can get a little more on the record 

because there has not been that much opportunity to 

debate those issues so far, and we are talking about a 

change that will affect a million people in the first six 

months of the roll-out of universal credit from October 

2013. 

One of the most interesting facets of universal credit 

is the Government’s decision that it should be digital by 

default: in other words, they are working on the assumption 

that the vast majority of claimants will access their 

claims online. I think that the Government’s assessment 

is that 80% of those claims will be made online. My first 

question therefore is whether the Under-Secretary can 

reaffirm that that figure still represents the Government’s 

assumption. Could she perhaps also give us a logical 

explanation of how that beautifully neat and round 

figure of 80% was reached? 

Many people who apply for universal credit are not 

exactly frequent internet users: 15% of council tenants 

have no access to the internet; one in six adults generally 

have never used it—that figure is as high as one in four 

in Northern Ireland, and one in five in the north-east 

and in Wales—and 4 million disabled people have never 

used it. Consumer Focus research shows that 69% of 

people want the ability to have face-to-face transactions 

for benefit claims at post offices and so on. I therefore 

want to get a sense from the Under-Secretary of her 

contingency plan if the 80% target is missed. How will 

we move towards such a major shift in the way in which 

people apply for their benefits? We are considering the 

livelihoods of many people. 

Universal credit will be a household, not an individual 

benefit. It will be assessed on a whole household, so a 

vast amount of supporting documentation will have to 

be processed when individuals change their entitlements. 

Again, how can that supporting documentation be assessed 

online? How will it be assessed centrally, given that we 

will move away from the localisation of many applications? 

That online assumption must be tested significantly. 

As a corollary, the next issue is the extent to which 

the Government commit resources for the minority, 

whom they accept will struggle with applying online. 

What resources will be available for face-to-face advice 

and support for claimants who cannot go down the 

digital route? I understand that the Department is planning 

some sort of 0845 hotline numbers, but they are expensive, 

especially for people with mobile phones. However, I 

am particularly interested in knowing how much money 

has been put aside for the face-to-face service. 

A recent survey of the many district councils in 

England and Wales suggests that they believe that 50% 

of people coming through their doors and applying, for 

example, for housing benefit, need to do that face to 

face. Obviously, that is at odds with the Government 

assessment of presumably only 20% needing some sort 

of support other than the online arrangement. Investing 

so much in the online arrangement is clearly a dangerous 

ambition. I understand the logic of wanting greater 

take-up of digital applications, but I am anxious that 

the target is so high, and I want to get a sense of the 

scenario planning and the arrangements that the 

Government have considered if it is simply not deliverable. 

We should cast our minds back to the difficulties with 

online tax credit arrangements. There was significant 

fraud, which had to be addressed and meant the 

arrangements had to be changed. Will the Minister say 

on the record that she is happy with the anti-fraud 

measures and the robustness and security of the new 

online universal credit system? Clearly, it would be a 

tragedy if so many people were directed to an online 

system that had to be scaled back at the last minute 

because individuals found a way of fraudulently fleecing 

it because it was not secure or robust. 

Will the Minister give an assurance—her noble Friend 

Lord Freud was unable to do so during the passage of 

the Welfare Reform Act 2012—that the Government’s 

intention to move to a monthly payment arrangement 

will have a degree of flexibility? In theory, it is desirable 

for everybody to plan their budgets and household 

expenditure on a monthly basis, to mimic in-work salary 

arrangements, but the trouble is that it is not the experience 

to date of many people. Many of my constituents in 

Nottingham, who have suffered a great deal of deprivation 

or who are not on significant amounts of money take 

the parcels of money that come in housing benefit or 

other benefits and hypothecate them for rent, bills or 

other things. We are asking a great deal of people, 

sometimes later on in their lives, to change their habits 

and take payments at the beginning of the month and 

ensure that they budget so that their rent is fully paid 

for the rest of the period and beyond. 

The danger that people will accumulate increasing 

arrears to pay for the roof over their head worries 

me significantly, never mind local authorities, which 

already say that they have concerns about the collection 

of rent payments. Currently, housing benefit can be 

paid directly to the landlord, the local authority or the

119 Universal Credit 

9 MAY 2012 


120 

[Chris Leslie] 

housing association, but that is ending, so there is a 

great deal of anxiety about the continuity of housing 

entitlement. 

