chan77

Thursday Volume 554 

29 November 2012 No. 77 

HOUSE OF COMMONS 

OFFICIAL REPORT 

PARLIAMENTARY 

DEBATES 

(HANSARD) 

Thursday 29 November 2012 

£5·00

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2012 

This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, 

which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/.

351 29 NOVEMBER 2012 

352 

House of Commons 


The House met at half-past Nine o’clock 

PRAYERS 

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair] 

Oral Answers to Questions 

TRANSPORT 

The Secretary of State was asked— 

Cities Fit for Cycling 

1. Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab): What 

progress he has made on implementing the 

recommendations of Cities Fit for Cycling. [130581] 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport 

(Norman Baker): The coalition Government is working 

hard to promote cycling and make it even safer. Yesterday 

I announced a further £20 million of funding for cycling 

projects. This is on top of the £30 million of funding 

announced earlier this year to tackle dangerous junctions. 

We have also made it simpler for councils to put in place 

20 mph zones and limits and install Trixi mirrors to 

improve the visibility of cyclists at junctions, by reducing 

bureaucracy. 

Jonathan Ashworth: I am grateful to the Minister for 

that detailed reply. I recently met representatives of the 

Leicester cycling campaign, who made it clear that they 

felt that, if I may say so, the Government need to put 

more emphasis on and more support into cycling. Given 

that, will the Government commit to implement all the 

proposals of the Cities Fit for Cycling campaign and 

invest in dedicated separate cycling infrastructure? 

Norman Baker: That, if I may say so, is a churlish 

interpretation of what the Government has done, which 

is to put enormous effort into improving cycling and 

progressing all the recommendations of The Times Cities 

Fit for Cycling campaign, which I very much welcome. 

It is perhaps worth noting that there was a huge backlog 

of important cycling interventions that we inherited 

when we took office and we are progressing well to deal 

with those. 

Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): The 

Minister may know of the all-party group that I started 

in the early 1980s called PACTS—the parliamentary 

advisory council for transport safety—which organised 

the seatbelt legislation. We had the annual Westminster 

lecture, the 23rd, last night at which Jeanne Breen 

vigorously said that we are not going to get cycling 

deaths down and there will be a rising level of road 

accidents because this Government have given up targets. 

Norman Baker: I do not think that is entirely fair. We 

have seen great action on road safety from the Secretary 

of State and from the Under-Secretary of State for 

Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon 

(Stephen Hammond), who has just launched a campaign 

on cycle safety. Targets are an easy substitute for action. 

What we saw under the previous Government was 

legislation which caused delays, and targets which were 

a substitute for action. We like to get things done, not to 

set arbitrary targets. 

Road Congestion 

2. Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con): What steps 

he is taking to reduce congestion on Highways Agency 

roads. [130582] 

4. Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) 

(Con): What steps he is taking to reduce congestion on 

Highways Agency roads. [130584] 

11. Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con): What steps 

he is taking to reduce congestion on Highways Agency 

roads. 


(Stephen Hammond): This Government are committed 

to accelerating the delivery of roads infrastructure. 

Spending on the major roads programme to October 

2012 was just over £1.9 billion. A £217 million programme 

of pinch point schemes is being progressed, as is a 

£3.5 billion programme of 20 major road schemes. 

Jackie Doyle-Price: As my hon. Friend knows, the 

Dartford crossing causes motorists in my constituency 

a lot of grief, and although it is part of the national 

road infrastructure, the congestion impact is very much 

local. Will he give me an undertaking that he will do 

everything he can to tackle the congestion at the Dartford 

crossing and at junction 31 with the A13 and the M25 

so that the jobs and economic growth that can be 

generated in south Essex will materialise? 

Stephen Hammond: I can give my hon. Friend that 

assurance. As she knows, we are already progressing 

free flow through the Dartford tunnel. Also, we are in 

discussions with the Highways Agency about the junction 

that she refers to. 

Oliver Colvile: I thank my hon. Friend for his recent 

announcement about the investment of £1.8 million in 

the Manadon roundabout, which is on the border of 

my Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport constituency. 

Following last week’s flooding in the south-west, train 

passengers’ journeys to and from London have been 

very disrupted. Can my hon. Friend make an economic 

assessment of the impact of that on the Plymouth 

economy? 

Stephen Hammond: Along with many other members 

of the Government, I offer my deepest sympathy to 

those who have been affected by the recent flooding. I 

recognise that it has been extremely disruptive, both for 

residents and for businesses, but it is too early to undertake 

an economic assessment. The Government’s main priority 

at present is restoring services to all those affected by 

flooding.

353 Oral Answers 29 NOVEMBER 2012 

Oral Answers 

354 

Mr Marcus Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for meeting 

me to discuss the Woodford Lane A5 junction, the 

scene of many serious accidents which not only add to 

congestion on the A5 but have resulted in many serious 

injuries and the loss of a young life in the past year. 

Does he agree that we need to look seriously at trying to 

find a solution to make this treacherous junction safer? 

Stephen Hammond: I certainly agree with my hon. 

Friend. He will know that as a result of that meeting I 

have asked the Highways Agency to conduct a review of 

the junction’s safety record over the past few years and 

keep an eye on it over the next six months, and I have 

agreed to meet him to discuss the matter in the second 

half of next year. 

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

way that congestion could be greatly reduced would be 

by having a dedicated police service for the highways? 

Does the Minister agree? 

Stephen Hammond: The hon. Gentleman will know 

that there is already a police service that tackles that—the 

traffic police—and there are also Highways Agency 

officers who help with accidents. 

England-Scotland Transport Links 

3. Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab): What steps 

his Department is taking to improve transport links 

between England and Scotland. [130583] 

The Minister of State, Department for Transport 

(Mr Simon Burns): On rail, we are providing for improved 

links between Scotland and England through the High 

Speed 2 project, and the inter-city express programme 

will allow us to provide better services along the east 

coast main line. On roads, we announced on 23 May 

that the A1 north of Newcastle to the Scottish border 

has now been classified as a route of strategic national 

importance. 

Jim McGovern: I am sure that the Minister will agree 

that better rail links between Scotland and England are 

vital to the Scottish economy and, indeed, that of the 

UK. What immediate steps has he taken to improve 

links between, for example, Aberdeen and Dundee on 

the east coast and London? 

Mr Burns: I assure the hon. Gentleman that one of 

this Government’s priorities is to improve rail links 

throughout England, Wales and Scotland through 

electrification. On his specific question about improving 

services in Scotland, that is a matter for Arriva and the 

Scottish Government—[Interruption.] Sorry, not Arriva. 

It is a matter for the provider of train services in 

Scotland and the Scottish Government. We will work 

with them, as we have done in the past and will continue 

to do, to ensure that the improvements that Scotland 

needs are made. 

Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con): 

The Government committed themselves to the inter-city 

express programme train contract in July. Will the Minister 

explain how that will improve services between Scotland 

and England, particularly journey times? 

Mr Burns: It will make a significant improvement 

because it means enhanced rolling stock along the 

whole east coast main line from London to Edinburgh, 

which I believe will make journey times from Edinburgh 

to England about 15 minutes quicker overall. However, 

we should also take into account the improved quality 

of the service and the improvements to the track on the 

east coast main line. 

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

The resolution of the west coast main line franchise 

issues will be important in enabling improvements to 

services in those areas. When did the Minister decide to 

postpone the publication of the Laidlaw report on the 

franchise fiasco? 

Mr Burns: I would like to reassure the hon. Lady that 

there is no question of postponing publication of the 

report; we hope to publish it shortly. 

Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): The existing 

plans for high-speed rail will reduce journey times from 

Glasgow and Edinburgh to London by almost an hour, 

but the ultimate aim must be high-speed rail all the way 

to Glasgow and Edinburgh. What discussions has my 

right hon. Friend had with the Scottish Government on 

extending the lines north from Leeds and Manchester 

all the way to Glasgow and Edinburgh? 

Mr Burns: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of 

State announced in early October, we will be looking at 

the feasibility of extending HS2 to Scotland via Leeds 

and Manchester, and we will certainly be holding discussions 

with the Scottish Government in due course to move 

forward analysis on the proposal. 

Commission on Aviation 

5. Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con): For what 

reasons summer 2015 has been set as the time by which 

the independent commission on aviation chaired by 

Sir Howard Davies must publish its final report. 

[130585] 

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick 

McLoughlin): It is vital that the commission has sufficient 

time to carry out a thorough investigation of the options 

and build a consensus on its long-term recommendations. 

The timetable has been set to allow that to take place. 

Zac Goldsmith: This looks very much like an attempt 

to kick the issue into the long grass until after the 

election. My message to the Secretary of State is that 

uncertainty for three years, and probably another three 

years for planning, is not only bad politics but bad for 

the economy. I urge him please to ensure that next year’s 

interim report provides real clarity on the Government’s 

preferred solution so that communities, businesses and, 

of course, voters can plan accordingly. 

Mr McLoughlin: I am not going to predict at this 

stage what will be in the interim report of a commission 

that has only just been set up. They will not be the 

Government’s recommendations; they will be those of 

the commission. I hope that the commission has been 

drawn widely enough to attract cross-party support.


Oral Answers 

356 

Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab): 

After half a century of inquiries and investigations into 

runway capacity in the south-east of England, there are 

almost no new facts to be learned. Is this not just a fig 

leaf before the Government do a U-turn and provide a 

third runway at Heathrow? 

Mr McLoughlin: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman 

thinks that is the case, but it is not. In fact, we are trying 

to build a consensus across the parties on large infrastructure 

projects such as this, and to a degree that consensus has 

been achieved. The HS2 route that we have adopted is 

the route that the previous Government published. 

Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con): In the 

meantime, noting the results announced by the owners 

of Gatwick airport yesterday, does my right hon. Friend 

believe that competition is an important element in 

trying to ease the capacity problems in the London 

airport system? 

Mr McLoughlin: The truth of the matter is that a 

number of airports are now owned by different companies 

as a result of the changes that have been made, and they 

are coming forward with their own proposals, which 

will add to the approach taken by the Davies commission. 

It will certainly not be short of representations of 

various sorts, including, I imagine, from my right hon. 

Friend. 

Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab): The 

Prime Minister came back from his summer holiday 

saying that he was 

“more determined than ever to cut through the dither that holds 

this country back.” 

Having dithered for a year before finally accepting our 

suggestion of an independent commission on aviation, 

the Government have now cynically set a time scale that 

pushes decisions beyond the next election. Will the 

Secretary of State finally listen to all those, including 

the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce, who 

want the national interest to be put before party 

management, accelerate the time scale, and ask Sir Howard 

Davies to produce his final report by the end of next 

year? 

Mr McLoughlin: In all honesty, the Labour party has 

also changed its position on what should happen at 

Heathrow. I would have hoped that the composition of 

the commission attracted widespread support. Indeed, 

one of its members is an adviser to the Leader of the 

Opposition on infrastructure projects. It is right that we 

get the right answer and build consensus on what we are 

trying to do. 

Maria Eagle: Business will be bitterly disappointed 

by that answer. It is no wonder the Mayor of London 

has described his own Government’s approach to aviation 

as 

“a policy of utter inertia”, 

“glacial”and a “fudgerama”. HS2, Thameslink, franchising, 

investment promised in the autumn statement a year 

ago: all are running late. The Secretary of State is now 

presiding over the department for dither and delay. 

When is he going to get a grip? 

Mr McLoughlin: The hon. Lady was smiling at the 

end of her question, and that betrays the fact that it was 

a very good line written for her but not quite believed by 

her when she delivered it. We are doing a huge amount 

in delivering for UK infrastructure. I look forward to 

seeing the recommendations that she wants to put forward 

to the Davies commission, which will tell us what Labour 

wants to do. 

Lincolnshire (Transport Infrastructure) 

6. Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): What 

improvements to transport infrastructure he has 

planned that will affect Lincolnshire. [130587] 


(Norman Baker): This Government is investing in transport 

infrastructure that will bring real benefits to Lincolnshire. 

We are bringing forward improvements to the A160/A180 

by 18 months, which together with our funding for the 

A18/A180 will improve access to the port of Immingham. 

We are also providing some £50 million to support the 

Lincoln eastern bypass scheme. The line upgrade between 

Peterborough to Doncaster via Spalding and Lincoln 

will improve rail capacity in the area. 

Mr Leigh: May I take my hon. Friend on a journey 

from the hills of Sussex to the broad plains of Lincolnshire 

along the old Roman way, the A15? If he goes along 

that route, he will find it narrow, congested and dangerous. 

Will he persuade his colleagues to reject the hideous 

wind farms that are going to disfigure it, and instead 

make it a dual carriageway, a noble highway taking 

people safely and speedily from Lincoln to Scunthorpe—the 

Via Norman Baker? 

Norman Baker: I am always interested in winding 

journeys from Sussex to elsewhere in the country, so I 

look forward to being in Lincolnshire again. Wind farms 

are not a matter for the Department for Transport, as 

my hon. Friend knows, but I am sure that his comments 

have been noted, as you would put it, Mr Speaker. 

Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con): I welcome the 

Minister’s announcement about the A160 and the 

Immingham bypass. However, many people travelling 

through Lincolnshire, when they reach the end of the 

A15, which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough 

(Mr Leigh) wants to be dualled, will be heading for the 

county’s premier resort of Cleethorpes, and in order to 

do so they will travel along the A180, with its original 

concrete surface. Will Ministers do all they can to 

ensure that that road is improved in the near future? 

Norman Baker: I agree it is important to have quieter 

surfaces where it is sensible to introduce them. The 

Highways Agency has a policy of replacing concrete 

surfaces with quieter surfaces, as and when infrastructure 

needs to be replaced. I encourage local councils to 

follow a similar policy. 

DVLA Counter Services Contract 

7. Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con): What 

progress he has made on awarding the DVLA counter 

services contract; and if he will make a statement. 

[130588]


Oral Answers 

358 


McLoughlin): On 13 November, I announced that the 

preferred bidder for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing 

Agency’s counter services contract was Post Office Ltd. 

We expect the contract to be awarded before Christmas 

and it will be operational from April 2013. The contract 

will achieve savings of between £13 million and £15 million 

each year. The initial contract will run for seven years. 

Nigel Adams: I am grateful to the Secretary of State 

for that reply. Does he agree that this decision will 

provide a great boost for many village post offices, such 

as those in Hambleton, Monk Fryston and Cawood in 

my constituency, and will help to preserve their long-term 

viability? 

Mr McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, 

who was one of the leading campaigners trying to 

ensure that the contract was awarded to the Post Office. 

I am pleased that it managed to win the contract. It won 

it in an open competition, which shows that it is able to 

win contracts from the Government to provide services. 

The decision is vital for places, including those in my 

constituency, that rely to a huge extent on their rural 

post offices. 

Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): My right hon. 

Friend may recall that for a very brief while I was the 

shadow Department of Trade and Industry spokesman 

on post offices. The key thing has always been the need 

for footfall, because without it, as my hon. Friend the 

Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) said, there 

is no viability. What increase in footfall does my right 

hon. Friend estimate will result from this innovative 

move? 

Mr McLoughlin: I do remember my hon. Friend’s 

time as our party’s spokesman on post offices. Indeed, I 

was the Minister with responsibility for the Post Office 

at one point in history, so I well appreciate how important 

post offices are to our rural communities. It is important 

that they win business, but they have to compete for that 

business. They have done so very successfully in this case. 

Road Deaths and Injuries 

8. Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab): If he will 

make it his policy to reinstate national targets to reduce 

deaths and serious injuries on the roads. [130589] 

13. Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab): If he 

will make it his policy to reinstate national targets 

to reduce deaths and serious injuries on the roads. 

[130595] 


McLoughlin): The Government have no plans to reinstate 

national targets. The strategic framework for road safety 

sets out measures that we intend to take to continue to 

reduce casualties. Those include making forecasts of 

the casualty numbers that we might expect to see through 

to 2030 if our measures, and the actions of local authorities, 

are successful. 

Graeme Morrice: With the numbers killed and seriously 

injured on Britain’s roads increasing for the first time in 

17 years, will the Secretary of State think again about 

the decision to axe national targets on reducing deaths 

and serious injuries, which helped to focus efforts across 

Government, local government and the agencies? 

Mr McLoughlin: I will never take safety lightly; it 

must always be uppermost in the mind of the Secretary 

of State for Transport. The United Kingdom has a very 

good record. In 1979, the number of people killed on 

the roads was 6,352. In 2011, the number was 1,901. 

That is still far too many, but the country has been 

heading in the right direction. 

Kate Green: Campaigners will meet in my constituency 

this weekend to discuss how we can improve local road 

safety. There is growing support for 20 mph speed limits 

in residential areas. Why does the Department advise 

that safety has to be balanced against economic 

considerations and traffic flow, when there is no evidence 

of longer journey times in 20 mph areas? 

Mr McLoughlin: I am always willing to look at the 

hon. Lady’s representations. It is important that we take 

a range of measures to improve safety. We have taken a 

range of measures, as have the companies that produce 

cars. There is no doubt that cars are much more responsive 

in their braking power than they were 30 years ago. We 

have made movements in the right direction. In some 

areas, 20 mph speed limits are right. 

Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): At a 

time of budget constraints, agencies understandably 

concentrate scarce resources on the performance targets 

against which they are measured. That is clearly having 

an impact on road safety budgets. I urge the Secretary 

of State to reconsider this decision because quite apart 

from the personal tragedy that is involved in all fatalities, 

it is a false economy, because every fatality costs a lot of 

money. 

Mr McLoughlin: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is 

right: a fatality not only causes huge damage and a 

dramatic situation for the family involved in that tragedy, 

but there is also cost to the health service and other 

services. There has been no diminution in the desire of 

the Department for Transport to improve road safety, 

and there will not be while I am Secretary of State. 

Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con): 

The Secretary of State may be aware that road traffic 

deaths in the east midlands are double those in the 

north east per capita. As I learned from the Transport 

Committee inquiry into road safety, national targets 

allow underperforming local authorities to shelter behind 

the excellent performance of other local authorities, 

Blackpool included. Does the Secretary of State agree 

that national targets actually lead to more traffic deaths 

in some parts of the country because we are not targeting 

underperformance? 

Mr McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he 

makes an interesting point. Whenever serious or fatal 

accidents take place I want a proper investigation to 

take place, the results of which can be carried across to 

provide experience to other local authorities throughout 

the United Kingdom.


Oral Answers 

360 

Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab): The 

Secretary of State’s decision will be bitterly regretted by 

campaign groups across the country. Targets introduced 

by the Thatcher Administration 30 years ago had crossparty 

support and have successfully brought down casualty 

rates across the country. His use of the word “forecasts” 

indicates that he is trying to claw something back from 

his predecessor’s bad decision to abolish targets. Will 

the Secretary of State think again? Targets are not the 

whole solution but a component; they are part of the 

way to reduce serious injuries and deaths on British 

roads. 

Mr McLoughlin: I know the hon. Gentleman takes 

this issue incredibly seriously, and although he talks 

about deaths I think we should look at the seriously 

injured as well. In the year ending June 2012, there were 

1,790 deaths on British roads—a 6% drop on the year 

before. 

Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con): The Secretary of State 

is well aware that those most at risk on our roads are 

young drivers. I was pleased to see his recent positive 

comments about placing restrictions on young drivers—for 

example, on the number of passengers they may carry 

or the times of day they may drive. Will he indicate to 

the House how those proposals might be taken forward? 

Mr McLoughlin: A number of representations on 

young drivers have been made to the Department for 

Transport and, as I said in that interview, they are all 

worth considering and investigating properly to see 

whether we can reduce the terrible toll that is sometimes 

caused by young drivers. However, that is not so of all 

young drivers. We read about the horrendous cases, but 

not about the many cases where young drivers behave 

and act responsibly on the road, as do other road users. 

A1 (Dualling) 

9. Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) 

(Lab): What progress he has made on dualling the A1 

north of Newcastle; and if he will make a statement. 

[130590] 


(Stephen Hammond): The Department has no current 

plans to dual the A1 north of Newcastle. In recognition 

of its importance for freight and other strategic traffic, 

the A1 north of Newcastle was designated as a route of 

strategic national importance in May 2010. 

Mr Brown: Will the Minister explain the logic of that 

answer to the House, and say how the Government can 

designate the route as of strategic national importance 

but not continue to dual it north of Newcastle? 

Stephen Hammond: As was made clear at the time, 

reclassification does not guarantee any extra funding, 

and any proposed upgrade would need to be subject to 

the usual decision-making process. 

Road Capacity (North-West) 

10. Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/ 

Co-op): What recent assessment he has made of road 

capacity in north-west England. [130591] 


(Mr Simon Burns): The Department has not undertaken 

any recent assessment of road capacity in north-west 

England. Since 2010, however, the Highways Agency 

has completed two annual assessments of the operation 

of all its strategic routes in the north of England in 

terms of delay, journey reliability, capacity, accidents 

and some environmental measures. The next assessment 

is due in spring next year. 

Jonathan Reynolds: The Minister’s colleagues are aware 

that the roads in the Longdendale area of my constituency 

suffer from severe congestion—one Minister courteously 

took the time to visit, and the Secretary of State represents 

a seat not too far away. Since that last ministerial visit, 

the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) 

and I have worked with local authorities in Tameside, 

High Peak, Derbyshire and Barnsley to try to work out 

a solution that will cover the whole corridor between 

Greater Manchester and south Yorkshire. There has 

been a lot of interest in the study and we have published 

an interim report. Will the Minister grant us a meeting 

to take that work further? 

Mr Burns: As the hon. Gentleman rightly recognises, 

the scheme in the national programme was withdrawn 

in 2009 by the Labour Government. A considerable 

amount of work has been done since at a local level. 

Because I have considerable sympathy for areas where 

there is significant road congestion, and although there 

must now be a local approach to finding a solution, I or 

one of my ministerial colleagues would be more than 

happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend 

the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) if they 

would like to see us to discuss the matter further. 

Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con): Not only do the 

residents of Tintwistle in my constituency feel the ground 

shaking beneath their feet as wagons thunder by inches 

from their front doors, but the economic growth of the 

whole of Glossopdale is, in my view, being hampered by 

traffic congestion. Given that economic growth is a 

vital part of the future of the country, does the Minister 

agree that problems such as the Mottram, Tintwistle 

and Longdendale bypass assume even greater importance 

for local communities in towns such as Glossop? 

Mr Burns: My hon. Friend raises a valid point, as did 

the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan 

Reynolds) in his question. The fact is that the scheme 

came out of the national programme in 2009. Therefore, 

the approach must be to find a viable local alternative 

to reduce congestion for the hon. Gentleman’s and my 

hon. Friend’s constituents, and to help to increase economic 

growth. I am sure my hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman 

and local communities and stakeholders will contribute 

to that. However, as I said in answer to the hon. 

Gentleman, if he and my hon. Friend would like to 

come and see me or one or my ministerial colleagues to 

discuss the matter further, we will be more than happy 

to meet them. 

Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con): The motorway 

network forms the backbone of the north-west’s road 

network. Has the Minister considered improvements to 

the M6 and M56 in Cheshire to improve capacity on 

them?


Oral Answers 

362 

Mr Burns: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, that is 

the responsibility of the Highways Agency. However, I 

can give him an assurance from the national Government 

that we are determined to investigate all parts of the 

road network and rail network to identify pinch points, 

and problems that stifle economic development and 

create congestion, to ensure that Britain moves faster, 

swifter and more effectively. 

Mr Speaker: I call Mark Pritchard. Not here. 

Rail Fare Increases 

14. Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con): What recent 

progress his Department has made on mitigating the 

effect on rail passengers of rail fare increases. [130598] 


(Norman Baker): We announced in October that the 

Government will again cap the increase in regulated 

fares at RPI plus 1% for rail fares and Transport for 

London in January 2013 and 2014. This will benefit 

over quarter of a million annual season ticket holders. 

Many more holders of weekly and monthly season 

tickets will also see lower fares and some commuters 

will be over £200 better off over the two years. 

Dr Offord: People in my constituency are concerned 

about the cost of rail fares, but those who use Thameslink 

are also concerned about its speedy progression. What 

reassurance can the Minister give them that the tendering 

process for the project was conducted in the right and 

proper manner, and that the project remains on schedule? 

Norman Baker: Detailed evidence regarding the tendering 

process for the Thameslink rolling stock was given by 

the Transport Committee in September 2011. That 

confirmed that the requirements of EU procurement 

law had been met. The rolling stock procurement process 

is working towards commercial close in December and 

financial close early in the new year. Good progress has 

been made already on the infrastructure programme. 

Blackfriars and Farringdon stations are both operational, 

and enabling work at London Bridge is ongoing. 

Rail Electrification 

15. Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con): What progress his 

Department is making on rail electrification. [130599] 


(Mr Simon Burns): This Government have funded Network 

Rail to electrify almost 850 route miles, compared with 

about 10 route miles delivered by the previous Government 

in 13 years. The programme is on schedule. Passengers 

between Manchester and Scotland will be the first to 

benefit from electric trains by the end of 2013 and 

passengers on other routes will benefit soon after. 

Claire Perry: I thank the Minister for that encouraging 

reply. He recently wisely decided to review a further 

80 miles of electrification west of Newbury down to 

Westbury, which would bring enormous timetable and 

speed benefits to my constituents, as well as to neighbouring 

constituencies. Can he confirm that freight will be included 

in that review and indicate when it will be complete? 

Mr Burns: Mr Speaker, as you can imagine I am 

extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that kind and 

generous question. May I reassure her that we place 

great importance on improving the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the rail network? I can confirm that 

freight is included in the review that I have asked for on 

the Newbury to Westbury line. I do not want to hang 

around on this matter, because it will get bogged down 

in bureaucracy. [Interruption.] I hope that officials and 

Network Rail will report to me by February 2013, 

despite the sedentary comments from the hon. Member 

for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle). 

Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab): A few 

months ago, the Government made the welcome 

announcement of the intention to electrify the midland 

main line to Sheffield, which the Secretary of State 

knows very well, by 2019. There is now a concern that 

the timetable may be slipping, and that only part of the 

route may be done by 2019. May we have an unambiguous 

statement from the Minister that the intention still is to 

electrify the whole of the line to Sheffield by 2019? 

Mr Burns: May I try to reassure the hon. Gentleman 

and say that the intention certainly is to meet it by 2019? 

We have no information or knowledge to suggest that 

there is any problem. However, to provide further 

reassurance, if he were to make available to me any 

fears or evidence that suggests there might be slippage—even 

if it is erroneous information—I, as a matter of urgency, 

will look into it. I would not like a story to be established 

as fact that there is a delay, because we certainly do not 

believe that there is. 

Topical Questions 

T1. [130601] Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con): 

If he will make a statement on his departmental 

responsibilities. 


McLoughlin): I thank all the people who are working to 

get our roads and railways back up and running following 

widespread flooding. It has caused significant damage 

to our infrastructure, but I know that every effort is 

being made to return the service and reopen all routes 

as soon as possible. I will be seeing those efforts myself 

near Bristol later today. I can also update the House on 

our preparations for winter. We now have almost 2 million 

tonnes of salt, nearly double the amount two years ago, 

on stand-by to keep our motorways and main roads 

ice-free. We have also invested heavily in equipment to 

help clear the railway tracks of snow, and to stop rail 

and points freezing. I hope to be able to publish the 

Sam Laidlaw report into the inter-city west coast franchising 

competition and update the House next week. 

Neil Parish: I thank the Secretary of State for all the 

work he has done with flooding, especially in my 

constituency through Tiverton into Exeter. The M5 

also flooded, which shows that it is necessary to have a 

second arterial route dualled. The A30 needs to be 

dualled from Honiton upwards, because the Stonehenge 

end has always been the problem. We should work 

northwards from my constituency—there is no bias 

there whatever, Secretary of State—and have a second 

route.


Oral Answers 

364 

Mr McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is a great campaigner 

for his area. In my job as Secretary of State for Transport, 

I am learning a lot more about roads I have never 

travelled on. I will certainly look at his request— 

[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I was misled by 

my opposite number. I was trying to listen to the hon. 

Lady as well as answer my hon. Friend. I assure him 

that I will certainly look into his representations. 

Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab): With 

regard to bus cuts, the Under-Secretary of State for 

Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) 

suggested to this House that 

“there have not been the cuts that the Opposition are so keen to 

talk up.”——[Official Report, 19 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 485.] 

However, in July, Passenger Focus found that 

“the majority of passenger impacts were below the water line,”— 

and we now know that supported bus miles fell by 

9.3% last year. Will the Minister therefore finally accept 

that the reduction in central Government funding has 

resulted in substantial cuts to socially valuable bus 

services? 


(Norman Baker): No. The hon. Lady quoted a particular 

figure for mileage, but not the figure for mileage elsewhere 

in the country, which has been pretty stable, or the 

numbers of passenger journeys undertaken in nonmetropolitan 

areas, which have held up well. Overall, 

there has been a marginal increase in the number of 

passenger journeys, according to the last figures. 

T3. [130605] Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) 

(Con): Junction 15 of the M4, in my constituency, is of 

vital regional and local importance to the economy, 

but is experiencing increased congestion. Will my right 

hon. Friend, or one of his ministerial colleagues, meet 

me and local representatives to discuss how we can 

alleviate this growing problem? 


(Stephen Hammond): My hon. Friend is right to highlight 

the congestion on this junction, and I would be delighted 

to meet him and a delegation of his constituents to 

discuss it. 

T2. [130602] Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab): 

I was interested to hear the Minister’s reply to 

Government Members about projects in the south, but 

I hope that he is aware of the huge disparity in public 

transport infrastructure investment: £5 per head in the 

north-east compared with £2,700 in London. Will he 

confirm, therefore, how many carriages will be built 

under the intercity express programme contract and 

how many carriages my constituents on the east coast 

main line can expect to see operating? 

Norman Baker: It is not fair to talk about the disparity 

as the hon. Gentleman describes it. He might be relying 

on the Institute for Public Policy Research North report, 

but that report is incomplete—for example, it did not 

take into account the December 2011 local majors 

announcement. Of the local major schemes announced 

in the 2011 autumn statement, 62% by value were in the 

north and midlands and 35% were in the north alone, 

while 40% of projects in the 2010 spending review were 

in the north alone. It is a misrepresentation, therefore, 

to describe the investment as he has done. On the 

railway matters, I will ensure that he receives a written 

reply. 

T4. [130607] Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) 

(Con): If you will indulge me for one moment, 

Mr Speaker, I would like to say what an honour it is to 

ask a Transport question after serving with honour in 

the Department for two years. With that in mind, will 

the Minister tell the House what his Department is 

doing to ensure that all train stations, such as Garforth 

station in my constituency, have good disabled access? 

Norman Baker: As my hon. Friend knows, we are 

committed to improving access to the rail network. The 

Access for All programme will deliver accessible routes 

to more than 150 stations by 2015 and more minor 

access improvements to more than 1,000 stations, and 

we recently announced a further £100 million to extend 

the programme until 2019. I have looked at his station, 

and the footfall is equivalent to more than 500,000 people. 

I am not making any promises, but that certainly puts it 

in contention for the next round of Access for All 

funding. 

T6. [130609] Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab): 

Despite the challenge of our famous hills, Sheffield has 

embraced cycling, and many of my constituents have 

backed The Times’ “Cities fit for Cycling” manifesto. 

Will the Government commit to implementing the 

manifesto in full, as Labour has, and does the Minister 

recognise that only investment in a dedicated cycling 

infrastructure will encourage road safety and a switch 

to bikes? 

Norman Baker: The amount of money the Government 

has invested in cycling—through the local sustainable 

transport fund and the £20 million I announced only 

yesterday to the House—dwarfs what the last Government 

invested over 13 years. We are making good progress on 

all the points identified by The Times’ campaign, which 

we very much welcome, and on catching up with the 

legacy that I am afraid we inherited from the last 

Government. 

T5. [130608] Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con): A letter 

from the Transport Minister to the Welsh Select Committee 

highlighted the fact that the Welsh Assembly Government 

have made no case for investment in the north Wales 

main line. As a result, my right hon. Friend the Secretary 

of State for Wales has set up a taskforce to make the 

business case for that investment. Will the Minister 

assure me that the Department for Transport will work 

closely with that working group in order to make the 

case for that crucial transport link in north Wales? 


(Mr Simon Burns): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for 

that question, because, as he will probably be aware, the 

Welsh Government were particularly anxious for 

electrification of the valley railways and the extension 

of electrification from Cardiff to Swansea, which is 

now happening. They will be looking at and pressing 

the case for electrification in the next tranche from 2019 

to 2024 for north Wales. My right hon. Friend the


Oral Answers 

366 

Secretary of State for Wales strongly supports that, and 

we will work with the Wales Office and Welsh Government 

to put together a proper case for consideration. 

Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/ 

Co-op): I wrote to one of the previous Ministers about 

enforcement of advanced stop lines, but did not get a 

very positive response. Will the Government now look 

at ensuring that advanced stop lines at traffic lights are 

complied with much more effectively? 

Norman Baker: We are always open to suggestions to 

improve road safety and traffic management. We are 

undertaking a review of traffic signs, which has been 

completed, and a further review of traffic management 

processes. If the hon. Gentleman gives me specific 

details of his concern, I will ensure that it is fed into the 

process and given proper consideration. 

Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): The Government 

recently awarded the core Crossrail signalling contract 

to the proven talent of Chippenham’s Invensys Rail, 

working in partnership with Siemens. What provisions 

in that contract will secure a British-based work force 

for the project, in light of today’s announcement of the 

intended sale of Invensys Rail to Siemens? 

Mr McLoughlin: I need proper notice of that question, 

but I will certainly write to my hon. Friend with the 

answer. 

Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab): Toll increases 

on the Severn bridge were announced last week. Businesses 

and commuters in my constituency feel that they are 

paying the highest tolls in the UK. What they would 

like to hear from the Government is that they will do 

what they can to help now and that when the concession 

ends, the tolls will be substantially reduced for local 

people, not considered a useful revenue stream for the 

Government. Will the Minister make that commitment? 

Stephen Hammond: I thank the hon. Lady for her 

question. As she and other members of the Select 

Committee on Welsh Affairs heard, the tolling arrangements 

will continue beyond the concession because of the 

debts that are still repayable to the UK Government. 

We are in discussions and have had letters from the 

Welsh Government about arrangements post 2018, and 

I will look at them most seriously. 

Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con): In 

2007 funds were awarded under capital expenditure 

grants—the Bellwin formula—to Hull and Gloucestershire. 

Will similar moneys be awarded to repair bridges and 

roads that were severely damaged in the September 

floods in North Yorkshire? 

Mr McLoughlin: My right hon. Friend the Secretary 

of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made 

a statement dealing with the Bellwin formula and some 

of the flooding. I will look at the suggestion my hon. 

Friend has made. 

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): Will the 

Secretary of State revisit the issue of electrifying the 

Barking to Gospel Oak section of the North London 

line? Electrification would make freight transport much 

more efficient and cheaper and enable much greater 

integrated working of the whole London overground 

system with the same trains, rather than having to 

switch to diesel on one section. [Interruption.] 

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Central 

Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) should not be chuntering from 

a sedentary position about who came into the Chamber 

when. I know perfectly well what I am doing. The hon. 

Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has been 

here for some time. He has been legitimately called and 

that is all there is to it. It is very straightforward. The 

hon. Member for Central Ayrshire should keep schtum; 

he might learn something. 

Mr McLoughlin: I hear the representations that the 

hon. Gentleman has made about the line. Strong cases 

have been made. The line did not make the cut for 

electrification last time. We have announced huge 

electrification across the network, and I will certainly 

look at the case he has made. 

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION 

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter 

Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, 

was asked— 

Recycling 

1. Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): What the 

recycling rate has been for recyclable materials on the 

Commons part of the estate in each of the last five 

years. [130611] 

John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross): 

The percentage figures for the amount of general waste 

recycled or recovered by weight from the parliamentary 

estate in the last five financial years are as follows: 

2007-08, 44%; 2008-09, 47%; 2009-10, 50%; 2010-11, 

52%; and 2011-12, 53%. These figures are for the 

parliamentary estate as a whole, as we are not able to 

break down the figures by House or building. The 

percentages exclude batteries that are recycled but for 

which no weight figures are currently provided and 

builders’waste. The figures include food waste, a proportion 

of which is being sent to an anaerobic digestion facility. 

Mr Hollobone: It certainly seems encouraging that 

the recycling rate is going in the right direction. Is my 

hon. Friend satisfied with the progress being made? 

Perhaps lessons should be learnt from some of the local 

authorities that have far higher recycling rates than we 

currently do in this House. 

John Thurso: I do not believe that we should ever be 

content with where we have got to on recycling. The 

Commission and the Management Board are doing 

everything in their power to increase the recycling rate. 

As new recycling waste streams are developed, the 

House works closely with its waste contractor to maximise 

the opportunities to increase the rate, and the House 

will certainly be happy to look at any other authority 

that is an exemplar to see what it can learn.


Oral Answers 

368 

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): Will the Member 

representing the House of Commons Commission also 

look into the question of the non-recyclable items that 

are produced and used by the House, such as plastic 

wrappings and envelopes, with a view to ensuring that 

paper, which can be recycled more easily and cheaply, is 

used wherever possible? 

John Thurso: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that 

helpful suggestion, and we will certainly do that. I can 

tell him that a new collection process for office waste 

has recently been agreed, which will allow recyclables 

such as cans, plastic, paper and cardboard to be collected 

in one bin, with the segregation of materials taking 

place in a municipal recycling facility once the waste 

has left the estate. Clearly, development of that stream 

would lead us to the objective that he is seeking. 

Central Procurement 

2. Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con): What plans the 

Commission has to make it easier for hon. Members 

to procure administrative equipment centrally for the 

purpose of creating economies of scale. [130612] 

John Thurso: The Commission appreciates the economies 

of scale that are achievable through central purchasing. 

In order to make such benefits available to individual 

Members, the House service and PICT have competitively 

tendered contracts for administrative equipment and 

consumables. PICT holds a number of contracts for 

ICT equipment and services, and it has recently let a 

contract with QC Supplies for printer cartridges and 

toner. The contract offers substantial discounts on original 

cartridges and on remanufactured cartridges with a full 

guarantee. Parliament has also recently let a contract 

with Banner Business Services for stationery and other 

office supplies. I have asked the managers responsible 

for those contracts to contact the hon. Lady to ensure 

that she is fully aware of what is available. 

Karen Lumley: Does my hon. Friend agree that many 

Members are unaware of the opportunities to secure 

supplies centrally? What can the Commission do to 

increase awareness in that regard? 

John Thurso: I have asked the House service and 

PICT to take further steps to provide Members and 

their staff with information on the contracts for toner 

and stationery. It is proposed to include articles on what 

is available and how to use the contracts in future issues 

of Commons Monthly and The Commons View. I suggest 

that all Members might like to take up readership of 

those two excellent publications. In the next few months, 

we will invite suppliers to mount exhibitions in the 

atrium of Portcullis House. The offers are also mentioned 

in the documentation from the Independent Parliamentary 

Standards Authority, and e-mails have been sent out. We 

will continue to do everything possible to popularise them. 

LEADER OF THE HOUSE 

The Leader of the House was asked— 

House Business Committee 

3. Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): When he expects 

to establish a House business committee. [130613] 

The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew 

Lansley): I continue to consider this matter and I look 

forward to further constructive discussions on the issue 

with the Procedure Committee and others. 

Fiona Mactaggart: I am concerned about the timetable. 

Yesterday, the Prime Minister expressed regret, in an 

answer to the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire 

(Mr Vara), that he did not have control of the House of 

Commons agenda, but actually he does have control of 

most of the House agenda. A decision of the House 

was made in 2010 and the proposal was in the coalition 

agreement. When are we actually going to see the House 

business committee? 

Mr Lansley: As I said, it is my responsibility as 

Leader of the House to ensure that we make progress in 

enabling the House to conduct its business effectively 

and efficiently. It is incumbent on me to ensure that any 

development in this area takes into account the progress 

that we have already made since May 2010. For example, 

just last week the Procedure Committee published its 

review of the operation of the Backbench Business 

Committee. That gives us important information about 

that progress, which has been very positive. It also 

enables us to consider the question of a House business 

committee constructively. 

Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): The Leader 

of the House could make a real name for himself. I 

would like to see him as the chairman of this new 

parliamentary timetabling committee, but should he not 

be elected by the whole House rather than being appointed 

by the Executive? I am sure that he would get a lot of 

support from Members on both sides of the House. 

Mr Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his 

solicitude for my future. When I was talking about 

constructive discussions, I was including the discussions 

that I have had with him, and with many others across 

the House, to ensure that we add value to the way in 

which the House manages its business. That is what I 

am looking to do. 

Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab): We know that 

there is no greater champion of the House business 

committee than the Government Chief Whip, who said 

two years ago that 

“we must not lose sight of the progress that we want to see made 

in the third year of this Parliament on a House business 

committee”.—[Official Report, 15 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 782.] 

Given that we are halfway through that third year, when 

will the Leader of the House sit down with me to 

discuss how he intends to turn the Chief Whip’s vision 

into reality? 

Mr Lansley: I share with the shadow Leader of 

the House admiration for what the former Leader of the 

House, now the Patronage Secretary, has achieved. In 

the context of the establishment of the Backbench 

Business Committee and the clear progress consequent 

upon it, I want to make sure that we follow up constructively 

on the progress already made. 

Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): Following on 

from that, will the Leader of the House confirm that 

whenever the House business committee is established,


Oral Answers 

370 

there will still be a valuable role for the Backbench Business 

Committee to play and that that role will continue? 

Mr Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who 

illustrates precisely the point that I hope I was making, 

which is that we want to build on the progress that has 

been made and that we want to do it in a constructive 

way. The progress made regarding the Backbench Business 

Committee, as illustrated in the Procedure Committee’s 

report last week, provides a very good basis on which to 

continue those discussions. 

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION 

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter 

Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, 

was asked— 

Lords/Commons Service Provision 

4. Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) 

(Lab): What recent discussions the Commission has 

had with the Lords House Committee on greater sharing 

of service provision. [130614] 

John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross): 

The Commission has had no recent discussions with the 

Lords House Committee on greater sharing of service 

provision, but the House administration remains very 

open to opportunities for areas where joint working 

with the House of Lords will provide benefits, while 

bearing it in mind that, on occasion, the priorities of 

the two Houses will diverge. 

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful for that answer. 

We Scots know that Aberdonians have a particular 

reputation for knowing the value of tuppence. Given 

that Lord Sewel is now the Chairman of the Lords 

House Committee, does the hon. Gentleman think that 

there is a real opportunity in 2013 to make significant 

progress with the Commons Administration Committee’s 

recommendations on how to cut costs, cut bureaucracy 

and save the taxpayer money? 

John Thurso: I believe there are significant opportunities. 

I had the opportunity to work with the noble Lord 

Sewel on the Scotland Bill in the other place, and I had 

a felicitous meeting with him at Aberdeen airport two 

weeks ago when we discussed this very subject. I look 

forward to making progress in the future. 

Networking Infrastructure 

5. Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab): 

What progress has been made on work to update 

networking infrastructure on the estate to ensure that 

hon. Members’ offices can receive live local and 

regional television and radio programming and use 

internet radio devices in their offices. [130615] 

John Thurso: Access to internet television and radio 

services in Members’ offices may be limited by the 

capacity of the parliamentary network. Planning for a 

major upgrade has started, but this is likely to be a 

long-term project. The annunciator system provides 

alternative access to television and radio service in 

Members’ offices. Following recent testing, it is hoped 

shortly to make proposals to enhance this service, including 

the provision of up to 100 additional channels. Wi-fi is 

already in place in 95 locations across the estate, including 

the Chamber, Committee Rooms and public spaces. It 

should be available in Members’ offices by March 2013. 

Diana Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that 

answer. Although I welcome having channels such as 

al-Jazeera to keep up to date with international affairs 

and having access to Sky Sports in my office, I would 

certainly like to have access to my local BBC regional 

news, BBC Humberside. I am sure the hon. Gentleman 

agrees that keeping up to date with what is happening in 

a Member’s local area is just as important, if not more 

so, than having access to al-Jazeera and other channels. 

John Thurso: I could not agree more with the hon. 

Lady. I miss BBC Radio Highland and Moray Firth 

Radio when I am down here in the south, and would 

greatly value the opportunity to receive them. There are 

significant technological difficulties, one of which relates 

to how the parliamentary estate is configured. I can 

assure her, however, that her point was well made and 

well taken. We will continue to see what can be done. 

Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con): Does 

my hon. Friend agree that it is important to move as 

fast as we possibly can with full digitalisation, which 

not only provides the benefits that have been described, 

but enables information about facilities in this House to 

be better known to all our colleagues? 

John Thurso: I could not agree more with my right 

hon. Friend, whose Administration Committee is doing 

a great deal of work in this area. One opportunity will 

come when, in the next two or three years, we move 

towards the whole concept of cloud computing. That 

will offer a whole range of possibilities that currently 

are not technologically possible. We need to keep our 

eye on this ball and move it forward. 


The Leader of the House was asked— 

Named-day Written Questions 

6. Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab): What steps 

he is taking to ensure that written questions for 

named-day answer receive a substantive answer on the 

day named. [130617] 


Lansley): My office collates information on departmental 

performance in relation to ordinary and named-day 

parliamentary questions, which is then submitted sessionally 

to the Procedure Committee. I intend to continue to 

work with the Committee and with Departments both 

to report on and to improve performance. 

Jessica Morden: My named-day question to the Home 

Office about the cost of the police commissioner in Wales 

after the mess-up over the ballot papers appeared not 

on the day named but more than 20 days late, conveniently 

after the election was over. I should not have been


Oral Answers 

372 

surprised, however, as the Home Office replies to only 

37% of named-day questions on time. What more can 

be done to make Departments respect this process? 

Mr Lansley: The hon. Lady will be aware that the 

Procedure Committee is following the matter up and 

that I am in contact with Departments about it, and she 

will be encouraged to know that the Home Office has 

improved its performance recently. I think that what we 

need to do is lead by example. In the last Session, the 

largest number of named-day questions—2,260—were 

submitted to the Department of Health, which achieved 

a 99.6% positive response rate. 

Mr Speaker: Mr Robertson, perhaps? I can take a 

horse to water, but I cannot force him to drink. 

8. [130619] John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab): 

I assume that you are calling me to ask a supplementary 

and not a main question, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend 

the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) mentioned 

the Home Office. I pointed out recently that questions 

from my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State 

had still not been answered by the Secretary of State. 

Will the Leader of the House look into the matter? It 

appears to be something of a problem in the Home 

Office. How can the Opposition be expected to work 

properly if they cannot hold the Government to account? 

It is very difficult for us to do that if the Government do 

not give us answers. 

Mr Lansley: I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman’s 

point. As I said to the hon. Member for Newport East 

(Jessica Morden), it is perfectly possible for Departments 

to achieve a positive response rate of virtually 100%, 

but not all Departments do so. The Procedure Committee 

is following that up, and I shall be working with 

Departments to try to improve their performance. I 

might point out that in the last Session a 100% positive 

response rate was achieved by the Office of the Leader 

of the House, and, as I said earlier, the Department of 

Health achieved a 99.6% rate. 

European Scrutiny 

7. Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con): 

What recent discussions he has had with the Minister 

for Europe on future scrutiny of European affairs in 

the House. [130618] 

The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom 

Brake): The Minister for Europe is engaged in discussions 

with the relevant Committees in both Houses on 

arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of European 

issues. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House 

has had discussions with the Minister on the subject in 

recent weeks. 

Miss McIntosh: I am grateful for that reply, and also 

for the work of the previous Leader of the House, who 

is present. 

Would there be any merit in allowing Select Committees 

such as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 

Committee to scrutinise some of the more technical 

statutory instruments implementing environmental or 

agricultural regulations from Brussels? 

Tom Brake: I agree that Select Committees could play 

an important role in scrutinising many more of the 

matters that come out of Europe. I am pleased that the 

Minister for Europe has been consulting widely, and I 

am sure that he will present some very sensible proposals 

for the enhancement of our European scrutiny. 

Mr Speaker: Patience rewarded: Mr Lindsay Roy. 

Lobbyists (Standing Orders) 

9. Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab): Whether the 

introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists will 

require any changes to the Standing Orders of the 

House. [130620] 

The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom 

Brake): That will depend on proposals that will be 

published and scrutinised by the House in due course. 

Lindsay Roy: Will the Deputy Leader of the House 

explain why progress in establishing a statutory register 

seems to have been so slow? 

Tom Brake: As the hon. Gentleman will know, this is 

a complex issue on which the Government have been 

consulting. We are committed to building a system that 

provides transparency without hindering legitimate lobbying 

by those with an interest in Government policy. We will 

publish revised proposals later in the Session.

373 29 NOVEMBER 2012 Business of the House 

374 

Business of the House 

10.34 am 

Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab): Will the Leader of 

the House give us the business for next week? 


Lansley): The business for next week is as follows: 

MONDAY 3DECEMBER—General debate on the Leveson 

inquiry. 

TUESDAY 4DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the Public 

Service Pensions Bill, followed by motion relating to the 

appointment of Independent Parliamentary Standards 

Authority board members. 

WEDNESDAY 5 DECEMBER—The Chancellor of the 

Exchequer will present his autumn statement, followed 

by consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed 

by all stages of the Police (Complaints and Conduct) 

Bill. 

THURSDAY 6DECEMBER—A debate on a motion relating 

to the 40th anniversary of the expulsion of Ugandan 

Asians, followed by general debate on defence personnel. 

The subjects for these debates have been nominated 

by the Backbench Business Committee. 

The provisional business for the week commencing 

10 December will include: 

MONDAY 10 DECEMBER—Consideration of Lords 

amendments to the Financial Services Bill. 

TUESDAY 11 DECEMBER—General debate on public 

expenditure. 

WEDNESDAY 12 DECEMBER—Opposition day (12th allotted 

day, first part). There will be a debate on an Opposition 

motion, subject to be announced, followed by business 

to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee. 

THURSDAY 13 DECEMBER—Motions relating to standards 

and privileges, followed by business to be nominated by 

the Backbench Business Committee. 

Ms Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for 

announcing the business for next week. 

The flooding across England and Wales this week has 

caused widespread chaos and, sadly, a number of deaths. 

I would like to add my tribute on the work of the 

emergency services and all those involved in providing 

assistance to those affected. 

The increasing frequency of serious weather affecting 

the UK underlines the importance of robust flood 

defences, yet spending on flood defences has been cut 

by a quarter, delaying much-needed schemes. Even the 

Government’s own advisory Committee on Climate 

Change warned in July that Ministers are not doing 

enough, and now hundreds of thousands of people risk 

being unable to obtain insurance because the Government 

have not reached an agreement with the industry. We 

welcome the statement earlier in the week from the 

Environment Secretary, but will the Leader of the House 

find time for an urgent debate on measures to protect 

people across the UK from flooding, especially in light 

of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee 

report published today? 

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for arranging a 

statement by the Foreign Secretary on Palestinian statehood 

—something I asked for last week. At business questions 

last week I also raised the matter of the Liberal Democrat 

party member who masqueraded as an independent in 

the police and crime commissioner elections. I asked for 

an urgent statement, but unfortunately the Leader of the 

House has not been able to find time for one. I wonder 

whether he will reconsider, however, because I have 

managed to get hold of a letter put out by the Liberal 

Democrat candidate standing in today’s Middlesbrough 

by-election. In it he says, 

“things seem to be getting worse, not better.” 

I have read the letter very carefully, but, by some 

strange omission, nowhere does it mention that the 

Liberal Democrats have been in government for the last 

two and a half years, so will the Leader of the House 

now find time for a statement on cynical electoral 

subterfuge? 

We are all looking forward to the publication of the 

Leveson report later today. During business questions 

on 28 June, I asked: 

“Will the Leader of the House arrange in future business for 

Liberal Democrat and Conservative Ministers to share the speaking 

time to give both parties ample opportunity to differentiate 

themselves?”—[Official Report, 28 June 2012; Vol. 547, c. 448.] 

I must confess that I meant that suggestion to be 

parody, but yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister made 

a request to have a separate statement from the Prime 

Minister on the Leveson report and I see today that that 

has been granted. What on earth is happening to collective 

responsibility? I notice that the play “Yes, Prime Minister” 

is leaving the Trafalgar theatre to go on a UK tour, but 

with this Government in office there will at least still be 

one farce running in Whitehall. 

The Government have been struggling to get their 

legislation through the House of Lords. This Government’s 

peers easily outnumber Opposition peers, yet for the 

entire duration of the Labour Government our peers 

never made up more than 29% of the total. May I say to 

the Leader of the House that the problem the Government 

have is not with the quantity of their peers, it is with the 

quality of their legislation? 

There have been reports in the media that the Prime 

Minister is planning to create 100 additional peers, 

despite the fact that the House of Lords is already the 

second biggest legislature in the world—after the equally 

democratic Chinese National People’s Congress. Filling 

the House of Lords might be the only successful job 

creation scheme this Government have come up with, 

but will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent 

statement on the seemingly inexorable expansion of the 

second Chamber? 

Word reaches me that this week’s Cabinet meeting 

was even more fractious than usual. Apparently, the 

Chancellor blamed the Culture Secretary for failing to 

deliver on the Government’s promise to roll out superfast 

broadband and the Culture Secretary blamed her 

predecessor, with her aides saying that she had done 

more in two months than the current Health Secretary 

had managed in two years. Astonishingly, the welfare 

Minister, Lord Freud, blamed the Chancellor for the 

abject failure of the Work programme and the Prime 

Minister blamed the Secretary of State for Communities 

and Local Government for the failure of enterprise 

zones. While Cabinet members bicker, we have a broadband 

network that is not connected, a job scheme that is not

375 Business of the House 29 NOVEMBER 2012 Business of the House 

376 

working and enterprise zones where there is no enterprise, 

while the only growth strategy they have is for the 

House of Lords. 

The Prime Minister called himself the “heir to Blair”, 

but is he not just the natural successor to Jim Hacker? 

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

remarks about the Foreign Secretary’s statement on 

Palestine. I join her in paying tribute to the emergency 

services and the work of Environment Agency staff in 

supporting communities that have been so heavily damaged 

by flooding. I have personal knowledge of the area 

around Exeter and of St Asaph in north Wales; these 

are dreadful events for people to have to live through. 

It is terrifically important that we protect people 

wherever we can. That is why the Government are 

allocating £2.17 billion over four years. The hon. Lady 

will have heard the Prime Minister say yesterday, in 

response to questions, that we hope to leverage additional 

support for flood defences. She will also know from 

what the Prime Minister said yesterday that we continue 

to be in discussions with the Association of British 

Insurers about securing protection for householders 

through insurance as well. I will, of course, continue to 

keep closely in touch with my right hon. Friend the 

Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural 

Affairs about how the House can be kept informed on 

these matters. 

I am trying to think of anything else that the hon. 

Lady asked for that could be considered business of the 

House, but there was not much. She commented on 

press reports about what happened at Cabinet, but 

today of all days she might recognise that we should not 

believe everything we read in the newspapers. 

The hon. Lady mentioned the Prime Minister being 

an “heir to Blair”, and she talked about the appointment 

of peers in another place, but my recollection is that 

Tony Blair made 374 peers. By that standard, my right 

hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been notably reticent. 

We in the House, including Opposition Members 

who have been in government, know that “Yes Minister”, 

when it was broadcast by the BBC and even today, is, in 

fact, a documentary programme and not a work of fiction. 

I am somewhat unusual in this place in having been not 

only my own version of Jim Hacker, but Bernard in a 

former life. The one thing I am not expecting to be is a 

Sir Humphrey at any stage. If at any point we can illustrate 

“Yes Minister”, I am sure we will set out to do so. 

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for talking about 

growth and welfare. Yesterday we had a debate about 

those issues. I looked at reports of past business questions 

for a request for an Opposition day debate on employment. 

Yesterday, the Opposition did talk about jobs but not 

about how to create them. They did not have a policy 

for that—it was a policy-free zone from the Labour 

party yesterday. What a missed opportunity. The Labour 

party had an opportunity to use its time to celebrate the 

70-year anniversary of the Beveridge report. We could 

have celebrated the sense of how work is a route out of 

poverty and want, and how social solidarity through 

welfare provision is properly a way in which we can 

build a stronger society, as the Government are setting 

out to do. We could also have celebrated the contribution 

made by a Liberal as part of a coalition Government 

under a Conservative Prime Minister for the long-term 

benefit of this country. 

Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con): Will my right 

hon. Friend agree to a debate on people who have 

emigrated outside the European Union yet still claim 

benefits such as winter fuel payments and child benefit? 

Mr Lansley: I pay tribute to the great deal of work 

my hon. Friend has done on this issue. As we head 

towards winter, it is terrifically important that we look 

after communities. That is one reason why I was so 

pleased in the past week to see the announcement of 

some 149 successful projects that are being supported 

by the Department of Health’s warm homes healthy 

people fund this winter, following the successful work 

last winter. This is in partnership with local authorities, 

Age UK and other charities, and I know that my hon. 

Friend and others across the House have been active 

proponents of that kind of community-based support 

for people at risk. 

Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab): In her excellent report 

last week, the Children’s Commissioner identified missing 

episodes, visits to sexual health clinics and use of mental 

health services as strong indicators that a child may be 

being sexually abused. However, current Department of 

Health guidelines on sharing such health data with 

other agencies are creating a postcode lottery because 

of different interpretations at both the local and national 

level about what data can be shared. The situation is 

very concerning because some children are not being 

identified as being at risk, and are therefore continuing 

to be abused. Will the Leader of the House make time 

available for a debate on the Children’s Commissioner’s 

excellent report and the data-sharing issues it raises? 

Mr Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising 

that. I read the report, as I know many hon. Members 

will have done. They will have been alarmed by some of 

the things that the deputy Children’s Commissioner had 

to say and will feel it is very important that we follow up 

on it. The House recently had an opportunity to debate 

child sexual exploitation, but that is not to say that 

there is not a case for further such opportunities. The 

subject she discusses is an area where the further progress 

we are making on the role of local safeguarding children 

boards in local authorities should enable us to have, 

among other things, better sharing of information to 

protect children. 

Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con): In the case of the Bedford 

free school, the Planning Inspectorate recommended a 

full award of costs against Bedford borough council 

because of its 

“unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense”. 

May we have a debate about how councils in charge of 

education departments can use taxpayers’ money for 

school books, computers, gym equipment and improved 

facilities, rather than wasting it on trying to stop excellent, 

committed teachers from doing their job? 

Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important 

point very well. I know that people in Bedford feel 

strongly about the benefits that the Bedford free school 

can bring in extending choice to parents and in promoting 

improvements in educational standards. If he catches 

your eye, Mr Speaker, he may have an opportunity to 

raise this issue in Education questions on Monday.


378 

Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): The 

Leader of the House will not need me to tell him that all 

of us are very concerned about vulnerable young people 

in this country. The protection of childhood is something 

that most of us hold dear, as do the children’s charities. 

May we have a debate about what we would lose if 

childhood was shrunk by giving children—16-year-olds— 

the vote? I am not against that or for it; what I want is a 

serious discussion in this House before we take away 

protections from children up to 18 and push adulthood 

down to 16. 

Mr Lansley: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that 

this issue is being considered by the Backbench Business 

Committee, on the basis of representations made to it 

by a number of hon. Members. Clearly I am happy for 

the Committee to consider whether time should be 

made available for such a debate. 

Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con): May we have a 

debate on the success of our free schools policy? In my 

constituency, the I-Foundation has opened the first 

state-sponsored Hindu primary school and a secondary 

school. They are both so over-subscribed that capacity 

is having to be doubled in just two years. The I-Foundation 

is now launching a campaign to have five further Hindu 

free schools across the country, with a further five to 

follow. This demonstrates parental choice, both for a 

religious type of education and for the type of education 

that new organisations are providing. 

Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend sets out a good argument 

both for free schools and for our taking the opportunity 

to celebrate the successes coming from them. That is 

happening around the country and often in this place 

we do not take enough opportunities to recognise what 

the successes in policies mean in practice for the populations 

we serve. It is not easy, as time is short in this House, but 

we will continue to look for where such opportunities 

might arise. 

Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): May we 

have a statement as soon as possible on progress on the 

implementation of Sir John Holmes’s report on the 

governance principles for the award of military medals 

in this country, and particularly on the issue of those 

who served in the Arctic convoys, on which we continue 

to receive many representations, and the need to recognise 

those heroes properly through the award of a medal? 

Mr Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman will have 

noted when I announced the forthcoming business that 

the Backbench Business Committee has allocated time 

next Thursday for a debate on defence personnel. I 

completely understand that the breadth of issues that 

will need to be encompassed in that debate is very wide, 

but he might recognise that there is an opportunity 

there, not least to recognise past service. 

Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): Later today 

we will have what I think is a unique event. The Deputy 

Prime Minister, whose main responsibility is to support 

the Prime Minister, will make a statement opposing the 

Prime Minister. Will the Leader of the House make an 

urgent statement so that the Deputy Prime Minister 

knows from which Dispatch Box he is to speak? 

Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend will recognise, I know, 

that Ministers make statements to this House on 

Government policy. As “Erskine May” makes clear, the 

reason they make statements is to explain to the House 

how they propose to pursue public business. As for this 

afternoon’s statements, it is perfectly reasonable to give 

an immediate response to an inquiry as wide-ranging 

as the Leveson inquiry in order to convey as fully as 

possible to the House a sense of how the coalition 

Government—a unique event for us—are pursuing the 

process of considering and responding to the report. 

The House will be better informed by two statements 

than it would have been by one alone and both are 

ministerial statements on Government policy. 

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

Yesterday, Lloyds Banking Group announced the closure 

of the call centre in Motherwell that employs 200 people. 

That call centre has now been moved to Glasgow city 

centre and, as everyone knows, it will not be convenient 

for many of those workers to move across west central 

Scotland. Will the Leader of the House give time for a 

statement to discuss how the banking groups treat not 

only their customers but their employees? 

Mr Lansley: I completely sympathise with the hon. 

Gentleman on behalf of his constituents about the 

consequences of commercial decisions made by companies. 

He will know, not least from the points made by a 

number of Members during business questions, that the 

relationship between banking groups and their communities, 

as well as the service they offer to local communities, 

are issues of importance to Members that continue to 

arise. It is not just a matter for the Parliamentary 

Commission on Banking Standards. Perhaps he and 

others might like to consider whether there is a case for 

a debate in Back-Bench time to raise those issues on 

behalf of their constituents. 

Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): I welcome what 

the Leader of the House said about the 70th anniversary 

of the Beveridge report and I also welcome the coalition’s 

commitment to fairness and to ensuring that work 

always pays. With that in mind, may I ask for a debate 

on the performance of the retail banks that are failing 

to support small businesses in my constituency, which 

are eager to invest in jobs but are denied working 

capital? 

Mr Lansley: There is a synchronicity between the 

previous question and this one as regards the relationship 

between banks and our local communities. I sometimes 

share with my hon. Friend a sense of frustration about 

the extent to which the conventional banking system 

now supports small and medium-sized businesses. That 

is why our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for 

Business, Innovation and Skills, together with the Treasury, 

is so actively pursuing those issues, not least through 

the recent announcement of the operational start of the 

new business banking support and the support that that 

gives to new challenger banks to supply new innovative 

routes of lending to small businesses. 

Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab): May we 

have a debate on the apparent abuse of the electrical 

equipment recycling market? Four multinationals— 

Sylvania, GE, Osman and Philips—appear to be seeking


380 

to subvert the effect of the forthcoming recast waste 

electrical and electronic equipment directive by operating 

a cartel in relation to the recycling of waste electrical 

equipment, which is putting the viability of independent 

recycling companies and local jobs, including in my 

constituency, at risk. 

Mr Lansley: I am interested in what the hon. Lady 

says, but I am sure she will understand that I am not in a 

position to comment on it without any direct knowledge 

of those issues. From her description, she should bear 

in mind not only the question of whether that is a 

suitable topic for debate in the House, but the fact that, 

as I know from having served on the Standing Committees 

of the Competition Bill and the Enterprise Bill in 

previous Parliaments, legislation is in place that allows 

her and others who have evidence to go to the Office of 

Fair Trading for investigation of those practices. 

Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con): The Secretary 

of State for Culture, Media and Sport secured appropriate 

terms for all mobile operators in the forthcoming auction, 

and significant investment has been made in fixed-line 

broadband throughout the whole of the UK. May we 

have a debate on the progress of broadband roll-out to 

learn about the best practice in some of the areas that 

have operated faster than others and to ensure that the 

scale and terms of those contracts are suitable to deliver 

competition? 

Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend is right. He refers to the 

digital switchover, which was a major programme delivered 

on time and under budget with few complaints about 

it—a very good example of collaboration. We will now 

have the benefit of the spectrum auction that is coming 

up. Through that and other routes, the broadband 

roll-out across the country can be a major contributor 

to growth. I hope it will be achieved rapidly and on 

time, and in a way that is stimulated by competition. 

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

Jo Darling is a full-time carer in my constituency, while 

also studying for a PhD. However, she is unable to 

access carer’s allowance because she is a full-time student, 

and she is unable to work because of her caring 

responsibilities. She has only a £6,000 a year scholarship 

to live off and is deeply worried that she will have to 

give up her studies because she is struggling to get by. 

May we have a statement on what steps the Government 

will take to provide proper support to wonderful carers 

like Jo, who are both full-time students and full-time 

carers? 

Mr Lansley: If the hon. Lady wishes me to do so, I 

will be glad to ask my hon. Friends at the Department 

for Work and Pensions to comment on the specifics of 

the individual case. Carer’s allowance is intended to be 

an allowance in relation to the loss of potential for 

earnings. If somebody is in full-time education, by 

definition one cannot justify carer’s allowance to that 

extent. On support for carers generally, the House has 

just agreed the establishment of a Joint Committee to 

consider the draft Care and Support Bill, which includes 

the most important legislative measures ever presented 

to give a basis of support for carers. 

Several hon. Members rose— 

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member for Reading East 

(Mr Wilson) has wandered almost like a nomad, albeit 

all at one end of the Chamber, across three Benches, but 

I hope he is now comfortably perched and ready to give 

the House the benefit of his thoughts. 

Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con): I thank you for 

that kind introduction, Mr Speaker. Following the 

publication of yesterday’s Ofsted report on the performance 

of local education authorities, may we have a debate in 

Government time about why some LEAs, such as Reading, 

are so much worse at providing, for example, primary 

school education than either surrounding authorities or 

demographically comparable local education authorities? 

Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend is right. We might 

examine that. He might like to raise the matter at 

Education questions on Monday, but in any case it is an 

illustration of the benefits that come from the transparency 

of the publication of data. In a number of fields, 

including education, that enables us and the public to 

examine unwarranted variation between different parts 

of the country, and to try to drive out poor performance 

and drive up good performance. 

Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab): May I raise again 

the issue of a signal-controlled crossing on Darlaston 

road in my constituency? A four-year-old child was 

knocked over and suffered serious head injuries, and a 

woman suffered a fractured pelvis—all this on the crossing. 

Three hundred local people have signed a petition, yet 

the council refuses to upgrade the crossing to a signalcontrolled 

crossing. I have written to everybody—the 

Department for Transport, the council—and still they 

refuse. Can the Leader of the House use his good 

offices to point me in the right direction, perhaps with 

an urgent debate, or tell me where to go next before 

there is a death on the crossing? 

Mr Lansley: I am sorry to hear that about the hon. 

Lady’s constituents, with whom I am sure we all sympathise. 

I will of course take the opportunity to talk with 

colleagues, not least in the Department for Transport, 

because I know from experience in my constituency that 

the lead for that comes best through the Department to 

Network Rail. I will be happy to correspond with the 

Department on that. 

Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): 

May I ask my right hon. Friend again for a debate on 

the conduct of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism 

and its handling of allegations of child abuse in north 

Wales? A report issued last weekend by the bureau’s 

trustees sought to whitewash their responsibility for the 

widely discredited “Newsnight” report on the matter. 

The licence fee payer now faces a bill of £185,000 in 

damages, but many would argue that the main responsibility 

lies with the shoddy journalism of the bureau’s chief 

reporter, Angus Stickler. I believe that the bureau bears 

equal responsibility; surely it should share the BBC’s 

costs. 

Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend will not expect me to 

comment on the allocation of those costs. Technically, 

these are matters not for the Government but for the 

BBC and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. He 

will share my desire for the BBC to make rapid progress


382 

[Mr Lansley] 

with the Pollard review and publish it in full so that the 

public can see what was done in relation to the “Newsnight” 

report. 

Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab): 

Continuing the “Yes Minister” theme, more than a 

month ago I personally delivered 300 letters from 

constituents about flooding insurance to the Secretary 

of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I 

raised the issue with the Leader of the House a few 

weeks ago, because I had received no acknowledgement 

or response. Yesterday, I had a telephone call from the 

Secretary of State’s private office to tell me that they 

could not find the 300 letters. Will the Leader of the 

House advise me on what I should do next? 

Mr Lansley: I will be happy to continue to talk with 

my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. 

Lady will be aware from my right hon. Friend’s recent 

statement, and indeed from Prime Minister’s questions, 

that we have been in active negotiations with the Association 

of British Insurers and are determined to bring the 

matter to a successful conclusion. 

Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): May we please 

have a debate on the operation of free markets so that I 

and others who oppose the Government’s plans to 

introduce minimum pricing for alcohol and regard it as 

yet another unnecessary extension of the nanny state 

can put our views on the record? 

Mr Lansley: I have never found my hon. Friend 

backwards in coming forward to make his views known, 

and I am sure that opportunities for him to do so will 

present themselves. With regard to the minimum unit 

price for alcohol, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary 

published on behalf of the Government a consultative 

document yesterday. The Government are clear that a 

minimum unit price will contribute to tackling the 

deep-seated issues related to binge drinking and alcohol 

abuse. A report published by the chief medical officer 

only the week before last shows that this country has 

such a high relative level of death from liver disease, and 

the level is rising while in other countries it is falling. 

That tells us that we have to do something. 

Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab): When 

will we have a debate or a statement on the ombudsman’s 

report on the use of bailiffs by the courts and local 

authorities? 

Mr Lansley: I have no knowledge of an immediate 

opportunity for such a debate, but I will of course look 

at whether there is any opportunity for an oral or 

written statement in due course. 

Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD): Experiencing the death 

of a loved one is sadly inevitable for us all, but dealing 

with the funeral costs can come as a very unwelcome 

shock for many. The social fund payment has substantially 

devalued over the years and many families find themselves 

deep in debt despite being eligible for a payment. May 

we have a debate on how we can help families provide a 

dignified funeral for a loved one without adding further 

financial stress at a difficult time? 


point that she may wish to raise on Monday week in 

Department for Work and Pensions questions. I know 

from my former ministerial responsibilities that we are 

continuing to consider how the cost of death certification, 

which is a significant part of the overall costs, is to be 

met in future, in order if possible not to add to the 

burdens that people face when they are bereaved. In 

addition, I will ask my hon. Friends in the Department 

to correspond with her about how they are considering 

those issues. 

Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op): Will the Leader 

of the House find time for a debate on the role of 

employment agencies in local labour markets? That is of 

huge concern in Corby and east Northamptonshire, 

where too many people find that they are on zero-hours 

contracts with no guarantees of work, even though they 

may have travelled some distance or at some cost to get 

to their place of work, and are often on low wages. 

There is also a big concern about employment agencies 

often recruiting from overseas rather than making sure 

that local people can get into work. 

Mr Lansley: It is a pleasure to welcome the hon. 

Gentleman to business questions. I noted that he had a 

very successful maiden speech in last week’s debate on 

manufacturing industry—an important debate in which 

we welcomed him to our deliberations. 

On the hon. Gentleman’s question, he might like to 

consider raising that issue at Work and Pensions questions. 

The agency workers directive will have some effect, and 

I will be happy to find out a little more about its impact 

on his local labour market and to correspond with him. 

Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): The West 

Yorkshire fire and rescue integrated management action 

plan proposes the closure of Marsden fire station. In 

recent years there have been widespread fires up on 

Marsden moors and a major fire at a chemical factory 

just up the valley in Linthwaite. Does my right hon. 

Friend agree that West Yorkshire fire authority and the 

management plan need to take into account all these 

local factors when making these tough decisions? 


point. It is the responsibility of fire and rescue authorities 

to make such decisions. As he knows, they are required 

to have in place fire and rescue service integrated risk 

management plans to identify local needs and to tackle 

existing and potential risks to communities. That should 

create a more transparent approach to how they use 

their resources to evaluate and respond to risk, and it is 

the context in which my hon. Friend can hold them to 

account in doing so. 

Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab): I am 

pleased that the Leader of the House has found time to 

reschedule the debate on the expulsion of Ugandan 

Asians, which many of my constituents will follow with 

great interest. 

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate 

on investment in the east midlands regional economy? 

Recent figures show that we are apparently bottom of 

the list for regional growth fund allocations, while other 

figures show that we not doing as well as we perhaps


384 

should as regards other types of Government investment. 

I am sure that Members on both sides of the House 

would appreciate the opportunity to lobby Ministers in 

such a debate. 

Mr Lansley: Although I announce the business, I 

cannot entirely take credit— 

Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab): 

It was my hon. Friend the Member for North East 

Derbyshire (Natascha Engel). 

Mr Lansley: I am coming to that. The Backbench 

Business Committee should take credit for allocating 

time initially and finding additional time next week for 

the debate on the anniversary of the expulsion of Ugandan 

Asians, and I am glad about that. 

A number of Members in different regions have 

sought Adjournment debates to discuss their regional 

economies. The House will welcome that, as will the 

Government, because such debates provide an opportunity 

for us to demonstrate how the regional growth fund and 

our industrial strategy are leading to increases in 

employment across the country and a rebalancing of 

our economy, as was discussed in last week’s debate on 

manufacturing. 

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): The extraordinary levels 

of rainfall over the past week have caused the banks of 

the River Avon to burst. Local residents, National 

Farmers Union members and farmers in Britford have 

been warning that that would be likely as a result of 

stopping weed cutting in the river. Will the Leader of 

the House make time for a debate on how local expertise 

can be listened to in order to avoid changes in regulations 

that allow these risks to become much higher, as we have 

seen this week? 


point on behalf of his constituents. What happened will 

have been very concerning for them. It is important that 

the Environment Agency and local authorities take a 

proactive approach. After the flooding in my constituency 

in October 2001, the local authorities and parishes, the 

Environment Agency, I as the Member of Parliament 

and others met to establish a programme to deal with 

precisely the risks that he mentions. I would have far 

preferred it if we had done that proactively, rather than 

waiting until the flooding had demonstrated where the 

risks were greatest. 

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): When the Government 

opted into the EU directive on human trafficking they 

claimed that the role of an independent rapporteur 

could be fulfilled by the interdepartmental ministerial 

group. Some of us queried that. The group produced its 

first report on 18 October. As yet, there is no sign of 

this House having an opportunity to debate it. Will the 

Leader of the House ensure that Parliament has an 

opportunity to debate the report on human trafficking? 

Mr Lansley: I will, of course, look at whether there is 

an opportunity for such a debate. The hon. Lady may 

also wish to discuss the possibility with the Backbench 

Business Committee. I will gladly consider with my 

colleagues whether we can create such an opportunity. 

Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con): Pendle’s young 

entrepreneur of the year, 26-year-old Simon Mellin, has 

established a bistro and farm shop with his younger 

brother. Roaming Roosters opened just a few months 

ago, but is already employing 30 members of staff. With 

the help of Pendle borough council and Nelson and 

Colne college, Roaming Roosters ran the “Can you 

hack it?”programme, which saw 10 young people compete 

for two butchery apprenticeships in the firm. Simon is 

now helping the other eight youngsters to find work 

with local businesses. May we have a debate about 

apprenticeships so that all MPs across the House can 

cite innovative examples from their constituencies and 

discuss the Government’s progress in this area? 

Mr Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Today, 

not least, it is good to have a different reference to 

hacking—in this case in relation to butchery. That 

example shows how apprenticeships are being made 

available in small and medium-sized businesses, and is a 

signal of how we can create jobs in the future. In the 

past, jobs have come overwhelmingly from small and 

medium-sized businesses and from growing businesses. 

If apprentices are able to find such places, they will be 

able to secure the jobs of the future. That is why it is 

encouraging that 950,000 apprenticeships have started 

in the past two years with 100,000 employers in 160,000 

locations. I hope that what my hon. Friend describes is 

just one of many such schemes that we will be able to 

support. 


Yesterday afternoon, during the emergency business 

statement, the Leader of the House stated, in response 

to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), 

that the Prime Minister would be speaking for 

the Government, not just the Conservative part of the 

Government. What on earth has changed? Who will be 

speaking for the Government this afternoon? 

Mr Lansley: I thought that I had made that clear in 

response to an earlier question. Both the Prime Minister 

and the Deputy Prime Minister will be making statements 

this afternoon on behalf of the Government—they are 

ministerial statements. 

Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) 

(Con): As my right hon. Friend may know, at least 

12 male Members of Parliament and a number of the 

House’s staff are taking part in “Movember” to raise 

awareness and money for prostate cancer charities. I am 

doing so on behalf of the Chestnut Appeal in Devon 

and Cornwall. May we have a debate to discuss the 

importance of tackling prostate cancer? 

Mr Lansley: We are now right at the end of “Movember”, 

so this is an opportunity to thank my hon. Friend, other 

colleagues and members of the House service who have 

given such a splendid tonsorial display in support of 

research into better treatments for prostate cancer, testicular 

cancer and so on. Members from across the House will 

know of friends or loved ones who have suffered from 

prostate cancer. There are real opportunities, both through 

earlier diagnosis and in the development of further 

treatments. Treatments such as brachytherapy and robotic


386 

[Mr Lansley] 

surgery have improved significantly the chances of those 

who suffer from prostate cancer, and there is more that 

we can achieve. 

Mr Speaker: The Leader of the House would probably 

like to lead an Adjournment debate on that matter. He 

would do so with great force and eloquence, and possibly 

at some length. 

Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con): I 

am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon 

Hull North (Diana Johnson) for drawing attention to 

our letters to the Environment Secretary about flooding. 

Since there is cross-departmental responsibility for flood 

issues, will the Leader of the House call for an early 

debate, potentially with three Ministers to respond? 

There is the matter outstanding from the 2007 floods of 

sustainable drainage systems, recovery under the Bellwin 

formula and whether capital expenditure will be extended 

to roads and bridges, as well as reservoir safety guidance. 

In a week in which North Yorkshire suffered its second 

worst flooding since 2007, will the Leader of the House 

commit to a debate to which three Secretaries of State 

could respond: from DEFRA— 

Mr Speaker: Order. This is too long. I am sorry but 

the hon. Lady is giving a dissertation. I am sure it is very 

interesting, but it is not a question. 

Mr Lansley: None the less, Mr Speaker, I am grateful 

to my hon. Friend whose expertise and responsibilities 

on this issue are important. I cannot commit to a debate 

in the way she proposes. My right hon. Friend the 

Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural 

Affairs made a statement and, as I have said, I will 

continue to discuss with him about how and when he 

can update the House most appropriately. He will address 

on behalf of the Government all issues related to flooding, 

including those raised by other hon. Friends. 

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government has announced 

local authority access to the Bellwin scheme that will 

deliver reimbursement above the threshold for up to 

85% of their costs. 

Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con): Construction 

work recently started on a project to lengthen the 

runway at Birmingham airport, and a project facilitated 

by the regional growth fund will open the west midlands 

to emerging markets and create many new jobs in our 

region. May we have a debate on the role of Birmingham 

airport and its place in the west midlands regional 

economy, and on how we expect the regional growth 

fund to expand that economy? 

Mr Lansley: Yes—I am grateful to my hon. Friend, 

and as we discuss airport capacity we can continue to 

debate and reflect on how to improve and use the 

capacity available in regional airports. From my experience 

in a previous life as deputy director general of the British 

Chambers of Commerce, I know there are many unrealised 

opportunities for regional airports to be hubs for economic 

growth. 

