Thursday
12 June 2014
Volume 582
No. 6
HOUSE OF COMMONS
OFFICIAL REPORT
PARLIAMENTARY
DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday 12 June 2014
£5·00
© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2014
This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence,
which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/.
671
672
12 JUNE 2014
House of Commons
However, we will examine method of slaughter labelling
when the European Commission produces its report,
which is expected in the autumn.
Thursday 12 June 2014
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab): Farmers and food
producers raise the issue of labelling often with me and
other Members. Can the Minister assure the House that
his Department is doing everything it can to have clear
labelling on all packaging, particularly after the horsemeat
crisis and various other issues, so that we can have
country of origin and even region of origin labelling on
our packaging?
The House met at half-past Nine o’clock
PRAYERS
[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]
BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS
SPOLIATION ADVISORY PANEL
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That
she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid
before this House a Return of the Report from Sir Donnell
Deeny, Chairman of the Spoliation Advisory Panel, dated 12 June
2014, in respect of a painted wooden tablet, the Biccherna Panel,
now in the possession of the British Library.—(John Penrose.)
Oral Answers to Questions
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
The Secretary of State was asked—
Halal and Kosher Meat
1. Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): If he will ensure that
all halal and kosher meat is labelled at point of sale.
[904168]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice):
In the first instance, the Government believe that it is
for retailers and food outlets to provide their customers
with such information. However, the European Commission
is currently producing a study on options for compulsory
method of slaughter labelling, and we will review the
options when the report is published later this year.
Philip Davies: The Minister is a good man, and I am
sure he must understand the strength of feeling among
the public about this issue. Surely it is in the best
interests of everyone that halal and kosher meat be
properly labelled, for the benefit of those who particularly
want to buy it and those who particularly do not.
Which consumers do the Government think will be
disadvantaged by having meat fully and properly labelled
at the point of sale?
George Eustice: I am aware of the strength of feeling
on the issue, and my hon. Friend has been a long-standing
campaigner on it, ever since his ten-minute rule Bill two
years ago. There are two difficulties with the approach
he suggests. In the case of halal meat, we must remember
that about 80% is stunned anyway, so “halal” does not
distinguish between stunned and unstunned meat. When
it comes to kosher meat, we should recall that the hind
quarters of the carcase are not deemed kosher anyway,
so an approach along the lines he suggests would not
help consumers who want to avoid unstunned meat.
George Eustice: Some new labelling requirements
from the European Union have just been put in place, to
distinguish between animals that are born, reared and
slaughtered in a particular country, reared and slaughtered
there or simply slaughtered there. That is a major
improvement. We have stopped short of having compulsory
country of origin labelling on processed foods, because
the European Commission report suggested that it would
be incredibly expensive to implement. However, we do
encourage voluntary labelling on such products, and
there has been widespread uptake of that.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): I am sure my
constituents in Kettering would want to see halal and
kosher meat labelled as such. Although the Minister is a
good man, the response drafted for him by his Department
was weak and pathetic. If we wait for the European
Commission to rule, we will have to wait for ever. If his
objection is that there is no distinction between stunned
and non-stunned meat, why not label meat as such?
Why cannot the UK do that ahead of the European
Commission?
George Eustice: The advice we have received is that it
would be better to introduce such regulation at European
level. A number of other countries have considered it,
including Spain and France, and have run into difficulties.
However, my hon. Friend makes a good point—if one
were to introduce compulsory method of slaughter
labelling, I think one would go not for labelling as halal
or kosher, for the reasons I gave earlier, but for labelling
as stunned or unstunned.
Dangerous Dogs Strategy
2. Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab): What recent steps he
has taken to implement the Government’s strategy on
dangerous dogs; and if he will make a statement.
[904169]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice):
On 13 May, new amendments to the Dangerous Dogs
Act 1991 came into force, including higher sentences for
dog attacks, an extension of the offence of a dog being
dangerously out of control to all places, including private
places, and a specific offence for a dog attack on an
assistance dog.
Ian Lavery: In my constituency there has been a spate
of vicious dangerous dog attacks, the latest on an
eight-year-old girl named Grace Lucas, who suffered
horrible injuries to her face. The real problems are a
673
Oral Answers
12 JUNE 2014
lack of education and, of course, irresponsible dog
ownership. What are the Government doing to tackle
those important issues?
George Eustice: The hon. Gentleman makes a good
point. Before I became a Minister, I followed the issue
closely from the Back Benches. We are doing two things.
Later this year we will introduce community protection
notices, which will introduce new powers, for instance
to issue orders to require an owner to keep their dog on
a lead, muzzle their dog or put postbox guards on their
door. In extreme cases, there will be powers to insist on
a dog being neutered. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman
about responsible dog ownership. That is why we are
clear that anybody who is breeding dogs for sale should
have a licence.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con): I recently
attended a free Dogs Trust chipping event in Blacon in
my constituency, and I noticed that a lot of people were
unaware that it will be compulsory to have dogs chipped
in England from 2016, and Wales from 2015. What is
the Minister doing to ensure that dog owners are aware
that that will be compulsory from 2016?
George Eustice: That is an important point and we
must ensure that dog owners are aware of those proposals.
We are working with veterinary practices across the
country to ensure that they know about them and are
passing the information on to dog owners. We will also
run a communications exercise in the press to raise the
issue.
Flooding
3. Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab):
What steps the Government have taken to respond to
[904170]
recent flooding.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson):
The Government have committed more than £560 million
in support of those affected by the recent flooding.
That includes an extra £270 million to repair and maintain
critical defences that were damaged in the winter storms,
targeted help for households through the repair and
renew grant and council tax relief, and help for farmers
and fishermen with funding for repairs through existing
schemes. We have also provided businesses with business
rate relief and a £10 million hardship fund.
Mrs Lewell-Buck: I thank the Minister for his response.
Despite the lessons of this winter, the Environment
Agency is still set to lose hundreds of front-line staff
because of DEFRA budget cuts. The agency’s chief
executive has admitted that that will mean fewer resources
for maintenance work. Does the Minister think it is
responsible to cut the agency’s resources at a time when
flood risk is increasing?
Dan Rogerson: The Secretary of State and I work
closely with the Environment Agency and talk to it
about its key responsibilities. I met the chief executive
yesterday to discuss issues of waste crime, and so on.
He was clear that front-line vital services provided by
the agency are protected, and it will use the expertise of
more than 10,000 staff who will be in place throughout
this year to do their work. They do a fine job.
Oral Answers
674
14. [904185] Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con):
Will my hon. Friend meet me and a representative from
Cornwall council to resolve funding for areas around
my constituency that were damaged by floods and in
this year’s storms?
Dan Rogerson: I will meet Cornwall council tomorrow
and we can discuss those issues. I do not know whether
my hon. Friend or a member of her staff will be there,
but I will be happy to raise any local issues with the
council so that we can work through them.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab): In February, the
Prime Minister promised that “money is no object” in
the Government’s response to the winter floods. Four
months on, only £530,000 has been paid to farmers out
of the supposed £10 million available in the farming
recovery fund, and only £2,320 has been paid to fishermen
out of the supposed £74,000 approved under the support
for fishermen fund. Why is that much-needed support
not getting to the people it is supposed to be helping?
Dan Rogerson: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that
there is nothing “supposed” about those totals, and the
money is there for people to bid for—the key question is
encouraging people to do so. My hon. Friends and I, as
well as agricultural shows, for example, continue to
emphasise that people should apply for that money, and
we have simplified the system. Many applications are
currently being processed, and I encourage all people
eligible for those funds—whether farming, fishing or
the other funds I have set out—to apply and make use
of that money.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): Somerset
is no longer flooded and dredging has started, which is
good news. The Minister will know that one of our key
asks is to have a sustainable future for maintenance,
which involves setting up a Somerset rivers authority
with its own revenue stream. Will the Minister update
us on what progress has been made on that?
Dan Rogerson: My hon. Friend and other Somerset
Members have, understandably, consistently raised that
issue, and I am delighted that the strategy put in place
to deal with such matters is moving forward. Someone
has been appointed to take the lead on that, and the
Secretary of State was in the area last week. I spoke to
people at the Royal Bath and West show, and I am
delighted that all the measures that people think will
make a difference locally can now be taken forward.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con): To underline the
fact that the Government are directing funds to flood
defences, will the Minister reassure me that appropriate
funding will be available for maintenance and necessary
new infrastructure to defend the Severn estuary?
Dan Rogerson: During this financial year the
Environment Agency will invest £380,000 in maintaining
flood defences and structures on the Severn estuary in
Gloucestershire, and an additional £2 million will be
invested to repair flood defences and structures damaged
during the winter floods.
675
Oral Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Farmers and Food Producers (New Markets)
4. Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough)
(Con): What progress he is making on opening up new
markets to British farmers and food producers. [904171]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice):
In 2013 we opened 112 markets for animals and animal
products, helping increase exports to non-EU markets
by £179 million, to £1.35 billion. We continue to negotiate
with third countries, and so far in 2014 have opened
54 new markets.
Andrew Jones: Building on that success and the growing
reputation for British food and drink abroad, which I
know from my own experience as an exporter in the
sector, what plans do the Government have to use
international sporting events, such as the Grand Depart
of the Tour de France which arrives in Harrogate and
Knaresborough in just three weeks, as a platform further
to promote that success?
George Eustice: My hon. Friend has been an enthusiast
for this event coming through his constituency. He
raises an important point. We will be looking to use all
opportunities we can to promote British foods. Major
sporting events are an excellent way for companies to
showcase their products. UK Trade & Investment Yorkshire
and the Humber is bringing in a series of buyers from
around the world to meet local companies at a “meet
the buyer” event at the Carriageworks in Leeds on
Wednesday 2 July. Many of those buyers will then travel
on to the International Festival for Business in Liverpool.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): Our
egg producers have been outraged to learn that Italy
will face no financial penalties for its failure to implement
the EU directive that outlaws battery cages. Our poultry
farmers have invested millions of pounds to comply
with the law, and, as a result, have put themselves at a
competitive disadvantage in very tough international
market. Why does the UK implement EU directives
that other countries see fit to ignore, and what will the
Government do to support our poultry sector?
George Eustice: The Government have consistently
raised concerns about other member states not complying
with the rules on battery cages that were introduced two
years ago. It is fair to say that the Commission has
taken this matter seriously and has brought some cases
against some member states in the European Court of
Justice. We continue to maintain pressure on the
Commission, but I believe it takes the matter seriously
and is taking the appropriate action.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): I
draw the attention of the House to my entry in the
Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The Minister will be aware of the drastic reduction in
farm-gate beef prices and the effect that has had on
confidence in the sector. Will the Minister tell us why he
thinks that reduction has taken place? What is he doing
to find other markets that will encourage an increase?
George Eustice: The hon. Gentleman makes an important
point. This is one of the key issues being raised with
Ministers as we go around agricultural shows. We will
Oral Answers
676
have a summit on the matter before the summer recess.
A number of factors are driving this: it is partly due to
changes in global commodity prices, but it is also clear
that in some cases supermarkets are taking a larger
margin than before. Regarding solutions, we are keen to
open new export markets for British beef so that farmers
can get a better price. We are also keen to ensure that
there is fair contracting between farmers and processors,
and between processors and retailers.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP): The
Minister will be aware of my correspondence on the
export of pork to China. From his correspondence to
me on 8 May, I know that inspections are to take place
with the authorities in Northern Ireland, as DEFRA
regulates the negotiations on behalf of the whole of the
UK. Will the Minister advise the House on when those
inspections will take place? What is the possibility of
approval following on from that?
George Eustice: The hon. Lady has raised this issue
with me a number of times and we have had meetings
on it. It was also raised with me at a meeting in
Northern Ireland at the beginning of this year, and we
continue to raise it with the Chinese authorities. When
Mr Zhi, the Chinese farming Minister, was in the UK in
April we took the opportunity to raise it again. We want
more meat processors to be able to export pork to
China and we need clearance for their plants. We will
continue to keep up the pressure.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con): Exporting
beef would improve the market here, and I know the
Secretary of State has done an excellent job in China.
Japan still bans our beef, right back from the days of
BSE. We now have BSE completely under control, so it
is time those markets were opened up again. Will the
Secretary of State and the Minister do their very best to
make sure that happens?
George Eustice: All I can say to my hon. Friend, who
has been a champion of this industry for many years, is
that we are working on many different fronts to create
new markets. In the past year, we have opened markets
for breeding cattle to countries such as China, for pig
meat to Chile and for dairy to Cuba. In the year ahead,
we will continue to look at exporting beef to Singapore
and poultry meat to Papua New Guinea. The country is
working incredibly hard to open as many new export
markets as possible.
Pilot Badger Culls (Somerset and Gloucestershire)
5. Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab): What steps he
plans to take to ensure that the monitoring of the pilot
badger culls in Somerset and Gloucestershire is
[904172]
independently scientifically evaluated.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson): DEFRA is currently
working closely with Natural England and the Animal
Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency to develop
the detail of how the monitoring will be implemented,
including auditing and evaluation procedures. The results
and outcome of the monitoring of this year’s culls will
be made publicly available after they have been completed.
677
Oral Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Mr Hanson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State
for that reply. Will he ensure that, in addition to that
scientific examination, he also meets with the Welsh
Assembly Minister who is dealing with this matter in
Wales—not too far from his own constituency—where
an alternative method of vaccination is being undertaken?
Will the Secretary of State agree to evaluate that as part
of the process as well?
Mr Paterson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman
for his question. We have regular discussions with our
counterparts across the border. We take information
from them and they take information from us, so we are
observing with interest the vaccination trial that is
taking place over 1.5% of the surface area of Wales.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab):
We learned late last year that the Government would
not allow scientific evaluation of the extensions of the
pilot culls. Then the independent experts reported that
DEFRA had failed to meet its main test for humaneness
and now we learn that Ministers have no plans to
scientifically evaluate the second phase of the pilot
culls, which are due to take place later this year. Is there
any valid reason why scientific evaluation of the culls
has been abandoned—or is the Secretary of State just
allergic to scientific advice?
Mr Paterson: I welcome the hon. Lady to her post
and congratulate her on her new position. I would like
to reassure her that it was always our intention, stated
right back in 2011, that an independent panel would
assess the first year of the pilot culls. We have had some
helpful recommendations from the panel, which we are
taking on board, but I think she is unfair and underestimates
the professionalism of the skilled staff we have in
Natural England and the AHVLA, who will continue
to monitor the culls this year.
CAP Reform
6. Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East)
(Lab): What his priorities are for further CAP reform.
[904173]
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson): I wanted to see the
last round of CAP reform continue on the trajectory set
by MacSharry and Fischler, so frankly, the end result
was disappointing. Future reform should be driven by
my departmental priorities of growing the rural economy
and improving the environment, while providing value
for money for taxpayers.
Mr Brown: Will the Secretary of State join me in
paying tribute to Sir Ben Gill, the former president of
the National Farmers Union, who led the industry
through very turbulent times some 13 years ago and
also played a significant role in a previous CAP reform
round? In doing so, can he say whether Britain will meet
the Commission’s deadline of 1 August for submitting
our greening proposals arising from the latest CAP
round and whether cash crops will be included in the
UK submission?
Mr Paterson: I very much join the right hon. Gentleman
in paying tribute to Sir Ben Gill, who only a few months
ago came to see me to promote the British apple industry
Oral Answers
678
and was still playing a most constructive part. I also pay
tribute to the role the right hon. Gentleman played
when he was the senior Minister in charge at the end of
the MacSharry period, when some serious reforms,
from which we are currently benefiting, were pushed
through. It is disappointing that that trajectory has not
been continued. It is absolutely our intention to report
to the Commission on time, on 1 August. I made a
written statement earlier this week and I made further
announcements on greening at the cereals conference
yesterday.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con): I
join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to Sir Ben
Gill, a former constituent and a very good friend to the
farming industry. Mindful of my historic interest in this
field, which is on the register, does the Secretary of
State share my disappointment that the Commons Act
2006 register is woefully inaccurate and out of date,
which means that those eligible for claims will be unable
to make them, and that we will not have the paperless
claims the Select Committee on Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs was promised when taking evidence?
Mr Paterson: I am grateful to the Chair of the Select
Committee for her question. She is right to raise some
of the technical issues that have been thrown up. It is
very much our intention that the reform should be
introduced in a manner that makes it as easy as possible
for applicants to understand, and as easy as possible for
the Rural Payments Agency to pay out, and we are
pleased to see a significant number of applications by
the digital method.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/
Co-op): The Secretary of State will be aware of the
disappointment, certainly in environmental quarters,
that the full 15% modulation was not taken up by the
Government for England—although the record for Scotland
and Northern Ireland is as open to criticism in that
respect. When it comes to any future reform, does he
accept that taxpayers cannot accept large amounts of
their money going to subsidise wealthy farmers? That
needs to be changed, so will he give that commitment
today?
Mr Paterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
his question. I remind him that we have agreed to go
for a 12% modulation, and then review the position,
having established what type of schemes are relevant,
and possibly go on to 15%. We will spend £3.5 billion
on improving the environment through our pillar 2
schemes. I am completely clear that I would like to
continue the trajectory set in train by MacSharry and
Fischler, whereby decisions pertaining to what crops
are grown and what animals are raised should be left to
the market, but there is a very real role for taxpayers’
money to be spent compensating landowners and farmers
for the environmental work in respect of which there is
no obvious market mechanism.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con): I would like to pay
tribute to Sir Ben Gill and to draw attention to my entry
in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does
the Secretary of State agree that any further CAP
reform has to focus on the simple issue of using farm
679
Oral Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Oral Answers
680
land to produce food because we have to tackle the
important issue of food security, which is looming more
and more and is ever-present in our society?
for food, and we should concentrate on having good,
efficient farming that produces food for our population
and enhances the environment.
Mr Paterson: My hon. Friend is spot on. There are
1 billion people hungry in today’s world and we are
heading for a further increase in population of 2 billion.
We should be aware that there is no unlimited cheap,
safe food beyond our shores—it was the position of the
last Government that there was—so we as a Government
absolutely want to see domestic food production increase.
We already have a huge task: 30% of the food eaten in
this country is imported, but could be produced here.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD): Nevertheless, the
Government have established the principle in the benefits
system of placing what I think is a reasonable cap on
taxpayer-funded handouts. Does the Secretary of State
agree that if that principle is okay for welfare recipients,
it is also right to place a reasonable cap on taxpayer-funded
handouts to people who do not actually need them?
CAP (Common Land)
7. Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): What
assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the
allocation of direct payments through pillar 1 of the
[904174]
CAP on common land.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson): We published our
assessment of the financial impact of changes to pillar
1 in chapter 7 of our response to the CAP reform
consultation. We have held discussions with stakeholders
about the future allocation of direct payments in respect
of common land. The approach for the new CAP
schemes, which begin in 2015, will take account of
fairness, the need to minimise administrative burdens
and the need to comply with the relevant European
legislation.
Mr Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for that
answer. He will have gazed out on many occasions
towards Cleeve common in my constituency. People are
concerned that if there is a future prevention of claims
for dual use, the funding will not be available to manage
the common for purposes of wildlife conservation and
indeed businesses. Will my right hon. Friend bear that
in mind when he comes to take decisions on these
matters?
Mr Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his
question. We are aware of the problem of dual use, but
it is absolutely our intention that those who have common
land should be eligible for new environmental land
management schemes, which we shall publish shortly.
Mr Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. First,
it should be put on the record that we agreed to a
degressivity of 5% of £150,000, so there is a reduction,
but I do not think we should be frightened of having
large, successful farming businesses in order to feed this
country.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): The Secretary of
State will be aware of the dispute in Northern Ireland
over the allocation of the moneys resulting from the
CAP reform. Will he do all that he can to ensure that
there will be no party-political or partisan allocations
of those moneys, and will he conduct an assessment to
encourage the Department to allocate them fairly?
Mr Paterson: One of the major changes in this round,
which we did negotiate, was absolute freedom for the
four constituent parts of the United Kingdom to reach
their own arrangements in regard to CAP reform and
the way in which it is implemented. All four regulations
are a matter for local politicians in Northern Ireland to
resolve.
Fish Stocks
8. Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con): What
recent estimate he has made of levels of UK fish
[904175]
stocks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice):
The International Council for the Exploration of the
Sea assesses the state of EU fish stocks annually. The
next round of advice for the majority of European fish
stocks, including those in UK waters, will be released
on 30 June, and will inform decisions on 2015 fishing
quotas that will be made at the 2014 December EU
Fisheries Council.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): Many are
concerned at the Government’s stance in the CAP
negotiations—opposition to proposals to cap the amount
a single farmer can receive in subsidies, for example. In
the interests of transparency, does the Secretary of
State agree that it is time for all Members to register any
CAP-related payments they receive on the Register of
Members’ Financial Interests?
Mr Amess: Given that fishing is such an important
part of Southend’s economy, it is very disappointing
that stocks of sole, plaice, cod and herring have been
depleted as a result of channel deepening via suction
dredging. Will my hon. Friend please look into that,
and ensure that the Thames estuary is pollution-free
and full of fish again?
Mr Paterson: I think that that question is one for the
House authorities—perhaps the Leader of the House
can deal with it later at business questions. I am not
frightened of large businesses producing food efficiently.
I refer back to what my hon. Friend the Member for
York Outer (Julian Sturdy) said. We should wake up to
the fact that there is not unlimited safe food beyond
these shores. There is a huge increase in world demand
George Eustice: This issue was raised with me during
a recent conference of the National Federation of
Fishermen’s Organisations, and my hon. Friend has
written to me about it as well. The chief fisheries science
adviser at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and
Aquaculture Science has subsequently overseen an initial
investigation of the issue, and has prepared a detailed
report that acknowledges that there has been a decline
681
Oral Answers
12 JUNE 2014
in stocks recently. The cause of the decline is not clear,
but some have pointed the finger at the London Gateway
development. Other possible causes include the discharge
of surface water that may contain contaminants. Another
meeting is planned for July, when next steps will be
decided on.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab): Given
that it is clearly in everyone’s interests for the UK
fishing industry to modernise and, in so doing, to use
good data to protect and grow fish stocks, why has the
Minister allowed the Marine Management Organisation
to relax its commitment to use a European Union grant
that was specifically designed to support the sector for
that purpose?
George Eustice: I do not accept that. The lion’s share
of the European maritime and fisheries fund will be
invested in selective net gear and used to support work
relating to the discard ban.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con): Responsible drift netting
plays an important role in the management of UK fish
stocks, and has been a traditional part of fishing off the
East Anglian coast for centuries. Can the Minister
confirm that the Government will ensure that the European
Commissioner’s proposed blanket ban on drift netting,
which will destroy what is left of the Lowestoft fleet, is
not introduced?
George Eustice: We are aware of the issue, and we
think that the targeting of species such as herring, bass
and salmon by UK drift net fisheries is a far cry from
the type of drift netting with which the previous ban
sought to deal in the Mediterranean. We will be negotiating
for the application of a risk-based regional approach to
ensure that the right fisheries are monitored and required
to take the appropriate litigation action when that is
necessary, without the imposition of a blanket ban on
drift netting.
Flood Protection (Government Spending)
9. Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab): What recent
discussions his Department has had with the UK
Statistics Authority on the publication of official
statistics of figures on Government spending on flood
[904176]
protection.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson):
Positive discussions have been held with the UK Statistics
Authority about the publication of flood protection
expenditure. We are in the final stages of firming up
proposals, after which we will write to the hon. Gentleman
giving the details. The robustness of the figures is
already assured by our strict finance processes, and we
will provide additional context for the benefit of a full
range of users.
Hugh Bayley: I remind the House that in February
the head of the UK Statistics Authority wrote to me
saying that the figures published by DEFRA on flood
protection spending were unreliable, and expressing a
preference for figures published in future to be qualitycontrolled by his department as official statistics. I
think that that would do a great deal to restore public
Oral Answers
682
confidence that the Government are spending what is
needed on flood protection. Can the Minister assure me
that the Department will agree to do that, and will he
make a public announcement before the summer recess?
Dan Rogerson: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a
long-standing interest in this matter, and that he has
met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to
discuss it. He will doubtless be reassured to know that
we are investing more in flood defences than the last
Government. However, it is right for us to ensure that
those figures are in the public domain. In his letter, the
chair of the UKSA said that he broadly agreed with the
statistics, but that they were not currently available for
his assessment and he would need to look at them. We
are discussing with the UKSA what it is best to do, and,
as I have said, we will write to the hon. Gentleman when
the process is complete.
Trichinella in Pigs
10. Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con): What
representations he has received on testing for trichinella
in pigs.
[904177]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice):
First, I would like to declare an interest: my brother is
the chairman of the British Lop Pig Society, and he has
made representations to me about the time it takes
some abattoirs to carry out the trichinella test, which we
are investigating.
The Food Standards Agency, which has responsibility
for this policy area, formally consulted on the changes
to trichinella testing in March 2014. Responses indicated
broad support, but also that awareness of the changes is
low.
Mr Speaker: We are grateful to brother Eustice.
Dr Coffey: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer.
Outdoor or free-range pigs are very prominent in Suffolk,
where the industry is important, and it feels there has
been a stitch-up by the FSA with the pig marketing
association. I recognise the FSA is not my hon. Friend’s
ministerial responsibility, but it is very important that
free-range and organic pigs are not literally the sacrificial
pig to satisfy the European conditions that are being
imposed.
George Eustice: I understand the point my hon. Friend
is making. There had been some indication at some
point that all pigs should be tested for trichinella. We
have tended previously to test only boars and sows that
are cull sows. However, the argument for testing only
outdoor pigs as a compromise is that outdoor pigs are
more susceptible to picking up this type of tapeworm.
Wild Boar (Forest of Dean)
11. Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): What
assessment he has made of the effect of wild boar on
the Forest of Dean and of proposals to contain their
[904179]
numbers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson):
Small numbers of wild boar can benefit biodiversity by
683
Oral Answers
12 JUNE 2014
disturbing static ecosystems, and contribute to the local
economy through wildlife tourism. However, in excessive
numbers they can also damage specific wildlife sites and
harm the tourism industry, as visitors can be put off by
the presence of boar and the visual damage they cause.
Local meetings take place every six months to consider
the situation and proposals to tackle wild boar numbers.
Mr Harper: I thank the Minister for that answer. We
have to manage wild boar to keep the population under
control. The deputy surveyor in the Forest of Dean is
doing an excellent job and has the support of the
community, including the local authority, and I would
be grateful if the Minister endorsed that good work
here at the Dispatch Box.
Dan Rogerson: I am happy to say to my hon. Friend
that I endorse the Forestry Commission’s approach,
which engages with the local community he represents
when considering the impacts of wild boar in the Forest
of Dean and setting its own cull figures. While the
Forestry Commission is neither expected nor able to
control wild boar on anyone else’s land, I would expect
it to work in co-operation with the other landowners
and the local authority, as necessary.
Topical Questions
T1. [904188] Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab):
If he will make a statement on his departmental
responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson): The priorities of the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
are growing the rural economy, improving the environment,
safeguarding animal health and safeguarding plant health.
This week we have announced, as part of the common
agricultural policy, the criteria for the implementation
of the EU’s rules on greening. While the latest round of
CAP reform is disappointing, we remain determined to
give our farmers sufficient flexibility to be free to do
what they do best—producing food—while at the same
time ensuring that we do not make the same mistakes as
the last Government by designing a payments system
that was so complicated that we saw £600 million being
taken out of the rural economy in disallowance. Over
the course of the next CAP, more than £3 billion will be
spent on improving the environment.
Julie Elliott: I thank the Secretary of State for that
answer. In March of this year in response to a question
from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East
(Kerry McCarthy), the Under-Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member
for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), stated
that the Elliott report would be published in the spring,
but we are now into June. Will the Secretary of State
enlighten us as to when we might expect the report and
a statement in this House so we can discuss the issue of
the protection of consumers from food fraud, as was
exposed by the horsemeat incident last year?
Mr Paterson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her
question. Professor Elliott produced a very interesting
interim report, and I am pleased to say some of its
Oral Answers
684
proposals have been acted on. I met him very recently
and it is absolutely our intention that the report will be
published soon.
T5. [904192] Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): The
national seed collection at Kew and the Royal Botanic
Gardens at Kew are considered by many of us to be a
national treasure. What are the Government doing to
ensure the continuing vitality and viability of Kew
Gardens?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson):
The Government of course recognise Kew’s obligations
to care for the national collections under the National
Heritage Act 1983. Against the backdrop of the deficit,
the Department has continued to offer relative protection
to Kew. Overall, the annual average of the Government’s
funding of Kew over this spending review period is
greater than that of the last. We continue to work with
Kew as it puts in place plans to raise revenue and we
continue to invest in the excellent work it does.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab): DEFRA
has just published “Making the most of our evidence”—I
have a copy here—which makes the ludicrous claim that
the Department is in favour of science-based policy
making. I note that the foreword is by the Under-Secretary
in the other place, Lord de Mauley, not by the Secretary
of State, so will the Secretary of State confirm whether
he has read it?
Mr Paterson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her
question. I read documents pertaining to my job as the
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs.
Maria Eagle: That is an interesting reply. Which of
the unscientific policies insisted on by the Secretary
of State makes the most of our evidence? Is it his denial
of climate change? Is it his ineffective and inhumane
badger culls? Is it his fantasy biodegradable plastic
bags? Or is it his national air quality strategy, which
would make air pollution worse? Does this not illustrate
that in practice the Secretary of State, who appears to
be allergic to science, routinely ignores evidence in
favour of his own eccentric, ideological views?
Mr Paterson: The hon. Lady has had months and
months to work out that splendid rhetorical blast—I
get on with the day job. I was at the cereals show
yesterday talking to real farmers who are producing
food, and welcoming the first investment in this country
by Bayer— following our agri-tech policy—bringing in
wheat testing and leading on to the breeding of wheat.
That is what an active Department does. [Laughter.]
T7. [904195] Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con): Have
Ministers been able to complete an assessment of the
Environment Agency’s proposals to strengthen flood
defences to protect the port of Immingham and the
villages of New Holland and Barrow Haven, on the
south bank of the Humber, following the December
tidal surge? When will they be able to make an
announcement?
685
Oral Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Dan Rogerson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited the area
with him during the flooding. Obviously, we will take
advice from the Environment Agency and all the local
bodies involved when coming up with plans to protect
the area better. The Department for Transport will be
included in that, given all the work it will be doing
around the port of Immingham.
Mr Speaker: I am very glad that the hon. Member for
Brent North (Barry Gardiner) has recovered his composure.
I was genuinely concerned that his sides might literally
split.
T2. [904189] Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/
Co-op): If the Secretary of State is so assiduous and so
passionate, how come he got nothing in the Queen’s
Speech on the environment—the only thing mentioned
is shale gas and fracking? Has he heard the “Farming
Today” programme recently, which described the
common agricultural policy deal as a “greenwash”
which will do nothing for wildlife in this country?
Mr Paterson: I listened to “Farming Today” yesterday
and today, and I made it very clear that this is a
disappointing CAP reform. The hon. Gentleman might
wish to reflect that his previous leader, Mr Tony Blair,
gave away a huge slug of our national rebate in return
for CAP reform and totally failed to deliver. We are
going to deliver £3.5 billion through our pillar 2 schemes
for environmental work which he will approve of.
[904196] Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con): Since
T8.
May 2010, the Environment Agency has spent about
£11.7 million in defending Crawley through improved
flood defences, but during this wettest winter on record
the area of Ifield Green was still affected. May I have
assurances from the Department that it will press
Crawley borough council to co-operate fully on further
flood defence schemes?
Dan Rogerson: I agree that that partnership working
is crucial to finding solutions in flood risk management,
and I strongly encourage all parties, including Crawley
borough council, to continue to work closely and to
co-operate on flood risk management in the Crawley
area.
T3. [904190] Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab): I
never thought it would be possible that in this day and
age, in one of the richest countries in the world,
I would see my local churches and charities going out
collecting money for food banks. Will the Minister pay
tribute to those kind and caring people? Is this not in
stark contrast to this rotten Government, who shower
gifts on the wealthy while they watch the poor go
hungry?
George Eustice: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman
in welcoming the great work that is done by the food
banks. I regularly visit one in my own constituency that
does very good work, and we should celebrate that. On
the wider point about food prices, which the Department
is responsible for looking at, it is important to note that
in the year to the end of April, food price inflation was
Oral Answers
686
down to 0.5% and food prices have actually fallen in the
past couple of months, so this is now significantly
below average inflation in the economy.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con): The
removal of notifiable disease status for contagious equine
metritis and equine viral arteritis is causing much concern
in the world-class blood stock industry in this country.
Is the Minister aware that the export of horses from the
UK to Hong Kong, India, Qatar, New Zealand, Saudi
Arabia, UAE and other countries is likely to be hit
because notifiable status is a prerequisite for horses in
those countries?
George Eustice: I had the opportunity to meet my
hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for West
Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), the Minister for Skills and
Enterprise, with a delegation from the Thoroughbred
Breeders’ Association. I understand the points they are
making. Although those two diseases have a low impact
and can be prevented through the application of the
industry’s codes of practice, there could be some concerns
about the impact on trade. That is why I have asked
officials to look at the matter closely, to reassess the
impacts on the trade, and to investigate alternative ways
forward, such as burden sharing with the industry. I can
assure my hon. Friend that we are looking at this closely
and will take his views into account.
T4. [904191] Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): More than
2 million households in England and Wales are
spending more than 5% of their household income on
water bills. Will the Secretary of State explain exactly
what the plans the Government have to give Ofwat
more powers or to bring in measures that will require
all water companies to tackle water bills for everybody,
particularly for that 5% of households?
Dan Rogerson: I thank the hon. Lady for drawing my
attention to what is happening with water bills. As
companies are coming up to the price review period,
bills will be levelling off or dropping. It is therefore vital
that we have a strong regulator, so extra powers are
needed. It is a strong message from Government that we
are supporting it in its work as a good independent
regulator, and that will lead to better deals for consumers.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): I know that the
Secretary of State intends to drive a hard bargain with
the insurance industry, so he will be shocked to learn
that a business in Bradford-on-Avon that was devastated
by the floods at Christmas has had its business rate
relief deducted from the assessment of its losses by its
insurer. Clearly, it is not the Government’s intention
that business rate relief should be a sop to the insurance
industry, so will he use his relationship with the industry
to ensure that this practice ends?
Dan Rogerson: I and Ministers from other Departments
hold regular round-table meetings with the insurance
industry, and I will be sure to raise the issue that my
hon. Friend has mentioned this morning.
T6. [904194] Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab): With
beef prices falling, beef farmers in my constituency
are keen to ensure that the Department uses its good
687
Oral Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Oral Answers
688
offices to increase public procurement of beef for the
defence industry, national health service, schools and
others. Will the Minister please look at that urgently?
passion and grief that people in my constituency experienced
over the great work and life of a 19-year-old who died
of cancer?
George Eustice: I can confirm that Peter Bonfield is
currently doing a piece of work for us on how we might
improve the Government’s buying standard and have a
more balanced approach to procurement so that price is
not the only determinant. He is working on that and we
expect to publish details of that plan later this year.
Sir Tony Baldry: I agree that the experience of holding
a vigil at Lichfield cathedral for Stephen Sutton helped
to focus national attention on the remarkable courage
and exuberance with which Stephen lived his last three
years of life. He managed to raise £4 million for the
Teenage Cancer Trust by telling his story and through
his determination to make every moment of his life
count.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con): The collapse
in beef prices is having a very damaging effect on the
market. What steps can the Government take to ensure
that where cheap imports from eastern Europe are for
sale on supermarket shelves, shoppers know that they
are cheap imports?
George Eustice: There is a requirement for country of
origin labelling on all fresh meat. We are holding a
summit later this summer to look at the problems
experienced by the meat industry. It will consider those
issues and how we might increase exports of beef.
T9. [904197] Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View)
(Lab): My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and
Halewood (Maria Eagle) highlighted the importance
of science-based policy making. Will the Minister
tell the House how often the Marine Management
Organisation’s scientific group has met since it was set
up in 2010?
George Eustice: I am afraid that I do not have that
information to hand, but I will get in touch with the
hon. Lady and give her that information.
CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
The right hon. Member for Banbury, representing the
Church Commissioners, was asked—
Stephen Sutton
1. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): If he will
visit Lichfield cathedral to discuss the service of
remembrance and celebration of the life of Stephen
[904158]
Sutton.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony
Baldry): I am always happy to visit Lichfield cathedral.
The whole country will have celebrated the life and
achievements of Stephen Sutton. The recent service of
remembrance and celebration at Lichfield cathedral
demonstrates the importance of cathedrals as a focus
for unity at times of local and national celebration,
commemoration and mourning.
Michael Fabricant: It is a shame in this instance that
the Archbishop of Canterbury is not empowered to
confer sainthoods. Will my right hon. Friend join me in
congratulating Adrian Dorber, the dean of Lichfield
cathedral, on seizing the moment and taking advantage,
in the best possible way, of the great outpouring of
ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing
the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission,
was asked—
Imprints in Social Media
2. Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): What
discussions the Committee has had with the Electoral
Commission on updating guidance on the use of
imprints in social media.
[904159]
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon): In United
Kingdom elections there is no legal requirement for
imprints to be used in social media. However, the Electoral
Commission’s guidance recommends as good practice
that all campaign material should contain information
equivalent to an imprint so that the identity of the
campaigner is clear.
Dr Huppert: Last month my constituent Michael
Abberton was visited by the police after a UKIP councillor
complained about his tweeting a fact-check list of UKIP’s
policies. That was clearly absurd, although I can see
why UKIP did not want people to know its policies, and
the police have apologised to my constituent. This raises
concerns about the guidance, which has not been updated
recently. Will the hon. Gentleman ask the commission
to look at this urgently and produce more up-to-date
guidance ahead of next year’s elections?
Mr Streeter: I think the guidance is clear enough. The
issue is whether the Government are going to introduce
as a matter of law the need for an imprint on social
media campaigning material. As I understand it, that is
a matter that the Government are still considering.
CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
The right hon. Member for Banbury, representing the
Church Commissioners, was asked—
Chaplains in Schools and Academies
3. Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con): What
estimate the Church Commissioners have made of the
number of chaplains in schools and academies. [904160]
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony
Baldry): There are nearly 380 Anglican chaplains working
in schools. A recent report by the National Society
found that a growing number of schools are paying for
salaried chaplains.
689
Oral Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Martin Vickers: I thank my right hon. Friend for his
reply. Does he agree that school chaplains help to
further the work of the Church in encouraging the
spiritual development of our young people and giving
them a better understanding of the pressures pertaining
to modern society?
Sir Tony Baldry: I do agree with my hon. Friend. As
Her Majesty the Queen made clear in a speech at
Lambeth palace in 2012, a long part of our nation’s
tradition has been for the Church of England to promote
tolerance and understanding of other faiths. An increase
in the number of chaplains in schools furthers the
promotion of tolerance and community integration.
ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing
the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission,
was asked—
Electoral Roll Status
4. Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): If the
commission will establish a process whereby every time
a voter comes into contact with a public agency their
electoral roll status is confirmed and non-registrants
[904162]
are encouraged to apply.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon): It would be
for the Government, not the Electoral Commission, to
establish such a process. My hon. Friend may wish
to raise the issue with the Cabinet Office directly, and
probably already has. Although there will undoubtedly
be practical and cost implications that the Government
will need to consider carefully, the commission can see
the benefits of involving public agencies in encouraging
electoral registration applications. The commission will
discuss this further with the Cabinet Office as the transition
to individual electoral registration continues.
Mr Hollobone: I thank my hon. Friend for that
answer. I am just a humble Back Bencher and my voice
does not go very far in the Cabinet Office, but his
considerable gravitas and that of the Electoral Commission
would carry far more weight than my opinion. I welcome
the Electoral Commission’s tentative endorsement of
the proposal and urge it to meet the Cabinet Office
urgently to see how it might be advanced.
Mr Streeter: I too am exceedingly humble but I
certainly take my hon. Friend’s point. The Electoral
Commission thinks there is merit in the scheme, although
there are practical obstacles. For example, it would be
necessary for every public servant at the point of contact
with a member of the public to have access to the
electoral register there and then to be able to give
specific advice. The scheme is well worth considering as
we all want to see as many people as possible entered on
the public register.
CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
The right hon. Member for Banbury, representing the
Church Commissioners, was asked—
Meriam Ibrahim
5. Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): What
representations the Church of England has made on
[904163]
Meriam Ibrahim.
Oral Answers
690
7. Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con): What
representations the Church of England has made on
[904165]
Meriam Ibrahim.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony
Baldry): The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church
of England wholeheartedly supported the call from the
Christian Muslim Forum for the death sentence against
Meriam Ibrahim to be dropped. The Church of England
will continue to support the Archbishop of Sudan on
this issue.
Mr Nuttall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that
reply. The plight of Meriam Ibrahim is of great concern
to churches throughout the country. St Anne’s parish
church, Tottington, in the diocese of Manchester, where
I serve as church warden, wrote to the Sudanese embassy
two weeks ago setting out our concerns. Will my right
hon. Friend urge the leaders of the Church of England
to do all they can to keep up the pressure to secure the
freedom of this lady?
Sir Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend is right, and his
constituents demonstrate that this concern is shared
throughout the country. I hope that other communities
and individuals who feel similarly will also write to the
Sudanese embassy and that parliamentary colleagues
will support early-day motion 71, tabled in my name,
which has support from Members in all parts of the
House.
Andrew Stephenson: A number of Pendle residents
have contacted me to express their concern about this
case and what it means for the Christian community in
Sudan. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the issue is
that the alleged crime of apostasy is in direct conflict
with fundamental human rights, as set out in the UN
universal declaration of human rights?
Sir Tony Baldry: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend,
and that point was reinforced yesterday by the Prime
Minister. Article 18 of the UN universal declaration of
human rights seeks to enshrine freedom of religion and
the freedom to change one’s religion, whereas the alleged
offence of apostasy makes it a hanging offence to
change one’s religion. They are clearly incompatible. In
international law, fundamental universal UN human
rights must prevail.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): The case of
Meriam Ibrahim has come to particular public attention
because it is so shocking in its detail, but of course she
is just one of many people across the world who are
being persecuted for their religious faith. What outreach
work is the Church of England doing with other Christian
Churches in the countries where persecution of Christians
is a significant issue?
Sir Tony Baldry: As at least two debates in this House
in recent months have demonstrated, article 18 of the
UN declaration of human rights seems to be an orphaned
right. The Church of England and other faith groups
have been working hard to ensure that the international
community and the UN Human Rights Council pay
proper regard and respect to article 18.
691
Oral Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Listed Buildings (Repairs)
6. Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): What
estimate has been made of the cost of the backlog of
repairs to the Church of England’s listed buildings.
[904164]
Sir Tony Baldry: The Church of England’s 12,500 listed
churches have an estimated backlog of repairs of
£60 million, and the 42 cathedrals have an estimated
backlog of £87 million over the next five years to keep
them open and watertight.
Helen Goodman: I am grateful to the right hon.
Gentleman for that response. I recently visited Lincoln
cathedral and met the dean, who told me that that
cathedral has a backlog of repairs of £16.5 million. The
right hon. Gentleman has done well to get money out of
the Treasury, but in fact Lincoln could eat up all that
money. What more does he think we could do to ensure
that we preserve these vital national assets?
Sir Tony Baldry: The hon. Lady is correct: this is
quite a challenge, but I think one needs to recognise that
there is a number of pots of money available. There is
the very welcome £20 million the Chancellor of the
Exchequer recently awarded to cathedrals to keep for
immediate repairs; the Heritage Lottery Fund has put
aside £25 million a year for necessary repairs; the listed
places of worship scheme totals £42 million a year; and
of course we have to be grateful to the wider public,
who raise approximately £115 million each year to
spend on repairs to their parish church buildings. The
hon. Lady is a Front-Bench spokesperson for her party
on culture, media and sport, and I am always willing to
discuss with her other ways she thinks further funds can
be found.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con):
Thousands of small parish churches are in desperate
need of urgent repairs to heating, lighting and electrical
systems, as well as roof repairs. How much or what
proportion of the amounts that my right hon. Friend
just mentioned relate to VAT due on those repairs?
Sir Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend may recall that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer made very generous provision
of, if I recall correctly, £25 million to help to offset VAT
costs on church repairs, so there is no reason why
churches should be deterred from carrying out repairs
and restoration by concerns about VAT bills.
Financial Services
8. Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con): What
progress the Church of England has made on support
for the provision of responsible financial services.
[904166]
Oral Answers
692
work through the clergy credit union, the use of premises,
the promotion of volunteering and financial education
in Church schools?
Sir Tony Baldry: I entirely agree that progress is being
made. Credit unions are now being set up in towns and
cities across the country. I refer my hon. Friend and the
entire House—it is always good to see so many Members
present for Church Commissioner questions—to a rap
released yesterday by the Church of England entitled
“We need a union on the streets”. It underscores the
views of the Church of England on payday lending and
highlights credit unions as a better way to borrow. It
can be found at https://soundcloud.com/the-church-ofengland/we-need-a-union-on-the-streets. The chorus is:
“What we need is a union, we need a union on the streets
Everybody hand in hand, people can’t you understand”.
Biblical Literacy (Children)
9. Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op):
What steps the Church of England is taking to increase
[904167]
biblical literacy among children.
Sir Tony Baldry: It is important to remind the House
that the Education Act 1944 made religious education a
compulsory subject in schools. I do not believe it is
possible in England to properly teach religious education
without ensuring that children have a proper understanding
of Bible narratives.
Mr Sheerman: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree
that we should see it not only as religious education but
as part of our heritage and citizenship in this country,
and that the stories of Noah’s ark, Adam and Eve and
even the nativity should be part of that citizenship
education? Is he worried about the recent poll that
showed the low level of such knowledge among children
and their parents?
Sir Tony Baldry: I entirely agree. It would be very
difficult, for example, for an A-level student to understand
the work of T. S. Eliot without any knowledge of the
Bible narratives. There is a responsibility on schools to
teach religious education, and one would hope and
anticipate that they would teach the Bible and Bible
narratives as part of that. Families do that, as, of
course, do the churches through Sunday schools.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Further to those
comments on biblical literacy, will my right hon. Friend
welcome the Heart 4 Harlow and Harlow credit save
initiative, which provide help for financial affairs, particularly
beating the loan sharks? When he is next in the area,
will he visit Heart 4 Harlow, the faith community and
the credit save initiative to see what they are doing?
Sir Tony Baldry: The Archbishop of Canterbury’s
Task Group has identified a number of initiatives to
promote responsible credit and savings and is now
implementing those initiatives across the country.
Mr Speaker: Order. I would describe that as attempted
ingenuity. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to shoehorn
into the last question on the Order Paper that which he
would have put if he had been called on the previous
question, but, because I am in a generous mood, let us
hear Sir Tony.
Damian Hinds: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend
for that answer. The archbishop’s intervention has already
had a profound and welcome impact. May I encourage
the commissioners to do all they can to support that
Sir Tony Baldry: I always welcome opportunities to
visit Harlow and to support my hon. Friend, who is
such an excellent constituency Member of Parliament.
693
12 JUNE 2014
HM Passport Office
10.32 am
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford)
(Lab) (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if
she will make a statement on Her Majesty’s Passport
Office.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Mrs Theresa May): Her Majesty’s Passport Office is
receiving 350,000 more applications for passport
applications and renewals than is normal at this time
of year. This is the highest demand for 12 years. Since
January, HMPO has been putting in place extra resources
to try to make sure that people receive their new passports
in good time, but as the House will know there are still
delays in the system. As the Prime Minister said yesterday,
the number of straightforward passport applicants who
are being dealt with outside the normal three-week
waiting time is about 30,000.
Her Majesty’s Passport Office has 250 additional
staff who have been transferred from back-office roles
to front-line operations, and 650 additional staff to
work on its customer helpline. HMPO is operating
seven days a week and couriers are delivering passports
within 24 hours of them being produced. From next
week, HMPO is opening new office space in Liverpool
to help the new staff to work on processing passport
applications.
Despite those additional resources, it is clear that
HMPO is still not able to process every application it
receives within the normal three-week waiting time for
straightforward cases. At the moment, the overwhelming
majority of cases are dealt with within that time limit,
but that is, of course, no consolation to applicants who
are suffering delays and are worried about whether they
will be able to go on their summer holidays. I understand
their anxiety and the Government will do everything
they can—while maintaining the security of the
passport—to make sure people get their passports in
time.
There is no big-bang single solution so we will take a
series of measures to address the pinch points and
resourcing problems that HMPO faces. First, on resources,
I have agreed with the Foreign Secretary that people
applying to renew passports overseas for travel to the
UK will be given a 12-month extension to their existing
passport. Since we are talking about extending existing
passports—documents in which we can have a high
degree of confidence—this relieves HMPO of having to
deal with some of the most complex cases without
compromising security.
Similarly, we will put in place a process so that people
who are applying for passports overseas on behalf of
their children can be issued with emergency travel
documents for travel to the UK. Parents will still have
to provide comprehensive proof that they are the parents
before we will issue these documents, because we are
not prepared to compromise on child protection, but
again this should relieve an administrative burden on
HMPO.
These changes will allow us to free up a significant
number of trained HMPO officials to concentrate on
other applications. In addition, HMPO will increase
the number of examiners and call handlers by a further
200 staff.
HM Passport Office
694
Secondly, HMPO is addressing a series of process
points to make sure that its systems are operating
efficiently.
Thirdly, where people have an urgent need to travel,
HMPO has agreed to upgrade them: that is, their application
will be considered in full; it will be expedited in terms of
its processing, printing and delivery; and HMPO has
agreed to upgrade those people free of charge.
All these measures are designed to address the problem
that is immediately at hand. In the medium to long
term, the answer is not just to throw more staff at the
problem but to ensure that HMPO is running as efficiently
as possible and is as accountable as possible. I have
therefore asked the Home Office’s permanent secretary,
Mark Sedwill, to conduct two reviews—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker: Order. The Home Secretary’s statement
must be heard, and preferably with courtesy. There will
be plenty of opportunity for questioning, but let us hear
what the Home Secretary has to say.
Mrs May: As I said, in the medium to long term the
answer is not just to throw more staff at the problem
but to ensure that HMPO is running as efficiently as
possible and is as accountable as possible. I have therefore
asked the Home Office’s permanent secretary, Mark
Sedwill, to conduct two reviews: first, to ensure that
HMPO works as efficiently as possible, with better
processes, better customer service and better outcomes;
and, secondly, to consider whether HMPO’s agency
status should be removed, so that it can be brought into
the Home Office, reporting directly to Ministers, in line
with other parts of the immigration system since the
abolition of the UK Border Agency.
Yvette Cooper: This has been a sorry shambles from a
sorry Department and a Home Secretary who cannot
even bring herself to say that word. Government
incompetence means that people are at risk of missing
their holidays, their honeymoons and their business
trips. Every MP has been inundated with these cases
and it seems that she has not even known what was
going on.
There has been a huge turnaround in the things the
Home Secretary has to say from two days ago, when we
asked her the same questions. On Tuesday, she told us
that the Passport Office was meeting all its targets; on
Wednesday, she told us that maybe it needed more staff;
and today she says that maybe it needs some changes in
policy too. On Tuesday, she told us there was no backlog;
on Wednesday, the Prime Minister said there was. On
Tuesday, she said, “it is not true” that staff numbers
have been cut; on Wednesday, her own figures showed
that they have been cut by 600; and now she is having to
put them back.
On Tuesday, the Home Secretary told us the only
problem was rising summer demand, but now we find
out that she took over passports for foreign residents
from the Foreign Office in April, even though diplomats
warned that it was not working. On Tuesday, the Minister
for Security and Immigration said that security was not
being compromised, and now we find out that on
Monday security checks on addresses and countersignatories were dropped; and Ministers claim that they
did not have a clue what was going on. Well, that much
is certainly true.
695
HM Passport Office
12 JUNE 2014
Can the Home Secretary tell us now how bad the
situation is, not only for the straightforward cases but
for all the other cases, and what does she mean by
“straightforward” cases anyway? How long will it take
to get the system back to normal? When all her changes
are in place, what can families across Britain expect?
When did she first know there was a problem? MPs
have been warning about this issue for ages. Why did
she not know that those security checks were being
dropped? Surely she has spent the past week asking for
details about everything that has been going on. Or
perhaps she has not, because the truth is that she did
not know what was going on. She has come to this late.
She has not had her eye on the ball. She has been
distracted by other things.
It is really unfair on people who have saved up
everything for their holiday, only to see it wrecked by
the Home Secretary’s incompetence. Will she now apologise
to those facing ruined holidays, business trips or trips
back to Britain? Will she get a grip on her Department
and sort it out?
Mrs May: The shadow Home Secretary has raised a
number of issues. The Passport Office started to receive
increased numbers of applications not just in recent
weeks, but from the beginning of the year, so it took
action to increase the number of staff available to deal
with them. From January to May, over 97% of applicants
in straightforward cases received their passport within
three weeks, and over 99% received them within four
weeks, but of course that means there were applicants
who did not receive their passport within the normal
expected time. That is why the Passport Office has been
increasing the number of staff throughout this period
and will continue to do so, as I have indicated.
The shadow Home Secretary asked about the difference
between straightforward and more complex cases. A
case is straightforward when all the information is there
and the application form has been properly filled in,
signed and so forth. In those cases it is possible to deal
with a straightforward renewal very quickly. [Interruption.]
The problem comes when the right information is not
there or the correct forms have not been sent
in—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Bryant, we cannot have a
running commentary throughout the Home Secretary’s
response. Colleagues will have plenty of opportunity to
question the right hon. Lady, but her remarks must be
heard with a modicum of courtesy.
Mrs May: A case ceases to be straightforward if it is
necessary for the Passport Office to go back to the
individual to request other documents, which of course
delays the process. We are looking at part of the system
to ensure that that is being done as efficiently as possible.
The shadow Home Secretary asked about taking over
the process of passport applications from British nationals
overseas. Before March this year that was done by the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office at processing centres
worldwide. The change was made to provide better
value for the fee-payer and greater consistency in how
overseas passport applications are assessed, and to use
our expertise to better detect and prevent fraud. The
checks needed for applications from overseas can take
longer than those for applications in the UK. Security is
HM Passport Office
696
our priority and we will not issue a passport until the
necessary checks have been completed. However, as I
said in my statement, for those applying for a renewal
from overseas, where we can have confidence in the
documents that they have already had and the process
they have been through, we will be offering an extension
of 12 months.
Finally, the shadow Home Secretary raised the issue
of staff numbers, as did other Members earlier this
week. Here are the figures: in March 2012 the Passport
Office had 3,104 members of staff—[Interruption.]
Opposition Members talk about 2010, so I will make
one simple point: when we took office there were staff
in HM Passport Office who had been brought in to deal
with the new identity card. This Government scrapped
the identity card. Over the past two years the number of
staff in the Passport Office has increased from 3,104 to
3,445. That is the answer. People might say that this is
about reduced staff numbers, but actually staff numbers
have been going up over the past two years.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): The Home
Secretary has set out clearly the action that she is taking
to deal with the problem. Those listening outside this
Chamber will welcome the grip that she is showing and
will see the nonsense that we have heard from Labour
for what it is—a cheap attempt to make up for their
poor show on Monday.
Mrs May: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments
and I recognise the points he made about the attempts
from the Opposition. Outside the political arena that is
the House of Commons, we should never forget that
this is about people who are applying for their passports,
planning holidays and so forth. That is why the Passport
Office has been taking the action it has taken, and why
it is continuing to increase the number of staff to ensure
that it can meet the current demand which, as I said, is
the highest for 12 years.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab): Is
the Home Secretary aware that in the past hour I have
received an e-mail from a constituent who tells me that
her husband—[Interruption.] Here it is. My constituent
tells me that her husband received British citizenship in
March and immediately applied for a British passport;
that the Home Office totally bungled the entire procedure,
but after repeated calls and approaches from her, promised
the passport at the beginning of last week; that the
passport has not been received; that they had booked a
visit abroad to her family and have paid the airfares;
and that because of the fact that her husband has not
got the British passport and the Passport Office will not
return to him his original passport, which is still valid,
they will have to cancel the flights and lose a great deal
of money. They are in a total mess because of the Home
Secretary’s failure to administer and her arrogant refusal
to deal with individual cases. What is she going to do to
put this right?
Mrs May: No, I was not aware of the e-mail that the
right hon. Gentleman received from his constituent, but
I am aware of it now. I am sure that the right hon.
Gentleman will be taking that matter up with Ministers
and the Passport Office. I have been clear that I recognise
that there are people who are having difficulties getting
access to passport renewals or new passport applications.
697
HM Passport Office
12 JUNE 2014
[Mrs May]
The current level of applications is higher than we have
seen for 12 years. Action is being taken and will continue
to be taken by the Passport Office to try to ensure that it
can deliver on the normal rates that people expect. I am
sure that as an experienced Member of the House the
right hon. Gentleman will be using every opportunity
that he has—
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab): He
has just done so.
Mrs May: I am grateful to the hon. Member for
Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe). The right hon. Member
for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) has used
one of those opportunities, but there are other opportunities
to bring those details to the attention of the Passport
Office and to Ministers so that that case can be looked
into.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): Many people
are grateful to have heard the announcement from the
Home Secretary about the free upgrade process for
people who need their passport urgently. Can she clarify
exactly what that process entails and explain what counts
as urgent? Many people need that reassurance.
Mrs May: It will be for people to bring to the attention
of the Passport Office that they have an urgent need to
travel. We intend to make it clear on the website so that
people can go online and see that in detail and see what
the process is. In that way, they will be absolutely clear
about what they need to do and how they qualify.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab): When the
Government tried to shut Newport passport office a
few years ago, staff and unions warned at the time that
cuts would impact on the service, and they have been
proved right. It would be good if the Home Secretary
could at least acknowledge that putting the full processing
function back into Newport, along with the jobs that
we lost, would be a start. Will she also acknowledge
that it is not only the customers who are suffering badly
at present? The situation is putting stress on the staff,
such as those in the Newport office, who are under
immense pressure because of this Government’s
incompetence.
Mrs May: At the time those decisions were taken, the
point was raised in the House and Ministers responded
to it. It is absolutely right, from the Passport Office’s
point of view, that it should look at how it can provide
services as efficiently as possible. I want to make sure
that in going ahead, we review how it is providing those
processes and how it is operating its system so that we
make sure that customers are getting the best possible
service. But I return to the point that we have seen
demand levels—applications for passports—higher than
they have been for 12 years. Action has been taken and
is continuing to be taken to ensure that we can deal with
those applications.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): Will my
right hon. Friend spell out to us in the Chamber today
what the criteria are for an urgent need to travel, so that
everybody knows? Will she make arrangements to ensure
HM Passport Office
698
that constituents who wish to express concerns can do
so directly to their MPs, and that MPs can have a
special hotline to communicate with the Passport Office?
Mrs May: My hon. Friend’s point about the qualification
for urgent travel was raised by my hon. Friend the
Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), and as I said to
him earlier, the Passport Office will of course put full
details on its website. Either I or the Minister for
Security and Immigration will write urgently to Members
of Parliament with the full details, so that every Member
of Parliament is aware and can advise their constituents
fully.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/
Co-op): The Home Secretary has come to the House
today to announce a series of desperate measures in the
Passport Service—extending passports, reducing security
checks, fast-tracking some applications and adding in
many more bureaucratic hurdles to getting a passport.
Yet, as I know, Ministers receive weekly updates about
the flow of applications and turnaround. It is beyond
belief and not credible that Ministers were not aware of
this problem before it was raised in the House. When
will she and her Ministers take responsibility for this?
As a former Minister, I know that I discussed ebbs and
flows every time that I met officials in the Passport
Service, and if there was a problem, I would be on to
them about it. What is she doing to make sure that this
never happens again?
Mrs May: First, I and the Minister for Security and
Immigration have said in the House and I have said
elsewhere that for some months—since the beginning of
the year—it has been clear that the number of applications
was increasing. The flow has gone up, has steadied, and
has gone up and down. Over that period, the Passport
Office has taken action by increasing the number of
staff and by increasing the hours during which
considerations are done. It is now operating seven days
a week from 7 am to midnight, and it is looking at
increasing those hours further. The hon. Lady said that
we have relaxed the security, but there was no relaxation
of security, as I made clear in my announcement to day.
Finally, the hon. Lady talks about a series of measures
being taken. Yes, a series of measures are being taken.
As I made clear in my statement, there is no single thing
that will suddenly change the way in which the Passport
Office is able to deal with these applications. What is
necessary is not a grand political gesture, but the slow,
careful consideration that we have been giving and that
will now lead to urgent action by the Passport Office in
increasing the number of staff.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con): As part
of the very welcome review announced today, will my
right hon. Friend consider an idea put to me by the
manager of the Crown post office in Truro, which is
that Crown post offices’ new capabilities in identity
verification could be used in speeding up and further
localising the application process for the renewal of
passports?
Mrs May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the
proposal from the Crown post office in Truro. I will
ensure that it is fed into the review and given due
consideration.
699
HM Passport Office
12 JUNE 2014
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab): The
Home Secretary is now announcing a series of measures;
the problem has been ongoing and apparent not for a
couple of weeks, but for months. Members of
Parliament—myself and everyone else—have been
inundated by constituents in panic and distress. Why
has it taken so long for this problem to be recognised
and for measures to be taken to address this issue?
Mrs May: The increase in demand was recognised
earlier this year. HM Passport Office put steps in place
to deal with that increased demand. The increased
demand continued and, as a result, further steps were
put in place. Those steps included increasing the number
of staff available to deal with the applications, increasing
the number of staff on the telephone helpline, extending
the hours of operation of HM Passport Office and
working with couriers to ensure that printed passports
were delivered within a very short space of time once
they were issued. Over time, as the demand has increased,
steps have been taken. It is clear that further steps need
to be taken, and they are being taken.
HM Passport Office
700
overseas. That is why we are putting those measures in
place. As I said in relation to the emergency travel
documents, parents will still have to show comprehensive
proof that the child is theirs, because child protection
must, of course, be at the forefront of our minds.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab):
Is the Home Secretary aware that it was nothing short
of idiotic to take on the responsibility for processing
passport applications from overseas at the very time
when her Department was expecting the pre-summer
surge, which happens every year? There is a bit more of
a surge this year, but it is more or less in line with the
extra people that she has. That was plainly just an
idiotic management decision.
More importantly, will the Home Secretary explain
to the House why there was not a single Government
Back Bencher at the Adjournment debate on this issue
to represent people’s interests, despite her plug for the
debate earlier that day? The Minister for Security and
Immigration, who is responsible for the Passport Office,
reassured the House on Tuesday that
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con): Does my right
hon. Friend agree that the focus for all MPs at this
difficult time of unprecedented demand should be assisting
their constituents, not engaging in cheap, smug, self-satisfied,
party political point scoring?
“We have not compromised on our checks, and will not do
so.”—[Official Report, 10 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 526.]
Mrs May: I am sure that every Member wants to help
the constituents who have come to them with concerns,
and they should indeed be doing that. We have increased
the number of people who are available through the
general helpline to individuals who wish to make inquiries
about their passports, as I said, by some 650 members
of staff. Previously, the figure was 350. Of course, all
Members of Parliament recognise that people get in
touch with their MPs about this issue because they have
a genuine concern about what is happening to their
passports. That is why we are addressing the issue and
why the Passport Office has been addressing it over the
past weeks.
Mr Speaker: Order. May I just say before the Home
Secretary responds that there is a great deal of interest,
which I am keen to accommodate, at least in part? It
would help if contributions were brief. We have the
business question to follow and the last day of the
Queen’s Speech debate is exceptionally heavily subscribed.
People will lose out, and they will lose out all the more
if there is not economy.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab): Is the
Home Secretary aware that none of her feeble excuses
today can explain away the sheer incompetence and
shambles that have again occurred on her watch?
Mrs May: I fear that I will repeat what I have been
saying, which is that demand is at its highest level for
12 years and the Passport Office has taken action over
recent weeks to meet that demand. There is still an issue
with demand. We recognise the concerns that individuals
who are applying for new passports or renewals have
about timing. That is why further action is being taken.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con): Some
of the most worrying cases that I have dealt with have
involved British nationals overseas, so I welcome in
particular the 12-month extension. The granting of
emergency travel documents for the children of British
nationals who are abroad is also extremely helpful and
welcome.
Mrs May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is
right that a number of the more complex and worrying
cases have come from those who are applying from
How was it possible for him to give that reassurance
when a letter had gone out the previous day doing
precisely that? Why does she not—
Mrs May: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will attempt to
be brief in my response.
As has been made clear publicly, Ministers were not
aware of the document to which the hon. Member for
Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) refers, and they
asked for it to be withdrawn immediately.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con):
May I say how much I appreciate my right hon. Friend
taking pragmatic steps to deal with the situation, especially
with the 12-month extension? If it gets worse, will she
perhaps consider extending that to UK citizens in this
country as a short-term measure? Does she agree that
the Passport Office had to spend £257 million after
being diverted on to an identity card scheme, and that if
it had been able to spend that money on its core
offering, perhaps this would not have happened?
Mrs May: I have already referred, of course, to the
identity card scheme.
My hon. Friend talks about the possibility of the
extension to passports being brought in domestically as
well as in overseas cases. We did examine that possibility,
and it was what the Labour Government did when they
had queues at passport offices back in 1999. To introduce
that now would have meant setting up new centres and
processes, which could have disrupted the work that the
701
HM Passport Office
12 JUNE 2014
[Mrs May]
Passport Office is already doing. That is why I believe it
is better to concentrate on dealing with the applications
that are being made.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab): Speaking
purely personally, I would prefer it if we did not talk
about throwing Government staff around.
The families who have come to me to raise their cases
have mainly been trying to get a child’s first passport.
They have pointed out to me that the Government’s
website said that they would get their passport within
three weeks, which was clearly a mistake. I know of one
family who have definitely missed their holiday. What
can be done to ensure that families in my constituency
get proper information?
Mrs May: The website has always indicated to people
what the normal expected period for a straightforward
application is. As I indicated earlier, if there is a problem
with the application, it can take longer, but we are
ensuring that the information on the website is as clear
as possible to people. I have also asked for it to be
ensured that it is absolutely clear what documents are
required, because there may be issues to do with the
type of birth certificate that is submitted, which can
lead to problems for families.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con): A constituent contacted
me on 25 April calling for a passport for his mother to
go on a family holiday, and he received the passport by
30 April and sent my office a note saying:
“Thank you for your help—it saved our holiday.”
Another constituent contacted me on 3 June and received
their passport yesterday, and they have sent me a note
saying:
“Thank you for your effort. I shall look forward to a well-earned
holiday.”
Does that not show that when urgent cases have been
brought to the Passport Office’s attention, passports
have been provided on time?
Mrs May: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments.
The point is that, as I have indicated, the vast majority
of straightforward passport applications are still being
dealt with within the time scales that people normally
expect, and we should recognise that tens of thousands
of people are having their passports sent to them and
their applications dealt with to the normally expected
timetable. When urgent cases are brought to the Passport
Office’s attention, it is doing everything it can to deal
with them expeditiously.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab):
What would the Home Secretary like to say to my
constituent Elizabeth Dey, who after more than four
weeks of waiting may well miss her honeymoon in
10 days’ time?
Mrs May: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman gets in
touch with the Passport Office—
Thomas Docherty: I have done that already.
Mrs May: Then if the hon. Gentleman would like to
give the details to the Minister for Security and Immigration,
we will ensure that the case is pursued.
HM Passport Office
702
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): My constituents in
Dover and Deal are deeply concerned about border
security, and whatever pressure the Home Secretary
may be put under by a Labour party that has a great
tradition of allowing anyone to just wander in, will she
ensure that the safety and security of our borders and
passports are not compromised?
Mrs May: That is absolutely clear. That is the attitude
that we have taken throughout the immigration system.
For the first time ever, we have an operating mandate
for our Border Force and our border security, and as I
said earlier in response to the shadow Home Secretary,
one of the reasons for bringing overseas passport
applications into HMPO was to have greater consistency
in how they are assessed and enable expertise to be used
in better detecting fraud.
Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab): We all have
constituents who have made straightforward applications
within Home Office guidelines and who a day or two
before they flew were forced to pay £55 for an upgrade
to get their passports. What consideration is being given
to repay that money?
Mrs May: I recognise that some people have paid
sums of money to ensure that their passport application
was upgraded, and I have indicated that for urgent
travel in the future we will be doing that free of charge. I
recognise that people have had those difficulties, and
that there are still people with applications in the system
that are concerning them. That is why we have taken the
steps outlined today.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): Like
other Members, I have had numerous cases of people
who were waiting for their passports. Fortunately, they
have all been sorted, although at very short notice in
some cases. It is clear that cases are dealt with differently
when people go to their MPs. How can we ensure that
people who do not go to their MPs receive the same
service and have their complaints dealt with in the same
way as though they had gone to their MP?
Mrs May: MPs take up issues in many areas of
activity, and they are dealt with perhaps more expeditiously
than they would be normally. That is part of the issues
that we deal with in our constituency surgeries and so
forth. However, the hon. Gentleman is right: we must
ensure that information and advice is provided and that
when people complain and apply to the Passport Office
and raise an issue about their passport, they are dealt
with properly and quickly and get the proper information.
That is why more staff have been brought in to answer
general inquiries, which are often from people chasing
the progress of their passport. The Passport Office is
making every effort to ensure that people get the service
they require, so that it is not necessary for people to go
to their MPs or feel that that is the only way they can
get that service.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP):
The Home Secretary will be more than aware that the
Scottish summer school holidays come around a lot
quicker than in England. This fiasco therefore has a
more immediate impact on my constituents in Scotland,
yet the Home Office has shed 150 processing staff in the
703
HM Passport Office
12 JUNE 2014
Glasgow office, adding to the crisis. Will the Home
Secretary acknowledge the particular difficulty in Scotland,
and will she promise all those Scots who want to go on
their summer holidays that they will get their passports?
Mrs May: As I have indicated, steps are being taken
to address the demand we are seeing and increase the
ability to process the applications. That is against the
background of a real recognition that many people are
applying to renew their passport or for new passports at
this time because they want to go on holiday in the
summer. We recognise that and are making every effort
to address the issue.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con): May I, like others,
welcome the changes for children who need to travel to
the UK? I have constituents with a very poorly child
overseas who may need to get back to London quickly
for treatment, and they will welcome today’s
announcements. Can the Home Secretary give the House
more information? She mentioned urgent travel documents.
Through what route can they be obtained, to save
constituents such as mine from having to go all around
the system?
Mrs May: The process for getting emergency travel
documents would be to apply to the British embassy or
high commission overseas, just as they would have done
for their initial passport application.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab): My constituent
was hoping to go on holiday in two weeks’ time. She
applied in February this year for passports for three
children. She called the Passport Office on 8 May to
find out the progress of the application, and was told by
a member of staff that they would call back. No call
was received. She called again on 18 May and was told
by staff that they would look into it. No call was
received. She contacted the Passport Office again on
29 May, and was told by staff that her daughter’s birth
certificate had been mislaid. On 30 May she sent another
birth certificate by recorded delivery, and on 3 June she
was told that the application was with the examination
team. She will be going on holiday in just two weeks.
My office has contacted the MPs hotline on several
occasions, but after a bit it just goes dead. We have
continued to ring, but not once has anyone answered
the phone.
Mrs May: I accept that the service the right hon.
Lady and her constituent received is not good enough.
If she makes the details available, we will ensure that
HMPO chases up that particular case. As I said earlier,
more staff are being put on the general inquiries hotline
to try to ensure that people do not receive the same
response that she and her constituent received when
they tried to get information—that was not good enough.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Does my right hon.
Friend not agree that what hard-working constituents
in Harlow are really concerned about is the fact that this
Government cut the cost of passports for families saving
for their holidays, whereas the previous Government
used them as a stealth tax?
Mrs May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding
us of that. In all the debates on the Passport Office,
people have lost sight of the fact that the Government
HM Passport Office
704
were able to cut the cost of passports. That will have
been welcomed by hard-working people in Harlow and
across the country.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): Part
of the anger and frustration is that these problems were
not just predictable—they were predicted. They were
predicted by the front-line staff. Will the Home Secretary
review the correspondence of the past two years, at
least, from Public and Commercial Services Union front-line
staff representatives, who wrote consistently that
“the closure of 22 interview offices and one application processing
centre and the sacking of 315 staff…around one in 10 of the
workforce…has been a major factor in creating this current
crisis.”?
She has set up a review. It is best to talk to the front-line
staff doing the job. Will she meet a delegation of PCS
representatives from the front line to talk about how we
can go forward urgently and in the long term?
Mrs May: The point of the review, as the hon.
Gentleman understands, is to see whether the processes
are the best possible we can have in place. As part of
that review, I would certainly expect information to
be taken from front-line staff, not just from union
representatives in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests.
I will certainly look at the possibility, which happens
anyway, of Ministers—either myself or the Immigration
Minister—meeting front-line staff. That is what I think
is important: to meet front-line staff. The views of a
variety of people will be taken in the review, but I return
to a point I made earlier and to which the hon. Gentleman
did not refer: the very high level of demand experienced
by the Passport Office. It has already taken steps to deal
with that.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con): I welcome
this balanced set of measures from the Home Secretary.
Will she confirm that everything possible is being done
to increase short-term staffing capacity, while being
consistent with the need to uphold quality assurance
and security?
Mrs May: That is absolutely right. It is not the case
that one can simply take somebody with no experience
of passport business and make them examine passport
applications. We have security checks for passport
applications and we need people who are trained to be
able to do that. Every effort is being made to ensure we
can bring more staff into the front line as quickly as
possible, commensurate with ensuring they have the
necessary level of training to be able to do that securely.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Two years ago, the
lives of 150 loyal and efficient workers in my constituency
were devastated by a closure that the Government described
as creating a smaller but more efficient passport agency.
Others predicted today’s chaos. Will the Home Secretary
find it in herself to have the common sense and the
humility to apologise for the ineptocracy the Government
have created?
Mrs May: Yes, there have been changes in the way the
Passport Office operates. The Passport Office has been
operating efficiently and effectively in dealing with people’s
applications since those changes were made. We now
have a period of higher demand than we have seen for
705
HM Passport Office
12 JUNE 2014
[Mrs May]
12 years. That high demand is now being addressed by a
number of steps that have been taken, but we will look
at how the Passport Office should operate more efficiently
in the future to ensure that it offers the best possible
service.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con): I would like to thank
HMPO staff for helping me to assist my constituents—the
handful who have come to me. Interestingly, one of
them said that the reason they applied for a passport
was that, for the first time since 2008, they could afford
to go on a foreign holiday. Does the Home Secretary
acknowledge that part of the increased demand is down
to a better economic environment?
Mrs May: In the current, improved economic
environment, I am pleased that people feel able to go on
holiday when they have perhaps been unable to do so
previously. However, I am also conscious that there will
be people who have sent in their renewal applications
who are concerned about whether they will be able to
do exactly what my hon. Friend says his constituents
want to do. That is why I have put forward these
measures, which HMPO will be putting in place, in
addition to those it has already put in place.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South)
(Lab): Not a day goes by without more constituents
coming forward because of delays, such as the constituent
who contacted me first thing this morning, having
applied for their passport over six weeks ago. Time is
running out. Calls to the Passport Office go unreturned
and constituents of mine face the prospect of losing out
on their holidays, which they worked hard to pay for.
What would the Home Secretary say to my constituent,
who faces the prospect of losing hundreds of pounds
because of this incompetence?
Mrs May: What I would say to the hon. Lady—as I
have said to a number of others in relation to their
constituency cases—is that the Passport Office will
make every effort to ensure that the applications of
those who have a requirement are met quickly and dealt
with properly. As I indicated earlier, straightforward
cases are normally dealt with within three weeks. If
extra information is required or if someone is making a
first-time application and requires an interview, that
can take extra time. The straightforward cases are normally
dealt with within three weeks, but every effort will be
made to deal with the case the hon. Lady raises, as I am
sure she is trying to ensure.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Did my right hon.
Friend notice that the shadow Home Secretary made
not a single constructive suggestion to deal with the
present situation and that the collective chunter of
Labour Back Benchers on this issue has simply been a
cry to throw more public money at the problem, as it is
whenever there is an issue? When the permanent secretary
at the Home Office carries out the review, will he also
consider why applications this year increased by some
300,000 on last year? There has clearly been an
unprecedented increase in demand, which no one could
have foreseen, but someone needs to give some consideration
to how it came about.
