parliamentary debates - United Kingdom Parliament - Parliament UK

18 downloads 2451 Views 1MB Size Report
[98316] Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South. Pembrokeshire) (Con): ...... (3) the Motions in the name of Mr Kevin Barr
Wednesday 7 March 2012

Volume 541 No. 275

HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday 7 March 2012

£5·00

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2012 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through The National Archives website at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-licence-information.htm Enquiries to The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected]

827

7 MARCH 2012

House of Commons

828

crime or violence in Northern Ireland. I would appeal to everybody to work closely with the PSNI and to pursue whatever political aims they have through peaceful, democratic means.

Wednesday 7 March 2012

Robert Halfon: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that, in what will be a high-profile year for the United Kingdom—and for Harlow, given the number of Olympic events happening in and around my constituency—the security threat in Northern Ireland remains at “severe”?

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock PRAYERS [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS BRITISH MUSEUM (CLOCKS AND WATCHES) 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 the Honourable Sir Donnell Deeny, Chairman of the Spoliation Advisory Panel, dated 7 March 2012, in respect of fourteen clocks and watches now in the possession of the British Museum, London.—(Mr Jeremy Hunt.)

Oral Answers to Questions NORTHERN IRELAND The Secretary of State was asked— Security Situation 1. Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con): What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [97673]

11. Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [97684]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson): As I stated last week in my first bi-annual statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland, the threat remains severe. Tackling terrorism in all its forms and within the rule of law remains the highest priority for this Government. We will continue to work as closely as possible with our strategic partners in the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government to counter this threat. Pauline Latham: I welcome the steps being taken to reduce the number of terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland, but as my right hon. Friend said in his recent written ministerial statement, violent activity is still being undertaken by loyalist organisations. What measures are being taken to address this issue? Mr Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question and would immediately like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has done a huge amount of work, talking to a number of loyalist groups. There is absolutely no place for organised

Mr Paterson: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the Olympics, which present us with a wonderful opportunity to sell this country. Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Great Britain is graded as “substantial”. I work closely with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I saw the Minister for Justice in Northern Ireland on Monday. Together we are determined to ensure that there should be no threat to a peaceful and successful Olympics. Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP): The Secretary of State will be aware of a murder in Londonderry in recent weeks and the continuing targeting by dissident republicans of a number of people, and not just in the border area, but across Northern Ireland. Is he content in his discussions with the Chief Constable and the Minister for Justice that the necessary resources are in place to deal with the escalating problem? Mr Paterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that disgusting and deplorable murder. I spoke to the Chief Constable this morning, and I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we agreed a special package of £200 million at the request of the Chief Constable, who said in April last year: “We have the resources, we have the resilience and we have the commitment.”

Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): When he recently acquitted those charged with the murder of Tommy English, Mr Justice Gillen reminded us that the use of accomplice evidence is long established and, in the words of his judgment, is “a price worth paying in the interest of protecting the public from major criminals”.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the relevant provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 will remain available to the PSNI? Mr Paterson: I will check the exact details of those provisions and get back to the right hon. Gentleman. Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is impossible to engage in dialogue with dissident organisations that show no signs at all of renouncing their violent or criminal ways? Mr Paterson: My hon. Friend is quite right. As I said a few moments ago, there is absolutely no excuse for pursuing political aims by anything other than peaceful democratic means, through the Assembly and representation in this Parliament. There are small numbers of groups that do not accept the current settlement, and we are determined to bear down on them.

829

Oral Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab): May I say again to the Secretary of State that we will stand with him in tackling any threat to security in Northern Ireland? In tackling terrorism, resources for the police and security services are obviously paramount. Does he also agree, however, that the many community and voluntary organisations in Northern Ireland contribute hugely to a peaceful and stable society? Can he therefore update the House on progress with the Peace IV funding bid to the European Union, which is so helpful to maintaining security? Mr Paterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his continued support on these serious security issues, which must remain a bilateral matter. I entirely agree with him about the community projects and funds. What we are putting into security can only contain the problem; the long-term solution is to get deep into those communities. I called a meeting with Eamon Gilmore and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to look at the Peace IV funds, which we think would come from our existing budgets. Vernon Coaker: I thank the Secretary of State for his response. The financial support for communities, currently almost £300 million, is crucial to combating paramilitarism, maintaining security and ensuring that we continue to build the peaceful future in Northern Ireland that we all want. Will he ensure that he gives this matter the urgent attention that it deserves? Mr Paterson: I would genuinely like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we talk about this matter frequently, not only with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister but with the Justice Minister, whom I saw on Monday. A lot of these projects are now in devolved hands—many of them in the hands of the Department of Justice—and we entirely agree that they need to carry on. United Kingdom 2. Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con): What recent assessment he has made of the benefits to Northern Ireland of remaining part of the UK. [97674] The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson): This Government firmly believe in the United Kingdom. We believe that what we can achieve together will always be much more than we can ever do apart. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, we will always back the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. Nigel Adams: I am extremely grateful for that reply. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Union ensures that all parts of the UK can be part of a larger and stronger economy? Mr Paterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Having only 2.8% of the UK population, Northern Ireland benefits enormously from being part of the United Kingdom. I was interested to see a poll yesterday that had been conducted by Queen’s university, which showed that 82.6% wanted to remain in the UK, and only 17.4% wanted a united Ireland.

Oral Answers

830

Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): Does the Secretary of State agree that, in addition to there being enormous advantages and benefits for Northern Ireland being part of the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom itself has been strengthened and enriched by the contribution of the people of Northern Ireland—and, indeed, of the other constituent nations of the United Kingdom—not least through the willing and voluntary service of many generations of Ulstermen and women in Her Majesty’s forces? Mr Paterson: I entirely endorse the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. Right across every sphere of national life, there are glorious examples—spectacularly so in golf this week—of individuals from Northern Ireland who have shone. Mr Dodds: I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s endorsement of the Union of Northern Ireland and the rest of Great Britain. He rightly refers to the great sporting success of our golfers, and let us not forget our snooker player who won the world championship. He mentioned the opinion poll conducted in the highly respected Queen’s university survey, which showed that more than 80% of people wanted to stay within the United Kingdom. Will he now confirm to the House that he has no intention whatever of organising any kind of border poll in Northern Ireland, given the settled position of the people there and the levels of satisfaction with the present constitutional settlement? Mr Paterson: I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman on that. As Secretary of State, I have the right to call a poll when I feel like it; I have an obligation to call a poll when there is a clear indication that there would be a vote for a united Ireland. Given that only 17.4% were in favour of that option, and the fact that I have received hardly any phone calls, e-mails or letters on the issue, I have no intention of calling a poll at the moment. We should concentrate on the economy and on building a shared future; that is the real priority for the people in Northern Ireland. Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): In addition to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said about the economy and the many great advantages to all parts of the United Kingdom of being part of the Union, will he confirm that the present level of public expenditure in Northern Ireland could not be sustained under any other constitutional arrangements, regardless of the destination of the Province? Mr Paterson: The Chairman of the Select Committee makes a telling point. Public spending per head in Northern Ireland is currently £10,706, which is about 25% higher than it is in England. That is a huge advantage for Northern Ireland. It gives us time to rebalance the economy as well as showing the key role that membership of the UK plays for the people in Northern Ireland. Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab): Further to the words of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), one of the advantages and benefits of the United Kingdom is a common defence policy, to which men and women of Northern Ireland have contributed greatly. How does the Secretary of State feel, on today of all days, about men and women who are military personnel being made compulsorily redundant.

831

Oral Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Mr Paterson: I am a strong supporter of the military in Northern Ireland. I wear the Royal Irish wristband, because that regiment is stationed at Tern Hill in my constituency. [Interruption.] What I feel is that we inherited a complete mess from the last Labour Government. We are currently borrowing £232,000 a minute, so, sadly, the Government have had to take very difficult decisions. Bill of Rights 3. Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab): What meetings he has had with political parties in Northern Ireland on a [97675] Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire): In September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to party leaders suggesting the possibility of the Assembly taking forward work in this area; we have yet to receive a response. Ministers and officials have continued to discuss this issue with human rights organisations since. Paul Murphy: The Minister will know, of course, that the establishment of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland was part of the Good Friday agreement, and that it is a matter for all people in Northern Ireland. Will he not accept, however, that both he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have a duty to bring about consensus rather than simply to listen to what people are saying without doing what is right and proper to ensure that we get consensus among all the political parties in Northern Ireland? Mr Swire: The House will want to acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman’s part in the Good Friday agreement in trying to pursue the Bill of Rights. Frankly, however, that was when he should have pursued it, instead of squandering the good will that he and his Government had generated at that time. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman a couple of quick examples of our problem. First, the Secretary of State wrote to the First and Deputy First Ministers and all the party leaders back in September, but he has had no reply to his letters. Secondly, the Secretary of State for Justice wrote to the Office of the First Minister, asking it to nominate someone for the commission. It is now March, but no reply has been received. We thus face a problem, as we see no way forward without consensus. Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): Does the Minister agree that this important work towards a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland—and, indeed, human rights more generally there—might have a useful role to play in the Government’s determination to do something about significant reform of the European Court of Human Rights? Mr Swire: As my hon. Friend knows, a UK commission is being set up to look into the matter. We want Northern Ireland to be represented on it. Equally, we believe that this commission could provide the necessary vehicle for the inclusion of rights particular to Northern Ireland. Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): Has the Secretary of State had any meetings or correspondence with other stakeholder groups that might be interested in or concerned about a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland—Churches, advice bureaux or Women’s Aid, for example?

Oral Answers

832

Mr Swire: We meet Church leaders frequently, and this is one of the matters we discuss with them. It is fair to say that the Secretary of State and I recently met the United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights—and we discussed this matter with her. We cannot get much higher than that. Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind): As well as corresponding with the leaders of political parties in Northern Ireland, will the Minister kindly tell us whether his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General actually believes that Northern Ireland needs a separate Bill of Rights? Mr Swire: My right hon. and learned Friend came to Northern Ireland several times when we were in opposition. He was always of the belief, as we are, that any rights particular to Northern Ireland should be tagged on to any UK Bill of Rights. I alluded earlier to a lack of consensus. The hon. Lady will be aware that in a debate in the Assembly last year, Members voted by 46 to 42 against a motion calling for a robust, enforceable Bill of Rights. As I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) earlier, that is a perfect example of the problem we face. We cannot impose; this has to come from within Northern Ireland. When it does, we will respond accordingly. Pat Finucane Review 4. Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab): What representations he has received from the Finucane family since his announcement of the Pat Finucane [97676] review. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson): I have not received any representations from the Finucane family since the establishment of the Pat Finucane review last October. Valerie Vaz: The Secretary of State will know that the Finucane family, Madden and Finucane Solicitors, Judge Cory, the Irish Government, the United Nations special rapporteur and the Weston Park agreement have all called for a public inquiry. May I urge him to meet the Finucane family and Madden and Finucane Solicitors, so that the truth of the murder of Pat Finucane can be established and the reconciliation can be completed? Mr Paterson: We have gone into the issue in some detail in written statements and in an oral statement made a couple of months ago. I wrote to Mrs Finucane soon after we came to power, and when I met her in November 2010—I was the first Secretary of State to do so for some years—I established with her that we wanted to get to the truth. I think that the method we have chosen, a review of a huge archive that is more extensive than that available to Saville, is a quicker way of getting to the truth, and will deliver satisfaction to the family. I am more than happy to meet them, and I hope that they will work closely with the de Silva review. Several hon. Members rose— Mr Speaker: Order. These are extremely serious matters, but we need to speed up the exchanges somewhat. Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con): When does my right hon. Friend expect to receive Sir Desmond de Silva’s final report?

833

Oral Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Mr Paterson: Sir Desmond was asked to report back by December this year. Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): When was the Secretary of State made aware that the legal representatives of the Finucane family were indicating that they would accept a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, based on the Baha Mousa standards and principles? Did he inform the Prime Minister, and who decided to head off that credible option at the pass at the Downing street meeting? Mr Paterson: We discussed all sorts of options for arriving at the truth as fast as possible. My public statement is on the record, and a judicial review is in progress. I think that the full details will be revealed in that. Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): In the context of victim issues such as the Finucane murder, is the Secretary of State alarmed by what has happened in relation to other cases, such as the murder of Tommy English? In that case, the police appointed an independent oversight team consisting of a political appointee and an English barrister. It was the first time that such a team had ever been appointed in connection with a British case involving a police investigation. Does the Secretary of State agree that that was a reckless act which must never be repeated in an independent police investigation? Mr Paterson: I think that in all these areas we must be very careful to respect the independence of the police in operational matters, the independence of the prosecuting authorities and the independence of the judiciary, and I would apply those principles to the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance): The case of Pat Finucane is one of many cases in Northern Ireland that reflect the tragic legacy of our past, and we believe that a comprehensive process is needed to address that. Can the Secretary of State update us on his recent discussions with local parties about how to proceed with that approach? Mr Paterson: As the hon. Lady knows, I established that there was no consensus at my meeting with her and other members of her party on Monday. Some parties want to draw a line in the sand and cease all activity, while others favour the establishment of an extensive international legacy commission. We will continue to work, and talk to individuals and local parties, but at the moment I see no consensus. Inward Investment 5. Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con): What discussions he has had on promoting inward [97678] investment in Northern Ireland. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the First and Deputy First Ministers and their colleagues in support of the Executive’s efforts to attract foreign direct investment, and I have just returned from accompanying the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment on a trade mission to the Gulf states in support of two Northern Ireland businesses.

Oral Answers

834

Andrea Leadsom: On the eve of the Budget, and in the light of the clear need to improve our economy and opportunities for inward investment, what assessment has my hon. Friend made of the co-operation between Invest NI and UK Trade and Investment? Mr Swire: I have made a very good assessment. I am a member of the Economic Affairs (Trade and Investment) Cabinet Sub-Committee, and I am glad to say that it is to discuss ways in which UKTI and the devolved Administrations can co-operate better. There will be a meeting later in the year, which I think will benefit both organisations. Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): Despite the best efforts of the Northern Ireland Executive, rates of business formation in Northern Ireland are lower than in the rest of the UK. What plans do the Government have to make good their fault as identified by the Business Secretary that they lack a compelling vision on the economy? Mr Swire: As this is Northern Ireland questions, I think I should limit myself to Northern Ireland. We have a very clear idea of the economy in Northern Ireland. We want to support it, and we believe it needs to be rebalanced. [Interruption.] This afternoon the joint ministerial working group on rebalancing the economy will meet to examine the possible devolvement of corporation tax to Northern Ireland, which we believe would be a significant move. [Interruption.] Several hon. Members rose— Mr Speaker: Order. There are far too many noisy private conversations taking place in the Chamber. As a matter of courtesy to the people of Northern Ireland, it would be good to have a bit of hush. David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP): I am sure the Minister will agree that inward investment into Northern Ireland is always welcome, but we must not forget small indigenous businesses that have been there for many years. [Interruption.] Will he join me in welcoming the £30-million investment by the Asda group in one site in my constituency, which is in an area that has not had investment for 35 years? [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. It would be good if we could hear the reply. The House must come to order. Mr Swire: Of course I welcome that investment. The hon. Gentleman is a doughty champion of business in his constituency, and I look forward to spending a day with him shortly. He will be aware of the growth fund, which will help small and medium-sized enterprises with strong potential for growth, particularly in the international markets. We believe these moves by the devolved Administration are the right ones. Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP): Has any progress been made on the devolution of corporation tax responsibility? When can we expect something to happen on that front?

835

Oral Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Mr Swire: As I have said, following the Loyal Address to Her Majesty, there will this afternoon be a joint ministerial working group meeting, at which corporation tax will be discussed. Economic Development 6. Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con): What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Northern [97679] Ireland Executive on economic development. 7. David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con): What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive on economic development. [97680] The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire):My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the First and Deputy First Ministers and their colleagues in support of the Executive’s efforts to develop the economy. We also work closely together on the joint ministerial working group on rebalancing the economy, which—I now say for the third time—will meet this afternoon. Elizabeth Truss: Manufacturing exports from Northern Ireland rose in the last quarter, which is great news in respect of the effort to rebalance the economy. What further steps is the Minister taking to ensure our exports increase? Mr Swire: It is good news that Northern Ireland sells £12.4 billion-worth of manufactured goods abroad, and has almost recovered to the pre-recession level in sales to Great Britain—indeed, sales to GB achieved a new record. Those are very positive trends, on which we seek to build. David Rutley: Investment in research and development is crucial for economic development in Northern Ireland, just as it is in Macclesfield. Will my hon. Friend therefore join me in congratulating the Northern Ireland Executive on the 6% increase in research and development investment over the past year? Mr Swire: Yes, I will. Research and development is crucial to the development of the economy, and investment in it increased by 6% in Northern Ireland last year, to £334 million. The Northern Ireland Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is keen to continue with research and development, not least for small and medium-sized enterprises, which both she and I believe are vital.

Oral Answers

836

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): Economic development in Northern Ireland is being held up by the reluctance of banks to lend to viable businesses and their withdrawing of capital from existing businesses. What discussions has the Minister had about whether banks in Northern Ireland are meeting their Merlin targets? Also, why is it that the Merlin target figures can be published for Scotland, but not for Northern Ireland? Mr Swire: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point, which he also made in the Finance Ministers quadrilateral last week. We need to get more lending to companies in Northern Ireland, where we are fishing in a smaller pool because we do not have so many banks to lend. We want to see those figures and to work together to see how we can get more lending to smaller companies. Defence Capability 8. Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con): What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the contribution of soldiers from Northern Ireland to UK defence capability; and if he [97681] will make a statement. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson): I would like to pay tribute to all those from Northern Ireland and, indeed, from all regions of the United Kingdom who serve in our armed forces. I speak regularly with ministerial colleagues across Whitehall on matters relating to Northern Ireland, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Simon Kirby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that much can be learned from the Royal Irish Regiment, which recruits from all sections of the community? Mr Paterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. I am very proud to have the Royal Irish stationed in my constituency. I went to the Barossa dinner on Monday, celebrating the capture of the first French eagle with the cry: “By Jaysus, boys, I have the cuckoo.”

The regiment is a glorious example of an organisation that brings people together from all parts of the community, including from south of the border.

Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP): Given the need to pump-prime the economy in Northern Ireland and given the fact that the Finance Ministers met on Monday, are the disputes about the £18-billion allocation to Northern Ireland as part of the devolution dividend near resolution, and if not, what are the areas of disagreement?

Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP): In recognising the tremendous sacrifice of our brave soldiers from Northern Ireland in contributing to the defence of the United Kingdom, does the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is a time bomb of mental health problems facing those who return from the field of conflict? What steps are being taken to assist those people?

Mr Swire: That was not raised officially at the meeting, but later on I had my own bilateral over a cup of coffee with the Northern Ireland Finance Minister, the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who is in his place. We discussed progress on this matter, and he informed me that it continues, but it is slow. The Chancellor is now in his place, too, and he may be interested to learn of what the hon. Lady has just said. This is still being discussed, and it will take some time.

Mr Paterson: I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments and I pay tribute to the three rangers of the Royal Irish who sadly lost their lives in the Helmand campaign last year. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the mental health problems that can occur and I discuss this with my right hon. Friends in Cabinet. He should also discuss it with the local Ministers who are responsible for delivering those services in Northern Ireland.

837

Oral Answers

7 MARCH 2012

PRIME MINISTER The Prime Minister was asked— Engagements [98314] Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) Q1. (Con): If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron): I hope you will permit me, Mr Speaker, before I answer any questions, to make the following announcement. Yesterday, a Warrior armoured fighting vehicle on patrol near the eastern border of Helmand province was struck by an explosion. It is with very great sadness that I must tell the House that six soldiers are missing, believed killed. Five of them are from the 3rd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment and one is from the 1st Battalion the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment. Our thoughts are with the family and friends of those brave servicemen. This will be the largest loss of life in a single incident in Afghanistan since 2006. It takes the overall number of casualties that we have suffered in Afghanistan to more than 400. Every death and every injury reminds us of the human cost paid by our armed forces to keep our country safe. I have spoken this morning to the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Chief of the General Staff and the commanding officer of 3rd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment. They each stressed the commitment of our troops to the mission and to getting the job done. I know that everyone will want a message of support and backing for our troops and their families to go out from this House today. This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House I shall have further such meetings later today. Nick Boles: I echo the Prime Minister’s tribute to the fallen. Their service and their sacrifice humbles us all. With this terrible news in mind, will my right hon. Friend use his meetings next week with President Obama to co-ordinate a prudent draw-down of allied forces in Afghanistan and to ensure that Afghan forces get the training and equipment they need to take over? The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Next week is an opportunity to make sure that Britain and America, as the two largest contributors to the ISAF mission in Afghanistan, are absolutely in lock-step about the importance of training up the Afghan army, training up the Afghan police and making sure that all NATO partners have a properly co-ordinated process for transition in that country, so that the Afghans can take responsibility for the security of their own country, and we can bring our forces home. Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab): I join the Prime Minister in expressing profound sadness at the terrible news of our six soldiers who are missing, feared dead. Today, we are reminded of the ongoing commitment and sacrifice that our service personnel make on our behalf. By putting themselves in harm’s way for our benefit, they demonstrate the utmost service and courage. We owe them and all those who have lost their lives in Afghanistan an immense debt of gratitude, and our thoughts are with their family, friends and colleagues at this terrible time.

Oral Answers

838

At moments like these, does the Prime Minister agree that we must restate clearly the reasons for our mission in Afghanistan? A more stable, self-governing Afghanistan will produce more stable outcomes in that region and ensure greater safety for our citizens here at home. The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words. He is absolutely right. Our mission in Afghanistan remains vital to our national security. We are there to prevent that country from being a safe haven for al-Qaeda, from where they might plan attacks on the UK or our allies. Our task is simple: to equip the Afghan Government and the forces of Afghanistan with the capability and capacity to take care of their own national security without the need for foreign troops on their soil. That is our aim. We are making progress. The Afghan national army stands at 184,000, on target for 195,000 by the end of this year. The Afghan national police, standing at 145,000, are on target for 157,000 at the end of this year. We are making progress. It is absolutely essential for bringing our troops home, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: we need to restate clearly why we are there and why it is in our national interest. The commander of the battalion told me today that his men have high morale, they know they are doing an important mission for the future of this country and the future of the world, and they want our support as they go about it. Edward Miliband: I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. He and I also agree that it is essential that we build now for a political settlement in Afghanistan for when our troops are gone. Can he take this moment to update the House on what diplomatic progress is being made on securing the broader and more inclusive political settlement needed for a stable Afghanistan? Does he further agree that the whole international community must up the pace of progress towards that political settlement, to ensure that we do all we can to make concrete progress between now and the departure of our combat troops at the end of 2014? The Prime Minister: We are clearly planning the increase in the army and the police—the physical forces that will take over—but the greatest difference we could make is a stronger political settlement that will ensure that Afghanistan has the chance for real peace, stability, prosperity and security in the future. There are some good signs, in that there are now proper discussions between the Afghan and Pakistan Governments. A clear message is coming out of Afghanistan and Pakistan to all those who are engaged in violence to give up that violence and join a political process. There is strong support for that across the Arab world, particularly in the middle east. We need to give that process every possible support and send a clear message to the Taliban: whether it is our troops or Afghan troops who are there, the Taliban will not win on the battlefield. They never win on the battlefield, and now it is time for a political settlement to give the country a chance for peaceful progress. Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con): I, too, echo the Prime Minister’s tribute—as do other Members across the House—to our brave men and women who are asked to make sacrifices on a daily basis to keep our country safe and ensure a peaceful

839

Oral Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Oral Answers

840

Afghanistan. Will the Prime Minister confirm that, despite those tragic events, ISAF will remain in Afghanistan in one form or another for as long as it takes to complete the mission for a safe, secure and stable Afghanistan, with the Afghan people taking responsibility for their own security?

independence payment. As someone who has actually filled out the form for disability allowance and had a child with cerebral palsy, I know how long it takes to fill in that form. We are going to have a proper medical test so that people who are disabled and need that help get it more quickly.

The Prime Minister: We have a clear timetable, which is all about transitioning parts of Afghanistan to Afghan security control, to allow our troops to move into the background and eventually out of the country. In Helmand itself, where we have been for all these years—one of the toughest parts of Afghanistan—Lashkar Gah, the effective capital, is now controlled by Afghan forces. The process is ongoing. I believe it can be properly completed by the end of 2014, so that we leave in a proper and orderly fashion, handing over to Afghan troops. Let us be clear: the relationship between Britain and other countries and Afghanistan will go on. It will be a relationship of military training, of diplomacy, of support, of aid and help for that country. We must learn the lesson of the past, which is what a mistake it was to turn away from Afghanistan.

Q5. [98319] Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con): On Friday—[Interruption.]

[98315] Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) Q2. (Lab): The Prime Minister’s Business Secretary says of the Government’s action on economic growth:

“Our actions are, frankly, rather piecemeal.”

Does the Prime Minister agree?

Mr Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) that he will stay silent. That sort of noise is not acceptable in this forum. Nadhim Zahawi: On Friday, PC Trevor Hall and PCSO Claire Miller, two of the best from Warwickshire police, came to see me about the life-threatening effects of a new legal high called black mamba on the life of a 13-year-old in my constituency. I am informed that black mamba is the latest legal high being sold on our streets in the UK. Now that we have regulations that allow us to act swiftly to ban potentially dangerous legal highs, will my right hon. Friend act on this substance immediately and— Mr Speaker: Order. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who should resume his seat. The question is too long.

The Prime Minister: Obviously, I do not agree with that. What this Government are doing is cutting corporation tax, investing in apprenticeships, building enterprise zones, making sure that right across our economy the rebalancing is taking place that is necessary for sustained economic growth.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. We are determined to stamp out these so-called legal highs. The Home Office is aware of this particular drug. We now have the drugs early warning system which brings these things to our attention, but as he says, a decision needs swiftly to be made and I will make sure that happens.

Q3. [98316] Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con): My constituents have to wait longer to get a hospital appointment than they would in England, they are five times less likely to get certain cancer drugs than they are in England, and if they get to hospital, they are twice as likely to get an infection as they are in England. Does this prove to the Prime Minister that we cannot trust Labour with the NHS?

Edward Miliband: Tim Howes is a delivery driver from Dartford. He is a married father of three and the sole earner in his family. He currently works 20 hours a week. From next month, under the Prime Minister’s proposals, unless he works 24 hours a week he will lose all his working tax credit, some £60 a week. He says,

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that, if you look at the NHS in Wales, it shows what happens if we do not put in the resources—the money—because the resources are being cut in Wales, and also if we do not reform the NHS to make sure that there is a proper chance for people to get the treatments they need. There is not the cancer drugs fund in Wales, there are much longer waiting times, and there are much longer waiting lists, and that is an example of what happens without the money and without the reform. Q4. [98317] Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab): The Prime Minister is proud of his welfare reforms. [HON. MEMBERS: “Hear, hear.”] Can he look me in the eye and tell me he is proud of the decision to remove all disability benefits from a 10-year-old child who can hardly walk and who cannot toilet herself because she has cerebral palsy? Is he truly proud? The Prime Minister: This Government are not cutting the money that is going into disability benefits. We are replacing disability living allowance with the personal

“I have approached my employer to possibly increase my hours but I have been told there simply aren’t the hours there. I would love to work full-time.”

What is the Prime Minister’s advice to Tim Howes? The Prime Minister: First, let me set the context for this—[HON. MEMBERS: “Answer!”] I will answer the question very directly, but we need to reform the tax credits system because we have a massive budget deficit. When we came to office, tax credits were going to nine out of 10 families, including people right up the income scale, including Members of Parliament. What our changes do, in terms of this specific case, is deal with the basic unfairness that we ask a single parent to work 16 hours before getting access to the tax credit system, so it is only right to say to couples that between them they should work 24 hours—that is, 12 hours each. If that is the case, and they do that, they will be better off. Edward Miliband: I have to say to the Prime Minister that that answer is no use to Mr Howes and his family. He cannot find the extra hours and so will lose his— [Interruption.] The Defence Secretary shouts from a

841

Oral Answers

7 MARCH 2012

sedentary position, “What about his wife?” Let me tell him that his wife is looking after their three school-age children and cannot find hours that are consistent with that. Tim Howes and 200,000 couples will lose as a result of this. Before the election, the Prime Minister said in the TV debates that for Labour “to say that actually the changes we’re making would hit low income families is simply not true.”

Why has he broken that promise? The Prime Minister: We have increased the child tax credit that goes to the poorest families in our country. To answer the right hon. Gentleman very directly, when we say to a single parent that they have to work 16 hours to get access to the tax credits system, I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask a couple to work an average of 12 hours each. That is what we are asking. In a way, this relates to a bigger picture. We have a massive budget deficit. If he is not going to support the welfare cap, the housing benefit cap, cuts to legal aid or cuts to tax credits, how on earth would he deal with the deficit? Edward Miliband: In case the Prime Minister did not realise this, in Dartford, where the Howes family live, five people are chasing every vacancy. It is just not good enough for him to say, “Well, they should go out to work.” If they cannot find the work, they will find that they are better off on benefits than in work because of the Prime Minister’s changes, which is something he said he wanted to avoid. It is also about this matter of trust. He made a clear promise, just like he made a clear promise on child benefit. Before the election, he said: “I’m not going to flannel you. I’m going to give it to you straight. I like the child benefit. I wouldn’t change child benefit. I wouldn’t means-test it. I don’t think that is a good idea.”

We have already established that he has broken his promise to low-income families. Why has he broken his promise to middle-income families, too? The Prime Minister: Here we go: another change the right hon. Gentleman does not support. He seems to think that people on—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. The question has been asked. The Prime Minister’s answer must be heard. The Prime Minister: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that people earning £25,000 should pay for his child benefit? I do not agree with that. We have to make savings, so not giving child benefit to the wealthiest 15% of families in our country—of course it is a difficult decision. Life is about difficult decisions. Government is about difficult decisions. It is a pity that he is just not capable of taking one. Edward Miliband: First of all, we are talking about families on £43,000 a year. Secondly, it is no good the Prime Minister saying that he now supports the principle that people on high incomes should not get child benefit, because before the election he supported the opposite principle and said quite clearly to families up and down this country, “I’m not going to take away your child benefit.” In my book there is a very simple word for that: a broken promise—it is a broken promise by this Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: “That’s two.”] They are right: there are two broken promises. The reality is that lower-income families are losing their tax credits

Oral Answers

842

and middle-income families are losing their child benefit. Does the Prime Minister understand why people just do not believe him when he says, “We’re all in this together”? The Prime Minister: I think that it is time the right hon. Gentleman listened to his own shadow Chief Secretary, who said that “we must ensure we pass the test of fiscal credibility. If we don’t get this right, it doesn’t matter what we say about anything else.”

She is absolutely right. Reducing our deficit takes tough decisions. He has opposed every single cut. He has opposed the welfare cap, the housing benefit cap and legal aid cuts. It is no wonder that when people dial up a radio phone-in and eventually work out who he is, they all say the same thing: he is not remotely up to the job. Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): Following— [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. Let us hear from Mr Mark Pritchard. Mark Pritchard: Following last week’s statement on the use of wild animals in circuses, can the Prime Minister inform the House whether a ban will be introduced in this Parliament and before the next general election? The Prime Minister: I do want to see a ban introduced. It is the overwhelming opinion of Members in this House. We are putting in place a regulatory scheme in the short term, but my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary made it absolutely clear that it is our intention to introduce a ban in full as well. Q6. [98320] Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab): Today, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee published a major report on consumer debt. Last November R3 reported that 60% of people were worried about debt and 3.5 million were considering payday loans. In the year since the Government concluded their consultation, no action has been announced. Will the Prime Minister commit to act now to protect vulnerable families, or will he accept that he is simply out of touch with the financial reality facing them as a result of his policies? The Prime Minister: I think, as the last exchange just proved, we are worried about debt. The whole country needs to be worried about debt, and the problem is that the Labour party does not seem to understand that there is a debt problem. There has been a debt problem in our economy, there is also a debt problem for many households, and we do need to make sure that they get help. That is why we are making sure that citizens advice bureaux continue to get help, as they are one of the most important services for helping families in that way. Q7. [98321] Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con): The coalition agreement contains many bold and brilliant proposals to give Britain the change that we need: open primaries, a bonfire of the quangos, and radical localism. Sometimes, however, progress has been a little slower than some of us on the Government Benches would have hoped: sometimes the radicalism has been ever so slightly blunted. Is that because of the constraints of coalition, or because of the Whitehall machine?

843

Oral Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Oral Answers

844

The Prime Minister: It was good to have such a helpful start from my hon. Friend. I think that this Government have done a number of radical things, right across the board, whether it is welfare reform to make sure that it always pays to work, education reform to give greater independence to our schools, or tax reform to give us competitive tax rates. Of course I always want us to go further and faster. I do not blame the Whitehall machine; in the end the politicians must always take responsibility.

Q9. [98323] Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con): May I add my personal tributes to our fallen? On Monday, Clare’s law came into being. Would my right hon. Friend be willing to meet me and Sergeant Carney-Haworth to learn at first hand how his team’s groundbreaking initiative in Devonport, Operation Encompass, is helping to make sure that children in my Sutton and Devonport constituency grow up in an area where there is no longer any domestic violence?

Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab): My constituent James Toner was arrested in Goa almost three years ago on drugs charges. He was subsequently released when it turned out that the police officers who arrested him were themselves under investigation for corruption. He has spent the past 22 months in legal limbo, his passport has been confiscated, he cannot travel, he cannot work and he does not even know when his case is going to go to court. Does the Prime Minister agree that justice delayed is justice denied, and will he make sure that a Foreign Office Minister meets me urgently to discuss the case of my constituent?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this constituency issue and to do so this week, when tomorrow we have international women’s day. The move that has been made on Clare’s law is important; it is a breakthrough to give women this information if they seek it. I want us to follow that by looking into a specific offence of stalking. I want us to continue to support the rape crisis centres, as we are under this Government, and to make sure that we act on domestic violence right across the board.

The Prime Minister: I will certainly do that. It is very important that the hon. Gentleman and others feel that they can stand up for their constituents on the other side of the world who are being treated in this way, and that we can take up these cases. The work of Fair Trials International and other organisations is very important in that respect, and I shall make sure that the Foreign Office meets him soon. Q8. [98322] Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con): Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the project that is starting a pilot in my constituency in September, funded by the private sector, the London borough of Redbridge, and various charities, and in congratulating also the co-chairs, Richard and Philippa Mintz, and the inter-faith group on their work to get young people with special needs into employment? The Prime Minister: I will certainly join my hon. Friend in supporting that project. It is important that we help children with special needs through not only their schooling time but that transition after school and into college, and then try to help them to find work. It sounds like this is an excellent project that deserves his support. Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab): Is it true:

Visits (Central Ayrshire) Q10. [98324] Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab): When he next expects to visit Central Ayrshire. The Prime Minister: I look forward to visiting Scotland soon. Mr Donohoe: I know that the Prime Minister is coming to my constituency very soon indeed—in fact, later this month to attend his Tory party conference in Troon. However, I want to know whether he agrees that the uncertainty that is being created by the Nats around the separatist idea of a referendum that is being delayed for longer than it should be is leading to uncertainty about inward investment in my constituency and elsewhere. While he is in Troon, will he come with me to see some of the potential for inward investment? That is a promise that he made to me at a meeting a year ago. The Prime Minister: When the hon. Gentleman asked me that question a year ago, I did in fact meet a delegation from his constituency. I agree with every word that he said, and I make him this offer: as I am going to be in Troon, he can make the short trip from his constituency and we can share a platform together to point out the dangers of separatism and the nationalist agenda. Are you up for it? Engagements

“The problem is that policy is being run by two public school boys who don’t know what it’s like to go to the supermarket and have to put things back on the shelves because they can’t afford it for their children’s lunchboxes. What’s worse, they don’t care either”?

Q11. [98325] Louise Mensch (Corby) (Con): Labourcontrolled Corby borough council—[Interruption.]

Those are not my words, but the words of a Conservative Member, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries).

Mr Speaker: Order. I want the hon. Lady’s question to be heard in full with a bit of quiet and perhaps a bit of respect.

The Prime Minister: I would have thought that, coming from the north-east, the hon. Lady should be celebrating the fact that Nissan is going to build its new car in Britain—instead of whatever nonsense it was that she read out.

Louise Mensch: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Labour-controlled Corby borough council is trying to suppress a report into the scandal at the Corby Cube. Twenty-six million pounds of Corby people’s money has been wasted, and now councillors are being threatened

845

Oral Answers

7 MARCH 2012

with disciplinary action if they blow the whistle. Does the Prime Minister agree that the council should come clean with Corby people? The Prime Minister: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who raises an important point. There are now proposals for total transparency in local government so that expenditure over £500 should be separately documented and so that all the salaries, names, budgets and responsibilities of staff paid over £58,000 should be published, including councillors’ allowances and expenses and all the organisational charts. We want the wind of transparency to go right through local government, Corby included. John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Article 16 of the European fiscal compact says very clearly that it will be incorporated into the European treaty in five years’ time. Will the Prime Minister promise to veto that, or does he not expect to be here in five years’ time? The Prime Minister: The treaty says very clearly that it can be incorporated only with the permission of all 27 member states of the European Union, and our position on that has not changed. Q12. [98326] Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con): Will the Prime Minister join me, along with the thousands of families with missing loved ones, including the family of missing York woman Claudia Lawrence, in supporting the sensible recommendations in the Justice Committee’s report into missing people’s rights and the presumption of death? The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I pay tribute to Peter Lawrence and his support for the Missing People campaign. The Justice Committee has produced an important report on this issue. We acknowledge that the current law is complicated. I recognise all the emotional and practical difficulties faced by those whose loved ones are missing. We are going to consider the recommendations very carefully, and perhaps I will write to my hon. Friend when we come up with the answer. Q13. [98327] Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): If the Prime Minister manages to persuade his Chancellor to remove some of the anomalies in his child benefit policy to help people earning over £43,000 a year, will he then take action to help the couples on the minimum wage who are set to lose £3,000 from April? The Prime Minister: I think that we dealt with that earlier. Quite apart from the point about the unfairness of a single person having to work 16 hours, we are making a long-term reform with universal credit, which will mean that everyone is always better off in work, no matter how many hours they work. Labour had 13 years to put that in place; we will have it done in 18 months. Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD): On Saturday, 2,000 of us marched through Kendal to present a petition of 11,000 people calling for radiotherapy services at Westmorland general hospital in Kendal. Will my right hon. Friend meet me, the commissioners and cancer campaigners to ensure that we bring cancer treatment to Kendal, so that local lives can be made longer and people’s journeys shorter?

Oral Answers

846

The Prime Minister: I know from having visited the hon. Gentleman’s constituency how important the issue of the hospital is. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is fully engaged in this issue. Perhaps I can fix a meeting between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend to ensure that the issue is dealt with. Q14. [98328] Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab): The Royal Bank of Scotland recently axed another 300 jobs, mostly in Edinburgh and London. However, the jobs have not gone completely, but have been outsourced to India. The Prime Minister and the Government act on behalf of the biggest shareholder, so when will they stand up to RBS and prevent the needless job losses in the UK? The Prime Minister: We must recognise that the Government put £45 billion into the Royal Bank of Scotland on behalf of the country. That is £2,500 for every working family in the country. The most important thing is that we get that money back. We need RBS to return to health. It has to deal with its bad loans and the trouble that it got into, and it has to grow the rest of its business. We will then be in a position to return to people the money that they put into the bank. That is what matters most. Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con): May I offer my sympathies to the families and friends of the six soldiers who have been killed, five of whom served in 3rd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment, the Duke of Wellington’s, with which I had the privilege to serve? I recognise and support the vital role that our troops are endeavouring to undertake, but we need to bring them back in 2015. I ask the Prime Minister to ensure that we do everything that we can to support the families of those who have been lost. The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend speaks with considerable experience, because of his service in our armed forces. It is important that we have the date for our troops coming home from Afghanistan, which I set. We will not be there in a combat role and will not be there in anything like the current numbers by the end of 2014. It is also important to ensure that, between now and then, our troops have all the equipment that they need to make them as safe as possible. I pay tribute to the previous Government, who started putting extra money into vehicles in 2006. Since then, we have spent about £2 billion on better-protected vehicles and an additional £160 million on counter-IED equipment. He is right that we need to do more for the families of our armed forces at home. That is what the military covenant process and the Cabinet Committee, which I chaired for the first meeting, are all about. Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): Using Applied Language Solutions was supposed to save West Midlands police £750,000 a year, and yet last week we heard that the shortage of translators leaves the police unable to quiz suspects for weeks. Is that the kind of service we can expect when our police forces tender out services to private security companies? The Prime Minister: I do not think that there is anything wrong with the police getting back-office functions carried out by private sector organisations. Indeed,

847

Oral Answers

7 MARCH 2012

when the shadow policing Minister was asked about that at the Select Committee on Home Affairs, he said that he was quite relaxed about it. I think that that is right. I am delighted that the hon. Lady is considering whether to become a police and crime commissioner. That will be an excellent way of calling the police to account, and I hope that many other hon. Members will consider it as a career change. Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con): Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to support Mayor Boris Johnson in London, who is pleading with the Pru, our biggest insurer, not to leave the City of London because of the attack by the European Union

Oral Answers

848

on the competitiveness of the City? I invite my right hon. Friend to block the fiscal union treaty by making an application to the European Court of Justice that it is illegal, until we get the City safeguards that he was demanding in December. The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise the case of the Prudential, because it is an example of ill-thought-out EU legislation endangering a great British business, which should have its headquarters here in the UK. I recognise the importance of this matter. We are working extremely hard at the European level and with the Prudential to deal with it. I know that we have the full support of Boris Johnson in doing that.

849

7 MARCH 2012

Diamond Jubilee 12.34 pm The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron): I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty on the occasion of the Sixtieth Anniversary of Her Accession to the Throne. That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the whole House.

On her first address to the nation as Queen, Her Majesty pledged that throughout all her life, and with all her heart, she would strive to be worthy of the people’s trust: this she has achieved beyond question. The nation holds her in its heart, not just as the figurehead of an institution but as an individual who has served this country with unerring grace, dignity and decency. The reign of Queen Elizabeth has been one of unparalleled change, from rationing through to the jet age, to the space age, to the digital age. At her first investiture as Queen, the very first decoration she presented was a Victoria Cross for heroism in the Korean war. Since then, members of the armed forces—her armed forces—have been in action all over the world, from Aden to the Falklands, the Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan. Around the world, dictatorships have died and democracies have been born, and across the old British empire a vibrant Commonwealth of nations has expanded and flourished. Throughout this extraordinary change, the longest-lived monarch in our history has remained resolutely unchanged in her commitment and studious in her duties. It does not matter whether it is something we suspect she enjoys, such as the highland games at Braemar, or things we suspect she might be less keen on, such as spending new year’s eve in the millennium dome, she never, ever falters. She has always done her duty, and that stability is essential for our national life. While the sands of culture shift and the tides of politics ebb and flow, Her Majesty has been a permanent anchor, bracing Britain against the storms, grounding us in certainty. Crucially, simultaneously, she has moved the monarchy forward. It has been said that the art of progress is to preserve order amid change and change amid order, and in this the Queen is unparalleled. She has never shut the door on the future; instead, she has led the way through it, ushering in the television cameras, opening up the royal collection and the palaces and hosting receptions and award ceremonies for every area of public life. It is easy now to take these things for granted, but we should remember that they were her initiatives. She was broadcasting to the nation every Christmas day 30 years before we let cameras into this House. In doing those things, the Queen ended a 1,000 year distance that existed between British monarchs and their people. Indeed, while much of her life has been governed by tradition and protocol, the Queen has always taken a thoroughly pragmatic view of such matters. On arriving at one engagement in Scotland, she noticed that the local lord lieutenant was having considerable trouble extracting both himself and his sword from the official car in order to perform the introductions. While embarrassed civic dignitaries cleared their throats, the Queen cut straight through the

Diamond Jubilee

850

seemingly insoluble ceremonial problem by walking up to the greeting line, hand outstretched, with the words, “My lord lieutenant appears to be having difficulty in getting out of the car, so I’d better introduce myself. I’m the Queen.” That human connection is a hallmark of the Queen’s reign. Over 60 years, according to one royal biographer, she has met 4 million people in person, which is equivalent to the entire population of New Zealand. At garden parties alone, she has invited some 2 million people to tea. She is, of course, Queen of 16 countries, and has surely travelled more widely than any other Head of State in history. As she herself has been heard to say—it is a lesson, perhaps for all of us in this House—“I have to be seen to be believed.” All this has given her remarkable insight. Like her previous 11 Prime Ministers, I have been struck by Her Majesty’s perspective on world events, and like my predecessors I am truly grateful for the way she handles our national interests. Last year’s visit to Ireland was a lesson in statecraft. It showed once again that the Queen can extend the hand of friendship like no other. She was the first monarch to visit China, the first to visit Russia and the first to pay a state visit to the Vatican, and her trip to post-apartheid South Africa was a statement that resounded across continents. And, of course, there is the Commonwealth. It is doubtful whether that great alliance would ever have thrived without the dedication of Her Majesty. When the Queen became head of the Commonwealth in 1952, it had eight members; today it has 54. No one has done more to promote this unique family of nations spanning every continent, all the main religions and nearly a third of the world’s population. In all her realms, from Tuvalu to Barbados, from Papua New Guinea to St Vincent and the Grenadines, from Britain to Jamaica, she is loved because she is a Queen of everyone—for each of us and for all of us. The diamond jubilee gives us the chance to show our gratitude. By the time she opens the Olympics, the Queen’s jubilee tour will have taken her and Prince Philip to every part of the United Kingdom. In June, London will see a huge pop concert, a great procession and the largest gathering on the Thames for more than three centuries: barges and cutters, narrow boats and motor boats, square riggers, naval vessels, the little ships of Dunkirk—all will be there to pay tribute to our magnificent Queen. “Diamond” is the appropriate epithet for this jubilee. For 60 years, Her Majesty has been a point of light in our national life—brilliant, enduring and resilient. For that, she has the respect of the House and the enduring affection of all her people. 12.40 pm Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab): May I second the motion and associate myself and my party entirely with the sentiments that the Prime Minister has just expressed? As the Prime Minister has so accurately described, Her Majesty the Queen has dedicated herself tirelessly and constantly to the people of our country and the Commonwealth for 60 years. Her Majesty has led an extraordinary life of service, which sets an example to us all.

851

Diamond Jubilee

7 MARCH 2012

Truly remarkable though her reign has been, it is striking that it is in keeping with the reputation and spirit of the young Princess Elizabeth before she ascended the throne. During the second world war, her work with the Auxiliary Territorial Service gave inspiration and hope to millions, especially young women desperate to play their part while their loved ones were fighting at the front. Almost 65 years ago, as the House marked Her Majesty’s wedding to the Duke of Edinburgh, Clement Attlee observed that Princess Elizabeth was already celebrated across the globe for her “unerring graciousness and understanding”. His words echo down the years. We have learnt so much more about Her Majesty: selfless, tireless in duty, unflinching in service, unerring in her commitment to the people of Britain, stoical in the face of personal loss, and proud, as the Prime Minister said, of the extraordinary reach of the monarchy and its values to the Commonwealth. With Prince Philip at her side, she has shown the most extraordinary dedication to duty. When we tell each other her remarkable story, we speak, too, of the timeless characteristics of our country and all the people who have served us. Her Majesty’s life reminds us of the true value of service. Her reign is a golden thread that links people within and across the generations. For the generation that emerged from the war, the coronation provided the opportunity to come together in celebration. There was often only one house with a television set on a street, and people crowded round to watch, sharing in community with one another. For our generation growing up, the event was the silver jubilee in 1977. I remember being in Hyde park as a seven-year-old as part of those celebrations. Then came the golden jubilee on those glorious summer days in 2002. This year in June, it will be the next generation’s turn to share in the excitement. In these moments, we are reminded that we are far more than just disparate individuals and communities: we are a nation with a shared sense of purpose and integrity. When we celebrated the golden jubilee, it fittingly became not only a celebration of the Queen’s reign, but of the very best features of our country. As the Prime Minister said, in her 60 years the Queen has witnessed an astonishing array of changes throughout our society. Some have brought huge improvements to our lives; others have been more challenging. On one occasion, I attended a meeting of the Privy Council shortly after Buckingham palace had shown its commitment to fighting climate change by adopting energy-saving light bulbs. I believe that I was the Minister responsible. Unfortunately, the transition had not been entirely smooth because the light was pretty dim—in fact, it was almost dark. As Her Majesty valiantly struggled through the gloom to read the names of the Bills being passed, she caught my eye fixedly and remarked on the impact of “these new bulbs”. As Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, I confessed my responsibility, but I am pleased to say that she broke into a smile. Her reaction showed once again her great capacity to put people at ease, no matter what the circumstances. Whatever she has been confronted with, Her Majesty the Queen has responded with genuine spirit. That spirit means that the Queen is received with reverence,

Diamond Jubilee

852

respect and genuine affection wherever she travels in the world. In respect for that spirit, we all come together to celebrate in this, the year of her diamond jubilee. Several hon. Members rose— Mr Speaker: Order. I call Sir Peter Tapsell, the Father of the House. 12.44 pm Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con): At the time of the last diamond jubilee, the Father of the House was Charles Villiers. He had started his distinguished political career in the Parliament of King William IV, had sat in this House continuously for 63 years, and was aged 95. By comparison with him, I am a mere parliamentary debutante. However, I vividly remember the fireworks that celebrated the silver jubilee of Her Majesty’s grandfather, King George V, in 1935. The hit tune of the time was “The Daring Young Man on the Flying Trapeze”, a prophetically accurate description of Prince William today. Shortly before the debate on the Loyal Address in 1897, Villiers sent Queen Victoria his personal gift as Father of the House of a parasol. I have presumed to follow his example. His parasol was dressed in Chantilly lace. Mine has not been dressed in French lace; it has been dressed in Nottingham lace, from the city that first sent me to this place 53 years ago. For my generation, the abiding memory of our Queen is her stunning beauty when she came to the throne. There is nothing more inspiriting in the whole world than a beautiful woman. The bedrock of her success has been the constitution— not our constitution but hers, because she has always had the most astonishing stamina. In 1953, accompanied as always by the indomitable Duke of Edinburgh, she travelled 53,000 miles. In 1977, the year of her silver jubilee, she travelled 56,000 miles. I once asked a courtier how she did it, to which I received the characteristic reply: “By not eating salads, shellfish and water melon while travelling.” The Queen’s great-great-grandmother was Empress of India at a time when one quarter of the globe was painted red. She has lived through years of worldwide and often revolutionary change. In the single year of 1960, 16 African countries achieved independence and became sovereign member states of the United Nations. What was to be the role of the Crown in this new world? Her Majesty saw the challenge and seized the opportunity. She made the monarchy mobile. In the second year of her reign, she delivered her Christmas message to Britain and the Commonwealth from New Zealand. Although always impeccably attentive to her duties in the United Kingdom, she threw herself, with wholehearted energy and commitment, into a new world role as the Head of the Commonwealth. She has visited nearly every member of it, many of them tens of times, from the north Atlantic to the south Pacific. Since her visit to Tuvalu in the south Pacific, sea levels around that threatened island have actually fallen. How jealous King Canute must be! Her Majesty has presided over 18 Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings. These have not always been plain sailing. In 1979, the choice of Lusaka as a venue was a matter of controversy. Zambia was surrounded

853

Diamond Jubilee

7 MARCH 2012

[Sir Peter Tapsell] at the time by warring countries—Mozambique, Southern Rhodesia and Angola—and some thought it dangerous or politically unwise for her to go. Her Majesty made it publicly clear that whoever did or did not go, she was determined to be there. The Lusaka conference was a great success. It was even widely reported that Her Majesty’s only female Prime Minister in Britain had much enjoyed her foxtrot with Kenneth Kaunda. Of a reign spanning nine Prime Ministers and 12 Presidents of the United States, and notwithstanding her triumph among us here at home, I believe that future historians will record that the impetus and character that she has uniquely given to the Commonwealth will be remembered as her greatest achievement. How fortunate we have been to be reigned over for 60 years by a lady of such poise, grace and beauty—the exemplary daughter of an enchanting mother. I conclude by repeating the exquisite words of a poet and parliamentarian composed in honour of a queen of hearts of an earlier era—words that are absolutely true of our own beloved Queen: “Tell me, if she were not designed The eclipse and glory of her kind”.

12.52 pm Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab): It is a great honour to speak in this debate and particularly to follow the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), the Father of the House. I hope, Mr Speaker, that you, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, having listened with care to the address by the Father of the House, will have it in mind that the next diamond jubilee to be organised should be the one to celebrate his 60th year in the House—such has he become a national treasure and an entertainment to us all. Of the many privileges that go with the best job in the British Cabinet—that of Foreign Secretary—the greatest is that the whole office is expected to accompany Her Majesty the Queen on state visits abroad. During my five years as Foreign Secretary, I went with Her Majesty to, among other places, Germany, France, Malta and Nigeria. Those visits gave me the opportunity to witness at close hand the extraordinary preparation, dedication, commitment and time that Her Majesty and Prince Philip devoted to these sometimes very difficult public engagements. The pace that the Queen and the Prince set for these visits would have tired somebody half their age. In Nigeria, the arrangements for the day-to-day engagements showed a little flexibility—to be delicate about the matter—and Her Majesty and Prince Philip had to accommodate that flexibility. She had taken part in one engagement at which I thought she did stunningly well. I said to her afterwards, “Ma’am, if I may say so, that showed extraordinary professionalism.” There was a pause. She looked at me and said, with a benign motherly smile, “Foreign Secretary, it should have been professional. I’ve been doing this for long enough.” As Home Secretary and then Lord Chancellor, I had a rather less public duty—that of administering the oath of homage, which all new bishops of the Church of England have to make to the sovereign, and have done since the age of Henry VIII. Through that prism, I

Diamond Jubilee

854

was able to observe the profound seriousness with which the Queen treats her duties as Head of our established Church, as well as her encyclopaedic knowledge of the parishes and personalities of the Anglican communion. As Member of Parliament for Blackburn for the past 33 years, I have seen the excitement and, more importantly, the sense of recognition that visits by Her Majesty and other members of the royal family have brought to the people of my area, as they have to every constituency and every ethnic background and religion. These are but a handful of examples of the extraordinary, exemplary way in which Her Majesty has led our nation over the past 60 years. Of the three most recent of the Queen’s dozen Prime Ministers, one was in nappies and two were not born when she acceded to the throne in February 1952. I guess that I am one of a diminishing band of Members who can recall that day and period. Food and clothes rationing were still in operation and, much more importantly for a six-year-old, so was sweet rationing. There was an acute housing shortage. Vast areas of our great towns and cities were still bombed wastelands, Britain was almost exclusively a white society and, at primary school, I can still recall, in the second year of infant school, the map of the world that our teacher had permanently fixed on the wall and to which he pointed with great regularity. It showed a quarter of the world’s land mass painted pink to signify the British empire. Six decades on, the world is a very different place, and so is the United Kingdom. We are now a heterogeneous society, with people from many religious and ethnic backgrounds proud to call themselves British. The empire has gone, to be replaced by the Commonwealth. The rate of social, industrial and technological change has been breathtaking. But through all this change, there has been the Queen—constant, reassuring, providing a sense of security and stability in an uncertain world, yet, remarkably, remaining in touch. I am delighted to support the Prime Minister’s motion. 12.57 pm Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con): It is a great honour to join my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and other colleagues in the House’s tribute to Her Majesty the Queen on the presentation of an Humble Address. On the night of Monday 4 April 1955, on the eve of his resignation as Prime Minister, my kinsman Sir Winston Churchill gave a dinner at No. 10 Downing street for the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. It was attended by Churchill’s closest political and military colleagues and friends, and by members of his private office and his family. The Prime Minister, in proposing the Queen’s health, said this: “I propose a health to Your Majesty which I used to drink in the days when I was a young Officer in the 4th Hussars in the reign of Your Majesty’s great, great grandmother, Queen Victoria”.

He ended with the following words: “And I drink to the wise and kindly way of life of which Your Majesty is the young and gleaming champion”.

I am sure that this whole House will agree that Her Majesty the Queen has, throughout her long reign, indeed been a gleaming champion for her country and for the Commonwealth. Crowned in the same abbey church as William the Conqueror, at the same age—26—as

855

Diamond Jubilee

7 MARCH 2012

the first Queen Elizabeth 400 years earlier, she embodies all the best qualities and the continuity that are so important to our country and its splendid, independent people. This diamond jubilee will thus be an occasion for the nation to thank the Queen, who has served us so professionally, so loyally and so conscientiously through these extraordinary 60 years of some of the most tumultuous social, economic and technological change that Britain has ever seen. The Queen brings to our national life an experience and knowledge of politics and events all around the world which is truly unrivalled by any other person in the land. Throughout her long reign, she has displayed great, good judgment, tolerance and absolute political neutrality at all times. When she ascended to the throne, her first Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, was of an age to have charged with the 21st Lancers at the battle of Omdurman in 1898, while her present Prime Minister was not even born in 1952. Such is the scale and breadth of the life that she has so triumphantly lived through. The Queen is a source of powerful influence for this country throughout the world, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. She is the Queen of 16 countries, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and the Head of the Commonwealth, an organisation that includes more than a quarter of the earth’s population. She thus brings a vital and often unrecognised addition to our efforts and our influence overseas. We in this House in particular should recognise this as an irreplaceable national asset of the first importance. Every country needs someone who can represent the whole nation. It may seem primitive—and indeed it is—but if nationhood is to mean anything, it has to have a focus. In our case, for 60 years that focus has been, and remains, the Queen. Nations do have values, and they should be proud of them and willing to express that pride. That is what we are able to do with our monarchy and our Queen, and what we will do this year. The Queen, blessed with a happy marriage to a remarkable consort who has done so much to support her does a job that demands tremendous physical and mental toughness and energy. Quite apart from her still extensive public engagements, her work follows her wherever she goes, and always has done. Her life has truly been one of selfless duty. Yet sadly, there is probably no day when she will not read something about her or her family in the media or see something on television that is untrue, cruel or just plain silly. We are indeed blessed to have in the Queen someone who is truly a remarkable example of dedication, efficiency and common sense, with a tremendously good judgment of people and—last, but by no means least—an excellent sense of humour. Those attributes, added to a perfectly wondrous dislike of pomposity and vanity, and an absolute inability to pretend to be anything other than herself, make the Queen what she is: arguably the most respected and admired—indeed, loved—public figure in the world. I conclude as I started, with Churchill on the Queen. Broadcasting to the nation on 7 February 1952, on the death of King George VI, he ended with these words: “I, whose youth was passed in the august, unchallenged and tranquil glories of the Victorian Era, may well feel a thrill in invoking, once more, the prayer and the Anthem ‘God Save the Queen’.”

And, 60 years on, so do we all, Mr Speaker—with all our hearts.

Diamond Jubilee

856

1.4 pm Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab): I rise to support the motion in the name of the Prime Minister and to associate myself with the comments that hon. and right hon. Members have made with great eloquence so far. While I have the indulgence of the House, I want briefly to take only a few moments to report that the city of Leicester—and indeed, my constituency—is immensely proud, delighted, excited and honoured to be hosting Her Majesty the Queen, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge tomorrow, for the start of the diamond jubilee tour. Tomorrow, Her Majesty will be visiting one of the country’s most dynamic universities—De Montfort, in the city of Leicester. Our cathedral will be hosting the Queen—I believe for her first visit—for a service led by the Bishop of Leicester, and our directly elected mayor, Sir Peter Soulsby, will welcome Her Majesty to the iconic clock tower in our city centre. As well as celebrating Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee, tomorrow is also about celebrating the city of Leicester and the thousands of Leicester people, of all backgrounds, who make our city the strong, diverse and vibrant place it is today. Throughout the last 60 years, families have come from all parts of the Commonwealth and all parts of the world to make Leicester their home. Under Her Majesty’s reign, Leicester and Britain have become more diverse, and stronger, too. Although we are diverse, we are united as a city. Tomorrow, people from Leicester, of all backgrounds, all communities and all faiths, will welcome their Queen—their Head of State. Perhaps they will welcome her in the varied dialects spoken in our city: “A Salaam O Alikum”, perhaps; “Namaste”, perhaps; “Sat sri akaal”, perhaps; or, more simply, perhaps the more familiar “Welcome to Leicester, your Majesty.” 1.7 pm Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con): The preamble to every Act of Parliament that has received Royal Assent in the last 60 years refers to the fact that it is enacted by “the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty”,

as well as by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and by the Commons, in Parliament assembled. That is indeed fitting terminology, in that there has been a real excellence in Her Majesty the Queen’s devotion, integrity, honour, service and duty to her people over the past 60 years. The Queen serves as an indefatigable unifying influence in an increasingly diverse nation and a Commonwealth of Nations composed of a plethora of countries with different languages, cultures, religions and forms of government. Her Majesty’s commitment and public service are without parallel. When she was on a tour of Africa at the age of 21, the then Princess Elizabeth declared that her “whole life, whether it be long or short, would be dedicated to the service”

of her people. And it has been. I venture to suggest that Queen Elizabeth’s ancestors would be proud of her—her late father particularly so—and that her heirs and successors will be driven to follow her example. The Queen is a model sovereign, who has performed her demanding

857

Diamond Jubilee

7 MARCH 2012

[Michael Ellis] constitutional functions with extraordinarily consistent good judgment. She has touched millions of lives through her innumerable visits. She inspires utter devotion from her regiments and the Church of which she is supreme governor. In the Commonwealth, the Queen has made an enduring contribution to the lives of millions of her people around the world. By her side throughout this period of change has been His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, who has been in her heart and mind since she was 13 years of age. In 1977, for the silver jubilee, and in 2002, for the golden jubilee, peers and Members of Parliament contributed to a gift on the parliamentary estate to be enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of visitors. Late in 2010, in keeping with that tradition, I established an all-party group. With the help of the then Serjeant at Arms of this House, Jill Pay, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, Lieutenant-General David Leakey, and the conservation architect of the estate, Adam Watrobski, I was soon able to approach you, Mr Speaker, and the then Lord Speaker, Baroness Hayman, in order to seek, through your good offices, a request to any Member of this House or the other place who wished to contribute, to make such private donation as they saw fit to a stained glass depiction of the royal arms, to be placed in the north window of Westminster Hall. After renovations have been completed in the coming months, that window will show the first royal arms to be displayed in the north window since the time of King Henry VIII. They will be opposite the arms of His late Majesty, King George VI, the Queen’s father. No public funds whatever have been used for the manufacture of the stained glass window, or for its monumental display case or its forthcoming installation. That is thanks to the generosity of hundreds of parliamentarians from all sides in both Houses who, in response to your letter, Mr Speaker, have donated a total of £98,396 for this gift, which will allow a modest surplus to be remitted to the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust charity. That generosity is a manifestation of the enormous respect and profound gratitude felt by this Parliament for the selfless and uninterrupted service of our beloved sovereign. God save the Queen. 1.11 pm Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab): In supporting the motion, I know that I speak on behalf of the bulk of the people in my beloved city of Sheffield in offering my congratulations and reflecting on the respect and affection in which Her Majesty has been held over the past 60 years. Reference has been made to the enormity of the change that has taken place in that time. I was reminded, listening to the radio this morning, that the first edition of the New Musical Express, published 60 years ago, featured Paul Robeson. I do not know what Her Majesty will make of this year’s Eurovision song contest, but some things never really change. Some changes have been very much for the better, in regard to tackling discrimination and gross inequality, and creating a care across the world that did not exist 60 years ago. Some of them have illustrated a loss, however, including the loss of the mutuality and reciprocity that were a feature of many of our communities 60 years ago.

Diamond Jubilee

858

One thing is absolutely certain: over those 60 years, I have managed to achieve the dishonour of making mistakes in front of the Queen on a number of occasions. The first was not, in fact, in front of Her Majesty. It involved a little boy, coming up to the age of six, in a school for the blind, when we were celebrating the coronation. Elgar was blaring out from a loudspeaker, and I rushed across the playground only to smash into a little four-year-old girl, spilling lemonade all over her skirt and blouse, which resulted in her bursting into floods of tears. That was the first, but not the last, occasion on which I have made people cry over the past 60 years. Many moons ago, as leader of Sheffield, I tasted the tea before Her Majesty arrived and described it as “absolutely disgusting”. I had it changed, only to discover that I had set aside her favourite brew. On another occasion when I was leader of Sheffield, I made the mistake of declining Her Majesty’s help at lunch, when she offered to help me with a Barnsley chop. Had I accepted her help, I would have been spared the embarrassment of being told, at the end of the meal, that she was quite used to cutting up the meat for the corgis. Dogs are a feature of Her Majesty’s life, and I could not let this occasion go by without recalling how much dogs’ instincts affect us, in the political arena as well as in their capacity as pets and social companions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) will remember our hosting an official visit by President Putin, in his first incarnation as President of the Russian Federation. As the arms were presented, my then dog, Sadie, uttered a deep growl from her chest which developed into a bark. That was obviously a precursor to the political change that we have seen in the Russian Federation. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred to the Queen’s ability to put people at their ease. Perhaps I should mention the way in which she put me at my ease when I made another blunder. It was when I was being inducted as a member of the Privy Council in 1997. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn will recall that he had set me in the right direction to kneel on the cushion, but I missed it slightly. I was put right, and the Queen gently assured me that I did actually brush her hand with my lips, rather than her elbow with my mouth, which was the direction in which I had been heading. These have been 60 years of a Queen for her people here and in the Commonwealth. She has been a Queen who has touched the hearts of those of all classes, distinctions, races, ethnicities and religions. We have had a Queen who has been able to hold our nation together, and I hope that her life will be long and that, in the years to come, she will be able to hold the United Kingdom together in the way that many of us wish for. 1.16 pm Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD): It is a privilege and a pleasure to support the Prime Minister in his motion to send an Address to the Queen on the occasion of her diamond jubilee. Like the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), and everyone else in the House and beyond who have met her on a one-to-one basis, I have been daunted by the prospect as well as

859

Diamond Jubilee

7 MARCH 2012

humbled by the experience. That is not surprising, given the record that she has achieved. She is not only the second-longest serving monarch we have ever had on these islands, but the second-longest serving Head of State in the world at the moment. I suppose if this were a primary school, I would offer a prize to anyone who could tell me who the longest serving Head of State is— Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con): Who is it? Simon Hughes: I will tell you later. Picking up on the comments made by the Father of the House, I find it extraordinary that we have a monarch who has met nearly a quarter of all the Presidents of the United States throughout its history, and who has known a fifth of all British Prime Ministers. Those are extraordinary records. In paying tribute to the Queen, I should also like to pay tribute to Prince Philip, who has stood alongside her for every month of those 60 years, and more. Unlike the Father of the House, I am not old enough to remember the accession or the coronation, although I must be honest and tell the House that I was just alive at the time, and I am sure that my family were celebrating. Other events have been significant throughout the Queen’s life. When she has visited our communities, those visits have been really important. There have been conventional events, such as her visit to Llandaff cathedral when I was a little boy. It had been restored after sustaining bomb damage during the war. There have been conventional events relating to past jubilees. She came to the King’s Stairs gardens in Bermondsey, by Edward III’s manor house, to mark her silver jubilee, for example. There have also been some esoteric events. She came to an event near London Bridge a few years ago, in which she unveiled a stone in honour of a native American Indian who was buried there—a fact that came as a surprise to us all. It was a slightly unexpected mixture, seeing the Queen next to a red Indian chief somewhere near London Bridge station. As the Prime Minister indicated, the Queen has certainly also gone beyond the call of duty on many occasions. The example that most comes to mind is indeed the blessed millennium eve celebrations at the dome. I think that she was reassured by stopping off at Southwark cathedral first, which she enjoyed and found highly appropriate. That visit probably also gave her the spiritual strength and courage to go on to the events that straddled midnight. People have rightly paid tribute to the Queen’s international as well as national service. It is extraordinary that she is Queen of 16 countries, and of about 130 million people around the world. She is Queen of the second-largest country in the world—Canada—as well as of Tuvalu, a country of only 10,000 people. It is absolutely consistent with her service that the trust set up to mark the jubilee is intended to serve the poorest peoples of the Commonwealth—exactly the sort of mission she has always supported herself. The Queen has been pre-eminent in making sure that people in the public service, and particularly those in military service, have been honoured and supported by her. We thank her for that, because they do the bravest and most difficult of jobs. She has also always gone out of her way to support those in voluntary service, commending that non-paid activity in our country and

Diamond Jubilee

860

beyond. She has also been particular in making sure that she has supported and encouraged people of all faiths and backgrounds. People have paid many tributes in this place on occasions during the 60 years. They have highlighted the Queen’s unassuming virtues and her faultless example. In fact, she has stood like a rock in a sea of troubles, she has lived out the promises made at her accession and coronation and she has exemplified dignity, experience, wisdom and, above all, her incomparable sense of duty. As we say our grateful thank you to a Queen who has been our monarch for 60 years, it is also fair to say that she has also been our servant—the people’s servant—for 60 years. She has been a servant monarch, which is what she said she would be when she took the coronation oath. Let me finish with two short personal comments. I am a member of the Christian Church. There are people in this Parliament of many faiths and of none. Speaking as someone of faith, may I say on behalf of those who have faith in general and of Christians in particular that when the Queen has expressed her views about the truths and good news of the Christian gospel, as she did in her Christmas broadcast last year, she has done so more honestly, more simply and more clearly than probably any other Christian leader in the world? People of all faiths should be thankful for that. She has absolutely got it right in expressing the faith in which she so clearly believes. I am privileged to be the MP whose constituency includes the Old Kent road. The Prime Minister alluded to a relevant description earlier. We regularly call people—we are not the only people to do so—“diamond geezers”. I am not sure that the Queen would be overly keen on the second part of the description, but in the vernacular of Bermondsey, the Old Kent road and everywhere else: she is a diamond; she has been a diamond; and for the many more years we hope she reigns, she will go on being a diamond. On behalf of all my colleagues—and so say all of us. 1.22 pm Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, it is a great privilege and pleasure to endorse and to be associated with the statements of the Prime Minister and of other right hon. and hon. Members in support of this motion. For most of us and for most of the country, Queen Elizabeth II is the only monarch we have ever known. Only one other monarch, Queen Victoria, has reached this tremendous milestone. It is not just the length of service that has been so impressive, but the manner in which Her Majesty has served the people of this country. Dedication, commitment, judgment and sacrifice are words that spring to mind when we think of the Queen’s service to our country and to the Commonwealth over the course of her entire life. At 21 years of age, Her Majesty pledged that “my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service.”

That promise has been well and truly fulfilled. During Her Majesty’s reign, she has of course been supported superbly by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, who has obviously been a great source of strength to Her Majesty, as well as serving our country in his own inimitable right.

861

Diamond Jubilee

7 MARCH 2012

[Mr Nigel Dodds] We from Northern Ireland appreciate deeply the commitment that the Queen has shown to our part of the United Kingdom over the course of her reign. Her Majesty has visited Northern Ireland on some 15 official visits over the last 60 years. She has travelled even during very difficult and dangerous periods when her visits brought with them severe risks to her personal security. I well recall one particular visit when, during very dark and troubled days indeed, I had the great honour as lord mayor of the great city of Belfast of welcoming her to the city. Her intense concern for and interest in the welfare of all of the people of Belfast and Northern Ireland was evident. People in our Province have always enjoyed visits by the Queen and members of the royal family. We look forward eagerly to Her Majesty’s visit later this year, so that once again we can show our respect and affection for her and the royal household. On the first occasion that Her Majesty visited Northern Ireland as Queen in 1953, she spoke to the Northern Ireland House of Commons, saying: “I assure you that I will always strive to repay your loyalty and devotion with my steadfast service to you.”

The then Speaker responded by saying: “It is our heartfelt prayer that Your Majesty may be blessed with health and strength, long to reign over us.”

As we give thanks to almighty God today for the life and service of Her Majesty, we affirm that this continues to be our sincere prayer today. God save the Queen. 1.25 pm Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con): As the Member of Parliament for Windsor, I wholeheartedly associate myself with the words of the Prime Minister and of other right hon. and hon. Members. During 60 years of service, there have been 60 years of change, but one thing has not changed and has remained constant—Her Majesty’s dedication and sense of duty towards our country and its people. On behalf of the people of Windsor, I wish to express my thanks and my best wishes to Her Majesty and the royal family. She is as welcome in her home in Windsor as she is throughout the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. 1.26 pm Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab): I join my fellow former member of Oxford University Labour club, the Father of the House, in paying tribute to Her Majesty. What has impressed me about her, among many other noble attributes, is her knowledgeability and her imperturbality. I attended a meeting of the Privy Council, at which Her Majesty had the responsibility to prick sheriffs. She held an object that looks like a large knitting needle and in front a parchment roll, not dissimilar to another kind of roll, was unrolled before her. As the official read out the names, the Queen leaned forward and stabbed the roll. On one occasion when a name was read out, Her Majesty said, “But he’s dead,” to which the official’s response was, “Yes, Your Majesty, but if you will prick it, I will explain later”. Her Majesty goes to enormous pains to obtain information in order to carry out her duties. When I attended the investiture at Buckingham palace, the Queen

Diamond Jubilee

862

tapped me on the shoulder. She then made comments to me, which made it clear that she had taken the trouble to find out something about me. What I found even more encouraging and remarkable was that as each person being honoured came before her—there were a very large number—she had something to say to each one of them. It struck me as impressive that she went to all that trouble to make the day memorable for the people attending at Buckingham palace. I want to pay tribute to the Duke of Edinburgh, too. I have been involved in a number of events with His Royal Highness. I particularly remember meeting His Royal Highness at Farnborough air show at the time when I was shepherding through legislation to nationalise the aircraft industry and to create British Aerospace. He had some extremely forthright comments and pieces of advice to offer about how British Aerospace should be nationalised. I took due account of what he said when we carried the legislation through Parliament. While there are Presidents in countries all over the world, this country has what some might regard as an anomaly, whereby the Head of State is an hereditary monarch. The greatest achievement of Her Majesty is that she has proved by the way in which she has presided over this country for 60 years that hereditary monarchy provides a better basis for genuine democracy than any of the presidencies we see in different parts of the world. Her impartiality and knowledgability have demonstrated to all of us that we, who have the best democracy in the world—despite occasional electoral aberrations—owe that democracy, in which all of us are free, to Her Majesty. What she has done in making this United Kingdom a permanent democracy, a democracy that is impregnable, is perhaps the greatest of her many achievements. Several hon. Members rose— Mr Speaker: I call Mr Steve Brine. Mr Brine was on the list of those wishing to speak, but apparently he does not wish to do so, so I call Mary Macleod. 1.30 pm Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con): I am honoured to have the opportunity to contribute a few words to this humble Address to Her Majesty on the 60th anniversary of her accession to the throne. I strongly support the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who gave a powerful and poignant summary of what the Queen has done for this country. When Queen Elizabeth II became our monarch in February 1952, the United Kingdom was a pretty austere place. It was only seven years after the end of the second world war, and tea rationing was still in place. The Queen was faced with a crisis almost immediately when the great smog of London killed about 12,000 people in December 1952, an event that shocked the world into starting the environmental movement. In her first Christmas message, aged just 26, she called on her people to “set out to build a truer knowledge of ourselves and our fellowmen, to work for tolerance and understanding among the nations and to use the tremendous forces of science and learning for the betterment of man’s lot upon this earth.”

Those are wise words even today, as they were then.

863

Diamond Jubilee

7 MARCH 2012

As others have already pointed out, the Queen has witnessed some incredible innovations during her 60-year reign: the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953, the first man on the moon, the first and last supersonic flights on Concorde, the first test-tube baby, the first personal computer and the world wide web, and the introduction of the mobile phone. About 90% of people in the United Kingdom now have mobile phones. Her Majesty has also been a constant presence during many significant world events, such as Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech, the construction and fall of the Berlin wall, the recessions of the 1970s and 1990s, and the economic crisis of more recent years. She has discussed the politics of the day with 12 Prime Ministers, from Sir Winston Churchill in 1951 to my right hon. Friend our current Prime Minister. That makes her probably the most experienced and well-briefed person in the country today. She has been at the heart of what has been important to Britain, and the challenges that we have had to face as a country over these 60 years. Our world has changed more in the Queen’s lifetime than in those of any of her predecessors, but she has remained a calm presence at the centre, earning the respect and affection of everyone. I first met Her Majesty in May 1998 at Balmoral castle, beside the beautiful banks of the River Dee, in my role as part of the royal household. On that first evening, over dinner, I saw her wonderful humour, heard story after story of experiences that she had been through, listened to the pipes being played by Pipe Major Jim Motherwell, and talked about Scotland, which, of course, I consider to be an important part of the United Kingdom. During my time as policy adviser, I saw at first hand the unbelievable work load that Her Majesty undertook daily as part of her unstinting service to this country and the Commonwealth. Her devotion to duty is unparalleled, and is reflected not just in her work load, but in the number of engagements that she attends and the visitors to this country whom she entertains. The Queen is patron to more than 600 wide-ranging organisations that support children, sport, the arts, health, science, animals, industry, education and the military, to name just a few. She takes a particular interest in all the armed forces in both the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, and is, of course, the wife, mother and grandmother of individuals who have served, or are currently serving, in the armed forces. For me, the Queen represents the best of British values—loyalty, respect, family, volunteering—and reminds us of what it means to be British. In her diamond jubilee message, she asked us all to remember “the power of togetherness and the convening strength of family, friendship and good neighbourliness.”

All those things are so important at the moment to everyone in the United Kingdom and throughout the Commonwealth. The Queen even has the ability to transcend boundaries. I flew in this morning after looking at emerging and high-growth markets and businesses in Asia, and spoke to an American gentleman who said to me enthusiastically, “We love her, and we feel that she is our Queen too.” When I pressed him to tell me why, he said, “She embodies dignity, stability and grace.” I could not have agreed more.

Diamond Jubilee

864

His Royal Highness HRH the Duke of Cambridge, Prince William, spoke recently of how his grandmother had “carved her own way completely”

and had managed to deal with the difficult balance between public demands and private life. At the same time, the Queen has not been afraid to listen to feedback from the general public, and to take action when it is needed. She has personally overseen a radical modernisation of the royal household to reduce spending, support female succession and embrace technology. Grants to the Queen and the royal household amount to less than 70p per person in the country, a figure that is far outweighed by their payments to the Treasury and the benefits of tourism to the economy. The Queen has also opened up the way for the royal household to share information. More than half a million people like her Facebook page, which I suspect is more than most Members of Parliament can say. In 1897, on the day of her own diamond jubilee celebrations, Queen Victoria wrote in her diary: “The streets were beautifully decorated, also the balconies of the houses, with flowers, flags and draperies of every hue.”

I look forward to similar festivities throughout the country during the celebration weekend in June, and encourage all local communities to hold the street parties and other events that do so much to bring us together in our own communities. Let us use this year of the diamond jubilee and the Olympics and Paralympics to regain our sense of Britishness. Let us be proud to be British. Let us talk up British business and, most of all, our people: those who really make Britain what it is today, with the Queen at the helm. I want to join everyone here today in paying the warmest possible tribute to Her Majesty the Queen. Her devotion to duty and her energy are inspirational, and we cannot thank her enough for all that she does for our country and the Commonwealth. If we all did a fraction of what she does, our communities would surely be stronger and better. Members of Parliament are elected to serve our constituents and to make a difference to our country. What better example of service could they follow than that of Her Majesty the Queen? She has made an impression on so many people. She is a role model and an inspiration, for me, for women, for citizens of the UK and the Commonwealth, and for generations to come. In supporting the Prime Minister’s motion and thanking the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, I end my speech with words from our national anthem: “God save our gracious Queen”.