Mr Speaker: We have got the gist. I call Mr Andrew 

Jones. 

Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con): 

The UK internet economy is forecast to grow to 12% of 

our GDP by 2016. North Yorkshire is well placed to 

capitalise on that growth through its leadership of the 

broadband roll-out and its Superfast North Yorkshire 

project. May we have a debate on the digital economy 

and what progress we can make on that, as it is critical 

to future economic growth? 

Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend is right, and across the 

country the Government are actively pursuing access to 

fast broadband so that every part of the country can 

have the economic stimulus that it provides, the social 

interconnections it sometimes enables, and better delivery 

of public services. I hope we will have a competition, 

because different places across the country are proceeding 

at different paces—from my experience, I am sure that 

North Yorkshire will be among those at the forefront of 

such a competition. 

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Andrew Jones. 

Andrew Jones: I have just asked my question. 

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has asked his 

question. We are grateful to him and I should not have 

forgotten quite so quickly. I am sure that it was otherwise 

extremely memorable; it was entirely my fault. 

Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD) rose— 

Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD) rose— 

Mr Speaker: I am sorry to disappoint the Liberal 

Democrat Members. I note their enthusiasm and eagerness 

but unfortunately neither hon. Gentleman was in the 

Chamber at the start of the session so neither of them 

can speak. 

Martin Horwood rose— 

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should resume 

his seat. He was not here and that is the end of the 

matter. 

We come now to the statement on energy. [Interruption.] 

[HON. MEMBERS: “Hear, hear!”] We are grateful to the 

Secretary of State for Energy who has arrived in the 

nick of time. I am sure he would have been very happy 

for the statement to be delivered by the Minister of 

State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the 

hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings 

(Mr Hayes), but it will be delivered by the Secretary of 

State.

387 29 NOVEMBER 2012 Energy Policy 

388 

Energy Policy 

11.19 am 

The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change 

(Mr Edward Davey): Mr Speaker, I am grateful to you 

and the House for your patience. 

I am pleased, ahead of the Energy Bill’s introduction 

later today, to publish the annual energy statement. It 

shows that this Government are making good progress 

towards our vision of a thriving low-carbon economy 

with secure energy supplies, and sets out an energy 

policy that is good for growth and for consumers. 

Alongside the annual energy statement, I am publishing 

our energy security strategy, the statutory security of 

supply report, a consultation on electricity demand 

reduction, and more detail on electricity market reform. 

I am today laying copies of all those documents before 

the House. 

Britain’s energy sector is embarking on a period of 

exceptional renewal and expansion. The scale of the 

investment required is huge, representing close to half 

the UK’s total infrastructure investment pipeline. The 

electricity sector alone needs investment of around 

£110 billion in the next decade—that is equivalent to 

building Crossrail seven times over—but the vast majority 

of it will not be taxpayers’ money, with Government 

subsidies targeted at levering in private sector investment 

in low-carbon energy, so our plans are consistent with 

our overriding goal of deficit reduction. 

The energy sector can play a major role in stimulating 

economic growth, creating jobs and positioning British 

companies for success in export markets. One third of 

the UK’s economic growth in the last financial year is 

likely to have come from green business, and the UK’s 

low-carbon sector now takes a £122 billion share of a 

global market worth £3.3 trillion. Many projects are 

shovel-ready, and they are spread relatively evenly through 

every nation and region of the UK, so the stimulus to 

the economy and to supply chains, and the job creation, 

can come at the right time, which is now, and in the 

right place, which is nationwide. 

Those short-term benefits of our transition to a 

low-carbon future are followed by still greater ones in 

the longer term. First, of course, our transition will 

help us to meet our carbon budgets on the path to our 

2050 emissions target, so that Britain will continue to 

play a leading role in tackling climate change. Secondly, 

it will diversify our energy mix, improving our energy 

security, and insulating households and business consumers 

from high and volatile fossil fuel prices on global markets. 

Thirdly, it will keep British companies at the forefront 

of the fast-growing global green sector. 

However, investment on the scale needed will not 

happen under the current framework. Industry and 

investors have told the Government very clearly that we 

must play our part, by creating a regulatory framework 

against which they can invest, and by giving clarity on 

the level of incentives available. We cannot afford to 

miss this opportunity. We need those shovel-ready projects 

to get under way now, and the energy security challenge 

we face is real, with fossil fuel imports set to increase, 

electricity demand to rise, and around a fifth of our 

existing power plant to close by 2020. 

We therefore propose nothing less than the biggest 

transformation of Britain’s electricity market since 

privatisation. That follows agreement across the coalition, 

not only on electricity market reform and the Energy 

Bill, but on a real-terms tripling of the budget for support 

for low-carbon generation. 

We need to improve revenue certainty for investors in 

low-carbon generation, including renewables, nuclear 

power, and carbon capture and storage, so we will take 

powers in the Energy Bill to introduce feed-in tariffs 

with contracts for difference. That mechanism will give 

investors precisely the confidence they seek. We have also 

responded to Select Committee on Energy and Climate 

Change concerns and will create a single counter-party 

for the contracts for difference. 

We will also introduce a capacity market to ensure 

that there is sufficient gas generation to provide the 

back-up and flexibility we will need. Gas remains a vital 

part of our energy mix, and we will support the exploitation 

of unconventional gas resources where it is economic 

and can be carried out with full protection of the 

environment. Our gas generation strategy will be published 

alongside the autumn statement of my right hon. Friend 

the Chancellor. 

We will legislate to allow the Government in the next 

Parliament to set a 2030 decarbonisation target for the 

power sector, and in the shorter term we will introduce 

an emissions performance standard. That will ensure 

that new coal plant can be built only with carbon 

capture and storage technology. All those mechanisms 

will be supported by a robust, transparent institutional 

framework. The reforms will maintain Britain’s energy 

security while providing a huge opportunity for jobs 

and growth. Competition for long-term contracts will 

drive innovation, raise productivity and give UK industries 

a strong platform from which to compete internationally. 

Consumer bills are one of my greatest concerns. They 

have been driven up remorselessly by wholesale fossil 

fuel prices: global gas prices were 50% higher in the five 

years to 2011 than in the previous five years, and they 

have continued to rise in the past year. High energy bills 

can put huge pressure on households and businesses, so 

let me be very clear, especially given recent misleading 

reports in the media: Government policy is designed 

specifically to reduce consumer bills. Of course, we 

cannot control global commodity markets. However, 

we can and will put consumers in control by driving a 

wedge between wholesale energy prices and consumer 

bills. That is why we propose to legislate in the Energy 

Bill to ensure that consumers are placed on the cheapest 

tariff that meets their preferences. 

We can and will diversify our energy supplies: our 

policies stand to reduce the UK’s sensitivity to fossil 

fuel price spikes by approximately 30% by 2020, and by 

around 60% by 2050. We can and will push energy 

companies to make switching easier and quicker— 

households can already save up to £200 per year simply 

by switching provider. We can and will pursue savings 

wherever we can find them in the energy system—for 

example, up to £3.5 billion from offshore transmission 

co-ordination. We can and will continue to place energy 

efficiency front and centre. More than 2 million insulation 

measures were installed in the year to June 2012. The 

savings are considerable: the 500,000 households who 

insulated their cavity walls in 2011 are each saving 

approximately £135 per year. Last month, we put in 

place the framework for the green deal, which allows 

households and businesses to install energy efficiency 

measures without any upfront cost, and to pay for them 

through the savings on their energy bill.

389 Energy Policy 29 NOVEMBER 2012 

Energy Policy 

390 

[Mr Edward Davey] 

If we look ahead to energy bills in 2020, we see that 

energy efficiency savings are set to outweigh—more 

than outweigh—the cost of supporting low-carbon 

electricity generation. The net effect of Government 

policies on energy bills is downwards, not upwards. Of 

course, vulnerable households need our help now, and 

they are getting it. More than 1 million low-income 

pensioners will get £130 off their fuel bills this winter, 

and all pensioner households will get a winter fuel 

payment of £200, or £300 for those over 80 years old. 

Energy suppliers provided approximately £250 million 

of support under the warm home discount scheme in 

2011-12, assisting about 2 million low-income and 

vulnerable households. The new energy company obligation 

will channel £540 million-worth of green deal investment 

per year, reaching approximately 270,000 vulnerable 

and low-income households and those living in harderto-treat 

properties by 2015. To help people better manage 

their own energy use, we will be rolling out smart meters 

across Great Britain: 53 million new meters will be 

installed by 2019, delivering an estimated £7.2 billion in 

net benefits to the economy. 

The heated debate on energy policy can sometimes 

obscure what is in many ways a great success story for 

our country. The UK already leads the world in offshore 

wind, and we are on track to meet our renewables 

targets. Energy investment in Britain is running at a 

20-year high, according to Energy UK. We have the 

world’s first renewable heat incentive. This year’s offshore 

oil and gas licensing round received the highest number 

of applications since licensing began in 1964. Our carbon 

capture and storage offer, including the £1 billion 

commercialisation competition, is one of the world’s 

most comprehensive. 

We continue to make progress in international talks 

on climate change. I will shortly be attending the C0P 

18 talks in Doha, working towards the genuinely global 

deal to which Durban opened the door, to be agreed by 

2015 and to come into force from 2020. We are now 

preparing a once in a generation transformation of the 

energy landscape to bring on massive private-sector 

investment, which will boost the economy, create jobs, 

and power Britain towards a prosperous low-carbon 

future. 

The Government’s energy policy is good for the British 

economy, good for consumers and good for the planet, 

and I commend the statement to the House. 

11.29 am 

Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab): I thank the Secretary 

of State for early notice of his statement. I was going to 

say that I felt deprived at not getting two statements—one 

from the Secretary of State and one from the Minister 

of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, 

the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings 

(Mr Hayes)—because that seems to be the usual manner 

of doing things this afternoon, but I think we were 

lucky just to get one. The Secretary of State can catch 

his breath now. 

I have always made it clear that where we can work 

with the Government in the national interest, we will do 

so. In that vein, the Secretary of State will know that we 

have supported the Government’s efforts to attract 

investment in new nuclear, and we welcome Hitachi’s 

decision to buy the Horizon nuclear project. We also 

welcome the progress made in Durban last year and 

wish our negotiators in Doha well. It is with genuine 

regret, however, that over the past year we have seen the 

Government lurch from one crisis to another on many 

aspects of energy policy, from the disastrous handling 

of the cuts to the feed-in tariff for solar power, to the 

recent outburst on wind power from the Minister of 

State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the 

hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, 

and, I am afraid, the Prime Minister’s broken promises 

on energy bills. The Department has done more than its 

fair share to get the word “omnishambles” in the “Oxford 

English Dictionary”. 

Today, alongside the statement, the Secretary of State 

is also publishing the Government’s long-awaited Energy 

Bill. His Department’s press notice helpfully reminds us 

that the Bill has faced repeated delays, which I believe 

has undermined confidence and left much investment in 

limbo. We will of course look carefully at the Bill and 

the other proposals the Government have published 

today on demand reduction, energy security and energyintensive 

industries, and I look forward to debating 

them more fully with the Secretary of State in due course. 

I want to pick up on two aspects of the Secretary of 

State’s announcement and ask him some specific questions: 

first, on the state of competition in the energy market 

and, secondly, on the Government’s failure to set a clear 

target to decarbonise the power sector. This time last 

year, when the Secretary of State’s predecessor delivered 

the annual energy statement, he said that people’s bills 

would be lower during this Parliament. Families and 

businesses up and down the country that have seen their 

bills rise by more than £250 know that that is just not 

true. In response, the Government launched their “click, 

switch and insulate to save” campaign, but the number 

of people switching suppliers fell to record lows. 

The Secretary of State talked about energy efficiency, 

but next year this Administration will become the first 

since the 1970s not to have a Government-funded energy 

efficiency scheme. The Prime Minister told the House 

that he would force the energy companies by law to put 

everyone on the lowest tariff, but it turned out that all 

the Government are really doing is limiting the number 

of tariffs those companies can offer. The simple truth is 

that even the lowest tariff in an uncompetitive market 

will not be a good deal. 

The Secretary of State says that the burden of investment 

will not fall on taxpayers, but it will fall on bill payers, 

and, at a time when we are asking them to pay for as 

much as £200 billion of investment in our energy 

infrastructure, it is more important than ever that we 

have an energy market that delivers fair prices and 

works in the public interest. For too long, the big energy 

companies have been able to get away with what they 

want at the expense of everyone else. Those big companies 

dominate 98% of the market and, decades after 

privatisation, still have a virtual monopoly in their 

former electricity regions. They tell us that electricity 

and gas prices in the UK are among the lowest in 

Europe, but when tax is taken out of the equation, they 

are among the highest. Most damning of all, whenever 

these companies announce their price hikes, they tell us 

they are only passing on their costs, so why is it that 

when those costs come down, consumers rarely see the 

savings?


Energy Policy 

392 

Whether or not the allegations of price fixing in the 

gas market turn out to be true, they clearly show that 

the market is not transparent enough. Let me, then, ask 

the Secretary of State three very straightforward questions: 

first, does he believe that there is effective competition 

in either the wholesale or the retail energy market? 

Secondly, whether consumers get a fair deal will largely 

depend on the strike price the Government set for 

contracts for difference and the reference price in the 

market at the time, but if the market is structured in 

such a way that no one knows what the true cost of 

energy actually is, how will the Government even be 

able to set a robust strike price? Thirdly, given that the 

proposals were originally called “electricity market reform”, 

why does the new Bill fail to make proposals on how 

energy is bought and sold in order to make it more 

open, more transparent and more competitive? 

This morning, I looked through the “Electricity market 

reform: policy overview” document. In paragraph 101, 

there is an indication that the Government are perhaps 

beginning to recognise that greater competition is necessary, 

in its reference to 

“Powers for the Secretary of State to make changes to electricity 

generation and supply licences conditions”. 

That is quite interesting. Does it indicate that the Secretary 

of State is moving closer to some of the more radical 

suggestions for reforming the market which Labour has 

been putting forward for the past two years and which 

were referred to in our 2010 manifesto? 

The Secretary of State said that investment was running 

at a 20-year high, but independent figures produced by 

Bloomberg New Energy Finance show that since this 

Government came to power, investment in renewable 

energy has fallen by more than half. He also said that 

the UK led the world in offshore wind, but figures out 

just today from Ernst and Young on renewable energy 

attractiveness show that, for the first time ever, the UK 

has been knocked off the top spot for offshore wind 

attractiveness and is now behind Germany. The reason 

that has happened is the uncertainty the Government 

have created. That is why firms have put investment on 

hold or scrapped it altogether. 

In June, Vestas abandoned its plans to create a new 

manufacturing plant in Kent, which would have created 

2,000 jobs. What did the local Member of Parliament, 

the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), 

who is now Parliamentary Private Secretary to the 

Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate 

Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle 

(Gregory Barker), say at the time? She said that Vestas’ 

decision 

“suggests a lack of confidence within the industry over the 

government’s commitment to the green economy and crucially, 

offshore wind. The market needs certainty from government if it 

is to deliver the thousands of jobs and billions of pounds of 

investment that could secure our economic recovery.” 

Whether onshore or offshore, the business of firms such 

as Vestas is wind. What they wanted more than anything 

else in the Bill was a clear commitment to decarbonise 

the power sector by 2030. Just this morning, its chief 

executive told The Guardian: 

“The failure to establish a firm 2030 power sector carbon cap 

prolongs uncertainty.” 

In his words, 

“This is a significant missed opportunity,” 

and he is not alone in thinking that. 

It is not just businesses in the renewables sector but 

those elsewhere that are concerned about the Government’s 

lack of vision. I make no bones about it: we support a 

clear decarbonisation target in the Bill—and from what 

I read in this morning’s papers, so do many hon. Members 

on the Government Benches, including the Chair of the 

Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change. When 

the time comes, we will work with colleagues across the 

House to put a decarbonisation target in the Bill. 

Mr Davey: I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s 

initial remarks. I am delighted that she wants to work 

with the Government to attract investment and that she 

wishes us well in the Doha talks next week. I hope we 

can reach a cross-party consensus on some of these 

important measures to tackle climate change, which is 

incredibly important. Both coalition parties gave that 

support to the last Government, for their Climate Change 

Act 2008, and I hope we can continue that consensus. 

The right hon. Lady said that the Bill had been 

delayed. Ever since I have been Secretary of State for 

Energy and Climate Change, I have said it would be 

published in November and it has been. We are on time 

and on track. She asked a number of questions, but 

gave no recognition to the fact that two parties that have 

had their disagreements have come together with an 

energy policy. She also failed to mention how that has 

been received by industry and the investor community. 

The director general of the CBI, John Cridland, gave a 

ringing endorsement to the policies that we have announced, 

after the discussions I had with the Chancellor of the 

Exchequer. That political certainty, backed with the 

policy certainty of today’s announcement, will bring 

the billions of pounds of investment into the UK that 

our economy and our energy infrastructure needs. 

The right hon. Lady asked me about competition. 

One almost thinks that she is suffering from amnesia, 

because it was the previous Government who failed to 

tackle competition. We are determined to tackle it, but 

we will not be using ideas from the Labour party’s 

manifesto, because we have our own ideas on how to 

ensure competition in the retail sector, with our arguments 

about switching, and in the wholesale sector, with our 

arguments about greater liquidity and transparency in 

that market. Of course we have competitive markets, 

but they could be more competitive. We are determined 

to drive them further and faster, and our policies will do 

far more than the ones she is offering the country. 

The right hon. Lady questioned our new policies on 

tariffs, which will simplify them in a way that I believe 

will drive competition. Time and again, my right hon. 

Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark 

(Simon Hughes) asked the previous Government to 

simplify tariffs, to drive competition in the consumer’s 

interest, and what did they do? Absolutely nothing. We 

will take no lessons from her on that matter. 

The right hon. Lady asked about strike prices. She 

does not seem to understand how they will be set, so let 

me explain, although we will no doubt do this on 

Second Reading of the Bill. They will be set administratively 

until 2017; then they will be set through auctions. Auctions 

are the way to get the real transparency and competition 

that the previous Government failed to deliver. 

The right hon. Lady asked about the decarbonisation 

target. That has been a matter of some debate within 

the Government, and there will no doubt be a debate on


Energy Policy 

394 

[Mr Davey] 

it between Members on both sides during the passage of 

the Bill. I looked at the 2010 manifestos of all the 

parties—the Green party, the Labour party, the Liberal 

Democrats and the Conservatives—to see what promises 

they had made on a decarbonisation target for the 

power sector. None of us had made any. There were no 

such promises in the coalition agreement either, but 

since becoming Secretary of State, I have gone into the 

discussions determined to make that argument. I have 

done so, and we will table amendments to the Bill to 

give the Secretary of State power to set a decarbonisation 

target. I am proud of that. 

The right hon. Lady said that without a decarbonisation 

target, we would see no investment in the supply chain. 

I simply refer her to Arriva’s announcement last week 

on a turbine factory. The weeks and months ahead will 

show whether we will see that supply chain investment. 

I believe that we will, because this coalition Government 

have put the right policies in place. 

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

Lord Stern, whose discredited report still forms the 

rationale for the Government’s energy policy, calculated 

in 2006 the amount by which the price of hydrocarbons 

needed to be increased in order to decarbonise the 

economy. Since then, the price of hydrocarbons has 

risen faster and further than either Lord Stern or the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change thought 

sufficient, so why does my right hon. Friend propose to 

pile Pelion upon Ossa by burdening British industry 

and households with these tripled taxes? 

Mr Davey: My right hon. Friend has been consistent: 

he voted against the Climate Change Act 2008 and he 

clearly does not like our low-carbon policies today. The 

fact that fossil fuel prices have gone up is yet another 

argument for our policies. We need to insulate our 

economy, our consumers and our businesses from those 

high prices. This country has to import far more fossil 

fuels than we used to because North sea resources are 

going down, and that is leaving our economy exposed. 

We need to tackle that issue for reasons of energy 

security and to ensure that we have competitive prices. 

Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab): 

The Secretary of State is obviously very pleased with 

himself about the tariffs, but will he acknowledge that 

he has failed to deliver what the Prime Minister promised, 

which was to put everybody on the lowest tariff? Given 

that he has not done that, will he consider making 

a concession to over-75-year-olds, who could save £200 

a year by being on the lowest tariff? The 3,500 pensioners 

in my constituency would greatly appreciate that. 

Mr Davey: First, we want to give the benefits of 

switching to everybody, not just to pensioners. Hardworking 

families are struggling, and we want to ensure 

that they get the benefits as well. As for the Prime 

Minister’s commitment to get people on to the cheapest 

tariffs, we are delivering that. Ofgem’s retail market 

review of the four core tariffs will ensure that people 

who are on stranded or dead tariffs will automatically 

be switched to the lowest tariff, given their preferences. I 

would have thought that the Opposition would want to 

ensure that people are on the lowest tariff, because it 

will bring them big savings and ensure that their preferences 

—whether on payment or other things—are recognised. 

That is the best of both worlds. 

Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) 

(LD): The Secretary of State mentioned the important 

role that he sees gas still playing in the transition to the 

low-carbon economy. Will he give me an assurance that 

the record licensing round that he has just announced is 

an indication of the Government’s continued commitment 

to maximising the remaining potential of our North sea 

assets? 

Mr Davey: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. 

Sometimes the debate is characterised as a choice between 

gas and renewables, but we need both. That is particularly 

important as coal-fired power stations go off line. The 

gas power stations that replace them will help to cut our 

carbon emissions. It is absolutely right for our country’s 

energy security and prosperity that we maximise the 

potential of the North sea and, indeed, the other offshore 

fields, particularly those west of Shetland, and we will 

do that. 

Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab): Can the Secretary of 

State explain why the Government have decided not to 

fund the Hatfield project in South Yorkshire, which was 

the top priority for the European Commission, and to 

cast it aside by failing to include it on the list of future 

carbon capture and storage projects? 

Mr Davey: Right hon. and hon. Members will know 

there has been a competition to secure the support that 

the Government offer for carbon capture and storage. 

We had eight applications, and we had some rigorous 

criteria which differed from those of the European 

Union—ours were more suitable for this country and 

our energy needs—and which were applied rigorously, 

robustly and fairly. We have now moved on to the 

second round. Of course, there will always be some 

losers—not all eight applicants can win—but we are 

applying the criteria fairly and robustly. 

Charles Hendry (Wealden) (Con): I congratulate my 

right hon. Friend on both his statement and the Bill, 

and I urge him to do all he can to take energy policy out 

of politics, because investors need to know that there is 

cross-party support and support across Government 

for the measures he is introducing for the longer term. 

In that respect, given the absence of a decarbonisation 

target in the Bill, how does he intend to reassure investors 

who need to make investment decisions during this 

Parliament that there will be a long-term market for the 

products we want them to build here? 

Mr Davey: I start by paying tribute to my hon. 

Friend: I believe Members of all parties know what a 

critical role he played in shaping the Energy Bill that is 

published today. Along with my right hon. Friend the 

Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), he worked across 

the parties to bring these proposals forward, and he 

deserves a huge amount of credit today. I am determined, 

having made this agreement in the coalition, that we 

send out a signal—not just to the UK or Europe, but to 

the whole world—that the UK is open for energy 

investment. We have built a consensus in the UK 

Government, and in view of the remarks of the right


Energy Policy 

396 

hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), I believe 

we may well secure cross-party consensus, which would 

be valuable to this country and its people. My hon. 

Friend asked how we will continue the consensus. Let us 

see how we make progress during proceedings on the 

Bill, in Committee and so forth. I know that my hon. 

Friend will play his role in making that happen. 

Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP): We, too, welcome the 

publication of the Energy Bill, much of which we can 

probably support. If gas is to continue to be an important 

part of the energy mix, however, it is essential that 

carbon capture and storage is brought forward quickly. 

There has been some speculation in the specialist press 

that the UK Government have missed the European 

Union’s target for submitting details to ensure funding. 

Can the Secretary of State assure us that this is not the 

case, and that CCS will be brought forward quickly? 

Mr Davey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support, 

as having cross-party consensus is so important, in 

Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. As he 

knows, I think Scotland is stronger in the United Kingdom 

and that the United Kingdom is stronger with Scotland 

in it, not least on energy policy. On CCS, we are 

pursuing our policies as quickly as we can, but we need 

to make sure that we get value for money for the 

taxpayer. We were fortunate to have eight applications; 

we have now whittled that down to four, and we are 

proceeding apace to choose between those remaining 

four. It is true that we did not get in the first round of 

the New Entrants Reserve 300 funding from the EU, 

but we are wholly able to get into the second round and 

get the same amount of money. I have spoken to the 

European Commissioner about that. I see no problem 

in ensuring that we use the money put aside to get the 

best value for money for the best CCS projects. 

Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con): The Government 

have talked a lot about green energy generation, but I 

would like to ask the Secretary of State about green 

energy transmission. A number of countries in Europe 

are now removing the scars from their countryside of 

pylons and overhead lines, and there is a wonderful 

opportunity for us to leave a great environmental legacy 

to future generations—not least in my North Somerset 

constituency, where this is a problem. What does the 

Bill say about green transmission? If it says nothing, I 

can tell the Secretary of State that a number of Members 

on both sides of the House will be more than happy to 

amend it. 

Mr Davey: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s 

question. I know that he and my hon. Friend the 

Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) have been campaigning 

in Somerset on the new transmission lines proposed by 

National Grid. He will know that there is a settled 

approach whereby National Grid consults widely and 

tries to take concerns into account. This is not a new 

issue arising from green energy; it has been an issue for 

many decades. The Minister of State, Department of 

Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member 

for South Holland and The Deepings, is working hard 

and I am sure that he would be more than happy to have 

a meeting with my right hon. Friend. 

John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab): May I 

give the Secretary of State some advice? He would gain 

a lot more cross-party support if stopped this petty 

point-scoring. 

The right hon. Gentleman did not mention poor and 

vulnerable customers in his statement. They are the 

customers who do not talk to the energy companies and 

who need people to go and see them. What will he do to 

ensure that representatives of the energy companies go 

and find those vulnerable people so that they can help 

them? 

Mr Davey: The hon. Gentleman always gives me a 

courteous and charming welcome when I appear before 

the Select Committee of which he is a distinguished 

member. However, I did refer to vulnerable customers 

in my statement. They are absolutely at the heart of our 

policy and at the heart of my concerns as I develop that 

policy. I have made it clear to the energy companies that 

I expect them to work hard, as the Government are 

working hard, to ensure that we reach out to people in 

fuel poverty. 

Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con): I 

congratulate the Government and indeed Ofgem on 

having accepted the key recommendation of the billing 

stakeholder group, which the Government asked me to 

chair, that energy companies should make clear in their 

bills how much their customers would save in pounds 

and pence if they were on their supplier’s cheapest 

standard direct debit tariff. That recommendation is 

open for consultation, and the energy companies do not 

like it. May I encourage the Secretary of State to do 

what he can to ensure that they do not push back on it? 

Mr Davey: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the 

work he has done. He is absolutely right: we must stand 

up against people who prevent us from pursuing the 

consumer interest. It was ignored for far too long, but 

we are not going to ignore it. One of our reasons for 

arranging the consultation was that, although Ofgem 

could proceed with its own work and change licence 

conditions relating to bills and what is on them, we 

wanted to provide a statutory underpinning—a backstop—to 

ensure that the process took place as quickly 

and smoothly as possible. I think that that is sending a 

very strong signal. 

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): Does 

the Secretary of State share my regret that, despite the 

18-month gestation of the Energy Bill, a consultation 

paper on the possibility of its including provisions on 

energy efficiency and demand-side management was 

not published until today? Will he undertake to rectify 

that omission by ensuring that the consultation proceeds 

as speedily as possible, and that amendments are tabled 

as early as possible, so that the House can debate the 

matter during the Bill’s passage rather than its being 

tacked on at the end when the debate is over? 

Mr Davey: I am very proud that we have arranged 

a consultation on electricity demand reduction. Other 

Governments have continually ducked the issue, but 

our Government will not, because this could make a 

major difference to the way in which our energy policy 

works. There could be great savings for the economy, 

for businesses and for consumers if we get it right.


Energy Policy 

398 

[Mr Davey] 

I urge the hon. Gentleman to engage in the consultation. 

We do not have a firm proposal, but we have a set of 

options on which people can comment, and if legislation 

is required as a result, we will legislate. 

Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD): I commend 

my right hon. Friend on his statement and on the work 

he is doing to tackle climate change, but may I urge him 

to review the encouragement that his Department is 

giving to the industrial-scale burning of wood to generate 

energy? Will he make time to read a recent report by the 

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Friends of the 

Earth and Greenpeace entitled “Dirtier than coal? Why 

Government plans to subsidise burning trees are bad 

news for the planet”? Will he also note the way in which 

the Scottish Government are using the planning and 

subsidy regimes to protect the environment, protect 

existing users of wood, and ensure that help is directed 

at small community-scale biomass rather than industrialscale 

plants? 

Mr Davey: I shall be happy to read that report, but I 

have considered the issue and I have to say that I think 

that the conversion of coal-fired power stations to 

biomass will have a beneficial effect on the UK’s carbon 

emissions. As my hon. Friend will know, a consultation 

is taking place on sustainability criteria relating to 

biomass energy. I believe that it will close on 30 November, 

and obviously we will respond to it. 

Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab): As a consistent 

pro-nuclear, pro-renewables and pro-energy efficiency 

Member, I welcome the announcement as an important 

step forward—although I have to say that the 

decarbonisation issue will be seen for what it is: a 

political fudge. Does the Secretary of State intend to 

table amendments to the Bill soon, so that Members 

have a chance to see them before Second Reading and 

we can have a proper debate, rather than have them 

hidden away in Committee where only a small group 

will debate them? Also, has the Secretary of State had 

time to respond to the Energy and Climate Change 

Committee’s recommendations? 

Mr Davey: The hon. Gentleman is a very well informed 

and very talented Member, and I congratulate him on 

having managed to ask three questions. We will introduce 

amendments on both the tariff proposals and the 

decarbonisation powers, but we will do so in Committee, 

not before Second Reading. The whole House will be 

able to see them at Report stage, however. We want and 

value parliamentary scrutiny. I have lost track of the 

hon. Gentleman’s other two questions—he was a little 

greedy—but I am sure we will get back to him on them. 

Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): Will the Secretary 

of State explain again how the UK will be able to meet 

its commitment to cut CO 2 emissions by 80% by 2050 if 

we are not ready to commit to decarbonising electricity 

by 2030? 

Mr Davey: We are on track and we will hold to our 

commitments in the Climate Change Act. I refer my 

hon. Friend to my recent comments on the decarbonisation 

target being set at the same time as the fifth carbon 

budget. The fifth carbon budget covers the period from 

2028 to 2033, and it therefore covers 2030, the year of 

the decarbonisation target in the power sector. The two 

approaches will therefore be brought together. 

Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab): Can the Secretary 

of State confirm that people who are on prepayment 

meters or who cannot access online services will be able 

to enjoy the cheapest tariff their supplier offers? 

Mr Davey: Under the Ofgem proposals, those on 

prepayment meters will be on the lowest tariff, given 

their payment method. We are consulting on the Ofgem 

proposals, and we are committed to them. 

Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con): The 

Secretary of State’s statement is positive news for the 

nuclear new build programme. When will he start 

considering the sites for stations that will open beyond 

2025, and will the Government consider sites that are 

not currently on the approved site list? 

Mr Davey: As my hon. Friend knows, there are eight 

sites in the national plan, which is quite a lot to be 

getting on with, but any developers of a new nuclear 

proposition are free to propose sites not currently listed. 

I know that my hon. Friend has vigorously campaigned 

for Dungeness to be added to the list. I think there is a 

letter in the post to him about that, and I will be very 

happy to talk to him in detail about it. 

Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) 

(Lab): Despite the Secretary of State’s responses to two 

questions about customers, the fact of the matter is that 

when he referred to regulatory matters in his statement, 

he mentioned only industry and investors. Who will 

represent consumers worried about fuel poverty growing 

and instances of hypothermia increasing, especially as 

Ofgem seems to be both tepid and toothless? 

Mr Davey: First, I worry about consumers; I made 

them one of my top priorities on day one in office. 

Ofgem has a duty to consumers, and it is working on 

their behalf. The Labour party wants to get rid of 

Ofgem, even though it is currently doing a very good 

job with its retail market review. The last Government 

were asked to simplify tariffs in order to help consumers; 

they failed to do so, but Ofgem has brought forward 

proposals on that. 

Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): The investment 

and competition that the energy sector needs will be 

dependent upon attracting independent generators. Will 

any of the Secretary of State’s proposals help to ensure 

that new independent generators can enter our electricity 

market? 

Mr Davey: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and 

when he reads the Bill in detail, he will see that we are 

addressing this matter. We believe there must be greater 

liquidity in the wholesale markets, and the independent 

generators also want that. As my hon. Friend knows, 

last May we issued a call for evidence on independent 

generators’ concerns in respect of accessing purchase 

power agreements, which are crucial to them. We have 

set out our response and what we intend to do in the Bill 

and its associated documents published today.


Energy Policy 

400 

Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/ 

Co-op): On 17 October, the Prime Minister promised 

that he would ensure that energy companies put consumers 

on the lowest tariff by law. We know that that was a 

sleight of hand; the Secretary of State has just said that 

metered customers would not be on the lowest tariff, 

only the lowest in their band. Will the Secretary of State 

be clear today that he is only limiting the tariffs to four 

per company and that there is no guarantee that they 

will be the lowest? The lowest tariffs will now be higher 

than they were before. 

Mr Davey: If the hon. Lady has read Ofgem’s proposals, 

she will have seen that it proposes four core tariffs. 

People can then express preferences in respect of both 

their payment method and whether they want dual 

discounts. Our consultation paper’s proposals are very 

similar to Ofgem’s. 

Caroline Flint: They are identical. 

Mr Davey: They are not identical; the right hon. 

Lady probably needs to read them in a little more detail. 

However, we believe that Ofgem’s are very good proposals. 

They were based on two years of study and will see that 

people, once they have expressed their preferences on 

how they wish to pay and so on, will be on the lowest 

tariff. The last Government failed to deliver on that. 

Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con): This week 

Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy 

Agency, said three interesting things about the development 

of unconventional oil and gas. He called it 

“the biggest change in the energy world since World War II”, 

and went on: 

“This is bigger even than the development of nuclear energy…This 

has implications for the whole world.” 

Does my right hon. Friend agree? 

Mr Davey: I do think that shale gas has implications 

for the whole world, although sometimes some 

commentators get rather expansive and over-enthusiastic. 

Shale gas is important. I want it developed in the 

United Kingdom, but we have to make sure that that is 

done safely and in a way that protects our environment. 

I believe that that can be done. 

Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): I very much welcome 

what the Secretary of State said about trying to put 

British companies at the forefront of the green energy 

revolution. However, last week Tata Steel announced 

600 job losses in Wales and the future of the British 

steel industry is very dependent on UK demand. What 

can the Secretary of State do to encourage the development 

of renewables such as offshore wind turbines, which use 

thousands of tonnes of steel per turbine? What can he 

do to promote the use of UK steel in those endeavours? 

Mr Davey: Our legislative, financial and levy control 

framework has been warmly welcomed by the offshore 

wind industry as the biggest boost it has ever seen. 

I hope that that will reassure the hon. Lady. 

The hon. Lady mentioned Tata Steel, which, obviously, 

is an energy-intensive user. Energy-intensive industries 

have often been concerned about energy prices and the 

impact of moving to low-carbon energy. In his autumn 

statement last year, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor 

put forward proposals for supporting them and those 

have been taken forward. The hon. Lady will see in 

today’s announcement that we are helping energy-intensive 

industries with respect to contracts for difference in the 

electricity market reform regime. I think that will be 

widely welcomed. 

Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD): I welcome today’s statement 

and the Energy Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend 

will confirm that we are now on track with our aspiration 

to be the greenest Government ever. 

Specifically, what effect will his announcement have 

on projects such as Eggborough power station—a coal-fired 

station on the starting blocks and ready to convert to 

biomass and eventually carbon capture? It is waiting to 

go ahead. 

Mr Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we are 

on track to be the greenest Government ever. Yesterday, 

I was at the launch of the green investment bank, which 

is just one example, in Edinburgh. 

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the 

Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland 

and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), is meeting Eggborough 

representatives today. I cannot comment ahead of that 

meeting, but I believe that Eggborough and other power 

plants will like our proposals. 


Co-op): The Secretary of State mentioned the Doha 

negotiations. What are the Government’s specific objectives 

—I do not mean just getting agreement—for those 

negotiations? Which members of the ministerial team 

will represent the UK there? 

Mr Davey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s 

question. I will be attending the Doha negotiations, 

along with the Minister of State, Department of Energy 

and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member 

for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker). On our objectives, 

we have been arguing for a balanced package. In the 

pre-COP discussions in Seoul, we argued that the European 

Union and other members of the Kyoto protocol need 

to commit to a second period and that we need the 

long-term co-operative action negotiations to come to 

an end, and in return we need a work plan to take us 

from now until 2015 so that we can implement the 

international, legally binding treaty promised at Durban. 

In addition, we want ambitious proposals to come from 

other countries on climate change finance and we would 

like to see more mitigation measures. 

Just before this statement, I was at Clarence house 

with His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales attending 

a meeting on forests. We have made an announcement 

today of the use of UK climate change finance money 

to support new forest projects, which I believe will help 

the climate change talks and show that this Government 

have an ambitious agenda. 

Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con): Some great 

companies in Pendle are working in the energy sector: 

Graham Engineering works in the nuclear supply chain; 

and Kirk Environmental is internationally renowned 

and is the only UK company specialising in the manufacture


Energy Policy 

402 

[Andrew Stephenson] 

of large anaerobic digestive tanks and double membrane 

biogas holders. Will the Secretary of State commit to 

working closely with Ministers in the Department for 

Business, Innovation and Skills, who are delivering 

things such as the advanced manufacturing supply chain 

initiative, to ensure that British companies, such as 

those based in my constituency, can deliver the low-carbon 

economy and the energy security he seeks to achieve? 

Mr Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the 

potential for growth and jobs resulting from our energy 

policies is huge. He will be pleased to learn that I have 

been working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary 

of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on exactly 

these issues. We will be producing strategies on the 

supply chains in nuclear and offshore wind, and we 

have been working together to maximise the potential 

for British jobs from this investment and these energy 

infrastructure plans. 

Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab): What level of continuing 

subsidy does the Secretary of State envisage for wind 

turbine generation? Does he consider that to be a costeffective 

investment? 

Mr Davey: Our investments and our policies for 

offshore wind have been widely welcomed, and we are 

seeing the industry really get going. We have the largest 

amount of offshore wind capacity already installed and 

we have some of the greatest potential in the world. It is 

important that we get costs down. We are working with 

the offshore wind developers and the forum that has 

been established to get cost reductions, and they produced 

a report just a few months ago showing how we could 

get cost reductions across the piece, which will make a 

huge difference to competitiveness. 

David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con): I welcome 

the Bill, which at last gives us the possibility of unleashing 

nuclear power at scale in the UK. The Secretary of 

State will have seen the recent EU figures showing that 

every EU industrial country except France has higher 

carbon emissions per head than the UK. Yet Germany, 

which has 20% more carbon emissions per head than 

the UK, has recently embarked on a project to build 

20 unabated coal power stations. How does he reconcile 

Germany’s position with ours? 

Mr Davey: I work closely with my German counterparts, 

particularly Peter Altmaier, and I know that they are 

having a big debate in Germany called the “Energiewende” 

looking at how they will deal with the implications of 

reducing their nuclear industry. I am sure that my hon. 

Friend would understand that, given our close partnership 

with Germany, I would not wish to tread on Herr 

Altmaier’s toes, but this country is investing in nuclear. 

We are putting forward a regime that we think is attractive, 

and Hitachi’s £700 million investment in the Horizon 

project shows that international companies and 

international capital believe we have got it right. 

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Last but not 

least, I call Martin Horwood. 

Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): Does the Secretary 

of State agree that, in time, feed-in tariffs with contracts 

for difference will provide a means of supporting a 

diverse emerging and fast-changing renewables industry 

that is good for the environment and fairer to households 

than the outgoing renewables obligation system? Will 

he reconsider extending that subsidy to a mature and 

inflexible nuclear industry dominated by a single French 

nationalised company that is trying to seal the deal in 

secret before we have even passed the legislation? 

Mr Davey: First, on my hon. Friend’s last point, I 

have made it clear that we will be very transparent 

about negotiations with EDF or any other company. Of 

course, he would not expect me to comment on negotiations 

daily but he would expect me to bring to the House 

the results of them so that I can be held to account in 

the proper way. 

On my hon. Friend’s first point, he is absolutely right. 

One of the huge advantages of feed-in tariffs with 

contracts for difference compared with the renewable 

obligations certificate system is that the deal is much 

better for consumers. The policies we are putting in 

place and electricity market reform will mean that consumer 

and business bills will be far lower than they otherwise 

would have been. That is one of the main reasons we are 

doing this.

403 29 NOVEMBER 2012 Points of Order 

404 

Points of Order 

12.10 pm 

Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab): On a point of 

order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There has been some concern 

about today’s Westminster Hall Select Committee on 

Welsh Affairs debate on inward investment in Wales. It 

did not appear on the Order Paper at any point this 

week until today and notification only came in the 

business statement on 8 November. Furthermore, there 

is concern that that important debate will clash with the 

Prime Minister making a statement on the Leveson 

report. Will you look into what went wrong concerning 

the debate, which is obviously important for the people 

of Wales? 

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): The hon. 

Lady is absolutely right. It was an administrative error, 

which has been corrected, and we will certainly try to 

ensure that it does not happen again. The two debates 

would have taken place whether it was on the Order 

Paper or not, but the point is absolutely correct. It was 

an error—it was a mistake—and we must ensure that it 

does not happen again. 

Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab): On a point of 

order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In a written ministerial 

statement on 9 November, the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs stated that he 

had asked Professor Ian Boyd, DEFRA’s chief scientific 

adviser, 

“to convene an expert taskforce on tree health and plant biosecurity.” 

The Secretary of State said that he looked 

“forward to seeing his interim proposals at the end of November”— 

[Official Report, 9 November 2012; Vol. 552, c. 50WS.] 

He also said that he would update the House on receipt 

of them. Tomorrow is the last sitting day in November. 

It took Ministers five months from the point at which 

the presence of ash dieback in the country was identified 

to doing something about it and further delays cannot 

be tolerated. Have you received any indication from the 

Secretary of State that he intends to make a statement 

to the House today or tomorrow? 

Mr Deputy Speaker: I have had no such indication 

and although the point is now on the record, it is not a 

point for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman is aware. 

BILL PRESENTED 

ENERGY BILL 

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) 

Mr Secretary Davey, supported by the Prime Minister, 

the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Secretary Hague, 

Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Secretary Hammond, 

Secretary Vince Cable, Mr Secretary Pickles, Mr Secretary 

Paterson, Mr Oliver Letwin, Gregory Barker and Mr John 

Hayes, presented a Bill to make provision for or in 

connection with reforming the electricity market for 

purposes of encouraging low carbon electricity generation 

or ensuring security of supply; for the establishment 

and functions of the Office for Nuclear Regulation; 

about the government pipe-line and storage system and 

rights exercisable in relation to it; about the designation 

of a strategy and policy statement; for the making of 

orders requiring regulated persons to provide redress to 

consumers of gas or electricity; about offshore transmission 

of electricity during a commissioning period; for imposing 

further fees in respect of nuclear decommissioning costs; 

and for connected purposes. 

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

tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 100) with explanatory 

notes (Bill 100-EN).

405 29 NOVEMBER 2012 Scotland and the Union 

406 

Backbench Business 

Scotland and the Union 

[Relevant document: Sixth Report from the Scottish 

Affairs Committee, Session 2010-12, The Referendum on 

Separation for Scotland: Unanswered Questions, HC 1806.] 

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): I inform the 

House that I have selected amendment (a) in the name 

of Angus Robertson. 

12.13 pm 

Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con): I beg to 

move, 

That this House believes that Scotland has always made, and 

continues to make, a significant contribution to the UK over the 

305 years of the Union; notes the strong and enduring bonds that 

exist between Scotland and the other nations of the UK; further 

notes its shared history and the contribution that the Scottish 

people have made to public life in the UK in politics, academia, 

trade unions and the armed forces; notes the contribution that 

Scotland’s businesses make to the UK economy and their particular 

expertise in cutting edge industries such as life sciences and 

engineering; further notes that a referendum on separating Scotland 

from the rest of the UK will be held before the end of 2014; and 

believes that Scotland is better off as part of the UK and the rest 

of the UK is better off together with Scotland. 

It is customary to begin debates that are granted by 

the Backbench Business Committee by saying how pleased 

we are to have a debate on a particular subject. I say 

that genuinely, not merely as a convention. Tomorrow is 

St Andrew’s day and Scots around the world are celebrating 

their pride in their nation and their culture. It is important 

when we are considering the future of Scotland and our 

United Kingdom that the debate takes place in this 

United Kingdom Parliament. We appreciate that the 

debate will take place in many forums around the 

United Kingdom and around the world over the next 

two years and particularly, of course, in Scotland and 

in the Scottish Parliament, but in addition to those 

debates, we must have the opportunity to discuss these 

extremely important matters here in the United Kingdom 

Parliament. 

There are many more Scots outside Scotland than 

within Scotland. Most of us now accept that only the 

people who are currently living in Scotland, be they 

Scottish or merely resident in Scotland with a right to 

vote, will take part in the referendum. Indeed, several of 

my constituents in Epping Forest have written to me or 

come to see me to ask why they, as Scots, will not get a 

vote in the referendum about the future of their country. 

I have told them not to worry, because as long as they 

keep on voting Conservative in Epping Forest there will 

be a Scottish voice here in the United Kingdom Parliament. 

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): I congratulate 

my hon. Friend on securing the debate, which is extremely 

important for the future of the United Kingdom. Does 

she not agree that there is also an argument in favour of 

allowing the people of England to have their say on the 

Scottish devolution question and on independence? If 

Scotland became an independent nation that would 

have a real effect on the people of Wiltshire as well as 

the people of Scotland. 

Mrs Laing: My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely 

correct. I have a great deal of sympathy for his point, 

but I accept that agreement has been entered into that 

the terms of the referendum have been broadly decided, 

although they have yet to be finally decided in the 

Scottish Parliament. I accept that the Scottish Parliament 

will decide on the franchise for the referendum and that, 

in doing so, it is unlikely to decide that people throughout 

the entire United Kingdom should have a vote in the 

referendum, but although those people will not have a 

vote in the referendum, they must have a voice in the 

debate. That will be provided in this Parliament and 

throughout all parts of the United Kingdom. 

Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con): I, too, 

congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important 

debate. Is she aware of whether there might be any 

restrictions on which people living in Scotland will be 

entitled to vote in the referendum, such as on English 

people, EU citizens or people from further afield? 

Mrs Laing: It is likely that the franchise will be the 

same as the franchise for the last Scottish parliamentary 

elections. I accept that and I do not think we should 

spend too much time arguing about the franchise as 

the line must be drawn somewhere. I trust the Scottish 

Parliament to draw the line in a reasonable way that is 

in accord with general electoral practice. 

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

too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. 

She mentions the Scottish Parliament—does she agree 

with me that a strong Scottish Parliament in the United 

Kingdom gives us the best of both worlds? 

Mrs Laing: Yes, it does. I entirely accept that— 

[Interruption.] Before the hon. Member for Perth and 

North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) reminds me that I have 

not always accepted that, let me say that I accept it 

now—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan 

an Iar (Mr MacNeil) says that is progress, and I am 

proud of the progress I have made in that respect. 

Yesterday, the Moderator of the General Assembly 

of the Church of Scotland led the annual St Andrew’s 

day service in the crypt of the Palace of Westminster. 

He asked why the Moderator of the General Assembly 

of the Church of Scotland comes to London in this 

week every year and he answered that question by 

saying that at least 300,000 Scots live in London. London 

is probably the largest parish covered by the Church of 

Scotland anywhere. That emphasises the point: there 

are Scots in London, in England and all over the world 

who care about the future of their country—our country. 

The Moderator of the General Assembly comes to 

London because this is the capital city of the United 

Kingdom—the capital city of all our nations brought 

together. 

Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con): My hon. 

Friend makes an important key point about the United 

Kingdom and its identity. On the numerous visits that 

I made to Iraq and Afghanistan, our armed forces did 

not ask one another whether they came from Cardiff, 

Belfast, Edinburgh or London. They fought for a country 

and a people that they love, united not just by instruments 

of parliamentary procedure, but by a country, intermarried 

and interlinked through many generations. We are a

407 Scotland and the Union 29 NOVEMBER 2012 Scotland and the Union 

408 

people united not by parliamentary instrument or law, 

but by tradition and convention, and much more by our 

human activities. 

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. A lot 

of Members wish to speak. We need shorter interventions. 

I remind Members that those who intervene who were 

on the speaking list will be dropped down if they 

continue to intervene. 

Mrs Laing: My right hon. Friend the Member for 

North Somerset (Dr Fox) makes an extremely important 

point, which is at the very centre of this debate. He 

mentions Afghanistan and Iraq, where he has seen 

recently and personally the contribution made by brave 

servicemen and women from every part of this United 

Kingdom and our allies in other parts of the world—from 

every part of the United Kingdom, and they do not ask 

each other, “Which is your country?” 

It is our country for which we fight, not only in 

Afghanistan and Iraq, but going back in our history, 

through the second world war, through the first world 

war, which in two years’ time, just at the time of the 

referendum, we will remember. That war started 100 years 

before the referendum is due to take place. Brave Scots 

joined brave Englishmen, Welshmen, Irishmen— 

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

(SNP): And New Zealanders. 

Mrs Laing: Indeed, New Zealanders and Australians—to 

fight against the oppressor. The oppressor is not within 

this United Kingdom. The oppressor is potentially outwith 

the United Kingdom, and together we have fought 

oppression and won against oppression for centuries. 

Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP): I am listening to what 

the hon. Lady is saying and she seems to have fossilised 

history. Yes, of course we have fought together in the 

past. We have fought the Germans in the past, but we 

co-operate with them on other things now. History does 

not stand still, and Scottish independence is an evolution 

of history. 

Mrs Laing: No one is suggesting that history stands 

still. I am referring to history as history. What happened 

100 years ago we will commemorate as having happened 

100 years ago, but we will not forget it. Those who 

forget history suffer for having done so. The point made 

by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset 

is that right now, at this very minute, brave servicemen 

and women from Scotland, England and other parts of 

the United Kingdom are fighting together to guarantee 

the freedom of our country, our whole country. That is 

not history. That is current. It is right now. 

Last week or the week before last, as the hon. Member 

for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) will 

remember, we had a debate in Committee Room 14 

organised by the Law Society of Scotland, a fine bunch 

of people. Before I took all those interventions, I was 

speaking about Scots outside Scotland. The Law Society 

of Scotland has an enormous number of members, of 

which I happen to be one, in London. Committee 

Room 14 was packed. We had a really good and lively 

debate but, despite his excellent speech, not one person 

in that Room voted to support the hon. Gentleman— 

not one, and I promise I had not invited them all 

personally. 

Continuing on the same theme, last night I attended 

another packed meeting held here in London, in Chelsea, 

by Friends of the Union. It was a great surprise to me to 

bump into the chairman of the Essex Conservatives, a 

very nice gentleman whom I see frequently in my 

constituency. I said something along the lines, “I didn’t 

know you cared, Adrian.” He explained to me in no 

uncertain terms that he and many of the other people 

who were there at that event for Friends of the Union 

had come of their own accord because they are fed up 

hearing that people in England and the rest of the 

United Kingdom do not care about Scotland. That is 

simply not true and it will be proved not to be true as 

this debate takes hold throughout the whole country. 

He said to me, and other people came and joined in the 

conversation, “We are here because we care about the 

United Kingdom and we care about Scotland as part of 

the United Kingdom.” They value the United Kingdom. 

They know that we are better together. 

As we consider the motion and the amendment, and 

as we seriously begin the debate in the country, let us at 

least try to get the language right. This debate is not 

about nationalism. Scotland is a nation. We are proud 

of our nation. I discovered earlier that it happens that 

tomorrow is the 140th anniversary of the first football 

international between Scotland and England. 

Mr MacNeil: Who won? 

Mrs Laing: It was held in Glasgow and I am pleased 

to say it was a no-score draw. But the point about it is 

that one can have an international only if one has a 

nation. We all go to Murrayfield, Twickenham and the 

Millennium stadium and cheer on our national football, 

rugby and other teams, because each of the component 

parts of the United Kingdom is a nation. So let us stop 

arguing about whether Scotland is a nation. That is not 

a question. Scotland is a nation, as is England, Wales, 

Northern Ireland and so on. 

The debate is not about independence. That is another 

misnomer. Scotland is independent and is in charge of 

her own destiny. Scotland has and always has had her 

own institutions—the law, the education system, the 

Church. I speak as living proof as a graduate of Edinburgh 

university, a member of the Law Society of Scotland 

and a member of the Church of Scotland, but more 

important than that to me, I am a member of the 

Epping Forest Scottish Association. As the Member 

of Parliament for Epping Forest in the proud county of 

Essex, I have no conflict between my nationality as 

Scottish and British, and my constituents have no problem 

about having somebody represent their constituency 

who happens to have been born in another part of the 

United Kingdom. This is a time when people around 

the world are breaking down barriers and coming together. 

It is wrong to construct barriers that we do not need. 

Mr Weir: The hon. Lady is making an impassioned 

speech but her point about people who were born in 

other parts of the United Kingdom is irrelevant. There 

are people representing all parties in the Scottish Parliament 

who were born in other parts of the United Kingdom 

and other places. The debate is about the right of the


410 

[Mr Weir] 

people living in Scotland to determine their future. It is 

not about whether people from other parts of the 

United Kingdom can or cannot be Scots if they are 

currently living in Scotland. There is no argument about 

that. 

Mrs Laing: The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong. 

This is not about an argument or a debate about the 

right of people living in Scotland to determine their 

future. We all agree that people in Scotland have the 

right to determine their future. I have just said that and 

I have said it many times in the House and in other 

places. Everyone accepts that. Scotland is a nation. 

Scotland is independent. Scotland holds Scotland’s future 

in its own hands. 

This debate is not about nationalism or independence; 

it is about separation. That is the word that should be 

used in debates in this Parliament, in the Scottish Parliament 

and in every forum across the country and further afield 

in the debate that will rage between now and the referendum 

in two years’ time. This is about separation, not pride in 

our country or whether Scotland can survive on her 

own. Of course Scotland can survive on her own; she is 

a strong and capable country full of brilliant and talented 

people. This debate is about drawing artificial lines that 

we do not need. As the motion states— 

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

point out gently to the hon. Lady that she has now been 

speaking for 17 minutes. She must be getting close to 

the end of her speech, because I know that she is desperate 

to hear the other arguments. 

Mrs Laing: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am 

afraid that I have taken many interventions, this being a 

debate, but I will conclude shortly. 

I will leave it to others to talk about why separation 

would be bad for industry, financial institutions, the 

currency, the armed forces, family and culture. I will 

turn to the motion and the amendment tabled by the 

hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). I would 

be minded to accept the amendment were it not for the 

first few words, which propose leaving out the last three 

lines of the motion, which state that this House 

“notes that a referendum on separating Scotland from the rest of 

the UK will be held before the end of 2014; and believes that 

Scotland is better off as part of the UK and the rest of the UK is 

better off together with Scotland.” 

I believe that the vast majority of Members will support 

our motion today. The amendment would leave out 

those lines and add 

“recognises that special relationships also endure with Australia, 

Canada, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa and other 

members of the Commonwealth as well as the Republic of 

Ireland and the United States; and believes that this will also be 

the case with Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom after 

the 2014 independence referendum.” 

I entirely agree, because after the referendum nothing 

will change. The people of Scotland are sensible, forwardlooking 

people and they will vote to stay better together 

within the United Kingdom. 

Most states in the landmass of Europe and other 

parts of the world have to draw boundaries somewhere, 

but we do not have to do so because we have a natural 

boundary: our shores. This is but a small island, full of 

people in every part whose individual lives, past, present 

and future, are bound up with each other. Each part has 

its own identity, but this House will agree this afternoon 

that we are stronger and better to go forward together 

as one United Kingdom. 


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

introducing a 10-minute time limit on speeches. 

12.34 pm 

Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab): I am pleased to 

be a co-sponsor of the debate, alongside the hon. Member 

for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), whom I am delighted to 

follow. In a way, as a Scot who represents an English 

constituency, she epitomises what the motion is about: 

the rich blend of the best of all four corners of our land 

that has made the United Kingdom of Great Britain 

and Northern Ireland the success story it so evidently is. 

There is no doubt that the United Kingdom is greater 

than the sum of its constituent parts. Although I might 

disagree with her politics, I have no doubt that we, as 

Scots, share a love of our country and want to see what 

is right and proper for its people and for future generations. 

It is also fitting that we are holding this debate on the 

eve of St Andrew’s day, the national occasion when we 

Scots come together to celebrate our patron saint and 

demonstrate our pride in all things Scottish. 

As the motion states, Scotland has made a significant 

contribution to the United Kingdom over the 305 years 

of the Union, and it continues to do so. Indeed, our 

shared history goes back even further to the union of 

the Crowns in 1603, when a Scot, James VI, sat on the 

English throne as James I. He was the first of six monarchs 

in the Stuart line who ruled both England and Scotland, 

as well as Ireland, until the Glorious Revolution, and 

then again to 1714. In fact, it was Queen Anne, the last 

of the Stuart line, who became the first monarch of the 

political union of Britain. 

With the Acts of Union in 1707, Scotland quickly 

took advantage of the abolition of trade tariffs with 

England and trade blossomed. The 18th century also 

saw the Scottish enlightenment, a period characterised 

by momentous intellectual and scientific accomplishments, 

so much so that Voltaire said: 

“We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation.” 

With the advent of the Union, Scots took up positions 

of power in politics, the civil service, the Army and 

Navy, trade, economics, colonial enterprises and other 

areas across the emerging British empire. The historian 

Neil Davidson has observed: 

“Far from being ‘peripheral’to the British economy, Scotland...lay 

at its core.” 

Indeed, throughout the industrial revolution Scotland 

more than punched above its weight and became known 

across the world for its excellence in engineering, as 

typified by Clyde-built ships. 

Through advancements in medicine and its inventive 

spirit, distinct banking system and contribution to art, 

literature and culture, Scotland has always added greatly 

beyond its shores. Even in times of adversity, the people 

of Scotland have not been wanting. During the first 

world war, despite Scotland having a population of


412 

only 4.8 million, over half a million Scots went to the 

front. My purpose in touching, albeit briefly, on 300 years 

of Scottish history is to point out that many of our 

achievements and benefits were because of our place 

within the UK, not in spite of it. 

Scotland is linked intrinsically to the rest of the 

United Kingdom socially, politically and economically. 

The single market within the UK affords significant 

economic, trade and employment opportunities to people 

on both sides of the border. Our membership of the 

European Union, through the United Kingdom, provides 

a vast marketplace for Scottish exporters. Together we 

have a place at the top table of the European Council 

of Ministers and we are one of the G8 forum of the 

world’s largest economies and a permanent member of 

the United Nations Security Council, all of which allows 

us to wield unprecedented influence on the European 

and global stages. As a member of NATO, we have 

collectively benefited since the war from international 

security and defence co-operation on a grand scale. 

When it comes to the economy, Scotland has a very 

important relationship with the rest of the UK. Scotland 

benefits from access to a market comprising tens of 

millions of people within a single jurisdiction. Scots are 

employed by firms based in the rest of the UK, and 

people in the rest of the UK benefit from employment 

opportunities with Scottish-based companies. Indeed, 

in 2010 Scotland’s exports to the rest of the UK were 

worth double its exports to the rest of the world— 

£44 billion and £22 billion respectively—and manufacturing 

exports were estimated at £13 billion. 


(Lab): I welcome my hon. Friend’s point about 

manufacturing industry. Does he agree that the sizeable 

increase in manufacturing, which is taking place as we 

speak, has arisen mainly as a result of the Scottish 

contribution? 

Graeme Morrice: I certainly concur with my right 

hon. Friend on that point. 

In addition to the shared opportunities, the pooling 

of resources across the UK allows risk as well as reward 

to be spread, as seen most notably in the bail-out of the 

Scottish-based banks during the financial crisis, when 

the UK, led by a Scot, injected £37 billion of capital 

into the banks—an amount in excess of the total budget 

of the Scottish Government. 

The legal framework for business is more or less 

uniform across the entirety of the UK. That means that 

there is a similar taxation, regulatory and employment 

law regime throughout the UK. On the benefit of a 

single market both to Scotland and to the rest of the 

UK, the director general of the CBI has stated that the 

“raft of common laws and regulations...make operating across 

the different constituent parts of the union more efficient.” 

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research 

has noted that the Scottish economy is 

“more integrated with the rest of the UK than Europe or the rest 

of the world.” 

With regard to jobs, people on both sides of the 

border benefit from employment opportunities engendered 

by Scotland being part of the Union. The UK Government 

are a major employer in Scotland, with more than 

30,000 civil servants bringing almost £700 million annually 

to Scotland in salaries alone. Thousands of jobs also 

rely on the defence sector in Scotland, with 40,000 people 

employed in more than 800 companies. Companies 

from the rest of the UK contribute about one fifth of 

private sector economic activity in Scotland. 

On energy, North sea oil is an important contributor 

to the UK economy, accounting for thousands of jobs 

in the north-east of Scotland, and a valuable source of 

revenue for the UK Treasury. However, the supply is 

declining and unstable. Recent reports show that North 

sea oil production fell by 30% in 2011 compared with 

the previous year. For the past 18 years, the level of 

public spending in Scotland has dwarfed the total 

revenue from North sea oil; in 2009-10, the difference 

was £18 billion. In fact, welfare spending in Scotland in 

2010 was three times higher than North sea oil revenue. 

Of course, oil and gas remain an important part of the 

Scottish and UK economies and will do so in the years 

to come, but to bet Scotland’s economic future on this 

sector, as the Scottish National party does, is naive at 

best and foolhardy at worst. Moreover, Scotland being 

outwith the UK would create uncertainty for the future 

of Scotland’s renewables industry, and potentially lead 

to higher fuel bills and a £2 billion burden on Scottish 

businesses, due to Scotland receiving a disproportionate 

share of the available subsidy compared with the rest of 

the UK. These figures highlight the many benefits of 

Scotland being part of the UK economy in that we are 

able to work together in partnership to share the risks 

and rewards involved in harnessing our energy resources. 

Scotland being part of the UK also allows us to pool 

our resources and distribute them on the basis of social 

need across the welfare state. If it were outwith the UK, 

that would place a major question mark over its ability 

to continue to fund benefits at current levels and to 

meet state and public sector pension commitments. It is 

simply an illusion for the SNP to promise Scandinavian 

levels of welfare spending while supporting Irish levels 

of taxation. 

There are many other positives on which I could 

elaborate, such as the flexibility across borders which 

has over the years benefited people on both sides and 

led to high levels of migration in both directions; indeed, 

I personally have been a beneficiary of that. Our common 

currency is one of the oldest monetary unions in the 

world. A practical and more recent example is the benefit 

derived by Scottish athletes from UK sports funding, 

facilities and coaching in the run-up to the Olympics 

and Paralympics. It is interesting to note that all but 

three of the Scots who won medals at the Olympics had 

team-mates from the rest of the UK. 

Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab): Is my hon. Friend 

aware that three Scots Olympians have been nominated 

for the BBC sports personality of the year award? 

Graeme Morrice: Indeed I am. All three—Sir Chris Hoy, 

Andy Murray and Katherine Grainger—train and reside 

in England and clearly benefit from Scotland being part 

of the United Kingdom. Of course, we pay tribute to 

those athletes as part of Team GB and wish them every 

success in the BBC sports personality of the year award. 

[Interruption.] Indeed, they cannot all win, but we 

would like to see them do so.


414 

[Graeme Morrice] 

There is much more I could say about the benefits to 

Scotland and the rest of the UK of Scotland remaining 

a strong partner within the Union. I am sure that other 

Members will fill any gaps in my speech and expand on 

some of the points I have made. I conclude by mentioning 

one of Scotland’s and the UK’s most notable achievements 

in its 300-year history—devolution. Devolution has 

been a great success and has provided new vigour to the 

United Kingdom. Whether in Scotland, Wales or Northern 

Ireland, devolution is working but also developing, as it 

will continue to do in future. As we are all well aware, 

support for devolution and attachment to the UK in 

Scotland is stronger than support for independence. 

Scots share the same social attitudes and values as 

people in the rest of the UK. They are just as alert to 

the risks and uncertainties of separation and have a real 

comprehension of the benefits and advantages of remaining 

part of the UK. Therefore, all things considered, there 

is no doubt that we are all better off together. 

12.46 pm 

Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con): It is a 

great pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute to 

this timely and important debate, and I congratulate my 

hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) 

on securing it. I am proud to be a co-signatory to the 

motion. 

The hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) 

set out very well many of the practical benefits that 

Scotland and, indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom 

gain from the Union, be it in defence, finance and 

economic matters, or our influence on the world stage. 

We could, and should, have a full debate on each of 

those points, and I am sure that in the course of the next 

year or two, leading up to the referendum, they will all 

be fully explored. To summarise the benefits—I think 

that the hon. Gentleman used this phrase—the strength 

of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. We are 

stronger together. 

Scotland could go it alone as a separate country. I am 

not one of those who believes that it would be an 

impoverished basket case of a country that could not 

survive on its own. Of course it could, but at what cost? 

Together, we are stronger, more influential, safer and 

more prosperous. It would be much riskier for everyone 

if Scotland went it alone. 

Mr MacNeil: Does the hon. Gentleman have a list of 

nations of about 4 million to 5 million people that 

might be better off joining the UK because they would 

be safer, more prosperous and more influential? Is he 

considering Denmark, Sweden or Finland? What is at 

the forefront of his mind? 

Iain Stewart: I am puzzled. Is the hon. Gentleman 

asking for other countries to come and join us in the 

United Kingdom? That is a very interesting notion. 

A few years ago, the global banking crisis sent economic 

shockwaves around the world. The SNP used to make a 

claim for the arc of prosperity that would link a separate 

Scotland with Ireland and Iceland, but that arc has 

rusted somewhat in the light of events. A separate 

Scotland could potentially have weathered that storm, 

but the resilience that we had as a country was much 

stronger because we were the United Kingdom and not 

split up into atomised parts. 

Mr MacNeil: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not 

want to cast aspersions on Iceland and will therefore 

know its unemployment rate and GDP per capita as 

against the United Kingdom. 

Iain Stewart: I cannot give those figures off the top 

of my head. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that 

Iceland was any better placed to weather the storm than 

the United Kingdom, that is a slightly revisionist view 

of history. 

Another issue is Scotland’s role in the European Union 

if it becomes a separate country. There was an interesting 

debate on that in Westminster Hall last week. In the 

interests of brevity, I will not rehearse all the arguments. 

I believe strongly that if Scotland went its own way and 

wanted to be part of the EU, it would happen on the 

EU’s terms. Scotland would be sucked into full currency, 

fiscal and political union, which would not be to its 

benefit. 

Mr Weir rose— 

Iain Stewart: I will not give way again. 

The EU issue makes a mockery of the SNP’s 

independence policy. It is perfectly logical to argue that 

if Scotland does not like one economic union and wants 

to be the master of its own destiny, it should go its own 

way, but to argue that it should then join an ever-deepening 

union is utterly illogical. 

The fact that we are having a referendum at all is 

risky as it may be a distraction from what we should be 

concentrating on. I do not doubt for a minute that it is 

perfectly within Scotland’s right to have the debate and 

to have the matter resolved. As a democrat, I fully 

accept that the Scottish National party won a majority 

in the last Scottish Parliament elections and that a 

referendum was part of its manifesto. It is therefore 

perfectly legitimate to have the debate. But at what cost? 

The constitutional uncertainty in Canada in the 1980s 

and 1990s had a severe impact on the economic prosperity 

of Quebec. The EU admitted that in a report. 

Mr MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? 

Iain Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, 

I have a number of points that I want to make and I 

have already been generous in giving way to him. 

A report by economists at the appropriately named 

Scotiabank in Canada said of the 1995 referendum: 

“The palpable fear in the markets was keyed off deep intertwined 

concerns about the country’s fiscal, economic and political 

circumstances.” 

The very fact that we are having this debate is therefore 

risky as it may distract us. However, I accept that it is 

legitimate that we are having it. 

My main point relates not to the economic or defence 

arguments or to Scotland’s influence on the global 

stage, but is a personal and emotional appeal. My 

nationality is British. I do not want to be rendered 

stateless or to be forced to choose between the place of


416 

my birth and the place I now call home. The country 

that would be left would be the rest of the United 

Kingdom and its flag would be, as the noble Lord Forsyth 

described it, “an anaemic red asterisk” once the blue of 

the saltire was taken out. 

As far as I can tell, my blood is 100% Scottish. My 

father has traced the generations of the family back to 

the 1700s. Unless there is something we do not know 

about, my family came from a small area in Lanarkshire 

and Ayrshire. I spent my childhood in Scotland. My 

primary and secondary education was in Scotland, but 

my higher education was in England. Three quarters of 

my working life has been spent in England. Through 

marriage and my family, I have many relatives who are 

part Scottish and part English. I have stood for public 

office five times: twice in Scotland and three times in 

England. My Scottish ventures were somewhat less 

successful than my English ones. I stood for South 

Lanarkshire council and for Glasgow Rutherglen. Let 

us just say that I saved my deposit on both occasions. 

As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest 

said forcefully, of course Scotland and England have 

distinct cultures that are expressed through the arts and 

on the sporting field, but both can be vibrant within the 

Union. Patriotism does not require nationalism to flourish. 

Beyond a patriotic pride, the United Kingdom has 

something that is much stronger. Team GB at the Olympic 

games exemplified it, the monarchy exemplifies it, and 

even James Bond exemplifies it. We have an identity 

that has been forged through more than 300 years of 

the world’s most successful and enduring Union. We 

do not need to change. The hon. Member for Angus 

(Mr Weir) said that that is history. It is history, but it is 

also the present and I believe that it is the future. For 

goodness’ sake, let us not throw away what we have 

achieved and what makes us strong, prosperous and 

successful in an ever-changing world that is becoming 

more dangerous and uncertain. We have something that 

is strong and that works; let us keep it. 

12.55 pm 

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

beg to move an amendment, leave out from ‘engineering’ 

to end and add 

‘and recognises that special relationships also endure with Australia, 

Canada, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa and other 

members of the Commonwealth as well as the Republic of 

Ireland and the United States; and believes that this will also be 

the case with Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom after 

the 2014 independence referendum.’. 

I reassure the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South 

(Iain Stewart) that he can call himself Scottish, British 

or even Milton Keynesian—it is really up to him. This 

debate is all about identity and what we want to call 

ourselves. 

I thank the many hon. Members who have passed on 

their regards and concerns for my hon. Friend the 

Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). I reassure 

the House that he is back home and making a full 

recovery. I fully expect him to be back in his place very 

soon, talking about the Laffer curve and endogenous 

growth theory as only he can. 

Another person who is missing is the right hon. 

Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). 

We were all expecting his presence today and to hear his 

words of wisdom on Scotland and the Union, but he is 

not here. He is a bit like Brigadoon: one gets a glimpse 

of him only once a year. 

I congratulate the hon. Member for Epping Forest 

(Mrs Laing) on the motion. It is a good motion. I take 

exception only with the last two lines of it, as she 

knows. There is so much more that she could have 

added, such as the contribution that Scots have made to 

the Union and the United Kingdom. She missed out the 

enlightenment, for goodness’ sake, which is an important 

way in which the Scots contributed to the United Kingdom. 

The United Kingdom and the Union have also given 

much to Scotland. The Scots have helped to build and 

have shared the great institutions of the UK and the 

Union. We have fantastic cultural relationships and we 

have had great times. All of that is part of a social union 

and that will go nowhere. We will continue to be British 

after the independence referendum and when we secure 

our independence. 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland 

(David Mundell): I am surprised to hear what the hon. 

Gentleman is saying, because he previously told this 

House that 

“as Scotland moves forward to become a normal independent 

nation, all vestiges of Britishness will go.” 

He went on to say: 

“I have never felt British in my life. I do not even know what 

Britishness is.”—[Official Report, 12 November 2008; Vol. 482, 

c. 306-307WH.] 

Pete Wishart: I expected that response. In fact, it said 

on Twitter that that intervention would be made. 

I say to the Minister that, as we examine our relationship 

with the rest of the United Kingdom, we discover some 

of these fantastic ties. I accept that there will be vestiges 

of Britishness. That is a personal interest of mine. We 

are British. I live in Perth in the north of the island 

called Great Britain. It is called that because it is the 

largest of the British isles. I am British as much as 

somebody from Stockholm or Copenhagen is Scandinavian. 

That is the reality of geography and it cannot be denied. 

Hon. Members may want to take forward their obsession 

with separation by building a channel between Scotland 

and the rest of the United Kingdom. That is the only 

way that they could stop us being British. 

I accept that being British is about more than just 

geography. Of course there is something cultural about 

Britishness. However, Britishness is an invention. It was 

a necessary social construct to unite all the nations of 

the United Kingdom. That is why it is so hard to define 

and describe. We have heard some great and excruciating 

attempts to define Britishness. Who could forget the 

attempt of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and 

Cowdenbeath, when he talked about 

“British jobs for British workers”? 

I remember the attempt by Michael Portillo, when he 

described Britishness as anti-fanaticism. However, 

Britishness is more than that. It is the combination of 

the 300 years that we have shared and endured across 

these islands. It is about everything from the industrial 

revolution to how we stood together in the wars; the 

Queen has been mentioned, and, of course, there are 

great pop and rock bands.


418 

[Pete Wishart] 

I was particularly disappointed with the views of the 

right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) 

who tried to scaremonger on the issue of culture. He 

said that British music would be no longer “our” music 

but “their” music—whoever “they” are. I played in a 

band for 15 years. I replaced an English keyboard 

player and the lead singer of my band is Canadian. To 

suggest that something as free-spirited as music can be 

confined to borders or frontiers is absurd and ridiculous. 

The right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West should 

be ashamed of trying to scaremonger about culture. 

One good definition of Britishness—as has been 

mentioned fleetingly—was the opening ceremony of 

the Olympic Games, which got close to describing and 

defining Britishness. Danny Boyle did a fantastic job 

with his cultural tour de force. The big irony, however, is 

that part of that fantastic presentation placed a strong 

emphasis on the country’s social ethos, and particularly 

on the NHS, which the Westminster Tories are currently 

disestablishing through privatisation. Already, part of 

that glimpse of Britishness disappears with that very 

statement. 

Mrs Laing rose— 

Pete Wishart: I will not give way to the hon. Lady, 

because I do not have much time. 

That Britishness has no place in discussions on 

independence simply because it cannot be un-invented. 

We cannot un-invent all our ties, heritage and culture; 

we will always have a shared history and joint heritage, 

and there will always be cultural relationships and 

collaboration. 

Independence will bring a new, improved relationship 

between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, 

because we will come to it from a position of equality 

and mutual respect. Most people in Scotland now describe 

themselves as Scottish—some, of course, describe 

themselves as and feel profoundly British, but most 

surveys of social attitude suggest that most Scots now 

present themselves as Scottish. 

As we have gone forward with our own national 

Parliament and strengthened our institutions, Scottish 

people are feeling more secure in their identity and 

more culturally relaxed about who they are. That is why 

we are able to adopt different identities and why we can 

easily accept the idea of being Scottish—we could be 

Pakistani Scottish, Indian Scottish, Polish Scottish, but 

we are all Scottish and that is how people now describe 

themselves. With independence, we could express our 

unique Scottishness in world institutions. We could 

bring Scottish values to international affairs and institutions, 

and that would only be good for people in Scotland. 

Mr MacNeil: Does my hon. Friend agree that sharing 

a Prime Minister is not what makes hon. Members in 

the Chamber today British? 

Pete Wishart: My hon. Friend is right. Britishness is 

about identity and geography. Our gripe is not with 

cultural Britishness or the social union— 

Mrs Laing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? 

Pete Wishart: I do not have time. As the hon. Lady 

will know, I have used my two minutes’ injury time. 

Our gripe is with political arrangements within the 

United Kingdom. We want to recalibrate political 

relationships within the UK; we want powers to grow 

our economy and make our own international contribution. 

We want to complete the powers of our Parliament and 

take responsibility for our affairs. We have no issue with 

our British past, heritage and culture, and they will be 

defining features of how we go forward as Scottish 

people. 

I find talk of separation and the idea that people will 

become “foreigners” dispiriting and depressing. Some 

of the language used has become quite chilling and I am 

getting a bit concerned. When people are described as 

foreigners I feel a little uncomfortable. I know that 

people have to build up the idea of Scotland as an 

unviable nation, and suggest that it is a risk and that 

there is scary stuff out there if it becomes independent, 

but can we please be careful with some of the language 

used when people build up that theme of separation? 

Negativity is a big and necessary part of the case and 

construct used by those who oppose independence. 

We have heard about the past and the things that 

unite us, and about our great relationships and institutions 

and the contribution that Scotland has made to the 

United Kingdom, but what about the future. What does 

Scotland get if it says no in a referendum on independence? 

Can we have a guarantee that if it remains in the Union, 

Scotland will be part of the EU in 10 years’ time? We 

have heard lots of talk about rolling back the achievements 

of the devolution era, but can we be certain that the 

gains of devolution will be secure if Scotland says no? 

Will the Scottish Parliament get more powers and—most 

importantly—if Scotland says no to independence, will 

the Scottish people be more prosperous? People have 

had 300 years to think about these issues, but nobody 

will give us answers. Those against independence have 

to come up with a case for Scotland to remain in the 

Union, but we have not heard it yet. Some of today’s 

contributions have been a little more positive, but we 

must hear a lot more about what people want to achieve. 

Those of us in favour of Scottish independence will, 

of course, be positive and put the case for it. I love my 

country and I want it to be all that it can. I want it to 

walk tall and for Scotland to have the national self-respect 

and dignity to make its own place in the world, take its 

own decisions, and ensure that the Scottish people are 

responsible for their own failures. We are a dynamic, 

inventive and resourceful people. Of course we will 

make a success of independence, and I am glad we no 

longer hear comments of “Too wee, too poor, too 

stupid.” Of course Scotland will be a success when it 

gets its independence; of course we will be great. 

I am depressed about the fact that Scotland is tethered 

to a failing UK state which is almost relaxed about its 

own failure. Scotland deserves better. I do not want the 

welfare reforms or years and years of austerity. I do not 

want illegal wars or nuclear weapons just outside. I 

want my country to make its own decisions about its 

future. An independent Scotland will be better because 

those who care most about it will make the decisions, 

not the Westminster Tories. The Scottish people will run 

Scotland and be responsible for their own decisions. It 

will be better because we care more about our nation 

than the Westminster Tories. That is why we run our 

devolved institutions better—we care about them and 

ensure we look after them.


420 

After Scotland becomes independent, we will continue 

to have fantastic cultural relationships and ties with the 

rest of the United Kingdom. That is important to us 

and has shaped who we are as the Scottish people. We 

have heard about the 305 years in which we have served 

together, the wonderful institutions we have built up, 

and our great ties and associations. Those things will go 

absolutely nowhere. The social union is important to 

us as independent Scottish people and we will enjoy 

and build on it. It will be better because we will come 

together in a sense of equality and mutual respect. We 

will build new British arrangements and relationships 

and they will be better because Scotland will be an 

independent nation. The political union has failed Scotland. 

We no longer want to be tethered to a failing UK state. 