As I have said, 15% of council tenants do not have 

access to the internet. In fact, 15% have no access to a 

bank account and a further 15% have only a basic post 

office account with limited functionality. Therefore, 

nearly a third of social tenants might not have mainstream 

banking capabilities available to them, yet we expect 

them to move in fairly short order to that monthly 

budgeting arrangement. Hundreds of thousands of people 

up and down the country, particularly those who do not 

have bank accounts, are massively mistrustful of the 

banking system—they are fearful of the overdraft charges 

that can hit them if they are unable to plan or manage 

their cash flow over that monthly period. 

It is with those points in mind that I ask the Minister 

this: is there any flexibility in the roll-out of universal 

credit to allow weekly or fortnightly payments for those 

who absolutely need them, or is she absolutely firmly 

sticking to monthly payments for everybody? That is a 

crucial question and I would be grateful if the Minister 

addressed it. 

It would also help if the Minister could give us a 

better sense of the dates for transition to the central system 

as we move away from local authority administration. 

There are currently 380 localised IT systems in local 

authorities up and down the country, largely to deal 

with housing benefit. They will be phased out as we 

move towards a central system, with one IT system at 

the Department for Work and Pensions and one at Her 

Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. What resources have 

been available for the transition for councils that have a 

residual responsibility for some activities over the period—it 

will be 2017 before full roll-out? 

We are starting the process of passing over responsibility 

to the DWP in October 2013, but some councils will 

process housing benefit until April 2014, and full migration 

will not happen until 2017. How will councils be able to 

do this? It will remain a significant burden for local 

government, and local council tax payers need to know 

whether Ministers will meet those costs. It is not necessarily 

as big an issue in my area as Nottingham city council is 

a unitary metropolitan authority that has several different 

functions, but for some district councils housing benefit 

is 25% of their turnover, so it is a somewhat mission-critical 

activity. They need to know to what extent they will still 

be in the business of such administration. What really is 

the commitment of the Government to a local roll-out 

of universal credit? Will it still be a local service or will 

they shift in short order to that central arrangement? 

As I read through the documentation, several secondary 

issues arose. What about pensioners? Many are still 

reliant on housing benefit, but universal credit is an 

in-work benefit, so who will be responsible for the 

administration of housing benefit to pensioners? That 

is a specific question and I would be grateful for the 

Minister’s clarification. Obviously, if local authorities 

are no longer involved in the administration of housing 

benefit, how will pensioners continue to receive it? 

There will be two vast centralised computer systems, 

and the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and 

the National Audit Office are already voicing anxieties 

about these arrangements. The DWP is moving to the 

“Agile” methodology, and Computer Weekly had a report 

recently in which it said that a leaked report from the 

Cabinet Office major projects authority suggested that 

the 

“Agile methodology remains unproven at this scale”. 

An amber risk rating was attached. Is that the case? 

What is the Government’s assessment of the risks of the 

change to this system by the DWP? The HMRC computer 

system will take a real-time approach to the PAYE 

process, but again reports suggest that the timescale has 

slipped beyond the April 2013 target. Can the Minister 

say whether that is true? 

If we are to contract out much of this activity, will it 

be sent offshore? Will the work under these new 

arrangements be done in the UK, or will much of the IT 

or contact centre work be done in India or other countries? 

That would be another helpful clarification. 

Another important issue has to be the many thousands 

of staff who currently work on housing benefit in local 

authorities up and down the country. Unison and other 

representatives of the work force have also asked about 

this. I gather that the Government have decided that 

TUPE will not apply to those who work in housing 

benefit administration in local authorities. So there will 

be a massive redundancy programme in local authorities 

and no take-up of those staff in the new, centralised 

arrangements. If that is the case, how will the Government 

respond to the massive redundancy costs involved? Will 

the Government compensate local authorities for those 

costs? Can the Minister say how much that will cost and 

how many staff will be affected? A lump of money was 

set aside at the beginning of the spending review period 

for the transition to universal credit. Have the assumptions 

behind that sum stayed the same or have they changed? 

As the Minister will know, the Opposition have spotted 

that she and many of her colleagues are under the 

shadow of the omnishambles and that the Government’s 

record on competence has already been questioned. 