HM Passport Office
706
Mrs May: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Of course we need to look at that, which is part of the
process of looking at HMPO’s work going forward, to
see whether patterns and numbers are changing and
to ensure that appropriate resource is available to deal
with that. I note, as he said, that it is the Government
who have been looking at this issue carefully, and we are
putting in place measures intended to deal with it.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab): I
raised this question in the House earlier this week and
got answers that were not satisfactory to me or, more
particularly, my constituents, given that the hotline is
still not working. Will the Home Secretary take the
decision today to reopen the office in Glasgow, so that
passports can be issued to my constituents without
them having to travel down to Durham or over to
Belfast? It seems ridiculous that it is necessary to do
that, rather than taking the decision, which she could
take today, to reopen the Glasgow office to the public.
Mrs May: The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the
MPs’ hotline in the House earlier in the week. My hon.
Friend the Immigration Minister said that if he gave
him the details, he would pursue the case. I am conscious
of the concerns that a number of Members have raised
about the MPs’ hotline, which is an issue we will pursue.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): I welcome
the extra staff working extra hours to tackle the exceptional
demand. Many of the constituents contacting me are
parents applying for first-time passports for children or
renewals for younger children. Will the Home Secretary
clarify the time scales that those parents should expect
for their passport applications?
Mrs May: As I said, the straightforward applications
for a straightforward renewal of the passport are normally
expected to be within three weeks, but some are going
beyond that. Where it is a first-time application and an
interview is required, it can take longer. I would expect
a child’s first-time application to be within normal
times, but if someone does not present the absolutely
correct documentation, the application will take longer,
which sometimes happens. As I indicated earlier, either
the Immigration Minister or I will ensure that we write
urgently to MPs to set out the measures taken and
relevant details such as when people will be able to
demonstrate an urgent need to travel in order to be
upgraded.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): The Home Secretary’s
definition of “straightforward” has changed five times
in the course of the past hour—and it has just changed
again. That matters because the number of delayed
applications that the Prime Minister came up with
yesterday depended on straightforward applications, so
the real figure is far higher than 30,000, is it not? Will
the Home Secretary apologise to my constituents—foster
parents who applied for a passport for their foster child,
Corry? Weeks later, they received a phone call from the
Passport Office, saying that the passport was on its way,
so they booked their holiday. Six weeks after that,
however, they had still not received the passport, so
Corry, the foster child, was unable to go on holiday with
his parents. Will the Home Secretary apologise to them?
707
HM Passport Office
12 JUNE 2014
Mrs May: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the
definition of straightforward cases has changed, but it
has not. I have been very clear that straightforward
renewal of passports is normally expected to be dealt
with within three weeks. That is on the Passport Office’s
website and it is what I have said today. I recognise that
there have been some very difficult cases, such as the
one that the hon. Gentleman describes. I was listening
carefully and I think he mentioned the problem of the
parents being told that the passport had been dispatched,
but not then receiving it. I would be grateful if he would
care to provide the details, as I may have misunderstood
the case.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con): At Prime
Minister’s Questions yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition
claimed that tens of thousands of people were having
their holidays cancelled because of passport delays.
Meanwhile, the Association of British Travel Agents
has said that it is seeing no increase in holiday cancellations
on account of passport delays. Who should we believe—the
Leader of the Opposition or ABTA?
Mrs May: I am tempted to say that there are those
who have the figures at hand and know what they are,
and there are those who make claims about them in this
House.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op):
The gov.uk website still says that it should take three
weeks to get the passport, so would the Home Secretary
care to correct it? Further to the question from my hon.
Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie), will she
please tell us whether my constituents who had to pay
an extra £55 on top of the £72.50 they paid to get their
“straightforward” renewal applications processed in order
to go on holiday in the first place—they got the passport
just in the nick of time—can now expect a refund?
Mrs May: The hon. Lady asks me to change the
advice on the website. We are, of course, looking at the
advice on the website, as is the Passport Office, to
ensure that it is as clear as possible. The point is,
though, that the vast majority of straightforward
applications are being dealt with within the normal
three-week period.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): This is a
serious issue, and we all agree that it is not satisfactory.
In Kettering, however, I have had three complaints and
I dealt with them all myself. As for the MPs’ hotline, the
phone was picked up every time and each case was
solved within the day to the satisfaction of the affected
constituents.
Mrs May: I am grateful to those Members who have
indicated that the cases they took up have been dealt
with and that people have received their passports. Staff
at the Passport Office are working very hard to deal
with the cases they are seeing. As we have just heard,
they are responding to the cases that MPs are raising—and
I think we should not forget that.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill)
(Lab): This is the biggest problem that my constituency
office has been presented with since the bedroom tax.
My staff have often worked overtime to deal with cases
such as those of the lady who phoned early one afternoon
HM Passport Office
708
to say that her friend was leaving Glasgow airport at six
o’clock the next morning and did not have a passport,
and the man who, two months after sending off his
application, received a letter saying that it had not been
signed. My staff would want me to pay tribute to the—
Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry. The right hon. Gentleman
is an extremely senior Member and I treat him with the
utmost courtesy, but we are very pressed for time. What
we need is a one-sentence, short question.
Mr Clarke: I am happy to oblige, Mr Speaker. Will
the Home Secretary address herself to the question put
to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and
Harlington (John McDonnell), and personally meet
front-line staff and union representatives who warned
that this was going to happen?
Mrs May: As I thought I had made clear to the hon.
Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell),
we do meet front-line staff and will do so again in order
to discuss this issue. For the purposes of the review,
representations will be received from a number of people,
both those involved in the passport service and those
who, I am sure, have experienced similar kinds of customer
service. The review is necessary to ensure that we are
doing things in the best possible way in order to give the
best possible service to customers, and front-line staff
will of course be met during that process.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op):
Many of my constituents have contacted me about this
problem, including three British citizens who applied
for passports for children born abroad. One has waited
for six months, another for five months, and a third for
three months. One child’s school admission has been
delayed, another’s health treatment has been delayed,
and in the third case flights were booked and then
cancelled at a cost of £1,600. Will the Home Secretary
tell us when her new measures may come into force,
whether my constituents are likely to benefit from them,
and whether there is any consistency in what the Home
Office is saying? We have been told that the suggested
time lines are intended as guidance, but the Home
Secretary is now talking of advice that is on the website.
Mrs May: The time that it takes to process an application
from overseas will vary according to the complexity of
the case that is before the Passport Office. Obviously I
cannot comment on the individual cases raised by the
hon. Lady because I do not know the details, but, as I
have said, I will write to Members explaining clearly
when it will be possible to apply for the emergency
travel documents—I referred to part of that process in
response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member
for Winchester (Steve Brine)—so that they understand
the new arrangements and can advise their constituents
accordingly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to disappoint Members
who are still rising, but I know they will understand that
I must have some regard to the overall level of demand
for other parts of today’s schedule, and that we must
now move on. I am sure that there will be further
opportunities to explore these issues.
709
12 JUNE 2014
Business of the House
710
Business of the House
for the Foreign Secretary to keep the House fully informed
as this deeply worrying situation develops?
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab): Will the Leader of
the House give us the business for next week?
In future business there is an eerie silence on the
recall Bill, and the Deputy Prime Minister managed, in
true Lib Dem fashion, to disagree with his own draft
Bill only last week. Can the Leader of the House tell us
when the Government’s latest version of the recall Bill
will actually be published?
11.27 am
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew
Lansley): The business for next week will be as follows.
MONDAY 16 JUNE—I expect my right hon. Friend the
Foreign Secretary to update the House following
the global summit to end sexual violence in conflict.
That will be followed by the conclusion of the remaining
stages of the Consumer Rights Bill, followed by a
motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to
special educational needs.
TUESDAY 17 JUNE—Conclusion of the remaining stages
of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill.
WEDNESDAY 18 JUNE—Opposition Day [1st allotted
day]. There will be debates on Opposition motions,
including a debate on energy prices.
THURSDAY 19 JUNE—Motion to approve a statutory
instrument relating to terrorism, followed by a general
debate on the UK’s relationship with Africa, followed
by a general debate on defence spending. The subjects
for both debates were determined by the Backbench
Business Committee in the last Session.
FRIDAY 20 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing
23 June will include the following:
MONDAY 23 JUNE—Conclusion of the remaining stages
of the Deregulation Bill.
TUESDAY 24 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Wales
Bill.
WEDNESDAY 25 JUNE—Opposition Day [2nd allotted
day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion,
subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 26 JUNE—General debate on the programme
of commemoration for the first world war.
FRIDAY 27 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
Ms Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for
announcing next week’s business, and may I also take
this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the
Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel)
on her unopposed re-election as Chair of the Backbench
Business Committee? She is doing such a good job that
no one even thought she should be replaced. We could
not say the same about many Government Ministers.
I would also like to wish the England football team
good luck in their first World cup game on Saturday. We
are all convinced that they are going to have a great
tournament and we will all be watching their every
move, as usual, from behind the sofa.
I note from the Leader of the House’s comments that
the Foreign Secretary is due to give us a statement on
his conference on sexual violence, which is very welcome,
on Monday, but we all watched in horror as militant
extremists overran swathes of north-western and central
Iraq yesterday, and they are now reported to be within
50 miles of Baghdad. Over half a million people have
had to flee, and the country has been forced to declare a
state of emergency. Will the Leader of the House arrange
A report from the National Audit Office has revealed
that the Government’s armed forces restructure is in
chaos. The plans are already six years behind schedule,
and instead of making savings of nearly £11 billion, it
looks like these changes are going to cost the public
purse more. The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee
has rightly described the additional cost as scandalous.
The changes risk exposing a dangerous capability gap
in the nation’s defences, so will the Leader of the House
arrange for a statement from the Defence Secretary so
he can explain these failings in his Department?
As the passport agency descended into chaos, the
Government first tried denial, then played the blame
game, and now have been forced into a series of emergency
measures. The head of the agency denied that there was
a backlog only on Monday; the Home Secretary was
boasting that it was meeting its service targets on Tuesday;
by Wednesday the Prime Minister was forced to admit
that it has been trying to clear the backlog for weeks;
and overnight we found out that Ministers were not
even aware that vital security checks have been scaled
back to speed up the process. Even if the Home Secretary
was unaware, the Leader of the House acknowledged
the problem last week and promised a written ministerial
statement. Seven days later, we have not had one, and
my colleague the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson)
has had no substantive reply to his named day questions
on this subject. Will the Leader of the House explain
why we have had to drag the Home Secretary kicking
and screaming to the Chamber today to account for this
fiasco? Is the non-appearance of the promised statement
a further sign of the Home Secretary’s incompetence, or
has she fallen out with the Leader of the House too?
After yet another weekly session where the Prime
Minister focused on the rhetoric and ignored the reality,
I have decided that we need a regular “mind the gap”
watch to highlight the Government’s failure to live up to
their PR hype. This week alone we have had the news
that the housing benefits bill is set to soar by yet
another £1 billion despite the Government promising to
make work pay and provide enough affordable homes,
food bank use is up by 54% last year alone despite the
Government saying they would face up to the cost of
living crisis, and, despite matching our promise to end
child poverty by 2020, this week a report from their own
Child Poverty Commission said that was not remotely
“realistic”.
The Government’s Whitehall farce continues to run
and run. The Conservatives are blaming their multiple
failures on the civil service, their special advisers, the
last Labour Government, and now they are even trying
to blame Oxfam. The Prime Minister wanted to reshuffle
his deck, but has now realised that he has got a pack of
jokers. The Liberal Democrat headquarters managed to
tweet:
“we didn’t go into govt because it was the right thing to do, we
went into govt because it was the right thing to do”.
711
Business of the House
12 JUNE 2014
[HON. MEMBERS: “Where are they?”] There is not a
single Liberal Democrat Member here; they are all at a
lesson on how to tweet properly. Only the Liberal
Democrats could change their minds halfway through a
tweet. After their disastrous election results, the Deputy
Prime Minister has finally had some good news this
week. They have finally topped a ballot—but it was
only the ballot for private Members’ Bills. Meanwhile,
the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has declared that
the Liberal Democrats could be the biggest party in
2025, and William Hill has pulled its sponsorship from
the Liberal Democrats’ closest rivals, the Monster Raving
Loony party. This clearly demonstrates that there is
only one joke party left in British politics.
Mr Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of
the House for her response to the business statement. I
echo her congratulations to the hon. Member for North
East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), whose re-election is
a testament to her chairmanship of the Backbench
Business Committee and to the work of the Committee
as a whole. It has brought forward some important
debates and given Back Benchers a greatly enhanced
voice. Surveys in recent years have shown that the
public now believe that the House debates issues of
relevance to them on a more regular and timely basis.
I also echo the shadow Leader of the House’s good
wishes to the England team. It will be a late night on
Saturday, but at least it will be followed by Sunday
morning. I am looking forward to the England team
scoring many goals and kissing the badge, as they say. I
am told that the Leader of the Opposition is being
invited to do that with the trade unions in Nottingham
at the moment. It seems a strange idea, but it tells us
something about where the trade unions think the interests
of the Labour party lie, in contrast to the coalition,
which knows that it serves in the national interest.
The hon. Lady asked about a statement on Monday. I
have announced that the Foreign Secretary will be in the
House on that day to make a statement, and we will of
course take opportunities to update the House on the
very concerning situation in Iraq. The threat presented
by the so-called Islamic State for Iraq and the Levant is
alarming for the whole international community. The
Iraqi authorities in the federal Government and in the
Kurdistan regional Government need to co-ordinate
and work together to put forward a political response
and a security response to the situation. We are aware of
large numbers of Iraqis being displaced from Mosul
and the surrounding areas. The Department for
International Development is monitoring that situation
closely, and rapidly assessing the humanitarian need
that will arise from it. I will ask my colleagues in the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office and in DFID to
ensure that the House can be updated whenever possible.
The hon. Lady mentioned the recall Bill. We announced
the Bill in the Queen’s Speech and will introduce it in
due course. We are making good progress with it. We
have already introduced five Bills in this Session—three
in the other place and two here—and we will introduce
further Bills in due course.
The hon. Lady also asked about defence spending. I
have announced a debate on defence spending, which
will take place next Thursday following the
recommendations of the Backbench Business Committee.
It will give my colleagues an opportunity to remind
Business of the House
712
Members—including Opposition Members—that we
inherited a defence budget with a £38 billion black hole.
We have taken action to balance the books; Army 2020
is an integral part of that. An excellent job has been
done—not least by the Defence Secretary and the Chief
of the General Staff—to redesign the Army so that it
can meet future demands while remaining affordable.
We are committed to investing £1.8 billion in the reserves,
and we are now seeing the benefit of that: the trained
strength of the reserve forces is rising for the first time
in 18 years.
The hon. Lady asked about the situation in the
Passport Office. I made it clear in response to questions
last week that my colleagues would update the House
on that matter this week, and they have done so in
response to questions and to an Adjournment debate
secured by the hon. Member for Coventry North West
(Mr Robinson). The Home Secretary has also given the
House a full, authoritative response on the issue and
outlined a number of measures that will make a substantial
difference in the weeks ahead.
The hon. Lady asked about issues that she suggested
were not being covered in the Government’s reply, and
she included food prices. I heard one of my DEFRA
colleagues reminding the House that food prices in the
year to March rose by only 0.5%, and in the past two
months food prices appear to have been falling, so it is
important to bear in mind that on some issues relating
to the cost of living people are in a better place than
they might otherwise have been. That is particularly the
case when they are in work, and as we saw just yesterday
more than 2 million new private sector jobs have been
created since the general election. If there is a gap, it is
between the Labour party and reality on what is happening
in our economy. Our long-term economic plan is delivering
on reducing the deficit and on growth, which is 3% up
on a year ago. We have 2 million more private sector
jobs and 400,000 more businesses. We are delivering our
long-term economic plan in the national interest while
the Leader of the Opposition is off to serve the union
interest.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con):
I echo the call for a debate on the situation in Iraq,
although it is noticeable that Her Majesty’s official
Opposition did not ask for such a debate, having not
provided a debate on foreign affairs during consideration
of the Queen’s Speech. Does my right hon. Friend agree
that we need a general debate on foreign affairs, to cover
not only Iraq but the crisis in Syria and the situation in
Ukraine?
Mr Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his
question and he is absolutely right: I was very surprised
and disappointed that the Opposition did not choose to
debate matters relating to foreign affairs and defence.
Of course, the Backbench Business Committee will
enable defence issues to be raised next week, but this
was the second year in a row that the Opposition did
not choose to debate foreign affairs. Given the circumstances
in which they made that decision—the events in Ukraine
and Syria, and now Iraq—it would have been helpful
had they chosen to have such a debate. Anybody who
examines the debate on the Queen’s Speech in the
House of Lords will see that it had a full, substantial
debate on foreign affairs. I believe that Members in the
713
Business of the House
12 JUNE 2014
[Mr Lansley]
other place were astonished that there was no debate on
foreign affairs in this House, but of course, these were
matters for the Opposition.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): On average,
7,500 people are on the waiting list for transplants and
each year 1,000 people die because an organ is not
available. May we have a debate on why we cannot
co-ordinate transplant week with the transplant games?
That would allow us to raise the profile of the Donate
Life campaign and then, we hope, three people a week
would not die waiting for an organ to become available.
Mr Lansley: I very much share the hon. Lady’s sense
of the priority and importance of this issue. I was the
sponsor in this House of transplant week some years
ago, because more transplants take place in my constituency
than anywhere else in the United Kingdom; it contains
Papworth hospital, a leading heart and lung transplant
centre, and Addenbrooke’s hospital, which deals with
livers, kidneys, and pancreatic and other organs. If I
may, I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department of
Health, who work with the charities concerned, about
the timings of these important charitable events and
what possibilities there might be, as we do want to make
further progress. The number of people on the organ
donation register has increased by 50%, which is having
a big impact on the availability of organs, but we need
to do more. I hope we will be able to co-ordinate things
in the way she describes.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): May we have a
debate on why Labour councils, particularly Telford &
Wrekin council, are deliberately misinterpreting and
miscommunicating the Government’s national planning
guidelines? Do the Government still prefer development,
be it residential or retail, to be on brownfield rather
than greenfield sites?
Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this
is very much about a presumption in favour of brownfield
over greenfield development; that is what the Government
are looking towards. The other important thing is that
this Government expect planning to be locally led. I am
sure my hon. Friend will bring to bear on his council, in
the way he describes, local people’s views on what they
want in their local plan. Under the Localism Act 2011,
that should be pre-eminent in the local plan.
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab): On
Monday, the Secretary of State for Education announced
that, in future, schools will teach British values. Although
he appears to have been panicked by the crisis in his
Department into announcing something with which he
used to disagree, it is a very good idea. The problem is
that it is easier said than done and harder to do well
than badly, and if it is done badly it would probably be
better not to do it at all. Can we have a debate in this
House, before the Department publishes its proposals,
on how exactly British values can be taught successfully
and effectively in our schools?
Mr Lansley: Indeed, I heard the Secretary of State
say that. If I recall correctly—I will ensure that I am
correct about this—I think he said that while he was
looking for schools to promote British values, it was not
Business of the House
714
some immediate response, but something he had been
considering. I think it was the subject of a pre-existing
consultation in any case. We will of course ensure that
we keep the House informed about the progress of that
consultation and our response to it.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con): Tackling
domestic violence has rightly risen up the political
agenda. Football United Against Domestic Violence is
a new campaign by Women’s Aid working with national
footballing bodies, sports, media, football clubs, the
police, players and fans to send a clear message that
domestic violence is always unacceptable. Following
Tuesday’s successful parliamentary launch supported
by the Premier League, BT Sport, the Football Association,
Charlie Webster, Jahmene Douglas and a large number
of cross-party MPs, does my right hon. Friend agree
that we should hold a debate on this important subject?
Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend is quite right: domestic
violence and abuse ruin lives. They are completely
unacceptable, which is why tackling this crime has been
one of the Government’s top priorities since coming to
office, and that includes backing the important work of
Women’s Aid. He knows that there is not compelling
evidence that suggests a causal link between sporting
events and domestic violence and abuse. However, an
event of the importance of the World cup presents an
opportunity for us to target different audiences with
our message concerning domestic abuse; he is quite
right about that. It will build on the work of Women’s
Aid, and the Home Office has launched a campaign for
that purpose. Whether we are talking about physical
violence, threats or coercive behaviour, they all count as
abuse and it is part of our work to stop it.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab): It is a statutory
responsibility of electoral registration officers and local
authorities to do door-to-door canvassing of nonresponders to voter registration. In Hansard today, there
is a list of 22 local authorities that break the law, some
of which have broken the law for four years on the trot
and no action has been taken. Will the Leader of the
House have a debate in Parliament on this important
issue that affects our democracy?
Mr Lansley: I cannot promise an immediate debate
but I will if I may talk to the Minister of State, Cabinet
Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge
Wells (Greg Clark), who is responsible for Cities and
Constitution and has oversight of such issues. In the
first instance though, I will ask the Electoral Commission
to respond because it has a responsibility to ensure the
integrity of elections, which includes the work of the
electoral registration officers and whether or not they
meet their responsibilities.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con): This
morning, the Court of Appeal overturned the Government’s
application for a terrorism trial to be held in blanket
secrecy. It still allows the state to hand-pick journalists
to report on the case subject to undefined conditions.
The House has had no explanation of why that is
necessary, given existing powers such as public interest
immunity powers, and the state is relying on vague
common law powers which have not been set and defined
by elected Members of this House. Given that principles
of open justice and democracy are at stake, can we have
a statement or a debate on the matter in the near future?
715
Business of the House
12 JUNE 2014
Mr Lansley: It is probably best if I confine myself to
what the Attorney-General said this morning, which is
that the principle of open justice is key to the British
legal system and that trials will always be held in public
unless there are very strong reasons for doing otherwise.
The measures applied for by the Crown Prosecution
Service in this case were, it is believed, justified in order
for the trial to proceed and for the defendants to hear
the evidence against them, while protecting national
security. The issues were considered today by the court;
it is not for the Government to decide such things. As
the Attorney-General rightly said this morning, we can
look to the courts to ensure that the interests of justice
will be maintained.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP): May we
have a debate on ovarian cancer and particularly the
need for the BRCA test to be available? It is available in
Scotland, but despite the guidelines from the National
Institute for Health and Care Excellence saying that
women in the rest of the UK should qualify, it is not
available to them. There is an urgent need for a debate
to address that inequality for women.
Mr Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising
that point. I cannot promise a debate, but it is an issue
about which she and colleagues might wish to approach
the Backbench Business Committee, as debates on
important health issues have been among the more
successful of those it has been able to promote. I will
speak to colleagues about responding directly to the
hon. Lady on the issues she raises about the guidance.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): As I
came 17th in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, if I
introduced a Bill to confirm that prisoners should not
be allowed to vote, would it have Government support?
Mr Lansley: I wish my hon. Friend good luck in the
private Member’s Bill process, but I will adhere to the
convention that the Government respond with their
view on such Bills on Second Reading.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab): Of the 16 families
who have contacted me about passport delays, the most
tragic case is that of Kiran and Bina Salvi, who went to
India in March for the birth of their surrogate twins.
They were told that it would take six weeks to obtain
their passports, and they have now been told that it will
now be at least 16 weeks. They are at risk of losing their
jobs, running out of money, stuck in a hot hotel room
and terrified that their precious babies will get malaria.
May we have a proper statement on this issue so that we
can help Kiran and Bina bring their babies home?
Mr Lansley: The hon. Lady has given us some of the
details, but if she wants to give me any additional
details I will ask my hon. Friends at the Home Office to
respond. She will have heard what the Home Secretary
had to stay about the availability of emergency travel
documents and access to urgent consideration for passport
applications without charge. I hope that one of those
options might be helpful in the case the hon. Lady
mentions.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con):
May we have an early debate on the role of community
hospitals, particularly in rural areas? I understand that
Business of the House
716
the new head of NHS England has said that they have a
future role to play, so this is a good opportunity to
debate the issue on the Floor of the House.
Mr Lansley: I recall that in the latter stages of the
previous Session, there was a debate on community
hospitals and I am pleased to see that Simon Stevens,
the new chief executive of NHS England, has taken the
matter up. When we took office, it was very important
to us to have a greater focus on delivering care close to
people’s homes, to improve people’s ability to step out
of the high-cost acute hospitals so that they could
concentrate on their job, and to give a focus to local
commissioners. Often, it is the new local clinical
commissioning groups that best understand how
community hospitals can serve the purposes of the
people they look after.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab): May
we have a debate on compensation for losses caused by
the passport fiasco? In my office over the past few
weeks, we have been trying to help people left in a
desperate situation by the chaos, and it will not have
escaped the country’s notice that the word “sorry” did
not once pass the Home Secretary’s lips. She did not
address the issue of compensation, either. Is it not only
fair for people who apply for passports in good faith
and in good time and who suffer losses—for example,
by having to cancel their holidays—to be compensated?
May we have a debate on that?
Mr Lansley: I think that the Home Secretary fully
responded to the questions raised just before business
questions. I am sure that in future we will be able to
look after our constituents much better, in the way that
she described, by being able to raise urgent cases. In my
experience as a constituency Member of Parliament,
when we have had to raise cases we have been able to get
through on the MPs’ helpline and resolve them rapidly.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con): Many
Members across the House will agree that Sepp Blatter’s
recent comments were wholly unacceptable and a distraction
from the real issues. If we are committed to tackling
racism in football, we need to focus on the terraces,
where there is a real issue, not on the back-rooms of
Fleet street. Given this country’s proud history of tackling
racism, may we have a debate on the state of football so
that we in this House can send out the clearest message
that racism and corruption in football is unacceptable
and that by pushing the issue aside, FIFA risks tarnishing
itself and ultimately the sport?
Mr Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because
I completely agree with him: racism is unacceptable in
all areas of society. I thought the remarks were probably
inappropriate not least because in this country the
Football Association has been proactive in tackling
racism in football through a whole sport inclusion and
anti-discrimination plan, “Football is for Everyone”,
and the FA’s inclusion advisory body, chaired by Heather
Rabbatts, is further promoting equality in the national
game. It was therefore inappropriate to use that language
in relation to questions properly being asked about the
way in which FIFA was managing its processes. It was
not appropriate. I am glad that my hon. Friend has had
the chance to raise the matter.
717
Business of the House
12 JUNE 2014
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab): Even though
the north-east of England is the only region outside
London that makes a positive contribution to our GDP,
it has among the lowest median incomes and the highest
jobseeker’s allowance rates in the country. May we
please have a debate to consider the special measures
that can be taken to address the gross inequity and
inequality that afflicts the north-east of England and
other regions?
Mr Lansley: I hope—I do not know—that the hon.
Gentleman has had a chance to address those issues in
the course of the debate on the Queen’s Speech. He will,
of course, have an opportunity to do so today in the
debate on the economy and living standards that the
Opposition have initiated with their amendment. He is
quite right: it is disappointing that the north-east is the
only region of the United Kingdom where unemployment
went up in the latest figures; everywhere else, it went
down. One thing we need to keep looking at is how we
can continue to rebalance the economy, as is successfully
happening in many other places. We want to try to
improve manufacturing. We have seen manufacturing
growing in the latest data at 4.4% a year, which is faster
than for a long time. As a manufacturing economy, the
north-east should be participating more fully in that.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con): May we have a
debate, following on from the global summit on sexual
violence in war, on the conflict in Sri Lanka, which is
still going on, against the Tamil community, where
women are being raped daily?
Mr Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I
said, the Foreign Secretary will update the House on
Monday, following what appears to have been an extremely
successful global summit, not simply because we brought
so many countries together for the purpose of ending
sexual violence in conflict, but because of the vigour of
the NGO community coming together in the same way.
The message being sent out is that people need to
understand the sheer scale and enormity of sexual
violence in conflicts and that so very few people have
been held responsible. That must not be true in future.
It must be that the people responsible for such things
will genuinely be held to account for the crimes they
commit.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): In March, I asked the
Leader of the House when the Government would
deliver the will of the House and the country by banning
wild animals in circuses. He teased me rather in his
response by saying that he could not pre-empt the
Queen’s Speech. We have now had the Queen’s Speech
and the measure is not in it. When will the Government
bring forward legislation?
Mr Lansley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is the
Government’s intention to make progress on this, but
unfortunately, as I said last week, it has not been
possible to find time in the short Session ahead of us.
Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con): Is the Leader
of the House prepared to arrange for a statement next
week on the procedures to replace the current Clerk of
the House, when we could find out more on how much
the use of head-hunters will cost, who will decide who
Business of the House
718
the head-hunters are, who will monitor the progress of
the head-hunters and who will take the final decision on
the replacement Clerk?
Mr Lansley: My right hon. Friend will understand
that the procedures for the appointment of the new
Clerk are a matter for the House of Commons Commission.
Although I am a member of the Commission, my hon.
Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter
Ross (John Thurso) answers on its behalf to the House.
I know that my right hon. Friend will find an opportunity
in due course to ask those questions. We will face a
daunting task indeed in filling the silver-buckled shoes
of the present Clerk, who is not here now. I hope to
announce soon an opportunity for Members to pay
tribute to the Clerk before the summer recess.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East
Cleveland) (Lab): Long-term youth unemployment since
May 2010 in my constituency is up by 18.5% and
long-term female unemployment is up by 76%—from
125 to 220 women—and in the north-east average earnings
are down by £49 a week. Could we have a debate about
how the Government’s long-term economic plan is clearly
failing my constituents?
Mr Lansley: As I told the hon. Member for
Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), who asked about
the north-east a moment ago, the latest data show a
reduction in unemployment everywhere else in the UK.
[Interruption.] I am saying that it is important that we
understand why the north-east is not conforming to an
extremely positive trend right across the rest of the
country. The latest data show that unemployment as
defined by the International Labour Organisation is
down by 347,000 on the year; that the claimant count is
down by more than 400,000; that the number of private
sector jobs has gone up by nearly 800,000 in a year; and
that, since the election, the number of unemployed
young people is down by 91,000 and that of long-term
unemployed by 108,000.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con): The Leader of the
House has been to my constituency, so he knows how
beautiful it is, but Labour-led Stroud district council,
having failed to get a local plan, has left it vulnerable to
unscrupulous developers. Does the Leader of the House
agree that we need to emphasise the fact that local plans
are required and that it is the responsibility of no one
other than the councils to have one?
Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I
have had the pleasure of visiting Stroud and it is a most
beautiful place and a wonderful part of the country. It
is very important that local people have an opportunity,
through local plans, to ensure that development takes
place in a way that is consistent with their views on the
quality of life in their area. The local plan process is
vital in that regard. Many authorities are getting on
with it: I think that 76% of all councils have at least a
published plan. Further amendments to the national
planning policy guidance mean that publishing a local
plan in itself enables one to have influence on the
individual planning decisions being made, so it is important.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op):
Like many Members, I am very concerned about the
number of constituents having severe difficulties with
719
Business of the House
12 JUNE 2014
Atos Healthcare. One particularly distressing case involved
my constituent Mr Vickers from Hyde, who has multiple
support needs and has not had his application for a
personal independence payment processed, even though
he applied in October 2013. May we therefore have a
debate about the Government’s performance in delivering
the assessments, so that we can try to minimise the delay
and distress being caused?
Mr Lansley: It was necessary for us to move from the
previous system of the disability living allowance to the
personal independence payment, which is a much better
system. In the past, people sometimes stayed on allowances
for years without any assessment. It is important to
have a proper assessment. As we make progress—we are
doing so steadily—we need to make sure not only that
we do it properly, but that we get to the point where
decisions can be made quickly.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Could the Leader
of the House or the Backbench Business Committee
give the House an opportunity to hold a general debate
on the concept of recall, so that the House collectively
can work out what we are seeking to achieve? Some are
arguing that oversight of the behaviour of Members of
Parliament should be performed entirely externally, but
any external body would, by definition, have to be
statutory, and any statutory body would be subject to
judicial oversight, which would mean the intervention
of the courts and the potential for judicial review and
applications in due course to the Court of Appeal and
the Supreme Court. It could, therefore, take a considerably
long time for an MP who was under a cloud to go
through that judicial process before their constituents
had any opportunity to recall him or her.
Mr Lansley: My right hon. Friend makes an important
point. As I have said in that past, I do not think we can
contemplate a body other than the House itself reaching
right into this Chamber to determine the circumstances
in which a Member could continue their membership of
this House. I think it is the House itself that should have
such regulatory responsibility, not least for reasons of
privilege.
As far as a debate is concerned, the recall Bill will
give exactly such an opportunity. It is also important
that we hear from the Standards Committee, which is
conducting a review of how to further strengthen this
House’s standards process.
Business of the House
720
of Atos until its exit early next year and we will find a
new provider to deliver the best possible service for
claimants.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con): Will the Leader
of the House arrange for us to have a debate on the
future of the beef industry in Britain, which is currently
experiencing a catastrophic collapse in prices as a result
of imports, in which we can focus particularly on the
country of origin, whether it be Ireland or other European
countries?
Mr Lansley: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend
had an opportunity to catch your eye, Mr Speaker,
during Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions.
If he did not, I will of course ask my hon. Friends at
DEFRA to respond directly to him about the issues
that he raises.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): Back in the early spring,
I wrote to the Home Secretary about the issue of
putting the mother’s name on the marriage certificate
and I had a negative reply. Since then, there has been a
growing campaign, with many thousands of people
signing a petition, yet there was nothing in the Queen’s
Speech about this issue. Will the Leader of the House
now ask his colleagues at the Home Office to look at it
again and see whether a measure on it can be included
in this Government’s legislative programme?
Mr Lansley: I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware
that we have announced a full programme for this
Session in the Queen’s Speech and that there will be very
limited opportunities for additional legislation beyond
that which has been announced. I believe that the
petition she refers to has received a Government response,
but whether it has or has not I will ask Ministers to look
further at the points she raises and respond to her.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): May we have
a debate on nuisance calls? The latest batch of unsolicited
automated calls to my constituents are about some kind
of boiler replacement scheme. The calls are to constituents
who have already applied to the Telephone Preference
Service. They are massively inconveniencing, but they
are also very distressing for elderly residents who live on
their own.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): Echoing the
comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge
and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), may I ask for a full
debate on the chaos that is Atos assessing employment
and support allowance? There is a backlog of 712,000
cases at the moment. We know that Atos is not fit for
purpose and will be replaced, but can we ensure that we
get things right next time and have a full debate to
discuss that?
Mr Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that
question. He will recall that we published the nuisance
calls action plan on 30 March. Since January 2012, the
regulator has issued monetary penalties totalling just
over £2.5 million to companies for breaching its rules,
but in response to the action plan further work will be
done with the Office of Communications to see whether
the maximum penalty might be increased, in order to
give a real sanction for those who are making nuisance
calls, which is contrary to the code.
Mr Lansley: Of course, I have to remind the hon.
Lady that the contract was awarded to Atos by Labour
in the first place. As she says, we are exiting the contract
early, and of course there will be a substantial financial
settlement to the Department for Work and Pensions as
a result. We will continue to monitor the performance
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op): With the
lowest level of house building since the 1920s, may we
have a debate on housing supply? The Government are
taking many measures to increase housing demand, and
all that those measures have led to is price inflation. Is
there not an opportunity in the next few weeks to
721
Business of the House
12 JUNE 2014
[Mr Andrew Love]
discuss housing supply? The measures in the Queen’s
Speech are totally inadequate. We need real action and
we need it now.
Mr Lansley: On the contrary, the Government are
taking action and indeed the Queen’s Speech included
measures that—as the hon. Gentleman may have seen—will
come forward in the infrastructure Bill, which will
further support house building in this country. However,
445,000 new houses have been built under this Government.
We are recovering from the position we were left in by
the last Government, where house building fell off a
cliff in the latter part of 2008. A good illustration of
that recovery is that last year there were 216,000 new
planning permissions.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con): On Tuesday, the
Department for Transport issued a consultation document
about the TransPennine Express rail franchise, which
contained a proposal to end through-services between
Cleethorpes and Manchester. It also included repeated
references to the importance of good rail services to
economic growth. As the Government have identified
northern Lincolnshire and the Humber area as a key
economic growth area, will the Leader of the House
find time to have a debate on this issue?
Mr Lansley: I cannot promise a debate immediately
but, in order to be as helpful as I can to my hon. Friend,
and recognising the importance of the points he raises, I
will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, our
hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen
Hammond), to reply. There is considerable detail in
what he might be able to say, and I want him to be able
to provide that to my hon. Friend.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): When the Government
get around the restoring the Passport Office from its
present emaciated and failing state to the efficient service
it had been for the previous century, may we have a
debate on the need to ensure that those areas that
suffered the savage cuts two years ago, such as Newport,
have the first call on new jobs?
Mr Lansley: The hon. Gentleman had a chance to
ask the Home Secretary a question about that earlier. I
fear that his characterisation of the Passport Office is
not helpful, not least for his constituents and others. As
he will have heard from the Home Secretary, the Passport
Office is continuing to provide substantially the service
intended. Where problems have occurred, new staff are
being deployed, both in call centres and in case handling,
and the Home Secretary has just announced other
measures that will enable constituents to get the service
they are looking for.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con): La Casa Loco is a very
successful Mexican restaurant in Rugby. Two years ago
the owner engaged a firm of no win, no fee consultants
to reduce the business rates bill, but it was unsuccessful.
This year the Government announced the very welcome
news that they are reducing the business rates bill by
£1,000 for 300,000 shops, pubs and restaurants on our
high streets, but in May the owner of the restaurant
received a bill for £500—
Business of the House
722
Mr Speaker: Order. We have very little time. What I
need is short questions and short answers. We might
then make some progress.
Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend is right that the £1
billion package includes that discount, which many
businesses will receive automatically. Any business that
thinks it might be eligible for the discount but has not
received it should contact the council, but there is
absolutely no need to employ an agent in order to
receive it.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab):
The Leader of the House witnessed this morning not
only the unedifying spectacle of a Home Secretary who
refuses to apologise to those experiencing problems
with the Passport Office, but the large number of Members
who were unable to raise their constituents’ concerns
because of time pressures. Will he ensure that the Home
Secretary continues to account to Parliament on the
passport fiasco and that she does so on the Floor of the
House?
Mr Lansley: I heard a Home Secretary who is very
well aware of the situation, as she has been for a long
time, who is taking the necessary steps and who told the
House today of further steps to provide reassurance
and support to our constituents. You, Mr Speaker,
understandably did not feel that it was possible to allow
every question earlier. Therefore, as the Home Secretary
said repeatedly, any Member who has particular difficulties,
especially if they cannot get through on the MPs helpline,
should raise them through my office or with the Minister
for Security and Immigration and we will ensure that
we respond to them as quickly as possible.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Has my right hon.
Friend seen my early-day motion 72 on excessive hospital
car parking charges?
[That this House is disappointed that three-quarters of
NHS hospitals in England charge patients and visitors to
park on-site; notes that there are discrepancies over what
is charged across England, with one hospital in London
charging up to £500 per week to park on-site; believes
that high charges deter visitors from seeing their loved
ones and can hit the most vulnerable at a difficult time;
further notes that the cost of abolishing car parking
charges in England is estimated to be £200 million which,
according to research, could be achieved through prescribing
more generic drugs; and therefore asks the Government to
consider scrapping hospital car parking fees across England.]
Despite the Government saying that charges should be
proportionate, some hospitals are charging up to £500 a
week, and the charity Bliss says that parents with sick
children are paying an extra £34 a week. May we have
an urgent statement on that, and will he make
representations to the Department of Health to see
what can be done?
Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend is right that vulnerable
people and their families who regularly have to attend
hospital are hit hardest by parking charges. That is why
it is most important that hospitals use their discretion
and the kind of plan the NHS Confederation has for
offering concessions to those who have to attend regularly
for treatment or to visit patients. As far as raising
723
Business of the House
12 JUNE 2014
resources for that is concerned, the money available for
the health service is there for the treatment of patients. I
have always made it clear that my personal view is that
we should, wherever possible, deploy those resources
for the direct benefit of patient care, rather than diverting
it to subsidise parking.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): May we have a debate
on how to win friends and influence people in Europe?
The Leader of the House could lead it so that we could
judge whether he would be any good as an EU
commissioner. More importantly, he could explain to
us why on earth Conservative MEPs have today joined
forces with the AfD party in German, expressly against
the wishes of their own party leader.
Mr Lansley: I think that the hon. Gentleman’s question
is in one sense presumptuous. As far as winning friends
and influencing people in Europe is concerned, that is
exactly what the Prime Minister is doing, and with the
support of the party leaders. The position he has taken,
which is one of principle, is that under the treaties the
European Council has the responsibility to put forward
the President of the Commission. That should not be
pre-empted by the European Parliament. He has set
that out and the other party leaders absolutely support
him. It is clear that Heads of Government across Europe
support that principle.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con):
I thank my right hon. Friend for announcing the Foreign
Secretary’s statement on the summit on sexual violence
in conflicts. May we please have a debate on the matter
so that we can explore it more and discuss the scale of
the problem and what the summit achieved?
Mr Lansley: I hope that the statement on Monday
will be helpful to the House. It may well lead, quite
properly, to calls for a further debate. We have to get our
minds around the enormity of the problem. It is believed
that an estimated 100,000 women were raped during the
Guatemalan civil war. Between 20,000 and 50,000 were
raped during the war in Bosnia. Over 200,000 were
raped in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Those are
frightful statistics. It is really important, as I have said
previously, that those responsible are held to account,
because very few of them have been. We must be much
more confident that we can hold them to account in
future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Business of the House
724
Mr Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman,
may I just establish that he was here at the start of the
statement, because I did not see him in his place?
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab) indicated dissent.
Mr Speaker: In which case, I hope that he will understand
that it would not be appropriate to call him.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): May we have
a debate on who is to be the next President of the
European Commission? Given that all the major parties
are united in their opposition to the candidacy of
Mr Juncker, this is an opportunity to send him a collective
raspberry as well as to highlight the unity on the
Conservative Benches against ever-closer union.
Mr Lansley: As my hon. Friend will understand,
there will be regular opportunities to consider these
matters, not least because the Prime Minister is assiduous
in coming to the House and explaining them, as he did
after the G7 summit and as he will have an opportunity
to do after the further European Council at the end of
the month. I hope that that will give us an opportunity
to show that across the House there is a belief that the
principle set out in the treaty should be adhered to:
namely, that under the treaties it is responsibility of the
democratically elected Heads of State and Government
in the European Council to put forward who should be
the President of the Commission.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con): May we have a
debate on the incursion of solar farms on to valuable
green belt and high-grade agricultural land, as there
appears to be a growing conflict over our renewable
energy commitments and protecting high-grade, foodproducing land, which is vital for our food security?
Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend will recall that the
Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate
Change, our right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill
and Battle (Gregory Barker), set out very clearly how
that should be reconciled, not least by stating that the
strategy is that solar PV should be appropriately sited,
give proper weight to environmental considerations,
provide opportunities for local communities to influence
decisions affecting them, and provide some form of
community benefit. I recall reading his letter. I hope
that my hon. Friend agrees that it sets out some good
guidance for local authorities on making decisions about
these applications.
725
726
12 JUNE 2014
Point of Order
12.18 pm
Hugh Bayley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
During Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions
today, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member
for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson)—I have spoken
with his office about this—said, “We are investing more
in flood defences than the last Government.” Four
months ago, following a similar claim by the Secretary
of State, the Chair of the UK Statistics Authority wrote
to me to confirm that Government spending on flood
protection has been cut by about £250 million during
the time the coalition Government have been in power.
He added that
“given the salience of these figures and the public interest in
them, it is my view that it would better serve the public good if
Defra were to consider publishing official statistics on expenditure…
on… flooding… in future.”
Can you advise me on how this House could give the
UK Statistics Authority, rather than Ministers, the power
to determine which figures are so important that they
should be published as official statistics that are independent,
quality assured and accurate?
Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
his point of order and for notice of his intention to raise
something of this kind. My best advice to him is that he
should contact the Public Administration Committee,
within whose auspices such matters would definitely
fall. I appreciate that this has been a long-running
matter so far as he is concerned, and if he wants to
broker a step change or some sort of improvement in
what he regards as an unsatisfactory state of affairs,
going through that Select Committee might be a useful
way to proceed. He can, of course, go to the Table
Office and use the Order Paper in the usual way, and I
dare say he will do so, but that is my most constructive
advice to the hon. Gentleman and I hope it is helpful.
Debate on the Address
[6TH DAY]
Debate resumed (Order, 11 June).
Question again proposed,
That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as
follows:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to
Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has
addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
The Economy and Living Standards
Mr Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected
amendment (c) in the name of the Leader of the
Opposition. Debate should be relevant to the terms of
the amendment.
12.21 pm
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op): On
this final day of debate on the Queen’s Speech, I beg to
move an amendment, at the end of the Question to add:
BILL PRESENTED
‘but regret that the Gracious Speech fails to tackle the deepseated
cost-of-living crisis with a plan to secure a strong and sustained
recovery that delivers rising living standards for the many, not just
a few at the top; and call on your Government to act to boost
housing supply and ensure at least 200,000 new homes are built
each year, introduce an independent infrastructure commission,
reform the energy and banking markets to make them more
competitive for consumers and businesses, make work pay by
expanding free childcare for working parents, raise the value of
the minimum wage over the next Parliament, introduce a lower
ten pence starting rate of tax, set out reforms to ban recruitment
agencies from hiring solely from overseas and put in place tougher
enforcement of minimum wage laws to tackle the exploitation of
migrant workers that undercuts local workers, introduce a compulsory
jobs guarantee for young people and a new gold standard vocational
qualification and give business a real say on apprenticeships in
return for increasing their numbers to ensure that every young
person gets the skills they need to succeed in the future.’.
SOCIAL ACTION, RESPONSIBILITY AND HEROISM BILL
Presentation and First Reading (Standing order No. 57)
Mr Secretary Grayling, supported by the Prime Minister,
the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the
Exchequer, Secretary Theresa May, Secretary David
Jones, the Attorney-General, Oliver Letwin, Grant Shapps
and Mr Nick Hurd presented a Bill to make provision
as to matters to which a court must have regard in
determining a claim in negligence or breach of statutory
duty.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on
Monday 16 June, and to be printed (Bill 9) with explanatory
notes (Bill 9-EN).
Our economy is growing again and unemployment is
falling [HON. MEMBERS: “Hooray!”] yet we are today
debating this Queen’s Speech just three weeks after local
and European elections in which mainstream politics in
our country was delivered a serious warning shot from
the electorate—turnout was desperately low, the two
main parties each failed to win even a third of the
electorate, the Liberal Democrats were wiped out in
most parts of the country, and the poll was topped by a
party with no Members in this House at all and which
campaigns to lead Britain out of the European Union.
As the Leader of the Opposition said in his opening
speech of this debate last week, these developments
reflect
“a depth and scale of disenchantment that we ignore at our
peril—disenchantment that goes beyond one party and one
Government.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 15.]
All of us, in all parts of this House, know deep down
that my right hon. Friend is right.
We all heard time and again on the doorstep the
worries, fears, insecurity and pessimism of people up
and down our country that the economic recovery is not
working for them, their family and their community.
After Labour’s victory in Hammersmith and Fulham,
727
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
perhaps the Treasurer of Her Majesty’s Household, the
right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg
Hands) should listen more carefully to the electorate on
these matters.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ed Balls: I will open my remarks on the Queen’s
Speech and take interventions in a moment.
In the startlingly honest and blunt words—the Chancellor
should listen to these words—of the Minister without
Portfolio and previous Conservative Chancellor, my
right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe
(Mr Clarke),
“the populations of most European countries including the United
Kingdom have not yet felt any sense of recovery.”
He is right. There is a cost of living crisis and people are
not feeling the benefit. The former Chancellor is right,
too, to say that we in Britain are not alone. The European
elections were no triumph for mainstream parties of left
or right in most European countries, with far right or
populist parties flourishing. The pattern that we have
seen here in Britain—growth returning, but citizens
expressing their insecurity and discontent at the ballot
box—was repeated in countries such as Denmark and
Austria, which also have growth and falling unemployment.
That is why I say to all parts of this House, including
my own, that it is a challenge to all mainstream parties
that working people do not believe that they will share
in rising prosperity, be able to afford a home, secure a
better job or save for a decent pension.
Debate on the Address
728
judged over the next year is whether on jobs, skills,
innovation and reform this generation can rise to the
challenge and build an economy that works for all and
not just a few.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con): In
his quest to re-engage the electorate who have become
disenchanted, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will
believe that transparency and plain speaking are important.
In that spirit, will he let us know clearly what Labour’s
views are on increases in national insurance for employers?
Ed Balls: I am happy to do so. I know that my right
hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field),
whom I respect a great deal, has a proposal, but that is
not my proposal and it is not Labour’s proposal at all.
We know that there are pressures in the national health
service and that £3 billion has been wasted on an NHS
reorganisation, but we also know that there is a cost of
living crisis. People are paying hundreds of pounds
more a year because of the Government’s VAT rise, and
what we want to do is cut taxes for working people.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con): The shadow
Chancellor mentioned the right hon. Member for
Birkenhead (Mr Field), who was quoted as saying,
“I can’t tell you what a good meeting I had”
with the shadow Chancellor about the jobs tax. Will he
take the opportunity now in the House to confirm that
the Labour party does not have a plan to introduce a
jobs tax?
Hon. Members: Rule it out.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ed Balls: I will give way in a moment, when I have
established my argument. [Interruption.] Hon. Members
should not be complacent; they should listen to this.
People have good reason to be sceptical. This stagnation
in real wage growth is not just a problem of the past few
years. It started in Britain over a decade ago as rapid
technological change and global trade pressures put the
squeeze on middle and low income households. The
UK is not alone. That pattern is reflected across the
developed world. Low wage and unskilled employment
has grown, but research shows that traditionally middleincome, middle-class jobs in manufacturing and services
have fallen as a share of total employment in all OECD
countries. As the recent publicity around Google’s driverless
car shows, labour-substituting technology is likely, if
anything, to accelerate.
So the question for this Queen’s Speech and the
challenge for this political generation is to show that, in
the face of globalisation and technological change, we
can secure rising prosperity that working people believe
they can share in. Of course we have to respond to their
concerns about immigration and reform in Europe, but
the challenge is to get more better paid jobs for people
who feel they have been left behind, and to bring in new
investment, new industries and new jobs which could
replace those in traditional areas where jobs have gone.
Those of us on the Opposition Benches will, with an
open but critical mind, study the proposals in the Queen’s
Speech on fracking, annuities, and pensions savings
vehicles, but the real test against which this Queen’s
Speech and the manifestos of all political parties will be
Ed Balls: I have just given exactly that answer. That is
my right hon. Friend’s plan, not mine. I remind the
House that in April 2010 at the general election the then
Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister,
said:
“We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT. Our first budget is
all about recognising we need to get spending under control
rather than putting up tax.”
If hon. Members want to discuss broken promises, they
should have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ed Balls: Let me make a little more progress, then I
will give way.
Let me start by trying to find some common ground
with the Chancellor on these big and difficult debates. I
think we can agree that Britain has always succeeded,
and can only succeed in the future, as an open,
internationalist and outward-facing trading nation, with
enterprise, risk and innovation valued and rewarded.
We need to back entrepreneurs and wealth creation,
generate the profits to finance investment and win the
confidence of investors round the world. We can agree
on that.
Turning our face as a nation against the rest of the
world and the opportunities of global trade is the road
to national impoverishment. But at a time when there
are powerful forces in technology and trade, which
mean that many people are seeing their living standards
falling year on year, we cannot take for granted public
support for that open global market vision. As the
729
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
[Ed Balls]
Member of Parliament whose constituency until recently
had the largest BNP membership of any in the country,
I know how some on the extremes of left and right see
isolationism as the solution—turning inwards, setting
their face against Europe and the world economy—which
would be a disastrous road to take. It would be the
wrong way to proceed.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab): On
the question of jobs, we all applaud the number of jobs
created in the country, but do we know how many have
been created on zero-hours contracts?
Ed Balls: We know that the zero-hours contract is one
of the symptoms of change in our labour market that is
causing such insecurity. My hon. Friend raises that
matter because the reality is that none of us on either
side of the House can afford to bury our head in the
sand and ignore the legitimate and mainstream concerns
of people across our country about our economy not
currently working for them and their families.
The challenge for this generation is how we respond.
In my view, there are two quite wrongheaded ways to
respond. The first is to assume that business as usual
will just do the job—that the return of GDP growth will
solve the problem. I must say to the Chancellor and to
Government Members—particularly to the right hon.
Member for Chelsea and Fulham, given the result in his
constituency—that every time they boast that their
economic plan is working, I am afraid most people in
our country just think they are completely out of touch.
It may be working for some—a privileged few—but
people say time and again, “It’s not working for me. It’s
not working for my family. It’s not working for our
community.” That is what they have to solve.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con): We
have asked time and again, but will the shadow Chancellor
rule out an increase in national insurance or not? I
would add that businesses in Bournemouth are worried
about another tax—a property owner’s tax, which is
another Labour invention—so will he rule that out as
well?
Ed Balls: To return to a previous debate, the hon.
Gentleman has had a 700% rise in long-term youth
unemployment in his constituency since 2010. What he
should do is to engage with what we actually need in
order to have a successful long-term economic plan.
Mr Ellwood: I am very pleased to see the shadow
Chancellor has a briefing note that even has my picture
on it. What he is not informed about is that long-term
youth unemployment includes students. I am pleased to
say that the three universities in Bournemouth are increasing
their numbers. The statistic has gone up because it
includes students.
Ed Balls: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman got
that wrong last time, and he is wrong again. I am
referring to jobseeker’s allowance—the claimant count—and
students are excluded from the figures. I must say that it
is excusable to make that mistake once, but having done
it twice, his chances of getting on to the Front Bench
are severely diminished.
Debate on the Address
730
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab): Before those
interventions, the shadow Chancellor was making an
extraordinarily important speech. Does he agree that
the fundamental question we face is whether the link
between economic growth and the living standards of
people doing ordinary jobs in our country is broken or
not? Will he return to such points, because those are the
issues that my constituents fret about day in, day out?
Ed Balls: I will. This is the most vital and difficult
issue. We have seen a rise in unskilled jobs in our
country in recent years. That is a good thing, but it is
not good enough. If that goes alongside falling living
standards year on year for people not just on the lowest
but on middle incomes, what will we end up with? We
will end up with rising poverty among working people
and record numbers of working people going to food
banks, as well as rising alienation and a view that
mainstream politics is not delivering. Unless Conservative
Members wake up to that, they will see the consequences
of it next year.
Mr Ellwood: On a point of order, Madam Deputy
Speaker. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): I call
Mr Ellwood on a point of order—in quick order as
well.
Mr Ellwood: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. I
am glad of that vote of approval. I am just asking for
clarification and giving the shadow Chancellor an
opportunity to correct himself. He, I think inadvertently,
misled the House by suggesting that Bournemouth’s
youth unemployment has increased; according to figures
from the Library, it has reduced by 40% over the past
year.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Mr Ellwood, that is not a
point of order; that is continuing the debate. You have
had three chances at it: three strikes and you’re out—no
more.
Ed Balls: It is also completely pathetic. In the hon.
Gentleman’s constituency, the number of young people
aged between 18 and 24 claiming JSA who have been
out of work for more than 12 months has gone up by
700%. As I said a moment ago, you either bury your
head in the sand, or you face up to these big issues. We
are facing up to them, but Government Members are
incapable of doing so.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab): The shadow Chancellor
is setting out a really important argument about the
recent election results, the widespread disenchantment
that clearly exists in Britain at the moment, and the
effects of globalisation and technological change on the
economy. Is it not absolutely extraordinary that while
he is doing so, he is being subjected to these utterly
juvenile interventions? Does he not find it extraordinary
that all Government Members can do is to read out
handouts from the Whips, and the idiot from Bournemouth
cannot even get that right? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr Ellwood rose—
731
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
Madam Deputy Speaker: Sit down, Mr Ellwood.
[Laughter.] This is a serious debate. Mr Ellwood, I am
sure that you have very broad shoulders, and you will
give your all when you get your turn to speak, perhaps
in interventions on the Chancellor.
Ed Balls: I am trying to respond to serious issues. The
reality is that, yes, after three years of flatlining, our
economy is finally growing again, but net lending to
small business is still falling, youth unemployment is
still at record highs, wages are not keeping pace with
prices and people are worse off. What I want to say is
that unless we face up to that reality, we will not make
progress. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Ellwood, I can
hear what you are saying. Actually, I agree that the way
in which the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian
Austin) referred to you was uncalled for. You are an
honourable Member of this House, and I am sure that
Mr Austin wants to make it clear that that is his view.
Ian Austin: I did not mean—[Laughter.] Madam
Deputy Speaker, the last thing I would want to do is
upset you, but I have to say that the hon. Gentleman’s
intervention—[Laughter.]
Hon. Members: Apologise!
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I expect Members to
behave according to the rules of the Chamber, of which
they are fully aware. Mr Austin, the word you are
looking for is “sorry”. Stand up, please, and say sorry.
Ian Austin: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to
apologise to you. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. For goodness’ sake,
everybody calm down. That is good enough: “sorry” is
on the record in relation to the hon. Member for
Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). That is the end of it.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab): On a point of
order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No. I am not going to take a
point of order; I am going to listen to what Mr Balls has
to say. This is getting ridiculous.
Ed Balls: As I said, the first wrongheaded thing to do
is to bury one’s head in the sand and not to face up to
the reality. We can debate the Chancellor’s record. In
2010, he said that he would balance the Budget in 2015,
but the deficit will be £75 million. He said that he would
make people better off, but the Institute for Fiscal
Studies has confirmed that people will be worse off in
2015 than they were in 2010. He said that we would all
be in this together, but he has imposed the bedroom tax
on the most vulnerable, seen record numbers go to food
banks and cut the top rate of income tax for those
earning more than £150,000.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
rose—
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) rose—
Debate on the Address
732
Ed Balls: I will give way in one second.
My greatest concern on the agenda of how we can
deliver more good jobs for the future is the Chancellor’s
commitment to delivering a balanced economic recovery.
If we look at what is actually happening, it is true
that the economy is growing, but within the G7, it is still
only the UK and Italy that have not recovered to their
pre-crisis peaks in output. With the rise in the population,
it will take a full 10 years for income per head to recover
to where it was in 2007. Worse than that is the level of
business investment.
I am pleased that there are finally signs that business
investment is starting to pick up, but as of now, we have
the fourth lowest level of business investment in the
European Union. Only Cyprus, Greece and Ireland are
lower than the United Kingdom. Our export growth is
sixth in the G7, 16th in the G20 and 22nd in the EU
since 2010. Our research and development expenditure
is the lowest in the G7. Lending to business is still
falling. There has been a 12% fall in infrastructure
output since 2010. Public investment is being cut next
year. Those are not figures about which we can be
complacent.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con):
The right hon. Gentleman is talking about investment,
but he is being quite selective. In respect of foreign
direct investment, is he aware that the UK secured
nearly 800 new projects last year—the highest ever—and
that we have 20% of all FDI in the EU? Is that not a
very good sign indeed?
Ed Balls: Of course that is good news. For decades,
we have been an open, global trading nation that attracts
investment from around the world, and I want to keep it
that way. However, complacency is not the way to make
that happen. We have to face up to the reality that living
standards are falling because, as the International Monetary
Fund said in its report last week, our recovery is
characterised by woefully low productivity growth. That
is why living standards and wages are still falling, even
as growth returns. Unless we face up to that challenge,
we will have substantial problems.
James Morris: Last year, the right hon. Gentleman
said that the Chancellor should listen to the IMF.
Surely, he should take his own advice. He was wrong on
growth. The Government’s long-term economic plan is
working. Higher taxes would lead to a more insecure
Britain. In the spirit of the debate that he wants to have,
surely he has to admit that he was wrong on growth.
Ed Balls: In 2010, the Chancellor said that, by now,
the economy would have grown by 12%. It has actually
grown by half that amount. That is why the deficit has
not come down and why people are worse off. The
Chancellor would have been well advised to take the
sound advice in 2010 and not choke off the economic
recovery. He should take the sound advice of the IMF
now and look at ways to improve housing supply and to
tackle the woeful productivity performance over which
he is presiding.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab): The Chancellor
acts as though he is the only person who has delivered
growth, but we already had growth when he came to
733
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
[Toby Perkins]
power. When there was light at the end of the tunnel, he
spent two and a half years building more tunnel. Finally,
now that we have growth—after everyone else—he says,
“Haven’t I done well?”.
Ed Balls: My hon. Friend’s description of the historical
record since 2010 is correct. However, the real issue is
why we still have such low investment and why living
standards are still falling. The jobs that we are creating
are not delivering rising living standards for working
people. We have only to look at the election results from
a few weeks ago to see the potential challenge to Britain’s
place in the world if we do not understand those forces.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend
give way?
Ed Balls: In a second.
As I said, the first mistake is to bury our heads in the
sand. The second mistake is to attempt to appease those
who say that the problem is rapid globalisation and
technological change and that therefore the simplest
thing to do is to put up trade barriers, stop all migration
to Britain and leave the European Union. That is the
wrong approach as well.
We all know the depth of concern about immigration
in our country, but when the Prime Minister claimed,
foolishly, that he would reduce net migration to the tens
of thousands, “no ifs, no buts”, he did the cause of
sensible and progressive immigration reform no good at
all, because he has failed. Net migration has not come
down to the tens of thousands; it has stuck stubbornly
above 200,000 a year. Even the Chancellor has admitted
that the Government will not meet their immigration
target. Sending ad vans around the country urging
immigrants to go home has only undermined their
credibility. That is not the right approach on this issue.
We need clear reform on this matter. We need tough
new laws to stop agencies and employers exploiting
cheap migrant labour to undercut wages and jobs. We
need to strengthen our border controls, not weaken
them. We need to ensure that people who come to this
country can learn English, and we must provide the
support to make that happen. We need fairer rules to
make sure that people who come here contribute, cannot
claim benefits when they arrive and can more easily be
deported if they commit a crime. We need to reform the
free movement of labour in Europe through longer
transitional controls, stronger employment protection
and restrictions on benefits. Those are the things that
we have to do. We need reform, not posturing and
pandering.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): But the fact
remains that too many traditional, working-class voters
voted UKIP in the European elections. That is a serious
problem for both political parties. Should we not now
regret that there was such unrestricted immigration
from eastern Europe? Can we not learn the lessons of
that?
Ed Balls: I am very happy to say to the hon. Gentleman
that not having transitional controls in 2004 was a
mistake, and one that we all still deal with the consequences
of. The question is whether we should have allies in
Debate on the Address
734
Europe whom we can persuade to do things better for
the future or walk away from our European partners
and find that we are treated with disdain in the decisionmaking halls of Europe. That is the real question for
statesmanship and politics in our country at the moment.
Our view on that question is clear. We say that there is
no future for Britain in walking away from the European
Union. It is the biggest single market for the companies,
regions and countries of the United Kingdom. We have
to reform Europe to make it work better for Britain, but
we are much more likely to win the arguments if we are
fully engaged, rather than having one foot out of the
door.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor used to agree
with that argument. They came though the Lobby with
us in 2011 to oppose an arbitrary timetable for an EU
referendum. Then, they changed their minds. The Prime
Minister flounced out of a summit and decided to
appease Tory Back Benchers by performing a U-turn.
In the memorable words of Lord Heseltine,
“To commit to a referendum about a negotiation that hasn’t
begun, on a timescale you cannot predict, on an outcome that’s
unknown, where Britain’s appeal as an inward investment market
would be the centre of the debate, seems to me like an unnecessary
gamble.”
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con): On a
point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr Speaker
was very clear in his guidance earlier that we should
speak to the amendment. I am struggling to find in the
amendment any mention of a European referendum.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Fortunately,
that is a matter for me, and not the hon. Lady. The clear
argument that is being advanced is about the importance
of that matter to the economy. As long as the right hon.
Gentleman stays on that point, he is in order.
Ed Balls: The argument that I am making is that if we
as a House—those of us on the left and on the right—are
to face up to the challenge of delivering more and better
jobs for working people and if we are to see off the
pressures for isolation and withdrawal, we cannot take
the wrong-headed approach either of denying that there
is a problem or of appeasing those who would try to
walk away. We need a Queen’s Speech that rises to that
challenge. My point is that, in putting all its energy into
Europe and the referendum, the Conservative party has
the wrong strategy to deal with the challenge that we
face.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne):
Just so that we can be absolutely clear, will the right
hon. Gentleman make it clear from the Dispatch Box
that Labour will not offer a referendum on Britain’s
membership of the European Union now or in the
manifesto at the general election and will therefore vote
against any private Member’s Bill that proposes one?
Ed Balls: We have said very clearly that we do not
believe in an ever-closer Union. If there is any proposal
to transfer powers to Brussels from London, we will
have a referendum in the next Parliament. Our position
is clear. We are not turning our face against a referendum.
What we are turning our face against is a referendum
that would destabilise our country and cause it to lose
investment and jobs.
735
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
Hon. Members do not have to take my word for it: let
me read the conclusion, a year on from the Prime
Minister’s decision, of the Chancellor’s biographer in
the Financial Times. He stated that Downing street’s
three objectives for the referendum were
“to pacify Tory MPs, sap the momentum of the fringe UK
Independence party and put the troublesome subject of Europe
to sleep until the general election in 2015. On all scores, it failed.”
That must qualify as the understatement of the year.
[Interruption.] I have given my view.
Mr Osborne: I ask the shadow Chancellor to answer
the question that I put to him. Does he rule out offering,
now or in the Labour manifesto at the general election,
an in-out referendum on Europe, and will the Labour
party therefore vote against any private Member’s Bill
that is introduced?
Ed Balls: The answer is no, of course we will not rule
that out, because we have a clear commitment that if
there is any proposal to transfer powers, we will have an
in-out referendum in the next Parliament. That is our
position. I gave the Chancellor the answer once, he did
not listen and I gave it to him again.
Is not the reality that the Prime Minister’s attempt to
appease Tory Back Benchers has failed and that it has
not worked very well with the Front Benchers either?
Just a few months ago, just after the Budget, the last
time we had such a debate, we had read stories in the
newspapers about the Education Secretary trying to
undermine the leadership ambitions of the Mayor of
London—it was briefed, I believe, to The Mail on
Sunday at a lunch. Last week, it was the Home Secretary
who was targeted by the Education Secretary, this time
to The Times over lunch. The first time, the Education
Secretary explained that he was tipsy. He has obviously
been on the sauce again. There is a pattern here: a rival
to the Chancellor tops the “ConservativeHome”leadership
poll and the Education Secretary is sent out to try to
stop them at all costs. Now we know that when the
Chancellor and the Education Secretary have a late-night
chat about the Prevent strategy, they are talking about a
rather different prevent strategy from the one that we
are talking about. It is pretty clear who the Chancellor
has tried to prevent through all his interventions.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Will the right hon.
Gentleman give way?
Ed Balls: I want to come to the Queen’s Speech, but I
will give way.
Robert Halfon: I am grateful. If the right hon.
Gentleman’s economic message is being listened to, why
did the Labour vote in Harlow decline by 20% over the
past two years, and why did Labour lose three council
seats in safe Labour wards? Is it not because Labour
betrayed the working classes and voted against our tax
cuts for lower earners, our fuel duty freeze and our
council tax freeze?
Ed Balls: I respect the hon. Gentleman and his views,
but the main message of my speech so far has been a
warning against complacency, and I suggest that he
heeds that warning. [Interruption.] As should the right
hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands).
Debate on the Address
736
As I said, the challenge that this Queen’s Speech should
have risen to, but did not, is how we can ensure that we
generate a secure recovery that delivers more good jobs
for our country. The huge disappointment was that that
was not the subject of this Queen’s Speech. We know
that there is no quick fix and that we have to earn our
way to rising prosperity. We cannot turn our face against
change, Europe and the world, but nor can we succeed
with a race to the bottom whereby British companies
simply try to compete on cost and the Government see
their role as simply removing regulation, undermining
job security and hoping it will work. That will not
generate the low and middle-income jobs that we need
in the future. Our view is that we can succeed only
through a race to the top, by backing innovation and
investing in skills, making our economy more competitive
and dynamic and earning our way to higher living
standards for all.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland
West) (Lab): In my constituency, long-term unemployment
has increased by almost 600% in the past two years and
380 people are desperately in need of some sight of the
so-called recovery. What was in the Queen’s Speech that
will give them any hope?
Ed Balls: I am afraid that the Queen’s Speech missed
out the key elements of a long-term economic plan that
would deliver rising prosperity for all. That is the problem.
We know that there is a problem on housing—demand
has run ahead of supply—so where was the action in
the Queen’s Speech to deliver new towns, Treasury
guarantees, planning reform, affordable homes, reform
to Help to Buy and a new help to build scheme, which
would deliver what we need? We have lower levels of
house building than at any time since the 1920s, and the
Chancellor is tinkering. It is about time that he showed
some leadership on housing, otherwise the aspirational
majority will not get on the housing ladder. The danger
is that interest rates will rise much earlier in the recovery
than they should, choking off the living standards of
people across our country.
The same point applies more widely to the Queen’s
Speech. On skills, where was the action to deliver a gold
standard for vocational qualifications? Where was the
tax on bank bonuses to ensure that every young person
who is out of work for a year is guaranteed a job?
Where was the action to ensure that we incentivise a
non-statutory living wage, improve the minimum wage
and tackle the abuse of zero-hours contracts?
Although we welcome the extra investment in child
care, that will not happen until the next Parliament. It
will fail to help too many families who are struggling
with the costs of child care, which have gone up so
much. Why will the Chancellor not increase free child
care for the under-fives from 15 hours to 25 hours a
week for working parents? It is a Labour policy, but it is
a good policy and should be in any sensible long-term
economic plan.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): My
right hon. Friend is absolutely right to seek to raise
prosperity and ambition in this country. Is not the
Government’s strategy utterly self-defeating? We now
have record numbers of people in work but in poverty.
Do we not need to ensure that those people have work
that pays, and pays well?
737
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
Ed Balls: I agree with my hon. Friend. I want to come
to a conclusion, because many Members, particularly
on the Opposition Benches, want to speak, but he is
completely right. Where in the Queen’s Speech was the
independent infrastructure commission to get the
infrastructure we need? Where was the proper British
investment bank to back small businesses? Where were
those key elements of a plan that will deliver more and
better jobs for working people?
There was one other reform that I was disappointed
was not in the Queen’s Speech, and I urge the Chancellor
to reconsider it in the next two or three weeks. We know
that there are big challenges to restore public trust. Our
commitment is clear: we will balance the books in the
next Parliament and get the national debt falling, and
we will do it in a fairer way. It is hugely disappointing
that the Chancellor has not committed, as he could
have done, to introduce legislation to allow the Office
for Budget Responsibility to audit independently the
costings of every spending and tax measure in each
main party manifesto. The Chair of the Treasury
Committee and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury
support that; why will the Chancellor not put politics
aside and do the right thing? It would be the first such
independent audit ever. It is essential to restore public
trust in politics and improve the nature of the political
debate, and the Chancellor can still change his mind in
the next few weeks and make it happen.
This is Labour’s agenda for economic change. As I
have argued from the beginning of this speech, we will
sustain support for an open and dynamic market economy
only if we can show that it will work for all, not just
some. We need radical reforms to deliver more good
jobs and make work pay, in marked contrast to Tory
Ministers and Back Benchers burying their heads in the
sand, repeating a hollow mantra and hoping that more
of the same will restore public trust. That is patently not
working. We need 200,000 homes a year, a compulsory
jobs guarantee, a gold-standard vocational qualification,
25 hours a week of free child care, energy market
reform with a 20-month price freeze, the books to
balanced in a fair way, a proper British investment bank
and an independent infrastructure commission. That is
the long-term economic plan that Britain needs, and
only Labour will deliver it.
12.59 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne):
I rise to support the Queen’s Speech and its many
measures that back business, savers and hard-working
people. The shadow Chancellor has come with a new
catchphrase. He talked about a “long-term economic
plan”. I think it is good; it might catch on. It has a ring
to it, but I am sure I have heard it before. That is the
problem with his entire speech: he could not utter the
inescapable truth that Britain has a long-term economic
plan, and that that plan is working.
We are attracting more investment than Germany
and creating jobs at a faster rate than the United States.
We are expanding more than four times faster than the
Government the right hon. Gentleman admired in France,
and growing faster than any major economy in the
world. Of course, there is much more to do to build our
exports, back our businesses, encourage savings, build
homes, secure investment, build our economic infrastructure
and rebalance our economy, and the Bills in this Queen’s
Speech take us forward in that direction.
Debate on the Address
738
Toby Perkins: The Chancellor says that the economic
plan is working, but who is it working for? It might be
working for his friends who he used to go boozing with
at the Bullingdon club, but working people in my
constituency find that it is harder and harder every
single month to make work pay. What will the Chancellor
do to make work pay under his Government.
Mr Osborne: That is what is so revealing about the
Labour party’s performance in the past half hour. The
shadow Chancellor started by reading out the article in
the New Statesman this morning and trying his piece on
new politics, but within about 10 minutes it all descended
into Bullingdon club jokes, and the hon. Member for
Dudley North (Ian Austin) having to withdraw his
comment. The shadow Chancellor then descended into
the normal slapdash that we have got used to in the
House. Incidentally, there is a striking echo with what
went wrong with the Leader of the Opposition’s speech
at the beginning of the Queen’s Speech debate. That is
because he is unable to engage in the serious economic
argument about what needs to happen in this country.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): When a hard-working
person in Harlow considers the economy, he will leave
his house in the morning on the way to work probably
knowing that his mortgage is low and fuel duty is
frozen. When he gets to work he will see more people in
work and more apprentices, and when he looks at his
pay packet, he will see that his tax bill has been cut by
hundreds of pounds.
Mr Osborne: My hon. Friend is right. By reducing
income tax and increasing the personal allowance, by
freezing fuel duty—something he campaigned on powerfully
in this Parliament—and above all by having an economy
that creates rather than destroys jobs, we are holding
out the prospect of economic security and better prosperity
for our country in the decade ahead. That is what we all
want to secure.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Osborne: I will give way in a moment, but let me
make some progress. I know that about 50 Members
want to speak in this debate—[HON. MEMBERS: “Not on
your side.”] Well, we will hear. No doubt Labour Members
can all get up on their feet and repeat what they said last
year .
I have done something that I know we are not supposed
to do in this place, because I actually bothered to read
what the shadow Chancellor said in the House last year.
Here we are in the privacy of the House of Commons
where no one is listening, but what were his pearls of
wisdom? In this exact debate last year he issued a stark
warning that the British economy would “flatline” unless
we abandoned our plan immediately. Since he made
that prediction, we have stuck to our plan and our
economy has grown by more than 3%.
Last year in this debate the shadow Chancellor said
that business investment would “stall”, but it has since
grown by almost 9%. He told us that unemployment
would rise, but since he made that prediction more than
800,000 new jobs have been created. He warned ominously
that youth unemployment would rise too, but it is down
by 100,000 over the past 12 months. From re-reading
the speeches of the shadow Chancellor, I have discovered
that he performs a very useful function. He is an infallible
739
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
guide to the future performance of the British economy:
whatever he predicts, we can be sure that the exact
opposite happens.
Mr Donohoe: Will the Chancellor answer a simple
question about employment? How many people are on
zero-hours contracts?
Mr Osborne: I do not have the number the hon.
Gentleman asks for here, but there were zero-hours
contracts under the previous Labour Government and
there are Labour councils that use zero-hours contracts.
As those on the Labour Front Bench have pointed out,
not all zero-hours contracts are bad. One measure in
the Queen’s Speech that was not mentioned by the
shadow Chancellor—indeed, he did not actually address
the speech in his remarks—will ban exclusivity with
zero-hours contracts. Labour had 13 years; the shadow
Chancellor was in charge of economic policy for 13
years and could have taken such a step, but he did not. I
suggest that Labour Members hold their tongues and
come with the Government through the Division Lobbies
as we do something about an abuse that they did
absolutely nothing to crack down on.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con): On the topic
of pearls of wisdom from the shadow Chancellor, does
my right hon. Friend agree that his rather careful
formulation that a jobs tax is not his argument was
rather too clever by half ? We did not hear from the
shadow Chancellor a clear commitment that a jobs tax
is not Labour’s policy now or at the general election.