We can be better. We can walk tall in the world and 

make decisions on our own. Scotland as an independent 

nation will be welcomed as a full, peace-loving nation in 

the world community. I look forward to that day. The 

social union lives on; the political union is dying and it 

will be finished off in 2014. 

1.7 pm 

Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab): I am almost 

tempted to wish that there was no time limit, because 

the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete 

Wishart) was making his case more strongly than anyone 

on either side of the House could have done. He clearly 

forgot his “Yes Scotland” positivity pills this morning, 

as it took nine minutes before we heard any positive 

case for Scotland’s becoming an independent country. 

We need to change the language of this debate, and 

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Epping Forest 

(Mrs Laing) and my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston 

(Graeme Morrice) who have pushed this debate and 

provided us with an opportunity to do so today. We 

need a positive, engaging debate about what is in the 

best interests of Scotland and the UK’s future, not 

the language of whether Scotland is too small or too 

wee to be a successful country—incidentally, only SNP 

Members say that; no Labour Members have ever used 

such language. The question that I would throw back to 

the nationalists is this. I believe that the people of 

Scotland are creative, talented and innovative enough 

to be successful in the United Kingdom—why don’t 

they? 

The referendum is not about whether Scotland can or 

cannot manage on its own. Of course Scotland could 

be a successful, independent country, and it insults the 

intelligence of the Scottish people to suggest that it 

could not. The choice is not about whether Scotland 

can be successful but about whether it would be a fairer 

and more prosperous country with more opportunities 

if it works in partnership with England, Wales and 

Northern Ireland. Labour Members believe that it will 

be, and we will be making that positive case in the 

referendum. 

I am not modest about Scotland’s ambitions. I genuinely 

believe that Scotland stands taller and shouts louder 

when it works in partnership with other areas of the 

UK, representing ourselves on the global stage. Yes, the 

Union has a proud history—300 years of shared history, 

security and prosperity. It has enjoyed success, as hon. 

Members have heard many times before. A Scot created 

the Bank of England, a Welshman our NHS and an 

Englishman our welfare state—but this is not about 

history; it is about Scotland’s future. 

Scotland deserves an open, engaging debate, not only 

on its constitutional settlement, but, more importantly, 

on what kind of Scotland we want to live in and want 

our children to live in. What will Scotland look like in 

20 years’ time? Will it be able to compete with other 

parts of the UK and in the world? 

Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): I am 

sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that inequality in 

Scotland increased over the term of the previous Labour 

Government. Does he believe Scotland will fulfil its 

potential as an equal and fair society as part of the 

Union? 

Anas Sarwar: It is untrue to say that health inequalities 

widened under the Labour Government, but it is factually 

correct to say that inequalities are increasing in Scotland 

under the watch of Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon and 

the Scottish Government. Health inequalities are increasing 

and educational opportunities are decreasing. People 

from working class backgrounds in Scotland are less 

likely to go to college or university than people from 

working class backgrounds in England and Wales. That 

is happening on the watch of the Scottish National 

party, not of the Tories or Labour, so will the hon. Lady 

please not lecture Labour Members on our record? She 

should focus more on her party’s record in government. 

What Scotland do we want to create for future 

generations? We want it to be a successful country in 

which to bring up our children, but what role do we 

want Scotland to play in the world? I want Scotland not 

to isolate itself, but to engage with its partners in the 

UK to take on the big challenges of global poverty, to 

fight climate change, and to fight for justice and fairness 

in the world. What differentiates Labour Members and 

SNP Members? Labour Members did not come into 

politics because we wanted to fight poverty only in our 

constituencies or our country. We want to fight poverty 

and create opportunity not only in Glasgow and Edinburgh, 

but in Manchester, Birmingham and around the world. 

I do not believe we will do that by creating a border 

between Scotland and England. There is a vote on a 

UN resolution today on enhanced status for the Palestinian 

people, which will hopefully work towards a positive 

resolution by which we have an independent Palestinian 

state living side by side with Israel. I came into politics 

to fight for an independent Palestinian state and for 

self-determination for the people of Kashmir, not to 

break up my own country. I want to fight injustice in 

other parts of the world. 

One big point is that we can make the positive case 

for Scotland economically, emotionally, socially and 

politically. The most successful aid agency in the world 

is headquartered in Scotland. It employs hundreds of 

people, has a budget of £7 billion, helps to save hundreds 

of thousands of lives every year, and lifts hundreds of 

thousands of people out of poverty every year, which 

demonstrates the collective strength of Scotland working 

in partnership. We are a key member of the UN Security 

Council not for power or prestige, but to fight tyranny 

and oppression around the world. I want Scotland to 

have its full voice in that process. We are a leading 

economy and country in the G8. A Scottish leader as 

Prime Minister worked with the G8 to stop a global 

recession from becoming a global depression. Those are 

positive arguments for Scotland remaining part of the 

UK, not the negative arguments we get from the SNP.


422 

[Anas Sarwar] 

On the quality of the debate, we will have heated 

debates and the usual Scottish politics spats between 

Labour and the SNP and others between now and the 

referendum—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for 

Perth and North Perthshire wants to make an intervention, 

I am more than happy to take it. We are divided 

politically, but we do not want our country to be 

divided in the process. Whatever happens in the referendum 

and whatever decision Scotland makes, we must ensure 

that we come together in the best interests of Scotland 

and ensure that we fight and create a fairer, more equal 

country. 

Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab): I apologise for 

not being in the Chamber at the start of the debate; 

I was in a Bill Committee. 

My hon. Friend mentions the quality of the debate. 

Will that not be enhanced if the First Minister is 

straight with the Scottish people and if his arguments 

stay on the same track? The arc of prosperity used to 

mean Ireland and Iceland, but now it has moved on 

to the Scandinavian countries. Until we have a consistent 

and honest debate, we will not have a fair playing field. 

Anas Sarwar: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. 

Friend. When the Minister systematically destroyed the 

hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire on Britishness, 

he reminded me that, throughout the SNP’s existence, it 

has claimed it wants independence because England 

has never treated Scotland fairly, and because Scotland 

has never had a fair deal within the UK, but SNP 

Members imagine that everyone will treat Scotland 

fairly and work together to create a better country when 

it separates from the UK. That just does not stack up. 

SNP Members make assertions on NATO and EU 

membership. The hon. Gentleman said today that the 

biggest threat to Scotland remaining part of the EU 

was from the UK, but he cannot guarantee that Scotland 

will remain a member of the EU if it chooses independence. 

We need facts rather than assertion. SNP Members say 

that Scotland will keep the pound and automatically 

have a seat on the Monetary Policy Committee; that the 

BBC will break up and Scotland will have better quality 

programmes; and that our credit rating and Royal Mail 

services will remain the same. They are assertions—not 

one of them is based on fact. The people of Scotland 

deserve better. Throughout the SNP’s existence, the 

answer to any question has always been “independence”, 

but now that the question is independence, it does not 

have the answers for the people of Scotland. 

Scotland deserves a transparent and open debate. It 

deserves to know what Scotland will look like if it 

chooses independence. It deserves better than a First 

Minister and a Scottish Government simply asserting 

that independence will be whatever people want it to be. 

That is not good enough. The SNP cannot say to one 

audience that Scotland will have the Monaco taxes, but 

then say to another audience that we will have Scandinavian 

public services. It cannot say that Scotland will have 

none of the horrible welfare changes and reforms, but 

that it will have similar corporation taxes to Ireland. 

That does not add up and is not credible, and disrespects 

the people of Scotland. 

Mr Weir: The hon. Gentleman is making his points 

as he always does, but does he not accept that it is up to 

the people of Scotland whom they vote into power after 

independence, and that it is up to them to decide how 

the shape of the new Scotland develops? Surely he 

accepts that the people will decide that in the first 

election after we win independence in 2014. 

Anas Sarwar: The people of Scotland have an 

opportunity, through strengthened devolution, to have 

more of a say in decisions on their lives made in the 

Scottish Parliament and in local government, which has 

taken a hammering under the current Scottish Government. 

They can recognise that although there is nowhere 

better than Scotland, there is somewhere bigger, and 

that is working in partnership with the UK and global 

agencies to take on the challenges. 

Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab): Would my hon. 

Friend have more confidence in his statement if the 

SNP declared here and now that it will dissolve itself 

the day after a referendum if there is a yes vote? 

Anas Sarwar: SNP Members are probably more 

concerned about what happens the day after Scotland 

votes resoundingly no and rejects their vision of 

independence. The SNP is two different factions glued 

together on one track. When they divide, it will be 

interesting to see how they cope. 

We are having a heated debate today and we will have 

a heated debate in the next two years. 

Pete Wishart: Only when the hon. Gentleman tries to 

shout me down. 

Anas Sarwar: I feel very sorry for the hon. Gentleman, 

because he heard in the Europe debate last week the 

pre-published speech that the Scottish National party 

feared. I promise him that the people of Scotland and 

the Labour party do not fear the SNP or Alex Salmond. 

We do not fear an open and honest debate on the future 

of Scotland, or fear challenges to our record. We do not 

fear debating the future of our country. The SNP 

should come forward with that open and transparent 

debate. Let us, for Scotland, keep ourselves in the 

Union. 

1.19 pm 

Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): I welcome 

the opportunity to take part in the debate and I congratulate 

the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) and 

the co-sponsors on securing it. I will be pleased to go 

through the Lobby in support of the motion with 

parties from all parts of the House. We need to send a 

strong message that, in all parts of the United Kingdom, 

we believe that we are better together, and that this is 

not just a question of us believing that Scotland is 

better in the United Kingdom, but that people in other 

parts of the United Kingdom want Scotland to be part 

of the United Kingdom. I take part in the debate in that 

spirit, conscious that ultimately it is for the people of 

Scotland to decide how they vote in the referendum. 

Hon. Members will know that the ties between people 

in Northern Ireland and in Scotland are very close. 

There is strong and growing interest in and support for 

Ulster Scots culture and heritage in the Province. Many


424 

people in Northern Ireland can trace their lineage and 

family history to Scottish antecedents—indeed, I would 

say that my name is more common in Scotland than it is 

in Northern Ireland. When I see those coaches coming 

over on the ferry with the Dodds name on it, I often say 

to my party colleagues that I wish we could hire some of 

them at election time and have them traverse north 

Belfast, but I have not been able to persuade them to 

do so. 

Of course, I stand here as a member of a party that 

has “Unionist” as part of its title. Our party was formed 

at a critical time in the history of Northern Ireland, 

when the Union was clearly under threat. The years that 

followed were difficult: tragically, there was much violence 

and bloodshed; many people were injured, lives were 

lost and many still live with physical and mental scars. 

Thankfully, that period of violence is largely behind us, 

and although there are still some who would try to drag 

us backwards, they are small in number and it is clear 

that those who tried to destroy the Union by terrorism 

did not succeed. 

Northern Ireland, and the United Kingdom as a 

whole, is a much better and different place today. Gone 

is the uncertainty about our future and our place in the 

UK. Indeed, right hon. and hon. Members will know, 

or be interested to learn if they are not aware of it, that 

support for the Union is at an all-time high, and is 

actually growing. A recent survey showed that a majority 

of people who traditionally would have described themselves 

as nationalist would, if there was a vote today, vote to 

remain part of the United Kingdom. There are many 

reasons why there is growing support for the Union, not 

least the fact that the violence has diminished and that 

under the current devolution settlement people feel that 

everybody has a say. To a large extent, people are in 

control of many areas of policy. They see parties and 

politicians who, while they have their differences—strong 

differences, which are sometimes illustrated in debates 

in this House—are working together for the betterment 

of all the people of Northern Ireland on the economic 

and social issues of the day. It is therefore important 

that we continue to strengthen, maintain and improve 

devolution where we can in Northern Ireland and elsewhere 

in the United Kingdom. It is dynamic and evolving, and 

we need to move it forward in that way. 

Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and 

Kirkintilloch East) (Lab): I wonder what role the economic 

storm that hit Ireland at the end of the last decade and 

the recognition of the benefits of being part of a larger 

union have played in increasing support for the Union. 

Mr Dodds: The hon. Gentleman makes an important 

point and I was just going to come on to that. While 

there is the case for devolution and people having a role 

in deciding issues in Northern Ireland, there is no doubt 

that the people who would at one time have looked to 

the Celtic tiger and envied what was happening in the 

south, have had a rude awakening about economic 

realities and the situation in the United Kingdom and 

other countries in the EU. It is clear that the massive 

economic boom in the Republic was built on a number 

of factors, not least a property boom that crashed 

dramatically. I have heard it said many times by people 

who traditionally look to the Irish Republic as their 

future, “Where would we be today if we’d been part of 

the eurozone? Where would we be today if we had been 

part of a country like the Irish Republic, instead of 

having our fortunes tied in with a bigger country like 

the United Kingdom?” That has been an important 

factor. 

Who would have believed 20 years ago that we would 

be talking about the danger to the Union coming from 

Scotland, rather than from Northern Ireland? I heard 

the leader of Sinn Fein say that he was going to campaign 

for a referendum in Northern Ireland. There is absolutely 

no support for that. Of course, we do not fear a referendum 

in Northern Ireland. We know that people would vote 

overwhelmingly to retain Northern Ireland’s membership 

of the United Kingdom. We are not opposed to it for 

any reason of concern about the outcome; however, 

under the provisions of the legislation, once Northern 

Ireland has a referendum, it has to happen every seven 

years, and we believe that that would be extremely 

destabilising and unnecessary. When I hear Gerry Adams 

talk about the need for a referendum, it is a long way 

from his cry that there would be united Ireland by 2016. 

Thankfully, the debate on the future of Scotland in 

the Union has never been tainted or stained in any way 

by violence and terrorism. The debate is being conducted 

in a peaceful and democratic way, and it will be decided 

through the ballot box. As I said, we respect the right of 

the Scottish people to decide their future. Of course, it 

is right and appropriate that people from other parts 

of the United Kingdom should have their say as well. 

We believe that we are better off together. That is an 

excellent campaign description—it is positive and people 

are responding to it. It is not being stated in an arrogant 

or aggressive way. Instead, people are saying, “We want 

you in Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom.” 

Mr MacNeil: The right hon. Gentleman mentions 

Better Together, and I think I heard that the Irish 

Republic’s Agriculture Minister was at his recent party 

conference. Does he extend the Better Together ethos to 

the Republic’s Agriculture Minister, and would he like 

to be in one state with him? 

Mr Dodds: I think the hon. Gentleman knows me 

and my party well enough by now to know the answer 

to the question of whether we think we would be better 

off in the Irish Republic. We had a very successful party 

conference this year. The shadow Secretary of State 

spoke at our conference dinner, and the Secretary of 

State spoke to conference on the Saturday. I was delighted 

to hear her declare in unequivocal terms that she would 

never be neutral on the Union. Of course, we also had 

the representative from the Irish Republic. We welcome 

visitors from other states, and we have visitors from 

outside the United Kingdom—of course we do. The 

reason why the Agriculture Minister was there, 

appropriately, is that the Irish Republic is to take over 

the presidency of the EU, and the reform of the common 

agricultural policy is extremely important for Northern 

Ireland farmers. It is important to hear from that Minister 

and to lobby him directly, particularly at this time, on 

those important issues. The response to that in Northern 

Ireland was positive. 

We will continue to build good relations with our 

friends in the Irish Republic, but we make it very clear 

to them that we do not wish to join it. We can have good 

neighbourly relations and, increasingly I think, those in 

the Irish Republic recognise that they have enough


426 

[Mr Dodds] 

problems of their own without taking on any more in 

Northern Ireland. They are content to stick with the 

status quo, and they have declared clearly that until 

people in Northern Ireland vote otherwise, they will 

respect totally the principle of consent. 

Time is going on and others have articulated the 

reasons why Scotland would be worse off if it left the 

Union. I agree with what has been said. Not only would 

Scotland be worse off, but the United Kingdom as a 

whole would suffer from Scotland’s absence. A fragmented 

United Kingdom would not be as strong as we are 

together. Without Scotland, we would be a smaller 

nation in every sense, not just in population, economy 

and geography, and that is something that we do not 

wish to see. 

Mr MacNeil: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? 

Mr Dodds: No, I will not give way anymore. I have 

given way twice already and time is limited. I am sure 

that the hon. Gentleman will make his own speech. 

This is a question not just of economics, but of our 

standing in the world. Our nation would be diminished 

if Scotland left, and with that would come a loss of 

influence and power. There are deep and lasting social 

and historical bonds that bind us all together in the 

constituent nations of the United Kingdom. The military 

links and the history of the regiments of the British Army 

have already been explored. It is the British Army—it is 

not made up of the nations of the United Kingdom. 

The UK did not evolve spontaneously; it came about as 

a result of our shared experiences and history, and of 

our bonds of language, culture and so on. Furthermore, 

of course, the union of the monarchy has been around 

for longer even than the political Union. 

Those are the bonds that have brought and tied us 

together as four countries, and they have grown, deepened 

and developed over time, with enormous consequences 

for ourselves and the rest of the world. Each of our 

countries—Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England 

—and their people have all played their part in the 

development and prosperity of the UK, and those 

bonds continue. The contribution of the Scottish people 

and Scottish business remains vital, and the Union 

remains of benefit to both Scotland and the UK as a 

whole. 

I hope that the debate on the referendum will be 

conducted in a constructive spirit. I am glad that there 

will not be the negativity—the descent into violence and 

so on—seen so often in Northern Ireland. I believe 

strongly, however, that it is important that other members 

of the United Kingdom and people from all parts of 

the United Kingdom—whether London and the south-east, 

Northern Ireland, Wales, or the north of England—say, 

with respect, while acknowledging that it is a decision 

for the Scottish people, “We want you to be part of the 

UK. We value your membership, and we feel we would 

be poorer without you in the United Kingdom.” 

1.31 pm 


(Lab): On one point, I think all sides of the House can 

agree: that in the debate so far, we have made it clear 

that it is right that the people of Scotland determine 

their own destiny. Later, if I have time, I will refer to the 

position on 16 to 18-year-olds, but first I will make a 

few personal comments. 

My own political motivation has been the need for 

action where and for whom it is most needed, whether 

in my constituency or in one of the poorest countries in 

the world. Representing my constituency is my No. 1 

priority, as it is for other right hon. and hon. Members, 

but throughout my time in the House I have worked 

alongside organisations committed to helping people 

with disabilities and assisting people from the most 

impoverished countries in the world—nothing inwardlooking, 

nothing introspective. I managed to get two 

Acts of Parliament on the statute book covering both 

the subjects I have mentioned, and I believe that both 

Acts were to the advantage of the whole of the UK. 

Those twin factors are at the heart of my activity, and 

will continue to be so. In other words, lines on maps do 

not excite me at all. I do not judge people or their plight 

by where they live. Many people have no choice in 

where or how they are born and are not tempted by the 

ideological Disneyland of the Scottish National party. I 

abhor the jingoistic mentality that peddles the myth of 

a Scottish solution for this, or an English solution for 

that. Time and again in the House, we have seen that the 

best solutions are those that are in the interest of the 

whole of the UK. 

I do not accept the politics of parochial arrogance, 

but I worry that Scotland is moving towards that, with 

the police becoming one authority, likewise the fire 

services, and the statement from a member of the 

Scottish Government this week about reducing the already 

rather small number of Scottish local authorities. I 

much prefer to take a more international perspective on 

these matters, and I am much more inclined to the view 

expressed by former President Bill Clinton: 

“The world has become completely interdependent, but we 

can’t make up our minds what that interdependence is going to 

look like. Interdependence simply means you can’t get a divorce”. 

Time does not allow me to develop the theme, but I 

think it is fundamentally true. 

In 2010, the British people spoke and, like it or not, 

we have in place a coalition Government. Upon their 

election, the coalition Government narrative was that 

the economic mess was all Labour’s fault. It has to be 

said that that line was successful for a short period, but 

with the passage of time and increased borrowing, to an 

extent we have hardly ever known, no one now believes 

it to be true. Economies throughout Europe are on their 

knees, and our constituents can see on their television 

screens public demonstrations in countries where 

Governments are implementing severe austerity measures. 

The question is not how many countries are struggling 

financially; it might be easier to name countries that 

are not. 

Why then am I against Scotland seeking a divorce 

from the United Kingdom? I am against it mainly for 

economic reasons, but there are other reasons that, if 

time allows, I will explain. One third of newly created 

manufacturing jobs in the UK have been created in 

Scotland recently. UK firms employ one in five Scottish 

workers. Scottish exports to countries outside the 

UK had a value of £22 billion. Scottish exports to 

England, Wales and Northern Ireland totalled £44.9 billion. 

The Scottish banking sector was saved by the UK


428 

and the decisions of the former Chancellor, my right 

hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West 

(Mr Darling). 

Leaving one economic union of 63 million to join one 

of 330 million and expecting an equivalent say in monetary 

policy is an absurd notion, while a race to the bottom 

with Ireland when it comes to corporation tax rates 

does not fill me with optimism—quite the reverse. Likewise, 

relying on oil when we have experienced 12 consecutive 

years of decline in the amount of gas and oil extracted 

from the North sea is not wise. It is a dwindling resource, 

not a foundation for the future. 

Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): My 

right hon. Friend is making an exceptional and passionate 

case for economic co-operation within the United Kingdom. 

Does he share my concern that, according to the Office 

for Budget Responsibility, by 2040 we will see an elevenfold 

decline in oil and gas revenues? Does that not demonstrate 

why, if we are to diversify the economy, we should do it 

from a position of strength within the UK? 

Mr Clarke: That is an excellent point, and I am 

delighted that my hon. Friend makes it. 

Last weekend, I was in a town centre of my constituency 

talking to my constituents and listening to their views, 

mainly on independence. I am bound to say that my 

experience was clear and unequivocal: there is no appetite 

in Scotland for a referendum, and people are curious to 

know why, if we insist on having one, we have to wait 

until 2014. They are worried about issues of concern to 

this House: unemployment, food prices, energy prices, 

petrol prices and much more. People are struggling to 

cope financially, and for many a referendum is a complete 

and utter waste of time and money, but that is the 

reality we face, so let us have the debate. Economies all 

over the globe are struggling with the worldwide downturn, 

so let us not pretend it is happening only in the UK. Of 

course some people want independence, and they are 

entitled to that view—I respect it, but disagree profoundly 

with them. When I visit schools in my constituency, I 

find that some pupils want independence, but the vast 

majority do not want to separate Scotland from the 

United Kingdom. 

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

my right hon. Friend was out on the streets of Coatbridge 

on Saturday, how many people came up to him and 

said, “I would like an independent Scotland to join 

Schengen and to have the euro as my currency”? 

Mr Clarke: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I 

cannot remember anyone saying that. I remember what 

I would describe as a great surge among my constituents 

against independence and them telling me to get down 

here and fight what they are opposed to: separatism. 

Still talking about young people, I recently visited 

Cardinal Newman school in Bellshill—an important 

part of Scotland, represented by my hon. Friend and I 

—and spoke to a modern studies class. At the end, 

I asked about a subject that we did not touch on in our 

earlier discussion. I asked, “How many people here 

would reduce the voting age to 16 for the referendum?” 

Eight voted for, 22 voted against. I hope that the 

independent Electoral Commission will decide such matters, 

not those who have abused powers whenever they have 

had the opportunity. 

Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab): I recently visited 

a secondary school in my constituency. Quite a few 

pupils in the fourth and fifth years said it seemed crazy 

to them that in November they could not buy a packet 

of sparklers, but that they might be allowed to vote on 

the future of the country. 

Mr Clarke: That is an interesting point and I am glad 

my hon. Friend has made it. 

I am no different from the constituents I have described. 

In the last Parliament—my hon. Friends will not be 

surprised that I am raising this issue—I worked with my 

right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood 

(Ed Balls), now the shadow Chancellor. Our joint activity 

produced £340 million to help children with disabilities 

throughout the United Kingdom. Scotland’s share was 

£34 million, but none of the money was ever seen by 

children with disabilities. Sadly, children with disabilities 

did not receive one penny of the cash. It became known 

as the missing millions. Obfuscation was the response 

from the First Minster to questions posed by Wendy 

Alexander and Johann Lamont. The First Minster was 

given every opportunity to come clean on what had 

happened to the money. I wrote to him and asked for a 

meeting. He replied that he was too busy and his diary 

too full, but he passed my office on at least six occasions 

on his way to and from a neighbouring by-election, and 

I passed him on the stairs when he was down here 

voting against the Labour Government. 

That was a shocking and disgraceful decision by a 

Scottish Government led by Mr Salmond. Indeed, that 

high-handed imperious attitude cast a doubt in my 

mind about whether the First Minister could ever be 

trusted as the leader of a country. In the last few years 

the SNP has attempted to define Scottish patriotism to 

the outside world—a patriotism that in their hands is 

simple to the point of being simple minded, self-loving 

to the point of being self-deceiving, and nostalgic to the 

point of being destructively naive. I have greater faith 

that the people of Scotland have a great sense of what is 

right and what is wrong, and will vote accordingly when 

the time comes. 


Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. In 

order to try to accommodate everyone who wants to 

take part in this debate, I am changing the time limit 

to seven minutes. Depending on how long each speaker 

takes, it might be necessary to revise it again downwards 

before the end of the debate. 

1.44 pm 

Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab): Our debates 

on Scottish issues are often tribal, so I was not surprised 

by the comments of the hon. Member for Perth and 

North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) or the degree of 

fundamentalism he showed in his speech, although I 

was surprised at his arrogance and his assumption that 

after an independence referendum the Scottish people 

would enter some sort of nirvana. That is not quite 

consistent with our history at any time I can recall.


430 

[Mr Frank Doran] 

The way the hon. Gentleman approached the whole 

issue underlines one of the major problems with this 

debate: the lack of fact. If we look ahead at what sort of 

country an independent Scotland might be—and we 

need to, because that is one of the things that anyone 

taking the referendum seriously would want to know—we 

can see what the various sides of the argument are 

presenting us with. What the Scottish Government are 

presenting us with at the moment is: “We’ll keep the 

monarch”, “We’ll keep the pound sterling”—perhaps— 

“and the Bank of England as our central bank”, and 

“We’ll remain part of the EU,” although that is still an 

open question. I was quite taken by what Mr Barroso—in 

effect, the chief executive of the European Union, who 

should know a thing or two about these things—said about 

an independent Scotland having to reapply. Mr Salmond 

leapt to his feet and said, “No we won’t. I know better.” 

That is basically the way all this has proceeded. 

We are not being presented with facts; as my hon. 

Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) 

said, they are assertions. I would be a wee bit kinder 

than that: they might be aspirations, but they are more 

likely the product of politicians who want to remove 

difficult issues from the agenda before the referendum. 

We would see a very different Scotland afterwards if it 

were outside the EU, forced to create its own central 

bank and introduce a new currency. I mention the 

currency because the only other similar experience that 

I am aware of is when the Czech Republic and Slovakia 

split. I think it was the Czech Prime Minister who said 

that they had agreed to keep the same currency, but 

within a matter of weeks that decision was changed and 

a new currency had to be created. I cannot see a 

Scotland in the same situation being any different, even 

if I believed that that was the intention. However, what 

we know so far—about the monarch, the pound sterling, 

the Bank of England as the reserve bank and being part 

of the EU—does not sound very much like independence 

to me. 


Mr Doran: The hon. Gentleman has intervened many 

times and thereby had more than 10 minutes already. I 

would rather make my own contribution to the debate. 

It is important that we have facts. One area where 

that is most important is the economy of an independent 

Scotland. It is quite clear from all their forecasts that 

the current Scottish Government would rely heavily on 

North sea oil revenues. My hon. Friend the Member for 

Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) has already made the 

point from the Front Bench, but I want to give a bit 

more detail, because it is extremely important that 

accurate facts are readily available. The first point to 

consider about the oil and gas industry is just how 

volatile these commodities are. Prices can rise or fall 

very quickly. I am old enough to remember in the 1980s 

when the oil price went from $32 a barrel to $8 a barrel 

virtually overnight. We lost more than 50,000 jobs in 

the north-east of Scotland when that happened. An 

independent country would have found it difficult to 

survive that event. Unless we are talking about a prosperous 

middle eastern country with no resources other than 

oil, it is very dangerous to rely on oil and gas for the 

economy. 

We have to look at the research. The most accurate 

and trusted UK commentator on the oil and gas industry 

is Professor Alec Kemp of Aberdeen university. For 

decades, he and his colleague Linda Stephen have studied 

the UK oil and gas industry, and their regular reports 

are respected and accepted throughout the industry. 

The most recent report looks at the prospects for activity 

on the UK continental shelf following the recent oil tax 

changes. The report is very detailed and considers the 

prospects for oil and gas production in the next 30 years 

in the UK sector. In the last two years production has 

declined, partly because of the tax changes in the 2010 

Budget, but also as a result of the large increase in 

unplanned shutdowns. That has had an almost immediate 

effect on the amount of revenue coming into the Exchequer. 

Also, the North sea infrastructure is very old, and there 

has been a large number of unplanned shutdowns. 

The report details scenarios in which the oil price is 

$70 a barrel, and the gas price 40p a therm. The 

potential number of fields in production in 2042— 

30 years from now—will fall from 300 to about 60. In 

that same scenario, oil and gas equivalent production 

would fall from today’s level of about 1.8 million to 

584,000 barrels a day. That is at a price of $70 dollars a 

barrel and 40p a therm. At a price of $90 dollars and 

55p, production would fall from 1.8 million barrels of 

oil equivalent a day to 520,000. Most of the money and 

energy would go into decommissioning the North sea 

platforms that were being rendered redundant, and I do 

not think it appropriate for a new country to build its 

economy around the destruction of its most productive 

industry. We need to see many more such facts on the 

table before anyone can make a serious decision about 

what is best for our country. 

1.51 pm 

John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab): It is a 

pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for 

Aberdeen North (Mr Doran). The hon. Member for 

Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) talked about 

how, come independence, the Scots would be able to 

walk tall. I have been to Perth, and I have not noticed 

anyone walking with their head bowed of late. I know 

plenty of Scots who walk tall. Scotland walks tall; it is 

only little-minded people who do not. 

“Scotland and the Union” is the title of our debate 

today. There would be no Union without Scotland. 

Scotland and England came together to form the Union 

under the two Crowns more than 300 years ago, and we 

have moved on since then. Who would have thought 

that, 300 years on, we would be having a debate and a 

referendum on how we might split ourselves up after all 

this time? The Scots have defended the Union with their 

lives and with their labour for centuries. We have led 

battles on the battlefield, and we have led in science and 

technology. The Scots not only pull their weight; they 

over-pull their weight. As a nation, we walk tall and we 

hold our heads high. Scots are known throughout the 

world for that. There are probably more Scots outside 

Scotland than in it, and as we get further away from 

home, we often get more nationalistic, with a small n. 

I have great concerns about the way in which Scotland 

is being governed at the moment. It has a majority 

Government, but there is no scrutiny of any of the Bills 

that the Government pass or of any of the work they 

do. They have a committee system that is very similar to


432 

our own Select Committee system. In our system, when 

a Member joins a Select Committee, they do so not as a 

member of a party. Their job is to scrutinise the Government 

or the people who are running the industry of our 

country. We do not do that with any party bias. In 

Scotland, however, there is no scrutiny. The Committees 

are being run with a party bias. Whatever happens, the 

Scottish National party is right and everyone else is 

wrong. Any amendments that are tabled to a Bill are 

automatically shouted down. 

The bullying by the Scottish Government that seems 

to be going on is an absolute disgrace. People are being 

threatened, and companies are told that if they do not 

do as they are told, they will not get contracts. That is 

no way to run a country. It is certainly no way to run an 

independent country. I have great fears about that, and 

we should look seriously at how the scrutiny of Government 

Bills is carried out in Scotland. 

It will be no surprise to anyone that I also want to 

mention shipbuilding. Shipbuilding on the Clyde has 

sustained Scotland for centuries. When the tobacco 

trade first started up, the development of shipbuilding 

on the Clyde created employment and made Glasgow 

the second biggest city in the empire. That would never 

have happened if we had not been part of the British 

empire and of Great Britain. We led then, and I believe 

that, in many ways, we lead now. The Type 45 destroyer 

is the best ship of its kind anywhere in the world. It is 

envied by the Americans, by the Russians and by anyone 

who has any idea of what a destroyer should look like. 

It is a cut above everything else. 

We would not have those ships without the decision 

by the British Government to build them. If the last 

Labour Government had not secured the procurement 

of those ships, the Clyde would now be closed. I have 

absolutely no doubt that, under independence, the Clyde 

would close almost the next day, and that 3,500 jobs 

would be lost— 


John Robertson: Not this side of hell freezing over! 

The Scottish Government want to sell thousands of 

jobs, and there would be no more ships on the Clyde. I 

am a Glaswegian. I am Scottish, but I am probably a 

Glaswegian before anything else. I am also British and 

proud of it. I want people to vote in the referendum. I 

want us to get through it so that Scotland can get back 

to where it should be. When we have voted down the 

proposal for independence, we need to give serious 

consideration to how the governing is being done in the 

Scottish Parliament. I believe that the threatening and 

bullying, and the lack of scrutiny of Bills, needs to be 

looked at seriously. Those are the most important things. 

In the short time I have left, I also want to mention 

the cost of separation. There would be a cost not only 

to Scotland but to the United Kingdom. I have tabled a 

parliamentary question to various Departments to ask 

how much it would cost simply to re-badge everything 

from the day of independence. How many millions of 

pounds would it cost not only the people of Scotland 

but the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland? 

How much would every single taxpayer have to pay? 

And there would be further costs when jobs were lost as 

the companies that are threatening to move out did so. 

Just this week, BAE Systems was threatening to do that. 

Scotland is better together with the United Kingdom, 

and I have no doubt that we will remain one of the 

leading countries of the world. 

1.58 pm 

Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab): It is a great privilege 

to contribute to the debate after so many fine contributions 

from right hon. and hon. Members. I echo the sentiments 

of those on both sides of the House who have said that 

they are intensely proud to be Scottish or to have 

Scottish ancestry, but also to be British and to be 

citizens of the United Kingdom. I, too, fervently hold 

those joint allegiances. I would also say to the Scottish 

National party that it does not have a monopoly on 

care, passion and wisdom when it comes to the future of 

Scotland, and I do not believe its assertions about the 

land of milk and honey that it plans to create. 


Lindsay Roy: No, I am sorry; I want to make progress. 

Like most in this Chamber, I am ambitious for Scotland 

and for the United Kingdom. I agree that, with a strong 

Scottish Parliament within the UK, we have the best of 

both worlds. I have always believed that there is a better 

choice for the future than divorce, secession and separation. 

I want to illustrate that through an aspect of Scottish 

life that is dear to our hearts—namely, sporting activity. 

As an avid football fan, I have supported the Scottish 

team for many years, although I do not go back 140 years 

to the 0-0 draw. I would like to remind the House, 

however, of the 3-2 victory at Wembley in 1967. Just 

after England’s famous victory in the World cup, we 

beat them and, as a result, claimed our share of the 

Jules Rimet trophy. I have also suffered the trials and 

tribulations of a 5-1 defeat at Wembley, and vividly 

remember on the way back home the sign on the back 

of the bus on the M6 saying, “You couldnae make it 6”! 

In football and rugby, we have a strong tradition of 

Scottish teams representing us on the world stage. Times 

are tough, and I dearly wish that our football and rugby 

performances were better at the present time, but we 

support our teams passionately through thick and thin. 

However, is it not ironic that many of the players 

exhibiting such passion for their national team, who live 

outwith Scotland but give their all for their chosen 

country, will not be able to vote in the forthcoming 

referendum. They are good enough to play for chosen 

country, but are not allowed to vote on Scotland’s 

future. That applies to many people who support Scotland 

vigorously, too. 

While in some sports we have full decision-making 

powers to select our own national teams on the world 

scene in football and rugby, in others we have Scottish 

representatives who make selections for UK teams. 

Nowhere was that more visible than the recent UK-held 

Olympics, and indeed the Paralympics, where we pooled 

our human resources and facilities to produce the best 

UK performance ever, with 55 out of 542 participants 

from Scotland taking part in 21 out of the 26 Olympic 

sports. 

Did we not do well together and did not the Scots 

make an outstanding contribution to that success? There 

were individual golds for Sir Chris Hoy and Andy 

Murray, and an individual silver to Michael Jamieson—


434 

[Lindsay Roy] 

three individual highlights in a glittering array of success 

stories. Overall, team UK collectively won 65 individual 

awards at gold, silver and bronze. The sum total of 

medals for Scotland, however, was not three, but 14, as 

Scots teamed up with colleagues across the UK to 

achieve outstanding results, taking on the best that the 

world could offer—and winning! 

What more apposite illustration could we have to 

sum up better together? Without the combined resources 

across the UK, 11 Scots would not have won these 

coveted Olympic medals. Scots were integral parts of 

team UK, and there was a collective passion and team 

spirit to work together, sharing training and coaching 

as well as facilities to produce the best Olympic results ever. 

Some of our SNP colleagues have jumped on the 

bandwagon of UK success. The hon. Member for Perth 

and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), where I was brought 

up, proudly stated: 

“Britishness is one of our many identities and one that will be 

forever cherished in an independent Scotland.” 

Yet the same hon. Gentleman has been recorded as 

saying: 

“I do not even know what Britishness is”.—[Official Report, 

12 November 2008; Vol. 482, c. 307WH.] 

Well, we do, and the Scots know of the many benefits 

that accrue from being British. This has been well 

illustrated so far in this debate across all aspects of 

British life. I am confident that on referendum day, the 

Scots will continue to see that things are best when we 

pull together and work with our neighbours, so we can 

spread the risks and share the rewards. I believe that 

Scots will see, as in our sports development, that we can 

still have the best of both worlds—teams representing 

Scotland, but participation in UK teams, too. 

Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab): Does my 

hon. Friend agree that it is not acceptable that our 

heroes from Scotland and Team GB, who had to train 

throughout the UK because we did not have the facilities 

and support ready in Scotland, not only cannot live in 

Scotland, but will not have a vote in this important 

referendum in 2014? 

Lindsay Roy: I agree wholeheartedly, as that was 

exactly the point I made earlier. 

To conclude, we remain stronger and better together, 

sometimes as rivals but always, I trust, in the spirit of 

partnership and fair play. 

2.4 pm 

Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab): I 

begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Epping 

Forest (Mrs Laing) and my hon. Friend the Member for 

Livingston (Graeme Morrice) on managing to secure 

the debate. 

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire 

(Pete Wishart) often paints a bleak picture of my homeland 

in this place. It took him nine minutes to get to that 

point today, but I simply do not recognise what he is 

talking about when he speaks of a downtrodden nation 

seeking freedom. As a shadow Defence Minister, let me 

concentrate on defence and the defence of the nation as 

a whole. 

We are right in saying that Scots are rightly proud of 

our brave servicemen and women and the work they do 

across the world to keep us all safe. The British armed 

forces are the best and bravest in the world, and Scotland 

and the Scottish people are an integral part of that. 

The decision facing all Scots in the 2014 referendum 

is, in fact, a stark one: to continue to be part of the 

British Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force 

and benefit from that safety and security, or to leave 

these services and go out on our own. After all we have 

been through together as a nation, why would we now 

want to go our separate ways and break away from the 

British armed forces? 

As well as the pride we feel in our armed forces and 

services, there are huge economic and employment benefits 

that Scotland’s leaving the UK would put at significant 

risk. There are 18,000 people employed in Scotland as 

either service personnel or Ministry of Defence civilian 

staff, with thousands more employed in the private 

sector as contractors and partners throughout Scotland. 


Mr Brown: I am not giving way. 

Scotland’s largest work place is Her Majesty’s naval 

base on the Clyde, employing 6,500 people, and there is 

a work force 4,500 strong at the shipyards in Glasgow 

and Rosyth. Our shipbuilding industry and the jobs 

Scots have had in these yards for generations rely on the 

MOD for work. Scotland has a world-class defence 

industry and it is best protected by Scotland remaining 

in the UK. A separate Scotland would not be able to 

take advantage of UK contracts. About 40% of those 

UK defence contracts are non-competitively tendered 

within the UK; this means that they could not be 

extended to an independent Scotland. There would be 

no incentive for the remaining parts of the UK to 

outsource defence contracts to Scotland. For example, 

the Type 26 global combat ship is due to go into 

construction the year after the referendum, and the 

MOD has made it absolutely clear—a Defence Minister 

has said it twice here—that this contract will be open 

only to UK-based companies. We benefit from an MOD 

budget of £35 billion a year—the fourth largest in the 

world. The SNP has stated that an independent Scottish 

Government would commit to an annual defence budget 

of around £2.5 billion. This means that if a separate 

Scotland became part of NATO, it would have one of 

the lowest defence spends of any NATO country, at 

exactly the same time as our country would face massive 

transitional and new set-up costs. 

Professor Malcolm Chalmers, research director of 

the Royal United Services Institute, has said that the 

size of the Scottish defence procurement budget would 

be “pretty limited”, and he warns that much of Scotland’s 

defence industry would migrate southwards. 

The defence of our nation is of paramount importance, 

and it is hard to comprehend why the SNP, a political 

party predicated on separating Scotland from the UK, 

cannot answer some of the most basic questions about 

what defence policy in an independent Scotland would 

look like. [Interruption.] If there had been enough time 

and we did not have two votes ahead of us, perhaps 

SNP Members could have assisted us today by painting 

a picture of what the military might of a separate 

Scotland would look like. For the Army, how many


436 

regulars would there be, and how many reservists? 

Keeping in mind the fact that Scotland is surrounded by 

water on three sides, are we correct in assuming that 

Scotland would have a navy, and what would its strength 

be? Could we afford an air force? Would our military 

be in place to defend our borders, or would we be an 

expeditionary force? 


Mr Brown: I am not giving way, because I am coming 

to my conclusion before we hear the winding-up speeches. 

There is a positive case for Scotland to remain part of 

the United Kingdom. No one doubts that our country 

is capable of being independent, but why should we 

want to lose all those advantages? At a time of immense 

and fast-evolving challenges throughout the world, with 

a plethora of security threats on the horizon, why on 

earth should we want to devote time and money to 

dividing our resources north and south of the border? 

We should be working together, throughout Britain, to 

remain vigilant against the constant threat of terrorism, 

combat the growing risk of cyber-crime, and prepare 

for the long-term security risks posed by climate change. 

Focusing on the defence of our nation, rather than 

plunging our country into uncertainty by splitting from 

the rest of the UK, is in Scotland’s national interest. 

Like so many other issues, defence highlights the 

strength of a Britain that works in co-operation. We are 

stronger, safer, and better together. 

2.10 pm 

Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab): Let me begin 

by paying tribute to the members of the Backbench 

Business Committee, and thanking them for enabling us 

to debate this important matter. We have had an excellent 

debate. I particularly appreciated the speech of the 

hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), which 

demonstrated the warmth that Scots encounter throughout 

the rest of the United Kingdom, and the powerful speech 

of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Graeme 

Morrice), who advanced clear economic arguments to 

demonstrate why Scotland works well when partnered 

with other nations in the UK. 

On the eve of St Andrew’s day, it is important for us 

to bear in mind that the UK Parliament is Scotland’s 

Parliament too. We have an opportunity to recognise 

the best that we have in Scotland and celebrate it, to pay 

tribute to our public sector service workers, and to 

appreciate the industry and effort that make Scotland 

so great in the cities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, 

Aberdeen and, of course, many other places. 

We should also be pleased that Scotland is performing 

so significantly in the arts, in which I have a particular 

interest. As Vicky Featherstone leaves the great National 

Theatre of Scotland that she did so much to establish 

and goes to the Royal Court theatre, we mourn her loss 

and remember the contribution that she has made, but 

we are very proud that she is doing so well in England. 

What has been said today has clearly demonstrated 

the national pride that so many of us have in the great 

country of Scotland, but it also makes an important 

point that I hope will be remembered as we continue the 

debate on the referendum, namely that pride and patriotism 

in Scotland do not belong to a single political party. 

The national flag and our other symbols belong to us 

all. They do not belong to one person, or to one party. I 

hope that just because some of us disagree with the idea 

of separation, we will not be attacked for being anti-Scottish, 

and that such remarks are a thing of the past. 

Madam Deputy Presiding Officer—sorry, wrong 

Parliament! Many apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. 

I am about to pay tribute to the work of the Scottish 

Parliament, which may be why I made that mistake. 

Let me begin by paying tribute to the late Member of 

Parliament for Glasgow, Anniesland, Donald Dewar, 

the first of Scotland’s First Ministers, who, in his inaugural 

address to the Parliament, spoke of 

“a new voice in the land”, 

the voice of a democratic Parliament. Many of us were 

honoured to serve in that Parliament, which has proved 

to be very effective and strongly supported by the 

Scottish people. 

However, my argument, and the argument of the 

Labour party, has been and always will be that we are a 

party of devolution and believe in the great strength of 

devolution, but we are not a party of separation. We did 

not undertake our long, hard fight for devolution because 

we were obsessed with one constitutional arrangement 

over another; it was born out of a desire to see our 

system of government work in a way that would enhance 

the lives of people in the communities that we served. 

We saw the areas of life in which a Scottish Parliament 

could achieve more, but we also understood that, in 

the tradition of trade unionists and social reformers, 

the needs of the people could sometimes be met by our 

working together. A strong Scotland benefits the whole 

United Kingdom: that is the central theme of today’s 

debate. We can achieve more together than we can apart. 


Co-op): The benefits of our remaining together are also 

demonstrated in the field of research in some of the 

world-class universities in Scotland. My own constituency 

contains universities that receive massive amounts of 

UK funding. That would clearly not be possible if we 

were separated. The academic sector provides another 

example of how well we can work together, and how 

much we would lose through separation. 

Margaret Curran: I thank my hon. Friend for making 

that point. I shall say more about that subject later. I 

think that many of the institutions that we share would 

lose a great deal if they were broken up, and academics 

are now beginning to flag up that concern themselves. 

The motion that we are discussing draws attention to 

the great contribution that Scotland has made to the 

development of the Union. We can be both proudly 

Scottish and British. As many Members have pointed 

out, that was demonstrated during the Olympic and 

Paralympic games in the summer. We saw clear evidence 

of a modern, multicultural Britain that forward-looking 

Scottish people can be part of and proud of. As a small 

island made up of distinctive nations, we can and 

should work together to ensure that opportunity is 

given to everyone. 

The institutions we have built up throughout the UK 

bear testimony to the work that we have undertaken in 

these islands together. As we heard from my hon. Friend 

the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar), the


438 

[Margaret Curran] 

NHS was established by a Welshman, to the benefit of 

the whole UK. The welfare state was devised and 

implemented by an Englishman, to the benefit of the 

whole UK. The Labour party itself was established by a 

Scotsman working in an English, and then a Welsh, 

constituency, again—in my view—to the benefit of the 

whole UK. 

There is another form of union that operates throughout 

Britain and has grown out of shared British experience: 

the trade union movement of the United Kingdom, 

which symbolises the act of working together to improve 

and enhance the rights of working people. On the eve of 

St Andrew’s day, we should acknowledge all the work of 

the trade unions in Scotland—along with their friends 

in Wales and England—to improve the conditions of 

working people throughout our countries. I would not 

want to put that at risk as we move towards separation. 

Together, we created throughout Britain the institutions 

that were needed to meet the challenges of the time, 

from the trade unions to the welfare state to the Scottish 

Parliament and, indeed, the Welsh and Irish national 

Assemblies. Now we must again look to the challenges 

of the modern time, and look at the paths that lie before 

us. Do we continue with devolution, as a strong Scotland 

in partnership with the United Kingdom, or do we opt 

for separation—for pulling away from our allies? The 

threats posed by the latter option have been described in 

detail during the debate. 

The debate about the future of Scotland is now well 

under way. If the past few months are anything to go by, 

it will certainly be a lively debate: the Scottish people 

will expect nothing less. As things stand, however, we 

face a raft of unanswered questions about the prospect 

of separation. I am told that Dundee university called 

its academic study of independence “Five Million 

Questions”. Let me focus on just one or two of those 

questions. 

Before a decision is made on the future of Scotland, 

the Scots making that decision require more detail in 

the debate. What will separation mean for Scottish 

mortgages or Scottish interest rates? What will happen 

to our pensions, and what about our family tax credits? 

How can we avoid a race to the bottom when it comes 

to levels of tax, wages and financial support? Those are 

the real questions that will determine the outcome of 

the referendum, and which really concern citizens, families, 

trade unions and businesses. However, I have to say that 

the SNP has so far failed to confront and failed to 

answer them. 

Scotland has a better future. We are only beginning 

to see the promise of devolution which Labour Members 

put into practice, and which we want to see continue 

and flourish in Scotland. Scotland can be a strong 

partner, working within a strong United Kingdom. 

That is the case that we will continue to argue—and 

make no mistake: if Scots vote for separation, it will be 

the end of devolution. We will make the case for Britain 

with passion and energy. 

This debate has highlighted the great strength of 

Scotland and the great strength of the Union, and what 

has been achieved by that. We have heard the history of 

how we have shared the risks and rewards, the resources 

and the opportunities. We must continue to do so in the 

future. This is not just about the successes of the past; it 

is about our prospects for the future. A time of increasing 

interdependence in the world is not a time for narrow 

nationalism, but a time for us to work better together 

for a stronger Scotland and a stronger Union. 

2.19 pm 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland 

(David Mundell): May I begin by passing my best wishes 

and those of the Secretary of State to the hon. Member 

for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie)? We wish him a speedy 

recovery. That is the only matter on which there is likely 

to be agreement with the SNP this afternoon. 

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epping 

Forest (Mrs Laing) on securing the debate. She is a 

proud Scot, as is my hon. Friend the Member for 

Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). I entirely repudiate 

the sentiment implicit in the comments of the hon. 

Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), 

that somehow only supporters of the nationalist cause 

can care about Scotland, be proud of Scotland, or make 

the case for Scotland. That is absolutely not the case. 

Pete Wishart: I never made any such claim; everybody 

here is a proud Scot, and I said no such thing. The SNP 

has managed to get just one 10-minute speech in a 

three-hour debate. We have heard one side of the case— 

[Interruption.] We should have more time. [Interruption.] 

Even now I am being shouted down. Surely in this 

debate the SNP should have got more time than we have 

been allowed today. 

David Mundell: I am not an expert on procedure, but 

I understand this debate is being curtailed because the 

SNP is going to force two Divisions. That is simply a 

stunt, and those of us who are involved in Scottish 

politics are very familiar with the SNP preferring to pull 

stunts than talk about the issues of the day. 

I particularly want to thank the right hon. Member 

for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) for his excellent speech. 

It is heartening to hear Members from other parts of 

the United Kingdom state how much importance they 

place on Scotland remaining in the UK. As he said, the 

whole of the United Kingdom would be the poorer if 

Scotland left. 

In 2014, people in Scotland will face their most 

important political decision in 300 years. A vote for 

independence in the referendum of that year is not just 

for Christmas 2014; it is for life. As the motion states: 

“Scotland has always made, and continues to make, a significant 

contribution to the UK over the 305 years of the Union”. 

The Government believe that Scotland is stronger within 

the United Kingdom, which Scotland helped to shape, 

as the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John 

Robertson) said, but we also recognise that the biggest 

constitutional question of all needs to be settled once 

and for all. That is why Scotland’s two Governments 

worked together constructively to reach an agreement 

on the referendum process. Regardless of the result, 

that constructive relationship will of course continue 

as we move forward. That does not mean that in the 

unlikely event of a yes vote, the remaining UK would 

facilitate Scotland’s every wish, any more than an 

independent Scotland would unquestioningly facilitate 

the wishes of the remaining UK. Inevitably—although 

some have sought to deny it today—there would be two


440 

separate countries and therefore two sets of interests, 

sometimes mutual, sometimes at odds, as is currently 

the case with our closest international allies and as will 

always be the case between separate, sovereign states. 

The SNP likes to talk about partnership and about 

neighbours working together. These days, it even likes 

to talk about us all being British, even though the hon. 

Member for Perth and North Perthshire told us previously 

he did not know what Britishness was and had never felt 

British in his life. You couldn’t make it up, but the SNP 

does. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North West 

highlighted, the SNP amendment even pretends that it 

can wrench Scotland out of the UK and nothing will 

have changed. Do not be fooled: working together is 

what the United Kingdom is all about, but the SNP 

wants to break it up. Partnership is what the United 

Kingdom is all about, but the SNP wants to rip it up. If 

Scotland votes for independence in 2014, it will leave 

the United Kingdom—leave all that we have achieved 

together over the past 300 years and all that we will 

continue to achieve by remaining together. 

Gregg McClymont: The credibility of the First Minister 

has been a central issue in this debate. What does the 

Minister make of Justice Leveson’s finding on the First 

Minister’s attempt to lobby on behalf of Sky and the 

possibility that that might have rendered the Government’s 

decision on the Sky issue unlawful? 

David Mundell: I do not find that surprising. On 

several recent occasions the First Minister has been 

brought before the Scottish Parliament to explain things 

he has said that have been found to be untrue. 

By putting together the various aspects of the debate—the 

economics, the international influence question, the 

fact that we Scots helped to make this United Kingdom 

—we get a compelling case for Scotland remaining in 

the UK, and many Members have made that case today. 

The UK Government are looking forward to making 

the positive case for Scotland within the United Kingdom. 

Today we have shown why twice as many Scots want to 

remain in the UK than support independence. They are 

people who know the difference between patriotism and 

nationalism; people who know, as the hon. Member for 

Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) said, that the saltire is 

a symbol of our nation, not of nationalism; people who 

know that being Scottish and British is not a contradiction 

but is the best of both worlds, whereas the SNP wants 

to take our Britishness away from us; people who know 

that Scotland helps put the “Great” into Great Britain 

and make our Kingdom united— 

Mark Lazarowicz rose— 

David Mundell: People like the hon. Gentleman, who 

I am sure will contribute positively to the debate. 

Mark Lazarowicz: Yesterday I had the privilege to 

attend the launch of the green investment bank in 

Edinburgh. It is supported by all parties, including the 

SNP, and it is a wonderful example of the UK working 

together. It is the UK green investment bank, and it is 

hard to see how it could have been headquartered in 

Edinburgh if Edinburgh had been in a separate state. 

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman makes a good 

point about the positive benefits that flow to Scotland 

from remaining part of the UK, and about the positive 

benefits the UK gets from Scotland’s expertise in financial 

services, which was one of the key reasons that led to 

the green investment bank being headquartered in 

Edinburgh. 

This has been a heated debate, as such debates always 

are, for the topic is very important to the people of 

Scotland and the people of the rest of the United 

Kingdom. I believe that people, including me, who know 

in their bones that we are better together will deliver the 

result Scotland and the United Kingdom wants in the 

referendum in 2014. We do not fear the debate to come; 

we welcome it—and we would have liked this afternoon’s 

debate to have been a little longer, rather than its being 

curtailed by having two meaningless votes. 

2.28 pm 

Mrs Laing: I thank the Minister and the shadow 

Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Glasgow East 

(Margaret Curran), for their excellent summing up of 

this good and lively debate. As the argument is advanced 

in the country as a whole over the next two years, it will 

be won in the hearts as well as the heads of the people—not 

only the people who will have the privilege of a vote, but 

everyone else, who will take part in the debate and have 

their voices heard throughout the whole of our United 

Kingdom. 

Pete Wishart rose— 

Mrs Laing: The hon. Gentleman did not take a single 

intervention from anyone and I have one minute to 

speak. He has said more than enough. He said that the 

word “separation” is chilling to him; it is chilling to me, 

too, and to everyone who believes that we are better 

together as a United Kingdom. 

As far as heads are concerned, we have heard some 

good facts and figures this afternoon, and I hope that 

they will be repeated over and again so that people with 

a vote in the referendum understand the reality of what 

separation would mean for Scotland and the whole 

United Kingdom. As far as hearts are concerned, I 

turn, as ever, to Robert Burns, who wrote in the most 

powerful verse of his excellent poem “The Dumfries 

Volunteers”: 

“O, let us not, like snarling tykes, 

In wrangling be divided, 

Till, slap! come in a unco loun, 

And wi’ a rung decide it! 

Be Britain still to Britain true, 

Amang oursels united! 

For never but by British hands 

Maun British wrangs be righted!” 

Question put, That the amendment be made. 

The House divided: Ayes 5, Noes 321. 

Division No. 107] [2.30 pm 

Edwards, Jonathan 

MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan 

Robertson, Angus 

Weir, Mr Mike 

AYES 

Whiteford, Dr Eilidh 

Tellers for the Ayes: 

Pete Wishart and 

Hywel Williams


442 

Adams, Nigel 

Afriyie, Adam 

Aldous, Peter 

Allen, Mr Graham 

Andrew, Stuart 

Ashworth, Jonathan 

Bacon, Mr Richard 

Bain, Mr William 

Baker, Norman 

Baldry, Sir Tony 

Barclay, Stephen 

Barker, rh Gregory 

Baron, Mr John 

Bebb, Guto 

Begg, Dame Anne 

Bellingham, Mr Henry 

Benn, rh Hilary 

Beresford, Sir Paul 

Berger, Luciana 

Bingham, Andrew 

Birtwistle, Gordon 

Blackman, Bob 

Boles, Nick 

Bone, Mr Peter 

Bottomley, Sir Peter 

Bradley, Karen 

Brady, Mr Graham 

Brake, rh Tom 

Bray, Angie 

Bridgen, Andrew 

Brine, Steve 

Brokenshire, James 

Brooke, Annette 

Brown, rh Mr Gordon 

Brown, rh Mr Nicholas 

Brown, Mr Russell 

Browne, Mr Jeremy 

Bruce, Fiona 

Buckland, Mr Robert 

Burnham, rh Andy 

Burns, Conor 

Burns, rh Mr Simon 

Burt, Alistair 

Burt, Lorely 

Byles, Dan 

Cairns, Alun 

Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair 

Carmichael, Neil 

Carswell, Mr Douglas 

Chishti, Rehman 

Clark, rh Greg 

Clark, Katy 

Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth 

Clarke, rh Mr Tom 

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey 

Coffey, Ann 

Coffey, Dr Thérèse 

Collins, Damian 

Colvile, Oliver 

Crabb, Stephen 

Crausby, Mr David 

Cunningham, Mr Jim 

Curran, Margaret 

Dakin, Nic 

Danczuk, Simon 

Darling, rh Mr Alistair 

Davey, rh Mr Edward 

David, Wayne 

Davies, David T. C. 

(Monmouth) 

Davies, Geraint 

NOES 

Davies, Philip 

Denham, rh Mr John 

Djanogly, Mr Jonathan 

Docherty, Thomas 

Dodds, rh Mr Nigel 

Donohoe, Mr Brian H. 

Doran, Mr Frank 

Doyle-Price, Jackie 

Duddridge, James 

Dunne, Mr Philip 

Eagle, Ms Angela 

Ellis, Michael 

Ellison, Jane 

Ellwood, Mr Tobias 

Elphicke, Charlie 

Esterson, Bill 

Eustice, George 

Evans, Graham 

Evans, Jonathan 

Evennett, Mr David 

Fabricant, Michael 

Fallon, rh Michael 

Farrelly, Paul 

Farron, Tim 

Flynn, Paul 

Foster, rh Mr Don 

Fovargue, Yvonne 

Francois, rh Mr Mark 

Freeman, George 

Freer, Mike 

Fuller, Richard 

Gale, Sir Roger 

Gardiner, Barry 

Garnier, Sir Edward 

Garnier, Mark 

Gauke, Mr David 

George, Andrew 

Gibb, Mr Nick 

Gilbert, Stephen 

Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl 

Gilmore, Sheila 

Glass, Pat 

Glen, John 

Glindon, Mrs Mary 

Goggins, rh Paul 

Goldsmith, Zac 

Goodman, Helen 

Goodwill, Mr Robert 

Graham, Richard 

Gray, Mr James 

Grayling, rh Chris 

Greatrex, Tom 

Green, rh Damian 

Griffiths, Andrew 

Gummer, Ben 

Gyimah, Mr Sam 

Hague, rh Mr William 

Halfon, Robert 

Hames, Duncan 

Hamilton, Mr David 

Hammond, Stephen 

Hancock, Matthew 

Hanson, rh Mr David 

Harper, Mr Mark 

Harris, Rebecca 

Harris, Mr Tom 

Hart, Simon 

Harvey, Sir Nick 

Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan 

Hayes, Mr John 

Heald, Oliver 

Heath, Mr David 

Heaton-Harris, Chris 

Hemming, John 

Henderson, Gordon 

Hendrick, Mark 

Hendry, Charles 

Herbert, rh Nick 

Hermon, Lady 

Hillier, Meg 

Hinds, Damian 

Hoban, Mr Mark 

Hodge, rh Margaret 

Hodgson, Mrs Sharon 

Hollobone, Mr Philip 

Holloway, Mr Adam 

Hood, Mr Jim 

Hopkins, Kris 

Horwood, Martin 

Howarth, Sir Gerald 

Howell, John 

Hughes, rh Simon 

Huhne, rh Chris 

Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy 

Hunter, Mark 

Huppert, Dr Julian 

James, Margot 

Javid, Sajid 

Jenkin, Mr Bernard 

Jones, Andrew 

Jones, Graham 

Jones, Mr Kevan 

Jones, Susan Elan 

Joyce, Eric 

Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald 

Kawczynski, Daniel 

Kelly, Chris 

Kirby, Simon 

Knight, rh Mr Greg 

Laing, Mrs Eleanor 

Lamb, Norman 

Lansley, rh Mr Andrew 

Lavery, Ian 

Lazarowicz, Mark 

Leadsom, Andrea 

Lee, Dr Phillip 

Letwin, rh Mr Oliver 

Lewis, Brandon 

Lidington, rh Mr David 

Lilley, rh Mr Peter 

Lord, Jonathan 

Loughton, Tim 

Love, Mr Andrew 

Luff, Peter 

Macleod, Mary 

Marsden, Mr Gordon 

Maude, rh Mr Francis 

Maynard, Paul 

McCartney, Jason 

McClymont, Gregg 

McFadden, rh Mr Pat 

McGovern, Alison 

McGovern, Jim 

McIntosh, Miss Anne 

McKechin, Ann 

McVey, Esther 

Meacher, rh Mr Michael 

Meale, Sir Alan 

Menzies, Mark 

Metcalfe, Stephen 

Miller, Andrew 

Miller, rh Maria 

Milton, Anne 

Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew 

Morgan, Nicky 

Morris, Anne Marie 

Morris, Grahame M. 

(Easington) 

Morris, James 

Mosley, Stephen 

Mowat, David 

Mundell, rh David 

Munt, Tessa 

Murray, Ian 

Murray, Sheryll 

Nash, Pamela 

Neill, Robert 

Newmark, Mr Brooks 

Nokes, Caroline 

Nuttall, Mr David 

O’Brien, Mr Stephen 

Offord, Dr Matthew 

Ollerenshaw, Eric 

Opperman, Guy 

Parish, Neil 

Pawsey, Mark 

Perry, Claire 

Phillips, Stephen 

Pickles, rh Mr Eric 

Pincher, Christopher 

Poulter, Dr Daniel 

Pritchard, Mark 

Raab, Mr Dominic 

Randall, rh Mr John 

Reckless, Mark 

Rees-Mogg, Jacob 

Reid, Mr Alan 

Reynolds, Jonathan 

Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm 

Robathan, rh Mr Andrew 

Robertson, rh Hugh 

Robertson, John 

Rogerson, Dan 

Rosindell, Andrew 

Roy, Mr Frank 

Roy, Lindsay 

Rudd, Amber 

Ruddock, rh Dame Joan 

Rutley, David 

Sandys, Laura 

Sarwar, Anas 

Sawford, Andy 

Scott, Mr Lee 

Selous, Andrew 

Sharma, Alok 

Sharma, Mr Virendra 

Sheerman, Mr Barry 

Shelbrooke, Alec 

Shuker, Gavin 

Skidmore, Chris 

Slaughter, Mr Andy 

Smith, Miss Chloe 

Smith, Henry 

Smith, Julian 

Smith, Sir Robert 

Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline 

Spencer, Mr Mark 

Stanley, rh Sir John 

Stephenson, Andrew 

Straw, rh Mr Jack 

Stride, Mel 

Stuart, Ms Gisela 

Stunell, rh Andrew 

Sturdy, Julian 

Swayne, rh Mr Desmond


444 

Syms, Mr Robert 

Tapsell, rh Sir Peter 

Teather, Sarah 

Thurso, John 

Timpson, Mr Edward 

Tomlinson, Justin 

Truss, Elizabeth 

Uppal, Paul 

Vaizey, Mr Edward 

Vara, Mr Shailesh 

Vaz, rh Keith 

Vaz, Valerie 

Watkinson, Angela 

Whitehead, Dr Alan 

Whittaker, Craig 

Whittingdale, Mr John 

Williams, Mr Mark 

Williams, Roger 

Williams, Stephen 

Williamson, Gavin 

Willott, Jenny 

Wilson, Mr Rob 

Winnick, Mr David 

Wollaston, Dr Sarah 

Wright, Jeremy 

Wright, Simon 

Young, rh Sir George 

Tellers for the Noes: 

Iain Stewart and 

Graeme Morrice 

Question accordingly negatived. 

Main Question put. 

The House divided: Ayes 334, Noes 5. 

Division No. 108] [2.46 pm 

AYES 

Adams, Nigel 

Afriyie, Adam 

Aldous, Peter 

Alexander, rh Danny 

Allen, Mr Graham 

Andrew, Stuart 

Ashworth, Jonathan 

Austin, Ian 

Bacon, Mr Richard 

Bain, Mr William 

Baker, Norman 

Baldry, Sir Tony 

Balls, rh Ed 

Barclay, Stephen 

Barker, rh Gregory 

Baron, Mr John 

Bebb, Guto 

Begg, Dame Anne 

Bellingham, Mr Henry 

Benn, rh Hilary 

Beresford, Sir Paul 

Berger, Luciana 

Bingham, Andrew 

Birtwistle, Gordon 

Blackman, Bob 

Blackman-Woods, Roberta 

Blomfield, Paul 

Boles, Nick 

Bone, Mr Peter 

Bottomley, Sir Peter 

Bradley, Karen 

Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben 

Brady, Mr Graham 

Brake, rh Tom 

Bray, Angie 

Bridgen, Andrew 

Brine, Steve 

Brokenshire, James 

Brooke, Annette 

Brown, rh Mr Gordon 

Brown, rh Mr Nicholas 

Brown, Mr Russell 

Browne, Mr Jeremy 

Bruce, Fiona 

Bryant, Chris 

Buckland, Mr Robert 

Burnham, rh Andy 

Burns, Conor 

Burns, rh Mr Simon 

Burt, Alistair 

Burt, Lorely 

Byles, Dan 

Cable, rh Vince 

Cairns, Alun 

Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair 

Carmichael, Neil 

Carswell, Mr Douglas 

Chishti, Rehman 

Clark, rh Greg 

Clark, Katy 

Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth 

Clarke, rh Mr Tom 

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey 

Coffey, Ann 

Coffey, Dr Thérèse 

Collins, Damian 

Colvile, Oliver 

Cooper, rh Yvette 

Crabb, Stephen 

Crausby, Mr David 

Creasy, Stella 

Cunningham, Mr Jim 

Curran, Margaret 

Dakin, Nic 

Danczuk, Simon 

Darling, rh Mr Alistair 

Davey, rh Mr Edward 

David, Wayne 

Davies, David T. C. 

(Monmouth) 

Davies, Geraint 

Davies, Philip 

Davis, rh Mr David 

Djanogly, Mr Jonathan 

Dobbin, Jim 

Dobson, rh Frank 

Docherty, Thomas 

Dodds, rh Mr Nigel 

Donohoe, Mr Brian H. 

Doran, Mr Frank 

Doyle-Price, Jackie 

Duddridge, James 

Dugher, Michael 

Duncan, rh Mr Alan 

Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain 

Dunne, Mr Philip 

Eagle, Ms Angela 

Ellis, Michael 

Ellison, Jane 

Ellwood, Mr Tobias 

Elphicke, Charlie 

Esterson, Bill 

Eustice, George 

Evans, Graham 

Evans, Jonathan 

Evennett, Mr David 

Fabricant, Michael 

Farrelly, Paul 

Farron, Tim 

Featherstone, Lynne 

Fitzpatrick, Jim 

Flynn, Paul 

Foster, rh Mr Don 

Fovargue, Yvonne 

Francois, rh Mr Mark 

Freeman, George 

Freer, Mike 

Gale, Sir Roger 

Gardiner, Barry 

Garnier, Sir Edward 

Garnier, Mark 

Gauke, Mr David 

George, Andrew 

Gibb, Mr Nick 

Gilbert, Stephen 

Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl 

Gilmore, Sheila 

Glass, Pat 

Glen, John 

Glindon, Mrs Mary 

Goldsmith, Zac 

Goodman, Helen 

Goodwill, Mr Robert 

Graham, Richard 

Gray, Mr James 

Grayling, rh Chris 

Greatrex, Tom 

Green, rh Damian 

Greening, rh Justine 

Griffiths, Andrew 

Gummer, Ben 

Gyimah, Mr Sam 

Hague, rh Mr William 

Halfon, Robert 

Hames, Duncan 

Hamilton, Mr David 

Hammond, Stephen 

Hancock, Matthew 

Hanson, rh Mr David 

Harman, rh Ms Harriet 

Harper, Mr Mark 

Harris, Rebecca 

Harris, Mr Tom 

Hart, Simon 

Harvey, Sir Nick 

Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan 

Hayes, Mr John 

Heald, Oliver 

Heath, Mr David 

Heaton-Harris, Chris 

Hemming, John 

Henderson, Gordon 

Hendrick, Mark 

Hendry, Charles 

Herbert, rh Nick 

Hermon, Lady 

Hillier, Meg 

Hinds, Damian 

Hoban, Mr Mark 

Hodge, rh Margaret 

Hodgson, Mrs Sharon 

Hollobone, Mr Philip 

Holloway, Mr Adam 

Hood, Mr Jim 

Hopkins, Kris 

Horwood, Martin 

Howarth, Sir Gerald 

Howell, John 

Hughes, rh Simon 

Huhne, rh Chris 

Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy 

Hunter, Mark 

Huppert, Dr Julian 

James, Margot 

Javid, Sajid 

Jenkin, Mr Bernard 

Johnson, Diana 

Jones, Andrew 

Jones, Graham 

Jones, Mr Kevan 

Jones, Susan Elan 

Joyce, Eric 

Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald 

Kawczynski, Daniel 

Kelly, Chris 

Kirby, Simon 

Knight, rh Mr Greg 

Laing, Mrs Eleanor 

Lamb, Norman 

Lansley, rh Mr Andrew 

Lavery, Ian 

Lazarowicz, Mark 

Leadsom, Andrea 

Lee, Dr Phillip 

Leech, Mr John 

Letwin, rh Mr Oliver 

Lewis, Brandon 

Lidington, rh Mr David 

Lilley, rh Mr Peter 

Lord, Jonathan 

Loughton, Tim 

Love, Mr Andrew 

Luff, Peter 

Macleod, Mary 

Marsden, Mr Gordon 

Maude, rh Mr Francis 

Maynard, Paul 

McCartney, Jason 

McClymont, Gregg 

McFadden, rh Mr Pat 

McGovern, Alison 

McGovern, Jim 

McIntosh, Miss Anne 

McKechin, Ann 

McVey, Esther 

Meacher, rh Mr Michael 

Meale, Sir Alan 

Menzies, Mark 

Metcalfe, Stephen 

Miller, Andrew 

Miller, rh Maria 

Milton, Anne 

Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew 

Morgan, Nicky 

Morris, Anne Marie 

Morris, Grahame M. 

(Easington) 

Morris, James 

Mosley, Stephen 

Mowat, David 

Mundell, rh David 

Munt, Tessa

445 Scotland and the Union 

29 NOVEMBER 2012 

446 

Murray, Ian 

Murray, Sheryll 

Nash, Pamela 

Neill, Robert 

Newmark, Mr Brooks 

Nokes, Caroline 

Nuttall, Mr David 

O’Brien, Mr Stephen 

Offord, Dr Matthew 

Ollerenshaw, Eric 

Opperman, Guy 

Osborne, rh Mr George 

Parish, Neil 

Pawsey, Mark 

Perry, Claire 

Phillips, Stephen 

Pincher, Christopher 

Poulter, Dr Daniel 

Pritchard, Mark 

Raab, Mr Dominic 

Randall, rh Mr John 

Raynsford, rh Mr Nick 

Reckless, Mark 

Rees-Mogg, Jacob 

Reid, Mr Alan 

Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm 

Robathan, rh Mr Andrew 

Robertson, rh Hugh 

Robertson, John 

Rogerson, Dan 

Rosindell, Andrew 

Roy, Mr Frank 

Roy, Lindsay 

Rudd, Amber 

Ruddock, rh Dame Joan 

Rutley, David 

Sandys, Laura 

Sarwar, Anas 

Sawford, Andy 

Scott, Mr Lee 

Selous, Andrew 

Sharma, Alok 

Sharma, Mr Virendra 

Sheerman, Mr Barry 

Shelbrooke, Alec 

Shuker, Gavin 

Skidmore, Chris 

Slaughter, Mr Andy 

Smith, Miss Chloe 

MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan 

Robertson, Angus 

Weir, Mr Mike 

Whiteford, Dr Eilidh 

NOES 

Smith, Henry 

Smith, Julian 

Smith, Sir Robert 

Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline 

Spencer, Mr Mark 

Stanley, rh Sir John 

Stephenson, Andrew 

Straw, rh Mr Jack 

Stride, Mel 

Stuart, Ms Gisela 

Stunell, rh Andrew 

Sturdy, Julian 

Swayne, rh Mr Desmond 

Syms, Mr Robert 

Tapsell, rh Sir Peter 

Teather, Sarah 

Thurso, John 

Timpson, Mr Edward 

Tomlinson, Justin 

Tredinnick, David 

Truss, Elizabeth 

Tyrie, Mr Andrew 

Umunna, Mr Chuka 

Uppal, Paul 

Vaizey, Mr Edward 

Vara, Mr Shailesh 

Vaz, rh Keith 

Vaz, Valerie 

Walley, Joan 

Watkinson, Angela 

Whitehead, Dr Alan 

Whittaker, Craig 

Whittingdale, Mr John 

Williams, Mr Mark 

Williams, Roger 

Williams, Stephen 

Williamson, Gavin 

Willott, Jenny 

Wilson, Mr Rob 

Winnick, Mr David 

Wollaston, Dr Sarah 

Wright, Jeremy 

Wright, Simon 

Young, rh Sir George 

Tellers for the Ayes: 

Iain Stewart and 

Graeme Morrice 

Wishart, Pete 

Tellers for the Noes: 

Hywel Williams and 

Jonathan Edwards 

Question accordingly agreed to. 

Resolved, 

That this House believes that Scotland has always made, and 

continues to make, a significant contribution to the UK over the 

305 years of the Union; notes the strong and enduring bonds that 

exist between Scotland and the other nations of the UK; further 

notes its shared history and the contribution that the Scottish people 

have made to public life in the UK in politics, academia, trade unions 

and the armed forces; notes the contribution that Scotland’s 

businesses make to the UK economy and their particular expertise 

in cutting edge industries such as life sciences and engineering; 

further notes that a referendum on separating Scotland from the 

rest of the UK will be held before the end of 2014; and believes 

that Scotland is better off as part of the UK and the rest of the 

UK is better off together with Scotland. 

Leveson Inquiry 

3pm 

The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron): With permission, 

Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on today’s 

report from Lord Justice Leveson. As we consider the 

report, we should consider the victims. We should remember 

how the parents of Milly Dowler, at their most vulnerable 

moment, had their daughter’s phone hacked and were 

followed and photographed, how Christopher Jefferies’ 

reputation was destroyed by false accusations, how the 

mother of Madeleine McCann, Kate, had her private 

diary printed without her permission and how she and 

her husband were falsely accused of keeping their daughter’s 

body in their freezer. These victims, and many other 

innocent people who have never sought the limelight, 

have suffered in a way that we can barely begin to 

imagine. 

That is why last summer I asked Lord Justice Leveson 

to lead an independent inquiry. It had the power to see 

any document and summon any witness to be examined 

under oath by a barrister in public. It has been, as Lord 

Justice Leveson says, 

“the most public and the most concentrated look at the press that 

this country has seen.” 

I would like to thank Lord Justice Leveson and his 

entire team for the work they have undertaken. 

Lord Justice Leveson makes findings and 

recommendations in three areas: on the relationship 

between the press and the police; on the relationship 

between the press and politicians; and on the relationship 

between the press and the public. Let me take each in 

turn. 

First, on the press and the police, Lord Justice Leveson 

makes it clear that he does not find a basis for challenging 

the integrity of the police, but he does raise a number of 

areas that he felt were a cause for public concern, such 

as tip-offs, off-the-record briefings and, more broadly, 

“excessive proximity” between the press and the police. 

He makes a number of recommendations, including: 

national guidance on appropriate gifts and hospitality; 

record-keeping of contact between very senior police 

officers and journalists; and a 12-month “cooling-off” 

period for senior police officers being employed by 

the press. These recommendations are designed to break 

the perception of an excessively cosy relationship between 

the press and the police, and we support them. 

When I set up the inquiry, I also said that there would 

be a second part to investigate wrongdoing in the press 

and the police, including the conduct of the first police 

investigation. That second stage cannot go ahead until 

the current criminal proceedings have concluded, but 

we remain committed to the inquiry as it was first 

established. 

Next, on the relationship between politicians and the 

media, as Lord Justice Leveson has found, 

“over the last 30-35 years and probably much longer, the political 

parties of UK national Government and of UK official Opposition, 

have had or developed too close a relationship with the press in a 

way which has not been in the public interest.” 

I made that point last summer when I set up the inquiry, 

and at the same time I set in train reforms to improve 

transparency. We are the first Government ever to publish 

details of meetings between senior politicians and 

proprietors, editors or senior executives, as Lord Justice

447 Leveson Inquiry 29 NOVEMBER 2012 Leveson Inquiry 

448 

Leveson recommends in his report. He also recommends 

disclosing further information on the overall level of 

interaction between politicians and the press. That would 

apply to all parties, and on the Government’s behalf I 

can say that we accept the recommendation. 

During the course of the inquiry a number of serious 

allegations were made. I want to deal with them directly. 

First, it was alleged that my party struck a deal with 

News International. That allegation was repeated again 

and again on the Floor of this House and at the inquiry 

itself. Lord Justice Leveson looked at this in detail and 

rejected the allegation emphatically. Let me read his 

conclusion: 

“The evidence does not, of course, establish anything resembling 

a ‘deal’ whereby News International’s support was traded for the 

expectation of policy favours.” 

Those who repeatedly made these allegations, including 

Members of this House and the former Prime Minister, 

should now acknowledge that they were wrong. 

Secondly, it was alleged that I gave my right hon. 

Friend, the then Culture Secretary, now the Health 

Secretary, the responsibility of handling the BSkyB bid 

in order to fix the outcome. Lord Justice Leveson states 

clearly that 

“the evidence does not begin to support a conclusion that the 

choice of Mr Hunt was the product of improper media pressure...still 

less an attempt to guarantee a particular outcome to the process”— 

another allegation repeatedly made, and again shown to 

be wrong. 

Thirdly, there was the criticism that the then Culture 

Secretary had rigged the handling of the BSkyB bid. 

Again, today’s report rejects that as well. My right hon. 

Friend, it says, 

“put in place robust systems to ensure that the remaining stages 

of the bid would be handled with fairness, impartiality and 

transparency”. 

Indeed, Lord Justice Leveson goes further, concluding 

that my right hon. Friend’s 

“extensive reliance on external advice...was a wise and effective 

means of helping him to keep to the statutory test”. 

He concludes that 

“there is no credible evidence of actual bias”. 

Of course, as my right hon. Friend has said, there are 

lessons to learn about how quasi-judicial decisions are 

made, and we must learn those lessons. But let me say 

this: my right hon. Friend, now the Health Secretary, 

has endured a stream of allegations with great dignity. 