When it comes to universal credit, their reputation for 

competence is definitely on the line, and it has to be 

proven that they can fulfil their promises. This is a 

major risk not only to the Government’s reputation but 

to all our constituents, especially the most needy. 

9.55 pm 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions (Maria Miller): I congratulate the hon. 

Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) on securing 

this debate. He is fortunate to have secured such an 

important debate. 

It is fitting that the first Adjournment debate of the 

Session is on universal credit, because the Gracious 

Speech today underlined the Government’s commitment 

to building a fairer, more responsible society, to supporting 

families to do the right thing, to making work pay and 

to ending the something-for-nothing culture that gained 

a foothold in this country for too long under the previous 

Administration. Universal credit is at the heart of delivering 

on that commitment. 

Universal credit will deliver a simpler and fairer 

system, and our reforms will put work, whether full 

time, part time or for just a few hours a week, at the 

centre of the welfare system. As such, it will extend a 

ladder of opportunity to those previously excluded or 

marginalised from the world of work. The current


9 MAY 2012 


122 

system has an array of 30 different benefits, each with 

its own rules and criteria and characterised by overlaps, 

duplication and complication. We all know from our 

constituency surgeries how bewildering that can be for 

many individuals. 

Claimants need to submit several claims to different 

agencies to get the support they need and are required 

to communicate changes in their personal and financial 

circumstances time and time again. Universal credit will 

create a much simpler system, by reducing the number 

of benefits and agencies people have to work with, 

smoothing their transition into work and making it 

easier to understand the available support. From 2013, 

universal credit will provide a new single system of 

means-tested support for working-age people, whether 

in or out of work, and will include housing, children, 

child care costs and additions for disabled people and 

carers. 

As I set out, the main purpose is to help people into 

work. The new system will remove the distinction between 

in-work support for those working 16 hours a week or 

more and out-of-work support for those working fewer 

than 16 hours a week, eliminating some of those problems 

we have seen in our constituencies and the need to claim 

a different set of benefits when starting or ending a job, 

or when changing working hours. 

How a benefit is paid to claimants is important 

because it will encourage people to manage their budgets 

in the same way as households. Claimants should be 

treated as they would if they were experiencing working 

life. The greater the difference between being out of 

work and in work, the greater the barrier to returning to 

work. Universal credit will therefore be administered in 

one single monthly payment, as the hon. Gentleman 

mentioned. We will be able to administer the payment 

on a more frequent basis, where necessary, but we will 

work closely with the people advising claimants to 

ensure that the support is there to keep this sort of 

atypical payment to a minimum. I think he would 

accept that that is important. 

The greater simplicity of universal credit will result in 

a substantial increase in the take-up of currently unclaimed 

benefits, with the greatest impact being on poorer families. 

As I am sure that Members know, the combined impact 

of this increased take-up will lift 900,000 individuals 

out of poverty, including more than 350,000 children 

and about 550,000 working-age adults. 

The hon. Gentleman did not touch on one child care 

issue that I would like to bring to the attention of the 

House. I am sure he will know that child care costs can 

often be a significant issue for people trying to remain 

close to the work place. Universal credit will introduce a 

new way of supporting families. An extra 80,000 extra 

families will be eligible to receive support for the first 

time, because people who are working shorter hours 

will be able to claim child care support. 

The hon. Member for Nottingham East rightly talked 

about the importance of the digital process— 

10 pm 

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)). 

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House 

do now adjourn.—(James Duddridge.) 

Maria Miller: As I was saying, the hon. Gentleman 

rightly picked up on the importance of the online 

aspect of universal credit. It is designed to be an online 

service, providing access and support to claimants 24 hours 

a day. Importantly, it will also provide the service where 

constituents are, as opposed to where jobcentres are. 

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): I thank the Minister 

for giving way, and I apologise for not being here for the 

beginning of the debate. I was at another engagement 

down below, and I did not realise that the Adjournment 

debate had started. 

I feel that certain people in the middle class are going 

to fall into the child poverty bracket as a result of the 

introduction of universal credit. What assurance can 

the Minister give me that such people will not be 

adversely affected by the changes that the Government 

are proposing? 