Mr Osborne: My hon. Friend is right. We listened
carefully, but like the Leader of the Opposition the
shadow Chancellor did not rule out a jobs tax. Why?
Because it is Labour’s tax of choice. That is what they
did in government when they increased national insurance,
and what they proposed at the general election. A
couple of years ago the shadow Chancellor admitted
that he would be minded to do that as a means of
bringing order to the public finances—his weapon of
choice is a jobs tax. That is Labour’s answer to jobs: tax
them, destroy them, make people unemployed. That is
why every Labour Government in history have left the
House with unemployment higher than when they entered
office.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Osborne: Let me make a little progress and then I
will take more interventions. In a debate after last year’s
Queen’s Speech—[Interruption.] I am talking about
this year because last year the shadow Chancellor urged
me to do something this year. In the conclusion to his
speech last year, he said that the Chancellor should
listen to the International Monetary Fund. He also said
that
“a sensible and economically literate chancellor would heed the
IMF’s advice.”
I have reflected on that advice, and I think I will listen to
the IMF. I have its most recent statement from last week
and it states that growth in Britain is projected to be
“the fastest among the major advanced economies.”
It says that the economy has rebounded strongly, that
inflation has fallen rapidly, that growth is becoming
more balanced, that we are moving towards an investmentled economy, and that that good macro-economic
Debate on the Address
740
performance is expected to persist. It stated that the
news coming out of the UK recently has been “pretty
much all good”, in contrast to the shadow Chancellor’s
predictions, which were pretty much all bad. It concludes
that our fiscal policy—the deficit reduction plan that
the shadow Chancellor bets his entire economic credibility
on opposing—is the “anchor” of Britain’s stability and
economic success. My answer to the right hon. Gentleman
is this: I am listening to the IMF, the CBI, the chambers
of commerce, the Institute of Directors, the Federation
of Small Businesses and the OECD. Who on earth is he
listening to?
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): Will the
Chancellor listen to the IMF on the housing market, of
which he has made a total mess? House prices are rising
by 20% in London, and there is negative equity in the
north. Not one property was sold for £600,000 in my
constituency. Will the Chancellor now abandon the
stupid Help to Buy scheme, which goes up to £600,000
for new home owners?
Mr Osborne: I will come on to say something about
the housing market, and I am first to say that we must
be vigilant about housing. But to get a lecture from the
party that presided over the biggest housing boom and
bust in British history—
Ed Balls: What?
Mr Osborne: The shadow Chancellor says “what?”
He might forget what happened in 2007-08 when the
banks almost went bust because they extended housing
loans that people could not afford, house prices fell,
housing starts went off a cliff, and the people of Britain
paid the price of an economic policy predicated on the
fact that there would be no more boom and bust. The
people of Britain are living with the consequences of
that policy. Will he just accept now that basing an
economic policy on the prediction that there will be no
more boom and bust was an error of judgment?
Ed Balls: Will the Chancellor like to tell the House
how many people went into negative equity after 2007,
and how that compares with the number of people—the
tens of thousands—who were put into negative equity
after the Conservative housing crash of 1989? If he is
going to make these statements he ought to be able to
make them stand up. While we are here, will he tell us—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): No, no,
no. Mr Balls, sit down. Not “While we are here.” One
point at a time.
Mr Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman’s argument
seems to be, “My crash was better than your crash.”
That is a brilliant argument. I will tell him the answer.
He was going to remove a temporary scheme that
protects people from mortgage costs when they become
unemployed. I extended it year after year after year. I
have extended it again in the Budget to make sure that
people do not find themselves having their homes
repossessed. Can I also tell him that the housing market
fell by almost 20%? The price of houses fell and there
were people at Northern Rock—[Interruption.] His
argument is literally, “I’m sorry we messed it up, but
741
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
[Mr George Osborne]
you messed it up in the past as well.” That is an
absolutely hopeless argument. I have learned the lesson
from the terrible mistake—
Ed Balls: You were wrong.
Mr Osborne: I was wrong? This is the man who
presided over the deepest recession in British modern
history and the biggest banking crisis since the Victorian
age. He has the nerve to get up and say to the team that
is turning the country around that we got it wrong. The
truth is that he is the person who got it wrong.
There was a very interesting observation this week by
Charles Clarke, who was the Home Secretary when
Labour were in office. This is what he said:
“we have rested a great deal on assuming that the Conservative
strategy wouldn’t succeed, that ‘plan A’…would not work and
that has proved to be an unwise judgment because in fact, the
Conservatives have succeeded in getting the economy onto a more
positive path which leaves us”—
the Labour party—
“very little place”.
Alison McGovern: I think the Chancellor gave himself
away at the beginning of his speech when he described
“long-term economic plan” as just a catchphrase. He
said he would close the budget deficit and he has not. If
his policies are such a success, why not?
Mr Osborne: It is not a catchphrase; it is a plan that
has cut the claimant count in the hon. Lady’s constituency
by 45%. That is a plan that is working. The budget
deficit has been halved. If her argument is that we
should be cutting faster or trying to get the deficit down
faster, that is a novel argument because it is not one I
remember being made at any one of the economic
debates when she and the rest of the Labour party
trooped through the Division Lobby against every single
change we have made to try to bring the public finances
under control.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Osborne: I will give way to my hon. Friend the
Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) who
made an absolutely brilliant opening to this Queen’s
Speech debate.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con): I can
understand why the shadow Chancellor does not want
to congratulate those on the Government Front Bench.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people in
Portsmouth—those who have taken a risk and set up a
business, and the 2,000 people who have got back into
work—ought to be praised for their achievements rather
than have them dismissed by the Labour party?
Mr Osborne: I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
The progress being made in Portsmouth—the jobs created,
the businesses set up and the support people get from
their Member of Parliament—is an example of how the
long-term economic plan is working for the people of
Portsmouth, and how we need to go on working with
that plan, rather than abandoning it.
The hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern)
asked me what we can do to get the budget deficit down.
I suspect that even the shadow Chancellor does not
Debate on the Address
742
know. He tabled a motion today, although he did not
speak to it. The cost of implementing it would be
£14 billion. There is not a single measure in it that
would reduce public spending or pay for that £14 billion
price tag. It is completely incredible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Osborne: I will make a little progress and then
give way.
That speaks to a broader point. The shadow Chancellor
is not a naturally retiring type. He likes to get out there
and meet people. He likes to go to supermarkets and
shake people’s hands. The truth, however, is that he has
gone quiet in recent months and we do not see him so
much on the television or hear him on the radio. I think
that is because he knows—or rather his party leadership
knows—that they have lost the macro-economic argument.
He is now losing the micro-economic argument within
his own party. The Leader of the Opposition does not
want to talk anymore about Labour’s spending and
borrowing plans, because he knows they are very unpopular.
Instead, there is a whole series of populist initiatives on
price controls, incomes policies, bans on foreign investment,
renationalisation, and wars on business and enterprise.
The truth is that the shadow Chancellor actually spent a
considerable period of time, in Opposition in the 1990s
and then in office, trying to get his party to reject these
kinds of things. He knows that they will lead to higher
prices, lower incomes, less investment and fewer businesses.
In fact, the shadow Chancellor makes no secret, if we
read between the lines of his speech today and his
article in the New Statesman, that he is not in favour of
trying to restrict the open economy, and that he values
foreign investment coming into the country. The problem
is that the message being given out by the leader of the
Labour party is the complete opposite of that—it is in a
completely different direction. He jumps on every single
issue to make the argument, essentially, that we need a
more closed economy and that there is a dangerous race
to the bottom. The truth is that I think the shadow
Chancellor and I agree that it would be a disaster for
Britain to head down that route.
The shadow Chancellor has a macro-economic argument,
which is that Britain should be borrowing and spending
more, and, if necessary, increasing taxes to pay for it,
but the Labour leader will not allow him to make that
argument anymore, so he has gone completely silent.
Normally, he is there right behind the leader of the
Labour party, right behind his shoulder blades waiting
to support him. Instead, he has learned a trick from his
old friend, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and
Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown): when the Labour party is
doing badly, losing by-elections and the like, stay quiet
and disappear. That is what he has attempted to do in
the past couple of months. The truth is that the threat
that his economic approach represents—higher taxes,
and borrowing that would destroy our public finances
and push interest rates up—does not go away just
because he goes away. That is the plan he would put into
practice were he ever to walk through the doors of the
Treasury again.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): Before
the Chancellor moves on, he was giving us a history
lesson earlier but could we have some proper history?
743
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
He was criticising the shadow Chancellor for the period
when the Chancellor alleges things went wrong with the
banks and lending. He himself, the present Chancellor,
was urging less control and less regulation. Let us get
that history right. Will the Chancellor address one
issue: why is productivity failing to improve?
Mr Osborne: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that
productivity is one of the challenges for the British
economy. I have to say that, if offered the choice in the
early stages of a recovery between productivity
improvements and increased job numbers, I would take
increased job numbers, because of the considerable
human damage and the potential serious long-term
economic damage that high unemployment can cause. I
am enormously proud of the record of the British
business community in creating those jobs, and of the
people who have got those jobs and are holding them. I
agree that we want to make our economy more productive.
We do that by having an open economy where we
welcome investment, support enterprise and support
business. The Labour party’s policy proposals on prices,
incomes, new restrictions on foreign investment, higher
taxes on business and a higher corporation tax are all
the wrong approach and would make our economy less
productive.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Osborne: I will give way to my hon. Friend the
Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) and
then make some progress.
Mr Bellingham: Earlier my right hon. Friend mentioned
Charles Clarke, who knows quite a lot about what is
happening in Norfolk and will be aware that unemployment
in my constituency has fallen by 660 over the last year.
That is 660 families with jobs, a wage packet and hope
for the future. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the
vast majority of those jobs are either full time or in
self-employment?
Mr Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right:
there has been a remarkable jobs story in Norfolk as
well, supported by the economic investment we are
putting into new roads into the county. I have spoken to
the chamber of commerce there and seen its ideas for
attracting more investment into King’s Lynn and other
key centres, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on all he
is doing to back business there.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport)
(Con): Does my right hon. Friend accept that his economic
strategy has seen unemployment in my constituency fall
by 25% over the last four years? The Government’s
decision to grant a city deal to Plymouth will create
10,000 new jobs by releasing some of the land in the
dockyard.
Mr Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The
city deal, which he championed and urged on us, has a
real prospect of bringing more investment and jobs into
Plymouth. It is great news that work is being created in
that great city and I congratulate him on all the local
leadership he is showing there.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Osborne: I will take one more intervention from a
Labour Member and then make some progress.
Debate on the Address
744
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth)
(Lab): Before the Chancellor descends further into his
self-congratulatory speech and quotes statistics about
my constituency to me, will he confirm that the employment
rate is still below pre-recession levels and that a third of
the jobs in my constituency are below the living wage?
Mr Osborne: Well, yes, the employment rate is below
what it was before the economy crashed and we had the
deepest recession since the 1920s and ’30s, but the good
news, as the hon. Lady will have noted, is that there has
been a sharp rise in the employment rate in the last
year—800,000 new jobs created. The employment rate
now is very close to its pre-recession peak, so I would
suggest that she should not make too many predictions
on that front.
I am absolutely explicit that I want to get the employment
rate up. I want to ensure that our schools are providing
kids with the right skills, that we are creating more
apprenticeships—one of the great success stories of this
Government—and that we have more students coming
out of our universities with the right graduate qualifications,
so that we get our employment rate up even higher and
achieve the goal of full employment in this country.
One of the risks that will face any economy—particularly
one such as the United Kingdom’s, with a large number
of financial services in it—is any risk from financial
markets. As we begin to see the slow withdrawal of
monetary stimulus here in the UK and in the United
States, and with the eurozone heading in the other
direction, we might expect to see an increase in market
volatility. That is all the more reason why the financial
markets in foreign currencies, commodities and fixed
income should be fair and effective. Tonight at Mansion
House and here in the House of Commons, I want to
set out briefly the steps that the Governor of the Bank
of England and I are taking.
We will bring forward enhanced criminal sanctions to
punish and deter market abuse, but we will not opt into
European rules, instead developing our own tough domestic
powers. We will extend the senior managers regime
proposed by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking
Standards—so ably chaired by my hon. Friend the
Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie)—so that it covers
the branches of foreign banks. We will also use the
legislation we asked Parliament to pass in the wake of
the LIBOR scandal to regulate further benchmarks in
areas such as foreign exchange, fixed income and
commodities. The new review that the Governor and I
are establishing, chaired by the former deputy managing
director of the International Monetary Fund, Minouche
Shafik—now the deputy governor of the Bank of
England—and involving the Treasury and the Financial
Conduct Authority, will provide further recommendations.
Let me be absolutely clear: the integrity of the City
matters to the economy of Britain. Markets here set the
interest rates for people’s mortgages, the exchange rates
for our exports and holidays, and the commodity prices
for the goods we buy. We are going to deal with abuses,
tackle the unacceptable behaviour of the few and ensure
that markets are fair for the many who depend on them.
We are not going to wait for more financial scandals to
hit; instead we are going to act now and get ahead. We
will take these steps to build resilience in our financial
markets and our economy.
745
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): I greatly welcome
those steps. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the
House that enforcement will be based on simple principles
of integrity and not create a climate of box-ticking of
the kind that we saw with the now discredited Financial
Services Authority, which was introduced by the last
Government?
Mr Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that
what we need in our regulation is the exercise of judgment,
rather than just process. One of the biggest errors of
judgment was the abolition of the Bank of England as
an authority that would oversee systemic risks in our
economy and monitor levels of debt, and the creation
of the tripartite regime, which we have abolished.
One of the new features of the financial regulation
landscape is the Financial Policy Committee, which is
the group, independent of the Government, that looks
at systemic financial risks, seeks to spot asset booms
and has the tools to do something about them—something
that, sadly, was completely lacking six or seven years
ago. We have given the Financial Policy Committee
far-reaching powers over capital ratios and mortgage
standards, with powers to recommend limits on loansto-income and even loans-to-value. That is the answer
to the question about housing and the impact of housing
debt on our financial system and families. I am clear
that the Bank of England should not hesitate to use
those powers, and any others we make available, should
it see serious risks emerging in the housing market. That
is a fundamental improvement in the resilience of the
British economy.
I agree that we need more homes as well, and the
changes to our planning system are now increasing
housing supply. Planning permissions and starts are
now at a six-year high. The fundamental answer to the
challenge of the British housing market is to see more
homes built. Frankly, I would ask the Labour party,
which opposed the planning changes when they were
introduced a couple of years ago, to reconsider its
position and confirm that they will remain in place.
And by the way, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland
(Helen Goodman)—who I think sits on her party’s
Front Bench—said that Labour should get rid of the
Help to Buy scheme, let me tell her that it is helping
families across the country, overwhelmingly outside the
south-east of England, to buy homes that are well
below the national average house price. I am proud that
this Government are helping people with the aspiration
of buying their own home and providing the support
for families who can afford it to get on the housing
ladder.
Ed Balls: May I ask for a clarification of what the
Chancellor is announcing to the House today and at
Mansion House later? He wrote to the Governor of the
Bank of England setting the remit for the Financial
Policy Committee as recently as March. The Governor
of the Bank of England wrote back to the Chancellor
with his comments on the remit on 31 March. Is the
Chancellor now, a couple of months later, having to add
to, revise or supplement that remit? Is that a reflection
of the fact that there is widespread and growing concern,
including in the Bank of England, that what is happening
in the housing market is destabilising, and does he
regret that he did not face up to these issues earlier?
Debate on the Address
746
Mr Osborne: What the remit that I sent to the Financial
Policy Committee said is that we need to be vigilant
about risks emerging in the housing market. Last week
the IMF said very clearly that there is not a credit-fuelled
boom today, but we need to be vigilant, and I completely
agree with that. More than that, I have created—Parliament
legislated for—the system of that vigilance. The Financial
Policy Committee did not exist before this Government
came to office; there was no such thing as the remit that
the shadow Chancellor has just referred to. We have
given the Financial Policy Committee tools to look at
mortgage standards, alter capital ratios and make
recommendations on loan-to-income ratios and loan-tovalue ratios, and I am clear that it should not hesitate to
use them if it judges that to be necessary. That message
goes out loud and clear from this Dispatch Box and it
will go out loud and clear at Mansion House tonight.
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD): I wonder whether
the Chancellor is aware that when I worked for Northern
Rock, I used to visit Newcastle and we used to see
members of the Financial Services Authority leaving
the chief executive’s offices and thanking him for his
advice on how to do their jobs.
Mr Osborne: My hon. Friend brings his experience to
bear in the Chamber. Northern Rock was the epitome
of what went wrong—the 125% mortgages. It is the
important link between rising house prices and mortgages
that families find unaffordable if prices fall or they lose
work, and the risks to the balance sheets of banks that
came together in a toxic combination in 2007 and 2008.
The Financial Policy Committee exists to make sure
that we spot those risks in advance.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Osborne: Let me make a little progress, as I know
many Members want to speak. I want to cover a couple
of the key legislative measures in the Queen’s Speech.
I hope that the Bill to support small businesses and
enterprise will receive support from across the House,
as it will help those small businesses with their exports,
reduce tribunal delays and open up even more Government
procurement to them. We are, of course, going to help
smaller businesses—and indeed all businesses—by taking
under-21-year-olds out of the jobs tax altogether. That
is in stark contrast to the jobs tax plan that the Labour
party is developing.
Then there is the tax-free childcare Bill—a really
important measure to help hard-working families. In
this Parliament, we have already extended the free nursery
care available to parents of three and four-year-olds to
15 hours. From this September, 260,000 two-year-olds
from low-income families will be eligible for free hours
as well. Now we are taking another big step forward in
helping working parents. Once we pass this new Bill, all
families with children under 12 will, in effect, be able to
get tax relief for their child care costs—up to £2,000 of
help every year for every child. That is a huge boost to
working families in this country, and this tax-free child
care is affordable only because of the difficult decisions
we have taken to bring the public finances under control.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op): The
Chancellor mentioned help to small businesses, but
surely the help they really need is an increase in net
lending to them from the banking sector, yet it is
747
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
continuing to fall. How does the Chancellor explain
that in the light of the funding for lending scheme,
which simply does not appear to be working?
Mr Osborne: Funding for lending is now, of course,
skewed away from mortgages—a decision taken by the
Governor of the Bank of England and me before
Christmas—precisely to start to apply some macroprudential controls to the housing market. It is heavily
skewed towards small business lending in order to address
the issue of an impaired banking system, still deeply
damaged by what went on six or seven years ago. The
good news is that a huge amount of progress has been
made since this debate last year and since last year’s
Mansion House speech; we are undertaking a major
restructuring of the Royal Bank of Scotland and, of
course, starting to return Lloyds to the private sector.
All of that will help make sure that our financial system
is functioning properly and supporting businesses that
want to grow and expand.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): Will the Chancellor give
way?
Mr Osborne: Let me make this final point before
taking another intervention.
I want to conclude by mentioning a measure that the
shadow Chancellor—or, indeed, the Leader of the
Opposition, which is pretty revealing—did not mention
at all. I refer to the pensions tax Bill, which will give
people real choices about what they do with their defined
contribution pension pots, and ensure that they get free
and impartial guidance on those choices. We have spent
the last three months in consultation, and I have met
pension providers and many consumer groups. The
consultation closed yesterday, and I will announce next
month the details of how the freedoms and the guidance
will work. We will set out the implications for defined
benefit pensions, too.
We want an economy in which effort is rewarded and
those who save are trusted with their pension savings in
retirement. We will enshrine all this in law; it heralds a
revolution in pensions based on this simple principle:
“you earned it; you saved it; now you have control over
your own money”. Because it is such a simple principle,
because it involves trusting people and because that is
popular with people, the Labour Opposition have not
got a clue about how to respond to it. From the moment
that the Leader of the Opposition rose to give his
dismal, pre-scripted reply to the Budget, they have been
completely pole-axed by it.
Ian Lucas rose—
Mr Osborne: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me
whether he will support this Bill in the Division Lobbies.
Ian Lucas: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I ran my
own business in the 1980s, and I remember the pension
mis-selling and how many people lost their life savings
as a result of reckless Conservative legislation and a
lack of proper advice. This is a very serious matter, so
rather than taking cheap political pot shots, will the
right hon. Gentleman tell me what exactly will be the
nature of the advice given to people about their life
savings before he asks them to spend it?
Debate on the Address
748
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. I
think that the Chancellor has got the message.
Mr Osborne: Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, that was the
definition of a cheap political pot shot, and it rather
sums up the tone of Labour Members’ approach. They
started with a whole spiel about new politics and having
to engage with the disenchanted, but after only a few
minutes, it has swiftly deteriorated.
Ed Balls rose—
Mr Osborne: Let me directly answer the hon. Gentleman’s
point and then I shall take a final intervention from the
shadow Chancellor before winding up.
We are very clear that we want impartial and free
guidance—face to face if people want it. We are talking
to consumer groups such as Which?, Saga, and Citizens
Advice about how to ensure that we deliver such free
and impartial advice through the industry and consumer
groups all working together.
Ed Balls: We have welcomed annuities reform and the
introduction of collective pension vehicles. The test for
us is whether the sums will add up, whether it will cost
more, whether it will work in a fair and equitable way
and whether the advice and guidance will be sufficient. I
put it to the Chancellor that this may be something on
which we could try to get a cross-party consensus in the
long term rather than play politics.
Mr Osborne: I certainly hope, in the spirit of new
politics, that there will be agreement across the House
and that the Labour party will support our reforms.
There was no agreement on this issue when we were in
opposition. My hon. Friends who were Opposition
MPs at the time—when, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman
was a Treasury Minister—will remember that we tried
time and again to get the Treasury to open up annuities
and to remove the compulsory requirement to annuitise.
We remember the private Member’s Bill proposed by
David Curry—and my right hon. Friend the Member
for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) was involved,
too—attempting to achieve this objective, with the
Conservative party turning up en masse to try to deliver
it. We tried. If the shadow Chancellor is telling me that
has had a change of heart and supports this measure, I
can say “all well and good”. Perhaps that will help to
address the disillusionment of Labour supporters that
he mentioned earlier—[Interruption.] The shadow
Chancellor ends like he started. He wanted to give us a
big new thing about new politics, but he cannot resist
trading the blows across the Chamber.
Ed Balls: The point I made to the Chancellor in my
speech was that there is a disillusionment across politics,
incorporating Labour and Conservative voters, and that
we need to face up to it collectively rather than just play
partisan politics. That was my point.
Mr Osborne: I would argue that the best way to
address people’s disillusionment is to create an economy
that works for people and grows jobs for people. I
enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman’s tour d’horizon of
the global economy, and I certainly agree that the
Google self-drive car will be an important intervention—and
he will probably be one of the first customers for it.
749
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
[Mr George Osborne]
We passed a milestone this week when we learned
that 2 million new jobs had been created by our economic
plan. We saw new surveys this week showing Britain
attracting investment from around the world. The IMF
said we would have the fastest- growing major advanced
economy in the world and confirmed that deficit reduction
strategy at the heart of our approach is the anchor of
stability. We saw again today that the shadow Chancellor
and the Labour party would be a disaster for the British
economy, with more borrowing, more spending, more
taxes and a war on business. In this Queen’s Speech, we
reject these disastrous policies. Instead, we deliver on
the long-term economic plan that is turning Britain
around and offers a brighter future for all. I urge the
House to support the Queen’s Speech.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. Many
Members want to speak, so it would help to keep
interventions brief. If Members continue to intervene,
they will go to the bottom of the list. We are on a
six-minute limit, but it will have to be reduced if we do
not show consideration for others. Anything Members
can do to shorten their speeches will be much appreciated.
1.39 pm
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab): The kindest
thing that can be said about this Queen’s Speech is that
it is simply inadequate to address the problems which,
sadly, our country and its people still face, and about
which it is evident that the Government parties are still
in denial.
The Chancellor said in his speech that he had made
the mistake of reading the record before coming to the
House. I made the same mistake: I read the record of
the Chancellor’s Budget speech on 22 June 2010. He
said today that what we must now do is stick to our
long-term economic plan, which is what Government
Members continually say—they say it as if saying it
were as good as having one—but today’s economy does
not reflect the long-term economic plan that the Chancellor
set out in 2010.
The Chancellor said today that the Government were
“holding out the prospect”. Well, they held it out then.
According to that plan, by this year debt was supposed
to have fallen as a percentage of GDP, and the structural
current deficit should have been eliminated. The public
sector borrowing requirement should be down to £37 billion,
falling to £20 billion next year. Growth this year was
then projected to be 2.7%, but the plan was for growth
of well over 2% in 2011, 2012 and 2013. As we all know,
that simply did not happen. In other words, far from
sticking to a long-term plan that is now delivering,
which the Chancellor described as the “inescapable
truth”, the inescapable truth is that Government Members
have seen their plan and their forecasts fall to pieces
around their ears.
Dr Thérèse Coffey: I do not recognise the picture that
the right hon. Lady is painting, given the increased
number of jobs and other improvements. Does she
recall the statement by the Office for Budget Responsibility
that the recession was even deeper than it had seemed to
Debate on the Address
750
be when first analysed? That means that it has been
even more difficult for us to fill the hole that was left by
Labour and to achieve growth. That is finally under
way, but the job is not yet done.
Margaret Beckett: I think the hon. Lady will find that
the OBR’s argument does not account for the total
discrepancy between what the Chancellor said would
happen and what has actually happened. We have had
the nonsense of Government Members claiming that
we were wrong to say that their policies might curtail
growth, when that is precisely what happened. As for
the OBR, if the Chancellor is so proud of it—and I
think that he has created a good institution—why does
he not allow it to scrutinise our plans, rather than
making up his own version?
The Queen’s Speech demonstrates the Government’s
utter failure to address the difficulties that people face.
The eventual return to growth has been as welcome as it
was long overdue, but it is seriously alarming that
Government Members do not seem to recognise the
great difficulties that still confront so many. Only yesterday,
we learnt that Ofgem had written to the energy companies
highlighting the fall in wholesale prices over the last
18 months or so, and asking them nicely if they ever
intended to pass it on to their customers. Where is the
legislative framework to underpin action to tackle the
energy companies’ disregard for the interests of their
customers?
Where are the proposals for reform of the banks,
which demonstrate almost daily that for them too it is
back to business as before, bonuses and all? Why is
there nothing in the Queen’s Speech to address either
the decline in housing starts or the increasing pressure
and insecurity experienced by many tenants? And why,
oh why, have no steps been taken to ease the increasingly
intolerable pressures on the many people who have been
forced by circumstance to rely on benefits to make ends
meet? So many of those people are in work, albeit work
that is low paid and insecure.
People with disabilities, in particular, are still being
hit by the iniquitous bedroom tax. The Government
must have been advised that people would not be able to
move because there was not enough alternative
accommodation. During the same week in which they
introduced that tax, they cut taxes for those who were
already the wealthiest.
The most noticeable aspects of the Queen’s Speech
are the measures that are not in it and should be. Some
of its proposals merit a cautious welcome, although as
yet, in many instances, we have only the headlines.
However, I want to single out the issue of pensions. I
am pleased that the Chancellor mentioned it. I urge
caution on all Members, but especially Opposition
Members, because in this regard the Conservative party
has form. Annuities have long caused concern, although
an answer has not been easy to find, but the more that I
listened to the Chancellor talking about giving people
control of their own money and about the exciting new
freedoms that were on offer—which, according to him,
were heralding a revolution—the more uncomfortable I
became, because, like the Conservative party, I have
been here before.
It was in identical terms that the 1980s Tory Government
sold so-called pension reforms to an unsuspecting public.
That resulted in one of the greatest pension scandals of
751
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
all time, the mis-selling of personal pensions. Shamelessly
misleading advertising implied that if people left existing
pension schemes and put their savings in the hands of
the financial services experts, they could miraculously
put less in and get more out. People were encouraged by
the then Government to gamble with their retirement
savings without their employers having to contribute,
and without even the safety net of pooling their own
risk—and it all ended in tears. I heard what the Chancellor
said about the assurances that he had given and about
whom he had consulted, and I advise my right hon. and
hon. Friends to consider what he said in great detail. We
have asked the Government to publish in full the assessment
of the costs and risks of their proposal, but so far they
have refused to do so. I hope that they soon will.
I have noticed that there is an incentive for the
Government in this proposal, over and above the well-being
of pensioners. The Chancellor stands to gain a few
billions of pounds in extra tax. So there is something in
it for the Treasury—probably rather more than there is
for pensioners, in the short term—and the most careful
scrutiny of the details will be required.
Over the past few days—and, today, in the excellent
speech with which he opened the debate—the shadow
Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley
and Outwood (Ed Balls), has drawn attention to our
proposals to raise the minimum wage and encourage
the use of the living wage so that work can be made to
pay; to tackle the abuses of wage and employment law
that enable employers to use immigrant labour to undercut
the wages and conditions of others; to set up a British
investment bank and regional banks to support small
businesses, which—as was pointed out earlier—our existing
banks are still failing to do; and to address the crises in
housing and health care. We would have seen all those
proposals in a Labour Queen’s Speech. There is much
along those lines that the House and the Government
should and could be doing, but clearly it will not be
done under this Administration.
1.46 pm
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): I am sure that
the House is very grateful to the right hon. Member for
Derby South (Margaret Beckett) for reminding us all of
the magnitude of the fantastic challenge that the
Government faced when they came to office in 2010. It
is just a shame that neither she nor the shadow Chancellor
seized the opportunity to apologise to the House and
the nation for the catastrophic destruction of the public
finances and the running up of a massive deficit.
Margaret Beckett: I have heard that argument in the
House so many times. Indeed, the Chancellor used it
today. However, there is a bit that I have missed: the bit
where the right hon. Gentleman explained how the last
Government also brought about the crashes in the
United States and Japan, and in Spain and Italy and
throughout the European Union. I am looking forward
to hearing him give that explanation.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. We
need short interventions, and, in fairness, Members
should not bait others who have just spoken. I do not
think that that helps to ensure that everyone else will
have a chance to speak.
Debate on the Address
752
Sir Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to assist the right
hon. Lady, who I know is very reasonable. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer has just identified one of the causes of
the problem that we faced, namely the Labour
Government’s decision to remove responsibility for the
supervision of the banks from the Bank of England. I
know that that is the case, because I was an international
banker myself. The Tory party warned the Labour
Government that if they removed that responsibility
from the Bank, there would be problems. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to hear Sir Gerald,
but I cannot hear him when Members are shouting him
down.
Sir Gerald Howarth: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Let me be the first Government Member to congratulate
my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on sticking to his
guns, and on the long-term economic programme, which
has unquestionably benefited the United Kingdom—not
least my constituents in Aldershot, where unemployment
has now fallen to 1.8%. We have done fantastically well,
and, in my view, that was undoubtedly a factor in the
Newark by-election success, on which I congratulate my
right hon. and hon. Friends. There is no doubt that the
sheer weight of Conservative effort helped, as, indeed,
did the contribution made by Patrick Mercer, who was
very popular in the constituency, and had done good
work over 13 years.
However, as the shadow Chancellor pointed out, we
should not be lulled into a false sense of security. One of
the key reasons for UKIP’s success is that it has homed
in on the public’s rising concern about immigration.
That concern is not new; it has existed since the 1960s.
What is new is that while there was an understandable
reluctance to vote for the British National party, no
such inihibitions apply to UKIP.
For 50 years, those of us who have expressed concern
about the impact of mass immigration on our country
have been reviled and denounced as racist. All argument
was effectively closed down, as perfectly decent people
expressing perfectly reasonable fears were intimidated
into remaining publicly silent.
Things have now changed, however. People feel that
at last they can break free from the shackles of political
correctness in which they have been chained. It is no
longer racist to want to preserve our British way of life,
our religion and our culture; it is not racist to express
pride in our nation’s history and, indeed, in our imperial
past.
It is not just the Conservative party that has been
affected by the public’s concerns, as the shadow Chancellor’s
comments again made clear. Labour has seen white
working-class support desert to UKIP. Furthermore,
many of those who have arrived from abroad and have
integrated into our society are also concerned about the
continuing flows of migration.
The main parties have to recognise the effect that this
unprecedented tidal wave of migration has had on the
UK, including our economy. Of course migration has
not been without its benefits, some of which are only
too evident on the Benches around us here, and companies
such as Tata have made, and continue to make, a very
valuable contribution. However, this week’s Ofsted report
on Birmingham schools has revealed the extent to which
753
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
[Sir Gerald Howarth]
people newly arrived here not only reject our values and
customs, but want to impose their own on the rest of us.
I have a very clear message for them: this is a Christian
country, a tolerant country, we speak English, we shake
hands with ladies, and open facial recognition is a key
part of our culture. If they find that offensive, they
should please feel free to leave and move to a country
that is more to their liking—for there are plenty of
repressive regimes around the world that clearly are
more to the liking of people like that. As the T-shirt
worn by a young man whom I saw on the underground
earlier this week said: “Speak in English; Think in
English; Dream in English”. I thought that was rather
good advice to a lot of people in our country.
What we all need to understand is that it is numbers
that are the issue. As that excellent organisation
MigrationWatch has pointed out, between 1951 and
1991 the population born overseas grew by less than
2 million, yet after the election of the Labour Government
in 1997 the scale of immigration increased to a level
without historical precedent. Between 1991 and 2011,
the foreign-born population more than doubled, increasing
by 4 million. Much of this was deliberately encouraged
by the Blair Government, partly, as we were helpfully
told by a Labour speechwriter, Mr Andrew Neather, to
rub the noses of the right in diversity.
All this has had an impact on our country. The Prime
Minister has been at the forefront of the campaign to
denounce the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in the
UK, but there are practical challenges, too. My right
hon. Friend the Chancellor mentioned the housing
issue. We need to build a new home every seven minutes
just to accommodate new migrants to this country.
England is already the most crowded country in Europe,
yet unless tougher action is taken the population will
grow by 7 million in the next 15 years, 5 million of
which will be attributable to immigration, which is the
equivalent of the towns and cities of Birmingham,
Leeds, Glasgow and Manchester.
Mr Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that this
Government have made very significant progress in
reducing migration into the UK from outside the EU?
Indeed, there have been a number of big successes in
that regard. However, does he also agree that the time
has now come for the Governments of all countries in
the EU to look again at the absolute free movement of
people for jobs across the EU? The only way we can
solve this problem and bring migration into some form
of balance is by looking at migration from the EU as
well.
Sir Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend, with whom I
have the privilege of sharing adjoining offices in Portcullis
house, is entirely right. This Government have set about
trying to tackle migration, not least by dealing with the
legacy left by the previous Government, and we have
tackled non-EU migration. My hon. Friend is right to
alert the House to the extent to which our membership
of the EU is inhibiting our ability to do something
about that other aspect of migration, however, and I
have a proposal, which I will make in winding up my
contribution.
Debate on the Address
754
Labour’s failure to apologise for inflicting this policy
on the nation, together with its failure to apologise for
the destruction of the public finances, which I mentioned
earlier, means it is wholly unfit to return to office. That
brings me to the topic of the next Queen’s Speech. I
hope with all my heart that that will be prepared by my
right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron)
as leader of the Conservative party, elected with a clear
working majority in this place. This country absolutely
needs that. We cannot afford to go back to the policies
of tax and spend, and running up yet more debt, as my
right hon. Friend the Chancellor has reminded us again
today. We have to keep reminding the British people
that that is what Labour did in office and it has not yet
recanted. We therefore must do our duty to the British
people, which is to be returned with a clear working
majority.
To get to that happy position, however, we need to
convince the public that we will build on the existing
measures we have put in place to contain inward migration,
particularly from less affluent EU countries. We must
act now. The Government should accept the unanimous
recommendation of the European Scrutiny Committee
to disapply the European Communities Act 1972 in
relation to specific EU legislation, not least so that this
Parliament can once again become sovereign and take
swift action to recover control of our borders and
reduce the level of burdensome regulation being imposed
on us externally. If the European Court of Justice does
not like that, then tough; the British people certainly
will.
1.55 pm
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab): It is a privilege to
speak in this debate. This is the last opportunity I will
have to speak in a Queen’s Speech debate as a Member
of this House. I have to say, however, that the Queen’s
Speech we heard last week was not nearly as exciting as
the first Queen’s Speech I heard in this House in 1997.
I want to pick up on a few of the comments that have
been bandied around by those on the Government
Benches, not least the hon. Member for Aldershot
(Sir Gerald Howarth), who I have the pleasure, of
course, of following. “Tax and spend” is one comment
they throw about, but they do not say what that actually
means. We can look around our country and our individual
constituencies and see what the spend was all about. It
was about replacing schools that had not been looked
after for tens of years. Many of our schools were
Victorian-built, and many of our hospitals had been
built at the end of the 19th century, never mind the
20th century.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab): Will my
hon. Friend give way?
Mrs McGuire: Very briefly, as I want to take Mr Speaker’s
advice.
Robert Flello: I agree with everything my hon. Friend
has said, but she will also remember, as I do, Conservative
Members standing up time and again and calling for
schools and hospitals in their constituencies, and
how they have the shameless gall to say otherwise is
beyond me.
755
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
Mrs McGuire: I remember it well, and there is now
the mirror image of that: they are in government now,
and they are calling for even more expenditure in their
individual constituencies. That certainly puts a whole
new slant on “Think nationally—or globally—and act
locally.” It is almost as though there is no connect
between the two.
I first want to welcome two elements of the Queen’s
Speech, however. One is the commitment to continue to
implement new powers for the Scottish Parliament,
which I hope will be done within the context of a
United Kingdom—the “No” badge I am wearing today
has absolutely nothing to do with me not wanting
anybody here to speak to me.
I also welcome the increased penalties for those not
paying the national minimum wage, but I say to the
Government that it is one thing to increase penalties,
but it is another thing actually to enforce the law. There
is absolutely no point in increasing the penalties if there
is not going to be the enforcement welly behind the
national minimum wage to tackle employers who are
behaving illegally.
I want to concentrate on a couple of areas. One is
zero-hours contracts, which the Chancellor blithely
dismissed. Yes, zero-hours contracts have, of course,
been with us for a long time, and, yes, they can in some
circumstances be a useful resource in managing a work
force, but the difference between what happened in the
past and what is happening now is that zero-hours
contracts have effectively become part of the mainstream
in how our employment market is operating.
Let us consider a couple of companies that have a
presence in most of our areas. Sports Direct has 23,000
workers, and 20,000 of them are on zero-hours contracts.
That is 86% of its work force. That is not about Sports
Direct having flexibility. Some 80% of Wetherspoon
staff are on zero-hours contracts, too. That is not just
about managing the bulges in customer numbers at
certain times of the day or at the weekend, but is a
policy decision by those companies to use zero-hours
contracts as an employment tool. What is even worse is
that having 1 million or so workers on zero-hours
contracts helps to disguise the unemployment figures—
[Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew
Griffiths) talking to himself or does he want to intervene
on me?
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con): The right hon. Lady
condemns companies that employ people on zero-hours
contracts, but will she condemn the more than 60 Labour
MPs who also do so?
Mrs McGuire: The hon. Gentleman was obviously so
busy talking to himself that he did not hear what I was
saying, which was that there are instances in which
zero-hours contracts might well be suitable. However, a
zero-hours contract approach is now being embedded
in our mainstream way of employing people. That
stokes up people’s uncertainty about their income, creates
instability in their lives and leaves them unable to get
finance, even for rented accommodation. Those who
think that these contracts provide numerous hours’
work each week should note that, according to the
Office for National Statistics, an individual who worked
for just one hour within its survey period was considered
to be employed. The attractive mirror image to this
situation for the Government is that they can describe
Debate on the Address
756
those people as having come off the unemployment
register, creating a false figure for the unemployment in
our constituencies. The previous Tory Government used
to shunt people on to incapacity benefit. The present
Government are using zero-hours contracts in much the
same way.
The second issue that I want to address is how people
can afford housing in the present environment. According
to the Scottish Parliament information unit, the average
pay in Scotland is £26,472. The average price for a
semi-detached house in my constituency is £140,000. I
know that Members who represent constituencies in the
south of England might think that that is not a high
price, but we must ask ourselves how on earth people
are going to get a mortgage or other finance for such a
house on a salary of around £26,000 a year? It just does
not compute. In my area, we have strong tourist
accommodation and food industries, in which the average
wages have actually dropped. They now average £10,558
a year.
Taking all those factors together, we find a situation
in which many people in this country do not feel that
they are benefiting from the rosy picture painted by the
Chancellor earlier. We do not have to move far from
this Chamber to find evidence of that. I wonder how
many of us think about how our low-paid workers in
the House of Commons dining rooms or in the Tea
Room are even managing to get into work. Some of
them are on zero-hours contracts. We need to look at
the long-term implications for those people.
This Queen’s Speech is, I hope, the last under this
Government. I also hope that it predates a new Queen’s
Speech after the general election under a Labour
Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member
for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). I can find no
better description of the Conservatives than that used
by Disraeli. He said of Conservatism that it
“offers no redress for the present, and makes no preparation for
the future.”
This Queen’s Speech fulfils both those criteria.
2.4 pm
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): I
welcome the Queen’s Speech. In particular, I welcome
the proposals giving the Secretary of State for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs powers to introduce regulations
to hold direct elections in national parks in England.
Why do I think this is important? I speak from some
experience as I was the chairman of the Brecon Beacons
national park. The Bill refers to England, but the governance
of national parks in England is very similar to that in
Wales. At the moment, all members of national park
authorities are appointed, not elected. This results in a
democratic deficit. Members appointed by the Secretary
of State represent the national interest—I can understand
that—but members appointed by local authorities, often
on a political basis, sometimes do not even represent
wards in the national parks. Elections for local authority
councillors do not often feature national park issues.
The national parks that were set up in Scotland some
time after those in England and Wales do have direct
elections for a proportion of the members of national
park authorities. The elections have been well contested,
with good turnouts, and have proved popular; but more
importantly, they give people a chance to debate national
park matters during a democratic process.
757
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
Debate on the Address
758
[Roger Williams]
the single largest timber producer, and a vital habitat
for wildlife. The report estimated that our forests
I believe that this proposal will strengthen the case
for national parks and their purposes. The national
park establishment believes that it will bring forward
anti-national park candidates. It might do that, but I
believe that most people who live in national parks
support the principle, but wish to express a view on how
their services should be delivered. This Bill will be good
for national parks and for the people who live in them.
I also welcome the announcement in the Queen’s
Speech that, from 2016, all new homes will be required
to meet a zero-carbon standard. However, that will not
deal with the existing housing stock. In constituencies
such as mine, rural fuel poverty is a serious issue that
can have terrible health impacts. I had hoped that new
proposals would have been included to help people who
are struggling with fuel bills and fuel poverty by improving
our current housing stock.
The energy bill revolution has repeatedly shown that
investment in a major home energy efficiency programme
would deliver better economic outcomes than almost all
other forms of investment. Improving homes through
insulation would help to bring down people’s energy
costs. It would help to keep their homes warmer and
have major health and environmental benefits. Improving
the quality and efficiency of our homes must be one of
our top priorities if we are to tackle the growing issue of
fuel poverty. We must recognise the economic, social
and environmental benefits of improving our homes
and establish the idea that creating homes capable of
keeping people warm and healthy is the most vital
infrastructure investment we can make. I trust that such
a provision will appear in the infrastructure Bill.
On 28 November 2012, I congratulated the Government
on introducing regulations to protect wild animals in
travelling circuses and asked the Prime Minister whether
he would commit to introducing a ban in this Parliament.
He responded by saying:
“are producing annual returns on investment estimated at
£400 million”.
“It is our intention to do just that. My hon. Friend is absolutely
right to raise the fact that we have changed the regulations in
advance of legislation, so that the clearly expressed will of this
House can be met.”—[Official Report, 28 November 2012; Vol.
554, c. 219.]
Given that the Royal Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals, the British Veterinary Association,
the Captive Animals Protection Society and Animal
Defenders International all support a complete ban on
the use of wild animals in circuses, it is surely time
finally to pass legislation on this issue. Twenty-seven
other countries have introduced some form of prohibition
on the use of wild animals in circuses, including half of
the EU countries. Given the widespread support for a
ban, I was concerned that there was no mention of it in
the Queen’s Speech. I hope that other Members will
support me in asking the Government to introduce this
uncontroversial, and long overdue, legislation for a
complete ban.
In 2012, the Independent Panel on Forestry published
its final report to the Government on the future of
England’s forests and woodlands. It called for our forests
and woodlands to be revalued to take into account all
the services they provide. Forests are particularly important
for the local economy in rural areas. The panel’s research
showed that our forests are the
“single largest provider of outdoor leisure and recreation”,
It suggested that the public forest estate should be
defined in law as land held in trust for the nation. The
Government’s response supported the suggestions, but
legislation has yet to materialise. I am sure that other
hon. Members would agree that action is now needed to
ensure that our forests are protected for generations to
come.
2.10 pm
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab): We heard a vigorous
defence of the Queen’s Speech from the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, so it is surprising that so many Conservative
Members have voted with their feet and emptied their
side of the Chamber, obviously lacking the confidence
to speak up in favour of their own Chancellor.
A central part of the Government’s defence of their
economic policies is the challenge they make to the
competence of and decisions taken by Labour
Governments between 1997 and 2010. I was privileged
to be a senior member of the Labour Government
throughout the term and I am proud of their achievements.
As John Major once shrewdly observed, the only people
who never make mistakes are those who never make
decisions. No more than any Government, we did not
get all our judgments right, but overall I believe we
made the correct judgments, including on the economy.
The criticism the current Government make of us is not
just wide of the mark; it fails to take account of the
contradictory policy positions they were adopting at
the time.
The first charge the Chancellor has often made is that
the Labour Government did not fix the roof when the
sun was shining, but we did—we had to. As my right
hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire)
mentioned, one of the scandals of the Thatcher and
Major Governments was their palpable neglect of public
services. There were hospitals and schools with leaking
roofs and buckets everywhere. There were schools where
the sun could literally be seen through the open roof.
There is not a Conservative constituency in the country
where the roofs of its schools and hospitals were not
fixed by the last Labour Government, and no Conservative
MP complained about that spending at the time.
That brings me to my second point. I have been
through what Conservative shadow Chancellors were
saying in response to the Budgets and spending reviews
between 2000 and 2010. Yes, there are plenty of passages
of criticism, in small print, about the levels of borrowing
and taxation to which the Conservatives could, and do,
point, but if we look at what they were saying about the
spending plans that were leading to all those improvements
in their constituencies, we find that a very different
story emerges. In 2004, they published a medium-term
economic strategy, setting out their plans for the years
to 2011-12. The Institute for Fiscal Studies published its
own commentary on that, saying that if the Conservatives
were to win the forthcoming general election, spending
would
“still be higher”
under the Conservative plans
“than it was in every year of Labour’s first term”.
759
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
At the 2005 general election, the Conservatives’ main
pitch, in the face of Labour criticism, was to reassure
voters that no significant cuts would take place if they
were elected. The Economist newspaper for 14 April
2005 published a major article under the heading
“Much ado about nothing: The Conservatives’ spending
plans are strikingly similar to Labour’s”. After the
2005 election, the reassurance that the Conservatives
would not be cutting public spending continued, but in
even more categorical terms. On 3 September 2007, the
“ConservativeHome” website proclaimed:
“Tories will match Labour’s spending plans for the next three
years”.
It highlighted an article in The Times of the same date,
written by the then shadow Chancellor, which stated:
“I can confirm for the first time”—
he solemnly intoned—
“that a Conservative Government will adopt”
the Labour Government’s spending totals for the years
2008-09 to 2010-11.
Robert Flello: Does my right hon. Friend also recall
that at the same time the Conservatives, to a person,
were calling on the then Labour Government to weaken
the oversight and weaken the regulation of the banks to
allow them greater freedom?
Mr Straw: I absolutely confirm that. As we have
accepted, we did not regulate the banks and other
financial institutes sufficiently, but the Conservatives at
the time were demanding, in this Chamber and outside
it, not more regulation but less. Just in case readers did
not get the point of the then shadow Chancellor’s
article in The Times in September 2007, its headline was
“Tories cutting services? That’s a pack of lies”. All the
plans for the economy—those of the Conservatives, as
much as those of Labour—were knocked badly off
course by the global financial crisis. But for all the
insinuations we now hear about how Labour ignored
the warning signs, there is not a line—not a word—of
such predictions in that article, nor anywhere else in
what Conservatives were saying at the time.
The Chancellor talks today of Britain’s recovery, and
I am delighted that output, after the longest recession in
modern history, is now close to where it was six years
ago. But although he will not do this, future economic
historians will, I believe, judge that part of the reason
for the recovery was the wise decisions made by my
right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South
West (Mr Darling) when he was Chancellor of the
Exchequer. Let it also be remembered that, for all the
Conservative efforts to rewrite history now, the average
level of debt to GDP under Labour was below that of
the preceding Conservative Governments and below
international averages, not only for the 11 years before
the recession took hold, but even when our last two
years in power are included. We fixed the roofs, for both
sun and storms. By contrast, the Conservatives then
were calling simultaneously for lower taxation and lower
borrowing but the same spending. How on earth did
they think those sums would ever add up?
2.16 pm
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): The whole
House has great respect for the right hon. Member for
Blackburn (Mr Straw), who, as always, was careful to
Debate on the Address
760
acknowledge that the previous Labour Government did
make some mistakes. One of those has been all over the
newspapers this morning. It was a decision that he was
closely involved in and that I voted against: the decision
to invade Iraq. That has proved to be one of the single
most disastrous decisions ever made in foreign policy,
and we have reduced that country to chaos. There are
also lessons to be learned for the future, when next we
think of involving ourselves in foreign countries with
military ventures, whether in Ukraine or Syria.
The right hon. Gentleman was also generous in his
description of the very difficult economic decisions that
both Governments have grappled with. Of course he is
right to say that the roof has to be fixed, but I am sure
he would accept it when I say, as a former Chairman of
the Public Accounts Committee, that there were productivity
declines in areas such as the NHS and that extraordinary
waste was involved in the rapid increases in expenditure,
particularly on health and education. I am sure that
both Governments have a lot to learn about that. I
agree with him that we were probably wrong to agree to
commit ourselves to accepting Labour’s spending plans,
which were too high, and I have consistently argued
that we should have addressed the deficit even quicker.
It is a matter of regret that we are still spending more
than ever before. That highlights the key challenge that
both parties face: we have to keep addressing this deficit.
The current Government are winning the economic
argument because there remains a lack of coherence in
Labour’s spending plans. The whole country realises
that there has been this monumental waste and the
Government are addressing it. Perhaps we could have
done more and we could have done it in a better way,
but we are seeking to address it. This Labour Opposition,
unlike the Labour Opposition before 1997, who accepted
our spending plans before 1997, do not apparently have
a coherent economic message to address that. We know
that elections are won on the economy.
At the moment, we cannot deny that 2 million extra
jobs have been created in the private sector, and I have
to say, following an intervention from the Opposition
Benches, that they have not all come from ex-members
of the Bullingdon club. There are a lot of ordinary
people who are getting these jobs. The Opposition have
to address that problem, and we have to concentrate on
the economy. It was significant and a bit of an innovation
that, in the Gracious Speech, the Queen often mentioned
the economy.
Mr Straw: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman
for giving way and for his generosity towards me. Yes, of
course I accept the 2 million figure that he mentioned,
but does he acknowledge that a significant element of
that 2 million, whether we like it or not, is composed of
those migrants who have come in, about which he so
much complains?
Sir Edward Leigh: Yes, of course I acknowledge that,
but the point I want to make is that it is by concentrating
on the economy during the last year of this Government
that we will establish our credibility as a party of
government. What worries me is that although there is
so much in this Queen’s Speech that is excellent, especially
the Bill dealing with pensions, we still sometimes forget
the essential lesson that, as a Conservative party and a
Conservative Government, where we do conservative
761
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
[Sir Edward Leigh]
things and address the economy in a conservative way,
we win. Where we indulge in modernising gimmicks, we
stumble and start to lose. Sometimes, we forget that.
When we do conservative things, such as cutting the
deficit, introducing a benefit cap and attempting—not
enough—to deal with immigration, we win.
I am still worried about a couple of things in the
Queen’s Speech. Is it really essential, when we are trying
to address record spending and difficulties in the economy,
to start talking about eradicating plastic bags in
supermarkets? Is that a priority? Is it essential to start
talking about the recall of MPs? It may at first sight be
populist and popular, but it is very difficult to administer
and probably will not solve any problems. For centuries,
rogue MPs have consistently been kicked out of this
place, so let us concentrate on the economy.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op): By modernising,
which the hon. Gentleman is very much against, does
he mean reneging on the pledge to commit 0.7% of the
gross national product to international aid, which was a
manifesto promise of the three major parties in this
country?
Sir Edward Leigh: That is a manifesto promise. My
views on that are well known. I have two daughters
working in international development in Africa, and I
am proud of the efforts that we have made on international
aid. I am totally committed to spending properly on
international aid, but the Department for International
Development, like every other Department, must spend
what we can afford to spend and what we need to spend.
Frankly, it is somewhat economically illiterate to insist
by legislation or by other means that a Department sets
a fixed percentage of GNP on aid, health or anything
else. What happens if there is a recession and the
economy contracts? We could end up spending less on
aid. I have consistently made that argument, but I am
grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
My point is that we must concentrate on the economy.
We still face enormous challenges. It is very difficult to
get to grips with some of these challenges while we are
in a coalition Government. A lot has been made about
immigration in this debate. The truth is that we have
made a mistake—the shadow Chancellor was generous
enough in response to my intervention to accept that—in
allowing such high immigration from eastern Europe.
We all accept that, especially when economies diverge
so greatly, as happens between Bulgaria and Romania
and ours. It cannot be accepted in the long term that
there should be an untrammelled right of immigration
from poorly performing economies into our own. We
just have to accept that. Therefore, the European Union
rules on this must be reformed. I should like to see
legislation put in place, but it will not be possible while
we are in a coalition.
We also have to address the problem of the referendum.
The British people deserve a referendum. Nobody under
the age of 55 has been given a referendum. It is virtually
impossible to get a referendum Bill through via the
private Member’s procedure. The referendum Bill should
be in the Queen’s Speech. It should be a Government
Bill. I say to my hon. Friends the Liberal Democrats,
who are sitting in front of me, that they cannot deny the
right of the British people to have a choice.
Debate on the Address
762
We need to address the concept of human rights. I am
a great supporter of the Council of Europe and all its
work; I am a member of it. The fact is that we cannot
continue to have a proactive European Court of Human
Rights in Strasbourg, which is defeating the efforts of
the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for
Blackburn (Mr Straw), and many others to deal with
terrorism. There is much more that we need to do,
which is why, for all that the coalition has achieved, we
must get a clear result at the next general election. I
hope from the bottom of my heart that it is a Conservative
victory, so that we can address the very serious problems
that still afflict our nation.
2.25 pm
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP): The Queen’s
Speech said that the stated objective of this legislative
programme was to build a stronger economy. It said
that it was to strengthen the economy. The Prime Minister
used many of the same phrases in his speech last week,
and spoke again, as the Chancellor did today, about this
fabled long-term economic plan, which is a bit like a
fabled unicorn; everybody knows what is meant, but no
one has ever seen one. This long-term economic plan is
much the same. Anyone with any common sense would
assume that a long-term economic plan was predicated
on substantial above-trend growth, yet the word “growth”
did not appear once in the Queen’s Speech. Indeed, the
Prime Minister only uttered it twice: once to chide the
leader of the Labour party, not unreasonably, and
another time in response to an intervention from his
own side. Why the coyness? Where is the plan for real
growth in the economy? When one looks at what is
proposed in this legislative programme and at what has
come before, particularly in the Budget, one can see
that, at its heart, this is still an austerity Government.
Yes, there are some helpful Bills, such as the national
insurance contributions Bill and, potentially, the small
business, enterprise and employment Bill, but there is
nothing that anyone can point to and say, “That will
make a real difference in delivering growth in the economy.”
Perhaps the Government think that mining tunnels
under people’s homes without permission to carry fracked
gas qualifies as a growth measure.
Why are the Government so coy? Why are they giving
us this convoluted formulation of words about long-term
plans and a focus on a very narrow, although helpful,
policy about national insurance? It is because they have
failed and they know it. Nothing the Government said
last week or this week changes the underlying direction
of travel or the underlying shape of the economy as
described to us in the Red Book only a few months ago.
Dr Thérèse Coffey: I am really interested in the hon.
Gentleman’s contribution. The International Monetary
Fund has confirmed that we are the fastest growing
country in the G7. We have seen growth in all sectors of
the economy in the past year. That must be welcomed.
There is no unicorn. The only unicorn is the Scottish
National party’s claims that Scotland will be better off
out of the UK.
Stewart Hosie: That is because we would be. Although
I welcome the limited growth that we have had, the
actions taken by this Government since the last election
stifled and strangled the recovery for some years, and
that is the underlying problem with their plan.
763
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
Let me take Scotland as an example. What the
Government are proposing—this was before the Budget—is
an 11% fiscal expenditure cut, a 27% cut in capital and a
real terms 9.9% cut in the overall budget. This year’s
Budget made that position worse, and that applies to
spending Departments throughout the UK. Nothing in
the Queen’s Speech changes that. Nor does it change
the fact that the Chancellor told us that for 2013-14, the
current account deficit would be down to 2.3% of GDP,
borrowing would be reduced to £60 billion and the net
debt would be at 70% of GDP. He was forced to tell us
this year that the current account deficit was higher,
borrowing was actually £95.5 billion and the net debt
was 75% of GDP. The short-term metrics were wrong.
What about the big targets the Chancellor set for
himself ? They were that the debt would begin to fall as
a share of GDP by this year, that the current account
would be in balance next year and that the same year
borrowing would be down to £20 billion. Presumably,
that is what the Prime Minister meant by financial
security. Of course, as we know—nothing in the Queen’s
Speech changes this—the debt will not fall until 2016-17,
two years late. The current account will not be back in
the black until 2017-18, two years late. Public sector net
borrowing in 2015-16 will not be £20 billion but £68 billion,
three and a half times higher.
Although the limited recovery we have seen in the
past year is of course to be welcomed—this directly
answers the question asked by the hon. Member for
Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey)—not a single one of the
Chancellor’s key targets has been met and his actions,
as this is an austerity Government, stifled growth and
delayed recovery year-on-year. No amount of convoluted
formulations or warm words about long-term economic
plans can change that.
What are the Government planning? It is there in
black and white in the Red Book, on page 20 for
anybody who wants to have a look. There will be a
discretionary consolidation—that is cuts, and tax rises—next
year to the tune of £126 billion. That is £2,000 per
person in tax rises and cuts. That is what they are
planning and that is what they have signed up to.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab): I am interested
in the hon. Gentleman’s comments on achieving growth.
Presumably the skill base would need to be increased, so
I take it that he agrees that cutting the college budget by
£50 million would not be the way to achieve sustainable
growth.
Stewart Hosie: When it comes to improving education,
having a record number of Scots in full-time college
places is excellent; having 25,000 to 26,000 Scots starting
apprenticeships every year is first class; having 32,000
Scots start university this year is the way to proceed;
and having all the school exam results improve in the
way they have is probably a really good start. If the hon.
Lady is saying that we can do more and can do better, of
course we can—any Government can—but let us not
talk down success, particularly when we are trying to
hold this Government to account.
The point that I was making is that what we have is
not a long-term economic plan. It is certainly not
sustainable and it is certainly not a recipe for the growth
the economy needs. It is just more Liberal and Tory
austerity. It is the same plan that has seen this Government
Debate on the Address
764
fail on their short-term and long-term targets so far and
that will fail again. If it is about financial security, there
is no evidence that it will succeed. If it is about growth,
the Government are not even talking about that. If it is
about delivering on the needs and ambitions of the
people, it is woefully inadequate. As the discretionary
consolidation laid out in black and white in the Red
Book is predicated on a ratio of cuts to tax rises of 4:1,
we do not have a long-term economic plan but a Tory
Government who seem determined once again to try to
balance the books on the backs of the poor. That is not
a long-term economic plan; that is a disgrace.
2.33 pm
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con): I am delighted to
take part in this important debate on the Queen’s Speech
and to congratulate the Chancellor on what he has done
for our economy in the United Kingdom and particularly
for the economy in Burton. I take part in the debate
because I was urged to do so by one of my constituents
at a thriving Burton business club lunch recently. He
said to me, “Andrew, will you go into the Chamber and
urge George to carry on with his long-term economic
plan. Will you tell him not to listen to all that Balls?” I
assume that he was talking about the shadow Chancellor.
My constituent was absolutely right, because the
Government’s long-term economic plan is working for
my constituents and my businesses in Burton and Uttoxeter.
When I spoke to those entrepreneurs and small business
men and women at Burton business club, they told me
about the confidence they have in our economy. They
have full order books, they are taking on new employees
and they are optimistic about the future for their businesses
and for our economy. If that is the case, we must
continue with our long-term economic plan because in
Burton it is working.
Since I became the Member of Parliament for Burton,
we have seen unemployment reduce by 43%. Today’s
Opposition amendment talks about opportunities for
young people, but I talk about the 1,100 apprenticeships
that young people in my constituency have started as a
result of the policies of this Government. The Opposition
talk about the need to help people in poverty, but I talk
about the 900 families who now have the security of a
job as a result of the policies of this Government. The
plan is working in Burton.
Obviously, this debate is on the economy and I want
to touch on a particular issue to do with that and with
the Queen’s Speech, and that is the 900,000 people
employed in the beer and pub trade. I come from the
home of Britain’s brewing industry where 4,000 people
are employed in beer and pubs, so this issue is hugely
important for the families that rely on that important
industry and not just for those who enjoy great British
beer and our community pubs. I am very pleased to see
in the Queen’s Speech legislation to protect our publicans
up and down the country, as any Members on both
sides of the House have voiced their concerns about
how pubcos have treated some of our landlords. I was
one of those who stood up and spoke about self-regulation,
and I have to admit that I was wrong. The need for
legislation has been demonstrated and I am pleased that
the Government have come up with a proposal that will
protect publicans and bring real transparency and openness
into the system. Our pub industry will flourish as a
result.
765
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
[Andrew Griffiths]
I am also pleased that Ministers recognise the dangers
in the proposal for a free-of-tie option. As the Department
for Business, Innovation and Skills economic report by
London Economics proved, that would have closed
almost 2,000 pubs virtually overnight. I am pleased that
a statutory code and a regulator will give real protection
to landlords and publicans, but I have some concerns. It
has always been the stated aim of this Government to
cut red tape and regulation, with the one in, two out
rule, and I hope that they will bear that in mind when
they consider the proposed costs of the adjudicator.
Self-regulation costs the industry about £100,000 a year,
but it is estimated that the proposal for the adjudicator
will cost £5 million a year, which will be funded by a
levy on the industry. We must be careful that in our
desire to protect those publicans we do not set up a
quango that will end up costing the industry and that
will be over-burdensome.
As the Member of Parliament for Burton, where
Marston’s is based, I am also concerned that its franchisees
will be caught up in this. I urge the Government to
reconsider whether this legislation is aimed at capturing
the franchise model. It is worth while thinking about
that. I am also grateful that the Government chose not
to accept the proposal for a mandatory guest beer. We
all recognise the concerns of SIBA, the Society of
Independent Brewers, and lots of small breweries that
that proposal would have hit the cask ales and Britain’s
smaller breweries, and that we would have seen imported
foreign lagers as the guest ale.
I commend the Government for this Bill and hope
that we can see it speedily enacted without too much
meddling or interference to damage it. As a result,
publicans, the British beer industry and the British pub
industry will thrive across the country.
2.39 pm
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth)
(Lab): I found the reference in the Queen’s Speech to the
Government continuing
“to build a stronger economy and a fairer society”
absolutely incredible. It assumes that we already have a
stronger economy and a fairer society, and we patently
do not. We have had the worst economic recovery in
100 years. After three years where the economy flatlined,
the recovery is still very fragile. We need 1.6% growth
each quarter to catch up to the growth we had at the end
of 2010.
What is growth based on? Once again, we are seeing
the start of a housing bubble, driven by the Government’s
policies, and an increase in household debt, which was
up to £2.9 billion in March this year. The Tories’ 2010
manifesto stated:
“A sustainable recovery must be driven by growth in exports”.
Absolutely. Who would disagree with that? But the
Government have not enabled that to happen. The
trade figures remain in the red—by £22.4 billion in
quarter 4 last year, which is equivalent to 5.4% of GDP.
By their own measures, the Government are failing.
Related to that, UK productivity is the second lowest in
the G7 and 20% lower than the G7 average. That is the
widest gap since 1992 and reflects a massive fall in
non-financial investment.
Debate on the Address
766
Small businesses, which I have been campaigning for
and championing since I entered the House three years
ago and which employ nearly half the work force, are
still feeling the pinch. The Federation of Small Businesses
survey shows that access to finance and late payments
are still the two biggest issues, with £30.2 billion owed
to them in late payments. Although I recognise that the
Government have finally responded to the issues that
my inquiry on late payments identified last year and
taken up some of my recommendations, it is likely that
the measures will relate only to the public sector. That is
not good enough and does not go far enough. We need
to ensure that the Government are standing up to big
businesses and doing the right thing. If they do not,
we will.
Then, of course, we had the Government’s arrogance
about what they would do about public borrowing.
They claimed that they would clear the deficit by 2015,
but we are we are not even halfway there yet, and they
are still borrowing £190 billion more than they planned.
Associated with the fragile recovery are the effects on
unemployment and employment. The unemployment
rate is above pre-recession levels, and employment rates
are below pre-recession levels. I still have major issues
on how the figures are distorted by the inappropriate
sanctioning that is a policy in the Department for Work
and Pensions.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): Does my
hon. Friend share my concern—it was one of the points
I wanted to raise with the Chancellor when I was
attempting to intervene on him—that more than 1
million people who are unemployed do not appear on
the claimant count of which he is so proud? They
represent more than 47% of the total number of the
unemployed. There appears to be no knowledge of
what is happening with these individuals and why they
are finding it so difficult to get jobs. It clearly cannot be
benefits dependency, because they are not on benefits.
Debbie Abrahams: Absolutely. My hon. Friend highlights
another issue in how information on claimants and
people not receiving payments is being missed. We
should be doing as much as we can to expose those
issues.
I mentioned the employment rate still being below
pre-recession levels. The jobs that have been created
since 2010 tend to be insecure, part time, low paid and
on zero-hours contracts. The number of people on
short-term contracts has increased by 20 times since
2010 to 1.65 million, with 655,000 of those involuntary.
Increases in the number of temporary jobs account for
more than half the rise in employment. Nearly one in
five, or 1.46 million people, work part time because
they cannot get full-time work. That is the highest
underemployment since 1992. Four out of five new
jobs, and one in three of those in Oldham, pay below
the living wage.
Another issue is the geographical spread of the so-called
recovery. Since 2010, 79% of new jobs have been created
in London, with another 10% in nine urban centres
outside London.
In the limited time available, I want to talk about the
inequalities this Government are presiding over. All
those employment and unemployment effects are happening
at a time when the Government have made specific
767
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
policy decisions on increasing the top rate of tax for
people with incomes of more £150,000, but average
wages are down £1,600 a year. The analysis by the
Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that the net effect of
tax and benefit changes for an average family is a loss of
more than £900 since 2010, while bank bonuses have
soared by 83% and top-to-bottom pay ratios in the
FTSE 100 stand at 300:1.
We are already seeing the impact in access to food
banks: this week’s Oxfam report, “Below the Breadline”,
shows that 20,247,042 meals were given to people in
food poverty in 2013-14 by the three main food aid
providers—a 54% increase on 2012. Another recent
Oxfam report, “A Tale of Two Britains”, highlighted
the growing gap between rich and poor, with five of the
richest families in the UK wealthier than the bottom
20%, or 12.6 million. That follows a raft of other
reports—for example, from the Equality Trust.
The gap matters—it really does. It matters because,
as overwhelming evidence shows, society as a whole
benefits from being fairer and more equal in areas
ranging from life expectancy and mental health to
educational attainment, social cohesion and social mobility.
It is worrying that we are seeing further increases in
premature deaths in deprived areas compared with more
affluent ones. According to a report published in May,
people in Manchester are twice as likely to die early as
people in Wokingham, yet as I mentioned in Prime
Minister’s questions yesterday, last December the
Government scrapped the health inequalities formula
that Labour introduced in office to ensure that NHS
resources were allocated according to need, and which
the analysis proves has been effective.
A fairer, more equal society also benefits our economy.
Again, there is overwhelming evidence from a range of
sources that inequality causes financial instability,
undermines productivity and retards growth.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing): Order.
It will be obvious to the hon. Members in the Chamber
that a great many still wish to speak this afternoon and
there is very little time left. After the next speaker has
concluded, I will reduce the time limit to four minutes. I
appreciate that this makes it difficult for Members who
have prepared speeches, but if everyone is to be given
the opportunity to speak, we simply cannot have more
than four minutes. I call Andrew Selous.
2.47 pm
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con): There
seems to be a degree of amnesia among Opposition
Members about the scale of the great recession presided
over by the last Government and which this Government
are having to deal with. That recession cost the British
economy £112 billion, and it cost 750,000 people their
job. On Labour’s watch, youth unemployment increased
by nearly half, long-term unemployment almost doubled
in just two years, 5 million people were left on out-of-work
benefits, and in one in five households no one was
working. We have made improvements, although of
course we want to go further, but it is worth remembering
the scale of the difficulties this Government have had to
deal with in the past four years.
Debate on the Address
768
Government Members believe in high-skill, high-value
jobs. That is why we are so passionate about our
apprenticeship programme and about the university
technical colleges we are introducing. It is why we are so
passionate about our young people gaining the best
skills and about improving school standards. That is the
way to get pay increases, to defeat poverty and to deal
with the cost of living issues facing our constituents.
In my constituency, I see employers rising to the
challenge. I see B/E Aerospace in Leighton Buzzard
now employing some 540 people, Honeytop Speciality
Foods developing a new factory, and Care Group, a
company from India, setting up a new factory on the
Woodside estate in Dunstable. In India, that business
has taken on a significant number of disabled people,
and its delightful chief executive plans to do the same in
this country—let no one say that capitalism cannot
have a human face and a heart.
The jobs figures in my own constituency show that
there has been a 40% fall in the overall claimant count
for jobseeker’s allowance in the past year and a fall in
unemployment of 54% for 18 to 24-year-olds, 35% for
those over 50, and 39% for those who have been out of
work for more than 12 months. Of course, we have
further to go—we want everyone to have a job—but
that is not bad progress, given the scale of the challenges
with which we were left.
We have a Prime Minister who has said at the Dispatch
Box that he would like to see a minimum wage of £7 an
hour. More companies are paying the living wage. I
remind Opposition Members that it took a Conservative
Mayor of London to introduce a living wage in London,
and a Conservative Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions to make sure the cleaners in the Department
got the living wage. That did not happen under the
previous Government.
What would a socialist Government look like? We do
not have to imagine it, because we can just look across
the channel, where we will see higher rates of
unemployment, much lower rates of business start-up
and a whole host of French entrepreneurs, such as
Mr Guillaume Santacruz, crossing the channel to set up
business here. He has said:
“Where will I have the bigger opportunity in Europe?”
Of the UK, he has said:
“It’s more dynamic and international, business funding is
easier to get, and it’s a better base if you want to expand.”
He has left socialist France to come to a majorityConservative-led Britain to expand his business.
Oliver Colvile: Does my hon. Friend agree that cutting
corporation tax makes it much more attractive for
business and industry to come here, and that that is a
key thing we should be looking to do, to make sure we
have lower taxes?
Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
We sometimes miss the point that what we should
concentrate on is not the tax rate, but the amount of tax
the Exchequer gains. Economic history has shown over
a long period that lower rates of tax tend to generate
more tax revenue, as they inspire entrepreneurs to create
more businesses and expand them.
I am proud that we have a Government who are
rising to the infrastructure challenge facing this country.
We have heard a lot about infrastructure. My area has
waited for a crucial bypass for 60, 70 or even 80 years. I
769
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
[Andrew Selous]
have watched the town in which my constituency office
is located, Dunstable, and the neighbouring town of
Houghton Regis being throttled by excessive traffic
congestion for many years. It has had a dreadful impact
on businesses there. Even though permission was given
for the road in 2003, not a shovel hit the ground during
the whole 13 years under the previous Labour Government.
I can tell hon. Members that diggers are now on the
ground in my constituency and the road is going to get
built. There will be relief for the people of Dunstable
and Houghton Regis, who waited a long 13 years under
the previous Government for nothing at all to happen.
We have the courage to make sure that people can get
on trains in the morning and do not arrive at platforms
that are already full. We have not built a new railway
line since the Victorian era, but it is this Government
who have the courage to rise to the infrastructure challenge.
We have also shown courage on pensions. Have not
Opposition Members received letters from their constituents
telling them how appalling the annuity market has been
and how the projections of their future pensions were
on the floor, cut by more than half ? Were they not
concerned by that? We on the Government Benches
were, and, as the Chancellor said earlier, many of us
came in Friday after Friday to try to get private Members’
Bills through to do something about it. Of course,
Labour Members did not trust our constituents to
spend their own money wisely. Oh no, they did not want
to do that—they wanted to control it. I am proud to be
serving in a Government who trust people with their
own money. As the Chancellor has said, they have
earned it, they have saved it and they have the right to
have control over it. That is exactly what we should be
doing.
Those are all very good things. Of course, there is
further to go. The way to deal with the cost of living
and helping people pay their bills is more jobs, more
better paid and highly skilled jobs and a high value-added
economy. We are going in the right direction. We are
creating more jobs and Government Members want
them to be well paid and highly skilled, and that is what
we will continue to try to achieve.
2.54 pm
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton)
(Lab): Listening to the Chancellor, I think the Tory
attack lines for the next election are pretty clear. They
go like this: “Labour left a dreadful economic mess,
which we had to clear up the way we did. It’s been
painful, but we were all in it together. We always had a
long-term economic plan, and now it’s come good and
we have a strong economic recovery.” What unites all of
those claims is that every one of them is utterly false.
Labour did not leave an economic mess—the bankers
did. In the Labour pre-crash years, the biggest deficit
was 3.3% of GDP, whereas the Thatcher and Major
Governments ratcheted up bigger deficits in 10 out of
their 18 years. Although Thatcher-Major achieved a
surplus in two years, Blair-Brown achieved a surplus in
four years.
We were not all in it together. Average wages have
fallen 7% since the crash, while, according to The Sunday
Times rich list published month ago, the richest thousand
Debate on the Address
770
persons in the population have increased their wealth in
this short period—they have actually doubled it—to
just over half a trillion pounds.
In so far as the Chancellor had any long-term plan at
all, it was to shrink the public sector in order to enable
the private sector to expand into it, but, of course, that
did not happen. Of the 1 million jobs that have allegedly
been created, two thirds are self-employed on a pittance
income and almost all of the rest are insecure, low paid
and on zero-hours contracts. The fact is that virtually
none of them are full-time jobs on or near the median
income.
As for the present recovery, it is far too dependent on
consumer debt to last and it cannot be sustainable. If
we look at all the sources of demand—wage levels,
productivity, business investment and exports net of
imports—we see that they are all dramatically negative.
The biggest fib in the Tory lexicon is that they had to
clear the huge deficit by prolonged austerity. They did
not. The then Labour Chancellor’s two stimulatory
Budgets in 2009 and 2010 brought the deficit down
sharply from £157 billion in 2009 to £118 billion in
2011—a reduction of nearly £40 billion in just two
years. The present Chancellor’s austerity Budgets have
slowed the reduction to a trickle and it has reached £108
billion this year—a reduction of £10 billion over three
years. There is not much doubt there about the quickest
and best way to cut the deficit.
What should be done? Initially, with private investment
flat on its back, we need public investment to promote
growth, directed in consultation with industrial leaders
at energy, transport and IT infrastructure and at house
building and laying the foundations for a low-carbon
economy.
How will it be paid for? With interest rates at 0.5%, a
hefty investment package of £30 billion could be purchased
from the markets at the bargain-basement rate of
£150 million a year, which would be enough to generate
more than 1 million jobs—proper jobs—within two
years.