This report confirms something that we on this side of 

the House knew all along—we were right to stand by 

him. Let me also say this: Lord Justice Leveson finds in 

respect of my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary 

that he 

“acted with scrupulous care and impartiality”. 

Next, and most important of all, let me turn to what 

Lord Justice Leveson says about the relationship between 

the press and the public. As he says very clearly, even 

after 16 months of this inquiry, he remains 

“firmly of the belief that the British press—all of it—serves the 

country very well for the vast majority of the time.” 

But on the culture, practices and ethics of some in the 

press, his words are very stark. He finds that 

“there have been too many times when, chasing the story, parts of 

the press have acted as if its own code, which it wrote, simply did 

not exist.” 

He cites 

“press behaviour that, at times, can only be described as outrageous.” 

He catalogues a number of examples of such behaviour, 

going wider than phone hacking. He refers to 

“a recklessness in prioritising sensational stories, almost irrespective 

of the harm that the stories may cause and the rights of those 

who would be affected”. 

He finds that 

“when the story is just too big and the public appetite too great, 

there has been significant and reckless disregard for accuracy.” 

And he reports 

“a cultural tendency within parts of the press vigorously to resist 

or dismiss complainants almost as a matter of course.” 

In a free society, the press are subject to criminal law, 

civil law and requirements for data protection, but there 

should be a proper regulatory system as well to ensure 

that standards are upheld, complaints are heard, and 

there is proper redress for those who have been wronged. 

That is what the current system should have delivered. 

It has not. As Lord Justice Leveson says, the Press 

Complaints Commission is 

“neither a regulator, nor fit for purpose to fulfil that responsibility.” 

That is why changes are urgently needed. We welcome 

the fact that the press industry itself has put forward its 

own proposals for a new system of regulation, but we 

agree with Lord Justice Leveson that these proposals do 

not yet go far enough. 

In volume IV of the report, Lord Justice Leveson sets 

out proposals for independent self-regulation organised 

by the media. He details the key “requirements” that an 

independent self-regulatory body should meet, including 

independence of appointments and funding, a standards 

code, an arbitration service, and a speedy complainthandling 

mechanism. Crucially, it must have the power 

to demand up-front, prominent apologies and impose 

up to million-pound fines. These are the Leveson principles. 

They are the central recommendations of the report. If 

they can be put in place, we truly will have a regulatory 

system that delivers public confidence, justice for the 

victims, and a step change in the way the press is 

regulated in our country. I accept these principles, and I 

hope that the whole House will come in behind them. 

The onus should now be on the press to implement 

them—and implement them radically. 

In support of this, Lord Justice Leveson makes 

some important proposals. First, he proposes some 

changes to the Data Protection Act that would reduce 

the special treatment that journalists are afforded when 

dealing with personal data. We must consider this very 

carefully, particularly the impact that it could have on 

investigative journalism. Although I have been able to 

make only preliminary investigations about that proposal 

since reading the report, I am instinctively concerned 

about it. 

Secondly, Lord Leveson proposes changes to establish 

a system of incentives for each newspaper to take part 

in the system of independent regulation. I agree that 

there should be incentives and believe that those he sets 

out, such as the award of costs and exemplary damages 

in litigation, could be effective. He goes on to propose 

legislation that would help to deliver those incentives 

and, crucially, that would provide 

“an independent process to recognise the new self-regulatory 

body”.


450 

[The Prime Minister] 

That would, he says, 

“reassure the public that the basic requirements of independence 

and effectiveness were met and continue to be met.” 

I have some serious concerns and misgivings on that 

recommendation. They break down into issues of principle, 

practicality and necessity. 

The issue of principle is that, for the first time, we 

would have crossed the Rubicon of writing elements of 

press regulation into the law of the land. We should be 

wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe 

free speech and a free press. In this House, which has 

been a bulwark of democracy for centuries, we should 

think very, very carefully before crossing that line. 

On the grounds of practicality, no matter how simple 

the intention of the new law, the legislation required to 

underpin the regulatory body would be more complicated. 

Paragraphs 71 and 72 of the executive summary begin 

to set out what would be needed in the legislation, 

which would, for example, validate the standards code 

and recognise the powers of the new body. Page 1772 in 

volume IV of the full report says that the new law 

“must identify those legitimate requirements and provide a mechanism 

to recognise and certify that a new body meets them.” 

The danger is that that would create a vehicle for 

politicians, whether today or some time in the future, to 

impose regulation and obligations on the press—something 

that Lord Justice Leveson himself wishes to avoid. 

Thirdly, on the grounds of necessity, I am not convinced 

at this stage that statute is necessary to achieve Lord 

Justice Leveson’s objectives. I believe that there may be 

alternative options for putting in place incentives, providing 

reassurance to the public and ensuring that the Leveson 

principles of regulation are put in place. Those options 

should be explored. 

These questions, including those about data protection, 

are fundamental questions that we must resolve. I have 

therefore invited the Deputy Prime Minister and the 

Leader of the Opposition to join me in cross-party 

talks, starting immediately after this statement. But let 

me be clear: a regulatory system that complies with the 

Leveson principles should be put in place rapidly. I 

favour giving the press a limited period of time in which 

to do that. They do not need to wait for all the other 

elements of Lord Justice Leveson’s report to be 

implemented. While no one wants to see full statutory 

regulation, let me stress that the status quo is not an 

option. Be in no doubt: we should be determined to see 

Lord Justice Leveson’s principles implemented. 

There is much that we in this country can be proud 

of: the oldest democracy in the world; freedom of 

speech; a free press; frank and healthy public debate. 

But this report lays bare that the system of press regulation 

that we have is badly broken and has let down victims 

badly. Our responsibility is to fix it. The task for us now 

is to build a new system of press regulation that supports 

our great traditions of investigative journalism and free 

speech, that protects the rights of the vulnerable and 

the innocent, and that commands the confidence of the 

whole country. I commend this statement to the House. 

3.13 pm 

Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab): May I 

start by thanking the Prime Minister for his statement? 

May I say straight away that in the days and weeks ahead 

I will seek to convince him and this House of Commons 

that we should put our faith in the recommendations of 

Lord Justice Leveson that were delivered to us today? 

I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not yet there, but I 

hope to convince him over the days ahead that that is 

where we should go. We should put our trust in Lord 

Justice Leveson’s recommendations. 

Let me begin by paying tribute to and thanking Lord 

Justice Leveson and his team for the painstaking, impartial 

and comprehensive way in which they conducted the 

inquiry. I thank Lord Justice Leveson for the clarity 

with which he has explained his report today. 

Most of all, I want to join the Prime Minister in 

paying tribute to the innocent victims who gave evidence 

to the inquiry: people who did not seek to be in the 

public eye, who suffered deep loss and grief, and who 

then faced further trauma at the hands of the press. It is 

easy to forget, but without the revelations last July 

about what happened to Bob and Sally Dowler, and to 

their daughter, and their courage in speaking out, we 

would not be here today. Gerry and Kate McCann 

suffered so much and showed much courage. Kate 

McCann, whose daughter remains missing, saw her 

private diary published by the News of the World for 

the sake of a story. Those people gave evidence to the 

inquiry to serve the wider public interest, and I am sure 

the whole House pays tribute to their courage. They 

must be at the forefront of our minds today. 

Much has been written about the reasons for this 

inquiry. A free press is essential to a functioning democracy, 

and the press must be able to hold the powerful—especially 

us politicians—to account without fear or favour. That 

is part of the character of our country. At the same 

time, however, I do not want to live in a country where 

innocent families such as the McCanns and the Dowlers 

can see their lives torn apart simply for the sake of 

profit, and where powerful interests in the press know 

they will not be held to account. This is about the 

character of our country. 

It turns out that there never was just one “rogue 

reporter”. Lord Justice Leveson concludes that a whole 

range of practices, from phone hacking to covert 

surveillance, harassment and other wrongful behaviour 

were widespread and in breach of the code by which the 

press was supposed to abide. I recognise the many 

decent people who work for our country’s newspapers, 

and not every newspaper did wrong. However, Lord Justice 

Leveson concludes that 

“it is argued that these are aberrations and do not reflect on the 

culture, practices or ethics of the press as a whole. I wholly reject 

this analysis.” 

That will not come as a surprise to many people, 

including Members of this House. Lord Justice Leveson 

also concludes that there has been by politicians 

“a persistent failure to respond...to public concern about the 

culture, practices and ethics of the press”. 

We must all take responsibility for that, and the publication 

of this report marks the moment we must put that right 

by upholding the freedom of the press and guaranteeing 

protection and redress for the citizen. As the Prime 

Minister himself rightly said at the Leveson inquiry: 

“If the families like the Dowlers feel this has really changed the 

way they would have been treated, we would have done our job 

properly.” 

I agree.


452 

Let us be clear about Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals, 

why they differ from the present system, and why I 

believe they should be accepted in their entirety. He 

proposes: 

“A genuinely independent regulator, with effective powers to 

protect and provide redress for the victims of abuse.” 

He also gives responsibility for establishing that system 

to the press, as now. That is why statute is important. 

Lord Justice Leveson provides a crucial new guarantee 

that we have never had before. He recommends that the 

media regulator, Ofcom, ensure that any system that is 

established passes the test we would all want applied—that 

it is truly independent and provides effective protection 

for people such as the McCanns and the Dowlers. To 

make that guarantee real, he recommends that both 

Ofcom’s role and the criteria of independence and 

effectiveness be set out in statute—a law of this Parliament. 

That is why we can get to truly independent regulation 

of the press, guaranteed by law. 

I believe that Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals are 

measured, reasonable and proportionate, and Labour 

Members unequivocally endorse the principles set out 

and his central recommendations. We support the view 

that Ofcom is the right body for the task of recognition 

of the new regulator, and the proposal that the House 

should lay the role of Ofcom down in statute. We 

endorse the proposal that the criteria any new regulatory 

body must meet should be set out in statute. Without 

that, there cannot be the change we need. Lord Justice 

Leveson is 100% clear on that in his report. 

Lord Justice Leveson has, I believe, made every effort 

to meet the concerns of the industry. Some people will 

say that this report does not go far enough or that the 

reforms will not work because the press will not co-operate. 

I believe that the press has a major responsibility to 

come forward and show it will co-operate with this 

system—a comprehensive reform of the kind proposed 

by Lord Justice Leveson. 

Lord Justice Leveson also says that if we cannot 

achieve a comprehensive system involving all major 

newspapers, we should go to the necessary alternative: 

direct statutory regulation. I believe that Lord Justice 

Leveson has genuinely listened to what the press has 

said, and acted with the utmost responsibility. Editors 

and proprietors should now do the same. I believe that 

Lord Justice Leveson has genuinely listened to what the 

press have said and acted with the utmost responsibility. 

Editors and proprietors should now do the same. 

Let me also say—the Prime Minister did not touch 

on this—that Lord Justice Leveson also reaches important 

conclusions on the need to prevent too much influence 

in the media from ending up in one pair of hands. He 

proposes that there should be continuous scrutiny of 

the degree of media plurality and a lower cap than that 

currently provided by competition law. When the Prime 

Minister gets up to reply, will he take that forward? 

As the Prime Minister said, Lord Justice Leveson 

makes specific suggestions on greater transparency on 

meetings and contacts between politicians and the press. 

He says that that should be considered as an immediate 

need. I agree, and endorse the proposals, as the Prime 

Minister did. 

I welcome the Prime Minister’s offer of immediate 

cross-party talks on the implementation of the 

recommendations, and I am grateful for the conversations 

we have already had, but the talks must be about 

implementing the recommendations, not whether we 

implement them. In the talks, I want to agree a swift 

timetable for the implementation of the proposals. I 

want us to agree to legislate in the next Session of 

Parliament, starting in May 2013, and to have a new 

system up and running by the end of this Parliament— 

meaning 2015 at the latest. By the end of January next 

year, we should have an opportunity—the Opposition 

will make this happen if necessary—for the House to 

endorse and proceed with the Leveson proposals. 

We should and we can move forward together— 

wholeheartedly, now. We have 70 years and seven reports 

that have gone nowhere. Now is the time to act. Let me 

remind the House what David Waddington, then Home 

Secretary, said 20 years ago: 

“This is positively the last chance for the industry to establish 

an effective non-statutory system of regulation”.—[Official Report, 

21 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 1126.] 

The case is compelling and the evidence is overwhelming. 

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make 

change that the public can trust. There can be no more 

last-chance saloons. 

In acting, let us remember the words of Bob and 

Sally Dowler at Leveson: 

“there is nothing that can rectify the damage that has been done 

to our family. All that we can hope for is a positive outcome from 

this Inquiry so that other families are not affected in the way we 

have been”. 

On behalf of every decent British citizen who wants 

protection for people such as the Dowlers and a truly 

free press—a press that can expose abuse of power 

without abusing its own—we must act. 

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman 

for his response. He is absolutely right to thank Leveson 

for the work he has done and the report he has produced. 

The right hon. Gentleman is also right to talk about the 

innocent victims and the enormous courage they have 

shown by appearing in front of the inquiry and telling 

their stories. He was also right to mention Leveson’s 

finding that all politicians, going back over decades, 

must take responsibility for a relationship between 

politicians and the press that got too close. 

Let me make a couple of the points on some of the 

things the right hon. Gentleman said. I note he said he 

strongly supports Ofcom carrying out the test of whether 

the regulatory system was compliant. That is something 

we need to look at in the cross-party discussions, because, 

however we go about this, it is important that we 

demonstrate the real independence of this regulatory 

system. Of course, the chair of Ofcom is appointed by 

my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We have to 

think about that, but we also have to consider that 

Ofcom is already a very powerful regulatory body. We 

should be trying to reduce concentrations of power 

rather than increase them. That is something we might 

want to discuss. 

One issue the right hon. Gentleman did not address—I 

hope we can address it in the cross-party conversations—is 

data protection law changes. We should not respond in 

too rapid a way to something as complex as that. We do 

not want to put in place something that wrecks proper 

investigative journalism in our country.


454 


On statutory regulation, I would make the point to 

the right hon. Gentleman that Leveson rightly rejects 

statutory regulation and says that we must move from 

the status quo and implement the principles of the 

report. I agree—that is absolutely vital. We do not want 

to be left in the position of having only statutory 

regulation as the alternative to the proposals he sets 

out. I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman 

that the talks should be business-like and that we should 

get on with them, but where I disagree with him is that 

we do not have to wait until those discussions are had to 

implement the report. The report needs to be implemented 

by the press taking the steps set out in the report to put 

in place the independent regulation that Leveson speaks 

about. They could start that right now. 


Mr Speaker: Order. There is much interest, which I 

am keen to accommodate. I exhort colleagues please to 

help me to help them by asking short questions without 

preamble. I know the Prime Minister will oblige, as ever, 

with pithy replies. 

Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con): Did 

Lord Justice Leveson make any comments on the 

proprietorship of newspapers? Surely, one factor in the 

depression of press standards is that some owners of 

national newspapers have been bad men and sometimes 

foreigners with an ingrained hostility towards Britain, 

and their editors know that they can only keep their 

jobs by achieving the required levels of readership and 

advertising revenue by populist sensationalism, however 

immoral. Should ownership of British newspapers be 

confined to British nationals who are judged to be fit 

and proper for that role, as with television? 

The Prime Minister: The report goes into enormous 

detail about the history and ownership of the press. 

Part of one of the volumes goes into immense detail, 

which my right hon. Friend can study, and perhaps that 

is the best answer to him. This point was raised by the 

Leader of the Opposition. Lord Justice Leveson does 

address concerns about plurality and media ownership 

and does say we need to make sure there is more 

plurality than would otherwise be guaranteed simply by 

competition policy. That is important, because we want 

to have not just a vigorous press, but a press that is in 

different—in wide—ownership as well. 

Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab): Does the Prime 

Minister not, however, appreciate that the argument 

made by Lord Leveson is not, as he says, for statutory 

regulation, which is not there, but in order to enforce 

and give backing to the proposals of the press? The 

fundamental flaw with the proposals of the press, as 

Lord Leveson clearly sets out, is not their intention, 

which I acknowledge is now an honourable one, but 

that it is impossible to deliver the independence proposed 

by the press themselves and the enforcement—for example, 

not least on penalties on legal costs—without some 

overarching form of statutory backing? It is not 

regulation—it is statutory backing. I plead with the 

Prime Minister to recognise the force of the argument, 

not that I am making, but that Lord Leveson makes. 

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is 

entirely right that Lord Justice Leveson is not recommending 

statutory regulation of the press. He wants to take steps 

so that we avoid statutory regulation of the press—I 

fully respect that. But in answer to his point, the system 

Lord Justice Leveson recommends is not a compulsory 

system. It does not guarantee that everyone takes part; 

it is still a voluntary system. Where we are in complete 

agreement is that Lord Justice Leveson does not want 

statutory regulation—neither do I. Lord Justice Leveson 

wants strong, independent regulation—that is what I 

want. He sets out the principles of strong, independent 

regulation—that is what we have got to put in place, 

and that is what the press should start to put in place 

straight away. 

Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con): The central 

requirement is a press complaints procedure that will 

not only be fully independent, but will restore public 

confidence. I ask the Prime Minister to look very objectively 

at the case as to whether an Act of Parliament would 

indeed enhance that credibility. I refer him in particular 

to paragraph 72 of the executive summary of the report, 

where Lord Leveson states that an Act of Parliament 

would 

“reassure the public that the basic requirements of independence 

and effectiveness were met and continued to be met”. 

I believe that that is a very powerful argument, and I 

ask my right hon. Friend to consider it with all force. 

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend 

is absolutely right—paragraphs 70, 71 and 72 are the 

absolutely key paragraphs of the report. But let me 

explain why I have misgivings about leaping straight to 

that conclusion. Once we start writing a piece of legislation 

that backs up an independent regulator, we have to 

write into that legislation what is its composition, what 

are its powers, what is its make-up, and we find pretty 

soon—I would worry—that we have a piece of law that 

really is a piece of press regulatory law. Now, that is an 

enormous step for us in this House of Commons to 

take, and we have to think about it very carefully before 

we leap into this new approach. 

Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab): Does 

the Prime Minister not accept that, if he wants people 

to accept the report’s recommendations and conclusions 

generally, particularly the ones he likes, he cannot pick 

and choose, but should accept all the recommendations? 

The Prime Minister: This is where I part company 

with the right hon. Gentleman: it is the job of the 

House of Commons to consider a report and what is 

right for this country to introduce. I highlighted the 

issue of the changes to the Data Protection Act because 

I was advised that they could have a serious effect on 

investigative journalism. It would be quite wrong, if we 

received a report of this magnitude and said in five 

minutes flat, “We’re going to implement every last piece 

of it”, without considering the consequences. A responsible 

Government will think about the consequences. I am 

absolutely clear, however, that the clear principles of 

Leveson-style regulation—on what the independent press 

regulator needs—are right. 

Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) 

(LD): Is the Prime Minister as clear as I am, reading 

paragraphs 70 to 76, that Lord Justice Leveson makes


456 

two things absolutely central—that there should not be 

legislation to establish a body to regulate the press, but 

that 

“it is essential that there should be legislation to underpin the 

independent self-regulatory system”? 

The word “essential” is a clear word. Does he accept it? 

The Prime Minister: This is absolutely the key argument 

that has to be had in our cross-party discussions. Lord 

Leveson is saying that the statutory underpinning is 

necessary properly to give effect to this independent 

body. Of course, he intends it to be a very neat, very 

small piece of statute, but paragraph 71, for instance, 

states that the law would not 

“give any rights to these entities…except insofar as it would 

require the recognised self-regulatory body to have the power to 

direct the placement and prominence or corrections and apologies.” 

Once we try—and we have tried it—writing a law that 

provides for statutory underpinning that describes what 

the regulatory authority does, what powers it has and 

how it is made up, we soon find we have quite a big 

piece of law. That is the concern. We need to think very 

carefully before crossing that Rubicon. 

Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab): How, without the 

statutory underpinning that Lord Leveson says is essential, 

does the Prime Minister think a new body could prevent 

a newspaper group simply from walking away or ignoring 

the new body’s findings? 

The Prime Minister: Lord Leveson does not himself 

have an answer to the question of what happens if a 

newspaper walks away. His system is a voluntary system, 

so the same question applies to his system too. 

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con): Does my 

right hon. Friend agree that there is now almost universal 

agreement that we must have a strong new regulator, 

that it must be seen to be independent and that it must 

be established as quickly as possible? I strongly welcome 

his statement, however, that the question of whether the 

regulator should have statutory underpinning is something 

that Parliament needs to consider carefully, perhaps 

through a regular assessment of its effectiveness by the 

Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and that we 

should proceed to legislate only if it becomes absolutely 

clear that it will not function properly without it. 

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an important 

point. He has probably spent more time looking at this 

issue than almost any other Member of the House of 

Commons. As he said, what matters is the enormous 

consensus about what independent regulation should 

consist of, including the powers that are necessary. We 

all know we need million-pound fines, proper investigations, 

editors held to account and prominent apologies. That 

is what victims deserve and what we must put in place, 

but he is right that we need to think carefully before we 

pass legislation in the House. 

Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab): In 

his responses so far, the Prime Minister is splitting the 

House. This is not what the public expect of us. It would 

be a dereliction of our duty as politicians, if we did not 

establish the legal framework recommended by Lord 

Leveson, and I ask him to reconsider his position. 

The Prime Minister: I think it would be a dereliction 

of our duty in the House of Commons, which has stood 

up for freedom and a free press, year after year, century 

after century, to cross the Rubicon by legislating on the 

press without thinking about it carefully first. That is 

why it is right to have cross-party talks, why it is right to 

have a debate in the House and why it is right to listen to 

people such as the Chairman of the Culture, Media and 

Sport Committee. 

Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): 

May I for one welcome wholeheartedly the Prime Minister’s 

caution about using statute in this matter? I remind him 

that it was not a policeman, a regulator or even a judge 

who highlighted the hacking scandal; it was a member 

of our free press. As such, one of our highest priorities 

is to ensure that whatever we do preserves the independence 

and freedom of our press from Government intervention, 

because that is the best bastion of our freedoms. 

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend makes an 

important point. We have to get this right. It is very 

important that the regulation is put in place rapidly. 

That above all is the pressure that needs to be put on the 

media, but it is an important step we should consider 

before moving to statutory regulation. 

Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): We cannot 

forget the victims in all this: the Dowler family, the 

McCann family, Christopher Jeffries and the other innocent 

victims who have suffered terribly. We absolutely support 

the absolute freedom of the press—there can be no 

statutory regulation of the press—but there needs to be 

proper redress for those who are wronged. The Prime 

Minister says he wants to think again about Leveson’s 

recommendations on statutory legislation. He talks about 

alternative options. Can he give us a flavour of what 

those options might be? There is a feeling among some 

that this may be more to do with party management 

than really dealing with the problems. 

The Prime Minister: There is a variety of opinions 

right across the House. We have to be frank about this. I 

think it is important to consider the very big step of 

effectively passing statute on the press in this country. 

There are many independent non-statutory bodies in 

this country of very long standing. The real test is not 

whether this body is backed by statute or not; the real 

test is: can it fine newspapers? Can it call editors to 

account? Can it get front-page apologies? That is what 

people want to know and that is what we need to 

deliver. 

Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD): Does 

the Prime Minister accept that what we need is a rational 

and balanced approach to this, not an hysterical one? 

We are not being asked by Leveson to cross a Rubicon— 

barely even a brook. Perhaps the Prime Minister ought 

to consider the fact that the Irish system—Leveson 

proposes something similar—is already signed up to by 

The Times, the Daily Mail and The Sun. 


point. I have got the Irish Defamation Act of 2009 in 

front of me. It runs to many, many pages, setting out 

many, many powers of the Irish Press Council. It is 

worth Members of the House studying the Irish situation


458 


and asking whether we want to have legislation of that 

extent on our statute book—which of course could 

then be amended at any moment, by any politician at 

any future point. That is an important consideration. 

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): I draw Members’ 

attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ 

Interests; but that is rather the point. We all share an 

interest in this. Lord Leveson reserves his strongest 

condemnation for the political class in this country, 

because he believes that over years—because we have 

been too compromised, too craven or too cowardly—we 

have refused to act. We now have an independent figure 

telling us what to do. Surely if we do not do what he 

says, which is to provide a change in the law, there will 

be more Millie Dowlers, and that will be our fault. 

The Prime Minister: I would also argue that one of 

the other problems with the political class is never 

saying sorry when they get it wrong. On 13 November 2012, 

the hon. Gentleman spoke about the 

“deal…secured between the Conservative party and News 

International”.—[Official Report, 13 November 2012; Vol. 32, 

c. 553WH.] 

We have heard not a word of regret from him. What 

matters most about this is putting in place a regulatory 

system that can make the victims proud. That is what 

is necessary. The fines, the apologies, the proper 

investigations—that needs to be done and it can be 

done right away. 

Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con): I welcome 

my right hon. Friend’s statement today. There is a lot in 

the Leveson report that is to be welcomed. I share my 

right hon. Friend’s caution, but does not another important 

part of the evidence presented by Lord Leveson show 

that some of the smears against my right hon. Friend the 

Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) were absolutely 

outrageous, including the Leader of the Opposition 

saying that he was a back channel for Murdoch? 


point. Time after time we were told that my right hon. 

Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) 

was backing the bid, not adjudicating on the bid. All 

sorts of allegations and smears were made. It is important 

that colleagues can read the report and see that he took 

the right decisions in the right way. 

Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab): I 

declare an interest as someone who was Fleet Street 

staff journalist for 10 years. As such, I am instinctively 

opposed to statutory regulation of the press. Does the 

right hon. Gentleman agree that if that Rubicon, as he 

says, is not to be crossed, it will be up to the press to 

accept the recommendations of Leveson, to do that in 

full, to do that fast and to do that with all the proprietors 

involved? What happens next will of course be a matter 

for this House and the political parties, but above all it 

is a matter for the press. 


absolutely right. The pressure should be on the press to 

take the steps that everybody now knows are necessary 

and that are set out in huge detail in the report. That is 

the best way to avoid the statutory regulation that Leveson 

does not want to see, that no one in this House should 

want to see, and that would make our country less free. 

He speaks very clearly about that issue. 

Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con): After two and 

a half years of working closely with the former Culture 

Secretary, I know him to be a man of the highest 

integrity. Does the Prime Minister think that the Labour 

party should apologise in this House for making disgraceful 

and unfounded accusations which the Leveson report 

shows to be absolutely false? 


point. We had to listen to allegation after allegation, 

conspiracy after conspiracy, smear after smear. Each 

one is put to bed comprehensively by the report. 

Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): I welcome the report 

and I accept all its conclusions. May I also welcome the 

Prime Minister’s commitment to part 2 of the inquiry? I 

accept that we have to wait for the outcome of the 

criminal investigations, but the operations being conducted 

by the Metropolitan police, including Operation Weeting, 

could take up to three years to conclude. Will he give a 

commitment today to give them whatever resources 

they need in order to conclude the matter once and for 

all? 


entirely right. One of the things that the victims have 

been most concerned about is that part 2 of the investigation 

should go ahead—because of the concerns about that 

first police investigation and about improper relationships 

between journalists and police officers. It is right that it 

should go ahead, and that is fully our intention. 

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

two scandals that gave rise to this inquiry were phone 

hacking and bribing the police, both of which are 

against the criminal law. Now, some 90 arrests have 

been made. Strangely, however, Lord Leveson concludes: 

“More rigorous application of the criminal law…does not and 

will not provide the solution.” 

Instead he goes off on building proposals for what 

would ultimately be statutorily underpinned regulation, 

which is largely irrelevant to what has happened. I 

congratulate my right hon. Friend on not going down 

that route, as that would not solve the problems that 

gave rise to the inquiry. 

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for my right hon. 

Friend’s support. I would, however, make the point 

that, while the press must always act within the law—they 

are subject to the criminal law, the civil law and the laws 

on data protection, and that is vitally important—there 

is also a role for strong, independent regulation. Those 

victims should not have had to wait for action through 

civil litigation, and they should not have had to wait 

until the criminal actions were taken. A proper regulatory 

system could have protected more of those people and 

prevented many more of them from becoming victims 

in the first place. 

Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): The Prime Minister 

will be aware that many of the aspects of any future 

press regulation, and related features such as criminal


460 

prosecution, defamation and policing, are devolved matters 

in Scotland. Will he take this opportunity to welcome 

the proposal by the First Minister that, in addition to a 

full debate on this question in the Scottish Parliament, 

there should be cross-party discussions and an independent 

implementation group, chaired by a Court of Session 

judge, which should consider how best to implement 

Lord Leveson’s proposals in the context of Scots law 

and the devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament? 

The Prime Minister: I will look carefully at what the 

First Minister says and at the proposals that he is 

making in this area. I also recommend that the hon. 

Gentleman have a look at what the report says about 

the First Minister. 

Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): Does my right hon. 

Friend agree that we cannot simply farm out these 

important decisions, along with a blank cheque, to 

someone who is wholly unelected and unaccountable? 

Does he further agree that having the Government say 

to the press, “These are the specific steps that we need 

you to take; otherwise, we will either legislate or regulate” 

is a pretty rum form of self-regulation? 

The Prime Minister: I agree with some of what my 

hon. Friend says, but it is important that we lay down 

very clearly what is expected of the press in terms of the 

independent regulatory system that needs to be put in 

place. What we cannot have is a continuation of the 

status quo; we need a proper investigative arm of a 

regulatory body, which needs to be able to levy fines, to 

insist on apologies and to be far more independent than 

it has been up to now. Frankly, on behalf of the victims 

and the public, this House is perfectly entitled to ask for 

those things. We should do, and if they were not put in 

place, we would have to take further action. That is the 

key to the Leveson approach, and it is one that I want to 

follow. 

John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): I 

wonder whether we could achieve consensus on one of 

the recommendations in the report, where Leveson 

recommends the consideration by proprietors of the 

introduction of a conscience clause to protect journalists 

who refuse in any way to go against the code of practice. 

Will the Prime Minister join me in urging proprietors to 

meet the National Union of Journalists and whoever 

else to start working on introducing a conscience clause 

in contracts? 

The Prime Minister: I am very happy to agree to that. 

There are many sensible recommendations that can be 

put into place, I would hope, as quickly as possible—some 

of the recommendations about the police and the 

Association of Chief Police Officers, and many of the 

recommendations about politicians and our relationship 

with the press. Those do not have to wait for anything, 

and as I have said, the press do not have to wait for any 

further discussions; they can start putting this regulation 

in place straight away. 

Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con): One of 

Lord Leveson’s recommendations is that we should 

legislate to introduce 

“a legal duty on the government to protect the freedom of the 

press”. 

Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a Bill would 

be utterly alien to our traditions in this country? Will he 

join me in encouraging Lords Hunt and Black to look 

at the Leveson recommendations, to see if there are things 

within them that they could add to their recommendations, 

and to get on with the job so that we can restore robust 

confidence in a free press that is the cornerstone of a 

free society? 

The Prime Minister: Frankly, I think we have to be 

tougher on Hunt and Black than that. We need to say 

very clearly that what has been proposed so far is 

progress on the Press Complaints Commission, but that 

it is not good enough. We need more changes; the 

public want more changes; the victims want more changes. 

It is not yet the sort of independent regulation that we 

can say is right or of which we can be proud. Leveson 

points out the weaknesses in the system, and we need to 

plug those gaps. The press need to plug those gaps, and 

as I say, there is nothing to stop them getting on with 

that straight away. 

Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab): Does 

the Prime Minister believe that the press themselves 

should be able to appoint or veto the appointment of 

the chairman of the press regulator? Many of his colleagues 

and a handful of colleagues in my party signed up to 

that model, with closed minds, even before Leveson 

reported. 

The Prime Minister: One of the points that Leveson 

makes about the Hunt-Black model is that it needs to be 

more independent. The Press Complaints Commission 

was ineffective not only in not being able to investigate 

or in not having clear enough powers; it was not 

independent enough. This form of regulation needs to 

be independent regulation, as set out by Leveson. 

Andrew George (St Ives) (LD): The Prime Minister 

began his statement by praising the courage of the victims 

of press intrusion. Does he also respect the wishes of 

those victims about the outcome of this inquiry? 

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course. What is absolutely 

vital is that we put in place a regulatory system that they 

can see has got real teeth. They want to know that it is 

independent; they want to know that it can achieve big 

fines; they want to know that it can call editors to 

account. We could, of course, completely obsess about 

the issue of statutory underpinning. That is one issue; 

there are many other issues about what makes for good, 

strong, robust and independent regulation. That is what 

we should focus on. 

Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab): The 

Prime Minister has asked the House to reject Leveson’s 

central and essential recommendation of legislation on 

the grounds, he says, that it would be too difficult to do 

well. Would it not have shown more respect for the work 

of Lord Leveson and for the victims for the Prime 

Minister to have sat down on a cross-party basis to 

examine how the recommendations in paragraph 70 

could be implemented, instead of rejecting them within 

24 hours of receiving the report? 

The Prime Minister: I have great respect for the right 

hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that that is right at 

all. The central recommendation of Lord Leveson is to


462 


put in place the principles of independent regulation so 

as to avoid statutory regulation. Frankly, I do not think 

I would be doing my duty if I came to the House and 

said that every single aspect is absolutely fine without 

any changes. I am proud of the fact that we have 

managed to last for hundreds of years in this country 

without statutory regulation or mention of the press. If 

we can continue with that, we should. That seems the 

minimum that this House of Commons should consider 

in defending the freedom of our country. 

Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con): The 

Prime Minister rightly started with the victims, many of 

whom were victims of the News of the World. We 

should bear in mind that the News of the World no 

longer exists, and that not all newspapers are like the 

News of the World. I am thinking of, for example, my 

local paper, the Worcester News, and the Malvern Gazette. 

What paragraph 135 of the executive summary effectively 

says is that, in the constituency of Witney, were the 

Prime Minister’s agent to have a personal dinner with 

someone who happened to work for the local paper, it 

would have to be recorded. What does the Prime Minister 

think of that particular recommendation? 

The Prime Minister: Let me begin by responding to 

what my hon. Friend said first. In paragraph 19 of the 

summary, Lord Leveson makes a special point about 

Britain’s regional newspapers. He says that 

“their contribution to local life is truly without parallel.” 

He praises their role, and says how little they have been 

involved in the sort of damaging culture and practices 

to which the rest of the report refers. 

As for my hon. Friend’s second point, we must look 

very carefully at the recommendations for increased 

transparency. I think, frankly, that transparency is 

important. The public want to know what is the relationship 

between politicians on the one hand and the press on 

the other. If they can see how often you are meeting and 

whom you meet, they can see whether you have a 

balanced, proper, sensible relationship with the press or 

not. We have put transparency in place. I hear murmurings 

from Labour Members, but in 13 years they did not do 

a single thing about it. 


Lord Justice Leveson is very clear about the importance 

of maintaining a plural media. Specifically, in paragraph 140 

of the summary, he says: 

“There is no current option for the Government or regulators 

to step in to protect plurality if it is threatened by organic change 

in the market.” 

What plans has the Prime Minister to protect media 

plurality? 

The Prime Minister: That is an excellent point, which 

was brought out in the debates when my right hon. 

Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) 

was Culture Secretary. We need to look at this very 

carefully, because there is a gap in the law: Ofcom can 

only consider problems of plurality at the time of a 

merger or takeover. I think that the recommendations 

make a lot of sense, and that we should study them 

carefully. 

Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): The Prime 

Minister must be congratulated on his courage in not 

doing the popular thing, and standing up for the freedom 

of the press. Will he respond to one specific small point? 

He referred to how close the Government, and politicians, 

have got to the press. Will he give an assurance now 

that, from tomorrow, the Government will not leak 

statements to the press in advance? 

The Prime Minister: I think that in the last week we 

have seen two notable successes in that regard. In two 

cases, there has not been a bat’s squeak outside the 

House of Commons. I refer to the announcement of the 

new Governor of the Bank of England, Mr Mark 

Carney, and to the report that was published today. 

There has been not a leak, not a sentence, not a word. 

How different things were in the past. 

Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) 

(Lab): Lord Leveson states that the selection of the key 

appointment panel which selects the chair and members 

of the crucial governing board should itself be independent 

of both the Government and the industry. Who would 

the Prime Minister expect to draw up a list of nominations, 

and who would make the final choice? 

The Prime Minister: That is a very important question. 

In his report, Lord Justice Leveson gives a number of 

alternatives. He clearly prefers his model, but I think 

that the independence of those either judging an 

independent regulatory system or appointing people to 

it is absolutely vital. That is why I am concerned about 

the role that he puts forward for Ofcom. As I said 

earlier, the chair of Ofcom is appointed by the Secretary 

of State, and in my view that makes the two of them too 

close. In everything that we do, whether via legislation 

or by means of other backstops, we need to ensure that 

the people involved in this and the people judging this 

are properly independent. 

Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con): Before coming 

to this place, I spent 12 years working in regulatory 

compliance for BT. I remember the shock wave that 

went through the organisation when Ofcom told BT 

that it regarded it as a non-compliant company. After 

that, a culture of compliance swept through the 

organisation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 

press should regard this as their moment to ensure that 

a culture of compliance is brought into our press? 

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an excellent 

point. That, I hope, started as the Leveson inquiry got 

under way. Some of the things that were revealed during 

the inquiry about practices and culture in parts of the 

press were deeply disturbing. I think that quite a lot has 

already been done to address those, and to clean up the 

press’s act, but clearly more needs to be done. As I have 

said, the Hunt-Black regulatory alternative is not sufficient; 

more needs to be done to ensure that this culture 

change is driven through the press itself. 

Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/ 

Co-op): Lord Justice Leveson suggests that this new 

body should have strong powers to investigate a suspected 

breach of the code. Many of our country’s best investigative 

journalists are freelancers, however, so will the Prime 

Minister carefully consider the potential impact of such


464 

investigations on individuals who do a great deal to 

shine a light on areas that others do not want illuminated, 

and will he ensure that this issue is discussed in cross-party 

talks? 

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady makes an important 

point, and I am sure it will be covered in cross-party 

negotiations. I will just make the point again about the 

concerns expressed to me about the potential reforms 

to the Data Protection Act. If we were to try to treat 

journalists exactly the same as everybody else for the 

purposes of data protection, I think newspapers, 

programmes such as “Panorama” and others would 

make very strong representations about what that could 

mean for investigative journalism. That shows why we 

must think carefully about some of these recommendations; 

otherwise we could get something badly wrong. 

Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con): The 

Prime Minister extended the inquiry’s terms of reference 

in response to the Home Affairs Committee’s concern 

that the Crown Prosecution Service had got the law 

wrong on phone hacking. Does the Prime Minister 

recognise that there are lessons for the CPS even in part 

1 of the report, since while it exonerates the Director of 

Public Prosecutions, it criticises David Perry QC for 

failing to reacquaint himself with the relevant facts in 

law before advising him? 


point. From what I have seen in the report, Lord Justice 

Leveson is relatively complimentary about the work of 

the CPS and the decisions it took, but some of its workings 

do bear careful study. 

Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab): The Prime Minister 

is on record as saying he would implement Leveson as 

long as it was not “bonkers”. It now appears that he 

regards Leveson’s recommendation of statutory 

underpinning as bonkers. Can the Prime Minister therefore 

explain why Lord Leveson said that was essential? 

The Prime Minister: What I have said is that the 

principles set out by Leveson of what independent 

regulation needs to include and what it needs to look 

like are absolutely right and should be put in place, but, 

frankly, we do not do our duty in this House if we do 

not examine these proposals properly and ask the relevant 

questions, and instead just wave through a change that 

will make a very big difference to our country. If we 

were to do that, we would not be operating properly. 

Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): One issue that 

arose is that data protection law is simply not taken 

seriously enough, because the sanctions are too light. 

The report recommends that sections 77 and 78 of the 

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 should be 

commenced. That has been recommended by the Justice 

Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and now 

Justice Leveson. Will the Prime Minister agree to do 

that promptly? 

The Prime Minister: I think we need to look at this 

very carefully. Lord Justice Leveson is incredibly tough 

about what he sees as the failures to act on the Information 

Commissioner’s report. We need to look very carefully 

at that, as well as at my hon. Friend’s point. 

Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): Many of my 

constituents had grave concerns about the BSkyB takeover 

and the fact that it nearly happened. It did not happen, 

but not because of anything in our law or practices that 

would have stopped it. Will the Prime Minister undertake 

to act on that promptly? 

The Prime Minister: On the issue of whether politicians 

should be taken out of media merger decisions, Lord 

Justice Leveson finds that that should not happen. He 

says this is an issue about which someone has to be the 

decision-maker, and he believes that a politician acting 

correctly in a quasi-judicial capacity is the right person. 

The findings about how my right hon. Friend the Member 

for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), the then Culture 

Secretary, acted bear good reading. 

Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): 

The report’s executive summary makes clear that 

“successive Labour administrations, in power for 13 years…made 

no more progress than their predecessors in addressing problems 

in the culture, practices and ethics of the press”. 

Does my right hon. Friend agree? Also, given all the noise 

the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) 

has produced on this topic, does my right hon. Friend 

share my surprise that he is not present in the Chamber? 


point. We have made more progress on addressing these 

issues in the last two and a half years than was made 

during the previous 13. 

Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab): Does the Prime 

Minister really, genuinely believe that the victims will be 

satisfied with his statement today? 

The Prime Minister: What I would say to all the 

victims is that the true test of this is whether, in four or 

six months’ time, we have in place proper independent 

regulation that we can be proud of in this country. That, 

in the end, is the test and that is what they want to know 

about. Will there be fines? Will there be proper apologies? 

Will there be proper investigations? That is what defines 

independent regulation and that is what we need. 

Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con): The 

Prime Minister’s instinct against statutory regulation is 

absolutely right, but does he also accept that a key part 

of the problem is that many people in this country feel 

that they cannot gain access to justice because of a legal 

system that is too complex and too costly? What can the 

Government do to put that right? 

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

to justice is one of the issues that needs to be addressed. 

At the same time, as I have said before, it should not be 

that the only way to get redress from the press is to sue 

them or find a policeman because a law has been 

broken. There should be a proper, independent regulatory 

system where complaints can be investigated. With the 

Press Complaints Commission, people had a sense that 

even if they got their complaint investigated, nothing 

would actually happen. That is what needs to change 

because in my view just relying on the civil and criminal 

law is not enough.


466 

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Lord Leveson says 

that he regrets that former Deputy Commissioner John 

Yates did not reflect on his close friendship with the 

deputy editor of the News of the World before he 

decided in 2009-10 not to reopen the hacking inquiries. 

Is not the great shock of this report the revelations of 

the very close relationships between press, police and 

politicians? What is the right hon. Gentleman going to 

do, personally and as a Prime Minister, to ensure that 

the corrosive effects of cronyism are reduced? 

The Prime Minister: On the relationship between the 

press and politicians, this Government have taken 

unprecedented action to publicise and make transparent 

all the meetings between politicians and editors, and 

politicians and proprietors. All that is now declared on 

a quarterly basis and that is how it should be. That 

did not happen in the past. The report recommends 

that that should also apply between senior officers and 

members of the press and that, to try to end excessively 

close relationships, there should be a cooling-off period 

before police officers go and work for newspapers. Lord 

Leveson does address those issues. We have not waited 

for the report; we have gone on and put those things in 

place. 

Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con): Does 

my right hon. Friend agree that we may be missing 

something rather important this afternoon? More and 

more people are getting their news from digital media, 

which remains way outside any kind of regulation. It in 

many ways is going to be a longer-term threat to the 

health of our newspaper industry. 

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a good 

point. The issue is brought out in the early parts of this 

large, four-volume report, about the nature of change 

in the media industry. That does mean that we need to 

have a system of regulation for newspapers that is 

sensible and proportionate and recognises the change 

that is taking place. 

Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab): The 

main concentration of power is, of course, in media and 

press ownership, which is made up of so few people. 

Does the Prime Minister agree with the 75% of people 

in opinion polls who want that concentration to be 

broken up? Does he believe that legislation is required 

to do that? Will he use the communications Bill, for 

example, to deal with some of the new media that have 

been referred to? 

The Prime Minister: What matters is that we have the 

proper application of competition policy, that Ofcom is 

able to look at plurality and that we make decisions on 

that basis. 

Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): This 

afternoon, Lord Justice Leveson has called time at the 

last-chance saloon. I welcome his commitment to a free 

press and a regulator independent of both press and 

politicians. However, does the Prime Minister accept 

that for that to work effectively, a careful balance needs 

to be struck between incentives and disincentives so 

that all the press sign up? 

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend’s words are 

extremely wise. What Lord Justice Leveson has effectively 

said is, “Here is an opportunity to put in place independent 

regulation.” He says in the report that if that is not 

done, regrettably, full-on statutory regulation will have 

to be introduced because we cannot maintain the status 

quo. I think that that is the right approach. The only 

difference that I am putting forward is that, as well as 

putting in place these principles, we need to look very 

carefully at one or two of the recommendations that he 

makes about how that should be done. 

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): May I take 

the Prime Minister back to the multiplicity of media 

ownership and the extreme concentration in the hands 

of a very small number of companies of not only the 

print media, but the control of the distribution system 

of the print media, which often means that small-circulation 

papers cannot get to a wider public because of the 

stranglehold of the distribution system? That fetters the 

ability of all of us to access a wide variety of the press. 

The Prime Minister: As I said, the press, like every 

other industry, should be fully subject to competition 

policy and fully competitive. I part company with the 

hon. Gentleman on one issue—because of the growth 

of the digital media, the costs of distributing opinion, 

fact and newspapers online have come radically down. 

Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con): Does the 

Prime Minister agree that statutory underpinning in the 

wrong hands, possibly in the future, could lead to 

statutory regulation by the back door? 

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to raise 

this issue. The point I am making is that putting in place 

underpinning may well turn out to be not as simple as 

having a one or two-clause Bill. We would have to start 

defining what the body is, what the body does, what 

powers it has and what the extent of it is, rather as there 

is in the Irish system. Once we have done that, we would 

be in danger of finding that we have put in place a 

statutory Act on the press that is then very, very easy to 

amend. My point is that this House of Commons 

should pause, stop and think before taking a step of 

that magnitude. 

Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): I 

would have some sympathy with the point the Prime 

Minister makes about the Data Protection Act if that 

was all Leveson said about that Act. However, he goes 

on to talk about creating a commission which would 

have a broader base, including people from the media. 

Does that not counterbalance some of the Prime Minister’s 

legitimate concerns about the Data Protection Act 

recommendations? Perhaps there is an argument for 

doing the same thing with Ofcom, too. 

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the hon. 

Gentleman’s points. My reading of this is that what is 

being recommended is to stop some of the exemptions 

from data protection that journalists currently have but 

to put in place a public interest defence at the end. I am 

advised that that could have a very bad effect on investigative 

journalism. Again, I think that, instead of just waving 

through what could be a very profound change, it is 

worth stopping, talking and having cross-party discussions


468 

about this. That is why I do not think anyone, by rights, 

really can stand up today and say, “I accept the Leveson 

inquiry in full.” They would not be doing their duty as 

legislators and as politicians if they do not actually have 

a look at what this means. 

John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): Does 

the Prime Minister think that the Leader of the Opposition, 

in his enthusiasm for putting the Government in a 

strong position in respect of the regulator, forgot to call 

for the renaming of the Department for Culture, Media 

and Sport as the ministry of truth? 

The Prime Minister: Well, we certainly have got a 

long way to the truth about the DCMS in this report, 

and I hope that colleagues will look at that very closely. 

Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): The 

Prime Minister will recall that my constituents the 

Watson family gave evidence to the inquiry that they 

have had their lives devastated for the past 21 years by 

grossly inaccurate reporting of the murder of their 

daughter Diane, reports that led to their son taking his 

own life. Do not they and the other victims deserve us, 

as parliamentarians, to put in place a powerful independent 

regulator whose role and functions are underpinned by 

statute? 

The Prime Minister: I think that they, as all victims 

do, deserve a really tough, independent regulatory system 

that can really hold the press to account, that can fine 

those editors, that can call them to account, that can 

insist on proper apologies and that can take up 

complainants’ cases and deal with them properly. That 

is the absolute key. Of course there is a debate to be had 

about statutory underpinning, yes or no. But the real 

debate is: is this regulatory body going to be powerful 

enough to get to the truth and do what needs to be 

done? 

George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con): The 

Defamation Bill is currently going through Parliament 

with the support of all parties and even of the press. 

Does the Prime Minister agree that this is a good 

example of successful statute being introduced by this 

House—perhaps the idea is not quite as revolutionary 

as he said? Does he think it is wrong for newspapers to 

support statutes which are in their interests but oppose 

statutes which might protect civil society? Just as he has 

an open mind to a regulatory model without statute, 

does he agree that editors should keep an open mind to 

using some statute? 

The Prime Minister: I hope everyone will have an 

open mind as they read this report and the conclusions 

about some of the terrible things that have happened 

in the press, but above all what I want editors to do is 

engage properly with what Leveson has said needs to 

happen to the regulatory system. As I say, there is no 

need to wait for long conversations about that. He sets 

out what is wrong with Hunt-Black and what needs to 

be put in place. That work should start straight away. 


The Opposition have called for genuine cross-party 

discussions. I note that the Secretary of State for Education 

does not appear to be in his seat, so will the Prime Minister 

confirm that there will be no smearing of Lord Leveson 

while those talks are taking place? 

The Prime Minister: He is not the right hon. Member 

for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). 

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

my right hon. Friend’s statement. Particular attention 

should be paid to paragraphs 74 and 75 of the document, 

in which Lord Justice Leveson does not come to a 

specific conclusion about what to do if particular 

newspapers do not choose to sign up to any system of 

regulation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is for 

this place to debate not only the principle of underpinning, 

which I support, but, for example, whether Ofcom is the 

most appropriate regulator or whether there should be 

a separate regulator for the print media? 


point, which is referred to in paragraph 75 of the 

summary document, but he needs then to go away and 

look at the bit of the very long report to which it refers. 

In paragraph 75, Lord Justice Leveson states: 

“For the sake of completeness I have…set out in the Report 

the options that…would be open to the Government to pursue… 

in that regrettable event”— 

that is, if the press do not agree to the principles of 

self-regulation. That would include pretty full-on statutory 

regulation, which is something we all want to avoid and 

Lord Leveson wants to avoid. Separately, my hon. 

Friend’s point about Ofcom is well made and I hope 

that the Leader of the Opposition will think carefully 

about that specific issue, because it requires further 

thought. 

Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and 

Kirkintilloch East) (Lab): The Prime Minister alluded 

to what Lord Justice Leveson says about Alex Salmond’s 

attempt at intervention on behalf of Rupert Murdoch. 

Is he aware of Leveson’s conclusion that Mr Salmond 

“stood ready to lobby first Dr Cable and later Mr Hunt”, 

and that 

“Acceding to Mr Salmond’s argument would have rendered the 

decision unlawful”? 

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that in the time 

available I have not been able to get to that point—I 

think it is page 1312—but from memory, I would say 

that the issue with respect to the First Minister is that he 

was apparently having a conversation about the bid at 

the same time as asking for support at the election. The 

Scottish National party might want to reflect on that. 

James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con): 

A free press is fundamental to a free society, but that 

freedom is dependent on a responsible press. Does the 

Prime Minister agree that self-regulation of the press 

has not had an auspicious history and that whatever 

conclusions are reached on independent regulation it 

should enshrine a new culture of responsibility in the 

British media? 

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

What needs to take place is not just a change in regulation 

but a change in culture within the press. The whole

469 Leveson Inquiry 

29 NOVEMBER 2012 

470 


Leveson report has rightly engendered a big debate in 

the press about the culture, the practices and what needs 

to change. That needs to happen, but we must also put 

in place the regulatory system. 

Mr Speaker: Last but never forgotten, I call Mr Jacob 

Rees-Mogg. 

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

you, Mr Speaker. May I thank the Prime Minister for 

standing up for our ancient liberties and refer him to 

the rather ominous phrase on page 1781 of the report, 

which states: 

“In order to give effect to those incentives I have recommended 

legislation”? 

It is very hard to see how giving incentives by legislation 

is not licensing. Does the Prime Minister agree with me 

that it is better ultimately to have an irresponsible but 

free press than to have a responsible but state-controlled 

press? 

The Prime Minister: First, may I commend my hon. 

Friend for his extraordinary powers of speed-reading in 

getting to page 1781 quite so quickly? He might also 

want to look at page 1780, which sets out the first part 

of the statutory underpinning recommended by Lord 

Justice Leveson, which is a guarantee of media freedom. 

It is an attractive idea to write a guarantee of media 

freedom into the law, but even that needs to be qualified. 

It is worth while looking at subsection 3 of the suggested 

example, which states: 

“Interference with the activities of the media shall be lawful 

only insofar as it is for a legitimate purpose”. 

We might start writing into the law qualifications and 

issues that people in this House might want to consider 

carefully. 

Mr Speaker: I thank the Prime Minister and all 

colleagues for their succinctness, which meant that all 

52 Back Benchers who wished to contribute in the 

50 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time were able to 

do so. 

Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): On a point 

of order, Mr Speaker. Under Standing Order No. 9 I 

would like to move a motion. The Prime Minister has 

given the Government statement. We are in a unique 

situation where it is proposed that there should be two 

Government statements. A similar occasion occurred in 

1932, which was followed four days later by a vote of 

confidence in the Government. 

Motion made, That this House do now adjourn.— 

(Mr Bone.) 

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his 

point of order. His historical recollection of the events 

of 1932 is indeed faultless, but I know he will be 

interested in my reply to his point of order. He seeks to 

move the Adjournment of the House. He will be well 

aware, I feel certain, that under Standing Order No. 35 

I have the power to put the Question immediately, to 

allow the motion to be debated, or not to accept the 

motion. I do not accept the motion and we will therefore 

proceed with the statement. 

Leveson Inquiry 

4.15 pm 

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg): Iam 

grateful for the opportunity to make a further statement 

to the House. I know it is unusual, but this is an unusual 

debate. 

The terms of reference for Lord Justice Leveson’s 

inquiry were agreed on a cross-party basis and, as the 

House has heard, we intend to proceed on a cross-party 

basis, so it is right that Parliament is clear on the initial 

views of the whole coalition. I agree with much of what 

has already been said by the Prime Minister and the 

Leader of the Opposition concerning the principles of 

the Leveson report. That bodes well for the cross-party 

talks that are taking place for the first time later this 

afternoon, which in my view must establish an early and 

clear timetable for the decisions that we must take so 

that the momentum for action is not lost. 

I thank Lord Justice Leveson for his extremely thorough 

report. There are two big liberal principles at play in 

this debate: on the one hand, the belief that a raucous 

and vigorous press is the lifeblood of a healthy democracy, 

and on the other, the belief that the vulnerable, the 

innocent and the weak should be protected from powerful 

vested interests. A free press does not mean a press that 

is free to bully innocent people or free to abuse grieving 

families. 

What I want now is for us to strike a better balance 

between these two liberal principles so that our media 

can scrutinise the powers that be, but cannot destroy 

innocent lives; so that the journalists up in the Press 

Gallery can hold us, the politicians, to account, but we 

can look up to the individuals and families in the Public 

Gallery knowing that they have the right protections in 

place. 

I have always said that I would support Lord Justice 

Leveson’s reforms, providing they are proportionate 

and workable. I will come on to why I believe that is the 

case as far as the report’s core proposal is concerned— 

namely, a tougher system of self-regulation, supported 

by new independent checks recognised in law. But I do 

not want to disguise the fact that I have some specific 

concerns about some specific recommendations—for 

example, on some of his ideas concerning data protection 

rules, and on the suggestion that it should be Ofcom 

which independently verifies the new press watchdog. 

Ofcom has a key role in regulating the content of 

broadcast media. I am yet to be convinced that it is best 

placed to take on this new, light-touch function with the 

print media too. Lord Justice Leveson said in his report 

that this function could be fulfilled by a different body. 

However, on the basic model of a new self-regulatory 

body, established with a change to the law, in principle I 

believe this can be done in a proportionate and workable 

way. I understand the entirely legitimate reasons why 

some Members of the House are wary of using legislation. 

I myself have thought long and hard about this. 

I am a liberal. I do not make laws for the sake of it, 

and certainly not when it comes to the press. Indeed, 

when I gave my own evidence to the inquiry, I made the 

point that if we could create a rigorous, independent 

system of regulation which covers all the major players 

without any changes to the law, of course we should 

consider that. But no one has yet come up with a way of 

doing that.


472 

Lord Justice Leveson has considered these issues at 

length. He has found that changing the law is the only 

way to guarantee a system of self-regulation that seeks 

to cover all of the press. He explains why his proposed 

system of sticks and carrots has to be recognised in 

statute in order to be properly implemented by the 

courts. What is more, changing the law is the only way 

to give us all the assurance that the new regulator is not 

just independent for a few months or years, but is 

independent for good. Someone will need to check 

periodically that the independence of the regulator has 

not been weakened over time, and the report explains 

why that needs to be set out in law. As Lord Justice Leveson 

himself states, 

“this is not, and cannot be characterised as, statutory regulation 

of the press”. 

It is a voluntary system, based on incentives, with a 

guarantee of proper standards. It is not illiberal state 

regulation. 

It is worth dwelling on that point for a moment, 

because although there has rightly been a lot of discussion 

about the risks of legislating, some key arguments have 

been missing from the debate so far. First, the press 

does not operate in some kind of lawless vacuum; it has 

to abide by the law. In many instances it is already 

protected by the law, and I agree with the report that we 

should go further in enshrining the freedom of the press 

in statute. 

Secondly, it has been suggested that using law will 

blur the line between politicians and the media, but we 

must not ignore the extent to which that line has already 

been blurred under the current system of self-regulation. 

It is the status quo which has allowed such cosy relationships 

between political and media elites to arise in the first 

place. Let us not forget that that of the five Press 

Complaints Commission chairs, three were serving 

parliamentarians who took a party whip. Far from 

allowing greater overlap, the laws that have been proposed 

give us a chance to create a hard wall between politics 

and the press. 

Thirdly, as the report notes, there is already an example 

of statutory underpinning in the Irish Press Council, 

which has been accepted by a number of UK newspapers. 

The Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror, the Daily Star, The 

Sun, The Sunday Times, The Mail on Sunday and the 

Sunday Mirror are all members—they all publish Irish 

editions. I have not yet heard those papers complain of 

a deeply illiberal press environment across the Irish sea. 

Of course, neither I nor anyone can be certain of 

exactly how the proposals will look until we have worked 

them up in detail. The two tests I have set—that any 

reforms must be workable and proportionate—will need 

to be met in practice as much as in principle. If they are 

not, I will be the first to sound the alarm. In that event, 

we would then need to consider how to make progress, 

because the absolute worst outcome in all this would be 

for nothing to happen at all. 

We must not now prevaricate. I, like many people, am 

impatient for reform. Put bluntly, nothing I have seen so 

far in this debate suggests to me that we will find a 

better solution than the one that has been proposed; 

nor do I draw any hope from the repeated failure 

of pure self-regulation that we have seen over the past 

60 years. We need to get on with this without delay. We 

owe it to the victims of these scandals, who have already 

waited too long for us to do the right thing—too long 

for an independent press watchdog in which they can 

put their trust. I am determined that we should not 

make them wait any more. I commend this statement to 

the House. 

4.23 pm 

Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab): 

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his excellent 

statement. This is an unprecedented procedure, but it 

was important for him to make it as leader of his party. 

As he has said, our democracy needs, indeed depends 

upon, the existence of a free press, but a strong press 

must be a clean press. The wrongdoing brought shame 

on a press that has a great tradition and is admired 

around the world. That wrongdoing by the press brought 

misery to families who were already suffering. We heard 

the brave and harrowing evidence of the Dowlers and 

the McCanns. We often talk of walking a mile in 

someone’s shoes; none of us would want to walk even 

one step in theirs. 

The Leveson proposals are to stop that happening 

again. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that they 

will strengthen the press by ensuring that it has the 

legitimacy—the moral authority—to hold power to 

account, and that by providing for a proper complaints 

system, they will protect individuals from abuse and 

unwarranted intrusion? We believe that the system Leveson 

proposes is independent both of politicians and of the 

press. We also believe that that can be achieved only by 

legislation on the basis Leveson proposes. Does the 

Deputy Prime Minister agree? 

Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit to the timetable 

that the Leader of the Opposition has set out: that by 

the end of January next year, this House should have 

the opportunity to debate and vote on taking the Leveson 

proposals forward? Will he commit his party to vote to 

support Leveson’s core proposals? Does he agree that 

we should expect the legislation to have completed its 

passage through both Houses by the end of the next 

parliamentary Session, which starts in May next year? 

We are about to go into all-party talks. Will he assure 

the House that he will not kick this into the long grass? 

Will he assure us that he will not allow the press to have 

yet another lock-in at the last-chance saloon? 

I agree with what the Deputy Prime Minister said, 

but does he agree that what the Prime Minister said 

amounts to nothing more than a craven acceptance of 

the status quo? If the Prime Minister does not think 

again, he will have surrendered to powerful press interests 

and betrayed the victims. 

The Deputy Prime Minister: It is obvious, of course, 

that the Prime Minister and I come at this from different 

angles, but the right hon. and learned Lady should not 

overlook the perfectly legitimate misgivings—I happen 

not to share them, but they are none the less misgivings— 

that the Prime Minister has expressed about legislation 

in such a sensitive area. 

I have no problem with a speedy timetable, which is 

obviously one of the main things that we need to 

concentrate on this afternoon in the cross-party talks. 

I strongly agree with the right hon. and learned Lady 

that the long grass is last place this problem should 

end up. We have got to act now in one way or another.


474 

[The Deputy Prime Minister] 

Lord Justice Leveson has put forward his proposals, 

and I am convinced that he has made a case for legislation. 

I have not seen—no one has—what that legislation 

would actually look like. It is important that we see his 

proposals translated into draft legislative form so that 

we can all examine that and make the rapid progress 

that I think everybody, whatever their different views on 

specific aspects of this report, believes is now necessary. 

Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): I declare an 

interest as a member of the media law Bar. 

Will the Deputy Prime Minister—it is always a joy to 

hear him—set out very briefly the differences in principle 

between the view that he takes and that of the Prime 

Minister? 

The Deputy Prime Minister: The difference is that I 

believe that the case for legislation has been made, but 

of course I acknowledge that we now need to show how 

it could be delivered in practice in a proportionate and 

workable way. The Prime Minister—I hesitate to recap 

what he said while he is sitting next to me—has thoughtfully 

expressed his serious misgivings about taking the step 

of legislation, but has not entirely excluded that possibility 

in the absence of other viable alternatives. I think that, 

in a nutshell, is the difference between our two approaches. 

Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab): Echoing an important 

point made by the hon. Member for Camborne and 

Redruth (George Eustice), does the Deputy Prime Minister 

accept that the Prime Minister was incorrect when he 

talked about crossing the Rubicon in writing elements 

of press regulation into the law of the land, because the 

press themselves explicitly asked that there be direct 

reference to the press complaints code in what became 

section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998? The press 

have already sought a statutory underpinning of what 

they do. All that Leveson is proposing is to give greater 

strength to the process that they began in 1998. 

The Deputy Prime Minister: What I think we can all 

agree on—Lord Justice Leveson places great emphasis 

on this in his report—is that none of this would have 

arisen if the press had abided by its own code. What 

surprised all witnesses to the Leveson inquiry—it certainly 

surprised me, because I was not familiar with the details 

of the code—was that on reading the code, one thought, 

“This is excellent—brilliant!” We just need to ensure that 

it is enforced. 

That is where the debate now comes: it is about 

the means. Everybody agrees that the end must be the 

application of the principles set out by Lord Justice 

Leveson. Everybody agrees that the code itself was well 

drafted and that, if it had been enforced in full, the 

problems would not have arisen in the first place. The 

debate, which is clearly already raging this afternoon, is 

about how we can make absolutely sure that that is 

done in a way that is independently monitored and that 

endures. My view is that Lord Justice Leveson has made 

the case for why that can be done only through legislation, 

although I stress that how that legislation is crafted is a 

separate matter, to which the House will need to address 

itself. 

Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): Does the Deputy 

Prime Minister agree that one of the greatest expressions 

of liberty in the world is the first amendment to the 

American constitution—a measure in statute if ever 

there was one? That has proved to be compatible with 

legal restrictions on copyright and obscenity which, as 

in this country, provide a statutory framework for the 

press already. Should that not reassure traditional 

champions of liberty, even the hon. Member for North 

East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), that it is possible to 

have a legal framework that guarantees both the freedom 

of the press and the rights of individuals? 

The Deputy Prime Minister: I accept that there is a 

big philosophical difference between liberals, who, as I 

have sought to explain, try to balance freedom with the 

hurt endured by people who are abused by the powerful, 

and libertarianism, which believes that freedom should 

be completely untrammelled and unconstrained. The 

latter is not a philosophy that I believe in—it is a 

one-eyed approach to freedom. The press has always 

operated within the ambit and the context of the law. It 

is creating a straw man to imply that law is always 

inimical to the exercise of freedom in the press. That is a 

slightly absurd position, because the press has been 

constrained and indeed protected in many respects by 

the law for generations. 

Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab): The 

detail of the new regulatory body is critical, but does 

the Deputy Prime Minister accept that it is only within 

the legal underpinning that the public support that is so 

crucial to any new regulator is carried? 

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have expressed my own 

views about the assertions that Lord Justice Leveson 

makes about that. As I said, this is a debate about 

means, not ends. Let us dwell for a minute on the fact 

that this afternoon everybody appears to have agreed 

that what we need is tough, independent regulation of 

the press, where people are properly protected when 

things go wrong. The debate is about whether legislation 

is the indispensible means to deliver that. 

Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con): I 

congratulate my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime 

Minister on anticipating what was in the Leveson report 

and on anticipating that he would have a disagreement 

with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. 

How does my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime 

Minister think statutory underpinning by Ofcom would 

have prevented what happened in the past? 

I commend to my right hon. Friend a book called 

“The Laughter of Triumph” by Ben Wilson, which is 

about William Hone, the man who got criminal libel 

laughed out of practical use. We ought to have a sense 

of proportion. 

We must also protect the rights of newspapers such 

as the ones that campaigned for Stephen Lawrence and 

that almost certainly broke rules. If there had been 

statutory underpinning then, what would have happened? 

The Deputy Prime Minister: Lord Justice Leveson 

advocates legislation for three reasons. First, he does 

not think that the system of incentives—the carrots and


476 

sticks that he is offering the press so that they all join in 

the new system—would work without law. Secondly, he 

thinks that that is the only way in which we can establish 

a credible process of “verifying”, as he puts it, the 

independence of the new self-regulatory system. Thirdly, 

and crucially, he thinks that there should be additional 

protections in law to enshrine the freedom of the press. 

I ask the hon. Gentleman, in return, to accept that it is 

perfectly rational to suggest that these things can be 

held in balance and that it is not a zero-sum game 

between freedom on the one hand and regulation that 

protects the vulnerable on the other. 

Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab): Does the Deputy 

Prime Minister agree that it would be a betrayal of the 

victims if we allowed the Leveson report to be kicked 

into the long grass, which his exactly what has happened 

to every previous report into press standards? If he 

cannot persuade the Prime Minister, will he and his 

party work with us and the significant number of 

Conservatives who support the Leveson report to implement 

its proposals as quickly as possible? 

The Deputy Prime Minister: The Prime Minister, The 

Leader of the Opposition and I will start talking this 

afternoon, in a positive spirit, to try to find a cross-party 

approach. I think the British people would lose patience 

with this place if we turned an important issue, which is 

being treated with the seriousness it deserves this afternoon, 

into a political football. I want to avoid that and find a 

solution together that not only answers the demands of 

the victims, but provides a solution for the country. 

After two and a half years in coalition, I am used to 

starting from different positions and finding a solution 

that suits the whole country in the end. 

Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con): Does 

the Deputy Prime Minister speak for the Government, 

and what are the implications of his statement today for 

the doctrine of Cabinet collective responsibility? 

The Deputy Prime Minister: In a coalition Government 

there can be no collective position that is not agreed 

collectively by all parts of that Government. I know 

people in Westminster get terribly hot under the collar 

about some of these doctrines, but people out there in 

the country find it perfectly normal that in a Government 

with two parties, there are issues on which those parties, 

because they are two parties, might not have the same 

view. We have to be relaxed and grown up about explaining 

that to the House and to the public and then, as has 

been set out, seek to resolve those issues in the national 

interest. 

Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab): 

The Deputy Prime Minister has spoken about 60 years 

of failure of self-regulation. That is precisely why the 

public, and particularly the victims, will not be able to 

accept the Prime Minister’s position today. As my right 

hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition might not be 

able to persuade the Prime Minister, may I wish the 

Deputy Prime Minister every success in trying to bring 

the right hon. Gentleman round to his point of view? 

The Deputy Prime Minister: That is a daily undertaking 

on many issues. I win some and I lose some. 

I say again that we will not get what we all want out 

of cross-party talks unless we first agree that we all 

want the code by which the press was supposed to abide 

to be properly respected, and we want the principles set 

out by Lord Justice Leveson to be respected. If we keep 

that in mind and ensure those objectives are delivered, 

we will do a big and good thing for the country and 

future generations. 

Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): We have just 

heard about the 60 years of failure of self-regulation, 

and newspapers have been given five previous chances. 

Under Labour and Conservative Governments, the problem 

has not been solved: there has been too cosy a relationship 

between politicians and the press, and abuse of victims. 

What does my right hon. Friend think is different about 

this Government, who set up the Leveson inquiry and 

will now make some progress? 

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend wants 

me to say, “Other than the fact that the Liberal Democrats 

are in it?” I think it was right that we in the Government 

collectively decided to take the unprecedented step of 

asking Lord Justice Leveson, with help from the panel 

members, to look at the issue in the round. He has very 

wide terms of reference and has not yet completed his 

work in full. The sheer breadth of what he has been 

asked to do is revealed in the sheer volume of what he 

has produced. 

Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): As the Deputy 

Prime Minister knows, when the Prime Minister set up 

this inquiry it was in two parts. He did not mention 

part 2 in his statement, but may I assume that the Prime 

Minister fully supports part 2 of the report, which deals 

with relationship between the police and the investigations 

they have conducted? Does the Deputy Prime Minister 

agree that it is vital that we give the police in London all 

the resources they need, so that Operations Weeting, 

Tuleta and Elveden can be completed as soon as possible? 

At the moment, it looks like a timetable of three years. 

The Deputy Prime Minister: On the first point, the 

Prime Minister did refer to part 2 of the report and 

reiterated that the Government’s attitude to part 2 and 

to the inquiry as a whole has not changed from the day 

it was established. He also explained that part 2 is 

affected by criminal investigations being conducted right 

now. We will of course endeavour wherever we can to 

ensure resources are provided so that criminal investigations 

being conducted by the Metropolitan police are completed 

as quickly as possible. 

Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): The first 

duty of the Deputy Prime Minister is to support the 

Prime Minister. We have today seen something that has 

never happened before in parliamentary history. The 

doctrine of collective responsibility has been swished 

away by the Deputy Prime Minister. How can he spend 

25 minutes at the Dispatch Box criticising my right hon. 

Friend the Prime Minister and remain in the Government? 

Is he considering resigning? 

The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman 

and I have had this exchange countless times. He still 

struggles to get coalition. His party did not win the 

election, and my party did not win the election, so we


478 


have a Government of two parties that must compromise. 

That is different to previous one-party Governments. It 

might lead to anomalies, glitches and innovations in 

this venerable place that he finds unwelcome, but that is 

the reality of coalition government. I suspect it will be 

repeated quite a lot in future. 


What actions will the Deputy Prime Minister and his 

Government take if newspapers do not establish the 

new system? 

The Deputy Prime Minister: It is incredibly important 

that the newspaper industry heed what hon. Members 

have said and what the Prime Minister has said forcefully— 

that the ball is now in their court to make the first move 

of showing that they can propose a self-regulatory 

institution, which would be independently verified in 

one way or another as soon as possible. It would be an 

extraordinary failure if the press do not take up that 

opportunity and respond to Lord Justice Leveson’s 

invitation for their own good. Everybody who cares 

about our great British press knows that the public need 

to be reassured that they will abide by higher standards 

in future. 

Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD): Given 

that we can choose one of two extremes—one is a 

dangerously politicised regulation of the press, and the 

other is allowing editors to continue to regulate themselves 

through a lock-in at the last-chance saloon—is not the 

best thing to do to accept the advice of an independent 

commission that sat for so long, heard so much evidence 

and produced such a lengthy report, so that we do not 

kick the matter into the long grass, and so that we give 

the victims of the worst examples of journalism the 

justice they deserve? 

The Deputy Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. 

Friend’s basic premise that, if the central insights of 

Lord Leveson are good ones, we should implement 

them. However, I disagree with hon. Members who 

have implied that the report should be adopted in its 

entirety, with every t crossed and every i dotted. There is 

a lot of dense and complex stuff in the report. There is 

an extensive chapter on data protection. I am no data 

protection expert, but Parliament will want to scrutinise 

the implications of that chapter properly. We should 

adopt Leveson’s central insights and what he is seeking 

to deliver, but I do not believe we should therefore 

suspend all critical faculties on some of the detail, 

which must be got right. 

Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): It is clear 

that Leveson does not propose in any way any kind of 

statutory regulation of the press, and no one in the 

House wants to see that in any shape or form. Is it not 

very important, as the debate progresses in the coming 

days and weeks, that nobody either outside or inside 

the House, by open assertion or implication, tries to 

frame the debate in those terms? This is about getting 

proper redress for those who have been abused; it is not 

about statutory regulation of the press or crossing any 

Rubicon. 


was very clear and unambiguous this afternoon and in 

his report that he is not advocating statutory regulation, 

from which hon. Members on both sides of the House 

would recoil. What he is trying to do is ingenious, but it 

is materially different from statutory regulation, because 

it is based on voluntary participation—yes, it is driven 

by incentives, but it is none the less voluntary—from all 

parts of the press. That is why the detail and the design 

of the incentives he is offering to the press are incredibly 

important. 

Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con): The 

Deputy Prime Minister’s suggestion is neither liberal 

nor democratic. Accordingly, does he understand that 

many victims feel aggrieved because they are unable to 

seek justice through the legal system, which is often 

considered too complex and costly? What will he do 

within the coalition Government to try to put that 

right? 

The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not accept the 

underlying premise that all this can be settled by courts 

and the criminal justice system. Kate and Gerry McCann 

had their privacy abused and were subject to the most 

shocking and vile accusations, which they could not 

have possibly remedied through the law. The hon. 

Gentleman should read Gerry McCann’s evidence if he 

really thinks it is undemocratic or illiberal to suggest 

that maybe we should set up a system that can help 

people like them. Gerry McCann went to the Press 

Complaints Commission and was basically told, “Sorry, 

there is nothing we can do.” Surely, one would have to 

have a heart of stone not to accept that there is something 

seriously, seriously wrong when there is nothing that 

helps Kate and Gerry McCann. I strongly reject the 

hon. Gentleman’s that it is illiberal and undemocratic to 

help them. 

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

(SNP): Given what the Deputy Prime Minister has said 

and what the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, the 

Prime Minister now seems to have become a marginal 

figure on this issue. Therefore, will the Deputy Prime 

Minister work with the Leader of the Opposition, the 

First Minister of Scotland and the Taoiseach na hEireann, 

Enda Kenny, to find, where possible, common ground 

in this free movement area of the UK and Ireland in 

press regulation? 

The Deputy Prime Minister: The Prime Minister has 

initiated the cross-party talks. They will happen shortly 

and I hope that, with good will, we can make progress. 

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Irish model. There 

are similarities between the Irish model and what Lord 

Justice Leveson is suggesting. They are not identical by 

any stretch of the imagination. In many ways, the Irish 

model is a much more direct form of the statutory 

establishment of a regulator than the indirect verification 

of a self-established regulator set up by the press. There 

is an important qualitative difference between the two, 

although, as I said earlier, it is remarkable that a number 

of British newspapers operate, as far as I can make out, 

relatively comfortably under the more exacting—dare 

it say slightly more illiberal?—system that exists across 

the Irish sea.


480 

John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): Why 

do we need legislation, ministerial involvement through 

Ofcom and implicit licensing for news printed on dead 

trees, but not for news displayed on computer screens? 


said this afternoon that he thinks there is something 

qualitatively different about the impact of news printed 

in our newspapers than there is in the great ecosystem 

of digital news and news on the internet. He is not 

making any claims that one form of regulatory remedy 

is applicable to other media; he is explicitly dealing with 

abuses in the newspaper industry. To say that because it 

does not apply to others we should therefore do nothing 

is a curious way of making the best the enemy of the 

good. 

Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab): I welcome 

the Deputy Prime Minister’s stance and I accept that he 

has given it a lot of thought, but will he tell the House 

how he proposes to give effect to his views when the 

Prime Minister is fundamentally opposed to bringing 

forward any legislation to underpin a new, truly independent 

system of regulation? Will he urge the Prime Minister, 

for instance, to allow a Bill to be introduced so that the 

House can have a free, democratic vote on it? 

The Deputy Prime Minister: To be fair, the Prime 

Minister expressed misgivings about taking a significant 

step. Of course, these are the kinds of things that we 

will talk about in the cross-party discussions, but if we 

all immediately start digging trenches and digging our 

heels in the worst of all outcomes will happen, which is 

that nothing will happen at all. I will work very hard to 

prevent that. 

Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): During 

the Prime Minister’s statement, I suggested that Lord 

Justice Leveson had called time at the last-chance saloon. 

Does my right hon. Friend agree that without implementing 

the central planks of the Leveson report, we risk any 

changes brought forward being seen as yet another last 

chance from an industry that has failed miserably to 

regulate itself effectively? 

The Deputy Prime Minister: My eye was caught by a 

quote from John Major, who said in his evidence to 

Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry: 

“I think on this occasion it’s the politicians who are in the 

last-chance saloon.” 

This is a test not just for the press, but this place. It is a 

test for us all to try to find a cross-party approach. That 

is best done on a cross-party basis, rather than becoming 

the subject of party political point scoring. On the 

central assertion, I think that Lord Justice Leveson’s 

report makes the case well for why legislation is necessary 

to administer his system, although as I keep stressing I 

do not know exactly what the legislation would look 

like. It is very important to get the details, as well as the 

principle, right. 


I commend the Deputy Prime Minister for his measured 

and thoughtful statement and how he has dealt with 

questions this afternoon. Given the two statements, will 

he clarify whether he intends to adopt the same principle 

on this issue as on the boundary proposals—that when 

he disagrees with his Conservative colleagues, Liberal 

Democrat Ministers will, on a point of principle, go 

through the Lobby with us when they agree with us? 

The Deputy Prime Minister: To be fair, this is not 

driven by being in agreement with the Opposition. 

I am not going to repeat what I have said in the 

House about boundaries, but I accept, of course, that in 

coalition government there will be cases—this is one 

instance—where it is perfectly fair, normal and transparent 

to the public and the House to say, in a level-headed 

way, “Look, these are the differences of view.” Coalition 

does not mean homogenised government where the 

differences that naturally exist between parties are somehow 

eliminated. 

Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con) rose— 

Mr Speaker: Order. I am not sure that the hon. 

Gentleman was present in the Chamber at the start of 

this statement. If he was, of course we will hear from 

him. If not, the nation will have to wait for another 

occasion. 

Zac Goldsmith: For the record, I was here for both 

statements—but I moved around. 

Mr Speaker: I am glad to hear it. Let us hear from the 

hon. Gentleman. 

Zac Goldsmith: Given that my party appears to be 

split on this issue—judging by recent letters submitted 

to Lord Justice Leveson—given that the coalition is 

clearly split on it and given that the House is split, too, 

does the Deputy Prime Minister share my hope that the 

various measures we will be discussing over the coming 

weeks will be put to the House, preferably in a free vote? 