Maria Miller: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s 

intervention. At the point of transition to universal 

credit, we want to ensure that people will continue to 

receive the support that they were receiving before, if 

there have been no changes to their circumstances. It is 

important for everyone to understand that, as a result 

of universal credit, we will be making work pay. We will 

ensure that more people can stay close to the labour 

market, which will help them not only to get out of 

poverty but to stay out of it. We all know that families 

can cycle in and out of poverty; it does not affect a 

static group of people. It is therefore important that we 

have that support in place. 

I want to get back to the digital nature of universal 

credit. We make no apology for the fact that this is 

designed to be an online service. It is designed to be 

available 24 hours a day, and to be available where 

claimants are and when it is most convenient for them 

to use it. The hon. Member for Nottingham East is 

right to say that that will not be the right approach for 

absolutely everyone, but let me stay with the group for 

which it will be the right approach. Estimates show that 

about 80% of individuals are already accessing services 

in an online scenario. We are not assuming that 80% 

will use the online service at the outset; we have always 

recognised that not everyone will be able to claim online. 

However, we expect that the proportion who do so will 

grow over time. We will supplement all of that with a 

face-to-face and telephone service that will always be 

available, for just the kinds of groups of people whom 

the hon. Gentleman referred to. 

To ensure that we resolve any issues in advance of the 

system going live, and that we have the right kind of 

support in place, we are already working with local 

authorities on a number of pilot schemes. I urge the 

hon. Gentleman to look at the work that we are doing 

with the Local Government Association. We have also 

recently issued a joint prospectus calling on local authorities 

to deliver pilots to support residents in preparation for 

the introduction of universal credit in 2013. The pilots 

are expected to start in the autumn of this year and to 

end by September 2013. We will focus on delivering the 

kind of face-to-face support that individuals might 

need when claiming universal credit. I hope that he will 

agree that we will have a wide range of support available. 

It will be available online, as well as face to face and on 

the telephone.


9 MAY 2012 


124 

[Maria Miller] 

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is important 

to get the IT right for this, and we are well under way in 

our designs and in testing the system to ensure that 

universal credit is introduced in 2013. Our ambition 

will, of course, always be to move the majority of people 

on to use of the online system, and we are working 

closely with other Government Departments and beyond 

to ensure that the best possible support is there to 

enable access to the internet for many people, supporting 

claimants to get even more value from being online. 

The hon. Gentleman expressed an interest in the 

issue of fraud and the work being done to ensure that 

safeguards are in place. It will come as no surprise to 

him to hear that we take the issue of fraud very seriously 

indeed. Its prevention has been built into the heart of 

all policy and service design development. Universal 

credit will be protected by comprehensive and sophisticated 

cyber-defence and counter-fraud systems, which are 

currently under development with leading suppliers. I 

am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to stay close 

to the sorts of issues that we are dealing with, but he 

will understand if I do not go into the details of those 

systems, as they are sensitive and not for open discussion. 

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of monthly 

payments, which I have touched on a little already. To 

be absolutely clear, we believe it important for universal 

credit to reflect what people experience in the workplace 

when they are working full time. For the most part, that 

means being able to budget around a monthly payment, 

a monthly salary or a monthly amount of money coming 

in. We will ensure that there is flexibility in the system 

for those who find that exceptionally difficult, but we 

believe that this will be an exception and not the rule. 

Jim Shannon: I can see the logic behind the change to 

monthly payments, but it is clear that some who get 

weekly payments are not knowledgeable enough to 

know how to manage their moneys. Will the Government 

give any help to those who will depend on single weekly 

payments to start with, who will then have to manage 

on monthly payments, on how best to manage their 

money? 

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman will be reassured 

to know that my noble Friend Lord Freud is looking at 

exactly those issues. We know that changing people’s 

behaviour cannot happen overnight. People need support 

and we will make sure that we understand the sort of 

support that will prove the most effective, as the hon. 

Gentleman would expect us to do. 

The hon. Member for Nottingham East talked about 

the importance of banking in this process. Direct payments 

to bank accounts are an important part of helping 

people to prepare for work. We will encourage claimants 

to use bank accounts, and we are discussing this very 

issue with the British Bankers Association. We recognise, 

however, that it will not be suitable for everybody, so we 

expect to continue to pay rent directly to landlords in 

some cases and we will continue to ensure that suitable 

payment arrangements are in place for everybody. The 

hon. Gentleman is right that we need that nuanced 

approach for some individuals. The bulk of individuals, 

we believe, should be able to cope with the sort of 

monthly payments that I mentioned earlier. 