It could, however, be done without any increase at all
in public borrowing. A further £25 billion to £30 billion
tranche of quantitative easing could be directed not at
the banks, as it has been before, but at agreed industrial
projects; or the publicly owned banks, RBS and Lloyds,
could be instructed to prioritise their lending to industry,
rather than speculation abroad or on property; or the
very rich, who have monopolised 90% of the gains since
the crash could be subject to a special super tax to help
contribute to tackling the nation’s debt, which some of
them helped to create and from which they have most
benefited.
2.58 pm
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con): It is a
great honour to contribute to this debate on the Gracious
Speech. Some Members have made their final contribution
to such a debate, certainly in this House, but I am sure
that some will reappear in the other place.
It is fair to say that the Queen’s Speech is an attempt
to build on the Government’s good efforts over four
years in order to make our country continue its journey
towards a fairer society with a long-term economic
plan. Unemployment, long-term unemployment and
youth unemployment are all down. That is far from the
771
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
misery that was predicted several years ago. Nevertheless,
I am sure that the Chancellor would be the first to
admit that we have not tackled the deficit as quickly as
we would have liked. Of course the issue is that, as the
Office for Budget Responsibility pointed out, the recession
was deeper than was initially realised and therefore it is
taking longer to get out of.
Given the amendment we are considering and the
guidance given earlier, I cannot talk about some of the
Bills in the Queen’s Speech, but there is one Bill that I
think will be iconic and will I am sure receive the
support of the whole House: the Modern Slavery Bill. I
will keep to the guidance, but it is important that
instead of having just a budget debate we continue to
consider the ideas that we will all contribute to in the
next 10 months.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Huddersfield
(Mr Sheerman) put a question to the Chancellor, to
which my right hon. Friend replied, in which he rightly
pointed out that productivity is not recovering. As the
Chancellor said, however, to some extent choices have
to be made. It is fair to say that keeping people in
work—indeed, having more people in work—is probably
a better choice at this moment in time, which will then
allow us to focus on the productivity challenge that all
of us in this country need to address in order to keep
our economic plan going. However, that challenge is
not unique to our country, which is why we continue to
seek reform at the European Union level.
The Bills that we have put forward include the small
business Bill. One of the things that the Government
have been trying to do is to remove some of the barriers
to growth, while enabling some of the activities that
they would like to see. We will see that with export
finance, and with finance being targeted at small businesses
and the help in that sector. There is also the important
measure adding a deregulation target—a commendable
element that I think we will all enjoy passing.
Of course, there are important measures to help
people with work and the cost of child care; child care
payments will be addressed in the Child Care Payments
Bill. The National Insurance Contributions Bill is really
important. I am sure that many Members of this House
have examples of companies having done the wrong
thing, and we will set that right, just as we will on issues
such as zero-hours contracts and removing the exclusivity
clause.
On the infrastructure Bill, I welcome some of the
plans related to housing. I give a cautious welcome to
the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime,
with Sizewell C hopefully being built in my constituency.
However, I want to ensure that the voice of the community
is still part of that NSIP regime, as it should be.
There is no doubt that the economic plan is working.
In my own constituency, unemployment is now at 604,
which is the lowest it has been since December 2007.
These are all good things, but the journey is only
halfway completed. That is why I am confident that the
British public, having seen five good years of government,
will make the right decision next May and allow us to
propose another Queen’s Speech in 12 months’ time.
3.2 pm
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP): This
Queen’s Speech comes at a time when the public’s faith
in politicians, here in Britain and in Northern Ireland, is
Debate on the Address
772
nearing rock bottom, and many of the reasons for that
lead directly back to the subject of today’s debate and
today’s amendment, which I support—everyday living
standards. The economy, accompanied by austerity
measures, has meant less money in people’s pockets.
It is not comfortable for people in Northern Ireland
to hear the Tory-led Government crow in this House
about the positive state of the economy and claim that
there has been a miraculous recovery, because that is
not what people are experiencing and it is far removed
from the everyday reality for most families. People feel
that no matter how hard they work, their lot will not get
any better, and a large proportion of them remain
trapped in low-wage temporary contracts that offer no
security and little hope, while those who cannot find
work are repeatedly vilified.
The rising levels of inequality—highlighted recently
by the Governor of the Bank of England, no less—and
an economy in which pay freezes are common and
wages fall far below inflation, are hurting people right
across Northern Ireland. Low and stagnant pay rates
are endemic, with 26% of employees in Northern Ireland
being paid below the living wage level. That percentage
is higher than for any region in England, Scotland or
Wales.
Just last week, the Northern Ireland Council for
Voluntary Action held a conference specifically on the
problem of in-work poverty, at which it was revealed
that working households now make up a majority—some
52%—of those in poverty. We are told by the Government
not to worry, because they are “rebalancing the economy”
and boosting the private sector. Any such boost to the
private sector would be welcome, but as it stands Northern
Ireland has the lowest private sector wage level of any
region within the UK. We must ask not only what
private sector development there is but what kind it is. It
must provide sustainable, stable and fairly paid jobs.
That is all compounded by the high bills that people
continue to face for food, electricity and fuel. In Northern
Ireland, we pay even more for our energy than people in
other UK regions. There have been decreases in the cost
of oil on the global market, but people do not see that
reflected in their bills. They see prices go up at the drop
of a hat but never seem to fall, an issue that just this
week Ofgem has asked energy companies to explain.
In my party, we are in no doubt that the current cost
of living crisis is hitting the majority of families right
across Northern Ireland, and we ask the Government at
this late stage to ensure that that situation is rectified in
the last year of this Tory-led coalition. If it is not, more
people will be totally placed in peril, and at great
financial disadvantage.
3.6 pm
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con): Thank you,
Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. This
is the first time that I have been called to speak in a
debate on the Gracious Speech since being elected as an
MP in 2010, and since we are debating the final Queen’s
Speech in this Parliament before the next general election
perhaps it is the last occasion that I will have a chance
to be called; whether I have a further opportunity is a
matter for the voters in Montgomeryshire next May.
Anyway, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling
me today.
773
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
Debate on the Address
774
[Glyn Davies]
3.10 pm
The Prime Minister began his speech at the beginning
of this debate last Wednesday by telling the House that
the most important task facing the coalition Government
during the next year is continuing the work of restoring
our economy. That is absolutely the right approach.
There are 11 interesting and important Bills in the
Queen’s Speech, but underpinning everything that the
coalition Government should focus on in the next year
is economic recovery.
While I emphasise the important aim in the Gracious
Speech of continuing in a determined way with the task
of economic recovery, we should acknowledge what has
already been achieved. It is far more than many of us
would have expected and it has certainly defied the
consistently dire predictions that have been made by the
Opposition during the past four years; indeed, my right
hon. Friend the Chancellor today listed some of those
predictions, which have been shown to be completely
false. In particular, the falling levels of unemployment
and the rising levels of employment have been nothing
short of miraculous. Only yesterday, the employment
figures for May were published. Unemployment fell by
161,000 in May. Since 2010, more than 2 million jobs
have been created.
In May the number of unemployed people in my
constituency fell to 647—just 2.1% of the economically
active—which is 270 fewer than a year ago, and 33
fewer than in April. Those are astonishingly good figures,
and they are reflected in constituencies right across
the UK.
Montgomeryshire is blessed with many dynamic small
and medium-sized enterprises across the range of sectors.
Over the past few weeks I have visited several of them,
accompanied by Ministers from the Wales Office team.
We visited Sidoli, Invertec and T. Alun Jones in Welshpool,
Makefast, Stagecraft, Quartix and Trax in Newtown,
and last Thursday I joined a celebration at Stadco in
Llanfyllin as that outstanding company received the
Jaguar Land Rover quality standard award. Those
businesses, which are mainly in manufacturing, are
growing solidly, providing new jobs and creating apprentices,
demonstrating their confidence in Britain and in the
Government’s long-term economic plan. The last thing
they need is a national insurance jobs tax, which the
shadow Chancellor so studiously refused to rule out
earlier today.
Over recent months the Opposition have made much
of the cost of living—they have done so again today—as
if Labour’s management of the economy had nothing
whatsoever to do with it. Experience teaches us that the
only way to create sustainable increases in wages is
through the marketplace, through the pressure created
by competition for good, well-trained employees who
are willing to work. Therefore, it is absolutely right that
the coalition Government continue with their brilliantly
successful economic plans all the way up to the general
election.
In the 20 seconds remaining I want to say that my
constituency is rural and depends largely on farming.
Currently, the cost of living is being seriously affected
by what is happening to the dairy industry. The Government
need to tackle that issue and understand why imports
are coming in and why the supermarkets are not accurately
labelling.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): It is not at all
surprising that Government Members want to talk
about the “long-term” economic plan, because that
diverts attention from the failure of the short-term,
one-Parliament economic plan that we were told about
extensively in 2010 and 2011, which they said justified
many of the measures taken. Interestingly, it is clear
from some of the contributions we have heard since last
week, particularly the contribution from the hon. Member
for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), that
such economic growth that we have managed to see
over the past year appears to have been stimulated by
public investment. He talked about railways and a bypass.
That sounds like a Labour policy: public investment to
create private sector jobs. Actually, it is our economic
plan that is being successful.
Does it matter whose economic plans did or did not
work? Many people would say, “Oh, get on with it. We
have to move forward.” But it is important, and in two
particular ways. One way has to do with the fragility
that still exists in the economy. I want to mention an
issue I raised in an earlier intervention: the growing gap
between the unemployment rate and the claimant count.
When Government Members talk about falling
unemployment in their constituencies, they are actually
talking about the claimant count. When they greet
anything Opposition Members say with, “By the way,
the hon. Member should be aware that unemployment
in her constituency has gone down by 20%”, they are
talking about the claimant count. Some 47% of those
who are unemployed are not in receipt of jobseeker’s
allowance. That is 1 million people.
What is happening to those people and to the economy
within which this is taking place? A lot of them clearly
cannot get jobs, which suggests that this great recovery
is not as healthy as the Government claim. Perhaps it
differs by geographic area. From the point of view of
the economy, this is particularly important, but it is also
particularly important for the individuals involved—we
must never forget that. Some of them will have a working
partner, although not necessarily a very well-off one.
They need only relatively small part-time earnings to
lose jobseeker’s allowance after six months, because
after that they will not qualify for the income-related
benefit. Remember that that household has already lost
one income, due to losing one of its two jobs, so it has a
much reduced income and then it losses £72 a week in
jobseeker’s allowance. That household’s buying power
and standard of living has dropped catastrophically.
What is happening to those people?
Some of those people are in an even more vulnerable
position. I will illustrate that with the case of a constituent
who came to me who had no income because he had
been sanctioned for six months having been declared fit
for work. He has a learning disability of a considerable
nature and could not cope with the conditionality of
jobseeker’s allowance. He just gave up and stopped
claiming because he could not cope with it any longer.
He was being supported by his parents, who were living
on retirement pensions. How many more people are
there who have just dropped through the so-called
safety net? I think that the Government should be
worrying about that, because of what it is telling us
775
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
both about our economy and about individual cases. I
would like the Government to look into that with some
urgency.
Debate on the Address
776
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD): Looking at what
has been happening over the past months and years, I
am impressed by the desire of Members in all parts of
the House to see a fairer society built on a stronger
economy. The difference is how we achieve that. We
have seen that we need to concentrate on providing jobs,
apprenticeships and training for young people.
In Eastleigh, youth unemployment is at its lowest for
five years, not four. There are 125 young claimants or
1.5%. That is still too high but it is a great improvement.
The increase in training and apprenticeships is particularly
important. We have hit about 3,000 new apprenticeships,
and these are real apprenticeships, not some sort of fake
training jobs. This is the way to go. If we want to create
a fairer society, we need to train people, educate them
and help them get the jobs they need.
Work must be worthwhile, and one of the ways to
ensure that is through the Liberal Democrat policy—yes,
it is a Liberal Democrat policy—of increasing the tax
allowance to £10,500 a year. It is not enough, though.
We need to increase that to make sure that no one on
the minimum wage pays income tax. I did a rough
calculation. The tax allowance would be £12,500 a year.
I look forward to that happening soon.
In the time remaining, I want to look briefly at
housing. One of the things for which we have been
hugely criticised was the help to buy policy. I was
talking to the Council of Mortgage Lenders just two
days ago. Of the 19,393 equity loans taken so far, only
1,000 were in London. The vast majority were for
first-time buyers, and the vast majority were for houses
of less than £200,000, not £600,000. The scheme is
doing exactly what it was meant to do—that is, allowing
young people from an ordinary family with a small
deposit to buy a house, improving on the situation that
has existed for several years, where people had to be
rich or have rich parents to be able to get together a
deposit to buy a house. Of course the Governor of the
Bank of England is right that we should keep a sharp
eye on the scheme to make sure that it does what it was
meant to do, and not what is claimed. It is vital that we
continue to build more houses. I hope the housing
associations can be targeted to allow them to provide
the bulk of this housing.
On the subject of housing, a long-time bugbear of
mine is stamp duty. Why on earth do we have a stamp
duty with a cliff edge and a shelf ? Up to £125,000
people do not pay a penny. If they buy a house at
£125,000 + 1p, they suddenly pay £1,250. That is absurd.
If the Treasury would like to find out from me how we
can reform this in a totally revenue-neutral and fair way,
please pick up the phone and call me. It is very simple
and easy to do.
have the sixth largest economy; and we are highly
successful in so many ways, under both the present
Government and the previous one. My constituents
look at the Queen’s Speech, and it does not relate to the
reality of their existence.
As a social and economic entity, we have changed
vastly over the years. This year, we remember the wasted
lives of the 1914-18 war, when 16 million young men
died. Since that time, and since the second world war,
this country has changed dramatically. Nationally and
in my constituency—we in Huddersfield are the average—
about 8% of people in this country now make anything
in manufacturing. The manufacturing sector is very
small but highly efficient. It is growing, but as it does so,
it increasingly uses sophisticated machinery and fewer
skilled workers.
We have an hourglass economy, with a large number
of very skilled people who are doing very well, but
many people with traditional jobs and a fair number of
skills who have been squeezed out of such occupations,
while people with few skills are having a bleak time now
in this country and will have a bleaker time in future.
So much of this Queen’s Speech fails to address the
fact that so many Members of Parliament, especially
Opposition Members, but—let me be generous—
Government Members as well, came into the House to
get a good life for people. Many people in our country
are not getting a chance to have a good life; they are
certainly not doing so in Huddersfield. What we need to
have and what should have been in the Queen’s Speech
is an emphasis on the difficult things, such as homes
and housing. A whole bunch of cowards on these
Benches—I say this nicely, because I do not want to be
brought up before the Speaker—will not face the fact
that nimbyism and the green belt are preventing houses
from being built so that people can have a decent place
in which to live. When are we going to recognise that?
When will we invest more in skills, putting real investment
into our further education sector and into genuine
apprenticeships that last longer than a year and fit
people for future jobs, not present ones? The fact is that
we have a good skill base, but it is not big enough. If we
are not careful and if we are not brave and courageous,
we will not have the skills relevant to keep our companies
in the premier league.
Our constituents do not like the argy-bargy that we
have all the time. We would be much better agreeing on
lots of the stuff that comes before the House for us to
discuss. Universities are an example. We must settle on
the fact that the present way of funding our universities
is putting them all in danger. They are absolutely the
jewels in the crown of our skill base and our educational
system, but they are under threat.
In this Queen’s Speech debate and during the last
year up to the election, we must prioritise skills, education
and homes. I could write the Labour manifesto. That is
what we need to do. It is what this Queen’s Speech is
missing, and what we will replace in a year’s time.
3.18 pm
3.22 pm
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): One
of the things that my constituents do not like is the sort
of debate that we have had today. They watch it on
television and think, “What on earth is going on?” We
live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world; we
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con): I am pleased
that the debate is about living standards because it gives
me an opportunity to make the link between rising
living standards and improved democracy. That link
has been made many times before, notably by the celebrated
3.14 pm
777
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
[Zac Goldsmith]
Power commission, later by the economist Richard
Layard, and later still in a very wide-ranging study by
Harvard university. In their different ways, they all
established that rising living standards boost the public
appetite for democracy, and that boosted and strengthened
democracy in turn stimulates an increase in and boosts
living standards. The link is unavoidable.
One element of the Queen’s Speech is a commitment
to introduce a recall system. In theory, that would
certainly improve our democracy and therefore lead to
rising living standards. I say “in theory” because the
Government’s current proposal falls so short of genuine
or meaningful recall as to be meaningless. However, the
House will at least have the opportunity to make profound
amendments to the Bill, and I very much hope that it
does.
Recall was promised by all three parties before the
last election. They felt obliged to make that promise on
the back of the expenses scandal that rocked the House,
and it presented an easy, democratic and simple solution.
Effectively, recall means enabling voters to remove
underperforming MPs if at any time they lose the
confidence of the majority of their constituents. It
could not be more straightforward: if enough constituents
sign a petition in a given period of time, they earn the
right to hold a referendum to ask whether constituents
want to recall their MP, and if a majority want to recall
their MP, there is a by-election. There is a natural
safeguard in that the threshold would, in an average
constituency, require 14,000 constituents actively to
visit the town hall and sign a petition during an 8-week
period. Recall would put people in charge, allowing
them to replace their MP if a clear majority want to
do so.
The public understood that they had finally been
promised a reform that might empower them, but then
the election happened. I am afraid to say that the
Labour Opposition went quiet on the issue, and the
coalition Government began to weave small print through
their promise. The current proposal is for a form of
recall that can happen only by permission of the Standards
Committee, and its criteria are so narrow as to make it
entirely meaningless.
People are already angry with politicians—the signs
are everywhere—but hon. Members should try to imagine
how voters will react when they discover that they have
been duped by this pretend recall Bill, this illusion of
reform. It is extraordinary that even if the Bill becomes
law, an MP could switch parties, fail to turn up once to
Parliament or even go on a two or three-year holiday
without qualifying for recall. At the very first scandal,
voters will learn that they have been tricked. The anger
that they feel will dwarf—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing): Order.
The hon. Gentleman, with some ingenuity, has done
well to keep in order and speak to the amendment. I
trust that, in the final minute of his speech, he will
conclude with reference to the specific matters in the
amendment.
Zac Goldsmith: I will certainly do my best, Madam
Deputy Speaker.
Debate on the Address
778
Even if people do not realise it yet, at the very first
scandal, they will realise that they have been duped.
Even before the Bill has been put to the test, 170,000
people have signed a petition saying that they want the
real deal—not this thing that the Government are offering.
Unlock Democracy has said that, given a choice between
this Bill and no Bill, it would go for no Bill, because it
thinks that the Bill represents a step back.
I understand why the Government have done this.
The Deputy Prime Minister has talked about kangaroo
courts and vexatious campaigns, but he is wrong. Where
recall happens around the world, there is not one example
of a successful vexatious recall campaign. There could
not be one here, because it would require so many
people—14,000 people—to be persuaded to join a vexatious
campaign. We know that that is simply not possible in
our constituencies.
I am going to run out of time. I simply ask Members
to consider how the Government’s proposal might work.
It is much more worrying than true and genuine recall.
3.26 pm
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab):
That was the week that was, as we used to say in the ’70s
and ’80s. To echo the comments of my hon. Friend the
Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), this is the last
throw of the dice for the coalition Government. The
numbers certainly have not come up for the working
people of the UK and, in particular, the young people
of this country, who are working in terrible environments
that should have been gone in bygone years.
There are problems with zero-hours contracts and
the minimum wage. Those people do not have a voice in
the workplace because the coalition Government have
tried to silence the voice of the trade unions as much as
possible. That is the coalition Government’s whole agenda.
There is bogus self-employment, particularly in the
construction industry, where people are being asked to
pay double national insurance—as employees and as
employers. That is a complete sham.
I have never openly admitted to being an admirer of
the Tory party, but one thing I do admire the Tories for
is that when they get into power, they deliver for their
own. They do not just talk about that in rhetorical
terms; they deliver it. That is what the Queen’s Speech
was about—delivering for their friends in the City and
elsewhere.
Unfortunately, I have to say that the Labour Government
could have done far more than they did in their 13 years
in office for working people in this country. With one or
two exceptions, they did not fulfil the ambitions that
people had for them; they did not have the hunger or
the aspiration to take them forward.
I am pleased that the current Labour leader is talking
the language that people understand and that people
want to hear. I am confident that, if he continues using
that kind of language, we will see the return of a radical
Labour Government. There is a great appetite out there
for change. That was certainly reflected on the doorstep
during the European elections, when it pained some of
us to be told, “Youse are all the same. There’s no
difference between youse.” The days of the Labour
party tinkering at the edges are gone, and my right hon.
Friend the Leader of the Opposition is taking us in the
right direction.
779
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
Mention has been made of food banks. Personally, I
think that it is a stain on all our characters that there are
food banks in this country. When we pose at food banks
for press releases, there should be a big sign at the front
saying, “I’m sorry.” We have subjected people to using
food banks through our policies and we cannot blame
anyone other than ourselves.
One of the most positive policies of the last Labour
Government was the introduction of the minimum
wage. However, we have dined out on that for long
enough. We now need to see the living wage. I am proud
to say that my local authority, Renfrewshire council, is
not only introducing the living wage for its employees,
but using its procurement processes to tell its suppliers,
“We will no longer give you the contract simply because
you employ cheap labour.” It is trying to instil the
standards that it upholds among its suppliers.
The other people who are walking free are employers
who encourage migrant workers to come to this country
to undermine and undercut indigenous workers’ terms
and conditions, which causes all sorts of problems in
communities. The senior executive members of the big
companies go back to their leafy suburbs and leave the
rest of us to get on with it. My right hon. Friend the
Leader of the Opposition talks about irresponsible
capitalism, and that is what we need to stop in this
country. We need to stop the exploitation of migrant
workers at the expense of our indigenous workers.
3.30 pm
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con): I am grateful to you,
Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak this
stage of the debate. May I give my apologies for leaving
early? I have arranged to meet some constituents with a
Minister immediately after my speech.
The amendment calls for the creation of a recovery to
ensure increased living standards for the many, and we
can achieve that by growing our economy. It is growing
in my constituency, as is shown partly in the claimant
count statistics—we are at 50% of the 2010 level, with a
fall of one third over the past year. Much of that has
been achieved through our great location at the centre
of England, with excellent road and rail connections. In
particular, the Government are improving the junction
of the M1 and M6 at Catthorpe, which makes my
constituency attractive to business. Substantial development
of both industrial and residential property is taking
place, as the Prime Minister remarked when he arrived
by train at Rugby station to travel along the M6 to the
manufacturing technology centre at Ansty. He saw the
substantial new housing and industrial development
that is coming forward.
The MTC is itself a success story in supporting
manufacturing, and a big theme of this Government’s
work has been a rebalancing of our economy. That is
how we can create growth and improve living standards.
Let us not forget that the manufacturing sector of our
economy halved in the 13 years of the last Government.
In my constituency, we are making things. Only a few
weeks ago, I went to Rosyth to see the new aircraft
carriers, which are propelled by motors built by GE
Energy in my constituency.
A company called Automotive Insulations is also a
superb success story in the manufacturing supply chain.
It produces acoustic and thermal insulation for the
motor industry, a sector that is growing fast, with
Debate on the Address
780
customers including Jaguar Land Rover and Bentley. It
has doubled its turnover to £12 million in the past year
and won awards through GrowthAccelerator, including
its “Game Changer” award. Its business has grown, and
its staff told me only a year or two ago of the need for
new premises. I was able to introduce them to my
proactive Conservative-controlled local authority, which
introduced them to a developer who is completing new
premises for the company as we speak.
A proactive local authority is also incredibly important
for the second theme mentioned in the amendment that
I wish to refer to—the need to boost house building. In
Rugby, we are building houses. We have just granted
consent for 6,200 new homes at the Rugby radio station
site, and there has been substantial local support for it.
It has been a matter of when, not whether, the development
will take place, because there has been effective consultation
and engagement with local residents. I hear time after
time from developers who want to develop in Rugby
about the professional and positive approach of planners
in my constituency. Other local authorities could take
up that approach. I add that my local authority has
been diligent in ensuring that it has an up-to-date local
plan. Many of the problems that occur elsewhere arise
because of the lack of a local plan.
In the last few moments of my speech, I will refer to
plastic bags—with my hon. Friend the Member for
Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) sitting behind me. I
was disappointed to see the provision in the Queen’s
Speech, because plastic bags make up a tiny part of this
country’s litter and household waste. Most bags are
used many times before they are put to another use—for
instance, as bin liners. It is a great disappointment that
the matter was included in the Queen’s Speech.
3.34 pm
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab): “What
planet does the Chancellor live on?”, said the Stockland
Green mother. “Does he begin to understand people
like me? My husband has been made redundant three
times, and each time the new job is on a lower rate of
pay. Do they know, up there, what life is like for us down
here?”
That goes to the heart of what the shadow Chancellor
said earlier about an era of discontent and disconnection.
There is discontent because life is hard for most of my
constituents. Living standards are squeezed and people
are worried about their kids and concerned about vested
interests—energy companies, for example—taking
advantage of them. They say to me time and again,
“Jack, it just ain’t fair.” The disconnection is because
there is mistrust of politics and politicians, and incredulity
when people are told that recovery is under way. Time
and again I hear, “Recovery—what recovery?” My
constituents say to me that this Government simply do
not understand their lives, because for too many of
them, life is hard and there is insecurity in the world of
work. I meet constituents on zero-hours contracts and
those in the building industry who complain about
being undercut. One said, “Jack, they are exploiting the
migrants and undercutting us.”
Debbie Abrahams: Is not the increase in the number
of people on zero-hours contracts an absolute shame?
The Chancellor was not even able to provide a figure for
that number.
781
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
Jack Dromey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
One of the people I met was a young lad of 22. He said,
“Jack, I’ve just had a baby. We are trying to bring up
our kid as best we can but I cannot plan from one week
to the next because of my zero-hours contract.” A
woman, Rachel, poured out her heart to the Leader of
the Opposition on the Castle Vale estate about what life
is like trying to bring up a young child on the minimum
wage. There is insecurity at home. One in two people in
Stockland Green in my constituency live in the private
rented sector and most cannot plan from one year to
the next where they send their kids to school or manage
their households budgets, because like Cathleen they
have contracts that last six months at a time.
Some people are struggling to buy a home, such as
the young family who came to see me and said, “We’re
desperate to buy a home, Jack, but we simply cannot
afford it. It costs six or seven times what we earn
combined to buy a home in this area.” Others struggle
to maintain their living standards. One family said,
“We’re worse off now than we were in 2009, and for us,
holidays are a thing of the past.” Barbara and Jim
Brown are struggling, and they are typical of so many
of my constituents who can no longer afford to pay
their energy bills. Local businesses are struggling to get
loans from banks. One civil engineering company said,
“Jack, it would be easier to break into my bank than get
a loan from it”.
Mums and dads are anxious about their sons and
daughters, such as the wonderful woman in the Castle
Vale area who said, “I love my son, Jack. He’s got
learning difficulties and he has never worked. He is
desperately frustrated and I want to see him get on.”
Now, at last he is getting on. Why? Because Birmingham
city council’s youth jobs fund has funded a job for him
in the upcycle project. You should see the smile on his
face, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The council has also driven an apprenticeship programme
with 1,500 apprentices thus far. The biggest builder of
homes in Birmingham is tackling some of the problems
in the private rented sector and driving the living wage
to transform the city into a living wage city. However,
faced with the biggest cuts in local government history,
what can be done by local government is important but
limited.
In conclusion, the message from this debate is this: if
people want an economy that works, decent wages that
reward hard work, a higher minimum wage, a living
wage and an end to undercutting; if they want security
in their home or the security of knowing they will be
able to buy a home, and if they want the next generation
to get on, including building a new generation of badly
needed homes, creating jobs and apprenticeships—the
kind of wonderful young apprentices I see at Willmott
Dixon in my constituency; if they want to be confident
that they can heat their home, and to have an honest
Government who will not promise the moon but will
move mountains on their behalf, stand up for them and
be on their side; and if they want a Government who
are fair, without the grotesque contrast between the tax
cut for millionaires and the bedroom tax being introduced
on the same day; if they want a Government who will
reverse that and put the burden on the broadest shoulders
and abolish the bedroom tax, and if they want a strong
economy and fair society, they want a Labour Government.
Debate on the Address
782
3.39 pm
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con):
The Government were formed with one overarching
purpose: to get our economy back on its feet, building a
framework for jobs and restoring some sanity to our
nation’s finances. Nowhere was this need greater than in
the black country in the west midlands.
The previous Government promised to put an end to
boom and bust. For families in Halesowen and Rowley
Regis, they delivered on one half of that pledge. Even
before the start of the great recession, gross value added
in Dudley and Sandwell collapsed from 88% of the
national average in 1997 to just 74% in 2008. As the
prosperity gap between the black country and the south-east
grew out of control, the number of private sector jobs
in the west midlands actually fell under the previous
Government. If the boom bypassed the black country,
the bust hit families hard in Halesowen and Rowley
Regis.
Now, four years of action from this Government—one
might call it a long-term economic plan—have helped
to turn things around, and many families in Halesowen
and Rowley Regis are starting to see the benefits. Yesterday’s
jobs figures showed unemployment falling more quickly
in the west midlands than anywhere else in the country,
with 80% of the increase in jobs being full-time positions.
In my constituency, the number of people who are out
of work has fallen by more than a third since the
election. Some 2,000 more people in Halesowen and
Rowley Regis are in work, helping to ensure a stronger
future for them, their families and the country as a
whole. Thanks to the year-on-year increases in personal
allowances, 30,000 of my constituents are now able to
keep more of what they earn for themselves and their
families, and 3,000 people on low incomes no longer
have to pay any income tax at all. Things are still
difficult for a lot of families and we still need to do
more to make sure that everybody benefits as the economy
recovers, but the evidence is strong that things are
getting better. People in Halesowen and Rowley Regis
literally cannot afford to return to the mistakes of the
past.
A Government cannot be judged by the weight of
legislation they propose, but by the impact their actions
have on the country. There is more to commend in this
Queen’s Speech than we have time to discuss, but the
small business, enterprise and employment Bill will
make it easier for businesses in Halesowen and Rowley
Regis to compete, to invest and to grow. A few days
after the Budget, I was pleased to welcome the Chancellor
to Cube Precision Engineering in my constituency, a
young company that has grown from a staff of six to a
team of more than 37. The day after the Budget, Cube
placed an order for a new £325,000 machining centre to
allow it to grow further, increase exports and create new
jobs. The Bill will help more businesses to access the
finance they need to invest in their own growth.
The measures in the Queen’s Speech build on the
achievement of the Government’s long-term economic
plan: helping businesses to create jobs, increase our
skills base and build prosperity; supporting families
with child care costs when parents return to work to
make sure that it pays for them to work and our
economy is able to benefit from their skills and potential;
and encouraging workers to save for their futures by
allowing them more choices over how they save and
783
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
more freedom over how they use their money. This is
the programme of a Government who have already
delivered a lot, but who recognise there is still a lot more
to do. This is a Queen’s Speech that I am very proud to
support.
3.43 pm
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op): An economic
recovery for whom? My constituents still struggle. Many
are on part-time hours or zero-hours contracts, and
those who are in work see their wages stagnating. The
Prime Minister wants people to believe that the economy
has picked up, but that is not the experience of many of
my constituents. Many still feel the pressure and worry
about their future and job security.
Recent updated statistics from the Office for National
Statistics found that there are 1.4 million zero-hours
jobs in the UK, even though Ministers claimed as
recently as September last year that there were just
250,000. The ONS also found that in a further 1.3 million
contracts, employees were given no hours at all during a
sample two-week period.
Wages for my constituents in Preston remain below
the north-west and UK averages. The average weekly
wage in Preston in 2013 was £370—£110 less than the
north-west average and £150 less than the average in the
rest of the UK. The latest figures show that UK-wide
pay growth has slumped to 0.7%, which is sharply down
from 1.7% last month and well below inflation, at 1.8%.
The Government need to raise the minimum wage
and introduce the living wage. I am proud that Preston
city council was one of the first councils in the country
to implement the living wage, from the beginning of
September 2011.
The standard of living for my constituents in Preston
and many others in the north-west has not improved
under this Conservative-led Government. Child poverty
is above the national and regional average, at 28.7%. Life
expectancy in the north-west is below the national
average. For men it is 77.4 and for women it is
81.5, compared with 80 for men in the south-east and
83.8 for women. There are 2,295 people in Preston—around
5%—claiming jobseeker’s allowance. In Preston and
elsewhere, there are huge amounts of hidden
unemployment, among people who have received sanctions
on their benefit claims and also those who have been
claiming for over six months who happen to be married
to someone who is in work. Although unemployment
figures have dropped, the number of people on part-time
or zero-hours contracts is at an all-time high, while
17.8% of children in the north-west live in workless
households.
In the Queen’s Speech, the Government pledged to
increase apprenticeship places to 2 million, but as I have
argued in the past, they cannot say what type of
apprenticeships they will be. Unskilled jobs such as
stacking shelves in the local supermarket are of course
welcome, but they are not replacements for good, high
quality apprenticeships that give high training and added
value in industry, such as at BAE Systems, which is near
my constituency and has excellent training, or Westinghouse,
another major company that also provides excellent
training.
This Government have promised a great deal; they
have delivered very little. The Queen’s Speech is a shadow
Debate on the Address
784
of what it should have been if the Government were
genuinely ambitious for the people of this country.
3.47 pm
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con): It is a great pleasure
to speak in this debate about the economy and the cost
of living, which are central to the Government’s mission,
as expressed by the long-term economic plan, which
includes a number of factors that are critical to the
long-term plans of this country as a whole. One is,
obviously, reducing the deficit; another is making sure
we have more skills and more infrastructure, along with
the overall aim of rebalancing the economy.
That is of great importance for my constituency in
Stroud valleys and vale, because we have more than
9,000 people working in manufacturing and engineering.
That is one of the reasons why I have launched the
festival of engineering and manufacturing, to put a
focus on that heritage and the prospects of the sector as
a whole. It is also critical to ensuring that young people
have opportunities and make themselves aware of the
examinations and other processes that they might like
to pursue to benefit their careers.
But there is more to do, and that is one of this
Government’s missions, now and after the next general
election. For one thing, we need an infrastructure that
enables people to get out and about and to work. In my
constituency, that means improving connections with
other parts of Gloucestershire—for example, by moving
the railway stations to ensure that people can get to
Bristol from Stroud and so forth. These are useful ideas
that add up to a strengthening of an already vibrant
economy that is ready for the next challenges.
The other thing we need to do is strengthen our
provision of skills. Again, we have some plans in my
constituency. We want to establish, in effect, a unit in a
now disused part of Berkeley Magnox power station—
which is now decommissioned—to provide skills for
green technology for renewables and also nuclear
technology. That is all good news for young people who
want jobs and want to do well.
I drew the attention of the Prime Minister to the
third issue I want to raise when I took him to Renishaw—a
really powerful firm in my constituency, employing
nearly 4,000 people, with hugely innovative and impressive
products. It is a kind of Mittelstand type of firm. We
need to see more of them in this country—certainly in
the valleys and vale—and we need to encourage them to
grow and seek to introduce even more research and
development.
There are two areas worth thinking about here. The
first is the taxation system, and we need to enable
people to think long term without being bedevilled by
short-term planning systems in taxation. They need to
think beyond the horizon, which is something that our
competitors, notably Germany, are often able to do. We
need to adjust our taxation system to enable Mittelstandtype firms to thrive. So, too, do we need to see measures
to improve access to capital. That is why I am so pleased
with the proposed Bill to achieve that, which we shall
debate in due course.
The other big issue is ensuring that our supply chain
is responsive enough to deal with the continuity of
growth. We have already established centres to promote
the aerospace sector and the automotive sector, all of
which is good.
785
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
[Neil Carmichael]
In conclusion, if we want to increase living standards,
the answer is increased productivity. The issues I have
highlighted—part of the long-term plan as an overall
strategy—are precisely the tools to do the job, and the
Government are continuing to work on them.
3.51 pm
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab): As predicted,
the Chancellor’s remarks this afternoon made much of
his “long-term economic plan”, but the original 2010
version of an export-led recovery, of increased business
investment and of a shift to a new kind of economy has
simply not happened. To compensate, the Government
have fallen back on a good, old-fashioned, British housing
bubble and consumer spend splurge as a recipe to see
them through to the general election—pumping up the
feel-good factor and praying that nobody notices that
living standards are still sliding for huge swathes of our
constituencies across the United Kingdom. This form
of growth is not sustainable; it is a high-risk strategy.
The Chancellor was prodded into talking about
productivity, and the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil
Carmichael) was quite right to emphasise that should
be a priority. The problem is that our productivity gap is
now wider than it has been over the last 20 years,
following the flatlining of the economy over the last
seven years. It is not just the recession that has caused
the decline. According to the Office for National Statistics,
in comparison with our international competitors, output
per hour worked in the UK is 21% lower than the
average for the other six members of the G7. This is the
biggest productivity shortfall since 1992, and according
to an alternative measure, the gap in output per worker
is now a horrifying 25%. Although we expect output to
pick up this year, poor productivity has stifled earnings
growth and squeezed real incomes. That shows what
should be the priority in the ever-more competitive
world that we face.
UK companies are sitting on some of the largest cash
reserves of any western economy, but at the same time,
according to a report from the Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills, we have a
“sustained, long-term pattern of under-investment in public and
private research and development…and publicly funded innovation.”
The UK’s total investment in R and D has been relatively
static at 1.8% of GDP. In America, it is 4%, while in
France and Germany, it is well over 2% and they are
aiming to get to 3%. This is a new world in the 21st century.
If we do not innovate and do not develop products, we
are going to fall behind and our tax base will go along
with it.
The Government will point out that they created a
number of industrial forums for debate and decision
making, and a series of industrial papers came out last
year. The sector councils for the automotive and aerospace
industries have been formed for many years and are
industry-led, but the other councils have met on only a
handful of occasions, do not have public-facing websites
and are basically turning into glorified talking-shops.
That needs to stop soon.
It is not surprising that the Chancellor refused to give
way to me when he began to talk about the housing
market, because I might have pointed out to him that
the average—mean—annual salaries of those who have
Debate on the Address
786
been able to take advantage of his second version of the
Help to Buy scheme are £80,000 in London and £49,000
nationally. In other words, we are using taxpayers’
money to help those in the top income decile to buy
houses that are already overpriced, while pricing more
people out of the market. There is no solution for those
on the lowest incomes, and no solution for those who
are renting; they are still left behind.
We need to hear about a programme that meets the
key priorities of the majority, but that has certainly not
happened today.
3.55 pm
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con): I fear
that the amendment contains several new Labour clichés
that make me nostalgic for the Blair and Brown years.
Delivering rising living standards for the many, not the
few, making work pay—the only one that is missing is
“an end to boom and bust”.
Of course, new Labour did not deliver any of those
things, but it did deliver the biggest peacetime borrowing
deficit that the country has ever seen. I regret to say that
Labour has not learnt anything in the last 12 months.
According to the House of Commons Library, it has
made £29 billion worth of unfunded spending
commitments. As for making work pay, this is the party
that refused, in the House, to back the benefit cap.
Labour Members are quite happy for those on benefits
to earn the equivalent of £40,000 a year before tax.
The amendment refers to child care. Of course that is
very important for some of my constituents, especially
working mothers. That is why we are introducing a Bill
that will deliver 20% of child care costs—up to £10,000
per child, which is worth up to £2,000 per child per
year—to working families. Moreover, 85% of the child
care costs of families receiving universal credit will be
covered.
What are we doing to support small business, the
biggest deliverer of the 1.7 million extra jobs that have
been created since 2010? I do not know what the Labour
party is doing, but, as well as cutting the “jobs tax” by
providing an employment allowance of £2,000 a year,
we have come up with a Bill that will raise the maximum
fine for employers who do not pay the minimum wage,
and will ban the exclusivity that currently prevents
people who are on zero-hours contracts from working
for other employers.
Housing has been mentioned. It is true that we need
more brownfield sites to be built on by residential
developers, and our Infrastructure Bill will cut the red
tape surrounding unneeded public sector land that is
not being returned to planning permission territory. It
will also reduce energy costs, which are a key component
of the cost of living, by ensuring that shale extraction
takes place across a wider area and more rapidly.
Finally, let me draw the House’s attention to an
omission. I do not know whether it is due to slack
drafting on the part of Opposition Front Benchers or to
their general disdain for pensioners, but the word
“pensioner” does not appear once in the amendment.
We are introducing two Bills to deal with the fact that
about 12 million of our fellow citizens are not saving
enough to provide for an adequate retirement income.
Our private pensions Bill will create collective pension
schemes to ensure that more people can gain access to
787
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
affordable pensions, while our pension tax Bill will
bring about the most revolutionary change in pension
provision that the country has seen for more than half a
century. Crucially, it will allow individuals not to be
compelled to buy annuities at 75, but to have true
freedom in relation to the pot of money that they have
built up during their working lives.
The plan is working. Labour has no plan. We should
just keep on going.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing): Order.
Although Members have been very well disciplined and
have kept their speeches extremely short, there are still
many Members waiting to speak and we are running
out of time. I must therefore reduce the time limit to
three minutes.
4 pm
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab): I will speak
very quickly, Madam Deputy Speaker.
For ordinary people in Easington, east Durham and
the north-east of England, things are getting harder,
not easier under this Government. Hard-working people
are on average £1,600 a year worse off. Families are
paying £300 more on their energy bills. At a time when
people are working longer and harder for less, raising a
family in Easington, as elsewhere in the country, has
become more difficult as child care costs have risen by
almost a third.
My good friend and near neighbour my hon. Friend
the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) raised a very
interesting point at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday.
He asked the Prime Minister about the number of
children who were living in poverty in households where
someone was working. The figure was one in three.
Indeed, two thirds of young people in poverty live in a
working household. The Prime Minister did not address
that question.
Members on the Government Benches tell us that
employment is the route out of poverty, but for many
parents hard work is not even enough to provide an
acceptable standard of living for their children. In the
north-east, full-time workers are now £36 a week less
well-off than they were a year ago. The link between
economic growth and living standards has been broken.
The assumption that as the economy grows wages would
grow too no longer holds water under the policies being
pursued by this Government. I am very pleased the
Labour party has pledged to raise the value of the
minimum wage over the next Parliament and to move
towards a living wage for businesses that can afford to
pay it, and to introduce a lower 10p starting rate of tax.
We can only have a successful economic recovery if it is
felt throughout society, and the problem with the
Government Front Bench—including, with all due respect,
the Chancellor—is that the economy is only working
for small clusters of privilege. It is not working for the
vast majority of people, certainly not in my constituency.
I wanted to raise some issues in relation to the young
unemployed and those who are not in employment or
training, but I am afraid there is not time. What the
public require is an economy that works for them, not
just the few, and a Government prepared to deal with
the real issues affecting their lives.
Debate on the Address
788
4.3 pm
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD): In 1997 the Labour
Government were elected to the theme tune “Things
can only get better”, but in my area they were about to
get a lot worse. The Teesside Development Corporation
was immediately scrapped and after 13 years of neglect,
Redcar and Cleveland was judged independently to
have the weakest economy in the country, and
Middlesbrough had the second weakest.
Now with a successful local enterprise partnership,
Government money pouring in, unemployment in my
constituency down by 916 in the last year and
manufacturing up, we can see the fruits of some investment
coming through. Tonight when I get off the train I will
be going past the new £39-million biologics manufacturing
centre near Darlington station and on Monday we will
be signing the Tees valley city deal, which I hope will act
as a break to those Labour people who think the Tees
valley should always be run from Newcastle.
The Government are making the wealthy pay more.
Against any year under the last Government, the wealthy
are paying much higher taxes on their income, capital
gains, pension contributions and spending. This week
we passed clause 110 of the Finance Bill, which holds
the inheritance tax threshold at £325,000.
I will just make a few comments about the Opposition
amendment. We cannot take any lessons about house
building from a party that reduced house building to
the level of the 1920s by the time it left office and took
421,000 social houses out of circulation while the waiting
lists were going up by 740,000—it is a shameful record.
Labour also thinks we can make the energy industry
more competitive by freezing prices, but unfortunately
that will freeze investment and freeze out new entrants.
I have tried in vain to find an organisation outside the
Labour party that thinks the energy price freeze is in the
interests of consumers. I will gladly take an intervention
from anyone who can name such an organisation.
I support the living wage and helped to launch a
campaign in Parliament. The Living Wage Foundation
has praised the Liberal Democrat tax cut of £700 because
it makes the living wage more achievable. The living
wage is worked out from a net figure, so tax reductions
do help. Interestingly, the Opposition amendment mentions
the 10p tax rate. I would have thought they would have
wanted to bury that, as it reminds people that they
doubled taxes for some of the lowest-paid people in this
country. They mention vocational arrangements, and it
is truly a scandal that our young people are so poorly
educated that the NHS, engineers and many others have
to go outside the country to get their employees. I am
pleased that this Government are doing something about
putting that right.
4.6 pm
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab): Picking
up on the last point that the hon. Member for Redcar
(Ian Swales) made about the 10p rate, let me add that a
Labour Government introduced that in the first place.
We can have lots of debates about that after the event,
but obviously I do not have a lot of time to go through
the issues I would want to go through.
I welcome the fall in unemployment—it would be a
bit churlish of me not to do so. Obviously, I also
welcome the Modern Slavery Bill, because in a modern
789
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
[Mr Jim Cunningham]
day and age human trafficking is an abomination to
civilised society. Of course I also welcome any help that
small businesses get, although I do not think that what
is being done is enough. Having said all that, the
Queen’s Speech falls down because nothing is being
done to construct social housing. By contrast, if Labour
wins the next general election, we will probably build
about 200,000 houses a year, because that is what is
needed. Government Members have been debating what
we did and did not do when we were in office, but let us
not forget that we had to clear up an 18-year mess left
by the Tories—they tend to forget that. I can remember
the falling down hospitals, the closure of schools and so
on, so we do not need any lessons from those guys over
there on the Government Benches. Of course in 13
years we could not do everything.
One thing we should draw to the House’s attention is
that purchasing power, regardless of what job someone
is in, has fallen by between 5% and 6%. Schoolteachers
and low-paid people in Coventry have seen a gradual
erosion of the purchasing power of their wages. When
people talk about the European Union and Europe, it is
well worth mentioning, because it has been mentioned
before, that a Labour Government gave the British
people a referendum on Europe for the first time. The
Heath Government signed up to Europe but the Labour
Government of the time went ahead and gave that
referendum. Also on Europe people must remember
that we had the five tests.
Obviously, I cannot speak about other issues for as
long as I would wish, but I want to mention legislative
changes on the regulation of taxis, which are certainly
creating a lot of issues in Coventry, and up and down
the country, with demonstrations yesterday. The other
issue I want to raise is the situation at Coventry City
football club. We were promised a Bill last year that
would regulate the Football League, but we have been
continually stalled on that. A private Member’s Bill will
be reintroduced to do something about that, but people
in Coventry want to know why they have to spend £70
every time they want to see their football team because
of the shenanigans going on between the football club
and all the other parties involved. Nothing has been
done to resolve that problem. May I suggest that the
relevant Select Committee tries to resolve it by taking
evidence? I am sorry I cannot go on any longer, as I
would love to have raised a load of issues.
4.9 pm
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab): The Gracious
Speech represents a missed opportunity. We missed the
opportunity to carry out a number of good things to
revive our economy and give our people a good standard
of living and the conditions they deserve, and that, as
we all accept, is something that concerns the country at
large.
I would have liked to have seen at least four things in
the Gracious Speech. The first relates to jobs. It is
important that people are secure in their jobs and
properly remunerated, yet nothing has been done on
zero-hours contracts, which are being abused by many
unscrupulous employers. At the same time, despite the
Government’s promises, the issue of the minimum wage
Debate on the Address
790
has not been addressed. I know that the next Labour
Government will confront that matter and raise the
amount.
Labour has also pledged to work with the private and
voluntary sectors to ensure that there is a paid job for
every 18 to 24-year-old who has been claiming jobseeker’s
allowance for the past 12 months or more, and for every
adult over the age of 25 who has been claiming JSA for
more than 24 months. That policy has been costed at
£1.9 billion. Once we instigate it, it will lead to savings
on other benefits.
We know that people want to work, but some are not
able to do so because of high child care costs. Labour
says that, to help people to work, it will allow 24 hours
free child care for three to four-year-olds and a guaranteed
access to wraparound child care through primary school.
There are now 578 fewer Sure Start children’s centres
and 35,000 fewer child care places. That will be changed
by a future Labour Government. We believe that support
for child care will help people to get back into work.
Another important issue is housing. Everyone wants
a decent home in which to live, and house-building is at
its lowest level since the 1920s. The previous Labour
Government spent £20 billion on repairing homes, and
a future Labour Government will build at least 200,000
homes by 2030, creating 230,000 construction jobs. We
will also ensure that local councils have “use it or lose
it” powers over developers who hold on to land with
planning permission and do not build homes on it. We
will also establish a help-to-build guarantee scheme to
increase access to finance for small builders.
Rising energy prices was another issue that was missing
from the Gracious Speech. If Labour comes into power,
we will freeze prices until 2017. All of the issues I have
mentioned should be addressed.
4.12 pm
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland
West) (Lab): The last Queen’s Speech before the general
election should have shown that the Government were
listening to what ordinary people want. Instead, we had
a speech that seemed to be geared more towards allowing
Government Members plenty of time to go off campaigning
for their own jobs than it was to helping 380 of my
constituents who are long-term unemployed, which is
an increase of almost 600% in the past two years. It was
a speech that talked about charges for plastic carrier
bags, but not about helping those people who are struggling
to afford the food to put in them.
The lack of action by this Government to tackle
inequality was particularly notable. This is a Government
who have helped the rich get richer while allowing the
incomes of ordinary working people to fall by £1,600 a
year. The Office for National Statistics recently published
research showing that the wealthiest 10% of households
owned 44% of the country’s total wealth, while the least
wealthy 50% owned just 9% between them. That research
also showed that the north-east has the lowest average
household wealth—not even half as much as in the
south-east. Such deep inequality has shown time and
again to be a drag on the economy. One of the most
effective ways to tackle that is by rebalancing our economy
to create more jobs and wealth in our regions, particularly
in the north-east.
791
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
Do not get me wrong, Mr Deputy Speaker, the north-east
does not need any special treatment or sympathy; that is
not what I am after. It is full of people who are highly
motivated to work, who have world-leading skills and
new and exciting ideas. It has bags of potential, particularly
in low-carbon technology and other skilled manufacturing.
In fact, only last week, the Deputy Prime Minister and
the Business Secretary came to the fabulous new Rolls
Royce factory in my constituency to see that for themselves.
I am not sure whether they had time to go for a pint
together afterwards, but I would have been more than
happy to recommend one of Washington’s excellent
pubs.
What the north-east needs is a fair crack of the whip.
So far under this Government regional development
funding has been skewed towards the already prosperous
London and the south-east and, sadly, nothing in this
Queen’s Speech changes that.
Another way to make our society more equal and
more prosperous is by harnessing the potential of women,
which means addressing the unaffordability and
unavailability of child care. Instead of taking action in
this Parliament to address their record of spiralling
costs, plummeting availability and cuts to support through
tax credits, all the Government could muster in their
final Queen’s Speech was the promise of something to
come in a year’s time. Parents everywhere will therefore
welcome the calls for more free child care for working
parents outlined in the Opposition amendment. All I
can say is thank goodness this will be the last Queen’s
Speech from this Government.
4.15 pm
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op):
I rise to speak in support of my right hon. Friend the
Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) and the
Opposition amendment and on behalf of thousands of
constituents in Liverpool who were looking to the
Chancellor and the Prime Minister to offer them some
relief from the cost of living crisis but received no such
thing in the Gracious Speech.
Not a week goes by in which I do not meet constituents
on the doorstep or in my surgery who are struggling to
get by. More often than not, they are in work. They are
juggling jobs, they are in precarious employment and
they do not know whether they can put food on the
table from week to week. I listened carefully to the
Chancellor and his comments on zero-hour contracts
and was disappointed that he did not know the figures,
but I can tell him that a conservative estimate of the
number of people on zero-hour contracts is 1.4 million.
What is the Government’s plan to deal with this problem,
which has exploded on his watch? He refuses to ensure
that those working regular hours month after month
will get a regular contract of employment. That is
totally unacceptable.
There are so many things that the Government could
have brought forward to help millions of people in our
country. In particular—this issue was raised with the
Prime Minister yesterday—the coalition agreement pledged
to maintain Labour’s goal of ending child poverty by
2020. The Government said that they would develop
better measures for child poverty in this Parliament, but
there was nothing. Only this week, we learned that a
shocking 3.5 million youngsters in our country are
Debate on the Address
792
living in poverty and the figure is predicted to soar to 5
million by 2020. We have the highest ever recorded
figures of adults with children in poverty. I have met too
many parents in my constituency who are devastated
that they are struggling to provide for themselves and
their children. This Government have no answer to a
problem that I believe—I have written in my speech the
same words as those used by my hon. Friend the Member
for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan)—is
a stain on our national conscience. We are the seventh
richest nation in the world, but we have more than 1,000
food banks and more than 900,000 people who have
had to access emergency food aid on behalf of themselves
or their families.
We could have had a make work pay Bill to reward
hard work with a higher minimum wage. We could have
had a consumers Bill to freeze energy bills. In my
constituency, where we have the third highest level of
fuel poverty, that would have helped hundreds of my
constituents. We could have had a housing Bill with
long-term reforms to increase the supply of homes by
2020, a communities Bill to give people a say over
payday lenders and betting shops in their high streets
and an immigration Bill to stop workers being undercut
through enforcement of the national minimum wage
and banning recruitment agencies that use only overseas
labour.
I wanted to talk about long-term youth unemployment,
which has gone up in my constituency by more than
50% since 2010, but there is not time so I shall conclude
by saying that we need a race to the top, not to the
bottom and an economy that works for us all, not just
for the very few rich.
4.18 pm
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab): The past four
years have been a very tough time for a great number of
my constituents and many other people across the
country. Since the financial crisis of 2008 and the bold
and decisive action taken by the previous Government
to prevent the collapse of the banking system, the value
of our economy, and with it the living standards of the
majority of our fellow citizens, has fallen dramatically.
Though some might attempt to point score over the
causes of our economic situation, it is fundamental that
Members recognise right from the start the very human
cost of its consequences.
Whereas Government Members might wish to gloat
over indications of some partial recovery, they either
completely ignore or are simply too out of touch to
recognise that the real value of wages has plummeted
for most people while their cost of living has gone
through the roof. When Shelter estimates that 4 million
families are only one month’s pay packet away from
poverty and not being able to keep a roof over their
heads, the cost of living crisis that has taken hold in
Britain today should be of real concern to us all.
Over the course of this Parliament, the Bills contained
in successive Queen’s Speeches have done little to address
the plight of those who struggle the most. This, the final
Queen’s Speech before the election, is yet another missed
opportunity to assist those in greatest need in society.
When we look at the problems that working people face
daily and the Government’s inaction, we can only agree
that we have a coalition Government in zombie mode,
793
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
[Graeme Morrice]
oblivious to reality. Government Members may boast
about the number of new jobs being created in the
private sector, but that hardly compensates for the
many thousands of jobs lost in the public sector due to
Government cuts. Private sector job creation is welcome,
but many of those jobs are insecure, being low-paid,
part-time, casual or on zero-hours contracts, where
people continue to live day to day.
The official unemployment count might be reducing,
but the cost to the public purse of in-work benefits is
increasing—hardly the high-value wage economy that is
needed to guarantee the country’s long-term sustainable
recovery and hardly a successful economic plan. The
Government have cast aside ordinary working people
and are on the side of exploitative employers, who cheer
from the sidelines as reports such as Beecroft’s try to
strip back employment rights, the minimum wage and
safety at work. The Government are trying to line the
pockets of the richest, in the hope that some of the
crumbs will fall from the table. I am aware that we are
very short of time, so on that point I will sit down.
4.21 pm
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): In his 2010 Budget, the
Chancellor said that he would eliminate the budget
deficit by the next general election in 2015. On his own
terms, he has failed. In the 2010 Budget, the Chancellor
said that net borrowing this year would be £37 billion.
The latest forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility
put the figure at close to £100 billion. That is not the
Chancellor’s only failure. In 2010, the Chancellor said
that he wanted to create
“a new, balanced economy where we save, invest and export”.—
[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 167.]
I have already said how catastrophic the Chancellor’s
failure has been for the deficit. However, adjusted for
dilapidation and depreciation, non-financial private sector
investment has fallen from £43 billion in 2008 to £14
billion in 2013. Less investment means less competitiveness
and poorer productivity.
To address the desperate politics of their situation,
the Tories and the Liberals have sought to revive the
economy through various short-term measures. The
funding for lending scheme gave incentives to banks to
lend to the mortgage market but did little to help small
businesses. The Help to Buy scheme was introduced in
the 2013 Budget and has helped to fuel the property
market in the south-east in particular.
Short-termism is the byword for this exhausted
Government. Far from having a long-term economic
plan, they are staggering through to the next general
election and thereafter the inevitable rate rise will happen.
Their re-election would be catastrophic for home owners
who are already suffering a cost of living crisis, even
with record low interest rates, and for business, which
will have to cope with increased costs.
This Government have not addressed the fundamental
weaknesses of this country’s economy since the 1980s:
over-reliance on the financial sector and over-concentration
of wealth and investment in London and the south-east.
When the UK economy was at its strongest, it relied on
economic growth right across the UK. We had superb
regional institutions, such as Halifax building society,
Debate on the Address
794
Leeds Permanent and Northern Rock, which were destroyed
because of Thatcherite dogma. That helped to create
the global financial crisis that has beset this country
and caused the problems that we have.
As people from right across the political spectrum,
but not this Government, are seeing, we need to develop
a system of regional finance to support local business
and to invest in local economies. We cannot rely on the
white-tied individuals in the City of London to support
the industry and the businesses that we need. It is time
for regional banks. The Government do not even recognise
the problem, so they will never provide the solution.
Thank goodness this is their last Queen’s Speech.
4.24 pm
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab): I had intended to
focus on the structural weaknesses in the British economy
of stagnating business investment and a widening
productivity gap. However, yesterday I received a call
from Maxine Bartholomew, an old friend, who told me
that her mother, Rose Stubbs, had died on Tuesday at
the age of 87. Rose would have had a lot to say about
the Gracious Speech and she would have said it much
better and faster than I could, but I will try to do her
justice.
Rose and Maxine were present at the first Labour
party meeting that I ever attended, in the Borough hall
in Hartlepool, where somewhat nervously I said I would
like to somehow become more involved in the local
Labour party. Rose took me under her wing then and
she has never let me go.
Rose lived all her life in the Headland part of Hartlepool,
a unique and historic part of the world, where people
have far too often had to endure hard times. In an area
of big characters, Rose—at 4 feet 11 inches and 7 stone
wringing wet—was the biggest. Her father was a fisherman
and a veteran of the first world war, living on the croft
and eking out a wage in the harshest environment—in
terms of both the North sea and the economic situation—of
the 1920s and ’30s. In the last years of her life, Rose was
angry at the return in the 21st century to the insecure
employment practices of the ’20s and ’30s that characterised
her father’s generation, and an economic model for this
country that focused on low skill, low pay and a lack of
security at work. I know, too, that she would have been
angry at the absence of any meaningful provision in the
Queen’s Speech to address the situation.
Rose always told me that her father had said, “Get a
good job in a factory and join a union to ensure that
you receive better pay and conditions,” so she would
have been angry at yesterday’s announcement that average
weekly earnings in the north-east fell by 7.3% last year,
leaving full-time workers in our region £36 a week worse
off. The situation is even worse for women in the north-east,
who have lost £49 a week from their pay packets over
the past year. There is nothing in the Queen’s Speech to
address that, so Rose would have supported today’s
Opposition amendment, which calls for
“a plan to secure a strong and sustained recovery that delivers
rising living standards for the many, not just a few at the top”.
Rose believed passionately in social mobility, in giving
working people the power and the tools to better themselves
and to ensure that a decent day’s work was well paid.
That is why she would have been impressed with what
our amendment says about a compulsory jobs guarantee,
795
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
the importance of vocational qualifications and a new
partnership with business that emphasises the importance
of apprenticeships.
Despite the forces of globalisation and discontent
with politics, we in this House still have the power to
effect change for the better for people like Rose and
those who come after her. We need to build an economy
for working people like her. She would have approved of
the Opposition amendment, which is why I will be
voting for Rosie tonight and the many people like her in
Hartlepool.
4.27 pm
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab):
To all those who have managed to find employment in
the past 12 months, I say well done. To those on the
Government Benches, however, I say that what we are
seeing across this country is an unequal recovery. If the
Treasury team look at the figures from the Office for
National Statistics, they will see that the total number
of hours worked each week across the UK has not
increased anything like as much as it should have done,
given that such a massive number of people are finding
work. Those average weekly hours are being spread
among more people, hence the unequal recovery across
the country.
I am sick of saying that this time last year the average
wage in my constituency was almost 24% beneath the
national average, although thankfully the figure has
fallen to just under 20%. The problems that we face
were first discovered on the high streets of the United
Kingdom, and if we look at those high streets today, we
will see that in most communities there has been very
little improvement.
The bedroom tax is costing this Government £4.8
billion more in housing benefit over the course of this
Parliament, so something has gone sadly wrong. I want
an explanation of what the bedroom tax was all about,
because almost 400,000 more working people are now
in receipt of housing benefit and trapped in a bedroom
tax situation than in 2010. That is an increase of some
60% in England, 59% in Wales and 53% in Scotland.
What was it all about? People have not changed houses,
but they have had to pay more as they have not found
suitable accommodation.
The Labour party in government will move on the
living wage and we will ensure that—through public
sector procurement—it will be introduced. We need to
ensure that life is much better for so many families the
length and breadth of this country who find it hard,
and we need to ensure that we tackle the high levels of
youth unemployment that depressingly still exist for
some communities, in a way that will give young people
in this country decent jobs, not jobs on zero-hours
contracts or on two or three hours a week, which are
not enough for them.
4.30 pm
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): It is a
pleasure to contribute briefly on the last day of the
debate on the Gracious Speech.
The striking thing for me is that the last Queen’s
Speech of a Parliament is usually stuffed full of Bills—the
last few things that a Government want to get done
before a general election—and then there are a load of
Debate on the Address
796
draft Bills, which are an indication of where that
Government want to go if they are lucky enough to
secure another term in office.
Robert Flello: I recollect that before the 2010 general
election, the Conservatives criticised the then Prime
Minister for what they called a lightweight Queen’s
Speech; by comparison with this one, it looks so heavy
as to be unliftable.
Andrew Gwynne: I completely agree with my hon.
Friend and the real issue is that this Queen’s Speech is
lacking in both those areas—Bills and draft Bills. Perhaps
it is unfair to Her Majesty the Queen to say this, but the
only memorable part of her Gracious Speech was her
announcing a tax on plastic carrier bags. That is rather
telling, because despite all the big issues facing my
constituents in Denton and Reddish, there is very little
in the Queen’s Speech about tackling the cost of living
crisis, nothing to ease the pressure on housing that my
constituents face, nothing on the NHS—perhaps that is
a blessing in disguise—and no vision for a better Britain.
The complacency from Government Members was
striking, because this recovery is unequal. Areas such as
Denton and Reddish are struggling. I am not a merchant
of doom; there are some good indicators. Unemployment
is relatively low, at 3.7%. That is welcome but it is still
higher than the 2.8% rate when I entered Parliament in
2005. There is an underlying story of low wages and
long hours for people in full-time jobs, and many jobs
are part-time, on zero-hours contracts and insecure. Of
course, that is utterly self-defeating for the taxpayer,
because it results in the working poor, whereby we are
paying extra in-work benefits to subsidise low wages.
Robert Flello: I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech
immensely. He has hit on that insecurity issue yet again.
Last weekend, Stoke-on-Trent saw its 10th foodbank
opening up, which surely points to the insecurity that
exists.
Andrew Gwynne: It absolutely does, and it is a stain
on our country’s reputation that so many people in
work, as well as those who are out of work, have to rely
on charity handouts.
Of course, in my constituency, an in-work benefit
that has soared in recent years is housing benefit. I now
have 1,000 extra claimants in Stockport and 870 extra
claimants in Tameside. Those increases are surely a sign
of that insecurity and those low wages. In my constituency,
wages are 20% are lower than the median for the UK.
That is why we need Labour’s deal on the national
minimum wage and why we need to put in place living
wage agreements.
Youth unemployment is still stubbornly high. I commend
Tameside council and, yes, I also commend Stockport
council for their efforts to increase the number of
apprenticeships, but what we need is a compulsory jobs
guarantee, because what really worked for many young
people in my constituency was the future jobs fund. It
was criminal that this Government axed that very important
scheme. We need to upskill the next generation and
maximise the benefits of the jobs that have been created
in the Manchester city region; in the city centre, in
MediaCityUK at Salford Quays and at the airport city.
We need to attract new jobs to Tameside and Stockport.
797
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
[Andrew Gwynne]
We need to invest in education. It was criminal that
many of my schools missed out on Building Schools for
the Future, even though my right hon. Friend the
Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) signed off
the BSF payments for St Thomas More college, Audenshaw
school, All Saints school and Reddish Vale technology
college. We need that investment, so that those schools
have the same quality of educational facilities that we
had in Denton community college.
Lastly, there is a chronic need to build more housing.
It is good for jobs, but we need affordable housing both
to buy and to rent. We need decent homes in the private
rented sector, because far too many of them are squalid,
frankly. We need more social housing. I commend New
Charter Housing Trust Group for its new build—I was
lucky enough to cut the first sod at its new site in
Audenshaw—but it barely scratches the surface of what
is needed.
This Queen’s Speech lacks ambition. I fear that we
will have to wait 11 months for a Labour Government
and a proper programme for action.
4.36 pm
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op): After
six days of debate on the Queen’s Speech, what have we
learned? I have learned that my hon. Friends on the
Opposition Benches have been determined to make the
points on behalf of their constituents, while Government
Members consistently ran out of time.
My hon. Friends have been diligent in pointing out
all the items that have been conspicuous by their absence
from the Queen’s Speech. My hon. Friend the Member
for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), my right hon.
Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and my
hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew
Gwynne) made this point, as did my hon. Friend the
Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), my
right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret
Beckett), my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield
(Mr Sheerman), for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack
Dromey), for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), for
Preston (Mark Hendrick), for Bolton South East (Yasmin
Qureshi) and for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), my right
hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton
(Mr Meacher), my hon. Friend the Member for Denton
and Reddish—I have listed him already; that is how
good his speech was—my hon. Friends the Members
for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), for Livingston
(Graeme Morrice), for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and many
more. I apologise to the hon. Friends I have been unable
to mention.
We did not get the measures we wanted in the Queen’s
Speech. Many hon. Friends mentioned cigarette packaging
and smoking in cars, which were not included. There
was nothing on border controls and no mention of the
national health service. My hon. Friends should not be
surprised by the paucity of the Government’s legislative
programme, because it is not by accident; it is by design.
It is a deliberate strategy to avoid time-consuming legislation
that would be difficult for this House to deal with. They
want to scrape the barnacles off the bottom of the boat,
as Lynton Crosby famously put it, because they do not
want anything to get in the way of the image they want
to craft ahead of the general election.
Debate on the Address
798
This Queen’s Speech is not about rising to the challenges
that the public want the Government to confront; it is
all about giving the appearance of activity, but not real
activity itself. It is about image, not substance. It is
about the theatrics of government, not getting on with
real reforms. It is also about repeating more and more
promises, rather than fulfilling the ones they made in
the first place. Look at what they promised on making
work pay, again in the Queen’s Speech. Strangely, they
made that promise in the 2010 Queen’s Speech. This
time they made a promise about cutting red tape, which
they also promised to do in 2010. They made a promise
this time, as they did in 2010, about balancing the
books and eradicating the deficit. We know that the
Chancellor’s failure to generate growth for three years
after the general election means that they have failed to
meet that promise.
Of course, we must not forget one of the most
foolhardy promises of all: to bring immigration down
to the tens of thousands. In his solemn pledge on that,
the Prime Minister said, “no ifs, no buts”. That was
what they guaranteed. It is amazing that there was no
mention of that pledge in the Queen’s Speech. But
promises are difficult. These are tough times and, because
of the Chancellor’s failure to get a grip and generate
growth early enough, public finances are in a difficult
state.
We are going to find times tough in the next Parliament
and lower priorities will have to get less funding. What
is the reaction of Government Members to these difficult
circumstances? Do they knuckle down? Do they redouble
their efforts, roll up their sleeves and try to do something
about the challenges facing this country? Absolutely
not. They switch on to autopilot mode and go into
“coasting”, and we end with a legislative programme,
such as the one we have, that does not confront the
problems that the country faces.
Yes, we hear in the Queen’s Speech that the Government
want to help small and medium-sized enterprises with
late payments, but what about helping businesses with
real lending support and the banks that should be
helping those businesses get the equity in and get the
growth that we need in our economy? We hear in the
Queen’s Speech that the Government want to help with
penalties where the minimum wage is not paid, but what
about the real reform strengthening the minimum wage
and ensuring that we link it to average earnings to make
an appreciable difference? The Government want pensions
flexibility. We welcome that, but what about the advice
and guidance that those retirees will need in order to
avoid problems further down the line? The Government
even talk about child care tax relief eventually, but what
about 25 hours of free child care for three and four-yearolds? That would be possible if the Government only
pulled their finger out and collected the bank levy as
they are supposed to do.
We do not see these measures because the Government
do not understand the challenges that the public face.
They do not offer a long-term economic plan. This is a
Government obsessed with short-term political
calculations—the phony concern of those who are focused
more on the appearance of introducing reform than on
the reality of undertaking reform.
Robert Flello: On pensions, the £5 billion or whatever
figure will go into the Treasury from the Government’s
proposals will be more than offset when, no doubt
799
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
under a future Labour Government, the chickens come
home to roost and mis-selling scandals hit. It will be a
Labour Government who have to pick up the mess.
Chris Leslie: That is why we want to see the full detail
of the advice and guidance that need to be put in place.
The Government do not like hearing it, but these are
the questions that have to be answered. Those answers
were not in the Queen’s Speech.
It was not a long-term economic plan that we got in
the Queen’s Speech, but a set of short-term obsessions
focused on political calculations. The Queen took less
than 10 minutes to read out the speech that she was
given, yet for most of our constituents it offers zero
progress on their concerns. The parties in government
think that all is fine with the economy—everything is
going perfectly well—but how detached from reality
can they get?
The Financial Secretary will no doubt speak shortly
and she can quote all the economic data she likes, but I
have to tell her that for many people this is an economy
that is about low pay, zero hours and, for those who are
struggling, food banks. She can quote GDP statistics in
recent months, but we are seeing an economy where the
very wealthiest 1% in society are doing particularly well
and seeing their share of the cake grow while the rest of
the population are seeing their share shrink further and
further. The Government may be satisfied with this
state of affairs, but the Opposition are not.
In the remaining 11 months before the general election,
we should have a substantial and meaningful legislative
programme which tackles some of these problems, rather
than the set of headlines and press releases that have
been strung together for effect.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/
Co-op): Will my hon. Friend give way?
Chris Leslie: No. I have only a few more minutes.
I wanted also to focus on the Infrastructure Bill that
the Chancellor has brought forward—the so-called
Infrastructure Bill. Third time lucky. The last two
infrastructure Bills certainly did not do the trick, nor
did the 11 infrastructure plans and strategies that the
Government have published since the last general election,
or the 79 press releases that we have had on infrastructure
since then. We know that this Chancellor is obsessed
with presentation, not with getting diggers on the ground.
Let us look at the problems that this country is
facing. There are 5 million people on low pay in our
country today, yet there is nothing in the Queen’s Speech
to incentivise the living wage, which would make a real
difference. Bank lending to small businesses that need
real help is falling, but banking reform has been inadequate
and is not the action that we need. There is a cost of
living crisis, with prices yet again exceeding wages,
according to the latest economic data. Yet no action has
been taken on the big six energy companies, which
continue to fail to pass on to their customers even
reductions in wholesale energy prices.
The state of affairs in housing is one in which demand
goes higher and higher, but house building is at its
lowest since the 1920s. I must say to the Chancellor that
if he thinks that a new town in Ebbsfleet adds up to a
housing strategy, he is sorely mistaken. Yes, we have
Debate on the Address
800
Help to Buy, but we need “Help to Build” alongside it if
we are to tackle that particular problem. Tenants in
insecure accommodation are being ripped off by letting
agents.
On child poverty, it is predicted that 3.5 million
children will be in poverty over the next few years,
which is five times the Government’s original estimate,
but that does not even get a reference in the Queen’s
Speech. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham
East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) pointed out,
20 million meals have been served in food banks in the
past year, which is a badge of shame for the Government,
but there is no reference to that in the Queen’s Speech.
The national health service is, of course, under more
strain than ever before, but there was not a single word
about it in the Queen’s Speech.
With all those problems, what have the Government
been doing for the past week? They have been feuding
among themselves, with Cabinet Ministers briefing against
one another and not just two parties in coalition but at
least four factions vying for political control. Somebody
somewhere has got to get a grip and to show some real
leadership and good government, rather than allowing
this appalling state of affairs and factionalisation to
continue.
I must tell Government Members that, day by day, we
are seeing a coalition that is less a coalition than a
conspiracy for inaction. [Interruption.] I will give way
to the Chancellor if he wants to talk about food banks,
child poverty or housing strategy. They are not interested
in those matters, however, because the Queen’s Speech
is an artifice—it is all about presentation and the spin
that they want to put on these issues.
Where is the Government’s ambition and sense of
urgency about the problems in the country today? The
legislative torpor in the Queen’s Speech is absolutely
appalling. They have turned the House of Commons
into the most expensive waiting room in history. In this
Queen’s Speech, they are treading water for another
year. We know that their legacy will be the slowest
economic recovery for 100 years. This will not do, and
our constituents will not stand for it. The fact that we
have to wait a further year for the general election is a
tragedy for the millions of people who need real help
now. The Government are squandering the chance for
change in this country and, with it, the potential that
our country should have, which is why Opposition
Members believe that Britain deserves much better than
this.
4.47 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan):
This Queen’s Speech builds on the Government’s long-term
plan to create a stronger economy and a fairer society.
We have had a debate, but the hon. Member for Nottingham
East (Chris Leslie) did not appear to want to talk much
about Labour’s amendment and he certainly did not
want to talk about Labour’s plan, if it has one, for the
economy.
Let me go back to the beginning of the debate and
pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth
North (Penny Mordaunt) and for Mid Dorset and
North Poole (Annette Brooke) for their eloquent, articulate
and, it has to be said, hugely entertaining speeches last
week. As they affirmed, it was the first time that female
Members of Parliament had both proposed and seconded
801
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
[Nicky Morgan]
the Loyal Address, and it is an honour for me to close
the proceedings on it tonight. That is especially true at a
time when our country can boast more women in
employment than ever and more women working full
time than ever. Those statistics are of course part of a
wider picture in which not only has overall employment
reached its highest level ever, but unemployment has
reached its lowest level in more than five years.
Let me turn to the speeches—I counted 37 of them—in
today’s debate. We started with the contributions of
three distinguished Members: the right hon. Member
for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), my hon. Friend
the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and
the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw).
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough
(Sir Edward Leigh) talked about Labour’s waste during
office. He would know a lot about that as the former
Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire
(Andrew Selous) talked about the amnesia of Opposition
Members—we can see it in some of their faces today—and
the problems that they left behind for this Government
to deal with. He spoke about investing in infrastructure.
I am sure that he will welcome the Infrastructure Bill
that was announced in the Gracious Speech last week.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport)
(Con): Does my right hon. Friend recognise that it is
incredibly important that there is investment in the
south-west, including in our railways and roads? That is
how growth will be delivered in the south-west and in
my Plymouth constituency.
Nicky Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend. The Labour
party did nothing for the south-west. He has been a
doughty champion of investment in the south-west
since his election in 2010. The Treasury and other
Departments continue to look at road and rail projects,
which will make a huge difference. Of course, we saw
the speedy rebuilding of the railway line following this
year’s floods, which caused such disruption to the southwest. We did not hang around talking about it; we got
on and delivered the investment that was needed.
Mr Straw: If the right hon. Lady is so critical of the
Labour Government’s record, will she explain why the
Chancellor, when he was shadow Chancellor, made the
commitment in an article in The Times on 3 September
2007 that a Government under him would endorse
Labour’s spending plans for the following three years?