The Deputy Prime Minister: In the first instance, 

before we get to that, we should seek a cross-party 

approach. It is nothing for the House to be ashamed of 

that there are strongly held views in all parties on 

something of principled importance. I just hope that we 

do not allow those differences of view to become an 

alibi for inaction. 

Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): 

My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn 

(Mr Straw) will remember acutely having his ear bent 

by me and others over the creation of the Data Protection 

Act 1998 and the checks and balances within it. That 

happened at the time we brought together the European 

directive and the original Act. I would like to ask the 

Deputy Prime Minister precisely the same question I 

asked the Prime Minister. Paragraph 57 of the summary 

recommendations is for the creation of an information 

commission that would include members of the media. 

Does that not provide a vehicle to remove his concerns 

about some of Leveson’s comments on data protection? 

The Deputy Prime Minister: I think the hon. Gentleman’s 

idea is, in effect, to turn the Information Commissioner 

into an information commission. I am no great expert,


482 


but that does not seem, in and of itself, to be the 

worrisome part of the proposals. As he will know better 

than I do, it is worth bearing it in mind that further and 

new European data protection legislation is in the pipeline 

on a separate timetable. That is one example of something 

we need to examine, but it would put the cart before the 

horse were we to pass all these data protection provisions, 

and then have to reinvent it all in the light of a new EU 

data protection directive. That is exactly the kind of 

level of detail I hope we can get into very rapidly. 

Mr Speaker: Last but also never forgotten, I call 

Mr John McDonnell. 

John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): By 

the way, I support the idea of separate statements— 

I would have liked to make some myself in the past. 

I think I know the answer, but, because it will strengthen 

the message, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm 

the call that the Prime Minister has now backed for 

proprietors to meet the National Union of Journalists 

and others to start work immediately on the introduction 

of a conscience clause into journalists’ contracts? 

The Deputy Prime Minister: Yes, that is one important 

part of a long list of issues that proprietors and editors 

now need to address. The hon. Gentleman mentioned 

the NUJ. I think I am right in saying that the NUJ has 

come out unambiguously in favour of a model of statutory 

underpinning. It is important to remember, therefore, 

that there are working journalists, who care as much as 

anybody in the House about the freedom of the press, 

who none the less recognise that this might be the right 

way to proceed. 

Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con): On a 

point of order, Mr Speaker. We have enjoyed an innovation. 

I was going to ask whether the Minister of State, 

Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. 

Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings 

(Mr Hayes) had asked whether he could make a statement 

after the energy statement earlier today. 

I was going to go on to say, perhaps not as lightheartedly—which 

means seriously—whether the Procedure 

Committee should be consulted on whether Ministers 

wanting to make a second statement should require the 

leave of the House or whether that should be left be to 

you, Mr Speaker. 

Mr Speaker: I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. 

In respect of his first point, if I did not know him so 

well, I would think that he was being mischievous, but 

because I know him so well, I do not think anything of 

the kind. Secondly, the Procedure Committee can take 

up any matter at any time of its own volition. It requires 

no permission from anybody else to do so. I feel sure 

that the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for 

Broxbourne (Mr Walker), will shortly have heard what 

the hon. Gentleman has had to say. 

I thank the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister 

and all colleagues for their co-operation today. We now 

move to the next item of business. 

DELEGATED LEGISLATION 

Ordered, 

That the motion in the name of Mr Andrew Lansley relating to 

the House of Commons Members’ Fund shall be treated as if it 

related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing 

Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of 

which notice of a motion has been given that the instrument be 

approved.—(Anne Milton.) 

PETITION 

Rushden Lakes Retail Leisure Park 

4.55 pm 

Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): Returning 

to normality, in my constituency there is a proposal for 

a retail leisure park that will create 2,000 jobs. There is 

massive support for it among my constituents, with 

many hundreds of signatures. 

The lead signatory is a Mr Jack Spriggs and the petition 

reads: 

The Humble Petition of residents of Rushden and Higham 

Ferrers, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas, 

Sheweth, 

That the planning application for the Rushden Lakes retail 

leisure park has the support of East Northamptonshire District 

Council, the Borough Council of Wellingborough, Rushden Town 

Council, Higham Ferrers Town Council and the overwhelming 

majority of local residents, will provide 2,000 new jobs, a high 

quality leisure park and retail outlets such as Marks and Spencer. 

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House 

urges the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 

to as speedily as possible approve the scheme. 

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c. 

[P001140]

483 29 NOVEMBER 2012 Central Bedfordshire College 

484 

Central Bedfordshire College 

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House 

do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.) 

4.57 pm 

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

Bedfordshire college is a vital institution in the constituency 

I am proud to represent. It has a presence in all three of 

the towns in my constituency—Dunstable, Leighton 

Buzzard and Houghton Regis. I am a strong supporter 

of the vital work of colleges, as they provide the skills 

that people need to make Britain a high value-added 

economy. It has an excellent new principal in Ali Hadawi, 

who was recently appointed a Commander of the British 

Empire and who turned his last college into a beacon 

college. I have every confidence he will do the same for 

Central Bedfordshire college. 

The college was founded in 1961 as Dunstable college, 

originally with a focus on the printing trade, and most 

of the buildings are the original 50-year-old buildings. 

C and F blocks, for example, were built in 1959 and 

1960. The remaining buildings were built in 1968, with 

the newest built in 1973, so my hon. Friend the Minister 

can see that they are now quite dated. 

Central Bedfordshire college was one of 70 colleges 

that lost out under the old Learning and Skills Council’s 

Building Colleges for the Future capital programme. 

The college initially put in a £5 million proposal, but 

was told that that was not big enough and that it should 

go back and produce something grander—with an atrium, 

I believe. The college was encouraged to work up a 

more expensive proposal. It then put in a £40 million 

proposal, but unfortunately no one at the Learning and 

Skills Council was totting up the total cost of all the 

bids and the capital programme collapsed. Central 

Bedfordshire college was one of 70 colleges not to 

receive any capital grant. Those 70 colleges then went 

through a bidding process for the remaining amount of 

money available, and 13 were successful. I believe that, 

for some reason, all of them were in Labour constituencies, 

including a late application from Hartlepool college. 

This took place under the previous Government. 

There were then 57 colleges left with— 

5pm 

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)). 

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House 

do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.) 

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): I am terribly 

sorry about that. It is a technicality, and it is perhaps 

something that the Procedure Committee could look 

into, at their own initiative. 

Andrew Selous: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. 

As I was saying, there were then 57 colleges left, of 

which 45 were given financial assistance to prop up 

their balance sheets. That left 12 colleges out of the 

original 70 without any assistance for capital funding 

under the old Learning and Skills Council regime. I 

believe that Central Bedfordshire college is one of the 

very few colleges not to have received any capital funding 

under the three enhanced renewal grant capital funding 

rounds that the new Government have introduced. 

I would like to know how many colleges benefiting 

from the Learning and Skills Council capital grant, 

which was allocated under the previous Government, 

have received further capital funding under the enhanced 

renewal grant funding process. I would also be interested 

to know how many colleges had their ERG applications 

approved when they were not able to meet the match 

funding requirement. Central Bedfordshire college was 

able to meet that requirement in each of the three ERG 

application rounds that it put in for. 

To recap, Central Bedfordshire college has put in 

three ERG bids. The first was in July 2010, when it 

requested a £1 million contribution from the Skills 

Funding Agency to match a £3 million contribution 

from the college itself. That bid was unsuccessful. The 

second bid, in November 2011, involved the college 

requesting a £2 million contribution from the SFA to 

match a £4 million contribution from the college. Most 

recently, in September 2012, the college requested £3 million 

from the SFA to match a £6 million contribution from 

the college. 

The college had been led to believe that its bid would 

be prioritised, as it had not received even a pound in 

capital funding from those earlier rounds. It has had no 

written feedback on the bid process, although it has 

been told that it can attend a surgery at the SFA 

regional office. There is some puzzlement among the 

people running the college as to how all this is worked 

out. If the process is not helping the neediest colleges, 

perhaps it needs to be looked at again. 

I want to go into more detail about the feedback that 

has been received from the SFA on why the third bid 

was unsuccessful. Will the Minister tell me whether the 

due diligence exercise that is going to take place in 

relation to the colleges whose bids were successful could 

be applied to Central Bedfordshire college, to see whether 

it could be awarded a few more points? I understand 

that the bid failed by just one point, and if we could 

look again to see whether any additional points could 

be awarded, there might be a happier outcome. I understand 

that the college’s education case scored the highest 

number of points in the whole of the eastern region, 

and the third highest in the whole country. I am sure 

the Minister would agree that the education bid is at the 

heart of what further education colleges should be about. 

I wonder whether that part of the bid should have 

slightly more weighting than some of the more technical 

considerations relating to the building proposals. 

As I have said, this is the third enhanced renewal 

grant that the college has not been successful in securing. 

It has been acknowledged by officials in the Skills 

Funding Agency that the college is one of the neediest, 

if not the neediest, college in the country. In May this 

year, I was present when the outgoing SFA chief executive, 

Geoff Russell, visited Central Bedfordshire college, and 

he commented that the college did not need just an 

ERG; he would have liked to have seen a complete 

rebuild. Speaking as the local MP, I believe that the 

learners in Central Bedfordshire college deserve just as 

much support for creating a conducive learning environment 

as other students in other colleges throughout the country. 

If the process is not helping the neediest colleges, we 

should have a look at how that process runs. I shall discuss 

four specific technical areas where we think the bid has 

lost out. The SFA commented that the refurbishment 

element had not been properly environmentally assessed.

485 Central Bedfordshire College 29 NOVEMBER 2012 Central Bedfordshire College 

486 

[Andrew Selous] 

The primary objective of the college’s bid was to construct 

a new centre for hair, beauty, holistic therapies and 

hospitality and catering, with a focus on green technology 

in the curriculum and skills development. In order to 

achieve the new build in the optimum campus location, 

the college had to relocate other curriculum elements, 

with a small amount of associated refurbishment. The 

college understands that it was marked down because 

that latter refurbishment element did not have a full 

environmental assessment—unlike the main new build. 

That refurbishment element represented only 3.3% of 

the total project budget. It is simply an enabling element 

for the project itself, and the overall project has been 

environmentally assessed. The college feels unhappy 

about that aspect of its bid’s assessment. 

The second aspect of the bid was the savings in estate 

costs over a 20-year period. The college was advised 

that other bids demonstrated larger savings over the 

project life of 20 years. The college, however, has come 

in the top quarter for national estates cost efficiency, as 

demonstrated by the SFA’s own data collection, which I 

understand is known as “e-Mandate”. That makes it 

hard for the college to demonstrate a huge decrease in 

building costs related to the bid, because it starts from 

such an efficient base. As a result, its savings are likely 

to be at a lower margin. That efficiency has been achieved 

by the college being very prudent and managing its 

projects from within its own estates department, for 

example. Again, the college feels that this rather crude 

assessment fails to take into account the efficiency point 

that it has already reached, even for a 50-year-old 

building, so it believes that it has been unfairly penalised 

for doing the right thing, as it were. 

The third technical aspect on which the bid was 

marked down related to the costs of the proposed 

project build against the SFA’s own cost plan. The 

feedback stated that the bid was 10% adrift from the 

SFA’s cost plan norms. In simple terms, the bid comprised 

the following three parts. First, there is the demolition 

of the old F block, dating back to 1959, as I told the 

Minister at the start of my speech. That F block was 

going to be replaced with a new build centre of excellence 

for green catering and for hair, beauty and holistic 

therapies. That did fall within the SFA’s cost norms. 

Secondly, there is the partial demolition of the B block 

and the construction of a new media studies centre, 

together with associated works, which also fell within 

the SFA cost norms. 

It was the third aspect that I think caused the college 

problems: the creation of a new surface-level car park 

and access road from the public highway. The project 

costs are required to conform to the appropriate SFA 

cost model for the type of college establishment. The 

first two elements of the bid, the demolition of the F 

block and the partial demolition of the B block, accorded 

with the SFA’s criteria. It was the third element, the car 

park, that did not accord with its indicative costs and is 

being regarded as abnormal. 

The college has commented that it is required to 

dispose of a portion of its estate in order to release 

capital to contribute to the cost of the project. It has 

also said that the land to be disposed of currently 

houses a significant proportion of its car-parking provision, 

and that because it is not practicable for it to operate 

effectively without replacing that lost parking provision, 

it must be replaced elsewhere on the campus. The 

replacement of the car park and the provision of a new 

access road are a fundamental component of any 

redevelopment scheme that relies on capital release 

from the sale of land to the rear of the college to enable 

the college to make its substantial contribution to the 

overall project costs. 

It was recognised at an early stage in the preparation 

of the stage C cost plan that the creation of the new car 

park would show the project costs at an unacceptable 

level of variance to the cost model, and for that reason 

two cost model comparisons were prepared and included. 

The first compared project costs associated with the B 

and F block works and their associated external works, 

and the second compared all project costs, including the 

creation of a new car park and access road. 

The fourth element was health and safety, on which 

the bid was marked down. The college has said to me 

that the reason a significant improvement was not shown 

was that it had already taken care of that aspect of the 

bid. It had worked very hard, with its own money, to 

deal with all the health and safety issues that might have 

arisen, and not a great deal of further progress could 

have been made. 

I hope that I have helped the Minister by giving him 

some feedback from the college. I hope that I have 

managed to explain why it feels aggrieved. In particular, 

I hope that I have managed to explain why the car park 

is necessary to the release of that significant extra 

contribution. The Minister has heard something of a 

litany of complaints, but I want to end on a positive 

note by telling him about the excellent things that the 

college is doing, notwithstanding the difficulties which 

I have outlined and which I hope he will be able to 

address when he responds. 

Central Bedfordshire college is the proud sponsor of 

the new Central Bedfordshire university technical college, 

which is one of only two UTCs in the country that 

opened in September this year. It will have 600 students, 

and I am immensely proud that the only UTC in the 

east of England is in my constituency. It is a fantastic 

innovation, and it is exactly what the country needs to 

drive it towards a prosperous future. 

Under construction in another location is the Incuba 

centre, a £5 million facility to help new businesses to 

develop Dunstable with a focus on the green economy. 

That is very welcome. It will help to re-energise the 

industrial base in Dunstable and Houghton Regis, and 

also the wider economy. Central Bedfordshire college is 

at the heart of that. 

More recently, the college bought a former Volkswagen 

garage in the Luton road in Dunstable which it is 

turning into the most fantastic motor vehicle training 

facility. A real, live, state-of-the-art garage facility, in a 

building where a commercial garage was operating only 

a few months ago, will enable my constituents and 

people from the wider area to train to become motor 

mechanics in excellent conditions. 

I know that the Minister is particularly interested in 

the college’s work with local employers. Again, it is 

doing all the things that he is asking colleges to do. It 

has, for instance, worked very closely with the Morrisons 

supermarket. I was proud to attend an event hosted 

jointly by the college and Morrisons. The college had 

provided up to 100 local unemployed people with a


488 

specific training course over the summer. If they completed 

it, they would be guaranteed a job interview at the new 

Morrisons branch that was opening in Houghton Regis. 

That initiative has been hugely successful. It has been 

excellent for the local unemployed people and excellent 

for the supermarket, which has really appreciated it. 

The college has done a fantastic thing. 

The college is also working with other employers, 

including BAE Systems and Liebherr, engaging with 

them to develop an employer-tailored curriculum. It is 

working with Center Parcs, too, another new major 

provider of employment in central Bedfordshire, and 

with the developer of the new housing development 

north of Houghton Regis, which will require lots of 

construction skills. 

It is a bugbear of mine that when there are major 

construction projects, the jobs often do not go to local 

people. It upsets me when people come in from miles 

around to take the jobs. Unemployed construction workers 

come to see me at my surgery. I am determined, as is 

Central Bedfordshire college, that many of the jobs 

created in the building of thousands of new houses to 

the north of Houghton Regis to help pay for the Dunstable 

northern bypass will be taken by local people. That is 

very important. CBC is at the forefront of providing the 

skills for the construction companies contracted to 

carry out that work. 

The college also works with London Luton airport in 

delivering cabin crew and baggage-handling skills. It is 

working with Luton Town football club and the 

Bedfordshire football association to deliver coaching 

and football qualifications. It is also working with our 

local train company, First Capital Connect. 

I hope the Minister will therefore see that the college 

has heard the Government’s message and is mustard-keen 

to provide the skills our local economy needs to help 

UK plc compete in the global race in which we are 

engaged. We just need a little bit of help with the capital 

funding. I think we have had a bit of a rough deal for a 

while now, but I know the Minister is a fair man, and 

I know he will look seriously into these issues. I look 

forward to hearing what he has to say. 

5.16 pm 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills 

(Matthew Hancock): I congratulate my hon. Friend the 

Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) 

on securing this debate, which is so important for 

Central Bedfordshire college—for everybody who works 

at it and, most importantly, everybody who studies at it. 

I know that he raised this issue with my predecessor, 

and he has also raised it with me a number of times. He 

is a powerful advocate for the need for improvements. 

I also congratulate the college on its success in opening 

the new university technical college. UTCs are a crucial 

part of ensuring we have the skills we need in the years 

and decades ahead. I also commend the college on the 

work it is doing with local businesses to provide the 

skills employers need, and to ensure we make good any 

skills shortages. Colleges across the country are increasingly 

working with local employers and businesses to ensure 

we provide the skills they need. The driving mission 

behind the work we are doing and behind my job is to 

ensure that local people have the skills they need for the 

jobs that are available, such as in the construction 

industry, as my hon. Friend mentioned. 

For decades, colleges were starved of the funding for 

capital renewal that both schools and universities enjoyed. 

I know that from personal experience because I studied 

at a further education college—West Cheshire college—in 

the mid-1990s. Therefore, when the Learning and Skills 

Council offered significant capital grants, the colleges 

jumped at the opportunity. My hon. Friend set out the 

history of what happened. Bids were encouraged, and 

were encouraged to grow, and then promises were made 

without the funding to match them. Hugely expensive 

projects with poor cost control delivered very poor 

value for money in some of the projects that were 

completed. They ran out of money, and building projects 

were stopped, sometimes after huge expense on plans 

and with diggers in the ground. In that context, and in 

the context of the wider catastrophe that was the public 

finances, we are now trying to rebuild. I say that to give 

the background before getting on to the specifics of the 

case. 

We have been working hard to ensure that lessons are 

learned from that period. One of those lessons, inevitably, 

is that we should have a firm and unbending eye on 

value for money, the physical infrastructure needs of 

colleges and the benefits to students that capital spending 

can bring. The approach is coupled with the urgency for 

affordability. That is the background to how the criteria 

for making decisions are structured. 

We consult the sector on the criteria for deciding 

allocations. We then provide colleges with advice on 

the criteria, assess and moderate—and fund when an 

application is successful. We are happy to work with the 

college to develop a fundable case. I will certainly look 

at my hon. Friend’s point about due diligence and 

moderation executed on successful projects to see whether 

those can be applied in this case. 

Since May 2010, total Government investment across 

the country in new colleges amounts to more than 

£330 million. That has enabled more than £1 billion-worth 

of projects. Across the whole programme, £2 of private 

cash have been put in for every £1 of Government cash. 

My hon. Friend said that that was the case with Central 

Bedfordshire college’s bids, too. 

Let me go through some of the specifics of what has 

happened in the three rounds of renewal grant that have 

been set out so far. The first is that we have had 117 bids 

for college funding, which would have cost in excess of 

£200 million if all had been approved. I entirely understand 

my hon. Friend’s argument about the quality of the 

buildings at the college—60% of its buildings are in 

poor or inoperable condition. I am sad to report to him 

that, of the 240 general further education colleges across 

the country, 59 are in a worse state on this measure than 

Central Bedfordshire college. Although the college has 

a high level of need, such need, unfortunately, is replicated 

in some colleges across the country. 

The first criterion relates to the condition of the 

existing estate; Central Bedfordshire college has a case, 

but there are other colleges with a worse rating. The 

second criterion is value for money, and my hon. Friend 

reported the concerns raised about that issue. I entirely 

understand his point that, having done work to ensure 

good value for money in respect of running costs, the 

college feels penalised. He will understand that value 

for money has to be a critical part of our assessment. I 

give my hon. Friend this commitment: we will work 

with the college to see what can be done to improve the


490 

[Matthew Hancock] 

value for money in the bid. The third criterion is the 

benefits that would flow from the work as planned. In 

that area, as he stated, Central Bedfordshire college did 

relatively well. 

On my hon. Friend’s specific questions, 10 colleges 

got funds without match funding, but they offered 

much stronger value for money and benefits in the rest 

of their bids. Of course, the amount of match funding 

is a critical part of the question, but it is not the only 

element of value for money. Only one college in the 

third round of the enhanced renewal grant had received 

serious amounts of money since 2001. A very strong 

emphasis was placed in these bids on those colleges that 

have received less than £5 million since 2001, and in the 

third round only one college, Barnsley college, had 

received more than that since then. By contrast, Central 

Bedfordshire college had received £450,000 since 2010, 

including £225,000 in the first round, £100,000 in the 

second round and £120,000 to help work up the bid for 

the third round. We are going to have to work with the 

college in future to see what further we can do to try to 

get it over the line. 

My hon. Friend asked about written feedback, which 

will, of course, be provided. Earlier this month, the 

college, including the principal, met civil servants for 

oral feedback, but we will also provide written feedback. 

On my hon. Friend’s point about rebuild, I am tempted 

not to recommend that we again go down the route of 

suggesting yet more expensive propositions for the college, 

but we should keep all options on the table. On the 

point about the education case being the best in the east 

of England, I am glad to say that these things are no 

longer done on a regional basis and are instead done on 

a national basis. The college scored well in that area. 

As my hon. Friend said, the college scored 21 out of a 

possible 39 points in the process and was just one point 

short of the score deemed necessary to secure funding. 

There is broad agreement that the process was carried 

out on a fair, open and competitive basis; the process 

was agreed in consultation with the sector. Even so, an 

appeals process is available for colleges that feel they 

have been hard done by. I entirely understand his 

disappointment and I commend the pressure he is applying. 

Andrew Selous: The Minister may not be able to do 

this now, but will he respond, perhaps in writing later, 

on the issue of the car park? It seems that the bid was 

marked down severely on that basis, and I want to 

check that he has understood the point I was making 

about the car park being essential for the release of a 

significant sum of the college’s own money in order to 

match fund. 

Matthew Hancock: I understand the point about the 

car park, and I will look into it and get back to my hon. 

Friend on the specifics. I am sorry to say that I cannot 

give him a clear and specific answer today, but of course 

I will be happy to work with him to see what we can do 

in the months ahead. As and when details of any future 

capital funding are made available, we will work with 

the college. I understand, not least as a result of his 

lobbying, the important role the college plays in the 

community, what it is doing to support young people 

and the needs that it has. We will look carefully at, and 

work with him on, future propositions. I hope he will 

accept that and that we can move forward. 

Question put and agreed to. 

5.28 pm 

House adjourned.

145WH 29 NOVEMBER 2012 Inward Investment (Wales) 

146WH 

Westminster Hall 


[MR PETER BONE in the Chair] 

Inward Investment (Wales) 

[Relevant documents: Inward investment in Wales, Eighth 

Report of the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 2010-12, 

HC 854, and the Government Response, Session 2012-13, 

HC 125.] 

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting 

be now adjourned.—(Stephen Crabb.) 

1.30 pm 

David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): I am absolutely 

delighted to have the opportunity, which comes around 

once every couple of years, to speak as Chair of the 

Select Committee on Welsh Affairs about an issue that 

we think is particularly important. Today, that subject is 

inward investment in Wales and the Welsh economy. 

The timing of this debate is a little unfortunate. As 

hon. Members will know, the Leveson report is being 

released at this very moment, so I apologise to Lord 

Leveson if we keep him off tomorrow’s front pages. I 

accept that some Members will have even more interest 

in Leveson than in the Welsh Affairs Committee, so I 

will try to keep my speech as brief as possible to be fair 

to those who also find that issue of interest. 

When we published our report on inward investment 

in Wales in February, I think that I can fairly say that it 

was well received and comprehensive. We took evidence 

from a range of witnesses in business, as well as economists 

and politicians. We met Ministers from the UK Government 

and shadow Ministers from the Welsh Assembly 

Government. We would, of course, have liked to meet 

Ministers from the Welsh Assembly Government, but 

the Minister with responsibility for this area did not see 

fit to appear before the Committee, which was a shame. 

As well as being a little discourteous to the Committee—I 

can take the insult—that risks sending out the negative 

message that the Welsh Assembly Government and the 

UK Government are not working well together, which 

we do not want to happen. 

We recognise that there is a problem with inward 

investment in Wales. Looking back, we can say that the 

’80s and early ’90s were something of a boom era. 

Despite the fact that Wales has less than 5% of the 

UK’s population, we were getting about 15% of inward 

investment projects. By the late 1990s, however, things 

had started to decline. Between 1998 and 2008, some 

171 foreign-owned companies closed their sites in Wales, 

with the loss of 31,000 jobs, and now things are getting 

worse. A parliamentary written answer from this Monday 

shows that the number of inward investment projects 

in Wales has declined from 68 in 2009-10 to just 26 in 

2011-12, despite the fact that the UK as a whole remains 

the No. 1 destination for foreign direct investment in 

Europe. 

There has been a shift in FDI away from Wales and 

towards London and the south-east of England, and 

the Committee wanted to know what we could do to 

improve the situation. We were, of course, clear that the 

traditional routes for attracting investment—low labour 

costs, grants and help with infrastructure—can no longer 

be relied on. We certainly do not want to compete on 

labour costs with countries such as China or India. It is 

important that we can offer a good standard of 

infrastructure so that we make Wales as appealing as we 

can for companies that might want to come here. 

Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint, the Minister for Trade 

and Investment, told us that countries and overseas 

companies weigh up certain factors systematically, as if 

building up a grid, before deciding where to invest. Our 

report focused on three of those areas, the first of which 

was education, which obviously is devolved to Wales. It 

would merit its own inquiry, if we could find a way to 

conduct one without causing offence to the Welsh Assembly. 

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): The Government’s 

response to recommendation after recommendation in 

the Committee’s report is: 

“This is a matter for the Welsh Government, who may wish to 

respond.” 

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that his report has 

been weakened by the Committee’s trespassing beyond 

its own responsibilities? The Welsh Assembly Government 

are likely to respond negatively. The report would have 

been far better and more incisive if it had concentrated 

on matters that are the responsibility of this Parliament. 

David T. C. Davies: The Welsh Affairs Committee is 

perfectly entitled to have an interest in anything affecting 

Wales. Although some in the Welsh Assembly might 

take the view that they are not willing to talk to the UK 

Government about things that they consider to be their 

own prerogative, it is noticeable that our Committee has 

considered such issues as defence, which the Ministry of 

Defence could say was its responsibility. We have also 

considered broadband, which is cross-cutting and affected 

by both UK Government and Welsh Assembly Government 

policy. We consider anything. I am proud to be Welsh 

and proud to be British, as hon. Members can see from 

my cufflinks. I make no apology for the fact that the 

Welsh Affairs Committee would be perfectly happy to 

consider anything affecting Wales. 

Paul Flynn: Throughout the long history of Denbighshire 

county council, its longest ever meeting, which went on 

beyond midnight, was to decide the council’s policy on 

the war in Vietnam. That might have seemed to be a 

sensible thing to do, but I do not think that it had 

a great effect on world opinion or the conduct of the 

United States at that time. Does the hon. Gentleman 

think that his Committee is likely to end up in a position 

where it takes up any subject, whether or not it has any 

influence on or knowledge of it? 

David T. C. Davies: First, although I was a mere boy 

at the time, I seem to remember that the hon. Gentleman 

was either a member of, or involved in, Newport council 

at the time when I lived there, and that he used to help 

with discussions of whether Wales should be a nuclear-free 

zone, so perhaps he has experience of long discussions 

about things over which he is likely to have little influence. 

Secondly, inward investment is clearly a cross-cutting 

issue that is affected by both Welsh Assembly and UK 

Government policy. I do not want this sitting to go on 

for as long as that meeting of Denbighshire county 

council—it is not a record that I am hoping to beat—so 

I would like to continue my speech.

147WH Inward Investment (Wales) 29 NOVEMBER 2012 Inward Investment (Wales) 

148WH 

Paul Flynn rose— 

David T. C. Davies: Which I shall do after I have given 

way to the hon. Gentleman for the third time. 

Paul Flynn: The hon. Gentleman is being very generous. 

The nuclear-free Wales policy was a remarkable united 

expression by every county council in Wales—there 

were eight in 1981. “Nuclear-free” was about nuclear 

power, not nuclear weapons. Every county council passed 

an identical resolution saying that it did not want 

nuclear power stations in Wales but, sadly, the then 

Government defied that call. 

David T. C. Davies: How times have changed, as 

Labour councils now seem to be very supportive of 

nuclear weapons and nuclear power stations. In 1981, 

there were no Conservative-led councils, but today there 

is one in my constituency, so things change for the 

better. 

Returning to education, however, things are not changing 

for the better. Hon. Members will be aware of the recent 

OECD programme for international student assessment— 

PISA—report on education across numerous developed 

countries. Wales was not only below average for the 

developed world in subjects such as maths and science, 

but below average for the whole United Kingdom. The 

Committee hopes that the Welsh Assembly Government 

will address that situation. Speaking personally—to 

take off my Chair’s hat for a moment—I do not think 

that it will be addressed by setting up a completely 

separate examination system in Wales, which the Assembly 

is considering. 

We considered the role of further and higher education, 

and universities are becoming increasingly prominent in 

investor decisions. We believe that although a lot of 

good work is going on between universities and industry, 

a great deal more can be done. 

There are numerous studies about the economic benefits 

of good and efficient transport links. We should be 

concerned about the current quality of transport links 

in mid and north Wales, and about connectivity with 

the rest of Wales. We are exploring those issues in more 

detail in a current inquiry and our report will be published 

shortly. 

Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con): Does my hon. Friend 

share my concern that the Welsh Assembly Government 

failed to make any representations for investment in the 

north Wales coast main line, which is the key rail 

infrastructure in north Wales? 

David T. C. Davies: I am extremely concerned about 

that, but I welcome the announcement by the Secretary 

of State for Wales that a business case will be developed 

for the north Wales main line from Holyhead to Crewe. 

If the Minister has any more to say about that, we 

would welcome it. 

I am sure that every member of every political party 

represented in Wales will be delighted by the coalition 

Government’s decision to extend electrification of the 

Great Western main line to Swansea and the valleys, 

and I am sure that the biggest supporter will be the hon. 

Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies). There is 

much good news there. 

Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): I warmly 

welcome the decision to extend electrification from 

Cardiff to Swansea, which we recommended in our 

report. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what we 

need in Swansea, as in Cardiff, is super-connectivity, 

because we want a level playing field in south Wales, 

which has one economy? Will he, like me, press the 

Government to ensure that we are up and running in 

the Swansea city region, as well as in Cardiff, to achieve 

economic growth? 

David T. C. Davies: The Swansea bay region would be 

an excellent place to invest. The Government are doing 

a huge amount to support better infrastructure, including 

IT infrastructure, across the whole of Wales. Although I 

look forward to developments that will increase broadband 

speeds in cities such as Swansea, Cardiff and Newport, 

we have more to do to ensure that in people in rural 

areas such as Monmouthshire are able to get some sort 

of broadband. 

Geraint Davies: It is important that we have Swansea 

city hub super-connectivity before broadband in rural 

Monmouthshire. 

David T. C. Davies: I note what the hon. Gentleman 

says from a sedentary position, but let me turn to the 

Severn bridge, because that affects all of us in south 

Wales. Our report shows that little can be done until the 

original amount that was agreed with Severn River 

Crossing is paid off, which is expected to happen in 

2018. Until then, there will always be inflation-busting 

increases in charges on the Severn bridge because that is 

set according to a formula at a certain time of year. 

There is absolutely nothing that can be done about that 

because it is a matter of commercial law. 

Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? 

David T. C. Davies: I will, but may I finish my point 

first, because I think that the hon. Gentleman will be 

likely to agree with me? 

After 2018, all bets are off, and several things could 

happen when the money is paid off. The Government 

will no longer have to pay VAT so, at a stroke, 20% 

could be taken off the charges. They could decide to get 

rid of tolls and fund the maintenance themselves, although 

that is unlikely, because I have been given an inkling of 

the cost of maintaining two large bridges over an estuary—it 

is phenomenal. I do not have the figures to hand, but we 

worked out that we would need to charge at least one 

third of the current toll simply to cover maintenance 

costs, and the Government might want to take a little 

more just in case it is necessary to build a third bridge in 

the future. However, there is no doubt that there could 

be a huge cut in the tolls after 2018, when Severn River 

Crossing’s charges have been met. 

At the same time, the Welsh Assembly Government 

are loudly demanding control over both bridges, although 

one is entirely in England, which seems to have escaped 

their attention. However, they are being rather silent 

about what they would do to the tolls if they were put in 

charge. We need some transparency. There was a lot of 

anger in my constituency, and probably throughout 

south Wales, when the latest toll increases were announced, 

and I believe that some of that anger could be assuaged 

if we had more transparency about what will happen.


150WH 

I was disappointed when we were informed by one of 

the Minister’s colleagues in government that there was 

unlikely to be any decrease in charges whatsoever because 

of extra costs—the Committee was told that they were 

several hundred million pounds, but I believe that they 

are now around £112 million—that the Government 

want to recoup. I do not know what those costs are, and 

the first I heard of them was when the evidence was 

given to the Committee. We were told nothing about 

that when the inquiry took place, so we would like to 

know what those costs are and what will happen when 

they have been paid off. We cannot find ourselves in the 

2020s with the Severn bridge being used as a cash cow 

to milk the public in Wales and south-west England of 

money that the Government should not be taking through 

a toll, so a little transparency would be welcome. 

Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that 

the Government should commission a report from the 

Treasury to determine whether, if it paid all the tolls 

that will be due before 2018, all that money would be 

recovered from higher income tax receipts and lower 

benefit costs arising from the generation of extra jobs? 

David T. C. Davies: The hon. Gentleman puts me on 

the spot. I would certainly support a report from the 

Government giving more transparency over what will 

happen. His question seems to be fair and relevant, so 

perhaps that could be dealt with. 

I have entertained hon. Members for a little too long, 

so let me refer, finally, to how Wales is marketed. 

Currently, that is done by IBW. I shall have to tell 

hon. Members that that is International Business Wales, 

because no one, except a few people in the Welsh 

Assembly, really knows what “IBW” is. Previously, Wales 

was marketed extremely successfully by the WDA, and 

I do not need to tell anyone that that stood for the 

Welsh Development Agency. The time has come for us 

to reconsider the way in which Wales is marketed. We 

have plenty of evidence, some of which is anecdotal, 

that IBW has not been doing a very good job. It is time 

for the Welsh Assembly to set up a dedicated promotional 

body to sell Wales to the rest of the world. 

We have a good story to tell, and we still have a 

highly-skilled, capable and loyal work force. There is a 

great argument for persuading companies from across 

the world to come to Wales, and I look forward to 

working with members of the Committee, and Ministers 

from the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly 

Government, to try to ensure that that happens. 

1.46 pm 

Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): It is a 

pleasure to welcome this report, which I was pressing 

for. Wales sits within the UK economy and the global 

marketplace, and we all need to pull together in both 

the Welsh and the UK Governments to provide the best 

opportunities for Wales in a changing environment to 

give Wales the tools to do the job. I will cover the basic 

ground of the report and what we should be doing in 

Wales, including in the councils, focusing primarily, as 

has been said, on the UK Government’s responsibilities 

to present Wales as an accessible, adaptable and attractive 

location for inward investment in a global marketplace. 

Obviously, we cannot compete on labour costs with 

China, as we did in the past, but we have electronic 

global market reach and clearly competitiveness is about 

added value and skills. Emerging markets in China, 

India and south America should be seen as major 

opportunities for emerging consumer markets of high 

value products, whether arts or science-led, for the 

Welsh economy. We should refocus our efforts in that 

way. 

Following the global financial tsunami in 2008, Wales 

is particularly vulnerable, because the proportion of 

people in the public sector is greater, and as the Government 

begin to reduce the investment in public sector jobs and 

wages, consumer demand is disproportionately hit. We 

know that the root of very low or static growth in the 

UK is the collapse of consumer demand, which was still 

going up in 2010, albeit with a deficit, but the announcement 

of 500,000 job cuts deflated that and we are now 

bouncing along. The issue is to keep money going into 

local economies, and to target investment in the most 

productive area. 

Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) 

(PC): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the big 

headwind in household expenditure has more to do 

with the huge personal debt bubble and asset bubble 

built up under the last Labour Government—£1.4 trillion, 

and 100% of GDP? That is an incredible record and far 

higher than any other state in the developed world. Is 

that not why consumer spending is collapsing? 

Geraint Davies: I was not expecting to hear cries for 

austerity from Plaid Cymru, but there you go. They 

come from all sorts of directions. 

Very briefly, you will know, Mr Bone, that between 

1997 and 2008 Britain enjoyed a period of more rapid 

growth than had been seen since the war with paid back 

debt, massive growth in employment, and reductions in 

welfare costs. After the financial tsunami of 2008, my 

right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and 

Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and Barack Obama got the 

fiscal stimulus going so that we did not go into a global 

depression, which the hon. Gentleman seems to be 

calling for. In 2010, we then had a deficit, which the 

coalition Government inherited. Two thirds of that was 

due to the bankers and one third was due to excess 

investment above earnings to pump-prime the economy 

and keep it growing. The current Government then 

decided to focus more on cuts than growth to get the 

deficit down, ending up with virtually zero growth, and 

the deficit has been growing ever since. I do not know 

whether the hon. Gentleman wants to cross the Floor to 

the Conservative side, but when history is written, it will 

be seen as a painful place to be. 

David T. C. Davies: On a point of information, the 

debt had already gone from £350 billion to £650 billion 

before the real financial crisis started to strike in 2008. 

Geraint Davies: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the 

real rise in debt started in 2008 after the financial 

tsunami, and the previous Labour Government had 

paid back enormous amounts of debt, partly through 

the sale of—[Interruption.] I think I had better redirect 

my argument. We can rehearse those arguments again, 

but people realise that what I say is, in essence, a factual 

record of what happened. 

Guto Bebb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?


152WH 

David T. C. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give 

way? 

Geraint Davies: It is the case that debt is now going 

up. I give way first to the hon. Member for Monmouth, 

as he has only a small point to make. 

David T. C. Davies: May I direct the hon. Gentleman, 

and anyone else who is interested, to, dare I say it, my 

website? On the front page, there is a history of the debt 

and what actually happened, with every figure checked 

by the House of Commons Library. He will find that 

what I have put there is rather different from what he is 

suggesting. 

Geraint Davies: I have seen the European version of 

his website—it is called “Mon mouth”. Moving swiftly 

forward, I give way to the hon. Member for Aberconwy. 

Guto Bebb: On the specific point about the lack of 

consumer demand in the economy, we had a consumerdriven 

economy under the previous Labour Government—a 

consumer debt-driven economy, based on personal debt 

and Government debt. Households are now retrenching, 

which is one reason why there is a lack of consumer 

demand in the economy, but we need to rebalance the 

economy and not depend on further credit card-fuelled 

economic growth, as the previous Labour Government 

did. 

Geraint Davies: We do not want a debt-driven, 

borrowing-driven economy—obviously not. We need 

people to be given the opportunities to get jobs, create 

wealth and pay some of that back in tax. Post-1997, we 

had the transfer of a situation where the previous 

Conservative Government—history is repeating itself, 

of course—saw ever fewer people in jobs, paying less 

tax, and they were forced to cut services and increase 

debt and borrowing. That changed with Labour getting 

Britain back to work. Later, post-2008, it was a special 

situation, with too much borrowing and on the back of 

that, sub-prime debt. I agree that the sustainable future 

is about working and paying our way, but it is not about 

cutting to such an extent that we deflate the private 

sector so that it cannot invest in new jobs. We need the 

economy going along, with investment in consumer 

markets and productive areas. Although there is some 

level of agreement, we differ slightly on our interpretation 

of the past. 

Moving back to the future, what should the UK and 

Welsh Governments do to give Wales the best opportunity 

for economic growth? An area that we touched on in the 

report was UK Trade and Investment’s role, and I very 

much agree with the report’s recommendations. UKTI 

has 83 offices around the world, and they are opportunities 

to market Wales for inward investment and trade. The 

coalition Government, in their wisdom, decided to close 

down all the regional development agencies, so when we 

went to see UKTI in Berlin, Dusseldorf and so on, we 

asked what happens now when a German company 

comes along and says to UKTI, “We want to build a 

factory, a distillery, or whatever. Where should we go?” 

That used to be put on a computer platform that was 

drawn down by the RDAs, which would compete for 

that investment. As RDAs were abolished, that no 

longer happens, and clearly, there is an opening for 

Wales to move in to. Wales has great, ongoing opportunities 

to use UKTI to maximise the open goals that have been 

created by the Government taking the players off the 

pitch. 

Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con): I am grateful to 

the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As he will recall, 

when we travelled to Brussels as part of the Committee’s 

investigation—I thoroughly enjoyed working with him 

on the report—we were shocked when we heard from 

both UKTI in Brussels and from representatives of the 

Welsh Government there that they did not see their job 

as being to work with UKTI and to market Welsh 

opportunities. Indeed, UKTI said, despite what he has 

just said about RDAs, that it was getting attention more 

regularly from some English regions than they were 

from organisations promoting Wales. I am sure that he 

would agree that that situation ought to change. 

Geraint Davies: I am grateful for that intervention. 

When we saw the Welsh Government office in Brussels, 

it made its top three priorities clear. The first, as it is in 

Brussels, was policy in the EU, and in particular where 

it impacts on Wales—the common agricultural policy, 

and the rest of it. The second was grants and funding 

opportunities. Convergence funding has provided billions 

of pounds of investment in Wales, and that must be a 

key priority. We have seen it throughout Wales: recently, 

at Swansea university, £60 million from the European 

Investment Bank was invested in the second campus, 

and the £20 million in convergence funding for that is 

vital. Its third priority was the profile of Wales—to 

brand Wales. Those are key issues. 

As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we asked whether 

a fourth priority should be inward investment and 

trade. I agree that it should, and the response we received 

was that the office would be happy to work with UKTI. 

My understanding is that we are moving down that 

track. The report is helpful in encouraging co-operation 

with UKTI, which has 83 offices, while Wales has much 

fewer. However, where Wales does have them, it should 

work in co-operation. 

On the Welsh brand, I understand that the Welsh 

Government are now looking at a new marketing strategy, 

which again, I very much welcome. There are big 

opportunities to push forward the Welsh identity, and I 

think that castles should be considered. If Members 

will indulge me for a moment, having a background in 

multinational companies and global brands, the castles 

around Wales symbolise romance, history, culture, strengths 

and endurance, which are all qualities of Wales. It is all 

part of inward investment and tourism. The dragon 

tends to be slightly overwhelmed by the Chinese dragon, 

but there is hope yet. [Interruption.] Okay, let’s keep the 

dragon—sorry about that. 

Moving forward, it is not only about castles; it is 

about having a unique, clear identity for Wales in the 

global marketplace. The report referred to the success 

of the Welsh Development Agency. Some feel that if 

that brand still existed, it might be able to be re-harnessed 

in some respect. The report also suggests that we work 

in co-operation with private sector practitioners on the 

ground. The report’s basis was to get entrepreneurs, 

inward investors, multinationals, academics and an array 

of people in the economic community to give their view 

on what we should do, and we should be open-minded 

about taking advice as the global environment changes.


154WH 

The report is obviously a place in time, and a similar 

report will be needed downstream, because clearly, things 

are changing, and the role of the public and private 

sectors is important in providing the instruments for 

success in future. Few people know, when they look at 

some of the great global successes, such as the Apple 

iPhone, that some of the technology—the touch-screen 

and voice sensitivities—was delivered by the public 

sector, by a scientific foundation in the United States. 

Apple then took that and made it a global brand. Some 

people seem to think, “Oh well, it’s the private sector. 

They know what they are doing,” but fundamental 

science and innovation is vital for commercial success. 

The issue is to have that link between the academic, and 

research and development, going through to commercial 

success. 

I mention that because it is mentioned in our report 

and it is alive and well in our great city of Swansea—in 

Swansea university, in the first instance. People there 

are changing the rules. Within Swansea university, instead 

of having a silo situation, with the engineering department 

here, medicine there and so on, they mix it up so that 

the engineers are in with the medics. In terms of life 

sciences, development of nanoproducts and so on, they 

are working with inward investors in producing global 

brands. They have the support of Rolls-Royce, BP and 

others in relation to the development of a second campus 

worth £200 million. As I mentioned, the investment in 

that from Europe has been critical. Those coalition 

Members—in particular, the Tories, of course—who 

say yah-boo to the Europeans need to realise that a 

joined-up approach whereby we are working together to 

have a strong Europe and a strong Wales within Britain 

within Europe is vital for the future. We cannot retrench 

to become fish and chip shop Britain, as many on the 

Conservative Benches would like to see us. 

David T. C. Davies: What’s wrong with fish and chips? 

Geraint Davies: There is nothing wrong with fish and 

chips— 

Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair): Order. Chuntering 

should not occur at all and should definitely not be 

heard from those sitting behind the Minister. 

Geraint Davies: That is kind of you, Mr Bone; thank 

you. 

I want to mention the issue of city regions. In terms 

of working together in a critical mass in a global 

marketplace, one benefit of trying to bring together the 

four local authorities of Swansea, Neath Port Talbot, 

Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire, plus the universities 

and industry, to argue the commercial case as well as 

the social case for electrification of the railway to Swansea 

was that there was a refocusing on the common interests 

of that area. 

I am very pleased that the Welsh Government have 

taken the initiative in doing a consultation on city 

region status and have given the go-ahead for the Swansea 

Bay city region to move forward. Swansea has always 

been seen to be, to a certain extent at least, in the shadow 

of Cardiff, so it is interesting to note that Cardiff itself 

contains about 300,000 people, but the continuous urban 

footprint of Neath Port Talbot and Swansea, going to 

Llanelli, is one of about 400,000 people —the biggest 

urban footprint in Wales. We can work together within 

that and within Carmarthenshire, haloing out to 

Pembrokeshire and, indeed, Ceredigion—there is not 

really anywhere to go beyond that. The hon. Member 

for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) is very welcome in the 

Swansea Bay region. I am talking about working together 

to have a diverse skills base. Working with the universities 

and the local authorities to get coherence, focus and 

value for money is very important. 

I have already welcomed the rail electrification. It 

was regrettable that we had to work so hard to get the 

Government to agree to an extension from Cardiff to 

Swansea, but that was very good news. As I have said, 

the next thing that we want is to be able to say that we 

have super-connectivity. 

Of course, the Swansea Bay brand has been created 

partly through football. The Minister will know that 

Swansea won 3:1 against West Brom last night. That 

sort of news is transmitted to 600 million people in 

200 countries. That is important because the name 

Swansea is then known. Increasingly, people are hearing 

of Swansea who may not even have heard of Cardiff. 

That is amazing. 

Jonathan Edwards: I just want to add to the excellent 

point being made by the hon. Gentleman. As colleagues 

know, I have just returned from my honeymoon in Cape 

Verde, and I actually watched the Swansea game against 

Liverpool live on TV in my hotel room. 

Geraint Davies: I bet the hon. Gentleman’s wife was 

happy about that, with him shouting for a goal, but 

there we are. I wish him a long and happy marriage 

while watching Swansea. I thank him for that intervention, 

which was very welcome. 

On a serious note, the Swansea brand is of course a 

global brand, so there is an opportunity to attach 

various values to it, including the fact that it is a nice 

family and business environment by the sea. With internet 

connectivity, why would people want to be in the expensive 

congestion of London, for instance, when they could be 

overlooking Swansea bay? The fact that there are sporting 

successes, good schools, a good health service and so on 

is critical to that. 

I mention that point partly to move on to the regional 

pay issue. The Government have been considering the 

case for regional pay, and I will say two things about 

that. First, reducing the pay of people in the public 

services in Wales by some 20%, which is the implicit 

agenda, would remove even greater amounts of economic 

power from the consumer markets in Swansea and, 

again, push down the private sector; but as important 

or possibly more important, GPs and other public 

servants would think that they would be better off 

getting a job in Bristol, where their pay would be higher, 

and suddenly we would be denuded of some of the best 

GPs and other public servants. That would have implications 

for inward investors, who are being taken, for instance, 

from London. 

Let us consider how inward investment works. UKTI 

promotes the UK. Someone says, “Okay, I’ll go to the 

UK. That sounds great in terms of stability, environment, 

access to Europe and everything else, but where shall I 

go in the UK”—that is the next decision—“and how do 

we have added value there?” Of course, in Wales, we 

have environmental opportunities. We want to increase


156WH 

[Geraint Davies] 

accessibility, skills and research and development. However, 

if the families going there suddenly do not have the 

right GP or education services because of wage deflation 

in Wales, that will be very bad for inward investment. 

Guto Bebb: I share many of the hon. Gentleman’s 

concerns in relation to regional pay. Certainly, in an 

area such as north Wales, part of which I represent, it is 

a real concern—Chester is within 45 minutes of my 

constituency. Was there anything specific, therefore, 

about people working in the Courts Service that meant 

that the Labour Government were quite happy to see 

those working in Mold paid less than those working in 

Chester, even though there are only 10 miles between 

them? 

Geraint Davies: That is a very well rehearsed 

intervention—“How can you have this, that and the 

other?” Obviously, there is a case for London weighting, 

for example. There are some cases at the margin for 

differentials, but in the main what we do not want is 

suddenly to have a free market approach to regional 

pay, as the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues seem to want to 

promote. That would undermine inward investment in 

areas such as his own, because people would not be 

paid the right rate for the job. 

In a global environment, regional pay becomes even 

less relevant. I hope that over time the average pay in 

Swansea will escalate quite phenomenally because of 

the emergence of the second campus at the university 

and of satellite industries—SMEs and global companies 

locating beside that centre of excellence and moving 

forward from that. I am talking about international 

links from Swansea university and, indeed, the other 

university in Swansea, Swansea Metropolitan university, 

which delivers the highest proportion of SMEs that last 

for three years or more in Wales. It is building up digital 

clusters in interactive technology, animation and modern 

manufacturing design. If we can move to a level at 

which the community of people around that intellectual 

base evolves, so that people can get a number of jobs in 

the same place, the average pay may go up. What does 

that mean for regional pay in the public sector? We 

might stop that through the moves that have been set out. 

We have already mentioned bridge tolls. My view in a 

nutshell is that the Severn bridge toll is a tax stranglehold 

on the south Wales economy. We should eliminate the 

toll sooner rather than later. The reason why I want the 

Government to evaluate immediately whether, if they 

paid that toll themselves, they would get the money 

back in jobs, in income tax from new jobs and in benefit 

cuts from people going off the dole is that the toll is 

undermining inward investment in south Wales. 

The Welsh Government recently produced a report 

that said that £107 million was being lost from the 

Welsh economy because of the tolls. I suggest that that 

is an underestimate. Let me give a simple example. A 

small builder from Newport, who wants to retile roofs 

and do extensions, would not go across to Bristol to 

look for that work now because of the toll, but if there 

was no toll, he or she would do so. I therefore believe 

that we should look at that again. 

As we see other city regions, such as Manchester, 

emerging, it would be unbelievable for the person or the 

group that is leading Manchester city region to suggest 

a toll on the M5 to build some infrastructure. That 

would be unheard of. Similarly, we must look carefully 

at the economic impact of removing tolls. The removal 

of the Forth bridge toll, which was only £1, increased 

traffic by 13%. The Select Committee report is about 

what the UK and Welsh Governments can do to stimulate 

inward investment and growth. Getting rid of the tolls 

is clearly an option. 

The Silk report talked about borrowing powers and 

so on, but frankly, the first issue to get right is ensuring 

that Wales has its fair share of the UK cake—though I 

do understand that it is a squeezed cake. We have had 

something like 2.5% of the transport investment in 

recent years, but proportionally we should get about 

5%. There is a plan to spend £32 billion on High Speed 

2 to connect north and south England. Our fair share 

would be £1.9 billion, and unless we also have a spur off 

the line, inward investment that would otherwise go to 

Wales will end up in the north of England. 

Is the Silk report just a way of saying, “Actually, 

we’re not going to give you any more money. We don’t 

want to know the arguments about a fair share and 

Barnett and all that. If you want more money, raise it 

yourself from a lower tax base.”? Wales’s gross value 

added is about 70% of the UK average however, so it 

less capable of doing that. We do not need new tax 

raising powers and a lot of uncertainty about the future 

for inward investors; we need a fair share of British 

investment in our services, capital investment in our 

transport infrastructure and to deflate the costs of 

entering south Wales by bridge. 

I shall move swiftly on, because I know others want 

to speak. The tax regime leads to a tax on inward 

investment. One small example, which leads to a significant 

example, is that in recent days Tata Group has announced 

900 job losses in Britain, 600 of which are in Port 

Talbot in the Swansea bay city region. The job losses 

are largely due to a fall in demand in Tata’s core 

markets in Europe, which accounts for two-thirds of its 

sales. I have had discussions with Tata, and part of its 

decision is about a level playing field on tax. In Britain, 

Tata pays 50% more tax that it would in its European 

operations, due to the additional carbon pricing that 

the coalition Government have introduced. 

I worked for five years in the Environment Agency 

Wales on flood risk management and adapting Wales to 

climate change—incidentally, the Government have cut 

investment in those areas, despite the flooding. Although 

I am a great supporter of investment in green technology 

and a sustainable future, we need a level playing field. 

We cannot have a situation in which steel production 

moves from south Wales to South America, for example, 

and we end up with dirtier steel production, because 

taxes are too high here. We all share the same environment. 

The European tax regime, which has carbon taxing 

built in to it, is the right way forward. Adding a huge 

amount to UK prices, which drives down jobs and clean 

production in Britain, is not the way forward. 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales 

(Stephen Crabb): The hon. Gentleman is wrong to 

suggest that there is any link between Tata’s sad 

announcement of job losses in Wales last week and its 

concerns about energy prices. Companies that are intensive 

energy users, such as Tata, face a real issue. The Government


158WH 

are looking at it, and we have made £250 million available 

to help intensive energy users. Tata’s announcement last 

week had everything to do with changes in international 

steel markets globally and nothing to do with what he is 

saying about the challenge of green energy. 

Geraint Davies: I do not accept that at all. Certainly, 

the main driver of the Tata job reductions was, as I 

mentioned, the reduction in demand, particularly in the 

European market. Someone running a business clearly 

looks for ways to reduce costs. There are two drivers for 

a business—the revenue that it gets and the costs that it 

pays. Revenues are going down because demand is 

down due to the global environment, but if expenditure 

is going up due to excessive costs, that will also form 

part of the choice over how many job cuts are made. In 

the business mix, energy prices have an impact, and if 

they did not, Tata would not be talking to me about 

them. It is clearly also talking about the wider marketplace 

and the structure of the market. 

I should say that a great deal of great work is going 

on in Tata. With Swansea university, it is developing 

multi-layered steel—six layers of different steel—that 

produces its own electricity and heat when clad on a 

building. It reduces carbon footprints and may become 

a global game changer. In addition, Tata are investing 

£185 million in a second blast furnace—increasing capacity 

production from 4 million tonnes to 4.7 million tonnes 

a year—alongside the Margam pit, which has particularly 

good coal for the production of coke for steel production. 

There is a strong future for Tata, but we have to get the 

right balance to protect our environment, while protecting 

competitiveness for the steel industry in Britain, and 

south Wales in particular. 

We have had long discussions about to what extent 

we should cut expenditure, as opposed to grow revenue, 

to get the British economy back on track. The Minister 

will know that the International Monetary Fund suggested 

that for every 1% cut in expenditure, growth would go 

down by 0.5%. More recently, it suggested that for every 

1% cut, growth goes down by 1.7%, so expenditure cuts 

do not seem to be as good an idea as they used to. Our 

focus should be on revenue. A business person who runs 

a small business in Uplands, in Swansea, came to me 

recently and said, “I have a business, and if it makes a 

loss, the last thing that I am going to do is sack all my 

workers and sell my tools. I have to tighten my costs and 

focus on selling more.” That is what the Select Committee 

report should be about—increasing the productive capacity 

and commercial success of Wales in the global marketplace. 

Other changes are being made that impact on consumer 

demand and the opportunities for people to get jobs, 

help themselves and help their local economy. I should 

say in passing, as I did in the main Chamber yesterday, 

that some changes to the welfare system that are designed 

to reduce the costs of the welfare state are likely to do 

the opposite, by preventing people from accessing work. 

I am thinking particularly of under 25-year-olds having 

their housing benefit cut, because 45% of such people 

have children. I know of a woman who has been made 

redundant and a man who worked for nine years—from 

the age of 15—but was made redundant six months 

ago; they have two children and could face homelessness. 

If they are homeless and of no fixed abode, they will 

not be able to apply for jobs. That does not make sense. 

Under the other housing benefit change—the empty 

bedroom tax—a couple with two children and, therefore, 

three bedrooms will be suddenly charged £7.50 a week 

for each empty room if one child goes to university and 

the other has a job or goes to live with their boyfriend 

or girlfriend. They might say to their son or daughter, 

“It’s going to cost me this money, so you don’t really 

want to go to college, do you?” That is wrong; some 

people simply will not be able to pay. 

People have come to me with disposable incomes of 

about £20 a week, after utility bills and so on. I am 

particularly thinking of a man with medical problems, 

who told me, “I use my spare room for painting. If I 

have to pay the £7.50 for it, I will end up with £12.50. A 

council tax benefit cut of 20%, will mean another £5. I 

will be down to £8 a week for my food, clothing and 

leisure.” That does not make any economic or social 

sense. That person will end up homeless. 

I have been a local authority leader, and local authorities 

historically built two and three-bedroom houses for 

families. There is a shortage of one-bedroom properties. 

Everyone is supposed to go into such properties, but 

there are not enough, so they have to pay to go to the 

private sector, which costs more. It does not add up on a 

simple balance sheet, and it does not add up in terms of 

access to jobs and providing an environment for people 

to work in, and we want people to work. If people are 

not available to work for inward investors, because we 

have under-occupation and empty houses on the one 

hand and homelessness on the other due to the housing 

benefit changes, the system will not make sense. 

We have also seen cuts to the working families tax 

credit. If a small company in Wales can afford to pay 

someone £12,000, or whatever, and that person can only 

afford to work for £15,000, it makes sense for the 

Government to provide the £3,000 difference, because 

we get someone a job in a growing business. People who 

work part-time will lose nearly £4,000, with the move 

from 18 to 16 hours. People will not have jobs and we 

will not have growing businesses, so there will be problems. 

We therefore need to think about the architecture of the 

welfare state in relation to boosting jobs and job access. 

On banks and finance, there is a problem in Wales. I 

do not know whether the Chair of the Welsh Affairs 

Committee will agree, but we have discussed the possibility 

of doing a report on access to finance for small business. 

Since I last spoke to him about that, more and more 

businesses, some of them quite big, have told me that 

they have the bookings and can do the work, but they 

need the money and the banks are letting them down. 

Of course, that is not an issue only for Wales, but the 

proportion of small businesses is higher there than in 

England. 

Wales has great opportunities for tourism. If we get 

the branding right, it is a great place to visit, particularly 

for environmental health or historical trips. Many mature 

people, particularly from north America, do not want 

to get skin cancer from lying on beaches, but speak 

English and want fine food, so there are lots of opportunities 

to build up the Welsh brand and encourage inward 

investment. 

That naturally leads me to the Dylan Thomas centenary 

in 2014. He was from Swansea, of course, and there is 

now a great opportunity to market the Dylan Thomas 

festival, which runs from 27 October, his birthday, 

to 9 November, which was the day of his death. Not


160WH 

[Geraint Davies] 

enough is known about that festival—it is not like the 

Hay and Edinburgh festivals—but there is an opportunity 

next year to gear that up for the following year and to 

internationalise it. The Swansea bay beer festival might 

be moved into that week; of course, Dylan Thomas had 

a few drinks and enjoyed himself, as well as writing fine 

literature and poetry. We should celebrate that, and 

during that week we want Swansea to be the place to be. 

We need to learn from the Hay festival and others, and I 

am already involved in trying to make international 

links, perhaps without getting people from Bollywood 

to go. We want that to be the place to be, as a great 

celebration for the whole of Wales, as well as for the 

Swansea bay city region. 

In conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: “Shame!”] I know, 

but it had to happen. A bright future is possible if 

emerging markets work together. We can use our insights, 

as team UK and team Wales, to build a more exciting, 

productive, richer and fairer future for Wales. The UK 

Government need to think again about several issues, 

and I have already mentioned enabling people to work, 

providing easy access to markets, inward investment 

and encouraging success. It is important that the Welsh 

Government work in partnership on that and take 

forward their own successful initiatives, so that there is 

mutual learning and respect in the interests of having a 

strong economy for all our people. 


Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair): Before I call the next 

speaker, hon. Members might find it useful to know 

that I anticipate two Divisions in the House at 2.30 pm. 

If that happens, I will suspend the sitting until 10 minutes 

after the start of the second Division. 

2.23 pm 

Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) 

(PC): It is a pleasure, Mr Bone, to serve under the 

chairmanship of the star strike bowler of the parliamentary 

cricket team. I had not intended to speak, so I will keep 

my speech brief. I will be probably more disjointed than 

I usually am in my parliamentary contributions. 

The report is hugely important—I congratulate the 

Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee—and has been 

well-received, especially by the Welsh media, who gave 

it significant coverage. As we know, economic growth is 

driven by four interconnected factors, the first of which 

is household expenditure, which accounts for 62% of 

GDP growth in the UK. That is perhaps testament to 

overdependence on that specific component during the 

Labour years. The factor second is Government expenditure. 

We are witnessing more than £80 billion of cuts during 

the current comprehensive spending review, which is a 

major head wind for the course of the British state. The 

third and fourth factors are exports and business investment, 

in which foreign direct investment—FDI—plays a huge 

part. The report was very timely. 

At one time, Wales was a world leader, or definitely a 

leader within the UK, in generating FDI. Behind my 

family home in Capel Hendre is an enormous industrial 

estate, with companies from Korea, Japan, the US and, 

indeed, all over the world, which is testament to its 

success. There have been concerns that we are over-reliant 

on foreign direct investment and not sufficiently promoting 

indigenous businesses, but there is now growing agreement 

that the pendulum has swung too far the other way. 

Unfortunately, Wales is now among the worse-performing 

constituent parts of the UK in terms of FDI. 

We are living in an age of reductions in Government 

expenditure and of contraction in household expenditure. 

Recently, the consumer confidence index was at minus 30 

—the lowest it has ever been—showing the huge economic 

head winds that are being faced. The hon. Member for 

Swansea West (Geraint Davies) wanted to appoint me 

as an exponent of austerity, but I assure him that I do 

not support the experiment of cutting Government 

expenditure. That policy was set by the Chancellor, so 

concentrating on the promotion of FDI in Wales is key 

to our economic well-being, and it is the one element 

that can help to stimulate the other two components— 

business investment and exports. 

I want to highlight some of the report’s important 

recommendations. First, we need to work closely with 

UK Trade and Investment to help promote Wales as a 

destination for FDI, and I agree with comments made 

by Members from all parts of the Chamber. I welcome 

the announcement, following our report, that UKTI 

has based an official in Wales. We were the only component 

part of the United Kingdom not to have such a 

representative, so I am glad that that has been rectified. 

I want the Department for Business, Innovation and 

Skills to instruct UKTI to pursue a similar path to 

Germany Trade and Invest, which has a remit to set 

specific targets for directing investment to the poorest 

parts of the state. That policy does not exist in the UK, 

but it would help to drive FDI into those areas, such as 

Wales, that are underperforming. Indeed, we could 

learn a lot from the example of German economic 

policy, which has enabled Germany to address huge 

wealth inequalities following reunification. It is incredible 

that, following 50 or 60 years of communism, its wealth 

levels are far more equal than the UK’s, but I shall not 

go down that road. 

The signature recommendation in the report and the 

one most trailed in the press was the need to reuse the 

Welsh Development Agency brand. As a Plaid Cymru 

politician, I should take some credit for the original 

creation of the WDA, because it was the Plaid Cymru 

economic commission in the 1960s and 1970s—under 

Dafydd Wigley, Phil Williams and Eurfyl ap Gwilym—that 

first had the idea of the dedicated economic investment 

arm that later morphed into the WDA. I am not talking 

about reconstituting the WDA as it was when it was 

swallowed by the Welsh Government, but about reusing 

the brand. It is a global brand that, to this day, everybody 

recognises. The reality is that the successor bodies set up 

by the Welsh Government have nothing near the recognition 

of the WDA, so I want them urgently to reuse the 

brand. 

Paul Flynn: I admire the skill of the Select Committee 

in choosing a day for this debate when there is no other 

subject to distract the media. One abiding impression of 

the report is that it is part of the begging bowl psychology 

in which we have one dominant partner in a relationship 

with another subservient partner, and we know which 

one is which. As it has come from the party, would not a 

more accurate title for this report have been, “One 

Hundred Shades of Blue”?


162WH 

Jonathan Edwards: As always, the hon. Gentleman 

makes a fantastic contribution. 

When I close my remarks, I should like to talk about 

recent announcements in relation to the Silk report and 

borrowing powers, but before I get to that point, let me 

just say that another important element of this report 

was the need to use convergence funding appropriately. 

Wales is a net recipient of EU funds, and I am wary of 

some of the discussions under way at the moment about 

real-term cuts in British contributions to the EU pot 

and in the EU expenditure pot, because that will have a 

direct impact on cohesion funding for some of the 

poorest communities in our country. 

Finally, one of the key elements of the report relates 

to transport. Wales is at the heart of one of the major 

trading routes within the European Union. We export 

more to the Republic of Ireland than we do to all the 

BRIC countries put together, so Wales is not some sort 

of marginal geographical location; we are at the centre 

of one of those trading routes. 

2.30 pm 

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House. 

[ANDREW ROSINDELL in the Chair] 

3pm 

Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD): It is a pleasure 

to serve under your chairmanship in this rather intimate 

and select gathering, Mr Rosindell. There are important 

issues to be raised, but I will resist the temptation to 

talk about future inquiries and previous inquiries. I do 

not seek to emulate the lengthy contribution that we 

heard earlier in any way. 

I am pleased that the Select Committee undertook its 

inquiry, and I congratulate its Chair, my hon. Friend 

the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), on 

the way in which he introduced this topic, as well as, of 

course, his chairing of our Select Committee. He has a 

knack for choosing the issues of the moment. 

Inward investment is critical because the circumstances 

in which Wales finds itself are different from those of 

the glory days of inward investment that we saw in the 

1980s and early 1990s. On the global stage, the background 

of the Select Committee’s inquiry is that, since the 

1980s, world trade in goods and services has increased 

more than sevenfold, while the emerging economies 

have seen their share of trade quadruple and there has 

been a fourfold increase in the effective supply of global 

labour. That is a continuing trend for China and India, 

which are expected to add more than 30 million workers 

to the world’s labour pool by 2030. 

As the Committee’s inquiry identified, Wales can no 

longer assume that overseas companies will be tempted 

to invest by the traditional inducements of grants and 

low labour costs. We have to adapt continually to 

challenging and consistently changing domestic and 

global conditions to attract new inward investment, 

which means working smarter and more flexibly to find 

more innovative ways to encourage inward investment 

into our country. 

I will focus specifically on two issues that we investigated 

in the inquiry: the importance of higher education; and 

infrastructure. First, let me address the importance of 

the knowledge economy. As emerging economies move 

up the value chain to compete with Western companies 

in the manufacture of high-tech products and attracting 

research and development investment, the OECD has 

stated: 

“If developed countries are to remain competitive in the global 

economy, they will have to rely more on knowledge, technology 

and intangible assets.” 

In practice, that means that today’s students and graduates 

will have to provide cutting-edge research—not just 

research for research’s sake, but research that has a 

commercial edge—that will ensure our nation’s prosperity. 

Our inquiry shows that there needs to be far greater 

partnership working between the higher and further 

education sectors, and industry, as well as closer engagement 

with business. In that spirit, I welcome one of the things 

that the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) 

said in his long speech: the developments in Swansea 

bay and Swansea university’s second campus. The 

university’s vice chancellor has met many Members of 

Parliament to celebrate the work he hopes to achieve at 

the second campus. I hesitate to say this, but in the new 

budget agreement between the Labour party and Plaid 

Cymru in the Assembly, there was a commitment of 

some £10 million for a science park. That will largely be 

in Bangor, but I hope there will be significant rub-off 

on Aberystwyth university, too, because that is also 

important. 

At Aberystwyth university in my constituency, there 

has been meaningful partnership for a long time with 

the commercial sector and developing economies in 

other parts of the world. For a medium-sized university, 

it punches well above its weight. There is investment in 

research that seeks solutions to many global issues, and 

over the next five years, the university’s world-leading 

research will address the major challenges faced across 

the world. I have repeatedly talked about the Institute 

of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences over 

the past seven years, for which I make no apology, 

because excellent, world-leading research is being 

undertaken in fights against famine, climate change, 

loss of biodiversity and disease. Collaboration between 

researchers in Aberystwyth, Africa and India is already 

leading to breakthroughs in the fight against famine 

with the development of climate-resistant crops. Such 

excellent research, which is often talked about, is happening, 

so the challenge is to market it overseas more effectively 

and rigorously. 

Recently, to commercialise its intellectual property, 

Aberystwyth university has been developing cutting-edge 

smartphone technology—that is not unique to Swansea; 

it is happening in mid-Wales, too—and it is leading the 

way in developing mobile apps. In recognition of the 

university’s innovative approach to exploiting its intellectual 

property and expertise through smartphone platforms, 

it was awarded funding for those developments by the 

UK Intellectual Property Office. 

The good work that is happening across higher education 

not only benefits my local economy in Ceredigion and 

those places where partnerships have been formed, but 

encourages students to identify and develop commercial 

ideas, which is a key role. In other words, that is exactly 

the sort of creative entrepreneurial activity that needs 

to be encouraged and supported in the HE sector. 

Our report highlighted research funding. We also 

noted that in a report on inward investment during the 

previous Parliament, but Wales has not been successful 

at securing its fair share of research funding, which 

remains a problem, so that battle needs to be waged.


164WH 

[Mr Mark Williams] 

One idea we heard in evidence was for business angels 

to come in and help to develop products more quickly 

and get them to market. That is the sort of idea that 

could be picked up by a local firm, academics or students, 

and spun out into a company. For a company to develop 

in those early stages, it needs the right facilities, and that 

might be a role for the emerging science park that the 

Administration in Cardiff are pursuing. 

We are some way off facilitating such ideas at any 

great size. We need more joined-up thinking from the 

Welsh Assembly Government to offer support to such 

facilitators of enterprise. Support needs to be tailored 

to skills and the innovation that is happening at any one 

time, rather than divided into prescriptive sectoral targets, 

as the Assembly Government have done. There was a 

debate about whether those sectoral targets are right 

and what additional targets should be added. For example, 

the absence of tourism is a key issue affecting my area, 

and it was subsequently added. That was welcome, but 

it took some time for the Assembly Government to 

reach that conclusion. 

We have heard about reinforcing the Welsh brand, 

and it makes sense that Welsh Government overseas 

offices should be collocated with UK Trade and Investment 

offices so that the Welsh Government can efficiently 

utilise the strength and capabilities of UKTI. Wales 

does not have sufficient resources to work alone in 

attracting inward investment to Wales, and we must 

make every penny count. I concur with the hon. Member 

for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), 

whom I welcome back from Cape Verde, on the welcome 

addition of a UKTI official in Wales. The partnership 

between those two groups, which was not always evident 

in the discussions and inquiries we had, both in Germany 

and here, needs to mean something practical if things 

are to be achieved. 

Finally, on connectivity, we asked UKTI about its 

checklist of motivators to attract people to invest in 

Wales. The hon. Member for Swansea West was constant 

in pushing for the recognition of the quality of life in 

Wales, and we can all empathise with the life experience 

of living in Wales. The list of motivators also included 

the transport network and broadband. I welcome the 

announcement on electrification for south Wales, and I 

applaud what the Wales Office and my hon. Friend the 

Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) have been doing 

to highlight electrification for north Wales. I am not yet 

going to launch a campaign for electrification for mid-Wales, 

but I will reiterate—despite the lack of an audience, 

because of events elsewhere in the Palace—the case for 

an hourly service on the Cambrian line between 

Aberystwyth and Shrewsbury. The hon. Member for 

Newport West (Paul Flynn), who is no longer in the 

Chamber, might not appreciate that, and this is technically 

a devolved matter, but it impinges on my area’s capacity 

to develop economically. 

Aberystwyth might well be perceived by many to be 

at the end of the line—and not only in the physical 

sense—but we have the highest proportion of small 

businesses per head anywhere in the United Kingdom. 

Aberystwyth is also a strategically important university 

town with a large skills base in a county whose huge 

tourist opportunities have been recognised by the Wales 

Tourism Alliance. That is one reason why we will be 

looking to mid-Wales, rather than taking up the captivating 

invitation to join the city region in Swansea bay—it is 

pushing it a bit for us in Aberystwyth to join the hon. 

Member for Swansea West down there. Aberystwyth is 

a strategic town of significance—that is our focus, and 

it has been recognised by the National Assembly—and 

we want that recognised in our transport infrastructure 

as well. 

In his evidence to us, Professor Stuart Cole said this 

is not about the headcount on the train between 

Aberystwyth and London, but much more about 

interconnectivity. There are few peripheral areas of the 

United Kingdom where people cannot get a direct 

service to London. As a student, 27 years ago, I could 

get the seven o’clock inter-city train from Aberystwyth 

to London, and freight came into Aberystwyth as well, 

but that has long since gone and we do not even have an 

hourly service. Having such a service is important, 

because it could re-energise parts of mid-Wales, from 

Welshpool, through Newtown, Machynlleth and Caersws, 

and along the infamous route to Aberystwyth. 

Geraint Davies: Having been on holiday every year of 

my life to Aberystwyth, I would concur that there is a 

great opportunity for cultural, environmental and all 

sorts of other tourism. 

Mr Williams: I am grateful for that endorsement. Of 

course, there are Dylan Thomas connections, as well, if 

we go a bit further down the coast to New Quay—Cei 

Newydd—in my constituency. I thank the hon. Gentleman 

for that intervention. 

I was disappointed when the Select Committee went 

by train to Aberystwyth a couple of weeks ago. I was 

grateful that the Chair encouraged the Committee to 

go, but when the Welsh Government Transport Minister, 

Carl Sargeant, came to see us, he confirmed that we 

would not see the hourly service until 2015, despite the 

fact that we had been promised it for 2014, and despite 

the fact that all the infrastructure has been done. 

On broadband, I very much welcome the £425 million 

agreement between the Welsh Government and BT to 

deliver next-generation broadband to 96% of Welsh 

homes and businesses by 2015. I am glad that my hon. 

Friend the Member for Monmouth mentioned that 

rurality is important. This is not just about the M4 

corridor or the A55. There is a bigger picture, which 

some of us will not stop talking about. There is real 

potential across Wales to attract businesses, but the 

proof of the pudding is in the eating. We need hard, 

imaginative, bold targets, but we also need to see the 

reality. 

Finally, the inquiry clearly identified that the Welsh 

Government need a dedicated trade promotion agency. 

The evidence shows that, since 2004, investment 

opportunities have been missed because of this omission, 

and Wales branding has taken a knock since the days of 

the Welsh Development Agency and the loss of the 

Wales Tourist Board. Branding Wales is hugely important; 

it is tough out there, but we have a strong product that 

makes Wales stand out from the crowd. I am thinking 

particularly of culture, outdoor pursuits, tourism, the 

creative industries, and the potential jobs and wealth 

created by holding events such as the Ryder cup. There 

are huge opportunities for us and, in that context, the 

Select Committee report was highly valuable. In particular,


166WH 

the sections on infrastructure and higher education 

resonate strongly in terms of the future development of 

my area. 

Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair): I invite Jonathan 

Edwards to resume his speech, which was interrupted 

by the Division. 

3.14 pm 

Jonathan Edwards: Diolch yn fawr, Mr Rosindell. 

First, may I apologise to Members for rudely interrupting 

proceedings to perform my telling duties in the series of 

close votes we have just had in the main Chamber? 

Before the Divisions, I was remarking on the importance 

of transport links, which is clearly emphasised in the 

report. Wales is located at the centre of one of the most 

important trading routes in the European Union, so it 

is vital, with the ongoing negotiations among our partners 

at a European level, that there is at least a southern link 

running through south Wales and linking the Republic 

of Ireland with Britain and Europe. Personally, I would 

also like to see a northern link going through north 

Wales, which would then fund the improvement of 

transport infrastructure there. I welcome the fact that 

the Government are actively looking at that, and I am 

glad to put that on the record. 

I want to touch briefly on the bilateral negotiations 

on funding for the Welsh Government and on the recent 

Silk commission, which reported as I left on my 

honeymoon. Both those things impact directly on the 

Committee’s report. First, on the bilateral negotiations, 

I was disappointed that there was no reform of the 

block grant; there was not even a Barnett floor, let alone 

reform of the housing revenue account subsidy scheme. 

On the borrowing powers that were announced, the 

reality is that we could not buy a packet of crisps using 

the current powers. The Welsh Government Finance 

Minister has been completely outfoxed, yet again, by 

the Treasury. 

The conclusions of the bilateral negotiations might, 

however, come into play if the recommendations of the 

Silk commission are implemented, so their full 

implementation could be of value. To access the borrowing 

powers announced in the bilateral agreement, we need 

fiscal levers to raise revenue, so the more tax-sharing 

arrangements there are between the Welsh Government 

and the UK Government, the better. That is why it is 

imperative that we do not stick just to the minor taxes 

preferred by the Welsh Government—stamp duty, the 

aggregates levy and the long-haul airport tax—but devolve 

sharing arrangements for income tax, which would 

enable the Welsh Government to have far greater leverage 

in terms of their borrowing powers. Given that their 

capital budgets are being cut by 42%, they need those 

borrowing powers, not only so that they can level out 

peaks and troughs using fiscal levers, but so that they 

have power to invest. The current position of the First 

Minister is therefore completely bizarre, and it is a huge 

let-down to the people of Wales. 

Fiscal powers are important with regard to political 

accountability, which is something that finds favour 

with Conservative Members, but the main reason we 

should have fiscal powers is that they would incentivise 

the Welsh Government to turn the Welsh economy 

around. At the moment, given that they get a block 

grant, there is no incentive for them to develop it. If 

they were responsible for raising their own revenue, 

there would be an incentive to generate wealth to invest 

in public services. 

Geraint Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman’s position that 

Wales should have devolved power over income tax, 

and that a proportion of that could be used as a revenue 

stream to pay back borrowing, but that Wales should 

not use tolls to pay back borrowing which, as I said, is a 

tax on inward investment and trade? 

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has a longstanding 

position on this. He has explained my position 

on the importance of the devolution of income tax 

quite adequately. The reality is that if we devolved an 

income tax-sharing arrangement, we would, even if we 

did not change the level, have huge leverage to borrow 

far more. Personally, I would like the Welsh Government 

to have responsibility for setting tax bands, but the 

reality is that we are nowhere near getting into that 

debate. 

On the tolls, I would like the Welsh Government to 

have responsibility for the Severn bridges, because they 

are the major access route to the south Wales economy. 

There would be a leverage potential on the revenue, but 

that is not my primary reason for supporting this. I 

would like the Welsh Government to have responsibility 

for the tolls and to set them at a rate that would enable 

them, on top of maintaining the bridges, to have money 

to reinvest in wider Welsh infrastructure, but that rate 

would be far lower than at present. 