Chris Leslie: I am sorry to intervene, as I know we are 

getting short of time. The analysis of the support needs 

of an individual, either face to face at the first point of 

application or subsequently in recognition of exceptions 

such as weekly payments or direct payments for landlords, 

is a key point. How will it be done? Will it be a local 

service? Is it assumed that predominantly local authorities 

will pick up those responsibilities? I want to gain a sense 

of who will be dealing with these things, as the Department 

for Work and Pensions in Whitehall will not be doing 

the face-to-face work. 

Maria Miller: I think the hon. Gentleman is right, 

and in the pilots we shall pick up some of those issues, 

particularly the sorts of support that local authorities 

could provide. Jobcentre Plus will also be involved from 

the launch of universal credit as an on-site, readily 

available resource. The hon. Gentleman is right that we 

have to make sure that the appropriate support is there 

for the people who might need it, and we want to ensure 

that such systems are available so that universal credit 

becomes the success we know it will be. 

The hon. Gentleman spoke of the importance of 

understanding the phased migration fully. We recognise 

that the move from one welfare system to another needs 

to be managed carefully, so that no one is left without 

the support that they need. The transition from the old 

benefit system to universal credit will therefore take 

place in three phases over four years, ending in 2017 

when between 12 million and 13 million benefit and tax 

credit claims will become 8 million universal credit 

claims. 

In the first phase, beginning in October 2013, all new 

claims to the current benefits and credits will be phased 

out by April 2014, with new claims to housing benefits 

and tax credits being the last to end in that month. 

Natural migrations to universal credit as a result of a 

significant change of circumstances will also be taken 

from October 2013. 

In the second phase, which will begin in April 2014, 

existing claimants whose circumstances have not changed 

will start to be transferred to universal credit through 

managed change. It is expected that, as most of the 

households whose members are actively seeking work 

will have been moved through the new claims or natural 

changes route by April 2014, the households involved in 

that phase will generally be those with people in part-time 

work and those that are economically inactive. Priority 

will be given to households the nature of whose work 

makes them most likely to benefit from universal credit. 

In the third and final phase, from the end of 2015 

until the end of 2017, the remaining households will be 

moved into the new system. Local circumstances, such 

as staffing turnover, contractual obligations and 

demography, will be taken into account. The households 

will be moved on to universal credit in good time before 

housing benefit loads become too small to be viable. 

Within those parameters, the focus on work and poverty 

will be retained. That should allow local authorities to 

plan with more certainty over the medium term. 

The hon. Gentleman rightly sought clarification of 

the important issue of housing benefit for pensioners. 

Following the abolition of housing benefit, help with 

rent and child costs will be provided through pension 

credit, and will broadly follow the existing rules.


9 MAY 2012 


126 

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of information 

technology issues. I am not sure that I can cover all of 

them today, but I can assure him categorically that there 

will be no offshore outsourcing of the administration of 

universal credit, that the Department will send no existing 

British jobs overseas, and that no personal data are held 

or can be accessed outside the United Kingdom. Many 

sub-contractors started using overseas staff under the 

last Government. We are considering how jobs that 

used to be sent offshore could be moved back to the UK 

in the future. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would 

welcome such a move. 

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman raised the 

issue of real-time information, but I shall bring him up 

to date in case he is interested. Real-time information is 

being introduced in HMRC to improve the operation of 

the pay-as-you-earn system, which will make it easier 

for employers and HMRC to share information. Under 

universal credit, entitlement for people who pay tax on 

their earnings through PAYE will correspond directly 

with earnings information received through HMRC’s 

automatic real-time information PAYE data transfer. 

HMRC began pilot-testing RTI in April, and has 

already introduced 10 employer schemes representing a 

range of sizes with the aim of ironing out any wrinkles. 

I understand that the initial pilot stage has gone well, 

and that a further 310 employers joined the pilot yesterday. 

We are working closely with HMRC to ensure that 

systems are in place for the introduction of universal 

credit. 

The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the important 

role of local authorities. They have been, and will 

continue to be, integral to the development of universal 

credit. We have undertaken extensive work with authorities 

to ensure that they help us to develop universal credit, 

and to tap into their expertise. I would like to take this 

opportunity to thank the local authorities associations 

of England, Scotland and Wales for their constructive 

engagement with us, especially those authorities that 

have already committed time and resources to helping 

to make universal credit a success. 