Nicky Morgan: I thank the right hon. Gentleman
very much indeed for his question. Although I was not
in the House at the time, my party warned the Labour
Government about excessive borrowing and spending.
It is frankly rather pathetic of Labour Members to say,
not just in this debate, but in many debates, “You didn’t
warn us. You didn’t tell us that we weren’t doing the
right thing.” They were in government at the time and
they were running the country.
The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton
(Mr Meacher) showed in his opening paragraph—
[Interruption.]
Debate on the Address
802
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. I
want to hear the Financial Secretary, but I am struggling.
I am sure that Members want to hear the answers.
Nicky Morgan: The right hon. Member for Oldham
West and Royton showed in his opening paragraph that
he understands the Government’s economic policy perfectly.
It is a shame that he did not stop there, because he
summed up so beautifully all the Government’s
achievements over the past four years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire
(Glyn Davies) talked about the dairy industry in his
constituency, and I heard what he had to say.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton)
talked about the increase in the personal allowance. His
kind offer to advise the Treasury on the reform of
stamp duty has been noted and I am sure that we will
take note of what he has to say in the run-up to the next
fiscal event.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman)
offered to write the Labour party manifesto for the next
election. I wonder whether those on the Labour Front
Bench were listening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park
(Zac Goldsmith) talked about recall, about which he is
passionate. I suspect that there will be many debates on
that issue in this House before the recall Bill is passed.
My hon. Friends the Members for Rugby (Mark
Pawsey) and for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) talked about
how the Government are delivering for manufacturing
and rebalancing manufacturing. It is worth noting that
manufacturing is expanding faster in the UK than in
any other country in the G7.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack
Dromey), who I cannot see in his place, spoke of an era
of discontent and disconnection. I agree with him.
There is an era of discontent and disconnection in the
Labour party—discontent with the leadership and
disconnection from what this country needs to rebuild
the economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and
Rowley Regis (James Morris) talked about the Labour
party’s promise to end boom and bust. He was right to
say that it delivered only one half of that promise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds
(Mr Ruffley) talked about trusting people with their
pension savings.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) talked
about the successes and investment in his constituency,
and mentioned the Tees valley city deal. I am sure that
all Members wish him and everybody who will sign it
next week the best of luck.
The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham)
talked about the 10p tax rate. He laid claim to the fact
that the last Government introduced it. The last
Government also got rid of it, which caused great
unfairness to those who were being taxed at that rate.
The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin
Qureshi) made a spending commitment of £1.9 billion,
which only reminds us that the amendment would cost
£14 billion.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana
Berger) talked about zero-hours contracts. I think she
said that 1.4 million people are on zero-hours contracts.
803
Debate on the Address
12 JUNE 2014
In fact, the ONS estimates that there are 1.4 million
zero-hours contracts and that 583,000 people are on
them. She should be careful, because the ONS recently
warned the shadow Business Secretary about his
interpretation of those figures.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) gave
an eloquent speech and demonstrated to all of us the
dangers of someone turning up at a local party meeting
and saying, “I want to get involved.” Many years later,
they find themselves here on the green Benches—we
have all been there.
Many hon. Members made points about the cost of
living. Of course the Government want to see rising
living standards for households up and down the country,
and we have helped households by freezing fuel duty
and council tax, taking money off energy bills, capping
rail fares and introducing free school meals. However,
the best way to improve living standards is to stick to
our long-term economic plan to improve productivity,
get as many people in work as possible and ensure that
they take home as much of their pay as possible.
As the House will know, we have already made real
progress on that front, but this Queen’s Speech introduces
measures that will further increase employment. It offers
tax-free child care, which will make a return to work
more financially viable for thousands of mothers and
fathers and, for the first time, help those who are
self-employed or setting up businesses. It offers a small
business Bill, which will make it easier to establish and
grow small businesses, and an Infrastructure Bill that
will help businesses both large and small by creating the
transport and digital networks that they will need to
thrive in the long term. All those steps will help our
businesses get more people into work, which will support
our households and grow our economy.
Chris Leslie: Will the Minister give way?
Nicky Morgan: I cannot take any more interventions.
[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of
time to make his arguments, but let us see how we get
on. First, I want to respond to the points that hon.
Members made about housing.
Of course we recognise that in some parts of the
country, people are worried about house price rises over
the past year. However, I point out, first, that real house
prices are still below their pre-crisis peak; secondly, that
the Government are committed to a number of new
building schemes to increase housing supply, including
the new garden city at Ebbsfleet; and thirdly, that we are
helping through the Help to Buy scheme thousands of
people who earn enough for a mortgage but are struggling
to raise a deposit. The official statistics released last
week show that Help to Buy is opening up home
ownership to thousands across the country, with more
than 94% of all completions being outside London and
more than 85% being by first-time buyers. To the Opposition
Member who dismissed the “stupid” Help to Buy scheme,
I say that that is an attack on aspiration and on everybody
who wants to own their own home.
Fourthly, I point out that the Financial Policy Committee
is in a position to step in if it thinks we are seeing a
return to unsustainable lending levels. We are monitoring
the situation and taking action, and we are ready to
take further action if we believe it has become necessary.
Debate on the Address
804
Chris Leslie rose—
Nicky Morgan: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Chris Leslie: I thank the Minister; we do have a little
bit of time left. Does the Minister believe that people in
this country will be better off at the time of the general
election in 2015 than they were at the time of the last
general election? Does she agree with the IFS that they
will not be?
Nicky Morgan: The whole country will be better off,
because we are fixing the economy, getting more people
into work and seeing wage levels going up and the
inflation rate falling. If the hon. Gentleman was waiting
to ask that question, he could have asked it during
many other speeches this afternoon. He will have to do
better than that next time.
It is worth noting that the hon. Gentleman gave a
speech recently on efficiency savings, but no savings
were identified. He listed a lot of ways to spend money,
instead—£21,000 on keeping a police station open; the
restoration of the spare room subsidy; the jobs guarantee
for young people, which as we have heard today is a
£1.4 billion commitment; a house building programme;
and a British investment bank. The Government will
not take lectures on how to run the economy.
This Queen’s Speech proves that this Government are
just as radical in our fifth year as we were in our first.
There were more Bills in this year’s Gracious Speech
than there were in the last Government’s final Session,
and they are serious Bills tackling serious issues—pensions,
infrastructure, small business, child care payments, serious
crime, modern slavery, the armed forces, social action
and heroism, national insurance contributions and the
recall of Members of Parliament.
This Queen’s Speech will be one further crucial step
in the Government’s long-term economic plan. It will
help those who want to work but are put off by child
care costs, and those who are forced to work by the
despicable practice of traffickers and slave masters. It
will help small businesses access finance and savers
access their pensions, and most importantly, it will keep
employment rising and the deficit falling. That is why
we reject the Opposition’s amendments and why I commend
the Gracious Speech wholeheartedly to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 269.
Division No. 2]
[4.59 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Ashworth, Jonathan
Austin, Ian
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barron, rh Kevin
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Benn, rh Hilary
Benton, Mr Joe
Berger, Luciana
Betts, Mr Clive
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Blunkett, rh Mr David
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
805
Debate on the Address
Buck, Ms Karen
Burnham, rh Andy
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Campbell, rh Mr Alan
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Caton, Martin
Clark, Katy
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Crausby, Mr David
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Curran, Margaret
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
David, Wayne
Davidson, Mr Ian
Davies, Geraint
De Piero, Gloria
Denham, rh Mr John
Dobbin, Jim
Dobson, rh Frank
Docherty, Thomas
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doran, Mr Frank
Doughty, Stephen
Dowd, Jim
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
Dugher, Michael
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Edwards, Jonathan
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Engel, Natascha
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Chris
Farrelly, Paul
Field, rh Mr Frank
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Robert
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Fovargue, Yvonne
Francis, Dr Hywel
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Godsiff, Mr Roger
Goodman, Helen
Greatrex, Tom
Green, Kate
Griffith, Nia
Gwynne, Andrew
Hain, rh Mr Peter
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Hanson, rh Mr David
12 JUNE 2014
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Mr Tom
Havard, Mr Dai
Hendrick, Mark
Hepburn, Mr Stephen
Heyes, David
Hillier, Meg
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hood, Mr Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin
Horwood, Martin
Hosie, Stewart
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
James, Mrs Siân C.
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Graham
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Kane, Mike
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Khan, rh Sadiq
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lavery, Ian
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leslie, Chris
Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma
Lewis, Mr Ivan
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Caroline
Lucas, Ian
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan
Mahmood, Mr Khalid
Mahmood, Shabana
Malhotra, Seema
Mann, John
Marsden, Mr Gordon
McCabe, Steve
McCarthy, Kerry
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonald, Andy
McDonnell, John
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Alison
McGovern, Jim
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
McKinnell, Catherine
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Meale, Sir Alan
Mearns, Ian
Miliband, rh Edward
Miller, Andrew
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Morden, Jessica
Morrice, Graeme (Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Mudie, Mr George
Munn, Meg
Murphy, rh Paul
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
O’Donnell, Fiona
Debate on the Address
Onwurah, Chi
Osborne, Sandra
Owen, Albert
Pearce, Teresa
Perkins, Toby
Pound, Stephen
Powell, Lucy
Qureshi, Yasmin
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reed, Mr Steve
Reeves, Rachel
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Ritchie, Ms Margaret
Robertson, Angus
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, rh Dame Joan
Sarwar, Anas
Sawford, Andy
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Shuker, Gavin
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Angela
Smith, Owen
Spellar, rh Mr John
Straw, rh Mr Jack
Stringer, Graham
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Stephen
Trickett, Jon
Twigg, Stephen
Vaz, Valerie
Watson, Mr Tom
Watts, Mr Dave
Weir, Mr Mike
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Williams, Hywel
Williamson, Chris
Wilson, Phil
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wishart, Pete
Woodcock, John
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:
Bridget Phillipson and
Julie Hilling
NOES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Amess, Mr David
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James
Baker, Norman
Baldry, rh Sir Tony
Baldwin, Harriett
Baron, Mr John
Barwell, Gavin
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benyon, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Bingham, Andrew
Binley, Mr Brian
Blunt, Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Brake, rh Tom
Bray, Angie
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brokenshire, James
Brooke, Annette
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bruce, Fiona
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burns, Conor
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burstow, rh Paul
Byles, Dan
Carmichael, Neil
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cash, Mr William
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clappison, Mr James
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, Stephen
Crouch, Tracey
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Dorries, Nadine
Drax, Richard
Duddridge, James
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Jonathan
Evans, Mr Nigel
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, rh Michael
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, Lynne
Foster, rh Mr Don
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freeman, George
Freer, Mike
Fullbrook, Lorraine
806
807
Debate on the Address
Fuller, Richard
Gale, Sir Roger
Garnier, Sir Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Goldsmith, Zac
Graham, Richard
Grant, Mrs Helen
Gray, Mr James
Grayling, rh Chris
Greening, rh Justine
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Griffiths, Andrew
Gummer, Ben
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Hague, rh Mr William
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hammond, rh Mr Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Matthew
Hands, rh Greg
Harper, Mr Mark
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Hayes, rh Mr John
Heald, Oliver
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Henderson, Gordon
Herbert, rh Nick
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollingbery, George
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Holloway, Mr Adam
Hopkins, Kris
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Hunter, Mark
Huppert, Dr Julian
Hurd, Mr Nick
James, Margot
Javid, rh Sajid
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Jenrick, Robert
Johnson, Gareth
Jones, Andrew
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kelly, Chris
Knight, rh Sir Greg
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Leech, Mr John
Leigh, Sir Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewis, Brandon
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lloyd, Stephen
12 JUNE 2014
Lopresti, Jack
Luff, Sir Peter
Lumley, Karen
Main, Mrs Anne
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McPartland, Stephen
Menzies, Mark
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, rh Maria
Mills, Nigel
Milton, Anne
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Mordaunt, Penny
Morgan, rh Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Murray, Sheryll
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
O’Brien, rh Mr Stephen
Offord, Dr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Opperman, Guy
Osborne, rh Mr George
Ottaway, rh Sir Richard
Pawsey, Mark
Penning, rh Mike
Percy, Andrew
Phillips, Stephen
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Prisk, Mr Mark
Raab, Mr Dominic
Randall, rh Sir John
Reckless, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reevell, Simon
Reid, Mr Alan
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, rh Hugh
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rogerson, Dan
Rosindell, Andrew
Rudd, Amber
Ruffley, Mr David
Russell, Sir Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Scott, Mr Lee
Selous, Andrew
Sharma, Alok
Shepherd, Sir Richard
Simmonds, Mark
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Smith, Sir Robert
Soames, rh Nicholas
Soubry, Anna
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Debate on the Address
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stephenson, Andrew
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Stunell, rh Sir Andrew
Swales, Ian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Teather, Sarah
Thornton, Mike
Tomlinson, Justin
Tredinnick, David
Truss, Elizabeth
Turner, Mr Andrew
Tyrie, Mr Andrew
Uppal, Paul
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
808
Walter, Mr Robert
Ward, Mr David
Weatherley, Mike
Webb, Steve
Wharton, James
Wheeler, Heather
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Willetts, rh Mr David
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Williamson, Gavin
Willott, Jenny
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon
Yeo, Mr Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Mark Lancaster and
John Penrose
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put.
The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 231.
Division No. 3]
[5.13 pm
AYES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Amess, Mr David
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James
Baker, Norman
Baldry, rh Sir Tony
Baldwin, Harriett
Baron, Mr John
Barwell, Gavin
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benyon, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Bingham, Andrew
Binley, Mr Brian
Blunt, Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Brake, rh Tom
Bray, Angie
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brokenshire, James
Brooke, Annette
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bruce, Fiona
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burns, Conor
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burstow, rh Paul
Byles, Dan
Carmichael, Neil
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cash, Mr William
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clappison, Mr James
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, Stephen
Crouch, Tracey
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Dorries, Nadine
Drax, Richard
Duddridge, James
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Jonathan
Evans, Mr Nigel
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, rh Michael
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, Lynne
Foster, rh Mr Don
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freeman, George
809
Debate on the Address
Freer, Mike
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Fuller, Richard
Gale, Sir Roger
Garnier, Sir Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Goldsmith, Zac
Graham, Richard
Grant, Mrs Helen
Gray, Mr James
Grayling, rh Chris
Greening, rh Justine
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Griffiths, Andrew
Gummer, Ben
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Hague, rh Mr William
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hammond, rh Mr Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Matthew
Hands, rh Greg
Harper, Mr Mark
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Hayes, rh Mr John
Heald, Oliver
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Henderson, Gordon
Herbert, rh Nick
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollingbery, George
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Holloway, Mr Adam
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Hunter, Mark
Huppert, Dr Julian
Hurd, Mr Nick
James, Margot
Javid, rh Sajid
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Jenrick, Robert
Johnson, Gareth
Jones, Andrew
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kelly, Chris
Knight, rh Sir Greg
Lamb, Norman
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Leech, Mr John
Leigh, Sir Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewis, Brandon
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lloyd, Stephen
Lopresti, Jack
Luff, Sir Peter
Lumley, Karen
Main, Mrs Anne
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McPartland, Stephen
Menzies, Mark
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, rh Maria
Mills, Nigel
Milton, Anne
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Mordaunt, Penny
Morgan, rh Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Murray, Sheryll
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
O’Brien, rh Mr Stephen
Offord, Dr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Opperman, Guy
Osborne, rh Mr George
Ottaway, rh Sir Richard
Pawsey, Mark
Penning, rh Mike
Percy, Andrew
Phillips, Stephen
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Prisk, Mr Mark
Raab, Mr Dominic
Randall, rh Sir John
Reckless, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reevell, Simon
Reid, Mr Alan
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, rh Hugh
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rogerson, Dan
Rosindell, Andrew
Rudd, Amber
Ruffley, Mr David
Russell, Sir Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Scott, Mr Lee
Selous, Andrew
Sharma, Alok
Shepherd, Sir Richard
Simmonds, Mark
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
12 JUNE 2014
Debate on the Address
Smith, Sir Robert
Soames, rh Nicholas
Soubry, Anna
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stephenson, Andrew
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Stunell, rh Sir Andrew
Swales, Ian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Teather, Sarah
Thornton, Mike
Tomlinson, Justin
Tredinnick, David
Truss, Elizabeth
Tyrie, Mr Andrew
Uppal, Paul
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Walter, Mr Robert
Ward, Mr David
Weatherley, Mike
Webb, Steve
Wharton, James
Wheeler, Heather
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Willetts, rh Mr David
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Williamson, Gavin
Willott, Jenny
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon
Yeo, Mr Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Ayes:
Mark Lancaster and
John Penrose
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Ashworth, Jonathan
Austin, Ian
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barron, rh Kevin
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Benn, rh Hilary
Benton, Mr Joe
Berger, Luciana
Betts, Mr Clive
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Blunkett, rh Mr David
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
Buck, Ms Karen
Burnham, rh Andy
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Campbell, rh Mr Alan
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Caton, Martin
Clark, Katy
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Crausby, Mr David
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Curran, Margaret
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
David, Wayne
Davidson, Mr Ian
Davies, Geraint
De Piero, Gloria
Denham, rh Mr John
Dobbin, Jim
Dobson, rh Frank
Docherty, Thomas
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doran, Mr Frank
Doughty, Stephen
Dowd, Jim
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
Dugher, Michael
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Edwards, Jonathan
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Engel, Natascha
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Chris
Farrelly, Paul
Field, rh Mr Frank
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Robert
Flint, rh Caroline
810
811
Debate on the Address
Flynn, Paul
Fovargue, Yvonne
Francis, Dr Hywel
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Godsiff, Mr Roger
Goodman, Helen
Greatrex, Tom
Green, Kate
Griffith, Nia
Gwynne, Andrew
Hain, rh Mr Peter
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Mr Tom
Havard, Mr Dai
Hendrick, Mark
Hepburn, Mr Stephen
Heyes, David
Hillier, Meg
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hood, Mr Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin
Hosie, Stewart
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
James, Mrs Siân C.
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Graham
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Kane, Mike
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Khan, rh Sadiq
Lammy, rh Mr David
12 JUNE 2014
Lavery, Ian
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leslie, Chris
Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma
Lewis, Mr Ivan
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Caroline
Lucas, Ian
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan
Mahmood, Mr Khalid
Mahmood, Shabana
Malhotra, Seema
Mann, John
Marsden, Mr Gordon
McCabe, Steve
McCarthy, Kerry
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonald, Andy
McDonnell, John
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Alison
McGovern, Jim
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
McKinnell, Catherine
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Meale, Sir Alan
Mearns, Ian
Miliband, rh Edward
Miller, Andrew
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Morden, Jessica
Morrice, Graeme (Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Mudie, Mr George
Munn, Meg
Murphy, rh Paul
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
O’Donnell, Fiona
Onwurah, Chi
Osborne, Sandra
Owen, Albert
Debate on the Address
Pearce, Teresa
Perkins, Toby
Pound, Stephen
Powell, Lucy
Qureshi, Yasmin
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reed, Mr Steve
Reeves, Rachel
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Ritchie, Ms Margaret
Robertson, Angus
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, rh Dame Joan
Sarwar, Anas
Sawford, Andy
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Shuker, Gavin
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Angela
812
Smith, Owen
Spellar, rh Mr John
Straw, rh Mr Jack
Stringer, Graham
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Stephen
Trickett, Jon
Twigg, Stephen
Vaz, Valerie
Watson, Mr Tom
Watts, Mr Dave
Weir, Mr Mike
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Williams, Hywel
Williamson, Chris
Wilson, Phil
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wishart, Pete
Woodcock, John
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Tellers for the Noes:
Bridget Phillipson and
Julie Hilling
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as
follows:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in
Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to
Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has
addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
Address to be presented to Her Majesty by Members
of the House who are Privy Counsellors or Members of
Her Majesty’s Household.
813
12 JUNE 2014
Sutton Coldfield (Royal Status)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House
do now adjourn.—(Mr Gyimah.)
5.25 pm
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con): I am
grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, for having been granted
this Adjournment debate—my first for at least 10 years—on
the subject of the re-assertion of the royal status of the
town of Sutton Coldfield. The debate is particularly
timely because last Friday Mr Speaker visited my
constituency and the royal town, when he addressed my
constituents in our historic town hall.
Over the last year there has been a tremendous campaign
throughout Sutton Coldfield to validate, prove and
reassert our status as a royal town—not a royal borough,
for that is a local government structure, but as the royal
town of Sutton Coldfield. We were granted this status
many centuries ago during the reign of King Henry
VIII.
Since 1974 Sutton Coldfield has been part of
Birmingham for local government purposes. This is
greatly resented, particularly by my elder constituents
who at the time marched and petitioned against the loss
of our borough council. Indeed, the late Edward Heath,
Prime Minister at the time, told me that his office
received more letters on this matter, in opposition to the
change, in the month before it took place than on all
other national and international matters.
This change of status inevitably led to a perceived
diminution in our individual identity in Sutton Coldfield,
and the emergence of a “North Birmingham” entity
with which Sutton has never concurred and has never
accepted. Of course, in Sutton Coldfield we understand
that local government arrangements are but a small
part of what we are. We remain, in our view, an ancient
royal town deeply proud of our heritage and history,
and conscious of the fact that local government
arrangements, while important, are a relatively modest
part of the fabric, nature and activity of Sutton Coldfield.
Within the town, there is a society, an organisation or a
charity for almost every enthusiasm and activity one
can imagine, and many of them continue proudly to
sport the royal connection.
Over the last year or so, I have led the campaign to
reassert our royal status and royal heritage. Of course,
we are not seeking something new, nor are we seeking
any legal change. We wish merely to reassert something
that we claim never to have lost and which we have
enjoyed down the centuries: that the royal town of
Sutton Coldfield bears this title in perpetuity, as clearly
documented throughout our history.
The campaign to reassert our royal status has been
supported extensively throughout Sutton Coldfield and
hundreds of people have come forward with evidence to
support our claim. This campaign has been given terrific
support by the award-winning and much admired local
newspaper, the Sutton Coldfield Observer, under its
experienced and respected editor, Gary Phelps, with the
support of one of his journalists, Elise Chamberlain, a
rising journalistic star who has spent many hours sorting
through evidence and has braved many a dusty archive
in diligently carrying out her investigation.
The Sutton Coldfield Observer energised the search
for historical precedent, with local residents of Sutton
Sutton Coldfield (Royal Status)
814
Coldfield searching through heirlooms and attics and
discovering a mounting cohort of evidence which earlier
this year we were able to lay before the Cabinet Office
Minister responsible for this matter, my right hon.
Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark).
The senior councillors, including Councillor Anne
Underwood and Councillor Margaret Waddington,
alongside honorary alderman David Roy OBE, former
lord mayor of the city of Birmingham, and members of
the Sutton Coldfield Civic Society, led by Elizabeth
Allison BEM, have spent much time and effort researching
and investigating our case. My distinguished predecessor
Lord Fowler of Sutton Coldfield has given his vigorous
support, as has the Lord-Lieutenant of the West Midlands,
Paul Sabapathy CBE, another distinguished local resident.
Prior to the delegation from Sutton Coldfield that
visited the Minister earlier this year, I held a series of
meetings with the Garter King of Arms, the College of
Arms, the Crown Office, the Cabinet Office and officials
at Buckingham palace. I would like to record my thanks
to them all for the sympathetic hearing, and the helpful
advice and guidance they offered. These matters are
both more complicated and more labyrinthine than
they may appear, steeped in history and precedent as
they are.
Throughout this joint investigation into the history
of Sutton Coldfield’s royal town status we have found
no evidence to prove that our royal title has been either
lost or repealed. Instead we have uncovered a great deal
of evidence that shows that Sutton Coldfield was granted
royal status in 1528 in perpetuity. Although this fact has
been taken for granted locally until comparatively recently,
documents show that Sutton Coldfield was referred to
as the royal town of Sutton Coldfield in an official
capacity up until 1974. However, under the Local
Government Act 1972, to which I referred earlier and
which heaved Sutton Coldfield into Birmingham for
local government purposes, that point was not addressed.
We believe we have now found precedents, not least
precedents governing Scottish royal towns, which put
this right and which I hope my right hon. Friend will
address in his response.
In 1528, Bishop Vesey obtained a charter from King
Henry VIII which referred to Sutton Coldfield as
“the royal town and village of Sutton Coldfield”.
Born at Moor Hall farm, Vesey became a confidant of
the King, a status he managed to maintain throughout
his life, in sharp contrast to many of the King’s other
confidants, who came to a grisly end, as devotees of
“The Tudors”, the brilliant television series, will attest.
As a young priest, Vesey was appointed chaplain to
Henry VIII’s mother, Elizabeth of York, and when the
King acceded to the throne he became a close adviser to
him and was rewarded for his loyalty with the bishopric
of Exeter in 1519. He was one of the six bishops to
accompany Henry VIII to the famous meeting with
Francis I of France at the field of the cloth of gold in
northern France, which at the time, of course, was part
of England. For much of the rest of his life Bishop
Vesey endowed and supported his home town of Sutton
Coldfield by plundering his bishopric of Exeter to our
very great advantage—an advantage that still benefits
us today in Sutton Coldfield through the work of the
Sutton Coldfield Charitable Trust, which dispenses largesse
to many worthy and brilliant organisations throughout
the town.
815
Sutton Coldfield (Royal Status)
12 JUNE 2014
In the charter granted in 1528 the following statement
is made:
“And that the same town and village shall for ever hereafter be
accounted, named and called, The Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield,
in our County of Warwick”.
Bishop Vesey, who still rests in Sutton Coldfield parish
church, gave the town Sutton park, the biggest municipal
park in Europe. He oversaw the regeneration of the
town centre, much as we are seeking to do today on the
back of Britain’s rescued and newly vibrant economy.
He also built our town hall, in which Mr Speaker spoke
last Friday, and founded one of our two grammar
schools, which still proudly bears his name. He rebuilt
the marketplace to encourage trade, with paved streets,
new roads and bridges constructed to promote it.
Sutton Coldfield today abounds with signs of royal
association. Our royal status is proclaimed in the arms
of Sutton Coldfield. The gold greyhound and red dragon
derive from the coat of arms of early Tudor kings and
were incorporated as a direct result of King Henry
VIII’s decision to grant Sutton Coldfield the charter of
incorporation as a royal town.
From that point on, Sutton Coldfield had secured its
place in our national history. Shakespeare sent one of
his best-loved characters, Falstaff, to Sutton Coldfield
on the way to the battle of Shrewsbury in Henry IV Part
I. Falstaff says:
“Bardolph, get thee before to Coventry; fill me a bottle of
sack: our soldiers shall march through: we’ll to Sutton-Co’fil’
to-night”.
I feel the warm approbation of the Secretary of State
for Education upon me at this point, Mr Deputy Speaker.
It is believed that this mention was a result of the Bard’s
family connections with Sutton Coldfield, where it is
claimed he had well-to-do relatives residing at Peddimore
Hall, a later version of which still stands and was
originally owned by the Arden family, relatives of
Shakespeare’s mother. The farmhouse has “Deus noster
refugium”God is our refuge—inscribed above the doorway.
Given the constant threat to our green belt in Peddimore,
it is probably quite apt.
A second charter was granted to Sutton Coldfield by
Charles II in 1662, which simply restored those powers
bestowed by Henry VIII 134 years earlier, and confirmed
all the privileges previously granted.
A third charter, granted by Queen Victoria on
31 December 1885, saw the ancient and royal town of
Sutton Coldfield become a modern municipal borough.
Importantly, there is no mention of the royal status
being withdrawn.
The royal town status of Sutton Coldfield was recognised
again in July 1928 when, on the 400th anniversary of
the granting of the charter by Henry VIII, the town
celebrated by holding a pageant. Thanks to diligent
local research, we have located a printed programme of
festivities, which includes a letter from Buckingham
palace after His Majesty King George V had received a
copy of a book of the pageant. The letter reads:
“In thanking you I am commanded to express His Majesty’s
best wishes for the success of the Pageant which has been organised
to commemorate the four hundredth year of the granting to the
Town of a Royal Charter by King Henry VIII.”
Once again, in 1957, the royal town status was recognised
when Her Majesty the Queen visited the town for the
world scout jubilee jamboree. Similarly, we have located
Sutton Coldfield (Royal Status)
816
an official programme of the event, which refers to
Sutton Coldfield as both the royal town of Sutton
Coldfield and the borough of Sutton Coldfield, which
we contend refers both to our status of royal in perpetuity
and to our local government arrangements.
Although such programmes and details bear no legal
status, they do, I think, indicate what was a clear
popular understanding at the time and significantly one
not contradicted or gainsaid by the authorities. Nor are
we seeking any legal instrument affirming all that I have
said.
Our conclusions at the end of this long campaign,
based on extensive research and evidence and on a case
supported overwhelmingly throughout Sutton Coldfield
by many thousands of local residents, are that in spite
of the vast changes our town has seen over more than
four centuries, since Henry VIII granted the royal charter
in perpetuity, there is no evidence to suggest that that
royal town status has ever been revoked, and we therefore
seek reassurance tonight that we can proudly rely on
that and use it in a sober and appropriate way forthwith.
5.39 pm
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark): I
congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for
Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who has represented
Sutton Coldfield so ably for more than 13 years now, on
securing this important Adjournment debate and on
the campaign that he has led that has been so trenchantly
supported throughout Sutton Coldfield by his constituents.
My right hon. Friend thought that the Secretary of
State for Education might approve of his references to
Shakespeare, but I think that our right hon. Friend the
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport ought
also to approve of the theatrical rendition he gave. As
his constituency is not far from the home of the Royal
Shakespeare Company, David Tennant, Sir Ian McKellen
and various other luminaries should watch out now
that we have seen the talents of my right hon. Friend the
Member for Sutton Coldfield.
I have followed this campaign with close interest.
This interest is, of course, bolstered by the fact that I
represent the town of Royal Tunbridge Wells where we
too are proud of our royal connections. As my right
hon. Friend mentioned, I had the great pleasure of
receiving his delegation in Whitehall earlier this year.
On that occasion he brought with him others involved
in his campaign and it is clear that the partnership
between my right hon. Friend and the editor and journalists
on the Sutton Coldfield Observer has developed into a
strong and sustained effort throughout Sutton Coldfield
that has captured both the enthusiasm and support of
local residents.
The evidence that the Sutton Coldfield Observer has
collected—as well as how it was presented to me and my
officials in a formidable dossier that has pride of place
in my office—was of deep historical interest and would
be to anyone who looks closely at these matters. It also
showed the importance that citizens attach to their local
heritage and the interest in and commitment to the
history of their local surroundings that people feel.
My right hon. Friend set out the long relationship
that Sutton Coldfield has had with the Crown. This
began when the manor of Sutton passed into the hands
of the King during the reign of William the Conqueror.
817
Sutton Coldfield (Royal Status)
12 JUNE 2014
[Greg Clark]
The royal manor of Sutone gets a mention in the
Domesday Book. For reasons that are not recorded, the
Crown gave away its royal manor in Sutton Coldfield in
1135, but the fortunes of Sutton Coldfield were revived,
as my right hon. Friend has said, by John Harman,
better known as Bishop Vesey, after lying dormant for
some years. Returning from his bishopric in Exeter to
Sutton Coldfield in 1524 to attend his mother’s funeral,
it is recorded that Bishop Vesey decided that something
needed to be done to regenerate the town.
He obtained the charter of incorporation from the
King in 1528 that bestowed on Sutton Coldfield the
status of royal town. That charter reads, as my right
hon. Friend said that
“the same town and village shall forever hereafter be accounted,
named and called the Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield in our
county of Warwick”.
As my right hon. Friend set out in his speech, Bishop
Vesey, having secured this royal recognition, went on to
regenerate the town and gave people access to Sutton
park by making it a royal forest, allowing Suttonians to
use its resources.
Indeed, Sutton Coldfield’s emblem of the Tudor rose
also finds its roots in Bishop Vesey’s association with
Henry VIII. According to folklore, King Henry VIII
was hunting in Sutton Park as the guest of Bishop
Vesey when he was charged by a wild boar. Before the
boar could reach the King, it fell dead with an arrow
through its heart. The King’s saviour emerged from the
woods and turned out to be in the form of a beautiful
young woman. When she told the King her family had
been dispossessed of their property, he ordered that
restitution should be made to them. To the young
woman he personally presented the Tudor rose, which
he decreed should henceforth be the emblem of Sutton
Coldfield.
Having looked carefully at all these matters, I fully
understand the pride people in Sutton Coldfield feel in
their royal heritage and the history of their town. As my
right hon. Friend said, the local government reorganisation
of 1974 incorporated—I think he used the word
“heaved”—Sutton Coldfield into the city of Birmingham
for administrative purposes. I am a great admirer of
that city and as my right hon. Friend said, many Sutton
Coldfield residents have served with distinction in the
city of Birmingham. I am looking forward to attending
a conference there next month on one of our great civic
heroes, Joseph Chamberlain, organised by the hon.
Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart).
That was not the first local government change to
affect Sutton Coldfield. The town became a municipal
borough in 1885, and although it was not designated a
royal borough, the title of royal town continued to be
used, as my right hon. Friend has demonstrated. In that
respect, there are some similarities with my own town of
Royal Tunbridge Wells. Since 1974, there has not been
any local government authority called Royal Tunbridge
Wells, the newly formed borough having taken in several
adjoining urban and rural district councils. Nevertheless,
the use of the town’s royal title continues.
Sutton Coldfield (Royal Status)
818
Our two towns have other things in common, too. We
have had more than our fair share of celebrated residents
over the years. I note with interest that Sutton Coldfield
has been home to much-loved national figures including
Sir Roger Moore and—perhaps she is in that category—the
hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). Tunbridge
Wells boasts many pillars of the establishment, too,
such as Sid Vicious and the right hon. Member for
Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown).
The case that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues
have made is clear and simple: while there is no corporation
or similar legal entity that carries the royal title, there is
no reason why the lack of a local council should prohibit
the continued reference to Sutton Coldfield as a royal
town. I am very sympathetic to his argument, but he
will understand that I must be guided by established
precedent in an area that is often complex. I am pleased
to tell him that in my researches I have become aware of
a clear and helpful precedent. A number of Scottish
towns are in an analogous position to Sutton Coldfield,
in that local government reorganisations did not carry
forward their royal titles into the names of the new
authorities. In 1977, the Government of the day clarified
that, notwithstanding the absence of a local government
body containing the royal title,
“There is no statutory ban to the continuance of historic titles
for other purposes.”—[Official Report, 6 December 1977; Vol. 940,
c. 694W.]
There being no statutory ban, I am not surprised that
my right hon. Friend and his constituents should wish
to use the title. In other words, I am pleased to be able
to confirm today to him and his constituents that there
is no statutory prohibition on the use of this historic
title. I can therefore confirm also that there is nothing to
prevent the people of Sutton Coldfield making use of
their historic royal title.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know that Mr Speaker
had the pleasure of visiting Sutton Coldfield just a few
days ago, to speak to Suttonians from the university of
the Third Age in the historic setting of Sutton Coldfield’s
town hall. While neither he nor you will have known the
contents of this Adjournment debate, it had already
been granted.
The results of this long campaign in the town will
appear in the Hansard record of our proceedings, which
will no doubt be read with considerable interest across
Sutton Coldfield. The debate also brings to a close
uncertainty on the matter, which I know will be hugely
welcomed by my right hon. Friend, Sutton Coldfield’s
tenacious and invincible Member of Parliament, its
much respected newspaper, the Sutton Coldfield Observer,
and all in the town. I warmly commend him and all
those involved in his campaign and I look forward to
visiting Sutton Coldfield in due course, not least to
deliver my own greetings from Tunbridge Wells to its
residents.
Question put and agreed to.
5.47 pm
House adjourned.
57WS
Written Statements
12 JUNE 2014
Written Statements
Thursday 12 June 2014
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS
UK Coal
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills (Michael Fallon): As I set out in the statements
to the House on 10 April and 9 June, the Government
have been working alongside a private sector consortium,
led by Hargreaves Services plc, to agree the terms of
their plan for a managed closure of UK Coal’s deep
mines. This followed a report to Government by the
directors of UK Coal in January that the viability of the
business was potentially in doubt.
With regret I must inform the House that yesterday
Hargreaves announced their decision to withdraw.
The UK Coal directors are urgently exploring alternative
options. The Government will continue to co-operate
fully with other parties and to explore any proposals
that might assist in the managed closure of the mines.
The offer of a £10 million loan that the Government
put forward remains available, alongside other contributions,
to assist a managed closure of the deep mines subject to
Government being provided with assurances that all
parties involved are committed to the successful delivery
of a closure plan and that the proposal secures value for
money for the taxpayer.
I will continue to keep the House updated.
ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Environment Council
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
(Mr Edward Davey): My noble Friend the Under-Secretary
of State for natural environment and science, Lord de
Mauley and I will attend EU Environment Council in
Luxemburg on 12 June. Paul Wheelhouse, Minister for
Environment and Climate Change in the Scottish
Government, will also attend.
Following the adoption of the agenda there will be an
approval of the list of “A” items. There will be two
legislative items, first an exchange of views on the
Commission’s air quality package both on medium
combustion plants and national emission ceilings directives.
The second legislative item is for political agreement on
the Commission proposal regarding the possibility for
member states to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their territory.
A vote may be requested on this item. There are two
non-legislative items, draft Council conclusions on
“Convention on Biological Diversity”; as well as a
policy debate on the Commission’s communication on
“A policy framework for climate and energy in the
period from 2020 to 2030”.
There will be a lunch time discussion on the Commission’s
recent communication on “A decent life for all: From
Vision to Collective Action”, sustainable development
goals and the post-2015 process.
Written Statements
58WS
There is a series of AOB items covering:
Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of
the Council on the monitoring, reporting and verification of
carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport.
Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of
the Council amending directive on packaging and packaging
waste to reduce the consumption of lightweight plastic
carrier bags.
Proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the
Doha amendment to the Kyoto protocol to the UN framework
convention on climate change and the joint fulfilment of
commitments.
International meetings and events.
Endocrine disrupters.
EU action plan for highly fluorinated substances (PFAS).
Work programme of the incoming presidency.
EU Energy Council
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
(Mr Edward Davey): In advance of the forthcoming
Energy Council in Luxembourg on 13 June, I am writing
to outline the agenda items to be discussed.
Under the first item on the agenda, the Greek presidency
will seek political agreement to the proposal to amend
the renewable energy directive and the directive relating
to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels. The proposal is
intended to address indirect land use change (ILUC),
which occurs when production of biofuels from crops
grown on existing agricultural land results in the
displacement of production on to previously uncultivated
land.
The UK welcomes the Greek efforts to find a
compromise. The UK has always wanted strong, effective
action on ILUC so that we support only the most
sustainable biofuels. We have consistently argued for a
5% cap on the contribution from food-based biofuels
and the introduction of ILUC factors. In this respect, it
is very regrettable that the cap on food crops in the
Council proposal is as high as 7%. However, given the
divergent views in the Council, we can support the
compromise package as it stands. We consider that it
represents the best compromise possible and is preferable
to the status quo that would place no restriction on the
expansion of food-based fuels.
This will be followed by the main item on the agenda,
a policy debate on the follow-up to the March European
Council. The debate will cover the three linked issues of
European energy security, the internal energy market
and the 2030 climate and energy framework. The debate
will be structured around questions from the Greek
presidency, focusing on priorities for achieving energy
security in Europe in the short and medium term and
on securing adequate interconnections within the EU
and with the EU’s neighbours. There will be an update
by the Commission on progress towards the internal
energy market. The debate will feed into preparations
for the June European Council.
I welcome the debate, and particularly the recognition
in the Commission’s recent communication on European
energy security that energy security and the EU’s overall
2030 framework are fundamentally linked. The UK is
committed to both of these agendas and considers that
the best way to ensure that we take both energy security
59WS
Written Statements
12 JUNE 2014
and climate policy seriously in the EU is to build a
comprehensive framework for climate policy and energy
security.
In the afternoon session of the Energy Council, Ministers
will adopt conclusions on energy prices, competitiveness
and vulnerable consumers. The conclusions cover the
key policies and structures required to moderate energy
prices—for example, a well-functioning internal energy
market, member state policies to assist vulnerable consumers,
enhanced energy efficiency, supply diversification, and
measures to address carbon leakage. The UK is content
with the conclusions, which reflect our position.
The Commission and presidency will then report on
developments in external energy relations. This will be
followed by a second debate on the value of multilateral
energy frameworks—such as the energy charter treaty,
the energy community treaty and the International Energy
Agency. The Greek presidency has provided questions
to focus the discussion on considering how they can be
improved and developed.
We expect the Commission to report on negotiations
of the amended nuclear safety directive. The UK supports
the amendment as a proportionate and effective response
to the need to learn the lessons from the accident at
Fukushima and welcomes agreement of the amended
directive.
Finally, the Italian delegation will inform the Council
of the priorities for their presidency in the second half
of 2014. They intend to focus on the 2030 climate and
energy framework, energy security, completion of the
internal energy market and external energy policy.
Over lunch, Commissioner Oettinger will update
Ministers on the energy situation in Ukraine and Ministers
will have the opportunity to give their assessment.
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE
Annual Human Rights and Democracy Report 2013
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs (Mr William Hague): Due to a small number of
factual errors, I have today laid before the House a
corrected copy of the 2013 Foreign and Commonwealth
Office report on human rights and democracy (CM 8870).
These errors have also been corrected on the online
version of the report: https://www.gov.uk/government/
collections/human-rights-and-democracy-report-2013
HOME DEPARTMENT
Justice and Home Affairs Council
The Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Mrs Theresa May): The Justice and Home Affairs
(JHA) Council was held on 5 and 6 June in Luxembourg.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice
and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom. The
following items were discussed.
The interior session began with the Council seeking
and securing a general approach to the draft Europol
regulation. This was on the understanding that more
time would be allowed for discussions at expert level to
Written Statements
60WS
ensure the coherence of the data protection provisions
with those in other JHA files such as Eurojust and the
European Public Prosecutor Office (EPPO). Pending
this further technical work, the current text will now
form the basis for the trilogue negotiations with the
European Parliament, which look set to commence in
autumn 2014. The UK did not opt in to the draft
regulation at the outset, but will continue to take an
active part in negotiations and will consider whether or
not to opt in post-adoption once the final text has been
agreed.
The Council discussed the issue of foreign fighters in
Syria, in the aftermath of the recent attack in Brussels.
Member states joined the presidency in strongly condemning
the attack. The UK expressed its condolences to the
Belgians and supported proposals for action from the
EU counter-terrorism co-ordinator. Member states agreed
that the attack in Brussels highlighted that foreign
fighters must be seen as a shared threat requiring
collaborative effort. The UK stressed the importance of
implementing existing initiatives quickly. The Council
then adopted the revised EU strategy on combating
radicalisation and recruitment to terrorism and instructed
the terrorism working party to continue its work on
defining the accompanying guidelines.
During the mixed committee, the Commission gave a
progress report on the actions agreed by the EU’s Task
Force Mediterranean (TFM) to address illegal immigration
across the Mediterranean and prevent migrant deaths
at sea. Ministers agreed that prioritisation of EU efforts
was necessary, with preventative work upstream in countries
of origin and transit being the principal focus, alongside
enhanced efforts to tackle people smugglers and traffickers.
The UK supported these aims, calling also for increasing
returns of those not entitled to be in the EU.
Next, the Commission presented its latest biannual
report on the functioning of the Schengen area, highlighting
in particular the launch of the new external border
surveillance system, Eurosur, and calling for member
states to fulfil their commitment to share information
on secondary illegal migration movements within the
Schengen area. The Government have a strong interest
in the effective functioning of the Schengen area and
continues to work with European partners to tackle
migratory pressures across the EU.
Over lunch there was a discussion on the selection
procedure for the new executive director of Frontex.
Under AOB the presidency gave legislative updates
on the directive facilitating entry and stay for students
and researchers and the progress on the smart borders
package. The Commission presented their communication
on minimum standards on sanctions and measures against
employers of illegally staying third country nationals
and the communication on the EU blue card. The
Commission also presented proposals to amend the
visa code and introduce a new category of touring visa
which they hoped would encourage economic growth
while maintaining security.
Sweden provided a summary from the seventh meeting
of the Global Forum on International Migration and
Development (Stockholm, 14-16 May 2014); Slovenia
updated Ministers on the recent meeting of the Interior
Ministers of the BRDO process (a meeting of Interior
Ministers from former Yugoslav countries, plus Albania,
which took place in Brdo pri Kranju, Slovenia, 2-3 June
2014) and Poland provided a summary of the latest
61WS
Written Statements
12 JUNE 2014
ministerial forum for member states of the Schengen
area with external land borders.
The incoming Italian presidency listed its priorities
for the coming semester: combating human trafficking;
promoting legal migration to facilitate bona fide travellers;
relations with third countries; and smart borders packages.
The incoming presidency said that they would focus on
the implementation of the common European asylum
system and would like to see a move towards mutual
recognition of asylum decisions. Other priorities included
cyber security, gender-based violence and disaster responses.
During the joint interior and justice session, there
was a discussion on the EU’s future JHA work programme,
which is due to be agreed by the European Council on
27 June. Areas of consensus included the need to focus
on implementation and consolidation of existing legislation;
action to tackle trafficking in human beings and people
smuggling; action on counter-terrorism and counterradicalisation; and co-operation with third countries
and between member states. The UK stressed the
importance the public attaches to illegal immigration
and the need for the EU to respond appropriately to
those concerns. The UK also called for strengthening
the EU external border to be a key focus of the guidelines,
alongside action to tackle abuse of free movement—such
as sham marriage and document fraud—action to tackle
trafficking in human beings and modern slavery, improved
exchange of criminal records, and more effective returns
of prisoners to their countries of origin. The UK also
said it was important for the Council to be able to
review the guidelines once adopted. The presidency said
they would reflect on the views presented by Ministers,
and submit a letter to the President of the European
Council. The presidency invited the incoming Italian
and Latvian presidencies to take over implementation
of the guidelines.
Next, the presidency reported on the progress made
on the Schengen aspects of protocol 36 to the treaties—the
2014 opt-out decision. No discussion took place.
There was a discussion about the recent European
Court ruling which invalidated the data retention directive
(DRD). The Commission (Malmström) gave a cautious
welcome to the judgment, and indicated that it would
be for her successor to consider what steps to propose in
response to it. Member states noted the judgment, but
many were still assessing its impact. Some member
states called for new EU-wide legislation to replace the
DRD as they believed this would help them defend
legal challenges. Other member states’ responses, including
the UK’s response, were more nuanced. The UK
acknowledged the need for proportionality but also
cautioned member states against calling for new EU
measures if this would diminish the effectiveness of a
vital law enforcement capability. We noted that
communications data is used on a daily basis to fight
serious crime.
Next, the Council adopted the Council conclusions
on the EU anti-corruption report.
Justice day started with a discussion on the proposed
general data protection regulation, as well as a short
update on the proposed directive covering processing of
personal data for the prevention and detection of crime.
With regards to the proposed regulation, the presidency
sought a partial general approach on its compromised
text for international data transfers. Ministers were
reminded of the commitment made at October European
Written Statements
62WS
Council to complete the digital single market by 2015,
of which the regulation was an integral part. Several
member states were supportive of the presidency’s initiative
to secure a partial general approach but wanted to
return to various issues at expert level, particularly
whether data transfers should be allowed on the basis of
a data controller’s “legitimate interests”. Some countries
urged for quicker progress on the rest of the regulation,
noting that recent decisions of the European Court of
Justice—the Google case in particular—risked taking
the impetus for shaping the debate away from the Council.
The Justice Secretary, speaking for the UK, did not
agree that the text was ready for a partial general
approach given the number of member states that
acknowledged a need to make further changes, but
recognised that he was in a minority. The presidency
concluded that a partial general approach had been
agreed subject to extensive caveats, including further
points of detail being considered at working group
level.
On the one-stop shop, the Council legal service (CLS)
reiterated its view that a streamlined supervisory mechanism
in the regulation must provide an avenue of effective
redress for individuals, above the needs of a simple,
single decision-making process for organisations. Some
member states, including the UK, welcomed the presidency’s
proposed model, while appreciating the concerns of
many member states for greater powers to be retained at
local level to ensure “proximity” to the decision making
process. All member states favoured more involvement
for local regulators and would want this included in any
fixture redraft. Some member states mentioned the
need for the proposed European data protection board
to be a centralised body with legal powers to resolve
disputes among local supervisory authorities.
Next, the presidency secured a general approach on
the proposal for a directive on the rights of children in
criminal proceedings. The UK is not opted in to this
measure. The Commission reiterated that the child’s
best interests should always be the overriding principle.
This resulted in several member states lifting their
reservations, although concerns remained about the
proposition that children might have to pay for legal
assistance.
The presidency presented a “balanced compromise”
on the first 19 articles of the proposal for creation of a
European public prosecutor (EPPO). The majority of
member states agreed that the college model contained
in the presidency’s text should form the basis for future
work, despite continued calls from the Commission for
a more centralised approach. Looking forward, member
states took the view that substantial work was needed
on all aspects under the Italian presidency.
The presidency presented a paper which set out the
progress made so far on the Commission proposal to
reform Eurojust’s legal framework. The Commission
could not support the presidency’s text as it stood,
because the governance arrangements proposed would
dilute the Commission’s role in the running of the
Eurojust agency. They hoped it would be possible as
discussions proceeded to find effective compromises
that would enable Eurojust to work more efficiently.
The Council adopted a general approach on the
proposed amendment to the insolvency regulation, which
the UK welcomes as a contribution to encouraging a
63WS
Written Statements
12 JUNE 2014
recovery culture and return to growth. Nearly all member
states thought this was a balanced political compromise,
although there remained concerns over the handling of
late technical working groups, as well as the detail of
the procedure for co-ordinating insolvencies of groups
of companies: these would be picked up in negotiation
with the European Parliament when considering the
recitals.
Under any other business, the presidency noted the
limited progress on the common European sales law,
while recalling that sufficient time was needed for discussion
on the dossier. The incoming Italian presidency presented
its priorities in the field of justice. These would include
civil law files—insolvency, small claims, legalisation and
matrimonial property—and data protection. On criminal
law, it would prioritise files on the European public
prosecutors office, criminal procedural rights and human
trafficking. On hate crime, the Greek presidency noted
ongoing work on hate crime for example the Council
conclusions on combating hate crime adopted at the
December Justice and Home Affairs Council and a
subsequent seminar on hate crime at Thessaloniki. The
Commission provided an update of the recent EU
Roma summit.
The Commission also provided an update on ongoing
negotiations with the US on an “umbrella agreement”
providing data protection rules for the transfer of
information concerning law enforcement, and negotiations
on a review of the “safe harbor” agreement. On the
umbrella agreement, the Commission said that discussions
were in their final stages. On the review of “safe harbor”,
the Commission informed the Council that solutions
had been found to most of its recommendations, but
that a position on the use of data under the national
security exemption still needed to be resolved.
Over lunch, there was a wide-ranging and theoretical
discussion of fundamental rights. This included ensuring
the charter of fundamental rights was considered when
the EU institutions were legislating, as well as a
consideration of the interaction between member state
constitutional courts, the European Court of Justice in
Luxembourg and the European Court of Human Rights.
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures
The Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Mrs Theresa May): Section 19(1) of the Terrorism
Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (the
Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament
as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every
relevant three-month period on the exercise of her
TPIM powers under the Act during that period.
The level of information provided will always be
subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
TPIM notices in force (as of 31 May 2014)
TPIM notices in respect of British citizens (as of 31 May
2014)
TPIM notices extended (during the reporting period)
TPIM notices revoked (during the reporting period)
TPIM notices revived (during the reporting period)
Variations made to measures specified in TPIM notices
(during the reporting period)
0
0
0
1
1
3
Written Statements
Applications to vary measures specified in TPIM notices
refused (during the reporting period)
64WS
0
During the reporting period, one TPIM notice that
had been revoked in a previous quarter was revived
upon the subject’s release from prison.
During the reporting period, one individual was charged
in relation to an offence under section 23 of the Act
(contravening a measure specified in a TPIM notice
without reasonable excuse) and his TPIM notice was
revoked upon his remand in custody.
The TPIM review group (TRG) keeps every TPIM
notice under regular and formal review. The TRG has
convened once during this reporting period.
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Foreign Affairs Council
The Secretary of State for International Development
(Justine Greening): On 19 May, I attended the Foreign
Affairs Council for Development in Brussels. The meeting
covered a number of UK priorities, including on post-2015,
the role of the private sector in development, and girls
and women.
Introduction: Eastern Partnership, Policy Coherence for
Development, and the Global Partnership for Effective
Development
In her introductory remarks, the High Representative
Baroness Ashton gave an update on the Eastern Partnership,
including Ukraine. Coherent and effective donor
co-ordination in Ukraine is vital and the EU has an
important role to play in supporting political and economic
stability. Commissioner Piebalgs noted the successful
outcome of the global partnership for effective development
co-operation (GPEDC) high level forum, held on 15 and
16 May, and praised the UK’s leadership as co-chair of
the forum. He updated Ministers on policy coherence
for development (PCD), noting the Commission’s varied
work on fisheries, food security, migration, conflict
minerals and maritime security. I expressed the UK’s
regret that, despite recent progress, the African economic
partnership agreements (EPAs) had yet to be concluded,
calling for the remaining issues to be resolved swiftly.
Post-2015 development agenda
The post-2015 development agenda was the main
discussion item. The UK remains at the forefront of the
post-2015 discussions, building on the Prime Minister’s
co-chairing of the UN high level panel. There was
agreement on the need for continued EU engagement,
in particular on issues such as good governance, rule of
law, human rights, peace and security. I urged the
Commission and member states to think strategically
about tactics and substance in order to secure the best
possible framework in September 2015. The EU
Commission signalled its intention to publish a
communication on post-2015. It has since been published.
It does not represent a formal EU position but should
be seen as a contribution to internal EU thinking on
post-2015. It is for Council to decide when to adopt a
new EU position. My Department will continue to
65WS
Written Statements
12 JUNE 2014
work with the Commission and other member states to
ensure we get the best possible outcome from next
year’s UN negotiations.
Agenda for Change
Commissioner Piebalgs set out how the agenda for
change was being implemented through EU aid
programming. As a result of UK and like-minded member
states’ efforts, there will be a greater focus on the
poorest and most fragile countries, increased flexibility
and country ownership, and an enhanced ability to
measure results of EU aid. Piebalgs noted that future
EU aid programmes will prioritise a limited number of
focal sectors to maximise impact and that joint
programming in 40 countries is helping reduce aid
fragmentation. This is good progress, but there is more
to do to ensure even greater effectiveness of EU aid,
particularly for girls and women. Thanks to UK
interventions, the Commission and the European External
Action Service (EEAS) have committed to ensuring
that a gender analysis is carried out for each national
programme. Commissioner Piebalgs also highlighted
that the EU remained the world’s biggest aid donor but
was far below the 0.7% the (Overseas Development
Administration) ODA target. He praised those countries,
including the UK, which had met the target and called
for stronger political commitment from others. Looking
ahead, my Department will continue to push other
member states for ambitious, time-bound, EU ODA
commitments beyond 2015.
Private Sector Development Communication
Commissioner Piebalgs gave an overview of the new
private sector development (PSD) communication. The
EU has long been a key player in areas vital to economic
development, including trade, transport, energy and
infrastructure but until now has not had a coherent
approach to working with the private sector. I welcomed
this new focus; the private sector creates the tax base for
public investment, and provides the jobs and stability
that enables individuals to plan and to build better lives.
The UK is at the forefront of working with the private
sector. We can play a valuable role to help shape this
new EU agenda by sharing our expertise and experience.
The communication is not ground breaking but represents
an important shift in approach.
My Department will continue to work closely with
the Commission to drive forward a stronger focus on
economic development in EU programmes.
AOB: PM’s Girls’ Summit
The Prime Minister and UNICEF will co-host the
“Girl Summit” in London on 22 July to rally a global
movement to end female genital mutilation and child,
early and forced marriage for all girls within a generation.
I updated my counterparts on this ground-breaking
event which is tackling issues faced by many member
states domestically as well as overseas. With global
co-operation, we can build on the efforts of many
developing country Governments and local communities
to end these harmful practices. The Girl summit will be
a defining moment to share best practice, secure new
commitments to action and increase public engagement
on these issues.
Adoption of Council Conclusions
The Council adopted conclusions on: the 2013 report
on the implementation of the EU action plan on gender
equality and women’s empowerment; rights-based approach
Written Statements
66WS
to development; EU development and co-operation
results framework; the annual report 2014 to the European
Council on EU development aid targets; the comprehensive
approach to external conflict and crisis; and the EU
common position for the third international conference
on small island development states. A Council decision
on the resumption of EU development co-operation
with Madagascar was also adopted.
TRANSPORT
EU Transport Council
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport
(Mr Robert Goodwill): I attended the final Transport
Council under the Greek presidency (the presidency) in
Luxembourg on Thursday 5 June.
The Council reached political agreement on its first
reading of the technical pillar of the fourth railway
package—recast directives on interoperability and safety,
and a regulation on the European Agency for Railways
(ERA). Discussions were generally positive with the
UK and other member states overwhelmingly supporting
the presidency compromise texts. I emphasised the benefits
of market opening in the UK and welcomed the incoming
Italian presidency’s position to progress the political
pillar (a position strongly endorsed by the Commission),
but abstained from the votes on procedural grounds as
only one of the three texts (the regulation on ERA) had
cleared all our parliamentary scrutiny processes.
The Council also reached political agreement on the
amended directive laying down the maximum weights
and dimensions of road vehicles in national and
international traffic. Discussions focused on the outstanding
issue of cross-border movement of vehicles that exceed
the maximum weights and dimensions laid down in the
directive. Member states were divided between those
pushing for legal clarity and those that could not support
any changes to the relevant article (article 4) due to
concerns about negative modal shift and increased demands
on infrastructure. I strongly supported a proposal which
would have provided the legal certainty the UK was
seeking in order to safeguard the long-standing cross-border
movement of vehicles of over 4 metres in height between
the UK and Ireland. This was supported by several
other member states. There was, however, significant
opposition and as a result the presidency had no option
but to conclude that no changes would be made to
article 4 in order to secure a deal on the overall file.
Following lobbying in the margins from the UK and
other likeminded member states the Commission agreed
to make a declaration reaffirming that its interpretation
of the directive is that if two neighbouring member
states both allow vehicles that deviate from the requirements
in the annex, then those neighbouring member states
may permit the cross-border movement of these vehicles,
but not more widely. This was a positive outcome for
the UK as it confirmed that our existing cross-border
practices could continue.
The Council took note of progress reports on the
proposed air passenger rights and the port services
regulations. The Commission expressed disappointment
that the Council had not yet reached a common view on
67WS
Written Statements
12 JUNE 2014
air passenger rights and hoped rapid agreement could
be reached on this and all other aviation dossiers including
the EU-Ukraine common aviation area agreement. On
the specifics of the air passenger rights dossier, the
Commission expressed reservations regarding the category
of unexpected flight safety shortcomings and the proposed
deletion of the compensation regime for missed connecting
flights. Several member states used the opportunity of
the progress report on the port services regulation to
emphasise their concerns, in particular on scope and
whether a regulation was the appropriate legal instrument.
Any other business was dominated by a wide range of
aviation items with the Commission providing updates
on work at international and European levels to improve
aircraft tracking following the disappearance of Malaysian
Airlines flight MH 370, and also its report on the
application of the airport charges directive. Spain presented
its information paper on preserving and enhancing the
EU influence in the International Civil Aviation
Organisation (ICAO) and the Netherlands pressed the
Commission for a clear timetable to discuss further the
social dimension in the air transport sector.
Under land transport the presidency provided
information on the outcome of the 8 May informal
Transport Council and on Shift2Rail. The Commission
also provided an update on the cross-border traffic
offence directive. On the maritime side, the Council
conclusions on the EU’s maritime transport policy were
adopted without debate.
Finally, Italian Transport Minister, Maurizio Lupi,
set out the theme for the Italian EU presidency as
“infrastructure and transport for growth and cohesion”
and confirmed that the transport priorities will be actions
on TEN-T networks, ports services, the political pillar
of the fourth railway package and the single European
sky. The key dates for the Italian presidency will be
Transport Councils on 8 October in Luxembourg and
3 December in Brussels. An informal council will be
held in Milan on 16-17 September.
Written Statements
68WS
Thameslink Southern Great Northern
(Rail Franchising)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick
McLoughlin): On 23 May 2014, my Department announced
its intention to award the Thameslink Southern Great
Northern (TSGN) franchise to Govia Thameslink Railway
Ltd, pending the successful completion of a standstill
period. I am happy to confirm to the House that this
standstill period has ended and we completed the contract
after the markets closed 11 June. This means that Govia
can begin the mobilisation process that will mean the
new franchise will begin in September this year.
The TSGN franchise is the largest ever let in terms of
passenger numbers and Govia will transform services
across the south-east of England during the seven-year
term of the franchise. A key aspect of the franchise will
be delivering this Government’s £6.5 billion Thameslink
programme—a major programme of infrastructure work
that is helping create 8,000 jobs and will allow 24 trains
per hour to travel in each direction from Blackfriars to
St Pancras. New tunnels will link Peterborough and
Cambridge to the existing Thameslink route, providing
easy access across London via St Pancras to Gatwick
and Brighton.
Passengers are at the heart of this franchise and will
benefit from improved customer service and nearly
1,400 new electric carriages across the network. These
include the new class 700 trains secured by the Government
as part of the Thameslink programme, but also two new
fleets of trains being procured entirely by Govia. These
will provide 50% more capacity and 10,000 extra seats
every week day into central London during the morning
peak by the end of 2018, and delivering quicker, cleaner
and more reliable journeys for passengers and businesses.
This franchise shows the benefits that Government
working in partnership with the private sector can bring
for the railways through franchising. It is a fantastic
deal for the rail industry, passengers and taxpayers.
3P
Petitions
12 JUNE 2014
Petitions
Petitions
4P
Enterprise and Employment Bill. This will include measures
to establish the Statutory Code and an independent
Adjudicator.
Thursday 12 June 2014
Pub Rent Prices (Derbyshire)
The Petition of residents of the UK,
OBSERVATIONS
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS
CAMRA’s Call for a Pubs Watchdog
The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the Government
should stick to its promise to introduce a watchdog to
prevent valued pubs from facing closure due to unfair
practices in the pub sector; further that the Petitioners
believe that a pubs watchdog is urgently needed to
govern the behaviour of large pub companies so that
publicans are treated fairly by ensuring that rents and
wholesale prices are reasonable; and further that a
Petition from UK residents on this subject has received
over 43,000 signatures.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of
Commons urges the Government to stick to its promise
and introduce a pubs watchdog to protect valued pubs
from the risk of closure.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Greg
Mulholland, Official Report, 14 May 2014; Vol. 580,
c. 858.]
[P001353]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Business,
Innovation and Skills, received on 11 June 2014:
On 3 June 2014 the Government published their
Response to the consultation on Pub Companies and
Tenants and also their Response to the House of Commons
Business, Innovation and Skills Committee’s Fourth
Report of Session 2013-14: Consultation on a Statutory
Code for Pub Companies.
Those Responses stated that the Government intend
to establish a Statutory Code and an independent
Adjudicator to govern the relationship between all pub
owning businesses and their tied tenants. These will
provide tied tenants with fair treatment, increased
transparency and stronger rights about how and when
their rents are agreed.
The pubs watchdog will stamp out unfair practices
and enforce measures that will protect valued pubs from
the risk of closure.
On 4 June Her Majesty the Queen announced that
the Government would shortly introduce a Small Business,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that it is unfair
that Claire and Scott face eviction from Patternmakers
Arms, a well-attended and happy pub, as a result of
unreasonable increases in rent prices and further that
the Government have consulted on establishing a Statutory
Code and an independent Adjudicator for the pub
sector to govern the relationship between large pub
companies and their tenants.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of
Commons urges the Government to establish a Code to
govern the relationship between large pub companies
and their tenants as a matter of urgency.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Pauline
Latham, Official Report, 30 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 962.]
[P001343]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Business,
Innovation and Skills:
BIS has been informed that Claire and Scott Muldoon
no longer face eviction from the Pattenmakers Arms as
Mrs Muldoon has agreed a new lease with Enterprise
Inns plc.
The Petitioners’ belief that the Government have
consulted on establishing a Statutory Code and an
independent Adjudicator for the pub sector to govern
the relationship between large pub companies and their
tenants is correct. On 3 June 2014 the Government
published their Response to that consultation and also
their Response to the House of Commons Business,
Innovation and Skills Committee’s Fourth Report of
Session 2013-14: Consultation on a Statutory Code for
Pub Companies.
Those Responses stated that the Government intend
to establish a Statutory Code and an independent
Adjudicator to govern the relationship between pub
owning businesses—not just large ones—and their tied
tenants.
The Petitioners called for the Statutory Code to be
established as a matter of urgency. On 4 June Her
Majesty the Queen announced that the Government
would introduce a Small Business, Enterprise and
Employment Bill. This will include measures to establish
the Statutory Code and independent Adjudicator and
is planned to be introduced in the House of Lords in
June 2014.
223W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Written Answers to
Written Answers
224W
CABINET OFFICE
Childbirth
Questions
Mrs Hodgson: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet
Office how many births, broken down by the week of
pregnancy in which the birth occurred, there were in
England in the last year for which figures are available.
Thursday 12 June 2014
[199856]
CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
Broadband
John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made
of the average broadband speed in (a) Glasgow North
West constituency, (b) Glasgow, (c) Scotland and (d)
[199154]
the UK.
Mr Vaizey: The Independent regulator and competition
authority for the UK communications industries (Ofcom)
publishes broadband coverage data for the UK; its 2013
UK fixed-line broadband performance report indicates
the following average modem synchronisation speed for
the Glasgow City, Scotland and the UK. Data by
constituency area is not available.
Average modem sync speed 2013
Mbit/s
Glasgow City
17.2
Scotland
15.8
UK
17.6
Sports: Children
David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Culture, Media and Sport what steps his Department is
taking to encourage primary school children to become
active and involved in local sports organisations.
[199221]
Mrs Grant: Over 17,500 schools are voluntarily taking
part in the Sainsbury’s School Games—over 70% of all
schools in England—including approximately 13,000
primary schools. Participating schools can choose from
sports formats developed by 31 national governing bodies
for sport. Schools are supported by 450 School Games
organisers across the country, who are connecting School
Games to community sports clubs to help ensure activity
is sustained beyond school.
In addition, through the primary PE and sport premium,
we are investing over £450 million across government
(up to and including the academic year 2015/16) to
improve physical education and sport in primary schools.
Heads are free to choose how they use the funding to
secure the greatest impact, which may include working
with local sports organisations and/or increasing pupils’
participation in the School Games.
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 June 2014:
As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I
have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question
asking the Secretary of State for Health how many births, broken
down by the week of pregnancy in which the birth occurred, there
were in England in the last year for which figures are available.
(199856)
Information on gestational age (length of pregnancy) is not
routinely recorded at the registration of live births. However,
ONS links birth registrations to NHS birth notifications data to
publish figures by gestational age. These figures are less timely
than statistics based on birth registrations only.
Table 1 below provides the numbers of live births by each
completed week’s gestation for 2011 (the most recent period for
which figures are available).
Published statistics on births and infant deaths by gestational
age for England and Wales are available on the Office for National
Statistics website:
www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/child-health/gestation-specific-infantmortality-in-england-and-wales/index.html
Table 1: Live births by gestational age, England, 20111, 2
Live births
<22
170
23
282
24
446
25
510
26
646
27
771
28
981
29
1,115
30
1,419
31
1,886
32
2,791
33
3,771
34
6,475
35
9,196
36
18,182
37
39,122
38
89,033
39
153,508
40
185,411
41
135,819
42
27,525
Total
679,059
1
PRIME MINISTER
Life Peers
Mark Hendrick: To ask the Prime Minister how
many life peerages have been created since 2010; and
how many such peerages have been as a result of
[199733]
having been nominated by political parties.
The Prime Minister: Details are available on the
House of Lords Appointments Commission website.
Excludes those with low gestational age inconsistent with birth weight, or with
gestational age not stated.
2
Excludes births to non-residents.
Source:
Office for National Statistics.
Civil Servants: Equal Pay
Gloria De Piero: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet
Office which Departments regularly publish details of
their gender pay gap at each Civil Service grade.
[199687]
225W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Mr Maude: The Office for National Statistics publishes
median earnings by responsibility level, Government
Department and gender annually as part of Civil Service
Statistics and this data can be found at:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pse/civil-service-statistics/2013/
stb-civil-service-statistics--2013.html
Government Departments
Mrs Gillan: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet
Office what sources of income from organisations
funded from the public purse each member of each
[199616]
government department’s board has.
Mr Maude: Departments are required to disclose the
details of company directorships and other significant
interests held by Board members which may conflict
with their management responsibilities twice yearly.
Copies of the Register of Board Members’ Interests
are laid in the House of Commons Library, alongside
the Annual Report and Accounts, and are available on
request.
Health
Chris Ruane: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet
Office what use his Department has made of the
National Wellbeing Index introduced by the Office for
National Statistics in formulating policy since the
introduction of that Index in 2011; and what policies
his Department has introduced to improve national
wellbeing as defined in that Index since 2010. [198863]
Mr Hurd: This Government is starting to advance the
use of wellbeing indicators in policy formulation.
Evidence provided to the Environmental Audit
Committee for its Inquiry into Wellbeing can be found
at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-az/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/inquiries/
parliament-2010/well-being/
Social Justice Committee
Mrs Hodgson: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet
Office how many times the Social Justice Cabinet
Committee has met since 5 May 2010; what issues were
on the agenda for each such meeting; and which
[199874]
Ministers attended each such meeting.
Mr Letwin: It is established practice that information
relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees,
including when and how often they meet, which Ministers
have attended and the content of agendas, is not disclosed.
NORTHERN IRELAND
Disciplinary Proceedings
Mrs Hodgson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland what proportion of staff within her
Department who have been subject to formal
disciplinary proceedings in each of the last five
financial years classed themselves as white British.
[199891]
Written Answers
226W
Mrs Villiers: Because of the devolution of policing
and justice functions on 12 April 2010, and subsequent
reconfiguration of the Northern Ireland Office, my
Department does not hold figures for the periods prior
to 2010. Attempting to obtain this information would
incur disproportionate cost.
Since April 2010, seven members of staff have been
subject to formal disciplinary proceedings. Given the
small numbers involved, it would not be appropriate to
provide any further breakdown as to do so would risk
the identification of the individuals concerned.
Mrs Hodgson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland what proportion of staff within her
Department who have been dismissed following formal
disciplinary proceedings in each of the last five
financial years classed themselves as white British.
[199913]
Mrs Villiers: Because of the devolution of policing
and justice functions on 12 April 2010, and subsequent
reconfiguration of the Northern Ireland Office, my
Department does not hold figures for the periods prior
to 2010. Attempting to obtain this information would
incur disproportionate cost.
Since April 2010, two members of staff have been
dismissed following formal disciplinary proceedings.
Given the small numbers involved, it would not be
appropriate to provide any further breakdown as to do
so would risk the identification of the individuals concerned.
Equal Opportunities
Mrs Hodgson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland what targets her Department has for
increasing diversity; and what progress has been made
[199934]
on meeting those targets in the last year.
Mrs Villiers: My Department has not set specific
targets, but is fully committed to fulfilling its statutory
responsibilities, including the duties set out under fair
employment legislation and the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
Giro d’Italia
David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the
Giro D’Italia in Northern Ireland; and what plans she
has to ensure a positive legacy from the event. [199222]
Mrs Villiers: The Northern Ireland Tourist Board
(NITB) estimates that the Giro d’ltalia “Grande Partenza”
was viewed by 775 million people in 165 countries
across the world giving this huge audience the opportunity
to enjoy the wonderful scenery of Northern Ireland.
NITB has estimated that the event should generate
140,000 tourist visits to Northern Ireland.
Building on the legacy of the Giro d’ltalia is, of
course, for the Northern Ireland Executive to take
forward and I understand that the Assembly has discussed
the issue.
227W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Written Answers
228W
Administrations, including the Northern Ireland Executive,
on the UK position on the international negotiations
ahead of the annual UNFCCC Conference of the Parties.
WOMEN AND EQUALITIES
Equal Opportunities
Mr Raab: To ask the Ministers for Women and
Equalities how often Section 159 of the Equality Act
2010 has been used by employers in relation to
recruitment or promotion of an individual with
protected characteristics in each year since 2011.
[199763]
Mrs Grant: The information requested is not collected
or held centrally.
Energy: Carers
John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change (1) what assessment he has
made of the adequacy of provision of information for
carers on affordable energy;
[199155]
(2) what recent discussions he has had with energy
companies on the affordability of energy tariffs for
[199156]
carers.
ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate Change: Conferences
Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change which Ministers in his
Department attended the most recent Bonn Climate
[199553]
Change Conference.
Gregory Barker: The UK is represented at senior
official levels at the current Bonn Climate Change
Intersessional conference. It is a mid-year meeting paving
the way for the Lima Conference of the Parties (COP)
in December and Ministers do not usually attend the
Bonn meetings. I am fully behind reaching a global deal
in Paris, am talking to many parties both formally and
informally and will attend further international engagements
later this year.
Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change what assessment he has
made of the outcome of the most recent Bonn Climate
Change Conference; and if he will make a statement.
[199554]
Gregory Barker: The Bonn Climate Change Intersessional
Conference is not expected to finish until 15 June, so we
will not have a concrete assessment of the session until
then. The meeting is a mid-year one to pave the way for
the Lima Conference of the Parties (COP) in December.
This meeting in Bonn will focus on negotiations on the
new global climate change deal that will be agreed in
2015, on work to enhance emissions reductions efforts
in the years to 2020, when the new deal will come into
effect, and to continue to progress the UN climate
regime’s subsidiary agenda, covering rules, mechanisms,
reporting and other areas implementing past decisions.
Even though there will not be an outcome, we want
the meeting in Bonn to focus on technical and practical
discussions to pave the way for countries to bring forward,
in early 2015, their contributions to the new agreement
and to make progress towards agreeing in Lima draft
elements of a negotiating text—these are important
milestones for the 2015 agreement.
As we are not expecting any outcomes, I do not
anticipate the need to make a statement.
Climate Change: Northern Ireland
Mr Gregory Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State
for Energy and Climate Change what future
discussions he has planned with his counterpart in the
Northern Ireland Executive on climate change. [199785]
Gregory Barker: The UK has an open dialogue with
the devolved Administrations to discuss matters relating
to climate change. This includes consulting the devolved
Michael Fallon: DECC Ministers and officials meet
energy company representatives on a regular basis to
discuss market issues.
It is important that all consumers, including carers,
have access to information to help them make informed
decisions about their energy use. That is why Ofgem
introduced a new simpler tariff framework consisting of
a tariff information label and tariff comparison rate to
make it easier for consumers to compare tariffs across
the market. In April Ofgem launched the “Be An Energy
Shopper” campaign to empower consumers to shop
around for a better deal for their energy.
Fracking
Mr Gregory Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State
for Energy and Climate Change what representations
[199784]
he has received on fracking in 2014.
Michael Fallon: The Secretary of State for Energy
and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Kingston
and Surbiton (Mr Davey), has received a number of
representations on various aspects of hydraulic fracturing.
Fracking: Lancashire
Mark Hendrick: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change how many (a) officials
and (b) Ministers in his Department have visited
Lancashire for purposes related to fracking since 2010.
[199734]
Michael Fallon: I and a number of my officials have
made a number of visits to Lancashire in relation to
shale gas operations and are regularly in touch with a
number of stakeholders in the region.
On 24 April I took part in a conference organised by
the North West Energy Taskforce and the two Lancashire
Chambers of Commerce in order to highlight to Lancashire
business the potential opportunities from successful
shale gas development.
Fuel Poverty
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change with reference to the
answer of 6 February 2014, Official Report, column
383W, on Energy Companies Obligation, what progress
he has made on publishing proposals on the form, level
and date for a new fuel poverty target in England; and
when he expects to publish those proposals. [199295]
229W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Gregory Barker: The Government is preparing proposals
on a new fuel poverty objective for England in line with
the provisions of the Warm Homes and Energy
Conservation Act 2000.