Long may she reign over us! 1.38 pm Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab): It is a pleasure to contribute to the humble Address, and to support the motion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) told us earlier, tomorrow morning Her Majesty the Queen, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge will visit Leicester on the first stop of the diamond jubilee tour. That is a great honour for our city. Under the Queen’s reign, Leicester has prospered

865

Diamond Jubilee

7 MARCH 2012

[Liz Kendall] and changed. We have welcomed people from throughout the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and the rest of the world. It is therefore fitting that tomorrow’s royal visit will begin with a dance that celebrates our city’s diversity. Leicester has a long history in textiles, hosiery and shoemaking. Students on De Montfort university’s worldrenowned footwear design course have been busy making a pair of shoes for the Duchess of Cambridge, and the royal party will watch a fashion show at the university. They will also hear about De Montfort’s Square Mile project, which aims to help local residents in Newfoundpool, Fosse and Woodgate, which are in my constituency. Students from Leicester college, including my constituent Amrik Mudher, will then help to make the royal lunch at St Martin’s house before the visitors proceed to Leicester cathedral and our historic clock tower. We in Leicester treasure our history, we celebrate our present and we are confident about the future. There is a huge sense of anticipation and excitement about tomorrow’s visit. I know that tomorrow the citizens of Leicester will give the Queen, in the 60th year of her reign, a welcome of which our whole city, and country, can be proud. 1.39 pm Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con): It is a great privilege to be called to speak in this debate and thereby have an opportunity to pay tribute to Her Majesty the Queen, both on my own part as her humble subject and on behalf of the residents of Suffolk Coastal. For so many of us, she is the only monarch we have ever known, and what a wonderful example she has set of service, of family and of true commitment to our United Kingdom. Members of my family proudly serve in the armed forces, and the Queen also served during world war two, showing that what was good enough for her subjects was good enough for her. The example she set then was an important part of the national war effort. I also pay tribute to the Queen’s steadfast consort, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. It is fantastic that he has recovered from his recent minor illness, and I am delighted that he will be starting the jubilee tour with his wife tomorrow in Leicester. I pay tribute to the Queen for her visit to the Republic of Ireland last year. I wonder whether Her Majesty will ever realise the true extent of the impact she made. It may be a little controversial to say that it was a great parliamentarian, Cromwell, who tore Ireland apart. I think that the Queen’s visit last year will have gone a long way towards restoring the relationship between our two great nations. I do not pretend to have had any contact with Her Majesty, but we have heard some wonderful insights and amusing anecdotes today. I do know, however, that the people who receive honours from her and those who attend her garden parties are thrilled to do so, as are all the people who queue up as I did as little girl in 1977—I also got a commemorative mug—and line the streets of Liverpool, Wrexham and other places because we want to see our monarch. The only times that I have had any contact with Her Majesty are when she was gracious enough to grant Royal Assent to a private Member’s

Diamond Jubilee

866

Bill of mine, and thereby make it an Act of Parliament, and, of course, when I swore the oath to take office here in Parliament for the first time. I think it is fair to say that Her Majesty has also touched the world. She is the Head of State for over a quarter of the world’s population. That is celebrated in Commonwealth week and at the Commonwealth games— and I hope she will open the Olympic games later this year. I encourage colleagues to take the opportunity of diamond jubilee week to host a Commonwealth day reception in their constituencies, to mark the Queen’s contribution not only to our country, but around the world. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) said, there have been many changes during Her Majesty’s reign. When the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), mentioned TV sets, I remembered my mother telling me that the coronation was the first time she watched television. In Wrexham, people crowded into one particular shop, because the shopkeeper had bought a television just to be able to watch that ceremony, which changed history. Many other things have changed— one of my favourite dishes, coronation chicken, was invented for that day and is one of its lasting legacies. We cannot praise Her Majesty’s service to our country too highly. She is a mother, a grandmother and a great-grandmother. As has been said, she enjoys the company of dogs and horses, and on a visit to Suffolk earlier in the year, she went to Newmarket. On Her Majesty’s special weekend, we will all join her in celebrating what is great about our country. I am sure that she will continue to serve us for years to come. 1.43 pm Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab): The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) made a fine comment about His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, who will begin the royal tour tomorrow on schedule. We all welcome that news. It is a great pleasure to attend this debate and to listen so many fine and noble speeches. I was impressed by the speeches of the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). I remember the death of George VI, but not the radio broadcast by his kinsman the following night. I certainly remember the Queen’s coronation and the feeling in the country that we were entering a new Elizabethan era. That era has lasted longer than anyone would have imagined and has been to our country’s credit and honour. Many right hon. and hon. Members have described their personal experiences of the Queen, the Duke and the rest of the royal family. I first visited Buckingham palace in 1984, accompanied by my wife. I saw the very first copy of Disraeli’s “Sybil, or The Two Nations” in an exhibition of manuscripts from Windsor castle. Her Majesty and Prince Philip came along and talked to us all very nicely. Dame Angela Rumbold, a former Minister of the Crown and Member of Parliament, was also there. Her husband, John, died recently, which is a great sadness to us all. Angela and I were officially paired in the House, and when I proudly told the Duke that, he turned to my wife and asked, “And you have an official

867

Diamond Jubilee

7 MARCH 2012

pair, my dear?” He had that twinkle in his eye that I am not quite sure about. Fortunately for me, however, my wife held her peace. Her Majesty visited Middlesbrough in 1992, when she and the Duke were touring the British isles for the last time on the royal yacht Britannia—former Prime Minister Tony Blair came to regret the decision to abandon the yacht. The yacht was docked in Hartlepool, but Her Majesty visited my Middlesbrough constituency, where she opened a children’s playground at Pallister park. The Queen clearly has greater knowledge of our parliamentary system than some Members, because she looked at me and said, “The Whips have let you off today, have they?” One of my constituents asked me if I had been invited to a dinner on the royal yacht that evening. I somewhat shyly and diffidently said that my wife and I had, indeed, been invited. My constituent said, “I sent her a cruet set for her 40th anniversary. Will you ask her if she received it, and if she uses it?” It is always wise to seek to do a constituent’s bidding, of course, but I must admit that my courage failed me on that occasion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) described various mistakes made in the Queen’s presence. I have often said to people that one thing we must never do is address the Queen; we must wait for her to address us. On one occasion, commanded again to Buckingham palace, I stood in line to be introduced. When my turn came, I blurted out: “Your Majesty, I am your Second Church Estates Commissioner.” She replied, “Oh, really.” It took me some time to get over that. Later on, however, she came up to me and asked what the General Synod had been discussing last weekend—the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) will have taken note of that—which made me feel a lot better. I was Her Majesty’s Second Church Estates Commissioner for 13 years, and I saw very clearly her dedication and devotion to her duties to state and to Church—my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn also mentioned that. I remember her opening the General Synod at Westminster abbey. She is, of course, Supreme Governor of the Church of England through her coronation oath, which dates back to the time of Henry VIII. I saw how she looked at the people around her and took in the atmosphere. It was clear that she enjoyed the event; she was smiling in enjoyment and pleasure at her role as Supreme Governor—in marked contrast to what happened at the opening of the millennium dome, to which the Prime Minister referred. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) mentioned the Queen’s interest in other faiths. When she visited Lambeth palace on 15 February, she talked of nine families of faith. She referred to the significant position of the Church of England in our nation’s life and its duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country. I have referred to various visits to Buckingham palace, and I would not wish to omit the final visit I made to see Her Majesty there with other Members of Parliament. We do get invited to Buckingham palace from time to time. On this occasion I was with a group of MPs that included the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who I am sure would not miss this occasion today, when Her Majesty came to talk to us. Three years later, it was our time again, and the hon. Member for Epping Forest—

Diamond Jubilee

868

now a friend—said, “Wouldn’t it be nice if Her Majesty came along and spoke to us again?” I spoke to the equerry and he managed to get Her Majesty to come and speak to us, and the hon. Lady said, “Your Majesty, we were together three years ago and you spoke to us then.” Her Majesty uttered the immortal words, “And we are all still here,” and so, 60 years on from her coronation, are Her Majesty and the Duke. It has been a mighty achievement for a monarch to reign for 60 years and that is why we pay tribute to Her Majesty and the Duke. We wish her well in her reign and we look back in satisfaction and gratitude at the service she has rendered to this country. 1.51 pm Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con): I am very happy to verify the story of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell). In supporting the Humble Address may I say that those of us who strive to show that there should be no barriers to a woman being able to achieve all that a man can achieve have in Her Majesty a shining example and a wonderful inspiration? 1.51 pm Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab): May I add my support to the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition following recent devastating events in Afghanistan? We must never forget that those who serve are the lions of our country. We owe them all an enormous debt of gratitude and I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the families of those who have tragically lost their lives in Afghanistan. It is an honour to speak in today’s Humble Address to celebrate the diamond jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen. As Her Majesty prepares to begin the next chapter in her remarkable history, it is right that we remind ourselves of the changes to the country and the world that have accompanied her most distinguished reign on the British throne. While the world has changed at a rapid rate, the Queen has struck the balance perfectly between stability and tradition versus change and modernisation. She reigns steadfast in her belief in duty, commitment and loyalty, steadfast in her belief in peace and prosperity both at home and overseas, and steadfast as a mother and grandmother who works tirelessly for her nation and her family. The Queen has served her country dutifully and with a quiet dignity and grace. I know that the Queen’s support for our armed forces really does matter to them and their families, especially on days such as today. I believe that the Queen’s service is best defined by one word—duty. Her Majesty is undoubtedly formidable, but we know that she also has a sense of humour. I recall a story about a mayoress from a town that shall remain nameless, although I will say that it was not Barnsley, who showed the Queen around a refurbished town hall. During the tour, the Queen and mayoress arrived at an open cabinet containing a rather formal robe, which prompted the Queen to ask, “What is that robe for?” The mayoress replied, “This is our ceremonial robe, but we only use it for very special occasions.” A wry smile from the Queen said all that needed to be said. In complex and challenging times for Britain and the world, the Queen has remained a reassuring constant. Her Majesty has worked tirelessly to support all her

869

Diamond Jubilee

7 MARCH 2012

[Dan Jarvis] Prime Ministers and to build strong working relationships with countless foreign Heads of State and leaders of the Commonwealth countries. The Queen is well placed to head a country that has culture, the arts, heritage, design and technology at its core. Around the world, portraits of the Queen have become synonymous with the traditions of the British monarchy. Rolf Harris and Lucien Freud, to name just two, have had the opportunity to paint Her Majesty. Oh to have been a fly on the wall during one of Freud’s sittings with Her Majesty! As we move into 2012, Her Majesty will inspire her nation again. In July, she will become the third British monarch officially to open the London Olympic games, following in the footsteps of her great-grandfather, Edward VII, in 1908 and her father, George VI, in 1948. Before that, the nation will gather to celebrate the diamond jubilee. In South Yorkshire, we will celebrate with festivals and street parties. Over the next 12 months, the eyes of the world will be on the Queen to inspire her people. I am confident, as, I am sure, are the whole House and the whole country, that she will, as ever, with a grace and devotion to duty that is admired and respected the world over, once more make this country very proud. 1.56 pm Priti Patel (Witham) (Con): It is a great privilege to have this opportunity, on behalf of the Witham constituency, to support the Humble Address to Her Majesty the Queen. In October 2010, my constituency was honoured by the first visit of Her Majesty to that part of Essex for a generation. She came to visit Wilkin and Sons in Tiptree, which has a royal warrant. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, the company makes the finest jams and preserves in the world. In the weeks leading to the visit, the air of excitement and anticipation was immense. That seems unimaginable in today’s era of short-term celebrity culture, but business men, schoolchildren and pensioners were all enthused and excited about her presence in Tiptree. The visit brought everyone together as nothing else could and blew us all away on the day. It is a testament to her remarkable character that everyone who met her felt inspired and delighted that the Queen had engaged in conversation with them. Despite the fact that that visit was only one of the hundreds she makes each year, everyone felt special to have spent time with Her Majesty. Just as Tiptree celebrated Her Majesty’s visit, people across my constituency are now embracing the diamond jubilee celebrations. Witham town council has organised a competition for local schoolchildren to design a logo to mark this momentous occasion. With so many events, street parties and activities taking place in her honour, we can see that Her Majesty is perhaps the only living person who can command this level of respect and loyalty and bring our great nation together. It is absolutely fitting, with the celebrations taking place across the country and the Commonwealth, that the House should pay its own tribute to the 60 years of selfless service that Her Majesty has given to the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. She has relentlessly promoted Britain throughout the world, and there is

Diamond Jubilee

870

barely a corner of the earth that she has not reached. Her Majesty has supported numerous charities and great causes throughout our country. She has acted as a confidante to a dozen Prime Ministers throughout her reign and done tremendous work. Her strong work ethic is inspiring, and her eternal optimism for this country is a great source of comfort in an era of change. As her visit to my constituency demonstrated, our sovereign lady is a true believer in the people and businesses that make our country the greatest in the world. Her Majesty is the embodiment of the British spirit, and long may her reign continue. 1.58 pm Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): My reason for speaking is that I have lived under four monarchs, and I would like to present a view that will represent a diversity of opinion in the country, which probably has not been expressed so far in the debate. A Head of State wearing a green dress and bowing her head to Croke Park was a very powerful symbol of reconciliation, which I believe will have a profound effect on healing the wounds that have disfigured life in the island of Ireland for generations. The Queen is still working, doing a full-time job, having been born in 1926. What a splendid example to the nation and to the House, which has just two hon. Members who are octogenarians. Their distinguished contributions should ensure that we encourage greater diversity in the House. It is one area where we fail. Great progress has been made; there is a larger proportion of women Members and more Members from the minorities, although not yet enough, but we fail dismally on the number of people who can remember what it was like before there was a health service, for instance. We should look with gratitude to the Queen for providing a magnificent example. My third positive point is from the writings of Robert Rhodes James, a former Member for Cambridge and a respected historian. He raised a fascinating point about the feelings in the Conservative party when Mrs Thatcher’s premiership was coming to an end. He wrote of concern in Conservative circles that Mrs Thatcher might decide to call a general election, acting in her own interests rather than those of the nation, and that the Conservative party, the House and the Cabinet would not be able to stop her. The only person who could have stopped her was the Head of State, and I believe all of us agree that the Queen’s strength of character and the fact that she had served many other Prime Ministers would give us full confidence that she was the best person in that situation or any situation when a Prime Minister decided to act in his or her interests rather than the interests of the country. Another tradition is represented in this country, certainly in my constituency when, in 1839, a group of Chartists demonstrated and their purpose was not entirely benign towards Queen Victoria. Twenty of them were shot. It is right that we look at the relationship between the sovereign and ourselves in a modern Parliament. One welcomes the fact that a new coat of arms will be added to the many already displayed in the House, but sadly there is virtually no pictorial depiction of the struggles for democracy by the Chartists, the Tolpuddle martyrs, the suffragettes and others who shaped the rich and strong democracy we have today. We should put that right.

871

Diamond Jubilee

7 MARCH 2012

The speeches that have been made so far have been sincere and heartfelt, and virtually all were true, but if someone wants to be critical, they are not allowed to be. If a monarch, or just a relative of the monarch, strayed from the paths of sainthood and perfection, it would be impossible for a Member of the House to be critical of that person. That is not sensible. If that circumstance should arise, we should be allowed to talk freely if words of criticism are necessary. It is right, too, that the quarter of the population who describe themselves as republican should have their views heard. We know that figure is reflected in the membership of the House. When there was a debate some years ago about whether there should be an alternative Oath, more than 100 Members voted for it. To avoid the verbal rigmarole that republicans have to go through when taking the Oath, we should have an alternative. Finally, I am sure that even with the history of my city, where republicanism has existed for at least 200 years, all the people I represent, whether they see themselves as subjects or citizens, royalists or republicans, will wish the Queen well on this occasion. 2.4 pm Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con): On behalf of my constituents of Romford and Hornchurch, I rise in support of the Prime Minister in the Humble Address to the Queen, and add my congratulations and heartfelt thanks to her Majesty for her service and dedication to our nation in this, the 60th year of her reign as our Head of State, sovereign and defender of the faith. The diamond jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen will be a wonderful celebration for all the people of these islands, and a truly historic occasion for British people throughout the world. Let us remember that although Her Majesty is dear to all of us in this country, she is also loved by millions across the globe. The Queen reigns over not only the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but 15 other realms, five Crown dependencies and16 overseas territories, and 11 external territories of which Australia and New Zealand are sovereign; in total, 135 million people throughout 48 realms and territories, representing more than 18.8 million square miles of the world remain under the Crown. From the Arctic north of Canada to the British Antarctic Territory at the most southerly end of the planet, from Norfolk island on the eastern side of the Pacific to the Pitcairn islands on the western side, from the Caribbean to the Indian ocean, and from the Falkland islands of the south Atlantic to the Rock of Gibraltar, people across the world will be celebrating this joyful occasion. Today, in this mother of Parliaments, let us remember all Her Majesty’s loyal subjects from every corner of the globe, and together celebrate our shared heritage, represented so magnificently by Queen Elizabeth II. 2.7 pm Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP): On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, I add our congratulations to the Queen and wish her well on the tremendous occasion of her 60th jubilee.

Diamond Jubilee

872

This is my second speech on an Humble Address; the other was six years ago on the occasion of the Queen’s 80th birthday. Of the six Members who contributed that day, only two have done so again today: the Prime Minister did so from a different position, but I speak from the same place and am happy to provide continuity for the Humble Address. Her Majesty has had a long and impressive reign. I noted from a recent TV documentary that 60 years ago she pledged to serve the “imperial family”. Time has moved on, and so has the Queen, although not her inner gracious qualities and decorum. The imperial family has changed into a Commonwealth, as the Prime Minister noted earlier, and Her Majesty is now Queen of 16 independent states, a number that may be added to in coming years—a veritable growing family. In the year of Her Majesty’s 80th birthday, six years ago, she cruised around the Hebrides—my constituency, Na h-Eileanan an Iar—perhaps her favourite destination in all her realms. Before she becomes our longest reigning monarch—God willing—on 9 September 2015, I hope that she may again have the opportunity to cruise around the Hebrides, as this year may be a bit busy for her. In my childhood it was always a high point when Her Majesty visited the islands south of Barra, and travelled there in peace, and the three masts of the royal yacht Britannia were visible behind the hills when it was anchored in Vatersay bay. Finally, I say in Gaelic—the old but also the modern language of Scotland—“Meallaibh ar naidheachd a Bhanrighinn Elasdaid is tha mi an dochas gum bi ioma Bliadhna sona roimhibh.” 2.9 pm Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): Opening today’s debate on the Humble Address, the Prime Minister mentioned how much Her Majesty enjoys the Braemar gathering, which takes place in my constituency. The secret of the success to which we have paid tribute today is the royal family’s ability to recharge the batteries in the highland retreat of Balmoral in the heart of my constituency. On behalf of the many neighbours who live in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, I associate myself with the remarks made today. I wish Her Majesty well in her diamond jubilee and support the Humble Address. 2.9 pm Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab): I support the very gracious words of the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. It seems to me that if we were political scientists creating a state, as we did after the second world war, we would not begin with a monarchy in this day and age. It is an irrational, arbitrary, often deranged institution that depends upon the luck of genes, and it does not always work out well for the country, but not in this case. We must also, it seems, be careful about aligning too closely the history and identity of Britain with the history and identity of monarchy. Royal families come and go; some have very strong connections with the nation, others very weak ones—indeed, some do not even speak the same language as we do.

873

Diamond Jubilee

7 MARCH 2012

[Tristram Hunt] But there is no doubt that in the post-war years the monarchy of Queen Elizabeth II closely aligned itself with the changing history and identity of Britain, and often for the most curious reasons. On the one hand, Her Majesty was lucky. History is clear that those who do not wait around for the throne—those who have it thrust upon them at an early age—often prove to be among the most successful of our monarchs. In terms of longevity and achievement, being a queen rather than a king also plays well, particularly for the history of England. Added to that have been the remarkable personal virtues that have been spelled out so effectively by my right hon. and hon. Members: patience, dignity, resolve, discretion, duty. What has been so remarkable in Her Majesty’s reign has been the ability to let the monarchy assist in the transformation of post-war Britain. On her watch, Britain has changed from a predominantly Protestant, white and hierarchical society to a multi-cultural, mixed-race, secular nation inherently hostile towards privilege and inherited position. And yet, through all these extraordinary social and cultural upheavals, which have seen monarchies come and go on the continent, Her Majesty has managed to retain the nation’s abiding affection and provided some sense of the unity of values that we have discussed. This is partly the product of the nature of monarchy, which is non-sectarian, imperial and then Commonwealth in its reach, curiously suited for the identities of a diffuse, globalised age. Similarly, as the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) suggested, one of the ironies of the Queen’s strength is her sense of faith in a multi-religious age, a deep commitment to the Church of England and its teachings; providing that official sanction for faith provides space for other faiths to express themselves. At times of repeated difficulties, the Queen has wisely kept the monarchy outside politics and stuck to the old royal aphorism that Ministers are king in this country. But the work goes on. The monarchy and Her Majesty’s Government are going to have to deal very deftly with the growing calls for republican autonomy in former colonies, as we heard so recently in Jamaica and, inevitably, in Australia. The House of Windsor will also have to confront the challenge of separatism within the UK and perhaps the return to a fully federal vision of monarchy. There is certainly more to be done on both physical and intellectual access to the royal estates, their archives and their histories, but none of this should be an insurmountable challenge. Finally, I am always wary when the House is too reverential towards monarchy. We should, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who has departed, suggested, also speak to our different traditions. We should have a healthy respect but also a critical eye on the actions of the sovereign and on the sovereign’s finances, power and estate. We have our own history and identity in this place, a democratic rather than monarchical heritage that Britain also speaks to. As such, we can all pay deep respects to the enormous personal contribution of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I can say that particularly from my constituency, Stoke-on-Trent, where the order books are strong and employment is up on the back of this summer’s celebrations.

Diamond Jubilee

874

In the Potteries the kilns are hot for the diamond jubilee and, on behalf of my constituents, I am delighted to add my support to the Humble Address. 2.14 pm Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con): May I associate myself with the comments of the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the sad loss in Afghanistan today? One of the soldiers was a member of the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, and my thoughts are with the family and all those who have given their lives—the ultimate sacrifice—in fighting for Afghanistan. I support the Humble Address today. Before I came into the House, I served Her Majesty the Queen and Duke of Lancaster as a member of the Scots Guards for nine years, and I am currently a member of the Queen’s bodyguard for Scotland. Now that our colleagues, the Scottish National party, have become monarchists too, perhaps there is less cause for me to use that body to guard Her Majesty in future. I saw behind the scenes of the monarchy in my time before entering politics. We in the House know more than most that it is not easy to make people feel special on their occasion. It is not easy to show interest in the things they do every day, which they take to be so important. It is not easy to live under the daily gaze of the media, both in private life and in public life. We do this on occasion, but Her Majesty the Queen has done it for 60 years. Her family does it every day. Not only does Her Majesty do that to the highest standard, but she leaves everybody she meets with the feeling that they have been touched by the monarchy and by the nation. When people are given an award by Her Majesty the Queen, it is not because of politics or favour but because our nation values what they do. That is something that she herself embodies. She also leaves with all of us a story of our encounters with the Queen or members of the royal family. On one occasion I was the officer of the guard at Buckingham palace and I had to accompany Her Majesty the Queen to an investiture. I was at that time seeking a seat in the Scottish Parliament and I had been for the selection meeting on the Monday at Balmoral, in Crathie, to try and stand for the seat of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine in the Scottish Parliament. I was not lucky and did not get through to the final round. However, Her Majesty the Queen asked me what I had done and I said that I had been up in her neck of the woods, but unfortunately I thought that members of the selection board thought I was a bit too young. She said, “I think they should think again.” The next day I got a phone call, to be told that the shortlist of two was too small and would be expanded to five. I was then selected as the Conservative candidate for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, and elected to the Scottish Parliament, and perhaps that is why I am standing here today. The Queen also embodies the Sandhurst tradition of serve to lead, which is all about public duty. She taught me at Sandhurst that you give yourself to lead your country. Perhaps she is the true inspiration of the big society. We forget so much about the value and importance of public duty. People today need more stability. They need less politics, not more, and they

875

Diamond Jubilee

7 MARCH 2012

need impartiality. Her Majesty the Queen has provided all that for our nation, and she has allowed our nation to feel secure in itself and to continue to achieve the greatness that this country achieves and stands for throughout the world. On behalf of all the armed forces that I served with and the veterans whom I now represent in Lancashire, and my constituents in the Duchy of Lancaster and my constituency, Wyre and Preston North, I wish Her Majesty a happy and successful diamond jubilee, and long may she reign. 2.18 pm Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance): I add my support to the motion in the name of the Prime Minister and express my best wishes to Her Majesty the Queen in her diamond jubilee year. I recognise the very important contribution she has made to this country over that time and also to our relationships with other nations around the world. It is a remarkable and inspiring achievement that 60 years on from her accession to the throne, she continues to serve with undiminished energy, vigour, dedication and grace. Other Members have highlighted the Queen’s service and dedication in many spheres of national life, but in my brief remarks I wish to focus on just one example that is of particular importance to me and those I represent, and to which the Prime Minister has already referred. Other Members have spoken of the changing times during which the Queen has reigned. Even during my lifetime we have witnessed some remarkable improvements in relations between Ireland and Britain, particularly over the past few years. However, the state visit to Ireland last year, hosted by the former President, Mary McAleese, which was the first state visit by a British monarch to that state in 100 years, lifted those relationships to an entirely new level and, I believe, have helped to make a tangible contribution to the building of a more shared and prosperous future in Northern Ireland. Although the success of that historic royal visit was the result of detailed planning, careful management, sensitive choreography and strong political leadership, it was also in no small measure due to the unique warmth of the relationship between those two female Heads of State, who engaged with each other and with the hugely emotive and sensitive issues raised by the visit with the kind of dignity and humility that should mark our approach to all such difficult issues. The transformational effects that the powerful images and thoughtful reflections on our nations’ shared history generated by the visit had on healing the wounds of our difficult past are significant not only in their own right, but in laying out a template and a tone for our future engagement with each other. It was a vivid demonstration of the power of reconciliation and the generosity required for real leadership. Although that special contribution was a very small part of her past 60 years of service to this country, I believe that it was never the less of huge value in Northern Ireland and in these islands and therefore deserves particular recognition as we mark this historic occasion. I pay tribute to the Queen and to Prince Philip for their service to date and wish them God’s richest blessing in the years ahead.

Diamond Jubilee

876

2.21 pm Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con): On behalf of my constituents, I want to describe how the Queen comes across to a great many of us. I have never met Her Majesty, and until I attended a garden party last year I had never seen her in the flesh. Indeed, even then I saw her only from a distance. That is the great experience of many of my constituents and many in this country. However, one thing overrides all that. Many people regard Her Majesty almost as a member of the family, because they know her so well. In a time of crisis she is always there on our television screens. Indeed, Christmas day simply would not be Christmas day without Her Majesty’s 3 o’clock address. One thing that shines out about having a monarch who is well above the political process is what she does when we have disasters and tragedies in our country, such as the tragic events of 7 July 2005. When she was able to visit the hospital and meet the people who had been so tragically and grievously wounded, the country was able to share in its mourning behind Her Majesty, a lady who is in no way linked to political organisations. During the Falklands war, when some suggested that it was simply too dangerous for her son to be sent into conflict, Her Majesty, never one to shy away from responsibility, would hear nothing of it. She said that he was a serving member of the armed forces and so would go and do his duty. With that comes the respect of the nation and of those who serve Her Majesty and this country. I will keep this short: on behalf of my constituents in Elmet and Rothwell, I simply say “God save the Queen.” 2.23 pm Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): As the Member of Parliament for Britain’s oldest recorded town and the first capital of Roman Britain, I wish to be associated with the Address and much of what has been said. I can recall being a five-year-old at Myland primary school when King George VI died. I can also remember 16 months later seeing television for the first time and watching the coronation at a family friend’s house in Mile End in Colchester. Like others, I wish to pay tribute not only to Her Majesty the Queen, but to the Duke of Edinburgh for all his support over the years. In particular, I want to mention the support that both have given to many youth organisations over the past 60 years. As a Queen’s scout, I will mention the scout movement and the guide movement. Of course, as Princess Elizabeth, our Queen was a girl guide, and there are other youth organisations that she and Prince Philip have supported. Of the many charities and organisations that she is directly associated with as a patron, I wish to mention LEPRA, the international charity tackling leprosy around the world, whose international headquarters are based in my constituency. The Queen has made three visits to Colchester in her glorious reign, and I have had the pleasure of witnessing all of them: first as a pupil at St Helena secondary modern school for boys; secondly as deputy mayor of Colchester; and thirdly as the town’s MP. On two occasions the Queen has also visited the university of Essex in Colchester, an institution of which you, Mr Speaker, have fond memories as both a graduate and an honorary

877

Diamond Jubilee

7 MARCH 2012

[Sir Bob Russell] graduate. You will know that it is the most international of Britain’s universities. I think it is a safe bet that every Commonwealth country will at some stage be represented there, if they are not already, because over 120 nationalities are represented there. The Queen has also been a great supporter of our armed forces. As I represent the garrison town of Colchester, I wish to associate the garrison with my greetings to Her Majesty. I am a constitutional monarchist. When we look at Presidents of the United States and of France, I think we see that constitutional monarchy has more than the edge. Finally, 2000 years ago Colchester was a Roman city. In the mists of time, somehow that status was lost. It would be marvellous if in this the diamond jubilee year the city status could be restored. Mr Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can be relied upon to send a copy of his speech to that magnificent institution, the university of Essex, and probably to a good many other institutions besides. 2.26 pm Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con): When the first Queen Elizabeth made her golden speech back in 1601, she acknowledged that, more than anything else, it was the affection of her people that had sustained her through her long reign. Addressing one of your predecessors, Mr Speaker, she said: “And, though God hath raised me high, yet this I count the glory of my Crown, that I have reigned with your loves.”

Over 400 years later, in our age of constitutional monarchy, we are fortunate indeed to have a monarch who, like her

Diamond Jubilee

878

illustrious predecessor, has always understood that it is the affection of her people that is most important. The solemn oath that Her Majesty took at her coronation has been and is being fulfilled in every possible way. May I, on behalf of my constituents, offer praise and thanks for her 60 years of service as our Queen and head of the Commonwealth? She has truly lived a life triumphant. May God save our diamond Queen. 2.27 pm Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con): I join others in congratulating Her Majesty the Queen on the occasion of her diamond jubilee. As you know, Mr Speaker, this is a unique occasion, because normally we are not allowed to mention members of the royal family in this place. For 60 years Her Majesty, beyond all call of duty, has managed to be charming to her subjects. Having spent half that number of years in public service, I certainly find it a strain to be pleasant to people morning, noon and night. As I represent the constituency with the largest number of centenarians in the country, I can tell the House that they greatly look forward to the telegram they receive from Her Majesty the Queen—my own mother, Maud, is looking forward to her telegram on 2 May. Finally, I have a question for your good self, Mr Speaker: when Her Majesty celebrates her 100th birthday, who will send her a telegram? Long may she reign over us. Question put and agreed to, nemine contradicente. Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty on the occasion of the Sixtieth Anniversary of Her Accession to the Throne. That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the whole House.

879

7 MARCH 2012

Points of Order 2.29 pm Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This has been an important day, and we have just had an excellent debate. It is therefore disappointing that the Department for Work and Pensions chose this occasion to release, after the Prime Minister sat down, an announcement stating that two thirds of Remploy factories in this country will now close. That is a matter of great concern to Members on both sides of the House. Have you, Sir, received any request for an oral statement on this subject, and if not how may we now bring Ministers to this House to account for that callous decision? Several hon. Members rose— Mr Speaker: Order. May I just establish whether colleagues are seeking to come in on the same matter? I think Mr Bryant is. Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking to do so, because you know that earlier this week I raised the matter of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), coming to the Remploy factory in my constituency. All the staff there, many of whom are very vulnerable members of society, have been deeply disturbed by the way in which she came into the office and left. They did not know whether there was going to be an announcement today; the written ministerial statement is simply called “Employment Support”. This has been sneaked out, it is unfair to treat disabled people in this country in that way, and the Minister is wandering around all the radio studios this afternoon. It is a disgrace. We should be treated better, and disabled people in this country should be treated better. Several hon. Members rose— Mr Speaker: I will take one or two more points of order, then I really must respond. Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. This afternoon, in the Welsh Assembly, Labour’s Minister, Leighton Andrews, who is not responsible for this policy, will be standing, will be making an oral statement and will be open to questions from democratically elected Members of that Assembly. Yet here, in this place, we have the disgrace of a Minister who sneaks out a written statement. I am unable to question that Minister on the 47 loyal staff in Bridgend. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is unable to question her about the 74 staff in Porth, who also serve my constituency, or about the nine other factories throughout Wales which are threatened. That is a disgrace, and I genuinely seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, because on a day when we have just spent, quite rightly, some time on an Humble Address to Her Majesty, an institution as venerable as Remploy—with people as loyal as its workers—has not received the courtesy of being addressed within this place. I know that you are a guardian of this House. I hope that you can help us.

Points of Order

880

Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Just a few weeks ago we had a Back-Bench business debate about Remploy. Dozens of my colleagues took part in it, and it is extremely discourteous of the Minister to fail to come to this House and explain to us exactly what is happening to the organisation. At my local Remploy factory in Aberdare, 42 people are going to lose their jobs, in a job market where there are no jobs. It is an utter disgrace to do that to disabled people at the moment, as it is for the Minister to offer a briefing in room W4 between 3 and 4 o’clock this afternoon, out of sight of all the people in this Chamber and away from the television cameras. It will not do, and I ask you to call the Minister to this House to explain what the policy is all about. Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Those people are some of the most vulnerable workers in my constituency, and they were sacked by the Minister at 12.36 pm today through a written statement that was sent to the Library. Offering a briefing in private, when my constituents want to hear the justification for their losing their jobs, is not good enough, and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), should be ashamed of herself. She should come here and, if she is making the right decision, make the arguments. Chris Bryant: She could come at 7 today. Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday I raised the future of Remploy with the Chancellor at Treasury Question Time. There was no inkling of any sudden announcement of a mass closure of 36 factories, with the Swansea factory closing down and 1,200 disabled people losing their jobs. Is it in order to make such a statement through the Library, without even a debate about the future of individual factories and their financial viability, given that we have lots of orders coming in, and without even an oral statement? At a time when we have spent so long, quite rightly, celebrating the diamond jubilee of our Queen, Remploy, along with the future job prospects of hundreds of disabled people, is subject to a clandestine, cloak and dagger assassination. It is an absolute disgrace. Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very concerned to hear that the Remploy factory in Spennymoor is to be closed. Surely it is possible for the Minister to come to the House at 7 o’clock. Mr Speaker: I am grateful to Members for their points of order, and I note what the hon. Lady has just said, and what the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, about the possibility of something being offered to the House by way of a statement later in the day. I can offer no encouragement on that front. I simply make the following points. First, the House knows the importance I attach—the premium that I attach—to statements being made to the House, and to a proper judgment being made as to the merit of the case for scrutiny, there and then, of that statement; secondly, the Treasury Bench is heavily populated, and representatives of it will have heard the strength of

881

Points of Order

882

7 MARCH 2012

[Mr Speaker] feeling that has been expressed in the House this afternoon; and, finally, there are well established procedures for Members to raise the matter in the House tomorrow— procedures of which they will themselves be very well aware. Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What can be done to clarify the Government’s position on the national planning policy framework? Last night’s “Newsnight” programme reported a very clear understanding that no significant changes would be made to the document, despite vociferous campaigns being run by the National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in the consultation process. If no changes are to be made, that will be a matter of great concern for many people, so have you been approached by the Government wanting to make a statement on the matter, and if not what can be done to allow the House to question Ministers on it? Mr Speaker: I have not been so approached. The hon. Lady has at least started to provide a solution to the dilemma that she has identified, by airing her concerns in the House and by placing the matter on the record, and knowing her as I do I have a sense that her efforts will continue and accelerate in a variety of ways.

Speaker’s Statement 2.37 pm Mr Speaker: I have a very short statement to make about the arrangements for Tuesday 20 March. The House will meet for Prayers at 9.45 am. I will then suspend the sitting until 2.30 pm. Members attending the ceremony in Westminster Hall should be in their seats by 10.25 am. The Speaker’s procession with the Mace will enter Westminster Hall shortly before the arrival of Her Majesty the Queen. After the ceremony the Mace will be returned to the Chamber, so the Chamber will be closed to visitors until the sitting is resumed at 2.30 pm. I hope that that is helpful to the House.

883

7 MARCH 2012

Opposition Day [UNALLOTTED HALF DAY]

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland 2.38 pm Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP): I beg to move, That this House welcomes the NI 2012 campaign to change perceptions of Northern Ireland and to encourage many more visitors to come to Northern Ireland; notes that, despite current economic difficulties, this campaign takes place in the context of a momentous year for the UK when the nation will celebrate the Diamond Jubilee of Her Majesty The Queen, and will host the Olympic Games; further notes that, in Northern Ireland, 2012 is the centenary of the Titanic tragedy, an event that remains seared into the world’s consciousness and culture, and the centenary of the signing of the Ulster Covenant and Declaration, often described as the foundation document of Northern Ireland; welcomes the enormous progress that has occurred in recent years in moving Northern Ireland forward; and looks forward to the programme of events and activities which will help make Northern Ireland the place to visit in 2012.

I count it as an honour to open this debate this afternoon, but it is correct and right, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to acknowledge the great shadow that has been cast not only over this debate, but across the United Kingdom, with the tragic news that the Prime Minister announced earlier today of six soldiers missing presumed dead in Afghanistan. We remember their families in our prayers, and we trust that they might find comfort in knowing that people are remembering them at this very difficult time. There is an old cliché in marketing and public relations which states that perception is everything. Regardless of the whys and the wherefores, and even independent of the reality of events as they happen on the ground, a bad perception can be extremely difficult to overcome. Once tarred with such an impression, the tar can be exceptionally difficult to remove and sticks for a long time. For many people beyond the shores of Northern Ireland, their impressions of our corner of the United Kingdom were shaped by the nearly constant stream of negative headlines that were regularly beamed all across the world. With depressing regularity, our television screens were filled with images of carnage, human suffering and murder. We must never forget the fortitude of our people in these years, for they did not bow to the scourge of IRA terrorism. We regret the tragic loss of life of every innocent victim of terror, and again we express our sympathy to their loved ones. Indeed, this is the anniversary of the murder of three men in a local village beside my home in Coagh, and also the two young soldiers who were murdered in Antrim. We think of their families also this day. For many people, including investors and business leaders, the perception of Northern Ireland was of a region stuck down in the morass of intractable divisions and beset by problems that could never be resolved. It is therefore worth placing it on record that even in the midst of the darkest days there were glimmers of hope, and a few bright stars shone on the otherwise dark horizon. One area in which Ulster has always punched, sometimes literally, above its weight is in the realm of

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

884

sport. Ulster people enjoy little more than applauding the success of one of their own. So the triumph of Mary Peters at the 1972 Munich Olympics raised people’s spirits in one of the worst years of the troubles of Northern Ireland. The sporting skills of George Best on the football pitch, Wayne McCulloch and Barry McGuigan in the boxing ring, or Alex Higgins in the snooker were sources of local pride. These people were sporting legends who, in their own ways, challenged people’s perception of what it meant to be from Northern Ireland. Moving forward to more recent days, it is right that we acknowledge the incredible fact, seeing that we are a people of some 1.6 million, that we have stormed to the very top of the world of golf. Everyone in Northern Ireland is so proud of the success of Graeme McDowell, Darren Clarke and Rory McIlroy, who has recently reached the pinnacle of golf success, being named No. 1 in the world. These three giants of world golf are tremendous ambassadors for Northern Ireland, as indeed is my local snooker champion, Mark Allen from Antrim. Northern Ireland people are thrilled by their incredible success. In this Olympic year, I hope that Northern Ireland will reap the benefits of the Olympic games and will host a number of competitors and visitors from across the world. There is no doubt that, in common with all other United Kingdom regions, we are experiencing the effects of the global economic recession. This has been the longest and the toughest recession in living memory. However, the great majority of people to whom I have spoken in my constituency and beyond are convinced that we must do all in our power to ensure that 2012 becomes a lift-off point for the community. There is absolutely no doubt that this year’s expansive programme of events will provide a useful means of dismantling the old perceptions about Northern Ireland. Ulster people are sometimes known throughout the rest of world as being a little on the serious side and prone to a dose of pessimism. I suppose that, to a certain extent, that criticism is valid. We are, after all, the only people I know of in the United Kingdom who express happiness in a negative way. If one asks someone from London, “How are you?” I suggest that they would probably answer, “I am well, thank you.” Ask an Ulsterman, and one will usually be told two words: “Not bad.” Despite our perceived negativity, I am pleased to report that there is much good news to be reported from our small yet vital corner of the United Kingdom, and one of those is that we are the happiest people in the United Kingdom. I noticed what the Prime Minister said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). I wish that the Prime Minister could see what we sometimes see on his Benches when we look at some of the faces there. I must confess that I understand what he says, but I am doing my best and playing my part in encouraging Social Democratic and Labour party Members to be more bright and cheerful in this House. Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP): To reassure my hon. Friend, this morning I passed on to the Prime Minister the compliments of the Northern Ireland section of this House to ensure that he would get the message about the Ulster sense of humour—that it pervades Northern Ireland and knows no distinctions or boundaries whatsoever. I look forward to the Prime

885

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

7 MARCH 2012

[Mr Gregory Campbell] Minister taking on board that lesson, and perhaps next week at Prime Minister’s questions we will see an end to the angry man and perhaps one of an even more pleasant disposition. Dr McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The Ulster humour has helped Northern Ireland through its most difficult days. Many others would have gone into the depths of despair; Northern Ireland was able to plough through over 30 years of continual terrorism and to come out at the other end having beaten the terrorists and ready to put Northern Ireland on a better footing. That says much for the character of the people of the Province. Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab): Last week the Prime Minister commented on the happiness levels of the Democratic Unionist party, and this week the DUP has commented on the happiness levels of the Tories. What assessment has the hon. Gentleman made of the happiness levels of the Liberal Democrats? Dr McCrea: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that words would often fail me in describing the misery that I see on the faces of Lib Dem Members, but we will leave them for another occasion. I see from their vacant Benches that their level of interest in Northern Ireland affairs is really wonderful today. Let me return to the good news from our small yet vital part of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland’s unemployment rate is the lowest of any country in the UK. After London, Belfast is the most attractive city in the UK for foreign direct investment. Belfast is among the top 10 cities in the world for financial technology investments, ahead of Glasgow, Dublin and Toronto. Ulster pupils constantly turn in the best GCSE and A-level results of any UK region. These are things that we should rightly be proud of. I suspect that very few people inside, let alone outside Northern Ireland are aware of those startling facts. That highlights the crucial importance of campaigns such as Northern Ireland 2012. Years of negativity have taken their toll, but I genuinely believe that people are starting to feel good about being from our wee country once more. The slogan for the NI 2012 campaign is “Your time, our place”, and that perfectly encapsulates the rising tide of optimism that exists in the Province. This year will be a tremendous boost for Northern Ireland, with so much going on that it is hard to keep track. Key events in the Province will include the opening of Titanic Belfast, the Olympic and Paralympic torch relay, the Irish Open at Royal Portrush, and the arrival of the Clipper round the world yacht race. The stated aims of the NI 2012 campaign are to change the perception of Northern Ireland, to raise our profile, to drive visitor numbers, to generate economic impact, and to underpin civic pride and self-respect. I am proud to be from Northern Ireland, and I believe that more and more people from Northern Ireland are starting to feel likewise. We shall reap a remarkable reward. Just as Mary Peters and George Best played such an important role in showing the people of Northern Ireland, and the rest of the world, that hope was not lost during the dark days, imagine the

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

886

positive impact that hundreds and thousands of ambassadors made up of local people can have in this wonderful year. As the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office observed recently, “if you are not in Northern Ireland this year, frankly, you are no one.”—[Official Report, 25 January 2012; Vol. 539, c. 287.]

I heartily concur with that sentiment. History is probably more important in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the world. It is certainly a deeply contested subject, which leads many observers to believe that the people of Northern Ireland are utterly consumed by history. That is a mistaken assumption. There is a new spirit throughout the Province, whereby people are prepared to look at history not in a dispassionate way, but in a way that threatens nobody and that allows people from different backgrounds to learn about our glorious history. It is our aim that everyone will more fully develop their understanding of the forces that have played such a role in shaping our society in Northern Ireland. As a Unionist, I welcome the development of greater understanding and learning, because all too often, history books are written about the Province by people who have never been there and who know little of the circumstances about which they are writing. The biased and one-sided evaluation of history has caused great annoyance among the people whom I represent. I am pleased that this year, we shall see a wide range of events to mark the centenary of the signing of the Ulster covenant and declaration. The men and women of Ulster who answered the call of Sir Edward Carson to oppose Home Rule from Dublin laid the foundation stone of the Northern Ireland state. Although officially, Northern Ireland’s year one is 1921, in a real sense 1912 was actually the starting point, because after the signing of the covenant and the declaration there could be no doubt in the mind of Lloyd George’s Administration that the Unionists of Ulster were not prepared to accept Home Rule from Dublin. From 1912, the irreversible slide towards the establishment of the state of Northern Ireland commenced. It is important to note the significant role that women played in the organisation of the campaign against Home Rule, which culminated in the massive Ulster day demonstration on 28 September 1912. Women were the backbone of the campaign against Home Rule. Indeed, more women than men signed the declaration in Ulster. In many towns and villages, it was the local women’s organisations and individual women who delivered the logistical support required for the mammoth undertaking of gathering more than half a million signatures. That important aspect of the history of those significant events has not, in my view, received the coverage that it deserves. I hope that it will be more evident in the forthcoming centenary celebrations. When I think of the ordinary Ulster women who gave so much for the cause that they believed in, motivated by a sense of patriotism and principle, my mind inevitably turns to the most remarkable woman of the last three generations: Her Majesty the Queen. I remember her coronation. I remember a fancy dress competition in my local town of Stewartstown. I was dressed as a little sailor. My sister won the competition and we were very proud of her. The Queen is a constant background presence in the lives of many of our citizens, and comes to the fore on

887

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

7 MARCH 2012

great national occasions such as Remembrance Sunday, the trooping of the colour and Christmas. The Queen has been the one fixed point in an ever-changing world. It is remarkable to think that David Cameron receives advice and counsel from a monarch whose first Prime Minister was Sir Winston Churchill. There is no doubt that Her Majesty has made good her vow that her whole life would be devoted to the service of her people. This year we mark 60 remarkable years of service, and we give thanks to Almighty God for all that Her Majesty has accomplished on behalf of our United Kingdom. We are proud to say, “Long may she reign.” Many people in Northern Ireland, even people from a nationalist background, hold Her Majesty in high regard. I wish that their elected representatives would represent that position. I hope that the Government, within the obvious constraints of security, will afford as many Ulster people as possible the opportunity to say a big thank you to Her Majesty in her special year. Finally, this year also marks the centenary of the maiden voyage of the RMS Titanic. It is impossible to understate the strength of the iconic Titanic brand. From San Diego to Singapore, everyone has heard of the famous vessel, but how many people know that she was built in Belfast? As the locals have been known to remark, “The boat was fine when it left Belfast.” I know that the Executive at Stormont are working hard to ensure that people feel the full benefit of this significant anniversary. I urge the Government to work closely with the devolved Administration in that regard. Edmund Burke said: “People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors.”

This year, we pause to look back in thankful remembrance at all that our ancestors and earlier generations achieved, but we do so with a resolute determination to build on the inheritance bequeathed to us. I hope that posterity will record 2012 as a year of even greater progress in Northern Ireland. I commend the motion to the House. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment. 2.56 pm The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson): I congratulate the Democratic Unionist party on its choice of the motion for today’s debate. As ever, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), who spoke with his customary eloquence and passion for Northern Ireland. I entirely endorse his comments about the six soldiers who have been killed in Afghanistan today. Before I continue, I apologise to the House that I shall have to miss some of the debate. Shortly after my speech, I have to attend a meeting of the ministerial working group on rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary. I know that the House debated that issue last week, when I was unavoidably absent due to a long-planned public meeting in my constituency. I have been going to Northern Ireland and visiting businesses nearly every week for almost five years, and have campaigned to put rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy right at the top of the political agenda. That became a firm commitment in the Conservative party

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

888

manifesto and was included in the coalition’s programme for government, which resulted in a public consultation last year on a Treasury paper and the establishment of the ministerial working group. That all demonstrates that rebalancing the economy remains one of the highest priorities for me and my Department. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will of course be here throughout the debate to respond to the points made by right hon. and hon. Members. I welcome the choice of subject for this debate. Let me say at the outset that the Government support the broad thrust of the motion. The Government will support the Northern Ireland Executive in their efforts to make Northern Ireland a better and more economically successful place. The Northern Ireland 2012 campaign is an excellent example of that endeavour. The debate is also extremely timely. There has long been a complaint that the world does not get to hear about the many great things about Northern Ireland, not least the tremendous quality of life there. Only last week, a survey found that people in Northern Ireland are the happiest people in the United Kingdom. I am pleased that DUP Members are taking their lead from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and smiling today, reflecting the sunny disposition for which they are well known. While I am on the subject of humour, I should pay tribute to that other Carson, Frank, who sadly died last month. He put Northern Ireland on the map for all the right reasons during some difficult times. In the major events that are to take place in Northern Ireland during 2012-13, we have an opportunity to reflect on how far we have come in recent years, how we can capitalise on that and how we can build on the remarkable international good will that Northern Ireland enjoys. In that context, I pay tribute to the contribution made by successive US and Irish Administrations and a number of key individuals, without whom much of the progress made might not have been possible. Let us not forget just how dramatic that progress has been. When I first entered the House, debates about Northern Ireland were still dominated by securityrelated issues or the latest crisis in the peace process. Decommissioning, alleged breaches of the ceasefires, suspensions of the Assembly, the postponement of elections and emergency legislation were the main Northern Ireland issues that came before the House. Now, we have stable, functioning and inclusive political institutions. Responsibility for delivering the key public services rests in local hands and Northern Ireland is viewed across the world as an example of hope rather than despair. I pay tribute to politicians from all parties, both here and in Northern Ireland, for their efforts to ensure that that process of building stability and reconciliation continues. With that hard-won political stability, we now have to focus even more resolutely on the challenges ahead, in particular rebalancing the economy and overcoming community division to build a genuinely shared future. I shall briefly say a word about each of those. We all know that the Northern Ireland economy is too dependent on public spending—even the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) might agree. We understand the historical reasons why that is the case, but it is not sustainable. We have to revive the private sector to secure sustainable jobs and prosperity for the future. We shall discuss how to do that in the meeting that I am

889

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

7 MARCH 2012

[Mr Owen Paterson] about to attend at the Treasury. One matter under consideration is the possibility of giving the Executive the power to vary the rate of corporation tax in Northern Ireland. As I have said time and again, Northern Ireland has some truly world-class companies, including Wrightbus, which is delivering the new Routemaster bus for London, F. G. Wilson, Norbrook and Randox, to name but a few; and let us not forget world-renowned Northern Ireland brands such as Bushmills. Northern Ireland also has a growing reputation for the quality of our creative industries. The hugely successful “Game of Thrones” is filmed in Belfast, and Northern Ireland’s latest Oscar winner is Terry George, for his short film “The Shore”. There are bands such as Snow Patrol, which provided the soundtrack for the brilliant video that helped Londonderry to win the right to be UK city of culture next year, and who can forget the buzz around the MTV awards at the Odyssey in Belfast last November? We have some great companies, some great brands and some dynamic sectors, but we need more of them, so the Government will do everything we can to create the conditions for the private sector in Northern Ireland to grow, and we will support the Executive in the areas that are devolved to it. One example of where we can work very closely together is in our efforts to secure foreign direct investment. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State recently joined forces with the Northern Ireland Enterprise Minister on a trip to the Gulf. I trust that that will be one of many joint initiatives in pursuit of our shared objective of building a new, dynamic, 21st-century, private enterprise-led economy, rather than one based on unsustainable public spending and debt. One of the sectors where huge potential remains is tourism. Northern Ireland is a place of outstanding natural beauty, from the Giant’s Causeway right across to the Fermanagh lakes. We have some world-class attractions, from Derry’s walls to the new Titanic project in Belfast. As the motion reminds us, next month will be the centenary of the tragic sinking of the Titanic, and the eyes of the world will be upon Northern Ireland. The eyes of the world were also on Northern Ireland this week, when Rory McIlroy became officially the world’s No. 1 golfer—a magnificent achievement. Northern Ireland is the golfing capital of not just the UK but the world, as the Irish Open at Portrush will reinforce. Let us hope that we can use it as a launch pad to get the British Open to Northern Ireland soon—we should all campaign together for that. In the week before Cheltenham, let us not forget Tony McCoy, champion jockey for 16 incredible years. Northern Ireland is now being energetically promoted in overseas markets through the agency of Tourism Ireland, a happy example of co-operation with the Administration in the south for mutual benefit. The second area where we really need to see solid progress in Northern Ireland is the building of a shared future. According to one report, the costs of division, be it segregation or the duplication of services, amount to a massive £1.5 billion, and there are 85,000 empty school places. It is encouraging that the First Minister and the Education Minister agree that that cannot go on. In the new Northern Ireland, those issues have to be

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

890

tackled—we cannot have a society in which everything is carved up on sectarian grounds—and most of the powers to tackle the problem rest with the Executive. We acknowledge the steps that they have taken so far, and we will support them when they have to take difficult decisions in the future. I acknowledge that in a society that has been beset by deep-seated division, none of that work is easy and it will take time. However, if we are to change the long-term perceptions of Northern Ireland we must, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, work to build a “shared future; not a shared out future.”

For many people, the events that we have lined up over the coming years will cast Northern Ireland in a completely different light. I shall briefly mention two of them. First, the House has just presented an Humble Address to Her Majesty the Queen marking her diamond jubilee, which will be celebrated across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. As the hugely successful visit to the Republic of Ireland last May demonstrated, Her Majesty is hugely admired and held in great affection throughout these islands. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rightly referred to her at the weekend as “our magnificent Queen”, and I want everybody in Northern Ireland who wants to participate to have the opportunity to do so, be it through a street party, lighting beacons or planting trees. Last November, I joined Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal at the Northern Ireland launch of the Woodland Trust’s jubilee woods project in Carrickfergus. I also recently met the Lord Mayor of Belfast and discussed a number of matters, including arrangements for the jubilee. I acknowledge the constructive and positive way in which politicians and parties from across the community, such as those on Belfast city council, have approached the issue. I hope it is a sign of how far we have moved on in Northern Ireland that one can be generous and respectful towards other traditions without in any way undermining one’s own beliefs. That has been seen recently in attendance at sporting events, for example. Last month, the First Minister attended a Gaelic Athletic Association match, and this week the Deputy First Minister was at the home of Northern Ireland football, Windsor Park. Those events are not in themselves particularly significant on this side of the Irish sea, but in Northern Ireland they are of enormous symbolism and evidence of progress. The motion also mentions the centenary of the Ulster covenant, which falls in September. The catalyst for the covenant was the introduction in this House 100 years ago next month of the Government of Ireland Bill or, as it is more commonly known, the third Home Rule Bill. The passions that it generated are well known, and my own party played no small part in the parliamentary and constitutional battles from 1912 to 1914. The task for this generation is to mark centenaries such as that of the covenant in a way that is respectful and promotes a broader understanding of events, such as the fact that of the 470,000 signatures on the covenant, some 30,000 were from what is now the Republic of Ireland. To that end, the Government have been working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government on adopting a co-ordinated approach to the covenant and other centenaries to follow in the next decade. On Monday, we shall launch an exhibition in Westminster

891

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

7 MARCH 2012

Hall to mark the centenary of the third Home Rule Bill, and we very much hope the exhibition will be able to travel to Dublin and Stormont. The issues that we are discussing are hugely important to the future of every single person in Northern Ireland. As the motion makes clear, Northern Ireland has changed for the better. The events to which it refers, which I have touched upon this afternoon, will go a long way towards changing perceptions. However, as I have made clear, there are still significant challenges ahead if we are to build a truly peaceful, stable and prosperous Northern Ireland in which everyone has a shared future. The Government, working with the Executive, will do everything in their power to meet those challenges. In that spirit, I once again commend the hon. Member for South Antrim and his party for the motion, which we strongly welcome. 3.9 pm Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP): I concur with the motion and the comments made so far: 2012 will be a significant year for the communities in Northern Ireland. I note with interest the Secretary of State’s comments about several productive and beneficial events, and his recommendation of wider participation in them, but I raise a point of concern about that. It is unfortunate that Conservative and Labour participation in this debate is not as wide as the participation in this year’s events that he recommends to the people of Northern Ireland. Hopefully, lack of Conservative and Labour participation will be remedied in the coming weeks and months. My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) outlined a series of events that are to be celebrated this year. The covenant is of considerable historical and cultural interest across the community. People want to be able to look back at, recommend and acknowledge the origins of the state of Northern Ireland, which many trace back to 1912 and the signing of the covenant. The Titanic and other matters that are signally important to Northern Ireland’s tourism infrastructure have already been mentioned, as has the golfing greatness of Rory McIlroy, and of Graeme McDowell and Darren Clarke from my constituency. It would appear that Portrush is now the golfing capital of the world. I hope that that will be case not just in the Irish Open this year, but in the preparations for the Open in a few years. I emphasise that 2012 is a year of preparation as well as commemoration. We are beginning a decade of commemorating centenaries. Up to 2021, we have a series of commemorations in which to participate and to acknowledge. I concur with all those who have said that the commemorations should be inclusive so that everyone can enjoy and celebrate. Many preparations have been made to ensure that that happens. We are also preparing for next year, when Londonderry will be the first UK city of culture. In the next few months, there will be considerable interest and work to ensure that it becomes the template for all the others that follow. We have a small window of opportunity in which to prepare and organise to ensure that world sees what we all know is the case. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) alluded to the survey that shows that Northern Ireland is the happiest region of the United Kingdom. We all

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

892

knew that. I was somewhat surprised in last week’s Prime Minister’s questions that the Prime Minister thought otherwise. I recommend that he attends some of the DUP’s parliamentary parties. He will find out that there is humour every day of every week of every month of every year. I understand that some correspondence is winging its way to him as we speak to ensure that he knows and acknowledges the type of humour that we have all expressed in the past 20 or 30 years, even in the darkest days. Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the Prime Minister was not aware of the happiness in the DUP because he and some of his colleagues have spent the past number of years flirting and conniving with the Ulster Unionist party? Perhaps some of that has rubbed off and caused a perception that all Ulster politicians and all Unionists are somehow dour and miserable, whereas that applies to only one section of the Ulster Unionist party. Mr Campbell: “More tea, vicar?” as they say in the best circles, as we move swiftly on. However, I concur with my right hon. Friend. As we look forward, particularly over the next two to three years, we see important landmark decisions and historical events that need to be commemorated. In recent years, monumental and historically significant events came and went without advantage being taken of them to ensure that Northern Ireland plc benefited from them. We must not make that mistake this year or next. I therefore commend my friend in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Arlene Foster, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, for marketing this year and emphasising that Northern Ireland is the place to be. We need to ensure that the rest of the world sees—hopefully they will see it during the Irish Open—the marvellous, fantastic scenery on the north coast, the golfing that is beyond compare, which is why we get so many champions, and the culture of Northern Ireland. The world needs to come to Northern Ireland, and I am glad that the Minister of State has said that on previous occasions in the House. We need to drive the message home to ensure that the whole United Kingdom will benefit. We are approaching the Olympics, in which the entire nation will participate. I hope that there will be medal winners from Northern Ireland. Many people have suggested that that will be the case particularly in boxing. I do not know why fighting seems to bring out the best in Northern Ireland, but it does. The boxing regime seems to deliver medal winners. Dr McCrea: Does my hon. Friend agree that the warmth of the welcome that visitors will receive in Northern Ireland is beyond compare? Will he also acknowledge that when people come to the Olympics and to London, which will be the focal point, it is vital that they are encouraged to cross to Northern Ireland to see the beauty of our Province? Mr Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for that. As he represents the constituency where Belfast international airport is, I expect him to ensure that the red carpet is rolled out as people arrive. Many Departments in Northern Ireland are preparing for the various commemorations. Of course, like every other part of the United Kingdom, we are hamstrung

893

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

7 MARCH 2012

[Mr Gregory Campbell] to some extent because of the austere times. None the less, they must not prevent us from marking and marketing the events so that the people of Northern Ireland benefit. I not only pay tribute to those who are preparing for the events, but point out to the rest of the United Kingdom and Members who represent constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales that a good, peaceful, progressive and prosperous Northern Ireland is in the interests of the United Kingdom. Just as we have exported many of our sports people and produced many engineers and inventors who have taken their expertise to an international level, we want to participate in the life of the nation, so that Northern Ireland’s place is secure not only in the United Kingdom but in UK history and for future generations. 3.18 pm Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con): First, I echo the comments of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) about the tragic events in Afghanistan in the past 24 hours and the six servicemen killed in action. Their service and their sacrifice is an inspiration to us all. I congratulate the Democratic Unionist party on securing this most welcome debate. It is timely to have such a debate. As the motion suggests, it is indeed a momentous year for Northern Ireland, with the diamond jubilee, the Olympics, the 100th anniversary of the Titanic disaster and, of course, the same anniversary for the signing of the Ulster covenant and declaration. It is my pleasure to serve on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. The Committee has visited Northern Ireland on many occasions in the past 18 months, which I have found fascinating. For somebody who first became active in politics in the time of the troubles, it is remarkable to see what has been achieved and what progress has been made since the Good Friday agreement in 1998. Although fantastic progress has been made and although I am in complete support of the Democratic Unionist party motion, it would be naive at best to ignore the ongoing challenges of the security situation in Northern Ireland. Let us be clear that although we all want to promote Northern Ireland’s economy, tourism and future, the threat level remains at severe. The fact remains that there have been 13 separate attacks against national security targets, and the intent and capability of organisations such as the Real IRA, Continuity IRA and others remains malevolent. Furthermore, it is impossible to engage in dialogue with dissident organisations that show no signs of renouncing their violent or criminal ways. The Secretary of State has made it clear on many occasions in this House that the British Government will never compromise on the security of our citizens in Northern Ireland, and I pay tribute to the work that he and the Minister are doing to ensure that our citizens are protected, and to the security services, the police force and everybody involved on the ground. Improvements are being made. There were fewer attacks in 2011 than in 2010 and I hope that trend will continue. Another positive is that both the leaderships of the Ulster Defence Association and Ulster Volunteer Force remain committed to their ceasefires, albeit that

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

894

members of both groups are still involved in unsanctioned violent activity. On a larger political scale, normality is slowly but surely emerging. Last year, the Northern Ireland Executive published its programme for government. As the First Minister, Peter Robinson, has said, it is a statement that Northern Ireland is prepared for the future, prepared to modernise and reform, and ready to move forward as one community. Looking to the future, the security situation is a challenge facing Northern Ireland, but the economy is a challenge facing Northern Ireland and Britain as a whole. The UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive are taking steps to improve the situation. As hon. Members will know, the coalition Government have delivered on a commitment they made to consult on rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy. As the Secretary of State has just said, the ministerial working group on rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy met at the end of last year and will do so again today. That cross-departmental approach is most welcome and has been praised by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Tourism will play a crucial part in rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy. Northern Irish business is set to benefit this year in particular because of the Olympic games, including to the tune of £18 million from games-related contracts alone. That is why I also welcome the announcement in January this year that Arlene Foster, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, who has responsibility for tourism, had reallocated £3.5 million from her Department’s budget to prioritise the promotion of tourism this year. Along with other hon. Members, I hope for a successful year for Northern Ireland tourism this year while the eyes of the world are focused on Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This year begins a decade of commemorations for Northern Ireland and we should of course look forward to them, but, as the Secretary of State has said, we must not be complacent and must remain vigilant. Let us remember that the dissidents have virtually no local support and that all the political parties are united against them. Long may that continue. I am in full support of the DUP motion. From my own experience, I know the Province to be a wonderful place to visit. It is steeped in history and its friendly people have aspirations and hope for the future. One of my closest and oldest friends in my constituency is a former councillor called David Bell, who is from Bangor. He was very helpful when I joined the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in explaining some of the complexity and history of Northern Ireland politics, which I have found very useful. We must accept that there are challenges with the ongoing security situation, political progress and rebalancing the economy, but, as the motion states, this year of commemoration and celebration should be the catalyst to realising the aspirations held by so many. 3.23 pm Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): I am happy to join my regional colleagues in extolling the virtues and wonderful attractions of the region that we represent and that we are all very happy to call home. When I listen to them, I am conscious of the need for us all to have a constantly happy deportment—there is an onus on us to go about

895

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

7 MARCH 2012

this place with the demeanour of Aer Lingus cabin crew, smiling at everything we meet. That was hard to sustain during my many long hours on the Financial Services Public Bill Committee yesterday. The Social Democratic and Labour party tabled an amendment to the motion not because we disagree with the thrust of it—it recognises the significance of the opportunity that 2012 represents for Northern Ireland—but because we believe other points could have been made. I do not wish to dwell on this, but parts of the motion are perhaps gratuitously partial for some of us and could have been left out. SDLP Members wanted to make the motion a little less exclusive to Northern Ireland by dealing with the tourism and hospitality sectors more generally, and to make it a little less exclusive within Northern Ireland by ensuring some of its narrower and more partial references were not included. Nevertheless, I have no umbrage to take with points that have been made by honourable colleagues from the Democratic Unionist party on the events that we will mark this year and in coming years. We must also deal with the inter-meshing and layering of those events, hopefully in a spirit of purposeful inquiry, which is one of the terms used in the context of Derry’s bid for UK city of culture in respect of dealing with the past, including the recent past. We should acknowledge those issues up front, deal with them in a spirit of purposeful inquiry, and engage visitors in that regard. As we commemorate, we need to remember that, in the next decade, we will have not only a series of centenary anniversaries, but significant half-centenary anniversaries, which might be a lot more sensitive. We must manage all of them positively. We should handle the past sensitively—our commemorations should not make potential visitors sensitive, wary or inhibited about coming to any part of Northern Ireland. One great benefit of the 2012 promotion is that it has been fully embraced and well marketed by Tourism Ireland as well as by the tourism industry in Northern Ireland, which is very much behind that effort. We saw that in recent events in London—a very good event took place in St James’s palace. A team of devolved Ministers was there, including the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. That wide representation was important and positive. Rather than just ensuring that we have positive events that people who already know Northern Ireland and are from Northern Ireland can celebrate positively, it is important that we get much more market reach. That is why this year is so important. It is not that it is the only year that people should come to Northern Ireland, but it is the year when people most wake up to the fact that they should come. I have no doubt that anybody who comes this year will come back and make many repeat visits. It is important to ensure that people coming to the island of Ireland from any part of the world ensure that they experience the benefits of the whole island. In the past, many tourists to the south did not trickle over the border to the north, as they should. We want to ensure that in the now more benign context people are given every encouragement to do that. My party’s amendment on the VAT issue was not selected, but we previously tabled an early-day motion that has the support of all parties. In the build-up to the

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

896

Budget, we encourage the Minister to suggest to the Chancellor that it would be timely to consider giving the tourism sector, not just in Northern Ireland but everywhere in the UK, a boost through targeted relief on VAT rates. That was used very successfully in the south of Ireland last year and this year, and has been used in other parts of Europe as well. It is entirely consistent with EU rules and would be a good way of encouraging people to holiday at home. Unlike wider VAT reductions, it would trap the multiplier in our own economy by benefiting a home sector instead of paying for imports. We want to do that because it would support tourism more widely. Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): The hon. Gentleman alluded to the fact that Members from the Democratic Unionist party fully support his suggestion about what the Government should consider in the run-up to the Budget. There is no doubt that in terms of wins in the Northern Ireland economy and boosting employment, tourism is one sector where relatively rapid progress can be made, and targeted interventions, as he suggests, would be extremely helpful. Mark Durkan: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Of course, many in the media say that more people are likely to holiday in the eurozone this year because of the weakness of the euro, which is an added reason there should be a timely intervention from the Chancellor—to encourage people to holiday here within the sterling zone. The changed perceptions of Northern Ireland are welcome but have been hard-earned and hard-won. They are a result of the changed context created by many political efforts over the past few years. I am certainly proud of the role that my party has played in consistently opposing violence from any quarter and standing up for shared institutions and political arrangements within Northern Ireland, within Ireland and between these islands. That, of course, has been vindicated in what we now see working so well. Many of the naysayers and detractors—those who were totally opposed and said that it would or could never happen—are now among those happily showing how well it works and doing so well. It is great to see that proof and vindication, although some of us, of course, have learned that vindication in politics does not always translate into reward, but so be it—we have learned to empathise with the prodigal son’s brother and get over it. This is an important time for Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for East Derry—I mean East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) before he corrects me—made this point not just about 2012 but about 2013 and beyond. In 2013, my city will be the designated city of culture in the UK. Furthermore, some of the efforts building up to that, including marking its successor role in the cultural Olympiad, will take place this year. It is important, therefore, that we see 2012 not just as a stand-alone occasion but as part of a platform or springboard into the future. It is important, if we are to attract tourists, that we offer them not just value for money but value for time, which the tourism and hospitality sector in Northern Ireland has increasingly been developing—and has had to develop. In the past, there have been questions about whether visitors have had value for time. The Sunday

897

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

7 MARCH 2012

[Mark Durkan] problem has raised questions about what experiences and opportunities visitors have had, and in some cases, there has even been the Monday problem, because some visitor amenities are not open on Mondays. We have to do more. We have to invest in our attractions and distractions for visitors, if we are to maximise the extraction of money, which is what we need out of tourism. There is more for different Departments to do—it is not just the job of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland, and there is not just the Chancellor’s role in respect of VAT; there is also a role for other Departments and local councils. Members are used to hearing Northern Ireland Members plead that we are a special case because we are at the bottom of so many of the wrong league tables and so need special derogations and exemptions. In many instances, that will be true and valid for particular sectors, sections and interests in our community, but it is also important to recognise that increasingly sectors, industries and locations in Northern Ireland are getting to the top of the right tables, and not just in sports or whatever. When I listened to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) refer to the range of sporting achievements in Northern Ireland, I was reminded of a time when, as Deputy First Minister, I was going into the Assembly for questions. A civil servant came up to me hastily and said, “Great news! You get to announce this!” I was then given a note that told me that I could announce to the Chamber that Northern Ireland had just won a gold medal in the Commonwealth games—for shooting. I was somewhat reluctant to go in with that news, and when hon. Members are talking about boxing and other things, one can understand my trepidation. I do not want to appear to avoid what the motion says about the Queen’s diamond jubilee, because the wrong thing might be read into it if I did. I have mentioned that I served as Deputy First Minister, some 10 years ago. When the Queen visited the south last year, I was reminded that during that time I became the first nationalist Minister on the island of Ireland officially to receive the Queen on the island, when, as Deputy First Minister, I officially received her during the Stormont part of her jubilee tour. I am not British; I am not a Unionist, a monarchist or a royalist. However, I respect any Head of State, and I particularly respect someone who is valued and esteemed by so many people, including my fellow countrymen. In that context, I have no issue with respecting others. We have to learn the ethic of respect and being respected, and that acknowledging other people’s loyalties and affinities does not compromise the integrity of one’s own. Not only is the way in which we can share, appreciate and celebrate each other’s beliefs and values together better for us; it also makes us a more attractive and comfortable place for visitors to come and engage in. I just hope that, in recognising that, people recognise that there are other views, sensitivities, outlooks and affinities in Northern Ireland, and that people should not always make sweeping presumptions. I hope that everyone currently involved in the institutions in Northern Ireland can find comfortable ways of accommodating each other and showing mutual respect in an appropriate way. That was helped greatly by the manner of the Queen’s visit last year. All credit should go not just to

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

898

Her Majesty and everyone associated with her remarks and gestures at that time, but to the previous President of Ireland, Mary McAleese, and her husband, Martin, for all the great work they did to improve not just relations between these islands, but relations within the island. That work was all solid investment in ensuring that perceptions of Northern Ireland would change and that our perceptions in Northern Ireland of each other and of our place would also change. In that context, I have no hesitation in accepting the overall, underlying point of the motion, which is about the tourism drive and the welcome to visitors. I appreciate that there might not be a big attendance in the Chamber; indeed, I should put on record the fact that other Northern Ireland Members are conflicted, because we have an “Upstairs, Downstairs” situation in this place today. The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs is currently meeting upstairs, so before someone starts twittering to the “Nolan” show or somewhere else asking, “Where were these people?”, I should point out that Members are conflicted and compromised, with some caught there and unable to be here. Those who tire of us in Northern Ireland getting together to lobby for our special case may have an opportunity today to recognise that we have been able to get together to sell our special place through tourism. However, tourism and our visitor attractions are not the only things we have to offer. In terms of industry, sport, and academic and research achievement, Northern Ireland is moving ahead. It is surfing all the opportunities available to it, in the context of Europe and the wider island of Ireland, and maximising those opportunities that arise from its being well placed within these islands to gain things in the United Kingdom context and maximise things in an Irish context. It is in that spirit that, although I have cautioned the House about certain parts of the motion, I do not want that to eclipse the underlying endorsement of the worth of Northern Ireland as a place to go in 2012, and not just this year, but many more years thereafter. 3.39 pm David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP): I rise to speak in support of the motion tabled in my name and those of my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party. The motion unashamedly blows the trumpet and beats the drum for Northern Ireland, and we are well known for beating the drum there. I was raised in a house in which, unless we could beat or put up a Lambeg drum, we knew nothing. That was when I was a small boy. I have grown slightly since then—[HON. MEMBERS: “Upwardly or outwardly?”] In more ways than one. It was a great childhood and a great part of my life and my culture. Of course we on these Benches would say that Northern Ireland was the best place on earth, and that the greatest people in the world were those from Northern Ireland. Our motion announces to the world that Northern Ireland is open for business, and invites the world in its entirety to come along and join us. Whether they want history, culture, performing arts, spectacular scenery, activity holidays, sporting holidays or just lazy day holidays—which would suit me very well—there is something for everyone, and it is all served up by the people with the warmest hearts and the warmest welcome to be found anywhere.

899

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

7 MARCH 2012

It is a tradition in homes in Northern Ireland—as it might be in the rest of the United Kingdom—that the kettle is put on as soon as someone enters the house, and they are given a cup of tea. I am well used to that in my constituency. When I visit all the old ladies that I have to talk too, the buns are put on the table— Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): Ah, it’s the buns you go for! David Simpson: That is my excuse for what I might call my slim physique. Mr Dodds: Does my hon. Friend agree that he is the living embodiment of the theory that it is not always the case that Ulster says no? David Simpson: Absolutely. I was brought up in the country, and my background is in the meat industry, so I believe that I should be a good advertisement for that industry. Also, I have to say that it took a lot of money to put this physique in place, and it would be a shame to lose it. We also have the best golfers in the world, and a good few of the best golf courses as well. We produced the greatest footballer that ever lived, and the greatest ship that ever sailed. We helped to build America and gave it many of its Presidents, including Andrew Jackson, whose family originates from my constituency, Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt and Bill Clinton. We also gave it Richard Nixon, but we will move on pretty quickly. John Dunlap, who printed the American declaration of independence, was also from our shores. Jim Shannon: My hon. Friend will be aware that we also gave America hillbilly music, which came from the hills of County Antrim. That country-style music swept across all the southern states of America. I think that Elvis Presley’s ancestors also came from Northern Ireland. David Simpson: I was trying to avoid mentioning the fact that hillbilly music originated in Northern Ireland, but it is certainly part of the legacy of the Ulster Scots, and I will allow my hon. Friend to deal with that side of things, although I trust that he will not try to sing. Joseph Scriven, from Banbridge in my constituency, gave the world one of the sweetest hymns in the English language when he wrote “What a friend we have in Jesus”. We have produced great inventors, too—Harry Ferguson, who produced the Ferguson tractors that can be seen all over the world; and Frank Pantridge, who invented the portable heart defibrillator, which saves thousands of lives across the world each year. We heard about other contributions at a recent Prime Minister’s Question Time. The Prime Minister was asked about Northern Ireland’s ranking and whether Northern Ireland had the happiest people in the United Kingdom. He did not seem to think it applied to us; I do not know why. One of my honourable colleagues—he is no longer in the Chamber—mentioned the Social Democratic and Labour party. I do not know why he did, but I see that SDLP Members are smiling today, so things are looking up. Let me assure right hon. and hon. Members that, although it sometimes seems that we in Northern Ireland have the worries of the world on our shoulders, there is

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

900

a joy deep down in the hearts of the people of Northern Ireland—and we are very glad to represent them in this mother of all Parliaments. Northern Ireland is not yet at the end of the journey. There is no doubt that we have come a long way in recent years. Just 10 years ago, the Province was a very different place and was in a different situation as the Assembly lurched from one suspension to another. Public confidence in the political structures was low, while public uncertainty about the future of Northern Ireland was high. The last 10 years have seen very significant change and positive progress—so much so that a recent Northern Ireland Life and Times survey showed 73% of the community favouring Northern Ireland’s remaining in the United Kingdom. That figure included a slim majority of the Roman Catholic community, which is encouraging. It is not over-egging the pudding too much to suggest that such has been the progress made in recent years that Northern Ireland is more settled in this United Kingdom at present than Scotland is. Perhaps what is needed in Scotland is a second flank of Democratic Unionist party MPs, so that we could help the Scots to maintain their stand. That might not be a bad idea, and it is worth looking at. After all—here I go into a history lesson—King Fergus had the old kingdom of Dalriada, which eventually united the Scots under Kenneth McAlpin, and gave the land its name; while St Columba and his successors in the old Celtic Church gave it its heart, its vision and its passion. As part of the generation that grew up amid all the troubles that we have come through, I can look back to very dark days. Like many people in Northern Ireland, I can look back to days when members of my own family circle were killed during those years. I can also look back over more recent years and trace the progress that has been made; and I can lift my eyes and look around me at the situation in the Province today and look forward to days yet to come. I can see the path and the upward curve that we are on. Turning to wider issues, I am pleased to say that Northern Ireland has had many sporting heroes down through the years, and we have already heard about many of them today. For example, Kennedy Kane McArthur won the Olympic marathon 100 years ago in 1912. I have two gold medal winners from the Commonwealth games in my constituency—as one hon. Member mentioned, they won their gold medals for shooting. We also have Dame Mary Peters, who went to school in my constituency, and still comes to the constituency to get her hair done. Jim Shannon: Not at the same place as you. David Simpson: Not at the same place as me. When Dame Mary Peters won the gold medal I was still at school, and I remember walking down the street in one of the towns in my constituency, Portadown, alongside the car. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), I also remember the celebrations for the Queen’s silver jubilee which took place throughout Northern Ireland. I have to say that my hon. Friend goes back a bit further than I do, and that I certainly did not take up the challenge to dress in a sailor suit. I do not think that my hon. Friend will live that one down for a day or two.

901

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

7 MARCH 2012

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

902

[David Simpson]

When Her Majesty addressed Parliament on 4 May 1977 at the time of her silver jubilee, she said:

Other people have already been mentioned, but I think it is worth mentioning them again. We have had great legends like Joey Dunlop, who won five consecutive motorcycle TT Formula 1 world titles in the 1980s. We have also had many boxing champions down the years, and I know that many in the next generation will be as good as the greats that we have had in the past. More recently, our very own transatlantic rower, Kate Richardson, who comes from my constituency, set the world record as part of the Row For Freedom challenge. What a great event that was. This year, Northern Ireland is the capital of the world when it comes to golf. Who would have thought five or 10 years ago that we would have the world’s number one golfer in the Province? All three who have recently won championships are great ambassadors for the whole Province, and for all the people of Northern Ireland as well. That brings me to the wider elements of the motion, which refers to the anniversaries and events that are sprinkled throughout 2012. The Olympics will be a showcase for London, but—as other Members have requested—they should be for the whole United Kingdom as well. The world will descend on London for this, the greatest sporting show on earth, and it is vital for there to be a legacy: for London, of course, because that is where it is being held, but also for the whole United Kingdom. I urge the Government to ensure that that happens. This year is also the centenary of the sinking of the Titanic and the signing of the Ulster covenant. The maiden voyage and sinking of the Titanic gave birth to a legend that has held a fascination for the world ever since, and the new signature Titanic project in Belfast promises to be a world-class project that will not only fascinate but attract visitors to Northern Ireland from all over the world. The sinking of the Titanic gave birth to an enduring legend, but the signing of the covenant in many ways helped to give birth to Northern Ireland itself; but not before the flower of Ulster was cut down amid the mud and the death of the Somme and elsewhere. They died in their tens of thousands. Many who had signed the covenant volunteered and died in those fields of France. To many today, sadly, they are but names on some historic document, but they are sons and husbands who were never to return home again, and those who were lost were mourned: they were mourned in every parish, every village and every hamlet throughout Northern Ireland.

“I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Perhaps this jubilee is a time to remind ourselves of the benefits which Union has conferred, at home and in our international dealings, on the inhabitants of all parts of this United Kingdom. A jubilee is also a time to look forward. We should certainly do this with determination, and I believe we can also do so with hope.”

Also, of course, this year we will celebrate the diamond jubilee of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. What a monarch she has been! I had the privilege of meeting Her Majesty when she paid a visit to my constituency. It was a remarkable time for me and my wife. I remember that we attended an exhibition in the town of Banbridge in County Down. Her Majesty and Prince Philip were walking around the exhibition, and when they came to a display that was termed “abstract art”, Her Majesty looked at me and asked, “What is that?” I replied, “Your Majesty, you’re probably wiser than me.” We did not have a clue what it was—but it attracted a lot of people to the art gallery.

As representatives from Northern Ireland, we, too, cannot forget that she was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We want to take this opportunity to wish Her Majesty a joyous year of jubilee, and many more years yet to come, and to assure her of a warm welcome in our part of the United Kingdom. Mr Dodds: My hon. Friend refers to Her Majesty’s forthcoming visit to Northern Ireland, and various Members have mentioned visits that the Queen will pay to their constituencies. Those visits are generally known about; they have been publicised and preparations have been made. However, although we must be conscious of the security issues, does my hon. Friend agree that as much notice as possible of Her Majesty’s visits should be given, so that everyone knows about her itinerary and can celebrate? David Simpson: I entirely agree. We understand that there are security issues, but, in this year, it is important that as much notice as possible is given to the communities that Her Majesty will visit. People want to come out and see her when she visits Northern Ireland, so that they can express their loyalty and the love that they have for her. She has been a unique monarch in many ways. The royal family is sometimes given a hard time by the press, but the Queen has been a wonderful exemplar of the office she holds on behalf of all the people of this United Kingdom. We are looking forward to welcoming Her Majesty to Northern Ireland. In my constituency, many street parties are planned. We have to put up with so much nonsense, however. I have read in the press that we will have to get approval from the health and safety people before we can put up bannerettes and so forth. Things have gone beyond what is common sense, but the celebrations will happen. I know that celebrations are planned right across the three towns of Lurgan, Portadown and Banbridge that I represent and in other parts of the 200 square miles of my constituency. We are looking forward to having a wonderful time, and we wish Her Majesty well. I note that, as someone mentioned earlier, Queen Victoria is the only monarch who has reigned for longer, but I think Her Majesty will overtake Queen Victoria’s reign. We hope, trust and pray that she does. I know that my constituents were proud to be part of this United Kingdom when they returned me at the last election. My constituency is the second largest manufacturing base in Northern Ireland outside Belfast. In Northern Ireland questions today, I spoke about the investments that have been made in my constituency, one of which is a £13 million investment at one site in Portadown by Asda. Many other investments are pending and we look forward to good days in Northern Ireland. I believe there are good days ahead. Yes, we have dissidents who do not seem able to live without the troubles and who just want to drag us back to the bad

903

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

7 MARCH 2012

old days, but the Unionist people and others stood fast against the Provisional IRA and won the day, and we will continue to do that. Yes, we have lost a lot of good friends and a lot of people who were tragically taken by the bomb and the bullet, but we want to leave a legacy in Northern Ireland for those people who put on the uniform of the Crown forces. I can say in this House without any contradiction that when it has come to donning the uniform of the Crown forces, our young men and women have never been found wanting. We supported the Crown forces in whatever situation they found themselves in. Tragedy has hit Northern Ireland for many years but we thank God that we are starting to move in the proper direction. Northern Ireland is moving on. It will take a little more time but we have come a long way over a number of years. Let me end on a more political note. We Unionists would repeat the words that Her Majesty spoke in 1977 and say that this jubilee is perhaps a time to remind ourselves of the benefits of the Union. We hear so much today about Scotland and the referendum, but I believe that the United Kingdom is better as one, with no division. We have heard for many years about legacy— together we stand, divided we fall. I believe that the UK will be better staying as it is today without the nonsense of this referendum and of Scotland being removed from the Union. I do not think the Scottish people want that, but time will tell; we will know when the so-called referendum takes place. I wish Her Majesty well and I congratulate all my colleagues who have spoken. We will continue, to the best of our ability, to keep Northern Ireland moving forward. 4.4 pm Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab): I am grateful to have a few moments of the House’s time to make a contribution to the debate, after the interesting and insightful comments we have heard from a number of Members. It is a privilege to hold my position. With the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), I have already visited the Titanic quarter, and with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I saw the wonderful beauty of Strangford lough. I am looking forward to visiting South Down on Friday. Dr McCrea: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is also looking forward to visiting the most wonderful constituency of all—South Antrim. Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman is ahead of me. I was about to say that I was looking forward to visiting all the other constituencies, but I think I shall have to start with the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) who has been persistent in his desire for me to visit his constituency. Now that I have heard about the tea that is available at every stop, I shall make sure to go there. However, there is a serious point. From the visits I have made, it is abundantly clear that Northern Ireland is a place of stunning beauty and offers much to the visitor. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his apology that he would not be in the Chamber to hear my remarks. His point that the life of Frank Carson and his funeral represented all that is good about Northern Ireland was well made.