On 21 March the permanent secretaries of my 

Department and the Department for Communities and 

Local Government wrote to chief executives informing 

them that local authorities will be expected to provide 

face-to-face support for certain universal credit claimants 

who will need more intensive help to access the new 

benefit. 

The hon. Gentleman raised the important issue of 

staff. Local authorities will want to ensure that they 

deal with that issue correctly. When universal credit 

comes into force in October 2013, local authorities will 

have an important role to play, and that role will begin 

to change, too, so they will go through a period of 

transition. They will need to make sure they continue to 

work with us through this process. The Local Government 

Association and the DWP recently issued a joint prospectus 

calling on local authorities to work on the pilots I have 

mentioned. We recognise that costs will be associated 

with that process and the wind-down of housing benefit, 

and we will discuss that with DCLG and the local 

authorities in due course. 

Chris Leslie: The Minister says that there will be a 

negotiation and that she will discuss this matter with 

local authorities, but she has to accept that central 

Government have decided to introduce the universal 

credit, and that a number of housing benefit and local 

authority staff will be made redundant. In a sense, the 

Government are forcing local authorities to make their 

staff redundant. The Minister has to accept that they 

must be compensated by central Government for that. 

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman has made a number 

of assumptions. As I have outlined, the introduction of 

universal credit will take place over a number of years. 

Local authorities already know it is coming, so it would 

be prudent of them to be planning for the changes and 

to make sure that they cause as little disruption as 

possible to their staff. Local authorities will have an 

important role to play in the future, whether in respect 

of their staff or of minimising any costs associated with 

the change. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to make 

assumptions as to how local authorities will deal with 

this process. I think most of them will want to plan the 

transfer sensibly and avoid any unnecessary costs. 

I hope I have covered the majority of the points the 

hon. Gentleman raised. This debate has provided us 

with a tremendous opportunity to discuss an important 

part of the Government’s reform agenda, which is based 

on making sure that work pays, and that we have a 

strong and robust benefit system that supports families 

in the right way in order to make sure they can lift 

themselves out of poverty and that people, both disabled 

and non-disabled, have the opportunity to go to work. 

These reforms are a central plank of Government policy. 

Question put and agreed to. 

10.18 pm 

House adjourned.

1P 

Petitions 

9 MAY 2012 

Petitions 

2P 

Petitions 


OBSERVATIONS 

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

Emergency Fire Control Services in Cumbria 

The Petition of residents of Cumbria, 

Declares that the Petitioners oppose the decision by 

Cumbria County Council to outsource services currently 

provided by Cumbria Emergency Fire Control to Cheshire 

in 2012 and eventually a regional facility in 2014. 

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of 

Commons urges the Government to encourage Cumbria 

County Council to re-consider their decision to outsource 

Cumbria Emergency Fire Control services and ensure 

that before any further decisions are made, all plans, 

including a full breakdown of the financial business 

case are made available through a public consultation. 

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Tim 

Farron, Official Report, 17 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 291.] 

[P001017] 

Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities 

and Local Government, received 8 May 2012. 

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local 

Government is aware that a consortium of Fire and 

Rescue Authorities in the North West (Cumbria, Greater 

Manchester, Lancashire and Cheshire) are seeking to 

use the control centre building in Warrington, procured 

as part of the terminated FiReControl Project, as a 

shared control service for the four authorities. 

Decisions to share control services and use the 

Warrington building are entirely a matter for the four 

authorities. 

Following closure of the previous Government’s failed 

FiReControl programme, which wasted half a billion 

pounds of taxpayers’ money, the Coalition Government 

consulted on the best way to improve the resilience and 

efficiency of fire and rescue control services in England. 

This established that there was broad support for a 

localist approach with locally determined and delivered 

projects. 

The Secretary of State is clear that it is for Fire and 

Rescue Authorities to deliver local control services in 

the way that best meets the needs of their communities 

and provides value for the taxpayer. Decisions should 

be made by local elected representatives, accountable to 

the local electorate. 

Fire and rescue authorities should be open and 

transparent in their dealings, including following the 

“Code of Recommended Practice for Local Authorities 

on Data Transparency”. 