Written Answers
Summary of notifications of withdrawals from safeguards, 2014, year
to date
Number of withdrawal
notifications (by type of nuclear
Reason for withdrawal
material involved)1
One notification involving
plutonium (Pu), microgramme
quantities
Health
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy
and Climate Change what use his Department has
made of the National Wellbeing Index introduced by
the Office for National Statistics in formulating policy
since the introduction of that Index in 2011; and what
policies his Department has introduced to improve
national wellbeing as defined in that Index since 2010.
[198867]
Gregory Barker: The National Wellbeing Index contains
two measures directly related to DECC’s priorities:
“Energy consumed within the UK from renewable
sources” and “Total greenhouse gas emissions”, where
latest data shows the positive impact being made by
DECC. For example in 2013, provisional data shows
15% of electricity being produced from renewable sources-a
new high. To provide further support for renewable
and other forms of low carbon generation DECC is
implementing Electricity Market Reform, in particular
provisions for Feed-in-Tariffs with Contracts for
Difference. Since 2010 DECC has also launched the
Renewable Heat Incentive scheme to provide support
for renewable heat in both the domestic and non-domestic
sectors.
More broadly, a number of DECC’s policies, such as
the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) which funds
efficient boilers and insulation measures to low income
and vulnerable households and is now guaranteed until
at least 2017, contribute toward other aspects of the
National Wellbeing Index, for example “Getting by
financially”.
Nuclear Safeguards
Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy
and Climate Change how many withdrawals of nuclear
materials from safeguards applied under the tripartite
UK-Euratom-IAEA Voluntary Safeguards Agreement
there have been since May 2010; and how many such
[199177]
withdrawals were permanent.
Michael Fallon: Information on nuclear material
withdrawn from safeguards is available on the Office for
Nuclear Regulation website at:
www.onr.org.uk/safeguards/withdrawals.htm
in the same format as provided to Parliament on 28 July
2000, Official Report, column 1094W, and in the
written answer to Parliament on 1 March 2001, Official
Report, columns 732-33W. The website provides
annual reports on withdrawals from 2001 to 2013. As
indicated in footnote 3 to each table, the advance
notifications of withdrawal of depleted uranium shielded
containers were temporary. All other withdrawals were
permanent.
In 2014, the notifications received to date are as
follows:
230W
Two notifications involving high
enriched uranium (HEU), total~
0.4 g
One notification for use in
analysis/analytical purposes (e.g.
samples, standards/tracers
and/or in instrument
calibration) from organisations
that provide standards/tracers
and/or nuclear material for
instrument calibration2 One
notification also involved mg
quantities of natural uranium2
Two notifications for material
contained in radiation
detectors2 (from a company that
manufactures radiation
detectors)
Nine notifications for depleted
uranium as shielding containers3
Nine notifications involving
depleted uranium (DU), total
~348 kg
1
Tabulated information covers advance notifications of withdrawal
approved by ONR - Safeguards.
2
There are no facilities outside safeguards that have material in such
quantities and forms, and defence establishment requirements for
these specialist materials have therefore been met by supply from
civil organisations.
3
The advance notifications of withdrawal for depleted uranium
shielded containers were for temporary withdrawals, the containers
being used during the replacement of spent radioactive sources at
UK defence establishments.
Oil: Libya
Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy
and Climate Change how many barrels of oil were
exported from Libya to the UK in each of the last five
[199476]
years.
Michael Fallon: The following table shows imports of
crude oil to the United Kingdom from Libya for each of
the last five years. The data are rounded to the nearest
1,000 barrels and the 2013 number is provisional
Imports of crude oil to the UK from Libya (barrels at 7.37 per tonne)
Barrels
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
14,828,000
21,557,000
5,638,000
20,032,000
13,598,000
Renewable Energy
Julie Elliott: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy
and Climate Change with reference to the answer of 14
May 2014, Official Report, column 597W, on renewable
energy, what assessment his Department has made of
what the market conditions that will enable
independent generators to use short-term Power
Purchase Agreements (PPAs) and a wider variety of
PPA counterparties will have developed in time for
independent generators to secure necessary finance
terms ahead of the first CfD auctions which are
[199181]
scheduled for October 2014.
Michael Fallon: In general, short-term Power Purchase
Agreements are widely available in the current market,
but providers of project finance tend to require long-term
231W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
PPAs. The Offtaker of Last Resort (OLR) mechanism
will provide additional certainty for projects with a
Contract for Difference which should enable them to
consider a wider range of routes to market and a wider
range of offtakers, including short-term PPAs.
My officials have worked closely with developers,
expert advisers and other stakeholders in working up
the OLR proposals and to understand the likely impacts
on the PPA market. The policy design is at an advanced
stage, and the detail of the proposals has been recently
consulted on. We are on track to deliver the final policy
and introduce enabling regulations ahead of the first
allocation of CfDs. CfD applicants will have a high
degree of clarity about the arrangements for OLR, in
advance of the first auctions.
Julie Elliott: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy
and Climate Change with reference to the answer of 14
May 2014, Official Report, column 597W, on renewable
energy, what the evidential basis was for the statement
made in the Government’s response on competitive
allocation that Power Purchase Agreements could be
signed on a conditional basis before a strike price needs
to be submitted, allowing independent generators to
receive indicative financing terms from lenders; and
what representations he has received from generators
[199182]
on that statement.
Michael Fallon: The Government’s response to the
consultation on competitive allocation set out its expectation
that the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) market will
evolve such that PPAs could be signed on a conditional
basis. We have discussed this with stakeholders and
have identified no significant barriers that prevent
conditional Power Purchase Agreements being agreed
prior to the allocation of Contracts for Difference.
Furthermore, some PPA participants have since confirmed
that they are prepared to consider approaches from
generators on this basis.
UK Coal
Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change with reference to his
statement of 10 April 2014, Official Report, columns
24-25WS, on UK Coal Production Ltd, when the £10
million interest bearing loan to UK Coal will be
[199692]
complete.
Michael Fallon: I refer the hon. Member to the written
statement I made today (“Update concerning UK Coal”)
as Minister of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
As stated, I will continue to keep the House updated.
Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy
and Climate Change what recent discussions (a) he,
(b) Ministers in his Department and (c) officials in his
Department have had with their counterparts in HM
Treasury on the operation of the Warm Homes and
Energy Conservation Act 2000; and if he will make a
[199186]
statement.
Gregory Barker: The Secretary of State for Energy
and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Kingston
and Surbiton (Mr Davey), Ministers and officials have
Written Answers
232W
regular contact with counterparts from other Government
Departments, including HM Treasury, on a range of
issues, including fuel poverty.
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy
and Climate Change what recent assessment he has
made of the operation of (a) section 1 and (b)
section 2 of the Warm Homes and Energy
Conservation Act 2000; what recent representations he
has received on the operation of this Act; and what
responses he gave to such representations.
[199187]
Gregory Barker: The Warm Homes and Energy
Conservation Act 2000 has been amended through the
Energy Act 2013. In line with the provisions of the
amended Act, the Government will lay draft regulations
in Parliament setting out a new fuel poverty objective
for England. Once the new objective has been made in
regulations, we will publish a strategy for meeting that
objective.
Both the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate
Change, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton
(Mr Davey), and I receive representations and meet
with stakeholders regularly to discuss a range of issues
relating to fuel poverty. For example, we attend meetings
of the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group when possible,
most recently in April 2014.
DEFENCE
Afghanistan
Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
what assessment he has made of when the Afghanistan
Air Force will be ready to function independently of
[199016]
US and UK support.
Mr Francois: The Afghan Air Force (AAF) is trained
in accordance with the wider International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF) Afghan National Security Force
(ANSF) development strategy. ISAF envisages that the
AAF will be at full operational capability with the
required trained personnel, aircraft and equipment by
the end of 2017.
Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
what proportion of the Afghanistan National Army
has deserted in each month since January 2010.
[199017]
Mr Francois: I refer the hon. Member to the answer
given to him by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend
the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan),
on 13 November 2012, Official Report, column 161W.
Africa
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence with reference to the answer of 25 March
2014, Official Report, column 180W, on Africa,
whether any service personnel are embedded with host
forces or otherwise stationed in (a) Niger, (b) Nigeria
[199405]
and (c) the Seychelles.
233W
Written Answers
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Mr Francois: There are no UK service personnel
embedded with host forces or otherwise stationed in
Niger.
The UK has a small number of personnel deployed
to Nigeria in roles including diplomatic representation,
defence engagement, liaison and training. As part of
the package of support to Nigeria announced by the
Prime Minister last month, an additional small team of
experts has also deployed to help Nigeria establish an
Intelligence Fusion Cell with French and US partners
to assist the Nigerian Government in locating the abducted
school girls.
In the Seychelles, a Royal Naval officer is currently
serving as a liaison officer for the European Union
Naval Force Somalia (EUNAVFOR).
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence whether any UK service personnel are
embedded or otherwise stationed in (a) Ethiopia and
[199425]
(b) Chad.
Mr Francois: The UK has a small number of service
personnel deployed to Ethiopia in roles including diplomatic
representation, defence engagement, liaison and training.
No UK service personnel are currently embedded or
otherwise stationed in Chad.
Armed Conflict: Children
Alex Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence what support his Department is giving to the
UN Special Representative for Children and Armed
Conflict for the campaign to eradicate the recruitment
of children by government armed forces by 2016.
[198849]
Anna Soubry: The Ministry of Defence provides no
formal support to the UN Special Representative, but is
taking steps to ensure that our recruitment activities are
in accordance with Article 38 of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child, as stated in the answer given on
13 May 2013, Official Report, column 98W, to the hon.
Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson).
234W
Armed Forces: British Nationality
Mrs Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
how many Foreign and Commonwealth personnel
from each country of origin who were made redundant
from the armed forces in each year since 2010 were
subsequently unable to meet the five-year rule to apply
for citizenship; and if he will make a statement.
[198549]
Anna Soubry: Foreign and Commonwealth personnel
with four years’ service in the armed forces service can
apply, in the interim, for settlement. This process regularises
their immigration status while they qualify and meet the
mandated Home Office criteria to apply for citizenship.
The Ministry of Defence has completed an analysis
of personnel records and I can confirm that no Foreign
and Commonwealth personnel with less than four years’
service were made redundant since 2010. Therefore
redundancy from the armed forces would not have
prevented personnel from applying for settlement or
citizenship.
Armed Forces: Discharges
Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence how many requests for discharge were made
by soldiers aged (a) 19 and (b) 20 years who had
served at least three years in the regular Army in the
last five years; and what the outcome was of each such
[198845]
request.
Anna Soubry: Soldiers must normally serve a minimum
of three years before they can voluntarily discharge
with a year’s notice. Consequently, the number of
applications from 19-year-olds is lower than from those
aged 20 years of age. ″Requests for discharge″ has been
interpreted as Voluntary Outflow Applications which
are recorded on the Joint Personnel Administration
system.
The number of applications for voluntary discharge
made by trained Regular Soldiers aged 19 and 20 between
1 March 2009 and 1 March 2014 are shown in the
following table.
Age on Application
Armed Forces Covenant: Northern Ireland
Mr Ivan Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence which charitable projects based in Northern
Ireland have benefited from the armed forces covenant
[199638]
(Libor) fund.
Anna Soubry: The importance of the covenant to the
Government was highlighted by the decision of the
Chancellor to transfer £35 million from fines levied on
the banks for attempting to manipulate LIBOR to the
Ministry of Defence for use in supporting the armed
forces community. The fund has now closed and money
has been allocated to some 97 projects.
The Northern Irish armed forces community will
benefit from a number of UK-wide projects which have
been allocated over £16 million of LIBOR funding. In
addition, we have provided £50,000 of funding to the
UDR and Royal Irish Aftercare Service to set up a
welfare support network and advisory service for veterans
and their dependants in Northern Ireland.
No of Applications
19
50
20
330
Total
380
Source:
Defence Statistics (Army)
These figures include some personnel who applied for
voluntary release, but who were subsequently discharged
for other reasons. The actual numbers discharged between
1 March 2009 and 31 March 2014, and the reasons for
the discharge are shown as follows:
Age on Application
19 years
20 years
Voluntary Outflow
20
240
Administrative discharge
10
30
Medical/Other
—
10
Total
30
270
Note:
Figures have been rounded to 10; numbers ending in ″5″ have been rounded to
the nearest multiple of 20 to prevent systematic bias.
Source:
Defence Statistics (Army).
235W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
These figures exclude requests for medical, administrative
and disciplinary discharges. Some applications may have
been withdrawn at a later date and that some individual
soldiers may have applied for voluntary discharge more
than once.
Armed Forces: Young People
Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence what training programmes or qualifications
are available to recruits who enlist as minors which are
not available to those who enlist aged 18 years or over.
[198846]
Anna Soubry: Young people joining the Army attend
Phase 1 training at the Army Foundation College
(Harrogate) and complete different programmes depending
on the part of the Army they wish to join. Full details
of the training offered at Harrogate is available at this
link:
http://www.army.mod.uk/training_education/24420.aspx
For the Royal Navy and RAF, age at enlistment has
no bearing on the training programmes or qualifications
available during initial training.
Irrespective of the age that an individual joins the
armed forces, approximately 90% of all recruits complete
an apprenticeship within three years of joining.
Nic Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
how many recruits under the age of 18 years at (a)
enlistment and (b) the point of submitting their
application to join the armed forces who stated in
section 3 of AFCO Form 4 that they were unemployed,
completed training and moved into trained strength in
the most recent year for which figures are available.
[199635]
Anna Soubry: This information is not held in the
format requested.
Nic Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
how many recruits enlisting in the armed forces under
the age of 18 years had previously (a) been convicted
of a criminal offence, (b) received a caution from the
police, (c) received an antisocial behaviour order and
(d) been permanently excluded from school in the
most recent year for which figures are available.
[199636]
Anna Soubry: This information is not held in the
format requested.
Armoured Fighting Vehicles
Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence when he expects the MRV-P programme
concept phase to be completed; whether funding for a
demonstration has been approved; and what funds
[199355]
have been allocated for this purpose.
Mr Dunne: The Multi Role Vehicle (Protected) (MRV-P)
Concept Phase will be completed by early spring 2015,
at which point we expect the results to be submitted for
Initial Gate Business Case consideration. Funds have
been allocated for the delivery of the project.
Written Answers
236W
Army
Alex Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence how many soldiers who enlisted in the Army
aged (a) under 18 and (b) 18 years and above dropped
out before completing phase two training in the last 10
financial years.
[198851]
Mr Francois: ‘Enlistment’ has been interpreted as
those who joined the untrained strength, for example
those that begin Phase 1 training. Totals for the period
between 1 April 2004 and 31 March 2014 are shown as
follows:
Untrained Strength
Age on Entry
Under 18
18 and over
Unknown
Total
Source:
Defence Statistics (Army)
Intake
Outflow
35,190
64,950
430
100,570
12,300
17,250
430
29,980
Personnel may leave the army for a number of reasons,
including medical and fitness factors, disciplinary reasons,
or voluntary withdrawal. Those who join-up under 18
years of age have a statutory right to discharge from the
armed forces within six months if they feel they are
unsuited to service life.
The figures in the table exclude Gurkhas, Full Time
Reserve Service, Mobilised Reserves, Army Reserve and
all other Reserves.
Where an individual’s entry date is blank on the
records, the age on entry has not been able to be
calculated and is shown as ‘unknown’.
Figures have been rounded to 10; numbers ending in
‘5’ have been rounded to the nearest multiple of 20 to
prevent systematic bias. Totals and sub-totals have been
rounded separately and so may not be the sum of their
parts.
AWE Aldermaston
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence how much his Department has spent on
Atomic Weapons Establishment facilities at
[199128]
Aldermaston in each of the last five years.
Mr Dunne: Expenditure specifically on AWE facilities
at Aldermaston is not held in the format requested.
Contract payments for AWE are made against an agreed
programme of work that covers all AWE sites;
Aldermaston, Burghfield and Blacknest. These costs
are not recorded according to site.
Boskalis
Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence how many contracts have been awarded by his
Department to Boskalis over the last five years; and on
how many occasions during the contract period such
contractors have been found responsible for breaching
environmental guidance, thereby committing an
[199409]
offence.
237W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Mr Dunne: The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has
awarded no new direct contracts to Boskalis Westminster
NV or any of its subsidiaries in the last five years. There
is one existing contract in place with SMIT, a towage
and salvage company which is a subsidiary of Boskalis,
and this was awarded in 2002, under the last Administration,
for marine base support services. In addition, Boskalis
performs some dredging duties at Portsmouth, Marchwood
and Plymouth under subcontract to Debut.
Boskalis has been issued with a formal warning on
one occasion for breaching a licence issued by the
Marine Management Organisation (MMO) to allow
dredging at Devonport by disposing on an incoming
tide. Boskalis immediately informed the MMO of their
error and the formal warning was issued. No further
action is being taken.
Defence: Procurement
Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence with reference to the answer of 18 December
2013, Official Report, column 636W, on defence:
procurement, what the final costs are of establishing a
[199274]
Golo and running the tendering process.
Mr Dunne: The final cost of supporting our work on
the Government Owned Contractor Operated (GOGO)
competition is £7.4 million. This investment has provided
valuable insight into the challenges involved in establishing
a successful GOCO. The outputs from this work will be
retained to inform any future GOCO competition should
a decision be taken to re-examine this model as part of
the continuing transformation of Defence Equipment
and Support.
Djibouti
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence with reference to the answer of 4 February
2014, Official Report, column 169W, on Djibouti, from
which squadron armed forces have been deployed at
Camp Lemonnier; and what role is undertaken by each
UK officer embedded with US forces at that location.
[199424]
Mr Francois: The three UK armed forces personnel
embedded in Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa
(CJFT-HOA) at Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti are currently
from the Royal Regiment of Artillery, the Corps of
Royal Engineers, and the Intelligence Corps. Their roles
involve planning and supporting US military operations
in East Africa.
Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft
Written Answers
238W
including assessments from trials on the USS Wasp.
UK assessments have covered all necessary aircraft
configurations.
The QEC Flight Deck has been designed with specific
operating spots for vertical landing to deliver maximum
Sortie Generation Rate. These are the spots where the
F-35B will plan to land vertically on a routine basis. If
required, in the event of an emergency the whole flight
deck can support vertical landing.
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence at which RAF bases the Joint Strike Fighter
can regularly land vertically.
[199116]
Mr Dunne: RAF Marham is planned to be the only
RAF base in the UK at which the Joint Strike Fighter
can conduct vertical landings regularly. The Joint Strike
Fighter will of course be able to land conventionally
and conduct slow landings at other RAF bases.
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence whether the Joint Strike Fighter 35-B will be
[199787]
equipped with a collision warning system.
Mr Dunne: The F-35 has a limited collision warning
system in its early capability block which is supplemented
by advanced sensors and software to provide pilots with
a much higher level of situational awareness than on
our existing platforms. The full ground and air collision
warning system is under development and planned and
funded for integration into the aircraft in line with its
introduction into UK service.
Military Aircraft
Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence what plans he has to mitigate the risks to
defence aviation safety systems and culture referred
to in the Defence Air Safety Annual Report July 2012
to August 2013; and if he will make a statement.
[199375]
Mr Francois: The risks highlighted in the annual
report represented an aggregate of air safety risks across
the regulated community. These are held by suitably
qualified and experienced personnel and are actively
managed and mitigated.
Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence when he expects to put out to tender the
contract to provide military air traffic management at
[199408]
British and overseas bases.
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence what modifications to the original design of
the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers were necessary to
accommodate repeated vertical landings by the Joint
Strike Fighter; what estimate he has made of the heat
produced by vertical landing by the Joint Strike Fighter
which has the heaviest safe configuration to allow the
procedure; and whether vertical landings can take place
[199115]
on any flat area of the carrier deck.
Mr Dunne: Following advertisement in the Official
Journal of the European Union in March 2011, bidders
submitted outline proposals to provide military air traffic
management at British and overseas bases (Project
MARSHALL). Two bidders submitted detailed proposals
in January 2014. The second round of dialogue commenced
in April 2014 and will conclude when the bidders are
asked to submit their final tender proposals in late
summer 2014.
Mr Dunne: The ability of the ship to support F-35B
vertical landings has been incorporated into the design
of Queen Elizabeth Class (QEC) aircraft carrier from
the outset. Environmental considerations including heat
generation and dissipation have been thoroughly evaluated,
Risk Assessment
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence what records his Department keeps of the
monthly 2-star assessments of its risk registers. [199148]
239W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Mr Francois: The Ministry of Defence makes extensive
use of risk management tools and techniques across the
different areas of departmental business. Risk registers
are generally created, updated, and assessed as part of
day-to-day management action; and the relevant records
are kept at local level.
Somalia
Jim Shannon: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence if he will take steps to recognise the service of
members of the Royal Navy in patrolling operations to
[198740]
tackle piracy off the coast of Somalia.
Anna Soubry: The UK contribution to counter-piracy
operations is held in the highest regard by our coalition
partners and by this Government, and it is right to pay
tribute to all those involved in maintaining maritime
security vital to the European and global economy.
Written Answers
240W
398 did not require any special provision to reflect the
use of RPAS by UK Forces.
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence with reference to the answer of 10 February
2014, Official Report, column 474, on unmanned air
vehicles: guided weapons, if his Department will
publish the method and results from the UK-US firing
trials of Brimstone missiles from MQ-9 Reaper.
[199420]
Mr Dunne: The firing trials successfully demonstrated
rapid integration of Brimstone missiles onto the MQ-9
Reaper remotely piloted air system—safe carriage, safe
release and system targeting—with a high success rate
against static and high-speed manoeuvring targets.
However, the final trials report has not yet been
completed and it remains too early to say what information
from the report, or the trial method, will be published.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence with reference to the answer of 10 February
2014, Official Report, column 473W, on unmanned air
vehicles, when the Joint User Group for Reapers will
become active; and if he will make a statement.
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence whether his Department maintains (a)
mission reports, (b) guided missile firing reports, (c)
weapon system videos and (d) any other munitions
release records for the UK Reaper fleet following the
change of operational command to US pilots. [199421]
[199415]
Mr Francois: Although a final decision on when the
Joint User Group for Reaper should become active has
yet to be taken, it is expected to start functioning during
the autumn.
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of
Defence if his Department will carry
independent
qualitative
assessment
psychological and workplace stresses on the
of remotely piloted air systems.
State for
out an
of
the
operators
[198644]
Mr Francois: The Ministry of Defence currently has no
plans to undertake an independent qualitative assessment
of the psychological and workplace stresses on the
operators of remotely piloted air systems.
The health and wellbeing of all of our armed forces
personnel is of the utmost importance. We are mindful
of the pressure and stresses that service personnel may
be subjected to when supporting enduring intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance operations. These personnel
are carefully monitored and where appropriate have
access to the highest levels of military physical and
mental health care. Looking after our people is one of
the critical roles for our front-line commanders and
they keenly focus on the well-being of their people.
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence whether Joint Services Publication 398 on UK
Rules of Engagement has been amended to reflect use
[199299]
of remotely piloted aircraft systems.
Mr Francois: JSP 398 was updated on 21 October
2013, replacing the previous 2004 edition. Rules of
engagement govern how force can be applied in any
given operation. They are not tailored to weapon system
types per se, but are written to be applied as appropriate
to the full spectrum of weapons systems available to
UK Forces. Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS)
are governed by the same rules and regulations as any
other weapons system; therefore the amendment of JSP
Mr Francois: Each UK Reaper sortie has a mission
report produced post flight. If a weapon is fired during
a sortie, a weapon report is completed detailing the
engagement, as well as a video produced of the engagement
itself. There are no other munitions release records for
the UK Reaper fleet. US pilots have not flown UK
Reaper except during the launch and recovery phase.
Outside of the launch and recovery phase, UK Remotely
Piloted Air Systems have always been operated by UK
pilots.
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence with reference to the answer of 15 January
2014, Official Report, column 578W, on unmanned air
vehicles, whether his Department maintains munitions
records from the UK Reaper fleet on a sortie-by-sortie
[199422]
basis or for each operation carried out.
Mr Francois: After each UK Reaper sortie a mission
report is written detailing the aircraft used and events of
the flight. This includes weapon releases on a sortie-by-sortie
basis.
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence whether his Department has procured any
contracts for life cycle maintenance of the Reaper fleet;
[199429]
and for what periods.
Mr Dunne: No contracts for life cycle maintenance
have been procured. Through life maintenance and
support of the UK Reaper fleet is provided through the
Foreign Military Sales agreement at the time the Reaper
system was procured under the previous administration.
USA
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence with reference to the advice provided by
Jemima Stratford QC to the All-Party Parliamentary
241W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Group on drones, if his Department will take steps to
investigate activities carried out at US bases owned by
his Department which may be unlawful under domestic
[198639]
law. [R]
Mr Francois: The Ministry of Defence remains content
with the arrangements that are in place to govern the
use of UK bases by the United States Visiting Forces
(USVF). The Department therefore has no plans to
investigate or review the activities undertaken by the
USVF.
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence what discussions his Department has had with
its US counterpart on identifying how the US will
support the new Joint User Group for Reaper. [R]
[198641]
Mr Francois: Officials representing all user nations,
including the US, have had initial discussions exploring
the scope, formation and management of a proposed
Joint User Group for Reaper. Further discussions are
planned to take place in the coming months.
Yemen
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence with reference to the answer of 30 January
2014, Official Report, column 691W, on Yemen,
whether his Department has undertaken any impact
[198640]
assessment of drone strikes in Yemen. [R]
Mr Francois: The Ministry of Defence has not conducted
any impact assessment of kinetic strikes by Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles (UAV) in Yemen. As the Minister of
State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right
hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent
(Hugh Robertson), said on 30 January 2014, Official
Report, column 691W, UAV strikes against terrorist
targets in Yemen are a matter for the Yemeni and US
Governments.
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence with reference to the answer of 4 February
2014, Official Report, column 169W, on Djibouti,
whether the UK personnel embedded with US forces
under US command at Camp Lemonnier provide any
support to the US drone programme in Yemen; and if
[199008]
he will make a statement.
Mr Francois: UK armed forces personnel embedded
in Combined Joint Task Force—Horn of Africa (CJTFHOA) at Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, are responsible
for the planning and support of US military operations
in East Africa. They do not provide any support to US
Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) operations in
Yemen; CJTF-HOA does not oversee operations in the
Middle East.
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence how many UK service personnel are stationed
in Yemen; and what the (a) rank, (b) squadron and
(c) function is of each officer stationed in that country.
[199426]
Mr Francois: There are two permanently based UK
service personnel in Yemen. Both of these personnel are
employed within the Defence Section at the British
embassy in Sana’a. There is one Army Colonel employed
as the Defence Attaché and one Army Sergeant employed
Written Answers
242W
as the Assistant Defence Attaché. The role of the
Defence Attaché is to command the Defence Section, to
represent the Chief of the Defence Staff in Yemen and
Eritrea and to advise HM Ambassador on defence and
security matters. The role of the Assistant Defence
Attaché is to provide administrative support to the
Defence Attaché.
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
Bovine TB
12. Glyn Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment
he has made of progress in other countries on tackling
bovine TB in cattle and wildlife.
[904180]
George Eustice: The success of the bovine TB eradication
policies pursued in countries such as Australia, New
Zealand, the United States, the Republic of Ireland and
France demonstrates the need to bear down on the
disease effectively in both cattle and in wildlife.
There is no single solution.
Equine Industry: Regulation
15. Mr Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment
he has made of the burden of regulation on the equine
[904186]
industry in the UK.
George Eustice: As part of the Red Tape Challenge
Agriculture theme, we announced in January the
Government’s intention to scrap 156 regulations and
improve 134 others. There were 11 reform proposals
related to equine regulation in DEFRA’s Agriculture
theme. An implementation plan containing these proposals
was contained in DEFRA’s “Better for Business–Strategic
Reform Plan” published on 9 April 2014 which is available
publicly, online.
Severn Estuary Flood Defences
16. Neil Carmichael: To ask the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs What steps he is
taking to improve and maintain flood defences along
[904187]
the Severn Estuary.
Dan Rogerson: During this financial year the
Environment Agency will invest £380,000 in maintaining
flood defences and structures on the Severn Estuary in
Gloucestershire. An additional £2 million will be invested
to repair flood defences and structures damaged during
the winter floods.
The Severn Estuary Flood Risk Management Strategy
identified a need for around £58 million of funding in
Gloucestershire over the next 100 years to maintain or
improve flood defences in the Estuary.
Climate Change: Funding
Graeme Morrice: To ask the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what level of
funding his Department provides to tackle the effects
of climate change; and if he will make a statement.
[904184]
243W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Dan Rogerson: DEFRA spent £8.3 million in 2013-14
under its core adapting to climate change programme.
This included £4.1 million to the Met Office Hadley
Centre for the provision of world-leading climate science,
and £1.6 million to the Environment Agency’s Climate
Ready support service to help organisations across England
adapt to a changing climate. Adaptation is mainstreamed
across Government. Other Departments and other DEFRA
programmes also fund activities that build resilience to
climate change.
Environment Protection: Crime
Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which
companies have been (a) given warnings because of
breaches of environmental law and (b) prosecuted for
[199354]
such breaches in each of the last five years.
Dan Rogerson: The information is as follows:
(a) Warnings: The following table shows the total
number of written warnings issued by the Environment
Agency to companies in England for breaches of
environmental law for the period since 2010.
Calendar
year
Number of written warnings issued by the
Environment Agency in England
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total for
period
16,140
13,774
12,009
9,964
10,093
61,980
Due to the high volume, as recorded in the above
table, it would incur disproportionate cost to collate the
names of the individual companies who received such
warnings.
Records of any warning or warnings issued to the
operator of a permitted site are held on the Environment
Agency’s public registers, which can be viewed at the
relevant Environment Agency area office. Alternatively,
any individual may request information from the
Environment Agency National Customer Contact Centre
on a particular site or sites by telephoning 03708 506
506 or emailing: enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk
(b) Prosecutions: The Environment Agency has
successfully prosecuted 760 companies in England over
the last five full calendar years. A list of the companies,
in each year, will be placed in the House Library.
Flood Control
Charlie Elphicke: To ask the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment
he has made of the effectiveness of water infrastructure
investment plans in tackling the problem of flooding;
[904181]
and if he will make a statement.
Dan Rogerson: Ofwat is assessing water infrastructure
investment plans for 2015-20 under the 2014 water price
review. All water and sewerage companies have a duty
derived from recent legislation to place greater emphasis
on flood risk planning.
Written Answers
244W
The Water Industry Act 1991 has also been amended
to make clear that sewerage undertakers can construct
and use sustainable drainage systems to fulfil their
statutory duty to effectually drain an area where it is the
most economical solution.
Food
Jesse Norman: To ask the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps he is
taking to help rural food and drink producers. [904183]
George Eustice: Stimulating economic growth in rural
areas is a key priority for DEFRA and I recognise the
importance of the food and drink sector to the rural
economy.
The Rural Development Programme is now and will
continue to support food and drink producers in rural
areas to deliver growth and create jobs.
In addition, we are helping local food businesses gain
recognition for protected food names. Over 60 British
foods are now recognised in this way, including
Herefordshire cider and perry.
Hill Farming
Mel Stride: To ask the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the
Government is taking to support moorland farmers.
[904182]
George Eustice: We will almost double the direct
payment rate in the moorland from 2015. We will also
equalise the payment rates in the Severely Disadvantaged
Area and the lowland. Taken together, these changes
will distribute direct payments more equitably across
English farms. They will also ensure that upland farmers
on large areas of moorland are not put at a disadvantage
in comparison with other upland farmers.
Sheep
Jim Shannon: To ask the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what
information his Department holds on the number of
dog attacks on sheep flocks in each of the last three
[198743]
years.
George Eustice: DEFRA and our delivery partner,
the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency,
do not record this information.
DEFRA has sourced information regarding defendants
proceeded against at magistrates court, found guilty
and sentenced at all courts for offences relating to dogs
worrying livestock on agricultural land, England and
Wales, 2011-13.1, 2, 3
Offence
Outcome
2011
2012
2013
Proceeded against
64
71
50
Found guilty
53
57
37
Sentenced
53
57
37
Absolute discharge
—
1
1
Conditional discharge
10
16
5
Fine
34
34
26
245W
Written Answers
Offence
Outcome
Dogs worrying livestock
on agricultural land4
2011
2012
2013
Community sentence
—
1
—
Suspended sentences
—
—
—
Otherwise dealt with
9
5
5
Immediate custody
Average fine (£)
Average custodial
sentence length
(months)5
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
—
—
—
165.47
177.50
221.54
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were
the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has
been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest
penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more
offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum
penalty is the most severe.
2
Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and
complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted
from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police
forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection
processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those
data are used.
3
The number of offenders sentenced can differ from those found guilty as it
may be the case that a defendant found guilty in a particular year, and
committed for sentence at the Crown court, may be sentenced in the following
year.
4
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953.
5
Excludes life and indeterminate sentences.
Source:
Justice Statistics Analytical Services—Ministry of Justice.
WORK AND PENSIONS
Age: Discrimination
Mr Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions what recent research his Department has
(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated relating to age
discrimination in (i) the work place and (ii) Jobcentre
[199242]
Plus.
246W
the business case for people to work longer at an individual,
business, societal and economic level, and sets out a
number of new actions the Department will be taking
forward to promote fuller working lives.
(ii) Relevant departmental evaluations on this issue
concerning Jobcentre Plus include “How ready is Jobcentre
Plus to help people in their 60s to find work?”:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-ready-isjobcentre-plus-to-help-people-in-their-60s-find-work-ihr11
Also, where possible surveys of benefit claimants are
broken down by age, for example “The Jobcentre Plus
Offer: Final evaluation report”:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/261656/rrep852.pdf
Children: Maintenance
Teresa Pearce: To ask the Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions if he will make the Child Maintenance
Options Service 0800 telephone number free to all
[199665]
callers, including mobile telephone users.
Steve Webb: Calls to the Child Maintenance Options
0800 telephone number are free from BT land lines but
customers may have to pay if they use another telephone
company or a mobile, or if they are calling from abroad.
We are currently finalising arrangements with the six
major mobile network providers to make the numbers
free to call from their networks.
In the meantime, callers contacting the Child
Maintenance Options service from a mobile telephone
are informed by their network provider that they will be
charged. Callers using mobile telephones can request
the Options service to call them back, or alternatively
use the online ‘live chat’ facility or e-mail service, available
via the Child Maintenance Options website at:
www.cmoptions.org
Steve Webb: The Department has not commissioned
any research in the last two years specifically on age
discrimination.
(i) Previous research relating to age discrimination in
the work place includes “Attitudes to age in Britain
2010/11”:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/214361/ihr7.pdf
and “Second Survey on employers’ policies, practices
and preferences relating to age, 2010”:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130128102031/
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2009-2010/
rrep682.pdf
This research was commissioned by the Department
as part of wider research into the removal of the
Default Retirement Age, including “Default Retirement
Age– employer qualitative research”:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130128102031/
http:/research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2009-2010/
rrep672.pdf
The Default Retirement Age was abolished in 2011,
meaning most people can now retire when the time is
right for them. Employers can now only set a fixed
retirement age where it can be objectively justified in
their particular circumstances, but this is open to challenge
at tribunal.
On 13 June we will be publishing “Fuller Working
Lives–A Framework for Action”. The document outlines
Disadvantaged: EU Grants and Loans
Mr Mark Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions for what reasons the UK
Government voted against the establishment of a Fund
[199259]
for European Aid to the Most Deprived.
Esther McVey: The UK did not refuse any money, it
simply voted against adopting the regulation establishing
the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived on
the basis that we think member states, and not the
European Union, should decide how the money is
spent. This was in line with the reasoned opinions
adopted by both the House of Commons and the
House of Lords.
Employment and Support Allowance
John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions (1) what estimate he has made of
the time between applications for employment and
support allowance and an assessment appointment for
people who applied in (a) September 2013, (b)
October 2013, (c) November 2013, (d) December
2013, (e) January 2014, (f) February 2014, (g) March
2014 and (h) April 2014 in (i) Glasgow North West
constituency, (ii) Glasgow, (iii) Scotland and (iv) the
[199352]
UK;
247W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
(2) what estimate he has made of the number of
employment and support allowance applicants who
have been waiting to be given an assessment
appointment for more than (a) three, (b) four, (c)
[199153]
five, (d) six and (e) seven months.
Mike Penning: The information requested is not available.
Health
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions what use his Department has made of the
National Wellbeing Index introduced by the Office for
National Statistics in formulating policy since the
introduction of that Index in 2011; and what policies
his Department has introduced to improve national
wellbeing as defined in that Index since 2010. [198874]
Mike Penning: The Office for National Statistics (ONS)
is measuring National Well-being, not as an index but
through a framework of 41 indicators which capture
social progress around important aspects of life for
individuals, communities and the nation. The statistics
are experimental and as such we should not expect to
have examples of major policies that have been heavily
influenced by the well-being data at this stage.
Evidence provided to the Environmental Audit
Committee for its Inquiry into Well-being can be found
at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-az/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/inquiries/
parliament-2010/well-being/
Housing Benefit: Wales
Guto Bebb: To ask the Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions how many local authorities in Wales
applied for additional financial assistance to cover
discretionary housing payments in 2013-14; and what
[200023]
assistance such local authorities received.
Steve Webb: The three local authorities in Wales that
applied for additional discretionary housing payments
from the additional £20 million reserve fund provided
by the Government are detailed on the following table:
Local authority
Amount awarded (£)
Caerphilly
63,000
Cardiff
150,000
Conwy
25,000
This information was published on 24 March 2014 in
the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) subsidy
circular S3/2014. Please find attached a link where the
information can be found:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/295291/s3-2014.pdf
Jobcentre Plus
Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions whether a jobcentre is permitted to
require a jobseeker to attend a voluntary employment
support project in receipt of no statutory funding
[199395]
without the consent of that project.
Written Answers
248W
Esther McVey: The role of the Jobcentre Plus work
coach is to provide support and advise claimants of the
best opportunities available to help them secure
employment.
Jobcentre Plus can issue a jobseeker’s direction to
require JSA claimants to undertake activity they judge
will help them back to work. However, before doing so,
the Jobcentre Plus work coach will take into account
the claimant’s individual circumstances, as well as
determining that the activity being required will help
improve their employment prospects and they can
reasonably be expected to undertake it.
Maternity Pay
Gloria De Piero: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions how many women received
statutory maternity pay for how long in the latest
[199688]
period for which figures are available.
Steve Webb: The total number of women that started
receiving Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) in 2011-12
was 355,000 and the average number receiving SMP at
any point in time during the year was 273,000. These
figures are estimated based on a 1% sample of national
insurance records.
This figure is for Great Britain only. Northern Ireland
figures are the responsibility of the Department for
Social Development in Northern Ireland.
The duration of SMP claims cannot be estimated
from national insurance records, as these only contain
information on the amount of SMP paid across the
year and not when SMP claims begin and end. However
the Department publishes the Maternity and Paternity
Rights and Women Returners Survey, which provides
an indication of SMP claim durations, with the latest
publication being in 2009-10. In 2008, about half of
women eligible for SMP took maternity pay for the
statutory number of weeks (39 weeks). Findings can be
accessed at the link below (Section 3.3 and Table 3.5
contain information on SMP durations):
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/maternity-andpaternity-rights-and-women-returners-survey-200910-rr777
Notes:
1. The number of SMP receipts is shown in DWP’s expenditure
tables found on the gov.uk website at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/benefit-expendituretables
2. Estimates of the number of women receiving SMP are based
on the Lifetime Labour Market Database (L2) which is a 1%
sample of national insurance records.
3. Estimates are subject to change due to further information
becoming available through the national insurance recording
system.
Gloria De Piero: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions what the cost to the Exchequer was
of statutory maternity pay in the last year for which
[199689]
figures are available.
Steve Webb: The amount of statutory maternity pay
in the last year for which figures are available was
£2,303 million for 2012-13 (nominal terms). Figures are
subject to change due to more information becoming
available through employers’ returns to HM Revenue
and Customs.
249W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
The figure is for Great Britain only. Northern Ireland
figures are the responsibility of the Department for
Social Development in Northern Ireland.
Source:
Original source is expenditure data from employer returns to Her
Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and is the amount
recovered by employers rather than the amount received by
claimants. This information is shown in DWP’s expenditure tables
found on the Gov.uk website at
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/benefitexpenditure-tables
Personal Independence Payment
Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions how many people he expects to (a) be
assessed for and (b) receive decisions on applications
for personal independence payments in each of the
[199815]
next five years.
Mike Penning: The information is in the table:
Thousand
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
2018-19
PIP new claims
386
378
381
381
PIP reassessed claims
191
401
754
369
387
34
Total PIP claims
577
779
1135
750
421
PIP new claims decisions
600
373
379
387
380
PIP reassessed claims
decisions
152
337
746
490
34
Total PIP decisions
752
710
1124
877
414
Notes:
1. Decisions in a year will be for claims in that year and the previous year.
2. Reassessed claims are claims from individuals currently on DLA who have
been invited to apply for PIP,
Source:
Budget 14 forecasts
Personal Independence Payment: North East
Mrs Hodgson: To ask the Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions (1) how many and what proportion of
personal independence payments claims not made
under the special rules for terminally ill people, by
claimants resident in (a) Washington and Sunderland
West constituency, (b) the Sunderland local authority
area and (c) the North East region were successful in
[199855]
each month for which records are available;
(2) how many personal independence payments
claims, not under the special rules for terminally ill
people, have been made by residents of (a)
Washington and Sunderland West constituency, (b)
the Sunderland local authority area and (c) the North
East region in each month for which records are
[199857]
available.
Mike Penning: Information on claims to personal
independence payment is available only at national level.
Provisional data was published on 5 June 2014 and is
available here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/personalindependence-payment-official-statistics-june-2014
Information on the numbers of successful new claimants
is available across a range of geographical breakdowns,
including parliamentary constituency. The information
is published and can be found at:
https://stat-xplore.dwp.gov.uk
Written Answers
250W
Guidance on how to extract the information required
can be found at:
https://sw.stat-xplore.dwp.gov.uk/webapi/online-help/StatXplore_User_Guide.htm
Separated People: Finance
Sheila Gilmore: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions when each of the new projects
chosen in the second round of competition for funding
from the Help and Support for Separated Families
[199625]
Innovation Fund will commence.
Steve Webb: All projects successful during the second
round of the Innovation Fund procurement exercise
became operational during or before April 2014.
Sheila Gilmore: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions (1) what proportion of the parents
who have so far participated in the first round of Help
and Support for Separated Families Innovation Fund
projects have been (a) parents with main care of a
child or children and (b) non-resident parents; [199646]
(2) how many people have participated in each of the
seven Help and Support for Separated Families
[199627]
Innovation Fund projects to date.
Steve Webb: Round one projects all aim to reach
different numbers of parents depending on their need,
the project’s location, resources available and the type
of service being offered. One of these round one projects
initially works with non-resident parents only, whereas
the other projects engage a lead parent which could be
either the parent with care or the non-resident parent.
Most projects then aim to work with both parents
during the intervention but this is not always possible.
As far as it is possible, the actual number of parents
participating, and whether they are a parent with care
or a non-resident parent, are data that is currently being
collected by our round one projects. This forms part of
the data that will be collated, analysed and assessed by
our independent evaluator. It is our intention that this
will be published alongside final evaluation results when
completed.
Sheila Gilmore: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions how much has been awarded to
each of the 10 projects that received funding from Help
and Support for Separated Families Innovation Fund
in the second round of bidding in December 2013.
[199647]
Steve Webb: The following table provides the original
agreed contract value for each of the contracts awarded
in the second procurement round of the Innovation
Fund. The contract value is the possible highest amount
payable as this is partly dependent on performance.
£
Children 1st
451,964
Family Lives
306,234
National Association of Child Contact
Centres (NACCC)
382,081
Pinnacle People
242,240
Mediation Now
Sills & Betteridge
86,448
720,742
251W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
£
Tavistock Centre for Couple
Relationships (TCCR)
398,762
Headland Future (now Changing
Futures)
322,795
Family Matters Mediate
165,856
National Family
480,354
Social Security Benefits
Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions (1) what estimate he has made of
the proportion of claimants of (a) jobseeker’s
allowance and (b) employment and support allowance
on Help to Work who will enter employment within (i)
[199780]
six months and (ii) 12 months;
(2) what assumptions about numbers returning to
work underpin the benefit cost savings forecast for
Help to Work in the autumn statement; and if he will
[199790]
make a statement.
Esther McVey: The information requested is not available.
Social Security Benefits: Fraud
Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions what additional costs and savings
he expects from the introduction of the Single Fraud
Investigation Service in each of the years from 2012 to
[199788]
2018.
Esther McVey: The SFIS Business Case covers the
period 2011-12 to 2021-22, and the current figures
indicate that the cost of implementing SFIS is £73 million
with a saving expected around £507 million. As the
project progresses the business case will be reviewed and
where necessary updated.
Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions what progress he has made on
Single Fraud Investigation Service; what plans he has
for its roll out; and if he will make a statement.
[199789]
Esther McVey: Progress has been made with regard
to the implementation of the Single Fraud Investigation
Service and this will commence from 1 July 2014.
Universal Credit
Rachel Reeves: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to ensure
that his Department is able to cross-check data on
housing costs within the universal credit programme in
[199312]
order to counter fraud.
Esther McVey: The universal credit system is already
protected against fraud and error and security experts
are involved at each stage of UC design. It is not in the
public interest to disclose detailed plans or processes.
Rachel Reeves: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions how many full-time equivalent staff
are employed by his Department to work exclusively on
universal credit in (a) total, (b) communications, (c)
[199314]
IT development and (d) project delivery.
Written Answers
252W
Esther McVey: Current resourcing data shows the full
time equivalent staff employed to work exclusively on
universal credit. In total this is (a) 535.8 comprising of
(b) 21 in communications (c) 80.8 in IT Development
and (d) 434 in project delivery.
These figures exclude contractors.
Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions how many staff will be employed in
the specialist housing teams that will be established in
universal credit centres.
[199393]
Esther McVey: A team exists to support current live
service. This will expand as the rollout continues.
HOME DEPARTMENT
Asylum: Syria
Mark Hendrick: To ask the Secretary of State for the
Home Department to how many Syrian refugees the
[199732]
UK has offered asylum.
James Brokenshire: For the purposes of answering
this question latest published figures have been provided
since the start of the armed conflict in Syria in April
2011.
Between April 2011 and March 2014, 2,649 Syrians
and their dependants were granted asylum in the UK at
initial decision. In the same period 45 Syrians and their
dependants were granted Humanitarian Protection.
The Home Office publishes statistics on grants of
asylum and humanitarian protection at initial decision
to main applicants and dependants in Tables as_02 and
as_02_q (Asylum data tables Volume 1) within the
Immigration Statistics release. A copy of the latest
release, Immigration Statistics January—March 2014 is
available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office/
series/immigration-statistics-quarterly-release
and will be placed in the Library of the House.
Not all asylum seekers are deemed to be refugees and
not all refugees claim asylum. Refugee status is conferred
following a grant of asylum.
Asylum: Uganda
Mr Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the
Home Department what assessment she has made of
the UK Border Agency’s handling of the case of Aidah
[198569]
Asaba.
James Brokenshire: The general policy of the Home
Office is not to disclose personal information about
another person. This is because we have obligations
under the Data Protection Act and in law generally to
protect this information.
The UK has a proud history of granting asylum to
those who need our protection and we consider every
claim for asylum on its individual merits.
We believe that those with no right to be in the UK
should return to their home country and we will help
those who wish to leave voluntarily. However, when
they refuse to do so we will take steps to enforce their
removal at the earliest opportunity.
253W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Mr Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for the
Home Department what assessment she has made of
the change in waiting times for an initial decision for
Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) visa applications in the last year;
what the average waiting time is for an initial decision
for a Tier 1 application; and what assessment she has
made of the economic effect of the time taken for such
[199152]
decisions on economic growth.
James Brokenshire: The average waiting time for a
Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) customer in the financial year
2013-14 was 125 calendar days. The number of days
taken to process applications dropped by 50 days over
the course of the financial year and processing times
continue to decrease.
A record number of applications were decided in the
financial year 2013-14, and there is nothing to suggest
that processing times are deterring entrepreneurs from
applying.
Average calendar days between
application raised date and despatch
date
April 2013
131
May 2013
148
June 2013
142
July 2013
129
August 2013
134
September 2013
126
October 2013
96
November 2013
108
December 2013
114
January 2014
141
February 2014
97
March 2014
81
Overall Average/Total Cases
254W
Statistics release, which is available from the Library of
the House and on the Department’s website at:
Entry Clearances
Month despatched
Written Answers
125
Entry Clearances: Commonwealth
Mark Hendrick: To ask the Secretary of State for the
Home Department how many work visas were issued
to people from Commonwealth countries in (a) 2010,
[199737]
(b) 2011, (c) 2012 and (d) 2013.
James Brokenshire: The information requested is given
in the following table.
Work-related UK entry clearance visas issued 2010 to 2013: current
Commonwealth member state nationalities
Number
2010
105,146
2011
95,625
2012
90,567
2013
96,593
Note:
Includes dependants. Data are based on nationalities granted work-related
visas corresponding to the current Commonwealth Members listed
at:
http://thecommonwealth.org/member-countries
Source:
Table be06_q_w (Before Entry tables volume 3), Immigration Statistics
January to March 2014
The latest Home Office immigration statistics on
entry clearance visas granted (by category and by individual
nationality) are published in the quarterly Immigration
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/immigrationstatistics-quarterly-release
Human Trafficking
David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for the
Home Department when she plans to bring forward
legislative proposals to prevent modern slavery. [199227]
Karen Bradley: The Government is determined to
lead the global fight against modern slavery, and have
introduced the Modern Slavery Bill to help us do so.
The Bill aims to give law enforcement the tools to stamp
out modern slavery and to enhance protection for victims.
The Bill was published on 10 June 2014.
Members: Correspondence
Sir Gerald Kaufman: To ask the Secretary of State for
the Home Department when she intends to reply to the
letter to her dated 24 April 2014 from the right hon.
Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr
[199215]
Michael Adebayo Johnson.
James Brokenshire: I wrote to the right hon. Member
on 2 June 2014.
Sir Gerald Kaufman: To ask the Secretary of State for
the Home Department when she intends to reply to the
letter to her dated 22 April 2014 from the right hon.
Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr A
[199217]
Mehmood.
James Brokenshire: I wrote to the right hon. Member
on 15 May 2014.
Surveillance: Aircraft
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for the
Home Department what role her Department’s Centre
for Applied Science and Technology has in (a) the trial
of the Aeryon Skyranger drone around Gatwick
airport and (b) the trial or use of any other
surveillance aircraft operated by Government
Departments, agents or public bodies in the UK.
[199440]
Karen Bradley: CAST has no direct role in the Gatwick
trial, but does liaise with the trial team in order to learn
from their experience.
Trials conducted by other Departments and their
agencies are matters for the respective Departments.
TREASURY
Aggregates Levy: Northern Ireland
Ms Ritchie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
what recent progress he has made on reinstating the
Northern Ireland Aggregates Levy Credit Scheme.
[200110]
Nicky Morgan: In January and February of this year,
the government received two sets of follow up questions
from the European Commission as part of their formal
investigation into the Aggregates Levy Credit Scheme.
Treasury officials worked closely with members of the
255W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
industry and the authorities in Northern Ireland and
have submitted further evidence in response to the
questions posed.
While a new relief scheme cannot be considered until
the investigation concludes, the Government remains
fully committed to reinstating an aggregates levy credit
scheme in Northern Ireland.
Day Care: North West
Andrew Stephenson: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of
the number of families that would be eligible for
support for child care costs under the provisions of the
Childcare Payments Bill in (a) the North West, (b)
[199648]
Lancashire and (c) Pendle constituency.
Nicky Morgan: The information requested is not
available.
Health
Chris Ruane: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
what use his Department has made of the National
Wellbeing Index introduced by the Office for National
Statistics in formulating policy since the introduction
of that index in 2011; and what policies his
Department has introduced to improve national
wellbeing as defined in that index since 2010. [198873]
Written Answers
256W
Detailed internationally comparable data on investment
are not readily available. Some countries also collect
data on the shares of GFCF carried out by different
institutional sectors, especially that conducted by general
government; this data can be obtained from the OECD.
While some forms of intangible investment are captured
in the standard national accounts measure of investment
(most notably software), a large range of intangible
assets are not, including research and development,
advertising, organisational know-how and training. The
most comprehensive set of internationally comparable
estimates are produced by
www.intan-invest.net
These are produced on a market-sector basis and are
therefore not directly comparable with the OECD statistics
referenced above, which cover both market and non-market
activity.
It should be noted that a range of forthcoming
changes to national accounting rules will affect crosscountry estimates of GFCF and GDP. The most relevant
of these for estimates of GFCF are the inclusion of
spending on research and development and weapons
systems. Further details can be found on the ONS
website, at the following address:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/developmentprogrammes/esa2010/index.html
Sanitary Protection: VAT
Nicky Morgan: As the Prime Minister has said:
“we’ll start measuring our progress as a country not just by
how our economy is growing, but by our quality of life.”
The National Wellbeing Index and Measures of
Wellbeing provides a rich contribution to the debate
about the health and happiness of the people of the
United Kingdom.
These are relatively new statistical series, meaning
that the evidence base on wellbeing, and the implications
for policy making, are still being developed. The ONS
Wellbeing statistics released on the 4 June made a
helpful contribution to this debate. They revealed, for
example, that those households that receive more of
their income from benefits are more likely to have lower
life satisfaction. This Government has overseen record
employment levels and is reforming the benefit system
so that it always pays to work and people are not
trapped in a life on benefits.
Investment
Alison Seabeck: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer what the levels of (a) public sector
investment, (b) private sector investment, (c)
investment in intangibles and (d) other investment was
in each G7 country in each of the last 10 years.
Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer (1) what consideration he has given to
changing the five per cent VAT rate applied to female
[199803]
sanitary products;
(2) for what reason HM Revenue and Customs
considers female sanitary products non-essential for
tax purposes; and if he will make a statement; [199804]
(3) if he will lower the VAT rate applied to female
[199805]
sanitary products.
Mr Gauke: A reduced rate of VAT of 5% currently
applies to female sanitary products. This has been in
place since 2001 and is the lowest rate possible under
EU law.
The application of VAT in the EU, including rates
and flexibilities afforded to member states in this regard,
is governed by EU law. The Government cannot introduce
a new zero rate as this would require a change to EU
VAT legislation, which would require a proposal from
the European Commission and the unanimous agreement
of all 28 member states.
Taxation: Self-assessment
[199413]
Nicky Morgan: Gross fixed capital formation (GFCF)
is an internationally standardised measure that captures
whole economy investment, covering business, government
and residential investment. International data on GFCF
is available from the OECD, while data on the UK can
be found in the ONS’ business investment release;
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/bus-invest/business-investment/
index.html
Mr Gregory Campbell: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer with reference to the answer of 6 May 2014,
Official Report, columns 113-14W, on taxation, how
much is owed in penalties and interest for failure to
meet the deadline set for self-assessment returns in the
[199786]
year ending 31 March 2014.
Mr Gauke: This information is available only at a
disproportionate cost.
257W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Travel: Insurance
Jim Shannon: To ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer if he will take steps to encourage insurance
companies to set travel insurance premiums for the
elderly based on their state of health rather than their
[199078]
age.
Andrea Leadsom: Insurers take into account a range
of different factors when considering risk and decisions
concerning the pricing of insurance products are a
commercial matter for individual insurers. The Government
does not seek to intervene in these decisions.
The insurance industry recognises that older people
can face difficulties finding appropriate travel insurance
and in 2012 signed an agreement, endorsed by the
Government, to re-direct older customers to an alternative
insurer or to a specialist insurance broker where they
cannot provide insurance themselves.
Working Tax Credit: Bolton
Mr Crausby: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
how much has been paid through working tax credits
to people in Bolton North East constituency in each of
the last three years.
[199151]
Mr Gauke: The information is as follows:
Table 1: Bolton North East constituency working tax credit entitlement
Tax year
Total WTC entitlement (£ million)
2010-11
19
2011-12
18
2012-13
17
These figures have been rounded to the nearest £ million.
EDUCATION
Academies
Bill Esterson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education what evidence his Department holds or has
assessed on the effects of conversion to academy status
on the test results of children in primary schools.
[199446]
Michael Gove: In 2013, the percentage of pupils in
converter academies that achieved level 4 or above in
reading, writing (teacher assessment) and mathematics
was 81%.1 This was an improvement of one percentage
point from 2012, and compares with 76% of pupils that
achieved the same threshold in local authority maintained
mainstream schools. Furthermore, the percentage of
pupils in converter academies that exceeded this threshold
was 25%, compared with 21% in local authority maintained
mainstream schools.
Written Answers
258W
Michael Gove: The Government’s recent consultation
seeks to enable local authorities to delegate children’s
social care functions to broaden the range of approaches
available to secure the best outcomes for children in
their area. The proposals do not remove responsibilities
from local authorities for ensuring their statutory obligations
on child protection and children’s social care are met,
and it remains local authorities’ responsibility to ensure
the quality of that provision.
Delegated social care function arrangements will continue
to be inspected by Ofsted, in the same way as directly
delivered local authority social care functions, as part
of its local authority inspection framework. In addition,
regulations currently govern the fitness of third party
providers and require their registration with Ofsted.
Meg Munn: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education whether he plans to exempt any functions
from his proposals to allow further delegation of
[199764]
children’s social care functions.
Michael Gove: Part 1 of the Children and Young
Person’s Act 2008 currently allows local authorities to
delegate social care functions relating to children in care
and care leavers. The legislation precludes delegation of
independent reviewing officer functions, and of adoption
functions, unless the other party to the arrangement is a
registered adoption society.
The Government’s proposals would not alter those
exemptions, but seek to enable local authorities to delegate
a wider range of social services functions (if they so
wish), to broaden the range of approaches available to
secure the best outcomes for children in their area. The
recent consultation on the proposals closed on 30 May
and responses are being considered.
Meg Munn: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education what assessment he has made of the effects
of proposals for further delegation of children’s social
care functions on the implementation of the
recommendations of the Munro Review of child
[199775]
protection.
Michael Gove: The Government is considering the
outcome of its consultation on proposals to enable
local authorities to delegate children’s social care functions
to third parties, to help broaden the range of approaches
available to secure the best outcomes for children in
their area. The proposals place no obligations on local
authorities and do not remove their responsibility for
ensuring their statutory obligations on child protection
and children’s social care are met.
Dominic Cummings
1
Table 5, National Tables, SFR51/2013:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nationalcurriculum-assessments-at-key-stage-2-2012-to-2013
Children: Social Services
Meg Munn: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education what steps his Department takes to ensure
that third party organisations delegated to undertake
children’s social care functions of local authorities are
of an appropriate standard.
[199693]
Kevin Brennan: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education what the (a) dates and times and (b)
purpose of all visits to his Department by Dominic
Cummings have been since Mr Cummings resigned his
[199800]
post as a special adviser.
Elizabeth Truss: This information is not held.
Mr Cummings is no longer employed by the Department
for Education.
259W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Mr Marcus Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education how many children in schools in Nuneaton
[199236]
will receive free school meals from 2014-15.
Mr Laws: The information requested is not available.
Receipt of a free school meal is dependent upon eligible
parents or pupils making an application, and it is not
possible to predict how many will do so.
We do, however, recognise that 631 pupils in reception,
year 1 and 2 were known to be eligible for and claiming
free school meals in Nuneaton constituency in January
2014. This was 18.7% of all pupils in those year groups.
With the introduction of universal infant free school
meals in September 2014, all children in reception, year
1 and year 2 will be eligible for a free school lunch.
GCSE
Kelvin Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education with reference to the answer of 16 January
2014, Official Report, column 656W, what change there
has been in the proportion of pupils at the end of key
stage 4 achieving five or more GCSEs or equivalent at
grades A*-C including English and maths in those (a)
schools and (b) academies that have established a sixth
[199349]
form since September 2011.
Mr Laws: Key stage 4 results for individual schools,
including academies, are published online in Performance
Tables.1 A copy of the list of schools and academies
that established a sixth form since 2011, with their
current details, has been placed in the House Library.
Available at:
http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/performance/
Disabled Facilities Grants
Mr Mark Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government what the average
waiting time was in each local authority for an
assessment for a disabled facilities grant in the most
recent period for which figures are available.
[199285]
Kris Hopkins: The Department for Communities and
Local Government does not collect this information.
Health
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government what use his
Department has made of the National Wellbeing Index
introduced by the Office for National Statistics in
formulating policy since the introduction of that Index
in 2011; and what policies his Department has
introduced to improve national wellbeing as defined in
[198864]
that Index since 2010.
Stephen Williams: The Office for National Statistics
is measuring National Wellbeing, not as an index but
through a framework of 41 indicators that capture
social progress around important aspects of life for
individuals, communities and the nation. The statistics
are experimental at this stage and as such we should not
expect to have examples of major policies that have
been heavily influenced by the wellbeing data at this
stage. The Department for Communities and Local
Government aims to create great places to live and
work, and give more power to local people to shape
what happens in their area. As such, many of the
Department’s policies are aligned with the wellbeing
agenda. Evidence provided to the Environmental Audit
Committee for its inquiry into Wellbeing can be found
at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-az/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/inquiries/
parliament-2010/well-being/
Sixth-Form Education: Student Numbers
Kelvin Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education with reference to the answer of 14 May
2014, Official Report, column 637W, on sixth-form
education: student numbers, (1) how the approximate
total net cost of unfilled student places in school
sixth-forms, academy sixth-forms and 16 to 19 free
[199347]
schools was calculated;
(2) what these costs were per student.
260W
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Free School Meals: Nuneaton
1
Written Answers
Furthermore, the Department is contributing £100,000
per year for three years to the “What Works Centre for
Wellbeing”. This centre will be dedicated to understanding
what local as well as national governments, voluntary
and business partners can do to increase wellbeing, and
the research programme will include a ’communities’
theme.
Housing: Disability
[199348]
Matthew Hancock: The net cost of unfilled places
referred to in my previous answer was based on the
funding per student for each individual institution and
the number of students recruited in that institution
above or below the allocated number as appropriate.
This figure was then adjusted to take into the account
the sixth-form element of funds recovered by the Education
Funding Agency from those academies which are funded
on the basis of estimated pupil numbers but which
educated fewer pupils than had been provided for in
those estimates.
Mr Mark Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government how many local
authorities in the UK maintain a register of accessible
or adapted homes; and what guidance his Department
issues to local authorities on registers of accessible
[199290]
housing.
Kris Hopkins: The Department does not hold this
information.
The Government recognises the importance of ensuring
that people with disabilities are able to access suitable
accommodation which meets their needs.
261W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Accessible housing registers can be useful and we are
aware that some councils and social landlords have
incorporated such an approach within their lettings
scheme.
The Government believes it is more important that
people who require accessible housing are given the
right level of priority under a council’s housing allocation
scheme, and that councils and social landlords are able
to make the best use of affordable housing in their area,
including accommodation which is accessible or has
been adapted.
That is why, through the Localism Act, we have
retained the statutory reasonable preference requirements
which ensure that priority for social housing is given to
those who need to move on medical and welfare grounds
(including grounds relating to a disability). We have
also made sure that council and housing association
landlords have the flexibility to use their social housing
stock in a way which best meets the needs of individual
households and their local area.
Mortgages: Government Assistance
David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government what steps his
Department is taking to assist homeowners facing
problems paying their mortgages and to provide
[199225]
practical advice and support.
Kris Hopkins: The Council of Mortgage Lenders
reported 28,900 repossessions in 2013, down from 33,900
in 2012 and the lowest level since 2007. It has revised
down its forecasts for 2014 to 28,000. The Government
is not complacent, but believes this fall in repossessions
is a consequence of improved arrears management by
lenders and action the coalition Government has taken
to tackle the deficit and keep interest rates down.
Homeowners struggling with mortgage payments should
take action as soon as possible by discussing their
situation with their lender or contacting money advice
experts such as Citizens Advice, Shelter, StepChange or
National Debtline for free and independent advice on
taking control of their finances.
Government support is available in the form of Support
for Mortgage Interest, paid as part of DWP benefits to
help eligible out-of-work households meet their monthly
mortgage interest payments. The Budget in March this
year extended the enhancements to the Support for
Mortgage Interest scheme (a shortened 13 week waiting
period and an increased capital limit of £200,000), until
31 March 2016.
Within England the Government continues to ensure
the provision of free on-the-day legal advice (the Housing
Possession Court Duty Scheme) to assist households at
possession hearings. We are providing £470 million of
funding in the current spending review period to prevent
and tackle homelessness and repossessions.
Mr Mark Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government how many
people in receipt of disability living allowance or
personal independence payments have received support
[199284]
from the Help to Buy scheme.
Kris Hopkins: This Government is committed to
supporting people’s aspirations to own their own home.
That is why we have introduced schemes such as Help to
Written Answers
262W
Buy Equity Loan scheme and Help to Buy: Mortgage
Guarantee scheme, which is managed by HM Treasury.
We do not collect data on the number of people purchasing
a home using either of the Help to Buy schemes who
are in receipt of disability living allowance or personal
independence payments.
Mortgages: Huntingdon
Mr Djanogly: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government (1) what the
average age of buyers using the Government’s Help to
Buy scheme was in Huntingdon constituency; [199063]
(2) how many applications have been made (a)
successfully and (b) unsuccessfully under the first stage
of the Government’s Help to Buy scheme in
[199059]
Huntingdon constituency;
(3) what the total value of Government assistance
provided under the Help to Buy scheme is in the
[199060]
Huntingdon constituency;
(4) what the average (a) household income and (b)
house property acquisition price was of those buying
under the Government’s Help to Buy scheme in
[199062]
Huntingdon constituency.
Kris Hopkins [holding answer 9 June2014]: The area
of Huntingdonshire district council comprises all the
Huntingdon constituency and part of the North West
Cambridgeshire constituency. Separate figures for the
Huntingdon constituency could be provided only at
disproportionate cost.
Figures for the numbers of sales under the Help to
Buy equity loan scheme as at 30 April 2014 broken
down by local authority and postcode sector are available
at
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/help-tobuy-equity-loan-scheme-monthly-statistics
I have also placed a copy of the table in the Library of
the House.
A figure for the average age of buyers in Huntingdonshire
is not available because central Government does not
collect information on the ages of buyers under the
Help to Buy equity loan scheme.
The average annual total applicant income of the 127
households that had bought a property within the area
of Huntingdonshire district council under the Help to
Buy equity loan scheme as at 31 March 2014 was
£49,181. During this period, the average purchase price
of properties bought under the scheme in the same area
was £213,573 and the total amount of equity loan
payments made by central Government was £5,424,768.
Central Government does not collect figures on the
numbers of applications that have been (a) successful or
(b) unsuccessful under the Help to Buy equity loan
scheme. A breakdown for Huntingdonshire is therefore
not available.
The Help to Buy mortgage guarantee scheme is a
matter for the Treasury. Their most recent statistics
show that the average value of the 23 properties in
Huntingdonshire that had been sold under the scheme
by 31 March 2014 was £162,228, and that the total
value of loans supported by the scheme for these
properties was £3,528,682. This information is available
from Table 7 at:
263W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/help-to-buymortgage-guarantee-scheme-quarter1y-statistics-october2013-to-march-2014
Out of Town Shopping Centres: Northampton
Andy Sawford: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government what the reason
is for the time taken to make a decision on the Rushden
Lakes development; and when he plans to announce
that decision.
[199254]
Nick Boles: The Secretary of State issued his decision
on this case on 11 June. He has decided to grant
planning permission for this development. A copy of
the decision letter and the inspector’s report has been
sent to the hon. Member and to other interested parties,
and these documents are available on the GOV.UK
website at:
https://www.gov.uk/planning-applications-called-in-decisionsand-recovered-appeals
Mr Bone: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government by what date he
plans to announce whether the Rushden Lakes/Skew
Bridge planning application has been accepted.
[199622]
Nick Boles: The Secretary of State issued his decision
on this case on 11 June. He has decided to grant
planning permission for this development. A copy of
the decision letter and the inspector’s report has been
sent to my hon. Friend and to other interested parties,
and these documents are available on the GOV.UK
website at:
Written Answers
264W
Social Rented Housing: Foreign Nationals
Steve Rotheram: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government how many
people registered for social housing in (a) Liverpool,
(b) the North West and (c) England are non-UK
nationals.
[198910]
Kris Hopkins [holding answer 9 June 2014]: Information
about the nationality of households on local authority
waiting lists is not collected centrally. Last December
we published statutory guidance for local authorities to
ensure that-with the exception of service personnel-only
those with a well-established local residency and local
association qualify for social housing. The guidance
also encourages local authorities to consider how accurate
and anonymised information on waiting list applicants
and lettings outcomes could be routinely published, to
strengthen public confidence in the fairness of their
allocation scheme.
Information on social housing lettings is collected by
the Department through the Continuous Recording of
Lettings (CORE). In 2012-13, 92% of all new social
housing (general and supported, social and affordable
rents) lettings were to households where the lead tenant
was a UK national. In Liverpool this was 91%. National
data is published annually
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-housinglettings-in-england-april-2012-to-march-2013
Ministers have been very clear that local authorities
should ensure they have up-to-date information about
prospective tenants’ nationality and immigration status,
in order to ascertain their eligibility for social housing.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-applications-called-in-decisionsand-recovered-appeals
Sleeping Rough: North West
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Developing Countries: Education
Mr Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government how many rough
sleepers there were in each local authority in the North
[199273]
West in each year since 2010.
Kris Hopkins: As outlined in the written ministerial
statement of 18 September 2012, Official Report, column
32WS, my Department no longer publishes statistics by
the former government office regions. National and
local authority data on rough sleeping can be found in
the Rough Sleeping in England statistical release, which
can be found on the Department’s website at
https://www.gov.uk/government/collectinos/homelessnessstatistics#rough-sleeping.
We are investing £470 million over the current spending
review period to help local authorities and voluntary
sector partners prevent and tackle homelessness, rough
sleeping and repossessions. This includes £20 million to
support the roll out of the ‘No Second Night Out’
standard and protect vital front line services. We have
also supported the voluntary sector to deliver ’StreetLink’
a national rough sleeping hotline, website and app, to
connect rough sleepers to local services.
On 10 June we announced that over £65 million of
funding across Whitehall is being offered to councils
and other organisations to tackle homelessness around
the country and ensure that vulnerable people can
access a range of support and lead independent lives.
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for
International Development if she will make it her
policy to support the adoption of a target to ensure all
girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality
primary and secondary education leading to relevant
and effective learning outcomes by 2030 in the Open
Working Group negotiations on the Sustainable
[199772]
Development Goals.
Justine Greening: The UK supports a target to ensure
all girls and boys complete primary and secondary
education with relevant learning outcomes in the post-2015
sustainable development framework. This language is
included in the most recent draft goals and targets list
released by the co-chairs of the Open Working Group
(OWG) on 2 June.
The final targets in the post-2015 development framework
will however be subject to international negotiations in
the United Nations, in which the UK will play an active
role.
Developing Countries: Health Services
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for
International Development if she will make it her
policy to support the adoption of a target to achieve
universal health coverage, including financial risk
265W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Written Answers
266W
protection, with particular attention to the most
marginalised and people in vulnerable situations in the
Open Working Group negotiations on the Sustainable
[199773]
Development Goals.
number of young people not in employment, education
or training by 2020 in the Open Working Group
negotiations on the Sustainable Development Goals.
Justine Greening: The UK supports the inclusion of
ensuring universal health coverage as a target under an
outcome-focused health goal. By definition, universal
health coverage includes financial risk protection. This
language is included in the most recent draft goals and
targets list released by the co-chairs of the Open Working
Group (OWG) on 2 June.
The final targets in the post-2015 development framework
will however be subject to international negotiations in
the United Nations, in which the UK will play an active
role.
Justine Greening: The UK supports a post-2015 target
on employment. This language is included in the most
recent draft goals and targets list released by the co-chairs
of the Open Working Group (OWG) on 2 June.
The final targets in the post-2015 development framework
will however be subject to international negotiations in
the United Nations, in which the UK will play an active
role.
Palestinians
Developing Countries: Housing
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for
International Development if she will make it her
policy to support the adoption of a target to ensure
universal access to adequate and affordable housing
and basic services for all, and eliminate slum-like
conditions everywhere by 2030 in the Open Working
Group negotiations on the Sustainable Development
[199771]
Goals.
[199774]
Sammy Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for
International Development how much aid her
Department has given to the Palestinian Authority in
[199228]
each of the last five years.
Mr Duncan: Information on the amounts of direct
financial assistance provided by the UK to the Palestinian
Authority over the last five years can be found on the
DFID Development Tracker website at the following
links:
http://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-1-202564/
http://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-1-113709/
Justine Greening: The UK supports the proposed
language of the most recent draft goals and targets list
released by the co-chairs of the Open Working Group
(OWG) on 2 June:
Sammy Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for
International Development what arrangements are in
place to monitor the use of funds given to the
[199229]
Palestinian Authority.
“to ensure universal access to adequate and affordable housing
and basic services for all, and eliminate slum-like conditions
everywhere,”
Mr Duncan: UK direct financial assistance to the
Palestinian Authority is channelled through the World
Bank Palestinian Reform and Development Plan Trust
Fund and is used to pay the salaries of civil servants
from an approved list. The list of individuals is systematically
screened and checked against international (including
Israeli) and ad hoc sanctions lists. The whole process is
independently audited which ensures we know exactly
where and how our money is being spent.
by 2030.
The final goals and targets in the post-2015 development
framework will be subject to international negotiations
in the United Nations, in which the UK will play an
active role.
Developing Countries: Working Conditions
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for
International Development if she will make it her
policy to support the adoption of a target to end child
labour by 2030 and protect the rights of and ensure
safe and secure working environments for all workers,
including migrant workers and those in precarious
employment in Open Working Group negotiations on
[199765]
the Sustainable Development Goals.
Justine Greening: The UK supports ending child
labour and safe and secure working environments for
all workers. This language is included in the most recent
draft goals and targets list released by the co-chairs of
the Open Working Group (OWG) on 2 June.
The final targets in the post-2015 development framework
will however be subject to international negotiations in
the United Nations, in which the UK will play an active
role.
Developing Countries: Young People
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for
International Development if she will make it her
policy to support the adoption of a target to halve the
Sammy Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for
International Development (1) whether any UK aid
given to the Palestinian Authority has been distributed
to prisoners convicted of terrorism-related activities in
[199230]
the last five years;
(2) whether any UK aid given to the Palestinian
Authority has been distributed to individuals released
from prison after serving sentences for terrorism[199231]
related activities.
Mr Duncan: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I
provided to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy
(Guto Bebb) on 31 March 2014, Official Report, column
461W.
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE
Colombia
Robert Flello: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign
and
Commonwealth
Affairs
what
representations he and his Department have received
regarding alleged fabrication of charges by the
Colombian state against David Flórez, spokesperson
[199777]
for the Patriotic March movement.
267W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Mr Swire: My Department has not received any
representations regarding alleged fabrication of charges
by the Colombian state against David Florez.
Robert Flello: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make
representations to his Colombian counterpart about
reports that agents acting on behalf of the Colombian
government are bringing trumped-up charges against
leading members of the Patriotic March movement.
Written Answers
268W
have raised our concerns about such activity during our
expanding bilateral engagement with Iran, and will
continue to do so.
Palestinians
Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign
and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has
made of recent reports that Hamas leader Khaled
Mashaal said that his organisation will not renounce
violence or recognise Israel.
[199277]
[199778]
Mr Swire: My Department has not received any
evidence regarding alleged trumped-up charges by agents
acting on behalf of the Colombian Government against
leading members of the Patriotic March movement.
Gibraltar and Spain
Mr Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what
representations he has made to the European
Commission in respect of petitions from the
Government of Gibraltar for a representative to
[199448]
monitor the border crossing;
(2) what assessment he has made of the effect of
delays on the border from British Gibraltar territory
[199447]
into Spain on vehicles crossing that border.
Mr Lidington: The delays imposed by the Spanish
authorities at the border with Gibraltar continue to
have a significant impact, resulting in significant changes
in behaviour at the border: visitor arrivals in Gibraltar
are down and vehicle traffic has fallen. The Government
is concerned about the impact that border delays are
having on businesses in both Spain and Gibraltar.