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

904

Notwithstanding the story about the little sailor, which will stay with many of us for a long time, the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) was right to remind us today of all days, when we heard the news about the six soldiers, that we should remember all the victims in Northern Ireland over the last few years. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) is not in the Chamber. He said that we should all—not just the Northern Ireland parties—encourage the broadest participation in these debates. That is important and it is incumbent on me and others to do so. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). We should realise that many Members, from Northern Ireland and elsewhere, who wanted to contribute to the debate are actually at a meeting of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I do not want to say too much about the economy, although I have made considerable play of it over the past few months because it is extremely important. Indeed, the Secretary of State talked about it in much of his speech. I do not agree with the specifics of the cut in VAT mentioned by the hon. Member for Foyle, but as the Minister of State will know, the Opposition have called for a temporary general cut in VAT to help boost domestic demand, which would help job creation in Northern Ireland. I congratulate the Democratic Unionist party on securing the debate. It is always good when Northern Ireland matters are discussed on the Floor of the House. I shall concentrate largely on the well chosen title of the debate, which welcomes the NI 2012 campaign to change perceptions of Northern Ireland. The work of Tourism Ireland has helped enormously in that respect. Many Members recently attended the fantastic event at St James’s palace to launch NI 2012 in Great Britain. It was significant that both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and their colleagues from all parties in the Executive were there to show their support. There was a real mood of optimism at that event, and a spirit not just of hope but of expectation. The progress made in Northern Ireland was noted by every speaker, every performer and every guest. It was no longer a guarded, anxious, whispered aspiration that things would get better, but a confident, proud message shouted aloud that things are better and getting even better, and that Northern Ireland is a great place to live, to work, and in this instance to visit. That is not to take anything for granted, and no Member who has spoken in the debate has done so or would do so. There is a huge belief in Northern Ireland that things which only a few years ago would have seemed impossible have been and are being done, as we continue to build a peaceful Northern Ireland. The overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland and across Ireland and the UK have supported the political process and those who have driven it forward, including many in the House today. I say without fear or favour to hon. Members that it is a privilege to recognise the contribution that they and others in all parts of the House have made to enable us to get to where we are today. It is the people of Northern Ireland who make it such a great place to visit. Their legendary welcome, their friendliness, their creativity, hard work, pride in their community and willingness to share their beautiful region with visitors are what I have most enjoyed about

905

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

7 MARCH 2012

[Vernon Coaker] being the shadow Secretary of State. One of the privileges of holding this position is that it enables me, as I said, to visit Northern Ireland regularly and see at first hand the vibrant dynamism of the arts and culture, the spectacular scenery, the historical sites and the wonderful food and drink that make Antrim, Armagh, Derry, Down, Fermanagh and Tyrone the six must-visit destinations for 2012. As I have promised hon. Members from Northern Ireland, I intend to visit them all myself over the coming months. But of course we still have to work to challenge the lingering stereotypes and perceptions that many outside Northern Ireland still harbour about the place. The remaining challenges include how we deal with the past and legacy issues, how to maintain security, and of course how to overcome the continuing economic and social problems. I do not see Northern Ireland as a special case; that would be demeaning to Northern Ireland, but there are certainly special circumstances that need to be recognised. As other hon. Members have said, we are at the beginning of a decade of commemorations that will mark important events in Irish and British history. The motion mentions, of course, the Ulster Covenant, which was a response to the third Home Rule Bill which came before the House 100 years ago next month. One cannot help but feel aware of a great sense of history when discussing these matters in the place in which they were debated a century ago, and when thinking of the great figures who took part in those debates and are remembered as giants of Parliament, politics and state. I know that there are many differing perspectives on the history of that period, but ultimately that history is a shared one, so we can choose to use the different perspectives of it to entrench division, or we can use them to learn about history, ourselves and each other, bring communities together in a new understanding of what happened in that decade, and perhaps create some fresh perspectives which will help to bring about a better future in the decade ahead. I know that is the wish of the vast majority of people in these islands, and of all Members in this place. We also mark this year the diamond jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen. As the House heard earlier, during the 60 years of her reign she has displayed tremendous service, great dignity, selflessness and a dedication to all of the people of the United Kingdom, including those in Northern Ireland. Her visit to Ireland last year was truly remarkable. It opened up not just a new chapter, but a new volume in British-Irish relations. I join others who have done so today in paying tribute to her today, and I know that we all look forward to her visits to Northern Ireland throughout this year. In 2012, this year of centenaries and jubilees, we celebrate all that is good about Northern Ireland. NI 2012 gives us the chance to showcase all that is good about Northern Ireland and indeed the island of Ireland. Northern Ireland is open for business, investment and tourism, not just this year but next year, with the city of culture in Derry-Londonderry and the world police and fire games, and beyond. As an English MP, one of the questions I am most often asked by colleagues, friends and constituents is what Northern Ireland is like. I can confidently say to

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

906

them now, as other hon. Members have done, to go and see for themselves. It is often said that perception is reality. The reality is that Northern Ireland is a great place, a changed place, and a place that wants people to come and visit it. I know I speak for all my colleagues when I say that we will do our very best to ensure that that becomes the perception as well. I say to everyone that it is time to put Northern Ireland firmly on the global map. Several hon. Members rose— Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Order. I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day. On the motion relating to the safety of offshore oil and gas activities, the Ayes were 308 and the Noes were 183, so the Question was agreed to. [The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.] 4.15 pm Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP): On what is a sad day, 2012 promises to be an action-filled year. The SDLP welcomes the progress that has been made in the north of Ireland over the past 10 to 15 years, of which we were very much part. We shaped the character of that progress and its development. In fact, we were particularly innovative in the political developments. There has been much to celebrate in Northern Ireland, particularly with regard to our sporting heroes right across the sporting arena, whether in rugby, athletics, golf or the Gaelic Athletic Association. There is much there, and we must not forget that we are talking about a shared and inclusive society. There is much to celebrate in the film industry. Only two weeks ago a person from Northern Ireland won an Oscar for “The Shore.” Only last year the same director produced a film in Downpatrick, in my constituency, called “Whole Lotta Sole”, which will have its debut later this year. That film was centred on a fish and chip shop, but it was not necessarily about fish. In fact, it might have had more to do with the political turmoil out of which we have emerged. There has been considerable movement away from violence and conflict and towards a more peaceful and harmonious society. We are all very glad about that and want to see the institutions that emerged out of the Good Friday agreement and the principles that were laid down in the agreement fully realised. Therefore, we believe that the institutions should be fully functional, that the Northern Ireland Executive should have a detailed programme for government and a full programme of legislation and that the North/South Ministerial Council must become fully operational. We also believe that it should be cross-sectoral in its approach, by which we mean that it should have a north-west focus, which my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) would welcome, and a south-east focus, which would accommodate the interests of my constituency of South Down and those of north County Louth. We want more north-south bodies to be created, for the review of the north-south dimension to be published and for the Irish identity to be not only recognised and acknowledged, but given political weight. That brings me to the motion. We welcome the fact that the Northern Ireland 2012 campaign is intended to change perceptions of Northern Ireland and encourage

907

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

7 MARCH 2012

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

908

many more visitors. We want people to see the beauty of Northern Ireland, the scenery and the attributes of the people, which are already demonstrated through their inventions and sporting prowess and in many other fields. However, I am a bit afraid and will be looking to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) to clarify some points for me, because it could be construed that the motion—how shall I say this?—focuses on a single identity and is one-track or single-dimensional, because it contains no reference to an Irish identity or Irish nationalism, which is also very much part of the north of Ireland and is represented in this House by the three SDLP Members.

political institutions are all about: they are about moving forward together. I am quite happy to give way now to the right hon. Gentleman, who I hope will be able to elucidate that issue.

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): The events of 2012 are the events of 2012: there is the centenary of the Titanic, the centenary of the Ulster Covenant and the Queen’s diamond jubilee. So the motion, and its writer, did not dictate those dates, but does the hon. Lady agree that all those events, given that they will improve and provide opportunities to add to economic activity in Northern Ireland and can be enjoyed by all, should be seen not as single-identity events but as something that can unite all the people in Northern Ireland, who will be able to enjoy them and, indeed, benefit from them economically?

Mr Dodds: You are relying on the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) for the answer.

Mr Dodds: In an intervention, I shall not be able to do what the hon. Lady invites me to do, as I am conscious of Mr Deputy Speaker, but if she feels so strongly about the issue, why in the amendment to which her name is attached is there no mention of any issues to which she has referred or of any aspects that she has just discussed? Why, if she feels so strongly, did she not table such an amendment? Mark Durkan: The singular references.

Ms Ritchie: No, I would know the answer anyway; I do not need anybody to tell me. The right hon. Gentleman can, however, see what we have clearly done. We have concentrated on the practical politics that needs to be concentrated on, namely a reduction in VAT on tourism, because our tourism industry is being undermined. The amendment would also delete the partisan elements of the motion. Mr Dodds: Disgraceful.

Ms Ritchie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I say to all Members present that it is important that we look to all events and at all the attributes of the people of Northern Ireland. It is not enough simply to look through the narrow prism of one identity, but this motion could be construed as such, and I say that more in sorrow than in anger, and more with regret than anything else. So I look to the right hon. Member for Belfast North— Mr Dodds rose— Ms Ritchie: In his winding-up speech— Mr Dodds: Will the hon. Lady give way? Ms Ritchie: Not at this particular stage. Mr Dodds: Oh. Ms Ritchie: But I will be quite happy to give way a little later, when I have progressed with my contribution. The motion underpins a Unionist agenda, it honours the foundation of a Northern Ireland state, and there is no recognition of my identity and where I come from. A growing proportion of those who reside in Northern Ireland are Irish, hold Irish passports, support the south of Ireland’s soccer team, support and participate in football and hurling, as part of the Gaelic Athletic Association, and speak the Irish language. That is part of our ethnicity and background. I am not denigrating the views or the identity of others; I am saying that there must be parity of esteem, respect for both traditions on the island, and that when we are talking about the north of Ireland, or Northern Ireland, we should take into account everybody’s attributes. That is what moving forward means and what the new

Ms Ritchie: Absolutely not. It is our duty as public representatives to try to heal divisions. Dr McCrea: Will the hon. Lady give way? Ms Ritchie: No, I will not. The political institutions that emerged from the Good Friday agreement were based on respect for political difference and identity, and around the three sets of relationships. There is no reference in the motion to that, to inclusion, to respect for political difference, or to the development of the shared society, to which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has already referred. For me, as the Member for South Down, this is also a Belfast-centred motion. I represent a constituency that holds two of Northern Ireland’s signature tourism projects—the Mourne mountains and St Patrick’s country. We in the SDLP want to ensure—hence our amendment— that where tourism is central to our economy, it is allowed to grow and prosper, because it is one of the major drivers of the economy. The tourism and hospitality sectors will be better placed to contribute to growth and employment if supported by targeted reductions in VAT, as permitted under EU rules. We call on the Chancellor to consider such timely concessions in the forthcoming Budget on 21 March. There is little doubt that the outstanding character and assets of my constituency’s tourism offering are unsurpassed. In this month of St Patrick, I ask all hon. Members, as I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), to come and walk in the footsteps of Patrick. Contrary to the real spirit of this motion, Patrick was, and remains for us, the epitome of unity and diversity. [Interruption.] Patrick belonged to everybody. Patrick was head and shoulders above everybody else. We celebrate unity and diversity on 17 March. We celebrate the person who is the epitome of unity and

909

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

7 MARCH 2012

[Ms Ritchie] diversity, and a symbol of partnership and inclusion, and we reject and resist calls for the domination of one form of nationalism over another. I make those comments in order to highlight the fact that Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland have much to offer, but we have come from one place to another, and we must move ahead in terms of parity of esteem by respecting political traditions and respecting each other. This is not about a narrow form of nationalism; it is about a broader form of nationalism that embraces everybody on the island, both Unionist and nationalist. Only last year, I was very happy to be in Dublin to meet the Queen, and I met her on two separate occasions. [Interruption.] Despite the comments that have been made from a sedentary position by those on the DUP Bench behind me, I want, like my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, to place that on the record. We should always be very conscious of where we come from and do everything in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland and the best interests of all the people of Ireland. 4.27 pm Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): I should like to associate myself with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and others in the Chamber about the six soldiers who lost their lives in Afghanistan. Last year I went to Afghanistan twice, and on one of those occasions, I was in Lashkar Gah, where it seems that the six soldiers lost their lives. One could not fail to be impressed by the courage, dedication and sacrifice of our soldiers. I suspect that many, if not all, of those in this Chamber pray for our soldiers every day, as I do before I start my work. It is with great pleasure that I support the motion. I talked to my right hon. Friend about it beforehand, and one cannot fail to get excited about it. Unlike the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), I feel that it says all the good things about Northern Ireland and epitomises all the issues. It is exciting to have a proposal that promotes the whole of Northern Ireland, brings together all elements of political opinion, and ensures that we have something that we can all support. That is surely why people will, I hope, be flocking to our shores very shortly. I am unashamed to promote my beautiful constituency. Other Members say that their constituency is the best, and that may be their opinion, but that is said of my constituency by people who do not represent Strangford. When the shadow Secretary of State was in my constituency, he said, “Jim, this is the most beautiful constituency that I have ever seen.” Vernon Coaker: After my own. Jim Shannon: That puts me in second place, but first place in Northern Ireland. Recently, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North, my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and I attended a Tourism Ireland event at St James’s palace. Everybody was happy to go, including the Deputy First Minister. He had no issues with the event; he was pleased to support it, as were other

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

910

Members. I sometimes wonder why people make some of the points that are made when progress is going forward steadily, as it should be. My right hon. Friend and I were privileged to have our photograph taken with Christine Bleakley—I happen to be her MP. It was a smashing occasion. Barry McGuigan and Paddy Kielty were there, and there was a smashing end to the evening with Van Morrison. All the good things about both Northern Ireland and southern Ireland were made clear by Tourism Ireland. This is an exciting time for us all. It is time to put Northern Ireland on the tourism map as the home of a rich cultural history, mingled with modern facilities and a shopping haven. We should be secure in the knowledge that once people get a taste of Ulster—in every sense of the word—and our unique hospitality and warmth, they will always come back for more. The “Lonely Planet” tour guide states that Northern Ireland is “abuzz with life: the cities are pulsating, the economy is thriving and the people, the lifeblood that courses through the country, are in good spirits”.

That is how it is in Northern Ireland. I am sure that when the Minister replies, he will agree. Another part of the guide says that Belfast is one of the top 10 cities on the rise. Plenty of people are playing us up, encouraging us and telling the truth about Northern Ireland. We now have the impetus of a new dawn, with little threat of violence and few fears over safety. In fact, Northern Ireland is now one of the safest places in the United Kingdom. That is how much progress we have made—that is the progress that the party that I am privileged to represent and the other parties in Northern Ireland have worked to achieve. There is a shared future for us all and we accept that idea. Some people may not be able to accept that, but we do and we are moving forward. This opportunity has to be exploited. Our beautiful, natural and historic landscape, coupled with the vivacity that is integral to everything that originates in Northern Ireland, cannot help but draw people to our shores. Whether people come for rest and recuperation in our superior salons and five-star hotels; to tour the country on nature holidays; to reside in the quaint bed and breakfasts across Strangford and in many other parts of Northern Ireland; to tour in caravans, using the many caravan parks in Strangford and across Northern Ireland; or to go shopping in the city, followed by dinner and a show, Northern Ireland has it all. There must be a sincere and earnest push to show that to the rest of the world. I could go on and on, but it seems that the only people who are fully aware of all that Ards, Strangford and Northern Ireland have to offer are those who are blessed to have been born there and those who have passed through. That is a loss to the people not only of my constituency, but of the Province. If Strangford was marketed to its full potential, people would know about its provision for nature lovers, with its cycling and walking routes aplenty and beautiful shores rife with birds and wildlife; for the weekend visitor who wants to shop and be pampered and to have a nice meal and a night out; for the caravanner who wants to take in the beauty of the countryside; and for those who want a base from which to tour Northern Ireland, but want to get away from the city. Belfast is a mere 20 minutes away and the seaside town of Bangor, with its carnival atmosphere around the pier, is only 10 minutes away.

911

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

7 MARCH 2012

I mentioned birds and wildlife, and shooting tourism—in the legal, correct sense—has great potential in Northern Ireland. The Minister of State is well aware of that, having shot game and pheasants at Rosemount and Greyabbey. It was the biggest shooting day there for many years, and I was told afterwards that much of it was down to his own gun and shooting prowess. As I said, the shadow Secretary of State visited my constituency just a few weeks ago. Afterwards, he stated that he would be back. We encourage him to return, this time with his cheque book, so that he can buy for his family many of the nice things that are available. We look forward to that. It would be remiss of me not to use this opportunity to talk about Strangford’s place in Northern Ireland. The breathtaking view from Scrabo tower in Newtownards to the moors on one side, Scotland and the sea on another and Belfast city behind cannot be surpassed and is rarely matched, as those who have been there, such as the Minister of State and the shadow Secretary of State, will acknowledge. In the town of Newtownards itself, there are superior hotels and a superior night life, a weekly market, cinemas, a great shopping centre complex and beauty salons aplenty, including an all-Ireland beauty salon finalist. History and culture are rich around the Ards, with the well known Scrabo tower and Mount Stewart house and gardens. The area also has the only fully working fishing village in Strangford—I know that there are fishing villages in other areas, including Portavogie. Strangford has some of the best game fishing, with Strangford lough and the Irish sea. That potential is being realised, but we can do more. Tourism Ireland should push game angling. In Portaferry, we have the Exploris aquarium, which attracts more than 100,000 visitors a year. It is an excellent venue and has the capacity to do much more. If someone takes the ferry from Portaferry across to Strangford village, in the neighbouring constituency—it takes eight minutes, cutting off more than an hour and a half of driving—they will be taking the route that Princess Alexandra took in 2003 as part of a themed day to recognise excellence in tourism across the UK. For the more modern culturalist, we also provide the Battletown gallery in Newtownards, which is gaining an international reputation and shows that craft, painting and other fields are progressing well. The Eden pottery in Millisle in my constituency provides the opportunity not only to purchase superior pottery but to make it, as part of a tourism experience. We should do more of that sort of thing. We also have antiques shops, coffee and tea shops and superior places to eat. The humble Comber potato has been recognised by Europe, and in Strangford we can give people a meal that no one else can—starting with Portavogie prawns, the Comber potato, the Ards steak and Willowbrook Foods vegetables, all to tickle the palate and give people the opportunity to have food that they cannot get anywhere else in the whole UK. If someone takes a drive down the other side of Ards, they will come across Castle Espie wildfowl and wetlands centre near Comber. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North and myself both spoke on behalf of Exploris and the Castle Espie wildfowl and wetlands

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

912

centre in a debate in Westminster Hall, and we expounded the pluses of those venues and the excellent tourism potential of the area. We can also mention the historic and archaeological sites. There are links to monastic life in the area, and St Patrick was there. Before anybody else says it, I point out that he is the patron saint of the whole of Northern Ireland and everyone of all persuasions. Last Friday night I attended an event in Ballynahinch at which the Minister for Social Development, Nelson McCausland, spoke. It was organised by the Orange district lodge, and it was about St Patrick and his history. It was smashing to have it. That is the St Patrick I look to, and everyone should look to. Ms Ritchie: I was careful to emphasise that Patrick is the epitome of unity and diversity. Patrick belongs to everybody on the island of Ireland. It is well known that, after landing in the River Slaney at the mouth of Strangford lough, he sailed up to Nendrum, which is in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and established a monastic settlement with his disciples. Patrick is the origin of everything and the symbol of partnership. Jim Shannon: He is not the origin of everything, but he is certainly accepted by everyone. Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): For the record, it is clearly documented that St Patrick was a Welshman who came to Ireland and farmed in the hills around Slemish. Jim Shannon: He certainly travelled around Northern Ireland and he tended sheep in Slemish. That was clear from the historical talk that I heard last Friday. There is 7,000 years of history in County Down. Any history buff could not help but be enthralled by the preservation of days gone by in relation to St Patrick that is so evident in the area that I, my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and other hon. Members represent. The film industry in Northern Ireland is moving forward by leaps and bounds. More companies than ever are coming to Northern Ireland to take advantage of the opportunities for the film industry. Northern Ireland is quickly becoming a centre for the film industry in the UK and Europe. We are looking forward to the celebrations of signing the Ulster covenant 100 years ago. Every council in Northern Ireland is arranging a special event to commemorate signing the covenant, which was first step on the road to the creation of Northern Ireland. There are not many people in Northern Ireland who do not have a relative who signed the covenant—indeed, one of my constituents, an elderly lady called Mrs Simpson, whom I had helped with a few constituency issues, came in one day and said, “Jim, there’s my grandfather’s covenant.” It had pride of place, but she said, “You take that, because I know that you will appreciate it.” That now has pride of place in my home. The Somme centre is on the edge of my constituency, which borders North Down. It preserves the memory and recalls the efforts of the Ulster Division in the first world war. It is an excellent venue that now attracts more people than ever. We have a wealth of history and a wealth of attractions. Clearly, tourism must be the

913

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

7 MARCH 2012

[Jim Shannon] way to take that forward. Celebrations this year will attract many visitors on 28 September. I hope that the re-enactments that are planned will draw those who have come to the UK for the Olympics. Our little country with the big heart has a definite place in the 2012 Olympics and I want to ensure that we step up to the mark and claim our rightful place as an integral part of the UK, and a jewel in the crown of great British attractions. I believe that we can and must do that. We have world-class athletes who are already drawing attention to Northern Ireland in Olympic circles. It is no secret—other hon. Members have mentioned it—that we excel in boxing and shooting in Northern Ireland. That does not mean that we are violent people. It just means that we are good at certain sports, and those happen to be two of them. We bring medals home from Commonwealth games and Olympic games. Two members of the Comber rifle club in my constituency have consistently won gold and silver medals at the Olympic games and the Commonwealth games. We have an opportunity this time to hold some of the training camps for those who are going to the Olympics in the Province. No. 1 world golfer Rory McIlroy is proud to wave his Ulster flag at his victories, and that has already created great media attention. We also have great facilities to offer people who travel to the UK. The first main event on our calendar this year is the Queen’s jubilee. It is set to become some event, with the councils in my area preparing themselves for a record number of street parties and events as we celebrate 60 years of our sovereign’s reign over us. It is good to have SDLP Members making a contribution to the debate; it is a pity that they could not do so when we discussed the humble address, as they were standing guard outside the door. Our Queen has provided stability and continuity through changing Governments, changing ideals and a changing world. She has selflessly given of herself, with a diligence that is difficult to match, and she has maintained a quiet dignity through the journey of life in the public eye. She has given 60 years of dedicated service to our nation and is the epitome of a great lady—she exemplifies the best of British: kind, industrious, wise and respectful. Other members of the royal family are taking that tradition over. We notice from the news today that Prince Harry has become the fastest man in the world. According to the news, it is official that Usain Bolt was in second place in that sprint. People will fly their flags with pride while bonding as communities to celebrate the reign of our Queen. That will happen in many places across the Province. If the high level of interest in and excitement at Prince William and Kate’s wedding last year are anything to go by—I am talking about the whole community across the whole of Northern Ireland—no one will want to miss the Queen’s jubilee. Northern Ireland is moving forward in a way that no one could have foreseen 10 years ago. Even I could not have foreseen the progress that we have made, but I and the Democratic Unionist party are pleased with that progress. We are moving forward in leaps and bounds to deliver something for everyone, including the young boys and girls who have yet to grow up and get jobs.

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

914

It is time for us to take our place on the world tourism stage and to allow others to see, enjoy and be involved in everything that we have to offer—great lodgings, fantastic scenery, wonderful shopping, world-class golf and, indeed, world-class golfers, salons, and most importantly, that unique Northern Ireland hospitality that beckons people in and makes them feel part of the family. A holiday in Northern Ireland will refresh and renew. This year, it will give people a rich insight into our vast culture and heritage, of which we are so proud. One visit, and their opinion will be set for ever. Northern Ireland is the place to come this year and every year. Ian Paisley rose— Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) rose— Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. Before I call the remaining speakers—there are two—I should tell them that I intend to call the wind-ups at 5.8 pm. If they could share the time, that would be very acceptable to all Members in the Chamber. 4.46 pm Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): May I first apologise for not being present for most of the debate? Unfortunately, I had a meeting to discuss the devolution of corporation tax to Northern Ireland, which is a very important issue. I gather that the debate has been fairly lively. The only two speeches I heard were from the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I did not know we had to parade the benefits of our constituencies in the debate. The shadow Secretary of State said that Strangford is the most beautiful constituency he has been to, but he said that before he had even been to my constituency, adding that he wanted to visit. I think I can trump everything my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford said about his constituency. He has the Scrabo tower, which was built a mere 150 years ago; I have Carrickfergus castle, the oldest Norman fort, I believe, in the whole United Kingdom. He talks about St Patrick wandering around his constituency; King Billy landed in mine. He talks about the Ards shopping centre; I have a cathedral of consumerism at the Abbey centre. For goodness sake! For his mere Comber spud, I can offer Glenarm salmon, which is famous the world over. I could go on, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I know you want me to move on. The debate is important, but I was a bit saddened by what I heard from the hon. Member for South Down. I like her, but her speech was not worthy of her. This debate was not meant to be about boasting about the Unionist tradition in Northern Ireland; it was about promoting Northern Ireland, whose people have different backgrounds, national aspirations, outlooks and huge historical differences. Nevertheless, I believe that 2012 offers an opportunity to all people in Northern Ireland to gain from the economic benefits that will arise from the unique events and anniversaries this year. Those events and anniversaries will also help us to understand some of our own traditions, background and history. I was saddened, therefore, by the contribution from the hon. Member for South Down because this should have been a positive debate, and I hope that it will be seen as such. We are proud to live in Northern Ireland

915

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

7 MARCH 2012

and proud that it has come through the dark days that have probably dominated most of our lives—certainly most of our political lives—and is moving on. The motion states that we are moving forward not because of what Unionists alone have done but because of what we have all done and the compromises we have all had to make. I believe that those decisions will ensure that the next 30 years are not blighted like the past 30 years. I was a bit saddened, then, by her negative approach. Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman said that he had not heard the whole debate. On the positive changes made, the motion and 2012, does he acknowledge the particularly strong and positive role being played by Tourism Ireland—a body whose creation his party persistently opposed for many years and whose budget it tried to have aborted? Will he accept that he got that wrong and was negative, but that now it is doing good things? Sammy Wilson: I would prefer to consider what all of us now have to do to promote Northern Ireland not only next year but in all the years ahead. And one area we have to offer and which has been identified as a growth industry is the tourism industry: it is labour intensive; we have a good natural resource that we can exploit to the benefit of tourism; and there is huge interest in past events in Northern Ireland. So we have the industry, the history and the architectural heritage, and we should exploit that. Mark Durkan: All of it. Ms Ritchie: All of it. Sammy Wilson: All of it, yes. That includes the features in the hon. Lady’s constituency that people visit and into which money has been poured to develop some of that tourist infrastructure, and the celebrations of St Patrick and that whole tradition—some claim St Patrick for the Roman Catholic community, some claim it for the Protestant community. It really does not matter! If St Patrick is a marketable commodity, let us make him a marketable commodity and benefit from it. [Interruption.] Yes, and a neutral flag as well. It is disappointing that this is seen as divisive rather than unifying. There are huge opportunities for us in the celebration of the Titanic, of the Ulster covenant and of Her Majesty’s 60th anniversary. We have not been selective about these events. They are outside our control. This year is the 100th anniversary of some of these events, and we cannot dictate which ones we include and which we do not. They just happen to be there. We need to ensure, however, that we get the maximum benefit from them and that they are used in a way that is not divisive but unifying so that the whole community can benefit from the economic opportunity. The motion recognises, at the very end, that we want to see Northern Ireland moving forward, and moving forward together. We recognise the progress made and we do not see these events as exclusive. They are to be enjoyed by people in Northern Ireland. Most importantly, we want them enjoyed by people outside Northern Ireland. I will not go through, as I am sure other hon. Members have, all the benefits of my own constituency, although I mentioned some of them in the introduction.

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

916

Mr Dodds: I very much welcome the tone and content of my hon. Friend’s remarks about the nature of the events that we are highlighting. However, while we are on the subject of events happening in his constituency—I think he referred to the “cathedral of consumerism”—I should just make it clear that the Abbey centre is actually in Belfast North. Sammy Wilson: It is near the border, and I could not think of a cathedral in my constituency. Just as my right hon. Friend—the Member for Belfast North—purloined part of my constituency at the last review by the Boundary Commission, I have taken in some of the shopping in his. Indeed, those facilities are used mostly by people from East Antrim anyway, and would probably not be able to survive were they unable to go and shop there, so I suppose we share it to that extent—I knew it was probably a mistake to let him intervene. I know that others want to speak, so let me say in conclusion that I hope that 2012 will be a year in which we see a further turning of the corner in Northern Ireland. Those of us who live in Northern Ireland know that there have been changes; after 2012, because of the international interest, people further afield will know that there have been changes in that part of the United Kingdom too. 4.55 pm Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), I have not been here for all the debate, because of my attendance at a Select Committee sitting. However, I welcome the opportunity today to celebrate and debate some of the wonderful things that are happening in our country and across our kingdom this year. I notice that my colleagues have been boasting about their constituencies. How dare they, when they know that North Antrim exists! Someone once said that in North Antrim we have the manufacture of tobacco at one end, the manufacture of Bushmills whiskey at the other, and all the vices in between. I want to make it absolutely clear for the record that I represent everyone in North Antrim, and I am delighted to do so, including all those factories. When people travel to the Olympics and celebrate the games this year, they will be travelling on a wonderful new bus. It has been dubbed the “Boris bus”, but it is actually the Ballymena bus, because it is made in my constituency. Indeed, this wonderful, iconic piece of engineering should be celebrated—indeed, I hope it will be—as people enjoy what is an environmentally friendly bus, a little bit of Ballymena travelling through London every day. That gives me a huge amount of pride about what we can achieve in our constituencies and what we deliver to the kingdom. We also have some wonderful areas for tourism, which I hope people will come and enjoy as well, not least the majestic Giant’s Causeway. Indeed, we look forward to seeing a new visitors’ centre opening there and to more tourists coming to see the constituency. However, I want to focus my brief comments this afternoon on the latter part of the motion before the House, which draws attention to the centenary of the signing of the Ulster covenant and declaration—or, the Ulster solemn league and covenant. It was a seminal moment, not only in the history of Ulster and the history of

917

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

7 MARCH 2012

[Ian Paisley] Ireland, but in the history of these islands. It is an inspirational moment, and it should continue to inspire the people of these islands today. We should acknowledge the significant role that the signing of the league and covenant played, not only for the kingdom, but in helping during the great war in 1914. To put it into historical context, in 1916, seven men signed the proclamation for the republic in Dublin. In 1776, the American declaration of independence had 56 signatories. The Ulster covenant of 1912 had 218,216 men signing it in one day, with 228,991 women signing a parallel, uncompromising declaration of association with the Ulster solemn league and covenant. A further 19,162 men and 5,055 women of Ulster birth signed in Dublin, Edinburgh, Glasgow, York, Liverpool, London, Manchester and Bristol. The Ulster covenant was truly an impressive demonstration of the resolve of early 20th century Ulstermen and women to remain citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as it was then. It also demonstrated a spontaneous solidarity in defence of the Union. Furthermore, it showed that Unionism was a popular, broadly based, democratic movement. Today, that resonates with me, as an Ulsterman and a Unionist and as one who is passionate about recognising that the Union is richly made up of all its component parts. The Union is only as strong as each and every one of those component parts. It is strong because of its association with Ulster, with Scotland, with Wales and, of course, with England. Dr McCrea: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge the findings of the highly respected Queen’s university survey of public opinion that has just been published, which shows overwhelming support for the Union? It found that 82.6% of people in Northern Ireland want to live in the United Kingdom and are proud to be British. Ian Paisley: My hon. Friend makes that point well. What a year for that survey to come out! The word “covenant” has important meanings. In modern parlance, it refers to a barter or bargain, but it also has the Hebrew meaning of a divine promise linked with a human obligation. Its literal meaning is a bond or fettering—something that should not be broken. So convinced were people of the need for the Ulster covenant that some of them even signed it in their own blood, to demonstrate that their passion for the Union was not something that could easily be torn up, and that it was part and parcel of their very soul and their very being. We should take inspiration from that passion and inspiration. I have a wonderful book written by a guy called Colonel Crawford, which has a foreword written by Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Wilfrid Spender that outlines the importance of the covenant in the history of the Union and of the first world war. He wrote: “Looking back, the British have reason to be grateful to the Ulster people for their stand for the Empire, and more particularly to Colonel Crawford, who brought from Germany, before the first Great War, more than sufficient arms to equip a division in Northern Ireland, and this was a large factor in releasing all six regular divisions for the Expeditionary Force. Germany lost those weapons at a vital time, and they proved invaluable in training the 36th Ulster Division, of which I was the acting general staff officer before its departure to France in 1915.”

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

918

The lieutenant-colonel goes on: “The Ulster Division won undying fame at Thiepval in 1916, because it was largely composed of men who, like Colonel Crawford, had the true Crusading spirit. I hope that the younger generation in Ulster may be inspired by his…example”.

That was an example of boys’ own heroism, and boys’ own determination to do whatever had to be done to save something that people believed in. I am glad that this Parliament is going to celebrate, support and endorse the covenant and the declaration. Even if a Parliament were to try to turn the will of a people on its head, the people would ultimately be right, and their determination should be recognised at all times. I want to put on record the words of Ulster’s solemn league and covenant. It states: “Being convinced in our consciences that Home Rule would be disastrous to the material well-being of Ulster as well as the rest of Ireland, subversive of our civil and religious freedom, destructive of our citizenship and perilous to the unity of the Empire, we whose names are underwritten, men of Ulster, loyal subjects of His Gracious Majesty King George V, humbly relying on the God whom our fathers in days of stress and trial confidently trusted, do hereby pledge ourselves in solemn Covenant throughout this time of threatened calamity to stand by one another in defending for ourselves and our children our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. And in the event of such a Parliament being forced upon us we further solemnly and mutually pledge ourselves to refuse to recognise its authority. In sure confidence that God will defend the right we hereto subscribe our names. And further, we individually declare that we have not already signed this Covenant.”

This was a seminal moment in British history that was determined not by the will of a Parliament or by the outcome of an election, but by the will and the mass movement of people power in that part of Ireland—in Ulster, the part that we cherish most—that said, once and for all, that it is the people that really matter. I hope that when we celebrate these wonderful events this year, we will recognise that these events are wonderful because of one thing—the unique peoples that make up these countries in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. We should recognise that we are a unique and wonderful people with unique and wonderful ideas, and that we have a right as a people to come together and to celebrate our diversity, to celebrate who and what we are, to celebrate the differences also, but to hold steadfastly to the fact that we have a proud and recognisable tradition—and that nothing should make us ashamed of it. 5.6 pm Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): I am happy to conclude the debate, and I am grateful to everyone who has participated in it. As has been said, we have had a good, lively and generally good-humoured debate—with one or two exceptions. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), my hon. Friends the Members for Upper Bann (David Simpson), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie) for their contributions, as well as to the shadow Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for theirs. I know that

919

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

7 MARCH 2012

the Secretary of State has had to leave the Chamber to engage in an important piece of work on behalf of Northern Ireland. References were made in the early part of the debate to the natural humour of people in Northern Ireland. Some of that might have been lost in recent exchanges in this debate, but by and large I think it is right to say that the good humour and character of people in Northern Ireland—on both sides of the community—were a factor in bringing Northern Ireland through the darkest and deepest days of challenge and trouble to where we are now. The very fact that we are having this kind of debate on the Floor of the House—and, indeed, those we regularly see taking place in the Northern Ireland Assembly—dealing with matters to do with the economy and social affairs, and how to attract more people by celebrating the opportunities for increased tourism, stands in marked contrast, as the Secretary of State said, to the sort of debates we were having 10 years ago, when we lurched under previous dispensations of political leadership in Northern Ireland from political crisis to political crisis, when we were debating suspensions of devolution, round table talks and all the rest of it. Under the current leadership in Northern Ireland, we now see steadfast and sure progress being made in a stable political environment. As we know, the Northern Ireland Assembly has entered its second full term of devolution. That is no mean feat, but we sometimes take it for granted. Sometimes the House needs to be reminded of just how far we have come. Things that were unthinkable even a short time ago are now accepted as commonplace. We do well now and again to take stock and pause, and to reflect on and celebrate how far we have come, not to forget the challenges and difficulties, but to say that things have improved considerably. Many people will take credit for that. Mention has been made of the work of political leaders. I join the tributes to them, but the true tribute, of course, goes to the people of Northern Ireland—the ordinary, decent people of Northern Ireland on all sides, the vast majority of whom, despite the violence and pressures on them during those times of trouble, voted consistently for parties that were opposed to violence and stood against violence, saying clearly that they wanted a democratic and peaceful way forward. Some people who were engaged in violence had to realise that and reach a point at which instead of trying to tear down the state of Northern Ireland, they gave their support to the police, the rule of law and the courts. That is a measure of just how far we have come. As we heard earlier, on Monday a report from Queen’s university, which is highly respected, showed that some 82% of people want Northern Ireland to remain within the United Kingdom on the basis of the political agreements that have been made. That is an amazing turnaround, and contrasts with the debate that is currently taking place in Scotland. Central to the tributes that should be paid are tributes to our security forces. We should pay tribute to members of the police, including the part-time police. The other day I took a delegation to meet the Minister of Justice. Those men and women served in the RUC part-time reserve during the darkest days of the troubles, under serious threat of death and for very little monetary

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

920

reward. They contributed to the bringing about of the circumstances that we all enjoy today. We should pay tribute to members of the Army—members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment— and to members of the emergency services. All those people made an immense contribution, and should never be forgotten—and, of course, we should never forget the victims who live daily with the pain and suffering of all those years of violence, as do their families. We can view 2012 as a fantastic year of opportunity and we can reflect on the progress that has been made, but it is always important to bear in mind the sacrifice that is being and has been made by so many. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim, we should be conscious that we are speaking today in the shadow of the loss of six brave servicemen in Afghanistan, and obviously our thoughts and prayers are with their families at this time. The motion is broadly drafted: we tabled it in good faith to celebrate the events that are taking place in 2012. It refers to the diamond jubilee, on which we had a good and positive debate earlier today, when the House was virtually united. It also refers to the Olympic games, the amazing Titanic centenary, and the centenary of the Ulster covenant. All those events are mentioned in tourism literature that has been published in Northern Ireland and is widely available. We do not seek to be divisive in any way, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim pointed out, the motion refers only to events that are happening this year. Next year, 2013, Londonderry will be the city of culture, and the world police and fire games will come to Northern Ireland. Those will of course be celebrated, and there will be other events in 2014 and 2016. No doubt the whole issue of the Somme, and events that took place in Dublin, will also be discussed and commemorated. We should commemorate events as they happen, in a positive way. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford and the hon. Member for Foyle referred to a tremendous event that took place not long ago in, of all places, St James’s palace—a royal palace that could be described as the heart of the British monarchy. It was an amazing situation. Ambassadors to this country are appointed to the Court of St James’s, the seat of the monarchy, but on that occasion the palace was taken over and branded with the images of Northern Ireland. The First Minister was there, as was the Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness. He entered a royal palace and talked about the positive aspects of Northern Ireland. He did not make any of the points that the hon. Member for South Down has made in this debate, because he recognises that it is positive for Northern Ireland to commemorate events as they happen. We should pay tribute to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and, indeed, Tourism Ireland for the work that they are doing. We must also acknowledge the budget that has been given for tourism in Northern Ireland. Tourism Ireland has responsibility for marketing Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom and to the wider world. The NITB has responsibility for marketing within Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic. Some of us could certainly happily have a discussion about how best to market Northern Ireland, but that is

921

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

7 MARCH 2012

[Mr Nigel Dodds] a debate for another day. All I want to say now about the budget for tourism in general is that we need to get the biggest bang for our buck, whether through the NITB or Tourism Ireland, in promoting Northern Ireland. I am sure we all agree on that. I have enormous respect for the hon. Member for South Down, but—in contrast to the remarks of her party colleague, the hon. Member for Foyle—her contribution was a little jarring. As she talks so much about inclusion, I hope she will use her influence and best endeavours in respect of a decision made today by Down district council, on which she and her party have enormous influence. There is consternation about the council’s decision to move away from a good and agreed model for the St Patrick’s day celebrations. Belfast and other councils have been looking to Down district as a model to follow, but that has been ended by its decision to adopt a flag for the St Patrick’s day parade that is exclusive, instead of inclusive. That has undone all the good work of the past 25 years, and I hope something will be done about it. Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab): I grew up in a community that had similar divisions to those in Northern Ireland, although they did not result in the same regrettable outcomes. On the changing perceptions of Northern Ireland, although division once characterised the region, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the respect he has shown to the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) reflects the respect that the different communities now have for each other? Mr Dodds: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He served as a Northern Ireland Minister for several years during difficult times, and I pay tribute to him for the work he did then. I like to think that politicians in Northern Ireland did respect each others’ positions, although that might not always have come across. Indeed, there is growing respect, even in the debates we are now having about commemorations and celebrations and the decade of centenaries. I believe that greater maturity is now being shown on all sides than was the case 10 or 20 years ago. People are now looking at issues in ways that are intended to create the maximum consensus, rather than maximum division. We will not always agree on everything. There will still be disagreements; we do not hide that fact. Members hold different views about the best long-term future for Northern Ireland and where we want it to be—we, as Unionists, firmly say we want to be within the United Kingdom, for instance. That should not stop us working together in the best interests of Northern Ireland, however, to promote the economic and social betterment of all our people. I want to reiterate the point I made about the diamond jubilee. We have debated that, and I do not want to rehearse the sentiments that were expressed, but I ask the Minister to ensure that as much notice is given to the people of Northern Ireland of Her Majesty’s visit. We face many challenges. The dissidents and the troubles have been mentioned. There are terrorists out there who still want to derail our process and we face grave economic challenges. I am well aware that there are still high levels of deprivation and poverty in my

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

922

constituency and high levels of youth unemployment in particular. However, if all of us work together we can try to make things better. We must take advantage of the opportunities that exist in 2012 to build a fantastic future for our province. I am delighted to commend the motion to the House. 5.20 pm The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire): This has been a lively—at times very lively—debate, but it has been an informative one and, on the whole, a good one. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) was early out of the traps and talked about the perception of Northern Ireland and how there was a job to be done dismantling people’s false perceptions. That is a good description of what we are seeking to do in this watershed year. He also alluded to the sporting heroes Mary Peters, who we all see as the lord lieutenant of Belfast—no doubt she will play her part during this diamond jubilee year—George Best, who one might argue is somewhat different to Mary Peters, and Barry McGuigan. Those are all great heroes—to say nothing of Graeme McDowell, Darren Clarke and Rory McIlroy. The opportunities with the Olympics have also been mentioned. I have said before in this place that I am slightly disappointed that we are not having more teams in Northern Ireland for the Olympics. We have got the Chinese gymnasts and so forth, so we have got some teams, but we want to make sure that Northern Ireland shares in the Olympics before, during and, critically, in the aftermath. We all know of the economic challenges facing Northern Ireland—we are not inured from those—but I shall not rehearse them today. Some Members referred to the happiness league, which I might come back to. However, I must say, given the general demeanour of right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon, I think their happiness is a given fact. It is quite proper, as the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said in his concluding remarks, to have this sort of debate on the Floor of the House. Is it not wonderful, as he said, that this debate is about the agenda we have been discussing rather than about the troubles and the whole issue of devolution and suspension that so bedevilled discussions in this place for too long? Perhaps one day all democratically elected Members of Parliament will take their rightful place here and speak up for their constituents and their part of the world, as hon. Members have done so well this afternoon. Inevitably, we have heard much discussion about the signing of the covenant. We should remember that that came after the third Home Rule Bill, in reaction to it, and I am pleased to say that we are in co-operation and co-ordination with Dublin. I pay tribute to the Minister Jimmy Deenihan with whom I have been working on creating the architecture within which we can set this decade of commemorations. That starts next week in Westminster Hall with an exhibition on the third Home Rule Bill. We hope it will then travel on to Dublin and to Northern Ireland. We have rightly heard a lot about Her Majesty the Queen all afternoon and we want to play our part in Northern Ireland in the diamond jubilee. I shall come back to her visit in a minute. On a lighter note, we heard the amazing revelation—if I had not been here to hear it, I might not have believed it if I had read it in

923

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

7 MARCH 2012

Hansard—about the hon. Member for South Antrim being dressed in his little sailor suit. There is now a £100 bounty for photographic evidence of that. I have to confess that there is—not in circulation I am pleased to say, but in existence—a photograph of me in a sailor suit, but hon. Members would probably expect that. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who is not in his place—I know that various people have had to go to different Committees—talked about the Irish Open and how he wants to open things up, as do we, and about the decade of commemorations. He talked about Londonderry—about Derry being the first UK city of culture—and he knows, as does the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), that I have been working quietly behind the scenes and with them to see if I can add any value to the city of culture efforts because we want to make that a huge success not only for the city but for the surrounding area. Hon. Members also dwelled on a little bit of political history and the alliance between my party and the Ulster Unionist party before the election. I do not read blogs or tweets but I am aware of noises on the street and believe that even the Democratic Unionist party has been in discussions of one sort or another—deniable or otherwise—with the Ulster Unionist party. All I can do is refer to that old British Telecom campaign, “It’s good to talk.” There was some discussion of rebalancing the economy, growing exports and inward investment, all of which we want to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) is the only member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee who was able to attend this debate. That is in no way to impugn the keenness of others to be here, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He talked about the security situation, which has not been much mentioned this afternoon. Of course, we need to be ever vigilant, particularly in a Chamber that displays the shields of Airey Neave, Ian Gow and Sir Anthony Berry, all of whom gave their lives to Northern Ireland. We will never forget the role played by parliamentarians of all persuasions in Northern Ireland’s troubled past. We bitterly condemn, as a united House, all the attacks, not least in Derry-Londonderry, made by those who are trying to upset the city of culture, NI 2012 and the real progress that we have made. I give them a message from the House, loud and clear: they will not be successful. My hon. Friend said that 2012 is a catalyst to realise the aspirations of many people. We can all concur. The hon. Member for Foyle talked about a purposeful inquiry. There have been some good comments this afternoon about how we should address the decade of commemorations, and I rather like “purposeful inquiry.” Next week, I hope we can set the tone with the third Home Rule Bill exhibition. We heard about the launch of NI 2012 at St James’s palace, which I was able to attend. That, too, set the tone. Talking of tone, no one struck a better one than Van the Man—Van Morrison, who does not necessarily convey the Ulster sense of happiness and well-being that we now all recognise as the defining characteristic of Ulster men and women. None the less, he is one of my great heroes. We heard a request for the targeted reduction, or even the abolition—temporary or otherwise—of VAT on

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

924

tourism. I have looked into the subject, not least because my constituency is East Devon and tourism is extremely important in the south-west, and I have had a discussion with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose). However, at the moment we need more revenue, to fill the black hole unfortunately left to us by Labour. I do not think the Chancellor is short of ideas for cuts—from fuel duty to income and corporation taxes—but I fear we shall have to wait until we have managed to restore some sanity to the UK economy. We heard about the Commonwealth medal for shooting, and about Northern Ireland’s boxing prowess, both of which we celebrate, but we want to diversify slightly into other sports better to reflect Northern Ireland in the 21st century. The Secretary of State had to absent himself to attend the joint ministerial working group on rebalancing the economy. I imagine that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister were there, as was Northern Ireland’s Finance Minister, the Member for North Antrim, who is now in the Chamber—[HON. MEMBERS: “East Antrim.”] There has been so much gerrymandering this afternoon that every Northern Ireland Member has laid claim to part of another Member’s constituency, so I hope the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) will forgive me for that slip. To make a serious point, the fact that people have come and gone during the debate does not show lack of interest. It shows that occasionally we are conflicted, particularly Ministers, which is why the Secretary of State and I were not at the Treasury debate held in Westminster Hall last week, a point that I hope is not lost on those who sought to suggest otherwise. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) gave us a rich diet of tea, buns and meat; he is no longer in the Chamber—he has probably gone to lie down. I can testify to Ulster’s legendary hospitality; the Ulster fry is the antithesis to the Jane Fonda workout. The hon. Gentleman was a veritable Wikipedia on Northern Ireland, listing many things that we never knew, but we certainly know now. The hon. Gentleman said that Northern Ireland’s place in the UK is settled, as we also heard in Northern Ireland questions this morning, so I think we can take it as a given. We no longer hear so much from the First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, about his arc of prosperity reaching from Iceland to the Republic of Ireland. Perhaps our sisters and brothers in Scotland would do well to look at Northern Ireland’s settled place in the Union and how it prospers as an equal, contributing and vital part of our great United Kingdom. There were some questions about the visit of Her Majesty to Northern Ireland in her diamond jubilee year. Of course the Queen’s subjects wish to see her, but that must be balanced against other considerations. We hear what has been said and the Palace is aware that her subjects in Northern Ireland wish to express their loyalty. The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), the shadow Secretary of State, referred quite properly to the six soldiers killed in Afghanistan, as did other speakers this afternoon. It is horrific. For those of us who are from a military background, as I am, and those of us who have been to Afghanistan, as have so many of

925

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

7 MARCH 2012

[Mr Hugo Swire] us in the Chamber, every time we hear of losses our heart goes out to the families, but six in one go is something that we have not got used to. Our hearts and our thoughts are with the families this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman repeated the call for a targeted cut to VAT. I point out—it may be an issue to which the Opposition Front-Bench team wish to return in the Budget—that such a cut is costed at £8 billion UK-wide, so if he is genuinely calling for that, it will have to be factored into any assessment that we make of Labour’s plans for the economy. The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) spoke about sporting prowess, including the Gaelic Athletic Association. I am very pleased, as are we all, that the GAA says it will play a role in all the commemorations over the next decade, as it should. The hon. Lady also spoke about film in Northern Ireland, to which the Secretary of State referred earlier. I am disappointed that the new “Titanic” series was not filmed in Northern Ireland. I raised the matter with various people, but the series was made in Hungary. That is a cause for sadness and I hope we can avoid such a mistake in future, but endless good productions are being made in Northern Ireland as we speak. Then things all started to go so horribly wrong, when the issue of who owns St Patrick came to the fore once more. It was amazing. Just as the hon. Lady was claiming St Patrick for the mountains of Mourne and her own constituency, as if from nowhere the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) appeared, Mephistopheles-like, from some Committee to claim yet again that Slemish was St Patrick’s natural home and that he came from Wales. [Interruption.] The shadow Leader of the House— The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath): Deputy. Mr Swire: The Deputy Leader of the House—I will make him into a shadow quite soon—is now claiming St Patrick not for Wales, but for Somerset, when my notes tell me quite clearly that St Patrick actually came from north Devon. I hope the good people of Northern Ireland and particularly their political representatives care so much about the right hon. Member for East Devon that they fight about him as much as they are fighting about St Patrick. We claim him for Devon, the Deputy Leader of the House claims him for Somerset, the Welsh no doubt claim him for Wales, but we know that he was at some stage in Northern Ireland. We will leave it to others to decide where. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for revealing my relationship with some of the wildfowl on the peninsula. I am most grateful to him for revealing what I do in my private time. I can tell him that when I am in Northern Ireland and armed, it is with the proper authorisation of the Chief Constable. I wish that was always the case. I know the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world extremely well. It is a beautiful constituency. I would not make the rash statements that the shadow Secretary of State made to every Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland that theirs is the most beautiful constituency, because there are 18 constituencies in Northern Ireland, and when he gets to about 17, he will be rumbled. It is

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

926

safe to say that they are all utterly beautiful. Some are more beautiful than others, but if I were he, I would not say which. The hon. Member for East Antrim is a larger-than-life figure in politics in Northern Ireland, where he has to wrestle with economic troubles daily. He came from a meeting of the joint ministerial working group today and gave an upbeat and typically positive speech. He gave a virtual tour of his beautiful constituency, and so successful was he in doing so—I rather hoped you would stop him, Madam Deputy Speaker—that I do not think there is now any need for anyone to visit Northern Ireland; they could simply download the Sammy Wilson app and stay at home, which is not what we want at all. He also talked about Glenarm salmon, which is delicious and I can recommend to everyone. I was particularly pleased to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s support for tourism, both Tourism Ireland and tourism as an enterprise, on which he has been working closely with the Northern Ireland Enterprise Minister, Arlene Foster, because 2012 presents us with a huge opportunity. Of course we start the decade plus of commemorations, a time when we will look back, but it is also a time when we will look forward and present Northern Ireland as it is in the 21st century to a world that is largely ignorant of Northern Ireland. I have said it before and will say it again: if you are not in Northern Ireland in 2012, you are no one. The hon. Member for North Antrim, who has had to leave to attend a Committee meeting—he sent me his apologies—having made his intervention about St Patrick, rightly made a public relations puff for Wrightbus, and we can see the evidence of its workmanship on our streets. Ken Livingstone probably calls it the Ballymena bus, but we will call it the Boris bus as we want to see Boris properly returned as Mayor of London. The hon. Gentleman talked about the excellent visitors’ centre at the Giant’s Causeway, which is a must on anyone’s to-do list. Of course, he did not talk about the new golf resort at Runkerry, which we all look forward to. It was 10 years in the planning, which we cannot allow to happen again, but at least it is happening. It will be another attraction that puts Northern Ireland on the map. We have had various discussions about starting soon to market the island of Ireland as the golf states, rather than the Gulf states, because we will be rich in sport, if not in oil. Healso spoke passionately about the signing of the Ulster covenant, and no doubt he will play an active part in the commemorations as and when they occur. We heard from every corner of Northern Ireland this afternoon. There have been some disagreements, but if we compare those to the kinds of disagreements there might have been in a similar debate seven, eight or 10 years ago, we can see that it is remarkable how far we have come. From my perspective, we have a lot further to go. We are going there pretty quickly, and 2012 is the year we will start. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House welcomes the NI 2012 campaign to change perceptions of Northern Ireland and to encourage many more visitors to come to Northern Ireland; notes that, despite current economic difficulties, this campaign takes place in the context of a momentous year for the UK when the nation will celebrate the Diamond Jubilee of Her Majesty The Queen, and will host the

927

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

928

7 MARCH 2012

Olympic Games; further notes that, in Northern Ireland, 2012 is the centenary of the Titanic tragedy, an event that remains seared into the world’s consciousness and culture, and the centenary of the signing of the Ulster covenant and Declaration, often described as the foundation document of Northern Ireland; welcomes the enormous progress that has occurred in recent years in moving Northern Ireland forward; and looks forward to the programme of events and activities which will help make Northern Ireland the place to visit in 2012.

Backbench Business [UNALLOTTED PART DAY]

Sergei Magnitsky 5.37 pm Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con): I beg to move, That this House notes the passage of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Bill through the United States Senate, the Bill to condemn corruption and impunity in Russia in the case and death of Sergei Magnitsky in the House of Commons in Canada, the approval of the resolution of the Dutch Parliament concerning Sergei Magnitsky dated 29 June 2011, and paragraphs I and 20 to 21 of the resolution of the European Parliament of 14 December 2011 on the EU-Russia Summit; and calls on the Government to bring forward equivalent legislative proposals providing for a presumption in favour of asset freezes and travel bans for officials of the Russian state and other countries, wherever the appropriate UK authorities have collected or received evidence that establishes that such officials: (a) were involved in the detention, physical abuse or death of Sergei Magnitsky; (b) participated in efforts to conceal the legal liability for the detention, abuse or death of Sergei Magnitsky; (c) committed the frauds discovered by Sergei Magnitsky; or (d) are responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture or other gross violations of human rights committed in Russia or any other country against any individual seeking to obtain, exercise, defend or promote basic and internationally recognised human rights, including those set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.

I first thank the Backbench Business Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), for granting the debate, and the sponsors of the motion representing all three main parties, who include five former Foreign Ministers. I also commend the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has consistently raised the matter. The debate was inspired by the brutal death of Sergei Magnitsky, a young Russian lawyer. Between 2007 and 2008, while working for Hermitage Capital, he exposed the biggest tax fraud in Russian history, worth $230 million. His legal team was then subjected to varying forms of intimidation. While other lawyers left Russia, fearing for their lives, Magnitsky stayed on to make a stand for the rule of law in Russia and strike a blow against the breathtaking corruption there. That bravery cost him his life. Magnitsky was arrested in 2008 on trumped-up charges of tax evasion. In Putin’s Kafkaesque Russian justice system, the very tax investigators that Magnitsky had exposed turned up to arrest him. He was dumped in a filthy, freezing and overcrowded cell for eight months and fed putrid meals such as porridge with insect larvae and rotten fish, if and when he was fed at all. In such squalid conditions, he suffered acutely painful bladder and pancreatic problems. Eventually, a year after his arrest, he was transferred to hospital for emergency surgery, but when he arrived he was not treated at all. Instead, he was handcuffed to a bed and beaten by riot police. Doctors found him an hour later, lying on the floor. He was dead. The Russian authorities blocked all attempts to bring those responsible to justice. Sixty people have been implicated in the persecution of Sergei Magnitsky, his

929

Sergei Magnitsky

7 MARCH 2012

[Mr Dominic Raab] client or in the original tax fraud, and they have been named by the US Commission on Security and Co-operation in Europe. They include senior officials such as the former deputy Interior Minister and the deputy prosecutor-general. The Moscow Public Oversight Commission, a watchdog mandated under Russian law, concluded that Magnitsky was tortured to death, but all the suspects were cleared by Russian investigators, some have been promoted and some decorated. In fact, the only people on trial are Magnitsky’s employer and Magnitsky himself, who is now the subject of Russia’s first ever posthumous prosecution. Sergei Magnitsky joins that noble Russian tradition of dissidents who stood up for the rule of law, democratic reform and free speech—the tradition of Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov through to Anna Politkovskaya—but like many others who have been silenced for defending just causes throughout the world, Magnitsky stood for more than just Russia. Such people include Chinese human rights lawyer, Gao Zhisheng, tortured for defending property rights and free speech and currently held incommunicado at an unknown location; photographer Zahra Kazemi, arrested for taking pictures of the families of missing protestors in Iran, who gathered outside Tehran’s notorious Evin prison—she was jailed, tortured and beaten to death; and Hamza al-Khateeb, who was arrested during the Syrian protests last year. A month later his mutilated body was returned to his family. He was just 13 years old. This motion is about keeping the flame of freedom alive for those brave souls. It calls on the Government to produce legislative proposals similar to the Bill going through the United States Senate with bipartisan support. It targets Sergei Magnitsky’s tormentors, who left a documentary trail of their crimes, but it would apply wherever there was evidence that a state official anywhere was responsible for torture, extrajudicial killing or some other gross human rights abuse, or was complicit in covering up such activities. The evidence would need to be independently assessed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, by the AttorneyGeneral or by some other appropriate authority. The designated person would be named and shamed, a stain on any regime that left him or her in post and a spur for reformers at home; they would be banned from entering Britain; and their assets here would be frozen. Of course there would have to be due process to allow anyone to challenge their designation, and the Government could make exemptions on the grounds of national interest, but the Secretary of State would have to publicly justify exempting anyone—a safeguard against misuse. We would in effect be creating a presumption that targeted sanctions be imposed on those responsible for the worst international crimes against those who defend the freedoms we take for granted in this House and in this country. We would be sending a clear message that those responsible for such atrocities should not be able to fly into Britain, buy up property in Knightsbridge or head off down the King’s road for a bit of light Christmas shopping, as if nothing had ever happened. This motion is not anti-Russia. It is pro-Russia. It is an unequivocal affirmation of our solidarity with those Russians who are suffering for having had the temerity to question the mafia-ridden practices of Putin’s nasty regime.

Sergei Magnitsky

930

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD): The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful case. Does he accept that one of the problems in Russia is that although those in positions of leadership can perpetrate crimes against individuals by using the full undercover agencies of the state with absolute impunity, the one thing they most value and would not want to lose is the freedom to travel and to use their money, often stolen from the Russian people, in a life of luxury outside Russia? Mr Raab: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation of and rationale for what we are trying to achieve. It is precisely that. We are not seeking to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction by depriving anyone of their freedom; we are merely saying, “You cannot come into this country if you have that kind of blood on your hands.” So the motion is not anti-Russia, but pro-Russia. Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con): Will my hon. Friend give way? Mr Raab: I will not, because time is limited and many others want to speak. The motion is an expression of solidarity not only with freedom fighters around the world, but with legislators in the United States, in Canada, in the Netherlands, in Sweden, and now in Italy, who are also scrutinising legislation or calling for Government action to hold to account those responsible for these terrible crimes. Let me be clear about this. If we enacted this law, it would not end impunity overnight in Russia or anywhere else in the world, for that matter, but it would help to puncture it. It would express Britain’s disgust and our resolve not to turn a blind eye to such heinous crimes, and it would honour those such as Sergei Magnitsky, who died struggling to keep the flickering light of freedom in his country alive. 5.45 pm Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this debate and commend all right hon. and hon. Members who have supported the motion. In all parts of the House, there is strong and unequivocal condemnation of the brutal treatment and alleged murder of Sergei Magnitsky. Mr Magnitsky, as the hon. Member for Esher and Walton has explained, was a young Russian lawyer working on behalf of a British firm in Moscow. He is thought to have uncovered the biggest corruption case in Russian history—a case that implicated politicians, the police, judges, and members of the Russian mafia. Days after Mr Magnitsky filed a criminal complaint and testified on the involvement of the tax police, among others, he was arrested on spurious tax charges by the same tax police officers against whom he had testified. He was held in pre-trial detention for nearly a year. In prison, he was mistreated, denied medical treatment and beaten. He died just days before the one-year limit within which he could be held without trial expired. As the motion underlines, this is one of several cases in Russia in which human rights defenders and those exposing corruption have been brutally murdered. Worldrenowned journalist Anna Politkovskaya, human rights

931

Sergei Magnitsky

7 MARCH 2012

activist Natalya Estemirova, and human rights lawyer Stanislav Markelov have all been killed in cold blood for pursuing the truth. The brutality of the killings has even extended beyond Russia’s borders, with the murder of political exile Alexander Litvinenko on British soil five years ago. Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): The hon. Lady mentions cases including that of Natalya Estemirova. A couple of years ago, I was fortunate enough to be able to travel to Chechnya and, unfortunately, to see at first hand some of the appalling human rights violations there, including what had happened about the assassination of Natalya Estemirova. We may know who is responsible in the case of Sergei Magnitsky, but does the hon. Lady agree that one of the major problems is that investigations into such cases to get to the root cause of who has committed these appalling crimes are not undertaken, and that we need to use all diplomatic efforts to encourage the Russian authorities to do so? Emma Reynolds: I do agree, and I will turn to the so-called investigation very soon. I have given a shameful list of crimes in which justice never seems to be done. While those who bring to light allegations of corruption and abuse by the Russian state run a high risk of being murdered, those responsible for their murders appear to run little risk of being caught and punished. On the contrary, they seem to operate in a climate of impunity. These cases must be accounted for by the Russian Government. The case of Mr Magnitsky has rightly been condemned around the world. Motions similar to the one that we are debating are being considered in other Parliaments in Europe, notably in Italy, Poland, the Netherlands and Sweden; and the European Parliament has agreed on a resolution. A private member’s bill has been presented to the Canadian Parliament, and in the US, Senators Cardin and McCain have introduced a bill in the Senate. Our debate is about what the British Government are able or willing to do about the Magnitsky case and others in which a culture of impunity prevails. In the UK, we have a long and proud tradition on human rights. A Conservative politician, David Maxwell Fyfe, was instrumental in drafting and introducing the European convention on human rights. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have been outspoken on the Magnitsky case and on other human rights abuses. Britain cannot turn a blind eye to the Magnitsky case. I sincerely hope that the Minister, in responding to the motion on behalf of the Government, will not repeat the same line that that we have heard countless times—namely, that it would be inappropriate to comment on this case until the official Russian investigation has reached a conclusion. That goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). In June last year, a Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), said that the British Government were waiting on the report of the Russian investigation, which was due in August last year. In January this year, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), restated that position and said that the investigation was now expected to report on 24 January.

Sergei Magnitsky

932

Given that the investigation into Mr Magnitsky’s death opened in November 2009 and has been delayed 11 times since, I hope that the Minister now accepts that the delays are unacceptable. Will he assure me and the House that we will not hear the same wait-and-see policy from the Government today? There are good reasons to doubt that the investigative committee will ever get to the truth of who killed Sergei Magnitsky. A delaying tactic by the Russian Government must not be allowed to become a convenient delaying tactic for our Government. In the light of that, what measures will the Government take to increase the pressure on the Russian Government in the Magnitsky case and many others? Beyond that case, it is important that this debate takes account of the broader concerns about the horrific conditions in Russian prisons, which are well documented. According to Russia’s Federal Penitentiary Service, 4,423 people died in Russian prisons in 2010, and a huge number of Russian prisoners suffer and die from tuberculosis. In July last year, President Medvedev’s human rights council reported that Sergei Magnitsky’s arrest was unlawful and that his detention was marked by beatings and torture aimed at extracting a confession of guilt. The only action of the Russian authorities in response to that evidence has been a decision to put the dead victim back on trial. That is unprecedented in Russian legal history. It is not only a grotesque parody of justice, but a gesture of contempt for the international community and the human rights norms on which it is built. The motion refers to the international covenant on civil and political rights, reminding us that raising human rights issues is not about interfering in the affairs of the Russian Government, but is a way of holding Russia to its international obligations. Russia has signed the European convention on human rights, the universal declaration of human rights, the charter of Paris and the EU-Russia partnership and co-operation agreement, to name but a few. In signing each of those agreements, Russia made a solemn commitment to respect human rights. As a result, it has enjoyed the privileges that go with being a member of the international community. It is therefore reasonable to ask whether the Russian Government are living up to their side of the bargain. Turning to foreign affairs, Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and is soon to become a member of the World Trade Organisation. It has a key role to play in foreign policy in aiding the stability of Afghanistan and preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Russia’s role is also important in the case of Syria. As the Minister said this weekend, its refusal to co-operate with the international community is prolonging the horrific situation in Syria. In conclusion, we recognise that only 22 years have elapsed since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the 70-year domination of communism, and that a period of deep economic turmoil accompanied the transition. We want to see Russia back on the path of reform, not going backwards, which is what the cases of Sergei Magnitsky and many others demonstrate. We want a successful, open, democratic Russia, free of endemic corruption, where the rule of law is protected, not eroded; a Russia that has a strong voice in the world and that works with the international community, not against it.

933

Sergei Magnitsky

7 MARCH 2012

[Emma Reynolds] In the run-up to Sunday’s presidential elections, Vladimir Putin promised to root out corruption and to guarantee human rights. We want to see those promises delivered. If the Russian Government do not put Russia back on the path of reform, their economy is likely to stagnate, their population will continue to decline, discontent will grow, and Russia’s stability will be at risk. That is not in Russia’s interests, nor is it in ours. We support the motion as a signal of our condemnation of the impunity for those who disregard human rights in Russia and our condemnation of those who are responsible for Sergei Magnitsky’s death. We urge the Government to continue to press the Russian authorities using all the available channels and all the upcoming opportunities, including through the European Union. It is important to note that the motion sets out steps that go beyond the precedents set by this and previous Governments in acting on such matters. We are less convinced by those points and urge the Government to reflect on how best to exert influence on the Russian Government to encourage them to meet their human rights obligations, including in the Magnitsky case. However, we share and echo the overriding emphasis of the motion. It unites the House in its condemnation of the criminal and brutal acts perpetrated against a brave and committed man. It rightly calls for pressure to be increased on the Russian Government to deal with the case in a fair and just manner, without delay and without equivocation. 5.54 pm The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt): I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and others for raising this important subject and securing the Back-Bench debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) for her remarks. I will listen carefully to Members who speak in the debate. I am conscious that many colleagues wish to speak, so I will try to keep my remarks to 10 minutes or so, but I assure Members that I will stay for the rest of the debate and reflect carefully on the matters raised. I express my profound sympathy, on behalf of the Government and all Members, to the relatives and friends of Sergei Magnitsky. The circumstances of his death are deeply troubling, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton set out. The fact that no one has been held to account for it is a matter of serious concern to the Government, and we raise the issue with the Russian authorities at the highest levels and at frequent intervals. It is important that those responsible are brought to justice, and we urge the authorities to do that. The issue is wider, however. The death of Sergei Magnitsky serves as a stark reminder of the human rights situation in Russia and the questions about the rule of law there. My remarks will cover both the specific and the general. The presidential elections are now behind us. A new Government are coming in, and we shall engage with them with determination to secure justice for Sergei Magnitsky and to address the wider issues at stake. Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): Will the Minister give way?

Sergei Magnitsky

934

Alistair Burt: I want to give way only a couple of times, in order to protect others’ time, but I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman. Chris Bryant: I will be very brief. I just want to know whether the Minister is going to support the motion. Alistair Burt: I ask the hon. Gentleman to listen to my remarks, and then he will understand the position that the Government take. Most Members are familiar with the circumstances of Mr Magnitsky’s death, but I will give the Government’s view. Mr Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer working for Hermitage Capital Management, was arrested in November 2008 and taken into pre-trial detention, where he died nearly a year later. Before his arrest, Mr Magnitsky had been working to uncover an alleged tax fraud against the Russian state by certain law enforcement officials. He had given evidence against a number of Interior Ministry officials accused of tax fraud, and a number of the same individuals are alleged to have become involved in Mr Magnitsky’s investigation and detention. In July 2011 the Russian presidential council on human rights published a report, which found that Mr Magnitsky had been denied medical treatment and beaten while in detention. Both those abuses contributed directly to his death. No one has yet been held to account for his death by the Russian authorities. The Russian investigative committee, which leads the criminal investigation into his death, appears to have made little progress, which we regret. The publication of its findings on Mr Magnitsky’s death has been postponed four times in 2011 and 2012, and the findings are currently due to be issued on 24 April. The lack of progress on the case is deeply troubling for all who care about human rights and about Russia. We raise our concerns about the case with the Russian authorities at all levels, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East suggested we should. The Prime Minister discussed it with President Medvedev during his visit to Moscow in September, and most recently the Minister for Europe raised it with his opposite number Titov in late January. He urged the Russian authorities to complete a swift, thorough and transparent investigation into Mr Magnitsky’s death with no further delay, and that is the position of the UK Government. There is no doubt that the case has wider implications on the rule of law and respect for human rights in Russia. Indeed, that is the premise of today’s debate. Mr Magnitsky’s death in pre-trial detention is not an isolated incident but a fate shared by about 50 to 60 people in Russia every year. The initiative behind the motion speaks to an instinct that we in government, and all of us in Parliament, share—to defend human rights, condemn those who abuse them and tackle a culture of impunity for those who do so, wherever it exists. The Foreign Secretary has always been clear that human rights are at the heart of the Government’s work around the world. As he has said, they are “part of our national DNA and will be woven deeply into the decision-making processes of our foreign policy”.

The motion proposes that the UK should adopt a presumption in favour of travel bans and asset freezes for Russian officials allegedly implicated in Mr Magnitsky’s death. It starts with the Magnitsky case but goes beyond

935

Sergei Magnitsky

7 MARCH 2012

it, envisaging the application of that presumption to individuals charged with similar abuses in other countries. We are aware of the developments in other countries to which the motion refers. A Bill has been introduced to the US Congress, and in the Parliaments of the Netherlands and Canada there have been discussions in support of visa bans against officials allegedly implicated in Mr Magnitsky’s death. However, we are not aware that the Netherlands or Canada has taken action further to the discussions in their respective legislatures. I understand that the US Bill is still being discussed in the Senate. We cannot predict whether it will come into force or what form it might take if and when it becomes law. If Congress passes the Bill and the President approves it, we shall certainly look closely to ascertain whether there are lessons on which we might draw. On travel bans, hon. Members will know that immigration rules enable us to refuse a visa when, for example, information on an individual’s character, conduct or associations makes entry to the UK undesirable. Entering the UK is a privilege, not a right. Equally, asset freezes can be deployed against individuals when those measures would effect meaningful change. The House will also appreciate—here I must repeat words stated by the Government and previous Governments—that the UK has a long-established and globally consistent practice of not commenting routinely on individual cases. The Government and previous Governments have pursued that policy, and it remains our approach. In the cases of Mr Magnitsky and others, we want the Russian Government to ensure that justice is done and measures to be put in place to prevent such cases from happening again. More broadly, the Government remain concerned about the rights afforded to ordinary Russian citizens and have been clear that more should be done to address them. To that end, we have a twin-track approach to human rights in Russia. First, we promote dialogue bilaterally, raising cases at the highest levels. Our annual human rights dialogues with Russian officials give a clear opportunity to voice our concerns and track progress. Secondly, we support non-governmental organisations that are working on those critical issues. For example, we are working with the Russian NGO, Social Partnership Foundation, to address the problem of deaths in pre-trial detention. This financial year, we have spent £1.25 million on projects supporting human rights and democracy. Our work on human rights is wide ranging. Priorities include: better support and protection for human rights defenders; supporting increased monitoring and reporting of human rights abuses, and urging the Russian Government to investigate fully the unresolved murders of journalists and human rights defenders. The low success rate in prosecuting those responsible for the crimes perpetuates the perception of impunity. This week, we were encouraged to hear that President Medvedev has asked for a review of the trial of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. We will follow progress on that with interest. Political rights are an integral part of the picture. As the Foreign Secretary highlighted this week in his statement on the Russian presidential elections, while the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights election

Sergei Magnitsky

936

observation mission gave a positive assessment of voting on election day, it identified problems with counting at some polling stations, unequal campaign conditions and limitations on voter choice. Those issues should not be overlooked. A Russia with greater political freedoms, including the registration of political parties, freedom of assembly and freedom of the media, is in the interests of Russians and the wider world. I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton that the motion is about and for the benefit of Russia, not a criticism of Russia. It is a time of great opportunity for civil society in Russia to help bring about evolutionary change. Civil society has shown its considerable energy in recent months. We will work closely with the Russian authorities and Russian NGOs to encourage developments in a positive direction on human rights in the coming months and years, and we will continue to work at all levels to achieve justice for Sergei Magnitsky. 6.3 pm Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing the debate. It is important that it is on a motion because the Government must decide what they will do. They must decide whether to support it, and thus take the action that it demands of them. Several attempts have been made to try to ensure that the debate never came to pass. The Russian ambassador in London attempted to repress a previous debate, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), a former Minister for Europe, led. I know that the Russian ambassador also tried to ensure that you, Mr Speaker, stopped today’s debate happening. That shows a complete misunderstanding of the political process in this country and the need for democratic and open debate. No ambassador should write to the Speaker of this House to try to prevent a debate. It is perfectly legitimate for us to debate what we choose to debate. Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): This is extremely important. I have already had to intervene on this with Mr Speaker after the Russian embassy put on its website a statement attacking me as a parliamentarian for raising the Magnitsky case. Someone has to talk to this Russian ambassador and tell him crudely to butt out of House of Commons business. Chris Bryant: I had already made that point, but I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend that we will discuss what we want. I very much hope that nothing is put in the way of the all-party group when we go to Russia so that we can meet not only members of the Government, but members of the opposition. There are two basic problems in Russia at the moment, the first of which is the impunity that attends so much criminality. Hon. Members have referred to Anna Politkovskaya, but many other journalists have been murdered. Had journalists been murdered in this country, everybody around the world would have been howling and demanding justice. Similarly, we are unable to get justice for the murder of Mr Litvinenko, because Russia maintains that no extradition is allowed for any Russian citizen. That prevents justice and means impunity for those in Russia.

937

Sergei Magnitsky

7 MARCH 2012

[Chris Bryant] The second problem is the regular, systemic state abuse of the criminal justice system in Russia, which has meant that Mikhail Khodorkovsky has been imprisoned on spurious charges—Amnesty International has declared him and Platon Lebedev as prisoners of conscience. It is right that we pursue such issues to try to ensure that there is a proper criminal justice system in Russia, and one that does not depend on torture. I must confess that the Government’s response tonight is very disappointing. For a start, I did not know that our foreign policy was to wait for the United States of America to make up its mind in its Senate and Congress on what it will do about immigration before we decide what we will do. We should be free to make our own decision, particularly because the one thing many significant Russians in the Putin regime value above all else is the ability to travel to London. London is the place where they like to do their banking and shopping, and where their families like to go for their education, and so on. Ensuring that the people involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky and the corruption he unveiled are unable to come to this country is a vital part of ramming home to the Russian Government that we want better relations with them and that we want to do more business with them, but that we can do so only when human rights are respected and corruption weeded out. Mr Burley: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case. On exactly that point, is not the other advantage of the motion that it will help to counter the impression that is forming among many British people that we are becoming a safe haven for all sorts of Russian crooks and gangsters? Chris Bryant: That cuts both ways, because another problem with how the Russians use the criminal justice system is that they try to extradite many people from this country whom they claim are criminals. One such person is Mr Zakayev, who was accused of murdering a Russian Orthodox priest. The said Russian Orthodox priest stood up in court and gave evidence that he had not been murdered. In all cases thus far in which extradition from the United Kingdom has been sought, the judge has decided that the case has been proceeded with not on the ground of seeking justice, but on purely political grounds. That is something we must deal with. I am certain that the Government are not allowing any of those people in. From all the nudge-nudge, wink-winks I have had—[Interruption.] I got a nod from the Minister just now—[Interruption.] No, he is just brushing his nose. It is clear from other Ministers and from those nudges and winks that the Government have no intention of letting any of those people into this country, but it is now time for them to say so openly. That would make a significant difference. Ministers trot out the line that no Government ever talk about whether people are being refused entry to this country, but that is not true. Alistair Burt: Routinely. Chris Bryant: I am not asking the Minister to do it routinely. I am asking him to do it in this specific set of circumstances, because I think it would be profoundly successful in transforming the views of the Russian regime.

Sergei Magnitsky

938

The Minister’s speech, in effect, was a speech against the motion. [Interruption.] It certainly was not a speech in favour of the motion, and in this House a Member can only make a speech in favour or against a motion, because, in end, we either allow the motion to pass, which means voting for it, or we vote against it. Alistair Burt: To clarify, the Government are not opposing the motion, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Chris Bryant: I am delighted with that. I think, in that case, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton has secured an important victory. However, it is regularly the case now, in these Back-Bench business debates, that the Government allow the motion to pass because they know they would lose the vote, and then do absolutely nothing about what the House has resolved. That brings the House and the Government into disrepute. I hope, therefore, that if the motion is agreed to—it sounds as though it will be, if the Government are supporting it—the Government will take forward everything laid out in the motion. I hope that they will have a timetable for implementing that by the end of the year. Everybody in the House wants to do better business with Russia. Every businessman I have known who has done business in Russia has said that the biggest problem is the financial and political corruption, which makes it difficult for them to do clean business, and no business, especially since the Bribery Act 2010 was passed, wants to do dirty business. I say to Mr Putin that now is a unique opportunity for him to show a change of mind and of tack on human rights and political rights, and it is a unique opportunity for this Government to move forward and ensure that the Russians seize that opportunity. Several hon. Members rose— Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There is great interest in the debate, so to maximise the number of contributors in the short time available, I am afraid that I must impose, with immediate effect, a six-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions. 6.11 pm Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con): May I first reassure the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) that the Russian ambassador knows perfectly well that he will have no influence in the House of Commons? He is anxious that his bosses in Moscow see that he has done everything in his power to make their views known. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on giving the House the opportunity to consider a matter that has already been debated in many other Parliaments around the world. That is much to his credit. This debate is primarily about the personal tragedy of Sergei Magnitsky and his family. Magnitsky was a man of extraordinary courage and integrity, a symbol of the new Russia, both in his life and, sadly, in his death. He was a representative of the new Russia. The people who murdered him were symbols of the old Russia and, in some ways, the old Soviet Union. To a significant degree, in some ways I am more disturbed by what happened to Magnitsky than by what used to happen in the old Soviet Union. The Soviet

939

Sergei Magnitsky

7 MARCH 2012

Union made no pretence of being anything other than a totalitarian state. It had no interest in the rule of law as we understand it. Indeed, on this issue, I suspect that it would have reacted quite differently from Mr Putin and Mr Medvedev. The Politburo would not have tolerated the state theft of $230 million from the Treasury by public officials acting in a criminal fashion. President Medvedev would have us believe that Russia is now a country of the rule of law, but we know very well that in practice that is sadly not the case. Instead of moving towards belief in the rule of law, Russia is moving towards being a society that might very well be tolerating a relationship between the Russian state and organised crime that is deep and serious, and which extends to the highest levels of Russian society. That is a serious accusation to make, but the facts seem to point in that direction. First, as I indicated, this has been no minor act of theft from private individuals, companies or some local department. The theft involved, by public officials, was from the Russian Treasury of $230 million. Of course, scandals happen in other countries. The test is the reaction of the Government to such situations. Not only has no serious effort been made to identify, try and punish those responsible for the theft, but the opposite has happened: the person who exposed the fraud was himself persecuted, and at the end of the day was murdered. That is a very sad situation. Medvedev and Putin have gone through the motions of punishing some minor officials, but instead of praising Magnitsky for what he did, he has been persecuted. I do not necessarily suggest that Mr Putin or President Medvedev were personally involved, but there are only two possible explanations for their failure to respond. The first is that they are impotent to do so. That may be true of Medvedev, but I frankly cannot believe that Mr Putin is anything other than able to have responded, if he had so wished, in the most fundamental way, to identify not only the perpetrators of the crimes against Mr Magnitsky, but the theft from the Russian state. The only other explanation has to be that, for reasons of their own, those at the highest levels of the Russian Government are prepared to tolerate criminality of the most serious kind, because there is a sufficient common interest between those who have political power and those who wield power through organised crime to make doing what they did preferable to taking action of the kind that should have been taken. I do not underestimate the seriousness of what I am saying, but if we could see Magnitsky’s fate as an isolated incident, one might be more charitable about the policy of the current Russian Government. However, as has been said, from the Opposition Front Bench and by others, there are so many cases of flagrant disregard for the rule of law. It is the blatant political interference in the judicial system—which goes way beyond the tragedies of the Magnitsky case—that is important. For some time now, Mr Putin and Mr Medvedev have been alleging that the fate of Khodorkovsky was nothing to do with politics, but entirely to do with his breach of the criminal law. The timing of the decision to review his case could not have been more political, and illustrates that those who were responsible for putting him in prison may now be realising that the reaction that that created throughout the world means it is time to allow him to be released.