I look forward to next week’s autumn statement, and 

plenty of progress on the bilateral negotiations and the 

Silk commission. 

3.19 pm 

Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab): It is a pleasure 

to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I 

congratulate the hon. Member for Monmouth (David 

T. C. Davies), the Chair of the Select Committee on 

Welsh Affairs, on securing this important debate, and 

on the work that he and the Committee have carried out 

on the inquiry into inward investment in Wales. 

I agree with the Committee Chairman’s grave 

disappointment that the debate clashes with the statement 

on Leveson, and I hope that the topics that we are 

discussing will be revisited, as they are important. The 

hon. Gentleman reiterated eloquently the arguments 

that he has made in the past, together with my hon. 

Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) 

and others, about the Severn bridge and the importance 

of Government transparency in that respect. There was 

a little bit of the knockabout partisan stuff that I do not 

much like; but there were social democratic tinges to the 

speech too—and I dare the hon. Gentleman to put that 

on his website. The point that it would not be desirable 

to compete with China on labour costs was a good 

start, as was the fact that he mentioned the importance 

of education and Government-funded infrastructure 

and transport. He is developing a bit more of a social 

democratic tinge, and that is to be welcomed. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint 

Davies) made an eloquent and wide-ranging speech 

about, among other things, the importance of electronic


168WH 

[Susan Elan Jones] 

global market reach; economic growth under the previous 

Labour Government of the United Kingdom; the pitfalls 

of regional pay and the tragic situation of Tata steel, 

with the related unemployment. He also spoke eloquently 

about the Welsh brand and tourism, and the importance 

of the Dylan Thomas festival, which I too welcome. 

The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) spoke 

about emerging economies and made an important 

point about links with universities, and working in 

partnership with them. I also want to add a plug for 

Glyndwr university, and its links to Airbus. He also 

spoke about the importance of tourism, and we would 

all welcome the fact that that is now a priority sector for 

the Welsh Government, and for all of us. He discussed 

the fact that it is important for Wales to work alongside 

UKTI, and the importance of infrastructure and rural 

broadband. 

The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr 

(Jonathan Edwards) was, again, a bit partisan, but I 

suppose that is his job, really. It was nice to see him 

back all suntanned from his honeymoon, and I do not 

want to be too partisan on this occasion. I am sure it is 

good to see him back with us. However, I want to make 

one small partisan point. The hon. Gentleman spoke of 

the importance of promoting Wales and of openness 

about how that is done, and mentioned foreign direct 

investment and changed attitudes to it. The tiny point I 

want to make is that I seem to remember the main 

opposition to that in the 1980s—it might have been in 

the ’70s too, but I am too young to remember—tended 

to come from the Welsh nationalists. As for the discussions 

on funding arrangements, Silk and the like, I am sure 

that we shall have that debate. I hope that it will be on 

the Floor of the House, where it deserves to be. 

I shall try to be relatively brief, because I know that 

there are one or two other matters that hon. Members 

would like to participate in today. As the Government 

response to the inquiry says, the Committee’s report is 

comprehensive and wide-ranging. I will not respond to 

every one of the recommendations, but I hope to touch 

on the key themes. I want first to talk briefly about why 

inward investment is so crucial to the Welsh economy. 

At the moment, at the aggregated UK level, it is 

difficult to see where a potential source of significant 

future economic growth lies, given the austerity agenda 

being pursued by the UK Government. Despite an 

Olympic-driven injection of 1% growth in the last quarter, 

yesterday’s—albeit slight—downward revision of previous 

quarters’ figures is a reminder that the Government’s 

economic policies have massively under-achieved. Two 

years ago, the Chancellor forecast growth of 4.6% but, 

in reality, in that time, the UK economy has grown by 

0.5%. None of us can rejoice at that. Tellingly, the 

economy is the same size now as it was a year ago and it 

remains more than 3% below its pre-global financial 

crisis peak. The reason is clear to the Opposition: it is 

that Government spending is being cut too far and too 

fast, and household spending is being squeezed by the 

increased cost of living, thanks largely to the Government’s 

decision to increase VAT, as well as the impact of high 

inflation and rising energy bills. 

With consumption—which accounts for around two 

thirds of the quarterly GDP figures—being held back, 

we need significant levels of investment if there is to be 

growth in the economy. However, the Office for Budget 

Responsibility has slashed its forecasts for growth in 

business investment over the past two years. They are 

down this year to a predicted 0.7%, which is a huge 

drop from the 8.6% predicted two years ago. We all 

hope that when the Chancellor gives his autumn statement 

next week he will give a far brighter forecast for growth 

in business investment for the years to come, because, 

with more than 700 international companies having 

located in Wales over the past forty years, the securing 

of inward investment is vital for Wales’ prosperity. I 

believe that the Welsh Government are acutely aware of 

that. In 2011-12, foreign direct investment into Wales 

created and safeguarded 3,706 jobs, which represents an 

increase of almost 5% on the previous year. For Ministers 

in the Welsh Government, who have had real-terms cuts 

to their capital budget of more than 40% imposed on 

them, but who are none the less tasked with offsetting 

the economic damage, the promotion of inward investment 

to Wales provides a vital economic lever. 

The Committee’s report rightly acknowledges that it 

is down to both Governments to work together to boost 

inward investment, but it is also right to say that the 

Welsh Government’s role is pivotal. Hon. Members will 

know that only this week the Welsh Government presented 

their budget for 2013-14—a budget for jobs and growth, 

which reflects an unwavering commitment to attracting 

investment to Wales as a means of boosting the Welsh 

economy. 

The Committee focused its investigation on three key 

areas that are central to inward investment, and in those 

vital areas highlighted by the inquiry the Welsh Government 

have already put in place policies that will boost inward 

investment. I am sure that hon. Members will welcome 

the fact that Ministers in Cardiff Bay have also found 

additional funding in those areas, as revealed in this 

week’s budget announcement. The areas in question, 

recognised by both the Welsh Government and the 

Committee’s inquiry, are infrastructure, promoting Wales 

abroad, and education and research and development. 

The ambitious Wales infrastructure plan will invest 

about £15 billion pounds over the next decade in capital 

priorities. It sets out a sectoral and targeted approach to 

infrastructure investment that will help to create a Wales 

with modern transport, IT and energy networks. It 

outlines for the first time in Wales a list of existing 

schemes that are being delivered now and schemes that 

are in the pipeline to be delivered but have not yet 

started. That approach will enable the private sector to 

ensure that it is well placed and adequately skilled and 

resourced to support the infrastructure delivery that 

Wales needs over the next decade. The plan also features 

opportunities to lever in additional funds to finance 

infrastructure delivery, and in this week’s final budget 

announcement the Finance Minister Jane Hutt revealed 

additional capital investment of nearly £50 million pounds 

to support the plan further. The plan exemplifies the 

Welsh Government’s vision for attracting sustainable 

economic growth in Wales and should be welcomed by 

Members on both sides. 

Of course, another massive boost to Wales’ 

infrastructure—and, we all hope, also to long-term 

levels of inward investment in Wales—is the confirmation 

we had in July that rail electrification to Swansea and 

the south Wales valleys is to go ahead. Agreement for 

this £350 million direct investment is a good example of


170WH 

the two Governments working together in the best 

interests of Wales. In the context of austerity measures 

at UK level, it is a remarkable achievement. 

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Lady mentioned that it 

was important to increase investment in infrastructure 

and we agree with that. The UK Government have 

announced an infrastructure investment plan of £30 billion, 

comprising £5 billion from public funds and £25 billion 

to be financed—different from funding—from the private 

sector. The Welsh Government get a Barnett consequential 

on the £5 billion, but not on the £25 billion. Can the 

hon. Lady explain what mechanisms the Welsh Government 

have put in place to access that £25 billion of potential 

investment finance? 

Susan Elan Jones: I will be honest with the hon. 

Gentleman. I am not able to give him the total details 

and I am not prepared to flaff and speak generally, but 

we will provide him with an answer. 

This budget will bolster Wales’s economic 

competitiveness, generate jobs, increase mobility and, in 

the context of today’s debate, strengthen Wales’s bid for 

future inward investment. 

Another way that the Welsh Government are going 

about improving transport infrastructure is by continuing 

to forge a close relationship with Cardiff airport. Ministers 

are determined to work towards modernising the airport 

and increasing its connectivity. 

The second of our Committee’s central issues is Wales’s 

international standing and efforts by the Welsh Government 

to promote Wales abroad. Since the Committee’s inquiries, 

there have been significant developments on this front, 

which I am sure that hon. Members from all parties will 

welcome. In July, for example, the Welsh Government 

officially opened their new London headquarters, based 

on Victoria street, focusing specifically on promoting 

Wales to the world, attracting greater inward investment 

and boosting international trade. I welcome the fact 

that the office will be home to permanent staff with 

inward investment a large part of their remit. As our 

First Minister, Carwyn Jones, said when unveiling the 

new office, 

“it will create an important base for the Welsh Government, and 

businesses from Wales, to influence decision-makers in the foremost 

financial and commercial centre in the world.” 

Since then, the First Minister has also revealed plans to 

co-locate Welsh Government staff with UKTI, to forge 

an even closer relationship with staff there, which is 

most important, and to maximise their vital contacts 

and resources. At the same time, the Welsh Government 

have placed important emphasis on trade delegations, 

including recently welcoming a delegation from India, 

led by the country’s high commission, as well as two 

delegations from China in September. Just two weeks 

ago, the Welsh Government supported their largest ever 

delegation to an international trade event. 

David T. C. Davies: Although I welcome the efforts to 

promote Wales through trade missions, does the hon. 

Lady agree that it would be helpful if the Welsh Assembly 

Government were willing to work with the UK Government 

and arrange joint trade missions with Ministers in the 

Wales Office? 

Susan Elan Jones: I am sure that the Welsh Government 

and the Wales Office are able to discuss such initiatives. 

I welcome any trade missions. After graduating, I worked 

in Japan on a Japanese Government international 

programme, so I know first hand the importance of 

having such links and personnel, which were rather 

sadly downgraded by some people, in terms of international 

offices, and other such links. I am sure that collaborative 

working will be part of the Welsh Government’s and, I 

hope, the Wales Office’s thinking on this. 

Some 70 representatives from the life sciences sector 

in Wales flew to Dusseldorf to take part in Medica, the 

world’s largest event for the medical sector, which featured 

more than 4,300 exhibitors. That is an excellent example 

of exactly the type of trade events that can create 

lasting relationships that can have long-term impacts 

on levels of inward investment. 

A combination of a strong relationship with UKTI, a 

base for business in London and prioritising trade 

delegations shows that the Welsh Government get the 

importance of promoting Wales abroad. The same can 

be said for the importance of education and research 

and development, which are vital in their own right of 

course, but crucial too for the economic benefits that 

they can bring. 

I hope that the Committee welcomes the many targeted 

investments that the Welsh Government have announced, 

particularly on the sciences, which the hon. Member for 

Ceredigion mentioned. Those investments include a 

£25 million investment in a dedicated life sciences fund, 

specifically designed to leverage a further £100 million 

in private capital for the life sciences in Wales. Science 

was explicitly mentioned in the report as being key to 

attracting inward investment. I hope that Committee 

members welcome this initiative. 

I welcome the announcement from Education Minister, 

Leighton Andrews, that the Welsh Government have 

launched a £50 million campaign to attract the world’s 

greatest scientific minds to Wales. This ambitious scheme 

will enhance R and D in Welsh universities and market 

Wales’s research capability to the world’s leading scientists. 

In the budget announcement earlier this week, Finance 

Minister, Jane Hutt, also revealed support for the creation 

of a science and research facility led by Bangor university, 

to work in collaboration with Aberystwyth university. I 

trust that those examples of the Welsh Government’s 

finding innovative ways of encouraging inward investment 

will receive the Committee’s endorsement. 

On the three areas that the Committee feels are 

central to increasing inward investment, the Welsh 

Government have put forward imaginative, innovative 

and—dare I say it?—patriotic policies and introduced a 

model that is flexible and responsive to our Welsh 

nation’s needs. They are actively pursuing a creative 

approach to encouraging inward investment, in the 

same way that they are pursuing an active industrial 

policy through enterprise zones, city regions and targeted 

funds for business, and pursuing an active approach to 

tackling long-term unemployment through Jobs Growth 

Wales. 

On unemployment, I congratulate the Committee’s 

decision to launch an inquiry into the dismal failings of 

the Government’s Work programme and I look forward 

to seeing whether the Committee agrees with me that 

the Government should look to Jobs Growth Wales as 

an example, if they wish to make the work programme 

more effective.


172WH 

[Susan Elan Jones] 

The Welsh Government are doing all they can with 

the economic levers at their disposal and are being 

creative with plans to secure more inward investment. I 

hope that hon. Members from all parties endorse the 

many policies that I have mentioned this afternoon. 

Hon. Members will also be encouraged by how well 

Ministers in Cardiff bay and UK Ministers have worked 

together in Wales’s best interests, for example, on rail 

electrification. 

To return to my introductory remarks, the best way 

that the UK Government can help Wales, not just on 

inward investment but on economic growth, is for the 

Prime Minister and the Chancellor to change course 

from their current austerity agenda and, like the Welsh 

Labour Government, introduce an active, engaged plan 

for jobs and growth to get our economy moving once 

again. 

3.37 pm 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales 

(Stephen Crabb): It is a pleasure to serve under your 

chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, and a privilege to round 

off this important debate on inward investment into 

Wales. 

I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Select Committee, 

my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David 

T. C. Davies), not just for his eloquence in setting out 

the terms of the debate, but for the way that he chairs 

the Committee. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion 

(Mr Williams) said, he ensures that the Committee 

focuses on the important issues facing our constituencies 

and businesses in Wales, making the Committee’s work 

relevant at this time. 

All hon. Members recognise that inward investment 

remains a significant driver of economic growth in 

Wales. As the Committee’s excellent report stresses, we 

must do all we can to enhance the contribution that 

inward investment can make to the economy in Wales. I 

think that the Labour Member, the hon. Member for 

Newport West (Paul Flynn), who is no longer in his 

seat, was being deliberately provocative when he suggested 

that the Committee’s report was trespassing into areas 

where it should not go. Inward investment into Wales is 

exactly the kind of area that the Committee should be 

considering. It should be looking at how the UK 

Government and the Welsh Government collaborate. 

The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) 

mentioned the rail electrification project, which required 

collaborative working between the two Governments. If 

we are going to achieve anything significant in Wales to 

achieve the step-change in economic growth that we all 

aspire to, the two Governments will need to work 

together over a wide range of areas, and inward investment 

is one such area. I am delighted that the report makes 

specific recommendations not only to Ministers at 

the UK Government level but to Welsh Ministers in 

Cardiff. 

Several Members this afternoon have mentioned Wales’s 

impressive track record in securing inward investment. 

The Committee’s report rightly highlights the central 

role that the Welsh Development Agency played in 

winning new investment and jobs. During the late 1980s 

and early ’90s, Wales was regularly gaining around 15% 

of the inward investment and associated jobs coming to 

the UK each year. The WDA had an incredibly strong 

brand and, when I have the opportunity to travel overseas, 

I continue to meet business people abroad who still 

think the WDA exists. Such was the strength of the 

WDA brand globally, its disappearance was a loss, but 

we all need to look forward to new models of working. 

Several hon. Members talked about the glory days—or 

the boom years—of inward investment in Wales, but we 

are in danger of sounding as if we are talking about the 

Welsh rugby team. They are great to talk about, but we 

cannot go back to those days. The entire global environment 

in which inward investment occurs has changed, which 

was recognised very much in the Committee’s report. 

Over the past decade, the inward investment figures for 

Wales have been declining. The growth in the knowledge 

economy and increased competition from developing 

economies around the world have changed the nature of 

inward investment in Wales. The Committee makes it 

clear that we are in a new environment for inward 

investment. 

While we recognise that new environment, we must 

also remember that Wales still hosts major global companies 

that year on year continue to make significant and 

substantial capital investment in Wales. Companies such 

as RWE, Airbus, Ford and Valero show that Wales 

remains a good place in which to invest and make that 

capital expenditure. Members in all parts of the House 

will join me in welcoming last month’s announcement 

that Hitachi had bought Horizon Nuclear Power, which 

represents a £20 billion investment throughout the UK, 

potentially creating up to 6,000 construction jobs and 

1,000 permanent positions in north Wales alone. 

The UK economy is ever more dependent on external 

economic conditions, and we operate in an increasingly 

globalised economy. The effect of new entrants to the 

EU from eastern Europe, major developing economies 

such as China, Brazil and India, and many other countries 

means that Wales cannot compete on low labour costs, 

which were an important component in attracting the 

high levels of inward investment of previous decades. 

The growth of those developing economies, however, 

cannot be seen only as a threat to Wales, but as offering 

real opportunities that Welsh businesses must take 

advantage of. It is worth putting on record that Wales 

now exports more goods to countries outside the EU 

than it does than to those inside the EU, and that 

diverging trend is continuing. Over the past year, Welsh 

exports to EU countries fell by 7.4%, compared with an 

increase of 6.8% to countries outside Europe. 

Wales needs to be more global facing. As my right 

hon. Friend the Prime Minister highlighted in his recent 

Guildhall speech, Britain is in a “global race”. Winning 

in that global race means that we need to show that the 

UK is open for global business. The United Nations 

world investment report shows that the UK remains 

No. 1 in Europe for foreign direct investment, and the 

Financial Times fDi Intelligence report for 2012 ranks 

the UK as the primary FDI location in Europe. Britain 

remains a great place for international companies to 

invest in, and our challenge in Wales is to ensure that 

Wales captures its fair share of that inward investment 

coming to the UK. 

The global economic environment is difficult, but the 

Government have done a huge amount to ensure that 

the UK remains the top location for inward investment.


174WH 

Our plan for growth sets out a programme of reforms 

across the whole economy to meet the UK Government’s 

four headline ambitions: to create the most competitive 

tax system in the G20; to make the UK the best place to 

start, finance and grow a new business; to encourage 

more investment and exports; and, finally, as the Select 

Committee report picks up on powerfully, to create an 

educated work force that is the most flexible in Europe. 

Geraint Davies: Does the Minister agree that the UK, 

and UKTI in particular, are in a position to do a lot of 

the heavy lifting, in terms of promoting the UK as a 

place to invest, for some of the reasons he is outlining? 

The opportunity for Wales is to focus and build on that 

benefit and to get people to go to Wales within the UK, 

as opposed to Wales doing the whole thing over again, 

given that it has fewer resources overall. 

Stephen Crabb: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. 

UKTI is the agency that is best placed, given its network 

of relationships around the world, personnel, expertise 

and acquired knowledge. The challenge is for Welsh 

Government initiatives to dovetail with what UKTI is 

doing to ensure that we leverage the maximum opportunity 

from the available resource. 

Jonathan Edwards: The UK Government, to be fair, 

have the laudable aim of rebalancing the economy 

geographically and sectorally. I know of one of their 

initiatives—the national insurance holidays for new 

employees—but what other measures are the UK 

Government intending to introduce to rebalance the UK 

economy geographically? The reality is that the UK—the 

British state—is the most unequal state in the whole of 

the European Union. 

Stephen Crabb: With the significant action of the UK 

Government to rebalance the economy geographically, 

we recognise the specific needs of peripheral areas, of 

which Wales is one. We recognise the extra assistance 

that Wales needs, which is exactly what is driving the 

additional investment that the UK Government are 

giving to the Welsh Government for broadband roll-out, 

for example, or the rail electrification projects that we 

talked about. Those are big capital investments, over 

and above funding through the Barnett formula, about 

which the hon. Gentleman likes to speak a lot. That 

demonstrates the UK Government’s real commitment 

for Wales to receive a greater-than-proportionate share 

of capital investment, which reflects the fact that we 

want to see the economy geographically rebalanced. 

Our ambition is for Wales to share the benefits of all the 

UK-side measures we are taking, while also showing 

that Wales is a great place to invest. 

The Committee’s excellent report and today’s debate 

highlight the importance of attracting inward investment 

with regard to transport infrastructure, skills and promoting 

Wales abroad as a brand. The Government are delivering 

for Wales in all those areas. On transport infrastructure, 

we have discussed the electrification project on the 

Great Western main line, but it does not stop there. My 

hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) 

asked about the potential electrification of the north 

Wales line, which we are actively looking at. We want 

the business community in north Wales to help to work 

up the economic case for electrification, and hon. Members 

should be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary 

of State for Wales hosted an important strategic meeting 

of business bodies, local government and public agencies 

in north Wales last Friday. They got their heads around 

the table to think seriously about how we go about 

building up the economic case that will hopefully convince 

the Treasury that north Wales electrification is the right 

next project for railway infrastructure in Wales. 

Further investment in Wales will not come from the 

Government alone. We need to find ways to accelerate 

major infrastructure investment further, and I hope to 

see Welsh projects bidding for and benefitting from the 

£50 billion UK guarantees scheme that we introduced. 

In the important area of skills, it is vital that we do all 

that we can to enhance the skills of the work force in 

Wales. Wales has a lot to offer, but further up-skilling of 

the work force will not only attract more inward investment, 

but support indigenous business. It is excellent that the 

big companies in Wales such as Airbus continue to run 

their effective apprenticeship programmes, and the UK 

Government certainly put a lot of emphasis on increasing 

the number of apprenticeships. Welsh Government 

Ministers are also looking at the importance of 

apprenticeships in Wales. 

Higher education institutions in Wales have a world-class 

track record, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion 

touched on in his important contribution, and the 

reputation of the Welsh HE sector is recognised around 

the world. Members might be aware that, in Wales, 

there is a higher proportion of foreign students among 

the total number of students than in Scotland or in 

England. Our higher education institutions are also 

working with several of our major inward investors. I 

very much welcome the news that Swansea university 

will team up with BP and Tata Steel to create an energy 

safety research institute, which was mentioned by the 

hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies). Tata 

Steel is also working in partnership with a number of 

other Welsh universities to develop a project supported 

by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council 

and the Technology Strategy Board. 

Geraint Davies: On the Minister’s slightly earlier point 

about foreign connections and foreign students, does he 

agree that most foreign students from places such as 

India and China have links? Their parents have businesses 

and so on, so there are opportunities for both inward 

investment and tourism. When his colleagues in government 

consider visas for tourists and so on, will he urge them 

to have due cognisance of prospective inward investors 

and links to valuable commercial networks in emerging 

markets? 

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Gentleman makes an important 

point. We as a Government were elected with a mandate 

to bring down immigration into this country, but we 

recognise the importance of foreign students to the 

UK. We do not want anything to diminish that, but 

they must be bona fide students at bona fide institutions 

studying for real degrees. 

When I have had the opportunity to travel overseas—I 

was in Africa this year—I have been impressed by the 

people I have met who have master’s degrees or PhDs 

from Welsh universities, some of whom have been Ministers 

in foreign Governments. The Finance Minister of Sierra 

Leone, whom I had the privilege of meeting this summer, 

has a degree from a Welsh university. There are Ministers


176WH 

[Stephen Crabb] 

in Rwanda who studied at Welsh universities. We have a 

great track record, and that means that we have a 

network of relationships around the world with people 

in significant positions. If we leverage those relationships 

correctly, that should help to create export opportunities 

for Welsh companies. 

It is vital that Welsh universities forge partnerships 

with the private sector. Only last week, my right hon. 

Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and my fellow 

Wales Office Minister, Baroness Randerson, met Welsh 

higher education institutions. We put private sector 

partnerships and promoting Welsh higher education 

institutions abroad at the top of their agenda. 

On promoting Wales abroad, I believe that this 

Government’s investment will ensure that Wales can 

continue to offer inward investors a world-class package 

based on high-quality infrastructure, a skilled work 

force and HE institutions with the knowledge to convert 

innovation into commercialised solutions. Through the 

global brand of UKTI, that package is being marketed 

around the world. One key theme running through the 

Committee’s report is the need for the Welsh Government 

to develop the brand of Wales. I believe that that can be 

achieved by working with the UKTI, and I am pleased 

to report progress. 

UKTI is supporting the Welsh Government’s efforts 

by sharing access to its overseas network and national 

inward investment services. I am delighted that 

UKTI’s relationship with the Welsh Government has 

been strengthened through a joint memorandum of 

understanding that clearly sets out the responsibilities 

of the Welsh Government and UKTI on co-operative 

working and information sharing. Several hon. Members 

mentioned that one member of UKTI personnel is 

embedded with the Welsh Government, but actually 

two key UKTI officials have been seconded to work 

with the Welsh Government to ensure that the Welsh 

offer is as strong as possible and that the Welsh Government 

sector teams are linked into the UKTI sector teams. 

Through the work of Lord Green and UKTI’s chief 

executive, Nick Baird, the Government strongly support 

that key working relationship with the Welsh Government. 

The ability to draw on UKTI’s global reach is critical in 

promoting the Wales brand. 

The work of the Wales Office is also vital. Since June 

2010, we have met and made representations to delegations 

from Taiwan, China, Turkey, Japan and Russia. During 

this summer’s Olympic games, we held a reception 

complementing the work of the British Business Embassy 

and highlighting the benefits of investing in Wales. 

Afterwards, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State 

for Wales met the chief executive and chief operating 

officers of the UK India Business Council to promote 

Wales as a location for inward investment from one of 

the world’s fastest growing economies. Earlier this year, 

the previous Secretary of State also visited south-east 

Asia to promote trade, tourism and governmental links, 

as well as opening the new UKTI office in Cambodia 

and signing a $10 million contract between the Thai 

Treasury and the Royal Mint. 

Several hon. Members talked about the decline in the 

number of inward investment projects in Wales in recent 

years. Last year was particularly disappointing, as I 

think we all recognise. Early reports from UKTI suggest 

that 2012-13 will be a better year for inward investment 

in Wales. This year’s figures are much improved from 

the same time last year: 27 foreign investment projects 

have been recorded to date, including a £36 million 

investment by the American-owned automotive company 

Meritor, as well as the £7 million investment by a 

Turkish manufacturing company in Cardiff. However, 

there is obviously still much more to do. Closer working 

between the UK Government, UKTI and the Welsh 

Government is essential so that best practice is shared 

and to ensure that Wales is effectively marketed as an 

ideal location for inward investment. The Wales Office 

ministerial team is committed to achieving that. 

Our debate included a wide-ranging contribution 

from the hon. Member for Swansea West, who made 

numerous good points. He also discussed public sector 

job cuts in Wales, and I would like to come back to him 

on one point. Private sector job growth in Wales during 

the past two and a half years far outstrips the decline 

in the number of public sector jobs, as an estimated 

60,000 new private sector jobs have been created in 

Wales since this Government was formed. We should 

back the private sector in Wales and have more faith in 

it. Yes, times of austerity and difficult decisions about 

public finances make this a more challenging environment 

in which to achieve economic growth, but we should 

have faith that Welsh companies can go out there, grow 

their businesses and jobs in Wales, and take our economy 

forward. 

Geraint Davies: The Minister is probably aware that 

Hewlett-Packard is the biggest computer company in 

the world and that its two hubs are in Swansea and 

Bristol. HP is currently bidding for a contract with the 

Department for Transport relating to contracted-out 

financial work and back-room work. HP supports a 

major skilled computing cluster in south Wales. Will he 

bear that in mind, and perhaps talk with the Department 

for Transport about its valuation of whether to bring in 

a German company or use one that provides an enormous 

skills base in south Wales? It is a factor that should be 

borne in mind. I appreciate that the Department must 

make rational decisions about cost-effectiveness, but 

strategic considerations should also be taken into account. 

I feel that the public sector and the Government should 

do everything that they can to encourage local indigenous 

private sector job growth. 

Stephen Crabb: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his 

remarks. I will follow that up outside this debate. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion spoke 

powerfully about the role of the knowledge economy, 

mentioning the important work being done at Aberystwyth 

university and the potential of that university and all 

the Welsh HE sector to attract inward investment. I 

encourage him to speak to my hon. Friend the Member 

for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who has been 

appointed by the Prime Minister as this Government’s 

life sciences representative and who is developing an 

exciting strategy that he wants to be UK-wide for 

developing the life sciences sector in this country and 

bringing in new investment through that route. 

The hon. Member for Clwyd South was the first 

Member to mention Cardiff airport. Wales deserves 

and needs a growing, thriving, attractive airport to 

welcome inward investors. I think that we all share the 

concern of the First Minister and his team that Cardiff


178WH 

airport is underperforming. I leave the hon. Lady in no 

doubt about the priority that the Wales Office places on 

the issue. We will be holding discussions with Ministers 

at the Department for Transport and in Cardiff. 

I thank Members for their contributions. There are 

reasons for us all to be positive about inward investment 

in Wales. It is vital that we continue to attract new 

investment to drive economic growth. The challenge 

that we face is to continue to develop Wales’s fantastic 

offer and to take every opportunity to promote it in the 

ever-increasing global market. We talked a lot about the 

role played by UKTI and Welsh and UK Ministers, but 

we can all play a role. Lord Green, the Minister responsible 

for inward investment and exports overseas, says that he 

wants to hear from individual Members of Parliament 

from all parties about companies in their constituencies 

that should be linking up with our trade missions. 

There is a role for us all in speaking to firms in our 

constituencies that are looking for export opportunities 

overseas. There might be initiatives and projects that 

could host greater inward investment. There is a challenge 

for all Members of Parliament to fit in with the programme 

that is being developed UK-wide and at Welsh Government 

level. I hope that we can all play our part in attracting 

new inward investment to Wales and driving forward 

economic growth. 

4pm 

David T. C. Davies: I will be brief. I thank all hon. 

Members who have taken part in our debate and prioritised 

Wales over the other matter that is going on down the 

road to do with Lord Justice Leveson. 

I thank the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint 

Davies) for his wide-ranging contribution. I look forward 

to discussing my figures on debt deficit that I obtained 

from the Library and to working out why it believes that 

the Government spent £250 billion and added that to 

the national debt before the financial crisis struck, when 

he said something different. That will be interesting. 

I thank the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and 

Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) for sharing the details of 

his honeymoon with us and for lifting my heart. He told 

us that the Assembly’s Treasury Minister had been 

outfoxed by the UK Government and that the borrowing 

powers were so small that they would have barely enough 

for a packet of crisps. I have been extremely worried 

about that, but I find myself strangely reassured by his 

comments. 

The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) was 

kind enough to thank me for choosing relevant inquiries 

on the Welsh Affairs Committee, but unfortunately my 

timing was not so good. He did us all a favour by 

suggesting the inquiry into connectivity, particularly 

how it affects his constituency in west Wales. He then 

built on that by suggesting that we all went to Aberystwyth 

by train and arranging for the train company to institute 

long delays so that he did not arrive until several hours 

after he was meant to as a result of the train service that 

his constituents receive, thereby making the point very 

well that things need to improve. 

The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan 

Jones) was an extremely hard-working and diligent 

member of the Committee, and she has now been 

promoted. It is wonderful that so many members of the 

Welsh Affairs Committee are promoted to the Front 

Bench. I await my call and look forward to that happening 

more widely. In fact, I do not want a job at the moment, 

because the Minister is doing extremely well and working 

very hard. I know because I have seen him on constituency 

visits. I congratulate him and the other Minister. I look 

forward to working with them, as does all the Committee, 

and look forward to hearing them give evidence to the 

Committee. 

Question put and agreed to. 

4.2 pm 

Sitting adjourned.

23WS Written Ministerial Statements 29 NOVEMBER 2012 Written Ministerial Statements 

24WS 

Written Ministerial 

Statements 


ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE 

Global Deforestation 

The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change 

(Mr Edward Davey): Ahead of the important international 

negotiations in Doha, I wanted to update the House on 

the plans I have been developing with the Secretary of 

State for International Development, the right hon. 

Member for Putney (Justine Greening), and the Secretary 

of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the 

right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), 

on international forests and climate change. So today I 

am outlining new action to tackle deforestation as part 

of the UK’s international climate change commitments. 

I am setting out plans for working with the private 

sector and rain forest countries so that the timber and 

foodstuffs we buy do not cause deforestation. Under 

the international climate fund, up to £300 million is 

available for these activities. We are committed to ensuring 

all our spend achieves value for money and so will be 

testing the appropriate allocation further in the design 

process. 

UK programmes under the international climate fund 

are expected to support sustainable growth in forest 

countries, and boost the incomes of thousands of poor 

people who depend on the forests for their livelihoods. 

Through these programmes, the UK is playing its part 

to help save tens of millions of hectares from being 

deforested, and help to conserve biodiversity. 

Tackling deforestation is a central part of how we 

address climate change, while reducing poverty and 

protecting biodiversity. Up to 17% of global greenhouse 

gas emissions come from deforestation, and around 

13 million hectares of forest are lost every year. An 

estimated 1.2 billion poor people depend on forests for 

their livelihoods, and forests hold up to 80% of global 

terrestrial species. 

Our support over the years for countries’ efforts to 

control illegal logging, and to encourage trade in legally 

harvested timber has already showed great success. 

Collective efforts to control illegal logging over the past 

10 years have helped to protect an estimated 17 million 

hectares of forest, an area equivalent to England and 

Wales in size. These efforts have also saved developing 

countries an estimated $6.5 billion in potential tax 

revenues, so the benefits of taking action are clear. 

But with growing demand for agricultural products, 

the timber market is no longer the biggest driver of 

deforestation. Around 60% of deforestation is now 

thought to be driven by agricultural products, such as 

production of soy, beef, palm oil and cocoa. So now we 

need to see the same shift in supply of certified sustainable 

products as we saw for timber. 

UK funds could support sustainable intensification 

of agriculture, land swaps to move production onto 

degraded land, community forestry and other investments 

which make forests more valuable and so increase the 

incentives to keep them standing. 

Also today, I am pleased that we are joined by other 

donor countries in setting out priorities on forests for 

the UN climate conference in Doha and beyond, including 

on ensuring our respective efforts are co-ordinated and 

coherent. 

Ambitious commitments and actions by forest nations 

are critical. In that context, I am announcing today that 

£15 million of the UK’s international climate fund will 

go towards developing silvo-pastoral systems for climate 

change mitigation and poverty alleviation in Colombia. 

This involves supporting smallholder farmers to plant 

trees on cattle grazing land, to increase biodiversity, 

improve the livelihood of farmers, reduce carbon emissions, 

and protect local forests. 

HEALTH 

Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer 

Affairs Council 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health 

(Anna Soubry): The Employment, Social Policy, Health 

and Consumer Affairs Council will meet on 6 and 

7 December. The Health and Consumer Affairs part of 

the Council will be taken on 7 December. 

The presidency is expected to seek a general 

approach on a proposal for a regulation amending 

Directives1999/4/EC,2000/36/EC,2001/111/EC,2001/113/EC 

and 2001/114/EC (the “breakfast directives”) as regards 

the powers to be conferred on the Commission. There 

will also be a progress report on a proposal for a decision 

on serious cross-border threats to health. 

The presidency is expected to propose the adoption 

of Council conclusions on organ donation and 

transplantation and health ageing across the lifecycle. 

Under any other business, the presidency will provide 

information on a proposal for a regulation on establishing 

a health for growth programme; and on a proposal for 

a directive amending Directive 89/105/EEC relating to 

the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of 

medicinal products. Information will also come from 

the presidency on a proposal for a regulation on food 

intended for infants and young children and on food for 

special medical purposes; on the working party on 

public health at senior level; and on conferences organised 

by the presidency. 

In addition, information will be provided from the 

Commission on proposals for two new regulations on 

medical devices and in vitro diagnostic devices as well 

as progress on implementation of the joint action plan 

on medical devices following the PIP crisis; on member 

states’ implementation of the EU framework on salt 

reduction; and on transposition of the cross-border 

healthcare directive. 

The presidency and the Commission will jointly provide 

information on the fifth session of the conference of the 

parties to the world health organisation (WHO) framework 

convention on tobacco control.


26WS 

The Italian delegation will provide information on 

working towards a common EU strategy on asbestos 

health threats. Finally, the Irish delegation will also give 

information on the work programme for their forthcoming 

presidency, which will run from January until June 2013. 

HOME DEPARTMENT 

G6 Ministerial Meeting 

The Secretary of State for the Home Department 

(Mrs Theresa May): The informal G6 group of Ministers 

of the Interior from the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, 

and Poland held its most recent meeting in London on 

20 and 21 November 2012. The French Interior Minister 

was unable to attend. 

I chaired the meeting which was divided into three 

working sessions over one day, with a dinner the previous 

evening. The participating states were represented by: 

Anna-Maria Cancellieri (Italy), Jacek Cichocki (Poland), 

Hans-Peter Friedrich (Germany) and Jorge Fernández 

Díaz (Spain). The French Interior Minister, Manuel 

Valls, was represented by his diplomatic advisor, Emmanuel 

Barbe. The EU Commissioner for Home Affairs, Cecilia 

Malmstrom attended for the whole meeting, and the US 

Attorney-General, Eric Holder and the Secretary for 

Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, attended as guests 

for the first session. 

The first working session was on radicalisation and 

north Africa and the Sahel. I outlined how the UK 

approach has developed over the years and how we 

work with vulnerable people and other sectors such as 

universities and prisons. I raised concerns regarding 

developments around terrorist groups in north Africa 

and the Sahel and noted that opportunities for individuals 

to undertake terrorist training were increasing. I urged 

participants to agree to open a dialogue on how extremism 

is developing in some countries and how it is being 

driven by events in north Africa. 

The second session focused on free movement of 

persons. I recognised that this issue is a key principle of 

the EU but sought views on how it operated in practice. 

I emphasised that fraud and abuse of free movement 

undermined the principle and must be tackled, and that 

the interpretation of the courts must not make it harder 

to do this. I also raised the question of whether the 

courts had extended the scope of free movement beyond 

the original intentions of the member states and whether 

it still benefited those EU citizens for whom it was 

originally intended. At the end of this session the 

German Interior Minister presented on smart borders. 

The third session addressed the issue of how to 

improve the exchange of criminal records of child sex 

offenders. The director of Europol (Rob Wainwright) 

joined us for this session. I outlined that, while co-operation 

between law enforcement agencies was generally very 

good, such co-operation generally happened once a 

crime had been committed and I asked what more could 

be done to prevent serious crimes from happening. I 

acknowledged the different approaches that take place 

in member states and suggested that more work is 

needed to establish the best means of protecting children 

from these offenders. 

The next meeting of the G6 is expected to be held in 

Italy in February. 

PRIME MINISTER 

National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and 

Security Review 

The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron): On behalf 

of the Deputy Prime Minister and other members of 

the National Security Council, I am pleased to present 

the second annual report of progress in implementing 

the national security strategy and strategic defence and 

security review. Copies are today being placed in the 

Library of the House. 

Over the last year, the United Kingdom has played a 

central role in global affairs, defending our national 

security interests. 

As we set out in the 2010 national security strategy 

and strategic defence and security review, our national 

security depends on our economic security and vice 

versa. In that context, the economic crisis in the Eurozone, 

the wider global economic slowdown and the parlous 

state of the UK’s finances in 2010 have had significant 

implications. The Government have responded by 

redirecting our overseas effort further to support trade 

and investment, especially with the most rapidly growing 

economies of the world, and by taking action to help 

British business compete and thrive in the global race. 

British exports to China, Russia and Brazil are already 

increasing rapidly. And we will continue to take steps to 

secure greater access for British companies in other 

emerging markets. 

The combined effects of the economic situation, a 

decade of financial mismanagement and a 12-year gap 

since the last strategic defence review meant that this 

Government had to make extremely tough choices on 

defence. Investment was re-directed towards the capabilities 

we will need for the future and not those designed for 

the past. And critically, we had to ensure that future 

defence plans were affordable so that the MOD could 

break free from the vicious circle of planning to buy 

more equipment than it could afford, necessitating delays 

to programmes to make them affordable, which in turn 

increased costs and left our armed forces ill-equipped to 

face the demands of modern conflict. 

The benefits of those tough but necessary decisions 

are now clear. We have committed to buying new Chinook 

helicopters, additional strategic airlift aircraft, and new 

and upgraded armoured vehicles for the army. The 

aircraft carrier programme is now progressing well, 

with the first aircraft due to fly from HMS Queen 

Elizabeth in 2018. We have invested £700 million in 

design work on the new Trident submarines, to prepare 

for the main gate decision in 2016, and £1 billion in a 

new facility to build reactor cores for our future submarine 

fleet. And we have now taken the first steps to resuscitate 

our reserve forces after a decade of neglect and 

underfunding, so that in future they can play a central 

role at home and overseas in protecting our national 

security interests. 

Domestically, the Olympic and Paralympic games 

passed without significant security incidents, reflecting 

the careful preparation and professionalism shown by 

all involved. Our success underlines the need to stay 

ahead of the significant threats facing the UK from 

terrorism, organised crime and hostile action by other


28WS 

states. In line with our broader, risk-based approach to 

national security, we will continue to prioritise responding 

to these malicious threats, and to ensure a secure and 

resilient UK. 

Afghanistan remains the UK’s largest overseas military 

commitment. The threat to global security from the 

al-Qaeda presence in the region has been significantly 

reduced. And as a result of the daily heroism of our 

remarkable armed forces, and those of our allies, we 

remain on track to complete security transition to the 

Afghan security forces as planned, which will enable 

our troops to end their combat mission by the end of 

2014. We are committed to ensuring that Afghanistan 

cannot again be used as a haven for terrorists to attack 

the UK. We continue to work hard with the Governments 

of Afghanistan and Pakistan in an effort to find a 

long-term political settlement to the conflict. 

People across the middle east and north Africa have 

been calling for greater freedom and democracy and 

greater economic opportunity. We have responded to 

those aspirations in order to help them achieve a better 

future by working with the countries in the region to 

put in place the building blocks of modern democracies: 

a fair and transparent criminal justice system, democratic 

accountability, the rule of law, open media and freedom 

of speech. More open, accountable and representative 

states in the middle east and north Africa will build 

more durable stability and security, both for the region 

and the UK. 

The 2012 London conference provided the stimulus 

for political change in Somalia, triggering a renewed 

international effort to defeat extremism and to build 

and sustain Somali-led political and governance structures 

after decades of conflict. In Libya, Yemen, Egypt and 

Tunisia we have worked closely with our international 

partners to support the process of transition from oppressive 

dictatorship towards democracy and freedom. And in 

Syria, we are working to help the Syrian people to bring 

an end to the violence, to make progress on genuine 

political transition and to end the appalling humanitarian 

suffering. 

Instability and conflict in developing countries directly 

threaten our national security. They also fatally undermine 

development and poverty reduction; no fragile or conflictaffected 

country has met a single millennium development 

goal. Preventing and resolving conflict are central to 

this Government’s approach to development. We have 

intensified our work on conflict prevention through the 

cross-Government building stability overseas strategy— 

tackling the causes of conflict at an early stage and 

preventing crises from escalating. Our leadership in 

standing by our aid commitments has allowed us to 

increase our untied, poverty-focused support to countries 

such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia which are 

critical to national security. A £20 million early action 

facility will enable us to respond more quickly to new 

causes of instability. The Government remain committed 

to spend 30% of UK official development assistance in 

fragile and conflict-affected states by 2014-15, and to 

work towards an ambitious international arms trade 

treaty. And we will look to ensure that the vital importance 

of conflict prevention and personal security for the 

world’s poorest people is properly covered in the post-2015 

international development framework. 

Review Body on Senior Salaries (New Appointments) 

The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron): I have 

appointed the following people as members of the 

Review Body on Senior Salaries (SSRB): 

Margaret Edwards 

Professor Dame Hazel Genn 

They have taken up their appointments on 1 September 

and 1 November 2012 respectively, initially for three-year 

terms. They have joined the other members of the SSRB 

who are: 

Bill Cockburn, CBE TD - Chairman 

Professor Richard Disney 

Martin Fish 

Professor David Metcalf CBE 

Professor Alasdair Smith 

Bruce Warman 

WORK AND PENSIONS 

Remploy 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions (Esther McVey): The Remploy annual report 

and financial statements 2012 will be published today. I 

will place copies of the report and financial statements 

in the House Libraries later today; they will also be 

available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office. 

Electronic copies will be available from the DWP website 

and Remploy’s website. 

I have written to the chairman of Remploy formally 

approving the agreed 2012-13 performance and resources 

agreement between the Department and the Company, 

as follows: 

Target Description Target 

To live within the Company’s financial means in the 

2012-13 financial year and achieve an operational 

funding result of: 

£97.9m 

Factory Businesses to achieve an operating result 

(loss) of: 

£40.2m 

Employment Service business to achieve an operating 

result of: 

£28.2m 

Total disabled job outcomes: 17,000 

- of which Work Choice job outcomes: 7,500 

- of which Work Choice Retention outcomes: 1,000 

- of which other disabled job outcomes: 8,500

5P Petitions 29 NOVEMBER 2012 

Petitions 

6P 

Petition 


PRESENTED PETITION 

Petition presented to the House but not read on the Floor 

Queen’s Cypher 

The Petition of Mr Martin Burke of Elizabeth Regina 

Love, 

Declares that the Petitioner writes to correct an error 

in the Petition “Correspondence” presented to the House 

of Commons on 9 November 2010 (and available in the 

Official Report on 10 November 2010, Vol. 518, c. 1P in 

which the badge for Elizabeth Regina Love (Emotion 

Records Limited) is termed “The Queen’s Cypher”, and 

to reconfirm the original Petition so that the impression 

is not given that the whole Petition was in error except 

for a particular but important point. 

Declares that the Petition presented on 9 November 

2010 was written some time after verbal confirmation 

from senior Royal Navy officers (Retd.) and copies were 

sent to the Private Secretary and the Lord Chamberlain 

on 11 November 2010. Declares that the Petitioner 

sought clarification from the Lord Chamberlain’s office 

on 21 July 2011 on the subject of the Stadium Benefit 

Concert for the Military Charities (described in terms 

such as “imaginative”, “very worthwhile”, “of undoubted 

merit” and “honourable ambition”) and received a reply 

dated 4 August 2011. 

Declares that the Petitioner was told that it was not 

correct to use the phrase “The Queen’s Cypher”, which 

is E II R and the personal property of the Sovereign 

protected by law and international copyright and instead 

the Petitioner substitutes the phrase that E♥R is a 

Queen’s Cypher. Notes that such details are important, 

for example the interpretation of the position of a 

comma in a piece of legislation might be a deciding 

factor in a trial, and further declares so whatever the 

case by the time of the Petition on 9 November 2010 

this Cypher had come to stand independently for Her 

Majesty The Queen. 

Declares that the website address given in the 

9 November 2010 Petition has changed and is now 

www.elizabethreginalove.com. where this and other Petitions 

are available, along with further information about the 

company and the Petitioner. 

The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of 

Commons notes that the Petition “Correspondence” of 

9 November 2010 contained an error on a particular 

but important point when it referred to the badge for 

Elizabeth Regina Love (Emotion Records Ltd) E♥Ras 

“The Queen’s Cypher” when the phrase should have 

been a Queen’s Cypher, that is a Cypher which stands 

for Her Majesty The Queen, this Mr. Burke’s 18th petition 

first posted to the House on 18 October 2012. 

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by 

Sir Gerald Kaufman .]—Received 28 November 2012. 

[P001141]

431W Written Answers 29 NOVEMBER 2012 Written Answers 

432W 

Written Answers to 

Questions 


DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER 

Lord Lieutenants 

Mr Kevan Jones: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if 

he will publish a list of the public engagements of the 

Lord Lieutenant for County Durham for the last 

12 months. [130828] 

Miss Chloe Smith: The activities of lord lieutenants 

are not the responsibility of central Government. It is a 

matter for each lord lieutenant to determine how he/she 

carries out his/her role. Accordingly, it is up to each lord 

lieutenant to promote honours as they see fit for their 

lieutenancy and to conduct public engagements appropriate 

to their role and relevant to their county. 

West Lothian Question 

Jonathan Lord: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 

what recent assessment he has made of progress on a 

resolution of the West Lothian Question; and when he 

expects the Commission on the consequences of devolution 

for the House of Commons will publish its report. 

[130844] 

Miss Chloe Smith: The coalition programme for 

government includes a commitment to establish a 

commission to consider this issue. In January, the 

Government established a Commission on the consequences 

of devolution for the House of Commons. The terms of 

reference of the Commission are: 

To consider how the House of Commons might deal with 

legislation which affects only part of the United Kingdom, following 

the devolution of certain legislative powers to the Scottish Parliament, 

the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for 

Wales. 

The Commission has started its work and will make 

its recommendations to the Government by the end of 

the current parliamentary session. The Commission has 

received written evidence and held oral evidence sessions 

across the UK. Information on the evidence received 

can be found at: 

http://tmc.independent.gov.uk 

TREASURY 

Air Passenger Duty 

Michael Connarty: To ask the Chancellor of the 

Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the 

effect of air passenger duty on UK airports. [130596] 

Sajid Javid: The Government undertook an extensive 

consultation on air passenger duty last year. The 

consultation gathered views and evidence from stakeholders, 

which included views on the affect of APD. Over 

500 responses were received from a wide range of 

stakeholders, including from airports, businesses, and 

consumers. The Government published its response to 

the consultation, including a summary of views received, 

on 6 December 2011. 

Child Benefit 

Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

with reference to the answer of 26 April 2012, Official 

Report, column 1064W, on income tax: rates and bands, 

what advice his Department has given to basic rate 

taxpayers who will become higher rate taxpayers in 

2013-14 on their potential responsibilities relating to 

child benefit. [130129] 

Mr Gauke: The high income child benefit charge 

applies to individuals with an income above £50,000 

where they or their partner receives child benefit. 

The information requested was provided in response 

to parliamentary question number 128153 on 20 November 

2012, Official Report, column 433W: 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/ 

cmhansrd/cm121120/text/121120w0002.htm#12112048002186 

Employee Benefit Trusts 

Mr Brady: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

(1) if he will review the maximum savings limit for HM 

Revenue and Customs-approved share plans; and if he 

will make a statement; [130645] 

(2) what proportion of (a) ISA participants and (b) 

SAYE share plan participants saved the maximum 

annual allowance in the most recent year for which 

figures are available; [130646] 

(3) if he will make it his policy to increase maximum 

savings limits for HM Revenue and Customs-approved 

share plans at least in line with inflation on an annual 

basis; [130647] 

(4) if he will review the minimum holding period for 

share incentive plans, examining the estimated effect of 

reducing the minimum period to three years; and if he 

will make a statement; [130648] 

(5) what steps he plans to take to address declining 

participation levels in (a) SAYE and (b) all-employee 

share incentive plans. [130649] 

Mr Gauke: Information on the number of Save As 

You Earn (SAYE) participants who contributed the 

maximum £250 per month under the scheme is not 

available. However, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs 

estimate that for SAYE options granted in 2010-11, the 

average amount contributed by participants was less 

than half of the maximum. Further details on the cost 

and use of SAYE can be found on the HMRC website 

at: 

www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/share-schemes/table6-3.pdf 

The Government has recently consulted on a range of 

proposals to simplify the tax advantaged employee share 

schemes and make them more attractive to businesses 

and employees. This follows recommendations published 

by the Office of Tax Simplification in March. The 

Government will announce its response to this consultation 

shortly.


434W 

The Government keeps the relevant limits for the tax 

advantaged employee share schemes under review. 

However, it believes that rather than increasing the 

current limits, which would only be of benefit to participants 

who currently contribute the maximum amounts, 

available resources are better deployed in a package of 

simplification measures that will benefit a wider range 

of participants. 

The Government has recently reviewed the 

minimum tax-free holding period for shares held in a 

Share Incentive Plan and decided not to proceed with 

any change. Further details can be found in chapter 5 of 

the document at: 

customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/ 

downloadFile?contentID=HMCE_PROD1_032132 

Information on the numbers of ISA subscribers saving 

at the maximum, annual allowance can be found on the 

HMRC website at: 

www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/isas/table9-7.xls 

Excise Duties: Fuels 

Tim Farron: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

if he will consider the merits of extending the rural fuel 

derogation pilot to Cumbria. [130807] 

Sajid Javid: Motorists on the Scottish islands and the 

Islands of Scilly are benefiting from the 5p per litre 

discount on pump prices since the Government introduced 

the rural fuel rebate pilot scheme earlier this year. 

The Government will consider whether to seek EU 

approval for an extension of the scheme to other remote 

parts of the UK that are likely to display similar 

characteristics to the islands. 

Pensioners: Scotland 

Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

how many pensioners there were in each income quintile 

in Scotland in each of the last three years for which 

figures are available. [130158] 

Steve Webb: I have been asked to reply on behalf of 

the Department for Work and Pensions. 

Estimates on the income distribution are published 

annually in the Households Below Average Income 

Series. The latest year of data which is available is for 

2010-11. For both tables three year periods spanning 

2006-07 to 2010-11 have been used as single-year regional 

estimates are subject to volatility. 

Table 1 shows the number of pensioners in each 

income quintile in Scotland, in each of the last three 

years, before housing costs, and Table 2 for after housing 

costs. 

Table 1: Numbers of Pensioners in Scotland (millions), by income quintile, before housing costs, three-year averages 

Net equivalised disposable household income 

Bottom 

quintile Second quintile Middle quintile Fourth quintile Top quintile All pensioners (million) 

2006-07 to 2008-09 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.9 

2007-08 to 2009-10 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.0 

2008-09 to 2010-11 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.0 

Table 2: Numbers of Pensioners in Scotland (millions), by income quintile, after housing costs, three-year averages 

Net equivalised disposable household income 

Bottom 

quintile Second quintile Middle quintile Fourth quintile Top quintile All pensioners (million) 

2006-07 to 2008-09 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.9 

2007-08 to 2009-10 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.0 

2008-09 to 2010-11 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.0 

Notes: 

1. These statistics are based on Households Below Average Income (HBAI) data sourced from the Family Resources Survey (FRS). This uses 

disposable household income, adjusted using modified OECD equivalisation factors for household size and composition, as an income measure 

as a proxy for standard of living. 

2. Net disposable incomes have been used to answer the question. This includes earnings from employment and self-employment, state support, 

income from occupational and private pensions, investment income and other sources. Income tax payments, national insurance contributions, 

council tax/domestic rates and some other payments are deducted from incomes. 

3. Figures have been presented on a before housing cost and an after housing cost basis. For before housing costs, housing costs are not deducted 

from income, while for after housing costs they are. 

4. The preferred income measure for pensioners is after housing costs. Around three quarters of pensioners own their own homes and so have to 

pay out minimal housing costs from their disposable income compared to the current working age population who typically have to cover 

mortgage or rental housing costs. Considering pensioners’ incomes compared to others after deducting housing costs allows for more meaningful 

comparisons of income between working age people and pensioners, and between pensioners overtime. 

5. All estimates are based on survey data and are therefore subject to a degree of uncertainty. Small differences should be treated with caution as 

these will be affected by sampling error and variability in non-response. 

6. The reference period for HBAI figures is the financial year. Three survey years have been combined because single year estimates are not 

considered to be sufficiently reliable. 

7. Numbers of pensioners have been rounded to the nearest hundred thousand pensioners. 

8. Figures may not sum due to rounding. 

9. Longer time series data on pensioners is available within chapter 6 of the Households Below Average Income report at: 

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbai_arc


436W 

State Retirement Pensions 

Mr Raab: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

pursuant to the contribution by the Exchequer Secretary 

to the Treasury of 2 July 2012, Official Report, column 

696, stating that next year a full basic state pension is 

forecast to be £130 a year higher than under the previous 

Government’s plans, how that forecast was calculated. 

[130723] 

Mr Gauke: The forecast that a full basic state pension will 

be £130 a year higher in 2013-14 than under the previous 

Government’s plans was based on the annual value of a 

full basic state pension in 2013-14 under the Government’s 

policy of uprating by the triple lock (i.e. the highest of 

inflation, earnings or 2.5%) each year from 2012-13, 

compared with the previous Government’s policy of 

uprating the basic state pension by earnings each year 

from 2012-13. The forecast was based on the OBR’s 

Budget 12 forecasts for CPI and earnings. 

The Government will set out its policy for uprating 

the basic state pension and other benefits in 2013-14 at 

the autumn statement. 

Tax Avoidance 

Catherine McKinnell: To ask the Chancellor of the 

Exchequer (1) how many prosecutions HM Revenue 

and Customs has brought against companies for tax 

avoidance since 2004; [130526] 

(2) how many prosecutions brought by HM Revenue 

and Customs against companies for tax avoidance have 

proceeded to court in each of the last five years. 

[130527] 

Mr Gauke: HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is 

not a prosecuting authority. Charging decisions and 

any subsequent prosecution in HMRC matters are carried 

out by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) upon 

receipt of evidence submitted by HMRC following criminal 

investigations. As tax avoidance is not illegal in itself, no 

cases have been submitted to the CPS for consideration 

and it follows that no cases have proceeded to court. 

The Government set out its strategy for dealing with 

avoidance by working to prevent it before it occurs, 

detecting it early and applying effective counteraction 

in the document “Tackling Tax Avoidance”, published 

at Budget 2011. At the 2012 Budget, the Government 

announced a range of measures to close down tax 

loopholes and also announced that it would consult on 

a general anti-abuse rule with a view to legislating in 

Finance Bill 2013. 

Tax Avoidance: Self-employed 

Guto Bebb: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

(1) what representations he has received on and what 

assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the 

IR35 guidance issued in May 2012; [130369] 

(2) when he plans to carry out the next IR25 review; 

and if he will publish the findings of that review; 

[130370] 

(3) what assessment he has made of the compliance 

activity and administration of IR35 since the 2011 

Budget. [130462] 

Mr Gauke: HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has 

not received any representations on the IR35 guidance 

since it was published in May 2012. 

Initial indications show a positive improvement in 

HMRC’s administration of IR35. 

HMRC will be reviewing their new approach to IR35 

during summer 2013. The results and any findings of 

this review will be initially shared with the IR35 Forum 

and published once they have been finalised. 

VAT: Energy 

Tracey Crouch: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

what discussions he has had with his European counterparts 

on the Reasoned Opinion of the European Commission 

on the UK’s reduced rate of VAT for energy saving 

materials. [130420] 

Mr Gauke: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given 

on 27 November 2012, Official Report, column 309W, 

and on 22 October 2012, Official Report, column 623W, 

to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park 

(Zac Goldsmith). 

Welfare Tax Credits 

Andrew Stephenson: To ask the Chancellor of the 

Exchequer what the total value of tax credit overpayments 

yet to be paid is. [130163] 

Mr Gauke: As of October 2012, the total outstanding 

amount of tax credits overpayments is £4.7 billion. 

HMRC’s strategy for reducing tax credit overpayments 

is to continue to focus on getting it right first time. We 

are developing a greater understanding of the causes of 

overpayments and continue to re-engineer products and 

processes to reduce the amount of debt entering the 

system. 

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE 

Burma 

Mr Burrowes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign 

and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has 

made of whether human rights abuses committed by 

the Burmese Army in northern Shan State and Kachin 

State, Burma would provide grounds for investigations 

of whether war crimes and crimes against humanity 

may have been committed. [129925] 

Mr Swire: We remain seriously concerned about reported 

human rights abuses committed by the Burmese army 

and armed ethnic groups in northern Shan and Kachin 

States. On 27 November, the UN General Assembly 

Third Committee passed a resolution by consensus that 

addresses the human rights situation in Burma, including 

the need for the Burmese Government to prosecute 

those responsible for human rights violations. That this 

was agreed by consensus demonstrates for the first time 

the Burmese Government’s commitment to resolving 

the many areas of concern, including accountability for 

past human rights abuses. We continue to urge the 

Burmese Government to meet that commitment. It will 

be important for any investigations into alleged atrocities


438W 

to be transparent and thorough, ensuring that those 

who have committed crimes are held to account for 

their actions. 

Middle East 

Mr Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is 

taking to ensure that Israel and Palestine comply with 

international law. [130074] 

Alistair Burt: We urge all parties to the Israeli-Palestinian 

conflict to respect their obligations under international 

humanitarian law. 

It is important that Israel fulfils its obligations under 

international law. We have consistently condemned Israel’s 

announcements to accelerate settlement building in the 

Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs) and have called 

on Israel to reverse these. 

We have also repeatedly made clear to the Israelis our 

serious concern at the 40% increase last year, as recorded 

by the UN, in demolitions of Palestinian properties in 

East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Our ambassador to 

Tel Aviv raised this issue with the Israeli Co-ordinator 

of Government Activities in the OPTs on 9 October. We 

view such demolitions and evictions as causing unnecessary 

suffering to ordinary Palestinians; as harmful to the 

peace process; and, in all but the most limited circumstances, 

as contrary to international humanitarian law. 

More generally, we continue to have serious concerns 

about the human rights situation in Israel and the 

OPTs, which we raise regularly with both Israeli and 

Palestinian authorities. More details can be found at: 

http://fcohrdreport.readandcomment.com/human-rights-incountries-of-concern/israel-and-the-opts/ 

Philippines 

Paul Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will visit the 

Philippines to discuss the peace process in that country. 

[129992] 

Mr Swire: The UK has been closely involved in the 

Mindanao peace negotiations as a member of the 

International Contact Group supporting the negotiations. 

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth 

Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond 

(Yorks) (Mr Hague) has been in contact with the Philippines 

Foreign Minister about Mindanao and sent our ambassador 

in Manila to Mindanao on his behalf to meet the 

leaders of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) 

when the framework deal was signed. Mindanao will be 

a significant theme during my forthcoming visit to 

Manila in December. 

The Foreign Secretary is keen to visit the Philippines 

in 2013 but the diary is not fixed at present. 

World War II: Military Decorations 

Stephen Doughty: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give 

consideration to revising the Government’s rules on the 

acceptance of foreign awards to allow British veterans 

of the Arctic convoys to receive the Russian Ushakov 

medal. [130720] 

Mark Simmonds: Sir John Holmes was invited to 

undertake further work to implement the recommendations 

set out in his Military Medals Review published on 

17 July 2012. The first phase of the further work has 

now been completed, covering a number of campaign 

medals, and this has been submitted for consideration. 

Further reviews will continue, one of which will be a 

fresh look at the policy on the acceptance of medals 

from other countries. 

I am, however, seeking explanations as to whether 

this rule is necessary and desirable in all circumstances. 

EDUCATION 

Computers 

Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education 

whether (a) he and (b) his special advisers use any 

non-departmental issued computers or tablets for official 

business; and what steps he is taking to ensure that data 

stored on any such device can be searched in response 

to requests under the Freedom of Information Act 

2000. [113427] 

Elizabeth Truss [holding answer 21 June 2012]: The 

Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend 

the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), uses 

both equipment supplied by the Department and his 

own IT equipment as appropriate, depending on his 

location and circumstances. Where information is generated 

in the course of conducting Government business, it is 

stored on departmental systems. The Information 

Commissioner published guidance on 15 December 

2011 concerning information held in private email accounts. 

The Cabinet Office is considering this and will issue 

further guidance to Departments. The Department will 

then review its own guidance accordingly, including on 

the storage of information and data. 

Education: Havering 

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Education how many students in Havering took 

GCSEs; and how many of those students went on to 

complete A levels in each of the last five years. [130382] 

Mr Laws: The information available is shown in the 

following table. It is a time series of how many young 

people were in maintained schools in Havering at academic 

age 15 and how many of these went on to pass at least 

one A level in the following three years. Academic age is 

the age at the start of the academic year. Taking the 

population at age 15 (generally GCSE year) is a good 

proxy for the population entered for GCSEs in Key 

Stage 4. For example, in 2011 nearly 98% of those 

reaching the end of Key Stage 4 in maintained schools 

in Havering entered both English and maths GCSE. 

Pupils in maintained schools in Havering at age 15 going on to achieve at least 

one A level by age 18 

Of whom achieved at least one A level 

by age 18: 

Cohort age 18 

in: 

Size of cohort at 

age 15 Number 

Proportion 

(percentage) 

2007 3,070 1,160 38 

2008 3,020 1,120 37 

2009 3,070 1,170 38 

2010 3,080 1,190 39


440W 

Pupils in maintained schools in Havering at age 15 going on to achieve at least 

one A level by age 18 

Of whom achieved at least one A level 

by age 18: 

Cohort age 18 

in: 

Size of cohort at 

age 15 Number 

Proportion 

(percentage) 

2011 

Source: 

3,050 1,240 41 

DFE Matched Administrative Data 

Email 

Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education 

(1) whether (a) he or (b) his special advisers (i) sent or 

(ii) received emails relating to the Building Schools for 

the Future programme through their private email accounts; 

[113426] 

(2) whether (a) he and (b) his special advisers have 

used the private email account known as Mrs Blurt to 

discuss (i) the decision to cancel the Building Schools 

for the Future Programme in Sandwell and (ii) other 

Government business since 2010; on how many occasions 

any such usage took place; and if he will make a 

statement; [113924] 

(3) with reference to the answer to the hon. Member 

for Liverpool, West Derby of 11 January 2012, Official 

Report, column 317W, on email, whether (a) he and 

(b) his special advisers used private email accounts to 

discuss the decision to cancel the Building Schools for 

the Future programme in Sandwell; and if he will place 

in the Library a copy of any such item of correspondence. 

[113927] 

Elizabeth Truss [holding answers 21 and 26 June 

2012]: The Secretary of State for Education, my right 

hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael 

Gove), and his special advisers use equipment and 

systems provided by the Department and their own IT 

equipment as appropriate, depending on their location 

and circumstances. Where information is generated in 

the course of conducting Government business, it is 

stored on departmental systems. 

Foster Care 


Education how many children live in foster care. 

[130276] 

Mr Timpson: The number of looked after children 

placed in foster care is shown in the following table. 

The information is extracted from the Department’s 

Statistical First Release, Children looked after by local 

authorities in England, 2012. This can be found at: 

http://www.education.gov.uk/researchandstatistics/statistics/ 

allstatistics/a00213762/children-looked-after-las-england 

Information on the placements of looked after children 

can found in Table A3. 

Children looked after at 31 March placed in foster care1, 2, 3 . years ending 31 

March 2008 to 2012, coverage: England 

Number 

Placement at 

31 March 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Foster 

placements 

41,960 43,910 46,890 48,180 50,260 

Children looked after at 31 March placed in foster care1, 2, 3 . years ending 31 

March 2008 to 2012, coverage: England 

Number 

Placement at 

31 March 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Foster 

placement 

inside council 

boundary 

With relative 

or friend 

With other 

foster carer 

Provided by 

council 

Arranged 

through 

agency4 5,000 4,960 5,320 5,390 5,280 

19,580 19,900 20,520 21,040 21,760 

2,740 3,320 4,020 4,400 5,180 

Foster 

placement 

outside 

council 

boundary 

With relative 

or friend 

With other 

foster carer 

1,900 1,940 2,080 2,090 2,090 

Provided by 

council 

5,210 5,750 5,970 5,940 6,050 

Arranged 

through 

agency4 7,530 8,040 8,980 9,320 9,900 

1 Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10. 

2 Figures exclude children looked after under an agreed series of short term 

placements. 

3 Amendments and corrections sent by some local authorities after the 

publication date of previous materials. 

4 This category includes placement provider codes ″Other Local Authority 

provision″, ″private provision″ and ″voluntary/third sector provision″ for 2009 

to 2012. 

Source: 

SSDA903 

Foster Care: Crimes of Violence 

Andrew Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Education how many foster parents were assaulted by 

their foster children in the most recent year for which 


Mr Timpson: Figures on assaults by foster children of 

their foster carers are not collected centrally. 

Foster carers should be supported to manage the 

needs of their foster children in a way that keeps the 

child, the foster carer and the foster carer’s family safe. 

If despite appropriate support it is clear that the child 

cannot be cared for within a particular placement in a 

way that is safe for all concerned, the responsible local 

authority should review the child’s care plan to decide 

whether they should be moved to a more appropriate 

placement. 

Free School Meals 

Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Education what proportion of pupils are (a) entitled 

to free school meals and (b) claim free school meals in 

each (i) local authority area and (b) region of England. 

[127143]


442W 

Mr Laws: Information is available on the number and 

percentage of pupils both known to be eligible for and 

claiming free school meals. This has been placed in the 

House Libraries. 

Information on the number of pupils known to be 

eligible for and claiming free school meals as at January 

2012 is published in the Statistical First Release ‘Schools, 

Pupils and their Characteristics, January 2012’ available 

at: 

http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001071/ 

index.shtml 

Further Education: Disadvantaged 

Tom Blenkinsop: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Education how many 16 to 18-year-olds who are entitled 

to free school meals are studying in a general further 

education or sixth form college in each local authority 

area in England. [130293] 

Mr Laws [holding answer 27 November 2012]: It is 

not possible to determine whether learners in colleges 

would meet the current free school meals criteria. However, 

we can estimate how many 16 to 18-year-olds in FE 

colleges and sixth form colleges were eligible for free 

school meals (FSM) when they were in year 11. 

The allocation to LA can be done either on the basis 

of the location of the college or the address of the 

student. For example, in 2010/11 there were a total of 

735 16 to 18-year-olds studying full-time in colleges 

located in Middlesbrough who had been eligible for 

FSM at 15. This compares with 585 16 to 18-year-olds 

living in Middlesbrough studying full time in colleges 

who had been eligible for FSM at 15. The answer to this 

question applies the second of these methods and uses 

the address of the student in the allocation to LA. This 

is because some colleges have sites in more than one 

LA; using the main address of the college would allocate 

all of the students to only one LA in each such case. 

The information requested has been placed in the 

House Libraries. 

Physical Education: Teachers 

Nic Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education 

how many specialist physical education teachers his 

Department expects to train in the academic year 2013-14; 

and how many were trained in each academic year since 

2008-09. [125569] 

Mr Laws [holding answer 6 November 2012]: Trainee 

teachers complete their training and obtain qualified 

teacher status (QTS) over a period of one to four 

academic years. It therefore follows that the number of 

physical education trainee teachers expected to complete 

their training in the 2013/14 academic year will be 

indicated by the number of trainees entering courses in 

the preceding four years. 

It is expected that 890 physical education teacher 

trainees will enter initial teacher training (ITT) in the 

2013/14 academic year. This number is higher than the 

expected figure of 835 in 2012/13. Included within the 

2013/14 figure is an interim recruitment target of 555 

postgraduate physical education trainees who already 

hold a degree with a classification 2:1 or above. Both 

figures for 2013/14 are expected to be finalised early 

next year. 

The available information on the number of specialist 

physical education teachers who completed training 

and obtained QTS in 2008/09 and 2009/10 is presented 

in the following table. 

Figures for 2010/11 are expected to be published in 

early 2013. 

Physical education trainee teachers completing training and gaining QTS in 

England, 2008/09 to 2009/10 

2008/09 2009/10 

Mainstream1 1,220 1,240 

Employment-based ITT2 530 410 

1 Includes universities and other higher education institutions and school-centred 

ITT (SCITT) but excludes employment-based routes and cases where QTS was 

granted on assessment without a course of initial teacher training. 

2 Excludes universities and other higher education institutions and SCITT as 

well as cases where QTS was granted on assessment without a course of initial 

teacher training. 

Note: 

Figures are rounded to the nearest 10. 

Source: 

Teaching Agency Performance Profiles 

Nic Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education 

how many graduates have applied to undertake training 

as specialist physical education teachers in 2013-14; and 

how many applied to train in each academic year since 

2008-09. [125570] 

Mr Laws [holding answer 6 November 2012]: Information 

on the number of applications made through the Graduate 

Teacher Training Registry (GTTR) for physical education 

Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) courses 

in England commencing between academic years 2008/09 

and 2012/13 is in the following table. Other physical 

education initial teacher training (ITT) routes are available 

for graduates but records of applications via these 

routes are not held centrally. 

The GTTR have not yet begun reporting on applications 

for PGCE courses starting in academic year 2013/14. 

Applications for physical education PGCE courses commencing in academic 

years 2008/09 to 2012/13 in England. 

Academic year of the start of training Applications 

2008/09 2,300 

2009/10 2,665 

2010/11 3,250 

2011/12 3,340 

2012/13 2,955 

Notes: 

1. Figures are rounded to the nearest five and include some applications which 

were subsequently withdrawn. 

2. Some applications for postgraduate ITT courses are made independently of 

the GTTR and are not included in the figures. 

3. Membership of the GTTR changes between years, therefore the number of 

higher education institutions covered in this table varies from year to year. 

4. The applications are shown against the year training would commence if 

accepted. The majority of applications would typically have been made in the 

previous academic year, though some may be made early in the academic year 

of training commencing. 

5. Applications are counted for providers in England where physical education 

was at least one of the choices made. Individual applicants can place more than 

one application, and so the number of applicants may be smaller. 

Source: 

GTTR 

Primary Education: Yorkshire and the Humber 

Hugh Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education 

how much (a) revenue and (b) capital funding was 

provided per pupil in state primary schools in (i) York 

and (ii) Yorkshire and the Humber in 1997 and each 

year since in (A) cash terms and (B) at 2012 prices. 

[127823]


444W 

Mr Laws: The requested information was provided to 

the hon. Member in the answer given by the hon. 

Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) 

on 25 June 2012, Official Report, column 130W. The 

only change to the answer given in June is that there has 

been an increase in capital funding in 2012-13 from £8.6 

million to £8.7 million for York local authority, and 

from £289.7 million to £293.7 million for the Yorkshire 

and Humber region, due to the allocation of short 

break capital funding being made in August. 

Schools: Finance 

Pauline Latham: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Education (1) what the effect will be of the Government’s 

commitment to extend the minimum funding guarantee 

beyond 2014-15; [130186] 

(2) what representations he has received on the effect 

of current funding changes for schools in Mid 

Derbyshire; [130188] 

(3) how he plans to improve the system of per pupil 

funding for schools in England; [130189] 

(4) what representations he has received on the effect 

of his changes to school funding on primary schools; 

[130190] 

(5) what progress his Department has made on 

implementing a new national funding formula for schools 

in England. [130191] 

Mr Laws: On 26 March 2012 the Secretary of State 

for Education, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath 

(Michael Gove), announced the Government’s intention 

to introduce a new national funding formula (NFF) 

during the next spending review period. An NFF would 

address the current unfairness in the distribution of 

funding between local authority areas. 

In the meantime, as a first step towards an NFF, we 

are making a number of changes to the way that local 

authorities distribute funding to schools. From April 

2013, funding will be distributed to schools using much 

simpler local formulae and on a much more transparent 

basis. 

The Department has received representation from 

Derbyshire county council and the head teacher of 

St Thomas More Catholic School in Derbyshire—replies 

were sent on 23 July and 24 October respectively—and 

has received a number of representations from primary 

schools in England. 

We have assured schools that are concerned about 

their funding that we will be carrying out a careful 

review in early 2013 of the 2013-14 school funding 

arrangements. We will work with schools and local 

authorities to explore their effect and to consider whether 

further changes need to be made in April 2014, in order 

to move us closer towards a national funding formula. 

Schools that see changes in their funding will have 

some planning certainty through the minimum funding 

guarantee (MFG). The MFG means that, in most cases, 

schools will not lose more than 1.5% of their budgets, 

per pupil, in 2013-14 and 2014-15. 

Although we cannot give an exact figure for the 

MFG in future years until after the next spending 

review, we can confirm that an MFG will continue to 

operate, in order to offer protection against unmanageable 

falls in school budgets. This will help us to make steady 

progress towards the goal of a consistent national formula. 

Mr Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Education (1) what analysis his Department undertook 

before taking its decision to reduce the number of 

schools funding indicators from 37 to 11; [130451] 

(2) what representations his Department has received 

from local authorities on the changes to the schools 

funding consultation on School Funding Reform: Rationale 

and Principles; [130452] 

(3) what assessment he has made of the effect on 

flexibility for local authorities arising from the reduction 

in the number of schools funding indicators from 37 to 

11. [130453] 

Mr Laws: The Department published a summary of 

responses to ’School Funding Reform: Rationale and 

Principles’ on 19 July 2011. A copy of this document 

can be found on the Department’s website. 

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/ 

financialmanagement/schoolsrevenuefunding/a00215225/ 

school-funding-reform 

The Department published two further consultations 

following this: ’School Funding Reform: Proposals for 

a Fairer System’ (published on 19 July 2011); and 

‘School Funding Reform: Next Steps towards a Fairer 

System’ (published on 26 March 2012). The March 

document set out the Department’s intention to reduce 

the number of factors that local authorities can use in 

configuring their school funding formulae. Prior to the 

publication of the March document, the Department 

considered which of the 37 existing factors were required 

in order to deliver a pupil-led funding system. In order 

to assess the impact of removing some of those factors, 

the Department analysed the annual data returns which 

set out local authority expenditure on education and 

consulted with its stakeholder groups. An Equalities 

Impact Assessment was published alongside the March 

document and can also be found on our website. 

Following publication of the March document, the 

Department considered representations from local 

authorities, maintained schools and Academies before 

publishing final decisions on 28 June 2012 in the document 

‘School Funding Reform: Arrangements for 2013-14’. 

The Department will be carrying out a careful review, 

in early 2013, of the 2013-14 school funding arrangements. 

We will work with schools and local authorities to 

explore their effect and to consider whether further 

changes need to be made in April 2014, in order to 

move us closer towards a national funding formula. 

The impact of these changes to schools will be limited 

due to the protections we have put in place. The Minimum 

Funding Guarantee (MFG) means that, in most cases, 

schools will not lose more than 1.5% of their budgets, 

per pupil, in 2013-14 and 2014-15. 

Although we cannot give an exact figure for the 

MFG in future years, until after the next spending 

review, we can confirm that an MFG will continue to 

operate, in order to offer protection against unmanageable 

falls in school budgets. This will help us to make steady 

progress towards the goal of a consistent national formula.


446W 

Teachers 

Mr Robin Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Education (1) what information his Department holds 

on the employment rate of newly qualified teachers in 

the (a) state and (b) independent sector by training 

institution. [130457] 

(2) if he will provide information on the employment 

rate of newly qualified teachers in state education in 

the (a) primary and (b) secondary sector in each of 

their first five years post-qualification, by institution 

providing teacher training in the latest period for which 


Mr Laws: Three tables have been placed in the Library 

detailing; 

(1) the employment rate in the (a) state and (b) independent 

sector of final year initial teacher training trainees who achieved 

Qualified Teacher Status six months after course completion by 

training institution, 

(2a) the employment status of Newly Qualified Teachers in the 

five years after completing primary initial teacher training by 

institution providing teacher training, and 

(2b) the employment status of Newly Qualified Teachers in the 

five years after completing secondary initial teacher training by 

institution providing teacher training. 

The information in (1) is provided for initial teacher 

training trainees who achieved Qualified Teacher Status 

in the 2010/11 academic year and represents the latest 

available data. Similar data are also available for initial 

teacher training trainees who achieved Qualified Teacher 

Status in the 2008/09 and 2009/10 academic years. 

Information for academic years prior to these back to 

1998/99 cover mainstream routes of initial teacher training 

only. 

The information in (2a) and (2b) is provided for 

Newly Qualified Teachers who completed their training 

in 2005/06, representing the most recent cohort for 

whom five years of data are available. Similar data are 

available for Newly Qualified Teachers who completed 

their training in 2004/05 and for fewer years for Newly 

Qualified Teachers who completed training in 2006/07, 

2007/08, 2008/09 and 2009/10. Information on the 

employment rates into state-funded schools is not available 

for this group, so the employment rates into all types of 

schools have been provided instead. 

Vocational Education 

Steve McCabe: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Education whether his Department funds any nongovernmental 

organisations that promote employment 

training in primary or secondary schools in England; to 

which organisations any such funding was provided; 

and what the value of any such funding was. [130087] 

Mr Laws: The Department for Education does not 

directly fund any non-governmental organisations that 

promote employment training in primary or secondary 

schools. We do co-sponsor the UK Commission for 

Employment and Skills (UKCES) alongside the 

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). 

UKCES fund initiatives that focus on tackling youth 

unemployment, addressing the skills gap and promoting 

economic growth. 