Since the beginning of the disruption last summer,
the Government has raised this issue regularly with the
European Commission. We recently sent detailed
information on the delays, supplied by Her Majesty’s
Government of Gibraltar, to the Director General for
Home Affairs, together with an update on the steps
taken by Her Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar to
address the recommendations made to them by the
Commission. Ministers have also been in direct contact
with the Commission, including the Commissioner for
Home Affairs. In our conversations we stressed the
need for the Commission to make follow-up visits to
monitor the continuing delays. We continue to request
that the Commission urge Spain to act on their
recommendations and return border checks to reasonable
and proportionate levels.
Iran
Mr Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign
and
Commonwealth
Affairs
what
recent
representations he has made to his Iranian counterpart
on that country’s material and financial support for
[199626]
terror organisations. [R]
Hugh Robertson: We have serious concerns about
Iran’s support for a number of militant groups in the
Middle East, including Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic
Jihad (PIJ), the military wing of Hamas, and Shia
militia groups, including in Iraq. This support undermines
prospects for peace and stability in the Middle East. We
Hugh Robertson: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer
I gave him on 10 June 2014, Official Report, column
91W.
Sri Lanka
Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which (a) Sri
Lankan Government representatives and (b) Sri
Lankan non-governmental organisations and civil
society organisations (i) were invited to and (ii)
attended the Global summit to End Sexual Violence in
[199776]
Conflict.
Mr Swire: The Global Summit to End Sexual Violence
in Conflict that the Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs is co-hosting with the Special
Envoy of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
from 10-13 June 2014 will turn the political commitments
contained in the Declaration of Commitment to End
Sexual Violence in Conflict into practical action. All
governments that have endorsed the declaration have
been invited. We have invited the Sri Lankan high
commissioner to London to attend as an observer, as
Sri Lanka has not yet endorsed the Declaration. We
have invited a range of Sri Lankan civil society
representatives and hope that their expertise of the
situation on the ground will contribute to the discussion
of the issues at hand.
Transcaucasus
Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions
he has held with the Russian government on the right
to self-determination of people in the North Caucasus.
[199762]
Mr Lidington: I have not specifically discussed the
right to self-determination of people in the North Caucasus
with the Russian Government. However, this Government
regularly raises concerns about the human rights situation
in Russia with the Russian Government. Concerns about
the human rights situation in the North Caucasus were
included in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s
2013 Annual Human Rights Report.
HEALTH
Abortion
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
what research his Department has (a) conducted and
(b) evaluated into the circumstances in which a typical
abortion is performed on the grounds that it is
necessary to prevent the physical or mental health of
any existing children of the family of the pregnant
[199183]
woman; and if he will make a statement.
269W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Jane Ellison: No research has been commissioned by
the Department. It is for two doctors, in the light of
their clinical opinion of the circumstances of the pregnant
woman’s individual case, to form an opinion in good
faith that one and the same of the lawful grounds in the
Abortion Act are met.
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
how many women (a) of each age group, (b) in each
health authority area and (c) of each type of
complication and cause of death died following health
complications after abortion procedures in (i) 2012, (ii)
[199192]
2013 and (iii) 2014 to date.
Jane Ellison: In 2012, no deaths were recorded on
Abortion Notification form HSA4 submitted to the
chief medical officers of England and Wales. No data
have been published by the Confidential Enquiry into
Maternal Death for the years requested but will be
available in due course.
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
how many women (a) of each age group, (b) in each
health authority area and (c) suffering from each type
of complication suffered health complications
following abortion procedures in (i) 2012, (ii) 2013 and
[199194]
(iii) 2014 to date.
Jane Ellison: The following tables show categories of
information collected on form HSA4 about complications
of abortion up to time of discharge. The categories are
headed ’none’, ’haemorrhage’, ’uterine perforation’, ’sepsis’,
and ‘other’. Health authority data is not available. Data
were analysed by local authority and grouped into
regions to protect patient confidentiality. The data is for
2012 only; 2013 and 2014 data has not been published
yet.
Abortions with complications by age, residents of England and Wales, 2012
Age
Number
Under 20
35
20 to 24
73
25 to 29
72
30 to 34
57
35 and over
41
Total
278
Abortions with complications by region, residents of England and Wales, 2012
Region
Number
Yorkshire and the Humber
30
North West
32
North East
12
West Midlands
25
East
36
London
48
South East
34
South West
22
Wales
17
Total
278
Total abortions by complication, residents of England and Wales, 2012
Complication1
Number
Haemorrhage
216
Written Answers
270W
Total abortions by complication, residents of England and Wales, 2012
Complication1
Number
Uterine perforation
22
Sepsis
40
Other
0
Total
278
1
Complications are those reported up to the time of discharge.
Fiona Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
how many abortions were performed for foetal
abnormality in each of the last five years which were
reported to a foetal abnormality register but were not
notified through the submission of an HSA4 abortion
notification form to the Chief Medical Officer. [199204]
Jane Ellison: Results from a matching exercise undertaken
on the 2011 and 2012 data between the abortion notification
forms and NDSCR records were published on 23 May
2014 entitled ‘Matching Department of Health abortion
notifications and data from the National Down’s Syndrome
Cytogenetic Register and recommendations for improving
notification compliance’. No matching exercise was
undertaken for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010. A copy
of the report has been placed in the Library. It is also
available at:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/under-reporting-ofabortions-for-fetal-abnormalities
Fiona Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
how many abortions were performed beyond the 24
week limit where feticide was declined in each of the
[199205]
last five years.
Jane Ellison: Information on whether feticide was
declined is not collected on the abortion notification
form HSA4.
Fiona Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
what steps he intends to take to endure that literature
distributed by abortion clinics informing women about
adoption as an alternative to abortion under the new
Revised Standard Operating Procedures for the
Approval of Independent Places for the Termination of
Pregnancy is of the highest possible quality and
[199240]
objectivity.
Jane Ellison: The updated Required Standard Operating
Procedures set out that:
“women must be given impartial, accurate and evidence based
information (verbal and written) delivered neutrally”
covering a range of issues including adoption. Part of
the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) inspection
methodology is to look for open and honest communication
from a service provider about the nature of the services
it provides. The CQC’s inspectors would ask to see a
sample of information that would be provided to service
users and use this as part of the decision-making process
when making a judgment.
Fiona Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
with reference to the Revised Standard Operating
Procedures for the Approval of Independent Places for
the Termination of Pregnancy, what assessment he has
made of the possibility that inaccurate diagnoses will
follow his Department’s decision to allow women to
refrain from informing their GP of a prior abortion.
[199241]
271W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Written Answers
272W
Jane Ellison: Women seeking an abortion have the
right to confidentiality and their decision must be respected
if they do not want their general practitioner to be
informed.
Jane Ellison: The Required Standard Operating
Procedures make clear that women can choose to delay
appointments/booked procedures and this should always
override issues of timeliness.
Abortion: Counselling
Cancer
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
(1) what (a) formal and (b) informal discussions
officials had with (i) pro-life organisations, (ii) the
British Pregnancy Advisory Service, (iii) Marie Stopes
International and (iv) pro-choice organisations before
the publication of guidance on the provision of
non-judgemental counselling; and if he will make a
[199214]
statement;
(2) how many staff of each grade are employed in his
[199184]
Department’s Sexual Health Policy Team;
(3) which Directorate in his Department produced
guidance on the provision of non-judgemental
counselling; which Directorate has policy responsibility
for implementation of this guidance; and if he will
[199212]
make a statement.
Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health what steps he is taking to reduce the incidence
of patients with cancer of the unknown primary first
[199342]
presenting at accident and emergency.
Jane Ellison: Departmental officials have made a
number of visits and have had informal discussions
with a number of counselling providers which included
pro-life and pro-choice organisations; these are listed as
follows.
Organisations visited or with which contact was made
Brook Advisory Centre, Brixton
British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), Richmond
Care Confidential, Alternatives Trust, Newham
City Pregnancy Counselling and Psychotherapy Service, Islington
Homerton NHS Trust, Hackney
Hull Sexual and Reproductive Health Care Partnership
Life Care Centre, Walsall
Marie Stopes International, Brixton and Bristol
Norwich Contraception and Sexual Health Clinic
Plymouth Community Healthcare
The Government produced guidance on the provision
of non-judgmental abortion counselling in ‘A Framework
for Sexual Health Improvement in England’ (March
2013). The Framework was produced by the sexual
health policy team in the Public Health Directorate.
The Sexual Health Policy team is made up of the
following staff at each grade:
one Senior Civil Servant (who also manages policy areas other
than sexual health)
one Grade 6
two Grade 7
one Senior Executive Officer
one Higher Executive Officer (seven whole time equivalent)
one Executive Officer
Fiona Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
with reference to the Revised Standard Operating
Procedures for the Approval of Independent Places for
the Termination of Pregnancy, what steps he is taking
to ensure that patients seeking abortion counselling are
not subject to pressure to agree to the procedure as a
result of his Department’s requirement that abortion
treatment must be delivered within 10 days of the first
appointment; and if he will make a statement. [199239]
Jane Ellison: NHS England expects that the treatment
and care for patients with Cancer of Unknown Primary
reflects patients’ needs and preferences and that services
are provided taking into account National Institute for
Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines.
Public Health England leads on developing a public
health strategy for England which aims to tackle ‘upstream’
factors to reduce risks from cancer caused by tobacco,
alcohol and obesity and to promote health through
improved diets and exercise promotion. The national
health service has a key role to play in supporting local
authorities by commissioning smoking cessation services,
specialist alcohol services, as well as through raising
awareness of lifestyle risks with people who are in
contact with NHS services and providing intensive support
where needed.
Alongside supporting Public Health England to increase
symptom awareness among the general population, NHS
England is also working to increase cancer symptom
awareness among health care professionals, and to provide
support to general practitioners in early diagnosis.
In 2013-14 NHS England made £2.3 million available
to support improved symptom awareness and early
diagnosis. The majority of this funding was provided to
strategic clinical networks which have the function of
coordinating a more strategic approach to the development
of cancer commissioning and provision in England.
They also support early diagnosis through delivery of
transparent data about performance in outcomes. For
example, new indicators on stage of diagnosis of cancer
and diagnosis through emergency routes are being
introduced as part of the clinical commissioning group
(CCG) outcomes indicator set in 2014-15. This will
support CCGs to understand how their local communities
are performing in relation to cancer outcomes.
Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health what steps his Department is taking to improve
the collection and reporting of data relating to the
incidence of cancer of the unknown primary. [199343]
Jane Ellison: Information has recently been published
by Public Health England’s National Cancer Intelligence
Network (NCIN) about the routes taken by patients
prior to a diagnosis of cancer of unknown primary
(CUP), and the links between age and socio-economic
deprivation and CUP. These publications increase our
understanding of the epidemiology of CUP and allow
clinical teams to benchmark their levels of CUP diagnoses.
A survey of CUP registration and reporting practices
in the United Kingdom, Ireland and Australia was
recently conducted by the NCIN and the University of
New South Wales. The results, which identified differences
in CUP registration practice, are currently being analysed
273W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
by the NCIN and will be used to develop a better
understanding of historic data. The findings can also
support and inform future standardisation of national
and international registration guidance.
Preliminary results from the CUP survey will be
presented at the Cancer Outcomes Conference-the Power
of Information 2014.
Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health what assessment he has made of the importance
of psychological support services for patients suffering
[199344]
from cancer of the unknown primary.
Jane Ellison: The National Institute for Health and
Care Excellence (NICE) guidance manual: Improving
Supportive and Palliative Care for Adults with Cancer:
www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/csgspmanual.pdf
provides a framework for the provision of psychological
support in people with cancer—including cancer of
unknown primary.
The NICE clinical guideline for Depression with a
chronic physical health problem (CG91) is also a useful
resource.
All patients should have systematic psychological
assessment and have access to an appropriate psychological
intervention from professionals competent to provide
them.
Care Homes: West Sussex
Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State
for Health (1) what steps he plans to take to implement
the recommendations of the Serious Case Review into
[199801]
the private care home sector in West Sussex;
(2) what plans he has to reform the Care Quality
[199802]
Commission.
Norman Lamb: The Department has noted the report
of the serious case review into deaths at Orchid View
care home. The great majority of the report’s
recommendations are for local attention and response.
However, the Department is taking action to improve
the regulation and oversight of care providers and to
enhance protection from abuse and neglect.
The Care Act places care and support law into a
single statute for the first time and enshrines the principle
of individual well-being as the driving force behind it. It
ensures that people will have clearer information and
advice to help them navigate the system, and a more
diverse, high quality range of support to choose from to
meet their needs.
The Act sets local authorities’responsibility for protecting
adults with care and support needs from abuse or
neglect in primary legislation. This is vital to ensure
clear accountability, roles and responsibilities for helping
and protecting adults with care and support needs who
are experiencing, or at risk of, abuse or neglect as a
result of those needs. Local authorities are given a lead
role in coordinating local safeguarding activity.
Following the failure of Southern Cross Healthcare,
the Government consulted widely on how to address
the issues around the financial failure of large care
providers. The Care Act establishes the Care Quality
Commission (CQC) as the financial regulator of providers
which, because of their size, geographical coverage or
specialism, could cause difficulty to local authorities in
arranging alternative care in such circumstances.
Written Answers
274W
The CQC will look at the finances of these providers
and, where there are significant concerns about financial
sustainability, take action to ensure a provider is taking
steps to return to financial health. Where that is not
possible, the CQC will share all the information it has
with relevant local authorities, to help them minimise
the negative effects should the provider fail and to
ensure a smooth process that provides continuing care
to individuals.
The aim of this new regime is not to prop up failing
providers, but to provide reassurance and co-ordinate
continuity of care for people affected should a care
business fail. The CQC is currently working to establish
this new function, which will begin in April 2015 and sit
alongside its role to oversee the quality of providers. In
the meantime, the Department has a team overseeing
the finances of the five largest providers.
Significant reform is already under way to ensure the
CQC is an effective regulator. Chief inspectors have
been appointed, for hospitals, adult social care, and
general practice. The CQC is putting in place specialist
inspection teams, headed by the chief inspectors, to
carry out more in-depth inspections that subject providers
to greater scrutiny than before.
Under the leadership of the chief inspectors and,
after a phase of testing, since April 2014 all acute
national health service trusts inspections have used the
new methodology; the inspection reports from this wave
were all published by March 2014, three of which
produced a shadow rating. The CQC is completing the
second wave of inspections and all 13 of the 19 inspection
reports already published have a shadow rating. The
CQC also began testing its new inspection model in
mental health, community services and NHS general
practice out of hours services in January 2014 and in
adult social care in April 2014.
Subject to parliamentary agreement, regulations will
introduce new fundamental standards as requirements
for registration with the CQC. These will allow the
CQC to take robust action against providers that do not
deliver an acceptable standard of care. The CQC will
produce ratings of the quality of care ranging from
“outstanding” to “inadequate”, to provide service users
with a fuller picture of the quality of care available. The
aim is to introduce both sets of regulations in October
2014.
Cervical Cancer
Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health (1) what steps his Department is taking to
implement the recommendations of the Demos report,
Behind the Screen, to increase uptake of cervical
[199629]
screening;
(2) what assessment he has made of the conclusions
of the Demos report, Behind the Screen on (a) the
decline in screening rates for all age groups and (b) the
costs to both the NHS and individual women of
[199630]
screening uptake levels;
(3) what plans his Department has to (a) support
cervical Screening Awareness Week and (b) promote
awareness by other means of the importance of
cervical cancer screening for cervical abnormalities and
cancer; and if he will make it his policy to set a target
[199664]
of 85 per cent for screening uptake.
275W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Jane Ellison: We welcome the Demos report, Behind
the screen: “Revealing the true cost of cervical cancer...”,
which we have discussed in detail with Public Health
England (PHE). On the specific recommendations in
the report:
it is NHS Cervical Screening Programme policy that general
practitioners should offer ’on the spot’ cervical screening tests to
women during other appointments, as long as they are overdue.
In 2012-13, more than 500,000 were taken without an immediate
invitation;
on awareness campaigns, PHE is looking at a number of other
cancers for potential local pilot tests within the Be Clear on
Cancer programme, and a decision will be made later in the
summer;
a strategy on using celebrities or religious leaders to improve
coverage would need to be tied in with any overall marketing
campaign, but previous experience shows that this only has a
short-term effect and needs frequent repetition. The publicity
around Jade Goody, diagnosis, illness and subsequent death,
brought in many under-screened women, but this dissipated within
months following Jade’s death at the end of March 2009; and
PHE has funded research on the effects of mother/daughter
relationships on uptake of screening and vaccination, including
in lower socio-economic groups. PHE would be very happy to
discuss this with Demos and Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust.
We know that for a number of reasons coverage rates
among women have fallen slightly over the last decade,
as highlighted further in the report, and a considerable
amount of work is under way to tackle this decline. The
third annual report of our Cancer Outcomes Strategy
said that a priority for 2014-15 will be to improve
screening uptake among disadvantaged groups. PHE is
undertaking analysis on local screening programmes
with poor coverage, and will work with them to develop
action plans to increase coverage in their local areas.
Specifically on younger women, the National Institute
for Health Research Health Technology Assessment
programme has commissioned a £1 million study to
determine which interventions are effective at increasing
screening uptake among women who are receiving their
first invitation from the programme. We also know that
coverage rates are lower in certain communities. NHS
Cancer Screening Programmes have worked with Jo’s
Cervical Cancer Trust to host two events looking at
challenges to screening uptake among black and minority
ethnic communities, and a third event is due to be held
in Birmingham in July 2014. NHS Cancer Screening
Programmes has also funded an award winning Lesbian
and Gay Foundation’s Are You Ready for Your Screen
Test? campaign targeting lesbian and bisexual women
to raise awareness about the need to attend for regular
cervical screening tests.
Regarding costs discussed in the report, we will ensure
that the report is sent to colleagues in NHS England
who are responsible for commissioning the cervical
screening service. The report will also be discussed at
the next meeting of the Advisory Committee on Cervical
Screening in the autumn.
Acceptable and achievable standards for cervical
screening coverage rates are being discussed as part of
the update of the cervical screening service specification
attached to the NHS public health functions agreement:
Public health functions to be exercised by NHS England
(section 7a agreement) for 2015-16.
We are fully supportive of Cervical Screening Awareness
Week (CSA Week) and the work Jo’s Cervical Cancer
Trust does, who I met recently.
Written Answers
276W
I wrote to all Members of Parliament on 11 June to
draw their attention to CSA Week, update them on
national and local screening statistics and ask for their
support in promoting take-up of screening. In addition,
the Department and PHE promoted CSA Week on
social media.
Chlamydia
Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health how many people (a) sought chlamydia
screening and (b) tested positive in each local
authority in 2012-13.
[199243]
Jane Ellison: The table contains the number of chlamydia
tests and diagnoses made in each Upper Tier local
authority in England for the most recent year-for which
data are available (2012) for 15 to 24-year-olds.
Chlamydia tests and diagnoses made in each upper tier local authority in
England
Public Health
England centre
name
Upper local
authority name
Positive tests
Total number of
tests
London
Barking and
Dagenham
601
8,365
London
Barnet
561
7,137
London
Bexley
373
4,530
London
Brent
889
11,782
London
Bromley
447
6,855
London
Camden
909
14,859
London
City of London
London
Croydon
London
London
8
126
1,233
12,346
Ealing
521
8,122
Enfield
450
7,542
London
Greenwich
896
12,602
London
Hackney
1,090
13,761
London
Hammersmith
and Fulham
466
5,515
London
Haringey
1,297
12,244
London
Harrow
324
3,720
London
Havering
417
7,606
London
Hillingdon
589
11,720
London
Hounslow
615
8,693
London
Islington
612
7,771
London
Kensington and
Chelsea
296
4,241
London
Kingston upon
Thames
409
6,355
London
Lambeth
2,460
23,753
London
Lewisham
1,536
16,649
London
Merton
371
4,945
London
Newham
989
13,378
London
Redbridge
478
8,442
London
Richmond upon
Thames
238
4,319
London
Southwark
1,409
15,936
London
Sutton
391
5,239
London
Tower Hamlets
660
11,855
London
Waltham Forest
692
10,625
London
Wandsworth
977
12,139
London
Westminster
435
6,116
South Midlands and
Hertfordshire
Bedford
652
5,907
South Midlands and
Hertfordshire
Central
Bedfordshire
356
4,979
South Midlands and
Hertfordshire
Hertfordshire
2,403
33,184
South Midlands and
Hertfordshire
Luton
380
5,135
277W
Written Answers
Chlamydia tests and diagnoses made in each upper tier local authority in
England
Public Health
England centre
name
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Chlamydia tests and diagnoses made in each upper tier local authority in
England
Upper local
authority name
Positive tests
Total number of
tests
South Midlands and
Hertfordshire
Milton Keynes
678
9,023
South Midlands and
Hertfordshire
Northamptonshire
East Midlands
Derby
East Midlands
East Midlands
East Midlands
Leicestershire
1,343
East Midlands
Lincolnshire
1,646
East Midlands
Nottingham
1,909
East Midlands
Nottinghamshire
1,914
East Midlands
Rutland
60
Anglia and Essex
Cambridgeshire
1,340
26,983
Anglia and Essex
Essex
2,128
27,402
Anglia and Essex
Norfolk
1,699
20,016
Anglia and Essex
Peterborough
588
Anglia and Essex
Southend-onSea
361
Anglia and Essex
Suffolk
1,160
18,425
Anglia and Essex
Thurrock
313
3,459
West Midlands
Birmingham
4,065
47,614
West Midlands
Coventry
1,127
13,552
West Midlands
Dudley
275
3,911
West Midlands
Herefordshire,
County of
382
West Midlands
Sandwell
West Midlands
West Midlands
West Midlands
Staffordshire
West Midlands
West Midlands
West Midlands
Walsall
West Midlands
West Midlands
1,588
278W
Public Health
England centre
name
Upper local
authority name
Positive tests
Total number of
tests
Greater Manchester
Salford
910
9,949
Greater Manchester
Stockport
563
7,055
Greater Manchester
Tameside
686
7,795
Greater Manchester
Trafford
491
6,622
Greater Manchester
Wigan
1,034
10,402
North East
County
Durham
1,188
22,986
22,696
North East
Darlington
234
3,486
21,741
North East
Gateshead
521
6,326
22,553
North East
Hartlepool
400
5,390
18,589
North East
Middlesbrough
821
8,555
896
North East
Newcastle
upon Tyne
2,027
26,921
North East
North
Tyneside
598
8,157
5,666
North East
Northumberland
659
10,699
4,958
North East
Redcar and
Cleveland
525
5,798
North East
South
Tyneside
655
7,219
North East
Stockton-onTees
864
9,723
20,053
858
8,986
Derbyshire
1,726
27,988
Leicester
1,058
16,567
North East
Sunderland
723
9,408
and
Barnsley
545
6,076
3,810
Yorkshire
Humber
Bradford
1,100
13,316
5,183
Yorkshire
Humber
and
594
Shropshire
450
5,949
Calderdale
485
4,585
467
6,016
Yorkshire
Humber
and
Solihull
1,717
29,735
and
Doncaster
987
10,431
Stoke-on-Trent
654
11,450
Yorkshire
Humber
Telford and
Wrekin
325
5,309
Yorkshire
Humber
and
East Riding of
Yorkshire
289
4,090
1,649
21,377
Yorkshire
Humber
and
Kingston upon
Hull, City of
1,004
13,569
Warwickshire
972
11,204
Kirklees
1,191
11,253
403
4,167
Yorkshire
Humber
and
Wolverhampton
3,276
33,985
Worcestershire
996
13,168
Leeds
and
Cheshire East
726
10,473
Yorkshire
Humber
and
Cheshire
Merseyside
7,774
Cheshire West
and Chester
809
10,580
North East
Lincolnshire
687
and
Yorkshire
Humber
and
Cheshire
Merseyside
3,562
Halton
444
5,539
North
Lincolnshire
271
and
Yorkshire
Humber
and
Cheshire
Merseyside
10,051
Knowsley
508
6,766
North
Yorkshire
743
and
Yorkshire
Humber
and
Cheshire
Merseyside
Rotherham
1,067
11,331
and
Liverpool
1,883
23,734
Yorkshire
Humber
and
Cheshire
Merseyside
Sheffield
1,794
24,003
and
Sefton
645
7,818
Yorkshire
Humber
and
Cheshire
Merseyside
Wakefield
770
9,851
and
St Helens
502
7,481
Yorkshire
Humber
and
Cheshire
Merseyside
York
361
4,647
and
Warrington
884
10,045
Yorkshire
Humber
and
Cheshire
Merseyside
Wirral
939
12,662
Bath and
North East
Somerset
4,043
and
Avon,
Gloucestershire and
Wiltshire
252
Cheshire
Merseyside
Cumbria
Lancashire
and
Blackburn
with Darwen
467
5,357
Bristol, City of
2,210
32,884
Cumbria
Lancashire
and
Blackpool
876
8,040
Avon,
Gloucestershire and
Wiltshire
Gloucestershire
1,270
16,095
Cumbria
Lancashire
and
Cumbria
948
11,921
Avon,
Gloucestershire and
Wiltshire
Cumbria
Lancashire
and
Lancashire
3,444
42,137
Avon,
Gloucestershire and
Wiltshire
North
Somerset
391
4,486
Avon,
Gloucestershire and
Wiltshire
South
Gloucestershire
233
3,336
Avon,
Gloucestershire and
Wiltshire
Swindon
611
5,770
West Midlands
Greater Manchester
Bolton
921
9,393
Greater Manchester
Bury
469
4,748
Greater Manchester
Manchester
2,160
24,283
Greater Manchester
Oldham
581
6,965
Greater Manchester
Rochdale
619
6,305
279W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Chlamydia tests and diagnoses made in each upper tier local authority in
England
Public Health
England centre
name
Upper local
authority name
Positive tests
Total number of
tests
Written Answers
280W
others. NHS England is providing a package of support
to help CCGs to improve timely diagnosis and postdiagnosis support for people with dementia.
In addition, the Government’s refreshed Mandate to
Health Education England, published on 1 May 2014,
stated that a further 250,000 NHS staff will receive Tier
1 training on dementia by March 2015, in addition to
the 100,000 NHS staff who received Tier 1 training in
2013-14.
Avon,
Gloucestershire and
Wiltshire
Wiltshire
972
11,031
Devon, Cornwall
and Somerset
Cornwall
1,329
16,195
Devon, Cornwall
and Somerset
Devon
1,895
21,499
Devon, Cornwall
and Somerset
Isles of Scilly
<5
43
Devon, Cornwall
and Somerset
Plymouth
706
7,366
Devon, Cornwall
and Somerset
Somerset
1,016
13,081
Devon, Cornwall
and Somerset
Torbay
522
4,186
Wessex
Bournemouth
643
9,544
Wessex
Dorset
629
10,477
Wessex
Hampshire
2,638
42,073
Wessex
Isle of Wight
299
4,755
Wessex
Poole
245
3,889
Wessex
Portsmouth
910
18,460
Wessex
Southampton
691
12,518
Kent, Surrey and
Sussex
Brighton and
Hove
1,493
24,387
Kent, Surrey and
Sussex
East Sussex
996
13,180
Kent, Surrey and
Sussex
Kent
3016
45,193
Kent, Surrey and
Sussex
Medway
533
5,632
Kent, Surrey and
Sussex
Surrey
1,460
20,195
Kent, Surrey and
Sussex
West Sussex
1,318
14,278
Thames Valley
Bracknell
Forest
128
1,569
[199338]
Thames Valley
Buckinghamshire
Thames Valley
Oxfordshire
Thames Valley
Thames Valley
Norman Lamb: The dementia friendly communities
recognition process was launched by Alzheimer’s Society
in September 2013 and 55 communities have already
signed up. We have therefore increased our original
ambition of 20 communities committed to work to
become dementia friendly, as set out in the Prime Minister’s
Challenge on Dementia, to reach 75 communities by
March 2015. In addition, 59 local authorities are members
of local Dementia Action Alliances.
The Department has worked with Alzheimer’s Society
to develop the recognition process for dementia friendly
communities. Malpas has signed up to the recognition
process and is receiving support in its work to become
dementia friendly. The Department is also working
with Alzheimer’s Society and the British Standards
Institute to develop a code of practice for dementia
friendly communities, which will help communities to
continue in their work to become dementia friendly.
578
6,703
1,186
23,873
Reading
854
10,655
Slough
242
2,664
Thames Valley
West Berkshire
180
1,863
Thames Valley
Windsor and
Maidenhead
154
1,798
Thames Valley
Wokingham
190
2,200
Notes:
1. Data includes chlamydia tests and diagnoses among people accessing services
located in England who are also residents in England.
2. Data represents the number of tests and diagnoses reported, and not the
number of people tested or diagnosed.
3. Data presented are based on tests with confirmed positive and negative
results only. Tests with equivocal, inhibitory and insufficient results have been
excluded as most people with these results are retested.
Dementia
Mr O’Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
what steps he is taking to improve standards of NHS
[199335]
care for dementia sufferers.
Norman Lamb: NHS England has an ambition that
two thirds of the estimated number of people with
dementia should have a diagnosis and access to post
diagnostic support by March 2015. We are informed by
NHS England that there is a tremendous amount of
work being undertaken by clinical commissioning groups
(CCGs) across the country to improve diagnosis rates
and quality of care for people with dementia. NHS
England has found wide variation; with some CCGs
having a longer journey to achieve the ambition than
Mr O’Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
what funds his Department has provided for research
into cures for dementia since 2012; and what progress
has been made on such cures since the launch of the
Dementia Challenge.
[199336]
Norman Lamb: At the G8 dementia summit in December
2013, the G8 countries agreed to work together to
tackle and defeat dementia. The declaration, built on
the Prime Minister’s Dementia Challenge, announced
the G8’s ambition to identify a cure or a disease-modifying
therapy by 2025 and to increase collectively and significantly
the amount of funding for dementia research.
Investment in dementia research by the Department’s
National Institute for Health Research has increased
from £12.6 million in 2009-10 to £24.4 million in 2012-13.
Mr O’Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
(1) how many local authorities have signed up to
become dementia friendly since the launch of the
Dementia Challenge; and what other progress has been
[199337]
made since that date;
(2) what steps his Department is taking to help
Malpas to develop a dementia friendly community.
Mr O’Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
what resources his Department has allocated to help
[199341]
carers of dementia patients.
Norman Lamb: Carers are central to the Government’s
reform of social care and support, with significant
improvements in the Care Act which extends carers’
rights to an assessment which will be based on the
appearance of a need for support. For the first time,
local authorities will be required to meet carers’ eligible
needs for support. The Act also creates a new statutory
281W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
principle to promote an individual’s well-being, including
health and emotional well-being, which will apply equally
to carers.
We have provided £400 million to the national health
service over four years from 2011 for carers to have
breaks from their caring responsibilities. In the 2013
spending review, we announced the £3.8 billion Better
Care Fund, which includes £130 million funding for
carers’ breaks for 2015-16.
Food Banks
Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health when he or other Ministers of his Department
have visited a foodbank in order to assess the
contribution of foodbanks to public health and
[199814]
nutrition.
Dr Poulter: No departmental Ministers have made a
visit to a food bank since May 2010 on official departmental
business, but this does not preclude visits in their personal
capacities or as constituency MPs.
Health Services: Foreign Nationals
Mr Ivan Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health what assessment he has made of the effect on
devolved NHS services of changes to the way
temporary migrants and visitors access the NHS in
[199632]
England.
Jane Ellison: The intention of the relevant powers in
the Immigration Act 2014 is to ensure that temporary
migrants and visitors make a fair contribution towards
the cost of any national health service healthcare they
receive in the United Kingdom. Under the Act, temporary
migrants will be required to pay a health surcharge
when applying for a visa to reside in the UK for more
than six months. The devolved Administrations will
receive a proportion of funds received from the surcharge.
It will be for the devolved Administrations to decide
whether they spend this on health services and whether
they amend their health service charging regulations for
other visitors to the UK.
If charges for some primary care services in England
are introduced to visitors to the UK, those services will
continue to be free of charge to people who are ordinarily
resident in the UK. Therefore, residents of the devolved
Administrations will continue to be treated on the same
basis as an English resident if they access primary care
services in England.
However, introducing charging for visitors may influence
behaviour near the borders if visitors from overseas in
England choose to travel to the other countries to
access primary care services that they would have to pay
for in England.
The proposed new process for registering with the
NHS in England is unlikely to affect the healthcare
systems in the devolved administrations but it may
mean that residents from the devolved Administrations
who access NHS care in England are asked more often
to demonstrate that they are ordinarily resident in the
UK, or otherwise entitled to free NHS care in England.
We will continue our discussions with colleagues in
the devolved Administrations on all of these issues.
Written Answers
282W
Mr Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
(1) what estimate he has made of the costs of treatment
of UK nationals in each other European Economic
Area country in (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12, (c) 2012-13
and (d) 2013-14; and if he will make a statement;
[199766]
(2) what estimate he has made of the cost of treating
European Economic Area nationals who received NHS
treatment in each region of the UK in (a) 2010-11, (b)
2011-12, (c) 2012-13 and (d) 2013-14; and if he will
[199767]
make a statement;
(3) what estimate he has made of the number of
European Economic Area nationals who received NHS
treatment in (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12, (c) 2012-13
and (d) 2013-14; and if he will make a statement;
[199768]
(4) how much income health trusts in each region or
nation of the UK received for the cost of treating
European Economic Area nationals in (a) 2010-11,
(b) 2011-12, (c) 2012-13 and (d) 2013-14; and if he
[199769]
will make a statement;
(5) how much income each NHS trust in each region
of England claimed back for the cost of treating
European Economic Area nationals in (a) 2010-11,
(b) 2011-12, (c) 2012-13 and (d) 2013-14; and if he
[199770]
will make a statement.
Jane Ellison: The following information is not held
by the Department:
income health trusts in each region or nation of the United
Kingdom received for the cost of treating European Economic
Area (EEA) nationals;
income each NHS trust in each region of England claimed
back for the cost of treating EEA nationals;
the number of EEA nationals who received NHS treatment;
the cost of treating EEA nationals who received NHS treatment
in each region of the UK.
Claims to and from EEA countries are managed
centrally by the Department on behalf of the whole of
the UK. Income claimed from EEA countries is based
on both data collected from trusts and arrangements in
place with other EEA countries under bilateral agreements.
The Department does hold information on claims to
the UK from other EEA countries for healthcare costs.
However, claims to the UK from other EEA countries
are not based on nationality-they are based on whether
the UK is judged to be responsible for someone’s healthcare
costs, for example due to residency in the UK or, for
state pensioners, someone with a UK state pension who
has retired to a different EEA country. It is therefore
not possible to provide a breakdown of costs based on
UK nationality.
Health Services: Northern Ireland
Mr Ivan Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health whether officials from his Department met their
Northern Ireland counterparts in preparation for the
EU Informal Health Council in Athens from 28 to
[199633]
29 April 2014.
Jane Ellison: Regular meetings are arranged between
officials from the Department and officials from the
devolved Administrations to discuss a range of European
health matters. Departmental officials met virtually with
their Northern Ireland counterparts in preparation for
283W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
the Informal Health Council in Athens on 28-29 April
2014, and officials from Northern Ireland contributed
to the briefing that was prepared for the Informal
Health Council.
Health, Work and Wellbeing Coordinators
Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health how members of the public can contact their
regional Health, Work and Wellbeing coordinator; how
much those coordinators are paid; by what body they
are paid; and what those coordinators’ roles entail.
[199813]
Jane Ellison: Health, Work and Wellbeing coordinators
were jointly funded by the Department for Work and
Pensions and the Department of Health. This funding
ceased in 2012.
One of Public Health England’s (PHE) priorities is
improving health in the workplace. It has 15 local
centres, where responsibility for local co-ordination sits.
Contact details for PHE’s local centres can be found
on the web at:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/phe-centre-addressesand-phone-numbers/phe-local-and-regional-contact-details
Health: Screening
Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health what plans he has to ensure that local
authorities in England pursue continuous improvement
in the proportion of their eligible population being (a)
offered and (b) taking up NHS health checks. [199812]
Jane Ellison: Public Health England (PHE) has set
out a long-term aspiration of achieving an uptake of
75% and encourages areas to offer the NHS Health
Check to 20% of the local population each year. In
2014-15, PHE has seta short term ambition of working
towards achieving a 66% uptake and offers to 20% of
the eligible population.
PHE is developing an improvement offer, tailored to
the needs of local areas, to support local action. PHE
will also enable local authorities to overcome common
issues that affect offers by actively disseminating learning
on information governance and data flows.
To support improvement in uptake PHE will work to
inform the public’s understanding of the programme.
In recent weeks PHE has launched NHS Health Check
content on NHS Choices and is planning to extend this
by developing a directory of services for England.
Research and evaluation on applying behavioural
insights to maximise uptake is also taking place. In the
coming months PHE will support a network of local
authorities to test and disseminate learning on the
approaches that maximise uptake.
The quarterly publication of both offer and uptake
data brings transparency to local delivery of the programme.
This enables local councillors, Healthwatch and the
public to use existing local government mechanisms to
scrutinise activity and encourage improvements in both
performance and quality.
Written Answers
284W
Hospital Beds
Mr Mark Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health how many hospital day beds were taken
because of delayed discharge relating to inaccessible
housing available for disabled outpatients in (a)
2013-14 and (b) May 2014.
[199260]
Norman Lamb: These data are not collected centrally.
Mr Mark Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health what steps his Department takes to ensure that
people do not face delayed discharge from hospital
because there is no suitable housing for them to be
[199264]
discharged; and if he will make a statement.
Norman Lamb: The Government is committed to
supporting the availability of suitable accommodation
for those who are being discharged from hospital. It has
already taken steps to demonstrate this commitment
and is in the process of establishing new opportunities
and mechanisms by which this can be done. Examples
of these include:
The recently passed Care Act consolidates duties on local
authorities in relation to wellbeing, which specifically include
consideration of “suitable living accommodation” as a component
of that duty.
Housing has also been classified as a “health related service”
so that housing and suitability of accommodation should be
considered in any assessment (including on discharge from hospital).
The Better Care Fund (BCF), which this Government has
established with £3.8 billion funding provides a vehicle to enhance
and increase the pace of effective integration between health and
social care. Clearly where suitable housing is identified as a
barrier to the achievement of key measures within the BCF
localities can choose to use funding within the BCF to address
this. The opportunity to do this is the inclusion within the BCF of
the Disabled Facilities Grant with £220 million being made
available within 2015-16.
The Disabled Facilities Grant is for the provision of adaptations
to the homes of disabled people to help them to live independently.
Disabled Facilities Grant adaptations include things like stair-lifts,
level access showers, winches and ramps. Many people apply for a
Disabled Facilities Grant upon exit from hospital because their
home is no longer suitable to meet their needs.
In terms of the Disabled Facilities Grant and the period of the
last spending review, £785 million was made available by the
Department for Communities and Local Government. They funded
an organisation called Foundations, which is the national body
for Home Improvement Agencies (HIAs) which help older, disabled
and vulnerable people to live independently in their own homes
for longer. HIAs deliver around 50% of all Disabled Facilities
Grants in England.
HIAs also provide additional services for older and vulnerable
people such as handyperson services, to carry out small jobs
around the home also known as minor adaptations, which are
things like grab rails, ramps and moving furniture e.g. moving a
bed downstairs. Many HIAs provide a bespoke service called
“home from hospital” or “hospital discharge” services which
adapt people’s homes allowing them to be discharged from hospital
more quickly and freeing up hospital beds. £50 million was also
made available for handyperson services during the period 2011
to 2015.
Under the homelessness legislation a household will be considered
homeless if a local housing authority determines that it would no
longer be reasonable for them to continue to occupy their
accommodation. This can clearly apply to an individual’s change
in circumstances following a stay in hospital. If a local housing
authority has reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless
or threatened with homelessness then they must make inquiries in
order to establish if they are owed a duty.
285W
Written Answers
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
If a person is homeless through no fault of their own, eligible
for assistance and in priority need then the local housing authority
will have a duty to secure suitable accommodation for the household’s
occupation. Priority need is defined in legislation to include
applicants with children and households that include someone
who is vulnerable, for example because of old age, or physical or
mental disability, have a priority need for accommodation.
The Department of Health has supported the resource “Hospital
to Home” pathway which we know many areas consider in terms
of supporting an individual’s recovery and preventing readmission.
The resource contains information, suggestions for action, case
studies and checklists for considering older patients’ housing
situations in hospital discharge and transfer of care.
The Shared Commitment for integrated care and support,
published in May 2013 and which the Department of Health, the
286W
NHS, local government and the voluntary sector were involved in
signing up to specifically highlighted the importance of suitable
housing being available as part of safe and effective discharge
from hospitals.
Hospitals: Bolton
Mr Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
what the five most common causes of admission to
hospital have been for (a) children and (b) adults in
[199210]
Bolton since 2010.
Jane Ellison: The information is shown in the following
table:
Count of Finished Admission Episodes (FAEs)1 for the highest primary diagnoses2 in Bolton Primary Care Trust3, for children (aged 0 to 17-years-old) and adults
(over 18-years-old), from 2010-11 to 2012-134
Activity in English NHS Hospitals and English NHS commissioned activity in the independent sector
Age group
0 to 17 years
Diagnosis code
Diagnosis description
2011-12
2012-13
5,365
Z38
Liveborn infants according to place of birth
3,908
4,273
B34
Viral infection of unspecified site
543
634
911
K02
Dental caries
745
705
497
J06
Acute upper respiratory infections of multiple and unspecified sites
390
362
463
P59
Neonatal jaundice from other and unspecified causes
227
385
451
J03
Acute tonsillitis
469
462
427
R10
Abdominal and pelvic pain
369
406
292
6,651
7,227
8,406
Total admissions
18+ years
2010-11
Z34
Supervision of normal pregnancy
1,620
2,369
2,646
R10
Abdominal and pelvic pain
1,884
1,972
2,128
H35
Other retinal disorders
1,020
1,623
1,839
O26
Maternal care for other conditions predominantly related to pregnancy
1,293
1,462
1,794
R07
Pain in throat and chest
1,636
1,562
1,537
H26
Other cataract
2,210
2,308
1,414
Total admissions
9,663
11,296
11,358
1
Finished admission episodes
A finished admission episode (FAE) is the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one health care provider. FAEs are counted against the year or
month in which the admission episode finishes. Admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the
period.
2
Primary diagnosis
The primary diagnosis is the first of up to 20 diagnosis fields in the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data set and provides the main reason why the patient was
admitted to hospital. For the purpose of this query, 3-character diagnosis codes were used to calculate the FAEs. There are more than five diagnoses listed for each age
group because the top five for each year have been listed.
3
PCT of main provider
This indicates the PCT area within which the organisation providing treatment was located.
4
Assessing growth through time (in-patients)
HES figures are available from 1989-90 onwards. Changes to the figures over time need to be interpreted in the context of improvements in data quality and coverage
(particularly in earlier years), improvements in coverage of independent sector activity (particularly from 2006-07) and changes in NHS practice. For example,
changes in activity may be due to changes in the provision of care.
Source:
Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Health and Social Care Information Centre.
scheduling error in (a) St Albans, (b) Hertfordshire
[199361]
and (c) England since 2005.
Hospitals: Waiting Lists
Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
how many operations have been cancelled because of
Jane Ellison: Information is not available in the format
requested. Such information as is available is shown in
the following table.
Table: Cancelled elective operations, 2005-06 to 2013-14
West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust
East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust
England
2005-06
621
856
60,803
2006-07
929
682
52,005
2007-08
1,081
873
57,382
2008-09
527
965
63,644
2009-10
383
358
62,296
2010-11
314
297
58,295
2011-12
367
220
57,087
2012-13
486
150
63,517
287W
Written Answers
288W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Table: Cancelled elective operations, 2005-06 to 2013-14
West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust
East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust
England
357
179
64,192
2013-14
Note:
Cancelled elective operations are defined as operations that were cancelled by the hospital for non-clinical reasons on the day the patient was due to arrive in hospital,
or after the patient has arrived in hospital, or on the day of the operation or surgery. The data does not distinguish between scheduling errors and other non-clinical
reasons for cancellation.
Source:
Cancelled elective operations. Published quarterly by NHS England at
www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/cancelled-elective-operations/
Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary
what the current average waiting
surgery in (a) St Albans
Hertfordshire, (c) the East of
England.
of State for Health
time is for elective
constituency, (b)
England and (d)
[199445]
Jane Ellison: The information is shown in the following
table.
Average (median) waiting time in weeks from referral to admission to hospital
for consultant-led elective treatment, March 2014
Area
St Albans
Hertfordshire
East of
England
National health service organisation
NHS Herts Valley Clinical Commissioning
Group (CCG)
10.0
NHS Herts Valley CCG
10.0
NHS East and North Hertfordshire CCG
8.6
East Anglia Area Team
8.6
Essex Area Team
England
Number of
weeks
10.2
Hertfordshire and the South Midlands Area
Team
8.3
—
8.8
Source:
Consultant-led referral to treatment waiting times, commissioner data for
admitted patient pathways, March 2014. Published by NHS England at:
www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/rtt-waiting-times/rtt-data2013-14/#Mar14
Norman Lamb: Reports of suspected adverse drug
reactions (ADRs) are collected by the Medicines and
Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and
Commission for Human Medicines through the
spontaneous reporting scheme; the Yellow Card Scheme,
The scheme has been in place since 1964 and collects
ADR reports from across the whole United Kingdom
and includes all medicines, including non-pharmacological
treatments such as herbal and homeopathic medicines.
Reports are received from healthcare professionals
and members of the public on a voluntary basis. However
there is a legal requirement for pharmaceutical companies
to report suspected ADRs to their products. The MHRA
receives approximately 30,000 ADR reports per year.
All reports received are rapidly entered onto the MHRA’s
ADR database for assessment by a team of medical,
pharmaceutical and scientific assessors. The purpose of
the scheme is to provide an early warning that the safety
of a product may require further investigation and the
scheme has a proven track record of identifying safety
issues.
National health service organisations will also record
details of adverse incidents in local risk management
systems and other datasets such as the Hospital Episodes
Statistics datasets. Many of these systems rely on accurate
coding to enable data extract and analysis, and codes
specific to non pharmacological treatments may not
always be available.
Mental Health
Human Embryo Experiments
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
how many human embryos have been (a) created for
the purposes of experimentation and (b) created for
the purposes of extermination and subsequently
[199195]
destroyed in each year since 1991.
Jane Ellison: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology
Authority has advised that it does not have a central
repository of data on the number of embryos experimented
on, nor the number of embryos created for research.
However, it does hold data on the number of embryos
stored for research, and the total number from 1 August
1991 to 30 June 2012 is 6,149.
Embryos used in a research project must be allowed
to perish as it is unlawful to use them in treatment
services.
Medical Treatments: Side Effects
Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health what steps his Department takes to record and
identify
instances
where
non-pharmacological
treatments have caused adverse reactions in patients.
[199201]
David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health what recent progress he has made on ensuring
that mental health has equal standing with physical
[199224]
health.
Norman Lamb: Mental health has been a priority for
this Government for several years now. We made this
commitment explicit in the Health and Social Care
Act 2012 which, for the first time, creates equal status
for mental and physical health across Government and
for the NHS and social care.
The Ministerial Advisory Group brings together
individuals and organisations with a specific interest in
the cross government mental health strategy “No Health
Without Mental Health” and how it is delivered.
The Mandate to NHS England 2014-15 makes clear
that ’everyone who needs it should have timely access to
evidence-based services’, this will involve extending and
ensuring more open access to programmes, in particular
for children and young people, and for those out of
work.
“Closing the Gap”, our new mental health action
plan, which has attracted widespread, cross-sector support,
sets out our priorities for essential change in mental
health, 25 areas where people can expect to see and
289W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
experience the fastest changes. The document challenges
the health and social care community to move further
and faster to transform care and support; the public
health community, alongside local government, to give
health and wellbeing promotion and prevention the
long-overdue attention it needs and deserves; and individuals
and communities to shift attitudes in mental health.
The Department of Health is leading an information
revolution around mental health. The new national
Mental Health Intelligence Network will draw together
comprehensive information about mental health and
wellbeing.
The new Crisis Care Concordat, signed by more than
20 national organisations, is a commitment for all agencies
involved in supporting someone in a crisis to work
together to improve the system of care and support so
people in crisis are kept safe and helped to find the
support they need. All the signatories have pledged to
work together and our expectation is that, in every
locality in England, local partnerships of health, criminal
justice and local authority agencies will agree and commit
to local Mental Health Crisis Declarations.
System partners are also taking responsibility for the
drive for parity. Public Health England (PHE) has
made a commitment to addressing parity of esteem
through prioritising mental health and working to embed
it throughout all PHE programmes. Greater attention is
needed to mental health throughout the public health
system and PHE seeks to enable and support this
through its leadership and delivery of a Wellbeing and
Mental Health programme. It is supporting local authorities
and other partners to give greater attention to mental
health within the public health system.
PHE was established on 1 April 2013 with the mission
to protect and improve the nation’s health and to address
inequalities through working with national and local
government, the NHS, industry and the voluntary and
community sector. PHE is an operationally autonomous
executive agency of the Department of Health.
PHE has made a commitment to addressing parity of
esteem through prioritising mental health and working
to embed it throughout all its programmes. Greater
attention is needed to mental health throughout the
public health system and PHE seeks to enable and
support this through its leadership and delivery of a
Wellbeing and Mental Health programme. It is supporting
local authorities and other partners to give greater
attention to mental health within the public health
system.
Their approach centres on the following five main
objectives:
1. Promoting good mental health and improving population
wellbeing;
2. Preventing mental health problems and preventing suicide
and self-harm;
3. Supporting people living with and recovering from mental
illness;
4. Tackling inequalities and improving the wider determinants
of wellbeing and mental health; and
5. Enabling and embedding wellbeing and mental health across
the public health system.
PHE has embraced the principles of Parity of Esteem
and from the outset and all through transition, there
has been a commitment by PHE to ensure mental
health is a core part of the new public health system
Written Answers
290W
and PHE’s work. Even though there was no central
national resource attached to mental health to be transferred
into PHE, they have invested in establishing a presence
for mental health across their work and they continue
to embed population mental health and wellbeing across
public health.
Health Education England is developing training
programmes that will enable all healthcare employers to
ensure that their staff have a greater awareness of
mental health problems and how they may affect their
patients. This will include understanding the links between
patient’s physical and mental health, so that staff know
what actions they can take to ensure that patients
receive appropriate support for both their mental and
physical health care needs.
Mental Health Services
Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health with reference to the answer of 12 May 2014,
Official Report, column 401W, on mental health
services, whether the Mental Health Intelligence
Network has been established.
[199324]
Norman Lamb: The Mental Health Intelligence Network
has been established and is due to launch its web
resource and a supporting suite of indicator tools and
supporting resources on 18 June 2014.
The key aim is to provide intelligence to enable better
service commissioning and to support service improvement
to facilitate the delivery of consistent country-wide best
practice care.
NHS: Fees and Charges
Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health what the average charge levied by health care
professionals for written reports requested by patients
who require them for (a) setting up power of attorney
and (b) other purposes is in each commissioning area.
[199246]
Dr Poulter: The information is not held centrally on
charges by health professionals, other than general
practitioners (GPs).
As regards GPs, they are required under terms of
contracts for the provision of national health services
primary medical services to provide certain medical
reports free of charge to their registered patients.
GPs may also provide other services outside of their
contract. Regulations prevent a GP from charging a
registered patient a fee for treatment under the contract
or otherwise, except in certain prescribed circumstances.
However, the provision of reports is not classed as
treatment. Consequently, GPs are able to charge for
those reports which are not deemed free.
The Professional Fees Committee of the British Medical
Association (BMA) suggests fees for such services to
help doctors set their own professional fees. However,
these fees are guidelines only, and a doctor is not
obliged to charge the rates suggested. Where doctors
intend to charge for services to patients, the BMA
advises them to forewarn patients, at the earliest opportunity,
of the likely level of fees.
291W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Nutrition: Homelessness
Mr Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
what steps he is taking to co-ordinate healthy eating
[199209]
initiatives among the homeless.
Jane Ellison: The Department supports the Inclusion
Health programme which champions the health and
health care of vulnerable groups, including homeless
people. The programme seeks to improve the health
data for these groups, and set out practical steps for
assessing needs (for example, through Joint Strategic
Needs Assessments) and commissioning services. We
are also involved in funding work in this area through
the Homeless Hospital Discharge Fund to improve
hospital discharge arrangements for people who are
homeless (£10 million in 2013-14) and £40 million capital
fund for hostel refurbishment with a focus on improving
health outcomes (2014-15).
Prescriptions: Fees and Charges
Dr Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
(1) if he will abolish prescription charges for asthma
[199363]
medication;
(2) on what basis the conditions exempt from
[199364]
prescription charges are decided.
Norman Lamb: The list of medical conditions conferring
exemption from prescription charges in England was
agreed with the medical profession in 1968. The only
addition to the list was the introduction of cancer in
2009. Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, then President of the
Royal College of Physicians, was asked in 2008 to
consider how this might be extended to cover all those
with a long-term condition. The Department published
his report in May 2010.
In the light of the challenging financial context, the
Government made clear in the Spending Review, published
in October 2010, that no changes would be made to the
current list of medical exemption. Prescription charges
in England raise valuable income, in the region of
£450 million each year, which helps the national health
service to maintain vital services for patients.
An extensive system of exemption arrangements,
including for those on low incomes who may struggle to
pay for their prescriptions, is in place which means that
around 90% of all prescription items are already dispensed
free of charge. Prescription Prepayment Certificates
(PPCs) are also available for those who have to pay
NHS prescription charges and need multiple prescriptions.
This is the fifth year the cost of an annual certificate,
and the third year the cost of a three-month certificate,
have been frozen. Both certificates will also remain at
£104 and £29.10 respectively, next year. There is no limit
to the number of items that can be obtained through a
PPC. The annual certificate benefits anyone needing
more than 12 items a year, and the three-month certificate
anyone needing more than three items in that three-month
period.
Written Answers
292W
Norman Lamb: We are advised that there are no
secure services for children commissioned by NHS England
in the South West. There are services commissioned in
other areas used by children from the South West area.
We understand that NHS England has identified a
number of actions needed to reduce the number of long
distance transfers within the Child and Adolescent Mental
Health Services, and is currently considering how to
take this forward including any necessary tendering for
services in due course.
Sleep Apnoea
Julie Hilling: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
(1) what steps his Department has taken to ensure that
commissioning of service provision for obstructive
sleep apnoea is appropriate to the predicted prevalence
[199266]
in local areas in England;
(2) what plans he has to introduce a quality standard
for the diagnosis and treatment of sleep disordered
breathing covering the range of conditions from simple
[199286]
snoring to obstructive sleep apnoea;
(3) what body has responsibility for the
implementation of recommendations made by his
Department’s former Obstructive Sleep Apnoea
[199267]
Working Group;
(4) what plans he has to introduce clinical guidelines
for the diagnosis, treatment and management of
obstructive sleep apnoea; and if he will make a
[199292]
statement.
Jane Ellison: NHS England is committed to working
with partners across the health system to reduce mortality
and improve outcomes for people with respiratory disease.
NHS England is now responsible for commissioning
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)
clinical guidelines relating to national health service
services and is responsible for liaising with NICE about
the prioritisation of NHS quality standards in development.
We understand that NICE has not been asked to develop
a clinical guideline specifically on obstructive sleep apnoea.
NICE has been commissioned to develop a quality
standard on sleep disordered breathing and will in due
course consider which conditions will be covered under
the scope of the quality standard and the need for
associated clinical guidance. Local clinical commissioning
groups (CCGs) are responsible for assessing the needs
of their local populations and for commissioning services
to meet those needs. For patients with obstructive sleep
apnoea, NHS England expects CCGs to take into account
the NICE guidelines when deciding what services should
be made available.
NHS England currently has no plans to continue the
work of the obstructive sleep apnoea working group.
However, the National Clinical Director for Respiratory
Disease, Professor Mike Morgan, will continue to consider
whether any additional specific initiatives or commissioning
protocols are needed to promote best practice and
treatment for people with obstructive sleep apnoea and
to provide advice on this.
Secure Accommodation: South West
Sleeping Rough
Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health how many secure places there are in the South
West region for children with mental health conditions
[199412]
involving violent behaviour.
Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health what progress is being made towards meeting
the health goals in the Government’s No Second Night
[199811]
Out Strategy.
293W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Jane Ellison: We have met the health goals set out
in the No Second Night Out Strategy. Action has
included setting up the Homeless Hospital Hospitals
Discharge Fund to improve hospital discharge arrangements
and provide new post-discharge respite care facilities
for homeless people, and publishing guidance
(‘Commissioning Inclusive Services’) for local Health
and Wellbeing Boards.
Work continues on improving the physical and mental
health outcomes of rough sleepers and we are investing
£40 million in 2015-16 to refurbish existing hostels to
support health improvement and reduce the demand on
health services through a new Homelessness Change
programme. This sits alongside Platform for Life, a new
programme providing shared accommodation for young
people at risk of homelessness, so they have a stable
platform for work and study.
Sugar
Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for
Health if he will revise the Government’s
Responsibility Deal to include sugar in the list of
ingredients that companies should work with caterers
to reformulate in meals as part of the H4 pledge on
[199686]
Healthier Staff Restaurants.
Jane Ellison: There are 169 organisations currently
signed up to the H4 pledge which includes a requirement
for employers to work with caterers to reformulate
recipes to ensure staff meals are lower in fat, salt and
energy and do not contain artificial trans fats. There are
currently no plans to include sugar in this list of ingredients.
However, as part of the Public Health Responsibility
Deal, 11 catering companies have signed up to take a
range of actions to help people consume fewer calories,
including through reformulation to reduce sugar content.
TRANSPORT
Air Traffic Control: Northern Ireland
Mr Ivan Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport whether he consulted his Northern Ireland
counterpart on his Department’s publication Guidance
to the Civil Aviation Authority on Environmental
Objectives Relating to the Exercise of its Air
[199639]
Navigation Functions.
Mr Goodwill: There was no specific consultation with
the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on this
publication.
Aviation: Scotland
Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport which Scottish airports will benefit from the
[198920]
Regional Air Connectivity Fund.
Mr Goodwill: The Government announced on 6 June
that a Public Service Obligation will be established on
the air route between Dundee airport and London
Stansted airport from 1 July 2014 for a two-year period,
with support from the Regional Air Connectivity Fund
announced in last year’s Spending Round.
Written Answers
294W
The Scottish devolved Administration or regional
body may apply for access to this fund to maintain an
air link from other Scottish airports to London, where
there is a risk that an existing link may be lost, and
where the case for a Public Service Obligation has been
made.
The Chancellor announced in this year’s Budget that
the funding would be doubled to £20 million per year,
and also extended to allow for the support for start-up
aid for new air routes from UK regional airports. European
Union aviation State aid guidelines allow for provision
of start-up aid to facilitate start-up of new routes from
airports which handle fewer than 5 million passengers
per annum. This will therefore cover all Scotland’s
airports apart from Glasgow and Edinburgh.
The Department for Transport is working with the
Treasury to develop guidance that will clarify how the
Government will ordinarily expect to interpret the European
Union guidelines, and explain how the funding process
will work.
Bus Services: Visual Impairment
Mr Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what steps he is taking to help blind and
partially sighted passengers travel on buses.
[199038]
Stephen Hammond: The Department for Transport is
committed to ensuring that all disabled people have the
same access to transport services and opportunities to
travel as other members of society. The Public Service
Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 (PSVAR) outline
specific requirements for the bus industry to ensure that
buses are as accessible as possible for disabled passengers.
Latest statistics (September 2013) show that 78% of
buses in England now meet PSVAR accessibility
requirements, while 92% operate with a low floor facility
and these figures continue to grow steadily.
The Department also recognises that blind and partially
sighted passengers find audio and visual announcements
particularly useful when travelling on buses. We will
therefore continue to encourage bus operators and local
authorities to invest in audio/visual announcement systems
for their buses where possible. However, we also understand
that this technology comes at a considerable cost.
With this in mind, my noble colleague, Baroness
Kramer wrote to bus operators on 4 February 2014 to
encourage the development of simpler, more affordable
audio/visual announcement systems for buses that can
provide benefits to as many passengers as possible.
Alongside this, the Department for Transport is also
looking into the possibility of establishing a research
initiative involving small businesses and academic
institutions through the “Transport Systems Catapult”
to encourage further innovation.
Carers: Travel
John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what recent discussions he has had with the
Scottish Government Minister for Transport and
Veterans on the possibility of providing free or
[199235]
discounted travel for carers in Scotland.
Stephen Hammond: Concessionary Travel is a devolved
policy area and the Secretary of State has not discussed
carer discounts with Keith Brown MSP, the Scottish
Minister for Transport and Veterans.
295W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Cycling
Mr Marcus Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what funding his Department allocated to
projects relating to cycling between (a) 2005 and 2010
[199232]
and (b) 2010 to 2014.
Mr Goodwill: During the five financial years 2005-06
to 2009-10, the Department for Transport (DFT) provided
funding for cycling through Cycling England, an arm’s
length organisation set up in 2005; in that period,
Cycling England received £105 million from the DFT.
During the five financial years 2010-11 to 2014-15,
the DFT allocated a final £63 million to Cycling England,
and has allocated direct funding of £224 million for
cycling projects, comprising: the £94 million Cycling
Cities and National Parks fund, £28.5 million for Links
to Schools/Linking Communities, the £35 million cycle
safety fund, £14.5 million for Cycle Rail, £4.8 million to
the Highways Agency and £46.8 million for Bikeability.
In addition, the DFT’s Local Sustainable Transport
Fund is providing £540 million for local authorities to
prioritise sustainable transport projects, of which 28% or
£151 million is being allocated to cycling projects. So
total investment by this Government in cycling in the
five financial years 2010-11 to 2014-15 is £438 million.
DFT funding for the LSTF and its Cycling Ambition,
Cycle-Rail, and Linking Communities funds is often
used to lever matching local contributions. When these
other sources are included, spend on cycling in England
is equal to £5 per person a year, while spend in the eight
cycling ambition cities is around £10 per person a year.
From 2015-16, the LSTF forms part of the Local
Growth Fund, a long-term funding commitment of
£2 billion a year.
Cycling: Children
Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport if he will issue guidance on the safe use of
bicycle trailers to provide a minimum level of safety for
children being towed by bicycles on the roads. [199623]
Mr Goodwill: The Department has no current plans
to issue guidance on the safe use of trailers on bicycles.
However children should be transported safely and
securely and trailers should be in a roadworthy condition
before being used on the highway.
Written Answers
296W
would be required to display a green ‘P’ plate to identify
their licence status and aid enforcement of other
recommended restrictions.
Driving Instruction: Warrington
David Mowat: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport how many approved driving instructors were
registered in the Borough of Warrington in each year
since 2007.
[198608]
Stephen Hammond: There are currently 362 approved
driving instructors (ADI) with a WA postcode. Please
note Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA)
systems do not hold specific data for the ‘Borough of
Warrington’.
DVSA’s training and registration system is a live
database and does not hold historical data; therefore it
can provide only the current number of ADIs with a
WA postcode.
Driving Tests: Warrington
David Mowat: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what proportion of applicants from the
Borough of Warrington passed their driving test in
[198615]
each year since 2007.
Stephen Hammond: The information requested is in
the following table.
Candidates
Passed
Passed
(percentage)
2007
15,799
7,734
49
2008
15,530
7,727
50
2009
13,359
6,675
50
2010
13,340
6,584
49
2011
13,130
6,533
50
2012
12,125
6,332
52
2013
12,200
6,433
53
Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency systems do not
hold specific data for the ‘Borough of Warrington’. The
data in the table reflects the number of practical test
candidates who registered a WA postcode at the time of
booking the test.
Driving
Health
Richard Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what assessment he has made of the
potential benefits of mandatory display of passed
plates by all novice drivers for a minimum period.
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what use his Department has made of the
National Wellbeing Index introduced by the Office for
National Statistics in formulating policy since the
introduction of that Index in 2011; and what policies
his Department has introduced to improve national
well-being as defined in that Index since 2010. [198872]
[199782]
Mr Goodwill: None. There is no probationary period
for new drivers and no requirement to display a ‘P’
plate. However, the Transport Research Laboratory Report
on ″Novice Drivers: Evidence review and Evaluation
Pre-Driver Training, Graduated Driver Licensing″ made
a number of recommendations on novice driver safety.
One recommendation was that on successful completion
of the driving test a driver would be permitted to
progress to a probationary licence from age 18. During
the 12 month (minimum) probationary licence the driver
Stephen Hammond: The Office for National Statistics
(ONS) is measuring National Well-being, not as an
index but through a framework of 41 indicators which
capture social progress around important aspects of life
for individuals, communities and the nation. The statistics
are experimental and we would not expect to have
examples of major policies that have been heavily influenced
by the well-being data at this stage.
297W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Evidence provided to the Environmental Audit
Committee for its Inquiry into Well-being can be found
at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-az/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/inquiries/
parliament-2010/well-being/
High Speed 2 Railway Line
Mr O’Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport (1) with reference to the answer of 31 March
2014, Official Report, column 408W, on High Speed 2
Railway Line, what the evidential basis is for the
expense and disruption caused by double-decker
carriages being greater than that caused by High
[199296]
Speed 2;
(2) with reference to the answer of 31 March 2014,
Official Report, columns 408-9W, on High Speed 2
railway line, whether his Department has subsequently
compared double-decking with revised estimates of the
[199261]
costs and effects of High Speed 2;
(3) with reference to the answer of 31 March 2014,
Official Report, column 408W, on High Speed 2
Railway Line, what the evidential basis for doubledecker carriages not releasing sufficient capacity for
[199298]
commuter services is.
Mr Goodwill: As per the answer of 31 March 2014,
since 2009 we have considered a wide range of alternative
options to a high speed railway including the use of
alternative modes, a conventional speed line and upgrades
to the existing rail network, including double decking.
Specifically, the March 2010 High Speed 2 Strategic
Alternatives Study considered the potential for using
double deck trains on WCML as one means of enhancing
capacity on conventional rail routes between London
and the West Midlands/North West. Details of this
study, including evidence of expense, disruption and
capacity, can be found at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/
www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/alternativestudy/pdf/
railintervention.pdf
This work found that while double deck carriages
could increase the number of passengers per train there
is a practical limit to the expansion of capacity in this
manner and it offers limited potential to lead to journey
time savings.
This option is also likely to lead to significant disruption
and expense. Before such trains could be used on the
West Coast Mainline, the route (including diversionary
routes) would need to be gauge cleared to allow sufficient
space for the trains to operate. This would involve
raising all overhead wires, raising bridges, modifying
platforms on the route, modifying station canopies,
moving or raising all signal gantries and other signage
on the route, and lowering track in the tunnels. Work
would need to be carried out to modify existing depots
or to provide new ones. Additional works would also be
required to enable line speeds to be maintained on the
route.
For these reasons it was concluded that there was a
strong case for not considering this option further. No
subsequent work has therefore been done to compare it
to the case for HS2.
Written Answers
298W
Mr O’Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport with reference to the answer of 31 March
2014, Official Report, column 408W, on High Speed 2
Railway Line, what the evidential basis is for the
practical limit to the expansion of capacity on the West
Coast Mainline being lower than predicted growth for
that line.
[199297]
Mr Goodwill: Evidence set out in the Strategic Case
for HS2:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-strategic-case
demonstrates that parts of the West Coast Main Line
are effectively full in terms of the number of trains;
many of which are already full to overflowing at certain
times of day and demand is expected to grow.
Rail demand has grown by 54% over the last decade,
which is the equivalent of annual growth rate of 4.4%.
Chapter 3 of the Strategic case sets out that even with
more modest growth of 2.5%, all of the additional peak
seats provided by enhancing the line will be used up
during the 2020s.
The Department has considered a wide range of
alternatives including upgrades to the existing West
Coast Main Line. The most recent report, commissioned
from Atkins can be found here:
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/253456/hs2-strategic-alternatives.pdf
This provides evidence that expanding capacity on the
West Coast Main line would not be a robust long term
solution to the capacity, connectivity and reliability
challenges on the line. Not only would it not provide
sufficient additional capacity to meet long term demand,
but it would not offer a robust solution to the problem
of poor service performance and would significantly
disrupt services for many years during construction
work.
Mr O’Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport how he expects High Speed 2 to reduce
[199332]
overcrowding at London Waterloo.
Mr Goodwill: High Speed 2 is not intended to reduce
overcrowding at London Waterloo, as it has been designed
as a link between London Euston, Birmingham, Leeds
and Manchester.
The 2012 Rail Investment Strategy (HLOS) has asked
the industry to provide additional peak capacity for
9,700 extra passengers into Waterloo by 2019 and has
provided funding for Network Rail to expand Waterloo
and other stations. Network Rail and South West Trains
have set out plans to lengthen peak trains and South
West Trains is now in discussions with the Department
for Transport.
Mr O’Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what estimate he has made of the excess
[199333]
capacity on peak High Speed 2 services.
Mr Goodwill: The HS2 Economic Case published in
October 2013 indicates that the average all-day load
factor for HS2 services in 2036 for the full network is
expected to be 41%. Peak period load factors are expected
to be significantly higher.
Mr O’Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport if he will publish an updated cost benefit
299W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
analysis for High Speed 2 in light of the decision not to
link High Speed 2 with High Speed 1 and Eurostar
[199334]
services.
Mr Goodwill: We will continue to revise and update
the economic case for HS2 as new project milestones
are reached, such as decisions on the preferred route for
Phase 2, to ensure it is based on the best available
evidence and latest understanding of the project, including
taking account of the decision to remove the existing
proposals for the HS1-HS2 link from the scheme.
Mr O’Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport how High Speed 2 improve reliability and
reduce overcrowding on regional links between towns
[199339]
and cities in the North West.
Mr Goodwill: By moving long distance passengers off
the existing network, HS2 will release capacity for more
regional services, reducing overcrowding and improving
reliability, as well as improving connectivity. Nationally,
the Economic Case for HS2 found that HS2 will deliver
reliability benefits worth £5.5 billion, and reduced crowding
benefits of £7.5 billion, which includes benefits to regional
services in the North West.
In response to recommendations made by Sir David
Higgins, HS2 Ltd and Network Rail have been
commissioned to consider what further improvements
can be made to centre to city centre connectivity, east-west
links and local connectivity in the Midlands and the
North, with a final report on options in 2015.
Mr O’Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what estimate he has made of the number of
people who will move home as a result of the
construction of High Speed 2 because of (a)
demolition for construction of the line and (b) blight.
Written Answers
300W
Mr Goodwill: To provide the full information as
requested would risk compromising the privacy of the
applicants. The following anonymised summary information
may be helpful:
For Phase One:
Carter Jonas has valued a total of 47 properties.
4 of those valuations have been queried by applicants.
Carter Jonas valuations have been used to form the offer price
a total of 41 times and 35 of these offers have been accepted.
For Phase Two:
Carter Jonas has valued a total of 22 properties.
None of those valuations have been queried by applicants.
Carter Jonas valuations have been used to form the offer price
a total of 20 times and all of these offers have been accepted.
Mrs Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport if he will publish details of the recruitment
of the Independent Residents Commissioner promised
by HS2 Ltd in the April 2014 HS2 Residents
Charter, including (a) where this position is advertised,
(b) the remuneration package offered, (c) the
interview process and the interview panel members, (d)
the estimated date of any appointments, (e)
the Commissioner’s powers and (f) how the
Commissioner’s independence will be assured. [199643]
Mr Goodwill: Details of the Independent Residents
Commissioner and Residents’ Charter for HS2 are currently
being developed and further information will be published
in due course.
Mrs Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport how many people have accessed the HS2 Ltd
complaints procedure set out in the HS2 Residents’
Charter of April 2014; what the details are of each
complaint; what the outcome is of each complaint; and
[199644]
what complaints are outstanding.
[199340]
Stephen Hammond: There are 464 dwellings within
the area currently subject to surface-level safeguarding
for the London to West Midlands section of HS2, of
which 339 are to be demolished. Given recent Census
data showing an average 2.3 occupants per property in
the UK, we expect around 1,000 people will move from
those homes.
We have not estimated numbers of people who may
move for reasons of generalised property blight, but
there are approximately 220 dwellings within the Voluntary
Purchase Area for the London to West Midlands Route
announced on 9 April. Our aim is where possible to
avoid serious impacts on local residents and enable
people to remain in their homes. We expect to consult
shortly on further measures that may make that choice
more attractive for homeowners.
Pending future decisions on routes and designs, we
have made no similar estimates for other proposed
sections of HS2.
Mrs Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport if he will publish a list of properties that
have been valued by Carter Jonas under the
Exceptional Hardship Scheme for High Speed 2; and
whether those valuations have been accepted or queried
[199640]
by the owners of those properties.
Mr Goodwill: The complaints procedure, along with
other aspects of the Residents’ Charter for HS2, is
currently being developed and further information will
be published in due course.
Mrs Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what the average time taken to respond by
HS2 Ltd to property related compensation enquiries is;
and what the longest time taken to respond to such an
[199645]
enquiry has been.
Mr Goodwill: HS2 Ltd aims to respond to all inquiries
as soon as possible and within a maximum of 20
working days.
Performance against this standard was 93% for April
2013 to March 2014.
A high proportion of these inquiries relate to property
compensation but HS2 Ltd does not compile separate
performance data for different inquiry types.
Mrs Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport how much his Department has paid to
Carter Jonas for work in connection with High Speed 2
[199666]
to date; and what those payments were for.
Mr Goodwill: £86,851.07 (including VAT) has been
paid to Carter Jonas by HS2 Ltd, from 2009 to May
2014.
301W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
These payments relate to the following activities:
attending property consultations in the capacity of property
experts
providing valuations of properties
attending properties on the day of completion to facilitate
handover
acting on behalf of clients in receipt of payments regarding
HS2 Ltd access to land and environmental surveys
completing client Land Interest Questionnaires
undertaking Farm Impact Assessments
Large Goods Vehicles: Driving Tests
Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what training is given to driving examiners
[198687]
who test students in laden lorries.
Stephen Hammond: Potential large goods vehicle (LGV)
examiners are required to hold the relevant driving
licence entitlement for the category of vehicle they will
be testing. In the case of laden lorries that is either
category C or category CE.
Initial training courses last five weeks with a ratio of
two trainees to each trainer. Courses emphasise health
and safety issues connected with working practices, test
centres and vehicles. The Driver and Vehicle Standards
Agency (DVSA) conducts regular progress checks which
culminate in a final test and end-of-course evaluation.
Since early 2010 some of the vehicles used to train
examiners to conduct category C and CE practical
driving tests have been loaded with independent bulk
containers to simulate a lorry carrying a commercial
load. Consequently during training all potential LGV
examiners are trained and examined using loaded vehicles.
Before 2010, some category CE training made use of
concrete blocks on the trailer to simulate a load.
DVSA also delivers refresher courses for examiners
who have not conducted LGV testing for six months or
more which readdress the most important elements of
the initial training course.
Large Goods Vehicles: Taxation
Mr Gregory Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State
for Transport how much was raised through the
implementation of the UK HGV Road User Levy
[199783]
Act 2013 in Northern Ireland in April 2014.
Mr Goodwill: The HGV Road User Levy applies to
the UK. Once a levy is purchased for a foreign registered
HGV, it is not possible to assign the levy to the specific
country (England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland)
which the vehicle visits. By the end of April 2014, levy
receipts from foreign HGVs visiting the UK were
£7.2 million. Cumulative levy receipts from foreign HGVs
at the end of May were £10.5 million.
Motor Vehicles
Jim Fitzpatrick: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what steps his Department is taking to
promote telematics in cars (a) for young drivers and
[199042]
(b) generally.
Mr Goodwill: The Department is conducting focus
groups with young people, parents and employers to
gain a better understanding of their perspective on the
safety of young drivers, including the use of telematics.
Written Answers
302W
During a meeting with the insurance industry, the
Department agreed to commission new research into
how telematics can change the behaviour and attitudes
of learner drivers. We are currently working with insurance
companies to encourage participation before tendering
the research.
We will publish the findings of both the focus groups
and research in due course.
Public Transport
David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what steps his Department has taken to
ensure that costs of public transport do not increase.
[199223]
Stephen Hammond: I recognise concerns passengers
have about impacts of fares on household budgets,
which is why for the first time in a decade average
regulated rail fares have been capped at inflation for
2014.