Sergei Magnitsky

940

The final thing that I would like to say in this short debate is simply this. By approving the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, we are not only showing solidarity with all those fighting for the rule of law in Russia, which is just as an important as the creation of a pluralist democracy but saying to Mr Magnitsky’s family—we cannot say it directly to Mr Magnitsky himself—that we honour his memory and his achievements, and we are doing what we can to help what he tried to achieve. 6.17 pm Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), because my heart soared when he spoke in Foreign Office questions in January to call for the public naming of the 60 officials associated with Magnitsky’s death. I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this debate on the Floor of the House. Just as my heart soared when I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it sank when I heard the official Foreign Office brief read out at the Dispatch Box this evening. The Minister of State knows that I am a fan of his, but in this case I urge him and the Foreign Secretary to make it clear that they are Ministers with a democratic duty to speak up for the House of Commons, which now wants clear action to be taken. It is nonsense to say that we have not named people banned from coming into this country. We have named Martha Stewart, the cook, for goodness’ sake. We also named George Raft, the actor, and Pablo Neruda, the Chilean Nobel prize laureate. If they were good enough to be named, so too can some of these Russian thugs. I am not proposing a policy of latter day Palmerstonian “advocatus Britannicus sum”, or “Because I am a lawyer representing British interests, I must have some special protection.” I am saying that, as we develop and shape our diplomacy in challenging and difficult times, we have to leave some rusty old tools in the Foreign Office toolbox firmly locked up and sharpen our approach. I am not going to repeat the comments on the nature of the Russian state that have already been well made by other hon. Members. I am not sure that it consists solely of a relationship between politicians and criminals. Russia is not a functioning constitutional, democratic state that observes the rule of law. There is no distinction between political and business life there, or between state employees and those who run enterprises of any sort. Mr Putin is the chief executive officer of an enterprise, and his Russia exists in order to enrich him and those associated with him, going right down through the state machine. This is vertical power, and what happened to Magnitsky was not a sequence of accidents; it was authorised at a very high level. The campaign is important, but where are the British lawyers? In the 1970s, when Russian psychiatrists were abusing their medical professionalism by signing off on dissidents being imprisoned for being mentally disabled, the British and American legal and psychiatric professions rose as one to condemn them and expel them from international associations. Where are the British lawyers today? Why are they not standing up for their fellow solicitor or fellow silk in Russia?

941

Sergei Magnitsky

7 MARCH 2012

[Mr Denis MacShane] We need to look at the broader question of how we deal with Russia. The snow revolution might have petered out on Sunday, but Russians have lost their fear and passivity as they look upon Putin as another long-serving leader. Such leaders exist in western, democratic countries too but, as with Helmut Kohl, Mrs Thatcher and Mr Mubarak, there comes a moment when the fear has gone. I believe that Britain should also lose its fear of speaking up for democracy in action, and take consequent actions. Under the 70 years of sovietised Russia, very few Russians could travel, but during the Yeltsin and Putin years, we have gone back to the pre-1917 tsarist days when the rich of Russia came here, bought villas and were educated at Oxford, and Prince Obolensky scored great tries for England. Now, they are back in town. I have no particular objection to them, but the one thing that they will understand is being told that they no longer have an entry ticket into London. I want to make a tiny party political point. I do wish that the Conservatives would quit their alliance with Putin’s stooges at the Council of Europe. They are there for different reasons, and I am not going to go into any of that now, but it is embarrassing that some of our colleagues and friends sit with the Russians in our main human rights body in Europe, at which the Russians are present and can be held to account. The Russians get a free ride there. I would also like to ask some of our journalists to stop being Putin’s little helpers. If our poor Prime Minister goes for a ride on a horse, it makes the front page of The Times, and everyone mocks him and scorns him and says it is very serious. If Putin pulls on an ice hockey shirt and does a bit of midnight ice hockey, the editor of The Times is there, swooning at the feet of this majestic specimen of manhood. I do not expect the Chelsea football club programme, or The Independent or the Evening Standard, to be tough on Russia, but I think that the rest of our papers could be a bit harder on it. I finish by quoting Anna Politkovskaya. At the end of her book, “A Russian Diary”, published after her murder in 2006, she wrote of Putin: “So far there is no sign of change. The state authorities remain deaf to all warning from the people. They live their own life, their faces permanently twisted by greed and by irritation that anybody should try to prevent them from getting even richer. Our state authorities are only interested in making money. If anyone thinks they can take comfort from the optimistic forecast, let them do so. It is certainly the easier way, but it is also a death sentence for our grandchildren.”

Sergei Magnitsky

942

because he was a principled man who exposed officials as thieves, when a huge amount of money to be paid in tax to the Russian state disappeared overnight. Overnight, those officials, politicians, police officers and tax inspectors suddenly became very rich individuals indeed. That is the simple, tragic background to what we are discussing today, but the ramifications reach far further. A ruling elite has sprung out of the chaos in Russia during the 1990s, and it preaches to the masses nationalism and pride in a powerful Russian state. At the same time, this ruling elite is weakening its own country through corruption, nepotism and greed. That contradiction is not for us in this House to solve. It is not our affair; we have no powers over Russian business. Proud Russian people, furthermore, do not take kindly to foreign interventions into their domestic affairs. The British Council would be able to inform us about that. The British Government and this House, however, have influence over who enters this country and who crosses our borders, and over our domestic affairs, particularly in respect of foreign visitors. We do not have an entirely open border policy for Russian citizens. Indeed, I have been told that the visa regime between the two countries can make for an incredibly tiresome process. On rare occasions, we reserve the right to say to particular citizens of the Russian Federation that they are not welcome in the UK and we can deny them a visa. Is there any greater indication that someone’s presence in the UK is not welcome or desired in this country than the fact that we are dealing with thieves, murderers, torturers and corrupt individuals? Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) said, the fact that these people can just pop into our country to do a bit of Christmas shopping is distasteful in the extreme. At the very least, we need to put some process in place to make sure that they are refused entry at the border. On Sunday, Vladimir Putin was elected President of the Russian Federation for a third term. Mr Putin is known and recognised for his patriotic pride, and the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) spoke about how Putin often displays this in taking off his shirt, attending ice hockey events or throwing in curling events to show us what a big proud man he is. He resents interference in Russian politics from anywhere outside Russia, which makes it ironic that the Russian ambassador thinks that this matter is unique to Russia. These Russians feel that they can interfere in what happens in our politics by trying to prevent this debate from taking place.

6.23 pm

Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Did the Russian ambassador write to you to try to prevent this debate?

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con): I am not a member of the all-party group, and I have never spoken in this place about anything to do with Russia. However, I recently chaired a meeting at which Sergei Magnitsky’s former employer spoke, in detail and with emotion and depth, about Sergei’s life and death. It was impossible not to be moved, which is why I have come to speak in the debate today and to make a case for our Government to support the motion. That man died in the most horrific circumstances and he was the most principled of people. Sergei Magnitsky was killed by corrupt officials

Mr Speaker: I am grateful for that point of order. I hope that the clock will be held so that the time available to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) will not be reduced. I can tell the House that I received a letter from the Russian ambassador, drawing my attention to what he regarded as the errors contained in the motion and the merit of what he thought to be that fact—I emphasise that this was what he thought to be that fact—being communicated to the sponsors of the debate. I replied

943

Sergei Magnitsky

7 MARCH 2012

to the ambassador, noting his letter and underlining to him that he must not expect me, as an impartial Speaker, to comment on the contents of either the letter or the motion. I reminded him of the date of the debate, and indicated that if he wished to communicate his views in writing to the sponsors of the debate, it was open to him to do so. I hope that my meaning was clear—that this House debates what it wants to debate and that if other people wish to send letters, they can send letters, but it is not the responsibility of the Speaker to act as a post person. Nadine Dorries: Mr Putin does not want Russia to be treated any less fairly than any other country in respect of trade, defence or intelligence. That is fair enough, but he cannot expect Russia to be given any special treatment. Criminals—thieves, and those who have committed gross violations of human rights—are not welcome in the United Kingdom, no matter what passport they hold, and such criminals who happened to be British would be pursued to the full extent of the law. Russia is held in deep affection in my office. Culturally, I am in awe of the country. Ilya Repin is one of my favourite artists. He was introduced to me by a master at Winchester college, Paul Thomas, when I went to speak there some years ago, and ever since then we have taken an interest in Russia—perhaps not quite as deep an interest as is taken in a certain Liberal Democrat Member’s office, but a deep interest none the less. However, that does not blind me to the faults of the Russian Government. What greater fault can a Government have than not only failing to protect their citizens, but being the agent through which they suffer, and protecting those criminals instead of the victims? I support the motion wholeheartedly. 6.30 pm Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): I too support the motion, and thank the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) for initiating it. It is surely not a coincidence that the debate is taking place just after the Russian election. Indeed, it could be said to be pertinent, given that claims of corruption and vote-tampering seem to be legion. When I began to research the case of Sergei Magnitsky, I felt as though I was reading a far-fetched conspiracy theory novel by someone like John le Carré. The difference is that this is not fiction but fact. It happened, but as yet it has remained unchecked and unpunished. I am a great believer in the sovereignty of individual countries. I believe that Europe interferes in our judicial system far too often, and it is not often that I would try to make contact with another judicial system, but when the corruption is as blatant as this, and when those involved are as unrepentant as they are, I believe that it is my duty as a Member of Parliament—and, let me respectfully add, the duty of the House as well—to stand up and be counted, and to say, “This is not right”. What happened in the case of Sergei Magnitsky was and is not right. This young man of 37 was simply doing his job when he came across intrigue at the highest levels, and instead of taking a step back, he stood up and paid the ultimate price. The father of two was a hard worker, an intelligent man who believed in truth, and when he uncovered a criminal web as a result of 14 months of solid investigation and was able to

Sergei Magnitsky

944

point, with evidence, to those involved in the theft of $230 million from Russian taxpayers, he made a statement naming those involved. That did not happen by the way; it happened after months of investigation and discussion with many witnesses. The evidence that Sergei had would clearly have put people in jail if it had been heard in a British court, but it did not do so in Russia. Sergei was arrested by the subordinates of those whom he had named as being involved within the police, but refused to back down and retract his allegations. He was imprisoned in a cell with eight inmates and four beds—a cell with no windows in the cold November Moscow winter—and was then moved to cells with no toilets, containing raw sewage. After continuing to refuse to withdraw his allegations, he was moved from prison to prison approximately 10 times. With each move, his property—not that he had much—disappeared, including, on the occasion of his last move, a water boiler that was essential to purify the harmful drinking water. After six months of that mistreatment, Sergei became ill, lost almost 3 stone in weight, and was diagnosed with pancreatitis and gallstones. Both are treatable conditions, and in a British jail he would have lived, but because in the Russian jail it did not suit the authorities for him to get better, he did not. When he again refused to withdraw his complaint, he was denied medical treatment despite 20 formal requests, and was sent to a maximumsecurity prison with no hospital where, after screaming in agony for days, he was eventually moved to solitary confinement, chained to a bed, and beaten to death by eight men on 16 November 2009. I ask Members to think about that date. I remember clearly what I was doing on 16 November 2009. I was doing my former job in the Northern Ireland Assembly, debating child poverty and trying to move Northern Ireland forward, while that young man was being beaten to death for being an honest man and for daring to stand up to those in power. I ask Members, “What were you doing on that date?” They may not recall exactly where they were on 16 November 2009, but I ask the question for a reason. Just as I stood up for children’s rights to live a life without poverty in the Assembly in 2009, today I must stand up in the House of Commons for a man who told the truth. I stand up against those who perpetrated the act, and who, rather than being punished, have been rewarded and promoted. I stand up against those who now seek to continue the torture of Sergei’s family by charging him after his death with the very crimes that his evidence showed others to have committed, and I hope that the House will do the same. I stand here as a proud British man who is not prepared to continue to reward those who perpetrated this act against this young man—and against the people of Russia—and who believes we must take our place on the global stage and condemn what has happened. We must ensure that those involved do not have immunity and will not be free to travel to, or engage in enterprise in, our country, as the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) said. There are times when the world must condemn another country’s decisions. This is one such time. We must condemn Russia’s determined protection of those who were involved in either perpetrating or facilitating the theft of $230 million in taxes and the unjustified imprisonment, torture and eventual murder of Sergei Magnitsky.

945

Sergei Magnitsky

7 MARCH 2012

[Jim Shannon] I fully support the motion and ask that we all uphold the ethics of this young, courageous man who said that he would not allow such things to happen in his country. We must not allow those involved to enter, or benefit in any way from, our country. We must send out the clear message that we will side with the United States, Canada and Holland in standing up for what is right. The British Government must act on behalf of Sergei Magnitsky. 6.35 pm Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): I am glad that we are having this opportunity to discuss this disturbing case, as it is very important that we do so. The death of Sergei Magnitsky in prison, when guilty of no crime, makes us appreciate living in a society where we enjoy rule of law. That he was ever imprisoned in the first place shows that Russia still has a long way to go if it is fully to leave behind the stark inhumanity of the Soviet period and reach the sunlit uplands of being a well-constituted, constitutional state. There has been progress, however, although it has been limited. We should welcome the Russian investigative committee’s acknowledgment that Sergei died because of the conduct of the authorities who imprisoned him, and a criminal case has opened against the two doctors involved. It is disturbing, of course, that there have been delays, and it is ridiculous that Mr Magnitsky is now posthumously back on trial. However, this debate also gives us an opportunity to discuss what is going on in Russia at present. Ever since marrying my half-Russian wife, I have taken a deep interest in Russia. I have no interest to declare, as she is not linked in any way with anyone associated with Putin or the Soviet era. Her family was expelled in 1917, despite donating the Michael palace—or, perhaps, because of that—where my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) can see the Repin masterpieces. I have long been interested in Russia, therefore, which is why I was delighted to be asked by the Council of Europe to go there this week as one of its official observers. I think I am the only Member to have been in Russia this week; I have been there for the past five days. I travelled there full of cynicism about what is going on in Russia, and with concerns about Mr Putin’s party, and I should state at the outset that I do not condone in any way the restriction on the number of candidates or the lack of airtime for Opposition candidates—they had some airtime, but not in prime time. On Sunday, I spent 13 hours visiting polling stations in a rather drab suburb of St Petersburg, and I was impressed. Frankly, there is democracy working there. I was out at the polling stations before dawn, seeing the transparent ballot boxes being opened. The count was operated not by party officials, but by local people, mainly teachers. As far as I could see, it was done properly, according to the rules. I talked, through an interpreter, to many observers from all parties, who were present at all times. I saw the votes being counted. Generally, the atmosphere was good, and I saw no intimidating police presence. I therefore want to rebalance the debate slightly. There has been a lot of Russia-bashing and Putin-bashing so far. I make no defence of the regime, but we must

Sergei Magnitsky

946

bear in mind that in my own lifetime Russia was a terrifying Stalinist dictatorship where people could be shot for expressing their point of view, so let us at least acknowledge that there has been some progress. Even 22 years ago it was a stultifying one-party state. Chris Bryant: So was Spain, but the changes in that country have been much more dramatic and serious. Did the hon. Gentleman not see the reports of people who work for the Russian state being told that if they did not hand over a postal ballot form for somebody else to vote on their behalf, they would lose their jobs? Mr Leigh: Well, we had accreditation and we were allowed to go and see all the absentee voting rolls. In the polling stations I visited, the absentee voting rolls were only about 10% of the total. Even if 10% of them were fraudulent or represented votes made under pressure from others, that could not significantly have affected the result. I am afraid that, whether we like it or not, in the polling station where I saw the count Putin won clearly. That leads to the question we have to ask ourselves: is Putin the bar to liberal pluralist democracy that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) described in his excellent article earlier this week in The Daily Telegraph, or is there some evidence that the reason why he is quite popular in Russia is that not all Russians want pluralist liberal democracy? I make no defence of that point of view; I just ask that question. In his article, my right hon. and learned Friend said that “the only opponents permitted to stand in the election were the Communists and an unelectable oligarch”,

but all the parties represented in the Duma were allowed to stand. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) laughs; I do not pretend that the election was perfect, but progress is being made. We have to acknowledge that there were other candidates. Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): I think the hon. Gentleman is putting too positive a gloss on this. May I remind him of the case of Grigory Yavlinsky, the candidate of the Liberal Democrats’ sister party in Liberal International in Russia, Yabloko? He was simply denied the opportunity to stand by an electoral commission. It was not a fair election. Mr Leigh: I immediately acknowledge that, and I do not condone the exclusion of any candidate from standing or the lack of prime-time airtime for Opposition candidates. I do not pretend it is a perfect democracy, but the House of Commons has to appreciate that this is still an infinitely freer election than has happened in the past in Russia. At least some progress has been made; let us not knock that. There has been talk about the case of Mikhail Khordokovsky. I do not defend the tumbling and the show trial of that oligarch, but we have to remember what happened under Mr Yeltsin’s rule. He sold off the family silver to his friends, cronies and supporters, and there was no limit to the power of the oligarchs under him. I do not defend the trial, but Mr Putin was clearly sending a political message to the Russian people that no oligarch is above the rule of law. Sir Malcolm Rifkind: My hon. Friend might make that argument regarding the first conviction, but what message was Mr Putin sending by bringing Mr Khordokovsky

947

Sergei Magnitsky

7 MARCH 2012

to trial a second time, after he had served his sentence, and having him sentenced to many more years in prison? Mr Leigh: Straight away, I make no defence of that, but we have to appreciate the internal politics going on in Russia. That is all I am trying to do. I do not think we should indulge ourselves, pleasant as it may be, in Putin phobia, which is sometimes nourished in our own commentariat. There are double standards and the democracy is not perfect, but unfortunately many of the Russians to whom I and others have spoken conclude that the west would rather see a Russia that is poor, weak and unstable as long as it subscribes to our notions of liberal democracy—and it is not for us to lecture them—instead of a Russia that is rich, influential and stable. That is primarily what they want. They might not share all our views about liberal democracy, but ordinary Russians whom one can talk to in the street are primarily interested in their pensions and their quality of life, which has improved immeasurably in the past 10 years. I therefore support the moderate tone that the Minister has taken today. We have to have an environment of respect for the Russian Government and we have to encourage dialogue with them rather than continually giving them lectures that, I am afraid, have absolutely no resonance with the Russian people. It is true that Russia is changing too slowly, but at least President Medvedev has attempted to reform the police service and get rid of the Soviet “people’s militia” system, so some progress is being made. The death of Sergei Magnitsky leaves one cold and those guilty of it are thoroughly contemptible. Of course we condemn what is going on, but I think our Government are taking a measured and sensible approach in seeking to prevent any of those people from coming to this country and in not seeking to predetermine the outcome of trials that are taking place in Russia. My hon. Friend the Minister’s attitude in seeking to preserve good relations with an essential trading partner is a balanced and right approach, which I support. Several hon. Members rose— Mr Speaker: Order. With three remaining colleagues wishing to contribute and a short winding-up speech by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) still to come, I am afraid that the time limit must be reduced with immediate effect to four minutes. 6.44 pm Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): Although it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), I rise from the Liberal Democrat Benches of the coalition to support the motion unequivocally. I am pleased that there has been such cross-party unity—from the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). The motion was also signed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). That cross-party unity is important, not least because the UK bears a special responsibility in the case of Sergei Magnitsky. He was working for a British company, Hermitage Capital, and the gentleman who has spearheaded the worldwide campaign for justice, Bill Browder, is a British citizen. Our country therefore

Sergei Magnitsky

948

has an obligation to lead the campaign. The example being set by legislators in the United States, the Netherlands and Canada is one that we should and can follow. The world has changed since the 1970s and the 1980s—the hon. Member for Gainsborough is right about that. Democracy has flourished in Latin America, eastern Europe, the Caucasus, Africa and Asia, and we hope that it will now flourish in the middle east and north Africa, too. Russia has been part of the process. It is undoubtedly a freer country than was the Soviet Union, yet the implication of all the issues we are discussing is that democracy is, if anything, in danger and potentially going in reverse in Russia, in a way that it is not in eastern Europe, Latin America or even Africa. It is right that we are increasingly intolerant of human rights abuses worldwide, whether committed by monsters such as Joseph Kony of the Lord’s Resistance Army in central Africa, or murderous regimes such as that of Bashar al-Assad. Some mechanisms are useful against that kind of leader—for example, the International Criminal Court. In the case of Sergei Magnitsky and cases like it, however, the situation is more complicated. Russia is a country with democratic structures and space for opposition and pluralism; nevertheless, the state and the judicial system are being used as a mechanism for oppression. People are acting with impunity and assuming that they can get away with it indefinitely. We need mechanisms that will target not just the leaders but the accomplices, to discourage people from participating in such activity all the way down the food chain. For that, we need a faster and more effective process than referrals to the ICC. I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda: we should not necessarily be waiting for measures to be implemented in other countries before we recognise that it might be right to act in this country. I accept that there are constraints on what the Minister can tell us, and I absolutely accept his personal commitment to human rights and democracy. He has done extraordinary work to raise those issues even when it was inconvenient to do so, not just with the Russian Government, but with many other Governments worldwide. I certainly give him credit, but it is important that we support the motion and seize our opportunity. It is important, too, that we do not send mixed messages, for example in our suggested reforms to the European Court of Human Rights. There is danger in saying that national Governments can pick and choose which cases go forward. If we do that, it might be possible for Russia to do it too, which in the context of the Magnitsky case would be very dangerous. I am happy to support the motion. I recognise the constraints, but the time has come to speak out and to act. 6.48 pm Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on initiating this important debate. I am happy to support the motion, which I signed along with 40 other Members. Such is the strength of feeling in the House that the debate is a welcome addition to the growing chorus of concern both in this country and internationally about the scandalous case of Sergei Magnitsky. I speak as a

949

Sergei Magnitsky

7 MARCH 2012

[Mr Robert Buckland] fellow lawyer who worked for many years in a free and open legal system, where justice was done and seen to be done. It chills me to the bone to think that a fellow lawyer who was doing his job had to suffer the most appalling indignities and death at the hands of the very authorities he was trying to expose. For those of us who have heard the account of the life and death of Sergei Magnitsky, the sense of shock and outrage never lessens. For those who are hearing the case for the very first time, I would characterise it in this way: an independent lawyer was arrested, imprisoned, ill-treated and killed for blowing the whistle on the massive theft of tax revenue from the Russian state by its own officials. A simple recitation of those facts underlines the seriousness of the case. It is sadly indicative of the state of kleptocracy, plain and simple, into which the Russian state seems to be descending. The Conservative party human rights commission, which I have the honour to chair, heard evidence from Bill Browder and others about the Magnitsky case as part of our ongoing inquiry into the role of professional people in countries around the world with poor human rights records. As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton said, this debate is not just about Russia—it is about freedom itself. The motion is not anti-Russia. Those of us who love Russia and its people, who have visited the country on several occasions both before the end of communism and after, want to see it thrive and march down the road to freedom. At present, though, Russia is sadly far away from that road. That is why the approaches taken in other countries and other legislatures, most notably the United States Senate, are commendable. They point a clear way to concerted international action to deal with the perpetrators of such crimes in a way that affects them most significantly: by limiting their freedom to visit countries such as Britain and by freezing the assets that we know they own internationally. That is not interference in the domestic affairs of another country, but international action designed to express our disapproval, our disgust, at the role of officials in concerted and organised state corruption. It is time for Russia to have its chance to reach freedom. All we are saying today to the Russian state and to those responsible for these crimes is that they should turn away from oppression and corruption, acknowledge the sins of the past, deal with them properly and join the free world in the fullest sense. 6.52 pm Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con): Sergei Magnitsky was born on 8 April 1972 and died on 16 November 2009, so he would have been younger than two of my children. On 4 June 2007, Colonel Kuznetsov went with other people to take documents from Hermitage’s offices. On 24 December there was an application for a refund of capital taxes, which was approved in 24 hours. That was the stealing of the $230 million. The best description of what happened is on the website http://russianuntouchables.com/eng/. The Wikipedia article on Sergei Magnitsky is also pretty good. We have talked a little about the Cardin list, on which Benjamin Cardin, a senator for Maryland, lists 60 people who have been

Sergei Magnitsky

950

involved in the Magnitsky case. Two have been prosecuted. Of the lawyers who have been trying to help the investigation, one has been killed and five have been exiled. A colonel was put in charge of the investigation when complaints were made. It seems incredible that the head of tax office No. 28 in Moscow ends up with millions of dollars abroad when she and her husband together were earning about $38,000 a year. The colonel, who officially earns the equivalent of $10,000 a year, has more than £1 million in property in various countries. I could go on, but the point is better made by reference to the full 75 pages of documentary evidence. There have been 3,500 articles in the Russian media on the case. It is not a question of only the west being interested; people in Russia are, too. Within about a month of the tragic death of Sergei Magnitsky, the Moscow public oversight commission reported on 28 December 2009 what it thought had happened, but two years later, the Moscow authorities have not reacted. A Russian investigative committee has extended its term nine times and has still not reported. My view is that Russia has a chance to recognise what it got wrong. Stealing $230 million was one crime, but arresting, maltreating and then murdering Sergei Magnitsky was a second, and then there was the cover-up. I pay tribute to the Russians for allowing many other Russians to find out much of what has happened, and the documentary trail is listed in the russian-untouchables list. Then there is the official position of the Russian Government. I believe that the former President understood that things had gone dramatically wrong, and the current President might understand that as well. I call on both to say what they will now do to give justice in Russia to a Russian, and give hope to those who work with them. Russia will either get worse or get better, and I hope that this debate will be part of helping it get better. 6.55 pm Mr Raab: I rise for a second time to wind up this timely debate, in which we have heard 12 powerful speeches from right hon. and hon. Members both sides of the House. The shadow Europe Minister, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), raised the wider human rights situation in Russia. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) spoke of the state abuse of the Russian justice system. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) talked powerfully about the deep link between the Russian Government at the highest levels and organised crime. The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) called for sharper diplomatic tools to address the situation and create some accountability. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) talked about the damage corruption is doing to Russia itself. We heard other powerful and eloquent speeches, for example from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), who talked about his recent experience of monitoring elections, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), and my hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) and for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). I thank the Minister for his welcome update on the Sergei Magnitsky case and what the British Government are doing about it. I am delighted that they share the

951

Sergei Magnitsky

952

7 MARCH 2012

instincts that underpin the motion and are shared by so many of its sponsors. I understand that it might be tempting to wait and see what happens with the US Bill as it goes through the Senate, but I hope that the debate might spur the Government to take a lead. I hope that the Minister will heed the will of the House and consider the legislative proposals that have been talked about in the context of the forthcoming Queen’s Speech, so that we can take a stand against the henchmen of tyrants and despots and deny them the privilege of setting foot on British soil or buying up British property, as we would a terrorist or gangster. I commend the motion to the House. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House notes the passage of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Bill through the United States Senate, the Bill to condemn corruption and impunity in Russia in the case and death of Sergei Magnitsky in the House of Commons in Canada, the approval of the resolution of the Dutch Parliament concerning Sergei Magnitsky dated 29 June 2011, and paragraphs I and 20 to 21 of the resolution of the European Parliament of 14 December 2011 on the EU-Russia Summit; and calls on the Government to bring forward equivalent legislative proposals providing for a presumption in favour of asset freezes and travel bans for officials of the Russian state and other countries, wherever the appropriate UK authorities have collected or received evidence that establishes that such officials: (a) were involved in the detention, physical abuse or death of Sergei Magnitsky; (b) participated in efforts to conceal the legal liability for the detention, abuse or death of Sergei Magnitsky; (c) committed the frauds discovered by Sergei Magnitsky; or (d) are responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture or other gross violations of human rights committed in Russia or any other country against any individual seeking to obtain, exercise, defend or promote basic and internationally recognised human rights, including those set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.

Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the debate you kindly answered a question about a communication from the Russian ambassador. If you feel that it would be suitable to invite the ambassador to a reception, many of us would like to come and listen to what he has to say about the matter we have just discussed. Mr Speaker: It is very good of the hon. Gentleman, and very helpful, to seek to arrange my extra-Chamber calendar in the way he proposes, but I will reflect and digest— The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith): Speak for foreign policy, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker: If the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions put that proposition to the House, I think that it would be divisible and there would be a Division. I note what the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has said. As he knows, there is no secret about the communication from the ambassador to me or my reply. On account of the notable succinctness of the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) in winding up the debate, we are in a position to come to the statement at 6.59 pm, rather than the advertised time of 7 o’clock.

Employment Support 6.59 pm The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller): With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the reform of specialist disability employment support. Today, the Government have published a Command Paper, setting out our plans for specialist disability employment support and summarising our responses to the Sayce review. Let me make one thing clear: these are difficult decisions, but the current system is not working for disabled people. Employment rates for disabled people remain almost 30% below those of non-disabled people. Exclusion from the labour market leads to exclusion from society at large, and I do not think that anybody in the House wants to see that happen. That is why, back in 2010, we asked Liz Sayce to conduct a review of how we might make specialist employment support for disabled people work better. The review was detailed and comprehensive, and it took views from disabled people, disabled people’s organisations and many hon. Members in the House today. Today, the Government have published their response to that report, outlining how we intend to reform specialist disability support for the future. It includes putting £15 million more into Access to Work, a scheme that has been proven to be extremely successful in supporting disabled people into mainstream employment. I have agreed that the funding for residential training colleges should be extended until the end of the academic year 2012-13, something that I know many hon. Members present will support as well. That will allow those colleges time to determine and to implement future change. They provide support into employment which is clearly valued, although costly, and we need to take further time to consider the options for the future. We have also taken a difficult but important decision on the future of Remploy. The responses to the consultation on the Sayce review strongly endorsed the idea that money to support disabled people into employment should follow individuals, not institutions, and that Remploy factories should be set free from Government control. The responses also supported the view that Government-funded, segregated employment is not consistent with the objective of disability equality, which is at the heart of what this Government stand for. We know that roughly 2,200 disabled people are supported by Remploy’s enterprise businesses, at a cost each year of about one fifth of the total budget for specialist disability employment programmes. Despite significant investment in those businesses, the cost of each employment place remains some £25,000 per year, compared with an average Access to Work award of just under £3,000. The current system is not using the money that we have available most effectively, and in these difficult economic times we have to look at that very carefully. The current situation is not sustainable, and it is simply not working for the majority of the 7 million disabled people who live in all our constituencies throughout the country. If money is spent more effectively, up to 8,000 more unemployed disabled people could be supported into mainstream employment, something I am sure the House

953

Employment Support

7 MARCH 2012

[Maria Miller] will agree is the right approach. That is why I have decided to accept and implement the Sayce review recommendations on Remploy. That will be done in two stages. In stage 1, the Government will reduce their current subsidy to Remploy from the beginning of the new financial year, so that we cease funding factories that make significant losses year after year and restrict funding to those factories that might have a prospect of a viable future without a Government subsidy. Remploy’s board was asked to consider the impact of the decision before it was made, and as a result of the decision to reduce current funding the board is proposing— subject to important consultation with staff and unions—to close by the end of this year the 36 factory sites that it considers unlikely to be able to achieve independent financial viability. Remploy will shortly begin collective consultation with its trade unions and the management forums on the proposed closure of those factories, and on the potential compulsory redundancy of 1,518 disabled people at those sites and those associated with them. In stage 2, the Department for Work and Pensions will work with the Remploy board to identify whether these potentially viable Remploy businesses can be freed from Government control, including by employee-led commercial exit or open-market sales, and how this might be achieved. I recognise that this announcement will be difficult news for the staff in Remploy factories and understand that they have will have concerns about the future. As part of collective consultation, the Remploy board will consider all proposals to avoid compulsory redundancy. Moreover, we are absolutely committed to supporting Remploy employees with an £8 million comprehensive personalised package of support for all those who are affected by these proposals. Any disabled member of staff who is made redundant will receive an individual offer of up to 18 months’ help with the transition from Government-funded sheltered employment to mainstream employment. This support will include access to a personal budget—on average, £2,500—to aid that transition. We will also be working with employers and the Employers’ Forum on Disability to look to offer targeted work opportunities for all displaced staff. We will establish a community support fund to provide grants to local disability organisations to support Remploy employees in making the transition from sheltered employment to mainstream employment. This decision commands the support of disabled people’s organisations and disabled people themselves. It is also a decision that I would have thought the Opposition wanted to support, because back in 2007 the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) said of Remploy: “the reality is that it is simply not viable.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 449.]

We, as a Government, have taken forward his plan and have come to a natural point that he, too, would have come to in this process. The Government’s commitment is to support many more thousands of disabled people into work, and the changes that I am announcing today will enable us to do exactly that. I believe that this strategy better fits the

Employment Support

954

needs and aspirations of disabled people in the 21st century, and a more equal world where disabled people participate fully in the mainstream, not in Government-funded segregated jobs. Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab): I thank the Minister for her statement, but frankly it was a statement that she obviously did not want to give to this House in person. Let me give this advice to the Minister and to Government Members: even if the situation is difficult, it behoves a Minister to come to this House to explain it. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. These exchanges have already been too noisy. The House must calm down. We cannot have a situation in which people trade insults across the Chamber, shouting out “Where is this one or that one?” Let us just cool the temperature and have a decent exchange. The House knows that I will want to facilitate such an exchange. Mrs McGuire: It is fair to say that Remploy is not an ordinary organisation; it is one that has been part of Government’s provision for disabled people since the second world war. We all recognise, in all parts of the House, that it has had to adapt to changing conditions over the years, but there is no point in the Minister trying to hide behind the statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain). My right hon. Friend came to this House and answered questions in this House, and he made some of the difficult decisions that we hoped would set Remploy on the road to success. Recently, however, there has been only one debate in this House on the future of Remploy, and that was held, thanks to the courtesy of the Backbench Business Committee, in Westminster Hall on 15 December. Today, the Government have tried to abrogate their responsibility as the custodian of the Remploy legacy and as the ultimate employer of the 1,752 people who today found out by written statement, or in some cases from telephone calls from Members of Parliament, that they will no longer be in a job in three months’ time. Nobody in this House disagrees with the Minister when she says that disabled people want to have a choice about where they work. Nobody argues that such opportunities have not opened up over the past few years for many disabled people. However, many of the opportunities have been offered by organisations such as Remploy that give disabled people a real job in the jobs market. It was clear even from the Sayce review that the best factories offer job satisfaction, a supportive and accessible environment, and a reasonable income for their employees. I will not run away from the fact that my Government, and I as a Minister, had to wrestle with the issues relating to Remploy. We cannot rewrite history. However, our position on disabled people in 2007 was astonishingly different from what the Minister has put before us today. If she truly believes in co-production, why was there no co-production with the trade unions, the disabled people who work in Remploy and the Remploy board over the past few months? I have the greatest admiration for Liz Sayce and for some of the work that she has done, but to put forward a closure programme that will potentially put 1,700 on the dole on the basis of a report by an individual is not acceptable.

955

Employment Support

7 MARCH 2012

We must recognise the legitimacy of the position of the mainstream of the disability movement, which is that it does not like supported factories or Remploy. However, that does not mean that it is wrong to support people in these factories. Perhaps the mainstream needs to recognise that Remploy offers a real job in a supported environment. I will put some questions to the Minister before you call me to order, Mr Speaker. In opposition, the Conservative party supported the five-year modernisation plan, so why did the Minister embark on a review nearly two years before that timetable had been exhausted? Why are the Government pulling the funding from the next financial year, which leaves a period of only a few days? Was warning given to the Remploy board before the last couple of weeks that it would have to manage this speed of change and a massive redundancy programme over the next few weeks? When the modernisation statement was made to the House in 2007, the now Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling)—[Interruption.] Please do not laugh if I pronounce “Ewell” wrong. I do not know how it is pronounced. He said at that time: “Let me assure Remploy and its employees that the next Conservative Government will continue the process of identifying additional potential procurement opportunities for them and the public sector work force.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 451.]

What has the Minister done, now that the Conservative party is in office, to ensure that her ministerial colleagues fulfil that promise? What discussions has she had with the major procurement Departments, including the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence? Did she looked at the procurement opportunities that her Department could have offered to Remploy? What discussions has she had with her colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to encourage local authorities to consider opening up opportunities for their local factories? What efforts has she made to encourage her colleagues to identify procurement opportunities under article 19? Given the Minister’s intention to embark on this course of action, how did she involve the board of Remploy and the trade unions in the discussions about the issues identified in the Sayce report? I am not talking about their responses to the consultation, but about what real co-production she was involved in. What recognition did she give to the trade union analysis of the current operation of Remploy’s enterprises and the questions that it raised about the company’s business practices? There is a feeling around the House that the consultation was flawed from the beginning because the Minister said that she was “minded to accept the recommendations of the Sayce review”.

A Government cannot start a consultation if they have already said they are minded to accept the recommendations. By how much will the Minister reduce the subsidy to Remploy in the next financial year and the one after? She highlighted the fact that there may be options for the so-called stage 2 factories. What will those options be, and what criteria will she lay down for the transfer of any business and its associated assets to the open market?

Employment Support

956

The Minister says that the support that she will give to disabled people who are made redundant will last for up to 18 months and potentially be a personalised budget of £2,500. How is that £2,500 expected to meet the needs of many of the people in Remploy? Where will the jobs come from? At the factory in Ashington, 35 people are chasing each job, and in Acton— Mr Speaker: Order. I say to the shadow Minister that I know these are extremely important matters, but I feel sure that she is bringing her questions to a close. In fact, I am certain that she is in her last sentence. Mrs McGuire: I am indeed, Mr Speaker. I finish by saying to the Minister that in each constituency where there are factories at which redundancies will be made, there are tens of people chasing every job. She made a point about the increase in Access to Work, but that scheme requires jobs. Tonight, 1,700 people do not know whether they will have one in three months’ time. Maria Miller: I am very happy to have come to the House today to discuss our proposals. [Interruption.] Communication is very important on this matter, and many Members have had many conversations with me about Remploy over the past two years. I have already laid a written statement and met many of the MPs affected. Indeed, I have spoken to the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has spoken to the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who is not in his place. We take staff communications very seriously indeed on a matter such as this. It is not right for the right hon. Member for Stirling to call into question the way in which it has been managed, because my colleagues at Remploy have put great effort into ensuring that disabled people employed by Remploy are well aware of today’s process. Indeed, we have worked closely together throughout the consultation process. As I have said, there were 1,400 submissions, including from disabled people, Opposition Members and staff at Remploy factories. Most important of all, this Government decided when we came to office to take forward the modernisation plan that Labour Members had put in place. In these very difficult economic times, we could have taken a different decision, but we chose not to. We chose to stick with that plan and see how things progressed. I am afraid that in year four of the modernisation plan, it is clear that the objectives that Labour set out were simply not going to come to fruition and were not realistic. I think some Opposition Members will know that. The right hon. Lady asked a number of questions, some of which I believe I may have answered in my statement, but I want to ensure that I have covered every point she made. The Remploy board has been fully informed of all the procedures that we have gone through and all the decisions that have been made, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has spoken to his Opposition counterpart to ensure that he was well informed in advance of today. We ensured that the procurement commitments that Labour put in place were taken forward. In fact, we have been working with Remploy for the past two years to attempt to make the modernisation plan work, but we are where we are and these difficult decisions now needed to be taken.

957

Employment Support

7 MARCH 2012

[Maria Miller] There has been a great deal of discussion by Opposition Members about the number of jobs that are available to disabled people. I should like to put it on record that the employment services arm of Remploy has done a magnificent job of helping disabled people into work. I believe that many hon. Members will agree with that. Indeed, last year, Remploy’s employment services arm supported 20,000 disabled people throughout the country into work, with 2,000 individuals with disabilities in Wales and another 2,000 in Scotland helped into work. Those jobs are available if individuals can get the support and training to access them. The decisions are not easy, but we are continuing a policy that the previous Administration started. When we came into government, we confirmed that we would continue that plan. The truth is that the Opposition would have had to make those decisions themselves. We enlisted the help of experts to try to ensure that our decisions were right. Liz Sayce, in her role in Radar, brings to the matter an expertise that many hon. Members will acknowledge. Today, we are taking forward her recommendations, and I am afraid that I cannot understand the tone or the nature of the right hon. Lady’s remarks. Labour Members should remember that many factories were closed on their watch, and perhaps they did not make the right decisions then. They would have had to face the same choices. Today’s discussion is not about money because, as Opposition Members know, the money and support for specialist disability employment is protected under the Government—£320 million plus an extra £15 million to ensure that the changes that we are making today will result in more disabled people in work, with more money to support them to do that. Several hon. Members rose— Mr Speaker: Order. There is much interest and I am keen to accommodate it, but brevity is of the essence. Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con): I welcome the extra £15 million that the Under-Secretary has announced today for helping disabled people. Does she agree that we are likely to secure better value for money for that extra funding, and we will be able to help more disabled people, if it goes to individuals rather than institutions?

Employment Support

958

Maria Miller: The hon. Lady makes an important point. It is important that factories have work to do. All too often in the past, factories have not had enough to do. Indeed, in the very recent past, half of Remploy employees in factories have had nothing to do. I do not find that acceptable, but if there are opportunities to avoid redundancies, we will work with hon. Members of all parties to do that. Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD): I thank the UnderSecretary for her statement and the Opposition spokesperson for her response. The decision is difficult but I believe that it is right. The Under-Secretary knows my views—I have worked in this area for many years. I would like to get a couple of commitments in the House. Will every penny saved remain in the area to help many more thousands of disabled people into work? I do not want it to be a cost-cutting exercise. Secondly, if the Under-Secretary cannot do so this evening, will she bring to the House later some detail about the exact programme over the 18 months to ensure that people from Remploy move into employment? Maria Miller: I can reassure my hon. Friend that every penny that is saved in the programme will be reinvested in supporting disabled people. Indeed, we will spend £15 million more as a result of the real, clear need to ensure that we have sufficient support in place. I can also reassure him that we already have the detailed programme of support for Remploy employees who are affected by today’s announcements. Several Opposition Members attended a meeting that I held earlier to ensure that people have the information to hand. I will continue to hold meetings with hon. Members to ensure that everybody is aware of the support that is in place. Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab): Seventeen hundred people will lose their jobs as a result of this statement, including 1,500 disabled people. The Minister’s case rests on the argument that there are better ways to help disabled people into work than through Remploy. Will she therefore guarantee to come to the House six months after the closures have taken place and detail exactly how many of the 1,500 disabled people who will lose their jobs have gained alternative employment?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is right. In this day and age, we need to recognise that disabled people want to live independent lives. We are committed to that as a Government. To do that, we need to help more disabled people into work and we are more likely to achieve that if we can ensure that that money is used most effectively. The proposals that we are discussing will help an extra 8,000 disabled people into work.

Maria Miller: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to ensure that we know what happens to individuals who are affected by the measures announced today. Unfortunately, under the previous Administration, no such tracking was put in place. That was a mistake, and one that this Government will not be repeating. I hope that he is not advocating our retaining segregated employment, but I can absolutely undertake to him that we will monitor and keep track of these measures, because we want to ensure that as many people as possible can enter employment.

Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): As the Under-Secretary knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) has been very successful in getting public bodies locally to buy furniture from the Swansea Remploy factory. Now that that factory’s order books are full, will she look again at its potential to be cost effective and drop her plans to close it?

Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con): I equally support the view that money should follow people and not institutions. As a past employer of excellent disabled people, I found that the support to help them to find us was variable to say the least. What can the Government do to improve that support to establish and build on those connections?

959

Employment Support

7 MARCH 2012

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that employers have a vital role to play. All hon. Members will know that there is a great deal more work to do to help employers to understand the very valuable contribution that disabled people bring to the workplace. I am working hard with many disabled people and disabled people’s organisations. Through our new disability strategy, we will ensure that we continue to work with employers to ensure that they see the advantages of employing disabled people, and through our additional support for Access to Work there will be tangible financial support. Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC): So the Minister’s big idea for getting people who are disabled back into work is to start by giving them the sack. There are three factors in Wales being hit hard: seven of the nine Remploy factories in Wales will close; 272 of the 752 employees are in Wales; and jobs are being lost in communities that already face mass worklessness, such as Merthyr Tydfil, Aberdare and Abertillery. What consideration did the Minister give to human costs before making her announcement, or was her only thought the cold logic of the balance sheet? Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to me earlier, because we are talking about supporting more disabled people into employment. As a result of the announcements we have made today, 8,000 more disabled people can seek the support that will make the difference between them being able to get into work and facing a lifetime on benefits. Disabled people in this country should not face a choice between a lifetime on benefits and a job in a segregated factory. They deserve to be able to work for employers such as BT, Royal Mail, Sainsbury and Marks & Spencer, all of which are actively working with Remploy employment services to get people—not only in Wales, but throughout the country—into employment. Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): We would all like to see more disabled in mainstream employment, but does the Minister accept that some people who work in Remploy factories will not be able to hold down a job in mainstream employment for the longer term? Given that so many people without a disability who are more than capable of working shy away from doing so, should we not do everything we can to support people who could sit at home on disability but who want to go out to work for their own dignity? No fair-minded person questions my hon. Friend’s commitment to improve the lot of people with disabilities, but will she ensure that none of those people from Remploy factories who wants to earn an honest day’s pay will be left behind by her changes? Maria Miller: My hon. Friend and I have spoken about this before. I do not think that we should sell disabled people short. Many disabled people working in Remploy employment factories have excellent skills. I want to ensure that they have the support and opportunity to have the sorts of jobs that I know most disabled people want in their lives. Independent living, not segregation or inequality, is at the heart of the Government’s approach. Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): Does this statement not sum up this heartless Government inhabiting millionaires’road? They are sacking hundreds and hundreds

Employment Support

960

of disabled workers in areas of high unemployment. Some of them, in areas such as mine, previously made redundant by Remploy, still have not got jobs. It is time that this Government and their accomplices, these tinpot Liberals, understood that this is the most heartless thing that they have done since they came to power. It is time they went. Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): You’re a disgrace to this House. Hon. Members: Order, order. Mr Speaker: Order. Members can have their opinions. Let us cool it and hear the Minister’s answer. I say that to no particular individual but to the whole House. Let us hear the Minister. Maria Miller: I suppose that I should remind the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) that he supported a Government who closed 28 factories. What is inexcusable is that his Government did absolutely nothing on tracking to establish how to put in place the right support for individuals affected by their decisions. The simple truth is that as a result of the Labour party’s approach, the factories have lost £225 million since 2008. That is money that we should have been using to support more disabled people into work, and that is at the heart of our proposals today. Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con): I commend Waitrose in my constituency for its structured programme of employment opportunities for people with disabilities. I also commend my hon. Friend for taking this difficult decision to make the money go further. Will she say a little about the responses from the disability organisations about how to help more disabled people into mainstream employment? Maria Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is absolutely right: we have to make the money go further and, in these difficult economic times, ensure that the money is being used most effectively. Our consultation on the future of disability employment support received widespread—indeed, almost universal— support from disability organisations. Mind told us: “We agree that Remploy should be radically reformed, with high quality support for everyone affected”.

Disability Rights UK said: “We appreciate that the Sayce review has caused some concern… However, we believe segregated employment for disabled people is unacceptable.”

The simple truth is that the Labour party is out of step with the majority of the disability world. I urge it to consider more closely its response to the statement. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab): I hope that the Minister, as she faces me, feels a little embarrassed for completely misleading me earlier this week. I, in turn, misled people in my factory, and I hope that she apologises for that. I am afraid, once again, that this is the nasty party at work. It has never changed. It has not changed in the 28 years that I have been in the House. It is an absolute disgrace.

961

Employment Support

7 MARCH 2012

Mr Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies, I seek confirmation from the right hon. Lady that she was not suggesting the Minister misled her here in the Chamber. Ann Clwyd indicated assent. Mr Speaker: No. We are grateful for that confirmation. The Minister will have heard the question, and she can answer. Maria Miller: And I can say to you, Mr Speaker, that I would never want to mislead the right hon. Lady at all, here or in any other place. I would gently bring to her attention the fact that there are 37 disabled people employed in the Aberdare factory. The loss at that factory last year was £800,000, and that is against an estimated 13,600 disabled people in Cynon Valley who are of working age. Does she not believe that we should be doing more to support those individuals? The proposals in today’s statement will do just that. Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con): May I thank the Minister for her conversations with me in recent months, as she has come to this difficult but, I believe, correct decision today? Many people at the Alder Hills site in my constituency and their families will be worried tonight, but that worry will not be allayed by the invective in the two contributions that we have just heard from the Opposition. Will the Minister say what more we might do to seek the advice of disabled people, so that as they try to access mainstream employment, we can learn from their bad experiences in the past of trying to do that? Maria Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, and I think he is right that many vulnerable groups and individuals who are listening to this debate will be taking close note of who is trying to offer the support that is needed, and we on the Government Benches want that to be constructive support. He will be aware that we are putting in place a budget of some £8 million, half of which will be used directly for personal support budgets for individuals, both in his constituency and elsewhere—some £2,500 a head. I want that to give every individual who is affected the proper support, so that we do not have a repeat, perhaps, of some of the problems of the past to which Opposition Members have referred. Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): The Minister has repeatedly refused to give information to Members of Parliament about the viability of individual factories. She is now giving them at the Dispatch Box—she gave them to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). That is a very deficient approach. Today, Liz Sayce said: “I think it is really important that those factories should be given a chance to show if they can be viable”.

Will the Minister now—finally, on the day that she has announced its closure—give to me the figures about the viability of the Wrexham factory? Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman will be able to have sight of the report that we have put together, which looked at the whole network to see which factories we could put into a financially sustainable position. Again, however, I would gently remind him that the Wrexham factory in his constituency supports 41 disabled individuals,

Employment Support

962

at a cost of £900,000 last year, against an estimated total of 7,400 disabled people in the Rhondda who are of working age. Does he not want to do more to support—[Interruption.] My apologies, Mr Speaker: in Wrexham—the Rhondda is in the south; Wrexham is in the north. Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD): I have to say that once again I find myself in disagreement with my coalition colleagues on this matter. Can the Minister give an assurance that those companies that are not—[Interruption.] I have to apologise, Mr Speaker: that was a call from the Remploy factory. Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be sufficient help to enable—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. I think we should hear the voice of Portsmouth. Mr Hancock: May I seek an assurance from the Minister that those factories that are happily not up for closure at present will be given all sorts of assistance? I would also like her to give an indication, if she can this evening, of what help will be given to those Remploy operations to stay in business. Does she also accept that some people employed by Remploy—many in my constituency have been there for 10 or 15 years—will find it difficult to find other employment? Maria Miller: I am very happy to give my hon. Friend an undertaking that we will want to work together with individuals in factories that are in wave 2 of the process, because we want to find ways for those organisations to succeed. However, he should be aware that we are indeed able to support disabled people into employment, through the employment services programme, so although he rightly says that it can be difficult for people to make that transition, it is not impossible. With the right support, people can move from segregated factories into mainstream employment. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): The Minister referred to the £2,500 of transitional funding for the workers, and I note that that is an average figure. If it is to make up the difference between benefits and the wages that the workers would have earned, it will last about six months. If they are still unemployed after that time, will there be further transitional assistance? If not, some of those families will plummet into poverty. Maria Miller: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the money I am talking about will be on top of the quite significant provision that we make for redundancy in the process. Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): Local authorities in the former Humberside region struggled with a similar problem to that of Remploy involving B-line. In 2007, the then Labour council in North Lincolnshire decided to close B-line down. Since then, there have been far too many people with disabilities presenting to MPs and councils in the area and requiring support. What can my hon. Friend say to those people who will be affected by today’s decision? Specifically, will she assure me and the House that social enterprises will be engaged to help the individuals affected, and that there will be a guarantee that every worker affected will get the maximum support, rather than just the average sum?

963

Employment Support

7 MARCH 2012

Maria Miller: I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that the individuals who are affected by these announcements will receive unprecedented levels of support from the £8 million package. We want to ensure that each individual is given the kind of personalised package of support that they have not received in the past, to enable them to make the transition from segregated employment to mainstream employment. We want to do as much as we can to improve the opportunities for more disabled people to live independent lives. Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/ Co-op): If the Minister has read the responses to the consultation, she will be aware that, following the last round of voluntary redundancies, a large number of people were still not in work 18 months later. Why does she think it is going to be different this time, when she is proposing compulsory redundancies at a time that she has acknowledged to be one of economic difficulty? Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman might not have heard me say earlier that, in the last major round of redundancies, which took place under the Labour Government in 2008, no process was put in place to track the progress of individuals who were offered support. Indeed, we found that some 40% of the individuals involved took retirement or early retirement. I want to ensure that people have the right support, and that they can see that there is an opportunity to move forward. Now, more than ever, it is important that we get this right. The last Government ducked these decisions; they did not take the difficult decisions and they did nothing to ensure that disabled people could get the job opportunities that they needed. Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con): The Minister rightly recognises the success of residential training colleges such as the Royal National Institute of Blind People college in my constituency. Will she reassure me and other Members who have such colleges in their constituencies that departmental officials will make themselves fully available to the colleges as they explore alternative ways of working and being funded? Maria Miller: My hon. Friend and I have had many conversations about the importance of the college in her constituency. The simple fact is that residential training colleges up and down the country provide important specialist support for disabled people to get into employment. I have already given a clear undertaking that we are going to provide funding for those residential training colleges through to the end of the 2012-13 academic year. Indeed, my officials are already meeting the heads of those colleges to ensure that we have a clear plan for retaining that expertise in the new funding environment. Several hon. Members rose— Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. There are still a lot of Members wanting to get in. We therefore want short questions and short answers. Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab): No one will be surprised to hear that the workers in my local factory were devastated by today’s news. They feel particularly angry because for the past two years, the

Employment Support

964

management and the work force have been working together to try to develop a social enterprise that would include not only the Remploy workers but other voluntary organisations around the city. They have gone a long way down the road to achieving that, but there is now huge uncertainty. My reading of the literature that has been produced today is that the factories are to be closed, which means that— Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I will say it loudly this time: we want short questions, please, not speeches. Mr Doran, a question—now! Mr Doran: I would love to make a speech, but I am trying to avoid one. The future of the factory is crucial. There is a possibility of saving jobs in Aberdeen, so will the Minister confirm what will happen to the factories? Maria Miller: We are going into a 90-day consultation on phase 1 factories. If individuals want to come forward because they feel that there are opportunities to reduce the level of redundancies, Remploy would obviously be pleased to look at them. Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con): What conversations is my hon. Friend having with employers about increasing employment opportunities for disabled people? Maria Miller: I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that we have had extensive conversations with the Employers Forum on Disabilities, which is going to work closely with us on the employment support package that we are putting together for the individuals affected, particularly making sure that, through its first shot scheme, disabled people can get those interviews and get in front of employers, which can be so important in securing jobs. Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab): Nobody would deny that mainstream employment is important for people with disabilities, but some people who are employed in Remploy factories are there because they cannot secure mainstream employment. Will the Minister give the House a commitment today that at the end of the 18-month period, she will produce a report showing the individual destinations of people in employment and, if she proceeds with this closure programme, what percentage of them have jobs? Maria Miller: Again, the right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that unlike the previous Government, we will track the destinations of the people affected today. I do not doubt his very real and important concern, but disabled people really have the capability of working in mainstream employment, and I think it is our responsibility to make sure that we give them the skills and support to be able to do that. Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Given that many of these employees will enjoy a lot of camaraderie and community, as well as jobs, will my hon. Friend confirm that the mentoring and support offered will be beyond what is currently offered to them? Will she also confirm that local charities and local organisations will work closely with these employees so that they can be involved in the community?

965

Employment Support

7 MARCH 2012

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the community aspect of Remploy is important. It is something that all who are involved with Remploy understand. That is why I have allocated £1.5 million to a community budget to make sure that the broader benefits of Remploy are taken into account so that that support is there not just for employees, but for their families and the broader community, too. Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab): Is it not shameful that the workers in the Remploy factory in Wishaw did not even know that they were losing their jobs until I phoned the factory this afternoon? In Motherwell and Wishaw, there are 21 people going for every single job application, so what will happen to those Remploy people who do not get a job in the next 18 months? Maria Miller: Communication is vital. The hon. Gentleman has to understand that this is part of a 12-month process. We have been in consultation, and 1,400 people contributed to it. It is well known that we have been in this process. Today, Remploy management took a great deal of time to make sure that that communication process continued. I challenge him to look at some of the facts and figures for his own region—to look, for example, at the number of disabled people who are getting into employment. That is something that we believe should be available for Remploy employees as well. Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con): Everyone in the House will empathise with the people who are at risk of losing their jobs tonight; there is no question about that. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the support these people will receive will help a greater number of people to get into jobs and that the money will be used effectively? Does she share my surprise that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who just five hours ago expressed his concern that the Minister should be here tonight, is not here tonight? Maria Miller: Obviously, it is important for Members to take part in this debate. I can reassure my hon. Friend that as a result of the proposals that we have announced today, some 8,000 more disabled people will be helped into employment. This is not just about the £320 million that the Government have already announced that they have protected to support this important group of people; it is about an extra £15 million on top of that, and I think that our actions speak very loudly. Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab): I think that the 54 disabled people who are losing the jobs at Remploy in Chesterfield will see through the Minister’s warm words and rhetoric. The fact is that more disabled people than able-bodied people are unemployed generally: it is a desperately difficult jobs market out there anyway. The Minister has already dodged this question twice. Will she commit herself to coming back to the House in six months and telling us where those who have lost their jobs at Remploy have gone, so that we can establish whether her warm words mean anything to the 54 people in my constituency who are losing their jobs? Maria Miller: I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman’s genuine concern for his constituents, but I do not think that I have dodged that question. I have made it clear

Employment Support

966

that we will monitor the progress made by disabled people, and I am always happy to come to the House and talk about the progress that the Government are making. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): When the Ystradgynlais Remploy factory in my constituency was closed under the last Labour Government, a number of my constituents transferred to Baglan, which I think today’s written statement refers to as Neath. It is included in the stage 2 list as being potentially viable. Will the Minister ensure that the Remploy board is given all the encouragement and resources that are needed to ensure that that viability continues? Maria Miller: We certainly want to help the Neath factory to realise what is clearly its potential. I hope that we can work with my hon. Friend as well, and that his support will ensure that the factory is the success that he feels that it can be in the future. Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab): Will the Minister tell us what criteria will be used to determine whether factories on the stage 2 list, such as the one in my constituency, will remain open, and against what time scale they will be judged? Will she come back to the House at the end of that time and tell us how many of them will remain open? Maria Miller: The stage 2 factories are factories that we believe, on the basis of independent reports, have the opportunity and potential to be financially viable. What we need now is an opportunity to talk to people who may be interested in taking them over. We are committed to what is in recommended in Liz Sayce’s report, which is the freeing of these factories from Government control, and we need to ensure that we have the right support and plans to be able to do that. Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that as a result of this tough and difficult decision it will be possible to help thousands more disabled people who do not currently live near a Remploy factory, such as those in my constituency? Maria Miller: My hon. Friend speaks for the 7 million disabled people of working age in this country who do not have the opportunity to work at Remploy. We must use the £320 million of protected money, and the extra £15 million that is going into Access to Work, to ensure that many more of those individuals who are unable to be employed at the moment have the opportunity to be employed, and to lead independent lives as a result. Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): I am particularly disappointed by the timing of today’s announcement. It stretches credulity that at a time of rising unemployment and fierce competition for every single job, the Government are planning to take supported jobs away from people who are already very disadvantaged in the labour market. What net financial savings does the Minister expect to arise from this policy? Once the redundancy bill, the benefits bill and the personalised support have been delivered, will creating all this uncertainty actually save any money? Maria Miller: This is not a savings measure. I know that the hon. Lady is very concerned about this matter on behalf of those of her constituents who work in

967

Employment Support

7 MARCH 2012

Remploy factories, but I assure her that we are trying to ensure that the money is used more effectively, so more of her constituents can get the support they need. It simply cannot be right for us to continue to let the factories lose £68 million a year—and cumulatively more than £200 million over the modernisation plan period—when we could be using that money more effectively to support more disabled people into employment. Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con): I thank the Minister for that answer, but I am concerned about the way this difficult decision will be reported. Will she make it clear that the decision has not been taken in order to cut public expenditure, and that instead more money will be going towards enabling disabled people to live and work independently, free of prejudice, with support, so they can do what they want to do in their lives? Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I put the following simple fact to the House: as a result of what we are announcing today, 8,000 more disabled people throughout the country will have the opportunity to move into work, compared with 1,500 people who work in Remploy factories and who will be affected. In these difficult economic times, we have to take tough decisions, but this is a decision that is about much more than that; it is about the sort of country we are—a country that wants to have disabled people included at the heart of our communities instead of in segregated factories. Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab): I would agree with the Minister’s logic if we were in a period of full employment across the country or in regions such as the north-east of England, but the north-east is bearing 10% of the total cuts announced today. Sadly, I am convinced that very few, if any, of the people affected in my constituency and in the north-east in general will find other employment easily. What support will be given to the people of the north-east, so that they can get another job in the north-east? Maria Miller: I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman’s sincerity, but he needs to look at the facts. Some 20,000 disabled people were helped into employment last year, and that was achieved not in easy economic times, but in the difficult economic times we inherited from Labour. We made sure that 20,000 disabled people were able to get into employment. I can reassure him that throughout the country we are very effectively getting disabled people into employment, and that the £8 million we have put aside for employment support will help ensure that his constituents get the sort of support that I know he would want them to get. Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con): The acoustics in the Chamber are slightly awkward tonight, so I did not quite hear the Minister’s answer about how many Remploy factories were closed by the last Labour Government. I would therefore appreciate it if she would repeat it. We in the Public Accounts Committee found out today that 442,700 people started apprenticeships in the last year. Can she assure us that there is crossdepartmental working to ensure that such opportunities are available to all people?

Employment Support

968

Maria Miller: I am very happy to be able to give that assurance to my hon. Friend. I apologise if Members did not catch the answer to which he refers: under the previous Administration, 68 factories closed— [Interruption.] I apologise; 28 factories closed under the previous Administration. [Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. If the House were a little quieter, we would all be able to hear exactly what is being said. May I also ask the Minister to give briefer answers and, once again, ask Members to ask a single, brief question? Maria Miller: Twenty-eight factories were closed under the previous Administration, and some 1,600 people were affected. Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab): My constituents who work at Remploy in Wishaw in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy) have been coming to me for the last year to express their fear that what has been announced this evening would happen. After having been sacked so unceremoniously today, without an earlier statement or even a phone call, I do not think they will agree with the Minister that they have been set free. If she has made this announcement from the goodness of her heart and to encourage more disabled people into mainstream employment, why is she not ensuring that each Remploy employee has a new job before she lays them off ? Maria Miller: There was a statement earlier and I just want to make sure that the hon. Lady is clear that what Remploy announced today is that it will be consulting on the future of the people who will be affected by the announcements. She used the word “sacked”, but that is not correct. I can absolutely assure her that the support that will be in place will be the support she would expect to be there for her constituents to make sure that every one of them has the support to enable them to get back into employment. Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD): Having anticipated this event I took the opportunity to discuss with the Remploy factory in Burnley the future of the site. Will the Minister confirm what will happen to the assets of that site? Will she be prepared to hand them over to the work force so that they can start up their own business? They tell me that without the present astronomical overhead costs from central control and Government interference, they will be very successful, but they need assurances that they can take it on as an individual business. Will they be able to take on the company’s assets? Maria Miller: I assure my hon. Friend that I would very much like to work with him on that and look at the proposal he mentions. We have spoken at length about this and I am sure that, working with officials, we can make sure that the details are available to anyone who has a firm proposal to put forward. Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): I welcome the Minister to the Chamber this evening, but hon. Members will note that a Labour Minister in the Welsh Assembly saw fit to answer questions on this, with an oral statement, seven hours ago. In it he said:

969

Employment Support

7 MARCH 2012

[Huw Irranca-Davies] “I regret that repeated requests by Welsh ministers for a constructive dialogue on Remploy factories in Wales have not been taken up by the UK Government.”

Will the Minister accede to the immediate request of the Welsh Assembly Government for discussions about the Remploy assets so that they can work with unions, social enterprises and others to make sure that we have viable ongoing businesses in all those premises? Maria Miller: Officials have already met officials in the Wales Office and I am meeting with Ministers next week. Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con): The Leeds Remploy office placed 307 people in work last year—a record to be applauded. I also applaud these efforts to end workplace segregation. Will my hon. Friend focus on monitoring the personalised support schemes to ensure that more people are helped into work in future and are not left behind as has happened in the past? Maria Miller: I can absolutely give that undertaking to my hon. Friend. Again, I note that 8,000 more disabled people will be able to be supported into work as a result of today’s announcements. Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): What will be the total cost of shutting down these Remploy factories, including the costs of redundancy and settling with suppliers? Maria Miller: This is a protected budget and we will make sure that the costs involved will be covered within the budgets that are available and that as a result of the measures we are taking today more disabled people will be helped into employment over this spending review period. Any costs associated with the changes we have announced today will be included within existing plans. Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): Will my hon. Friend take every opportunity, particularly tonight and tomorrow, to stress in the media that the funding will go to the disabled individual rather than to the institution, so that the voices we hear on this are not just those of the unions? Maria Miller: Many people listening to the debate will be somewhat surprised that in this day and age we still have this approach to supporting disabled people in this country. I know there is union involvement in the factories and perhaps that had some bearing on the problems that the previous Administration had in taking tough decisions on this issue. I assure my hon. Friend that we will take the right decisions for disabled people because we are listening to their aspirations for the future, not the unions. Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op): Earlier, the Minister indicated that stage 2 factories such as the one in Clydebank in my constituency can expect no more support than stage 1 factories in finding a way forward to a sustainable future. Will she reconsider that position and put a taskforce into each of the stage 2 factories at least?

Employment Support

970

Maria Miller: The important point I made earlier to the hon. Lady about her factory is that we believe that the phase 2 factories have the opportunity to become viable and we shall be looking at ways to make that happen. I hope that, perhaps working with her, we can identify somebody who is able to take on that challenge at local level. Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): Today’s announcement is a crushing blow to the staff at Wythenshawe Remploy, who have battled against closure for four and a half years. They have made the factory more efficient and have boosted sales, yet their reward is that they are classed as a stage 1 factory, which means that it will close. Can I have an assurance from the Minister that if in the 90-day consultation period a credible proposal is made to keep that factory open— perhaps as a social enterprise—it will be given sympathetic consideration and adequate support? Maria Miller: Yes. Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab): The heartless, callous decision announced today casts hundreds of hard-working disabled people on to the scrap heap, probably for a lifetime. The Minister continues to state that they will get jobs elsewhere, but in my constituency, 55.5 people are after every jobcentre vacancy. Can the Minister tell me where they will get employment? Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman really should have been listening to what I was talking about. Under the Labour Administration, 28 factories were closed in very difficult circumstances. What we are doing differently is making sure that the proper support is put in place, which it probably was not in the case of factories closed under Labour. We want to make sure that disabled people who are affected by the plans today have that support, and I hope I can call on the hon. Gentleman’s support to make sure that his constituents are aware of it. Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab): In 2007, the Conservatives said they would do all they could to support Remploy when they were in government. Does the Minister agree that the shambolic and shameful way the statement has been made today epitomises the Government’s cavalier and out-of-touch attitude to vulnerable people, and represents a broken promise to the dozens of disabled people in Edinburgh who are losing their jobs tonight? Maria Miller: I am sorry; the hon. Gentleman needs to listen to what I am saying here. What we have done as a Government is to follow the Labour modernisation plan. We have followed it for the last two years and continued to make sure that in these tough economic times £555 million continued to be available. What we are not doing is wasting money; we are making sure that the money we have is going further. Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab): I notice that the excellent Coventry plant is down for reconsideration. I also notice that the Minister certainly has not consulted me, or any of the other Coventry MPs. Can we have an undertaking that she will consult the Coventry MPs? More important, to help her with

971

Employment Support

7 MARCH 2012

her reconsideration we are prepared to give her a tour of that very successful factory, which does work for Jaguar Land Rover and other automobile industries. Is the Minister planning to privatise that plant? Maria Miller: I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. I think I have visited the factory in Coventry. We had a consultation on the process, with many contributions from hon. Members, but obviously I shall be happy to meet Coventry Members at any point in time. Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab): I have visited the Remploy plant in my constituency so often that I am practically on first-name terms with most of the work force. They are fantastic—a mix of able-bodied and disabled people—and I cannot help but fear that they would be offended by the continuous references to a segregated workplace. Thankfully, Dundee is not earmarked for closure, but what assurances can the Minister give the work force in Dundee that they have a future there? Maria Miller: The assurance I can give the hon. Gentleman and the work force in Dundee is that whether their factory is phase 1 or phase 2, they will get the support they need, either to work in mainstream employment through our £8 million support fund, or to look for alternative viable ways of taking the factory forward outside Government control. The hon. Gentleman will share with me the desire to make sure that more of his disabled constituents can get work, which is why I hope he can support our plans today. Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con): I must say I am amazed that I am standing here in the 21st century discussing state-subsidised segregated jobs. Can the Minister confirm that the Government spend more than £60 million a year and that the operating loss on the factories was £68.3 million last year? Disabled people in my Bracknell constituency would welcome funding from the Government to support them to get into profitable jobs in the future, because they do not have the opportunity to be employed in a state-subsidised factory. Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is right. The cumulative figure for the factory losses is well in excess of £200 million. That is important money, which could have been used more effectively to support more disabled people throughout the country into work. Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): Will the Minister apologise to the deaf employees at the Springburn Remploy factory in my constituency, who were denied the dignity of a signer to tell them this afternoon that their jobs were gone? Does the Minister accept that with just 45% of disabled people employed— some 30% less than the non-disabled population—with a flatlining economy, with 20 people in my constituency chasing every job that is available, the question is: where will the jobs come from? Maria Miller: I will look into the point that the hon. Gentleman raises about the Springburn factory. I would absolutely apologise to factory workers if there was not a signer available. I will look into that in detail. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the number of disabled

Employment Support

972

people in his constituency who have been supported into mainstream employment through our employment services programmes and many others. We know that disabled people want to be able to live independent lives, and through the changes that we are talking about today we can support many, many more to do that. Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op): Croespenmaen in my constituency has worked hard to make its business a success. It has shown faith in Remploy. It is a pity that the Government could not show the same faith to it. Today’s announcement is nothing short of a kick in the teeth. Does the Minister believe that 90 days is long enough for these people to plan their future or try to save their factory? Maria Miller: I know the hon. Gentleman feels very strongly about this. We are absolutely showing faith in disabled people in what we are doing today. The plans and proposals that we have put forward have the full endorsement and backing of many disabled people throughout the country, and the work that has been done by Liz Sayce is an important contribution to the way we can help improve the lives of disabled people in Britain today. Sir Alan Meale (Mansfield) (Lab): Bearing in mind the Minister’s statement in respect of residential training colleges, she is aware of Portland training college, whose patron is Her Majesty the Queen in this, the diamond jubilee year. Will the Minister accept an invitation to visit that college to meet directors, staff and, of course, students to talk about their future? Maria Miller: As the hon. Gentleman will have heard in my comments earlier, I understand the value of residential training colleges and I will be delighted to accept his invitation. Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab): Can the Minister tell the House when she envisages that the factories will start closing? I know that there will be a great deal of distress about this in north-east Wales. We do not see it as a state-subsidised industry. We see it as to do with disabled people in a very challenging economic situation. Maria Miller: I understand the hon. Lady’s commitment to supporting disabled people in her constituency. There is a 90-day consultation period, so that will be completed and then we will talk to disabled employees about their futures. I hope we can continue to keep her up to date on that progress. Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab): The Minister gave a shambolic reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), in much the same way as she addressed Remploy workers and the House. What are the redundancy costs calculated to be, and what is the impact on businesses which are customers or suppliers? Maria Miller: It is very difficult to give facts and figures when we are in consultation. That will depend on the outcome of the consultation. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be able to be furnished with those figures when the consultation is complete.

973

7 MARCH 2012

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): Leaving aside the utterly shabby way in which the Minister tried to sneak out the announcement today—[Interruption.] Utterly shabby. Does she not realise that one of the reasons that there are Remploy factories in places such as the Rhondda and in Cynon Valley is that we already have some of the highest levels of unemployment and the highest levels of disability? Will she guarantee that not a single person in the Aberdare factory or in Porth will be forced into redundancy? Maria Miller: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and hope that he received my letter, which clarified that I enjoyed my discussions with the Porth factory and very much understand his support for them. I gently remind him that the factory supports 74 disabled people. He needs to ensure that he is also thinking about the 12,400 disabled people in his constituency—[Interruption.] The Porth factory lost around £200,000 last year. We believe that we need to challenge ourselves on how we can use that money more effectively. Last year in Wales employment service— [Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. Mr Bryant, you asked a question. Please listen to the answer and stop shouting across the Chamber at the Minister. Maria Miller: I was simply going to point out that 2,000 disabled people got very good jobs in Wales last year. The hon. Gentleman really needs to focus on the fact that there are employment opportunities there, but we need to ensure that his constituents and those of other hon. Members have the skills and support to be able to take those jobs up. Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. I ask Members to leave the Chamber quietly and save their congratulations for outside, Mr Lloyd, so that we can proceed.

Business without Debate DELEGATED LEGISLATION Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), SOCIAL SECURITY That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 27 February, be approved.—(Mr Vara.)

Business without Debate

974

EU STRUCTURAL COHESION FUNDS That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15243/11 and Addenda 1 to 4, relating to a draft regulation laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the Common Strategic Framework and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006; and supports the Government’s aim to reduce the administrative burden on both Member States and the recipients of funds, and to target funds in order to maximise support for the Europe 2020 strategy for sustainable growth objectives.—(Mr Vara.)

Question agreed to. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (12 MARCH) Ordered, That at the sitting on Monday 12 March the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on: (1) the Motion in the name of Sir George Young relating to Backbench Business Committee not later than one and a half hours after their commencement; (2) the Motions in the name of Sir George Young relating to Committee on Standards and Committee of Privileges and Pay for Chairs of Select Committees not later than three hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion specified in paragraph (1); (3) the Motions in the name of Mr Kevin Barron relating to Code of Conduct and All-Party Groups not later than four and a half hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion specified in paragraph (1); and (4) the Motion in the name of Sir George Young relating to Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders not later than the moment of interruption; and such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved.—(Mr Vara.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (13 MARCH) Ordered, That at the sitting on Tuesday 13 March— (1) paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the Motion in the name of Edward Miliband as if the day were an Opposition Day; and proceedings on the Motion may continue for three hours and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and (2) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means shall be entered upon (whether before, at or after 7.00 pm), and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business.—(Mr Vara.)

Question agreed to. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

PETITIONS Post Office Services (Torphichen, West Lothian)

SOCIAL SECURITY That the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 27 February, be approved.—(Mr Vara.)

Question agreed to. EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

8.17 pm Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): The village of Torphichen has one shop, and in that shop there was a sub-post office. Sadly, because of family circumstances, the previous owner closed the shop and returned the licence for the sub-post office to the Post Office. The Post Office has stuck a notice on the window of the shop but consulted absolutely no

975

Business without Debate

976

7 MARCH 2012

one. The shop has been bought—thank goodness—but unfortunately it appears that the Post Office is not prepared to put back the sub-post office that was previously part of the network. The petition, signed by 340 residents, states: The Petition of residents of Torphichen, West Lothian, Declares that the Petitioners are concerned about the provision of Post Office services in Torphichen, following the closure of the Post Office when the previous sub-postmaster gave up the lease on the premises; declares that the Post Office had said that the closure would be temporary; that no consultation has been carried out on any proposal to close the Post Office permanently; and declares that the Petitioners believe that a reduced service is not justifiable or acceptable. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that the Torphichen Post Office is reopened. And your Petitioners remain, etc. [P001011]

Health and Social Care Bill 8.19 pm Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab): To the House of Commons, this petition of residents of the United Kingdom, collected in Marton, Coulby Newham, Guisborough, Saltburn and Redcar over a period of one week, amounts to more than 700 names. The petition states: The Petition of residents of the United Kingdom, Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the Health and Social Care Bill. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the Health and Social Care Bill. And the Petitioners remain, etc. [P001012]

Historical Enquiries Team Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Vara.) 8.20 pm Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the Speaker for allowing me to highlight two cases in which the Historical Enquiries Team has been involved: specifically, the deaths of Kenneth Smyth and Hugh Lexie Cummings. Policing and justice were devolved in April 2010. After that, on 3 November 2010, the Secretary of State felt able to stand up and not only take part in a debate about Bloody Sunday, but take on the burden of apologising, along with the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government. On Wednesday 30 November 2011, I asked the Secretary of State a question directly relating to the HET: “The HET investigated the murder of my cousin, Kenneth Smyth, on 10 December 1971—those on the street knew who committed the murder—and Lexie Cummings was murdered on 15 June 1982. HET investigations into both cases concluded that no action should be taken. The concern is that the investigations might not have been thorough, so does the Secretary of State accept that confidence needs to be instilled in the Unionist community and that the HET therefore has considerable work to do?”

The Secretary of State replied: “I am grateful for that question. I do not entirely agree. The HET is impartial, and the latest polling commissioned on the reaction of the families is extraordinarily high: 90.5% said they were very satisfied or satisfied with the performance of the HET.”—[Official Report, 30 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 919.]

I am here to represent those families who suggest that some investigations into events during the troubles have not been concluded satisfactorily. Why is the Bloody Sunday case any different from the one under discussion? I could cynically suggest the difference by asking, has not enough money been spent on the investigations to warrant the attention of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Surely the reason could not be that the families of those men, who faithfully served Queen and country in awful times, are not worth as much. Just because those men wore the uniform of the British Army, does that make them expendable or cannon fodder? I trust that that is not the case, but I shall be very disappointed if I find out that it is. I thank each and every Member who has stayed behind to hear what the families of those men have asked me to say in this House, respecting and honouring them for the sacrifice that they made for the people of Northern Ireland and for the whole UK. The presence of every hon. Member has been noted and is appreciated. Kenneth Smyth was my cousin. I remember him well. I looked up to him as an expert shot who introduced me to shooting at a young age, as a six or seven-year-old, and represented the B-Specials of the Ulster Defence Regiment in shooting at Bisley. I have a photograph of him being presented with a prize and a medal by Bill Craig, the Home Affairs Minister from way back in the old Northern Ireland Parliament. Kenneth used to send me pigeons through the post the whole way from Strabane to Ballywalter—it gave a whole new meaning to pigeon post, so it did. If

977

Historical Enquiries Team

7 MARCH 2012

Historical Enquiries Team

978

[Jim Shannon]

At that time, there was a petrol bomb attack on his grandparents’ house and they had to grid their windows.

the birds arrived within a couple of days they were still okay to eat, but if they arrived a wee bit later they were not, I am afraid, quite as edible—but that is by the way. I have Kenneth’s UDR beret, and my first son is named after him. I admired him when he took part in shooting competitions for the UDR, and perhaps as a young boy I wanted to be like him. I can well remember the day that his life was taken away. Kenneth’s sister Shelley described him in an interview for a book entitled, “If Stone Could Speak”, and I shall use it in my illustration of him:

“In September 1971, Kenneth got married and went to live back at his family home in Castlederg, where he and his new wife took over the top flat in a house. Friday 10 December 1971 was a day which seemed no different to any other, as the family carried on their normal routine. Kenneth had his own successful construction business and that morning, he had collected one of his workmen to take him to the job they were working on. They were travelling along Lisdoo Road near Clady, outside Strabane, when they had to stop because of a rope that had been tied across the road. Kenneth stopped the car”—

“Kenneth Smyth loved hunting or anything to do with the outdoors and, as often as possible, spent his time in the fields and countryside around his native Castlederg in County Tyrone. He was the eldest of four children and described as very talented while at school and with a great ability at hand crafts especially anything to do with wood.”

He was a joiner by trade. The book continues: “Being a lot younger than Kenneth, his sister Shelley does not remember much about his earlier years, but she does remember him as being very quiet natured and a person who enjoyed fun. In later years Kenneth went to stay at his grandparents house and kept his gundogs there so that he could go hunting more easily in the nearby countryside. Because of the constant terror campaigns being waged in Northern Ireland, security was always of paramount importance and, to supplement the regular police service, the Special Constabulary or B Men were formed. Kenneth was a member of this force and he carried out regular security duties around the frontiers of Northern Ireland and guarded specific installations against attack. He was still a member when he decided that he would like to go to Canada and join the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and went over there to follow his ambition. It was partially the police and partially the wide open spaces which attracted him, but he only stayed a month as his grandparents pleaded with him to come home as they missed him so much. Around the time he came home, the B Men had been disbanded and was to be replaced by the Ulster Defence Regiment, so he decided to join up.”

Kenneth became a sergeant in the UDR. The book continues: “As with other members of the security forces, Kenneth was well aware of the risks and took precautions to ensure his safety as much as he possibly could. While he was at home, he placed his car in the garage and closed and locked the garage door. On the nights that he went out either socially or on business he left the garage door open so that he could drive inside in safety and not provide himself as a target by getting out of his car to open it. One particular night he was out and, for some unknown reason, he closed the garage door and obviously someone who was watching”

not too far away “must have assumed he was at home. A group of masked and armed men attacked the house and forced their way inside. His grandfather”—

my grandfather— “was talking on the telephone and this was pulled from the wall by one of the raiders. They made their way straight to Kenneth’s bedroom, but, on seeing it empty, left the house again and ran off into the darkness. After this Kenneth received numerous death threats including one in a note form that was left on the windscreen of his vehicle when it was parked it in the nearby town of Strabane”

in County Tyrone. “He took the threats seriously enough to take proper precautions and, for months prior to his death, he slept in a different house every night so that he would not have a known routine.”

a Jeep— “to reverse away from it, but a number of gunmen began shooting at the vehicle. Kenneth’s passenger, Daniel McCormick, a Catholic, who was also an ex member of the UDR, was shot and killed” ,

leaving a wife and four children, one of whom was disabled, “with Kenneth being seriously wounded. Kenneth managed to get out of the vehicle, but fell on to the ground. While he lay there, he was shot again at close range and died from the injury. Kenneth’s body was taken to his church”—

a Church of Ireland church outside Strabane— “and was given a fulltime guard until the funeral on the Sunday as there were fears that the body would be stolen. He was then buried with full military honours. He was the 5th UDR soldier to be murdered.”

The HET’s summary of intelligence said that there were no recorded threats, yet there were plenty that we were aware of: the gunmen calling at Kenneth’s home, the arson attack on his grandparents’ bungalow, and numerous letters and phone calls to him. The family therefore strongly disagrees with the HET. The HET has also said that one man who was questioned admitted to being there that day and to having shot at the Land Rover. He was tried in the Republic of Ireland, convicted of offences in relation to terrorism and sentenced to a term of imprisonment from 1974 to 1978, when he was released. He continued to live in the Republic until his death in 1995. The obvious question is this: why he was he never prosecuted? Why was he never brought across the border to answer for his crimes? Why was he never extradited? The explanation that the HET provided—that was possibly a matter of papers being lost or overlooked—is not a satisfactory conclusion or an answer for the family, who are still grieving. The man named an accomplice who carried out the murder, and despite that man being arrested in London for terrorist offences, he was never charged for the murder of Kenneth Smyth. When asked why not, the HET said that the man denied it and the evidence was not good enough to take the case further. Does that provide closure for the family? No, it does not—far from it, especially when it is clear that most of the people in the area knew who had carried out the attack and were powerless to do anything. Has the HET investigation revealed any further evidence? No, it has not. At this stage, I will say that I am very aware of the funding limitations of the HET and the fact that there is only so much that it can do. My problem is that the closure that it was designed to bring to families, along with the hope of prosecution, has not come close to being fulfilled in Kenneth’s case. Does the Minister feel that the fact that the HET was given a budget of some £38 million to investigate 3,268 incidents, whereas it cost the Bloody Sunday public inquiry £191 million to investigate the events surrounding the deaths of 13 men, reflects the differences between the two cases?

979

Historical Enquiries Team

7 MARCH 2012

Historical Enquiries Team

980

Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in saying that our profound sympathies are with him in the memory of Kenneth Smyth. There is a great deal of concern across the House about the time frame in which the HET—

The family refused to accept a letter of sympathy from the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, James Prior, which was delivered to them on the day of the funeral. They sent the letter back with the message that

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman turn around so that we can all hear him?

“Nothing is being done, feelings are running very high on this issue. Innocent, defenceless people are being mown down and no action is being taken against the godfathers who are walking the streets. They are getting away with murder”.