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS 

Dementia 

Paul Burstow: To ask the hon. Member for Banbury, 

representing the Church Commissioners, what steps the 

Church Commissioners plan to take to support the 

Prime Minister’s Dementia Challenge and the work of 

each of the challenge groups; what resources he has 

committed; what timescale he has set for this work; and 

if he will make a statement. [129372] 

Sir Tony Baldry: The Church of England is well 

placed to help the Prime Minister deliver his Dementia 

Challenge Initiative and the Bishop of Carlisle is a 

member of the Dementia Challenge team. 

The Church of England has 20,000 licensed parish 

ministers, 1,600 chaplains and 7,000 retired clergy with 

permission to officiate who undertake work on a daily 

basis with vulnerable communities and have extensive 

pastoral and community expertise. These clergy, chaplains 

and ministers will be important figures in promoting 

dementia-friendly communities. 

The Church of England is also working to support 

parish nursing ministries. This is a fairly new resource 

which is growing across the UK. Parish nursing ministries 

work with local registered nurses who have some community 

experience and local churches to help support and 

develop whole person health ministry to a community. 

TRANSPORT 

Shropshire to London Link 

12. Mark Pritchard: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Transport if he will hold discussions with west coast 

main line bidders on introducing a direct link from 

Shropshire to London. [130593] 

Mr Simon Burns: In general, Ministers do not discuss 

these issues with bidders during live rail franchising 

competitions. 

When we end the suspension of the rail franchising 

programme and re-launch a new Intercity West Coast 

franchise competition, hon. Members and their constituents 

will be able to approach bidders directly to discuss the 

potential for introducing direct passenger train services 

from Shropshire to London. 

High Speed 2: Midlands 

16. Karen Lumley: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Transport what his latest assessment is of the potential 

benefits of High Speed 2 to industry and businesses in 

the midlands; and if he will make a statement. [130600] 

Mr McLoughlin: Our most recent analysis points to 

business benefits of up to £50 billion for our economy. 

Businesses around the West Midlands will find themselves 

right at the heart of the new network—with the investment 

and jobs that it will bring.


448W 

Airports: South East 

Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Transport with reference to the Heseltine Review: a 

new partnership, if he will accept recommendation 60 

on airport capacity in the South East. [131064] 

Mr Simon Burns: The Secretary of State for Transport, 

my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales 

(Mr McLoughlin), is committed to maintaining the 

current published timetable for the Airports Commission. 

If the commission is to succeed, it must put in place a 

robust evidence base for any recommendations. The 

timetable has been designed so as to allow the 

commissioners sufficient time to consider all the credible 

options on an equal basis, including those which have 

not yet been subjected to substantial development or 

evaluation. 

Dover Port 

Jim Fitzpatrick: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Transport what discussions he or officials from his 

Department have had with (a) UK-based and (b) 

non-UK based companies on the sale of the Port of 

Dover. [129826] 

Stephen Hammond: The Department has had no 

discussions with any companies, in connection with any 

bids which they might wish to make for the Port of 

Dover, should it be for sale, which (pending the decision 

on Dover Harbour Board’s proposed application) it is 

currently not. However in late 2011 and early 2012 there 

were facilitated discussions with Dover Harbour Board 

and other interested parties on the possible mechanisms 

of a transfer scheme that might or might not facilitate a 

sale at some future date, further to the Secretary of 

State for Transport’s statement on 15 September 2011, 

Official Report, columns 65-66WS. 

Heathrow Airport: Railways 

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State 

for Transport whether his Department plans that 

Heathrow would be served solely by Crossrail services 

if the Heathrow Express Track Access Agreement is 

not renewed on expiry; and what assessment his 

Department has made of the consequent change in 

journey times and projected modal shift. [130698] 

Mr Simon Burns: Heathrow Express is an Open Access 

operator and track access rights for that service are due 

to expire in 2023. Full Crossrail services are due to start 

serving the airport in 2019 and will provide direct access 

to the City, West End and Canary Wharf without 

interchanging at Paddington. 

The granting of track access rights, and potential 

renewal of these rights is a matter for Heathrow Express, 

Network Rail and the Office for Rail Regulation. Since 

these rights do not expire for 11 years we have not 

considered how the airport would be served if these 

rights were not extended and how overall accessibility 

to the airport would be impacted given the improvements 

to access that Crossrail will also deliver. 

High Speed 2 Railway Line 

Mrs Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Transport how many HS2 Exceptional Hardship 

Scheme applications have been rejected on grounds 

that they failed to fulfil EHS criteria (a) one, (b) two, 

(c) three, (d) four and (e) five. [130559] 

Mr Simon Burns: The following table sets out the 

number of times the Exceptional Hardship Scheme 

(EHS) panel has recommended that an application has 

not met each of the criteria for the scheme: 

Criteria Number of times 

1 Property type 22 

2 Location of property 107 

3 Effort to sell 169 

4 No prior knowledge 0 

5 Exceptional hardship 244 

It should be noted that an unsuccessful application 

may fail to meet more than one criterion so the sum of 

the number of times criteria have not been met is 

greater than the number of unsuccessful applications to 

the EHS. 

Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Transport what steps he is taking to mitigate the 

environmental effect of High Speed 2; and if he will 

make a statement. [130597] 

Mr Simon Burns: We are committed to reducing 

environmental impacts as far as practicable and as part 

of this HS2 Ltd is undertaking an environmental impact 

assessment of the route. 

We also meet regularly with community forums and 

environmental groups such as the National Trust to 

identify opportunities for environmental mitigation and 

enhancements, such as the creation of new wildlife 

habitats. 

We will consult on a draft Environmental Statement 

for HS2 in spring 2013. 


Transport pursuant to the answer of 13 September 

2012, Official Report, column 370W, on the High Speed 

2 railway line, what the average landscape value per 

hectare is before mitigation is taken into account for 

each section along the current High Speed Rail 2 

preferred line of route; and if he will make a statement. 

[130935] 

Mr Simon Burns: Before mitigation measures such as 

tunnels are taken into account the average landscape 

value per hectare in the HS2 Economic case on each 

section of the current HS2 preferred line of route 

between London and Birmingham is as follows: 

Section of route 

Value per hectare, present 

value (£2001) 

Euston to Old Oak Common 199,014 

Old Oak Common to River Pinn 1,639,272 

River Pinn to M25 221,089 

M25 to Amersham 292,963


450W 

Section of route 

Value per hectare, present 

value (£2001) 

Amersham to Chilterns Northern 

247,484 

Edge 

Chilterns Northern Edge to A421 

96,231 

near Finmere 

A421 near Finmere to Long 

128,753 

Itchington Tunnel 

Long Itchington Tunnel to Burton 

237,871 

Green 

Burton Green to Balsall Common 

99,967 

crossing WCML 

Balsall Common crossing WCML to 

170,965 

Crossing M42 

Crossing M42 near M6 toll to 

186,155 

Lichfield 

Lichfield to WCML 129,619 

Crossing M42 near M6 Toll to 

60,042 

Birmingham 

Valuation of different land types is based on the 

values in the Department for Communities and Local 

Government document ‘Valuing the external benefits of 

undeveloped land’ and is not unique to HS2. 

Highways Agency: Planning Permission 

Robert Neill: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 

what steps he has taken to improve the efficiency of the 

Highways Agency in respect of its function as a statutory 

consultee on planning applications. [130511] 

Stephen Hammond: On 22 November, the Highways 

Agency published an improvement plan which sets out 

a series of actions to improve the efficiency of its 

planning function, and to provide greater transparency 

in the monitoring and reporting of its performance in 

this area of activity. 

A copy of the improvement plan may be found at: 

http://www.highways.gov.uk/our-road-network/planning/ 

improvement-plan/ 

Reports on progress will be provided twice-yearly, 

and new actions will be added when these are identified 

based on feedback from stakeholders. 

Railways: Franchises 

Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 

how many staff in his Department were working on rail 

franchising in (a) June 2010, (b) January 2011, (c) 

August 2012 and (d) November 2012. [130656] 

Mr Simon Burns: The rail franchising process involves 

input from many staff at various parts of the process, 

many of whom contribute their expertise alongside 

their other tasks. This includes both internal and external 

specialists and advisers, as well as senior staff, whose 

involvement in franchising is occasional. The Department 

does not, therefore, hold the information in the format 

requested. 

The structure of rail franchising processes within the 

Department and the roles and responsibilities of those 

involved, are being examined as part of the two independent 

reviews that are currently ongoing. Their reports will be 

available in due course. 

Rescue Services: Snow and Ice 

Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Transport what steps (a) he and (b) his officials have 

made to improve the Coastguard Rescue Service’s 

operational resilience in the event of adverse winter 

weather. [130834] 

Stephen Hammond: The Coastguard Rescue Service 

(CRS) is routinely operationally resilient to deal with 

adverse winter weather. No particular changes have 

been made this year as the level of equipment, training 

and operational instructions for the CRS has proved 

fully capable to date, and dynamic risk assessment is 

standard practice. 

Coastguard Rescue Teams and their vehicles are 

equipped, as standard, to deal with adverse weather 

events. This is demonstrated by their incident response 

in previous years. 


what assessment he has made of the potential effect of 

adverse winter weather on the work of the coastguard 

stations at (a) Brixham, (b) Clyde, (c) Forth, (d) 

Great Yarmouth, (e) Liverpool, (f) Portland, (g) Swansea 

and (h) Walton-on-the-Naze. [130837] 

Stephen Hammond: The Maritime and Coastguard 

Agency’s Business Continuity Plans (BCP) are function 

based and not location based so no specific assessment 

has been made of the locations listed. 

The approach to resilience is common to all Maritime 

Rescue Co-ordination Centres, and the associated 164 

Remote Radio Sites (RRS) situated throughout the 

UK. The implementation of a plan will be subject to 

further risk assessment that takes into account the 

reason why the BCP has been invoked and the prevailing 

weather. 


how many maritime incidents that were the result of 

adverse winter weather required assistance from the 

coastguard station at (a) Brixham, (b) Clyde, (c) 

Forth, (d) Great Yarmouth, (e) Liverpool, (f) Portland, 

(g) Swansea and (h) Walton-on-the-Naze in each year 

since 2008. [130838] 

Stephen Hammond: This information is not available 

as Her Majesty’s Coastguard does not record whether 

maritime incidents are as a result of adverse weather. 

Roads: Animals 


Transport what estimate he has made of the average 

cost to the public purse of installing a wildlife crossing. 

[129998] 

Stephen Hammond: The Department does not collect 

information on the provision of wildlife crossing for the 

local authority road network. Illustrative costs for the 

Strategic Road Network (SRN) have been included in 

the following table. Any supplementary information to 

that contained within the table is embedded within 

non-specific budget costs and therefore could be calculated 

only at disproportionate costs.


452W 

Project name 

Table of illustrative costs of wildlife crossings constructed on the SRN between 2008 to 2010 

Wildlife crossings constructed by the Highways Agency 2008 to 2010 

Types of features Capital costs (approximate) (£) 

Major projects 

M6 Carlisle to Guardsmill Extension 8 wildlife crossings 275,000 

A590 High and Low Newton Bypass wildlife crossing 85,000 

A419 Blunsdon Bypass 3 wildlife crossings 16,000 

A38 Dobwalls Bypass 3 wildlife crossings 300,000 

A69 Haydon Bridge Bypass wildlife crossing 60,000 

A3 Hindhead Improvement 7 wildlife crossings 62,000 

A595 Parton—Lillyhall Improvement 3 wildlife crossings 50,000 

A14 Haughley New St—Stowmarket Improvement 2 wildlife crossings 15,000 M40 Junction 15 (Longbridge Roundabout) 4 wildlife crossings 20,000 

A421 Bedford to M1 Junction 13 2 wildlife crossings 41,000 

A1 Dishforth to Leeming Improvement (A1 Dishforth to Barton) 4 wildlife crossings 26,000 

A46 Newark—Widmerpool Improvement 15 wildlife crossings 95,000 

Area teams—network delivery and development 

Area 3 A31 Kingstream wildlife crossing 55,000 

Area 3 St Leornards wildlife crossing 35,000 

Area 3 A3 Morley wildlife crossing 10,000 

Area 3 Welwyn Garden City wildlife crossing 35,000 

Area 5 M25 wildlife crossing 34,000 

Area 6 Belstead Brook wildlife crossing 65,000 

Area 8 A45 Barton Brook wildlife crossing 80,000 

Area 10 M6 jcn 29 Tasker Wood wildlife crossing 39,000 

Area 13 09/10 3 wildlife crossings 271,000 

Area 13 08/09 wildlife crossing 188,000 

Area 14 A1 Sandy’s Letch—2 crossings 2 wildlife crossings 222,000 

Area 14 A1 Warren Burn wildlife crossing 48,000 

Area 14 A1 River Aln wildlife crossing 71,000 

Area 14 Cawledge Burn wildlife crossing 174,000 

Area 14 Newlands Burn wildlife crossing 118,000 

Total 2,480,000 

1 In the period 


Transport how many (a) deaths and (b) serious 

injuries have occurred as a result of road traffic 

accidents involving animals in the last year. [130000] 

Stephen Hammond: In Great Britain in 2011 there 

were eight fatalities and 139 serious injuries resulting 

from personal injury road accidents involving animals 

(other than a ridden horse) in the carriageway. 


Transport what recent estimate he has made of the 

annual cost to the public purse of road traffic accidents 

involving animals. [130407] 

Stephen Hammond: The Department for Transport 

publishes the overall costs of road traffic accidents in 

‘Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: 2011 Annual 

Report’, which is available at: 

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/road-accidents-andsafety-annual-report-2011/rrcgb2011-04.pdf 

The report gives the number of reported road traffic 

accidents in 2011 where a police officer attended the 

scene and recorded an animal or object in the carriageway 

as a contributory factor in fatal, serious or slight accidents. 

However, no estimate has been made of the costs to 

the public purse of road traffic accidents involving 

animals. 

Shipping: Training 

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Transport if he will make it his policy to permit shipping 

companies not in the tonnage tax scheme to apply to 

the Maritime Training Trust for the use of Payment in 

Lieu of Training funds to provide training schemes for 

UK seafarers; and if he will make a statement. [130830] 

Stephen Hammond: The Maritime Training Trust is 

an independent body and decisions on how it spends 

PILOT funds are a matter for the Trust itself. 


Transport how many seafarer (a) ratings and (b) officers 

completed training courses funded from Payment in 

Lieu of Training made by companies in the tonnage tax 

scheme in each year since 2001-02. [130831] 

Stephen Hammond: The Department does not hold 

this information. The Maritime Training Trust makes 

its own decisions on how to spend the funds it receives 

from Payments in Lieu of Training. 

Tonnage Tax 


Transport what the average payment in lieu of training 

(PILOT) made by a shipping company participating in 

the tonnage tax scheme was in each financial year since 

2000-01. [130798]


454W 

Stephen Hammond: The information requested is not 

available. However, the number of PILOT payments 

made in respect of each tonnage tax training commitment 

year is given in the following table: 

Company 

groups in 

tonnage 

tax 

Number of: 

Trainee 

months 

Months met 

by making 

PILOT 

payments 

PILOT rate 

per trainee 

month (£) 

2000-01 15 862 186 550 

2001-02 42 4,689 1,142 1550 — — — 2562 2002-03 59 9,590 1,657 573 

2003-04 59 13,043 2,457 591 

2004-05 71 15,612 3,293 608 

2005-06 77 16,549 4,066 621 

2006-07 79 17,648 4,410 634 ¦ 

2007-08 86 18,805 3,021 652 

2008-09 90 ¦ 20,816 2,810 671 

2009-10 90 21,909 3,929 685 

2010-113 1 October to January. 

2 February to September. 

90 22,138 4,128 743 

3 2010-11 is the last year for which complete information is available. 

Transport: Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty 


Transport what steps he plans to take to ensure that 

areas of outstanding natural beauty are protected from 

major transport infrastructure projects; and if he will 

make a statement. [130947] 

Mr Simon Burns: Decisions on any infrastructure 

investment will always take account of the relevant 

planning policy as appropriate. They are also informed 

by an appraisal of the environmental effects including 

an assessment of any effect on an area of outstanding 

natural beauty (AONB). 

Where it is not possible to avoid such areas, measures 

to reduce the environmental effect will be considered 

carefully. For example, on High Speed 2, less than two 

miles of the 13 miles of the route through the Chilterns 

AONB would be at surface level. 

West Coast Railway Line: Franchises 


what (a) predicted revenue, (b) revenue support and 

(c) premium payment will be paid by Virgin Trains in 

respect of the 12-month contract being negotiated by 

his Department to run the InterCity West Coast mainline 

from 9 December 2012. [130653] 

Mr Simon Burns: For reasons of commercial 

confidentiality, I am unable to provide this information. 


whether the letter sent by his Department’s Head of 

Major Projects, Mr Peter Strachan, to bidders in the 

InterCity West Coast franchise competition was seen 

and approved by (a) Ministers in his Department and 

(b) Mr Sam Laidlaw prior to it being sent. [130654] 

Mr Simon Burns: Following the announcement of its 

decision to cancel the InterCity West Coast competition 

on 3 October, in accordance with its obligations the 

Department set out in writing the reasons for its decision 

to all bidders in the competition. Those letters were 

approved by officials at an appropriate level in the 

Department. This was a separate process from the review 

being carried out by Mr Sam Laidlaw and the letters were 

not seen by him or his Inquiry prior to their despatch. 


in what month he intends to publish his Department’s 

internal Human Resources report into malpractice in 

awarding the West Coast Mainline rail contract; and if 

he will publish the report, if necessary redacting names 

for reasons of data protection or privacy. [130655] 

Mr Simon Burns: It would not be appropriate for the 

Department to publish the report of an internal fact-finding 

investigation into whether or not any official has a 

disciplinary case to answer. Accordingly, the Department 

does not intend to publish the internal Human Resources 

investigation into the role and conduct of officials in the 

award process for the InterCity West Coast franchise. 

Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Transport whether the Laidlaw inquiry into the failure 

to award the West Coast train franchise will be affected 

by his Department’s human resources inquiry; and if 

he will make a statement on how the reports are 

interlinked. [130728] 

Mr Simon Burns: No. Although the two reviews are 

as far as possible working from the same evidence base 

their roles are distinct, as shown by their separate terms 

of reference. The purpose of the Laidlaw inquiry is to 

identify the lessons to be learned for the Department 

and to recommend what measures the Department 

should implement to ensure the sound running of future 

rail franchise competitions. The purpose of the human 

resources inquiry is to gather facts into the role and 

conduct of the officials involved in the award process 

for the Intercity West Coast franchise in order to establish 

whether or not there is a disciplinary case to answer. 


when he plans to publish the internal Departmental 

human resources report into the awarding of the West 

Coast Mainline rail franchise; and if he will undertake 

to publish the report. [130729] 

Mr Simon Burns: It would not be appropriate for the 

Department to publish the report of an internal fact-finding 

investigation into whether or not any official has a 

disciplinary case to answer. Accordingly, the Department 

does not intend to publish the internal human resources 

investigation into the role and conduct of officials in the 

award process for the InterCity West Coast franchise. 


Human Trafficking Ministerial Group 

Michael Connarty: To ask the Leader of the House 

what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State 

for the Home Department on plans for scrutiny of the 

Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group on Human 

Trafficking’s first annual report. [130616]


456W 

Mr Lansley: I have had no direct discussions on this 

subject. 

However, I would like to reiterate what the Immigration 

Minister and chair of the Inter-Departmental Ministerial 

Group, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean 

(Mr Harper), said: 

“Human trafficking is abhorrent and the UK Government is 

committed to combating this crime in all its forms”. 

PRIME MINISTER 

Low Incomes: Food 

Fiona O’Donnell: To ask the Prime Minister whether 

he has visited a food bank in the last six months; and 

whether he plans to visit a food bank in the next six 

months. [130769] 

The Prime Minister: I have meetings and discussions 

with a wide range of organisations and individuals at a 

variety of locations around the country. My engagements 

are announced as and when appropriate. 

NORTHERN IRELAND 

Hospitals: Parking 

Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Northern Ireland what information her Department 

holds on the cost of introducing free parking at NHS 

trusts in Northern Ireland; and what discussions she 

has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on what 

effect that introduction has had. [130350] 

Mike Penning: The cost of parking at NHS trusts in 

Northern Ireland is a devolved matter and not one for 

which I or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, 

my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet 

(Mrs Villiers), have ministerial responsibility. 

WALES 

Energy: Prices 

Owen Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 

what recent assessment he had made of the effect of 

energy costs on business investment decisions in Wales. 

[130719] 

Mr David Jones: The Government has earmarked up 

to £250 million for this over the spending review period 

to reduce the impact of policy on the costs of electricity 

for the most electricity-intensive industries. We are currently 

seeking views from the business community and other 

interested parties on our proposed approach, including 

eligibility thresholds for compensation, so that the industries 

most at risk receive the necessary help. 

Tata Steel 

Owen Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 

what recent discussions and meetings (a) he and (b) 

his officials have had with the management of Tata 

Steel. [130718] 

Mr David Jones: I spoke to Tata Steel yesterday, and 

my officials spoke to them last week regarding their 

operations in Wales. 

HOME DEPARTMENT 

Police and Crime Commissioners 

Mr Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for the 

Home Department how many requests for election 

material relating to the police and crime commissioner 

elections had been made via (a) the telephone number 

0800 1070708 and (b) www.choosemypcc.org.uk by 8 

November 2012; how many responses to such requests 

were dispatched by that date; and how many of those 

responses were sent by (i) first class and (ii) second 

class post. [128371] 

Damian Green [holding answer 13 November 2012]: 

As of 5 pm on 8 November 2012, there were 111,372 

completed leaflet requests of which: 

(a) 86,068 were made via the PCC candidate information 

orderline 0800 1070708; 

(b) 25,304 were made online via 

www.choosemypcc.org.uk 

By 5 pm on 8 November, 107,559 leaflets had been 

dispatched in response to these requests. Of the leaflets 

dispatched: 

(i) 56,931 were sent by first class post; 

(ii) 50,628 were sent by second class post. 

At this point, there were 3,813 leaflets which had not 

been dispatched due to the fact that they were either in 

the system for processing, spam orders, bulk candidate 

requests or orders for areas where elections were not 

taking place. 

Mr Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for the 

Home Department what plans she has to update her 

Department’s Best Value and Planning Guidance for 

Police Authorities and Forces 2003 to take account of 

the commissioning powers of police and crime 

commissioners. [130329] 

Damian Green: This guidance will not apply to police 

and crime commissioners as they are not Best Value 

authorities. 

Police: Training 

Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for the 

Home Department what training is provided to police 

officers on protecting children when they are online. 

[130642] 

Mr Jeremy Browne: There is a wide range of training 

available to police officers seeking to protect children 

online, from a number of providers, including Interpol 

and Europol. In particular, the Child Exploitation and 

Online Protection Centre (CEOP) provides a number of 

courses that are available for police officers and for 

parents, carers and child care professionals, CEOP also 

provides general safety information for children through 

its “ThinkUKnow” website and training programme, 

which officers can provide to children. 

UK Border Agency 

Richard Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for the 

Home Department if she will direct the UK Border 

Agency to respond in a timely manner to the e-mail of


458W 

24 October 2012 and the follow-up call from the office 

of the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield in 

respect of the case of Mohammed Jagne. [130558] 

Mr Harper [holding answer 28 November 2012]: The 

MP Account Manager team replied to the hon. Gentleman 

on 26 November 2012. 

Written Questions: Government Responses 

Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for the 

Home Department when she plans to answer question 

127049 on visa extensions. [130235] 

Mr Harper [holding answer 27 November 2012]: I 

refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 28 November 

2012, Official Report, column 337W. 

DEFENCE 

Apache Helicopters 

Mr Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 

what his policy is on the wet assembly for the Apache 

helicopter; what estimate he has made of the associated 

costs; and if he will make a statement. [130504] 

Mr Dunne [holding answer 28 November 2012]: The 

current Apache AH Mk1 aircraft are based on the US 

Army Apache AH64D. In common with those aircraft, 

the Apache AH MK1 airframes were dry-built. There is 

currently no engineering solution available, and therefore 

no cost information, for undertaking a retro-wet assembly 

of the in-service aircraft airframes. They have, however, 

been treated with a two stage protection process to 

reduce the effects of corrosion and maintain the 

airworthiness of the aircraft in the maritime operating 

environment. 

Mr Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 

what his policy is on the number of operational Apache 

helicopters; and if he will make a statement. [130505] 


Army Air Corps operates a fleet of 66 Apache helicopters, 

which meets the current operational requirement for 

Attack Helicopters. 

Apache, which is currently supporting operations in 

Afghanistan, has been in service with the Army since 

2001 and is due to undergo a capability sustainment 

programme in the near future. This upgrade will ensure 

the capability remains in service out to 2040. The number 

of aircraft to be upgraded as part of this programme 

will be based on an assessment of the future operational 

requirement and will be decided at the main investment 

decision point, which is currently planned for 2014. 

One aircraft was recently removed from the fleet 

having been assessed as beyond repair as a result of 

damage sustained following a heavy landing on operations 

in 2008. The damage was not caused as a result of 

enemy action and neither pilot was injured in the incident. 

Armed Forces: Uniforms 

Mr Alan Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Defence when his Department approved the Panther 

chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear protection 

suit produced by Remploy. [129845] 

Mr Dunne: The Panther CBRN protective suit produced 

by Remploy is neither in service with nor approved for 

use by UK armed forces. 

DSTL has undertaken some test and evaluation work 

on the Panther suit on a commercial basis for Remploy. 

However, while the result of such work is sometimes 

published by companies as part of their advertising 

literature, this does not constitute DSTL or any Government 

endorsement of the product nor does it imply that the 

equipment has been approved for use by UK armed 

forces. 

Armoured Fighting Vehicles 

Mr Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Defence what estimate he has made of the likely total 

cost of the upgrade to the Viking fleet. [129161] 

Mr Dunne: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I 

gave on 23 October 2012, Official Report, column 806W, 

to the hon. Member for Moray (Mr Angus Robertson). 

AWE 

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Defence which universities host Atomic Weapons 

Establishment (AWE) William Penney fellowships funded 

by the AWE; and what the cost was of the AWE 

William Penney Fellowships programme in the last year 

for which figures are available. [129544] 

Mr Dunne: The university of Bristol, Cranfield university, 

the university of Edinburgh, Heriot Watt university and 

the university of Cambridge currently have academics 

who have been awarded a William Penney Fellowship. 

In addition ‘visiting’ William Penney Fellows are also 

hosted by the university of Cambridge. 

The Atomic Weapons Establishment budgeted £226,000 

for the William Penney Fellowship for financial year 

2011-2012, which is the last year for which figures are 

available. 


Defence pursuant to the answer of 3 September 2012, 

Official Report, column 44W, on AWE: research, from 

which UK universities academics have participated in 

exchange visits to US establishments under the terms 

of the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defense Agreement in the 

last three years. [129588] 

Mr Dunne: Academic staff from Oxford university 

have taken part in exchange visits to US establishments 

under the terms of the 1958 Mutual Defense Agreement 

in the last three years. 

Defence Equipment 

Peter Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 

when he will publish his Department’s future equipment 

programme; and if he will make a statement. [130430] 

Mr Dunne: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I 

gave on 26 November 2012, Official Report, column 7.


460W 

Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft 

Mr Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Defence what his policy is on the operational use of the 

Voyager transport aircraft in (a) troop carrier and (b) 

refuelling modes. [130049] 

Mr Dunne [holding answer 27 November 2012]: Voyager 

will be employed in both the air-to-air refuelling and 

passenger transport roles. It will be covered by the 

Ministry of Defence’s overarching policy for the operational 

employment of all air transport and air-to-air refuelling 

aircraft, rather than a policy specific to Voyager. The 

details of how and when Voyager will be used will be 

decided by Air Command as the operational need dictates. 

Guided Weapons 


Defence what his policy is on Block 1, 2 and 3 Spear 

Capability; and if he will make a statement. [130051] 


Selective Precision Effects At Range (SPEAR) capability 

is focused on the enduring requirement to engage mobile 

and fixed targets in hostile and complex environments. 

The strategy for delivering this requirement is through a 

range of weapon solutions which address the diverse 

target set. SPEAR Capability 1, 2 and 3 are separate 

projects within this strategy and are at different phases 

of the procurement cycle: 

SPEAR Cap 1—Paveway IV (In-Service) 

SPEAR Cap 2—DMS Brimstone (Demonstration and 

Manufacture) 

SPEAR Cap 3—Air to Ground capability for Joint Strike 

Fighter (Assessment) 

Indonesia 

Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Defence what the principal terms are of the agreement 

he signed with the President of Indonesia on 1 November 

2012; and if he will place a copy of that agreement in 

the Library. [130773] 

Mr Robathan [holding answer 29 November 2012]: 

The Defence memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

signed between the UK and Indonesia on 1 November 

2012 brings together the core aspects of the UK-Indonesia 

Defence relationship and re-affirms our commitment to 

strengthening it, in line with the wider Government 

focus on the Asia Pacific region. 

The MOU provides, without commitment, a framework 

for enhancing co-operative activities in the field of 

defence and military relations between the participants 

in areas of mutual interest, based on the principles of 

respect, trust and mutual benefit. The MOU will not be 

published, since to do so would prejudice the UK’s 

relationship with Indonesia. 

Military Aircraft 

Mr Scott: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 

what recent discussions he has had on the ordering of 

suitable aircraft for the future carrier force. [130204] 

Mr Dunne: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I 

gave on 26 November 2012, Official Report, column 5, 

to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North 

(Diana Johnson). 

Military Alliances 


Defence what assessment he has made of possible 

multi-national collaborative military projects. [130012] 

Mr Dunne: As we made clear in the strategic defence 

and security review (SDSR), and the National Security 

Through Technology White Paper, our preference when 

working with other countries on defence procurement is 

to do so on a bilateral basis. However, we will continue 

to work multilaterally, such as through NATO or the 

EU, where this offers clear benefit to the UK. 


Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that partner 

companies in future collaborative defence projects are 

chosen by a lead prime contractor as in the Joint Strike 

Fighter project. [130403] 

Mr Dunne: The industrial arrangements for the Joint 

Strike Fighter are an example of good practice in 

collaborative defence projects. That said, the industrial 

arrangements that underpin production in future projects 

will be determined on a case by case basis by the 

participating nations. 

The Ministry of Defence will require future collaborative 

defence projects to provide value for money through 

shared investment and economies of scale in production. 

And, wherever possible, our preference is to have a lead 

prime contractor selected on the basis of open competition 

throughout the supply chain. 

NATO Countries 


Defence (1) which NATO member states have sent 

maritime patrol aircraft to (a) RAF Lossiemouth and 

(b) RAF Leuchars since March 2010; which aircraft 

were sent; and what the purpose was of their visit; 

[129842] 

(2) on how many occasions (a) Royal Canadian Air 

Force P-140 Aurora aircraft and (b) United States 

Navy P-3 Orion aircraft have flown patrolling sorties in 

the North Atlantic from RAF bases in Scotland in the 

last two years. [129843] 

Mr Robathan: The US, Canada, France and Norway 

have sent maritime patrol aircraft to RAF Lossiemouth 

and RAF Leuchars since March 2010, either as part of 

joint exercises or on trials deployment. The aircraft sent 

include P3 Orion, CP140 Aurora, Atlantique 11 and 

P-8A Poseidon. 

The number of sorties is not held centrally and could 

be provided only at disproportionate cost.


462W 

Rescue Services 

Sir Alan Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Defence whether Ministry of Defence police inquiries 

into the abandoned search and rescue helicopter contract 

have been completed; and if he will make a statement. 

[129926] 

Mr Dunne: The Ministry of Defence police investigation 

into the search and rescue helicopter contract is currently 

at an advanced stage. It would, therefore be inappropriate 

to disclose any information at this time. 

I will write to the right hon. Member when the 

investigation is completed, with the information requested. 

Unmanned Air Vehicles 

Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Defence how many times (a) British forces have flown 

US unmanned aerial vehicles and (b) US forces have 

flown British unmanned aerial vehicles in the latest 

period for which figures are available. [128974] 

Mr Robathan: The information will take time to 

collate. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as it is 

available. UK Forces have only ever flown US unmanned 

aerial vehicles outside Afghanistan, during Operation 

Ellamy in Libya. 


Defence when he expects the Watchkeeper and Reaper 

planes to begin active service in the RAF. [129165] 

Mr Dunne: The date when Watchkeeper, which is in 

the final stages of flight trials, will enter service with the 

Army has yet to be determined. The Ministry of Defence 

remains committed to deploying it to Afghanistan at 

the earliest opportunity. Reaper entered service with the 

RAF in 2007. 


Defence what progress has been made with the Rotary 

Wing Unmanned Air Programme; and if he will make 

a statement. [130503] 


rotary wing unmanned air system capability concept 

demonstrator is a two-year research project to explore 

how a Rotary Wing unmanned air system might be used 

to fill a range of maritime roles. An advertisement was 

placed in the Defence Contracts Bulletin in July 2012, 

and Expressions of Interest were received from a number 

of companies. The competitive process is ongoing. 

Warships 


Defence how many ships he estimates will be equipped 

with maritime imagery manipulation and storage; and 

at what cost. [129163] 

Mr Dunne: In relation to vessels currently under 

construction or planned, decisions have yet to be taken 

as to the systems to be used for analysis of this kind of 

data. 

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS 

Agricultural Wages Board 

Mary Creagh: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many 

responses he has received to the consultation on the 

closure of the Agricultural Wages Board; and when the 

consultation response will be available on his Department’s 

website and in the Library; [130324] 

(2) how many responses his Department has received 

to its consultation on the closure of the Agricultural 

Wages Board; and when the consultation response will 

be published. [130545] 

Mr Heath: DEFRA is currently considering the responses 

to the consultation exercise on the proposed abolition 

of the Agricultural Wages Board, 15 Agricultural Wages 

Committee and 16 Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory 

Committees in England. Details of the responses to the 

consultation will be made available in due course. 

Ash Dieback Disease 

Mary Creagh: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many businesses 

are authorised to passport the movement of ash trees in 

the UK. [130064] 

Mr Heath: The Plant Health (Forestry) (Amendment) 

Order 2012 prohibits all movements of ash plants, trees 

and seeds into and within Great Britain unless the 

material originates from a pest free area. Equivalent 

legislation exists in Northern Ireland. As yet no pest 

free areas have been recognised and there are no nurseries 

authorised to issue plant passports for the movement of 

ash plants, trees or seeds in the UK. 

Bees: Pesticides 

Dr Offord: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, 

Food and Rural Affairs what the timetable for assessing 

the latest studies on the effects of neonicotinoid insecticides 

on honey bees is; and if he will consider suspending the 

use of these insecticides until a review has taken place. 

[129597] 

Richard Benyon: An assessment of studies made earlier 

this year on both honey bees and bumble bees was 

published on 18 September. It can be viewed on the 

DEFRA website. A study by Gill et al on bumble bees 

published subsequently was examined urgently by the 

independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides at their 

meeting on 13 November. The Government keeps the 

developing evidence under close and open-minded scrutiny 

and further research that we have commissioned on the 

crucial issue of field effects for bumble bees will be 

completed soon. We have always made it clear that we 

will take whatever action is appropriate based on the 

available evidence. 

Common Agricultural Policy 

Huw Irranca-Davies: To ask the Secretary of State 

for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what his 

priorities are for reform of the common agricultural 

policy. [129199]


464W 

Mr Heath: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I 

gave on 27 November 2012, Official Report, column 302W. 

Marine Conservation Zones 

Dr Whitehead: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what account he 

will be taking of the Government’s seven design principles 

in the Ecological Network guidance in his Department’s 

recommendations in the forthcoming consultation on 

marine conservation zone network designations. 

[129509] 

Richard Benyon: In its guidance provided to the Regional 

Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) Projects, the Statutory 

Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs) interpreted the 

seven design principles to provide operational guidance 

to the projects to identify possible locations for MCZs. 

DEFRA is considering these site recommendations from 

the Regional MCZ Projects, along with their impact 

assessment and advice from the SNCBs to identify sites 

suitable for designation in the first tranche, and expects 

to consult on these shortly. 

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Burma 

Jonathan Ashworth: To ask the Secretary of State for 

International Development what representations her 

Department has made to the Burmese Government on 

creating a road map to ending the segregation policies 

in Sittwe which remove the Rohingya from their 

livelihoods and make them dependent on humanitarian 

assistance. [130467] 

Mr Duncan: UK Ministers and officials in the DFID 

office and British embassy in Rangoon continue to 

lobby the Government of Burma for a long-term solution 

to the plight of the Rohingya in Rakhine, including 

their right to citizenship. Ministers recently raised this 

directly with Minister Soe Thane when he visited the 

UK on 7 November. 


International Development what discussions her 

Department has had on ensuring effective co-ordination 

between the different humanitarian aid agencies providing 

assistance in the Rakhine district. [130468] 

Mr Duncan: DFID has provided £2 million in 

humanitarian relief for the victims of violence in Rakhine 

state. DFID support is being provided by a consortium 

of international non-governmental organisations. 

In this work, and throughout DFID’s funding in 

Burma, DFID encourages the United Nations (UN) to 

strengthen its co-ordination of assistance; and works to 

ensure the Burmese Government co-ordinates its response 

with the UN and others. DFID also takes steps to allow 

full, co-ordinated, humanitarian access to the areas 

affected by conflict such as Rakhine state. 


International Development whether her Department 

plans to provide any funding for technical assistance 

with reconciliation inside the Rakhine state. [130469] 

Mr Duncan: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I 

gave on 26 November 2012, Official Report, column 82W, 

to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord). 


International Development whether she has considered 

directing humanitarian funding towards the Rohingya 

refugees in Bangladesh. [130470] 

Mr Duncan: DFID does not currently provide bilateral 

funding directly to assist the Rohingya refugees in 

Bangladesh, but if additional funding is requested by 

operational agencies we will consider it. DFID does 

provide core contributions to the United Nations High 

Commissioner for Refugees, which manages the official 

camps, and other organisations that provide support 

including the European Commission. We have raised 

the plight of the Rohinygas and their status with the 

Government of Bangladesh, both bilaterally and in 

concert with EU partners. 

Developing Countries: Children 

Andrew Stephenson: To ask the Secretary of State for 

International Development what steps her Department 

is taking to address the nutritional support needs of 

children under five years old living in flood-affected 

areas overseas. [130472] 

Lynne Featherstone: DFID has supported the nutrition 

needs of young children affected by flooding in Pakistan 

in 2010-12. In 2010, we reached 376,000 malnourished 

children and 123,000 pregnant women with vital nutrition 

supplies; in 2011 we funded livelihood support for 

85,000 families; and in 2012 we provided food ration 

packs for 156,000 families. DFID is also funding nutrition 

programmes in other countries affected by floods, including 

Bangladesh, India, Nigeria and Somalia. DFID also 

funds research to develop flood-tolerant rice, which will 

help to protect the nutrition of communities in Asia. 

Developing Countries: Education 

Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for 


is taking to support education in (a) refugee camps in 

Dadaab and (b) other emergency situations. [130770] 

Lynne Featherstone: The Department for International 

Development (DFID) is providing £36 million over 

three years to support refugee protection and assistance 

efforts in Kenya. This includes £13.5 million unearmarked 

funding to the United Nations High Commissioner for 

Refugees (UNHCR), which can be utilised for a range 

of services—including education in Dadaab. 

DFID provides indirect support to education activities 

in emergencies through its core funding to the United 

Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and UNHCR, both of 

whom have a mandate for education, and through 

humanitarian pooled funds. In 2012, DFID provided 

£44 million as core funding to UNICEF and £19 million 

to UNHCR. In 2012, DFID also provided £60 million 

to the Central Emergency Response Fund, which allocated 

£3.6 million to education. This year, DFID has also 

provided £84.6 million to humanitarian funds in the 

Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Somalia 

and South Sudan. £12.8 million of these funds has been


466W 

allocated to education activities, including provision of 

temporary classrooms, catch-up classes, equipment, sanitary 

facilities and distribution of study kits for students and 

training of teachers and parents. 

Developing Countries: Sanitation 

Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for 


is taking to promote safe sanitation and toilet facilities 

for women as part of its role as the UK’s international 

violence against women champion. [130398] 

Lynne Featherstone: As part of its plans for a significant 

scale-up of work on sanitation, water and hygiene, the 

Department for International Development (DFID) is 

working to ensure that women and girls continue to be 

prioritised in the design and delivery of water and 

sanitation programmes. 

One example of this in action is where DFID projects 

are using women’s membership of local water, sanitation 

and hygiene (WASH) committees to ensure that their 

needs for safe facilities are met and their voices in local 

decision-making strengthened. 

Pakistan 


International Development what plans her Department 

has to provide bilateral funding for the humanitarian 

response to the floods in Pakistan. [130473] 

Justine Greening: In anticipation of floods this year, 

we provided £1 million to the International Organisation 

for Migration (IOM) to pre-position emergency shelter 

materials for 146,000 people. At the same time we 

provided £9 million to assist communities to recover 

from the 2011 floods. 

As the scale of this year’s floods has become clear we 

have provided a further £10.5 million emergency assistance 

to provide food packs for 1 million people, shelter and 

winter kits for 258,000 people and water, basic sanitation 

and hygiene support for 686,000 people. 

DFID will consider further assistance to meet priority 

recovery needs in due course. 

CABINET OFFICE 

Business: Sunderland 

Julie Elliott: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office how many businesses in Sunderland closed in 

each of the last three years. [131065] 

Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the 

responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have 

asked the authority to reply. 

Letter from Glen Watson, dated November 2012: 

As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I 

have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question. 

Annual statistics on the number of businesses that have closed 

(we refer to these as enterprise deaths) are available in the ONS 

release on Business Demography at 

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/bus-register/businessdemography/index.html 

The following table contains the latest year for which these 

data are available on the number of enterprise deaths in Sunderland 

for the years 2008-10. 

Count of enterprise deaths in Sunderland, 2008-10 

Count 

2008 645 

2009 740 

2010 785 

Note: 

The above figures have been rounded to the nearest 5. 

Charities: Religion 

Dr Offord: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office 

whether his Department has considered bringing forward 

legislative proposals on the definition of public benefit 

to ensure that previously accepted religious charities 

cannot have their charitable status removed. [130461] 

Andrew Bridgen: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office if he will review the legislation relating to 

religious organisations and public benefit. [130631] 

Mr Hurd: I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave 

on 26 November 2012, Official Report, column 89W. 

Children: Poverty 

Chris Skidmore: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office how many children were born into workless 

households in each financial year since 1997-98. 

[130573] 






have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking 

how many children were born into workless households in each 

financial year since 1997-98 (130573). 

The number of children born into workless households in each 

financial year is not available. However; the number of children 

under 1 living in workless households, which would give an 

indication of those born throughout the year, is available for 

April to June in each of the years 1997-2012. These estimates can 

be found in the table. It has been estimated, for example, that in 

April to June 2012 there were 107,000 children aged under 1 living 

in a workless household. 

Note that a household may not have been workless at the time 

the child was born but were workless at the time of their interview 

for the survey. The estimates are derived from the Labour Force 

Survey (LFS) and are not seasonally adjusted. As with any 

sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to a margin of 

uncertainty. 

Children born into workless households1 , April to June, 1997 to 2012 

Number of children (thousand) 

1997 129 

1998 114 

1999 117 

2000 108 

2001 105 

2002 95 

2003 100 

2004 102 

2005 96 

2006 115 

2007 105


468W 

Children born into workless households1 , April to June, 1997 to 2012 

Number of children (thousand) 

2008 123 

2009 111 

2010 126 

2011 112 

2012 107 

1 A workless household is a household that includes at least one person aged 16 

to 64 where no-one aged 16 or over is in employment. 

Source: 

Labour Force Survey household datasets 

Dementia 

Paul Burstow: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office what steps his Department is taking to support 

the Prime Minister’s dementia challenge and the work 

of each of the challenge groups; what resources he has 

committed and what timescales he has set for this 

work; and if he will make a statement. [128715] 

Mr Hurd: The Cabinet Office is supporting the Prime 

Minister’s dementia challenge through our support for 

the One Million Dementia Friends initiative. The Cabinet 

Office are providing £1,191,049 of funding to the 

Alzheimer’s Society to recruit 1 million dementia friends 

by 2015 who will provide support and understanding to 

dementia sufferers within their communities. 

Disability 

Mr Robin Walker: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office how many disabled people in (a) Worcester 

constituency, (b) Worcestershire and (c) the West Midlands 

were in employment in (i) May 2010 and (ii) the most 

recent period for which figures are available. [130626] 






have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question. 

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles employment 

statistics for local areas from the Annual Population Survey 

(APS) following International Labour Organisation (ILO) definitions. 

Table 1 shows the number of people in the APS identifying 

themselves as disabled who were in employment, resident in (a) 

Worcester constituency, (b) Worcestershire and (c) the West Midlands, 

at the time of interview; during the 12 month periods ending June 

2012, the most recent period for which figures are available, and 

June 2010. As these datasets are only produced every three 

months a figure for May 2010 is not available. 

As with any sample survey, estimates from the APS are subject 

to a margin of uncertainty. A guide to the quality of the estimates 

is given in the table. 

National and local area estimates for many labour market 

statistics, including employment, unemployment and claimant 

count are available on the NOMIS website at 

http://www.nomisweb.co.uk 

Table 1: Number of disabled1 people in employment, resident in (a) Worcester 

constituency, (b) Worcestershire and (c) the West Midlands, 12 months ending 

June 2010 and June 2012 

Thousand 

June 2010 June 20122 West Midlands 307 *324 

Worcestershire 32 **39 

Table 1: Number of disabled1 people in employment, resident in (a) Worcester 

constituency, (b) Worcestershire and (c) the West Midlands, 12 months ending 

June 2010 and June 2012 

Thousand 

June 2010 June 20122 Worcester 5 ***7 

1 Disabled has been defined as disabled under the Disability Discrimination 

Act, or people who have identified themselves as having a work limiting 

disability or both. 

2 Coefficients of Variation have been calculated for the latest period as an 

indication of the quality of the estimates. See Guide to Quality below. 

Guide to Quality: 

The Coefficient of Variation (CV) indicates the quality of an estimate, the 

smaller the CV value the higher the quality. The true value is likely to lie within 

+/- twice the CV—for example, for an estimate of 200 with a CV of 5%. we 

would expect the population total to be within the range 180-220 

Key: 

*0≤ CV


470W 

Table 1: Number of deaths related to drug poisoning by selected counties and 

unitary authorities in England, 2009-111,2,3,4 Deaths (Persons) 

Area 2009 2010 2011 

Norfolk 62 43 44 

1 2 Based on boundaries as of August 2012. Figures are for deaths registered in 

each calendar year. 3 Figures exclude deaths of non-residents. 4 Cause of death 

was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision 

(ICD 10). The ICD-10 codes for drug poisoning are shown in Box 1 below. 

Source: Office for National Statistics. 

Box 1: ICD-10 codes for deaths related to drug poisoning 

Description ICD 10 Codes 

Mental and behavioural disorders due to drug use F11-F16, F18-F19 

(excluding alcohol and tobacco) 

Accidental poisoning by drugs, medicaments and 

X40-X44 

biological substances 

Intentional self-poisoning by drugs, medicaments and X60-X64 

biological substances 

Assault by drugs, medicaments and biological substances X85 

Poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biological 

Y10-Y14 

substances, undetermined intent 

Drugs: North East 

Julie Elliott: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office how many drug-related deaths there were in (a) 

the north-east, (b) Sunderland local authority and (c) 

Sunderland Central constituency in each of the last 

three years. [130998] 






have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many 

drug-related deaths there were in (a) the North East, (b) Sunderland 

local authority, and (c) Sunderland Central Constituency in each 

of the last three years. (130998) 

The table provides the number of deaths related to drug 

poisoning in (a) the North East region, (b) Sunderland local 

authority, and (c) Sunderland Central parliamentary constituency 

in each year from 2009 to 2011 (the latest available year). 

The number of deaths related to drug poisoning registered in 

England and Wales each year by sex, age, cause and the specific 

substance involved are published annually on the National Statistics 

website. The latest Statistical Bulletin on deaths from drug-related 

poisoning was published in August 2012 at: 

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health3/deathsrelated-to-drug-poisoning/index.html 

Number of death related to drug poisoning by selected areas in England; 2009- 

111,2,3,4 Deaths (persons) 

Area 2009 2010 2011 

North East region 185 171 163 

Sunderland 

authority 

local 

21 20 15 

Sunderland Central 

parliamentary 

constituency 

10 7 6 

1 Based on boundaries as of August 2012. 

2 Figures are for deaths registered in each calendar year. 

3 Figures exclude deaths of non-residents. 

4 Cause of death for was defined using the International Classification of 

Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD 10). The 1CD-10 codes for drug poisoning are 

shown in the following table. 

Source: 

Office for National Statistics 

ICD-10 codes for deaths related to drug poisoning 

Description ICD 10 codes 

Mental and behavioural disorders due to drug use (excluding F11-F16 

alcohol and tobacco) 

F18-F19 

Accidental poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biological X40-X44 

substances 

Intentional self-poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biological X60-X64 

substances 

Assault by drugs, medicaments and biological substances X85 

Poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biological substances, Y10-Y14 

undetermined intent 

Government Departments: Disclosure of Information 

Christopher Pincher: To ask the Minister for the 

Cabinet Office how many assurance reports (a) his 

Department and (b) other Government Departments 

have released publicly, where release has taken place 

within two years of the completion of the assurance 

review, since 2005. [129381] 

Miss Chloe Smith: The Cabinet Office responds to 

requests for assurance reviews in accordance with FOI 

legislation. Each request is considered on a case by case 

basis. 

Information on release of assurance reports by other 

Departments is not held by the Cabinet Office. 

Heart Diseases: Newham 

Lyn Brown: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office how many (a) men and (b) women over the age 

of 65 died of cardiovascular disease in Newham in (i) 

2007, (ii) 2008, (iii) 2009 and (iv) 2010. [130755] 






have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many 

(a) men and (b) women over the age of 65 died of cardiovascular 

disease in Newham in (i) 2007, (ii) 2008, (iii) 2009 and (iv) 2010. 

(130755) 

The table provides the number of deaths where cardiovascular 

disease was the underlying cause for men and women over the age 

of 65 years, in the London Borough of Newham in each year 

from 2007 to 2010. 

The number of deaths registered in England and Wales each 

year by sex, age, cause, marital status and place of death are 

published annually and are available here: 

www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/allreleases.html?definition=tcm%3A77-27475 

Number of deaths where cardiovascular disease was the underlying cause in men 

and women aged over 65 years in Newham, 2007-101,2,3,4 Deaths (persons) 

Sex 2007 2008 2009 

Males 78 99 80 

Females 94 67 58 

1 Cardiovascular disease was defined using the International Classification 

of-Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes 120-125. 

2 Based on boundaries as of August 2012. 

3 Figures are for deaths registered in each calendar year. 

4 Figures exclude deaths of non-residents. 

Source: 

Office for National Statistics


472W 

Military Medals Review 

Stephen Doughty: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office by what date he expects the second stage of the 

Military Medal Review, led by Sir John Holmes, to 

report. [130805] 

Mr Hurd: I refer the hon. Member to the answers I 

gave on 26 November 2012, Official Report, column 

95W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley 

(Jason McCartney) and my hon. Friend the Member 

for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). 

Public Sector: Procurement 

Mr Hanson: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office pursuant to the answer of 4 September 2012, 

Official Report, column 324W, on public sector: 

procurement, if he will take steps to ensure that construction 

subcontractors reporting late receipt of payments are 

not subsequently blacklisted in the industry as 

whistleblowers; and if he will make a statement. [129231] 

Miss Chloe Smith: Construction subcontractors are 

able to report instances of poor payment practice pertaining 

to work on a public contract through the Mystery 

Shopper scheme. The scheme caters for those subcontractors 

that prefer to provide information on an anonymous 

basis. 

Unemployment 

Andrew Griffiths: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office how many unemployed people there were in 

each ward of each local authority area on the latest 

date for which figures are available. [130832] 






have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking 

how many unemployed people there were in each ward of each 

local authority area on the latest date for which figures are 

available. (130832) 

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles unemployment 

statistics in line with International Labour Organisation (ILO) 

definitions for local areas from the Annual Population Survey 

(APS). Unfortunately the sample size does not support analyses 

of unemployment for the requested geography. 

As an alternative, we have provided the number of people 

claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) by ward, in October 2012. 

As the requested data is quite extensive, a copy of the table has 

been placed in the House of Commons Library. Wards have been 

ordered by local authority within region. 

National and local area estimates for many labour market 

statistics, including employment, unemployment and claimant 

count are available on the NOMIS website at: 

http://www.nomisweb.co.uk 

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

Affordable Housing 

Steve Rotheram: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government how many affordable 

homes there are in (a) Liverpool, Walton constituency, 

(b) Merseyside and (c) England. [130639] 

Mr Prisk: Figures for local authority and private 

registered provider (housing association) stock at local 

authority district level can be found in Live Table 100 

on the Department for Communities and Local 

Government website at: 

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/livetables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants 

The figures include dwellings for social rent, affordable 

rent, intermediate rent but may exclude those in ’shared 

ownership’. 

Information is collected at local authority level and 

therefore figures at constituency level are not available. 

Dementia 

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government what steps his 

Department is taking to support the Prime Minister’s 

dementia challenge and the work of each of the challenge 

groups; what resources he has committed and what 

timescales he has set for this work; and if he will make a 

statement. [128716] 

Brandon Lewis: My Department is supporting the 

Prime Minister’s Dementia Challenge and the work of 

the Health and Social Care champions group by facilitating 

a Housing and Dementia Working Group. The working 

group brings together key sector organisations and has 

four sub-groups looking at: information and advice, the 

role of good housing and related services in early 

intervention, design of dementia-friendly housing and 

skills for the work force. 

The working group will be holding a seminar with 

key building professionals on dementia-friendly design 

in January 2013. The group will also be producing a 

report in February 2013 on the role of housing and 

early intervention in the dementia care pathway. The 

group is working with Skills for Care and SCIE to make 

better use of existing dementia training resources available 

for the housing sector by February 2013. The National 

Housing Federation is also hosting two events in February 

2013 to promote the work of the group and raise the 

profile of dementia among housing providers. 

Housing: East of England 

Mr Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government how many new 

houses his Department intends to be built in (a) Bury 

St Edmunds constituency, (b) Suffolk and (c) the East 

of England in the next three years. [130105] 

Mr Prisk: We have not set any top-down Whitehall 

targets for the number of houses to be built. 

Notwithstanding, as part of departmental programmes 

delivered through the Homes and Communities Agency, 

expected delivery of new homes in (a) the St Edmundsbury 

local authority area, (b) Suffolk and (c) the East and 

South East of England in the next three years is as 

follows:


474W 

(a) St 

Edmundsbury 

area 

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Total 

46 49 50 145 

(b) Suffolk 796 600 522 11,999 (c) East and 

South East 

8,975 8,515 11,661 129,895 1 The total includes some delivery which has not been attributed by year yet. 

Source: 

Homes and Communities Agency. 

Land: Public Sector 

Hilary Benn: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government how many houses 

have been (a) started and (b) completed on sites which 

had previously been identified by Government Departments 

in their land disposal plans. [130092] 

Mr Prisk: To free up more surplus land for new 

housing, the Government is committed to releasing 

formerly used land, owned by central Government, 

capable of delivering up to 100,000 homes by April 

2015. We have identified the surplus land for 100,000 

homes and, to date, we have already sold land to support 

the building of an estimated 33,000 new homes, at the 

best price for the taxpayer. 

My Department does not collate information centrally 

on housing starts and completions on these individual 

sites; where sites are in private ownership, there is no 

requirement for the new owners to report starts or 

completions to central Government, and we do not 

intend to impose administrative reporting burdens which 

could hinder sale of the sites. 

The Government will provide an update on progress 

of the programme at the autumn statement. 

Local Government Finance 

Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government how many councils 

have decided to conduct new consultations due to the 

introduction of transitional grant for localised council 

tax benefit. [130717] 

Brandon Lewis: I refer the hon. Member to my answer 

to her on 21 November 2012, Official Report, column 485W. 

This is a matter for individual local authorities. 

Religious Hatred 


Communities and Local Government what steps his 

Department has taken to protect Muslim communities 

from harassment, intimidation and violence by 

extremist organisations. [127894] 

Mr Foster: The Government will not tolerate those 

who spread hate against or target Muslim communities 

in order to divide society and deliberately raise community 

tensions. 

Local authorities and local police forces are best 

placed to work with their communities to protect them 

from extremists, and we trust them to do so. The 

Department for Communities and Local Government 

has provided £200,000 to support a special interest 

group of local areas, led by Blackburn with Darwen 

borough council and Luton borough council. This group 

will support a range of activities such as peer networks, 

seminars and conferences designed to enable local partners 

to share information on how best to handle far right 

activity and develop solutions for the problems brought 

by the far right. The Government has also provided 

£183,000 to Tell Mama, a project which monitors and 

encourages the Muslim community to report anti-Muslim 

hate crimes and incidents and has made a further £214,000 

available subject to the project becoming sustainable. 


Communities and Local Government what recent 

assessment he has made of the extent of Islamophobia 

and anti-Semitism in the UK. [127895] 

Mr Foster: Hate crime, including that targeting a 

person’s religion, is an issue the Government takes very 

seriously. We believe that understanding the extent of 

anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred in the UK helps 

us tackle hate crime in all its forms. Therefore we are 

working with the Association of Chief Police Officers 

and other partners to encourage the reporting of all 

hate crime and improve the response of the police and 

other criminal justice agencies to ensure better protection 

for victims. The Association of Chief Police Officers 

records anti-Semitic crime at the national level which is 

broken down by police force area. The latest figures 

were published in September 2011 and full details can 

be found at: 

http://report-it.org.uk/hate_crime_data1 

We are working alongside the Community Security 

Trust and funding Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks, 

both of whom record anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim 

incidents. And we have established cross-Government 

working groups on both anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim 

hatred. 

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT 

Arts 

Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, 

Media and Sport what her Department’s policy is on 

the requirement on each local authority to provide an 

arts provision. [130809] 

Mr Vaizey: This Government want to empower local 

communities and local authorities to make the decisions 

that are most appropriate for their area, rather than 

imposing a one size fits all model of cultural provision. 

It is our view that regulation is not the best way to 

deliver cultural services at a local level, and imposing a 

statutory duty would also add to burdens placed upon 

local government at a time when deregulation is a 

priority. As the development agency for the arts in 

England, Arts Council England will continue to work 

closely with local authorities, championing the value of 

investment in the arts. 

In September 2011, the Department for Communities 

and Local Government issued new Best Value guidance: 

a “fair deal” which cuts back unnecessary red tape on 

local authorities, while introducing new requirements 

for councils to consult with local voluntary organisations 

on changes to funding and service.


476W 


Media and Sport what plans her Department has for 

support to creative businesses of a size below small or 

sub-scale enterprises. [130811] 

Mr Vaizey: Government support for the creative 

industries is primarily channelled through the Creative 

Industries Council, which was established as a joint 

forum between the creative industries and Government 

to address areas where there are barriers facing the 

sector and to help the growth of creative businesses of 

all sizes. Jointly chaired by the Secretary of State for 

Culture, Media and Sport and Minister for Women and 

Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for 

Basingstoke (Maria Miller), the Secretary of State for 

Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member 

for Twickenham (Vince Cable) and Nicola Mendelsohn, 

Chair of the IPA, the council focuses on finding practical 

solutions to issues across the sector, including skills and 

access to finance. Sub-groups of the council produced 

reports into both of these areas this year, which were 

welcomed by the council, and work is continuing to be 

taken forward. 

In addition, in Budget 2012, the Chancellor of the 

Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton 

(Mr Osborne), announced the introduction of three 

new tax reliefs for high end TV, video games and 

animation, building on the success of the film tax relief, 

which should benefit the whole sector. 

Broadband 

Alun Cairns: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Culture, Media and Sport when her Department 

expects to receive state aid approval for the roll out of 

next generation broadband. [129370] 

Mr Vaizey: The European Commission confirmed 

approval of the UK umbrella support scheme for 

investments in next generation access broadband networks 

on 20 November 2012. The UK National Competence 

Centre will, with immediate effect, be able to assist local 

authorities in designing and implementing successful 

broadband support measures in line with EU competition 

rules. 

Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Culture, Media and Sport when she last met ministerial 

colleagues at (a) the Department for Communities and 

Local Government and (b) the Department for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss broadband. 

[130644] 

Mr Vaizey: Ministers within the Department for Culture, 

Media and Sport regularly meet colleagues at both the 

Department for Communities and Local Government 

and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural 

Affairs to discuss a range of matters, including broadband. 

Charitable Donations 


Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the 

level of philanthropic giving in (a) London and (b) 

outside London. [130261] 

Mr Vaizey: In 2010-11, philanthropic giving to the 

cultural sector totalled close to £500 million in London 

and almost £125 million in the non-London English 

regions—a total of £612 million, over £20 million more 

than was given in 2009-10. Although London is always 

likely to attract a greater proportion of philanthropic 

giving, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport 

(DCMS) believes there is scope to boost philanthropy 

and strengthen the sector’s ability to fundraise across 

the whole country. 

Our measures to boost philanthropy include the Catalyst 

Fund, which will channel £100 million into cultural 

institutions, leveraging at least as much again from 

private donors. DCMS is working closely with the 

cultural sector, donors and corporate supporters to 

explore how else philanthropic giving can be encouraged 

across the country. 

Dementia 


Culture, Media and Sport what steps her Department is 

taking to support the Prime Minister’s Dementia Challenge 

and the work of each of the challenge groups; what 

resources she has committed; what timescale she has set 

for this work; and if she will make a statement. [129371] 

Hugh Robertson: The Department will support fully 

the Prime Minister’s Dementia Challenge, consulting 

our various sectors and arm’s length bodies on what 

they are already doing and what additional initiatives 

might be needed. That process of consultation will 

enable us to firm up details of time scales and resources. 

Film: Advertising 


Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the 

contribution of brand promotion in films made in the 

UK to the economy. [130532] 

Mr Vaizey: The Department does not hold such 

information. However, the film industry’s own estimates, 

outlined in the recent report The Economic Impact of 

the UK Film Industry, published by Oxford Economics 

in September 2012 and supported by the British Film 

Institute, estimated that a growing market in brand 

promotion in UK film is worth around £56 million in 

GDP a year for exporters advertising their products to a 

wider audience. 

Gambling 


Culture, Media and Sport (1) what estimate she has 

made of how many people within Havering have a 

gambling problem; and what steps her Department is 

taking to help them; [130401] 

(2) what steps she is taking to help people with 

gambling addictions. [130406] 

Hugh Robertson: The British Gambling Prevalence 

Survey 2010, published by the Gambling Commission 

at the following link: 

www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk


478W 

showed that 0.7% or 0.9% of the adult population, 

depending on the measure used, are likely to be problem 

gamblers. Data on problem gambling is not collected by 

local authority area. 

British based gambling operators must comply with 

licence conditions requiring them to signpost assistance 

to gamblers in gambling premises, on websites and in 

advertising. The Government believes the industry should 

play a leading role in helping to tackle problem gambling. 

The Responsible Gambling Trust is an independent 

national charity that raises voluntary contributions from 

the industry to fund problem gambling research, education 

and treatment. This includes a national problem gambling 

helpline, the Gamble Aware website, and it has recently 

signed a new three-year agreement with Gamcare to 

expand the provision of treatment services for gamblers 

and others adversely affected by gambling. 

Pay 

Mr Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, 

Media and Sport pursuant to the answer of 19 November 

2012, Official Report, column 322W, on pay, whether 

the number given for employees of her Department 

earning in excess of £80,000 per year is inclusive or 

exclusive of the number earning in excess of £100,000 

per year. [130513] 

Hugh Robertson: The number provided in the answer 

of 19 November 2012, Official Report, column 322W, 

was exclusive of the number earning in excess of £100,000 

per year. 

Public Lending Right 


Media and Sport on what date she plans to publish the 

Government’s response to the consultation on the 

Public Lending Right. [130810] 

Mr Vaizey: The Government’s response to the 

consultation on Public Lending Right will be published 

in the coming weeks, alongside the final stage impact 

assessment. The exact date of publication is to be 

confirmed; all respondents to the consultation will be 

notified when the response is published. 

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES 

Females: Business 

Neil Carmichael: To ask the Minister for Women and 

Equalities what steps she is considering to further enable 

women to (a) develop their entrepreneurial ideas and 

(b) establish start-up businesses. [129922] 

Jo Swinson: I am replying on behalf of the Department 

for Business, Innovation and Skills. 

Women-led small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) 

already contribute about £50 billion annually to the UK 

economy. We are building on this by promoting an 

entrepreneurial culture in schools and by identifying 

more female role models and mentors—to ensure that 

girls and women see enterprise from their earliest years 

as an opportunity equally open to them. We have introduced 

a range of measures to support start-ups and existing 

businesses, not aimed specifically at women, but open 

to all entrepreneurs, male and female. These include 

measures to help businesses to access support and advice 

through 

www.gov.uk 

the new home for Government services and information 

online, and a range of measures to help businesses 

access the finance they need. Ministers regularly engage 

with female entrepreneurs through the Secretary of 

State’s Entrepreneurs’ Forum to discuss a range of 

issues and any particular concerns. 

We want to make the UK the best place in the world 

to start and grow a business, and for the next decade to 

be the most entrepreneurial and dynamic in Britain’s 

history. That is why, in January, the Prime Minister 

launched “Business in You”, a major campaign to 

inspire people to realise their business ambitions and to 

highlight the range of support available for start-ups 

and growing businesses. “Business in You” makes it a 

point to ensure that successful women business owners 

are represented and profiled through the campaign to 

provide inspiration for female entrepreneurs. In December, 

in conjunction with the Government Equalities Office, 

the campaign will deliver communications specifically 

targeted at women to ensure that female entrepreneurs 

and business owners are aware of available advice and 

support. 

JUSTICE 

Prisons: Expenditure 

Dr Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

how much funding from the public purse has been 

spent on the establishment and maintenance of private 

finance initiative agreements on prisons in each year 

since 1997. [130829] 

Jeremy Wright: The total cost broken down by year 

since 1997 on private finance initiative projects relating 

to prisons can be found on the list of signed PFI deals, 

available on HM Treasury’s website at: 

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/infrastructure_data_pfi.htm 

The list contains annual unitary charge payments, 

which are projections and are conditional on the 

performance of the private sector contractor. Unitary 

charge payments are not simply repayments for the 

capital value of the project and will frequently include 

inflation, provision of services, capital repayments and 

major refurbishment. 

All of the prison projects recorded on the list are now 

in operation including HMP Thameside. 

Prisons: Training 

Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

if he will make it his policy that the post of Head of 

Learning and Skills in a training prison should always 

be a full-time post. [130716] 

Jeremy Wright: Training prisons is a term that captures 

a number of prison establishments that vary in size, 

prison population and complexity. What is appropriate 

for one may not be for another. NOMS is restructuring 

all pubic sector prisons individually to ensure that we


480W 

get the appropriate structures at all sites. These new 

structures will offer best value for money while continuing 

to deliver safe, decent and secure prisons. 

The head of Learning and Skills post is a specialist 

post which is a crucial part of effective delivery of the 

rehabilitation revolution in all establishments. They are 

a key part of the process to deliver education in prisons 

and are supported by regional leads and by heads of 

Reducing Re-offending locally. Every governor has assessed 

the requirements of each post in their new structures, 

and in cases where they have concluded that a role is not 

a full-time post they have been linked to other part-time 

roles. This approach has been most often taken in 

smaller establishments and is appropriate. Each prison 

structure has been approved by a deputy director of 

custody who has responsibility to ensure the funding 

from Business Innovation and Skills is used most 

appropriately and effectively. 

Risley Prison 


how many staff at HM Prison Risley have worked over 

their contracted hours and have not received time off in 

lieu within five weeks in the latest period for which 

figures are available; and what the total number of 

hours owed to staff is. [130714] 

Jeremy Wright: HM Prison Risley are unable to 

provide the data required within the timescale allowed. 

The information will follow in correspondence. 


what assessment he has made of the effect of a reduction 

in the level of overtime cover for staff absences on (a) 

staff morale, (b) violent incidents and (c) the level of 

purposeful activity provided for prisoners at HM Prison 

Risley. [130715] 

Jeremy Wright: HM Prison Risley has sufficient payment 

plus (paid overtime) hours to cover any shortfall in the 

numbers of officers necessary for day-to-day operations. 

There has been no reduction in the level of overtime in 

the prison. 

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE 

Climate Change 


Energy and Climate Change when he expects the financing 

of the Green Climate Fund to be complete. [130926] 

Gregory Barker: I expect that decisions on contributions 

to the GCF will come forward once the design of the 

fund is complete, assuming it demonstrates that it that 

will deliver substantial results and offer good value for 

money. 

The UK is satisfied with progress to date and is 

working through our board seat for a rapid completion 

of the design. While this work is ongoing, the UK is 

providing £400,000 to pay for the GCF interim secretariat, 

interim trustee, the board and other GCF start-up 

costs. 


Energy and Climate Change when he intends the Green 

Climate Fund to be (a) designed and (b) operational. 

[130928] 

Gregory Barker: I would like the GCF to have completed 

its design and be fully operational as soon as possible. 

The UK has strongly supported development of the 

Green Climate Fund (GCF). We believe it needs to 

address challenges in the existing climate architecture. 

The UK is pleased that the GCF has now been 

established, the GCF Board is in place and the first two 

board meetings have now been held. The task is now is 

to progress and complete the GCF design, develop 

GCF policies and endorse the host country, so that the 

fund can be made operational and can start providing 

support to poor communities. 

The UK is working to achieve an effective fund which 

we can be sure will achieve results and value for money 

through our participation in the Board seat. The timing 

of when the GCF will have completed its design and be 

operational is dependent on the progress that the board 

make. 

Green Deal Scheme 

Simon Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Energy and Climate Change how applications through 

the Green Deal Finance Company will be monitored 

from January 2013. [129699] 

Gregory Barker: The Green Deal Finance Company 

is a private organisation, and as such DECC will not 

have a role in monitoring the relationship between 

Green Deal providers, who will write the plans, and the 

company. DECC will monitor the Green Deal closely 

and data on Green Deal plans will be available to 

DECC through various channels including the Green 

Deal central charge database, and the oversight and 

registration body. 

Renewable Energy 

Mr Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy 

and Climate Change what estimate he has made of the 

annual cost to (a) the public purse, (b) all consumers 

and (c) domestic consumers by household, for each of 

the next 15 years, of the Government’s proposed 

contracts for difference scheme; and what comparative 

assessment he has made of each of those costs and the 

cost of the renewables obligation. [130713] 

Mr Hayes: Estimated spend on future policy for 

Contract for Difference payments relates to the formulation 

or development of Government policy. Detailed decisions 

on Contract for Difference payments are still being 

made and in order that these decisions benefit from 

impartial advice and proper consideration, they should 

be made without fear of premature disclosure. 

The cost of the renewables obligation—in terms of 

the public purse and the impact on consumers—is 

contained in the impact assessment (IA) accompanying 

the Government response to the RO Banding Review 

that was published on the DECC website in July 2012: 

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/consultation/robanding/5945-renewables-obligation-government-responseimpact-a.pdf


482W 

Secondment 

Huw Irranca-Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Energy and Climate Change how many individuals 

employed by (a) major UK utility companies, (b) 

Energy UK and (c) any related energy utility organisation 

have been seconded to his Department since May 2010; 

and in which divisions or policy areas they worked. 

[130167] 

Gregory Barker: Between May 2010 and October 

2012, the following secondees have been working in 

DECC: 

(a) Three secondees from Major UK utility companies. Two 

have worked in Energy Markets and Infrastructure, one in the 

Office for Renewable Energy Deployment. 

(b) We do not have any secondees from Energy UK. 

(c) Eight secondees from related energy utility organisations, 

five in Energy Markets and Infrastructure, two in International, 

EU and Energy Security (one post filled by two different secondees 

during the time period). 


Energy and Climate Change what the total number of 

days and hours worked has been of individuals who 

have been seconded to his Department from (a) major 

UK utility companies, (b) Energy UK and (c) any 

related energy utility organisation since May 2010. 

[130168] 

Gregory Barker: Full-time hours in the Department 

equates to 36 hours per week, excluding lunch, in London. 

The secondees worked the following time scales: 

(a) Three secondees from Major UK utility companies. 

One full-time June 2012-present 

One full-time April 2010-April 2011 

One part-time (two days per week) July 2012-present. 

(b) We have no secondees from Energy UK. 

(c) Seven secondees from related energy utility organisations 

One full-time October 2011-present 

One full-time November 2012 

One full-time September 2012-present 

One full-time March 2011-June 2011 

One full-time April 2010-April 2011 

One full-time May 2010-August 2011 

One full-time August 2011-present. 


Energy and Climate Change whether any individuals 

seconded to his Department from (a) major UK utility 

companies, (b) Energy UK or (c) any related energy 

utility organisations took part in any high level discussions 

with Ministers, senior officials or policy lead officials 

County 

Sum of 

loft 

insulation 

Sum of 

draughtproofing 

Sum of 

cavity 

wall 

insulation 

during their secondment (i) generally and (ii) in specific 

relation to the Energy Bill. [130169] 

Gregory Barker: I refer the hon. Member to the 

answer given to him today to PQ 130167, which outlines 

all relevant secondees in DECC. All of our secondees 

would have had access to policy lead officials and senior 

officials. However, only one of the ten secondees took 

part in any discussions with Ministers, senior officials 

and policy lead officials in relation to the Energy Bill, 

this secondee was from a related energy utility organisation. 

One secondee from major UK utility company took 

part in high level discussions generally with Ministers. 

Two secondees from any related energy utility 

organisations have taken part in high level discussions 

generally with Ministers. 


Energy and Climate Change whether any individuals 

employed by (a) major UK utility companies, (b) 

Energy UK or (c) any related energy utility organisation 

seconded to his Department have had regular contact 

with the private offices of Ministers of State during 

their secondment since May 2010. [130170] 

Gregory Barker: I refer the hon. Member to the 

answer given to him today to PQ 130167, which outlines 

all relevant secondees in DECC. 

One secondee from major UK utility company had 

contact with private offices of Ministers of State. 

Three secondees from any related energy utility 

organisations have had regular contact with the private 

offices of Ministers of State. 

Warm Front Scheme 

Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy 

and Climate Change how many people have made successful 

applications for grants under the Warm Front scheme 

for (a) loft insulation, (b) draught-proofing, (c) cavity 

wall insulation, (d) hot water tank insulation, (e) gas, 

electric, liquid petroleum gas or oil heating, (f) converting 

solid-fuel open fire to a glass-fronted fire and (g) 

replacing heating systems with an oil or alternative 

technology system in each county in England since the 

introduction of the scheme. [130772] 

Gregory Barker: The following table shows the volume 

of installations completed through the Warm Front 

scheme for the following measures type; (a) loft insulation, 

(b) draught-proofing, (c) cavity wall insulation, (d) 

hot water tank insulation, (e) gas, electric, liquid petroleum 

gas or oil heating, (f) converting solid-fuel open fire to 

a glass-fronted fire and (g) replacing heating systems 

with an oil or alternative technology system in each 

county in England from April 2006/7 to 31 October. 

Sum of 

hot 

water 

tank 

jacket 

Sum of 

gas, 

electric, 

LPG or 

oil fuel 

central 

heating 

Sum of 

conversions 

of solid-fuel 

open fires to 

glass-fronted 

fires 

Sum of gas, 

LPG, oil or 

solid fuel 

boiler 

replacements 

Total 

measures 

Bedfordshire 2,310 1,161 1,050 224 768 0 4,088 9,601 

Berkshire 1,612 820 895 119 589 0 1,724 5,759 

Buckinghamshire 2,117 1,009 983 159 442 0 2,318 7,028


484W 

County 

Sum of 

loft 

insulation 

Sum of 

draughtproofing 

Sum of 

cavity 

wall 

insulation 

Sum of 

hot 

water 

tank 

jacket 

Sum of 

gas, 

electric, 

LPG or 

oil fuel 

central 

heating 

Sum of 

conversions 

of solid-fuel 

open fires to 

glass-fronted 

fires 

Sum of gas, 

LPG, oil or 

solid fuel 

boiler 

replacements 

Total 

measures 

Cambridgeshire 2,496 1,002 959 324 847 0 2,743 8,371 

Cheshire 6,297 2,564 4,200 795 2,479 2 9,265 25,602 

City of Bristol 1,698 967 700 255 729 0 2,079 6,431 

Cornwall 2,223 954 968 212 4,375 0 2,798 11,530 

Cumbria 3,224 1,593 1,713 505 2,270 1 3,360 12,666 

Derbyshire 6,818 2,192 2,720 713 2,380 0 8,043 22,866 

Devon 5,520 2,572 3,572 573 4,981 0 6,712 23,930 

Dorset 2,496 1,147 1,704 278 1,560 0 3,424 10,609 

Durham 4,716 1,743 2,252 335 1,701 0 14,633 25,380 

East Riding of Yorkshire 3,560 1,130 1,195 230 2,700 0 5,045 13,860 

East Sussex 3,060 2,487 2,088 352 1,815 0 3,410 13,212 

Essex 9,917 4,862 5,717 1,333 3,120 0 10,050 34,999 

Gloucestershire 3,814 1,588 2,067 412 1,483 0 3,221 12,585 

Greater London 15,368 11,813 3,615 1,418 4,738 0 20,817 57,769 

Greater Manchester 17,514 10,890 12,407 1,936 8,386 0 38,223 89,356 

Hampshire 4,491 2,416 3,587 351 2,682 0 5,821 19,348 

Herefordshire 701 496 401 87 546 0 771 3,002 

Hertfordshire 3,291 1,699 1,770 304 744 0 3,078 10,886 

Isle of Wight 752 499 645 89 674 0 705 3,364 

Kent 6,998 3,285 3,862 390 2,698 0 7,161 24,394 

Lancashire 12,421 7,531 8,054 1,773 9,292 0 20,782 59,853 

Leicestershire 4,413 2,113 1,528 637 1,255 0 7,401 17,347 

Lincolnshire 9,607 2,840 3,723 824 3,256 0 9,047 29,297 

Merseyside 11,826 7,873 5,443 1,739 8,456 0 21,755 57,092 

Norfolk 5,660 2,142 2,619 639 2,427 0 4,358 17,845 

North Yorkshire 7,004 3,052 3,398 838 2,751 0 8,400 25,443 

Northamptonshire 2,319 1,043 1,064 243 1,109 1 3,989 9,768 

Northumberland 1,176 660 591 122 436 1 2,731 5,717 

Nottinghamshire 6,792 2,092 2,681 862 1,747 0 9,323 23,497 

Oxfordshire 1,507 1,005 704 184 516 0 1,258 5,174 

Rutland 111 92 55 22 25 0 82 387 

Shropshire 2,206 1,049 1,156 311 745 0 2,261 7J28 

Somerset 4,727 1,945 2,827 540 2,246 0 3,858 16,143 

South Yorkshire 7,104 1,986 3,362 785 1,869 0 14,084 29,190 

Staffordshire 6,886 2,513 4,393 938 2,956 0 11,403 29,089 

Suffolk 4,325 2,232 1,764 545 1,755 0 2,760 13,381 

Surrey 2,037 1,288 1,314 340 629 0 1,965 7,573 

Tyne and Wear 4,073 1,784 2,447 231 1,435 0 14,025 23,995 

Warwickshire 2,329 789 901 ’201 924 0 3,145 8,289 

West Midlands 16,753 8,825 6,639 1,495 12,008 0 31,606 77,326 

West Sussex 2,902 1,447 2,120 244 1,602 0 3,308 11,623 

West Yorkshire 11,156 5,275 6,141 900 14,510 1 21,619 59,602 

Wiltshire 1,956 874 1,206 138 1,025 0 2,125 7,324 

Worcestershire 2,710 1,444 1,394 403 1,137 0 3,107 10,195 

Grand total 242,993 120,783 124,594 26,351 126,818 6 363,881 1,005,426 

Notes: 

1. Data by county is not available prior to April 2006. 

2. Figures represent the volumes of installations against each measure set out above, more than one measure may have been installed per 

household. 