Outside London, bus services are deregulated and
fares are mainly a matter for the commercial judgement
of bus operators. However, the Government has made a
commitment to retain the current Bus Service Operators
Grant (BSOG) rate for the remainder of this parliament
and has frozen the fuel duty rate until May 2015.
Public transport costs in Northern Ireland are a
matter for the NI Assembly.
Railways
Mr Marcus Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport how much was spent on improvements to the
railways in England and Wales in Control Period 4;
and what estimate he has made of how much will be
[199233]
spent in Control Period 5.
Mr Goodwill: Over Control Period 4, the total amount
spent on enhancements on the railways in England and
Wales, as set out in Network Rail’s delivery plan update,
was £7.557 billion (2012-13 prices).
Over Control Period 5, it is estimated that £11.446 billion.
Railways: Overcrowding
Mr O’Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport where the greatest overcrowding on the rail
network is; and how High Speed 2 will reduce that
[199331]
overcrowding.
Mr Goodwill: DfT publishes statistics showing the
levels of peak crowding in a number of major cities
each year, based on the proportion of passengers in
excess of capacity (PiXC) and the proportion of passengers
standing at trains’ busiest points. The latest publication
from 2012 is published at the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-passengernumbers-and-crowding-on-weekdays-in-major-cities-inengland-and-wales-2012
The PiXC statistics show that the highest levels of
crowding are generally seen on peak London commuter
services. In autumn 2012 the highest PiXC levels across
the morning and afternoon peaks were on First Great
Western services at Paddington, Chiltern services at
Marylebone and London Midland services at Euston.
303W
Written Answers
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
304W
The Strategic Case for HS2 (www.gov.uk/government/
publications/hs2-strategic-case) sets out how HS2 has
the capacity to triple the number of seats leaving Euston
on the west coast main line corridor. By releasing
capacity on the classic network, HS2 will ease crowding
on crowded commuter routes into Euston, particularly
London Midland services and potentially Chiltern services
as well.
two highway authority areas, which enables them to
charge for works taking place on the busiest roads at the
busiest times.
Outside of England, measures to reduce the incidence
of traffic jams are a matter for the respective devolved
Administration.
Mr Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport if he will take steps to ensure that
overcrowding on trains is (a) regulated and (b)
[199443]
effectively monitored.
Mr Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport how much funding his Department has
allocated to each local authority in the East of England
for road improvement in each of the last five years.
Stephen Hammond: Capacity provided by franchised
rail operators is monitored by the Department through
regular passenger counts. The results enable the Department
to liaise with operators where capacity problems are
identified, and to ensure that potential solutions are
investigated.
It is for the rail industry to plan to fully deploy
available rolling stock to best meet passenger demand,
and take all reasonable steps to minimise any crowding.
Road Signs and Markings: Northern Ireland
Roads: East of England
[198593]
Mr Goodwill: The Department for Transport provides
funding to local highway authorities through a number
of funding programmes. This funding includes grant
through both the Highways Maintenance and Integrated
Transport Block grants. This funding can be used to
improve local roads that the authorities are responsible
for if they so wish.
The following tables provide the funding we have
allocated to those authorities that fall within the East of
England since 2010-11:
Local Highways Maintenance Capital Block Grant
Mr Ivan Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport whether officials in his Department
consulted their Northern Ireland counterparts before
publishing the draft Traffic Signs Regulations and
[199637]
General Directions 2015.
Local Transport Plan Name
Mr Goodwill: Department for Transport officials worked
closely with Northern Ireland colleagues throughout
the Traffic Signs Policy Review. A meeting was held
with the devolved Administrations in February 2014, at
which the proposed changes to the Traffic Signs Regulations
and General Directions were presented.
The Northern Ireland Executive has also been invited
to respond to the public consultation on the draft
regulations.
Luton and Dunstable (Joint Plan)
Bedfordshire (Plan)
Jim Shannon: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what steps his Department is taking to
[199076]
reduce the incidence of traffic jams.
Mr Goodwill: This Government is investing £24 billion
on strategic roads in England across this Parliament
and the next six years. This includes £317 million,
before April 2015, on Highways Agency pinch point
schemes tackling congestion and supporting economic
growth. We are also providing, before April 2015,
£265 million from the Local Pinch Point Fund for 112
projects across England aimed at relieving congestion
and supporting economic growth.
In England, subject to approval, ’Permit Schemes’
are available to local authorities in England so that
anyone wanting to dig up the road must first apply for a
permit to work. This provision gives authorities the
power to better challenge how long those works take, to
impose conditions, and to co-ordinate works. They can
also charge ’over-run’ charges to utility companies. The
Department is also currently trialling Lane Rental in
7.031
Cambridgeshire
12.809
Essex
23.075
Hertfordshire
17.456
1.284
Norfolk
23.948
Peterborough
8.663
Southend-on-Sea
2.019
Suffolk
18.094
Thurrock
1.484
£ million
Local Highway Authority
Bedford
Road Traffic
2010-11 (£ million)
Cambridgeshire
Central Bedfordshire
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
3.198
2.800
3.288
3.264
13.394
10.695
12.750
11.662
4.645
3.920
4.728
5.469
Essex
26.029
19.838
22.482
22.573
Hertfordshire
23.611
18.585
20.962
22.019
1.404
1.070
1.193
1.255
29.354
21.403
24.230
24.963
Peterborough
3.899
3.029
3.472
3.578
Southend-on-Sea
2.219
1.720
1.795
1.948
22.683
17.668
20.145
20.666
2.194
2.132
2.023
1.990
Luton
Norfolk
Suffolk
Thurrock
Integrated Transport Capital Block Grant
Local Transport Plan Name
2010-11 (£ million)
Bedfordshire (Plan)
2.539
Cambridgeshire
6.104
Essex
Hertfordshire
10.455
8.755
Luton and Dunstable (Joint Plan)
2.014
Norfolk
8.224
Peterborough
1.818
Southend-on-Sea
1.660
Suffolk
5.061
Thurrock
1.366
305W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
£ million
Local Authority
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Bedford
1.101
1.006
1.006
1.415
Cambridgeshire
4.439
4.059
4.059
5.707
Central Bedfordshire
1.464
1.338
1.338
1.882
Essex
9.150
8.366
8.366
11.764
Hertfordshire
6.804
6.221
6.221
8.748
Luton
1.470
1.344
1.344
1.890
Norfolk
5.824
5.324
5.324
7.487
Peterborough
1.640
1.500
1.500
2.109
Southend-on-Sea
1.245
1.138
1.138
1.600
Suffolk
4.508
4.122
4.122
5.796
Thurrock
0.960
0.878
0.878
1.235
Local authorities are also able to use revenue funding,
allocated by the Department for Communities and Local
Government through the Revenue Support Grant, for
maintaining their local highways.
The Department has also provided funding to highway
authorities for local major road schemes set out as
follows:
£ million
Local Highway
Authority
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Essex
26.4
26.0
Herts
0.3
0.2
6.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
Luton
0.0
0.0
2.5
11.3
2.0
Norfolk
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.0
Note:
Figures for 2010-11 to 2013-14 are actual spend figures. 2014-15 figures are
allocations.
The Department has also agreed to provide funding
to authorities through the Local Pinch Point Fund. The
Fund is aimed at removing bottlenecks on the local
highway network and supporting growth-enhancing
development. The Fund has been allocated to the following
authorities in the last five years:
£ million
Local Authority
Scheme
2013-14 2014-15
Bedford
Borough
Council
Bedford Western Bypass Northern
Section
4.500
0
Central
Bedfordshire
Council
Woodside Link Houghton Regis
(A5-M1)
2.350
2.650
Essex County
Council
A176 Nether Mayne, Basildon
0.763
1.583
Essex County
Council
A414/A1025 (Clock Tower) Junction,
Harlow
0.809
2.104
Essex County
Council
Army and Navy Improvements:
A1060 Parkway Widening
0.441
0.675
Essex County
Council
Army and Navy slip road
0.260
1.191
Norfolk County
Council
Great Yarmouth A12-A143 Link
Road
0.835
3.910
Peterborough
City Council
Junction 17 A1(M) - Junction 2
Fletton Parkway Widening Scheme
3.385
1.115
Southend on Sea
Council
A127 B1013 Tesco Junction
0.320
2.943
Suffolk County
Council
Completion of Lowestoft Northern
Spine Road (phase 5)
0
4.635
Note:
Pinch Point Funding is available in financial years 2013-14 and 2014-15 only.
Roads: Repairs and Maintenance
Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what estimate he has made of the cost of
administering the Potholes Challenge Fund. [198925]
Written Answers
306W
Mr Goodwill: In the 2014 Budget, the Government
announced a £200 million pothole fund for the financial
year 2014-15. Some £168 million is being made available
to councils in England, including up to £10 million for
London. This is enough to fix over 3 million potholes
on the local road network.
The administering of the fund falls under the current
operating costs of the Department for Transport and so
no additional costs have been incurred.
Roads: Safety
Sammy Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport if he will make it his policy to research the
use of non-slip surfaces for manholes in order to
reduce the number of accidents involving motor cycles.
[198631]
Mr Goodwill: There are various types of manhole
covers on the market that have enhanced skid resistance.
In addition, the Institute of Highways Engineers has
produced guidance on locating manhole covers to reduce
the risk they pose to motorcyclists. As such, the Department
currently has no plans to commission research on these
issues.
Shipping
Katy Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what recent assessment he has made of the
Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s capacity to
discharge its statutory duties to survey and inspect (a)
[199365]
domestic and (b) international shipping.
Stephen Hammond: The Maritime and Coastguard
Agency (MCA)’s current business plan has an operational
priority (OP) entitled: “OP2-Ensuring our ship survey,
inspection and certification capability, and the parallel
work in relation to seafarers, meets our domestic and
international obligations”. Progress against this operational
priority is monitored on a monthly basis by the MCA
Executive Board using a balanced score card system. By
this method the MCA is able to assess its capacity to
discharge its statutory Survey and Inspection duties.
The MCA monitors its capacity to discharge its
statutory duties to survey and inspect (a) domestic
(Flag State responsibility) and (b) international (Port
State responsibility) shipping through a system of activity
monitoring. Performance against these Survey and
Inspection activities feed into the Balanced Score Card
for OP2.
Shipping: Pay
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what recent discussions he has had with the
(a) UK Chamber of Shipping and (b) European
Community Shipowners Association on pay rates for
seafarers subject to UK National Insurance payments
employed on vessels working from UK ports; and if he
will request data on pay rates from maritime
[199358]
employers’ associations.
Stephen Hammond: Ministers have not had direct
discussions with either body but dialogue at ministerial
and official level is continuing with relevant bodies on
the wider agenda of seafarer pay.
307W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
The Department is currently reviewing the statistical
data it uses and other data sources that may be relevant
for future use but this does not include an objective to
collect pay rates as this is undertaken by other Departments.
Shipping: Working Hours
Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what recent assessment he has made of the
effect of seafarer fatigue on maritime safety; and what
steps his Department is taking to enforce manning
[199411]
levels on vessels.
Stephen Hammond: The Maritime and Coastguard
Agency (MCA) and the Marine Accident Investigation
Branch were active participants in the multi-partner
HORIZON research project, an EC-funded study, which
used simulators to identify the effect on seafarers of
working hours and interrupted rest. The project report
demonstrates conclusively the links between certain
watchkeeping patterns and the performance of seafarers
(looking particularly at “sleepiness”).
The Government is committed to reducing the effects
of fatigue on maritime safety and the health of seafarers.
The output from HORIZON has been used to provide
practical guidance to seafarers. The MCA remains involved
with research on seafarer fatigue with other industry
stakeholders.
MCA Surveyors routinely inspect UK ships and foreign
flag ships in UK waters and verify hours of work
records for compliance with the regulations, and check
ships are safely manned in accordance the requirements
of the International Maritime Organisation convention
on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping
(STCW).
The UK is leading the Paris Memorandum of
Understanding on Port State Control Concentrated
Inspection Campaign to ensure compliance with the
hours of rest requirements of watchkeepers under STCW
which will run from 1 September 2014 to 30 November
2014.
Speed Limits: Urban Areas
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what assessment his Department has made
of the potential effect of changing the national urban
default speed limit to 20 mph on (a) air pollution and
(b) other environmental conditions; what similar
studies in other developed nations his Department has
[198586]
assessed; and if he will make a statement.
Mr Goodwill: The Department does not have any
current plans to introduce a default 20 mph speed limit.
Local authorities are best placed to determine the speed
limits for their areas, based on local knowledge and the
views of the community, and have the powers to do so.
We are aware of studies carried out for local authorities,
including for the City of London, which showed no
overall negative effects on air quality in 20 mph speed
restrictions.
However, the Department is about to commission
comprehensive research into the effects of 20 mph
limits. This will cover many aspects including effects on
speed, collisions, casualties and modal shift. The research
will also consider air quality, best practice, road users’
perceptions and effects on the quality of the environment,
as well as relevant research from other countries.
Written Answers
308W
Travel: South East
Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport (1) what information his Department holds
on how many journeys were made between Portsmouth
and Brighton by (a) car, (b) rail and (c) bus in each of
the last five years for which figures are available;
[199402]
(2) what information his Department holds on how
many journeys were made between Southampton and
Brighton by (a) car, (b) rail and (c) bus in each of the
last five years for which figures are available. [199403]
Mr Goodwill: The National Travel Survey (NTS) has
trip data by mode of transport collected via a 7-day
travel diary for residents of Great Britain. However,
data are not available for specific local areas as the
sample is too small at that level of geography to provide
reliable results.
Some regional level results are available through
combining two survey years of data together. The latest
results available are for 2011 and 2012 combined. They
cover all domestic journeys by all modes of transport,
including car, rail and bus.
Table NTS9903 (at link below) shows the average
number of trips per person per year by region of residence.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/259042/nts9903.xls
Table NTS9905 (at link below) shows the percentage
of trips within and between regions.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/259032/nts9905.xls
Unmanned Air Vehicles
Stephen Phillips: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what steps his Department is taking to
facilitate the integration of remotely piloted aircraft
systems into UK civil airspace.
[199031]
Mr Goodwill: The Department for Transport leads on
policy for the operation of civil remotely piloted aircraft
systems (RPAS) in the UK. We are working with
international Governments, regulators and the industryincluding the European Commission and International
Civil Aviation Organization on the development of
regulation for the safe integration of RPAS into UK
and European airspace.
The UK Civil Aviation Authority and the European
Aviation Safety Agency have a statutory responsibility
to deal with the detailed Regulation.
In addition, the Department for Transport currently
chairs the cross-Government Working Group on RPAS
and sits on the Autonomous Systems Technology Related
Airborne Evaluation and Assessment Steering Board,
which both seek to enable the safe and routine use of
RPAS in all classes of airspace without the need for
restrictive or specialised conditions of operation. This
will be achieved through the co-ordinated development
and demonstration of key technologies and operating
procedures.
West Coast Railway Line
Mr O’Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport with reference to the answer of 28 April
2014, Official Report, columns 517-8W, on railways:
309W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
passengers, what the evidential basis is for the stated
forecast of increases in passenger numbers on the west
[199294]
coast main line over the next 10 years.
Stephen Hammond: Chapter 4 of Network Rail’s
West Coast Route Utilisation Strategy describes the
evidential basis and modelling approach of the anticipated
changes in demand to 2024-25 which are contained in
the same document. This is now available at:
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/imagelibrary/
downloadMedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=4675
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
GlaxoSmithKline
Jim Dobbin: To ask the Attorney-General what the
terms of reference are for the investigation by the
Serious Fraud Office (SFO) into GlaxoSmithKline
(GSK); whether the SFO will investigate (a) GSK’s
activities within the UK, (b) allegations of bribery of
UK doctors, (c) promotion of Seroxat prescribing for
children and (d) the 2002 CSM Expert Working
Group on the safety of SSRI antidepressants; and
whether there is a point of contact for members of the
public who wish to help the SFO investigation. [199631]
The Attorney-General: The Director of the Serious
Fraud Office (SFO) recently announced that he has
opened a criminal investigation into the commercial
practices of GlaxoSmithKline plc and its subsidiaries.
The SFO investigation will follow the evidence and it is
not appropriate to comment while inquiries are continuing.
A press release regarding GlaxoSmithKline and
information on how to contact the SFO can be found
on its website at:
www.sfo.gov.uk
JUSTICE
Cancer
Dr Wollaston: To ask the Secretary of State for
Justice how many prosecutions have taken place under
the Cancer Act 1939 in each of the last 30 years.
[198623]
Jeremy Wright: The number of defendants proceeded
against at magistrates courts for offences under the
Cancer Act 1939, in England and Wales, from 1984 to
2013, can be viewed in the table.
Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for offences under section 4
of the Cancer Act 1939, England and Wales, 1984 to 20131, 2
Number
1984
-
1985
1
1986
-
1987
-
1988
-
1989
-
1990
-
1991
-
1992
-
1993
-
1994
-
1995
2
1996
-
Written Answers
310W
Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for offences under section 4
of the Cancer Act 1939, England and Wales, 1984 to 20131, 2
Number
1997
-
1998
2
1999
1
2000
-
2001
-
2002
-
2003
1
2004
1
2005
-
2006
6
2007
4
2008
-
2009
2
2010
1
2011
-
2012
-
2013
-
1
The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were
the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has
been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest
penalty is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence
for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.
2
Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and
complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted
from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police
forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection
processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those
data are used.
Note:
Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates court for April, July and August 2008.
Source:
Justice Statistics Analytical Services-Ministry of Justice.
Driving Under Influence
Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice
(1) how many fines have been (a) paid, (b) collected
and (c) reduced for alcohol-related motoring offences
[199838]
in each of the last four years;
(2) how many fines have been (a) paid, (b) collected
and (c) reduced for motoring speeding offences in each
[199839]
of the last four years.
Mr Vara: It is not possible to identify from Her
Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals systems how many
fines have been (a) paid, (b) collected and (c) reduced
for specific offences. This information could be provided
only at disproportionate cost as identifying this would
require a manual search of all fine accounts.
Fly Tipping
Gavin Williamson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Justice (1) how many people were convicted of
fly-tipping in South Staffordshire in each year since
2009-10; and how many such people received the
[199178]
maximum allowable sentence;
(2) how many of those convicted of fly-tipping were
handed the maximum possible sentence in each year
[199179]
since 2009-10;
(3) how many people were convicted of fly-tipping in
(a) 2009-10, (b) 2010-11, (c) 2011-12, (d) 2012-13
[199238]
and (e) 2013-14.
Jeremy Wright: The number of offenders found guilty
at all courts of “fly tipping” related offences, in England
and Wales, from 2009-10 to 2012-13, and also specifically
311W
Written Answers
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
312W
for South and Central Staffordshire, alongside the number
of offenders given the maximum allowable sentence,
can be viewed in the table.
Offenders found guilty at all courts for “fly tipping” related offences, South and Central Staffordshire and England and Wales, 2009-10 to 2012-131,2
Offence description
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
Convictions
7
8
10
8
Maximum sentence10
0
0
0
0
Convictions
4
0
2
0
Maximum sentence11
0
0
0
0
Convictions
8
3
2
2
Maximum sentence12
0
0
0
0
Convictions
0
0
0
0
Maximum sentence3
0
0
0
0
Convictions
0
0
0
0
Maximum sentence14
0
0
0
0
Convictions
2
5
4
0
Maximum sentence15
0
0
0
0
South and Central Staffordshire
Depositing, causing the deposition or permitting
the deposition treating, keeping or disposing of
controlled (but not special) waste in or on land
without a licence3
Depositing, causing the deposition or permitting
the deposition of controlled special waste in or
on land without a licence4
Handling, controlling or transferring controlled
waste without taking reasonable measures;
failure to comply with the requirements of the
Secretary of State; failure to take such measures
as available to secure transfer of household
waste to authorised person or persons
authorised for transport purposes5
Contravening conditions of a waste management
licence6
Occupier failing to remove waste or eliminate or
reduce the consequences of waste deposited in
contravention of S.33(1) EP Act 19907
Transporting controlled waste in the course of a
business or otherwise with a view to profit
without registering as a carrier8
Dumping9
Total
Convictions
1
1
0
0
Maximum sentence16
0
0
0
0
22
17
18
10
0
0
0
0
627
688
627
519
1
0
1
0
144
82
61
39
0
0
0
0
297
433
432
391
2
0
2
1
Convictions
Maximum sentence
England and Wales
Depositing, causing the deposition or permitting
the deposition treating, keeping or disposing of
controlled (but not special) waste in or on land
without a licence3
Convictions
Maximum sentence10
Depositing, causing the deposition or permitting
the deposition of controlled special waste in or
on land without a licence4
Convictions
Maximum sentence11
Handling, controlling or transferring controlled
waste without taking reasonable measures;
failure to comply with the requirements of the
Secretary of State; failure to take such measures
as available to secure transfer of household
waste to authorised person or persons
authorised for transport purposes5
Convictions
Maximum sentence13
313W
Written Answers
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
314W
Offenders found guilty at all courts for “fly tipping” related offences, South and Central Staffordshire and England and Wales, 2009-10 to 2012-131,2
Offence description
Contravening conditions of a waste management
licence6
Convictions
Maximum sentence13
Occupier failing to remove waste or eliminate or
reduce the consequences of waste deposited in
contravention of S.33(1) EP Act 19907
Convictions
Maximum sentence14
Transporting controlled waste in the course of a
business or otherwise with a view to profit
without registering as a carrier8
Convictions
Maximum sentence15
Dumping9
Convictions
Maximum sentence16
Total
Convictions
Maximum sentence
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
47
14
13
14
0
0
0
0
17
9
7
2
0
0
0
0
80
163
163
115
0
0
0
0
76
55
45
38
0
0
0
0
1,288
1,444
1,348
1,118
3
0
3
1
1
The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been
found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the
offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.
2
Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from
large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their
inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.
3
An offence under Section 33(8) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
4
An offence under Section 33(9) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
5
An offence under Section 34 (2A) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
6
An offence under Section 33(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
7
An offence under Section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
8
An offence under Section 1 of the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989.
9
Offences under the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978.
10
The maximum allowable sentence for this offence is two years in custody.
11
The maximum allowable sentence for this offence five years in custody.
12
The maximum allowable sentence for this offence is a £5,000 fine.
13
The maximum allowable sentence for this offence is 5 years in custody.
14
The maximum allowable sentence for this offence is a £5,000 fine, plus £500 per day.
15
The maximum allowable sentence for this offence is a £5,000 fine.
16
The maximum allowable sentence for this offence is three months in custody or a £3,000 fine.
Source:
Justice Statistics Analytical Services—Ministry of Justice.
Judicial Review
Mr Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice
what assessment he has made of the potential effect of
the new judicial review regulations on people who are
fighting eviction or the repossession of a house.
[199208]
Mr Vara: Judicial review is an important way of
challenging decisions by public authorities and will
remain so. The recently amended regulations do not
prevent people receiving legal aid in judicial review
cases.
The Government’s policy is that limited legal aid
resources should be targeted at those judicial review
cases where they are needed most, if the legal aid system
is to command public confidence and credibility. We
amended the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations
2013 to implement the proposal that legal aid providers
should only be paid for work carried out on an application
for permission if permission is given by the court,
subject to a discretion to pay providers for work carried
out on an application for permission in cases that
conclude prior to a permission decision. The discretion
is held by the Lord Chancellor but will be exercised by
the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) on behalf of the Lord
Chancellor. The amendments took effect on 22 April
2014.
An assessment of the impacts of this policy was
published alongside the consultation response paper
“Judicial Review: Proposals for Further Reform: the
Government Response” and is available at
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/judicialreview
It is important to reiterate that no change has been
made to the availability of civil legal aid to individuals
or to eligibility for legal aid for judicial review proceedings.
Where a client is in receipt of legal aid, he or she will
remain so for the life of the case (unless it is withdrawn
for other reasons). We consider that there will remain
sufficient providers who undertake judicial review work,
taking on cases which they consider to be of merit.
The Government plans to undertake a postimplementation review of the legal aid provisions within
the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders
Act 2012 within 3-5 years of implementation. The
review will include an assessment of the impact of this
change.
Legal Aid Scheme
Mr Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice
if he will make it his policy to release statistics on the
number of refusals by the Legal Aid Agency to pay
legal aid in cases settled before the permission stage.
[199207]
315W
Written Answers
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Mr Vara: The Legal Aid Agency records information
on the outcome of each application for a discretionary
payment in respect of remuneration for work on
applications for permission for judicial review, where a
case concludes before a decision on permission is taken
by the court. The Government is considering the best
way of publishing this information.
Magistrates’ Courts: Prestatyn
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice
what his policy is on the redevelopment of Prestatyn
[199564]
Magistrates’ Court.
Mr Vara: HM Courts and Tribunals Service continues
to keep the use of its estate under review to ensure it
meets operational requirements.
Prison Service
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice
(1) on what occasions prisons have used detached duty
staff from other establishments since 1 September
[199480]
2013;
(2) how many staff of each grade were used as part
of the detached duty arrangements in each month since
[199481]
December 2013;
(3) how many staff of each grade were available for
detached duty arrangements in each month since
[199482]
December 2013;
(4) which prisons received how many detached duty
staff of each grade in each month since December
[199483]
2013;
(5) how much was spent on accommodation and
subsistence for prison officers providing detached duty
in prisons in (a) January, (b) February, (c) March and
[199502]
(d) April 2014.
316W
Jeremy Wright: The deployment of staff between
prisons on detached duty is a regular and normal part
of prison resourcing. It allows staff to be allocated from
prisons with the capacity to provide them, to those
where additional staffing is required. On average over
the three month period (January to March 2013), less
than 1% of staff were provided on detached duty. A
large proportion of the capacity is typically available
from prisons that are in the process of closure or going
through a re-role. This process temporarily releases a
number of officers who are not supplied for specific
occasions but are sent and received on a shift pattern
throughout the week.
The number of staff available for detached duty at
any one time is a matter for operational judgment and
takes account of overall staff numbers, levels of sickness,
prisoner numbers and the regime and security requirements.
The average weekly provision of staff, broken down
by grade, that were received as part of the nationally
co-ordinated detached duty scheme , are shown in the
tables below for January to March 2014.
Table: Average weekly provision of staff on detached duty to prisons in England
and Wales, broken down by grade, January-March 2014
Grade
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
Band 3
200
150
130
Band 4
10
10
-
210
160
130
Total
We have maintained our policy of rounding figures to
the nearest 10 in line with the department’s policy for
presenting staffing data. The data is only accurate to
this level because late updating of data within HR
systems means that the unrounded figures recorded for
a specific date have a margin of error around them.
Totals are formed from unrounded parts prior to rounding.
For this reason, rounded totals may not equal the sum
of their rounded parts. Values of 5 or fewer are denoted
as ‘-’.
Table: List of prisons receiving staff on detached duty by average weekly full-time equivalent provision and grade, January - March 2014
January 2014
Staffing provision
5 or fewer
Band 3
Band 4
February 2014
Band 3
March 2014
Band 4
Band 3
Aylesbury
Brixton
Aylesbury
Brixton
Aylesbury
Bedford
Coldingley
Bedford
Coldingley
Brinsford
Belmarsh
Guys Marsh
Brinsford
Guys Marsh
Bullingdon
Brinsford
Wormwood Scrubs
Brixton
Wormwood Scrubs
Cookham Wood
Bristol
Bullingdon
Gartree
Brixton
Cookham Wood
Glen Parva
Bullingdon
Durham
Guys Marsh
Coldingley
Gartree
Haverigg
Cookham Wood
Guys Marsh
High Down
Durham
Haverigg
Hindley
Erlestoke
High Down
Isis
Gartree
Hindley
Isle of Wight
Haverigg
Holloway
Leicester
Hindley
Humber
Lindholme and Moorland
Holloway
Isis
Onley
Humber
Leicester
Pentonville
Isle of Wight
Onley
Sheppey Cluster
Leicester
Send
Stocken
Manchester
Stocken
The Mount
317W
Written Answers
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
318W
Table: List of prisons receiving staff on detached duty by average weekly full-time equivalent provision and grade, January - March 2014
January 2014
Staffing provision
Band 3
February 2014
Band 4
Band 3
Nottingham
March 2014
Band 4
Band 3
The Mount
Wayland
Onley
Wayland
Werrington
Send
Werrington
Winchester
Sheppey Cluster
Winchester
Stocken
Wormwood Scrubs
Wandsworth
Werrington
Winchester
Woodhill
10
Glen Parva
High Down
Belmarsh
High Down
Belmarsh
Guys Marsh
Glen Parva
Feltham
High Down
Isle of Wight
Littlehey
Isis
Lindholme and Moorland
Manchester
Lindholme and
Moorland
Littlehey
Nottingham
Littlehey
Manchester
Portland
Norwich
Pentonville
Rochester
Pentonville
Portland
Woodhill
Rochester
Rochester
The Mount
Sheppey Cluster
Wayland
Woodhill
Wormwood Scrubs
20
Feltham
Feltham
Various London Prisons
Portland
Using centrally held financial records it is not possible,
without incurring disproportionate cost, to disaggregate
the costs of accommodation and subsistence claimed
for detached duty from other expenses claimed by staff.
Prisoners: Sanitary Protection
Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice
what types and brands of sanitary products female
prisoners are able to purchase from the National
Product List; and what the cost of each such product is.
Mr Vara: The Public Defender Service (PDS) will
continue to deliver a range of quality services within the
criminal defence market from advice and representation
at the police station and magistrates courts through to
advocacy in the higher courts.
Secure Colleges
Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice
what the average annual cost is of a place in a new
[199691]
Secure College.
[199603]
Simon Hughes: Female prisoners can purchase the
following sanitary products from the National Product
List:
Sanitary pads—Always Ultra Normal 32s—price £2.69
Sanitary towels—Tena Lady Normal 12s—price £2.69
Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice
what types and brands of sanitary products are
[199604]
provided to female prisoners free of charge.
Simon Hughes: All prisons across the female custodial
estate provide Interlude tampons and sanitary towels to
women free of charge.
Public Defender Service
Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for
Justice what plans he has for the future of the Public
[199628]
Defender Service.
Jeremy Wright: The Government’s vision for Secure
Colleges was set out on 17 January 2014 in its response
to the consultation paper “Transforming Youth Custody”.
Secure Colleges will place education at the heart of
custody, and equip young people with the skills they
need to turn their lives around.
The current average cost of a place in youth custody
is around £100,000 per annum, with some places costing
in excess of £200,000. Secure colleges will achieve ongoing
savings by operating at a significantly lower cost per
place than the current average, while allowing withdrawal
from more expensive and inefficient provision.
The MOJ will not publish estimates of the annual
cost per place until the operator competition for the
Secure College has been completed, to avoid prejudicing
the effectiveness of the competition.
Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice
when the construction contract for a Secure College
[199694]
awarded to Wates was put out to tender.
319W
Written Answers
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Jeremy Wright: Invitations to tender for the design
and build of the Secure College pathfinder were issued
under the Ministry of Justice’s Strategic Alliance
Framework Agreement on 31 January 2014, shortly
after we published the Government response to the
Transforming Youth Custody consultation on 17 January
and announced plans for the Secure College pathfinder
in the east midlands.
Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice
what fee Wates will receive for the construction
contract for a Secure College; and what proportion of
the overall budget for a Secure College this fee will
[199695]
represent.
Jeremy Wright: The Ministry of Justice will work
with Wates to develop a design for the Secure College
pathfinder over the coming months, and will agree a
maximum price for the construction once the detailed
project proposals have been agreed.
Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice
when the construction contract for a Secure College
[199696]
was formally awarded to Wates.
Jeremy Wright: The construction contract for the
Secure College pathfinder has not been awarded. The
Ministry of Justice has selected Wates as the preferred
bidder to design and build the pathfinder. The Project
Partnering Agreement, which commits the Ministry of
Justice to working with Wates to develop the design for
the Secure College pathfinder, will be signed later this
month. A further contract, a Commencement Agreement,
is required for construction.
Victim Support Schemes
Mr Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice
what assessment he has made of the effect on funding
available for victims’ services of devolution to police
[199326]
and crime commissioners.
Damian Green: From 1 October 2014 the majority of
support services for victims of crime will be commissioned
at the local level by democratically elected and publicly
accountable police and crime commissioners and this
Government is making more money than ever before
available to ensure that victims receive the vital support
they require.
PCCs with their knowledge of local victims’ needs
are uniquely placed to ensure that available funding is
targeted where most required to help victims of crime
to both cope with and, where possible, recover from the
impacts of crime.
PCCs are also ideally placed to co-commission with
other local commissioners such as health or local authorities,
thereby reducing duplication and achieving better value
for money.
Victim Support Schemes: York
Hugh Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for
Justice how many victims of crime and witnesses were
supported by the Witness Service at (a) York Crown
court and (b) York magistrates court in each year since
[198529]
2004-05.
320W
Damian Green: The Ministry of Justice does not
routinely collect this data. Victim Support has provided
the data based on available information.
As part of its grant in aid to Victim Support, the
Ministry of Justice requires the provision of a court
based witness service.
Victim Support has provided the following figures for
2009-10 to 2013-14 showing the number of people
supported:
York Crown court
York magistrates court
2009-10
717
606
2010-11
701
405
2011-12
612
368
2012-13
557
333
2013-14
547
870
Whilst crime rates continue to fall, Victim Support
continues to support all witnesses who wish to receive
support when attending court.
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS
Adult Education
David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills what steps he is taking
to educate adults in literacy, numeracy and ICT skills.
[199220]
Matthew Hancock: Skills policy is devolved so this
answer refers to policy in England only.
One of the Government’s priorities is to ensure that
all adults have the level of English, maths and digital
skills to help them find and sustain employment, as well
as achieving other positive outcomes such as improved
health and well-being.
We are implementing a major programme of reform
to raise the quality and standards of these vital subjects
in adult education which will improve the quality of the
teaching workforce, reward the best providers and ensure
learners are stretched to achieve the best they can.
We are investing £30 million this year and next to
attract the best graduates to teach in further education
(FE) and to provide opportunities for existing teachers
to improve their skills. As part of a £15 million bursary
scheme between 2013-15 we are offering up to £20,000
to the best and brightest graduates to teach in FE. In
January 2014 we announced further measures to improve
the workforce including; a golden-hello scheme offering
a bonus of £7,500 to maths graduates in their second
year of teaching; a recruitment incentive scheme offering
£20,000 to providers for taking on a specialist maths
graduate teacher; and a subject knowledge enhancement
scheme to enable highly qualified graduates who have
the skills and aptitude to teach but need to develop
some specific maths skills before they start teacher
training.
We have put English and maths at the heart of all our
major programmes. From 2014/15 all intermediate
apprentices will be required to work towards achieving
a level 2 in English and maths and young people
undertaking a traineeship will be required to study
English and maths unless they already have a level 2
qualification in English and maths.
321W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
We fully fund all adults to achieve their first English
and maths GCSE as well as other qualifications which
help them get to that level. Our reforms to English and
maths GCSEs will make them more rigorous and help
ensure that young people and adults develop the skills
most relevant to employers. The reformed GCSEs will
be available for first teaching from September 2015 and
our ambition is for them to become the gold-standard
measuring achievement at level 2 for all ages and ability
levels.
We encourage and support a wide range of different
and flexible types of provision so that adults can learn
in a way that suits them, for example, learning in the
workplace, Community Learning including Family English,
Maths and Language (FEML) provision, through
traditional college courses and using technology and
online learning.
We are making sure jobseekers on benefits have the
best chance of finding employment by helping them
improve their literacy and numeracy skills. From April
2014, those with poor spoken English which is preventing
them from finding work have been expected to train in
English, with the possibility of losing their benefit if
they choose not to participate. In December 2014, we
will launch the 18-21 Work Skills pilot which will test
different approaches to teaching and learning and the
outcomes of mandating new 18 to 21-year-old jobseeker’s
allowance claimants with English and maths below
Level 2 to English and maths training for up to 16 hours
per week, alongside their jobsearch.
We have a substantial programme of research to
identify the most effective approaches to teaching and
learning. In April, I announced the launch of a new
research centre with the Behavioural Rights Insight
Team to bring the latest findings from behavioural
science to bear on the challenges of improving adult
literacy and numeracy.
Basic digital skills are now seen to be as vital as
literacy and numeracy, not just for employment but for
all aspects of life. The Government’s recent Digital
Inclusion Strategy set what actions we will take to
ensure everyone has these skills. The strategy can be
found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/governmentdigital-inclusion-strategy/government-digital-inclusionstrategy
For its part, the Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills (BIS) has committed over £30 million over
the last 5 years to UK online centres to help more
people develop the basic digital skills needed to use a
computer, and to get online safely and securely. This has
so far helped over 1.25 million people, most of whom
were adults, get online. A £1 million extension to the
current programme will help another 43,000 people to
get online. This is aimed at hard to reach groups, many
who are socially excluded. We are currently in the
process of tendering a new programme with the aim to
get another 1 million people online in the next 3-5 years.
Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills what funding was
available through the Skills Funding Agency for (a)
adult learning courses to support return-to-work
programmes and (b) English as a Second Language
[199410]
courses in each of the last three years.
Written Answers
322W
Matthew Hancock: The funding available for Adult
Skills is outlined in the Skills Funding Statement. The
statement sets out the Government’s priorities for the
budget and it is for providers to decide how they use
their adult skills funding to reflect those priorities and
meet the needs of learners and employers in their local
area. The Skills Funding Statements 2012-15 and 2013-16
also show in the Data Annex what learning the available
funding has supported over the last three years:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/skills-fundingstatement-2013-to-2016
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/skills-fundingstatement-2012-2015
Animal Experiments
Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills how many animals
have experienced severe suffering in scientific research
funded by the Government since 2010; and if he will
provide funding aimed at developing scientific
advances allowing the reduction or avoidance of severe
[198601]
suffering of animals used in procedures.
Mr Willetts: The Government do not hold the
information you have requested. The Home Office has
published advisory notes on recording and reporting
actual severity. From data collected, the Home Office
will provide clarity on the burden of harm and, over
time, should give an indication of the effectiveness of
refinement methods, particularly for the most severe
procedures.
It is important to note that procedures classified as
severe represent only a small percentage of the total.
The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement
and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) was
established by the Government in May 2004 to advance
and promote the replacement, refinement and reduction
of animals used in research and testing (the 3Rs). The
NC3Rs primarily receives Government funding through
BIS from the science and research ring-fenced budget
via the Medical Research Council (MRC) and
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
(BBSRC). The projected budget for the NC3Rs is
£7.88 million in 2014-15 and £7.84 million in 2015-16.
BBSRC also provides further funding for the 3Rs
under its responsive mode schemes, and the MRC and
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
support research projects which contribute to the
development of new knowledge and new methods that
help replace or refine animal use. However, figures on
future spend are not available.
For a detailed breakdown of past funding I refer my
hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member
for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), on 11 March
2014, Official Report, column 167W.
China
Jim Shannon: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills what recent discussions
he has had with the Chinese Government on the export
[198745]
of British cheeses to China.
Michael Fallon: The Secretary of State for Business,
Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for
323W
Written Answers
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Twickenham (Vince Cable), has not had any recent
discussions with the Chinese Government regarding the
export of British cheese to China. However, officials at
the British embassy in Beijing have been in contact with
the relevant authorities regarding the recent temporary
suspension of imports of British cheese into China. The
suspension has now ended.
324W
I will have due regard to an updated Equality Analysis
before a final decision is made and regulations are laid
before the House.
Mr Buckland: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills how many students of
each type of main disability are in receipt of disabled
students’ allowances.
[198942]
Credit Rating
Mr Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills what his policy is on a
minimum monetary threshold for a late payment which
[199030]
affects an individual’s credit rating.
Matthew Hancock: Credit ratings will take into account
a number of different variables, including late payment,
but it is a commercial judgment taken by credit reference
agencies.
Digital Technology: Skilled Workers
Andrew Bingham: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills (1) what plans he has to
address the shortage of skilled workers in the digital
[198735]
and technology sector;
(2) what progress his Department has made on the
Information Economy Strategy published in June 2013.
[198736]
Mr Willetts: Information on students awarded and
paid disabled students’ allowance is published annually
by Student Loans Company (SLC) in the Statistical
First Release “Student Support for Higher Education
England”. The latest statistics are available at the following
link:
http://www.slc.co.uk/media/694170/slcsfr052013.pdf
Information on the disability type for students in
receipt of disabled students’ allowance is available only
at the point of application and so are not included in
our routine statistical outputs. The figures provided in
the following table reflect the number of applications
and do not necessarily correspond to the number of
students who were actually awarded and paid.
DSA application data by disability type, Academic year 2012-13, Effective date
10 July 2013
Disability type
Number of new DSA applicants assessed as
eligible for DSA
Autistic disorder
880
Blind/partial sight
410
Deaf/partial hearing
Mr Willetts: The Industrial Strategy One Year On
Progress Report:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/306854/bis-14-707-industrial-strategyprogress-report.pdf
published on 23 April, provides an update on progress
on the Information Economy Strategy. The Information
Economy Council is driving forward action in several
areas including addressing skills issues, barriers to growth,
and the analysis and use of data sets.
As a part of our work on skills we have created higher
apprenticeships as an alternative to traditional graduate
recruitment. In IT higher apprenticeships there have
been 420 starts in 2012/13 compared with 60 starts in
2010/11. We have also created cyber security schools
programmes, apprenticeships, internships, Centres for
Doctoral Training and will shortly be launching a Cyber
Security Massive Open Online Course.
Disabled Students’ Allowances
Mr Buckland: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills (1) if he will carry out a
public consultation on proposed changes to disabled
[198941]
students’ allowances;
(2) with reference to his written statement of 7 April
2014, Official Report, columns 1-2WS, on Higher
Education: student support, what impact assessment
his Department has made of the proposed changes to
[199002]
disabled students’ allowances.
Mr Willetts: We are currently consulting with a wide
range of stakeholders to help inform both the Equality
Analysis and Disabled Students’ Allowances Guidance
for 2015/16.
Learning difficulty
530
21,720
Long-standing illness
2,840
Mental health
3,390
Multiple disabilities
3,560
Disability type not captured
1,080
Wheelchair/mobility
540
Other disability not
categorised elsewhere
460
Total
35,390
Notes:
1. Data has been rounded to the nearest 10.
2. The data has been derived from analysing free text fields therefore may not
be 100% accurate.
3. Count of applicants refers to new DSA applicants in academic year 2012-13
who have been assessed as eligible for DSA.
4. Applications are for new DSA applications received in academic year 201213.
5. Total does not add up due to rounding.
Disabled Students’ Allowances: Brighton
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills how many students
received disabled students’ allowance in Brighton and
Hove local authority area in (a) 2012-13 and (b)
[199423]
2013-14.
Mr Willetts: Information on students awarded and
paid disabled students’ allowance is published annually
by student loans company (SLC) in the Statistical First
Release “Student Support for Higher Education England”.
The latest statistics are available at the following link:
http://www.slc.co.uk/media/694170/slcsfr052013.pdf
A further breakdown for Brighton and Hove local
authority has been provided in the table. Equivalent
figures for the academic year 2013/14 will be available
from November 2014.
325W
Written Answers
326W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
Students in receipt of disabled students allowance from Brighton and
Hove local authority
Academic Year 2012/13. Effective date: 13 November 2013
Application type
Number paid DSA
Table 1 sets out funding allocations for 2014/15 to
York College by the Skills Funding Agency. Previous
PQs provided data up to and including 2013/14 academic
year.
Full-time application
450
Part-time application
10
Post graduate DSA
80
Total
530
Notes:
1. Disabled student allowance may be paid to the student or to a
supplier on the student’s behalf.
2. Figures are derived from the post code of the applicant’s home
address.
3. The effective date is that of the November 2013 Awards Statistical
First Release. The figures are therefore provisional and do not include
students who were awarded DSA after November 2013.
4. DSA payments may be made at any point during the Academic
Year or after the end of the Academic Year.
5. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. Totals may not add to the
sum of the components due to rounding.
Table 2 sets out funding allocations for 2014/15 by
the Education Funding Agency (the successor body to
the YPLA) to York College. Previous PQs provided
data up to and including 2013/2014 academic year.
Employment: Young People
Hugh Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills (1) what estimate the
UK Statistics Authority has made of the number and
proportion of young people aged 16 to 24 in York in
(a) training, (b) employment and (c) education in
[198511]
each year since 1995-96;
(2) how many young people (a) started and (b)
completed apprenticeships in (i) York Central
constituency, (ii) York local education authority, (iii)
Yorkshire and the Humber and (iv) England in each
[198521]
year since 1995-96.
Matthew Hancock: Data are not available prior to
2000. Estimates for the proportion of young people in
training, employment and education separately are not
available.
Information on the number of apprenticeship starts
and achievements by geography and age is published in
supplementary tables to a Statistical First Release:
Table 1: SFA Funding allocations for York College
£
Academic
year
2014/15
https://www.gov.uk/govemment/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/296382/apprenticeship-achievements-bygeography-level-and-age.xlsm
Real terms2
3,382,992
3,382,992
Adult allocations
3
Table 2: EFA Funding allocations for York College
£
Academic year
16-18 Cash allocation
Real terms2
15,900,930
15,900,930
2014/15
Table 3 sets out funding allocations for 2010/11 to
2014/15 to Askham Bryan College by the Skills Funding
Agency. Data is available from the creation of the Skills
Funding Agency in April 2010.
Table 4 sets out funding allocations for 2010/11 to
2014/15 to Askham Bryan College by the YPLA and its
successor body, the Education Funding Agency.
Table 3: SFA Funding Allocations for Askham Bryan College
£
Academic
year
19+ Cash allocation1
Real terms2
2010/11
Adult allocations
2,264,811
2,455,137
2011/12
Adult allocations
3,106,679
3,291,154
2012/13
Adult allocations
3,249,205
3,382,422
2013/14
Adult allocations
3,045,779
3,108,486
2,846,003
2,846,003
3
2014/15
Adult allocations
3
Table 4: EFA Funding Allocations for Askham Bryan College
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/fe-datalibrary-apprenticeships-2
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/308808/apprenticeship-starts-bygeography-level-and-age.xls
19+ Cash allocation1
£
Academic year
16-18 Cash allocation
2010/11
Real terms2
6,668,827
7,229,250
11,277,092
11,946,729
2012/13
12,342,976
12,849,038
2013/14
13,451,499
13,728,442
2014/15
14,840,339
14,840,339
2011/12
4
1
Higher Education: York
Hugh Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills what funding has been
allocated to (a) York College and (b) Askham Bryan
College by the Skills Funding Agency and the Young
People’s Learning Agency in (i) cash and (ii) real terms
[198510]
in each year since 2009-10.
Matthew Hancock: The Skills Funding Agency is
responsible for the allocation of funding to further
education college for post-19 education and training,
and for Apprenticeships for people aged 16 and over.
The information requested is available in the following
tables.
Skills Funding Agency allocation data for 19+ participation, additional
learning support and discretionary learner support.
2
These figures have been calculated using HM Treasury deflators, last updated
5 December 2013.
3
Includes 24+ Advanced Learning Loans that were introduced in 2013/14.
4
Askham Bryan college took over the land-based provision from University of
Cumbria in 2011/12.
Hugh Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills how many young
people from (a) York Central constituency and (b)
City of York local authority area (i) applied for and (ii)
started a degree course in each year since 2009-10.
[198512]
Mr Willetts: The latest available information on
applicants is shown in Table 1.
327W
Written Answers
Table 1: UCAS applicants aged under 211 to full-time undergraduate courses
from York Central constituency and York local authority
2010
2011
Domicile
2012
2013
2009/10
York unitary authority
4
York Central constituency
York Central
328W
Table 2: Young 1 entrants 2 domiciled 3 in York Central constituency 4 and York
unitary authority, UK Higher Education Institutions, academic years 2009/10 to
2012/13
Year of entry
2009
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
470
475
535
450
430
1,205
1,225
1,245
1,130
1,085
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
965
995
1,070
825
440
385
460
330
4
1
York local authority
Young refers to students aged under 21 on 31 August in the reporting year.
Entrants refers to students in their first year of study.
Domicile refers to a students’ home or permanent address prior to starting
their course.
4
Parliamentary constituency boundaries were revised from the 6 May 2010
UK General Election. The figure for 2009/10 refers to the City of York
constituency.
Source:
HESA Student Record
2
3
1
This analysis uses country specific age definitions that align with the cut off
points for school and college cohorts within the different administrations of the
UK. For England, ages are defined on 31 August. Defining ages in this way
matches the assignment of children to school cohorts.
Source:
UCAS
The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) collects
and publishes data on students at UK Higher Education
Institutions (HEIs). The number of young (under 21)
entrants to UK HEIs who were domiciled in York
Central constituency and York local authority prior to
starting their course is shown in Table 2. HESA figures
for 2013/14 will be available in January 2015. There are
differences in the coverage of UCAS and HESA: the
UCAS figures cover applicants to HEIs, Further Education
Colleges (FECs), and Alternative Providers (APs) of
higher education in the UK; the HESA figures cover
HEIs only, plus the University of Buckinghamshire.
Not all applicants apply via UCAS: some apply directly
to institutions. In addition, some applicants who obtain
a place via UCAS opt to defer entry until the following
year.
Hugh Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills how much funding for
each (a) undergraduate and (b) postgraduate student
the Higher Education Funding Council for England
allocated to (i) the University of York and (ii) York St
John University in (A) cash and (B) at current prices in
[198514]
each year since 1997-98.
Mr Willetts: The following table shows the amount of
grant distributed by the Higher Education Funding
Council for England (HEFCE) for teaching and research
per full-time equivalent student for each of the years
requested. There have been changes in HEFCE’s funding
methodology over this period, so these tables do not
provide like for like yearly comparisons. In particular,
the data prior to 1998-99 are not available in a similar
format to that for later years.
Cash figures
York St John University
Base price
1998-99
1999-2000
£2,662
£2,682
Funds
9,477
12,929,019
1,013,979
3,941,856
8
4,394.5
550.5
622.6
Rate
2,276
418
1,185
2,942
1,842
6,332
5,363,737
56,807
19,253
14,689,431
1,148,184
599,490
2,278.0
119.0
11
4,883.7
584.5
237.0
2,355
477
1,719
3,008
1,964
2,529
5,710,880
46,797
9,813
14,429,476
968,398
613,648
2,248.3
109.0
8
4,681.0
483.0
249.5
2,540
429
1,258
3,083
2,005
2,460
6,850,259
51,666
1,610
15,606,079
1,017,459
667,144
2,530.6
87.0
2
5,005.0
530.0
254.5
2,707
594
716
3,118
1,920
2,621
6,738,292
25,183
954
16,890,816
920,051
597,943
2,448.5
113.6
1
5,347.0
535.0
227.5
2,752
222
954
3,159
1,720
2,628
7,398,683
47,555
2,646
17,368,394
976,328
616,426
2,476.0
108.0
4
5,584.0
587.0
238.0
2,988
440
662
3,110
1,663
2,590
8,674,927
39,794
5,833
19,573,908
948,967
695,924
2,463.1
111.0
4
5,854.2
639.5
225.0
Funds
Funds
Funds
Rate
£2,870
Funds
FTEs
Rate
2003-04
£2,808
Funds
FTEs
Rate
2004-05
£3,484
PGR
71
FTEs
2002-03
PGT
29,835
Rate
£2,805
UG
2,176
FTEs
2001-02
PGR
4,952,504
Rate
£2,731
PGT
FTEs
FTEs
2000-01
University of York
UG
Funds
FTEs
329W
Written Answers
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
330W
Cash figures
York St John University
Base price
Rate
2005-06
£3,608
Funds
FTEs
Rate
2006-07
£3,721
Funds
FTEs
Rate
2007-08
£3,833
Funds
FTEs
Rate
2008-09
£3,964
Funds
FTEs
Rate
2009-10
£3,947
Funds
FTEs
Rate
2010-11
£3,951
Funds
FTEs
Rate
2011-12
£3,670
Funds
FTEs
Rate
2012-13 (final)
Funds
FTEs
Rate
2013-14
(adjusted)
Funds
FTEs
Rate
2014-15 (initial)
Funds
FTEs
Rate
University of York
UG
PGT
PGR
UG
PGT
PGR
3,522
359
1,458
3,344
1,484
3,093
9,234,557
28,016
0
20,684,286
893,106
0
2,499.0
80.0
0
6,016.5
580.0
0.0
3,695
350
n/a
3,438
1,540
n/a
10,062,003
48,864
0
22,742,134
1,144,124
0
2,582.1
96.0
0
6,200.8
684.3
0.0
3,897
509
n/a
3,668
1,672
n/a
10,617,720
77,064
0
25,094,421
1,245,662
0
2,605.9
120.1
0
6,442.9
681.5
0.0
4,075
642
n/a
3,895
1,828
n/a
10,007,467
59,616
0
27,080,209
1,027,227
0
2,454.0
64.3
0
6,624.6
537.6
0.0
4,078
927
n/a
4,088
1,911
n/a
10,258,008
65,646
72,126
28,697,321
407,717
3,537,180
2,773.2
95.5
15
7,426.8
560.0
671.5
3,699
687
4,808
3,864
728
5,268
9,803,245
43,090
82,963
29,649,309
402,751
3,329,509
2,717.0
116.2
19
7,869.6
561.0
676.5
3,608
371
4,366
3,768
718
4,922
9,613,815
74,480
106,146
30,212,888
515,555
3,308,911
2,722.5
122.6
26
8,468.5
673.8
711.0
3,531
608
4,098
3,568
765
4,654
6,603,696
25,808
32,230
20,468,001
549,602
4,073,426
3,168.9
68.8
15.3
9,038.1
715.9
680.2
2,084
375
2,113
2,265
768
5,989
4,119,752
31,542
32,818
14,094,459
495,831
3,962,711
3,474.9
57.1
16.3
9,321.9
703.7
694.4
1,186
552
2,020
1,512
705
5,706
1,522,646
31,998
40,665
7,796,656
595,182
4,067,118
3,586.0
59.0
19.3
9,529.5
686.1
715.0
425
542
2,107
818
868
5,688
Current figures
York St John University
Base price
1998-99
£2,662
UG
£2,682
PGR
UG
PGT
PGR
-
Funds
-
-
-
-
-
FTEs
-
-
-
-
-
-
3,178
584
1,654
4,107
2,571
8,839
-
Rate
1999-2000
University of York
PGT
Funds
-
-
-
-
-
FTEs
-
-
-
-
-
-
3,237
656
2,363
4,135
2,700
3,477
Rate
331W
Written Answers
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
332W
Current figures
York St John University
Base price
2000-01
£2,731
UG
£2,805
£2,870
£2,808
£3,484
£3,608
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3,444
582
1,706
4,180
2,719
3,335
Funds
-
-
-
-
-
-
FTEs
-
-
-
-
-
-
3,578
785
946
4,122
2,538
3,465
-
Funds
-
-
-
-
-
FTEs
-
-
-
-
-
-
3,559
287
1,234
4,086
2,224
3,400
Funds
-
-
-
-
-
-
FTEs
-
-
-
-
-
-
3,781
557
837
3,936
2,105
3,277
-
Funds
-
-
-
-
-
FTEs
-
-
-
-
-
-
4,350
443
1,801
4,130
1,833
3,820
-
Funds
-
-
-
-
-
FTEs
-
-
-
-
-
-
4,467
423
n/a
4,156
1,862
n/a
-
Rate
2006-07
£3,721
Funds
-
-
-
-
-
FTEs
-
-
-
-
-
-
4,585
599
n/a
4,315
1,967
n/a
-
Rate
2007-08
£3,833
Funds
-
-
-
-
-
FTEs
-
-
-
-
-
-
4,672
736
n/a
4,466
2,096
n/a
Rate
2008-09
£3,964
Funds
-
-
-
-
-
-
FTEs
-
-
-
-
-
-
4,549
1,034
n/a
4,560
2,131
n/a
-
Rate
2009-10
£3,947
Funds
-
-
-
-
-
FTEs
-
-
-
-
-
-
4,017
747
5,222
4,196
791
5,721
Rate
2010-11
£3,951
Funds
-
-
-
-
-
-
FTEs
-
-
-
-
-
-
3,823
393
4,626
3,992
761
5,214
-
Rate
2011-12
£3,670
Funds
-
-
-
-
-
FTEs
-
-
-
-
-
-
3,664
630
4,252
3,701
794
4,828
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rate
2012-13 (final)
Funds
FTEs
Rate
2013-14 (adjusted
-
-
Rate
2005-06
PGR
-
Rate
2004-05
PGT
-
Rate
2003-04
UG
Funds
Rate
2002-03
PGR
FTEs
Rate
2001-02
University of York
PGT
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,124
382
2,154
2,308
783
6,104
Funds
-
-
-
-
-
-
FTEs
-
-
-
-
-
-
333W
Written Answers
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
334W
Current figures
York St John University
Base price
Rate
2014-15 (initial)
University of York
UG
PGT
PGR
UG
PGT
PGR
1,186
552
2,020
1,512
705
5,706
-
Funds
-
-
-
-
-
FTEs
-
-
-
-
-
-
416
532
2,066
802
851
5,577
Rate
Note:
The reforms to HE funding which this Government introduced in 2012/13 have seen grant that HEFCE makes to universities reduce as the income that universities
receive from students increases.
Hugh Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills how many applications
for undergraduate study were made to (a) the
University of York, (b) York St John University and
(c) all English universities in each year since 2009-10.
[198515]
Mr Willetts: The latest information is given in the
following table. UCAS have not released any data on
applications to individual institutions for the 2014
application cycle, but the latest figures for total applicants
to all UK institutions (published on 30 May) show that
they have risen by 4%, compared to the same point in
2013.
UCAS main scheme applications to University of York, York St John University
and England, 2009 to 2013, full-time undergraduate courses
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
University of
York
21,543
24,548
23,725
23,570
25,030
York St John
University
6,194
7,685
8,657
9,600
9,700
2,021,546 2,303,678 2,418,828 2,209,337
2,265,95
All institutions in
England
Notes:
1. Each applicant can submit up to five applications.
2. Figures cover applicants who applied during the main UCAS application
scheme which closes on 30 June. Applicants who subsequently applied during
clearing are not included.
Source:
UCAS reference tables.
Post Codes: Northern Ireland
Mr Ivan Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills whether public sector
organisations in Northern Ireland will be eligible for
the terms of use for postcode address finder from
[199370]
1 April 2015.
Jenny Willott: Northern Ireland public sector
organisations will be not eligible for the Postcode Address
File (PAF) Public Sector Licence agreed between the
Department for Business, Innovation, and Skills (BIS)
and Royal Mail. The PAF Public Sector Licence covers
public sector bodies in England and Wales and will
come into full force on 1 April 2015. Bodies whose
remit is mainly or wholly within Northern Ireland,
Scotland, and other Crown dependencies or foreign
territories are excluded from the agreement between
BIS and Royal Mail.
Royal Mail discussed the creation of an equivalent to
the PAF Public Sector Licence with the Northern Ireland
Land and Property Services. The view was that most of
Northern Ireland’s Government Departments were only
interested in addresses within Northern Ireland and
that there was no need for a central agreement.
Research: Gender
Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills what assessment she
has made of the gender balance amongst chairs and
presidents of (a) learned societies and (b) research
councils.
[199684]
Mr Willetts: The National Academies, the UK’s leading
learned societies, are independent, self-governing bodies.
Ministers have no role in academy appointments but we
encourage them to embed equality and diversity in
everything they do. Professor Dame Ann Dowling is
expected to be confirmed as the first female President of
the Royal Academy of Engineering in September. The
current Presidents of the Institute of Physics, the Royal
Society of Chemistry and the Society of Biology are all
female.
Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills (BIS) appoint chairs to the research councils
and these appointments are regulated by the Office of
the Commissioner for Public Appointments. BIS Ministers
are committed to the principle of public appointments
on merit through an open and transparent process and
to providing equal opportunities for all, irrespective of
race, age, disability, gender, marital status, religion,
sexual orientation, transgender and working patterns.
There are seven research councils, the chairs of which
are currently male. The research councils are committed
to improving diversity in their public appointments and
held a workshop in March 2014 to agree an action plan
to increase the diversity of each council. The action
plan will be published on the RCUK website and
disseminated to all council members.
The BIS Board, which provides collective strategic
leadership of the Department, has endorsed a plan of
activity and a number of actions to help the Department
not only to improve its position on gender-diversity
during 2014/15 but to reinforce its continued commitment
to attracting a strong and diverse field of candidates to
public appointments.
Shipping: Minimum Wage
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills (1) what recent (a)
correspondence and (b) discussions he has had with
individual employers in the maritime industry about
pay rates below the national minimum wage (NMW)
for seafarers subject to UK national insurance
employed on vessels working from UK ports; and if he
will take steps to enforce in the maritime sector his
Department’s policy on enforcement, prosecutions and
naming employers who break the law on the NMW;
[199360]
335W
Written Answers
12 JUNE 2014
(2) what recent discussions he has had with the (a)
UK Chamber of Shipping and (b) European
Community Shipowners Association on pay rates for
seafarers subject to UK national insurance employed
on vessels working from UK ports who are paid hourly
rates below the national minimum wage; and if he will
request data on such pay rates from maritime
[199356]
employers’ associations.
Jenny Willott: The Department is beginning engagement
with a range of stakeholders from the maritime industry
to fully understand issues surrounding payment of the
minimum wage. To date we have met with officials in
other jurisdictions as this policy area is affected by
legislation outside the UK. We will go on to engage
with individual maritime employers and their associations.
We will be discussing recruitment models and pay structures
as part of this engagement. Following these investigations,
we will consider whether further enforcement activity is
needed in this sector.
This Government remains committed to the minimum
wage and the protection it provides to low paid workers.
That is why we have strengthened the enforcement
regime by cutting back the criteria for naming and
shaming non-compliant employers and have increased
the penalty from 50% to 100% of arrears up to £20,000.
We are also taking primary legislation to apply a penalty
per underpaid worker rather than per non-compliant
employer.
Where employers in the maritime industry are found
to not be paying the national minimum wage that
workers are entitled to, we will not hesitate to take
action, including recovering arrears owed to workers
and penalising employers financially and their reputation
by naming and shaming where appropriate.
Workers in the maritime industry who think they
have not been paid the correct national minimum wage
should contact the Pay and Work Rights Helpline on
0800 917 2368.
Space Technology
Mr Ivan Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills whether his
Department has invited representatives of the devolved
administrations to join the ad hoc ministerial-led
steering group on the implementation of his
[199367]
Department’s national space security policy.
Mr Willetts: The UK Space Agency and the Ministry
of Defence are jointly leading work to co-ordinate an
implementation plan for the National Space Security
Policy that should be agreed between Ministers in the
four lead Government Departments by the end of the
calendar year. This plan will include the governance
arrangements to oversee its successful implementation.
Although Defence and National Security are not devolved
matters, devolved Administrations will be consulted
where it is necessary or appropriate to do so.
Written Answers
336W
Space Technology: Northern Ireland
Mr Ivan Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills what steps he is taking
to ensure that industry and academia in Northern
Ireland are able to benefit from opportunities in
support of national space security interests.
[199368]
Mr Willetts: As part of the Northern Ireland pact
published last year, the UK Space Agency is currently
setting the business case for an investment in a satellite
propulsion test facility near Belfast. This capability
could be used for satellites employed in commercial and
security uses.
Mr Ivan Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills what discussions
officials in his Department had with their counterparts
in the Northern Ireland Executive before publication of
[199371]
the National Space Security Policy.
Mr Willetts: Prior to the publication of the National
Space Security Policy, committee clearance was requested
via the National Security Committee by me which was
confirmed on 12 December 2014. Although Defence
and National Security are not devolved matters, devolved
Administrations will be consulted where it is necessary
or appropriate to do so.
UK Coal
Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills (1) what assessment his
Department has made of the conclusions of the Orion
Innovations report entitled Merits of UK Coal State
Aid Application, submitted to his Department on 9
[199685]
May 2014;
(2) what assessment he has made of the report,
Merits of UK Coal State Aid Application submitted to
his Department on 9 May 2014 by Orion Innovations.
[199792]
Michael Fallon: I asked officials to review the report
and discuss it with the author. This included a discussion
on the background to the report and an explanation
from Orion of the methodology and conclusions made
in the report. Furthermore, they questioned the detail
of the analysis, the robustness of the assumptions and
areas for further development. Their conclusions are
that the report is a high level analysis of the key issues
and that it would require significant further work, diligence
and validation of assumptions and contingency. It also
requires enhancements to methodology, for example, to
model the phasing of cash flows and include time value
of money considerations and appropriate returns to
capital. Orion has noted that the work was completed
on a short time frame and that they would be open to
carrying out further work if a mandate could be agreed.
On this basis, it is not possible to draw conclusions
sufficient to inform any investment decision.
ORAL ANSWERS
Thursday 12 June 2014
Col. No.
CHURCH COMMISSIONERS ...............................
Biblical Literacy (Children) ...................................
Chaplains in Schools and Academies .....................
Financial Services ..................................................
Listed Buildings (Repairs)......................................
Meriam Ibrahim ....................................................
Stephen Sutton.......................................................
687
692
688
691
691
689
687
ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE .......
Electoral Roll Status ..............................................
Imprints in Social Media........................................
688
689
688
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL
AFFAIRS...............................................................
CAP (Common Land) ...........................................
671
679
Col. No.
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS—
continued
CAP Reform ..........................................................
Dangerous Dogs Strategy ......................................
Farmers and Food Producers (New Markets) ........
Fish Stocks ............................................................
Flood Protection (Government Spending) .............
Flooding ................................................................
Halal and Kosher Meat..........................................
Pilot Badger Culls (Somerset and
Gloucestershire).................................................
Topical Questions ..................................................
Trichinella in Pigs...................................................
Wild Boar (Forest of Dean) ...................................
677
672
675
680
681
673
671
676
683
682
682
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
Thursday 12 June 2014
Col. No.
Col. No.
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS ............. 57WS
UK Coal ................................................................ 57WS
HOME DEPARTMENT........................................... 59WS
Justice and Home Affairs Council.......................... 59WS
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures . 63WS
ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ..................... 57WS
Environment Council............................................. 57WS
EU Energy Council................................................ 58WS
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE..... 59WS
Annual Human Rights and Democracy Report
2013 ................................................................... 59WS
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.................... 64WS
Foreign Affairs Council ......................................... 64WS
TRANSPORT ........................................................... 66WS
EU Transport Council ........................................... 66WS
Thameslink Southern Great Northern
(Rail Franchising) .............................................. 68WS
PETITIONS
Thursday 12 June 2014
Col. No.
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS .............
CAMRA’s Call for a Pubs Watchdog ....................
3P
3P
Col. No.
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS—continued
Pub Rent Prices (Derbyshire) .................................
4P
WRITTEN ANSWERS
Thursday 12 June 2014
Col. No.
Col. No.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL .......................................... 309W
GlaxoSmithKline ................................................... 309W
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS—continued
Space Technology: Northern Ireland ..................... 336W
UK Coal ................................................................ 336W
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS .............
Adult Education ....................................................
Animal Experiments ..............................................
China .....................................................................
Credit Rating .........................................................
Digital Technology: Skilled Workers ......................
Disabled Students’ Allowances ..............................
Disabled Students’ Allowances: Brighton ..............
Employment: Young People...................................
Higher Education: York .........................................
Post Codes: Northern Ireland ................................
Research: Gender...................................................
Shipping: Minimum Wage .....................................
Space Technology ..................................................
320W
320W
322W
322W
323W
323W
323W
324W
325W
325W
333W
334W
334W
335W
CABINET OFFICE...................................................
Childbirth ..............................................................
Civil Servants: Equal Pay .......................................
Government Departments .....................................
Health ....................................................................
Social Justice Committee .......................................
224W
224W
224W
225W
225W
225W
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT..
Disabled Facilities Grants ......................................
Health ....................................................................
Housing: Disability ................................................
Mortgages: Government Assistance.......................
Mortgages: Huntingdon.........................................
260W
260W
260W
260W
261W
262W
Col. No.
Col. No.
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT—
continued
Out of Town Shopping Centres: Northampton...... 263W
Sleeping Rough: North West .................................. 263W
Social Rented Housing: Foreign Nationals ............ 264W
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE—
continued
Sri Lanka ............................................................... 268W
Transcaucasus ........................................................ 268W
CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT .......................... 223W
Broadband ............................................................. 223W
Sports: Children..................................................... 223W
DEFENCE.................................................................
Afghanistan ...........................................................
Africa.....................................................................
Armed Conflict: Children ......................................
Armed Forces: British Nationality .........................
Armed Forces Covenant: Northern Ireland ...........
Armed Forces: Discharges .....................................
Armed Forces: Young People .................................
Armoured Fighting Vehicles ..................................
Army......................................................................
AWE Aldermaston.................................................
Boskalis .................................................................
Defence: Procurement............................................
Djibouti .................................................................
Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft...................................
Military Aircraft ....................................................
Risk Assessment ....................................................
Somalia..................................................................
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.....................................
USA.......................................................................
Yemen ....................................................................
232W
232W
232W
233W
234W
233W
234W
235W
235W
236W
236W
236W
237W
237W
237W
238W
238W
239W
239W
240W
241W
EDUCATION............................................................
Academies..............................................................
Children: Social Services ........................................
Dominic Cummings ...............................................
Free School Meals: Nuneaton ................................
GCSE ....................................................................
Sixth-Form Education: Student Numbers..............
257W
257W
257W
258W
259W
259W
259W
ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE .....................
Climate Change: Conferences ................................
Climate Change: Northern Ireland ........................
Energy: Carers .......................................................
Fracking.................................................................
Fracking: Lancashire .............................................
Fuel Poverty...........................................................
Health ....................................................................
Nuclear Safeguards ................................................
Oil: Libya...............................................................
Renewable Energy..................................................
UK Coal ................................................................
Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 .
227W
227W
227W
228W
228W
228W
228W
229W
229W
230W
230W
231W
231W
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL
AFFAIRS...............................................................
Bovine TB ..............................................................
Climate Change: Funding ......................................
Environment Protection: Crime .............................
Equine Industry: Regulation ..................................
Flood Control ........................................................
Food ......................................................................
Hill Farming ..........................................................
Severn Estuary Flood Defences .............................
Sheep .....................................................................
242W
242W
242W
243W
242W
243W
244W
244W
242W
244W
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE.....
Colombia ...............................................................
Gibraltar and Spain ...............................................
Iran ........................................................................
Palestinians ............................................................
266W
266W
267W
267W
268W
HEALTH...................................................................
Abortion ................................................................
Abortion: Counselling ...........................................
Cancer ...................................................................
Care Homes: West Sussex ......................................
Cervical Cancer......................................................
Chlamydia..............................................................
Dementia ...............................................................
Food Banks............................................................
Health: Screening...................................................
Health Services: Foreign Nationals ........................
Health Services: Northern Ireland .........................
Health, Work and Wellbeing Coordinators ............
Hospital Beds.........................................................
Hospitals: Bolton ...................................................
Hospitals: Waiting Lists .........................................
Human Embryo Experiments ................................
Medical Treatments: Side Effects ...........................
Mental Health........................................................
Mental Health Services ..........................................
NHS: Fees and Charges .........................................
Nutrition: Homelessness ........................................
Prescriptions: Fees and Charges.............................
Secure Accommodation: South West .....................
Sleep Apnoea .........................................................
Sleeping Rough ......................................................
Sugar .....................................................................
268W
268W
271W
272W
273W
274W
276W
279W
281W
283W
281W
282W
283W
284W
286W
285W
287W
287W
288W
290W
290W
291W
291W
291W
292W
292W
293W
HOME DEPARTMENT...........................................
Asylum: Syria ........................................................
Asylum: Uganda ....................................................
Entry Clearances....................................................
Entry Clearances: Commonwealth.........................
Human Trafficking ................................................
Members: Correspondence ....................................
Surveillance: Aircraft .............................................
252W
252W
252W
253W
253W
254W
254W
254W
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT....................
Developing Countries: Education ..........................
Developing Countries: Health Services ..................
Developing Countries: Housing .............................
Developing Countries: Working Conditions ..........
Developing Countries: Young People.....................
Palestinians ............................................................
264W
264W
264W
265W
265W
265W
266W
JUSTICE...................................................................
Cancer ...................................................................
Driving Under Influence ........................................
Fly Tipping ............................................................
Judicial Review ......................................................
Legal Aid Scheme ..................................................
Magistrates’ Courts: Prestatyn ...............................
Prison Service ........................................................
Prisoners: Sanitary Protection................................
Public Defender Service .........................................
Secure Colleges ......................................................
Victim Support Schemes ........................................
Victim Support Schemes: York ..............................
309W
309W
310W
310W
313W
314W
315W
315W
317W
317W
318W
319W
319W
NORTHERN IRELAND ..........................................
Disciplinary Proceedings........................................
Equal Opportunities ..............................................
Giro d’Italia ...........................................................
225W
225W
226W
226W
PRIME MINISTER .................................................. 223W
Life Peers ............................................................... 223W
Col. No.
TRANSPORT ...........................................................
Air Traffic Control: Northern Ireland ....................
Aviation: Scotland..................................................
Bus Services: Visual Impairment............................
Carers: Travel .........................................................
Cycling...................................................................
Cycling: Children ...................................................
Driving...................................................................
Driving Instruction: Warrington ............................
Driving Tests: Warrington......................................
Health ....................................................................
High Speed 2 Railway Line ....................................
Large Goods Vehicles: Driving Tests......................
Large Goods Vehicles: Taxation.............................
Motor Vehicles.......................................................
Public Transport ....................................................
Railways.................................................................
Railways: Overcrowding.........................................
Road Signs and Markings: Northern Ireland .........
Road Traffic ...........................................................
Roads: East of England .........................................
Roads: Repairs and Maintenance...........................
Roads: Safety .........................................................
Shipping.................................................................
Shipping: Pay .........................................................
Shipping: Working Hours ......................................
Speed Limits: Urban Areas ....................................
Travel: South East ..................................................
Unmanned Air Vehicles .........................................
West Coast Railway Line .......................................
293W
293W
293W
294W
294W
295W
295W
295W
296W
296W
296W
297W
301W
301W
301W
302W
302W
302W
303W
303W
304W
305W
306W
306W
306W
307W
307W
308W
308W
308W
Col. No.
TREASURY ..............................................................
Aggregates Levy: Northern Ireland........................
Day Care: North West ...........................................
Health ....................................................................
Investment .............................................................
Sanitary Protection: VAT .......................................
Taxation: Self-assessment.......................................
Travel: Insurance....................................................
Working Tax Credit: Bolton...................................
254W
254W
255W
255W
255W
256W
256W
257W
257W
WOMEN AND EQUALITIES.................................. 227W
Equal Opportunities .............................................. 227W
WORK AND PENSIONS .........................................
Age: Discrimination...............................................
Children: Maintenance ..........................................
Disadvantaged: EU Grants and Loans ..................
Employment and Support Allowance ....................
Health ....................................................................
Housing Benefit: Wales ..........................................
Jobcentre Plus ........................................................
Maternity Pay ........................................................
Personal Independence Payment ............................
Personal Independence Payment: North East ........
Separated People: Finance .....................................
Social Security Benefits..........................................
Social Security Benefits: Fraud ..............................
Universal Credit.....................................................
245W
245W
246W
246W
246W
247W
247W
247W
248W
249W
249W
250W
251W
251W
251W
Members who wish to have the Daily Report of the Debates forwarded to them should give notice at the Vote
Office.
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 19 June 2014
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, £4.
Annual subscriptions:
Commons, £865; Lords, £600.
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 (£100 for a two-volume edition).
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 582
No. 6
Thursday
12 June 2014
CONTENTS
Thursday 12 June 2014
Oral Answers to Questions [Col. 671] [see index inside back page]
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Church Commissioners
Speaker’s Electoral Commission
HM Passport Office [Col. 693]
Answer to urgent question—(Mrs May)
Business of the House [Col. 709]
Statement—(Mr Lansley)
Social Action, Responsibility and Herosim [Col. 725]
Bill presented, and read the First time
Debate on the Address (Sixth Day) [Col. 726]
Amendment—(Ed Balls)—on a Division, negatived
Main Question, on a Division, agreed to
Sutton Coldfield (Royal Status) [Col. 813]
Debate on motion for Adjournment
Written Statements [Col. 57WS]
Petitions [Col. 3P]
Observations
Written Answers to Questions [Col. 223W] [see index inside back page]