Stephen Pound: I apologise profoundly, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a great deal of concern throughout the House about the time frame in which the HET conducts its inquiries. The Northern Ireland Assembly has requested that the Secretary of State hold multi-party talks on this subject. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that that seems to be a positive way forward, in accordance with the expressed formal wish of the Northern Ireland Assembly?

When the HET investigated the death of Lexie Cummings, it found a different story. It found that a thorough investigation was carried out by the RUC at the time, which found cartridge discharge residue— gunpowder residue—on the suspect. It found fibres from the suspect’s trousers on the seat of the car, which was left abandoned at the scene of the crime. The two guns that were used were found by the Garda Siochana the next month and tests confirmed that that was the case. It was an open-and-shut case, and yet questions must be answered. Why did William Gerard McMonagle not stand trial for the murder of Lexie Cummings? How was it that William Gerard McMonagle was allowed to travel across the border to safety and freedom, and to begin a new life, which has led to him being the mayor of Letterkenny today? Why was he never extradited, when it was known where he was? Why was there no co-operation between the Garda Siochana and the RUC to bring McMonagle to justice? The HET did not have access to the answers or criteria that the Director of Public Prosecutions used to issue his decision, which stated that in 1986 there was not a

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The talks are about the past. I am talking about specific incidents and cases involving the HET. I feel that these questions have to be answered. However, I accept his point. If the HET had had the appropriate funding from central Government at the time of its investigations, when it was under the direct control of the Secretary of State, would the outcomes have been more extensive and brought satisfaction to the family? Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. We appreciate the deep sensitivity of the issues of which he speaks. I speak as the one party leader who lobbied for and supported the creation of the HET. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), who was the Secretary of State at the time, can vouch for the fact that only one party lobbied for the HET and supported the Chief Constable of the time in so doing. Perhaps if more of us had recognised what was involved, we would have secured better resources and, more important, a stronger mandate for the HET. The limitations on the HET’s mandate are part of the problem, as this important case demonstrates. Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree with him wholeheartedly that if there had been better funding, the investigations might have come to more successful conclusions. The second case I mentioned at the start of my speech is that of Hugh Cummings, known as Lexie. Twenty-nine years ago on 15 June 1982, one of life’s true gentlemen was killed when Lexie Cummings, aged 39, from Artigarvan outside Strabane in County Tyrone and a part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, was shot by the IRA at close range in the back and the chest as he got into his car in the centre of Strabane, during his lunch break from the menswear shop where he had worked for 25 years. “Lexie was well known and held in high regard by everyone in his community. The small village of Artigarvan came to a standstill for his funeral, where the Presbyterian minister told mourners: ‘In the face of tremendous provocation you have remained a totally loyal and law-abiding community. You have watched helplessly the very flower of manhood being systematically murdered. Your anger and frustration runs very, very deep. Yet there has been no retaliation and there will be no retaliation because your faith is built on the solid rock of the righteousness of God’”.

“the hands of the security forces should be freed”.

A spokesman for the family said at the time:

“suitable case to make a request to the authorities in the Republic of Ireland for the return of Mr McMonagle”.

Why was that? Was the HET prevented from finding out the answers and the truth? How did the DPP reach his decision of 2003? It was that “having reviewed the evidence and information now available and obtained the opinion of counsel, I have concluded that there is no longer a reasonable prospect of convicting William Gerard McMonagle of any criminal Offence. I therefore rescind the direction of 13 December 1982 and direct no prosecution of William Gerard McMonagle”.

What was the evidence, and why were the family not made aware of it? Can the Minister tell us what answer we should give the family about the criteria by which the decision was reached? The HET cannot provide the answer—who can? Can he? Why was McMonagle no longer classified as on the run even though the HET confirmed that he was never granted an amnesty? Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): The Minister of State may reply by saying that some of the very important points that my hon. Friend is making are about devolved matters. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that we have difficulty in explaining to our constituents why, on the one hand, these matters are all devolved and there is a limited sum of money to investigate hundreds of killings, yet on the other hand the Minister and his colleagues stand in this House and announce expensive and long inquiries, albeit not open-ended judicial inquiries, into other cases?

981

Historical Enquiries Team

7 MARCH 2012

Jim Shannon: My right hon. Friend puts my case coherently, and I thank him for that. There are too many questions that the HET cannot answer, due to its scope and resources, but to which the family of Lexie Cummings deserve an answer. They turn on the news and see the mayor of Letterkenny, Gerry McMonagle, who ran from justice in Northern Ireland after having been proven to have been at the scene with gunpowder residue on him, embracing his freedom and his position in life. The family visit the grave of a true gentleman, Lexie Cummings, with questions in their minds and grief in their hearts. Who can answer their questions and give them closure? Questions must be answered, because the family cannot forget that Lexie Cummings was a good man and worthy of justice. They know that for a reason unknown to them, someone has seen fit to give an unrepentant republican murderer the opportunity to parade around, with no fear of justice, in his mayoral robes. That is cruelty in the extreme, and I am here today to ask for parity in the help provided to that family and others so that they can have closure, as my right hon. Friend clearly said. Those who had committed crimes during the troubles were asked to come forward before the Good Friday agreement. Those who did not admit their crimes but remained at large cannot be given the same amnesty, nor do they deserve their freedom. All the men and women who were murdered in the troubles by paramilitaries—in uniform or out of uniform—demand our respect, which I know we give them. I feel that the Northern Ireland Office is not giving their families the right support, and I know that a great deal of Unionists feel that, in the Government’s eyes, their pain is a second-class pain. The lack of Government representation tells me that that view may be justified, as we in the Unionist community feel. The washing of hands did not make Pontius Pilate clean, and it will not make others of that ilk clean in this case. There is a social media page on Facebook called “Castlederg Forgotten Friends”. Part of the reason for its being set up was that Castlederg, which is one and a half miles from the border, had 26 unsolved murders— 26 families with unanswered questions. For two of those families, I have made their case and their point tonight. They need help. The site clearly lists those who were murdered, and under each post it says, “Lest we forget”. Let that be the cry from this House tonight, and I hope from the Minister. We will remember them, and we will support their families and help them grieve their loss in whatever way we can. 8.39 pm The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire): I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate and thank the other Members who have participated in it. There has been no washing of hands, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. However, as hon. Members know, following the devolution of policing and justice in April 2010, matters relating to the Historical Enquiries Team are the responsibility of the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland, particularly the Minister of Justice, to whom I spoke yesterday. You will therefore understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I

Historical Enquiries Team

982

am unable to comment in detail on HET operational matters, which are for the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Let us remind ourselves of the history of the HET. It was set up in September 2005 to investigate some 3,259 unsolved deaths relating to the troubles from 1968 to the Belfast agreement in 1998. I would like to put on record the Government’s strong support for the HET and its work with the families of those killed. The HET provides a valuable role in bringing resolution to and addressing any concerns that may remain from the families of victims of the troubles. That is supported by the findings of a recent survey, which showed that 90% of family members—across all community groups— indicated that they were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the HET. That is an extraordinarily high figure, and the HET is to be commended for achieving such high satisfaction rates. The hon. Gentleman mentioned funding. Let me comment briefly on the current situation. The HET is midway through its seventh year of work, and it is worth noting that its spend to date is around £34 million. Let us compare that with the combined total cost of £300 million for recent inquiries. Bloody Sunday—I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the Saville inquiry was set up under the previous Government—cost £192 million; the Hamill inquiry cost £32 million; the Nelson inquiry cost £46 million, and the Wright inquiry cost £30 million. The good value for money that the HET provides is clear, as opposed to open-ended and costly inquiries, of which, as the Secretary of State has made clear time and again, there will be no more. To date, I understand that the HET has already investigated, or is in the process of investigating, 2,423 deaths, which are dealt with in a chronological order. Of those, the HET can currently say that 1,375 were caused by republicans; 724 were caused by loyalists; 265 were caused by security forces; and 59 were caused by “unknown”. I understand that the HET has also referred 26 cases to the PSNI for further investigation. All those cases are the subject of ongoing live investigations, and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment further. However, I note the valuable role that the PSNI and the HET play in helping bereaved families find justice. We remain strong supporters of the HET. Both my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have on many occasions highlighted their support for the work of the HET. Not every investigation will result in closure for the family and friends. I am aware of how strongly the hon. Gentleman understandably feels about the brutal murder of his cousin, Kenneth Smyth, in December 1971, and Lexie Cummings in June 1982. Both were members of the UDR, which suffered so badly during the troubles. However, for many families, the HET’s reports bring comfort and some understanding of the circumstances of the death of a loved one. I commend its work to the House. Question put and agreed to. 8.43 pm House adjourned.

983

7 MARCH 2012

Deferred Division SAFETY OF OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 16175/11 and Addenda 1 to 4, relating to a Draft Regulation on the safety of offshore oil and gas prospection, exploration and production activities: supports the Government’s view that the UK has a proven, robust offshore environmental and safety regime; and further supports the Government’s intention to negotiate a legal instrument which ensures that high standards of health and safety and high levels of protection for the environment are maintained across Europe in respect of oil and gas operations, and that any new proposals do not negatively impact upon the present UK regime.

The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 183. Division No. 484] AYES Adams, Nigel Afriyie, Adam Aldous, Peter Alexander, rh Danny Amess, Mr David Andrew, Stuart Bacon, Mr Richard Baker, Norman Baker, Steve Baldry, Tony Baldwin, Harriett Barclay, Stephen Baron, Mr John Barwell, Gavin Bebb, Guto Beith, rh Sir Alan Benyon, Richard Beresford, Sir Paul Berry, Jake Bingham, Andrew Binley, Mr Brian Blackman, Bob Blunt, Mr Crispin Boles, Nick Bone, Mr Peter Bottomley, Sir Peter Bradley, Karen Brady, Mr Graham Brake, rh Tom Bray, Angie Brazier, Mr Julian Brine, Steve Brokenshire, James Browne, Mr Jeremy Bruce, Fiona Bruce, rh Malcolm Buckland, Mr Robert Burley, Mr Aidan Burns, Conor Burns, rh Mr Simon Burstow, Paul Burt, Alistair Burt, Lorely Byles, Dan Cable, rh Vince Cairns, Alun Campbell, Mr Gregory Campbell, rh Sir Menzies Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Carmichael, Neil Chishti, Rehman Chope, Mr Christopher Clappison, Mr James

Clark, rh Greg Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Coffey, Dr Thérèse Collins, Damian Colvile, Oliver Cox, Mr Geoffrey Crabb, Stephen Crockart, Mike Crouch, Tracey Davey, Mr Edward Davies, David T. C. (Monmouth) Davies, Glyn Davies, Philip de Bois, Nick Djanogly, Mr Jonathan Dodds, rh Mr Nigel Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen Doyle-Price, Jackie Drax, Richard Duddridge, James Duncan, rh Mr Alan Dunne, Mr Philip Edwards, Jonathan Ellis, Michael Ellison, Jane Ellwood, Mr Tobias Elphicke, Charlie Evans, Graham Evans, Jonathan Evennett, Mr David Fabricant, Michael Fallon, Michael Farron, Tim Featherstone, Lynne Field, rh Mr Frank Field, Mark Foster, rh Mr Don Francois, rh Mr Mark Freeman, George Fuller, Richard Gale, Sir Roger Garnier, Mr Edward Garnier, Mark Gauke, Mr David George, Andrew Gibb, Mr Nick Gilbert, Stephen Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl Goodwill, Mr Robert Graham, Richard Grant, Mrs Helen

Deferred Division

Gray, Mr James Greening, rh Justine Grieve, rh Mr Dominic Griffiths, Andrew Gummer, Ben Halfon, Robert Hames, Duncan Hammond, rh Mr Philip Hammond, Stephen Hancock, Mr Mike Hands, Greg Harper, Mr Mark Harrington, Richard Harris, Rebecca Hart, Simon Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan Heald, Oliver Heath, Mr David Heaton-Harris, Chris Hemming, John Hermon, Lady Hinds, Damian Hodgson, Mrs Sharon Hollingbery, George Hollobone, Mr Philip Hopkins, Kris Horwood, Martin Hosie, Stewart Howell, John Hughes, rh Simon Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy Hunter, Mark Jackson, Mr Stewart James, Margot Javid, Sajid Johnson, Gareth Johnson, Joseph Jones, Andrew Jones, Mr David Jones, Mr Marcus Kawczynski, Daniel Kirby, Simon Knight, rh Mr Greg Kwarteng, Kwasi Laing, Mrs Eleanor Lamb, Norman Lancaster, Mark Lansley, rh Mr Andrew Latham, Pauline Leadsom, Andrea Lee, Jessica Lee, Dr Phillip Leech, Mr John Lefroy, Jeremy Leslie, Charlotte Letwin, rh Mr Oliver Lewis, Brandon Lewis, Dr Julian Lilley, rh Mr Peter Lloyd, Stephen Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn Long, Naomi Lopresti, Jack Lord, Jonathan Loughton, Tim Luff, Peter Lumley, Karen Macleod, Mary MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan MacShane, rh Mr Denis Main, Mrs Anne Maude, rh Mr Francis

Maynard, Paul McCartney, Jason McCartney, Karl McCrea, Dr William McIntosh, Miss Anne McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick McPartland, Stephen McVey, Esther Mensch, Louise Menzies, Mark Metcalfe, Stephen Mills, Nigel Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew Moore, rh Michael Morgan, Nicky Morris, David Morris, James Mosley, Stephen Mulholland, Greg Mundell, rh David Munt, Tessa Murray, Sheryll Newmark, Mr Brooks Newton, Sarah Nokes, Caroline Norman, Jesse Nuttall, Mr David O’Brien, Mr Stephen Offord, Mr Matthew Ollerenshaw, Eric Opperman, Guy Osborne, rh Mr George Ottaway, Richard Paisley, Ian Parish, Neil Patel, Priti Paterson, rh Mr Owen Pawsey, Mark Penning, Mike Penrose, John Percy, Andrew Perry, Claire Phillips, Stephen Pickles, rh Mr Eric Pincher, Christopher Poulter, Dr Daniel Prisk, Mr Mark Pritchard, Mark Pugh, John Raab, Mr Dominic Randall, rh Mr John Redwood, rh Mr John Rees-Mogg, Jacob Reid, Mr Alan Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm Robathan, rh Mr Andrew Robertson, Angus Robertson, Mr Laurence Rogerson, Dan Rosindell, Andrew Rudd, Amber Russell, Sir Bob Rutley, David Sanders, Mr Adrian Sandys, Laura Scott, Mr Lee Selous, Andrew Shannon, Jim Shapps, rh Grant Sharma, Alok Sheerman, Mr Barry Shelbrooke, Alec

984

985

Deferred Division

Shepherd, Mr Richard Simpson, David Simpson, Mr Keith Skidmore, Chris Smith, Miss Chloe Smith, Henry Smith, Julian Smith, Sir Robert Soames, rh Nicholas Soubry, Anna Spencer, Mr Mark Stephenson, Andrew Stewart, Rory Streeter, Mr Gary Stride, Mel Stuart, Mr Graham Stunell, Andrew Sturdy, Julian Swales, Ian Swayne, rh Mr Desmond Swire, rh Mr Hugo Tapsell, rh Sir Peter Thurso, John Timpson, Mr Edward Tomlinson, Justin Tredinnick, David Truss, Elizabeth Turner, Mr Andrew Tyrie, Mr Andrew Uppal, Paul

Vaizey, Mr Edward Vara, Mr Shailesh Vickers, Martin Walker, Mr Charles Walker, Mr Robin Wallace, Mr Ben Walter, Mr Robert Weatherley, Mike Webb, Steve Weir, Mr Mike Wheeler, Heather White, Chris Whiteford, Dr Eilidh Whittaker, Craig Whittingdale, Mr John Wiggin, Bill Willetts, rh Mr David Williams, Mr Mark Williams, Roger Williams, Stephen Williamson, Gavin Willott, Jenny Wilson, Mr Rob Wishart, Pete Wollaston, Dr Sarah Wright, Jeremy Wright, Simon Young, rh Sir George Zahawi, Nadhim

NOES Abbott, Ms Diane Abrahams, Debbie Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob Alexander, rh Mr Douglas Alexander, Heidi Ali, Rushanara Anderson, Mr David Ashworth, Jonathan Austin, Ian Bailey, Mr Adrian Bain, Mr William Balls, rh Ed Banks, Gordon Barron, rh Mr Kevin Bayley, Hugh Beckett, rh Margaret Benn, rh Hilary Betts, Mr Clive Blackman-Woods, Roberta Blears, rh Hazel Blenkinsop, Tom Blomfield, Paul Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben Brennan, Kevin Brown, Lyn Brown, Mr Russell Bryant, Chris Burden, Richard Campbell, Mr Alan Campbell, Mr Ronnie Caton, Martin Chapman, Mrs Jenny

Clarke, rh Mr Tom Clwyd, rh Ann Coaker, Vernon Coffey, Ann Connarty, Michael Corbyn, Jeremy Crausby, Mr David Creasy, Stella Cunningham, Alex Cunningham, Mr Jim Cunningham, Tony Dakin, Nic Danczuk, Simon David, Mr Wayne De Piero, Gloria Denham, rh Mr John Dobbin, Jim Donohoe, Mr Brian H. Doran, Mr Frank Dowd, Jim Doyle, Gemma Dromey, Jack Durkan, Mark Eagle, Ms Angela Eagle, Maria Efford, Clive Elliott, Julie Engel, Natascha Esterson, Bill Evans, Chris Farrelly, Paul Fitzpatrick, Jim

7 MARCH 2012

Deferred Division

Flello, Robert Flint, rh Caroline Flynn, Paul Fovargue, Yvonne Francis, Dr Hywel Gapes, Mike Gardiner, Barry Gilmore, Sheila Glass, Pat Godsiff, Mr Roger Goggins, rh Paul 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 Healey, rh John Hendrick, Mark Hepburn, Mr Stephen Hillier, Meg Hopkins, Kelvin Howarth, rh Mr George Hunt, Tristram Irranca-Davies, Huw Jamieson, Cathy Jarvis, Dan Jenkin, Mr Bernard Johnson, rh Alan Johnson, Diana Jones, Graham Jones, Helen Jones, Mr Kevan Jones, Susan Elan Jowell, rh Tessa Keeley, Barbara Kendall, Liz Khan, rh Sadiq Lavery, Ian Lazarowicz, Mark Leslie, Chris Lewis, Mr Ivan Love, Mr Andrew Lucas, Caroline Lucas, Ian Mactaggart, Fiona Mahmood, Shabana Malhotra, Seema Mann, John Marsden, Mr Gordon McCann, Mr Michael McCarthy, Kerry McClymont, Gregg McDonagh, Siobhain McDonnell, Dr Alasdair McDonnell, John

McFadden, rh Mr Pat McGovern, Jim McGuire, rh Mrs Anne McKechin, Ann Meale, Sir Alan Mearns, Ian Miller, Andrew Morris, Grahame M. (Easington) Munn, Meg Murphy, rh Paul Murray, Ian Nash, Pamela O’Donnell, Fiona Onwurah, Chi Owen, Albert Pearce, Teresa Perkins, Toby Pound, Stephen Qureshi, Yasmin Raynsford, rh Mr Nick Reynolds, Emma Riordan, Mrs Linda Ritchie, Ms Margaret Robinson, Mr Geoffrey Rotheram, Steve Roy, Mr Frank Ruane, Chris Ruddock, rh Dame Joan Sarwar, Anas Seabeck, Alison Sharma, Mr Virendra Sheridan, Jim Shuker, Gavin Skinner, Mr Dennis Slaughter, Mr Andy Smith, Angela Smith, Nick Smith, Owen Spellar, rh Mr John Stringer, Graham Stuart, Ms Gisela Tami, Mark Thornberry, Emily Timms, rh Stephen Trickett, Jon Turner, Karl Twigg, Derek Twigg, Stephen Umunna, Mr Chuka Vaz, Valerie Walley, Joan Watts, Mr Dave Whitehead, Dr Alan Williamson, Chris Winterton, rh Ms Rosie Woodcock, John Woodward, rh Mr Shaun Wright, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

986

271WH

7 MARCH 2012

Westminster Hall Wednesday 7 March 2012

[HYWEL WILLIAMS in the Chair]

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas) Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Robert Neill.) 9.30 am Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab): It is pleasure to open the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. May I first thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) for all the work he has done on the funding cuts in metropolitan authorities? Those who have been following the issue know the sheer amount of work he has done to build cross-party consensus. That includes organising meetings, especially with the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who has responsibility for the fire services. I also thank those right hon. and hon. Members who are attending the debate, as well as those who could not attend, but who have been campaigning on this issue. I want to pay special tribute to Steve Morris, who was part of the green watch at Bolton central fire station. He was part of a nine-man crew that was called to attend a fire at a house in my constituency. The narrowness of a nearby alleyway meant that the fire brigade vehicle could not get near the house, and the hose was not long enough to get into it. Steve and three other brave firefighters therefore ran towards the house, taking a massive risk. Steve said that “when inside searching for occupants there was a flash and I realised that my uniform was on fire. I was like a human torch. The skin on my face felt like it was melting and my gloves had shrunk on to my hands.”

Steve was unconscious in hospital for seven weeks. After he woke up, he stayed in hospital for a further eight months and had numerous operations. He suffered burns to 52% of his body and had to have all his fingers amputated. He also broke an elbow and damaged his spine, and he had to learn to walk again. I know the family he tried to rescue—Mrs Begum, aged 71, and her granddaughter Alana, aged four, who was visiting from Australia. Mr Morris is now married to his long-term partner, Pauline, and he is still contributing greatly to the community. Today’s debate is about recognising the special work of firefighters and the daily risk that they take on our behalf. I hope we can continue to build the spirit of cross-party consensus on this issue—for them and for ourselves. I am sure the Minister, too, is concerned about the safety of our citizens. The background to the debate is the settlement for the six metropolitan fire authorities—I will refer to them hereafter as the mets—which have been adversely affected by the funding proposals. In purely alphabetical

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

272WH

order, they are: Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, West Midlands and West Yorkshire. The six mets serve 11 million people, and that does not include the transient population. The mets provide more than 50% of professional full-time firefighters. In the event of a major national disaster, the mets would be expected to provide half our national resilience capacity, as they have in the past. If the cuts proceed in the present format, services will be unsustainable, leaving the UK more vulnerable. The risk and the economic effect of disasters would be significantly greater in the met areas. The Trafford centre in Greater Manchester is the largest industrial estate in Europe, and two of the biggest football clubs in the world are in the same area. Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining today’s debate which, as Members can see, has generated huge interest. Does she share my concerns about the resilience of the fire service? Last year, we had the disturbances in Greater Manchester—in Salford and Manchester—and there was also the possibility of national incidents. Does she feel that the unfairness of the settlement could result in a reduction of our resilience and our ability to tackle such challenges? Yasmin Qureshi: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Greater Manchester also faces the threat of possible terrorist attacks. Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab): My hon. Friend mentioned the Trafford centre and the football and cricket grounds in my constituency, and we should add Trafford Park industrial estate. We therefore have a number of high-profile, high-risk sites, and it is important that they are protected and resourced. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that if we can deploy resources only to those high-risk, high-profile sites, there will be no back-filling to other less risky sites, which will mean that smaller incidents will escalate and become larger and more dangerous? Yasmin Qureshi: I entirely agree. As my hon. Friend eloquently put it, other areas will be given lower priority. David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP): I congratulate the hon. Lady on obtaining the debate, and I pay tribute to all our firefighters, both full time and part time. Leaving aside the proposed cuts, does the hon. Lady agree that another issue that will definitely compound this situation is whether Europe gets its way on the working time directive? Yasmin Qureshi: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but the issue he raises is debatable. Obviously, it is a European directive, and I do not really want to get into that issue. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill): In an endeavour to be helpful to all Members—[Interruption.] I hope the hon. Lady will take it in that spirit. I hope Members will find it helpful if I say that it remains the Government’s firm intention to protect the opt-out

273WH

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

7 MARCH 2012

[Robert Neill] from the working time directive, which is rightly accepted—I hope the hon. Lady will agree—as a critical issue for the fire service. I hope she will forgive me for taking the opportunity to get that on the record early in the debate. Yasmin Qureshi: I thank the Minister for that intervention. The mets have the most fire calls per head of population, as well as the highest levels of deprivation, which everyone accepts is one of the single biggest determining risks in fires. The met areas also have concentrated conurbations, with many streets full of terraced houses, offices, and other buildings. The risks in the mets are therefore greater than in the leafy suburbs. With all the challenges they face, the six mets have been very responsible and prudent with public money. They have already delivered 62% of the savings in the fire budget across the two years of cuts, and they have done that with a minimum impact on front-line services. The cuts planned for future years are unsustainable and would lead to life-threatening reductions in fire cover and national resilience capacity. Fire services have already cut out the fat, and they will soon be cutting to the bone—I hope the vegetarians among us will forgive my analogy. Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab): I add my voice to the congratulations given to my hon. Friend on obtaining the debate. Is she aware that the chief fire officer of Merseyside, among others, has made it clear in briefings that he is concerned that if the cuts go ahead, even on optimistic assumptions about the impact, he will be in danger of not being able to meet his statutory obligations? Yasmin Qureshi: I agree with the hon. Lady. The chief executive of my fire authority says the same thing. I was going to talk about the cuts using the example of Greater Manchester fire authority, because that relates to my constituency. Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on initiating the debate, and on her conduct of it. I am full of praise for what she is doing. It is difficult to understand why the review formula should mean a 13% fall in the financial grant to the West Midlands over the past two years, which compares to a figure of 6.5% nationally, and why the met areas, and certainly the West Midlands, have been picked on and victimised as we have. Yasmin Qureshi: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): I congratulate the hon. Lady on obtaining the debate, and I pay tribute to the firefighters. Obviously, she and I will not agree on the general need to reduce public spending, but does she accept that there are concerns on both sides of the House about the equity between metropolitan areas, the London area and the shire counties? I thank the Minister for agreeing that fire officers can speak to civil servants to deal with the details of the formula, but people on both sides of the House will be concerned to see that the outcome is more equitable than it has been to date.

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

274WH

Yasmin Qureshi: Again, I entirely agree. I am just about to come on to the unfairness of the cuts to Greater Manchester fire authority, as compared with, say, Cheshire. Greater Manchester is one of the largest brigades in the UK, covering 500 square miles and serving a residential population of 2.5 million. It is on track to make £12.5 million of savings, but to achieve that and carry out further cuts it can crew only 59 fire engines during the day and 55 during the night. To crew a fire engine 24 hours a day all year round costs £750,000. As a result of the cuts, 15 fire engines will become unavailable for use. During a dry spring or summer, the brigade can regularly have 40 fire engines committed to fires across the moorlands, protecting roads, villages and homes and areas of outstanding beauty. Greater Manchester fire authority will simply not be able to maintain minimum cover for town and city protection. Nor will it be able to do preventive work such as the 60,000 home safety visits it completes each year. That work has had a profound effect on reducing the numbers of accidental fires. The service will not be able to do the work with young people and children that has led to significant reductions in deliberate fires, and to lives being turned round. he mets, as well as the right hon. and hon. Members present, are asking for a fairer allocation of funds across all fire authorities. Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Is not it ironic that the most efficient fire authorities, in the places with the highest levels of deprivation and the highest risk of fire, are the ones whose budgets are being cut furthest, whereas some more affluent authorities, which are less at risk, are being given an increase? Does not that show how bad the system is? It is up to the Minister to defend that system, and move away from a situation in which fire officers cannot work out how he reached his figures. Yasmin Qureshi: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point. We need either a risk-based grant approach, with a more even and fairer distribution of cuts across the fire and rescue services, or an alternative method of additional uplift funding to the mets that recognises their wider contribution to the safety of our societies and communities. I ask the Minister to recognise the unfairness and the unsatisfactory nature of the current grant mechanism. Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining the debate, and I hope that the Minister is listening to this part of it, as well as the part to which he responded earlier. The key issue seems to be that in the past we have received greater efficiency savings from the mets; and we have had bigger cuts in the first two years of the current spending review. The important thing now is to make sure that we do not get bigger cuts in the next two years. That preventive work must continue. There are high-risk steel works in my constituency, as well as the deprivation that my hon. Friend has discussed. We cannot have a reduction in the number of fire engines and stations that cover those important responsibilities. Yasmin Qureshi: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point.

275WH

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

7 MARCH 2012

Greater Manchester fire service has had to make cuts, and it has done so. Now it must make a 9% cut, whereas Cheshire will get a 2% increase. Many right hon. and hon. Members have made that point this morning. A cynic could be forgiven for thinking that the only explanation for the disparity is that most of the Members of Parliament in Cheshire belong to the coalition parties, and most Members of Parliament in Greater Manchester are Labour. I hope that that is not the case. I have deliberately tried not to go into too many statistics and percentages, which I know the Minister will be well aware of. I have tried to make a case for the mets, and I hope that the Minister will consider the matter fairly and judiciously. I will not speak any longer, because so many right hon. and hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. Several hon. Members rose— Hywel Williams (in the Chair): Order. A large number of hon. Members have written in—nine at least—so I appeal to them to keep speeches short. The screens at the back of the Chamber are being attended to. We do not have a Government Whip present, although I thought that Mr Brady might have abandoned his distinguished career for the delights of the Whips Office; but clearly he has not. I call Ian Austin. [Interruption.] 9.47 pm Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab): I am grateful, Mr Williams. I am sorry; I thought you would call someone over on the Government side first. In my constituency, Sedgley fire station has already been closed, as a result of the cuts and savings that West Midlands fire service must make. When it closed, Dudley station was allocated an extra targeted response vehicle, so it had one of those—it is basically a smaller fire engine—and the two standard engines that it had before. Now it will lose one of those, and the targeted vehicle will go as well, to be replaced by a Range Rover. When Sedgley closed, we were told that other parts of my constituency would be covered by fire engines from Tipton station, but that will also lose an engine. The background is that when all fire and rescue services were expecting to face cuts as part of the comprehensive spending review, they planned well in advance, to protect their communities. However, when the exact figures for each service were announced, it was immediately clear that the cuts were anything but fair. As we have heard, some were handed increases to their formula grant, whereas others were handed cuts, such as West Midlands, which is being given the biggest cut to its revenue spending power—7.73%—of any brigade in the country. Even taking into account the effect of the proportion of council tax to grant and the small special grant to encourage a council tax freeze, a number of brigades still receive more money in formula grant than they received in 2010-11. Cheshire is an example. In addition to the unfair way in which the grant is calculated, it is based on an illogical formula, which does not take account of a number of key considerations. As we have heard, many of the most deprived areas are among the worst hit, despite the well-established link between deprivation and fire. Four of the top five most

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

276WH

deprived fire authority areas in the country are covered by metropolitan brigades, and they have been handed the heaviest cuts. Also, no consideration was given to the reforms and efficiencies already made in services when the cuts were calculated. For example, in West Midlands new crewing systems have already been introduced. Cover has been reduced in quieter periods. New appliances have been brought in to deal with specific incidents. However, brigades that have not yet undertaken such reforms, such as London, have been cut far less. Hazel Blears: On the important point that my hon. Friend is making about reform, many metropolitan authorities, including Greater Manchester, have been making reforms, reducing jobs, reskilling and redesigning the service for years. Does he agree that these proposals are incredibly short-sighted because they will cut prevention? Therefore, rather than saving money in the long term, this unfair grant settlement will increase the cost to the whole fire service. Ian Austin: That is absolutely right. Brigades that have not undertaken these reforms should be the ones that come under the most pressure to achieve them now. If savings have to be made, those are the areas from which they should come. One of the reasons why West Midlands stands to suffer the most is that we maintain the lowest council tax precept in the country. It is just £47.83 for a band D property, compared with £87.84 for residents in County Durham. We are therefore more heavily reliant on formula grant than others, so we receive a much higher cut to the overall force budget. Furthermore, part of the difference has been caused by the Government’s decision to award a specific grant to fire authorities and councils that is equivalent to a council tax rise of 2.5%—if council tax is frozen this year. That has benefited those with higher council tax, as they have obviously received proportionately more. Representatives of the metropolitan authorities have put together a series of cost-neutral proposals that will ensure a fairer settlement in 2013-14 and 2014-15. They are asking the Minister to consider implementing a flat percentage cut to formula grant, so that all fire services play their part in achieving the savings that he says have to be made. They say that that could easily be achieved through ministerial use of the floor damping mechanism and that metropolitan authorities would still shoulder the heaviest cuts over the four years. Mr Winnick: In a briefing paper from the Association of Metropolitan Fire and Rescue Authorities, of which I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware, it is stated that if the present formula goes ahead and we do not have the fair formula that we want, there will be 40 redundancies on a 13.5% reduction in grant, which is obviously a great danger to our constituents. A 27% cut over the next few years could cause the loss of 300 posts after natural wastage. Is that not a great danger to our constituents in the west midlands? I hope that the Minister will respond and recognise our concern. Ian Austin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that the Minister will address those points when he responds to the debate later.

277WH

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

7 MARCH 2012

Mr Watts: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government’s proposals are led by the fact that they expect people to make efficiency savings? Bearing in mind that metropolitan authorities already have the most efficient fire services, it will make any further savings more difficult to achieve. Is this not rewarding the most inefficient fire services at the expense of the most efficient ones? Ian Austin: That is absolutely right. In all other areas, the Government argue for reform, savings and efficiencies, yet here we find the authorities that have done the most and made the greatest savings being penalised the most. Forgive me for my cynicism, but it does seem that many of the areas represented by the Minister’s right hon. and hon. Friends are being saved from the cuts that the areas represented by so many Opposition Members are having to make. Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con): I am one of the Government Members who represents one of the affected metropolitan authorities. Quite apart from the importance of getting fairness for all metropolitan areas, is it not also an irony that one of the effects could be to reduce the capacity of metropolitan fire services to provide surrounding counties with the support and the backfilling that are so important? Ian Austin: That is right. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he is one of the few Government Members who are taking part in the debate, and he is absolutely right. The forces that cover metropolitan areas provide a really important service to the whole country, which is why he and his colleagues should be taking these issues seriously. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when he responds to the debate later. I do not propose to say anything more beyond that, because so many Members wish to contribute. John Hemming: May I put it on the record that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) is equally concerned about this matter, but she cannot make it to this debate? The fact that she is not here today does not mean that she is not concerned. Ian Austin: That is a great point. I am really pleased that I took that intervention! As I was saying, I will draw my remarks to a close, but I very much hope that the Minister will respond to all the points made during the debate. 9.55 am Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab): It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing it. I want to talk about the impact on Merseyside of cuts that are running at twice the national average—up to 12% over two years. As colleagues have said, Merseyside already has a highly efficient service. My question to the Minister is how on earth does it make sense to make cuts at double the national average in Merseyside, West Midlands, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, Nottinghamshire, Cleveland, Cambridgeshire and Shropshire, with Greater Manchester only a fraction below the figure of those other mainly metropolitan

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

278WH

areas, while making real-terms increases in funding for Devon and Somerset, Dorset, Staffordshire, Cheshire, Essex and Hampshire. Is there not a pattern emerging about the nature of the authorities that are facing these double-national-average cuts and the authorities that are seeing real-term increases? I will leave it to Members to draw their own conclusions. How can authorities such as Merseyside deal with that 12% cut when they have already made the savings over a number of years? Perhaps the Minister can also answer the point about why they have had that cut, while others have had increases at the same time. Merseyside has made the back-office and management savings, put in place a three-year pay freeze and taken money from the dynamic reserve. The issues of resilience capacity and heavy industry that we talked about in Greater Manchester are also true of Merseyside. Just down the road from my constituency are the docks, which are surrounded by residential areas. Therefore, in the event of a major incident, not just the industrial areas but the nearby residential areas would suffer. Without the necessary back-up, how can those areas be protected? The plans for future years make various assumptions. The chief fire officer has already assumed the pay freeze, a 4% council tax increase and the fact that no additional contributions will be made to the pension, yet he is still short by £8.5 million. Merseyside has made the savings that it can. If further cuts are double the national average, as they have been so far—the national average is £8.5 million—goodness only knows where he would go to make those savings. Maria Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the chief fire officer would be in the invidious position of not being able to meet his statutory obligations to keep the people of Merseyside safe? Bill Esterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course the question that arises for the Minister is exactly how does he define what the statutory obligations are for the metropolitan authorities, such as Merseyside. What level of service does he deem to be necessary to protect the people of Merseyside and the other metropolitan areas? In the Minister’s written answer to my parliamentary question, which I received only this week, he said: “It is for elected members of each authority to determine such matters, acting on the professional advice of their principal officers and following full consultation with the local community.”— [Official Report, 5 March 2012; Vol. 541, c. 485W.]

May I tell him that the professional advice of the chief fire officer of Merseyside and his colleagues is that it is not possible for them to maintain the current service on the funding settlement that the chief officer has already received, and it will be even more impossible for them to protect the community that they serve given the proposed future cuts? In addition, I can tell the Minister that the local community do not accept that these cuts should be made at all. In fact, they say that none of the cuts should be happening and that they want to be protected by the fire service. However, they are also aware that, with cuts of this nature, it is impossible for the chief fire officer to maintain the level of service that is needed.

279WH

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

7 MARCH 2012

Mr Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given what the chief fire officer of Merseyside has said about the inability to do his job, it is incumbent on the Minister now to stop and freeze the changes in the system and to get his own officials to talk directly to the fire officers who have been affected by the cuts, so that we can maintain public safety and protect lives in our areas? Bill Esterson: That is exactly right, and the Minister should be doing exactly what my hon. Friend suggests: listening to the chief fire officers, taking on board their concerns, considering what service is actually needed in each metropolitan authority and ensuring that that service can be supported by the funding that he provides. Otherwise, we run huge risks. We have already heard about the inability of the fire services to continue preventive work, such as fitting smoke detectors, which saves many lives and has reduced the number of deaths in homes over a number of years. If that work does not continue, there is a grave risk that that very welcome reduction—a move in the right direction—will be reversed, with all the danger that is implied. Of course, the fire services not only carry out preventive work; they also have the ability to respond to call-outs. It will take only one major incident in any of the metropolitan authorities to show the folly of these cuts. As a number of Members want to speak, I will draw my remarks to a close, but I urge the Minister to look at the impact of these cuts, which in Merseyside and many other metropolitan authorities is double the national average, to listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts) has said and to go back to the drawing board and reinstate the funding, so that the fire services can protect the communities that we represent. 10.2 am Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab): Thank you, Mr Williams, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this debate. I also want to mention the constructive way that the debate has been conducted until now. I hope that the tone that I will strike will not be too different from that of others who have spoken, but it is important that I place on record the feelings of people from across Merseyside. Before I do so, however, I think that right hon. and hon. Members from all parties will join me in praising some of society’s bravest men and women, who work as firefighters in all four corners of the country. Firefighters do the most difficult of jobs in the most difficult of circumstances; they are never questioning but always relentless. There is no greater exemplar of that fine tradition than the Merseyside fire and rescue service. We all owe a huge debt of gratitude to Britain’s firefighters and long may that continue. Today I speak not only as the MP for Liverpool, Walton, but as a son, brother, husband, father, motorist, home owner, property owner and frequent user of public transport in and around our great city of Liverpool, including our world famous “Ferry Across the Mersey”,

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

280WH

and I hope that the man responsible for that song—the great Gerry Marsden—soon recovers from the bout of pneumonia that he is currently suffering from. Merseyside fire and rescue service does not just put out fires; its officers also save lives on our roads and in our factories and offices, and they protect people using the River Mersey. That is why I greatly fear what this Government have done to the service to date, as well as what they have in store for it. I sincerely hope that the dangers that the Government’s decisions will bring to me, my family, my property, my constituents and every single person who lives in, works in or visits the Liverpool city region are never realised. Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab): My hon. Friend is talking about the dangers that people are confronted with. Does he agree that there are a lot of volatile industrial processes around the Liverpool city region and in neighbouring regions, and that these cuts will make incidents such as occurred in the Sonae factory in my constituency even more difficult to deal with, if they mean that the fire service does not have the resources to meet all those challenges? Steve Rotheram: Absolutely. My right hon. Friend is on record expressing his concerns about that particular factory. I must declare an interest—my brother works there, so if my right hon. Friend does close the factory down, my brother will be unemployed. But my right hon. Friend is correct, in that Merseyside and Greater Merseyside have petrochemical industries and other really volatile industries, which need the resilience of a well-funded and well-staffed fire and rescue service. As we have already heard, it cannot be right for the six metropolitan areas outside London to shoulder 60% of the total reductions burden, with Merseyside being disproportionately affected; some may even say that it is being deliberately targeted. The disproportionate effect on Merseyside is especially true when we compare the areas that have had grant cuts with the areas that have had grant increases. For instance, while Merseyside has received a grant cut that is more than the national average in both of the last two years, Hampshire, Sussex, Shropshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire—otherwise known as “Tory heartlands”—have each received grant increases. Whether that is just a coincidence is for others to decide, but put simply the formula is flawed and unfair. Mr Watts: My hon. Friend points out that many people in our metropolitan areas feel as if this Government are targeting them, not only because of the fire service cuts but because those cuts come on top of the police and council cuts. With these cuts, the biggest share of the pain is being borne by the least able in the metropolitan authority areas, and those people wonder why the Minister is taking this unfair view of the metropolitan areas’ problems. It is up to the Minister to address that feeling. Those people are asking, “Why is this Government targeting, once again, the poorest areas in Britain?” Steve Rotheram: Of course my hon. Friend is right. With regard to what has happened on Merseyside—I can speak for Merseyside in particular—we have had the largest and deepest cut to our grant settlement from Government. That has been a cut to our police grant,

281WH

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

7 MARCH 2012

[Steve Rotheram] fire grant and just about every other supporting grant that we received from Government. We have seen the largest and deepest cuts. Again, I ask, “Is that a coincidence?” As I said before, it is for others to decide, but I would say that it is a strategic decision to balance the economy on the backs of the poorest. In 2011-12, Merseyside’s grant cut was almost twice the national average and for 2012-2013 Merseyside’s grant cut will be more than three times the national average. That means that our total grant has been cut by £9 million in the first two years of this disastrous and desperately unfair period covering the comprehensive spending review. I believe that that is dangerous; the Minister knows that it is dangerous; the Prime Minister knows that it is dangerous; and the people of Merseyside know that it is dangerous. There is grave uncertainty around the Merseyside fire and rescue service, as we wait for the Government to announce the grant figures for the third and fourth years of the CSR period. Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab): It is not just the metropolitan areas that are being affected. I realise that this debate is about those areas, but these cuts also impact on other fire and rescue services, including the Northumberland fire and rescue service. I just want to put something into context. All my hon. Friends and the hon. Members who have spoken have described the cuts in percentage terms, and in percentage terms they are absolutely horrendous. But can we just put the cuts in terms of the cost to human beings? Until now—that is, in 2010 and 2011—there have been 1,000 job losses in the metropolitan areas’ fire services and it is estimated that there will be an additional loss of 2,000 front-line posts, 50 fire stations and 100 fire appliances if these cuts go ahead. What message does that give to the firefighters—those brave men and women who run towards fires when everybody else is trying to run away from them—and to the general public? Steve Rotheram: My hon. Friend has asked a question, which I will answer in relation to human beings. Our fire and rescue service on Merseyside is contemplating losing 150 firefighter posts, potentially through compulsory redundancies. That has never happened in our local authority’s history. Five fire stations are currently being earmarked for closure, including the Aintree fire station, adjacent to my own constituency. In addition, 11 fire engines will be removed from front-line response under the proposals. Five fire engines have already been removed—reduced from 42 to 37—as part of phase 1 of CSR. The cuts will reduce overall front-line operational capability to 26 engines, a reduction of nearly 40% since the start of CSR. Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op): My hon. Friend has given us stark figures in relation to the cuts that Merseyside fire and rescue service is about to impose. Does he agree that that is on top of losing more than 500 firefighters since 2002, and that the funding proposals will compound the very serious problem that we face? Steve Rotheram: My hon. Friend makes an important point, highlighting the cumulative impact of all the cuts on areas such as Merseyside. It has been debilitating for

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

282WH

the people in the fire and rescue service who go out and put their lives at risk every single day. For the good of the people of Merseyside, for the good of their safety and for the good of common sense, I urge the Minister to please stop this uncertainty. All we want is for the Minister to do as he said he would: make cuts that are fair. I want him to reassure me and the families in my constituency that response times will not double from five minutes to 10 because of reduced capacity. We have come to expect a certain level of arrogance from the Prime Minister, but this Minister knows all too well the dangers of a complacent approach to the fire and rescue service and the impact that the cuts will have on operational preparedness, national resilience and our communities’ safety. It is time to get real and stop gambling with the safety of Merseysiders. Several hon. Members rose— Hywel Williams (in the Chair): Order. I intend to start the wind-ups at 10.40 am. There are currently seven Members indicating that they wish to speak, six of whom have written. Please be brief. 10.12 am Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this debate. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who has done so much to co-ordinate the concerns of Members of Parliament and fire and rescue authorities in metropolitan areas. The truth is that in good times and bad, there will always be a row about grant redistribution. Leaving aside the political inclinations of any particular Government, there is a balance to be struck between the sparsity of rural areas and the disadvantages and high risks of urban areas. In more than 30 years’ involvement in council and parliamentary politics, I have never seen such a grotesque distortion of grant allocation to metropolitan areas. The six metropolitan areas serve a quarter of the population of this country outside the capital. They carry the highest risks in terms of fires and other emergencies, and they make a major contribution to national resilience. Yet in the first two years of this spending period, they have been expected to make 62% of the overall cuts that are required. By any measure, that is grossly unfair. It cannot be repeated in years 3 and 4 of the spending period. I want to pay tribute to the fire and rescue authorities in this country, particularly Greater Manchester fire authority, chaired by Councillor David Acton. The fire authority has made its concerns known to Government, but it has also got on with the practical and difficult task of making the required cuts, while doing everything that it can to protect the front line. Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): Does my parliamentary neighbour accept that not only Councillor David Acton has been making that case? Before him, Councillor Paul Shannon, who led the fire authority for two or three years, made the exact same case to Ministers.

283WH

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

7 MARCH 2012

He has described the unfairness of the grant allocation as scandalous and unjustifiable. He put the case very strongly to Government. Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman has put his comments on the record. I stand by my remarks about Councillor David Acton. As the new chair of the authority, he has taken on the task with incredible strength, at a difficult time, when he faces so many difficult decisions in terms of the cuts that we face. I also want to pay tribute to Gary Keary, a constituent of mine who chairs a branch of the Fire Brigades Union in Greater Manchester. He typifies the FBU’s approach in Greater Manchester. It has campaigned against the cuts and made the public aware of the implications of the cuts, but it has also been prepared to work constructively with the authority and with management to protect the public and minimise risk wherever possible. The cuts made in Greater Manchester have been largely back-office and management cuts, but they have also affected the front line, which I will come on to in a second. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): My right hon. Friend mentioned the FBU. To get its view on the record, I will read a quote: “The FBU is clear that these cuts will wreck the fire and rescue service. They are not being made on the basis of needs or risk. They have decided arbitrarily to meet the government’s forced-march deficit reduction target. The cuts will put the public and firefighters at risk.”

That is the view of FBU branch secretaries across the country and in metropolitan areas. Paul Goggins: Such views are echoed in Greater Manchester as well. Of course, the FBU and its members have done their very best to make sure that the front line of the service is protected as far as possible and that the risks to the public are minimised. In my own constituency, the front-line cuts that have had to be made, even in years 1 and 2, will make a substantial difference. In the Wythenshawe fire station, the number of staff available 24/7 will be reduced from nine to eight from 1 April. In Sale, in the other part of my constituency, the number of staff available 24/7 is reducing from nine to five, and one of the two appliances will no longer be available, so that is a substantial cut. Even so, the expected response time will be measured in seconds rather than minutes. Again, that pays tribute to those who have made the decisions to try to protect the public. A similar level of cuts in 2013-14 and 2014-15 would be an absolute disaster for my constituents and for the constituents of other right hon. and hon. Members here. In Greater Manchester, an equal share of the cuts required nationally in those two years would mean cuts of £24 million. If the same distorted criteria are used in 2013-14 and 2014-15, the cut required would be £38 million—a difference of £14 million. That would have disastrous consequences for my constituents and for others. James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con): The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case on behalf of his constituents. As an MP in a metropolitan borough in the west midlands, I support what he is

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

284WH

saying in terms of ensuring that any future cuts should be made evenly across fire authorities. However, does he agree that West Midlands fire authority has been a significant beneficiary of the damping mechanism that has been put in place? Will he join me in asking the Minister to give greater clarity on how that damping mechanism is going to be applied in future and whether the same criteria will be applied? Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I welcome his support for the overall thrust of the argument, which is for fairness in the allocation of grants in the final two years of the spending period, which we have not seen in the first two years. I encourage him and all his colleagues to discuss constructively with the Minister the best way forward. We all hope that the Minister will have constructive things to say when he winds up the debate. Hazel Blears: My right hon. Friend has referred to the settlement as a grotesque unfairness. He has made a powerful case this morning. Is he aware of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s own figures that say that, in areas of deprivation where there is high unemployment, where people live alone and where there are many disabled people, someone is perhaps four times more likely to be in a fire? Apart from the unfairness of the settlement, it is actually downright dangerous. On its own figures, the Department ought to review, as my right hon. Friend says, this grotesquely unfair settlement. Paul Goggins: I am aware of the higher risk, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend has placed it firmly on the record. I am clear that, if the unfair grant distribution is applied in the final two years of this spending period, my constituency and others will lose appliances, staff and fire stations, imposing huge risks on our constituents’ lives. The grant allocation must relate to risk, and must take account of the national requirements for resilience and responses to emergencies. 10.19 am Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this vital debate. For the people in Tyne and Wear, the issue is a real worry. The main work done by the fire service in our area includes covering two major trunk roads: the A19, which leads to two tunnels under the Tyne, and the A1. The A1 western bypass, which runs through my constituency, is 200% above its planned capacity. It is the third most congested road in the UK. Due to the state of the road, despite the fact that it is a dual carriageway, the speed limit is 50 mph along the A1 throughout my constituency. That is partly due to the number of road traffic accidents that the fire service must deal with. We have industrial sites, chemical plants, gas production plants, ports, rivers, offshore installations, high-rise flats and many areas of deprivation, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) referred a minute ago. What do we in the Tyne and Wear area face? I have had discussions with Iain Bathgate, the retiring fire chief, and Councillor Bob Heron, with whom I had the privilege to work for 20 years as a coal miner, a job in

285WH

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

7 MARCH 2012

[Mr David Anderson] which we knew a thing or two about the risk of fire. They have told me categorically that over a four-year period, Tyne and Wear fire service is facing a 35% budget cut. To try to resolve that, they have engaged in discussions with Ministers and the civil service. When the fire service and elected officials have asked, “What do we do?”, the response is, “Make cuts to the back office.” The fire service chief said, “Let’s pretend I can run a fire service without any back-office staff. If I do that, I can save 17% of the budget, which means I am halfway to where you need me to be. What can I do?” The response was, “You have to manage it,” with no more information. The fire service has already been managing it. Over the past few years, more than £8 million in savings have been made, which has included 109 front-line firefighters losing their jobs. Last year alone, we lost an appliance at Birtley fire station in my town. I worry that we will end up with an emergency-only service. I have no doubt that the great men and women in the service will make it work and do their best, as all our public servants do, to ensure that service is provided, but what will happen to the community? This is a debate about community. I remind the Minister that his is the Department for Communities and Local Government. I will give two examples. The town of Birtley in my constituency has a boxing club. It was founded 30 years ago, with the support of the fire service, the police and the schools. They realised that prevention was the main thing, so they set up the boxing club. Part of the remit for the young lads who went to the boxing club was that they had to go to school and perform well. The young men coming through are now representing the country, but first and foremost they are being trained in how to behave properly, have self-respect and self-esteem and help care for the community. Likewise, Chopwell, in a more remote part of my constituency, is surrounded by some of the biggest forests in the north of England. We had a huge problem with young people setting fires up there. The retained fire service in that part of the world has become the community centre for young people. It is a brilliant place. Last year, it was burgled, and the community insisted on holding a social to raise funds. The firemen said, “Look, you don’t need to. We’re insured,” but they said, “We’re having it,” because of their respect. My worry is that we will lose that link. It is a genuine public service. I say to the Minister that the D in DCLG does not stand for “decimate the service”. The C does not stand for “cut terms and conditions for the work force, including pensions”. The LG does not stand for “all we have to do is let go of thousands of dedicated public servants”. The real story is that it is all part and parcel of the present Government’s drive against the public sector. It is an ideological drive to get the public sector out of the way and let the private sector fill the gap, led by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Bradford bulldog, who is determined to show that he can cut harder than anybody else, aided and abetted by the Minister. Between them, they have become the Eric and Ernie of public services. I have no doubt that the Minister has a raft of jokes to throw at us, but nobody is laughing in the fire service, and nobody is laughing in our communities.

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

286WH

10.24 am Mr Shaun Woodward (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this debate. The more I listen to hon. Friends and colleagues, the more I feel that it is essential to say one thing to the Minister. He will have in front of him a brief prepared by his civil servants. As Ministers and former Ministers, we know that sometimes we are obliged to act as our civil servants advise, but we also know that we have discretion. I say to him at the outset that I hope that what he is hearing will lead him to go to his Secretary of State and use his power as a Minister to say, “I think we’ve got this wrong.” As I listen to my hon. Friends, I have no doubt that the present arrangements under the funding formula have not only produced an inequitable position but will put lives at risk. People will die. I pray that that will not happen, but the Minister will know that if, as a result of the cuts next year or the year after, a number of people in any constituency die in an out-of-control fire in a school or business, an inquiry will be demanded. The inquiry will say that mistakes were made, and that the fundamental mistake was that when the cuts were introduced, not enough account was taken of the risks. The Minister has a chance. He has some months to go to his Secretary of State and say, “I think we may have a problem with the formula we’ve been given.” It is his choice. He can do so. In Merseyside, we have already lost many firefighters. We used to have nearly 1,400; we are now down to 880, and shortly it will be 800. The coming cuts will drive us down to 650. Further cuts will be made to fire stations and to the number of engines. The question is whether it is safe to go further. This year, there will be no pay increase, and there will be a 4% increase in the council tax precept. That means, at best, an £8.5 million cut to Merseyside. What that means in my constituency is that we will lose one fire station, almost certainly in Eccleston. Hon. Members may feel that we must all share the pain equally, but let me be clear about what the pain means. In 2004, the Merseyside fire service produced an important report in which it concluded that “for all property fires we intend to get the first firefighting resources to the fire in 10 minutes or less”.

One of my hon. Friends has already referred to the Fire Brigades Union. I ask the Minister to reread its 2010 report, which discusses why response times matter. The report says that “in the late stages a minute or two can make the difference between life and death”.

It also says: “If a person has survived near to a fire for nine minutes, one minute later the fire could have increased in size by such an extent that they will be killed.”

I will tell the Minister what it will mean if the Eccleston station closes. The station serves 21,000 households, many of them disproportionately old. It serves 15 primary schools, three secondary schools and two colleges. Last year, the fire service attended 66 fires and 19 road traffic collisions. I asked the chief fire officer to give me his assessment of how long it would take for the two engines from St Helens to get to parts of Rainford, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts). He said 15 minutes. That is five minutes more than what everybody knows is necessary to save lives. People will die.

287WH

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

7 MARCH 2012

Let us be clear. Numerous stations will close. All of that will cause problems, but when a Minister knows that the consequence of what he is doing will certainly be death, he has a huge responsibility to go to his Secretary of State and say, “If this material from the chief fire officer in Merseyside is correct—he is not a politician; I simply asked him for figures—we need to talk to him, sit down with the fire authority and look at the risks, because we are being told that people will die.” The Minister is a good man, and he has a choice. He can exercise his choice, accept the responsibilities of his office and say, “We have something wrong here, but we have time to change it.” It is his choice, and I very much hope that he has heard my hon. Friends’ remarks this morning, because the policy will cost lives. 10.29 am Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op): I will keep my remarks short, because many representations have been made by hon. Friends from across Merseyside this morning. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing the debate, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) for his work along with other Members in campaigning on this important issue. I, too, add my voice to those who honour our brave firefighters, who risk their lives daily to protect the British people. I will focus on two points to support what some of my hon. Friends have said; I am conscious of the time and I want to allow other Members to make their contributions. Our fire authority in Merseyside is led by Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens. He has done much work to make the cuts imposed on the fire service while protecting front-line services. That has not been easy, and tough choices have been made. Pay has been frozen for three years, and back office and management have been cut and shared. We often hear from the Government about trimming the fat. Back office functions have been severely shaved to make them the leanest of any comparable service. Reserves in Merseyside have already been spent, and innovations have been made, a list of which I will share with the Minister after this debate. The council tax precept has been raised, and 92 firefighters and 80 support staff have lost their jobs. In short, everything that could be done to ensure that the fire service keeps doing the vital work of saving lives has been done. There is absolutely no fat left to trim, and there is no low-hanging fruit to pick. Only the bare minimum remains. Despite that, our fire service is facing even more significant cuts. We are waiting to hear from the Department in December about the next round of budget reductions. The best case scenario is absolutely sobering. As we have heard from other hon. Members, we are looking at the closure of five fire stations, including Allerton fire station in my constituency. There is the prospect of 11 fire engines being scrapped and 150 firefighter posts being lost. It is sobering to think that that is the best case scenario. If the second phase of cuts follows in the same vein as the first, it is likely that the authority’s cut will be significantly higher than the national average on which that estimate is based. Some £17 million could be lost.

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

288WH

There is absolutely no chance that the cuts can be made without damaging the firefighting capability in Merseyside. We all agree that our firefighters do an incredible job. They place themselves in dangerous situations every day to protect us and save lives. We should be doing everything we can to make their job easier, not harder. We have already heard stories in Merseyside about the fire service struggling to attend all incidents now, before the second round of cuts. With that in mind, I urge the Minister to think long and hard before he imposes huge cuts on fire services in all metropolitan areas, including Merseyside. If he is committed a national cut on that level, then I urge him to use the time between now and December to look at how it could be distributed more evenly, so that metropolitan areas are not disproportionately affected, our front-line services can be maintained, and our public can be adequately protected. 10.33 am Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab): I am grateful for a late opportunity to speak in this debate. I think I am on the third version of my speech, and you will be delighted to know that it is down to one page from seven. I would like to add my thanks to those expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing the debate and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) for liaising and bringing the mix together, and for arranging a meeting with the Minister. As the only Member from south Yorkshire in the Chamber, I would like to place on the record the financial situation that is hitting West Yorkshire fire authority. For the first two years, the cut in grants equalled 11%, amounting to £13 million, under the unequal grant distribution introduced by the Minister. Even with an equal distribution, the cut would have been 6.5%, or £6.8 million. The difference between the two distributions underlines the task that the Minister is pushing on the fire authorities. It indicates that the fire authorities do not live in an unreal world. If they were facing equal cuts, there would be a different attitude, even though the cuts are particularly tough. The next two years raise questions for the Minister. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) in pleading with him to speak quietly but firmly to his Secretary of State about the position facing fire authorities and emergency services in the final two years of the spending review. If firmness and quietness do not work with the Secretary of State, and if nothing else works, the Minister should point out to the Secretary of State that the second and worst year of the spending review is the year of the election. In view of what the fire authorities are saying to Members about the effects of the cuts, it will not be a nice position from which to fight an election. One year of cuts is severe, but there will be two and even three years of cuts. What happens when it hits four years? There will be 13% of cuts for West Yorkshire fire authority over the next two years. If the sacrifice were shared equally across the country, the cut would be 5%. In money terms, it would be £19.8 million over the two years instead of £12.8 million. The figure of £12.8 million is formidable on its own, and it would be that figure only if there was an equality of sacrifice.

289WH

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

7 MARCH 2012

[Mr George Mudie] The first set of cuts cost 170 firefighters. It caused crews to be cut and cost many support services. We are speaking about grants, but they are only one part of the picture—the revenue part. There is the expenditure part, where even after cuts, the fire authority will have to look for £9.1 million in 2013-14, and £13.7 million in 2014-15. That is after the authority has made what it—not politicians—regards as cuts that will still allow it to look the public largely in the eye and say that safety has been taken into consideration; I emphasise “largely”. We are facing those sorts of budget difficulties. On top of the 170 firefighters in West Yorkshire who will go by the end of the second year of the spending review, 380 firefighters are pencilled in to go in the next two years. John McDonnell: The Fire Brigades Union regional secretary, Pete Smith said: “This will reduce our ability to respond to major outdoor fires which have damaged our moorlands and major flooding which has hit this region in recent years…There are times when we have been seriously stretched even with our current resources. These cuts risk tipping us over the edge and that will have a very serious impact on the public.”

That, from the front line, reflects exactly what my hon. Friend is saying. Mr Mudie: I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. I have been critical of the present cuts. I have questioned the fire chief seriously and challenged him regarding the safety of my constituents. We have a lot of back-to-back houses. The chief is closing the fire station in the area, and I worry about the safety of our constituents, in terms of the time that vehicles need to get to a fire. My hon. Friend makes a good point: faced with the final two years of the spending review, the Minister has to look seriously at this issue, including an equality of sacrifice—my hon. Friends have already referred to the strange and distorted distribution of cuts. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne, I was able to meet the Minister. I went further than my right hon. Friend, however, in saying that I did not accept the spending envelope with which the Minister was working. The spending envelope is acceptable only if it is the Government’s will for every service to be cut by a certain amount. Because of the nature of the emergency services, provision cannot drop below a certain level without danger to the public, and to say that the emergency services are the same as libraries or other services shows a distorted set of values. I challenged the Minister about the spending envelope, and urged him, as the person who would be responsible for the consequences of any serious fires due to the cuts, to go to the Secretary of State and spell out the dangerous position that we are in. At the meeting, the Minister agreed that his officers would meet representatives of the metropolitan fire authorities to go through the details and see whether they could accept any of the points that have been made. Let me say quietly to the Minister that I hope he will take that seriously, and that it results in a changed distribution of cuts to deal with some of the problems faced by the metropolitan fire authorities. In view of the serious points raised in this debate by representatives of big metropolitan areas, I hope that the Minister will go

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

290WH

to the Secretary of State and say that the policy that is being pursued is unsafe and could put a lot of innocent people in serious danger. 10.41 am Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Williams. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this vital debate, and I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) for his excellent work in bringing this topic to the fore. It is a vital issue and it is important to debate it this morning. I hope that the Minister has listened to the contributions made by right hon. and hon. Members from across the Chamber. There is a degree of cross-party consensus and concern about the impact of the cuts, and certainly the overwhelming view in the debate—and indeed across the country—is that the cuts go too far. My right hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) got to the nub of the issue when he pointed out that the cuts could result in people losing their lives, and that that could result in a public inquiry. Can the Minister put his hand on his heart and say that he would be in a robust position to defend the Government’s stance if such a tragedy were to occur and were followed up by a public inquiry? The metropolitan fire authorities make the greatest contribution to national resilience in our country. To undermine that resilience in such a way is regrettable, and the Government should think carefully before they proceed. As today’s contributions to the debate have made clear, the metropolitan fire authorities have been singled out for vicious cuts. They are not the only services facing cuts; many fire and rescue authorities are confronting cuts across the country, and that will be particularly true in years 3 and 4 of the spending review. We have seen only the start of the cuts; the worst is yet to come. The Minister was pleased to secure what he felt was a concession in that the cuts to fire and rescue services were back-loaded rather than front-loaded. We have already seen the devastating consequences of the first two years of back-loaded cuts, but the cuts will become even greater, which paints a very worrying picture. It simply will not do for the Minister to stand up and use the Pontius Pilate defence—I know he has also used it in written responses to right hon. and hon. Members—and say that it is for locally elected representatives to determine how they deploy their budgets. If locally elected representatives do not have the money in the first place to allow them to deploy their budgets and meet their statutory responsibilities, it will not do for the Minister to say that it is a matter for local areas. Having looked at the figures, it is clear that the areas with highest demand will be hit the hardest by the per capita funding cuts, and it is incumbent on the Minister to explain a funding formula that has such perverse outcomes. For the record, I will go through some of the figures. In Greater Manchester, there are 8.74 incidents per 1,000 people, yet there will be a per capita cut of 82p; in Merseyside, 10.87 incidents per 1,000 of the population, and a per capita cut of £1.05; in South Yorkshire, 8.56 incidents per 1,000 people, and an 85p

291WH

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

7 MARCH 2012

per capita cut; in Tyne and Wear, 9.70 incidents per 1,000 people, and a 99p per capita cut; in the West Midlands 8.03 incidents per 1,000 people and a 94p per capita cut; and in West Yorkshire 7.89 incidents per 1,000 people and a 32p per capita reduction. That cannot be justified in any parlance, and the Minister must try to explain how he can defend such cuts. We know that the cuts have already led to thousands of firefighters losing their jobs across the country, and that fire stations are closing. We know that appliances are being decommissioned as a consequence of the reductions, and that the greatest number of job losses, decommissioned fire appliances and fire station closures are occurring in the areas of greatest need. Furthermore, as a consequence of the cuts, the excellent preventive work for which the fire and rescue service is responsible is suffering. What a crazy situation to put the nation in—cuts to preventive work are having to be made as a result of the reductions in funding from central Government. We will see more incidents of arson and the other problems that the fire and rescue service is called on to deal with, such as young people engaging in antisocial behaviour. The fire and rescue service does excellent work with young people, for example in the youth engagement schemes that take place around the country. It is clear that the Minister’s cuts are arbitrary and are wrecking our fire and rescue service. The metropolitan fire and rescue services are bearing the biggest burden. The cuts are putting firefighters’lives at risk and endangering the public. There will be increased casualties, and more properties will be lost as a consequence of the cuts to the fire services. That is not just scaremongering. I quote the author of “Fire Futures: Role of the Fire and Rescue Service (Delivery Models) Report,” which was commissioned by the Minister and said that “these funding reductions will imperil their ability”—

the ability of fire and rescue services— “to carry out risk-based budgeting and implement their local Integrated Risk Management Plans…let alone play an effective part in the National Framework. When all the frills have been removed, every spare ounce of fat burned off, and every possible efficiency saving identified and implemented, there will remain only real cuts to the core service and a real increase in casualties and property loss.”

That is a damning indictment of the Government’s direction of travel in relation to fire and rescue services. I hope, having listened to the passionate speeches from right hon. and hon. Members who have great experience on this issue, that the Minister will consider what he has heard today, talk to his colleagues, think again, change course and reduce these cuts. The nation is relying on him. 10.50 am The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing the debate and all the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. The hon. Lady is of course right to pay tribute to the firefighters in her constituency and in green watch and to many others across the country. I have been involved in the fire service, one way or another, for 35 years.

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

292WH

I have been the leader of a fire authority. I have had to wrestle with the difficulties of balancing a budget. Throughout those years, I have met firefighters in stations. I have dealt with the fire unions regularly. Mr George Howarth rose— Robert Neill: I will not give way very much, I am afraid, because I want to answer some of the points that have been made. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, let us see how we get on. There is no monopoly of concern for the fire service in either party or personal terms. Equally, we have to recognise that, as with all the public sector, the fire service must deal with the difficult and pressing financial situation that we inherited from the previous Government. I make no bones about that. We must therefore deal with difficult financial circumstances in a sensible fashion. There is no point in denying the need to reduce the deficit, and I do not think that most responsible people on any side do. It is not helpful to use the rather selective quotations that we have just heard or highly coloured scenarios. There are difficulties, which are being addressed by fire services through hard work, and I recognise that. It is equally important, however, to provide the full context, which may not have been picked up fully in the debate. First, it is right, as has been observed, that back-loading is recognising the position of the fire service as an emergency service. It is worth noting that the reductions applied to fire and rescue authorities have been less than those applied to local authorities in general. No one likes to have to make reductions, but the inheritance is such that it cannot be avoided. Secondly, it is important to realise that the much criticised formula is—I say it bluntly—essentially the formula that this Government inherited from Opposition Members when they were in government. It is a bit rich to hear criticisms of illogicality from hon. Members who were effectively the authors of the system—a system that the Government are proposing, in the coalition agreement, to change. Let me spell that out a little more clearly. Mr Brady: Will my hon. Friend the Minister give way? Robert Neill: May I make a little progress? I want to get this on the record, and then my hon. Friend will understand why. It is important to recognise that, under the current system, the metropolitan authorities none the less receive far more protection from the damping system than any other type of authority. The Government took the view, despite arguments from some quarters to the contrary, that it was right to maintain the damping position. That has protected the metropolitan authorities more than anyone else. For example, West Midlands fire and rescue authority benefits from damping to the tune of £8.5 million in 2011-13. Overall, there is approximately a £26 million benefit to metropolitan fire authorities from floor damping protection in 2011-13. Steve Rotheram: rose—

293WH

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

7 MARCH 2012

Robert Neill: I am going to make these points before I start giving way to anyone. That is more money than they would otherwise have had. The Government maintain that protection. Nonmetropolitan areas contribute towards that protection. It is also worth bearing in mind that the Government changed an element of the formula that we inherited to increase the relative needs weighting, which operates to the benefit of metropolitan authorities, because it reflects more of the needs that arise in urban areas. It targets resources on those authorities that are more dependent on central ground. It is not right to suggest that the Government have sought to target metropolitan areas. The operation of the formula is, I think, potentially flawed, which is why the Government, through the Localism Act 2011 and the Local Government Finance Bill, are moving away from the crude system of formula grant to assist in a business rate retention that will enable us to treat authorities fairly. Mr Brady rose— Robert Neill: I will give way, once, to my hon. Friend. Mr Brady: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister. As a fellow Conservative Member who represents a metropolitan constituency, I would not expect him to be biased against metropolitan constituencies. Most of us have engaged in this debate—not just today, but before—in a very constructive way, and so has the Minister. Whatever the origin of the formula, I hope that he will accept that its implementation is resulting in particularly harsh cuts in metropolitan areas. I hope that he will give serious consideration to whether a more equitable arrangement can be found to spread the cuts more fairly around the country. Robert Neill: I understand my hon. Friend, but it is right to say that, in 2012-13, formula grant average per head in metropolitan fire and rescue services is £26, as against £19 per head in non-metropolitan areas. We should not think that there are no pressures and fire risks in non-metropolitan areas. Mr Woodward rose— John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) rose— Mr Watts rose— Robert Neill: I want to finish this point before I give way, if hon. Members will forgive me. It is important to recognise that there are concerns. That is why, after the meeting organised by the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), I indicated that my officials would be happy to meet officials from the fire authorities. I assure him that that is still the case. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, because of his action on this matter and because he has not yet spoken.

Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)

294WH

John Healey: I thank the Minister for giving way. I thank him for his willingness to meet us and for charging his officials to work with those from the metropolitan authorities to get to the bottom of the situation and to consider the future. Does he recognise that there is cross-party and cross-area concern? Does he recognise that that concern is not about the first two years of the spending review; it is about years 3 and 4? The six fire chiefs, uniquely, have to come together to ensure that any cuts that need to be made are made evenly and equitably across all authorities in England. Robert Neill: I will make sure that those meetings take place. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we are now moving to a new system. James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con): Will the Minister give way? Robert Neill: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I want to get this point on the record, along with other important points that need to be made for the sake of balance. I assure the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne that when we design the new system, we wish to ensure that there is fairness. That is why, in setting the baseline under the new system, the risks element will be taken into account. We have decided that, under the new system, fire and rescue authorities will be designated as top-up authorities, so that they will have the confidence of having a significant proportion of their funding protected and will not be subject to volatility by business rate growth. They will have that protection, plus the protection of uprating annually by the retail prices index. Mr Watts rose— Robert Neill: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. We are seeking to deal with those measures and will continue to work with authorities across the sector. It is also important to put on the record that other funding streams are relevant to the fire service. Funding for the national resilience element is outside the formula grant. That has been referred to on a number of occasions. It is important to bear in mind that the funding for new dimension equipment, for example, increased in 2011-12 from 2010-11. The total metropolitan authority funding for new dimensions is £8 million. There are also specific grants in relation to urban search and rescue, high-volume pumps and so on. We maintain our stance that that will be treated as a new burden issue should more be required. Capital grant funding for metropolitan authorities has been significantly increased. In Greater Manchester, the increase is 82%. Metropolitan fire authorities will benefit from £25 million capital funding, so it is not entirely accurate to talk solely about the formula grant. The Government are making other resources available to local authorities and fire and rescue authorities in particular to assist them with the need for service reconfiguration.

295WH

7 MARCH 2012

DVLA Closures (Scotland)

296WH

DVLA Closures (Scotland)

I am happy that the DVLA have made significant progress in this area. I have re-registered my car simply online: it works wells and I am pleased about that.

Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab): I am grateful for having secured this debate. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is an important organisation in respect of the service it provides to motorists and the £5.7 billion a year that it raises for the Treasury. I shall focus on the problems arising from the DVLA’s proposals to close 39 of its local offices, particularly those in Scotland, because there is a Scottish angle that I am anxious to discuss with the Minister. I shall focus on my local office. The office in my constituency is particularly busy, as are most of the offices throughout the country. Some 2.4 million people a year use their local DVLA office. The figures show that between 80,000 and 90,000 people a year use the Aberdeen office. In the past three years, there have been more than 250,000 transactions involving individuals using their local DVLA office for various purposes. Some 79 services are provided by DVLA at local offices. On examination, the figures are stark. For example, Aberdeen has one of the highest rates of use of personal number plates, or cherished number plates to use the DVLA term—about 18,000 in the past three years. People might expect nothing less from an area that is fairly rich in oil and gas money. The proposal is to transfer all the functions of the 39 offices to Swansea, which is the main headquarters of the DVLA. The consultation document by the DVLA and the Department for Transport is one of the weakest that I have seen: we are getting motherhood and apple pie and heading for sunny uplands, but there is little— virtually nothing—about the 1,200 jobs that will be lost in this process and little risk assessment of the financial analysis. We are not even told how much the Department expects to save in this operation. In addition to all that, there is no impact assessment and no consideration of what the consumer—the customer—is likely to face.

Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): There are DVLA offices in Coleraine, Londonderry and Ballymena. Going online also jeopardises those jobs. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that going online is not necessarily the best way to save those jobs?

11 am

Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): The Edinburgh local office, which is not in my constituency, although I have constituency work there—it is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart)—provides a service for the motor trade, which it finds valuable because it enables it to carry on its business swiftly and efficiently with people with whom it has built up a relationship. Does my hon. Friend agree that the loss of that service is a loss to those businesses? Mr Doran: Indeed, it is. Motor dealers who have sold a car want it to be registered as quickly as possible. Registration is one of the largest components of the work of the office in my constituency. A significant number of objections or letters of complaint from the motor trade have been sent to the DVLA as part of the consultation. The motor trade will be damaged substantially by the local closures. Another option is to replace the local offices with the Post Office. I have no objection to business going to the Post Office—we all want our local post offices to improve their businesses—but no one in that organisation can provide the technical help and support that the local DVLA offices provide. The other option is to go online.

Mr Doran: The jobs have not really been considered in the consultation document. I understand that 1,200 jobs are at risk and some of those—200 or 300—will be moved to Swansea, if people are prepared to move. The hon. Gentleman is right. Despite the progress made by the DVLA in going online and its digital technology, I understand that there is a huge gap in the technology. The trade unions’ assessment is that it will take at least four or five years to fill that gap. That will add to the problem. The other route being offered to customers is the post. We are talking about 2.4 million new transactions shifting from local offices to the centre in Swansea. A pilot test run a year or two ago, looking at postal loss—envelopes that go missing between the DVLA and its customers—showed that some 0.9% of post was lost. That does not sound like a lot and I am told that the DVLA has got that figure down to 0.5%, but with the number of transactions that will transfer to Swansea the potential loss is huge: almost 120,000 of 2.4 million letters will potentially be lost. I have calculated that, if everyone in my area used the post—clearly they will not; this is just for illustration— over the past three years we would have lost 1,250 communications. Given that many of these communications will contain identification documents, such as passports, that is a serious problem. I should like the Minister to comment on that. We are given three potential ways forward and there is a serious problem with each of them. More important, from my point of view as a former practising solicitor, are the legal consequences of another aspect of the DVLA’s work. The key responsibility in the local areas is enforcement. Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that a key danger of the reorganisation is the potential effect on evasion of vehicle excise. I am also sure that he is already aware that if evasion rose by only 0.5% it would wipe out all the savings of this reorganisation. Mr Doran: The hon. Gentleman is right. The 2004 figures, which are the most recent that I have managed to get hold of, show that evasion of vehicle excise duty was about 5%. That is a significant figure. Every percentage point costs the DVLA £57 million. Even a small increase, say 0.5% or 1%, would mean that the £28 million in savings expected from the closure process will be wiped out. It is not unrealistic to say that through this process, we are heading, particularly in Scotland, towards the serious possibility that evasion of vehicle excise duty will increase. In the system at the moment there is an enforcement office in each region. In Scotland, that office is in Glasgow. Around the country, vehicles go out on our

297WH

DVLA Closures (Scotland)

7 MARCH 2012

[Mr Doran] streets patrolling with number-recognition equipment, tallying what they find with DVLA records to pick up vehicles on which the vehicle excise duty has not been paid. It is quite a sophisticated operation. I am told that responsibility for vehicles is to be removed from the local office, but Scotland has a particular legal issue. In England and Wales, and perhaps in Northern Ireland, the DVLA is the prosecuting authority, but in Scotland everything operates through the procurator fiscal, who has to operate within the confines of Scots law, which involves corroboration of every piece of evidence presented to the court. In my local area, there are between 200 and 300 contested cases a year, because someone either pleads not guilty or ignores a summons from the court. That needs evidence, which at the moment is provided by an officer from Glasgow travelling to the local sheriff court, which could be just around the corner in the Glasgow sheriff court or in Orkney, Shetland or Western Isles. An assessment is made in each case—basically, a cost-benefit assessment: what is the cost of sending an officer to Shetland or Aberdeen and what are we likely to get in the way of a fine? If the costs outweigh the likely fine, a case will probably not be proceeded with, so people are already getting away with refusing or failing to pay their vehicle excise duty. If the same cost-benefit analysis is done in the Swansea office, sending someone from Swansea to Shetland or even Aberdeen becomes a major operation. There are major cost factors, including overnight stays, which are unlikely at the moment. The cost will rise, and will we also see a rise in evasion of vehicle excise duty? If we do, what assessment has been made of the cost? Where is the financial analysis to show us what the new system might mean for evasion, in particular if we continue to provide evidence that must be from a witness, on which there is no option in the Scottish courts? What is the analysis? It strikes me that we will be opening the gates to people who might be prone to think that they can get away with evading their vehicle excise duty, and that undermines the whole system. Among the problems to be considered, I have mentioned the consultation document, which is flabby and weak in every respect—I am concerned about it, because there is a host of areas where we do not have answers, some of which I have outlined. There has been no consideration of the huge rise in inconvenience to the public who use the local centres in significant numbers. The evidence is available: 2.4 million people a year will be inconvenienced, many of them businesses, some large, some small. The consultation report tells us that some such businesses already use the online system but, from my contacts in the motor trade, they are more interested in completing their licence or registration on the same day, rather than waiting several days, perhaps longer, for the material to come back from Swansea. Also, from experience of such significant changes and reorganisations, the first two or three years are likely to be chaotic as the system beds down. I have commented on the loss of documents, in particular passports, which are valuable in themselves but are lost at huge inconvenience to the individual passport holder and with a possibly large profit for any criminal into whose hands the passport might fall. The potentially

DVLA Closures (Scotland)

298WH

significant rise in tax evasion would be at significant cost to the Treasury. At this stage, with the lack of information from the consultation process, it is difficult to see anything positive. I have a simple question for the Minister: what is the point? 11.14 am The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning): It is a pleasure to be working under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Williams, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on securing the debate. If I were in his position, I would be in his seat, and he would probably be in mine. The changes that we are proposing and that were subject to consultation are not only about money. The service offered by the DVLA to the British public is quite different from any offered by most other agencies: apart from the collection of vehicle excise duty revenue that we do on behalf of Her Majesty’s Treasury, the service is paid for by the people who use it. The DVLA has to be self-sufficient in how it operates. At the moment, the types of service that we offer to the public in offices around the country could clearly be done more professionally, efficiently and helpfully, and at a cost that could help the taxpayer as well. The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the 2.4 million people who use the offices each year, but that equates to less than 6% of DVLA transactions, although they take up almost 25% of DVLA staffing levels. I shall leave others to do the mathematics, but if we can operate more cost-effectively, that is what Governments should do. Many services are offered at different offices around the country, and the hon. Gentleman rightly alluded to the profitable business of cherished or personalised number plates—whatever we want to call them—but the system is quite archaic. Someone has to prove the MOT for the vehicle from which the plate is being transferred, even though the transfer has been approved by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency: the vehicle has to be brought to the test centre and the process gone through. We want to speed that process up—we want more cherished number plates in Aberdeen. If there is money in Aberdeen to buy cherished number plates, the DVLA wants that money, because it helps to balance the books in the country. At the moment, there is a disincentive because the measures are complicated, which anyone who goes through the process will realise. We want to simplify it as much as possible. Throughout Government, we want to use digital portals much more efficiently. Some 50% of all DVLA transactions now go through the digital portal, with people sitting at home or at their local library. That service continues to be rolled out across the country. On non-payment of VED, I am pleased that the latest figures are much better, and less than 1% is lost—in other words, people not paying are less than 1%. A lot of hard work has been done in the regional offices and the Swansea central office, but much of the success is to do with automatic number plate recognition. Modern ANPR cameras are ridiculously accurate—I hope people are listening to the debate—and, as we have rolled out ANPR through the police and through our camera technology, we have picked up more and more people. More individuals are being made aware that they are likely to be caught and prosecuted, which is why we

299WH

DVLA Closures (Scotland)

7 MARCH 2012

have that level of less than 1% at the moment. There is no way in the world that I would be standing in the Chamber to condone any process likely to let that figure get worse. Most prosecutions are done through Swansea—I shall come on to the Scottish issues in a second, which are different, I accept, but we have taken them into consideration. Mr Doran: A lot of the improvement in the capture of defaulters is because of the number of patrolling recognition vehicles, but my understanding, certainly in Scotland, is that they are being removed. Are they being removed throughout the country? What impact assessment has been made of the effect of that on defaults? Mike Penning: There is a roll-out, not a roll-in, to use probably perverse language—more and more vehicles are going out. I will not tell the country where they are and where they will be, because I want to catch and prosecute people. If any hon. colleagues have not been out on patrol with their local police with ANPR in the vehicle, I urge them to do so. They should contact their local constabulary and go out with them, because it will be an eye-opening experience for them. They can then explain to their constituents just how advanced the technology is. I sat in a police car on the side of an A road in Milton Keynes recently, but as the vehicles went past an alarm went off in the car if they did not have any insurance or MOT, and we knew who the vehicle was registered to. ANPR is very accurate. As we have rolled out continuous insurance— Mr Doran: Will the Minister give way? Mike Penning: I urge the hon. Gentleman to bear with me, because I want to make a little progress. I am conscious that, otherwise, Mr Williams will shut me up before I have had an opportunity to address the issues that he raised. I fully accept that there is some concern in the motor industry, but it is split. I regularly meet the industry’s representative bodies, and I have met representatives of the motor trade in my constituency. What we are proposing will be more efficient. It will not be a case of putting documents in the post and losing blank tax discs. We will use a secure system, and speed will be subject to a contract. Delivery will be the following day, and it may sometimes be possible to offer same-day delivery. Most of the complaints that I have heard from colleagues have come from people at local offices, who believe that they may lose their job. I fully understand their concerns, but the necessary efficiencies will mean that the risk to the motor trade of holding whole books of blank tax discs in their showrooms will be removed. At the moment, showrooms receive them in blocks, and are responsible for those blocks, which they may return if they do not use them. That is not efficient for them or for us, and we intend to roll out a more efficient way. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in saying that the system in England and Wales is different from the system in Scotland. The system in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) knows, is completely archaic, and no electronic portals can be used because the database is not compatible with the database in Swansea, so we must do something about

DVLA Closures (Scotland)

300WH

that. There may be an Adjournment debate on the subject, but I thought I should raise the matter. We must deliver a much better service for the Province of Northern Ireland. In Scotland, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North rightly said, the procurator fiscal is the prosecutor, but we do not intend to have everyone sitting in Swansea and then taking lovely journeys to Shetland and the Western Isles. Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP): Hear, hear. Mike Penning: The hon. Gentleman agrees that it is a lovely journey. I have been to Shetland and the Western Isles, and I agree, but it takes a while and requires an overnight stay. We will work with the procurator fiscal. I am not a lawyer, but this place is full of lawyers, and we will ensure that case notes are available with the evidential base for prosecution. I want the number of prosecutions to rise, not fall. If anyone in Shetland and the Western Isles believes that they will not be prosecuted because of the cost analysis, they are wrong. We will be able to roll out prosecutions on a level playing field throughout the country. I fully accept that at the moment that is not the case. I apologise to those who live at the extremities of this great nation of ours, but we will ensure that whether people live in London or Shetland, they will be prosecuted if they break the law. The consultation is genuine, as is any consultation I introduce. I remember standing here and speaking about a completely different consultation and saying that it was not a closed deal. Matters that were not in the consultation will arise. Some 400 colleagues and others have contributed to the consultation, which closes on 20 March. We will consider all submissions, whether or not they were detailed in the consultation. The issue is categorically not just about saving money, although there will be savings. It is my responsibility, and the responsibility of the chief executive of the DVLA, to ensure that we provide a service to the public that is as cost-efficient and as accessible as possible. There is demand for a more digital service, and for it to be provided through the excellent post office network, which we have all defended in this Chamber over the years. It is imperative that at the end of the consultation we ensure that all the issues are considered. If the plans go ahead, we will ensure that, wherever possible, staff will be transferred to other departments if that is what they want. If there are redundancies, we will ensure that we handle them correctly, and if retraining is required, it will be provided. Only the other day, I met a group of DVLA workers who were worried because they had never filled in a CV or applied for a job. Assistance will be given to everyone who applies for a new job in a Government agency or Department, or who are leaving DVLA. That is a moral responsibility, as well as a legal one. We must ensure that the cost base is delivered correctly and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) said, we do not lose the benefit of the current level of non-payment, which is 1%. I cannot claim full responsibility for that, because I have been in the job for only 21 months, and the figures cover three years, so the previous Government must have been

301WH

DVLA Closures (Scotland)

[Mike Penning] doing something right to achieve that figure. Some of that excellent work is done in local offices but—I hate to say this—most of it is being done through technology and at Swansea. There will be more than 300 new jobs at Swansea. That does not equate with the 1,200 jobs at risk around the country, but some of those new jobs may be taken up by existing DVLA staff if they wish to relocate, although I fully understand that relocating from Aberdeen to Swansea would be extremely difficult. That is why we will offer redundancy packages if necessary. My job is to ensure that we deliver the best possible service for the public, who are telling us that they want a more digital system. I accept that some businesses are saying one thing, and others are saying another, but as long as we can ensure that we deliver the service to the motor trade professionally and without much of the risk, I think they will be happy, and they have mostly indicated that they will be. We want to sell many more cherished numbers, particularly in parts of Scotland where there are affluent people who want to use their disposable income in such a way. We must make it simpler for them to do so, and end the present bureaucratic and archaic system. 11.26 am Sitting suspended.