Warm Home Discount Scheme 

Nic Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy 

and Climate Change how many people previously in 

receipt of invalidity benefit and yet to be assessed for 

employment and support allowance will therefore not 

be eligible to receive the warm home discount. [128717] 

Gregory Barker: The Warm Home Discount Regulations 

2011 include a range of working age means tested 

benefits which energy suppliers may choose to use to 

provide support to the Broader Group of the Warm 

Home Discount scheme. The Broader Group is designed 

to require suppliers to provide support in the form of 

energy bill discounts to a wider group of low income 

households than those low income pensioners assisted


486W 

under the Core Group of the Warm Home Discount 

scheme. Broader Group scheme eligibility criteria are 

set by each energy supplier, although each scheme requires 

approval by Ofgem. This year suppliers are required to 

spend a minimum of £47 million on providing support 

to the Broader Group, assisting at least 360,000 low 

income and vulnerable households. 

Invalidity benefit was replaced by incapacity benefit 

in 1995. Around 1.5 million incapacity benefit recipients 

are being reassessed to see if they are eligible for 

contributory employment and support allowance. 

Incapacity benefit claimants will not miss out on the 

Warm Home Discount because of the reassessment 

programme as they may still qualify if they are currently 

eligible for income support. The qualifying working age 

means tested benefits laid down in the regulations are 

income support, income-related ESA and income-based 

JSA. 

Nic Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy 

and Climate Change what mechanisms are in place to 

identify recipients of universal credit who are eligible 

for the warm homes discount. [128718] 

Gregory Barker: The Warm Home Discount scheme 

uses regulation-making powers under the Pension Act 

2008 to introduce regulations which allow for a datamatching 

scheme to identify pensioners on a subset of 

pension credit to receive a discount on their electricity 

bill. The introduction of universal credit will not affect 

the identification of recipients of pension credit for the 

Core Group of Warm Home Discount. 

The Warm Home Discount scheme regulations 2011 

also include a range of working age means-tested benefits 

which energy suppliers may choose to use to provide 

support to the Broader Group. The Broader Group 

requires energy suppliers to provide support in the form 

of discounts on their electricity bill to a wider group of 

low income households. For Broader Group schemes, 

eligibility criteria are set by each energy supplier but are 

Total number of those 

in receipt of DLA 

Total number of those in 

receipt of higher rate 

mobility component 

Table 1 

required to be approved by Ofgem. The list of working 

age benefits set out in the regulations will be amended 

to include universal credit. 

Broader Group schemes require an application from 

customers to their participating energy supplier. In 

order to support this, the Department of Work and 

Pensions (DWP) provide a verification service to the 

energy suppliers where information on working age 

benefits is used to provide an eligibility check. We are 

working closely with DWP to ensure the introduction 

of universal credit works smoothly with our schemes 

and continues to target the support available at those 

most in need while reflecting the eligibility criteria 

currently within the schemes’ legislation. 

WORK AND PENSIONS 

Disability Living Allowance: Kingston Upon Hull 

Diana Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions how many people in Hull are currently 

in receipt of disability living allowance; how many of 

those receive the mobility component; how many receive 

cars through Motability; how many have been assessed 

in the last six months; and how many outstanding 

assessments of people in Hull will need to be completed 

before the transfer to personal independence payments. 

[130441] 

Esther McVey: Information relating to the numbers 

of disability living allowance (DLA) recipients in the 

three parliamentary constituencies of Hull, including 

the number with a Motability vehicle, is contained in 

Table 1. 

The Department only holds information on DLA 

new claims that have been assessed or are waiting to be 

assessed at Great Britain (GB) level. Table 2 provides 

information on the number of DLA new claims assessed 

in the previous six months and those outstanding, at 

GB level, as at 31 October 2012. 

Total number of those in 

receipt of lower rate 

mobility component 

Total number of DLA 

claimants not in receipt 

of either mobility 

component 

Total number of those 

DLA claimants with a 

motability vehicle 

Kingston upon Hull 5,930 3,520 1,650 760 1,138 

North Kingston upon 

Hull 

6,230 3,840 1,620 780 1,067 

East Kingston upon 

Hull and Hessle 

5,740 3,370 1,730 650 955 

Total 

Notes: 

17,900 10,730 5,000 2,190 3,160 

1. Caseload figures rounded to the nearest 10. 

2. Totals show the number of people in receipt of an allowance, and exclude people with entitlement where the payment has been suspended, for example if they 

are in hospital. 

3. Information on Motability vehicles supplied by Motability Scheme. 

Source: 

DWP Information, Governance and Security, Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study 

Table 2 

Total number of DLA new claims assessed from 1 May 2012 to Total number of DLA new claims awaiting assessment as at 

31 October 2012 

31 October 2012 

National GB Data 

Notes: 

1. Figures rounded to the nearest 100. 

2. Data is Great Britain level 

Source: 

219,900 39,700 

Department for Work and Pensions—RDA60209, RDA60205 and RDA80123 reports—Disability Living Allowance Management Information Statistics


488W 

Employment and Support Allowance 

Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 29 October 

2012, Official Report, column 57W, on employment and 

support allowance (ESA), whether it is his policy that 

these arrangements will continue following the introduction 

of mandatory reassessments so that claimants receive 

ESA while their reconsideration is pending. [129744] 

Mr Hoban: Following the introduction of mandatory 

reassessments, employment and support allowance (ESA) 

claimants who have been found fit for work will not 

receive ESA while their claim is pending reconsideration, 

but will do so if an appeal is subsequently lodged. 

Epilepsy 

Kate Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions what recent discussions his Department 

has had with epilepsy disability organisations on the 

personalised independence payment. [130079] 

Esther McVey: Throughout the development of personal 

independence payment we have engaged and consulted 

with a wide range of disability organisations. This included 

a discussion with Epilepsy Action on the personal 

independence payment assessment criteria. 

We are also working with disability stakeholder 

organisations on personal independence payment delivery 

issues through the implementation stakeholder forum. 

Disability organisations who support people with a 

wide range of disabilities are represented on this forum. 

We are keeping this group up to date on personal 

independence payment developments on a regular basis. 

Future Jobs Fund: Kilmarnock 

Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions how many people received assistance 

through the Future Jobs Fund in Kilmarnock and 

Loudoun constituency in (a) 2009, (b) 2010, (c) 2011 

and (d) the latest period for which figures are available. 

[130149] 

Mr Hoban: The Future Jobs Fund lasted between 

October 2009 and March 2011. Overall there were 450 

starts to Future Jobs Fund vacancies in the Kilmarnock 

and Loudoun constituency: 40 starts in 2009, 310 starts 

in 2010 and 100 starts in 2011. Note that since placements 

usually lasted for six months, people who started in one 

year (e.g. 2009) might still be receiving assistance in the 

next year (e.g. 2010), so the number of starts in 2010 

and 2011 will be different to the number of people 

receiving assistance in 2010 and 2011. 

Housing Benefit: Kingston Upon Hull 


Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of how 

many people in Hull will have their housing benefit 

reduced in the benefit changes due to come into effect 

in April 2013. [130442] 

Steve Webb: The information is not available to estimate 

the number of households affected in Hull by all the 

forthcoming housing benefit changes. However, tables 

showing the number of households who will be affected 

by the benefit cap, by local authority, was placed in the 

Library and can be found at: 

http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2012- 

1447/LocalAuthoritybreakdownaffectedbybenefitcap.doc 

In both of the tables household numbers are rounded 

to the nearest 100. Areas with fewer than 100 households 

affected are denoted by ″..″, as additional disclosure 

control has been applied to these areas. For this reason, 

figures will not sum to the total number of households 

affected in the July 2012 Impact Assessment for the 

household benefit cap. 

These estimates assume that the situation of these 

households will go unchanged, and they will not take 

any steps to either work enough hours to qualify for 

working tax credit, renegotiate their rent in situ, or find 

alternative accommodation. In all cases the Department 

is working to support households through this transition, 

using existing provision through Jobcentre Plus and the 

Work programme to move as many into work as possible. 

Therefore, these figures are subject to change prior to 

the policy being implemented from April 2013. 

Occupational Pensions 

Gregg McClymont: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions what estimate his Department has 

made of the size of pension scheme where economies of 

scale are exhausted; and what proportion of schemes 

under pot follow members will be below that size. 

[130477] 

Steve Webb: In its recent strategy to reinvigorate 

workplace pensions, the Department stated that it is 

keen to examine, with the pensions industry, the potential 

benefits of economies of scale in pension schemes, how 

to bring this about, and what, if any, role there is for the 

Government in doing so. 

If, for any reason, a scheme member does not want 

their pension pot to follow them to a new employer’s 

scheme, they will be free to opt out. 

Procurement 

Robert Halfon: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions what recent estimate he has made of 

the success of introducing Schedule 10 into his 

Department’s standard contract for services in July 

2011; what assessment he has made of the change in the 

cost-base of the affected contracts; and if he will make 

a statement. [130104] 

Mr Hoban: The schedule 10 (Apprenticeships and 

Skills Requirements) is a mandatory schedule in the 

DWP standard terms and conditions for all service 

contracts with a value over £10,000. Its inclusion is also 

considered when using other Government Department’s 

contracts or frameworks. 

DWP do not require bidders to break down their 

pricing proposal to detail specific costs resulting from 

the inclusion of the schedule. The overall contract cost 

is considered as part of the evaluation process to ensure 

the contract gives DWP the best value for money.


490W 

The supplier is contractually required to provide an 

annual report. As yet we do not have systems in place to 

analyse these on a departmental basis. Additionally, 

through our key supplier forum, we intend to ask our 

partners to provide greater visibility of the metrics on 

apprenticeships enabling us to track this on an ongoing 

basis. 

Social Security Benefits 

Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions what consideration he has given to 

the potential effect of the benefit cap on people who 

are resident in women’s refuges. [130146] 

Mr Hoban: There is no reason why people in refuges 

should be wholly exempt from the benefit cap. However, 

we recognise that there are extra costs associated with 

refuges that require additional support. That is why we 

have announced that housing support for claimants 

resident in women’s refuges which are classed as supported 

exempt accommodation will be provided outside of 

universal credit. We are still considering whether these 

payments should be taken into account when determining 

whether the benefit cap should be applied to a household. 

Before claimants resident in women’s refuges are 

migrated to universal credit they will continue to receive 

housing benefit which will be subject to the benefit cap. 

Discretionary housing payments will be available if 

claimants are unable to meet all their supported housing 

costs because they have been capped. We have increased 

the discretionary housing payment budget with up to 

an additional £75 million in 2013-14 and up to £45 

million in 2014-15 for households affected by the cap. 

DWP will be working closely with local authorities to 

ensure these claimants are offered the appropriate help. 

Social Security Benefits: Greater London 

Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions what his most recent assessment is 

of the number of households in London whose income 

will be reduced by the operation of the benefit cap; and 

for how many of them the weekly reduction will be (a) 

less than £20, (b) between £20 and £39.99, (c) between 

£40 and £59.99, (d) between £60 and £79.99, (e) 

between £80 and £99.99 and (f) over £100. [130765] 

Mr Hoban: Around 27,600 households in the London 

region will see their income reduced by the operation of 

the benefit cap. The following table shows for how many 

households the weekly reduction in benefit will be (a) 

less than £20, (b) between £20 and £39.99, (c) between 

£40 and £59.99, (d) between £60 and £79.99, (e) between 

£80 and £99.99 and (f) over £100. 

Reduction in benefit (per week) Number of households 

Less than £20 4,300 

Between £20 to £39.99 4,700 

Between £40 to £59.99 3,000 

Between £60 to £79.99 2,600 

Between £80 to £99.99 2,300 

Over 100 10,800 

Note: 

Rounded to the nearest 100. Figures may not round to the total 

number of households affected in London due to rounding. 

The figures presented above are consistent with the 

recent impact assessment published on 16 July 2012. In 

making these estimates we assume that the situation of 

these households will go unchanged, and they will not 

take any steps to either work enough hours to qualify 

for working tax credit, renegotiate their rent in situ, or 

find alternative accommodation. In all cases the Department 

is working to support households through this transition, 

using existing provision through Jobcentre Plus and the 

Work programme to move as many into work as possible. 

Therefore, please note that these figures are subject to 

change prior to the policy being implemented in April 

2013. 

Social Security Benefits: Older People 


Work and Pensions if he will introduce a voluntary, 

opt-in system to allow individuals to decide for themselves 

whether to receive those benefits for the elderly which 

are currently distributed automatically to all qualifying 

persons. [130736] 

Steve Webb: DWP pays winter fuel payments and 

cold weather payments automatically to older people. 

Almost all winter fuel payments are paid automatically 

to eligible people without the need for a claim form. 

This is the most simple and efficient method of paying 

over 12 million people over a few weeks. Introducing an 

opt-in process would add significantly to operational 

costs. There would also be a risk that some of the most 

vulnerable people would lose out because they had not 

opted in. Any person who does not wish to receive a 

winter fuel payment may contact the Department to 

ask that it is no longer sent to them. 

Cold weather payments are sent to the poorest and 

most vulnerable households in weeks of very cold weather, 

providing immediate help with the cost of heating. We 

have no plans to change how we make these payments. 

Universal Credit 

Guto Bebb: To ask the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions if he will take steps to ensure that 

provisions in the Universal Credit Regulations 2012 do 

not penalise part-time self-employed workers. [129429] 

Mr Hoban: If a claimant is in a group expected to 

look for and be available for work while in receipt of 

universal credit and DWP identifies that self-employment 

is their main form of employment, they will be required 

to attend a gateway interview to determine whether 

they are gainfully self-employed. If they are deemed to 

be gainfully self-employed they will be exempt from 

work search and work availability requirements so that 

they can focus on their business. A minimum income 

floor will ensure that claimants have an incentive to 

increase their earnings and productivity, and realise 

their financial potential. 

Those who are not deemed to be gainfully self-employed 

will be required to look for and be available for work in 

the same way as employed or unemployed claimants 

with similar circumstances. Subject to agreement with 

their adviser, their self-employed activity may be taken 

into account when setting work related requirements.


492W 

Those who are not expected to look for or be available 

for work, for example because they are caring for a child 

under the age of one or because they have limited 

capability for work, will be able to carry on self-employed 

activity and will simply be required to report their 

earnings monthly. 

Mrs Hodgson: To ask the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions how much his Department expects will be 

saved through reduced expenditure on childcare costs 

through benefits and tax credits following the extension 

of the disadvantaged two year old offer to 40 per cent 

of two year olds; and whether he plans to use these 

savings to extend entitlement to childcare through the 

current benefits system, or through the provision of 

additional childcare support under universal credit. 

[130427] 

Sajid Javid: I have been asked to reply on behalf of 

the Treasury. 

I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 19 

November 2012, Official Report, column 305W. 



made of the staff costs of assisting people who are not 

computer-literate to apply for universal credit. [130721] 

Mr Hoban: DWP is working with local authorities 

and local government associations to define the full 

range of support that will be available to claimants who 

need assistance in claiming universal credit. An estimate 

of the total cost of delivering these services will be 

available when this support has been fully defined. 



made of how many people receiving universal credit 

will not be computer-literate. [130722] 

Mr Hoban: A survey of working age benefit and tax 

credit recipients found that 78% already use the internet. 

Appropriate support will be provided for those claimants 

who need additional help to transact online. 

Work Capability Assessment 


Work and Pensions which recommendations made by 

Professor Malcolm Harrington in his Year One, Year 

Two and Year Three independent reviews of the work 

capability assessment have been implemented by the 

Government in full. [130768] 

Mr Hoban: All of the recommendations from the 

first independent review of the work capability assessment 

have been implemented; an update on all of the 

recommendations from the second year have been published 

at Annex B of the Government’s response to the third 

independent review 

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wca-review-2012-response.pdf 

As Professor Harrington’s third review was only 

published on 20 November none of the recommendations 

from that review have yet been implemented. The 

Government accepted or accepted principle all of the 

recommendations from the review and they will be 

implemented as quickly as possible subject to feasibility 

work. 

Work Programme 


Work and Pensions (1) if he will implement in the Work 

programme the commitment in the Government’s Open 

Public Services White Paper that providers of public 

services from all sectors will need to publish information 

on user satisfaction; and if he will make a statement; 

[130764] 

(2) with reference to the publication of the first 

outcome data from the Work Programme and the 

Government’s Open Public Services White Paper that 

providers of public services from all sectors will need to 

publish information on performance, if he will lift the 

ban on publication by Work programme providers of 

their performance data. [130766] 

Mr Hoban: The Department has no plans to oblige 

providers to collect user satisfaction data or to share it if 

they collect it on their own initiative. Instead, the 

Department has commissioned an independent evaluation 

of the Work programme, exploring participants’ experiences 

and outcomes. The first report was published on 

27 November; a final report will be published in 2014-15. 

Furthermore, the Department does not prevent providers 

sharing performance data, except where to do so would 

contravene the rules on pre-empting official statistics. 


Work and Pensions what the total expenditure within 

the Work programme has been on (a) attachment fees, 

(b) job outcome payments, (c) sustainable payments 

and (d) other payments to providers in each month 

since the programme started. [130767] 

Mr Hoban: The following table sets out total expenditure 

for the Work programme from the start of the programme 

through to 31 July 2012, i.e. the period covered by the 

Statistical Release. 

Data Source: 

DWP Resource Management System (General Ledger) 

Work programme 

£ million 

2011 2012 

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Total 

Attachments 8.9 41.4 29.2 31.4 24.1 26.6 25.7 26.2 26.9 25.9 16.1 16.4 14.7 15.2 328.7 

Outcomes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 1.4 3.2 4.1 0.5 10.7 7.7 7.9 36.3 

Sustainments 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.0 (0.5) 3.4 3.5 5.1 13.0


494W 

Work programme 

£ million 

2011 2012 

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Total 

Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Total 8.9 41.4 29.2 31.4 24.1 26.8 26.5 27.7 30.5 31.0 16.1 30.5 25.8 28.2 377.9 

Notes: 

1. The data series does not extend beyond July 2012 because financial information cannot be published which goes beyond that covered by the Work programme 

official statistics as this would compromise the next release of official statistics and would breach UK Statistics authority guidelines. 

2. The credit of £0.5 million seen against sustainment payments in April 2012 is a result of the shift from a clerical payment process to the current electronic 

payment process using Provider Referral and Payment System (PRaP) in April 2012. To avoid duplicate payments to providers over this transition period a process 

was put in place which affected the timing of payments but successfully mitigated against duplicate payments. 

HEALTH 

Alcoholic Drinks: Misuse 

Tracey Crouch: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what assessment his Department has made of 

the recommendations of the Children’s Commissioner’s 

report Silent Voices—supporting children and young 

people affected by parental alcohol misuse. [130415] 

Anna Soubry: The Department of Health shares 

responsibility with the Department for Education for 

supporting children and young people affected by parental 

alcohol misuse. 

We are aware of the recommendations in the Children’s 

Commissioner’s report ‘Silent Voices—supporting children 

and young people affected by parental alcohol misuse’. 

The report is of great value in highlighting gaps in 

knowledge and evidence. 

We welcome the positive recognition of improvements 

in Government policy over the last 10 to 15 years, as 

well as the suggestions for further development in policy, 

including a broad approach that recognises the needs of 

all children affected by alcohol misuse, not just those 

who are most vulnerable. 

The Government’s approach to alcohol was brought 

together in the Government’s Alcohol Strategy, published 

on 23 March. The strategy sets out a broad range of 

actions to support young people and their parents, as 

well as investment to turn around the lives of the 

120,000 most troubled families in the country. 

The National Institute for Health Research is funding 

several research studies in the priority areas highlighted 

in the Commissioner’s research recommendations. 

The Government will continue to give consideration 

to the issues identified in the report. 

Tracey Crouch: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what guidance his Department issues to primary 

care trusts on the effect on children of parental alcohol 

misuse. [130416] 

Anna Soubry: The Alcohol Learning Centre website 

includes a range of current guidance and evidence of 

good practice for national health service bodies and 

local authorities, including “Joint Guidance on 

Development of Local Protocols between Drug and 

Alcohol Treatment Services and Local Safeguarding 

and Family Services”, published in November 2009. 

Guidance on the commissioning of alcohol services, 

“Signs for Improvement: Commissioning Interventions 

to Reduce alcohol-related harm”, published in February 

2010, stresses the importance of effective local partnerships 

between drug and alcohol teams and children’s trusts. 

From April 2013, commissioning of drug and alcohol 

treatment services will be the responsibility of local 

authorities, supported by Public Health England. 

Ambulance Services: West Midlands 

Joan Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what assessment he has made of the West Midlands 

Ambulance Service’s performance in respect of the 

Ambulance Clinical Quality Indicators 2011-12. 

[130362] 

Anna Soubry: The Department does not monitor 

ambulance trusts against the clinical outcomes. It does 

monitor system indicators, including response times, 

which show that West Midlands Ambulance Service 

NHS Trust achieved all the required standards in September 

2012, the most recent period for which data is available. 

Armed Forces: Post-traumatic Stress Disorder 

Jason McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health how many former service personnel were diagnosed 

with post-traumatic stress disorder in England in (a) 

2009, (b) 2010 and (c) 2011. [130476] 

Dr Poulter: This information is not collected by the 

national health service in England. 

This Government considers the health and wellbeing 

of armed forces personnel, veterans and their families 

to be a top priority. The Under-Secretary of State for 

Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South West 

Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), published his review of mental 

health services for veterans in October 2010, and funding 

of £7.2 million was put in place to implement his 

recommendations. As a result, England as a whole now 

benefits from a number of enhanced services targeted at 

veterans’ mental health and wellbeing. These include 

the 24-hour veterans’ mental health helpline run by 

Rethink, in partnership with Combat Stress; Combat 

Stress is also funded up to £16 million through to 2015 

to provide specialist post traumatic stress disorder treatment 

through a six-week programme; the emotional health 

support service Big White Wall; and a general practitioner 

awareness-raising e-learning package run with the Royal 

College of General Practitioners. In addition, enhanced 

veterans’ mental health support services have been put 

in place across the country, with additional NHS mental 

health professionals providing support to veterans.


496W 

Blood: Contamination 


Health what the mortality rate is of contaminated blood 

patients in the (a) stage 1 and (b) stage 2 category. 

[130439] 

Anna Soubry: The following table shows the number 

of known deaths, as at 23 November 2012, in each 

calendar year for recipients of a Skipton Fund Limited 

stage 2 payment, since it began making payments in 

2004. 

Calendar year Number of known deaths in that year 1 

2004 38 

2005 33 

2006 27 

2007 23 

2008 24 

2009 35 

2010 41 

2011 43 

20122 41 

1 Data supplied by Skipton Fund Limited. 

2 Up to 23 November 2012. 

There are a number of uncertainties in these data. 

These include some estimated dates of death and a 

further 203 stage two beneficiaries whose status is unknown. 

This is because the Skipton Fund did not maintain 

regular contact with beneficiaries before the introduction 

of regular payments in 2011, and no longer has up to 

date contact details for them. 

There are no equivalent consistent data held for 

recipients of a stage one payment, as neither the Skipton 

Fund Limited, nor the Department, are routinely notified 

of these deaths. 


Health which groups and individuals his Department 

consulted before taking the decision not to award 

ongoing payments to contaminated blood patients with 

HCV stage 1. [130454] 

Anna Soubry: During the course of the Department’s 

review of the support available to individuals infected 

with hepatitis C and/or HIV by NHS-supplied blood 

transfusions or blood products and their dependants in 

the autumn of 2010, my predecessor and departmental 

officials sought views from the Haemophilia Society, 

Tainted Blood, the Manor House Group, as well as a 

number of individuals who have been affected by hepatitis 

C. The Department also convened an expert group of 

clinical and scientific experts to provide advice on the 

natural history of hepatitis C infection. The expert 

advice which Ministers received during the course of 

the review informed the decision not to change the 

existing Skipton Fund stage 1 payment. Details can be 

found in the report of the ‘Review of the Support 

Available to Individuals Infected with Hepatitis C and/or 

HIV by NHS-Supplied Blood Transfusions or Blood 

Products and their Dependants’, a copy of which has 

already been placed in the Library. 


Health what advice his Department received from its 

expert working group on contaminated blood on the 

provision of ongoing payments to HCV stage 1 

patients. [130455] 

Anna Soubry: The purpose of the expert group was 

not to advise the Department on potential changes to 

the Skipton Fund, but to provide independent clinical 

and scientific advice on the natural history of hepatitis 

C infection. The group made no comment about the 

provision of ongoing payments to HCV stage 1 patients. 


Health what his policy is on providing ongoing support 

payments to contaminated blood patients who have 

either HIV or HCV stage 2; and if he will make a 


Anna Soubry: This Government has committed to 

provide ongoing financial support, as set out in the 

statement made by the then Secretary of State for 

Health my right hon. Friend the Member for South 

Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), on 10 January 2011, 

Official Report, column 33. 

Cancer 

Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

pursuant to the answer of 21 May 2012, Official Report, 

column 458W, on cancer, what the increase in funding 

of cancer networks will be in (a) 2013-14 and (b) 

2014-15. [130325] 

Anna Soubry: Funding for cancer, cardiac and stroke 

networks, which is provided via the strategic health 

authority (SHA) bundle, is £33.6 million in 2012-13. 

£18.5 million of this funding is allocated for cancer 

networks, although it is for individual SHAs to determine 

how the total amount they receive in the bundle is 

allocated to specific services, taking into account the 

needs of local populations. 

The NHS Commissioning Board (NHS CB) has 

allocated £42 million to support strategic clinical networks 

and clinical senates in 2013-14. The NHS CB has yet to 

confirm how many cancer strategic clinical networks it 

will establish from 2013-14, so it is not possible to 

directly compare funding for cancer networks between 

the two years. 

The NHS CB has made no decision about allocations 

for 2014-15. 

Chronic Illnesses 

Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health when he expects to publish the Long Term 

Conditions Outcomes Strategy. [130523] 

Norman Lamb: Long-term conditions is one of the 

Secretary of State for Health’s priority areas and this 

was reflected in the prominence with which it featured 

in the mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board. 

Following the publication of the mandate we are working 

with the NHS Commissioning Board to agree the best 

way to Improve care for people with long-term conditions 

including how best to develop the Long-Term Conditions 

Outcomes Strategy. 

Dementia 

Mr Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State 

for Health what guidance he will give from April 2013 

to clinical commissioning groups on the provisions of 

facilities for dementia patients; and if he will make a 

statement. [130641]


498W 

Norman Lamb: From April 2013, guidance to Clinical 

Commissioning Groups will be issued by the NHS 

Commissioning Board. 

To support an improvement in diagnosis rates of 

dementia, the Department has developed an analytical 

model toolkit which will support Clinical Commissioning 

Groups to improve their dementia diagnosis rate and 

commission sufficient memory services. 

Dementia: Peterborough 

Mr Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what steps he is taking to improve the provision 

of care for dementia patients in Peterborough constituency; 

and if he will make a statement. [130640] 

Norman Lamb: Improving the quality of care for 

people with dementia and their carers is a priority for 

this Government. However, it is for primary care trusts 

to decide how to deliver the National Dementia Strategy 

as set out in the NHS Operating Framework. 

On 26 March, the Prime Minister launched his Challenge 

on Dementia, which will increase diagnosis rates, raise 

awareness and understanding and double funding for 

research by 2015. The Challenge sets out renewed ambition 

to go further and faster, building on progress made 

through the National Dementia Strategy, to secure greater 

improvements in dementia care and research so that 

people with dementia, their carers and families get the 

services and support they need. 

Dental Services 


Health how many and what proportion of practising 

dentists worked for the NHS in each of the last five 

years. [130389] 

Dr Poulter: Information is not collected centrally on 

the total numbers of practising dentists. 

Information is available on hospital and community 

health service dentists and high street dentists who have 

provided national health services dental services in each 

of the last five years. This information is provided in the 

following table. 

NHS primary care dentists (high street dentists) and hospital and community health service (HCHS) dental staff, for England 2007 to 2012—England 

Headcount 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

NHS dentists (high street dentists) 1 20,160 20,815 21,343 22,003 22,799 22,920 

HCHS dental staff2, 3 3,940 4,221 4,342 4,035 4,030 n/a 

n/a = Data not available 

1 NHS dentists (high street dentists) are defined as performers with any NHS activity recorded by FP17 forms during each financial year ending 31 March. Data 

consists of performers in general dental services, personal dental services and trust-led dental services. 

2 HCHS dental staff are as at 30 September each year. Data for September 2012 are not yet available. 

3 A new headcount methodology for HCHS data was introduced in 2010, due to improvements that make it a more stringent count of absolute staff numbers. Data 

prior to 2010 is not directly comparable. 

Data Quality: 

The Health and Social Care Information Centre seeks to minimise inaccuracies and the effect of missing and invalid data but responsibility for data accuracy lies 

with the organisations providing the data. Methods are continually being updated to improve data quality. Where changes impact on figures already published, this 

is assessed but unless it is significant at national level figures are not changed. Impact at detailed or local level is footnoted in relevant analyses. 

Sources: 

1. Health and Social Care Information Centre Medical and Dental Workforce Census 

2. NHS Dental Services of the NHS Business Services Authority. 

Diabetes 

Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

(1) what plans he has to increase the number of specially 

trained diabetes nurses; [130356] 

(2) what recent discussions he has had with the NHS 

Commissioning Board on the provision of specially 

trained diabetes nurses; [130357] 

(3) how many specially trained diabetes nurses there 

are in each primary care trust in England. [130368] 

Anna Soubry: The current number of diabetic specialist 

nurses employed by the national health service is not 

collected centrally. The annual work force census does 

not separately identify specialist nurses. 

The Government consider that diabetes specialist 

nurses are an essential part of the diabetes specialist 

team and have a valuable part to play in supporting 

people with diabetes. It is local health care organisations, 

with their knowledge of the health care needs of their 

local populations, that are best placed to determine the 

work force required to deliver safe patient care within 

their available resources. 

The national health service reforms present an 

opportunity for stronger, closer partnership working 

between the new primary care commissioners and secondary 

care specialists, ensuring that evidence-based multidisciplinary 

care is commissioned and is focused on the 

needs of the individual patient. 

Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what steps he is planning to take to reduce the number 

of delayed diagnosis of children with type 1 diabetes. 

[130358] 

Anna Soubry: We welcome the recent launch by Diabetes 

UK of a new children and young person’s campaign 

called the 4 Ts of diabetes—Toilet, Thirsty, Tired and 

Thinner—which seeks to raise awareness of the four 

most common symptoms of Type 1 diabetes and ensure 

prompt diagnosis. 

NHS Diabetes have a children and young peoples 

network, which works with health care professionals in 

raising awareness of the typical and atypical signs and 

symptoms of diabetes in children. 

Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if 

he has any plans to introduce a nationwide campaign 

to raise diabetes awareness. [130359]


500W 

Anna Soubry: The Government has no plans to introduce 

a nationwide campaign to raise awareness specific to 

diabetes. The three-year marketing strategy (2011-14) 

for Change4Life describes how the Change4Life social 

marketing programme will support local authorities; 

the national health service and community leaders in 

response to the emerging evidence base and policy 

priorities for obesity, which is a major risk factor for 

type 2 diabetes. 

We welcome the recent launch by Diabetes UK of a 

new children and young persons campaign called the 4 

Ts of diabetes—Toilet, Thirsty, Tired and Thinner—which 

seeks to raise awareness of the four most common 

symptoms of Type 1 diabetes. 

In addition we welcome the use of local demographic 

analyses to find and target effort towards communities 

who may be particularly at risk of type 2 diabetes. 

Health communities and charities have developed a 

number of regional and minority community schemes 

to improve awareness about type 2 diabetes in particular 

target groups. 


Health how many people in Havering have been 

diagnosed with diabetes in each of the last five years. 

[130386] 

Anna Soubry: The information is not available in the 

format requested. 

The Quality and Outcomes Framework collects the 

number of people recorded on practice disease registers. 

For diabetes this relates to patients aged 17 and over 

who are diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes—a 

measure of prevalence rather than, incidence. 

Information relating to the prevalence of diabetes in 

patients aged 17 and over in Havering during the period 

specified is shown in the following table. 

List size Estimated 17+ list size 

Diabetes Mellitus (Diabetes) Register 

(ages 17+) 

2011-12 257,279 207,253 11,485 

2010-11 255,944 206,087 11424 

2009-10 254,173 204,651 10,500 

2008-09 246,946 n/a 9,945 

2007-08 

n/a = not available 

Source: 

Quality and Outcomes Framework 

250,662 n/a 9,793 

Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health (1) what progress his Department has made in 

developing the companion document on diabetes to the 

Long Term Conditions Outcomes Strategy; [130521] 

(2) what recent discussion he has had with the 

diabetes community on the Long Term Conditions 

Outcomes Strategy. [130522] 

Anna Soubry: The Diabetes Advisory Group last met 

on 21 November to discuss this document, which is 

near completion, and arrangements for its publication. 

We are intending it to form part of the Government’s 

response to the Public Accounts Committee report on 

diabetes which we expect to be published by HM Treasury 

in the new year. 

Doctors: Foreign Workers 

Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what progress he has made in ensuring that 

doctors working in the UK have adequate language 

skills. [130541] 

Dr Poulter: The Department plans to strengthen the 

law on language checks for overseas doctors working in 

the United Kingdom. Responsible officers in England 

will have an explicit duty to ensure that any doctor 

appointed to a health care post has the necessary clinical 

competence and language skills for the job 

Options are also currently being explored for an 

amendment to the Medical Act to provide the General 

Medical Council with more explicit powers to take 

action where concerns arise about the communication 

skills of doctors. 

Eyes: Diseases 

Oliver Colvile: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health how many people were diagnosed with (a) 

diabetic retinopathy, (b) glaucoma, (c) cataracts and 

(d) age related macular degeneration in (i) Plymouth 

and (ii) Devon in 2011. [130361] 

Dr Poulter: Information is not available in the format 

requested. The following table shows finished consultant 

episodes (FCEs) with a named primary or secondary 

diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, cataracts 

and macular degeneration for Plymouth Teaching Primary 

Care Trust (PCT) and Devon PCT of residence for 

2011-12. 

Activity in English NHS Hospitals and English NHS commissioned activity in the independent sector 

5QQ: Devon PCT 5F1: Plymouth Teaching PCT 

Diabetic retinopathy 1,255 484 

Glaucoma 2,975 858 

Cataracts 7,765 2,110


502W 

Activity in English NHS Hospitals and English NHS commissioned activity in the independent sector 

5QQ: Devon PCT 5F1: Plymouth Teaching PCT 

Macular degeneration 2,606 870 

Notes: 

1. Finished Consultant Episode (FCE) 

A finished consultant episode (FCE) is a continuous period of admitted patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. FCEs are counted against 

the year in which they end. Figures do not represent the number of different patients, as a person may have more than one episode of care within the same stay in 

hospital or in different stays in the same year. 

2. Number of episodes in which the patient had a (named) primary or secondary diagnosis 

The number of episodes where this diagnosis was recorded in any of the 20 (14 from 2002-03 to 2006-07 and seven prior to 2002-03) primary and secondary diagnosis 

fields in a Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) record. Each episode is only counted once, even if the diagnosis is recorded in more than one diagnosis field of the 

record. 

3. Diabetic Retinopathy 

CD-10 codes used to identify diabetic retinopathy. Each of the following codes must be immediately followed by H36.0 (H36.0 A Diabetic retinopathy): 

E10.3 D Insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus with ophthalmic complications 

E11.3 D Non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus with ophthalmic complications 

E12.3 D Malnutrition-related diabetes mellitus with ophthalmic complications 

E13.3 D Other specified diabetes mellitus with ophthalmic complications 

E14.3 D Unspecified diabetes mellitus with ophthalmic complications 

Additional Information: 

In 2009-10, the National Diabetes Audit reported a Diabetic Retinopathy Treatment prevalence rate of 0.42% against the 1,929,985 registrations received from 

primary and secondary care. Participation in the National Diabetes Audit (NDA), which audits diabetes registrations in primary and secondary care, is not 

mandatory ie the NDA does not have 100% coverage or participation. 

In 2009-10 the Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) had 2,338,813 registered diabetics, QOF data only contains patients aged 17 years and over with diabetes 

mellitus and does not contain the clinical information needed to answer this PQ. 

4. Glaucoma 

ICD-10 codes used to identify glaucoma: 

H40.—Glaucoma 

Q15.0 Congenital glaucoma 

H40.2 Primary angle-closure glaucoma 

H40.1 Primary open-angle glaucoma 

In order to be included, the following set of codes must be immediately followed by H42.8 (Glaucoma in other diseases classified elsewhere) 

A18.5D Tuberculosis of eye 

A52.7D Other symptomatic late syphilis 

B73.XD Onchocerciasis 

Q13.1D Absence of iris 

In order to be included, the following set of codes must be immediately followed by H42.0 (Glaucoma in endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases) 

E34.9D Endocrine disorder, unspecified 

E72.0D Disorders of amino-acid transport 

E85.—D Amyloidosis 

E88.9D Metabolic disorder, unspecified 

5. Cataracts 

ICD-10 codes used to identify cataracts: 

H25.—Senile cataract 

H26.—Other cataract 

H28.0A Diabetic cataract (must be preceded by one of the following codes E10.3, E11.3, E12.3, E13.3 or E14.3 in order to be included). 

In order to be included, the following two codes should only appear in a secondary diagnosis position: 

H28.1A Cataract in other endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases 

H28.2A Cataract in other diseases classified elsewhere 

6. Macular Degeneration 

It is not possible to identify age-related macular degeneration using HES data. The ICD-10 code used to identify macular degeneration is: 

H35.3 Degeneration of macula and posterior pole 

7. PCT of residence 

The primary care trust (PCT) containing the patient’s normal home address. This does not necessarily reflect where the patient was treated as they may have travelled 

to another strategic health authority/PCT for treatment. 

Source: 

Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Health and Social Care Information Centre 

Family Planning 


Health what his Department has spent on family 

planning education (a) nationwide and (b) in 

Havering in each of the last five years. [130387] 

Anna Soubry: The Department of Health provides 

information about contraception to people of all ages. 

The main route for getting information to the public is 

the NHS Choices website, which includes a number of 

pages on contraception, but it is not possible to separately 

identify these costs. 

The Department also funds the Family Planning 

Association to produce information on sexual health 

for the public and for healthcare professionals. The 

costs of their Sexual Health Direct service during the 

last five years are given in the following table and cover 

sexual health, not just contraception, as it is not possible 

to separately identify the precise spending on contraception 

information. 

£ million 

2008-09 1.320 

2009-10 1.329 

2010-11 1.343 

2011-12 1,376 

2012-13 0.572 

The Department has provided information on 

contraception as part of a number of marketing campaigns, 

including the ‘Sex. Worth Talking About’ campaign, 

which ran from November 2009 to March 2010. The 

campaign encouraged open, honest conversations about 

all aspects of sex, relationships and sexual health. The 

campaign featured two sub-strands, including one on 

contraception, ‘Contraception. Worth Talking About’. 

Advertising media costs for this strand of the campaign 

were £3,905,321 in 2009-10 and no further spending on 

this campaign took place after that date.


504W 

Havering Primary Care Trust may have provided 

additional information and education on contraception, 

but the Department holds no information on these 

costs. 

Young people both in Havering and nationwide will 

also have received education about contraception as 

part of wider programmes of sex and relationships 

education (SRE). Responsibility for SRE lies with the 

Department for Education. 

Foetal Anticonvulsant Syndrome 

Julie Elliott: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

how many cases of foetal anti-convulsant syndrome 

were diagnosed in each of the last three years. [130463] 

Dr Poulter: The information requested is not collected 

centrally. 

Julie Elliott: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what steps he is taking to promote awareness of the 

risks of foetal anti-convulsant syndrome to (a) medical 

professionals and (b) pregnant mothers taking epilepsy 

drugs. [130464] 

Dr Poulter: The Medicines and Healthcare products 

Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is an executive agency of 

the Department of Health responsible for ensuring that 

medicines are acceptably safe and effective in their 

licensed indications. Part of the remit of the MHRA is 

to ensure that the information associated with the medicine 

and provided to healthcare professionals (the Summary 

of Product Characteristics, SmPC) and to patients (the 

Patient Information Leaflet, PIL) is accurate and up to 

date. 

The MHRA has regularly reviewed the evidence on 

anti-epileptic drug use in women of child bearing age 

since the time of licensing and continually reassesses 

the information provided in the SmPC and PIL in light 

of new data from all sources, including the UK Epilepsy 

and Pregnancy Registry. Where appropriate, new data 

are included in updated prescribing and patient information 

to best inform the decision-making process between 

health care professionals and patients. 

The current product information for all anti-epileptic 

products contains detailed advice in relation to its use 

during pregnancy. Women of childbearing potential 

being treated for epilepsy are currently advised that 

they should not be started on an anti-epileptic without 

specialist neurological advice and that the benefits of its 

use should be weighed against the known risks to the 

foetus. 

Information on possible side effects which may occur 

in the offspring of women with epilepsy who are treated 

with anti-epileptics during pregnancy, including the 

characteristic features of ‘foetal anticonvulsant syndrome’ 

are also outlined in the product information. In addition, 

the British National Formulary provides prescribers, 

pharmacists and other health care professionals with 

independent, detailed and up-to-date information about 

the use of anti-epileptics during pregnancy. 

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence 

has published a clinical guideline covering the diagnosis, 

treatment and management of epilepsies in adults and 

children. This clinical guideline specifically covers the 

treatment and management of epilepsy in pregnancy. 

Health Services 

Nic Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

for which responsibilities and duties for areas of 

activity currently undertaken by primary care trusts he 

has yet to identify which agencies will be responsible 

after April 2013. [128593] 

Anna Soubry: The Department has put in place a 

rigorous transition programme which is ensuring that 

detailed functions are mapped across from primary care 

trusts (PCTs) and strategic health authorities to the 

relevant bodies in the new system. 

There are currently 18 unallocated functions still to 

be decided. These are limited to localised PCT functions 

and do not affect the PCTs individual operational or 

statutory duties. Work is under way locally to resolve 

the future hosting of these functions on a case by case 

basis. 

Health Services: Midlands 

Andy Sawford: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what recent discussions Ministers in his 

Department have had with Healthier Together South 

East Midlands. [130775] 

Dr Poulter: I met Simon Wood, Programme Director 

of Healthier Together South East Midlands, on 8 November 

2012. This meeting was arranged in preparation for the 

adjournment debate on the ’Future of Kettering Hospital’ 

on 9 November 2012, by my hon. Friend the Member 

for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). 


Health what written communication has taken place 

between his Department and Healthier Together South 

East Midlands; and if he will publish those communications. 

[130776] 

Dr Poulter: There has been no written communication 

between the Department and Healthier Together South 

East Midlands. 

Health Services: Older People 


Health what recent assessment he has made of progress 

towards preparing the NHS to deal with the implications 

of an ageing population. [130388] 

Norman Lamb: The number of older people in the 

United Kingdom is projected to rise substantially over 

the coming decades and this increase will have a significant 

effect on health spending. The Department has been 

and will continue to monitor the implications for the 

national health service of this pressure. Last month, the 

Department committed to going further and faster on 

improving the care of older people, through four key 

priorities: 

Giving Britain some of the best survival rates in Europe for the 

big killer diseases: cancer, stroke, heart, liver and respiratory 

disease (mortality); 

Building a health and care system where quality of care is as 

important as quality of treatment (care);


506W 

Dramatically improving the care for people living with long-term 

conditions like diabetes, asthma or arthritis—who currently account 

for more than half of GP appointments and nearly 3A of hospital 

admissions (long-term conditions); and 

Transforming our care for people with dementia so we become 

one of the best countries in Europe to grow old (dementia). 

Improving efficiency and productivity in the NHS 

and social care is crucial to coping with the demographic 

challenge of an increasing older population. The Quality, 

Innovation, Productivity and Prevention (QIPP) programme 

will support the NHS to do this by focusing on areas 

where it is possible to increase quality and productivity 

simultaneously. 

The local NHS is best placed to identify the scale of 

challenge and opportunities for making savings whilst 

maintaining quality. Each local health economy is working 

towards their own vision of health system transformation 

to make efficiency, savings whilst continuing to provide 

quality care to their populations. In addition, there are 

a limited number of national QIPP work streams, chosen 

to cover areas in which there is substantial gain to be 

made from changing the way things are done and where 

the degree of challenge in making change is sizeable. 

In the first full year of delivery, the NHS has delivered 

strongly, with efficiency savings of £5.8 billion reported 

in 2011-12. At the same time, key quality and access 

ambitions have been maintained or improved: 

infection rates at their lowest since mandatory surveillance was 

introduced; 

lowest ever level of patients waiting more than 18 weeks for 

their treatment and both standards met each month; and 

performance measures on accident and emergency, cancer 

care, and dentistry waiting times have all been met. 

HIV Infection 

Simon Kirby: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what support his Department is providing to 

research into finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. [130271] 

Mr Willetts: I have been asked to reply on behalf of 

the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. 

The Medical Research Council (MRC) is one of the 

main agencies through which the Government supports 

medical and clinical research. 

The MRC supports a wide portfolio of research into 

the causes and treatment of HIV/AIDS and in 2010-11 

spent £13.8 million on research in this area. 

The MRC’s portfolio aims to address the two major 

challenges in HIV/AIDS research: protection from HIV 

transmission and treatment of those affected. Protection 

studies include the design and development of vaccines 

against HIV, the development of microbicides to inhibit 

sexual transmission of the virus, through to behavioural 

intervention studies to understand how to work with 

high risk communities to modify behaviour. Research 

on treatment is primarily aimed at better understanding 

of how to manage antiretroviral therapy and discovering 

the optimum combinations of drugs for patients at different 

stages of disease. This is supported by underpinning 

basic research aimed at improving our understanding of 

the biology of the virus and immunology of the viral 

host interaction, as well as epidemiological longitudinal 

surveillance studies/databases and cohorts. 

Much of the MRC’s work in this area is supported in 

partnership with the Department for International 

Development. 

NHS 

Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what his policy is on health and social service 

authorities adopting local implementation criteria for 

the delivery of both NHS continuing healthcare and 

social services funded care. [130652] 

Norman Lamb: The National Framework for NHS 

Continuing Healthcare and NHS-funded Nursing care, 

Checklist and Decision Support Tool set out the national 

eligibility criteria for NHS Continuing Healthcare which 

should not be adapted locally. 

Local authorities currently set their own eligibility 

threshold for the adult social care services they provide. 

They should do this in line with the Department’s 

guidelines ‘Prioritising need in the context of Putting 

People First: A whole system government approach to 

eligibility for social care, guidance on eligibility criteria 

for Adult Social Care England 2010’, a copy of which 

has already been placed in the Library. 

The White Paper ‘Caring for our future: reforming 

care and support’ set out the Government’s intention to 

introduce a national minimum eligibility threshold for 

adult social care services across England. Provisions to 

implement a national eligibility threshold are included 

in the draft Care and Support Bill. It is intended that 

this new system will come into force in April 2015. 

NHS Commissioning Board 

Meg Munn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what mechanisms are in place to ensure that there is 

transparency regarding the decisions of the NHS 

Commissioning Board on funding for particular health 

conditions. [130444] 

Anna Soubry: The NHS Commissioning Board has 

strongly committed to transparency as an organisation. 

Its focus will be on commissioning care and supporting 

clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) to improve outcomes 

for patients. As a commissioner of local services, the 

NHS Commissioning Board will work with partners in 

CCGs and local authorities to produce a joint health 

and wellbeing strategy to show how the partners intend 

to improve outcomes for the local community. 

In relation to the specialised services that it will 

commission, the NHS Commissioning Board is committed 

to delivering the aims of national transparency and 

equity. The NHS Commissioning Board has recently 

published an operating model which aims to secure 

equity and excellence in provision. This is available on 

the NHS Commissioning Board’s website, at: 

www.commissioningboard.nhs.ukfiles2012/11/-model.pdf 

Obesity: Havering 


Health (1) what steps his Department is taking to 

tackle obesity in Havering; [130390]


508W 

(2) what information his Department holds on the 

number of people in Havering suffering from obesity. 

[130391] 

Anna Soubry: In October 2011, the Government 

published ’Healthy Lives, Healthy People: A call to 

action on obesity in England’, which sets out how 

obesity among children and adults will be tackled in the 

new public health and NHS systems, and the role of key 

partners. 

The document sets out details of two new national 

ambitions for achieving a downward trend in the level 

of excess weight in children and adults by 2020, and sets 

out existing and proposed Government actions. 

A copy of the ‘Call to action’ has already been placed 

in the Library. 

There are two sources of data from which relevant 

information can be obtained about obesity prevalence—the 

Health Survey for England (HSE) and the National 

Child Measurement Programme (NCMP). Neither source 

can be used to provide information in the exact format 

requested. 

Information on the prevalence of obese adults (men 

and women) aged 16 and over by strategic health authority 

(SHA) for 2010 is available in Table 10.3 of the ’Health 

Survey for England—2010: Respiratory health’. 

Information on the prevalence of obese children (boys 

and girls) aged two to 15 by strategic health authority 

(SHA) for 2010 is available in Table 11.3 of the ’Health 

Survey for England—2010: Respiratory health’. 

Information on the prevalence of obesity in children 

by government office region, local authority county/unitary 

authority and local authority district/former district is 

available in the National Child Measurement Programme 

(NCMP) in table 3A and 3B in the excel file accompanying 

’National Child Measurement Programme: England, 

2010-11 school year’. However, this information is only 

available for children in school year Reception (generally 

aged four and five) and school year 6 (generally aged 10 

to 11). The latest year available is 2010-11. 

The above tables have been placed in the Library and 

can be accessed from the following links. 

www.ic.nhs.uk/pubs/hse10report 

www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-and-data-collections/health-andlifestyles/obesity/national-child-measurement-programmeengland-2010-11-school-year 

Pancreatic Cancer 

Nic Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what steps he is taking to reduce the number of patients 

who are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer through an 

emergency admission to hospital. [128928] 

Anna Soubry: We know that around a quarter of 

cancers—and about half of pancreatic cancers—are 

diagnosed through emergency routes, and that the survival 

rates for those diagnosed this way are considerably 

lower than for other cancer patients. 

If we are to improve survival rates and achieve our 

goal of saving 5,000 additional lives from cancer each 

year by 2014-15 then we need to detect the symptoms of 

cancer earlier and reduce the number of patients diagnosed 

via an emergency route. To support earlier diagnosis of 

cancer we have provided more than £450 million over 

the spending review period to improve general practitioner 

(GP) access to key diagnostic tests; support campaigns 

to raise public awareness of the signs and symptoms of 

cancer and to encourage people to visit their GP when 

they have persistent symptoms; to support GPs in making 

decisions to refer; and to pay for more treatment and 

testing in secondary care. 

We know that some cancers can be difficult to diagnose, 

often because their symptoms are shared with more 

common, benign conditions. In January, we are planning 

to pilot a general symptom awareness campaign that 

will be relevant to a range of cancers, including pancreatic 

cancer. The campaign will encourage people with relevant 

symptoms to go to their GP and we will be working 

with primary care in the pilot sites to agree appropriate 

referral pathways. 

Post-traumatic Stress Disorder 

Jason McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health how many people were diagnosed with posttraumatic 

stress disorder in England in (a) 2009, (b) 

2010 and (c) 2011. [130474] 

Norman Lamb: This information is not collected 

centrally. According to the 2007 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity 

Survey (Table 3.1), the estimated prevalence (percentage) 

of trauma and current post traumatic stress disorder 

among people living in private households in England 

is 3%. 

Schizophrenia 

Ms Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what steps his Department plans to take to improve 

treatment and outcomes for people with schizophrenia. 

[130518] 

Norman Lamb: We know more needs to be done for 

people with severe mental illness. 

The Mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board 

identifies support for people with long-term mental 

health conditions as a priority area. The board is tasked 

with ensuring people have access to the right treatment 

when they need it; ensuring that people with mental 

health problems are offered a personalised care plan 

that reflects their preferences and agreed decisions; and 

putting mental health on a par with physical health, 

and close the health gap between people with mental 

health problems and the population as a whole. By 

March 2015, we expect the board and the national 

health service to demonstrate measurable progress towards 

achieving true parity of esteem, where everyone who 

needs it has timely access to evidence-based services. 

There are four indicators in the latest NHS Outcomes 

Framework 2013-14 which relate specifically to mental 

health (premature mortality in people with serious mental 

illness, employment of people with mental illness, 

psychological therapies and patient experience of 

community mental health services). 

Improving outcomes for mental health patients will 

also be a crucial element of success for many of the 

indicators which relate to all patients.


510W 

Spinal Injuries 

Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

(1) which hospital trusts with spinal cord injury centres 

have had their funding allocation reduced over the last 

two years; [130650] 

(2) what the change in the proportion of funding 

spent by each hospital trust on its spinal cord injury 

centre has been since 2010. [130651] 

Dr Poulter: The Department does not hold the 

information requested centrally and it is a matter for the 

local national health service. Financial allocations are 

made to primary care trusts (PCTs), not hospital trusts. 

Over the three years 2010-11 to 2012-13 combined, 

recurrent allocations to PCTs increased by £8.8 billion. 

The Government always expects NHS resources to be 

directed to frontline patient care, but it is for PCTs to 

decide how much of this allocation they will use to fund 

hospitals, primary care, community care and ambulance 

services. 

Specialised Commissioning Groups, which are joint 

committees of PCTs, commission services from spinal 

cord injury centres locally. 

Information has been provided by South of England 

Specialised Commissioning Group (SCG) on behalf of 

the four SCGs. The figures in the following table for 

2011-12 and 2012-13 show the funding agreed with 

providers at the beginning of the year and reflect planned 

and contracted activity in spinal cord injury centres. 

Information for 2010-11 is not held by South of England 

SCG. 

2011-12 

(£) 

2012-13 

(£) 

Percentage 

change 

Royal National Orthopaedic 

Hospital 

6,226,775 6,429,738 3.16 

Salisbury District General 6,448,331 6,748,231 4.44 

Buckinghamshire Healthcare 17,968,237 17,953,404 -0.08 

Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt 

Orthopaedic and District 

General Hospital, Oswestry 

4,285,390 4,307,505 0.51 

Sheffield Teaching Hospitals 5,363,363 5,087,997 -5.41 

Southport and Formby Hospitals 7,503,000 7,366,000 -1.86 

Mid Yorkshire Hospitals 4,059,942 4,086,534 0.65 

South Tees Hospitals 4,111,800 4,037,788 -1.83 

Total 55,966,838 56,017,197 0.09 

Small variations between 2011-12 and 2012-13 reflect 

the net effect of increases in the number of patients 

treated and productivity and efficiency saving requirements 

that all services are expected to deliver against. 

How each NHS Trust and NHS foundation trust uses 

its contractual income to resource the services that it 

provides is a matter for the management of that individual 

NHS body. Information on service-line budgeting by 

NHS providers in England is not held centrally. 

Thromboembolism 

Glyn Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

how many people were admitted to hospital with (a) all 

venous thromboembolisms, (b) deep vein thrombosis 

and (c) pulmonary embolism by (i) primary care trust 

and (ii) NHS trust in the latest year for which figures are 

available. [130367] 

Anna Soubry: ‘Venous thromboembolism’ is an umbrella 

term, but there is no commonly agreed group of codes 

that can be used to determine the total number of 

episodes that are considered to be venous 

thromboembolism. 

Data for admissions to hospital for deep vein thrombosis 

(DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) for the year 

2011-12 have been placed in the Library. 

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS 

Arms Trade: Israel 

Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State 

for Business, Innovation and Skills what UK exports 

there were of weapons and weapon components to 

Israel in the last year for which figures are available; 

and if he will make a statement. [130506] 

Michael Fallon [holding answer 28 November 2012]: 

We only hold information regarding exports made under 

certain export licences, not about exports in general. 

Information on arms export licences to all countries, 

including Israel, is published in the Annual and Quarterly 

Reports on Strategic Export Controls. These reports 

contain detailed information on export licences issued, 

refused or revoked, by destination, including the overall 

value, type (e.g. Military, Other) and a summary of the 

items covered by these licences. They are available to 

view at: 

https://www.exportcontroldb.bis.gov.uk/eng/fox/sdb/ 

SDBHOME 

Currently this includes information up to 30 June 2012. 

Information covering 1 July to 30 September 2012 will 

be published in January 2012 and information covering 

1 October 2012 to 31 December 2012 will be published 

in April 2012. 

Business: Liverpool 

Steve Rotheram: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Business, Innovation and Skills what support he is 

offering to businesses in Liverpool which are not eligible 

for funding from the Regional Growth Fund. [130623] 

Michael Fallon: All businesses in Liverpool are eligible 

to receive Regional Growth funding, either directly or 

via programmes, as the Regional Growth Fund makes 

use of the full flexibilities of the state aid framework 

and imposes no sector restrictions. 

Businesses in Liverpool are also eligible for support 

through national initiatives such as Growth Accelerator, 

Business in You, Business Growth Fund, UKTI Export 

for Growth and Export Finance. They can also access 

equity, mezzanine and loan funding through the North 

West Fund and the support programmes for NW 

manufacturers being managed by the Manufacturing 

Advisory Service and the Manufacturing Institute. 

Dementia 


Business, Innovation and Skills what steps his Department 

is taking to support the Prime Minister’s dementia 

challenge and the work of each of the challenge groups; 

what resources he has committed and what timescales 

he has set for this work; and if he will make a statement. 

[128714]


512W 

Mr Willetts: The Department for Business, Innovation 

and Skills primarily contributes to the Prime Minister’s 

Challenge on Dementia through the work of the Research 

Councils. Full details of what the Research Councils 

have contributed is available in the recently published 

progress report which can be downloaded from: 

http://dementiachallenge.dh.gov.uk/2012/11/08/report-onprogress/ 

Highlights of this work include a significant commitment 

to funding with the Challenge on Dementia committing 

the Medical Research Council (MRC), National Institute 

for Health Research (NIHR), and Economic and Social 

Research Council (ESRC) to increase funding for research 

into dementia from £26.6 million in 2009/10 to an 

estimated £66.3 million in 2014/15. 

As part of this, £9.6 million has been provided by the 

MRC to expand the UK Biobank. This is the first phase 

of funding with the aim to undertake further studies 

such as scanning the brains of up to 100,000 Biobank 

volunteers. The information will help scientists discover 

why some people develop dementia and others do not. 

The MRC continues to support the UK Brain Banks 

Network which is a unique resource of post-mortem 

brain tissue that can be used for research into dementias. 

An online database that will describe the sample contents 

of the entire UK Brain Banks Network is under 

development, and we hope an initial launch will take 

place in late 2012, with the database complete by mid-2013. 

The MRC is providing £3 million to promote the 

participation of UK groups in two new international 

funding calls, both to be announced in the next few 

weeks. One is to encourage high-risk/high pay-off research 

through the international Centres of Excellence in 

Neurodegeneration (COEN) initiative, while the other 

is seeking to identify risk factors contributing to the 

dementias and other neurodegenerative disorders, under 

the Joint Programme on Neurodegenerative Diseases 

(JPND) initiative. 

The ESRC and NIHR are working together to support 

a £13 million initiative to support large research grants 

for social science research on dementia. 31 outline 

applications have been received for consideration as full 

awards, which will start in 2013. 

Other Research Councils also have relevant programmes; 

for example, the Engineering and Physical Sciences 

Research Council has a research portfolio of approximately 

£1 million specifically relating to dementia and 

neurodegenerative diseases. 

Separately from the Research Councils, the UKTI 

Life Science Investment Organisation (LSIO) is aligning 

with the Department of Health. Last month I opened 

an event organised by the UK LSIO to build on the 

recent success of the Department of Health event ‘UK 

Dementia Research—Addressing the Global Challenge’. 

The UK LSIO event maintained the momentum and 

focused on identifying how we can best package up the 

UK’s capabilities, and presents them to overseas industry, 

to encourage inward investment in the sector, as well as 

discussing any barriers to investment. 

Departmental Coordination 

Mr Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Business, Innovation and Skills if he will work with his 

ministerial colleagues in other Departments to (a) bring 

forward infrastructure projects and (b) assess procurement 

processes for the purposes of safeguarding (i) jobs in 

the UK and (ii) British industrial capacity in the steel 

industry and its supply chain; and if he will make a 


Michael Fallon: The second National Infrastructure 

Plan identifies a pipeline of over 500 projects costing 

around £250 billion to 2015 and beyond. This includes 

more than £1.4 billion in railway infrastructure and 

commuter links. These projects should make a difference 

by stimulating demand for steel and thereby creating 

significant supply chain opportunities for UK steel 

producers and processors. The Government has published 

detailed data on the infrastructure pipeline online, along 

with data on all Government construction projects. In 

addition, Government Departments are working together 

to ensure that business has clarity over future public 

sector contracts. In April of this year we published 

details of £70 billion of future contracts that are planned 

across 13 sectors over the next five years. We are working 

with business, including the steel industry, to use this 

information to assess the strategic capabilities required 

in the supply chain. 

Employment Agencies 


Business, Innovation and Skills if he will review the 

role of employment agencies in the UK labour market. 

[130760] 

Jo Swinson: In 2011 the Government announced that 

we would consult on reforms to how we regulate the 

recruitment sector. Our consultation will launch later 

this year and it will cover the recruitment sector, which 

is regulated by the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and 

the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment 

Businesses Regulations 2003. 

Export Credit Guarantees 


Business, Innovation and Skills what the average application 

processing time is for small and medium-sized enterprises 

seeking to borrow from UK Export Finance. [130352] 

Michael Fallon: This information is not held and it 

would involve disproportionate cost to create it. UK 

Export Finance does not directly lend to companies 

seeking to export. Its assistance to exporters is principally 

in the form of insurance policies and guarantees to 

banks that lend to buyers who purchase supplies from 

UK exporters. 


Business, Innovation and Skills what average amount of 

credit from his Department is available to small and 

medium-sized enterprises seeking to export to (a) 

Mauritania, (b) Morocco, (c) Algeria, (d) Tunisia, 

(e) Libya, (f) Egypt, (g) Israel, (h) Lebanon, (i) 

Jordan, (j) Iraq, (k) Saudi Arabia, (l) Kuwait, (m) 

Bahrain, (n) Qatar, (o) United Arab Emirates and (p) 

Oman. [130353]


514W 

Michael Fallon: UK Export Finance’s market risk 

appetite (that is, the total amount of risk exposure it 

would be willing to support for new business) for each 

of those countries can be found on the ’country cover’ 

page of its website: 

http://www.ukexportfinance.gov.uk/country-cover 


Business, Innovation and Skills what average amount of 

credit from his Department is available to small and 

medium-sized enterprises seeking to export to (a) Brazil, 

(b) India, (c) China and (d) South Africa. [130354] 

Michael Fallon: UK Export Finance’s market risk 

appetite (that is, the total amount of risk exposure it 

would be willing to support for new business) for each 

of those countries can be found on the ’country cover’ 

page of its website: 

http://www.ukexportfinance.gov.uk/country-cover 

Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative 

Mr Robin Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Business, Innovation and Skills what representations he 

has received on the UK becoming a full member of the 

Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. [130425] 

Jo Swinson: The Department for Business, Innovation 

and Skills is committed to increasing the transparency 

of payments that extractive industries make to Governments 

and is supportive of EU level reporting requirements. 

We have received representation, through correspondence, 

from the Chair of the Extractive Industries Transparency 

Initiative, the right hon. Clare Short. Additionally, the 

Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, 

my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham 

(Vince Cable), has had discussions with the previous 

Secretary of State for the Department for International 

Development, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield 

(Mr Mitchell), on this topic. 

Flexible Working 

Simon Kirby: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, 

Innovation and Skills what steps his Department is 

taking to allow employees to request flexible working 

hours from their employers. [130196] 

Jo Swinson: On 13 November the Deputy Prime 

Minister announced that we will go ahead with plans to 

extend the right to request flexible working to all employees 

(excluding those with the new employee owner status). 

The extension to all will enable all employees to discuss 

changes to the way they work with their employer and 

move the discussion away from why the employee needs 

to work flexibly, and onto how flexible working will 

work for the business. We want to make it easier for 

businesses to employ people; but also for employees to 

balance work and other commitments. This gives employers 

the ability to recruit from the widest possible pool of 

talent, and helps contribute to the UK’s skilled and 

flexible work force. 

Higher Education: Blackpool 

Paul Maynard: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Business, Innovation and Skills how many pupils in 

Blackpool local authority area in receipt of free school 

meals did not enter higher education in each of the last 

three years for which figures are available. [130185] 

Mr Willetts: The estimated number of pupils from 

Blackpool local authority with free school meals by 

higher education status at age 19 is shown in the table. 

Estimated number of pupils 1 from maintained schools in Blackpool local authority with free school meals at age 15, by higher education status at 

age 19. UK higher education institutions and English further education colleges 

Academic year In HE by age 19 Not in HE by age 19 Total Percentage in HE by age 19 

2007/08 25 245 265 9 

2008/09 45 225 265 16 

2009/10 40 210 250 16 

1 Numbers are rounded to the nearest five; therefore totals may appear inconsistent with the sum of component parts. Percentages are calculated 

from un-rounded figures. 

Source: 

Matched data from the DFE National Pupil Database, the HESA Student Record and the SFA ILR 

Information on progression of pupils with free school 

meals to higher education is available from the BIS 

Widening Participation statistical release of August 2012. 

http://www.bis.gov.uk/analysis/statistics/higher-education/ 

official-statistics-releases/widening-participation-in-highereducation/widening-participation-in-higher-education-2012 

Overseas Companies 


Business, Innovation and Skills what steps his Department 

is taking to encourage companies originally established 

in the UK to retain their headquarters here. [130005] 

Michael Fallon: The Department aims to retain businesses 

(and their headquarters) located in the UK by making 

the UK the best place in Europe to start, finance and 

grow a business by stimulating greater innovation and 

commercialisation of science and research; reducing 

regulatory burdens and improving access to finance for 

business; ensuring markets at home and internationally 

are fair and efficient in serving business’ and consumers 

and by working with other Government Departments 

to improve the UK business environment. The Department 

also aims to create a more educated work force that is 

the most flexible in Europe. In addition, the Government 

cut the main rate of corporation tax to 24% in April this 

year following last year’s fall from 28% to 26%. By 2014 

it will reach 22%—the lowest it has ever been and the 

lowest in the G7. 

Regional Growth Fund: Sunderland 

Julie Elliott: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, 

Innovation and Skills how many businesses in Sunderland


516W 

which successfully bid for the Regional Growth Fund 

still have payments outstanding for (a) Round 1, (b) 

Round 2 and (c) Round 3. [131000] 

Michael Fallon: I am delighted that the Regional 

Growth Fund is supporting five significant projects in 

Sunderland as well as the £30 million North East Local 

Enterprise Partnership Programme hosted by Sunderland 

city council. 

A payment is outstanding when a beneficiary has put 

in a properly documented claim that we have not yet 

paid. There are no outstanding payments for businesses 

in Sutherland for Round 1 and Round 2. Selected 

bidders have only recently been announced for Round 3 

and none have yet submitted a claim as they are currently 

going through the due diligence process. Therefore there 

are also no payments outstanding for Round 3. 

Tata Steel 


Business, Innovation and Skills if he will meet 

representatives of Tata to discuss the future of the UK 

steel industry. [130759] 

Michael Fallon: The Department at both ministerial 

and official level have regular contacts with Tata Steel, 

including Karl Kohler (chief executive officer), to discuss 

the company’s activities and prospects. Most recently, 

the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and 

Skills, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince 

Cable), visited the Port Talbot plant on 24 October. BIS 

Ministers are willing to hold further meetings at the 

request of Tata Steel. 

Unfair Dismissal 

Charlie Elphicke: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Business, Innovation and Skills what advice he has 

received on whether the judgment of the European 

Court of Human Rights in the case of Redfearn v. 

United Kingdom would require a change to legislation 

in the UK if it becomes final; and whether he plans to 

appeal the judgment to the Grand Chamber of the 

European Court of Human Rights. [129416] 

Jo Swinson [holding answer 26 November 2012]: The 

Government is examining the detail of the judgment, 

which we believe would require a change to UK legislation. 

We will decide on the way forward shortly.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION.............. 

Col. No. 

366 

Lords/Commons Service Provision ........................ 369 

Networking Infrastructure ..................................... 369 

Central Procurement.............................................. 367 

Recycling ............................................................... 366 

LEADER OF THE HOUSE ..................................... 367 

House Business Committee.................................... 367 

European Scrutiny ................................................. 371 

Lobbyists (Standing Orders) .................................. 372 

Named-day Written Questions............................... 370 

TRANSPORT ........................................................... 351 

A1 (Dualling)......................................................... 359 

ORAL ANSWERS 


Col. No. 

TRANSPORT—continued 

Cities Fit for Cycling ............................................. 351 

Commission on Aviation........................................ 354 

DVLA Counter Services Contract ......................... 356 

England-Scotland Transport Links........................ 353 

Lincolnshire (Transport Infrastructure) ................. 356 

Rail Electrification ................................................. 361 

Rail Fare Increases................................................. 361 

Road Capacity (North-West) ................................. 359 

Road Congestion ................................................... 352 

Road Deaths and Injuries ...................................... 357 

Topical Questions .................................................. 362 

WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 

Col. No. 

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE..................... 23WS 

Global Deforestation ............................................. 23WS 

HEALTH................................................................... 24WS 

Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer 

Affairs Council .................................................. 24WS 

HOME DEPARTMENT........................................... 25WS 

G6 Ministerial Meeting.......................................... 25WS 

Col. No. 

PRESENTED PETITION 

Queen’s Cypher ..................................................... 5P 

Col. No. 

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS ............. 510W 

Arms Trade: Israel ................................................. 510W 

Business: Liverpool ................................................ 510W 

Dementia ............................................................... 510W 

Departmental Coordination................................... 511W 

Employment Agencies............................................ 512W 

Export Credit Guarantees...................................... 512W 

Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative ......... 513W 

Flexible Working.................................................... 514W 

Higher Education: Blackpool................................. 514W 

Overseas Companies .............................................. 513W 

Regional Growth Fund: Sunderland ...................... 514W 

Tata Steel ............................................................... 515W 

Unfair Dismissal .................................................... 516W 

CABINET OFFICE................................................... 465W 

Business: Sunderland ............................................. 465W 

Charities: Religion ................................................. 466W 

Children: Poverty ................................................... 466W 

Dementia ............................................................... 467W 


PETITION 


WRITTEN ANSWERS 


Col. No. 

PRIME MINISTER .................................................. 26WS 

National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence 

and Security Review........................................... 26WS 

Review Body on Senior Salaries (New 

Appointments)................................................... 28WS 

WORK AND PENSIONS ......................................... 28WS 

Remploy................................................................. 28WS 

Col. No. 

Col. No. 

CABINET OFFICE—continued 

Disability ............................................................... 467W 

Drugs: East of England ......................................... 468W 

Drugs: North East ................................................. 

Government Departments: Disclosure of 

469W 

Information ....................................................... 470W 

Heart Diseases: Newham ....................................... 470W 

Military Medals Review ......................................... 471W 

Public Sector: Procurement.................................... 471W 

Unemployment ...................................................... 471W 

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS ............................... 446W 

Dementia ............................................................... 446W 

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.. 471W 

Affordable Housing................................................ 471W 

Dementia ............................................................... 472W 

Housing: East of England...................................... 472W 

Land: Public Sector................................................ 473W 

Local Government Finance ................................... 473W

Col. No. 

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT— 

continued 

Religious Hatred .................................................... 473W 

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT .......................... 474W 

Arts........................................................................ 474W 

Broadband ............................................................. 475W 

Charitable Donations............................................. 475W 

Dementia ............................................................... 476W 

Film: Advertising ................................................... 476W 

Gambling............................................................... 476W 

Pay......................................................................... 477W 

Public Lending Right............................................. 477W 

DEFENCE................................................................. 457W 

Apache Helicopters................................................ 457W 

Armed Forces: Uniforms ....................................... 457W 

Armoured Fighting Vehicles .................................. 458W 

AWE ...................................................................... 458W 

Defence Equipment ............................................... 458W 

Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft............................ 459W 

Guided Weapons.................................................... 459W 

Indonesia ............................................................... 459W 

Military Aircraft .................................................... 459W 

Military Alliances .................................................. 460W 

NATO Countries ................................................... 460W 

Rescue Services ...................................................... 461W 

Unmanned Air Vehicles ......................................... 461W 

Warships ................................................................ 461W 

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER ................................. 431W 

Lord Lieutenants ................................................... 431W 

West Lothian Question .......................................... 431W 

EDUCATION............................................................ 438W 

Computers ............................................................. 438W 

Education: Havering .............................................. 438W 

Email ..................................................................... 439W 

Foster Care ............................................................ 439W 

Foster Care: Crimes of Violence ............................ 440W 

Free School Meals.................................................. 440W 

Further Education: Disadvantaged ........................ 441W 

Physical Education: Teachers ................................. 441W 

Primary Education: Yorkshire and the Humber..... 442W 

Schools: Finance.................................................... 443W 

Teachers................................................................. 445W 

Vocational Education............................................. 445W 

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ..................... 479W 

Climate Change ..................................................... 479W 

Green Deal Scheme................................................ 480W 

Renewable Energy.................................................. 480W 

Secondment ........................................................... 481W 

Warm Front Scheme .............................................. 482W 

Warm Home Discount Scheme .............................. 483W 

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL 

AFFAIRS............................................................... 462W 

Agricultural Wages Board...................................... 462W 

Ash Dieback Disease ............................................. 462W 

Bees: Pesticides....................................................... 462W 

Common Agricultural Policy ................................. 462W 

Marine Conservation Zones................................... 463W 

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE..... 436W 

Burma.................................................................... 436W 

Middle East ........................................................... 437W 

Philippines ............................................................. 437W 

World War II: Military Decorations....................... 437W 

Col. No. 

HEALTH................................................................... 493W 

Alcoholic Drinks: Misuse....................................... 493W 

Ambulance Services: West Midlands...................... 494W 

Armed Forces: Post-traumatic Stress Disorder....... 494W 

Blood: Contamination ........................................... 495W 

Cancer ................................................................... 496W 

Chronic Illnesses .................................................... 496W 

Dementia ............................................................... 496W 

Dementia: Peterborough........................................ 497W 

Dental Services ...................................................... 498W 

Diabetes ................................................................. 497W 

Doctors: Foreign Workers...................................... 499W 

Eyes: Diseases ........................................................ 500W 

Family Planning..................................................... 501W 

Foetal Anticonvulsant Syndrome........................... 503W 

Health Services ...................................................... 504W 

Health Services: Midlands ..................................... 504W 

Health Services: Older People ................................ 504W 

HIV Infection ........................................................ 505W 

NHS....................................................................... 506W 

NHS Commissioning Board .................................. 506W 

Obesity: Havering .................................................. 506W 

Pancreatic Cancer .................................................. 507W 

Post-traumatic Stress Disorder............................... 508W 

Schizophrenia ........................................................ 508W 

Spinal Injuries........................................................ 509W 

Thromboembolism................................................. 509W 

HOME DEPARTMENT........................................... 456W 

Police and Crime Commissioners........................... 456W 

Police: Training ...................................................... 456W 

UK Border Agency ................................................ 456W 

Written Questions: Government Responses ........... 457W 

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.................... 463W 

Burma.................................................................... 463W 

Developing Countries: Children............................. 464W 

Developing Countries: Education .......................... 464W 

Developing Countries: Sanitation .......................... 465W 

Pakistan ................................................................. 465W 

JUSTICE................................................................... 478W 

Prisons: Expenditure.............................................. 478W 

Prisons: Training.................................................... 478W 

Risley Prison.......................................................... 479W 

LEADER OF THE HOUSE ..................................... 454W 

Human Trafficking Ministerial Group................... 454W 

NORTHERN IRELAND .......................................... 455W 

Hospitals: Parking ................................................. 455W 

PRIME MINISTER .................................................. 455W 

Low Incomes: Food ............................................... 455W 

TRANSPORT ........................................................... 446W 

Airports: South East .............................................. 447W 

Dover Port ............................................................. 447W 

Heathrow Airport: Railways .................................. 447W 

High Speed 2: Midlands......................................... 446W 

High Speed 2 Railway Line .................................... 448W 

Highways Agency: Planning Permission ................ 449W 

Railways: Franchises .............................................. 449W 

Rescue Services: Snow and Ice ............................... 450W 

Roads: Animals...................................................... 450W 

Shipping: Training ................................................. 452W 

Shropshire to London Link.................................... 446W 

Tonnage Tax .......................................................... 452W 

Transport: Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.. 453W 

West Coast Railway Line: Franchises..................... 453W

Col. No. 

TREASURY .............................................................. 431W 

Air Passenger Duty ................................................ 431W 

Child Benefit.......................................................... 432W 

Employee Benefit Trusts ........................................ 432W 

Excise Duties: Fuels ............................................... 433W 

Pensioners: Scotland .............................................. 434W 

State Retirement Pensions...................................... 435W 

Tax Avoidance ....................................................... 435W 

Tax Avoidance: Self-employed ............................... 435W 

VAT: Energy........................................................... 436W 

Welfare Tax Credits................................................ 436W 

WALES...................................................................... 455W 

Energy: Prices ........................................................ 455W 

Tata Steel ............................................................... 455W 

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES.................................. 477W 

Females: Business .................................................. 477W 

Col. No. 

WORK AND PENSIONS ......................................... 486W 

Disability Living Allowance: Kingston Upon 

Hull ................................................................... 486W 

Employment and Support Allowance .................... 487W 

Epilepsy ................................................................. 487W 

Future Jobs Fund: Kilmarnock.............................. 487W 

Housing Benefit: Kingston Upon Hull .................. 487W 

Occupational Pensions ........................................... 488W 

Procurement........................................................... 488W 

Social Security Benefits.......................................... 489W 

Social Security Benefits: Greater London .............. 489W 

Social Security Benefits: Older People.................... 490W 

Universal Credit..................................................... 490W 

Work Capability Assessment.................................. 491W 

Work Programme................................................... 492W

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. 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 

Thursday 6 December 2012 

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. 

LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. 

BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session. 

Single copies: 

Commons, £105; Lords, £60. 

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 554 Thursday 

No. 77 29 November 2012 

CONTENTS 


Oral Answers to Questions [Col. 351] [see index inside back page] 

Secretary of State for Transport 

Leader of the House 

House of Commons Commission 

Business of the House [Col. 373] 

Statement—(Mr Lansley) 

Energy Policy [Col. 387] 

Statement—(Mr Davey) 

Energy [Col. 404] 

Bill presented, and read the First time 

Backbench Business 

Scotland and the Union [Col. 405] 

Amendment—(Pete Wishart)—on a Division, negatived 

Motion—(Mrs Laing)—on a Division, agreed to 

Leveson Inquiry [Col. 446] 

Statement—(Prime Minister) 

Leveson Inquiry [Col. 470] 

Statement—(Deputy Prime Minister) 

Petition [Col. 482] 

Central Bedfordshire College [Col. 483] 

Debate on motion for Adjournment 

Westminster Hall 

Inward Investment (Wales) [Col. 145WH] 

Debate on motion for Adjournment 

Written Ministerial Statements [Col. 23WS] 

Petition [Col. 5P] 

Observations 

Written Answers to Questions [Col. 431W] [see index inside back page]

chan77

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?