HOME DEPARTMENT 

Police Cuts (Humberside) 

The Petition of residents of Hull, 

Declares that the Petitioners believe that the Government 

have a duty to protect citizens from crime; that the 

significant increase in police officers over the past 10 years 

has helped reduce crime and make people feel safer; 

notes that under Government proposals the police budget 

will be cut by 20%, that over 16,000 police officers will 

be lost and that for Humberside Police Force cuts will 

be even greater than the national average, with a 25% 

reduction in the police budget; further notes that 

Humberside police force is projected to have 250 fewer 

police officers in March 2012 than in March 2010; and 

declares that the Petitioners believe that this will hamper 

the efforts of the police to prevent crime and keep 

citizens safe. 

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of 

Commons urges the Government to support the work 

of the police in ensuring that the downward trend in 

overall crime continues by at least maintaining 2010 

levels of uniformed police officers in England and Wales. 

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Diana 

Johnson, Official Report, 7 February 2012; Vol. 540, 

c. 276.] 

[P001005] 

Observations from the Secretary of State for the Home 

Department: 

The Government support the work of the police, 

both in Humberside and across England and Wales as a 

whole. 

The reductions in funding for the police are challenging 

but manageable. This Government inherited the largest 

peacetime deficit in Britain’s history, and have had no 

option but to take urgent action. As a service spending 

£14 billion per year, the police cannot be exempt from 

the requirement to save public money. 

However, Government funding is not the only source 

of income for the police. About a quarter comes from 

the police precept (element of council tax). The level of 

police precept is set by the police authority and, from 

2012, the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC). 

Humberside Police Authority has taken the decision to 

increase their precept by 3.99% for 2012-13. If future 

precept decisions of the Police and Crime Commissioner 

for Humberside follow a similar pattern to those taken 

by the Police Authority in recent years, the force will 

face at most a 7% cash reduction in overall funding over 

the spending review period. 

The effectiveness of a police force depends not on 

overall numbers but on how well it deploys its resources. 

Recorded crime fell by 4% over the last year, while total 

police officer numbers reduced over the same period. 

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary have made 

clear that there is no simple link between officer numbers 

and crime levels, between numbers and the visibility of 

the police in the community, or between numbers and 

the quality of service provided. 

We do know, however, that forces can do more to 

ensure that frontline services are prioritised. Her Majesty’s 

Inspectorate of Constabulary has shown that, on average, 

only 12% of officers and PCSOs are visible and available 

at key times. Additionally, in March 2010 there were 

around 25,000 police officers and PCSOs working in 

non-frontline functions, including over 7,000 police officers 

working in back office jobs. 

The Government are aware that forces are already 

doing more on this agenda. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate 

of Constabulary have found that police forces are planning 

to increase the proportion of police officers and staff

3P 

Petitions 

9 MAY 2012 

Petitions 

4P 

working on the frontline from 68% in 2010, to 70% by 

March of this year, with that trend expected to continue. 

Nevertheless, forces can go further and organise their 

resources better while ensuring they are focused on 

what the public wants. Smarter deployment; shift patterns 

that better reflect demand for services from the public; 

reducing bureaucracy and increasing the scope for officers 

to use their professional judgment will all help improve 

efficiency. Collaboration between forces, better IT, and 

better procurement will help reduce costs whilst maintaining 

services. This Government are aware that all police 

forces are taking steps to reduce spending, while striving 

to improve the service they deliver for the public. With 

transformational changes in the way police forces work, 

savings of over £2 billion a year are possible—exceeding 

the reductions in police funding.

PETITIONS 


Col. No. 

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT . 1P 

Emergency Fire Control Services in Cumbria ....... 1P 

Col. No. 

HOME DEPARTMENT........................................... 1P 

Police Cuts (Humberside) ...................................... 1P

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. 

All prices are inclusive of postage

Volume 545 

Wednesday 

No. 1 9 May 2012 

CONTENTS 


List of Government and Principal Officers and Officials of the House 

Speaker’s Statement [Col. 1] 

Queen’s Speech [Col. 3] 

Debate on the Address (First day) [Col. 6] 

Debate adjourned 

Universal Credit [Col. 117] 

Debate on motion for Adjournment 

Petitions [Col. 1P] 

Observations

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?