302WH

7 MARCH 2012

Veterans (Mental Health) [JIM DOBBIN in the Chair] 2.30 pm Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con): Given the nature of this afternoon’s debate, I should like to pay tribute to the soldiers missing and believed killed in Afghanistan. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families at what must be an incredibly difficult time. It is always a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin, and indeed to initiate a debate in this Chamber. I feel, however, an even greater sense of privilege due to the special nature of this debate. Like many Members on both sides of the House, I am a great supporter of our armed forces family. From serving personnel to veterans, those brave men and women have served our country with dedication, and they deserve admiration, respect and parliamentary attention. I should like to discuss veterans’ mental health, which is one of the few subjects that quite rightly commands political unity on both sides. The work of successive Governments over recent years has given the issue great momentum, and early in the debate I should like to commend the previous Government on the work that they did on behalf of veterans. I also congratulate the Minister on the way that the current Government have championed this worthy issue. My interest in the mental health of veterans comes from my frequent correspondence and discussions with one of my constituents who is the mother of a veteran. Her dedication to improving the provision and information provided to veterans is inspiring, and I hope that she will take heart from today’s debate. In recent years, efforts to tackle the cruel stigma that is related to mental health issues more generally across society have begun to make a difference to many of those who suffer from what is often an invisible illness. Indeed, it has been estimated that one in four people in the country suffer from some form of mental health issue each year. The Mental Health Network, which is part of the NHS Confederation, has carried out excellent work, and over the past few years, it has been heartening to see the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health working closely with the Royal British Legion, Combat Stress and others in the voluntary sector to provide a range of improved services for veterans who suffer from mental health problems. Let me take the opportunity to praise the work of all charities up and down the country that work day in, day out with members of our armed forces family. In particular, I should like to champion the Royal British Legion and Combat Stress—two charities that play a vital role in delivering key services to veterans and serving armed forces personnel. Together, those charities offer vast experience, unquestionable compassion and unwavering dedication. With approximately 22,000 armed forces personnel leaving the service and returning to civilian life each year, we must appreciate the wide-ranging mental health issues that can be provoked by experiences in war-torn countries and dangerous conflicts around the world. Over the past 10 years, British troops have been involved in a range of conflicts from Iraq and Afghanistan to Bosnia and Sierra Leone, and the bloody experiences

303WH

Veterans (Mental Health)

7 MARCH 2012

of those wars cannot fail to leave a mark on those who confront them. When we think of the sacrifices made by armed forces personnel, it is right to consider not only the often terrifying physical risks undertaken, but the mental strains that are placed on our brave servicemen and women. It has been estimated that more than 27% of veterans suffer from a common mental disorder. For those armed forces personnel who leave the service each year having experienced direct action in recent operations, the transition from service life to civilian life is often traumatic. For many, the future is uncertain, and owing to the stigma that surrounds mental health issues, many sufferers fail to seek help on leaving the services. If they do seek help, it is often at a dangerously late stage. A Mental Health Network briefing last year suggested that, on average, veterans do not come forward for mental health support until 14 years after their discharge. Sadly, homelessness and alcohol or substance abuse is more prevalent among veterans when compared with others of similar age or social background. I have three main objectives in this debate: first, to commend the superb work that has been carried out on behalf of veterans who have suffered from mental health problems in recent years; secondly, to seek assurances about the continuation of parliamentary support for such work to be maintained on a more permanent basis; and thirdly, to ensure that our provision for veterans is coherently delivered in the best possible manner. The previous Government’s “New Horizons” strategy document bound the NHS and the MOD to improve access and support for the early treatment and prevention of mental health illness among servicemen and veterans. The current Government, led admirably by the Prime Minister, launched the military covenant, which enshrines into law the Government’s duty to support the entire armed forces family. The covenant makes a new commitment to provide “extra support for veteran mental health needs.”

Soon after taking office in 2010, the coalition Government asked my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) to produce a report on veterans’ mental health. He should be congratulated on his truly outstanding work and recommendations, and I encourage any hon. Member who has not yet read the report to request a copy from the Library. My hon. Friend’s “Fighting Fit” report received favourable backing from the Government, and rightly so because it includes a raft of measures to ensure better provision for veterans and their families. Among 13 action points and four principal recommendations, the report specifically calls for

Veterans (Mental Health)

304WH

The objective now, however, is to ensure that that wideranging support, financial assistance, e-learning provision and information literature continues and is focused in the most effective way possible. I have a number of questions for the Minister to which I hope he will respond, although I accept that some information might require communication with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. First, will funding for the dedicated 24-hour support telephone line continue after the one-year trial, which I believe is soon coming to an end? I believe that having someone on the end of a telephone at any hour of any day who is willing to listen, able to support and trained to understand must be of tremendous reassurance and assistance to affected veterans. The continuation of funding for that telephone service would indicate a clear commitment to veterans, and I urge the Minister to push for that support to continue. With an eye on the future, I ask the Minister to outline the time scales involved in implementing the new veterans service to which the Government have made a commitment. A key issue as we discuss the future of such support is the difficulty of keeping in touch with veterans. As discussed earlier, many leave the service and move on to temporary accommodation or work. It is impossible to provide meaningful support if we do not know where veterans now live or work. Will the Government do more to track and store information about veterans, and will that information be shared with key partners? Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that there is a particular problem with regard to the Territorial Army and reserve forces? Many of them are spread out across the nation, and we do not know where they are. At least, regulars have the regimental family around them, even after they become veterans. People from the TA are often out in the wide world without anyone to provide such support. Julian Sturdy: I agree. It is also worth noting that reservists tend to suffer more from mental illness, if they have experienced conflict, than regular soldiers, so it is probably even more important that we understand where the reservists are and can monitor that and target help towards them.

“An uplift in the number of mental health professionals conducting veterans outreach work… A Veterans Information Service (VIS) to be deployed 12 months after a person leaves the Armed Forces… trial of an online early intervention service for serving personnel and veterans.”

Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and I support the laudable aims that he is describing. Given the established difficulties with keeping track of individual soldiers and the difficulties with giving the necessary support post discharge to all manner of servicemen and women, is it not time that we started to consider the possibility of a veterans agency that brings together all these things and provides a co-ordinating review and a hub point for all these services?

As part of the Government’s initial response, a dedicated 24-hour mental health support line for veterans was launched in March 2011, operated by the charity Rethink on behalf of Combat Stress and funded by the Department of Health. In addition, the number of mental health professionals was doubled from 15 to 30. With the “Fighting Fit” report, the Government’s military covenant and the previous Government’s valuable work, much effort has been made to deal with this issue.

Julian Sturdy: I agree. As I said, there is a real problem about the joined-up thinking that needs to be done. A tremendous amount of work and services are out there, but we need to bring that all together, under one roof. I will come on to that later if I can. There remains a real danger that too many veterans will slip through the net because they fail to be registered for initial support on leaving the service and get lost

305WH

Veterans (Mental Health)

7 MARCH 2012

[Julian Sturdy] in the system thereafter. The best way to ensure that support gets through to veterans is to keep up to date with veterans, as has been said. Having touched on the increase in mental health nurses across the strategic health authorities covered by an armed forces network, I ask the Minister to outline the initial effect that the Government believe those nurses are having. Is there sufficient demand for the increased services? Do we need to consider increasing the numbers further? Ensuring that Government provision is frequently reviewed in such a manner will help to keep the ball rolling on this very important subject. Without wishing to ask too many questions, I should be grateful to the Minister if he confirmed how many of the 10 health networks have now developed integrated services for veterans with specific mental health problems. As I said, ensuring that our provision is targeted correctly and effectively in supporting veterans is key. I should now like to deal with the online package of interventions for veterans. In response to a recent written question tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), the Minister, who I am delighted to see will respond to this debate, stated that the uptake of membership of the Big White Wall among the armed forces family is exceeding expectations. It would be interesting to know whether uptake among veterans is also high. Although I am a great supporter of online interventions, my slight fear is that information, assistance and forms of community engagement are all present and accessible online, but only if someone actively searches for them. With respect to veterans who suffer from mental health problems, we cannot expect all of them to be able or even willing to carry out such research. Are those leaving the service provided with the relevant links and information before they leave? James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con): I, too, commend my hon. Friend for initiating the debate. Does he agree that there is a key role to be played by local authorities in providing the information for veterans that he is describing? David Herbert, a constituent of mine in Halesowen, was instrumental in bringing together a veterans charter in the Dudley borough, precisely to signpost veterans towards key information in the local area, including information on provision of mental health services. Julian Sturdy: I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. I agree that local authorities have a key role to play, and I agree with the point about the veterans charter, which could go a long way towards delivering what we need, because ultimately we must signpost services correctly. That is the real point. As I said, there are great services out there, but I fear that if we do not signpost them to veterans effectively, we might be missing a trick. Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman has done a service to the House and to people outside it, particularly veterans, by initiating this debate today. One of my constituents, Charlie Brindley, is a veteran and a champion of veterans’ causes. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should look for the best way

Veterans (Mental Health)

306WH

of using such people as champions to assist us in reaching veterans and dealing with the difficulties in relation to mental health even more effectively? Julian Sturdy: I agree. We must use the experience of such people to help us in this process. Signposting is the key. We have the strategy, but we need to bring things together in a coherent manner that best serves veterans such as those whom hon. Members have mentioned in their constituencies. As I have said repeatedly, the work carried out in this field recently has been outstanding, yet we cannot rest on our laurels. We need to engage more public interest. We must continue to provide direct funding and support and to monitor each initiative to ensure that it is proving effective. There are so many different strands of support. My final plea is that all the excellent provision be kept together in a specific and coherent strategy. We have already in the debate heard about a number of different ways in which that might be done. If the provision is too loose, too disjointed or too sporadic in its implementation, we run the risk of undermining the general force of the positive work in this area. I appreciate that a number of hon. Members would like to contribute to the debate, so I shall briefly conclude my thoughts. The work carried out by charities such as Help for Heroes, the Royal British Legion, Combat Stress and so many others literally saves lives. I applaud every one of them. Likewise, hon. Members on both sides of the House who have championed our armed forces should be proud of the work achieved in recent years to assist veterans who suffer from mental health problems. However, our work in scrutinising the present Government and future Governments must never cease. We have a duty to monitor and assess and to push those at the very top to ensure that veterans are at the top of our leaders’ agendas. I save my last words for both serving and retired servicemen and women. I have never served in the armed forces family, and I expect that only those who do will truly understand the pressure, sacrifice and honour that such service entails. I do not pretend to understand what it must be like to face danger and even death on foreign shores on behalf of Queen and country. However, I can assure all veterans that I shall continuously do my best to ensure that they are never forgotten once their service is completed, that their needs are met by the country to which they gave so much and that their dedication and commitment are rewarded, acknowledged and, indeed, celebrated. 2.49 pm Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing this debate. Sadly, we do not give anything like the attention we should to the consequences of our decisions to go to war. There are even instances where attempts seem to have been made to suppress knowledge of those consequences. In the past, it was possible for me as a Back Bencher to read out the names of all those who had fallen in the Iraq war and later in the Afghan war. Such practice is now expressly forbidden by the rules of the House. If I attempted to read out those names and their ranks today—I think that they would make a greater impression than any speech that I could

307WH

Veterans (Mental Health)

7 MARCH 2012

Veterans (Mental Health)

308WH

make—it would take about 25 minutes to complete the list. The House has decided that it does not want to hear that, so it will never happen again. There was an attempt to change the system of announcing the names of the fallen at Prime Minister’s Question Time. The names were announced on a Monday and a Tuesday, but MPs protested, saying that they wanted to hear those names announced at a time when hon. Members and the press could give them their maximum attention, so we have now gone back to the original time. I believe that the country wishes to understand the consequences of war. I want to mention the case of a constituent of the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). If I have the hon. Gentleman’s permission to mention the details, I will be happy to relay the story. The case of Sergeant Dan Collins has moved everyone. He went to war at the age of 29. He was optimistic and courageous and had a brilliant record of service. He was shot on two occasions and on two other occasions, he was damaged by improvised explosive devices, but the incidents that tormented him the most were the deaths of two of his friends, one of whom died in the most dreadful circumstances, having lost a number of limbs. The sergeant was holding him as he died. It was that incident that tormented him. He had fine treatment from his family, a loving girlfriend and help from the local charity, Healing the Wounds. Tragically, he took his own life earlier this year—he had attempted to do so before. If today’s tragedies are confirmed, the number who have fallen is 404. Sergeant Dan Collins will not be numbered among those and neither will many others. The results of the Afghan war will be seen not just in the numbers of the dead and the civilian dead, who are uncounted, but in the 2,000 soldiers who are now broken in body or mind. It is right that we should do all that we can to treat them with the greatest care. We should say a word of thanks to the Welsh Government, who have taken this matter very seriously. Recently, the Welsh Minister for Health, Lesley Griffiths, announced that she was setting up a £500,000 fund to ensure that every health authority in Wales has a specialised doctor with experience in dealing with veterans to deal with those who come back from the war. It is absolutely right that we do not disguise or shy away from the consequences of our actions. In my time in Parliament, we went to war in Iraq on the basis of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. We stayed in Afghanistan mainly on the pretext of a terrorist threat to the United Kingdom from the Taliban. That threat did not exist; there were threats from al-Qaeda, but not from the Taliban. We are now being told that we should contemplate war against Iran on the basis that it has missiles carrying nuclear weapons with a range of 6,000 miles, which do not exist.

in this House. If we are to avoid fatalities and more people being mentally damaged, our main task is to resist those who cry for war.

Jim Dobbin (in the Chair): Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about the mental health of veterans? The scope is getting a bit too wide.

Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): My hon. Friend is making an important speech about how people fall through the net. My neighbour, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), mentioned Charles Brindley, who has been trying to do some work around GPs. Many GPs do not seem to be aware of the military assessment programme that is available. Often if someone presents with a mental health issue, the GP is not trained or aware of the services and support that can be

Paul Flynn: I am grateful for your patience, Mr Dobbin. Finally, when we establish a code of conduct and a covenant between us and the soldiers, our main duty should be to put as the first line a pledge that we will never go into a war that is unnecessary. That is our duty

2.55 pm Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con): It is a great pleasure and a privilege to speak in this debate today. I have been in this House for nearly two years and I have not had the opportunity to raise the issue of the mental health of veterans in the way in which we have done today. I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) for securing this debate and for the measured and eloquent way in which he has brought the issues to the House. I join my hon. Friend and other colleagues in passing on our respective condolences to the service men and women, and to the families of those who died in Afghanistan so recently. I endorse everything that both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition said. It is an utter tragedy and one of the largest losses of life for many a year. I remain of the view that the sooner we bring our troops home from Afghanistan, the better it will be. This debate is certainly overdue. I want to make a declaration. I send out my thanks and support to the various charities, volunteer groups and individuals who provide support. I echo the words of support for the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes. If I need to declare that I have raised funds for such groups while serving as a Member of Parliament, I do so. I certainly need to make a declaration that I have represented, as defence counsel, multitudes of soldiers facing criminal charges, which was a salutary and depressing experience. Many of the soldiers had committed criminal offences, which they had no desire to commit, because they were suffering from mental health problems and fundamentally from post-traumatic stress disorder. I represented a Royal Marine who had broken down in a supermarket after he had been unable to get together the right amount of money at the till. He felt that the lady behind the counter, who had been perfectly civil to him, had not been as co-operative as she should have been and it all became too much. The nature and the prevalence of post-traumatic stress are such that it is always the very smallest things at the end of the process that result in the demise of the mental strength of people who have quite happily stormed up Tumbledown ridge, gone across the Gulf deserts and fought repeatedly in a way that very few of us in this House can even contemplate. It is how we provide support that is important. As defence counsel for some of these lads and, on one occasion, a woman, I saw very strongly how their spirit was broken. I have also seen, over the last 15 to 20 years of lawyer practice, plenty of examples of these people falling through the system.

309WH

Veterans (Mental Health)

7 MARCH 2012

[Andrew Percy] made available. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that GPs are better educated and better trained in dealing with such individuals? Guy Opperman: I entirely endorse that point. Although it is incumbent upon Members of this House to raise the profile of this issue and to try to disseminate information about the types of health care support that exist, it is also incumbent upon the relevant health trusts and authorities to ensure that in future a degree of information is passed down the net to individual GPs and action teams, particularly those teams dealing with alcohol abuse, so that the organisations in the regions are able to support the veterans who are out there. I have worked with a charity called Veterans in Action. It involves some constituents of mine in Northumberland but it also involves servicemen and women who are based in Lancashire and all over the country, who are attempting to do various things. For example, they have a pilot project with the Lancashire Drug and Alcohol Action Team that involves meeting up with GPs to work with them and trying to do exactly the sort of thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) has outlined. However, the worry is that, although individual groups in our constituencies are all doing very good work to provide a degree of assistance to veterans, there is no overarching body providing global support. What often happens, therefore—for example it has happened with Veterans in Action, which was set up in my constituency and is now working throughout the country—is that the individual soldiers effectively get fed up with the process and decide to provide support themselves. I supported what the previous Government did. They were working to do a great deal more than had previously been done. Successive Governments have improved care for veterans over time. But the “Fighting Fit” report and the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) have clearly taken things to the next stage and a better level. I will digress slightly, because in my constituency I have the Albemarle barracks and the Otterburn ranges, troops from my constituency are serving on a regular basis in Afghanistan with the 39 Regiment Royal Artillery, and the Ridsdale ranges provide all the weapons that are tested before the soldiers use them. I also have a large number of constituents who have served in the forces. For example, many Falklands veterans live in my constituency and have come to see me because of the experiences that they have suffered and the lack of support that they have experienced. That was under a different Government and, frankly, I am not here to criticise any Government. However, there is no question but that the degree of support given to the Falklands veterans was limited compared with the support that we are giving to the veterans who are returning from Afghanistan now. Things have got better. Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con): Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), I wanted to say that in the 30 years following the Falklands conflict—it is rather timely to make this point, this year being the anniversary—more soldiers were reported to have committed suicide after the conflict than had actually died in the conflict itself.

Veterans (Mental Health)

310WH

Guy Opperman: It is interesting, is it not, that today is 7 March and on 7 March 1982, exactly 30 years ago, about three and a half weeks prior to the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, which happened on 2 April 1982, the British ambassador in Argentina wrote a cable from Buenos Aires to the then British Prime Minister, saying that matters were escalating. It is very well known, and it was reported in the Franks report that assessed the Falklands war, that “contingency plans” needed to be made. That was not enough and a war began, then escalated. I certainly will not go down the route taken by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) by digressing further. However, the point is that the treatment of the veterans of the Falklands war was not as good as the treatment of veterans now, partly because there were difficulties at that time in understanding what post-traumatic stress disorder was. From a health standpoint, PTSD is not confined to victims of conflict. There are also plenty of victims of PTSD who were involved in normal, day-to-day accidents and disasters, whether it is industrial health accidents or factory accidents; people can have PTSD arising from those things. We need to change the way that PTSD and other aspects of the mental health of veterans are visualised, because it needs to be recognised that PTSD and other mental health conditions are just as much a disease or condition as breaking an arm or suffering from cancer, and it is just as difficult to solve or treat. I move on. I endorse entirely what was said about the current situation, and I will abbreviate my comments to making an assessment of the current situation. Various studies have shown that a very large proportion of our veterans are suffering from PTSD. At present, approximately 24,000 veterans are in jail, on parole or serving community punishment orders. That is the astonishing number that emerges if we assess how many veterans are going through our criminal justice system. It manifestly shows that, for whatever reason, we have not done enough. Let us also bear in mind that American studies have shown that approximately 30% of the US troops who were in Vietnam suffered from PSTD, or about one in three. That is an absolutely staggering number. Therefore, although we might look at the respective troops coming home from Afghanistan, and at those who fought in Iraq and other conflict zones, and think that they are alright, three out of 10 soldiers will genuinely suffer PSTD. They may suffer it in year one after their return. Year 14 is the average length of time that it takes, but it can take as long as 25 or 30 years, and throughout all of that time, their individual families are suffering and going through particular difficulties. I applaud the “Fighting Fit” report and the work that is being done. However, I regret to say that that is not enough. Personally, I do not consider that it is enough. I accept entirely that we are in straitened times and that, with every budget, we have to consider the way in which things are dealt with. Nevertheless, I very much hope the Minister will give the sort of assurances that charities and individual soldiers’ organisations seek about their future, and that there are commitments on an ongoing basis to the matters outlined in “Fighting Fit”, so that those charities and organisations have the reassurance that genuine efforts will be made to ensure that their funding is sustained; that mental health systems are structured properly; that the recommendations of the inquiry into medical examinations while soldiers are

311WH

Veterans (Mental Health)

7 MARCH 2012

still serving are properly implemented; and, given that we are introducing all these ideas from “Fighting Fit”, that there will be proper assessment of those ideas after they are introduced. I agree that organisations such as the Big White Wall are not necessarily being utilised in the way that was envisaged; they are being utilised, but not necessarily in the way that was envisaged. I would very much like to see an overarching body for veterans. I would like a veterans agency to be considered by the Government, and the Government to consider whether there is a possibility of bringing together certain parts of the NHS, the Ministry of Defence and social services and housing elements, which make up so much of all the difficulties that our servicemen suffer, and dovetailing that with the health services that are provided in prisons. We can look at the way that people are dealt with in terms of health services in prisons. I have extensive experience of going to see clients who are former servicemen and who have received a custodial sentence or who are held on remand. There was absolutely no doubt that they were hopelessly unable to deal with the difficulties of a custodial sentence, or the difficulties of being detained, at that particular time, in circumstances that they would normally have been perfectly able to deal with. Mr Gray: I have agreed with much of what my hon. Friend has had to say, but I have some difficulties with the notion of the establishment of a new agency to carry out the functions that existing Government bodies are required to carry out at the moment. If there were a veterans agency, would there not be a risk that people at the Department of Health or the Ministry of Defence would shrug their shoulders and say, “Someone else is doing this for us, leave it to them”, and that the services received by veterans would be significantly worse than they are at the moment? Guy Opperman: I accept there is always a risk that, if we create some new body, we will be in a position whereby everybody passes the buck and says, “Well, they’re sorting it out”. However, I am clear that every single MP could come to this House and say, “I have individual examples of people in my constituency, or stories that I have heard of former servicemen.” Those servicemen are continuing to slip through the net—they are unaware of the individual aspects of the services that are available to them—and the Government are not necessarily acting as an overarching body to ensure that they are aware of those services. Let me give some examples. There is very good evidence from the “Fighting Fit” report and other studies that follow it up that there should be a leavers pack for soldiers and, for example, an ability for veterans to be monitored after they have been discharged. All those services are good, but they stop after a certain period and the Government do not go back to those individuals to ask, “Are you actually alright? Are you in a position to cope with the vicissitudes of your life and your existence on an ongoing basis?” That is the sort of thing that I would like done. I concede that it may be possible to do such things in the present Departments, but there must be more joined-up thinking, because the problem is ongoing, and there are examples.

Veterans (Mental Health)

312WH

I am conscious that other Members wish to get into the debate, so I will abbreviate my comments. I want to talk about the work of Veterans in Action, a classic charity, which is run by individual veterans. For a number of years, they have been providing in-depth support, which they have found is, sadly, lacking in the system. They tell me that there is no generic way to collect veterans’ information and that it is collected very much on a local, case-by-case basis. Similarly, they say it is extremely difficult to get organisations to work together. They also tell me that the Big White Wall is not being used as it was intended to be and that people are using the Combat Stress helpline as a first point of contact. A great many smaller, third sector organisations and charities set up by veterans are having similar problems. With no national directory or local directories of such organisations, it is immensely difficult for individual veterans who are constantly moving around—who have problems with housing and with all the dislocation that goes with that—to harness the efforts of such organisations. Therefore, just as successive Governments have done amazing work looking after individual veterans’ health in conflict zones, we should do more to look after their mental health after they have left those conflict zones. Several hon. Members rose— Jim Dobbin (in the Chair): Order. I intend to call the shadow Minister at 3.40 pm. 3.11 pm John Pugh (Southport) (LD): I congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on opening this important debate. I must admit that I am not a natural when it comes to defence-orientated debates. I do not come from a garrison town and I have no experience of the forces—I suspect I am naturally too insubordinate to fit into them. However, I have a genuine interest in this issue. It is spurred not so much by constituency cases, although a soldier came to see me who was severely traumatised by the conflict he had endured, and the atrocities he had seen, in Aden. It was an awfully long time ago, but it had scarred his whole life, traumatising him, driving him to alcoholism and creating huge mental health issues. I also dealt with a case in which a gentleman who had been advised by the Ministry of Defence to assist it with research at Porton Down on the common cold subsequently had a lot of worries that were quite unrelated to his exposure to the common cold. What really sparked my interest, however, was my experience on the Public Accounts Committee, which produced a series of interesting reports on and around this area that showed up some quite distinctive and worrying issues. The report I want to dwell on was called “Ministry of Defence: Treating injury and illness arising on military operations”. It showed quite categorically that the forces were excellent at dealing with people’s physical ailments in the theatre of war and subsequently— the profile and the results were good, and the medical treatment was exemplary. When it came to mental health, however, there were some very odd results. For example, it appeared that American and British soldiers exiting the same theatres of war had widely disparate experiences

313WH

Veterans (Mental Health)

7 MARCH 2012

[John Pugh] in terms of their mental health, with more Americans reporting themselves, or being reported, as having mental health problems by a considerable margin. Even more strangely, the figures coming out of the British forces for mental health problems showed soldiers were experiencing no real anxiety at all; in fact, they showed that troops were in just as good mental health as the ordinary population, which was odd. During the PAC inquiry, I told Sir Bill Jeffrey, who was permanent under-secretary at the time: “I think we would all accept that war is extremely stressful and people see some horrid, fearsome things that would disrupt the psychology of almost anybody. What surprises me”—

then and now— “is that the referral of the Forces appears to be lower than the referral rate of the population as a whole.”

I put it to him that that was intrinsically implausible: “You would have thought there would be more mental health issues amongst a population of people who see quite traumatic scenes than amongst those who do not.”

More brutally, I said the rate of referrals “is actually lower than the population at large. In other words, it would appear…that in the confines of Committee Room 15”,

where the PAC was meeting, “we are far more vulnerable to mental health stress than people in the operational theatre of war.”

It can be pretty torrid in the PAC at times, but I suggest that result shows that something is going awry in the forces’ reading of troops’ mental health post-war. Equally puzzling was the disparity between people coming out of the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres of war. Lieutenant-General Baxter, who was then the deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, explained: “I think you have to look at the nature of combat…When you are being shot at and you can shoot back, it is a lot less stressful than when you are being bombed or suffering indirect fire.”

I do not know whether that is true, but it invites serious questions about the level and quality of screening when people are discharged. Other reports that the PAC produced at the time were equally troubling. They showed, for example, that squaddies were far less well prepared for the outside world than they could have been when they were discharged. There were also troubling statistics, with which we are all familiar, about high rates of alcohol problems, imprisonment and homelessness among people leaving the forces. That is all very troubling, and the causes are fairly complex, but one thing is absolutely clear: the screening of soldiers exiting the theatre of war was very poor in the British forces. Often, it was done simply through self-completed questionnaires, but people do not ordinarily volunteer any deep psychological problems they may think they have in such a questionnaire. There was also evidence in the PAC report that I quoted that support for people in the theatre of war was relatively poor. The most that they seemed to get out there most of the time was three community nurses, along with one consultant psychiatrist every three months. If people showed up with problems in the theatre of war, those problems were unlikely to be fielded especially well. There are particular issues here, and we must be

Veterans (Mental Health)

314WH

prepared to face up to them. One, although I have only anecdote to go on, is that some people enter the forces because the structure that they provide is exactly what their personality needs. When they leave the forces, however, that structure simply disappears. Often, their homes will have gone, and their families will sometimes have gone, too, so they find themselves in difficult territory. A second suggestion is that there is necessarily a culture of mental toughness in the forces, so people are slow to own up to whatever problems they may have. Those problems might therefore go unrecognised and be submerged for quite some time, and that is at the root of some of the problems that were so well analysed by the hon. Member for York Outer. We in this place have clocked these problems, and quite a lot has been done about them. Since 2010, when the PAC report I quoted was produced, there has been a surprising amount of really good progress. On 6 April 2010, the previous Government committed themselves to providing £2 million of new funding. They can be credited with increasing the number of helplines and endeavouring to increase the education and training of GPs. We also pay tribute to the Murrison report, which represented excellent progress. Before that, the Ministry of Defence even did some research, which helped everything along. There is strong cross-party commitment to recognising these problems and doing something about them. In a sense, therefore, Parliament can justifiably credit itself with having done something about a very real and clearly identified problem. I would like to conclude by thinking about where we go from here. My concern is that most of the solutions that were proposed following the previous Government’s deliberations and the Murrison report involved something along the lines of specialist health service commissioning. I do not want to talk about the difficulties of the legislation currently going through Parliament, but such specialist commissioning is an issue. The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) has advocated as a solution getting round specialist commissioning to some extent by means of an agency that is a one-stop, catch-all arrangement. Creditable though that suggestion is, it will not get us out of the business of specialist commissioning, because the problems will show up locally in many diverse settings. I wonder whether the Minister will say something about that. Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab): When I was the Defence Minister with responsibility for such matters, we set up pilot schemes with the NHS, with which Combat Stress was involved. Delivery issues are important, because in most respects the treatment is exactly the same whether the patient is a civilian or not, but some members or former members of the armed forces would prefer to talk to someone with experience in the armed forces. That is why we involved such people in the pilots. On the other hand, other people from the armed forces did not want to see someone who had also been in the armed forces, because as far as they were concerned that life had finished, or they wanted to move on, or they had had a bad experience. It is a difficult issue to come to terms with, and that is why there is a need to mix and match support and clinical help. It is important for people to have that choice.

315WH

Veterans (Mental Health)

7 MARCH 2012

John Pugh: I defer to the hon. Gentleman’s experience, and he is probably right in advocating that solution. The question is who will secure that proper mix. The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns): Will the hon. Gentleman give way? John Pugh: The Minister is going to tell us. Mr Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Given that I will not have very much time to speak, can I deal with the question of who will commission veterans’ mental health services? It will be the responsibility of the NHS Commissioning Board. John Pugh: I am relieved that it is placed within an appropriate body, although the board has an awful lot else to do. 3.21 pm Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on bringing forward such a sensitive topic, and I associate myself with his remarks about today’s tragic news about the loss of life in Afghanistan. Like many hon. Members who have attended the debate, I am encouraged to participate following a meeting a month ago with a constituent of mine, Mr Paul Marston, an ex-serviceman. He expressed serious concern about the lack of recognition for servicemen leaving the armed forces who are affected physically and mentally. That prompted me, as it did many other hon. Members, to look into the situation. Approximately 22,000 armed services personnel leave the service to return to civilian life every year. There are an estimated 5 million veterans in the UK. For many of those people, who are used to support within the armed forces family, it is often difficult to cope outside the military framework. Veterans face a range of problems associated with mental health, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) drew our attention, ranging from the failure to hold down employment and problems in their personal lives to alcohol or drug misuse and contact with the judicial system. Given the contribution that veterans have made to our country, it is vital that the Government should do all in their power to provide a dedicated mental health service for veterans. I have a further interest in the matter, as a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Like many other hon. Members, when I first arrived here I knew nothing about the armed forces, and through that scheme I have had the pleasure of visiting troops abroad and have learned something of their lives at first hand. I have met some of them at Camp Bastion in Afghanistan. I have recently returned from a trip with the scheme to the Army training centre in Kenya, where I met soldiers taking part in a hot climate training exercise in preparation for a tour of Afghanistan later this year. Having met the servicemen and listened to my constituent and other people, I welcome the Government’s commitment to act on the review carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). I understand that there were four key recommendations, including an increase in the number of mental health

Veterans (Mental Health)

316WH

professionals providing outreach work for veterans and the introduction of a veterans information service, deployed 12 months after a person leaves service. The Government have also, of course, published the armed forces covenant, which sets a framework on how the armed forces community can expect to be treated. It includes improving veterans’ access to mental health services, such as building a greater focus on mental health into discharge and examination. My constituent made the point to me forcefully that early intervention is the key. We need to ensure that veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder or other mental health-related issues are spotted early, and I am pleased that the Government recognise that. It is important to work to remove the stigma that is in many ways attached to mental health trauma, particularly for veterans. Such awareness could be raised by a national memorial to those who suffer mental health problems because of combat. That is not my idea, but the idea of Mr Marston, who is frustrated by the treatment of veterans. I pay tribute to his dedication to that cause. He has told me about a new veterans contact point close to where he lives, but says there is little awareness of it in the veteran community, or even the wider community. That facility has the potential to be of massive benefit to all ex-servicemen, but Mr Marston believes that it has not been sufficiently publicised. Mr Marston would like the idea of such a monument to be pursued, and he has registered an e-petition on the No. 10 website, calling for such a memorial to injured soldiers. There are, of course, many memorials to those who have fallen in war, but the one suggested by Mr Marston would be particularly for those who suffer from physical or mental health problems, and it would raise the profile of veterans with health issues. It would also be a worthy endeavour in itself. I acknowledge that that is outside the area of responsibility of the Minister who is responding today, but it will be of substantial comfort to Mr Marston and many of his colleagues to know that consideration is being given to recognising in that way the contribution that veterans have made. 3.26 pm Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): I was not planning to speak, Mr Dobbin. Jim Dobbin (in the Chair): No, I did not think that you were. Andrew Percy: I will speak only for three or four minutes, which I think will give the shadow Minister and the Minister longer than they were expecting; but as there was not a line of hon. Members waiting to speak, I thought that I would add my voice to this important debate. I apologise, Mr Dobbin, for not dropping you a note. I congratulate my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), on securing this important debate on a vital issue. There are no party politics involved; we all agree about the sort of services that we want provided for ex-service personnel. I just want to tell the story of a constituent of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). He is the gentleman whom I mentioned earlier, Charles Brindley, who is the vice-chairman of the Royal British

317WH

Veterans (Mental Health)

7 MARCH 2012

[Andrew Percy] Legion in Brigg, in my constituency. He has been trying to put together a project in the area to establish better mental health and support services for veterans. He is trying to co-ordinate through the councils, and I am pleased that North Lincolnshire council has taken him up on his offer of working with it. There is so much involved in trying to bring everything together. The e-mails that we have had from Charles Brindley and the discussions that we have had with him have been quite enlightening. He has been trying to work with the Prison Service, and he found out that one prison does not have a dedicated individual to respond to ex-service personnel there. He has been trying to work with the primary care trusts and GPs on the very point that I raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman): raising GPs’ awareness of what is available through the NHS for ex-service personnel. He has also been trying to work with other organisations that I would not even have thought of, such as Age UK, which has told him that older people may now be starting to present with mental health problems that go a long way back. A range of organisations and institutions come across ex-service personnel at different points in their lives and provide them with services, and the fact that they are not necessarily always joined up concerns me. Some of what is happening can certainly be brought together under the auspices of the local authorities, but I echo the idea of a dedicated veterans agency. The example that is probably most similar to what we want are the incredibly dedicated services, including specialist health services, provided to veterans in the United States, where veterans seem to be provided with a lot of support that we in this country sadly do not give. As many Members have said, it is often far down the line that mental health problems start to rear up. This summer, I met one of my ex-pupils walking through the town centre. I had not seen him since I taught him when he was about 16, and I asked him what he had been doing since then. He said, “I’ve been out in Afghanistan.” I think he was in a Yorkshire regiment. He said, “I got shot. I’ll show you.” He then rolled up his trouser leg to show me his bullet wounds. I asked him if he was okay, and he said, “I’m absolutely fine. I’m going to get paid out now. I’m going to get a better pension, and I’m going to get a house. Everything’s fine.” He may think that he is fine now, but in 10 or 15 years’ time, with his career in the military effectively ended, a mental health problem, as we know, could rear its head. What will there be to support that individual then? He is getting a lot of support from the Army at the moment—he had no criticism of that—but in 10 or 20 years’ time, that support might not be there, or he might not know how to access it. Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con): I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that another consequence of delayed stress and trauma for veterans can be the impact on their family relationships. Representing families in courts, I have seen over the years that that has caused difficulties. It has been largely a case of fathers having a less meaningful relationship with their children and being less able to take responsibility for them.

Veterans (Mental Health)

318WH

Andrew Percy: I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says. We have probably all seen examples in our surgeries of military service sometimes leading to breakdowns, which are then presented at our constituency surgery for assistance. I am reminded of the old saying: while the physical wounds may heal, the mental scars never quite go away. So I endorse what has been said by other Members today. John Pugh: One of the themes in the debate today has been whether we do or do not have a veterans agency. Somebody said that the veterans agency is an American model, but the Americans do not have our GP system. Even with the existence of a veterans agency, is there not a problem with how that then interacts with the GP, who will often be the first port of call when problems occur? Andrew Percy: That is exactly the point that the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) accepted. In creating anything, there will always be interaction problems. We all know where we want to be; how we get there is probably a bit more difficult. Now that the shadow Minister and the Minister will have a little more time, I am sure that they will expertly plot a course forward to deal with these issues. 3.32 pm Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): As always, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dobbin. I congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing this important and topical debate. We have heard the sad news today that six of our service personnel are missing and presumed dead in Afghanistan. It is a poignant reminder of the reality of serving in Her Majesty’s armed forces. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families at this time. I note that we had a similar debate on this subject last year, proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). It explored many of the important issues surrounding the mental health of veterans. It is right that we should again take the opportunity to discuss the welfare of our serving personnel and veterans and the impact on their families. For veterans’ mental health, we need to look at the true picture of how people are affected after they have left service. Indeed, we should be paying as much attention to the issues that face service personnel and their families when they leave the armed service as when they are actually in service. The UK’s armed services are among the best in the world, and we can rightly be proud of them. We owe them a great deal of gratitude for the work that they do in our name. The charity, Combat Stress, has shown that a significant minority of servicemen and women suffer from mental ill health as a result of their experiences. A study in May 2010 into personnel who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan showed a 4% prevalence of probable post-traumatic stress disorder. An estimated 180,000 troops have served in those two operations: if 4% develop PTSD, that equates to 7,200 more sufferers. The study also highlighted a prevalence of 19.7% for common mental disorders, and 13% for alcohol misuse. We must look into ways in which we can deal with that and ensure that the right facilities and support are in

319WH

Veterans (Mental Health)

7 MARCH 2012

place to diagnose and treat such conditions. Admittedly, improvements have been made in recent years. Mental health pilot schemes have improved support and treatment for personnel suffering from mental health problems. In 2007, the Labour Government extended priority access to NHS services to all veterans whose medical conditions or injuries were suspected of being due to military service. Priority access had previously extended only to those claiming a war pension, and efforts were made to raise awareness of that. As has been mentioned in the debate, we now have the armed forces covenant enshrined in law, which I think all hon. Members welcome. The interim report on the covenant summarises the Government’s approach, taking forward recommendations in the report by the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), “Fighting Fit”, which I also welcome. I understand that the report’s recommendations were rolled out over the past year, many of which were introduced as pilot programmes to be reassessed after their initial trial periods. I would welcome an update from the Minister on the pilots and also an assurance that his Department has been promoting them among serving personnel and veterans’ communities. Most Members will have met ex-service constituents who have been directly affected and heard about their experiences, some of which we have heard in the debate today. We should rightly recognise the important work done by organisations such as Combat Stress, which provides an invaluable service to veterans around the country. Its centres and outreach work allow veterans to get the help and support that they need in a specialised environment, along with other veterans who are going through similar experiences. The Enemy Within campaign run by Combat Stress seeks to tackle the stigma that, unfortunately, as we have heard today, can be a barrier to people getting the support and help that they need. Currently, they have a caseload of more than 4,800 veterans, including 228 who have served in Afghanistan and 589 who served in Iraq. The majority are ex-Army: 83.5%. Their youngest veteran is just 20. The invaluable work of Combat Stress and other organisations, such as the Royal British Legion, is to be warmly welcomed, but the Government should also take on their fair share of the responsibility. It is important that we do not view the services offered by the voluntary and charitable sector as any sort of replacement. That work should complement, not replace, the services that the Government offer. Indeed, as we already know, the charitable sector is facing an incredibly tough time at the moment. Even though organisations such as Combat Stress and the Royal British Legion have continued to have generous support from the public, we should not assume that those services will always exist and always have enough funding to run. The Government should decide which services they have a duty to provide and should fund them properly. The Government need not always be the vehicle to deliver those services, as we have heard, but they can fund experts such as Combat Stress and the Royal British Legion to do so on their behalf. The Government should also consider how mental health services for veterans can be guaranteed, when their national health service reforms are creating so much uncertainty. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), although I am

Veterans (Mental Health)

320WH

reassured by the Minister’s reply that a single commissioning body, the NHS Commissioning Board, will be responsible. I think that that is the right way forward. Clearly, those in the armed forces are trained to do a tough job and rightly have to develop a tough mental attitude. This, of course, can mean that it can be harder for people coming out of the services to admit that they have a mental health problem, let alone talk about it. We should also take into account how long it can take people actually to get the support that they need. Combat Stress has suggested that the average length of time is 13 years. In some cases, it has taken veterans 40 years to seek out the help and support that they need. That is far too long, and we should do all that we can to shorten the time and to let people know that help is available for them now. Combat Stress has also provided detailed evidence involving cases of individuals who have faced marriage break-up, unemployment, social isolation or substance abuse because they were unable to deal with their mental health problems. However, as with all mental health conditions, a great deal of stigma still surrounds it, which can make it much harder to talk about openly. Until we tackle that stigma, it will be difficult to make significant changes. I appreciate that it is hard to establish the level of need without a tracking system. As we know, there is no record of how many veterans are being treated for mental health problems on the NHS. Clearly, if we cannot quantify the problem, it is difficult for the Government to quantify the true cost of treating mental illness among former members of the armed forces. Nor should we overlook the impact of deployments on the mental health of our reservists, as has been mentioned. As we know, the Government’s Future Force 2020 plan showed that the role of reservists will increase significantly in the coming years, mirrored by reductions in the number of regular service personnel. It must make sense for the Government to ensure that support is in place for reservists prepared to take on those extra responsibilities. Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab): I commend my hon. Friend on his speech. Is there not a problem in the offing, given that the Army is being reduced to 82,000 soldiers and certain regiments are being disbanded? We need to know what the NHS Commissioning Board and the Department of Health are doing to aid those who will soon be former soldiers entering civilian life and to determine their mental health issues and what type of help the NHS can provide. Andrew Gwynne: I absolutely agree that we must ensure that ex-service personnel are supported. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that in his closing remarks. One recommendation in the report “Fighting Fit” stated that a veterans’ information service should be deployed 12 months after a person leaves the armed forces and that regulars and reservists should be followed up approximately 12 months after they leave. Will the Minister update us on how that is developing, and what plans the Government have for the future funding of the Combat Stress-led 24-hour support telephone line for veterans? Will the Department provide an evaluation

321WH

Veterans (Mental Health)

7 MARCH 2012

[Andrew Gwynne] of how the funding for “Fighting Fit” has been spent, what it has achieved and what will happen for future funding? What additional steps is the Department taking to raise public awareness of issues that relate to veterans’ mental health? Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op): While my hon. Friend is on the subject of funding, is he, like me, keen to hear from the Minister whether he supports our call for a £1 million fund for research into legacy issues from Afghanistan and Iraq, with a focus on mental health? That could be paid for by a reduction in generals in the forces. Andrew Gwynne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Labour Front-Bench defence team has made that commitment, which is laudable. Redistributing part of the saving to serve veterans’ mental health shows that the issue is a priority for us. This debate has provided us with the opportunity to explore the issue of our veterans’ mental health and welfare. I pay tribute to Combat Stress, the Royal British Legion and other groups that, along with many service organisations and charities, play an outstanding role in supporting the whole armed forces family, for which we should thank them. I congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer on securing the debate. We must ensure that our servicemen and women receive support after their tour of duty is finished. Surely, we as a nation owe them that. 3.43 pm The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I am delighted that the House once again has the opportunity to debate an important issue, although it is sad that we are holding this debate against the backdrop of tragic news from Afghanistan. We await the final details of what has happened over there, but we must give full consideration to the families and friends who might be suffering at this terrible time. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing this debate. I also thank the other hon. Members who have taken part. The number of hon. Members in the Chamber for a Westminster Hall debate shows how important it is and why a debate is justified after we had one only three months ago. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman), for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) on their contributions, and I thank the hon. Members for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and for Southport (John Pugh) for theirs, but I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer on the measured, informed and caring way in which he introduced the subject. It became clear as I listened to him that it is important to him as both a constituency Member of Parliament and as an individual. That came through during the course of his remarks. As hon. Members will be more than aware, members of the armed forces put their lives on the line for their country, but it is we as parliamentarians who send them into combat. It is therefore incumbent on us to do everything that we can to protect their health and

Veterans (Mental Health)

322WH

well-being, that of their families and that of veterans. There is no issue of greater importance for this Government, and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it one of his priorities. It is crucial and universally accepted that the health care provided by the Defence Medical Services to serving members of our armed forces is second to none. It is equally important that services are provided for our veterans for the rest of their lives when their health is affected as a result of their service, and that those services should be second to none. That is why I am pleased that in recent years, great strides have been made. I was particularly delighted to see in the Chamber a former Minister who had responsibility for veteran affairs during the previous Administration: the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who was here to listen to and participate in this debate. While he served in that post, he had a record of which he could be justifiably proud. Several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer, raised the question of funding. Real-terms funding for the NHS as a whole is increasing, as we all know, but we have invested more than £7 million of funding in veterans’ mental health over the spending review period. I reassure hon. Members that we will continue to fund veterans’ mental health initiatives for the lifetime of this Parliament. The focus of this debate is on raising awareness of veterans’ mental health. I feel strongly that we are now tackling the issue from a far more informed position than we once did. Thanks to charities such as Help for Heroes, the Royal British Legion, Combat Stress and the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, awareness of the well-being of the military community is high both in Parliament and, fortunately, among the general public. I highlight the work of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), to whom many hon. Members referred. The report that he produced will push forward the agenda to improve and enhance veterans’ health. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked my hon. Friend to conduct a study on the relationship between the NHS and the armed forces, including former service personnel, in terms of mental health. The result was the report “Fighting Fit”, which I commend to those who have not already read or seen it, although, judging from my hon. Friends’ speeches, a disproportionate number of hon. Members in the Chamber have read it. I am proud to say that both the Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence have been working on the report’s implementation ever since it was published, which represents a milestone in the effort to improve mental health care for ex-service personnel. For me, one of the strongest themes of the report, and a factor that is particularly relevant to the topic of this debate, is the effect that service care can have on the mental health and well-being of those who have served. Some obvious themes emerged from the findings of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire, echoed in research by some of our partner organisations, in particular our strategic partner, Combat Stress. Its research shows that the average ex-serviceperson can take up to 14 years to seek help for anxiety and depression that has developed as a result of their service in the armed forces. Combat Stress put it vividly, and said that

323WH

Veterans (Mental Health)

7 MARCH 2012

“those veterans suffer terribly in silence, often for years, before seeking help”,

a fact that was echoed in hon. Members’ speeches. We must keep that in mind when services are designed. The help that we offer must be accessible throughout veterans’ lives, not just when they return from duty. We must also remember that today, we may just as well be designing and delivering care for Falklands veterans as for those who have served bravely in Iraq or Afghanistan. We owe it to all groups of veterans to get things right, to understand that mental health issues can come into an ex-serviceperson’s life long after they have been discharged, and to communicate that message to the public. It should be a key part of any awareness campaign. “Fighting Fit” makes it clear that some veterans can never bring themselves to seek help—those who will not admit, even to themselves, that they have a problem, and who must rely on close family members and friends to help them move forward. In partnership with Combat Stress, we have launched a 24-hour veterans’ mental health support line run by a charity, Rethink. The helpline is based on the principle of lifelong care and offers support to veterans of any age and at any stage in their lives. Families may also contact the helpline, both for themselves and to talk about a loved one. It allows both groups to receive targeted support from people trained and experienced in dealing with often complex mental health needs. Both my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) raised the issue of funding the helpline and its future funding. I am extremely pleased to announce that the total number of calls taken by the helpline is now upwards of 5,000. Hon. Members may be aware that we initially launched the helpline as a one-year pilot, which expired at the end of February this year. However, I am pleased to announce today that we are continuing to fund it for the next year and will consider future funding after that. Working closely with Combat Stress and other partner organisations, it will continue. We are also working to introduce a veterans’ information service over the next two months or so. It will routinely contact service leavers 12 months after they are discharged to establish whether they have any health needs that require attention. The “Fighting Fit” report refers to the service as something of a safety net to help veterans once the support structures available to them during their service lives are no longer readily accessible. To get it right, it is essential that we are able easily to identify veterans, so we are working with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that a veteran’s status is properly recorded on his or her records. However, we must equally recognise that some who leave do not wish to have their veteran’s status recorded, and it is right to respect those wishes. Returning to the issue of the safety net, there is another key point when it comes to an awareness of mental health issues of any sort. Perceived isolation can have a bad effect on mental health problems. The problem is bad enough anyway, but among ex-service personnel, it is often particularly bad, because the camaraderie that exists within a forces setting is so pronounced. It makes sense that once the institutional support network goes, an ex-serviceperson might feel alone, adrift or isolated. Support services should not necessarily try to recreate that camaraderie. It is often more beneficial in the long term to help veterans come to terms with their

Veterans (Mental Health)

324WH

change in circumstances. By creating services that are easily accessible and trustworthy, we are going some way towards building an environment in which an ex-serviceperson feels accepted and understood, and in which recovery is more likely. At the heart of easily accessible services should be a requirement to make them readily available in each local area. Having a service in each area, especially if it has a high military profile, goes a long way towards raising awareness of veterans’ mental health issues in the country as a whole. I am particularly proud of the effort that the Department of Health and my officials have made to spearhead the set-up of armed forces networks in each of the old strategic health authority areas. The networks are groups of representatives from the national health service, service charities and the armed forces who can represent the health and well-being interests of serving personnel, their families and veterans in the local area. As part of meeting the “Fighting Fit”recommendations, integrated veterans’ mental health services are now being set up in each network area by the local NHS working in conjunction with Combat Stress. The services are at different stages of development, but I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer, who specifically asked about this, that six of the 10 are already up and running and the remaining four will come online shortly. We have also increased the number of mental health professionals providing services to veterans, not by the 30 recommended in the Murrison report, but by 50. My hon. Friend will be aware that the recommendation was 30, but we have been able to exceed that, and there are now 50 in place, which will considerably help to provide support and assistance to veterans. Gemma Doyle: Will the Minister give way? Mr Burns: No, I will not, because I am almost running out of time. The partnership with Combat Stress and the innovative solutions delivered by the NHS at a local level is to be applauded. Regarding effectiveness, we are still in early days, but initial feedback has been positive, with more veterans being identified in the mental health care system and receiving the treatment that they need and deserve. I want to point to an example of what is happening in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer. The work of Andy Wright with the vulnerable veterans and adult dependants project is particularly noteworthy and warrants praise. I am delighted to report that the project has delivered high levels of patient satisfaction, with 85% being very satisfied with their therapist. It is an excellent example of collaboration, which can only serve to raise further the profile of veterans’ issues more generally. There is a final and vital aspect of veterans’ mental health and care that I would like to explore, which hon. Members have mentioned, and that is stigma. The title “Fighting Fit” “recognises the importance of stigma and of making interventions acceptable to a population accustomed to viewing itself as mentally and physically robust.”

Stigma is a big barrier standing in the way of ex-service people getting help, and it is vital that we do everything we can to reduce it. Many Members on both sides of

325WH

Veterans (Mental Health)

326WH

7 MARCH 2012

[Mr Simon Burns] the House will be aware of the “Big White Wall”, an online well-being network for serving personnel, their families, veterans and the general public. It is a social network that allows people with mental health problems from every walk of life to engage with others who have similar problems. The anonymity of the network allows for a free and frank exchange of experiences, with a view to generating a wider sense of support, and it is staffed by professional counsellors. The Department of Health and the MOD are funding a one-year pilot for service personnel, their families and veterans on the “Big White Wall”. I am pleased to say that it has had excellent take-up. Up to 1 March, 2,019 places of the original 2,400 provided in the pilot have been filled. Of those, veterans represent 40%, with 38% being serving personnel and 22% family members. Launched on the same day as the “Big White Wall”, and in conjunction with the Royal College of General Practitioners, an online e-learning package aims to educate civilian GPs about the conditions from which veterans often suffer. The idea is to reduce the stigma attached and increase the likelihood that GPs will be able to give veterans effective and suitable care. That has been successful with its target audience; the package has had almost 14,000 hits since its launch. I believe that there is a consensus on both sides of the House that much is being done, but much more remains to be done. The more we as Government can engage with veterans, the public and the media, the more likely mental health issues will be understood more widely. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will continue to work together to help the services reach their full potential, so that no ex-serviceperson ever has anything less than all the support that they need of the highest quality.

Typhoon Aircraft (Exports) 4 pm Jim Dobbin (in the Chair): I give warning that I will call the Minister in this debate no later than 20 past 4. We have had a couple of problems in previous debates. Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con): I am delighted to have secured this debate on support for export sales of Typhoon aircraft. It also gives me great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth), is responding. That is appropriate considering all that he has done on recent visits, on behalf of the Government, to India. It is always a pleasure to speak on behalf of my hard-working constituents in Fylde, many of whom are employed in the aerospace industry. In my constituency, BAE Systems’ Warton site employs 6,272 people, with a further 4,000 employed in neighbouring Samlesbury. Indeed, BAE Systems provides one in four of all local manufacturing jobs in Fylde. Typhoon is the world-class platform on which the long-term success of UK military aerospace is predicated. That is why I called for today’s debate. Those jobs are vital in our mission to rebalance the British economy, by returning manufacturing to its core. The military aerospace sector represents 70% of all UK defence exports, which are worth £4.5 billion a year to the British economy. Typhoon alone directly supports 10,000 jobs in the UK, and more than double that indirectly. At a time when all parties are rightly worried about youth unemployment, it is important to appreciate BAE Systems’ commitment to training and developing people, with 1,000 apprentices and 500 graduate trainees at any one time. It also sustains a supply chain made up of many small and medium-sized enterprises, including 1,200 suppliers in the north-west alone. Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Companies such as C-MAC and Norfolk Capacitors in Great Yarmouth are also part of the supply chain to MOD projects and other organisations’ projects. Does he agree that the issue affects SMEs across the country, including in places such as Great Yarmouth? Mark Menzies: Absolutely. BAE Systems is always the company one thinks about in relation to Typhoon, but my hon. Friend has rightly pointed out that component suppliers—large and small—are located in every corner of the country. I know he has spoken up on behalf of his constituents on the matter. As well as benefiting the economy as a whole, supporting the Typhoon programme has direct advantages to taxpayers by reducing the Ministry of Defence’s unit costs. Savings are generated through increased production runs and a global network of operators, as well as through the pooling of spares and other support-related activities. Exports level out the peaks and troughs of domestic demand and give the MOD more programme flexibility. They also underpin some of our most important strategic relationships.

327WH

Typhoon Aircraft (Exports)

7 MARCH 2012

BAE Systems’ highly skilled work force have extensive expertise and experience over many decades of working in-country with global partners to deliver platforms that best fit their unique operational requirements, such as the Hawk trainer in India and the Tornado in Saudi Arabia. I have no doubt that the same work force are more than capable of continuing to deliver that level of service with Typhoon. In all defence exports, the importing Government are the customer, and their relationship with the exporting Government is vital. That is why our support is so vital: customer Governments need to know that a Typhoon acquisition will enable inter-operability, and facilitate a close and enduring relationship between the air forces of the two countries, with opportunities to train together, share assets and doctrine, and determine ways to enhance capability and reduce the cost of operation. Here the support of the MOD, in particular, is crucial. It is important that we continue to give our partners that confidence. I believe the Government understand that. That is why, while respecting Germany’s role as consortium leader, the British Government have given such strong backing to the sale of Typhoons to India. Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate because the Eurofighter and BAE Systems are critical to his area. He talks about the Government’s relationship with BAE Systems. One anonymous industry source was reported in the newspaper as saying about the Typhoon Indian contract: “Our defence industry is not working in tandem with the Government as much as the French worked with Dassault.”

What would the hon. Gentleman say in response to that? Mark Menzies: The hon. Gentleman summed it up: it was an anonymous source. My experience is that the British Government and BAE Systems have no criticism of each other in the way they have been working to try to achieve the best for the work force in Warton. The Prime Minister himself took a leading role in the UK’s largest trade mission to India in living memory. I was encouraged. Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): I also congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. As he knows, BAE Systems at Brough is just outside my constituency. We have a few choice things to say about BAE, but that is for another time. In relation to the Typhoon contract, which was another blow for the whole of BAE, including in Brough, does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite bizarre, given how much foreign aid we give to India—I think four times more than the French—that we are not in the running? There is still an opportunity for the Government to get their full weight behind the contract and to say to the Indians, “We expect something in return for what we give in aid.” Mark Menzies: My hon. Friend has put that in words that I possibly could not. I will come later to some of the things that I think the British Government could do. It is important to clarify the importance that the British Government place on this. I was encouraged,

Typhoon Aircraft (Exports)

328WH

not just by the Prime Minister’s visit to India, leading the delegation, but by his proactive approach and extensive knowledge of the topic at a recent meeting that hon. Members held with him at No. 10 to discuss this important matter. I also thank the Minister for his two ministerial visits to India within the last year; he need take lessons from no one when it comes to upholding the interests of the UK defence sector abroad. None the less, I would encourage him, in his ongoing discussions with his Indian counterparts, to urge them genuinely to review, even at this late stage, the details of this contract, in particular, to note the advantages that working with BAE Systems on Hawk has brought the Indian air force. It should not be forgotten that both the Royal Air Force and the royal Saudi air force use the Hawk as the trainer aircraft for Typhoon. Together, those aircraft mark a perfect partnership in Anglo-Indian co-operation. India has always been a proud nation; now it has truly come of age. India’s new role is not just regional but international. Britain has consistently supported United Nations Security Council reform to recognise that reality. However, if India is to play its full part on the world stage, it needs the very best military equipment. Typhoon, I believe, is the best fighter jet currently on the market. Diplomatically, India’s international position would also be enhanced by stronger relations with the UK and other partner nations—Germany, Italy and Spain. It is important to remember that the consortium is made up of private sector companies that need to take primary responsibility for any commercial deal. They must continue to work together to provide a united front for potential customers. They must be proactive in seeking deals on behalf of their shareholders. Perhaps most importantly, they must be competitive on price. However, Government can play a supporting role, as the example of Nissan proved so successfully yesterday. To that end, I ask the Ministry of Defence to give a long-term commitment to enhance Typhoon with operational capabilities that are essential to both the RAF and export customers, such as e-scan radar, and the integration of new weapon systems. Graham Jones: The hon. Gentleman is making a good point. He is passionate about BAE Systems. That passion is there for all to see and has been ever since he was elected. The Government’s White Paper, “National Security Through Technology”, suggests that British companies no longer have priority when it comes to MOD contracts. What does that say to foreign Governments, if the UK Government are unsure about whether they are going to buy their own products? Mark Menzies: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which, were it to be taken literally, as he just said it, would be a cause of concern. However, the White Paper states the UK Government’s commitment to research and development very clearly, and that is an area on which we lead the world. The Government, through the White Paper, are determined to continue to lead the world in those strategic sectors. Typhoon exports are not just a matter for the Ministry of Defence. I appreciate that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence is responding to the debate. However, Typhoon exports are inherently cross-departmental. It is vital for the Department for Business, Innovation and

329WH

Typhoon Aircraft (Exports)

7 MARCH 2012

[Mark Menzies] Skills, from the Secretary of State down, to engage fully with its German and Indian counterparts. I also urge all relevant Departments to ask their Indian counterparts whether they are looking at this contract beyond price, as this product offers world-leading capabilities. The India deal is by no means done, but we would clearly not be here today if it had gone perfectly thus far. We must never allow ourselves to be in this situation of uncertainty. The good news is that the upcoming bids will be led by Britain. The British-led consortium is well placed to take advantage of our historical ties with Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, Qatar and, crucially, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Foreign Secretary’s leadership in reinvigorating our vital Commonwealth bonds should also stand Typhoon in good stead. While the Minister can only respond on his Department’s behalf, in his response, will he please give an indication of the level of Government support for engagement with those countries? In particular, can he reassure me that the Ministry of Defence has played its full part in enhancing relations with Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and will continue to do so in the coming months? I also ask him to encourage other relevant Departments to be as proactive as he has been. We should never be shy about supporting British defence exports—other countries are not. We must not allow ourselves to be caught queuing, while others are elbowing their way to the front. Let us never forget that the Typhoon is an exceptional aircraft, built by the finest work force in the world, and that it showcases the very best of British engineering on a global stage. 4.13 pm The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Gerald Howarth): This is rather earlier than I had anticipated. It is an enormous pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin, as you and I share a number of matters in common. I am delighted to respond to the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on securing it and on having brought with him re-enforcements from both sides of the House in support of his case. It is good to see the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) and my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) and for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), who has just made an outstanding speech in the House in tribute to Her Majesty, as befits a former Army officer; he did so with great aplomb. Since my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde first arrived in the House, he has been extraordinarily assiduous in making the case not only for his constituency, but for the wider aerospace industry. In that, he is following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Michael Jack, who was always doughty champion, too. As my hon. Friend made clear in his speech, the aerospace industry is vital to the economic life of the north-west. The Government attach great importance to the role of exports in restoring the country’s economic health, following the catastrophic destruction of the public finances by the previous Prime Minister. In line with the

Typhoon Aircraft (Exports)

330WH

Government’s commitment to promote responsible exports, as set out in the coalition agreement, we have been especially active in supporting and promoting defence exports to overseas customers. We have intensified our support for bilateral engagement by directing that every Minister travelling overseas will promote the best that Britain has to offer, including its defence exports. I hope my hon. Friend will take reassurance from that. Let me stress that such activism by the Government is founded on responsible exports, taking full account of UK legislation on licensing and our international treaty obligations. Our keenness to support UK industry does not translate into a cavalier policy to sell anything to anyone. As I shall say later, defence exports play a critical role in enhancing our international relationships, to which my hon. Friend referred. Although this is an effort right across the Government and the lead for trade promotion rests with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Ministry of Defence has been doing much of the heavy lifting to bring practical effect to this Government policy. In that endeavour, we enjoy massive support from the Defence and Security Organisation element of UK Trade & Investment, led by Richard Paniguian, whose team do an outstanding job for us and for Britain’s defence industry. With regard to Typhoon, the cross-Whitehall effort is brought together at the very top, as my hon. Friend acknowledged. Must of that is down to the personal leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister himself. Ministers and senior officials meet continually with a view to ensuring that industry has the appropriate Government support to help further its various campaigns across the globe. I pay a particular tribute to our ambassadors, high commissioners and defence attachés around the world for their contribution to that team effort. It is, astonishingly, quite a joined up exercise. It is more joined up, particularly between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the MOD, than I ever anticipated when I was in opposition. In my role as Minister for International Security Strategy, I have already visited 15 countries so far, including Chile, Brazil, United Arab Emirates, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Indonesia, pressing the case for Typhoon or promoting the Type 26 global combat ship, and, always, championing the depth and breadth of British industry’s capability in the defence and security sectors—businesses large and small. Graham Jones: I have a concern about some of the export orders. Some of them involve new build at the factory sites of Samlesbury and Warton, but some involve displacements from the RAF. When the Minister is seeking new orders, is he seeking new build orders, or is he seeking to displace some of the Typhoons that were destined for the RAF? Mr Howarth: As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde made clear in his speech, the customers are overseas Governments. We do whatever we can, within reasonable limits and within the constraints that apply to us in providing the equipment that our own armed forces require, to provide what the customer is looking for. Clearly, new build is preferable because we understand that it generates jobs in the United Kingdom. However,

331WH

Typhoon Aircraft (Exports)

7 MARCH 2012

other countries are increasingly looking for technology transfer and partnership. Trying to deal with that issue is challenging. I recently returned from a successful trade mission to India, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde mentioned, where I led a delegation of 25 British defence companies, large and small, to promote the very best that Britain has to offer. That kind of initiative is designed to demonstrate to our friends in India our serious intent to build lasting partnerships with them. I am due to return to India for its defence exposition later this month, so I will see the Indian Minister again. I will mention India specifically in a moment. Typhoon has already secured a number of export contracts beyond the four partner nations, including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which has ordered 72 to date, and Austria, which has ordered 15. The MOD is actively supporting DSO and working with Eurofighter Typhoon’s three other partner nations on a number of other campaigns, which are at an advanced stage, including in Oman, Malaysia, the UAE and a further tranche for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The UK is in the lead in responding to the requirements of Oman, Malaysia and the UAE, and Her Majesty’s Government and BAE Systems, as UK prime contractor, are also fully involved in those campaigns, led by our partners. The MOD’s support activity has included deployments of aircraft to the Dubai and Malaysian air shows. The latter engagement also took in valuable participation in a multinational exercise within the five powers defensive arrangement. The RAF has also made platforms available to carry out impressive flight evaluation trials here in the UK, so that the overseas customer can witness Typhoon’s superb performance at close quarters. That is pretty impressive stuff by any measure, but all the more so when viewed against the backdrop of recent operations. Earlier this month, a delegation from Malaysia visited the UK to undertake such a flight evaluation trial. RAF Coningsby hosted the Royal Malaysian air force, and a demanding schedule of sorties covering a wide range of mission scenarios was carried out, supported by maintenance demonstrations by teams on the ground. We were very pleased to receive Oman’s request of 21 January for a proposal from BAE Systems for the supply and support of Typhoon aircraft. That represents an important step towards the contract and is a further sign of the strong and enduring relationship between our two countries. My noble Friend Lord Astor and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr Duncan) are well connected in the two countries I have just mentioned and have performed a huge service in adding to the strength of the British engagement. As I mentioned, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia signed an agreement to purchase 72 Typhoon aircraft, under the former Government. That is welcome, and together with initial logistics and training packages, it is worth several billion pounds to the UK and our European partners. We hope to provide a further tranche in future. In the UAE, following representations from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, Eurofighter Typhoon was invited in November to submit a bid for 60 aircraft, when it had been thought a deal with another contractor was about to be signed. We are all working hard to prepare an attractive, competitive bid to one of Britain’s oldest allies. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary

Typhoon Aircraft (Exports)

332WH

of State for Defence is due to visit the UAE shortly. This morning, I talked to Alan Garwood from BAE Systems, who returned this morning from the UAE. I assure all hon. Members in this Chamber that that in indicative of the effort that has been put into this campaign across the Government and industry. Of course, we are disappointed about the decisions made in Japan and India, but of course we fully respect their decisions. The Indian Government have chosen not to take Typhoon into the detailed negotiations phase of their medium multi-role combat aircraft competition, but the Eurofighter Typhoon consortium and the partner nations stand ready to enter into further discussions with the Indian Government, should that be their wish. Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Member for Fylde on securing the debate, which is important for his constituency. I have a genuine question for the Minister, relating to how optimistic we should be about the prospect of the Indians changing their minds. Will he tell hon. Members how many contracts the British Government have got to that stage that have then been subject to such a change of mind, because that is not common, is it? Mr Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising an important point. India had to select from two bids on the basis of price, price, price—nothing else. We understand that that is the procedure in India and that, unless and until negotiations with L1—the lowest bidder— have been exhausted and do not lead to a contract, at that point and only that point the Indian Government will be able to enter into negotiations with the other bidder. I assure the hon. Lady that we are maintaining a close interest, but we have to respect the Indian Government’s decision. Beating them about the head and saying, “You made the wrong choice,” is not the best way to win friends and influence people, least of all to encourage a customer to turn to a company. We stand ready. I have to say that, in this case, the UK is not and never has been in the lead. The campaign in India has been led from the outset by Germany and EADS Cassidian, not by the UK and BAE Systems. A great strength of Typhoon is that it is proven on combat operations, as we found out in Libya. I thought that it might help if I put on the record some of those achievements. Typhoon’s performance stood out from its coalition contemporaries. Fully loaded with up to six air-to-air missiles, four 1,000 lb bombs, a targeting pod and two under-wing fuel tanks, it was able to cruise at more than 500 knots and at heights in excess of 40,000 feet, taking it well clear of rough weather. The combination of Typhoon’s long-range radar and data-link integration gave its pilots exceptional situational awareness, which enabled them to control and co-ordinate less well-equipped coalition assets. In six months of deployed operations, the Typhoon force flew more than 600 sorties for a total of just over 3,000 flying hours, without any requirement for an engine change, and delivered more than 200 precision weapons. The aircraft’s excellent reliability resulted in no sorties lost owing to serviceability issues. That is a pretty outstanding record. Defence exports generally make an important contribution to sustaining our defence industry, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Some 300,000 people are employed

333WH

Typhoon Aircraft (Exports)

334WH

7 MARCH 2012

[Mr Gerald Howarth] in the defence and aerospace industries, which provide tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs. In 2010, defence exports amounted to approximately £6 billion and made a significant contribution to the balance of payments. Figures from UK Trade & Investment show that in the first decade of this century the UK was, on average, the second most successful exporter of legitimate defence equipment in the world, not least in my hon. Friend’s and my constituencies. It is not simply about money and getting cash in. As my hon. Friend implied, helping our friends to build up their own defence and security capabilities contributes to regional security and helps tackle threats to UK national security closer to their source. No other industry in this country can leverage influence so much as defence, which is why we are giving it such a high priority. I pay tribute to the UK companies, large and small, throughout the supply chain that are participating in this export drive, including Rolls Royce, SELEX, MartinBaker, MBDA and Ultra. That reminds us that the Typhoon is not just a BAE product, but encapsulates a range of outstanding British and European technologies. Having paid such a tribute, I extend it to my hon. Friend and highlight the contribution of companies in Lancashire, because in calling this debate he pays tribute to the company and its employees for bringing so much back into the constituency of Fylde and the north-west more generally. I shall, of course, forbear from saying too much about the north-west, as I represent the Farnborough Aerospace Consortium in my neck of the woods, but we are complementary. I reassure my hon. Friend that Her Majesty’s Government, led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, are working to support Typhoon exports and British industry more widely, but in these straitened times others are doing much the same and we should not expect an easy ride. The UK enjoys historic ties with a wide range of countries, often dating back centuries, greater than any other nation can claim. Our strategy is to revitalise those ties, both in the interests of our mutual defence and regional stability and to the benefit of our outstanding aerospace industry, of which this country can be truly proud.

Syria and Lebanon Jim Dobbin (in the Chair): Before we begin, I announce that I intend to call the Minister 10 minutes before the end of the debate, at 10 to 5. 4.30 pm Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op): In January I joined a parliamentary delegation to Lebanon, organised by the Council for Arab-British Understanding, which included my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). We set out to examine the effect of the Syrian crisis on Lebanon, to meet with Syrians, including opposition representatives and refugees, in particular in the border areas, and to speak with Lebanese politicians about their perspective on the crisis. Lebanon and Syria are two countries whose geography was once one, whose history is shared, whose ethnic and sectarian make-up is similar and whose economies are intertwined. Lebanon’s sole functioning land border is with Syria, from where it gets many of its food imports, while Syria depends on Lebanon for banking and financial services. Lebanon is possibly the most affected of the neighbouring countries by the crisis inside Syria and is an example of why that crisis, in contrast to the Libya situation perhaps, is so dangerous to the border region. The impact of the crisis is felt in many ways, at security, political, economic, confessional and ethnic levels, each of which I shall touch on briefly. On security, Syria presents a serious risk to Lebanon. I will come on to refugees later, but their numbers, which are increasing at present, will undoubtedly affect the sectarian and political balance in Lebanon. Even before the crisis, an estimated 300,000 Syrian workers were in Lebanon, all with families inside Syria. Many Syrian opposition activists, some of whom we met, are active from within Lebanon. Many told us that it was and is unsafe for them in Beirut, where they feel monitored by supporters of the Syrian regime. We visited Tripoli, and sectarian clashes were clearly a possibility, especially along the fault line between the Sunni and Alawi areas—sadly, subsequently, three deaths resulted in February. The security situation has not been helped by Syrian interference in Lebanon; there has been a series of kidnappings in the Bekaa valley in recent weeks, as a result of the security vacuum in the border area, some apparently for money but others clearly political. I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), what representations the British Government have made to the Lebanese Government about their responsibilities towards Syrians living in Lebanon. In Lebanon, we heard many unsubstantiated accusations of al-Qaeda activity in the Bekaa valley, but many Lebanese to whom we spoke were dubious. Has the Minister received reports of such activity, and what is his assessment of what is happening in the Bekaa valley? Politically, Lebanese politics is polarised into two groups, those who support Assad and those who do not, referred to as the coalitions of 8 March and of 14 March. Hezbollah is the most powerful force in Lebanon and remains supportive of Assad. Critical questions that everyone was asking when we were in

335WH

Syria and Lebanon

7 MARCH 2012

Lebanon were about how strong that support is and what Hezbollah’s position would be as and when the crisis in Syria deepens. I ask the Minister whether the Government will sanction discussions with the 8 March parliamentary bloc about the Syria crisis. It is important for us to persuade that group of the advantages to Lebanon of not becoming directly involved in the internal affairs of its neighbour. Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate on this important issue. On the position of Syrians in Lebanon, there is an assertion that, predominantly, the security forces in Lebanon are very much unsympathetic to those opposing the Assad regime. Did he see evidence of that? Mr Love: The picture is, indeed, complex. Broadly speaking, the 14 March coalition is opposed to Assad and 8 March is broadly sympathetic. Clearly, Hezbollah has strong connections with the Assad regime and, if we are to take its views at face value, it places a great deal of importance on maintaining that regime, but we heard conflicting views about who was standing where exactly. As the situation in Syria deteriorates, we are yet to see what will happen in Lebanon, and that is one of the issues that I am raising in the debate. Does the Minister agree, if I may put it this way, that there are all the ingredients for potential civil conflict and tension within Lebanon, the tragic history of which we all know? On minorities, there are almost 300,000 registered Palestinian refugees, living mainly in 12 UN refugee camps and some 20 unofficial camps. We visited two camps during our visit to Lebanon, and it became painfully clear that the Syria crisis has polarised opinion in an already difficult situation, so the Syrian problems are not helping the future of the Palestinian people living in Lebanon. There is also minority solidarity; Lebanese Alawis are of course concerned about the fate of their Syrian counterparts, as are the Druze, the Sunnis and the Christians. Recently, even the Maronite patriarch was moved to support the Assad regime, claiming—I have to say, somewhat ludicrously—that it was the most democratic Government in the region. Similarly in Turkey, the Turkish authorities fear the effect of the Syrian crisis on their Arab Alawi population and their Kurdish community. The two countries are somewhat dependent economically. Sanctions are hitting Lebanon as well as Syria, and tourism is down. Many of the communities that we visited close to the border were dependent on smuggling, and those communities are suffering the substantial additional burden of hosting the refugees. Does the Minister agree that the international community should look at how to assist Lebanon in handling the economic impact of the crisis in Syria? The most important consideration is the refugees. The UN is reporting that, following the crisis in Homs and the shelling of other areas in Syria close to the Lebanese border, between 1,000 and 2,000 refugees are trying to cross the border. That is in addition to the some 7,000 refugees already registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the north and the many thousands unregistered in Lebanon; the UN estimates that around 1,500 vulnerable Syrian refugees

Syria and Lebanon

336WH

are in southern Beirut. The total number of refugees, according to the UNHCR, now exceeds 15,000 and is growing fast. According to Save the Children, about one quarter of those refugees are children under the age of four. We visited Tripoli and Wadi Khaled, close to the border, where refugees were being hosted. Their stories confirmed the litany of horrors that we have all heard concerning the events in Syria and in Homs in particular. There were no refugee camps, and people were surviving in abandoned homes and other buildings, frequently with no heating and inadequate shelter. They were dependent on Lebanese families, some of whom were relatives, who were already incredibly deprived, and had lost out due to the absence of cross-border trade. The Red Cross told us that it could cope with perhaps another 2,000 refugees before pressing the panic button. That was in January, and during the two months since then that figure has been overtaken. Many of the refugees were entering Lebanon via the Bekaa valley, a Hezbollahcontrolled, Shia-dominated area. That was, and is creating tensions. All the refugees were fearful of the Lebanese security forces, and many were too scared to register with the UN, fearing that their details would be shared with the Lebanese authorities. The UNHCR was operating in far from perfect conditions regarding the status of the Syrian refugees. Under international law, they are clearly refugees, and deserve all the rights and protections that go with that status. However, Lebanon has always been deeply sensitive about refugees, and prefers to refer to them as Syrians fleeing the unrest. The Lebanese Government would not recognise them, nor grant them their legitimate rights; for example, they have not issued them with refugee IDs. As a result, they cannot leave the border areas. Our understanding from the UNHCR is that immediate additional funding is needed to cope with the crisis. What assistance is the UK providing to UNHCR? Will the Minister consider providing further assistance as a matter of urgency to help with the looming crisis in that country? What did the Minister make of the recent comments by the Lebanese President that the influx of some Syrian families into Lebanon as a result of the turbulence does not constitute a major problem because they can “stay with their relatives”? He continued: “We are treating the Syrians who fled as families, as relatives and not as refugees.”

Do the Government accept that they are genuine refugees? What discussions have there been with the Lebanese authorities on their responsibilities to recognise and protect refugees, and accord them their full rights under international law? What plans have the Government made with their international partners about the possibility of a humanitarian disaster in Syria if the economy there crashes, the security situation deteriorates even further, and the regime falls, which is a real possibility, leaving chaos in its wake? Have the Government discussed contingency plans with their Lebanese counterparts? In particular, has the Minister raised the issue of humanitarian access from Syria to Lebanon? What support can the EU and the UK give to the UNHCR to meet its needs should that happen? The situation in Syria is critical and deteriorating, and that is having a significant impact on Lebanon. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House

337WH

Syria and Lebanon

7 MARCH 2012

[Mr Love] that the Government are not only monitoring the situation in that country, but are ready to take action to support those in need at the present time. 4.43 pm Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) on obtaining this debate. It is absolutely the right time for the House to be discussing the issue in greater depth than we have been able to do so far. The humanitarian situation in Syria is clearly of enormous international concern, and is frankly nothing short of outrageous, which is an overused word. My hon. Friend and I met a young boy in hospital in the north of Lebanon, who had been severely injured by what was probably a nail bomb used by the Syrian authorities, perhaps the armed forces, to make war on children, in this case on a child of four or five. The Syrians’ medical skills saved his leg, and that is a great triumph, but it belies the fact that many other children have been killed in the conflict. The plight of refugees in Lebanon is genuinely pitiful. My hon. Friend made the important point that the Lebanese Government do not accord refugees any form of proper status under international law, so they are outwith what international law dictates they should do. I again ask the Minister whether it is possible to exert pressure on the Lebanese authorities to reconsider the matter, because that would make a material difference to the way in which refugees can be treated in Lebanon. As my hon. Friend said, many refugees in Lebanon are housed with family and friends, but sometimes with total strangers. We saw families with many children packed into small rooms, sometimes without fathers, and often without proper access to financial support. Their plight is difficult, because many refugees are not registered with the UNHCR. Of the 15,000 or 16,000 refugees in Lebanon, perhaps only half are registered with the UNHCR, and depend on assistance from groups such as Save the Children, or perhaps friends and relatives, but the problem of what aid is available to the UNHCR and its assessment of need is a real one. I hope that the Minister can throw some light on what the international community is doing in that context. The other issue that I want to put on the record is the need to recognise that what is taking place in Syria is enormously important in its own right, but may also have a hugely destabilising effect on Lebanon, a country that has known massive destabilisation for many years. Frankly, the region cannot afford to have Lebanon plunged again into crisis, because that would have an impact not only on Lebanon, but on its neighbours, including Israel, and the capacity for a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and so on. The issues are much more than those that apply to a country that in recent times has received relatively little attention in our media. The humanitarian crisis and political destabilisation are extremely toxic, and I hope that the Minister can provide some assurance that at international level the situation in Lebanon is at least part of the consideration as we rightly debate internationally how to push Syria

Syria and Lebanon

338WH

towards a better future, how to get rid of the vile Assad regime in Damascus, and how to move the whole region to a better place. 4.47 pm The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) on securing an Adjournment debate on this important subject. He is extremely knowledgeable and experienced. As he explained, Syria and Lebanon have an intertwined history, and what happens in each affects the other. The Assad regime has long played an unhelpful role in Lebanon. In addition to ensuring a peaceful transition in Syria and ending the atrocities there as soon as possible, an important priority of this Government is to ensure that stability in Lebanon is not another victim of Assad’s repression. Let me first address what is happening in Syria, and what we are doing about it. 15 March will mark the passing of the first anniversary of the Syrian regime’s sustained and brutal violence against its own people. In the last year, the UN has estimated that more than 7,500 people, including 380 children, have been killed. As the hon. Members for Edmonton and for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) said, the suffering is appalling, and the suffering of so many children is atrocious. As well as the large number of people who have been killed, the Syrian regime is engaging in an horrific campaign of repression through widespread and systematic human rights violations, including the torture and rape of men, women and children. In recent days, much of the focus has been on Homs, where the Syrian regime has conducted a campaign of indiscriminate shelling and violence against the civilian population. Reports from Paul Conroy and other brave journalists demonstrate the appalling human suffering inflicted by the regime. The Syrian Government must bring an immediate end to violence across the whole of Syria, in Homs, Hama, Damascus, Deraa and elsewhere. Rehman Chishti: The Minister will know that the European Union imposed crippling sanctions on the Assad regime in order to stop the killing and repression. Is he concerned that to a certain extent Syria has been able to wriggle out of those sanctions by working with banks and financial institutions in Lebanon? Mr Bellingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that, and I shall cover it in some detail in a moment. As I understand it, 114 individuals and 39 entities are now subjected to asset freezes and travel bans. The latest round of sanctions, which was agreed at the end of February, included freezing the assets of the Central Bank of Syria and restricting the regime’s access to the gold and precious metal markets. We will look into my hon. Friend’s point about Lebanon and Lebanese banks that may also operate in Syria, and I will make sure that I write to him about that. We are gravely concerned about the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Syria, and the actions of the regime are making it incredibly difficult for humanitarian agencies to respond. The UK is doing all it can to address the humanitarian situation in that challenging context. We are providing funding, as well as stepping up political pressure on the Syrian Government to

339WH

Syria and Lebanon

7 MARCH 2012

allow unimpeded access to the UN and aid agencies, a full assessment of civilian needs, and the delivery of vital relief goods to all those affected by violence. We fully support the UN emergency relief co-ordinator, Baroness Amos, in her plans to visit Syria to negotiate for humanitarian access and gain a better assessment of needs on the ground. I was fortunate enough to meet Baroness Amos last Monday in New York. She is now in Syria and we urge the Syrian Government to allow her full access to travel safely and freely in the region. President Assad continues to exert brutal military force against his own people, and he is responsible for the appalling situation in Syria. We believe that he has lost legitimacy and can no longer claim to lead his country. As the Government have repeatedly made clear, he should step aside in the best interests of Syria and the unity of its people. It is vital that those committing these awful crimes are held accountable for their actions. We have sent experts to the region to help gather and document evidence of human rights violations and abuses, and they will work closely with UN agencies, NGOs and other key organisations. The UK fully supports the Arab League’s efforts to end the violence in Syria and its plan for a Syrian-led political solution to the crisis. The establishment of a Friends of Syria group of over 60 countries is a further important step towards putting in place a political plan that addresses the concerns of all Syrians, regardless of their religion or ethnicity. We also welcome the appointment of former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan as the joint special envoy of the UN and the Arab League on the Syrian crisis. The UK extends to him its full support, and stands ready to provide assistance to his team in its vital work to bring an end to the violence in Syria. In the EU, the UK has been at the forefront of delivering 12 rounds of sanctions targeted on those supporting or benefiting from the regime, and those associated with them. I will not repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), but we have made a start on restrictive measures, and it may be that further such measures will be required. Tony Lloyd: The Minister can rightly claim that the Government have been at the forefront of tightening the sanctions regime against Syria. Would it be possible to begin to identify not only those at the very top such as President Assad, but those around him who have taken part in war crimes? If we could begin to identify such people by name, that would bring pressure to bear on senior players in the Assad regime. Mr Bellingham: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need to identify those people, and we will ensure that expert help is available for that work of identification and analysis. As I said earlier, those who have committed these terrible crimes will be brought to justice. Last week, the deteriorating security situation and risks posed to our embassy staff led the Foreign Secretary to withdraw our staff from Syria. That decision in no way reduces our commitment to active diplomacy and to maintain pressure on the Assad regime to end the violence. We will continue to work closely with other

Syria and Lebanon

340WH

nations to co-ordinate diplomatic and economic pressure on the Syrian regime through the Friends of Syria group and the EU. Let me now look at how the current violence within Syria risks destabilising the region. As the hon. Member for Edmonton made clear, the despicable actions of the Syrian regime inside Syria impact on Syria’s neighbours. Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey are all affected by the continuing bloodshed, and the consequent flow of refugees has potential implications for their security and economies. Lebanon’s historical, confessional, and economic links to Syria make it particularly vulnerable. The number of refugees fleeing violence in Syria to safety in Lebanon is steadily increasing. Determining the numbers, however, is difficult. The UNHCR has registered at least 7,200 Syrians near the northern border of Lebanon, but there are undoubtedly many others. We estimate that the real figure is closer to 20,000, with a further 5,000 unregistered people likely to be in the northern border area and Tripoli; 5,000 in the Bekaa valley; 2,000 in the southern suburbs of Beirut; and 600 in the southern city of Saida. The Qatari Red Crescent has said recently that it believes a total figure of 50,000 Syrian refugees is credible. That is a huge figure, and shows the sheer scale involved. The hon. Members for Edmonton and for Manchester Central made an important point about displaced Syrians who have found refuge with relatives or host families, and I note the concerns that such arrangements might reach the limits of sustainability if those numbers continue to increase. We have regularly urged the Lebanese Government to continue their work with international agencies to provide shelter and protection for Syrian refugees in Lebanon. Generally speaking, the Lebanese Government are responding effectively in a difficult political context. I was asked what the UK is doing to support the international effort, with particular reference to the UNHCR. We have doubled core funding to the UNHCR this year to help it carry out its work globally, including in the middle east. The Department for International Development provided £39 million for 2011-12, and we remain in close contact with UNHCR as this fast-moving situation develops. A DFID humanitarian adviser has been deployed to the region to get a better understanding of events on the ground and identify ways in which the UK might be able to help. We will work closely with the Lebanese Government to improve conditions for Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Importantly, that includes work to improve the governance and security arrangements in the refugee camps. To that end, the UK committed £117 million of non-earmarked funding for 2007-11 to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Mr Love: I am listening carefully to the Minister’s speech. One recent concern was about the actions of the Lebanese authorities in trying to restrict the numbers of people coming across from Syria, particularly in the Homs area. We should be urging the Lebanese authorities to open up humanitarian access, should conditions in Syria deteriorate. Will the Government make a commitment to urge the Lebanese authorities in that direction? Mr Bellingham: We will certainly look at that point and I will take the hon. Gentleman’s remarks on board.

341WH

Syria and Lebanon

7 MARCH 2012

[Mr Bellingham] The UK is continuing to look into reports of limited Hezbollah involvement in Syria. Any Hezbollah support for the Syrian regime’s ongoing brutal repression would be a huge mistake and counter to Lebanese interests of. Hezbollah’s rhetorical support for President Assad has exposed the hypocrisy of its supposed commitment to the poor and oppressed, and significantly undermined its credibility across the region. We urge all parties in Lebanon with any influence over the Assad regime to use that influence to seek an early end to the repression. As has been expressed, the impact of events in Syria on the Lebanese economy should not be overlooked. We are working closely with the Lebanese Government to support economic reform, including offering support on regulatory processes to ensure long-term prosperity in Lebanon. UK companies have been involved in assisting the Lebanese Government to explore potential oil and gas resources in the country’s maritime waters, and our

Syria and Lebanon

342WH

embassy remains active in supporting UK companies to play a greater role in Lebanon’s ambitious plans to develop its infrastructure. As part of the prosperity agenda, I assure the hon. Member for Edmonton that we are working hard at improving our bilateral trade. Indeed, we have made a commitment to increase such trade by 15%, year on year, over the next two years. That is what we are doing to try and bring wealth and prosperity to the people of Lebanon. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue, and if there are points that I have not covered, I will write to him. The UK is committed to ending the bloodshed in Syria, to preventing it from destabilising Lebanon, and to helping the peoples of that region realise their aspirations for a more a democratic, peaceful and prosperous future. Question put and agreed to. 4.59 pm Sitting adjourned.

59WS

Written Ministerial Statements

7 MARCH 2012

Written Ministerial

Written Ministerial Statements

60WS

The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude): Today I am publishing an updated Cabinet Committee list. I have placed a copy of the new list in the Libraries of both Houses.

the House that these figures have been reached over three weeks ahead of schedule and significantly earlier than has been achieved in any previous year. As at 5 March, RPA had made SPS 2011 payments totalling £1.651 billion (95.4%) to 100,605 eligible claimants (96%). The Agency will be making contact shortly with claimants who are not due a payment, for example because they no longer have entitlements. For the remaining 3,500 or so farmers, the focus continues to be on validating claims and making related payments as soon as possible. Where that has not been possible by the end of March, RPA will contact those affected to explain the position on their claim, including any corrective work and payment adjustments related to previous scheme years. That work is important to ensure legacy issues are addressed and so help provide the platform for further improvements in payment performance for the 2012 scheme.

DEFENCE

HEALTH

Medical Assessment Programme

NHS Pension Scheme

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan): The Ministry of Defence Medical Assessment Programme (MAP) will move from facilities at St Thomas’ Hospital, London, to the Reinforcements Training and Mobilisation Centre (RTMC) at Chilwell in October 2012. The MAP offers mental health assessments to ex-service personnel who have deployed on operations since 1982 and have mental health problems related to their military service. The House is aware of the report published by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for making improvements in mental health care provision for service personnel and veterans. We fully support the report’s recommendation that the MAP service continues while NHS mental health services are further developed across the UK, and remain committed to doing all we can to help veterans with mental health problems related to their military service and to making improvements to the services we provide. There are significant advantages in collocating the MAP with the RTMC at Chilwell. This will provide a more structured professional environment for the MAP physician; benefits for clinical governance and flexibility from working alongside the reserves mental healthcare service; and improved cost effectiveness from sharing the facilities already in place at Chilwell. This move is also expected to benefit the majority of veterans as demographic data indicate that a high percentage are being referred from the north and the midlands.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns): The National Health Service Pension Scheme and Injury Benefits (Amendment) Regulations 2012, laid on 5 March 2012, bring into force increases to contribution rates for members of the NHS Pension Scheme for England and Wales. The increases apply to service from 1 April 2012 and continue throughout the financial year. At the spending review 2010, the Government announced increases to member contribution rates in public service pension schemes saving £2.8 billion a year by 2014-15, to be phased in from 1 April 2012. The contributions are to be increased progressively with protection for the lower paid and to minimise instances where members choose to opt out of the scheme. Last year the Department consulted on a structure of tiered contribution rates that meet these requirements. The consultation opened on 28 July 2011 and closed on 21 October 2011, and nearly 9,000 responses were received. The Department revised the original consultation proposal so that a greater number of lower and middle earners are protected from an increase in 2012-13. The Government remain committed to securing in full the spending review savings in 2013-14 and 2014-15 by further increasing member contributions in public service pension schemes in addition to the 2012-13 rises. The Department will consult formally on proposals in due course. These regulations also introduce new administration requirements to support implementation of taxation provisions within the Finance Act 2011. Further, the regulations alter scheme transfer rules in order to exclude the Isle of Man Unified Public Service Pension Scheme from 1 April 2012, as this new scheme will be incompatible with the terms of the Public Sector Transfer Club.

Statements Wednesday 7 March 2012 CABINET OFFICE Cabinet Committee List

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS Single Payment Scheme The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice): In my statement of 11 January 2012, Official Report, column 16 WS, I explained that the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) had met its first performance indicator for the 2011 Single Payment Scheme (SPS.) The Agency’s second performance indicator for the scheme was to pay 95% of both the number of eligible claimants and of the total estimated fund value by the end of March. I can now confirm to

HOME DEPARTMENT Police and Crime Commissioners (Pay) The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May): On 3 November 2011, I placed a copy of the Senior Salary’s Review Body (SSRB) report

61WS

Written Ministerial Statements

7 MARCH 2012

and recommendations on police and crime commissioners pay in the House Library. On that day, I undertook to give the report and the recommendations thorough consideration and report my final decision in good time to allow potential PCC candidates to be clear on what they can expect their salary to be. I would like to thank the SSRB for its work. I believe that the report sets out clearly the justification for its proposals and I intend to accept all but one of the recommendations made by the SSRB. Recommendation 1 on PCC pay structure has taken into account the issues I consider to be important and, overall, I believe a sensible and appropriate approach has been taken. With regard to the salary range which is the subject of recommendation 2, the report has made the case for a proposed PCC salary range of £65,000— £100,000. While salary itself should not be a key motivational factor for these important new roles, the SSRB has agreed that these are important new posts. I believe their salary range ensures the right balance in terms of attracting suitable candidates while at the same time addressing the fact that public funding is constrained. Recommendation 3 relates to the issue of performancerelated pay and I agree with the SSRB’s recommendation that it would not be appropriate for PCCs to receive performance-related pay. The performance of PCCs should be judged solely by the electorate. Recommendation 4 considers the need to reduce the salary of a PCC pro-rata for any PCCs that do not carry out the role on a full-time basis. Having reflected on the advice put forward by the SSRB, I do not propose to accept this recommendation. We understand the intention behind it, but we believe that the best way forward is for PCCs to be clear with their electorate about what outside interests they have and for the electorate to judge them accordingly. Last year, I laid before Parliament a specified information order 2011 which sets out what information we expect PCCs to publish in order to ensure that they are sufficiently transparent on critical issues. I intend to ensure that a PCC declares any paid and/or unpaid interests that may conflict with their role or affect the amount of time that they will be devoting to it. I also intend to accept the SSRB’s last two recommendations. Recommendation 5 relates to carrying out an independent annual review of PCC salaries and Recommendation 6 relates to completing a full review of PCC roles and their remuneration in the third year of office in order to make pay recommendations to take effect from the second round of elections in 2016. By settling the pay structure as early as possible, I hope to ensure that potential candidates have plenty of time to consider their respective positions when deciding whether they should stand. Justice and Home Affairs Council The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May): The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council is due to be held on 8 March in Brussels. I will attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. As the provisional agenda stands, the following items will be discussed.

Written Ministerial Statements

62WS

The Council will begin in mixed committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states). There will be presentations by the Commission and Frontex on illegal immigration, continuing the Council discussions on this issue under the previous presidency. The UK supports increased efforts to combat illegal flows across the external border and within the EU, and welcomes proposals for a presidency “roadmap” for a more coherent response to these flows. In particular, the UK believes it is vital that the EU response includes action to tackle fraud and abuse of free movement rights, as well as consolidation of efforts at the GreekTurkish border, closer partnership working with Turkey, and work further “upstream” in countries of origin and transit using the tools of the EU’s global approach to migration. The presidency will present its Council conclusions which aim to strengthen political governance over Schengen co-operation through regular political and strategic discussions at ministerial level in mixed committee format. The use of mixed committee format will allow the UK to participate in discussions which affect the control of illegal immigration flows that impact on the UK. The UK supports this proposal and the list of suggested topics for inclusion in the Commission’s periodic reports. The UK will use these debates to call for stronger practical co-operation on measures to protect the external border and prevent illegal immigration. There will be an update from the presidency on attempts to secure agreement on the date for the removal of controls on Bulgaria and Romania’s sea and air borders with countries in the Schengen area. This issue will also be discussed at the preceding European Council. We do not expect a vote. Next there will be an update on the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II). The UK will continue to reiterate its support for the continuation of the current SIS II project. The Commission has committed to deliver the central element of SIS II in early 2013. There will also be a presentation by the presidency on the EU conference on innovative border management, which the UK attended in Copenhagen on 2 and 3 February 2012. There will be a discussion during lunch on combating organised crime through multi-disciplinary and administrative approaches. The main Council will start with a “state of play” report by the presidency on the Common European Asylum System. This will set out the progress that has been made on the package to date: negotiations continue on the reception conditions directive and the Dublin III Regulation, with the development of a new article to enshrine the “early warning mechanism’, which was the subject of discussions in JHA Councils at the end of last year. The presidency will present draft Council conclusions which set out the outcome of discussions on solidarity and practical co-operation that took place at the informal Council meeting in January. They are intended to provide a framework or “tool box” for practical co-operation within the EU, focusing in large part on maximising the opportunities presented by existing arrangements. This is the first time the Council has been asked to consider the conclusions but there is a high degree of support for the direction they set out. The UK strongly supports

63WS

Written Ministerial Statements

7 MARCH 2012

the conclusions as currently drafted. They present the right balance on key issues including that the focus of “solidarity” should be practical co-operation between member states based on their individual responsibility to build migration management capacity; strong references to the “early warning mechanism” to be included in the new Dublin regulation in place of a suspension clause; and an explicit confirmation of the lack of support for any mandatory intra-EU relocation of beneficiaries of international protection. Next there will be a presentation by the Commission, the European Asylum Support Office and Frontex on the Greek action plan (GAP) of August 2010. The GAP outlines Greece’s proposals to build its capability to manage migration, including through the creation of an improved asylum service which complies with EU legislation. Legislation has now been adopted in Greece to provide a new institutional framework by creating three new agencies (Asylum Service, Appeals Authority and Initial Reception Service). However, the implementation of these reforms has been significantly hindered by systemic deficiencies in the Greek Administration and constraints imposed by austerity measures. The UK supports the GAP and has a vested interest in its success, not least because a weak border with Turkey presents a security risk. Up to 80% of illegal migrants enter the EU through Greece, and many of these may travel on to the UK. Without significant improvements to the asylum system, use of the Dublin regulation to return asylum seekers to Greece will remain suspended. But the Government are concerned by the slow progress of reform and the limited evidence of the impact of EU support, including that provided through the European Asylum Support Office. Members of the Council are likely to discuss whether any further support would be appropriate and will push to secure further political will from Greece to bring about meaningful reform. Under any other business the presidency will provide information on current legislative proposals.

WORK AND PENSIONS Disability Employment Support The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller): Today I am publishing a command paper, “Disability Employment Support: Fulfilling Potential”, which sets out the Government’s strategy for specialist disability employment programmes and includes a summary of the responses to the public consultation on the Sayce review. Our strategy reaffirms the Government’s commitment to enable disabled people to achieve their full potential and support independent living, something at the heart of UN convention commitments. As a result of its importance and despite severe financial constraints, I have continued to protect spending on specialist disability employment programmes over this spending review, and I am determined to help more disabled people enter and remain in work. Crucially, savings from the policy changes I am announcing today will be used for more effective and proven employment programmes such as Access to Work to benefit many more disabled people.

Written Ministerial Statements

64WS

Liz Sayce made a number of recommendations to improve and expand Access to Work. We accept all of Liz Sayce’s recommendations on Access to Work, subject to further co-production with disabled people and employers to ensure that we get these right. I can confirm today that we have already implemented a number of these recommendations, including targeted marketing to small employers and under-represented groups. I can also announce today that we will make an extra £15 million available for Access to Work in this spending review period. In addition, we will be conducting a further period of co-production with disabled people to identify how best we can support independent living through achieving the full potential of disabled people in the labour market. This will build upon the co-productive approach to developing the disability strategy. I have agreed that the funding for residential training colleges should be extended until the end of the academic year 2012/13, to allow time to determine and implement future changes. They provide support into employment that is clearly valued, although costly, and we need to take further time to consider options for the future. I have assessed very carefully the needs of the Remploy workers, as well as the needs of the 6.9 million disabled people of working age in Great Britain—who are, of course, the vast majority—who could benefit from greater specialist employment support to find and retain work. The responses to the consultation on the Sayce review strongly endorsed the idea that money to support disabled people into employment should follow individuals not institutions and that Remploy factories should be set free from Government control. They also supported the view the Government-funded segregated employment is not consistent with an objective of disability equality. This is about equality and fairness for disabled people. Roughly 2,200 disabled people are supported by Remploy’s enterprise businesses, at a cost each year of around a fifth of the total budget for specialist disability employment programmes. Despite significant investment in Remploy enterprise businesses the cost of each employment place remains at £25,000 per year, compared with an average Access to Work award of £2,900. The Sayce review did acknowledge the valuable work undertaken by Remploy’s employment services in supporting tens of thousands of disabled people into work. Given the significant additional number of unemployed disabled people who could be supported to access the mainstream labour market, up to 8,000 people in this spending review, I have decided that it is important to accept and implement the Sayce review recommendations on Remploy. This will be done in two stages. In stage 1, the Government will reduce its current subsidy to Remploy from the beginning of the new financial year so that we cease funding factories which make significant losses year after year and restrict funding to those factories which might have a prospect of a viable future without Government subsidy. Remploy’s board was asked to consider the impact of this decision before it was made. As a result of the decision to reduce current funding the Remploy board is proposing to close (subject to consultation with their unions) by the end of this year the 36 factory sites (of 54) which it considers are unlikely

65WS

Written Ministerial Statements

7 MARCH 2012

to be able to achieve independent financial viability. Remploy will shortly begin collective consultation with its trade unions and the management forums on the proposed closure of these factories and on the potential compulsory redundancy of all the 1,752 people, including 1,518 disabled people, at these sites and associated with them. Some factory sites, the CCTV business and Remploy employment services appear to be more likely to be able to continue to operate free from government subsidy as advocated by Sayce. In stage 2, the Department for Work and Pensions will work with the Remploy board to identify whether these potentially viable Remploy businesses can be freed from Government control, including by way of employee-led commercial exit and/or open market sales, and how this might be achieved. I recognise that this announcement will be difficult news for the staff in Remploy factories and understand that they have will have concerns about the future. As part of collective consultation, the Remploy board will consider all proposals to avoid compulsory redundancy. We are absolutely committed to supporting Remploy employees with an £8 million comprehensive personalised package of support for all those who are affected by these proposals. Any disabled member of staff who is made redundant will receive an offer of individualised

Written Ministerial Statements

66WS

support for up to 18 months to help with the transition from Government-funded sheltered employment to mainstream employment. This support will also include access to a personal budget to aid that transition. We will also be working with employers and the Employers Forum on Disability to look to offer targeted work opportunities for displaced staff. We will also establish a community support fund to provide grants to local disability organisations to support Remploy employees to make the transition from sheltered to mainstream employment. If, after reform of Remploy is complete, it leaves Government, I anticipate that the Remploy pension scheme will run on as a closed scheme. The accrued benefits of members will be fully protected. The Government’s commitment is to support many more disabled people into work, in line with their aspirations, at a time of severe financial restraint. The changes I am announcing today will enable us to support thousands more disabled people into work, including through significant improvements to the successful Access to Work programme. I believe that this strategy better fits the needs and aspirations of the 21st century—and a world where disabled people participate fully in the mainstream not in Government-funded segregated jobs. I will place a list of the factories that will be the subject of consultation in the Library of the House.

731W

Written Answers

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Written Answers to

732W

Capital Allowances Chris White: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the cost to the public purse was of capital allowances in each of the last three years; [98222] (2) what the cost to the public purse was of the annual investment allowance in each of the last three [98221] years.

Questions Wednesday 7 March 2012

Mr Gauke: Information on the costs of capital allowances and the annual investment allowance in 2010-11 and 2011-12 is available in HMRC published statistics:

TREASURY

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_expenditures/table1-5.pdf

Bank of England: Scotland Mr Bain: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any preparations have been made for any change in the functions or remit of the Bank of England as they apply to Scotland in the event of Scotland leaving [95771] the UK. Danny Alexander: The Government are clear that Scotland benefits from being part of UK and the UK benefits from having Scotland within it. The Government are not making plans for independence as we are confident that people in Scotland will continue to support the United Kingdom in any referendum.

The cost of capital allowances in 2009-10 was £19 billion (of which the annual investment allowance accounted for £1.5 billion. Capital Gains Tax Jonathan Edwards: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the additional revenue raised as a result of changes to capital gains [98104] tax since May 2010. Mr Gauke: Estimates of additional capital gains tax revenue resulting from changes since May 2010 have been published in the summer Budget 2010, Budget 2011 and autumn statement 2011 reports. Estimates from these publications for each of the measures are given in the following table:

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

0

725

825

850

925

n/a

0

-50

-70

n/a

0

0

0

0

2015-16

£ million 2016-17

Summer Budget 2010: Capital gains tax: increase rate for higher rate taxpayers to 28% and increase in Entrepreneurs’ Relief to £5 million from 23 June 2010

1



1

-90

-100

1

-50

-25

-20

-20

25

25

25

30



Budget 2011: Capital gains tax increase Entrepreneurs’ relief lifetime limit to £10 million



Autumn statement 2011: Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme and CGT holiday for investments made into the scheme in 2012-132 Autumn statement 2011: Freeze annual exempt amount for n/a 2012-13 1 No figures given 2 The cost of the SEIS scheme is mainly income tax relief.

Capital Gains Tax: Second Homes Tim Farron: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps HM Revenue and Customs is taking to ensure that all second homeowners who are liable to [98537] pay capital gains tax do so. Mr Gauke: HM Revenue and Customs do not have information on whether any property in the UK is or is not a “second home”. In addition the relief that grants exemption from capital gains tax (CGT) on disposals of

an individual’s only or main residence allows an individual who owns more than one residence to nominate which property should qualify for that relief. Where compliance risks are identified HMRC will pursue the appropriate inquiries. Excise Duties: Alcoholic Drinks Mark Field: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures are in place to regulate bonded [98164] warehouses to prevent alcohol duty fraud.

733W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

734W

Miss Chloe Smith: In order to operate, a warehousekeeper and excise (bonded) warehouse must first be approved by HM Revenue and Customs as a secure place for the deposit and storage of dutiable goods. Warehouse-keepers are required to provide a security, guaranteeing against the loss of goods in warehouse, and must submit monthly returns and declarations accounting for stock, movements to other warehouses, and volumes of goods released for consumption. To safeguard against unsuitable persons gaining access to undutied goods, rigorous background checks are conducted, and applicants are required to submit business plans. HMRC conduct pre-approval interviews and conditions of operation may be set. Approvals may also be revoked or varied at any time for reasonable cause, such as evidence of duty fraud. Approved excise warehouses are subject to a programme of risk-based compliance checking. Where duty fraud is identified, the warehouse-keeper may be subject to criminal prosecution and/or heavy financial penalties. HMRC will seek to recover duty losses and may issue civil penalties, in addition, up to the equivalent duty value.

Miss Chloe Smith: Spirits duty stamps were introduced in 2006 as part of HMRC’s strategy to address alcohol duty fraud. Estimated revenue losses from spirits fraud were £320 million in that year, and reduced to £130 million by the end of 2009-10. However, it has not been possible to isolate the specific effect of duty stamps on fraud as it is a single element of a co-ordinated overall strategy. A renewed ‘Tackling Alcohol Fraud’ strategy was introduced in 2010-11 targeting all forms of alcohol fraud. In its first full year of operation the impact of HMRC enforcement activity across all alcohol products increased by over 50%. The effectiveness of the strategy has recently been reviewed by the National Audit Office. The Government will consult shortly on new legislative measures to reduce the supply of alcohol products to fraudsters and limit opportunities for the sale of illicit goods, for example, by cash and carry warehouses into retail supply chains. The consultation will explore a range of measures including those currently applying to spirits. The costs to the alcohol industry of any additional legislation to protect the legitimate alcohol trade will be assessed as part of the consultation process.

Mark Field: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many successful (a) criminal and (b) civil prosecutions have been brought following steps taken by HM Revenue and Customs to tackle alcohol duty fraud; and what the value was of the duty recouped [98165] from such actions.

David Simpson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures his Department has in place to ensure value-for-money for all procurement; and what savings have been identified by those procedures in the last year [98093] for which figures are available.

Miss Chloe Smith: 12 criminal prosecution cases involving alcohol fraud were completed with 16 defendants convicted in 2009-10, (the last year when figures are available), No prosecutions are brought in civil cases. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) focuses criminal investigations on the impact that can be achieved by closing down the criminal organisations responsible for fraud, rather than bringing a large number of small value convictions. HMRC continue to enhance the impact of its work as can be seen from recent convictions and significant sentences for the operators of an excise warehouse. The estimated value of the alcohol duty protected as a result of HMRC’s criminal investigations was £37 million in 2009-10 and £64 million in 2010-11.

Government Departments: Procurement

Miss Chloe Smith: HM Treasury has established new tougher internal procedures to ensure value for money is achieved for all procurements. It has, for example, implemented the Cabinet Office’s strict controls on consultancy spend to ensure that spend is only incurred when there is a robust business case and the work cannot be undertaken by civil servants. Also, in line with Government policy and to benefit from public sector buying power, HM Treasury is centralising common commodity procurement through contracts awarded and managed by the Government Procurement Service. HM Treasury not specifically record savings secured through its procurement process. However, the overall procurement expenditure for HM Treasury Group in 2009-10 was £117.5 million (excluding VAT) which fell to £108 million (excluding VAT) in 2010-11. Higher Education: Northern Ireland

Mark Field: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the effect of the introduction of duty stamps on (a) spirits fraud, (b) alcohol fraud and (c) total indirect tax fraud; [98167] (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of the first year’s operation of the alcohol fraud strategy; and whether he plans to review the effectiveness of that [98168] strategy; (3) what assessment he has made of the transferability of measures to tackle duty fraud on spirits to other [98166] categories of alcohol; (4) what plans he has to improve the record-keeping by cash and carry warehouses to reduce alcohol duty [98162] fraud; (5) what assessment he has made of the cost to small and medium-sized breweries of additional legislative [98172] measures to tackle beer duty fraud.

Stephen Pound: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the likely effect of any block grant reduction on the university and higher [96508] education sectors in Northern Ireland. Danny Alexander: No assessment has been made of the likely effect of any block grant reduction on the university and higher education sectors in Northern Ireland. Once overall public expenditure budgets have been determined, the devolved Administrations have freedom to make their own spending decisions on devolved programmes within their overall totals. Stephen Pound: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any element of the Northern Ireland block grant is hypothecated for further and higher education [96509] in Northern Ireland.

735W

Written Answers

736W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Danny Alexander: No elements of the Northern Ireland block grants are hypothecated. Once overall public expenditure budgets have been determined, the devolved Administrations have freedom to make their own spending decisions on devolved programmes within their overall totals.

Mr Gauke: The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Housing Revenue Accounts: Wales

Valerie Vaz: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on the cost to the public purse of the reorganisation of the NHS since May 2010. [91811]

Jonathan Edwards: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has had discussions with Ministers in the Welsh Government on the return of funding from Wales to his Department as a result of the Housing [97203] Revenue Account Subsidy Scheme. Danny Alexander: Treasury and Welsh Government Ministers meet from time to time to discuss matters of common interest including the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy Scheme. Monetary Policy Mr Bain: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department has conducted any preparatory work in respect of the (a) monetary policy and (b) currency union implications of an independent Scotland. [95061]

Danny Alexander: The Government are clear that Scotland benefits from being part of UK and the UK benefits from having Scotland within it. I set out the Government’s analysis of the issues relating to a currency union in my speech to the Scottish Council for Development and Industry on 9 December 2011, which is available on the HM Treasury website. Moody’s Investor Services: Press Releases Jonathan Ashworth: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 1 March 2012, Official Report, column 428W, on Moody’s Investor Services, whether his Department requested changes to be made to the draft press release submitted to it by Moody’s Investor Services on 13 February 2012; whether any such requested changes were incorporated by Moody’s Investor Services into their final press release; and whether he personally was shown a copy of the draft press release and agreed the changes that would be [98645] proposed. Mr Hoban: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answers of 22 February 2012, Official Report, column 840W and 1 March 2012, Official Report, column 428W. National Insurance: Insolvency Susan Elan Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many businesses have entered administration as a result of steps taken by HM Revenue and Customs in respect of national insurance payments [98094] since 2010; (2) how many businesses HM Revenue and Customs has taken action against for late or non payment of national insurance in each of the last three years. [98095]

NHS: Reorganisation

Danny Alexander [holding answer 26 January 2012]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her oral question on 12 July 2011, Official Report, column 147. Pensions: Teachers Mr David Hamilton: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a representation from the Scottish Government requesting a valuation by the Government Actuary’s Department of the Scottish [97519] Teachers’ Superannuation Scheme. Danny Alexander: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not received a representation from the Scottish Government requesting a valuation by the Government Actuary’s Department of the Scottish Teachers’ Superannuation Scheme. Public Expenditure Jonathan Edwards: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether all payments made to devolved Administrations as a result of the Chancellor’s autumn statement resulted from the Barnett Formula; and what the (a) amount and (b) purpose of such payments was. [98466]

Danny Alexander: The following Barnett consequentials were given to the devolved Administrations in the 2011 autumn statement of 29 November 2011, Official Report, columns 799-810:

Road Transport Rail Infrastructure Growth and Green Education Capital Housing Youth Contract Early Years Childcare Rail fares (increase by RPI+1% instead of RPI+3%) Business Rates deferral Business Rates: Holiday for small businesses Total

2012-13

2013-14

£ million 2014-15

11.9 1.6 12.3 55.4 49.7 23.1 13.6 16.6

80.2 1.6 69.2 90.8 33.6 19.6 38.5 17.2

124.4 6.4 115.4 83.1 -2.7 18.3 73.0 21.6

13.6 33.7

-7.2 -0.8

-6.4 0.0

231.6

342.7

433.2

In addition, £50 million was made available to the Scottish Government to co-fund the upgrade of the Caledonian Sleeper service.

737W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Public Expenditure: Wales Jonathan Edwards: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions (a) he, (b) Ministers in his Department and (c) officials in his Department had with representatives of the Welsh Government on the Holtham Commission’s proposals for funding reform in Wales and Welsh Ministers’ existing borrowing powers; and when he expects to make an announcement on [98357] funding reform. Danny Alexander: The Government committed in the 2011 Budget to consider all aspects of the Holtham Commission’s reports, including funding reform for Wales. Discussions between the Government and the Welsh Government are taking place on a regular basis. Public Sector Net Cash Requirement Mr Ellwood: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the public sector borrowing requirement; and if he will make a statement. [97770]

Danny Alexander: The Independent Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast for public sector net borrowing in 2011-12 is £127 billion, as set out in their November Economic and Fiscal Outlook. The OBR will publish updated economic and fiscal forecasts alongside the Budget.

Written Answers

738W

(3) what representations he has received on the use of tax avoidance schemes and personal service companies [98488] in the civil service. Danny Alexander: The Government are committed to tackling all forms of tax avoidance and do not believe that tax avoidance is appropriate in the public sector. I have announced a review of public sector appointments to examine the extent to which use is made of arrangements whereby the tax position of appointees can be perceived to be minimised, including where they are paid through a personal service company, and to make appropriate recommendations. It will not be possible to provide further information on the scale of these arrangements and the public policy considerations arising from them, until the review has been completed. Tax Collection: Complaints Jeremy Lefroy: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints HM Revenue and Customs have received about the wording of demand notices in each [98138] of the last five years. Mr Gauke: This information is not available. HM Revenue and Customs does not categorise complaints in this way. Taxation: Motor Vehicles

Smuggling: Alcoholic Drinks Mark Field: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the duty value of seizures of (a) spirits, (b) wine and (c) beer made by HM Revenue and Customs was [98169] in each year since 2002. Miss Chloe Smith: The following table shows the total excise duty and VAT values of seizures of alcohol by HMRC and the UK Border Agency since 2002-03:

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Beer

Spirits

£ Wine

2,710,740 2,345,194 1,770,802 2,386,026 1,626,375 4,563,048 4,536,191 3,980,513 5,942,462

11,458,141 5,289,214 2,181,992 2,422,099 3,781,579 5,722,612 4,300,225 8,943,086 12,015,389

2,150,077 2,876,574 1,364,513 620,220 578,747 2,623,020 2,959,071 4,051,375 5,993,453

Tax Avoidance: Civil Servants Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what contingency arrangements he has made for meeting the cost of unwinding the use of tax avoidance arrangements and personal service companies [98486] across the civil service; (2) if he will publish details of the special circumstances in which the Treasury has permitted the use of personal service companies by senior civil servants; and what the principle public policy considerations are in permitting [98487] the use of such companies;

Ms Ritchie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he plans to devolve vehicle licensing and taxation [97444] powers to the Northern Ireland Executive. Danny Alexander: I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), gave on 7 February 2012, Official Report, column 171W.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE Burma Stephen Phillips: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what steps he is taking to encourage the government of Burma to end the conflict between the national army and ethnic [98371] groups in Kachin and Shan states; (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that peace between the Government of Burma and the Karen National Union is long-lasting and that all political prisoners are [98372] released. Mr Jeremy Browne: We remain deeply concerned about ethnic-based conflicts in Burma, particularly in Shan, Kachin and Karen States. During his visit to the country in January, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), set put clearly to the Burmese President and Ministers the steps necessary to address these concerns and that need to be taken before a more fundamental shift in our relationship could take place. These are: humanitarian access to areas affected

739W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

by conflict; the release of all political prisoners and free and fair by-elections; and a clear process of reconciliation between ethnic groups. The President told the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that the reforms would continue and that he was confident that the Burmese Government would soon achieve ceasefires nationwide. He acknowledged the need for humanitarian assistance in conflict areas, and also said that Burma’s progress to democracy is irreversible. All Ministers that the Secretary of State met said that all political prisoners would be released. A reversal on this commitment would have serious implications for any further easing of EU restrictive measures. Since the visit we have seen some encouraging developments. On 12 January the Burmese Government and Karen National Union signed an initial agreement that puts them on the path to a ceasefire. The following day, there was a significant release of political prisoners which will contribute to greater democratic participation in the parliamentary by-elections. We have seen a number of initial peace agreements in various ethnic areas, but the process remains fragile. We also hope to see further prisoner releases in near future. We will remain in close dialogue with EU partners on next steps, and with Aung San Suu Kyi, to ensure any further decisions support her dialogue and the process of reform. We will, of course, continue to raise our concerns with the Government, through the UN and countries in the region. Departmental Data Protection Mr David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish details of the six incidents of data loss during 2011; and whether such cases were referred to the Information [98430] Commissioner’s Office. Mr Lidington: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office takes its data handling responsibilities very seriously. Our policies and procedures are designed to ensure that we are compliant with the Data Protection Act 1998 and HMG’s Security Policy Framework. All our staff, including those who work for our delivery partners, have a responsibility to manage personal data effectively and securely in line with those policies and procedures. Training in data handling is mandatory for all staff. Of the six data loss incidents recorded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 2011, one was reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). This incident involved the possible compromise of sensitive information after the arson attack on the British embassy in Tehran in November. A breakdown of all six incidents is as follows: In January 2011 two separate incidents occurred in Madrid whereby DHL vans were broken into and a total of 32 British passports stolen. All passports were cancelled and all customers contacted. DHL reported both incidents to the police and embassy officials held a meeting with DHL to discuss arrangements to ensure the secure delivery of passports. In March 2011 cancelled passports containing personal details, visa, and residence permits went missing in Pretoria. All passports were cancelled and alerts sent to all ports. All staff members were interviewed, a review of procedures conducted and appropriate changes implemented.

Written Answers

740W

In May 2011 a member of staff had their briefcase stolen from their vehicle in Chicago. Nine applicant CVs and the member of staffs own appraisal were in the briefcase. The incident was reported to the police and the applicants were informed of the incident. In July 2011 registered mail from Dublin went missing in transit and a prisoner repatriation request document was never recovered. Both the appropriate Consular officers and the prisoner were informed. The Ministry of Justice confirmed that the prisoner transfer process was not affected by the loss of the document. In August 2011 a member of staff had a USB stick stolen during a visit to the British embassy in Abu Dhabi. It contained the names and details of the skills, previous places of employment and qualifications of around 320 employees. All affected members of staff were informed and appropriate security breach points were awarded to the member of staff who had saved the data on the stick. In November 2011 the attack on, and subsequent evacuation of, the British embassy compound in Tehran meant that sensitive information, including personal data, could have been compromised. In line with emergency procedures, UK and locally engaged staff were able to destroy some official material before they evacuated. Other materials are known to have been destroyed during the arson attack. The majority of the consular and entry clearance materials left on site are stored in secure cabinets. The Information Commissioner’s Office has been notified about this incident and has recently acknowledged our notification with a request for an update.

Henderson Island Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on the Henderson Island rat eradication [96350] programme. Mr Bellingham: The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) conducted a ground-breaking operation in August last year as part of the programme to rid Henderson Island of non-indigenous rats. In a project supported by the British and Pitcairn Governments, the RSPB conducted a bait drop on precise Global Positioning Satellite co-ordinates using two helicopters operating from an improvised aircraft carrier. Although the final results will not be known until a survey next year, initial indications are that the project has been successful in removing the rats and protecting the unique biodiversity of this World Heritage Site. Mali Chris Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the human rights situation in Mali. [98069] Mr Bellingham: Britain, along with our EU partners, is deeply concerned by recent incidents of violence in northern Mali, including the displacement of people throughout the region. Our ambassador in Bamako engages regularly with the Malian authorities and has raised our concerns with the Malian Foreign Minister. In direct response to severe food shortages in the region, Britain has announced an urgent package of support to help mitigate the crisis. British aid will help treat 83,000 severely malnourished children in Niger, Chad and Mali and provide emergency livelihood support to some 34,000 families to enable them to buy food for the coming months. In addition, British aid is already reaching those in need across the Sahel through the

741W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

release of £10.7 million from the United Nation’s Central Emergency Response Fund—to which Britain is a major contributor. We continue to monitor the situation closely. Nigeria Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has [98281] made of the security situation in Nigeria. Mr Bellingham: The Government of Nigeria continue to face significant security challenges. Both ongoing inter-communal conflict and violent attacks continue to cause suffering in Nigerian communities. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), made clear his condemnation of the attacks carried out in Kano City on 20 January, for which Boko Haram claimed responsibility and which resulted in the death of over 180 people. The Prime Minister met President Goodluck Jonathan on 22 February and reaffirmed our commitment to supporting the Nigerian Government in their efforts to resolve the causes of conflict.

Written Answers

742W

obligations by providing financial support for their children’s education overseas where necessary, or in the UK where staff choose this, or are obliged to do so given local conditions in the country to which they are posted. Continuity of education is also an important factor, particularly at secondary level. The FCO spent a total of £13,067,398 on UK schooling in financial year 2010-11, and £11,520,900 on day schooling for children who accompanied their parents overseas. We do not hold the information in the form necessary to break it down in the details requested and to answer the question in that format would involve disproportionate cost. We do not routinely pay for children to attend independent day schools in the UK. But children who have previously boarded while parents were overseas, may become day pupils at the same school to continue their education while their parents are in the UK between postings. Additionally, a few children who accompany parents overseas and are educated in the international system, may need to attend a private school in the UK to continue their education in that system during time spent here.

Occupied Territories

Yemen

Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to press for an end to the construction and expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank.

Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the next meeting of the Friends of Yemen will take place. [98125]

[98269]

Alistair Burt: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right Hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), gave to the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), on 9 February 2012, Official Report, column 367W. Most recently I again raised this issue with the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister on 27 February.

Alistair Burt: Re-convening the Friends of Yemen group has been conditional on the Yemeni Government showing commitment to implementing political transition. There has been significant progress in Yemen, notably the holding of successful interim presidential elections and the inauguration of President Hadi. We plan to hold an early Friends of Yemen ministerial meeting to discuss how the international community can support Yemen’s transition. An announcement will shortly be made once agreement on an agenda and logistics has been reached by all co-chairs.

Private Education Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the annual cost to his Department was of meeting the costs of education of employees’ children who were (a) boarding in the UK, (b) attending fee paying schools in the UK as non-boarders, (c) boarding in countries other than the UK and (d) attending fee paying schools outside the UK as non-boarders in the most recent period for [98647] which figures are available. Mr Bellingham: It is a condition of their employment that members of the diplomatic service must be prepared to serve anywhere in the world at any time during their career, sometimes at very short notice. Those with children have a legal obligation as parents to ensure that their children receive a full-time education from the age of five years. Most parents prefer to take their children with them abroad, but in some countries we do not permit staff to take their children either for health or security reasons. In others, local schools of an acceptable standard are not available. It is longstanding practice that the FCO helps staff meet their potentially conflicting

Zimbabwe Stephen Phillips: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of human rights and democracy in Zimbabwe. [98369]

Mr Bellingham: Although human rights abuses are far less widespread than at their peak in 2008, politically targeted violence continues against Movement for Democratic Change activists, civil society activists and Anglicans in Harare and Manicaland. We anticipate that if and when elections do take place, the human rights situation is likely to deteriorate in the run up to polls if further pre-election reforms do not take place. If Zimbabwe is to move forward it is important that it addresses its human rights record and implements essential reforms in advance of elections. The ongoing engagement by the South African Development Community, as facilitator of discussions between the parties in the Inclusive Government, will be important for this to happen. We will continue to support this process.

743W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

744W

JUSTICE

Departmental Public Expenditure

Antisocial Behaviour Orders

Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent progress he has made on his Department’s Public Value Programme; and what the (a) number of civil service staff in scope for privatisation is and (b) timescale is for implementation; whether a value for money assessment will be undertaken; and whether there will be an opportunity for an in-house [98649] bid or bids.

Mr Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what proportion of applications for anti-social behaviour orders in (a) the London borough of Bexley and (b) London were successful in each of the last five years. [97430]

James Brokenshire: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Home Department. The proportion of antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) granted in the Greater London Criminal Justice System area in each year between 2006 and 2010 (the latest year for which data are currently available) is provided in Table A. Data collected centrally by the Ministry of Justice on antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) are not compiled at borough level. Antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) issued following application1 at all magistrates courts and county courts2 in the Greater London Criminal Justice System (CJS) area, the number of such application refused and the proportion granted, as reported to the Ministry of Justice3 by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, 2006 to 2010 Greater London CJS area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ASBOs applied for Of which:

Written Answers

130

134

68

55

68

Refused 0 2 0 0 0 Proportion 100 98.5 100 100 100 granted (percentage) 1 The following bodies can apply to courts to get an ASBO issued: British Transport police, Housing Action Trusts, local government authorities, police, registered social landlords, Transport for London and the Environment Agency. Transport for London was granted the power to apply for ASBOs in its own right by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in September 2006. 2 Includes ASBOs issued on application by magistrates courts acting in their civil capacity and county courts. These orders became available on 1 April 1999. Does not include those ASBOs made following conviction for a relevant criminal offence. 3 Prior to the creation of the Ministry of Justice on 9 May 2007, numbers of ASBOs issued were reported to Home Office by the Court Service. Note: 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. 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.

Departmental Carbon Emissions Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what reduction in carbon dioxide emissions his Department has made under the 10:10 initiative. [97937] Mr Djanogly: The Ministry of Justice did not sign up to the 10:10 campaign. The Ministry of Justice achieved an 11.5% reduction between May 2010 and May 2011 against the Prime Minister’s target for central Government to reduce their carbon emissions by 10%. More information can be found here: http://data.gov.uk/departmental-performance-co2-emissionsreduction-date

Mr Djanogly: HM Courts and Tribunals Service is currently working on the Enforcement Public Value Programme which proposes to increase the level of magistrates court fine collection over existing levels while reducing the cost of collection. After consideration of the current services and future requirements, I have agreed that HM Courts and Tribunals Service should explore the potential of creating a service delivery partnership, with the objective of building on the improvements we have already made. It is envisaged that any such partnership would be able to provide the level of investment necessary to achieve these objectives. HM Courts and Tribunals Service has not yet finalised the precise elements of current service that will be in scope, and therefore it is not yet definite who is likely to be affected by any resulting change. A procurement process will be conducted to identify a potential partner, and this process will include appropriate assessment of both qualitative and quantitative factors, with a view to identifying the best value for money solution. The procurement will be conducted in a fair, open and transparent manner and in accordance with Public Sector Procurement Directive (2004/18/EC) as implemented through the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (as amended) (SI2006/5). We have not yet determined whether there will be an opportunity to accept an in-house bid. Domestic Violence Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many additional legal aid cases he expects will be covered by the change of definition to domestic [98408] violence announced on 29 February 2012. Mr Djanogly: The Government have been clear throughout the passage of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill that we expect no additional legal aid cases arising from using the Association of Chief Police Officer’s definition of domestic violence compared to the definition of domestic violence originally used in the Bill. Fines John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what data from government departments the Public Value Programme’s successful bidder will have available to it for the collection and enforcement of [98627] criminal fines. Mr Djanogly: I have agreed that HM Courts and Tribunals Service should explore the potential of creating a service delivery partnership, with the objective of building on the improvements we have already made. We have not yet determined what data access may be required at this stage.

745W

Written Answers

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Prisoners: EU Nationals Martin Horwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many non-UK EU citizens were serving a custodial sentence in the UK in each of the last 10 years broken down by the (a) offence, (b) length of sentence and (c) prison in which they were held. [98442]

746W

Mr Blunt: The requested breakdowns of European Union national prisoners in England and Wales 2002 to 2011 are shown in tables 1 to 3. These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Table 1: Immediate custodial sentenced prison population of EU nationals by offence group, 30 June 2002 to 2011 England and Wales Offence group Violence against the person Sexual offences

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

196

222

259

261

326

333

411

469

536

610

84

85

95

108

147

181

188

236

311

335

Robbery

132

143

124

133

146

175

189

210

231

262

Burglary

119

127

118

144

150

160

174

176

201

211

Theft and handling

75

90

120

114

133

148

158

192

260

348

Fraud and forgery

45

52

81

92

99

97

114

125

104

113 441

Drug offences

524

511

523

508

525

451

403

379

426

Motoring offences

31

51

45

51

67

48

60

53

58

83

Other offences

98

134

136

127

153

158

176

182

238

279

Offence not recorded

17

11

13

11

9

1

7

33

32

14

1,321

1,426

1,514

1,550

1,754

1,752

1,880

2,055

2,397

2,696

Total

Data sources and quality: These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. Table 2: Immediate custodial sentenced prison population of EU nationals by sentence length, 30 June 2002 to 2011 England and Wales Sentence length 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Less than or equal to 89 124 134 133 216 168 237 273 339 435 6 months Greater than 6 months 23 36 41 42 66 65 91 76 109 136 to less than 12 months 12 months to less than 358 390 396 450 481 511 554 554 658 722 4 years 4 years or more 752 778 849 829 850 816 757 774 892 949 (excluding indeterminates) Indeterminate 98 97 94 95 142 192 240 284 325 367 sentences — — — — — — — 94 74 87 Recalls1 Total 1,321 1,426 1,514 1,550 1,754 1,752 1,880 2,055 2,397 2,696 1 Due to the introduction of a new prison IT system, prior to 2009 the prison population was taken from a different source and recalls are shown separately (previously shown in the relevant sentence length band). Data sources and quality: These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Establishment Altcourse Ashfield Ashwell Askham Grange Aylesbury Bedford Belmarsh Birmingham Blantyre House Blundeston Brinsford Bristol Brixton Bronzefield Buckley Hall Bullingdon

Table 3: Prison population of EU nationals by prison establishment, 30 June 2002 to 2011 England and Wales 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 10 2 7 4 7 15 51 19 2 23 4 12 59 0 1 18

14 4 5 0 6 14 36 13 1 31 4 10 51 0 6 34

12 1 15 5 6 24 42 35 1 14 5 10 56 6 6 30

19 8 16 1 10 22 45 27 2 25 1 10 41 31 9 26

23 2 11 0 12 16 48 33 1 23 5 14 76 50 3 42

23 6 13 2 18 32 54 28 0 9 9 18 50 41 6 36

24 6 15 2 13 34 42 46 0 34 8 19 66 24 7 40

32 6 2 0 15 33 40 48 1 18 11 21 94 21 5 45

32 8 4 0 13 39 45 56 0 24 8 21 87 42 1 54

2011 33 12 0 3 18 41 50 71 0 17 15 19 80 37 1 38

747W

Establishment

Written Answers

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

748W

Table 3: Prison population of EU nationals by prison establishment, 30 June 2002 to 2011 England and Wales 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Bullwood Hall Bure Canterbury Cardiff Channings Wood Chelmsford Coldingley Cookham Wood Dartmoor Deerbolt Doncaster Dorchester Dovegate Dover IRC Downview Drake Hall Durham East Sutton Park Eastwood Park Erlestoke Everthorpe Exeter Featherstone Feltham Ford Forest Bank Foston Hall Frankland Full Sutton Garth Gartree Glen Parva Gloucester Grendon/Spring Hill Guys Marsh Haslar IRC Haverigg Hewell1 High Down Highpoint (North and South) Hindley Hollesley Bay Holloway Holme House Hull Huntercombe ISIS2 Isle of Wight3 Kennet Kingston Kirkham Kirklevington Lancaster Latchmere House Leeds Leicester Lewes Leyhill Lincoln

2011

11 0 45 0 7 35 19 8 9 1 5 8 44 28 12 5 4 0 7 1 2 8 5 25 16 13 4 12 15 11 7 9 1 10 8 11 7 20 23 41

6 0 18 5 8 24 13 7 5 1 10 10 43 9 16 15 9 1 6 4 3 8 6 22 21 8 3 14 13 11 6 9 3 12 10 0 3 26 28 42

10 0 7 4 6 23 14 2 4 1 8 3 28 5 16 16 4 8 4 12 1 13 8 27 31 5 2 11 17 9 7 9 11 15 7 4 5 14 35 57

5 0 9 9 8 35 9 12 12 0 13 9 15 2 28 6 9 5 0 12 1 7 8 32 30 11 2 8 12 11 9 12 3 20 11 3 3 20 39 46

5 0 26 11 7 19 17 12 8 3 24 7 14 7 25 8 13 3 4 12 6 12 13 29 11 16 3 9 14 9 10 14 8 13 13 2 1 28 42 71

30 0 32 11 10 29 23 9 9 4 16 6 22 6 25 10 10 3 6 11 5 11 11 19 11 16 6 12 10 14 6 17 7 8 16 3 5 36 42 66

37 0 42 13 16 34 12 0 8 2 22 6 26 7 17 5 10 1 4 4 7 13 10 28 30 21 6 14 15 13 5 18 11 6 15 3 11 46 49 63

28 0 65 15 8 23 3 3 20 4 28 2 17 6 13 3 14 0 7 2 5 15 15 36 18 12 2 14 10 15 15 13 15 11 18 0 6 50 67 64

43 17 58 11 3 28 8 4 16 6 37 4 22 7 18 9 15 1 7 6 5 14 18 36 27 25 1 17 14 16 27 23 20 10 10 3 22 75 49 98

75 18 98 16 7 45 9 1 18 3 25 12 23 4 24 22 11 4 10 2 7 18 12 35 10 22 12 19 26 27 32 25 12 6 17 2 23 41 53 105

4 8 40 0 3 4 0 42 0 4 3 0 6 4 11 4 6 8 8

7 7 36 5 4 5 0 48 0 3 4 1 6 5 10 4 18 7 2

2 15 43 4 8 8 0 68 0 3 5 1 6 7 13 7 19 14 17

1 13 52 10 10 10 0 55 0 7 8 0 4 8 15 12 15 8 9

2 1 26 14 12 6 0 52 0 6 2 0 6 6 19 8 24 9 20

2 8 34 13 23 7 0 60 1 4 2 0 9 2 21 8 22 7 20

6 5 49 6 17 6 0 62 6 3 5 0 8 4 33 14 28 17 39

3 8 46 3 32 4 0 69 2 4 6 1 8 1 32 12 15 11 38

4 6 43 6 28 3 0 76 1 3 4 0 10 2 26 12 23 3 40

6 4 87 7 42 3 20 68 3 2 4 1 6 2 40 16 27 12 46

749W

Written Answers

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

750W

Table 3: Prison population of EU nationals by prison establishment, 30 June 2002 to 2011 England and Wales Establishment

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2

9

8

8

22

8

14

31

46

54

Littlehey

12

12

26

23

22

26

26

25

35

49

Liverpool

5

6

15

12

16

16

27

29

40

28

Long Lartin

20

22

14

15

10

14

12

14

22

19

Low Newton

1

2

1

10

7

1

3

6

8

4

Lowdham Grange

31

42

25

21

21

21

23

22

31

38

Maidstone

11

19

23

25

39

41

17

54

60

56

Manchester

20

29

22

28

41

44

38

45

56

27

7

7

3

3

11

8

9

12

17

6

Morton Hall4

11

24

38

42

43

33

35

36

41

10

Mount

Lindholme

Moorland

28

21

18

39

56

52

39

38

45

49

New Hall

4

5

6

6

6

8

8

9

9

13

North Sea Camp

4

3

5

3

2

5

7

2

4

2

Northallerton

1

2

0

1

0

1

4

1

4

1

Northumberland5

3

4

6

5

7

8

6

7

6

3

17

21

24

18

20

13

28

24

35

54

Nottingham

7

10

7

5

11

8

17

15

18

45

Onley

5

8

8

10

15

13

13

14

18

15

Parc

3

10

9

10

18

16

11

14

15

16

Norwich

Pentonville

64

58

86

86

110

99

124

95

109

150

Peterborough6

0

0

0

24

37

34

47

68

81

83

Portland

8

10

12

8

20

11

8

12

21

18

Preston

9

7

5

1

16

17

13

10

16

17 37

Ranby

6

6

7

15

18

14

19

21

25

Reading

3

4

6

7

6

4

5

7

5

6

10

14

10

9

6

12

15

36

34

38

Risley Rochester Rye Hill Send Sheppey cluster7

3

3

14

11

11

11

5

21

33

22

40

32

32

12

15

29

31

42

38

37

11

18

13

12

15

9

13

15

9

12

137

178

196

177

151

129

116

128

152

154

Shepton Mallet

1

3

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

2

Shrewsbury

0

3

4

1

3

4

7

9

6

11

Stafford

5

7

9

10

10

11

12

9

16

17

Stocken

7

9

10

7

15

10

14

17

10

9

Stoke Heath

4

2

3

3

7

4

7

8

10

3

Styal

8

4

16

9

8

12

12

12

12

15

Sudbury

9

9

13

5

5

4

6

5

8

3

Swansea

5

4

4

11

6

14

9

11

3

9

Swinfen Hall

1

1

2

4

3

4

6

7

19

18

Thorn Cross

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

Usk/Prescoed

7

5

7

7

4

6

5

7

7

6

69

53

47

68

92

81

69

81

98

90

Verne Wakefield Wandsworth Warren Hill Wayland Wealstun

9

8

9

6

15

14

15

21

23

20

81

98

85

117

126

121

155

215

240

284

0

2

2

0

2

2

1

7

2

2

23

31

20

30

44

46

39

49

19

21 6

4

6

4

5

8

9

7

7

7

Weare

19

13

12

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Wellingborough

14

12

8

12

13

24

25

28

22

41 5

Werrington

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

Wetherby

0

1

0

3

1

1

1

2

2

3

Whatton

4

6

6

3

14

17

17

12

10

12

Whitemoor

34

32

20

21

16

18

10

19

30

36

Winchester

11

15

19

18

24

22

24

22

23

25

8

5

10

5

0

2

7

2

1

4

Wolds Woodhill

16

11

40

36

34

30

39

45

36

48

Wormwood Scrubs

47

68

96

101

113

122

127

143

139

150

751W

Establishment Wymott

Written Answers

752W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Table 3: Prison population of EU nationals by prison establishment, 30 June 2002 to 2011 England and Wales 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 9

8

13

13

10

11

17

15

20

2011 20

Total 1,765 1,861 2,073 2,160 2,469 2,477 2,704 2,957 3,354 3,686 IRC = Immigration removal centre. 1 HMP Hewell was created by an amalgamation of the three former prisons, Blakenhurst, Brockhill and Hewell Grange on 25 June 2008; as of 30 September 2011 the Brockhill site closed. 2 HMP and YOI Isis, which opened on 28 July 2010, is sited within the perimeter wall of HMP Belmarsh. 3 HMP Isle of Wight was created by an amalgamation of the three former prisons, Albany, Camp Hill and Parkhurst on 1 April 2009. 4 On 13 January 2011 the Secretary of State for Justice announced that HMP Morton Hall, will close (having previously been a female prison) and then re-open as an Immigration Removal Centre, holding immigration detainees on behalf of UKBA. On 16 May Morton Hall began operating as an immigration removal centre. 5 HMP Northumberland is the new name for Acklington and Castington. 6 Peterborough is a dual purpose prison for men and women. 7 Sheppey cluster includes: Elmley, Stanford Hill and Swaleside. Note: These figures differ from tables 1 and 2 as they include all custody types: Remand, Sentenced, Fine Defaulters and Non-criminal prisoners. Data sources and quality: These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Prisoners: Repatriation Martin Horwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what estimate he has made of the number of non-UK EU citizens serving a custodial sentence in the UK that his Department expects to be able to repatriate to their home member state under the EU Prisoner Transfer framework in each of the next five years; [98443]

(2) how many non-UK EU citizens who were serving a custodial sentence in the UK his Department has repatriated to their home member state since the EU Prisoner Transfer framework came into force. [98444] Mr Blunt: Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA (the EU Prisoner Transfer Agreement) which will govern the transfer of prisoners between member states of the European Union, entered into force on 5 December 2011. To date seven member states, including the United Kingdom, have implemented the compulsory arrangements. The Government have not made a specific assessment of the number of EU nationals who might be transferred under this agreement. However, we expect to see a steady increase in the number of EU nationals who are transferred as other member states implement the agreement. We are encouraging member states who have not yet done so to implement the agreement at the earliest opportunity. Since 5 December 2011, 10 EU nationals have been transferred from England and Wales to other member states to continue serving their sentences. Transfer took place under existing voluntary arrangements for the transfer of prisoners between member states of the EU. No prisoners have yet been transferred under the new EU prisoner transfer agreement. In most cases a deportation order is necessary in order to effect the transfer. 24 prisoners have been identified as eligible for transfer. They have been referred to UKBA for consideration for deportation. The transfer of prisoners from Scotland and from Northern Ireland is a devolved matter. Public Expenditure John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will place in the Library a copy of the business model for his Department’s Public Value

Programme; for what reasons a model based on privatisation was selected; and if he will make a statement. [98628] Mr Djanogly: HM Courts and Tribunals Service is currently working on the Enforcement Public Value Programme with proposals to increase the level of magistrates court fine collection over existing levels while reducing the cost of collection. I have agreed that HM Courts and Tribunals Service should explore the potential of creating a service delivery partnership, with the objective of building on the improvements we have already made. Continued improvements would require substantial financial investment to develop and upgrade processes further still. A partnership would bring the investment and technology we need to achieve our aspirations for compliance and enforcement services in the future. Reoffenders Mrs Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many offenders were recalled to prison in (a) each English region and (b) Wales between [97334] 1 January 2008 and 1 January 2012; (2) how many offenders under the supervision of each probation trust in England and Wales were recalled to prison between 1 January 2008 and 1 January 2012. [97337]

Mr Blunt: Data are held centrally on the prison population on the last day of each month, so figures are not available for 1 January each year. Adult offenders serving a sentence of 12 months and over (and all young offenders aged under 22) are released from prison, in most cases automatically at the halfway point of their sentence, under licensed supervision to the Probation Service. Offenders released on licence may be recalled to custody if their behaviour gives cause for concern. The following table provides data by regions in England and Wales and by probation area for three quarters of 2008, all quarters for years 2009 and 2010 and the first three quarters of 2011 (latest available).

753W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

754W

Written Answers

These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Licence recalls to prison, by England and Wales regions and probation areas, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Region and 2009 2010 20112 probation area 20081

Licence recalls to prison, by England and Wales regions and probation areas, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Region and 2009 2010 20112 probation area 20081

Devon and Cornwall Dorset Gloucestershire Wiltshire

North East Durham Northumbria Teesside

536 77 298 161

763 129 404 230

823 155 447 221

627 154 337 136

North West Cheshire Cumbria Lancashire Greater Manchester Merseyside

1,686 135 95 303 773

2,315 223 103 444 1049

2,458 220 140 472 1116

1,809 150 100 387 812

380

496

510

360

Yorkshire and Humber Humberside North Yorkshire South Yorkshire West Yorkshire

1,258

1,827

1,857

1,526

278 94 351 535

391 130 502 804

387 145 538 787

290 88 379 769

950 194 197 96 128 335

1,333 262 255 113 210 493

1,401 310 264 121 185 521

1,142 254 215 113 150 410

1,175 201 86 102 786

1,710 277 140 173 1,120

1,668 275 110 201 1,082

1,308 228 71 152 857

693 115 95 171 107 124 81

957 187 142 239 130 159 100

1,095 200 170 300 142 158 125

779 115 135 232 101 107 89

London

1,543

2,401

2,516

2,013

South East Hampshire and Isle of Wight Kent Surrey Sussex Thames Valley

1,004 254

1,481 344

1,532 368

1,237 273

208 66 183 293

348 109 255 425

348 116 310 390

285 90 255 334

690 237

991 365

1,099 452

939 366

159

249

281

254

131 104 59

150 142 85

134 136 96

128 123 68

Wales 597 937 959 824 Dyfed Powys 45 65 65 47 Gwent 113 147 178 109 North Wales 111 174 149 148 South Wales 328 551 567 520 1 Reports started in the second quarter of 2008 and as such data are not available for the first quarter. 2 Data are not yet available for the last quarter of 2011.

Repossession Orders

East Midlands Derbyshire Leicestershire Lincolnshire Northamptonshire Nottinghamshire West Midlands Staffordshire Warwickshire West Mercia West Midlands Eastern Bedfordshire Cambridgeshire Essex Hertfordshire Norfolk Suffolk

South West Avon and Somerset

Greg Mulholland: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many repossessions took place in (a) Leeds North West constituency, (b) Yorkshire and (c) England in each year since 2009; and what estimate he has made of the likely number of repossessions in each [98474] area in each of the next three years. Mr Djanogly: The following table shows the numbers of claims leading to orders being made for the repossession of property by mortgage lenders and landlords in (a) Leeds North West constituency, (b) West Yorkshire, (c) Yorkshire and the Humber, and (d) England in each year since 2009. The Ministry of Justice does not hold information on the total numbers of repossessions of property (including where keys are handed back voluntarily). These figures represent the numbers of claims leading to orders being made. This is more accurate than the number of orders, removing the double-counting of instances where a single claim leads to more than one order. It is also a more meaningful measure of the number of homeowners who are subject to court repossession actions. These figures do not indicate how many properties have actually been repossessed. Repossessions can occur without a court order, such as where borrowers hand the keys back to the lender. Also, not all possession orders result in repossession. Many orders are suspended and if the borrower complies with the repayment arrangements set out in the suspended order the property will not be repossessed. Claims leading to orders figures for all parliamentary constituencies in England and Wales were this morning placed on the Ministry of Justice website at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/civil-justice/mortgagepossession

The Council of Mortgage Lenders in December 2011 released a forecast of 45,000 repossessions in the United Kingdom in 2012. They have not yet released a forecast for 2013 and do not publish regional estimates.

755W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Number of mortgage1 and landlord2,3 possession claims leading to orders made4,5,6 for properties in Leeds North West constituency7,8, West Yorkshire7, Yorkshire and the Humber7 and England7, 2009-11 Mortgage possession Landlord Possession 9 9 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 Leeds 70 50 55 55 45 60 North West constituency West 3,680 3,020 2,850 2,635 2,620 2,900 Yorkshire (Met county) Yorkshire 7,905 6,600 6,500 7,160 6,780 7,240 and the Humber England 67,315 53,045 51,270 87,885 86,310 93,680 1 Includes all types of mortgage lenders. 2 Includes all types of landlord whether social or private. 3 Landlord actions include those made under both standard and accelerated procedures. Landlord actions via the accelerated procedure enable the orders to be made solely on the basis of written evidence for shorthold tenancies, when the fixed period of tenancy has come to an end. 4 The number of claims that lead to an order includes all claims in which the first order, whether outright or suspended, is made during the period. 5 The court, following a judicial decision, may grant an order for possession immediately. This entitles the claimant to apply for a warrant to have the defendant evicted. However, even where a warrant for possession is issued, the parties can still negotiate a compromise to prevent eviction. 6 Includes outright and suspended orders, the latter being where the court grants the claimant possession but suspends the operation of the order. Provided the defendant complies with the terms of suspension, which usually require the defendant to pay the current mortgage or rent instalments plus some of the accrued arrears, the possession order cannot be enforced. 7 All figures are rounded to the nearest five. 8 Data up until the first quarter of 2010 (January to March) will reflect Leads North West constituency boundaries as fixed at the 2005 general election and for the rest of 2010 and 2011 the re-fixed boundaries as of May 2010. 9 All period figures are based on provisional data Source: Ministry of Justice

Repossession Orders: North West Andrew Gwynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many homes were repossessed by mortgage lenders in (a) the North West, (b) Tameside Borough and (c) Stockport Borough in (i) 2010 and (ii) 2011. [98631]

Mr Djanogly: The table shows the numbers of claims leading to orders being made for the repossession of property by mortgage lenders in (a) the North West, (b) Tameside borough and (c) Stockport borough in (i) 2010 and (ii) 2011. The Ministry of Justice does not hold information on the total numbers of repossessions of property (including where keys are handed back voluntarily). These figures represent the numbers of claims leading to orders being made. This is more accurate than the number of orders, removing the double-counting of instances where a single claim leads to more than one order. It is also a more meaningful measure of the number of homeowners who are subject to court repossession actions. These figures do not indicate how many properties have actually been repossessed. Repossessions can occur without a court order, such as where borrowers hand

Written Answers

756W

the keys back to the lender. Also, not all possession orders result in repossession. Many orders are suspended and if the borrower complies with the repayment arrangements set out in the suspended order the property will not be repossessed. Claims leading to orders figures for all regions and local authority areas in England and Wales in 2011 were recently published on 9 February 2012. This statistical bulletin is available from the Ministry of Justice website at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/civil-justice/mortgagepossession Number of mortgage1 possession claims leading to orders made2,3,4,5 for properties in north-west, Tameside borough and Stockport borough, 2010-11 2010 2011 * 9,210 North-west 9,245 Tameside borough 385 *335 Stockport borough 305 *300 1 Includes all types of mortgage lenders. 2 The number of claims that lead to an order includes all claims in which the first order, whether outright or suspended, is made during the period. 3 The court, following a judicial decision, may grant an order for possession immediately. This entitles the claimant to apply for a warrant to have the defendant evicted. However, even where a warrant for possession is issued, the parties can still negotiate a compromise to prevent eviction. 4 Includes outright and suspended orders, the latter being where the court grants the claimant possession but suspends the operation of the order. Provided the defendant complies with the terms of suspension, which usually require the defendant to pay the current mortgage or rent instalments plus some of the accrued arrears, the possession order cannot be enforced. 5 All figures are rounded to the nearest 5. Note: All period figures denoted by ‘*’ are based on provisional data. Source: Ministry of Justice

Sentencing Mr Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many prisoners serving an indeterminate public protection sentence in England and Wales who have been assessed as suitable to be held in open conditions but are still waiting to be moved to a Category D [97996] prison, have already served their tariff; (2) how many prisoners serving an indeterminate public protection sentence in England and Wales who have been recommended for transfer to a Category D prison are still awaiting transfer, broken down by age; and for how long each prisoner has been waiting since [97997] being recommended. Mr Blunt: As at 2 December 2011, there were 405 indeterminate sentence prisoners (ISPs) who had passed their tariff expiry date and had been approved by the Secretary of State for transfer to open conditions but were located in closed. This figure includes those serving a life sentence and those serving an indeterminate sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP). This figure is taken from a snapshot of data. ISPs are prioritised for transfer to open conditions using the date the Secretary of State approved their move. Whether prisoners are serving an IPP or a life sentence is not relevant to the prioritisation criteria and as a result was not, at that time, recorded as part of the process.

757W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Providing a figure for IPPs and the age and length of waiting time would incur disproportionate costs as that data has not been retained in a recorded form. In order to provide a breakdown of the data in the categories requested, retrospective checks of individual prisoners’ records would have to be performed to recreate the list at the time it was generated. These data are subject to variation due to progress of individual cases including prisoners’ removal from open conditions following adverse developments and Parole Board decisions following review. This figure was drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps his Department has taken to ensure that magistrates are aware of community sentencing [98279] projects in their area. Mr Djanogly: The Government welcome and encourage the sharing of information between probation and magistrates about local community sentencing and other offender-related projects. We agree that magistrates should be encouraged to visit probation on a regular basis and I am sure that probation trusts and others engaged in community sentencing initiatives welcome their interest. At a national level the National Sentencer and Probation Forum enables probation, judges and the department to share information on the national picture. There are also arrangements for local liaison meetings governed by a protocol issued by the Senior Presiding Judge.

758W

Written Answers

Table 2 shows the same information for adults aged 18 to 24 starting a community sentence and juveniles aged 10 to 17 starting a community penalty.

2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Table 2 Reoffending rate of 18 to 24-year-olds starting a community sentence

Reoffending rate of juveniles starting a community penalty

46.7 47,4 46.6 43.6 42.4 41.8 42.1 41.4 40.0

60.5 63.5 68.0 66.5 66.8 67.7 66.7 65.9 65.6

Please note that reoffending data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on court orders. Reoffending rates by sentence type should not be compared to assess the effectiveness of sentences, as there is no control for known differences in offender characteristics and the type of sentence given. We recognise that the reoffending rate for young people leaving custody is too high. Custody for young people is a last resort and used only for the most serious and persistent offenders. Young people leaving custody are therefore a challenging group with complex and wide ranging problems which require intensive intervention and support. Sentencing: Mental Health

Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the recidivism rate is for children and young people up to the age of 25 who have received (a) custodial and (b) community sentences in each of the [98280] last 10 years for which data are available. Mr Blunt: Your question has been answered using the Ministry of Justice’s published proven reoffending statistics, for juvenile offenders aged 10 to 17 and adult offenders aged 18 or over. Proven reoffending is measured over a one-year period from the point an offender receives their first court order or, in the case of custody, when they are released from prison. Table 1 shows the proportion of adults aged 18 to 24 and juveniles aged 10 to 17 that reoffended within a 12-month period.

2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Table 1 Reoffending rate of 18 to 24-year-olds released from custody

Reoffending rate of juveniles released from custody

61.0 60.8 59.6 55.6 54.6 54.3 55.9 55.1 52.8

76.8 74.8 74.9 75.5 73.8 74.7 74.1 72.1 70.6

Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what proportion of (a) children and young adults and (b) adults who have received custodial sentences have been diagnosed as having mental health problems in the latest period for which figures are available. [98330] Mr Blunt: The information requested is not collected centrally. A survey by the Office for National Statistics in 1997 estimated that around 90% of adult prisoners had at least one of the five disorders considered in the survey (personality disorder, psychosis, neurosis, alcohol misuse and drug dependence). In the study ‘Mental Health Needs and Effectiveness of Provision for Young Offenders in Custody and in the Community’ (Professor Richard Harrington and Professor Sue Bailey, Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, 2005) 31% of young offenders were identified as having a mental health problem. Sentencing: Young People Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of mindfulness-based treatment of children and young people who have received custodial sentences. [98305] Mr Blunt: Mindfulness-based therapy techniques cover a range of therapeutic approaches which include looking at thinking and attitudes. Programmes drawing on elements of these approaches are administered in the adult and

759W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

juvenile secure estate. For example, the Jets programme, which is an under 18 accredited intervention uses similar techniques. The Department has not made an assessment of the effectiveness of mindfulness-based treatment for children and young people who have received custodial sentences. Translation Services Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many complaints his Department has received regarding Applied Language Solutions (ALS) in the last year; and if he will calculate the number of complaints that concerned (a) poor or substandard interpreters, (b) ALS failing to provide interpreters and (c) interpreters being placed on ALS list of interpreters without the [98203] consent of the interpreters concerned. Mr Blunt: The contract for ALS to begin supplying language services to the Ministry of Justice commenced on 12 December 2011 for the criminal courts in the north-west and was fully implemented on 30 January 2012. Prior to the contracts implementation, the Department received a number of representations from interpreters opposed to our plans to contract for interpreting services, these included some complaints about Applied Language Solutions. Interpreters, who have not signed up to work with ALS, continue to raise their concerns about the contract with us.

Written Answers

760W

References; and A pass at the assessment centre to the tier one standard.

Tier Two The interpreter must have one or more of the following: ‘Partial DPSI’ i.e. the interpreter must have passed all modules with the exception of written translation; A degree in linguistics, English philology, Modern Languages or MA in Teaching of English, or other language related diplomas where English figures as part of the course completed.

Together with: Previous or current employment in criminal justice services in their countries of origin, Legal training in the UK or abroad, or other exposure to criminal justice work through other channels is also acceptable (volunteer and/or paid work in the community for police services or work for Victim Support, for example); University level education (any degree); At least 100 hours public sector interpreting experience; References; and A pass at the assessment centre to the tier two standard.

Tier Three The interpreter must have one or more of the following: Demonstrable experience in the public sector with appropriate linguistic background; Formalised basic interpreter training including one of the following: the WEA programmes, Bi-Lingual Skills Certificates, Community Level Interpreting Degrees under the NVQ certification system.

Together with: Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) pursuant to the answer of 27 February 2012, Official Report, columns 71-2W, on Applied Language Solutions, what steps his Department has taken to improve the performance of Applied Language Solutions; [98501]

(2) what qualifications the Framework Agreement and the contract with Applied Language Solutions specify interpreters must have under (a) Tier 1, (b) [98516] Tier 2 and (c) Tier 3. Mr Blunt: We are committed to ensuring the rights and needs of those who require interpreters are safeguarded and we have asked the contractor to take urgent steps to improve performance. The contractor is providing additional staff to deal with bookings, further targeted recruitment of interpreters in key languages and improvements to the call handling and complaints process. The Framework specifies a number of potential qualifications for foreign language interpreters at each of the three Tiers: Tier One The interpreter must have one or more of the following: Chartered Institute of Linguists Diploma in Public Service Interpreting, DPSI, (English Law Option); Chartered Institute of Linguists Certificate in Community Interpreting, CCI; Metropolitan Police Test (post 1997) and an Honours Degree or higher in Interpreting.

Or: Membership of National Register Public Sector Interpreters; or Membership of Association of Police and Court Interpreters.

Together with: At least 100 hours public sector interpreting experience;

References; and A pass at the assessment centre to the tier three standard.

It is also desirable for tier three interpreters to have at least 100 hours public sector interpreting experience. Rare languages In the case of rare languages where the DPSI or equivalent qualification is not available, the interpreter must have the Cambridge Proficiency in English Certificate, 100 hours of public sector interpreting experience, evidence of continuous professional development, references and a pass at the assessment centre. Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether he was advised by (a) Applied Language Solutions (ALS) and (b) counsel to ALS not to launch the new interpreters’ framework agreement across the whole country at one time. [98646] Mr Blunt: We considered a range of implementation options in our discussions with Applied Language Solutions. ALS confirmed that they could deliver the services required through national implementation following a successful trial in the North West. We have not been party to any discussions with counsel to ALS. Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will place in the Library copies of information collated from Crown Courts in London on a weekly basis on problems with the implementation of the Applied [98648] Languages Solutions contract. Mr Djanogly: We are aware that some courts may be gathering information to use as local management tools. Any such information is not being collated centrally. The Ministry will consider what information it can usefully publish in due course.

761W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

762W

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency: Disclosure of Information

TRANSPORT A453 Andrew Bridgen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when her Department plans to publish the timetable to widen the A453 between Nottingham and [98174] the M1. Mike Penning: The Highways Agency is working up detailed timescales for schemes announced in the Chancellor’s autumn statement on 29 November 2011, Official Report, columns 799-810, to identify the most efficient start of work dates. All of the schemes named in the autumn statement are expected to start construction and make significant progress in the next three years. We will make announcements on the timescales for each scheme in due course. Action for Employment Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contracts her Department has with A4e; and what the (a) purpose and (b) value is of each [97023] such contract. Norman Baker: To the best of my knowledge, the Department for Transport has no outstanding contracts with A4e. Bus Services: Concessions

Mr Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what conditions private parking enforcement companies have to comply with to be able to access DVLA information systems; [98384] (2) whether those who access DVLA information systems must be members of the British Parking Association; and what conditions apply to such access. [98385]

Mike Penning: No organisation has direct access to Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) information systems. Information to help contact the registered keepers of vehicles can be released to private car parking management companies provided they demonstrate reasonable cause for requiring the information. Requests are received via both paper based and electronic routes. All private parking management companies requesting this information must be members of the British Parking Association (BPA). The BPA’s Approved Operator Scheme requires that all members must adhere to a code of practice stipulating the standards of operation required. Failure to adhere to the code may result in expulsion from the scheme meaning that no further information will be provided by the DVLA. Parking management companies are audited by both BPA and DVLA to ensure that they are meeting the standards required. High Speed 2 Railway Line

Steve McCabe: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether she has any plans to extend the provision of bus passes to enable free passage of pensioners and disabled persons between England and Wales.

Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions she has had with rail companies on High Speed 2 trains serving stations on High Speed 1.

[96348]

[98651]

Norman Baker: There are no current plans to introduce mutual recognition of concessionary bus passes between England and Wales. Concessionary travel is a devolved policy area so the arrangements differ between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is however perfectly possible for local authorities to put in place arrangements for mutual recognition of schemes across borders.

Justine Greening: The HS2 Decisions and Next Steps document makes clear that the Government will explore options for HS2 trains to serve Stratford, Ebsfleet and other stations on HS1 going forward.

Crossrail: Contracts Mr MacNeil: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total value is of Crossrail contracts awarded to companies with head offices based outside the UK, including joint ventures between domestic and [98075] international companies. Mrs Villiers: Crossrail Ltd has awarded approximately £1.4 billion of work to construction companies that do not have a UK-based headquarters, including joint ventures where at least one company has a headquarters outside of the UK. This is out of a total value of awarded contracts of approximately £4 billion to date. The vast majority of these contractors will sub-contract with UK-based companies, and Crossrail Ltd currently estimate that around 90% to 95% of the total Crossrail works awarded by value will be undertaken in the UK supply chain.

Motorways: Speed Limits Mr MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans she has to introduce a speed limit [98284] on motorways of 80 mph. Mike Penning: We have announced our intention to consult on proposals to increase the speed limit on motorways to 80 miles per hour. As part of this process we are carrying out further work to assess the potential economic, safety and environmental impacts of implementing this change. We plan to bring forward detailed proposals and start consultation in the coming months. Oil: EU Action Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the inclusion of a default value for oil shale in the European fuel quality directive; and what her policy is on the European Commission’s proposal for a greenhouse gas emissions [97727] value for oil shale.

763W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Norman Baker: On 23 February member states voted on a European Commission proposal for the implementing measures of article 7a of the fuel quality directive. The proposal voted on included default values for petrol and diesel derived from oil shale. At the vote a ‘no opinion’ result was delivered under the weighted voting procedure known as Qualified Majority Voting. The proposal will now proceed for consideration by the Environment Council. The Government are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and want the fuel quality directive to be a key tool in achieving this aim. We are therefore continuing to seek an effective solution to address the carbon emissions from all highly polluting crudes, including oil shale. Transport: Industrial Disputes John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what her policy is on the use of (a) recruitment companies, (b) subsidiaries and (c) in-house recruitment processes to provide labour during periods of industrial [96659] action in the transport sector. [R] Norman Baker: The Department for Transport does not have a specific policy on the use of recruitment companies, subsidiaries or in-house recruitment processes to provide labour during periods of industrial action in the transport sector, but would expect transport businesses to comply with the law, in particular with the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 which prohibit employment businesses from knowingly supplying replacement workers in an official industrial dispute.

Written Answers

764W

John Thurso: Since announcing the charge in an e-mail to Members and their staff on 24 February 2012, three e-mails expressing concern regarding the charge for Clock Tower Tours have been received by the Central Communications Team in the Office of the chief executive. None have been received directly by the Commission. An Early Day Motion opposing the introduction of charges has been tabled, and has been signed by 23 hon. Members (as at 7 March). Mr Amess: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, who the House of Commons Commission consulted before taking the decision to introduce charges for visiting the Clock Tower; on what basis the amount charged was decided; and if he will [98396] make a statement. John Thurso: The proposal to charge for visiting the Clock Tower was included in the package of proposed initial savings, on which Members, Members’ staff and House staff were consulted in November 2010. Members were sent a letter from the Chair of the Finance and Services Committee inviting comments on the proposals. The Chair’s message and the consultation document were published on the intranet. OncetheHouseof CommonsCommissionhadconsidered the proposals following consultation, Mr Speaker sent a message to all Members on 14 December 2010 announcing the agreed savings package. Mr Speaker’s message and the agreed savings package can be found on the intranet. The package of agreed savings was also published on Parliament’s website: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commonscommission/ Commons_Management_Board/HoC_agreed_savings.pdf

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION Big Ben: Tourism Mr Amess: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, (1) what assessment the House of Commons Commission has made of the likely number of persons booking tours of the Clock Tower following the introduction of charges; and if he will [98388] make a statement; (2) who will administer the charges to visit the Clock [98395] Tower; and if he will make a statement. John Thurso: There is an annual capacity of around 10,400 spaces on Clock Tower tours. During the 2011 calendar year 9,319 visitors participated in the tours. Given the popularity of Clock Tower tours, we do not expect any significant fall in demand. The ticket price has been set to cover the cost of the tours’ operation, taking into account VAT and assuming a take-up rate of 90%. The Visitor Services team will administer the charges to visit the Clock Tower. Mr Amess: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, what representations the House of Commons Commission has received (a) supporting and (b) opposing the introduction of visitor charges for visiting the Clock Tower; and if he [98389] will make a statement.

Following agreement that the cost of Clock Tower tours should be covered through the introduction of charging as part of the savings programme, Visitor Services managers calculated the appropriate charge. The ticket price of £15 has been set to cover the cost of the tours operation, taking into account VAT and assuming a take-up rate of 90%. The ticket price and administrative arrangements, were reported to the Administration Committee on 30 January 2012. The £15 ticket price is in line with other commercial tours at Parliament—tours of the Visitor Route and the specialist art and architecture tours—details of which can be found on Parliament’s website: http://www.parliament.uk/visiting/

Catering Mr Amess: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission how many bookings were made by (a) hon. Members, (b) staff of hon. Members and (c) other pass holders for the Strangers Dining Room in each of the last six months for which information is [98390] available. John Thurso: Bookings in the dining rooms are identified in two categories only: (a) hon. Members and (b) other pass holders. Bookings for the Strangers’ Dining Room in each of the last six months by each of these categories of users were as follows:

765W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

MPs

Other pass holders

256 382 375 285

8 36 40 18

282 246

16 14

2011 September October November December 2012 January February

Mr Amess: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many bookings were made at the (a) Strangers Dining Room, (b) Churchill Room and (c) Members’ Dining Room in each month in (i) 2005, (ii) 2006, (iii) 2008, (iv) 2010 and (v) the most recent month in 2012; and if he will make a statement. [98397]

John Thurso: In accordance with the House of Commons Records Management Policy, information is held for a period of three years and therefore no bookings information is available for (i) 2005, (ii) 2006, or (iii) 2008. Information for (iv) 2010 is as follows: 2010 January February March April May June July August September October November December 1 Closed.

Strangers’ Dining Room

Churchill Dining Room

403 430 503 86 209 388 329 1 — 197 402 477 638

128 143 252 42 42 153 274 1 — 1 — 173 267 147

766W

Written Answers

Grant Shapps: £23.7 million has been allocated to the UK-wide Coastal Communities Fund in 2012-13, but there has been no expenditure to date as funding only becomes available on 1 April. Funds can be made available for infrastructure and running costs. The new fund is being delivered in partnership with the Big Lottery Fund (BIG), who will be holding a series of pre-application workshops to assist organisations, including smaller groups, who may wish to apply for a grant. There is also a BIG advice line—0845 410 20 30. Fire Services: Emergency Calls Gareth Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many (a) genuine and (b) malicious emergency calls were received by Kent Fire and Rescue Service in each of the last [98259] three years. Robert Neill: This information is held centrally only for periods up to 2009-10. Following the consultation on fire and rescue service non-financial annual returns, a summary of which can be found at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/fire/ frsandfosisummaryofresponses

fire and rescue services are no longer asked to provide returns of numbers of emergency calls. The data available on the number of malicious false alarm calls and all other emergency calls to Kent Fire and Rescue Service for the last three years are shown in the following table: Total emergency calls and malicious false alarms calls, Kent Fire and Rescue Service, 2008-09 to 2010-11 2008-09 2009-10 2010-111 Malicious false 852 alarms calls Other 36,608 emergency calls Total 37,460 emergency calls 1 Data held centrally only until 2009-10

766

n/a

33,430

n/a

34,196

n/a

First Time Buyers

(v) The most recent month in 2012 for which information is available is February. During that month, a total of 260 bookings were made for the Strangers’ Dining room and 110 for the Churchill Room. The hon. Gentleman might find it helpful to speak directly to the Director of Catering and Retail Services on these detailed matters.

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT Coastal Communities Fund David Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the total spending of the Coastal Communities Fund is to date; what the average size of grant is; whether funding is available for both infrastructure projects and for the running costs of existing projects; and what assistance his Department offers to smaller groups seeking [98230] funding.

Graham Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what assessment he has made of the number of privately rented properties on access to the property market for first-time buyers. [98481]

Andrew Stunell: I am assuming that the hon. Member wishes to know what impact the size of the privately rented sector has on access to the property market for first-time buyers. Access to the housing market for first-time buyers is largely dependent on access to mortgage finance. The most recent data from the Council of Mortgage Lenders shows that, in 2011, buy to let mortgages accounted for 12% of all loans for house purchase. The equivalent figure for first-time buyers is 34%. In terms of value, buy to let mortgages only accounted for 8% of total lending for house purchase. At the same time private renting provides a vital safety net for those who cannot access home ownership, as well as a flexible option for those who choose to rent.

767W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

It also underpins economic development by allowing those who cannot sell their existing home the flexibility to move to take up employment opportunities. Homelessness: Greater London Mr Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what estimate he has made of the number of people in (a) the London borough of Bexley and (b) London who were deemed

768W

Written Answers

(i) intentionally and (ii) unintentionally homeless in [98109] each of the last five years. Grant Shapps: The available information is given in the following table. The Department collects information from local authorities on whether or not a household is intentionally homeless only in those cases where it has decided that the household is homeless and in priority need. The Department does not therefore hold information on how many of the households that were decided to be homeless but not in priority need were intentionally homeless. Number of households

Eligible, unintentionally homeless and in priority need

Eligible, homeless and in priority need, but intentionally so

Eligible, homeless but not in priority need

Eligible, but not homeless

Total decisions

251 207 177 128 204

19 26 27 7 37

473 261 130 48 56

107 85 89 78 222

850 579 423 261 519

15,390 13,800 12,780 9,460 10,180

1,780 1,610 1,930 1,680 1,760

6,740 4,890 3,520 3,910 4,450

9,550 8,710 9,060 8,100 8,920

33,450 29,000 27,290 23,150 25,310

London Borough of Bexley 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 All London boroughs and the City of London 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Source: Quarterly PIE returns

Housing Benefit Mr Byrne: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what funding his Department has allocated for the redundancy costs associated with a reduction of housing benefit staff in local authorities [94495] upon implementation of universal credit. Steve Webb: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions. The Department for Work and Pensions is working with the Department for Communities and Local Government, the devolved Administrations and the local authority associations to understand the impact on cost and associated resource of the introduction of universal credit and housing costs for pensioners on current local authority benefit services. We are working together to develop and understand the service design and migration process, a detailed migration schedule and the impact of universal credit in the context of the wider welfare reform. Only then will we be able to assess the implications for local authority resource and associated costs. Housing Improvement: Finance Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which local authorities in England provide renovation grants for [98707] owner-occupiers and private tenants.

Andrew Stunell: This information is not held centrally. The Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002 gives local authorities wide powers to provide assistance for repairs, improvements, adaptations and to demolish and re-construct homes. This assistance may take the form of a grant, loan, equity release, or more practical assistance such as home surveys or small repairs services. Local authorities must have policies in place setting out how they will use these powers and they must make summaries of their policy available. Housing: Construction Mr Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what recent estimate he has made of the number of houses for which planning permission has been obtained but which have not yet been built in (a) England and (b) [97836] Gloucestershire. Robert Neill [holding answer 5 March 2012]: The number of dwellings where permission has been granted but where development has not yet started as at 31 December 2011 is estimated at 229,177 units for England. A breakdown by local authority for Gloucestershire (including the unitary authority of South Gloucestershire) is given in the following table:

769W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Units with planning permission which had not started on site Cheltenham Cotswold Forest of Dean Gloucester South Gloucestershire Stroud Tewkesbury

392 389 367 766 142 611 912

Written Answers

770W

Robert Neill: The Department has not commissioned research on the area of land not covered by nationalrecognised land designations. This information can be derived from publicly available data, for example digital maps of the various national-land designations are available from the Department for Farming and Rural Affair mapping website: http://magic.defra.gov.uk/

Land: Sales Gloucestershire

3,579

This information is collected by Glenigan on behalf of the Homes and Communities Agency. Glenigan only track “large” schemes which are defined as those with 10 or more units (although some schemes with fewer than 10 units are included which have sufficient value to be classified as “large”). The Government are taking a number of steps to help unlock development on sites with planning permission: The £420 million Get Britain Building Fund will help get builders back on stalled housing sites with planning permission that have been shut down because of difficulties in accessing development finance; We are proposing to allow reconsideration of planning obligations agreed prior to April 2010 where development is stalled. We have already encouraged local authorities to be flexible in reviewing Section 106 agreements; The £500 million Growing Places Fund will support infrastructure that unblocks housing and economic growth; and The NewBuy Guarantee scheme brings lenders, builders and Government together to offer mortgages on new-build properties with a fraction of the deposit currently required, which in turn will encourage house builders to build more homes.

Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation governing the sale of land by (a) individuals, (b) private companies and (c) statutory or public authorities and the role of local authorities to (i) block and (ii) take pre-emptive action against decisions which are not in the local interest. [98037]

Andrew Stunell: The Localism Act 2011 increases the powers of local authorities to tackle unauthorised development and the abuse of retrospective planning permission. The Act also introduces new community rights which will give local residents greater opportunities to influence development in their areas, bid to buy local assets that are important to them and bid to run local services differently and better. In relation to guidance to local authorities on the sale of properties, I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 2 February 2012, Official Report, column 731W. As the impact assessment made clear, a review of the Localism Act’s provision will be conducted in the normal way.

Land: Planning Permission Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the status will be of (a) Rural Buffer Zones, (b) Areas of Great Landscape Value, (c) Areas of Special Landscape, (d) Areas of Special County Value, (e) Land of Local Landscape Importance, (f) Green Wedges and (g) other local landscape designations following proposed [96463] reforms to planning. Robert Neill: The National Planning Policy Framework, which we are committed to publishing by the end of March, will set out our policies for the planning system. The draft framework we published for consultation in 2011 underlined the importance of local planning in protecting and enhancing the natural environment, including landscapes, and identifying land which it is genuinely important to protect from development. Local planning policy designations in a local plan will continue to be a material consideration, and our proposed reforms will mean that local plans have a more important role in the planning process. Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the area of English land not covered by nationally-recognised land [96464] designations.

Local Government: Calderdale Mrs Riordan: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) whether he plans to merge Calderdale and Kirklees councils; [96923]

(2) what plans he has to re-draw the boundaries of [96922] Calderdale council. Robert Neill: We have no plans to impose local government restructuring, as evident from this Government’s implementation of the Local Government Act 2010 which cancelled the last Administration’s unitary restructuring. Such restructuring would be expensive, diverting time and resources away from improving frontline services. However, there is considerable scope for greater joint working and sharing of staff and back office services between local authorities. Such innovation does not need the permission of central Government, especially given the new general power of competence under the Localism Act 2011. Changes to boundaries are initially a matter for the independent Local Government Boundary Commission. Their guidance is available at: www.lgbce.org.uk/guidance-policy-and-publications/guidance

771W

Written Answers

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Local Government: Complaints Tom Blenkinsop: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what estimate he has made of the number of complaints submitted to local authority standards committees in 2011; and whether he has made any assessment of the number of [98291] such complaints that were upheld.

772W

Robert Neill [holding answer 20 February 2012]: I refer the right hon. Member to the written ministerial statement of 20 February 2012, Official Report, 63WS. Planning Permission Mr Scott: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what steps he is taking to transfer further planning powers from regional and national [96852] level to local councils.

Robert Neill: We have made no such estimates. Local Government: North East Guy Opperman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what steps he is taking to devolve power to cities and towns in the [98465] North East. Greg Clark: The Government are taking considerable steps to devolve power to cities and towns both in the North East and across the country. We have introduced the Localism Act giving councils the general power of competence that enables councils to do anything that an individual might, apart from that which is specifically prohibited. We are committed to devolving powers to elected mayors, to ensure that our biggest cities are genuine drivers of economic growth, for the benefit of both the city and the surrounding area. In May, we will see referendums on elected mayors in 10 of our largest cities including Newcastle. However, the option to have an elected mayor is not restricted to cities; councils can resolve to move to the mayoral model or hold a mayoral referendum in their area. We are also working to deliver a series of ’city deals’. We have invited the core cities and their wider economic areas to negotiate the devolution of the specific powers, resources and responsibilities required to meet locallydetermined economic and social objectives. In return, cities will need to accept a proportionate degree of risk and demonstrate a strong governance structure. Local Government: Pay Hilary Benn: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether he has issued guidance to local authorities on the payment of senior local government staff other than through [94655] PAYE for tax advantage reasons. Robert Neill [holding answer 9 February 2012]: I refer the right hon. Member to the written ministerial statement of 20 February 2012, Official Report, column 63WS. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has also written to the Local Government Association asking them to consider how they can encourage the sector to take action on tackling tax avoidance.

Robert Neill: Decentralising planning powers is a key element of the Government’s planning reforms. The Localism Act has removed the regional planning tier which will prevent the creation of new regional strategies and the top down targets they imposed on local councils and communities. The Government also intend to abolish the existing regional strategies outside London subject to the outcome of environmental assessments that we are currently undertaking. Our reforms will enable local councils to take the lead in planning for growth and development in their areas, working closely with local communities. We are helping councils by providing them with more control and flexibility when they are preparing local plans. The Government have also introduced radical new powers to enable local communities to establish neighbourhood plans. These plans give citizens the right to shape the development and growth of their local area and identify where development should occur. Once these plans come into force, they will form part of the local plan which is the basis on which planning applications are determined. Planning Permission: Incinerators Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many planning appeals in respect of incinerators were considered by the Planning Inspectorate in each planning category in each of the last five years; and what proportion of such appeals in each category were [94776] (a) upheld and (b) dismissed. Robert Neill: The following table shows the number of planning appeals in respect of incinerators in each category allowed and upheld for each of the last five complete calendar years. Decision year 2007

2008

2009

Hilary Benn: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether any senior staff in local government have made tax efficient [95010] payment arrangements.

Procedure

Allowed

Upheld

Total

Written representation Hearing













Local inquiry







Written representation Hearing













Local inquiry







Written representation Hearing



1

1







Local inquiry

1



1

773W Decision year

2010

Written Answers

Procedure

7 MARCH 2012

Allowed

Upheld

Total

Written representation Hearing













Local inquiry







Written representation Hearing













Local inquiry

4

1

5

Grand total

5

2

7

Written Answers

774W

I also strongly encourage councils to not ignore the opportunity this scheme offers to help reinstate better weekly collections while helping to drive down costs and boost environmental performance.

NORTHERN IRELAND High Profile Anniversaries

2011

Urban Areas: Planning Permission Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many retail developments proposed for out-of-town locations have been (a) notified to and (b) called in by him in each year since 2008; what each such development was; and what the outcome of the planning process was in each [96634] case. Robert Neill: On the basis of available records, no retail developments proposed for out-of-town locations have been notified to and called in by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government since 2008. Urban Areas: Regeneration Brandon Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what steps his Department is taking to disseminate best practice learned from urban regeneration at the Olympic Park. [98252] Grant Shapps: The Olympic Delivery Authority Learning Legacy project is disseminating how the development of the Olympic Park has set a new direction for the way major regeneration projects can be delivered in the UK and internationally. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors commissioned external research into the regeneration legacy and the impact of the 2012 Games in September 2011. It found that the London 2012 project had secured a positive physical regeneration legacy through the early onset of legacy planning and unequivocal support from UK Government and by involving a wide range of different stakeholders. Waste Management

9. Mr Offord: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on the commemoration of high profile anniversaries. [97682] 12. Mr Marcus Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on the commemoration [97686] of high profile anniversaries. Mr Swire: Both the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), and I regularly meet with the First Minister, deputy First Minister and other Executive Ministers to discuss relevant issues including the forthcoming decade of key anniversaries. Corporation Tax 10. David Mowat: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on differential levels of corporation tax for different regions in the UK. [97683] Mr Paterson: I have had several discussions on this matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne). The Ministerial Working Group meets again this afternoon and is considering the practicalities and implications of the potential devolution of powers to vary the corporation tax rate to the Northern Ireland Executive. Eurozone 13. Mr Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effect of economic conditions in the eurozone on Northern Ireland. [97687]

Mr Swire: The eurozone is our largest trading partner and 5.8% of UK exports in goods and services go to the Republic of Ireland. I am in regular contact with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), who is closely monitoring the conditions in the eurozone and its effect on the UK economy. Security

Mr Betts: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which councils that currently collect refuse in alternate weeks have made a commitment [97601] to return to a weekly collection service. Robert Neill [holding answer 5 March 2012]: We launched the Weekly Collection Support Scheme on 3 February; the deadline for expressions of interest is 16 March.

Mr Burrowes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland; and if he will [97685] make a statement. Mr Paterson: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave today to the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham).

775W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS Agriculture: Droughts Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to protect the farming industry [98190] against future droughts. Richard Benyon: We are ensuring close working between farmers and the Environment Agency to make sure all available water for abstractors this growing season is used as efficiently as possible. We announced in the water White Paper that we will introduce a reformed water abstraction regime resilient to the challenges of climate change and population growth, and this will help farmers and other abstractors to meet their water needs efficiently and protect water ecosystems. We will work closely with stakeholders in designing the new system and will establish a national advisory group to guide the process. We plan to consult on proposals in 2013, and aim to introduce legislation to reform the regime early in the next Parliament. Assistance for farmers to build winter storage reservoirs is available through DEFRA’s Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE). The RDPE has also supported training/knowledge transfer regarding irrigation management and soil management, as well as a range of small water resource projects, for instance with rainwater harvesting equipment. Broadband: Finance Simon Hart: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much of the £20 million fund for superfast broadband has been distributed to date; and which communities have received [98402] funding. Richard Benyon: The first round for Expressions of Interest under the Rural Community Broadband Fund closed on 31 January. 39 Expressions of Interest applications were received, with a value equivalent to around £12 million in grant. No funding has been distributed to date. Formal assessment of the Expressions of Interest received is currently under way. It is expected that the outcome of this assessment process will be notified to applicants during March 2012. For those Expressions of Interests that are endorsed to proceed to the next stage, the selected applicants will be asked to submit a full application providing the detail of the project (including a business plan). No funding will be committed to a project until a full application has been received, appraised, and approved. Droughts: Subsidence Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the effect of the drought on (a) subsidence in buildings and (b) highways; and [97992] if she will make a statement. Richard Benyon: The potential effects of drought on buildings and highways fall within the competency of a number of Government bodies.

Written Answers

776W

For building work the building regulations require that the structural safety of buildings shall not be affected by any movements caused by swelling, shrinkage or freezing of the ground. Supporting statutory guidance gives practical advice on meeting this requirement by providing minimum founding depths for common foundation types. This includes foundations constructed in ground prone to volume change as a consequence of seasonal climatic conditions and also drought. The regulations are subject to ongoing review. While the Government recognise that drought can affect road surfaces as a result of the lack of moisture in the soil (particularly in peat soil), causing the soil beneath the road to shrink, it is for highway authorities to ensure that they undertake scheduled maintenance to manage the problems that drought may cause to the road network for which they are responsible. Despite the current severe fiscal restraints we are providing £3 billion (to 2014-15) to councils for road maintenance and also provided an additional £200 million last year for authorities to repair damage caused by severe weather. It is for authorities to decide how to allocate these funds, including ensuring they have a contingency to deal with any emerging maintenance issues, such as drought, that may arise. In 2008 the Department for Transport published a guidance document in order to help local authority highway engineers assess the risk from climate change to their network and take suitable adaptation actions. The guidance is available from The Stationery Office. Fish: Marketing Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate her Department has made of the number of supermarket fish products marketed as (a) dolphin friendly, (b) pole and line caught and (c) sustainably sourced in each of the last five years. [98311] Richard Benyon: We use figures from the Ethical Consumerism Report by the Co-operative Bank. The data are based on administrative records held by ethical labelling organisations and trade associations. The last five years on record are estimated as follows:

Sustainable Fish

Spend (£ million) Dolphin Friendly Tuna

2005 17 2006 55 2007 70 2008 128 2009 178 1 The spend on dolphin friendly tuna is not available for 2009. Source: Ethical Consumerism Reports (ECR). The Co-operative Bank http://www.goodwithmoney.co.uk/ethicalconsumerismreport

218 223 237 281 1 —

DEFRA does not hold figures or estimates of pole and line caught supermarket fish products. Pet Animals Act 1951 Jane Ellison: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to amend section 2 of the Pet Animals Act 1951 to include (a) public houses and (b) websites. [98173]

777W

Written Answers

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Mr Paice: There are no plans to amend the Pet Animals Act 1951. River Thames: Sewage Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with (a) Thames Water, (b) the Environment Agency and (c) Ofwat on the volume of spoil to be removed and the means of its removal for [98137] the construction of the Thames tunnel. Richard Benyon: Thames Water has estimated that around 4.6 million tonnes of excavated material would be generated during construction of the proposed Thames tunnel. The eventual contractor will be responsible for the management and handling of the excavated material, and also for ensuring appropriate re-use, treatment, and/or disposal of the material. This is in line with an overarching waste strategy which I understand Thames Water is currently finalising in conjunction with the Environment Agency. I also understand that Thames Water is undertaking a detailed assessment, following waste hierarchy principles, to identify the preferred options for the management of the excavated material. This includes removal from riverside construction sites by barge, where it is practical and economic to do so, in line with Government planning policy guidance. The Environment Agency has been working with Thames Water’s Thames tunnel team to produce the draft waste strategy, which is available on Thames Water’s Thames tunnel consultation website. The Excavated Materials Options Methodology and Assessment will be available in due course as part of the Development Consent Order application process.

778W

be no greater than a “normal” summer period. This is due to reduced demand from London residents as a result of the holiday period. Demand from the major events will take place in the late afternoon/evening when demand from commercial buildings will be reduced as many commuters will have left central London. The Olympics has been designed to be the most sustainable modern Olympics. The Olympic Park sports venues will use at least 40% less water than equivalent buildings through the use of water efficient appliances, rain water harvesting from roofs, and grey water systems. An innovative membrane bioreactor plant has also been installed to make use of ’black water’ to supply a custom non-potable distribution system on the Olympic site. Thames Water, the water supplier to the main Olympics Park, has indicated that if the region does not receive above average rainfall in the near future it may have to impose restrictions on water usage this summer in line with its drought plan. It does not anticipate that this will affect essential Olympic activities, and it will be working with London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games to minimise non-essential water use. Thames Water and the relevant Government Departments hold regular discussions on this issue. Other water companies who supply Olympic venues in areas affected by the risk of drought are taking actions in line with their drought plans. As yet there is no indication that this will affect essential Olympic activities.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

Tyres: Exports

Arts: Asians

Ian Swales: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many illegally exported containers of used tyres the Environment Agency recovered in the last 12 months; and how much [98056] such recovery cost.

Mr Virendra Sharma: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what funds were provided to Asian organisations through the (a) regularly funded organisations system and (b) Grants for the Arts from the Arts Lottery awards programme in each year since 2002. [97496]

Richard Benyon: During the calendar year of 2011 the Environment Agency reports that no illegally exported containers of used tyres were repatriated. During the same period, six containers of waste tyres destined for export were intercepted and held. They were granted permission to proceed only after the Malaysian authorities confirmed they were content. Therefore, they were no recovery costs. Water: Olympic Games 2012 Gavin Shuker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the extra water requirement during the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics; and what steps it has taken to ensure that supply meets [96756] demand during the period of the games.

Mr Vaizey: Departmental support for the arts is channelled through Arts Council England (ACE) which makes funding decisions independently of Government. ACE provided the following table that outlines funding provided to Asian-led organisations since 2002 through the Grants for the Arts (GFTAs) funding programme, and funding allocated to regularly funded organisations (RFOs). For RFOs, an Asian-led organisation is taken to be an organisation in which more than 50% of their board and senior managements are from Asian or Chinese background. For GFTAs, an Asian-led organisation has been defined in the same way, as well as individual applicants from an Asian or Chinese background. Financial year

Richard Benyon: Thames Water has worked with the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) to assess water demands during the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Based on modelling and experience from previous Olympic host cities, the ODA expect the demand in London to

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

CFTAs

RFOs

£ Total

n/a n/a n/a 1,706,664

2,478,455 799,665 1,395,161 951,535

2,478,455 799,665 1,395,161 2,658,199

779W

Financial year 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Totals

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

CFTAs

RFOs

£ Total

1,778,613 1,474,581 1,260,329 1,664,455 n/a 7,884,642

1,745,025 912,605 1,747,415 768,169 1,506,739 12,304,769

3,523,638 2,387,186 3,007,744 2,432,624 1,506,739 20,189,411

Diamond Jubilee 2012: Medals Lady Hermon: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport for what reasons his Department decided not to award the diamond jubilee medal to members of St John’s Ambulance; what representations his Department has received on [98050] this matter; and if he will make a statement. Hugh Robertson: The diamond jubilee medal is being issued using broadly the same criteria as the golden jubilee medal in 2002. Medals are therefore being awarded to serving members of key front line services (armed forces, the police, the Prison Service, ambulance service and fire and rescue services) who have completed five years’ service on and inclusive of the anniversary of the Queen’s accession on 6 February 2012. The Department has received 43 letters to date on this matter.

Written Answers

780W

DEFENCE Air Training Corps Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 20 February 2012, Official Report, column 462W, on Air Training Corps, what the conclusion was of the assessment of the costeffectiveness of the senior management structure of the Air Training Corps which was carried out in January 2011. [98650] Nick Harvey: The Air Cadet Organisation review of its senior management structure, which began in January 2011, has been suspended until the Tri-Service Defence Youth Engagement Review has been completed. Departmental Disclosure of Information Mr Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 17 January 2012, Official Report, column 421W, on the disclosure of information, if he will publish any interim findings of the inquiry into the unauthorised disclosure of the letter between the former Secretary of State and the Prime Minister which appeared in The Daily Telegraph [97911] on 28 September 2010. Mr Philip Hammond [holding answer 5 March 2012]: The person responsible for the leak has not been identified. The investigation remains open.

Sports: Young People Future Local Area Air Defence System Patrick Mercer: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what recent progress his Department has made in implementing youth sport strategy, Creating a sporting habit for life. [98142]

Mark Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent progress he has made on the future local area air defence system; and if he will make [98333] a statement.

Hugh Robertson: The Department is working with Sport England on implementing the Youth Sport Strategy published in January 2012. This work includes helping national governing bodies (NGBs) to develop their plans to increase participation and retention, particularly of young people, in sport. The NGBs will formally submit their plans alongside their bids for funding, in May. Final award offers will be made in January and activity will commence in April 2013. Sport England is also working with the Further Education sector to identify 150 further education colleges that will benefit from a College Sport Maker, with the first grants likely to be in place by the autumn. An important element of the new strategy is to increase the community access to sports facilities on school premises. Sport England published new guidance for schools wishing to open their facilities on 2 March and will be making £10 million available to schools to help with process. Sport England is also working with the Local Government Associations and Chief Cultural and Leisure Officers Association to develop plans to enable local authorities, community groups and other partner to bid for matched funding to increase and sustain participation in sport. It expects to test how best to invest during the final quarter 2012-13.

Peter Luff: In January, the Ministry of Defence placed a contract valued at some £483 million with MBDA(UK) for the development of the maritime Future Local Area Air Defence System (FLAADS(M)), to be known by its new name ‘Sea Ceptor’, a future cutting-edge air-defence system which will replace Sea Wolf on the Royal Navy’s T-23 frigates until the end of their service life, and is planned to provide the basis of the air defence capability for the T-26 frigates when they enter service. Sea Ceptor’s parent programme FLAADS is an important part of the complex weapons portfolio, which is delivering the optimal balance of capability and value for money for the armed forces, meeting their requirement for battle winning complex weapons. This is being achieved through the development of a family of weapons which will provide greater overall flexibility to meet evolving requirements, enable shorter development times; and achieve significant efficiencies through life. It will also ensure the UK has continued access to industrial skills and capabilities that are critical for the sustained provision of complex weapons for our armed forces. The Sea Ceptor demonstration phase is expected to take five years and will sustain some 500 high technology jobs in MBDA UK and its supply chain, in key locations across the UK including Stevenage, Filton and Lostock. This announcement represents further significant investment in the UK’s high technology industry and supports

781W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

wider Government policy towards increasing UK defence exports as Sea Ceptor is assessed to have excellent export potential.

Written Answers

Financial year

782W Cost (£)

2010-11

209,000

Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability Programme

USA: Military Alliances

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the first Military Afloat reach and sustainability tanker to begin construction; and [97052] when the final such tanker will be delivered.

Andrew Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effects of the measures announced in the recent defence review by the US on the UK’s future military co-operation with [97739] that country.

Peter Luff: Subject to contract award, construction of the first Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS) tanker is planned to begin in mid-2014. On current plans, the final MARS tanker is scheduled to be delivered into service in 2019. MOD Bicester Mr Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which (a) consultants and (b) consultancy firms were involved in the 2008 restructuring of MOD [97261] Logistics Bicester; (2) which consultants he employed to assist with the restructuring of MOD Logistics Bicester in 2008; and what the daily rate was of each such consultant; [97234] (3) how much his Department has paid to interim directors of logistics in (a) Bicester and (b) Donnington [97297] in each year since 2008; (4) how much his Department paid to consultants for MOD Logistics in (a) 2006-07, (b) 2007-08, (c) [97298] 2008-09 and (d) 2009-10. Peter Luff [holding answer 29 February 2012]: The restructuring of the former Defence Storage and Distribution Agency (DSDA), of which Logistic Services Bicester was a part, was considered under the Future Defence Supply Chain Initiative (FDSCi) which concluded in 2007. In August 2010, DSDA relinquished its agency status and its responsibilities were absorbed into DE&S, its parent organisation. Consultancy assistance used to support the FDSCi was not provided on a site-by-site basis and information that can be directly attributed to Logistic Services Bicester or Logistics Services Donnington is not available. The management consultancy firms engaged in supporting FDSCi were Wallace Walker and Deloitte. I am withholding information about the daily rate paid to consultants employed by Wallace Walker and Deloitte as its disclosure would prejudice commercial interests. Similarly, I am withholding the names of those consultants as this is personal information. The total cost of consultancy assistance provided to the former DSDA in financial years 2006-07 and 2007-08 was £3.67 million and £0.20 million respectively (the former was attributed to FDSCi). No such costs were incurred in financial years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The cost of interim directors employed by the former DSDA, and after August 2010, by logistic services DE&S, are shown in the following table: Financial year 2008-09 2009-10

Cost (£) 489,000 263,000

Mr Philip Hammond: The US Defense Strategic Guidance, reaches many of the same conclusions as the UK’s 2010 strategic defence and security review. While the Defense Strategic Guidance signals a change in some US priorities, it underlines that European allies will remain the US’ partners of choice. The US will continue to be our most important military ally and we will develop the interoperability and expertise necessary to ensure that our armed forces are able to work with their US counterparts, both bilaterally and in NATO.

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS Departmental Responsibilities Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps his Department is taking to improve (a) private sector and business and (b) third sector and non-governmental organisation [98624] expertise among officials in his Department. Norman Lamb: The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has launched an outreach programme designed to encourage staff members to spend 1-2 days a year with other organisations. These organisations can include businesses, universities, further education colleges, charities and third sector organisations and social enterprises to learn about how they operate and the challenges they face. So far 440 staff members (17% of the Department) have undertaken visits, with 95% saying the visits were a good use of their time and helped them do their jobs more effectively. In addition those officials working on Enterprise spend a week in a small business each year. The Department also participated in the National Council for Voluntary Organisations’ ’A Day in the Life...’ scheme which provided a unique opportunity for 100 BIS staff and voluntary and community sector organisations to step into each others shoes for a day and learn about how each operates. Departmental Secondment Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what his Department’s policy is on (a) inward and (b) outward secondments to the (i) private sector and (ii) third sector and [98623] non-governmental organisations. Norman Lamb: It is the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills’ policy to encourage exchanges by way of (a) inward and (b) outward secondments between the (i) private sector and (ii) third sector and non-governmental organisations and the Department.

783W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Inward secondments enable the Department to improve staffs’ capabilities by learning and by sharing knowledge and expertise with private sector, third sector and non governmental organisations. The individual on secondment gets a development opportunity to broaden their understanding of how Government works. Outward secondments are similarly beneficial in terms of exchanging information and providing increased staff development opportunities, while supporting individuals to achieve their career aspirations. Financial Services: Conveyancing Mr Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills if he will take steps to ensure that shared equity schemes subsidised by the taxpayer cannot be operated by banks or financial services firms that operate restricted panels of conveyancers. [98262] Mr Hoban: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Treasury. The Government are aware that several banks have recently made changes to the membership of their conveyancing panels. Commercial decisions remain a matter for the boards of banks and building societies, and the Government do not seek to intervene in these decisions. Foreign Investment in UK Laura Sandys: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how many (a) regional inward investment organisations or (b) local enterprise partnerships have signed memorandums of understanding with UK Trade and Investment to enable them to access international inward investment opportunities. [98306] Mr Prisk [holding answer 6 March 2012]: The information requested is as follows. (a) The nine regional development agencies gave up their inward investment responsibilities at the end of March 2011 as part of their forthcoming closure following abolition. The devolved Administrations have all signed memoranda of understanding (MoUs) with United Kingdom Trade and Investment (UKTI). (b) UKTI now works at the local level through the 39 Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and, where appropriate, their respective investment agency. 37 of the LEPs have signed an MoU with UKTI. UKTI is in negotiation with the Greater London authority to sign an MoU on inward investment co-operation.

Laura Sandys: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how many (a) regional inward investment agencies or (b) local enterprise partnerships who have signed a memorandum of understanding have completed the National School of [98307] Government e-Learning course. Mr Prisk [holding answer 6 March 2012]: 40 people so far (out of 104 applications) have completed the National School of Government e-learning course.

Written Answers

784W

Mr Willetts: The criteria for designation are set out in the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011 and include course type, duration and mode of study. Courses must also be validated by a recognised UK awarding body such as a university. This provides quality assurance. Where private providers are applying for specific designation of a course for the first time BIS undertakes due diligence checks. These checks include consideration of management and governance, financial stability and longevity of an organisation. If the Department is satisfied that the course meets the course eligibility criteria; and that the provider does not pose a risk to the use of public funds; the course is specifically designated. Industry: Water Mr MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills if he will make it his policy to encourage water using industries to relocate to English regions where there is no water shortage. [98287]

Mr Prisk: No. Decisions on location are best made by businesses themselves, taking account of all relevant factors including water supply. Office of Fair Access: Manpower John Glen: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how many staff he expects to be employed by the Office of Fair Access in (a) 2011-12 [98194] and (b) 2012-13. Mr Willetts: This is a matter for the Director of Fair Access. This year we have increased the budget of the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) from £484,000 to over £700,000 and I understand that 11 staff are currently employed at OFFA, excluding the Director. The Government have committed through the White Paper to strengthen OFFA so it can provide a more active and energetic challenge and support to universities and colleges. In the White Paper, we said we will make significantly more resources available, increasing capacity up to around four times its original level, and equipping OFFA to use fully its powers to promote access and monitor and review Access Agreements. We are discussing OFFA’s budget for 2012-13 with the current Director to ensure he has the resources he needs to discharge his responsibilities effectively. The new Director for Fair Access will take up the role later this year and we will want to discuss the issue of resources with him at the earliest opportunity. Overseas Trade: Egypt

Higher Education

Steve McCabe: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what information his Department holds on export contracts with the Egyptian government under UK Export Finance that are for [96517] military use.

Shabana Mahmood: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what factors he takes into account when designating a higher education [98841] course.

Norman Lamb: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 12 December 2011, Official Report, column 527W, to the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier).

785W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

South West Regional Development Agency: Pay Jake Berry: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills whether staff employed by the South West England Development Agency received retention bonuses after the announcement by the Government of the abolition of regional development [98376] agencies. Mr Prisk: The eight regional development agencies have put in place arrangements to secure the retention of key staff until the agencies are closed. They have made these arrangements with the approval of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), and HM Treasury. This is to safeguard the taxpayer’s interest in the efficient and timely closure of the agencies. A retention payment process had been recommended to be put into place by the National Audit Office. At the South West Regional Development Agency to date, two staff have received retention payments on completing their duties when they were made redundant. Trading Standards Mr Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what recent estimate he has made of the number of problems for consumers arising from faulty goods and services purchased within the last 12 months; what assessment he has made of the total consumer detriment arising from faulty goods and services; [98278] and if he will make a statement. Norman Lamb: Between 1 March 2011 and 29 February 2012, 255,000 consumers contacted Consumer Direct about faulty goods and services, which represents 28% of all consumer problems reported to them. Based on the reported value of these faulty goods or services, Consumer Direct estimate the total value of the goods and services involved at around £344 million, but this value is not necessarily the same as the actual losses suffered or the detriment caused. However, it is difficult to estimate with any certainty the total number of problems arising from faulty goods and services and any consequent consumer detriment if the problems are not satisfactorily resolved because most issues do not result in any formal complaint. Consumer detriment is particularly difficult to define and measure. However, in 2008 the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) estimated that one type of detriment—that suffered by consumers post-transaction—amounted to £6.6 billion per annum arising out of an estimated 26.5 million cases of consumer mistreatment. University Technical Colleges Julie Elliott: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what recent discussions (a) he and (b) officials in his Department have had with the Department for Education on the establishment of [98302] university teaching schools. Mr Willetts: There have been no recent discussions on the establishment of university training schools.

Written Answers

786W

Julie Elliott: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (1) what criteria his Department used to determine which universities to invite to attend meetings about establishing a university teaching school; on which dates universities that had expressed an interest were invited to attend such meetings; and which universities attended the meetings; [98304]

(2) which universities have registered an interest in [98414] establishing a university teaching school. Mr Gibb: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Department for Education. In the White Paper: ’The Importance of Teaching’, we said that we would invite higher education providers of initial teacher training to open university training schools. Officials from the Department and the Training and Development Agency have been responding to universities who have expressed an interest. The Department has not published formal criteria as yet so has not invited any universities to attend meetings. Our working assumption has been that universities will run a school, provide outstanding initial teacher training and continuing professional development and undertake research. We aim to make an announcement shortly. Independent of this announcement, the Institute of Education, in partnership with a group of parents, submitted an application last year. As the Free School bid had many of the features of a prospective university training school all of the parties involved agreed to develop the proposal as a pathfinder UTS and this is now progressing through the Department’s Free School application process. The university of Birmingham has also registered an interest in setting up a university training school as part of their proposals submitted this year. Universities, which would like to discuss their plans to set up a university training school, should contact Michele Marr at the Training and Development Agency (TDA) at: [email protected]

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE Departmental Ethnic Minority Staff Mr Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many and what proportion of senior civil servants in his Department were from an ethnic minority in March (a) 2010, (b) 2011 and (c) [98874] 2012; and if he will make a statement. Gregory Barker: The number and proportion of senior civil servants in the Department for Energy and Climate Change are shown in the following table: Date

Number

Proportion (%)

March 2010 3 4 March 2011 3 3 4 4 December 20111 1 The data for March 2012 are not yet available but will be published in our annual accounts. The data shown are the latest available.

787W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

The full diversity data for our senior civil servants are published in our annual accounts, the latest of which can be viewed at: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/about/our_goals/ annual_reports/annual_reports.aspx

Written Answers

788W

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/corporate-publications/ ministers-meetings-overseas.shtml

Information for the period 1 July 2011 to 31 December 2011 has yet to be published. Carer’s Allowance

Natural Gas: Exploration Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what assessment he has made of the scientific study undertaken by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Colorado, Boulder, on the leakage levels of methane gas from drilling for shale gas published in Nature on 9 February 2012; and what requirements there are on companies drilling for shale gas in the UK to monitor and publicly report levels of methane leakage. [98398]

Charles Hendry: The Environment Agency has commissioned a study to investigate the monitoring and control of unplanned emissions of methane from unconventional gas operations which will include a survey of the relevant literature. This study will help the agency to understand how fugitive emissions can be quantified, managed and minimised. DECC petroleum production licences contain provisions that require the licensee to prevent the escape of hydrocarbons, and there are controls on the venting of gas within the Energy Act 1976. DECC has also commissioned a separate piece of research which will assess how we should incorporate any methane emissions from this activity in our greenhouse gas inventory, which forms the basis for our international emissions reporting obligation under the Kyoto protocol. Renewable Energy: Feed-in Tariffs Alex Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what estimate he has made of the expected levels of take-up for the Green Deal in relation to households installing photovoltaics. [96544] Gregory Barker: The Green Deal may offer an attractive route to householders considering installing solar PV and wishing to improve the energy performance of their property in order to be eligible for the highest tariffs available under the feed-in tariffs scheme, but we have not quantified this.

Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people ceased to receive carer’s allowance due to receipt of (a) a pension and (b) another income replacement benefit in (i) England, (ii) the North West and (iii) Cumbria in each of the last [98653] five years. Maria Miller: Information on why a person no longer receives carer’s allowance is not collected. Housing Benefit Mr Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people’s local housing allowance was paid direct to their landlord in (a) the London borough of Bexley and (b) London in the latest period [97426] for which figures are available. Steve Webb: The information is in the following table: Housing benefit claimants subject to local housing allowance, November 2011 London borough of London Bexley Housing benefit claimants subject 218,320 4,160 to local housing allowance Of which paid to landlord 49,520 990 Notes: 1. The figures refer to benefit units which may be a single person or a couple. 2. The figures have been rounded to the nearest 10. 3. SHBE is a monthly electronic scan of claimant level data direct from local authority computer systems. Over time this will improve the accuracy, timeliness and level, of detail available in the published statistics, as the information supplied is quality assured. Source: Single Housing Benefit Extract (SHBE)

Mortgages: Government Assistance

Atos Healthcare

Mr Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many older people in receipt of pension credit and payments towards housing cost, excluding housing benefit, are in receipt of a support for mortgage interest payment to meet the interest cost on loans taken out for the purpose of undertaking home improvements; and what the average weekly payment in such cases was in the latest period for which figures [96667] are available.

Kevin Brennan: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when (a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department have met the chief executive officer of Atos since May 2010; and what was discussed on each [97121] occasion.

Steve Webb: The information is not available. The Department’s administrative data cannot reliably identify people who receive support in respect of home improvement loans, as they are often consolidated into the main mortgage loan.

Chris Grayling: This Department has published on a quarterly basis since October 2009, details of all ministerial meetings with external organisations. The information you have requested can be found via the attached link to the Department’s website:

Nuclear Information

WORK AND PENSIONS

Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what rules have been made by the Office for Nuclear Regulation to prevent the unauthorised

789W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

transmission of nuclear information; and whether he is [96331] aware of any breaches of any such rules. Chris Grayling: It is the responsibility of all staff of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to ensure that HSE’s assets are given adequate protection, including the security of the information they use. This responsibility includes staff of the Office for Nuclear Regulation, which is an agency within HSE. Guidance to ensure staff are able to understand and adhere to HSE security policies and practices is published on HSE’s intranet. The guidance is fully open under Open Government provisions. A breach of these policies and practices occurred in November 2011. While abroad, a member of ONR personnel lost an unencrypted USB pen driver containing safety information about a UK nuclear power station. The document was marked ‘restricted’ but did not contain any significantly sensitive information. An internal investigation was conducted and work is in hand to ensure that lessons are learnt. Pensions John Glen: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the cost of administering an increase in the basic state pension of [98193] 25 pence for recipients over the age of 80. Steve Webb: The 25p increase in state pensions, the Age Addition, is currently made to recipients aged 80 or over. Payments are made automatically as part of the person’s ongoing state pension entitlement. The DWP does not maintain data on the specific administrative costs of Age Addition. Redundancy: Private Sector Susan Elan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were made redundant from jobs in the private sector in each of the [98779] last three years. Mr Hurd: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Cabinet Office. The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply. Letter from Stephen Penneck, dated March 2012: As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking how many people were made redundant from jobs in the private sector in each of the last three years [98779]. The requested information is not available. Official estimates of redundancies are derived from the Labour Force Survey. However, the details required to identify how many of those redundancies are in the private sector are not collected.

Social Security Benefits Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 7 February 2012, Official Report, column 238W, on social security benefits, how many working-age households in (a) the Borough of Halton, (b) Cheshire, (c) Merseyside and (d) England were in receipt of benefits that totalled more than the proposed benefit cap under the

Written Answers

790W

provisions of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 excluding those households which are exempted in the latest period for which figures are available. [98313] Chris Grayling: In the borough of Halton it is estimated that fewer than 100 households will be affected by the cap, when it is introduced in the financial year 2013-14. The combined total for Cheshire East, Cheshire West and Chester, and Warrington authority areas is 300 households. The combined total for Liverpool, St. Helens, Sefton, Wirral and Knowsley authority areas is 1,000 households. The estimate for England as a whole is 61,600 households. The figures presented above are consistent with the recent Impact Assessment published on 23 January 2012. This assumes that the situation of these households will go unchanged, and they will not take any steps to either work enough hours to qualify for working tax credit, renegotiate their rent in situ, or find alternative accommodation. In all cases the Department is working to support households through this transition, using existing provision through Jobcentre Plus and the Work Programme to move as many into work as possible. It is important to note that these estimates were produced before the additional easements announced on 1 February which included the exemption of households who were in receipt of the support component of employment and support allowance and a nine-month grace period for claimants who were in work for 52 weeks or more before the start of their claim. This means that these figures are subject to change. Social Security Benefits: Hyndburn Graham Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in the Hyndburn borough council area receive combined benefits at the rate of (a) £2,000, (b) £1,600 and (c) £1,000 a month which will be affected by the benefits cap proposed in [97192] the Welfare Reform Bill. Chris Grayling: The information requested about the combined benefits that people receive is not available. On 23 January 2012 the Department published an updated impact assessment for the household benefit cap. This estimated that in the first year of its implementation (the financial year 2013-14), in Great Britain 67,000 households would be affected by the cap. On 6 February, the breakdown of the number of households we expect to be affected in each local authority was deposited in the House of Commons Library. On the basis of this impact assessment, fewer than 100 households in the Hyndburn borough council area will be affected. It is important to note that these estimates were produced before the additional easements announced on 1 February which included the exemption of households who were in receipt of the support component of employment and support allowance and a nine-month grace period for claimants who were in work for 52 weeks or more before the start of their claim. This means that these figures are subject to change, ahead of the Welfare Reform Bill gaining Royal Assent. We will consider the scope for further analysis of the households when we prepare the revised impact assessment following Royal Assent.

791W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

As set out in the impact assessment, these figures are based on the assumption that the situation of these households will go unchanged, and they will not take any steps to either work enough hours to qualify for working tax credit, renegotiate their rent in situ, or find alternative accommodation. In practice, for all of these households the Department is working to support households through this transition, using existing provision through Jobcentre Plus and the Work programme to move as many into work as possible. Social Security Benefits: Northern Ireland Dr McCrea: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what representations he has received from voluntary organisations in Northern Ireland over [93550] his proposed benefit reform; (2) what discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive over his proposed benefit reform. [93551]

Chris Grayling: Welfare Reform will bring significant benefits to people throughout the United Kingdom including that work will always pay, targeted support for disabled people, fairness and equality, affordability and simplification. Northern Ireland is responsible for its own social security system. However, there is an expectation that the NI and GB systems will operate in parallel under what is termed the parity principle. Under this arrangement the same benefits are paid at the same rates subject to the same conditions and rules. To achieve this aim discussions take place regularly with the Northern Ireland Executive on all new legislation at both a ministerial and official level. Northern Ireland stakeholders have responded to consultation exercises on measures in the GB Bill and the Northern Ireland Executive has also carried out its own separate consultation exercises. Ministers have met with a wide range of organisations to discuss the Bill. Universal Credit: Housing Benefit Ann Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the number of weeks’ rent arrears will be which will trigger direct payment of housing benefit on the application of a social landlord following the introduction of universal credit. [97097] Chris Grayling: The Government are committed to supporting, working-age recipients of housing benefit make the transition to a single monthly direct payment of benefit as part of universal credit. This change is seen as key to helping people develop the financial management skills required to move with ease from benefits into work by mirroring a regular salary. Maintaining single payment is also important so that claimants can see clearly the effect of their decisions about work on total household income. Although most of those in the private rented sector are already used to receiving their payments directly and managing their finances accordingly, it is recognised that for others, including many in the social rented sector, the change may raise additional challenges. On 19 January, DWP announced five housing benefit demonstration projects which will involve selected local authorities, housing association partnerships and between

Written Answers

792W

10,000 and 12,000 social housing sector housing benefit customers nationwide. One of the key aims of these projects is to look at the range and level of support that different customers will need to help them to manage their finances, including how intervention can be best targeted if they start to struggle with meeting payments. In exceptional circumstances, alternative payment arrangements may be needed to support them in the move to universal credit. We are working with housing associations, local authorities and claimant representative groups to determine the circumstances in which we would consider making such alternative arrangements. This work will be informed by the outcome of the demonstration projects, factoring in independent evaluation of the projects conducted by the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Conflict Prevention Rushanara Ali: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures his Department plans to use to assess the effectiveness of its governance and conflict programme. [97811] Mr O’Brien: The Department for International Development (DFID) measures the effectiveness of its governance and conflict work at both country and aggregate levels. Information on how we measure progress against our objectives is available on the DFID website. The DFID Business Plan and Results Frameworks include indicators for our governance and conflict programmes; for example, ″Number of women and girls with improved access to security and justice services through DFID support″. All DFID Country Offices have published Operational Plans which will be revised annually. Each contains a results framework setting out the high level outcomes we are seeking to achieve, including governance and conflict results. Progress is reported annually. Individual conflict and governance programmes set out specific results they intend to achieve through their lifetime. Effectiveness in achieving these results is regularly monitored, and assessed in a project completion report at the end of the programme. In addition, all DFID Country Offices are required to develop, publish and implement an evaluation strategy, in accordance with international best practice guidelines set out by the OECD. A number of Country Offices plan to have evaluations of projects in the area of governance over the next few years. Corruption Emily Thornberry: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will place in the Library a copy of the report on UK anti-corruption policy which was recently prepared for his Department. [97860]

Mr Duncan: Copies of the report “Enhancing Action against international Corruption Annual Review 2011”, referred to in The Times newspaper on 22 February 2012, will be deposited in the House Library.

793W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

794W

Developing Countries: Health Services

Private Sector

Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps his Department is taking to help pharmaceutical companies assist with the development of (a) HIV/AIDS, (b) tuberculosis, (c) malaria, (d) maternity and (e) other health [98535] programmes in developing countries.

Rushanara Ali: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures his Department plans to use to assess the effectiveness of its private sector programme. [97810]

Mr O’Brien: The Department for International Development (DFID) supported the establishment of the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) through our contributions to UNITAID. This has the potential to increase access to more appropriate and affordable anti-retrovirals in developing countries. The UK continues to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to engage actively with the MPP. The UK’s contributions to UNITAID also increases access to quality-assured treatments for malaria and tuberculosis in low-income countries by using innovative, global market-based approaches to make treatment products more affordable and widely available. The UK’s increased support to the United Nations Population Fund helped Bayer HealthCare Jadelle reduce the price of its five year contraceptive implant, and save thousands more women’s lives. The UK works closely with a number of pharmaceutical companies that donate drugs that combat neglected tropical diseases. For example DFID and GSK jointly support the Liverpool School for Tropical Medicine’s programme to control lymphatic filaria. DFID supports a range of product development partnerships (PDPs) that work as virtual pharmaceutical companies to develop new drugs, vaccines and diagnostic tools (technologies) for developing countries. PDPs are developed by a range of different partners including large pharmaceutical companies and those in middle income countries. There is a strong track record of PDPs working with, and leveraging funding from, the private sector including pharmaceutical companies to help further their aims. DFID is a founding member of the Harnessing NonState Actors for Better Health for the Poor (HANSHEP) group established in 2010. This seeks to improve the performance of the private sector (PS) in delivering better health care for the poor. Developing Countries: HIV Infection Mr Virendra Sharma: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when he expects to achieve the target for universal access to treatment for [98852] patients with HIV/AIDS. Mr O’Brien: The UK is committed to scaling up HIV diagnosis, treatment, care and support, and supporting international commitments to get 15 million people on treatment by 2015. We set out our plans in an HIV position paper, ‘Towards Zero Infections’, in May 2011. The UK is working with the pharmaceutical industry to increase the number of people on life saving treatment to help meet unmet need, driving down costs for medicines, securing lower prices and better value for money. Work with the Clinton Health Access Initiative to lower the price of the drug tenofovir will generate enough cost-savings to buy medicines for an additional 500,000 people by 2015. Support to the Global Fund will provide 268,000 HIV positive people with treatment and 37,000 women with treatment to prevent transmission to their babies.

Mr O’Brien: All of the Department for International Development’s (DFID’s) programmes—including private sector programmes—are subject to a rigorous assessment process. Information on how we measure progress against our objectives is available on the DFID website: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/About-us/How-we-measure-progress/

The DFID Business Plan and Results Framework (both available at the link above) include indicators for our work with the private sector; for example, ″The number of people with access to financial services as a result of DFID support″. For DFID Country Offices and UK-based Departments, the measures of effectiveness are available in the relevant Operational Plans: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/What-we-do/Publications/?p-OP

and at project level through the project database: http://projects.dfid.gov.uk/

Rushanara Ali: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how his Department’s private sector programme funding will be delivered; and which bodies and organisations will be involved in delivery. [97812]

Mr O’Brien: The Department for International Development’s (DFID’s) work with the private sector is implemented through a range of funding mechanisms and implementation, partners. A case-by-case approach is taken to programme design to ensure maximum value for money and implementing partners include multilateral organisations, civil society organisations, and the private sector. Further information on implementation of private sector programmes, including on the bodies and organisations that will be involved in delivery, can be found in the relevant Operational Plans: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/What-we-do/Publications/?p=OP

and project database: http://projects.dfid.gov.uk/

Rushanara Ali: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what objectives his Department [97813] has set for its private sector programme. Mr O’Brien: The Department for International Development’s (DFID’s) work with the private sector is about generating opportunity and prosperity for poor people in developing countries. This work will deliver results for poor people through: better job opportunities and incomes; more readily available and affordable finance for households and small businesses; and more accessible, better quality healthcare, schooling and basic services. More detail on DFID’s approach to working with the private sector is contained within the paper titled ″The Engine of Development: The Private Sector and Prosperity for Poor People″

795W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/News-Stories/2011/ Mitchell-Harness-dynamism-and-energy-of-privateenterprise-in-international-development/

DFID’s priorities and headline results can be found in the business plan and results framework http://www.dfid.gov.uk/About-us/How-we-measure-progress/

Country offices’ and UK-based departments’ objectives are available in the relevant operational plans http://www.dfid.gov.uk/What-we-do/Publications/?p=OP

and project level objectives are available on the project database http://projects.dfid.gov.uk/

Rushanara Ali: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion and how much in real terms of his Department’s budget will be allocated to private sector projects in each year of the [97814] comprehensive spending review period. Mr O’Brien: The Department for International Development (DFID) does not allocate a specific proportion of the budget to private sector projects. The DFID annual report and accounts 2010-11 set out the plans for the priority pillars for the four years of the spending review period and private sector department plans for the next two years. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her on 7 September 2011, Official Report, column 704W: ‘For planning purposes the Department for International Development (DFID) allocates money by priority pillars. The pillars are wealth creation, governance & security, climate change and global partnerships, as well as DFID funding in support of the Millennium Development Goals (education, health, water & sanitation and humanitarian assistance).’

DFID’s new private sector department will play a key role in promoting private sector activities within wealth creation, as well as the other pillars. More detail on DFID’s approach to working with the private sector is contained within the paper titled ″The Engine of Development: The Private Sector and Prosperity for Poor People″. This can be found on the DFID website: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/News-Stories/2011/ Mitchell-Harness-dynamism-and-energy-of-privateenterprise-in-international-development/

For more information on current activities in this area and budget allocations please see the DFID annual report and accounts 2010-11, which can also be found on the DFID website: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/about-us/how-we-measure-progress/ annual-report/

Further information on DFID projects/programmes can be accessed from our Project Information Database http://projects.dfid.gov.uk/

individual country pages http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Where-we-work/

and in the DFID departmental operational plans http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Site-search/?g=operational+plans

on the DFID website. Somaliland Alun Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what (a) development assistance and (b) other aid his Department provided to Somaliland (i) in each year from 2005 to 2010 and

Written Answers

796W

(ii) in the first half of 2011; and what the difference was between commitments and disbursements in each period. [97602] Mr Andrew Mitchell: The Department for International Development (DFID) does not compile formal aid expenditure statistics broken down at sub-national level, or records commitment’s separately for actual aid spending. UK bilateral aid expenditure to Somalia (including Somaliland) for each year 2005-06 to 2010-11, is given in the following table: DFID bilateral aid—Somalia

Total (£000)

of which: Humanitarian assistance

2005-06 18,740 15,589 2006-07 16,631 7,975 2007-08 25,714 13,675 2008-09 33,471 18,288 2009-10 44,431 31,900 2010-11 46,060 29,855 Source: Statistics on International Development, 2011, 2010 http://www.dfid.gov.uk/About-us/How-we-measure-progress/AidStatistics/

In the year 2011-12, the UK intends to spend up to £103 million across Somalia, focused on heath services, private sector development, governance and peace-building and humanitarian assistance, subject to results. Up to 60% of this development funding (not including humanitarian aid) from 2011-12 to 2014-15 will be to Somaliland, dependent on results achieved. Sudan: Debts Mr Ivan Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether (a) bilateral and (b) multilateral arrangements have been made with Sudan in respect of debt relief; and what conditions Sudan will need to meet before it qualifies for debt [93190] relief. Mr Andrew Mitchell: The UK has led international efforts to establish a technical working group to oversee the progress on the technical steps required before Sudan can receive debt relief, which last meet in September 2011. Additionally we have made clear on a number of occasions to the Sudanese Government that debt relief remains conditional on the need to see genuine progress towards inclusive peace and justice in Sudan, and resolving the outstanding issues from the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Syria Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in Homs; what plans are being made for the distribution of food and [98241] aid; and if he will make a statement. Mr Andrew Mitchell: We are gravely concerned about the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Syria. The UK has provided assistance to humanitarian agencies working in Homs and other areas to support emergency medical services and supplies for injured civilians, food rations for over 20,000 people, and other basic services, such as emergency water for 2,750 people. In addition,

797W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

the UK has increased core funding significantly to humanitarian agencies this year such as UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and World Food Programme (WFP) to cover their ongoing operations all over the world, including in this region. Although humanitarian agencies are able to meet the needs of some of those in need, the actions of Assad and his regime are making it incredibly difficult to reach all civilians. We are continuing to call on the regime to allow unhindered and sustained access into the Baba Amr neighbourhood in Homs and other areas for humanitarian agencies to distribute aid and evacuate the civilians that are most in need. We welcome the Syria Humanitarian Forum on Thursday 8 March, jointly chaired by UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the Arab League, which will bring the international community together to mobilize the humanitarian response. West Africa Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reports he has received on the humanitarian situation in Niger and Mali caused by drought and conflict; and what steps he is taking to provide humanitarian assistance to aid [98248] agencies. Mr Andrew Mitchell: In direct response to severe food shortages in the region, in January I announced an urgent package of UK support to help mitigate the crisis. British aid will help treat 83,000 severely malnourished children in Niger, Chad and Mali and provide emergency livelihood support to some 34,000 families to enable them to buy food for the coming months. In addition, British aid is already reaching those in need across the Sahel through the release of £10.7 million from the United Nation’s Central Emergency Response Fund—to which Britain is a major contributor. Over the last couple of weeks the EC Humanitarian Office (ECHO) has revised its assessment of the food crisis in the Sahel. Currently, ECHO estimates that almost 12 million men, women and children across the Sahel region of West Africa are at risk of food shortages in the coming months. Of these, nearly 3 million are estimated to be at severe risk. These figures are expected to rise as the annual hungry period between harvests has started early this year. An upsurge in fighting between Tuareg rebels and the Malian Government has resulted in the displacement of 130,000 people; with 65,000 of these fleeing into neighbouring countries. In Niger and Burkina Faso, the refugees have arrived in some of the areas worst affected by food insecurity. My officials continue to monitor the situation closely, and liaise with their opposite numbers in other Governments to ensure other countries take their fair share of the response. WOMEN AND EQUALITIES Equalities and Human Rights Commission John McDonnell: To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities when the Equality and Human Rights Commission will publish its revised departmental strategic plan to reflect the changes to its services and staff [98545] numbers in the last 12 months.

Written Answers

798W

Lynne Featherstone: The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s strategic plan for 2012-15 will be published shortly. Equalities and Human Rights Commission: Scotland Ann McKechin: To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities how many frontline staff the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (a) employs and (b) will employ after the new organisational design has been [98420] implemented in Scotland. Lynne Featherstone [holding answer 6 March 2012]: The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is an arm’s length body; the following is based on information it has provided. The EHRC currently employs eight staff in Scotland that work directly on its helpline. The EHRC employs a further 27 staff in Scotland; many of these individuals have direct contact with external organisations and individuals as part of their day-to-day responsibilities. The number of staff who will be employed in Scotland after the new organisational design has been implemented will be determined by the EHRC in due course, as a result of ongoing work and consultations.

EDUCATION Academies Andrew Bridgen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what his policy is on the formation of military [97856] academies; and if he will make a statement. Mr Gibb: Ministers have read with interest the report ‘Military Academies: Tackling disadvantage, improving ethos and changing outcomes’, published by ResPublica in January this year. I welcome the role the military and cadet forces can play in engaging young people. The Department is currently considering the ideas set out in this paper. Academies: Private Finance Initiative Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether the annual charges for private finance initiative contracts on schools which subsequently take independent academy status are paid by the school or by the local education authority; and whether the financial allowances of local education authorities will be increased [98373] to limit any effect on other schools. Mr Gibb: Under a private finance initiative (PFI) contract the local authority (LA) is normally responsible for paying the unitary charge to the PFI contractor throughout the lifetime of the contract. When a school becomes an academy, there should be no change and the local authority continues to pay this charge. LAs receive contributions towards the unitary charge from maintained schools involved in the PFI contract. Schools that become academies continue to make that contribution to the LA. LAs also receive revenue funding from the Department as a contribution to the PFI unitary charge. This funding continues whether or not schools become academies.

799W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Sometimes, the LA arrangements are such that the contributions from their schools plus the departmental revenue funding do not fully meet the unitary charge. Any shortfall is met by the LA. Again, arrangements are in place for this to continue when a school becomes an academy. The LA receives no extra funding since the arrangements described above are designed to make sure that the funding available to a LA for the unitary charge prior to a school in its area becoming an academy is the same as after the school has taken academy status.

Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what the name is of each publicly-funded boarding school or school with boarding houses; in which local authority each such school is located; how many pupils are on the roll at each school; and what proportion of pupils at each school (a) are eligible for free school meals, (b) have special educational needs, (c) are from ethnic minorities and (d) have been selected on the [96496] basis of (i) academic ability and (ii) aptitude. Mr Gibb: The available information has been placed in the House Libraries. The table shows which of the boarding schools are classed as wholly selective. Other than this, information on the proportion of pupils that are selected on the basis of academic ability is not collected. Information on selection by aptitude is not collected.

Mr Graham Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the cost per pupil of each school that has so far been built through the Building Schools for the Future programme. [97554]

Mr Gibb: Building Schools for the Future (BSF) projects were funded on pupil numbers, and the funding for floor space was calculated on the basis of 50% new build, 35% refurbishment and 15% minor works. This provided an overall funding envelope, and it was decided locally how the funds were invested across groups of schools within a project. Local authorities and schools could supplement those resources if they wished to. The following table shows the capital cost per pupil, excluding any local authority contribution, for those completed schools for which we have complete and validated data.

Type of school

Minimum cost per pupil

Secondary 17,090 Special 81,932 educational needs Pupil referral 38,258 units 1 Includes residential accommodation.

2,502 32,975

30,479

Type of school

Average cost per pupil

Minimum cost per pupil

£ Maximum cost per pupil

10,245

2,386

17,463

Food Technology: Curriculum Anna Soubry: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to include the teaching of practical cooking skills in schools in his Department’s [97987] curriculum review. Mr Gibb: Schools have an important role to play in ensuring that children and young people learn practical cooking skills and acquire the knowledge that will equip them to prepare healthy meals. Whether we can best support schools to play that role by including practical cooking in the statutory curriculum is a matter that we will give consideration to as the current review of the National Curriculum proceeds. We will be announcing our proposals later this year. Free School Meals

Building Schools for the Future Programme

Average cost per pupil

800W

higher specification and have significantly fewer pupils than mainstream secondary schools. There are also 68 academies which are in procurement or construction through the BSF framework. These projects are significantly less expensive as a result of cost savings from a reduction in area and reduced specification.

Academies

Boarding Schools

Written Answers

£ Maximum cost per pupil 31,350 187,325

1

46,038

The variation in cost per pupil reflects the range of projects, from major rebuilding to minor refurbishments. Special educational need schools and pupil referral units have a higher cost per pupil as they are built to a

Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the future of free [91665] school meals. Mr Gibb: I have regular meetings with Ministers in the Department of Work and Pensions about the future of free school meals. Ministers and officials from both Departments are considering the options for new eligibility criteria. The Department for Education will consult on free school meal eligibility proposals in 2012, ahead of the introduction of universal credit from October 2013. Hilary Benn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education which English local authorities provided free school meals in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the most recent period for which figures are [97792] available. Mr Gibb: Wherever there is a child that is eligible for and claiming free school meals the school has to provide a meal. There are, therefore, no local authorities in England which do not provide any free school meals. Information on the number of pupils eligible for and claiming free school meals by local authority as at January 2011 is published in tables 11a and 11b of the Statistical First Release ’Schools, Pupils and their Characteristics, January 2011’ available at http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001012/ index.shtml

801W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

802W

GCSE

Literacy: Secondary Education

Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many and what proportion of pupils received grades at (a) A, (b) B, (c) C and (d) D or below in GCSE (i) English language, (ii) mathematics and (iii) combined science from (A) AQA, (B) CCEA, (C) Edexcel, (D) OCR and (E) WJEC in each year [96663] since 2000.

Fabian Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures his Department has put in place to identify and support GCSE students with poor reading and comprehension skills; and if he will make a [98048] statement.

Mr Gibb: The information requested has been placed in the House Libraries. Information for years prior to 2008 can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Mr Gibb: Decisions on how to identify and support secondary school pupils with poor reading and comprehension skills are best made at a local level. It is the responsibility of schools to identify and support those pupils all stages, including at GCSE. Mathematics: GCSE

Mr Graham Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what support and resources will be given to teachers to help them implement proposed changes to GCSEs in geography, history, English literature and [98160] mathematics. Mr Gibb: The Government are committed to restoring confidence in GCSEs as rigorous and valued qualifications. I therefore welcome the action being taken by the independent regulator, Ofqual, to help ensure that GCSEs in these subjects are challenging, requiring students to demonstrate that they have covered the appropriate range and depth of subject content. It will be for the Awarding Organisations to set out for schools and colleges the changes they will be making to these GCSEs as a result. GCSE: Disadvantaged Greg Mulholland: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of pupils entitled to free school meals did not achieve five GCSEs at A* to C in 2011 in (a) England and (b) Leeds North West [97001] constituency. Mr Gibb: The information requested can be found in the following table. Figures for Leeds North West constituency for 2010/11 will not be available until around mid March 2012. Percentage of pupils1,2,3 not achieving 5 A*- C grades at GCSE and equivalent in Leeds North West constituency4 and England5, years: 2009/10 to 2010/11 2009/10 2010/11 Percentage Percentage of pupils of pupils eligible for eligible for Number FSM not Number FSM not of pupils achieving of pupils achieving eligible for 5+ A*-C eligible for 5+ A*-C FSM grades FSM grades England 76,949 41.3 78,797 35.2 Leeds North 118 53.4 West constituency 1 Figures do not include pupils recently arrived from overseas. 2 Figures include all maintained schools {including CTCs and academies). 3 Pupils at the end of Key Stage 4 in each academic year. 4 Parliamentary constituency figures are based on the postcode of the school. 5 England figures are the sum of all local authority figures. Source: National Pupil Database (2009/10 final data, 2010/11 revised data)

Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students taking GCSE mathematics in Gillingham and Rainham constituency achieved a pass rate of A* to C in the most recent period for which figures are available; and how many such students continued [96723] to study that subject at A-level. Mr Gibb: Estimates of the number of pupils in Gillingham and Rainham constituency entering and achieving A*-C grades in maths, for the cohort who completed Key Stage 4 in 2007/08, are shown in Table 1 as follows. The number and proportion of these who went on to enter maths AS-levels by 2008/09, and maths A-levels by 2009/10, are shown in Tables 2 and 3 respectively. Table 1: Number of pupils1, 2, 3 entering maths GCSE and percentage achieving A*-C grades4, 5 in Gillingham and Rainham constituency6, 2007/08 Number of pupils: Percentage Achieving achieving GCSE subject Taking maths A*-C A*-C grades Maths

1,088

572

53

1, 2, 3

Table 2: Number and percentage of pupils achieving maths GCSE at A*-C4, 5 who entered maths7 AS-levels by 2008/09 From GCSE A*-C AS-level maths Number of pupils achieving Percentage of GCSE subject A*-C Number A*-C Maths

572

44

8

Table 3: Number and percentage of pupils1, 2, 3 achieving maths GCSE at A*-C4, 5 who entered maths7 A-levels by 2009/10 From GCSE A*-C A-level maths Number of pupils achieving Percentage of GCSE subject A*-C Number A*-C Maths 572 38 7 1 Figures do not include pupils recently arrived from overseas. 2 Figures include all maintained schools (including CTCs and academies). 3 Pupils at the end of Key Stage 4 in the 2007/08 academic year. 4 Percentage achieving A*- C based on the number of pupils entering each subject. 5 Including attempts and achievements by these pupils in previous academic years. 6 Parliamentary constituency figures are based on the postcode of the school. 7 Includes maths, mechanics, pure, applied, discrete, statistics, further and additional maths. Source: National Pupil Database

803W

Written Answers

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

804W

Military Academies

Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education

Andrew Bridgen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent representations he has received on the proposed formation of military academies.

Mark Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects the internal review of personal, social, health and economic education to be published.

[96920]

[97270]

Mr Gibb: I have met my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) and Colonel Hugh Purcell to discuss a range of issues including military academies. Ministers have also read with interest the report ″Military Academies: Tackling disadvantage, improving ethos and changing outcomes″ published by ResPublica in January this year. I welcome the role the military and cadet forces can play in engaging young people, and I have asked officials from the Department to discuss with the Reserves Forces and Cadets Association the ideas set out in this paper. Ofsted: Inspections

Mr Gibb: We are currently considering the representations made to the review of personal social health and economic education (PSHE), the national and international research evidence, and views obtained from meetings with stakeholders. We expect to publish proposals on PSHE later this year, after the next stage of the National Curriculum review. Private Education Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education which formerly independent schools have joined the state sector, broken down by (a) local education authority and (b) school type in each of the last five years. [96490]

Elizabeth Truss: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what the cost was of Ofsted inspections of (a) childminders, (b) nurseries and (c) schools in the [97663] latest year for which figures are available. Mr Gibb [holding answer 1 March 2012]: This is a matter for Ofsted. HM Chief Inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, has written to my hon. Friend, and a copy of his response has been placed in the House Libraries. Letter from Sir Michael Wilshaw:

Mr Gibb: The following table sets out the names of independent schools which have joined the state sector in each of the last five years, the local authorities they are sited in and the type of school they have become. Year (January to December) Local authority 2007

Your recent parliamentary question has been passed to me, as Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, for response.

Bolton

The information you have requested is set out in the table. All costs relate to the most recent full year, 2010-11, and include direct and indirect costs plus overheads less income. It should be noted that overall costs in Ofsted have reduced since 2010-11 and are planned to reduce in total by 30% by the end of the Comprehensive Spending Review period in 2014-15.

2010-11 full cost of inspection Schools (s5 Maintained and Independent) Childminders (Registration and Inspection) Early Years, (Registration and Inspection, excluding nurseries in schools and childminders, and noninspection related visits)

Barnet Leicester City

2010-11 direct and indirect costs plus overheads less income (£ million)

Liverpool Manchester

2008

Lambeth Bristol City Bristol City

58.8

Herefordshire

19.6 12.2

Please note that for schools, the costs for 2010-11 show no impact from the changes to inspection frameworks made in January 2012 or the planned framework changes anticipated in September 2012. For Early Years the table shows, as requested, the 2010-11 costs relating to the registration and inspection of child minders separately from the cost of other provision. The costs exclude other ’non-inspection related visits’ such as following up complaints and interviewing new managers to ensure they understand the requirements of the EYFS well enough to deem them to be suitable for their new role. A copy of this reply has been sent to Nick Gibb MP, Minister of State for Schools, and will be placed in the library of both Houses.

School name

School category

Akiva School Madani High School Bolton Muslim Girls School Belvedere Secondary School William Hulme’s Grammar School

VA VA

Iqra Primary School Bristol Cathedral Choir School Colstans Girls’ School Hereford Waldorf School

VA Academy

VA Academy Academy

Academy Academy

2009

Wirral

Birkenhead High School

Academy

2010

Kent

Duke of York’s Royal Military School

Academy

2011

Barnet

Edgware Jewish Primary School Preston Muslim Girls School Harper Bell Seventh Day Adventist School Batley Grammar School Moorlands School

VA

Lancashire Birmingham

Kirklees Luton

VA VA

Free School Free School

805W

Written Answers

Year (January to December) Local authority

7 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

806W

Schools: Capital Investment School name

School category

Lancashire

Maharishi School

Free School

Warwickshire

Priors School

Free School

Cheshire East

Sandbach School

Free School

Schools: Admissions Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of pupils in each local authority in England attending wholly selective secondary schools (a) were eligible for free school meals, (b) had special educational needs and (c) were from ethnic minority families in the latest period for which figures are available; and what the equivalent figures were for (i) the local authority in which these schools are located and (ii) [96493] England. Mr Gibb: The information requested has been placed in the House Libraries. Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many and what proportion of pupils in publicly-funded grammar schools including fully selective academies aged (a) 11 to 18, (b) 11 to 15 and (c) 16 to 18 years were eligible for free school meals in the latest period for [96494] which figures are available. Mr Gibb: The requested information is shown in the following table. State-funded selective schools1, number of pupils known to be eligible for and claiming free school meals by age2,3,4: January 2011, England Selective schools1 Percentage Number known known to be to be eligible for eligible for and Pupils and claiming free claiming free aged: Number on roll school meals3 school meals5 11 to 160,210 3.860 2.4 18 11 to 112,535 3,010 2.7 15 16 to 47,675 850 1.8 18 160,260 3,860 2.4 All pupils6 1 Includes 164 selective secondary schools, including selective academies. 2 Age as at 31 August 2010. 3 Includes all full-time and part-time pupils who are sole or dual main registrations. Includes boarders. 4 The Department’s usual measure of free school meal eligibility includes full time pupils aged 0 to 15 and part time pupils aged five to 15 because far fewer pupils below and over compulsory school age claim for free school meals. 5 Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals expressed as a percentage of number (headcount) of pupils in each age group. 6 Middle deemed secondary schools and all through schools deemed as secondary result in some pupils aged under 11 in secondary schools. Note: Numbers have been rounded to the nearest five. Source: School Census

Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he plans to announce what resources are being allocated to Warrington under his capital programme. [98344]

Mr Gibb [holding answer 6 March 2012]: On 13 December 2011, Official Report, columns 92-5WS, the Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), announced capital funding for all local authorities for 2012-13, including allocations for basic need (funding for additional pupil places) and maintenance. Capital funding totalling £6 million was allocated to Warrington and its schools. This funding does not include an additional £600 million for basic need which was allocated to the Department in the Chancellor’s autumn statement, 29 November 2011, Official Report, columns 799-810. We are considering how best to allocate this funding and an announcement will be made in due course. All applications for funding through the Priority School Building Programme are currently being assessed and an announcement about those projects approved to proceed will be made as soon as possible. Schools: Crimes of Violence David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education pursuant to the answer of 9 February 2012, Official Report, columns 439-40W, on teachers: crimes of violence, what steps he has taken since coming to office to reduce the number of incidents of physical [98103] assaults of teachers. Mr Gibb: The Department deplores any incidents of assault against teachers. The Education Act 2011 contained measures to ensure that teachers and head teachers have the powers they need to restore adult authority in schools. We have already commenced provisions that remove the requirement on schools to give parents 24 hours notice of detention. Provisions in the Act will be commenced shortly that give teachers additional powers to search pupils for any items that have been, or could be, used to cause harm or break the law and for any items banned by school rules. In September 2012, provisions in the Act will be commenced replacing independent appeal panels with independent review panels so that schools cannot be forced to reinstate violent or disruptive pupils who have been permanently excluded. Further provisions that will grant teachers anonymity when facing allegations from, or on behalf of, a pupil will come into force in October 2012. Teachers who have been subjected to abuse or violence should report any such incident to their employer, which in most schools is the governing body or the local authority. Their employer is under a duty of care to address and resolve any issues as swiftly and effectively as possible. Schools: Governing Bodies Mr Burley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he plans to update his Department’s guide to [97529] the law for school governors.

807W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Mr Gibb [holding answer 5 March 2012]: The Government are strongly committed to streamlining the bureaucratic requirements that affect schools and streamlining guidance and other paperwork. We are currently considering the best approach to correcting those sections of the Governors’ Guide to the Law that are out of date. Schools: Standards Andrew Stephenson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have been placed in special [97069] measures by Ofsted in each year since 1992. Mr Gibb: This is a matter for Ofsted. HM Chief Inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, has written to my hon. Friend, and a copy of his response has been placed in the House Libraries. Letter from Sir Michael Wilshaw: Your recent parliamentary question has been passed to me, as Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, for response. The term ’special measures’ was established under the Education Act 1993 and has been incorporated into subsequent legislation. A school made subject to special measures is one where her Majesty’s Chief Inspector is of the opinion that a school is failing to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education and the persons responsible for leading, managing or governing the school are not demonstrating capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the school. Ofsted records all judgements made by inspectors on inspections, including the summative judgement for the overall effectiveness of a school. Information provided in this response includes ail inspections where a school was made subject to special measures between the academic years 1993/94 and 2010/11. The number of schools placed in special measures between 1993/94 and 2010/11 can be found in Table A. A copy of this reply has been sent to Nick Gibb MP, Minister of State for Schools, and will be placed in the library of both Houses. Table A: Schools placed in special measures in each academic year 1993/94 to 2010/11 Total number of schools placed in Academic year special measures 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

24 82 143 196 272 195 230 137 128 161 213 103 167 186 151 122 227 166

808W

Mr Gibb: This is a matter for Ofsted. HM Chief Inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, has written to my hon. Friend, and a copy of his response has been placed in the House Libraries. Letter from Sir Michael Wilshaw, dated 5 March 2012: Your recent parliamentary question has been passed to me, as Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, for response. The term ‘special measures’ was established under the Education Act 1993 and has been incorporated into subsequent legislation. A school made subject to special measures is one where her Majesty’s Chief Inspector is of the opinion that a school is failing to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education and the persons responsible for leading, managing or governing the school are not demonstrating capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the school. Accordingly, 2,903 schools have been placed in special measures since the academic year 1993/04, as in the following table.

Academic year

Total number of schools placed in special measures

1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

24 82 143 196 272 195 230 137 128 161 213 103 167 186 151 122 227 166

Ofsted holds figures on the number of special measures judgements for schools, which were corroborated by Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMI), between 2000 and 2009, as in the following table. Ofsted does not hold data centrally about the number of schools where a special measures judgement was changed prior to 2000.

Academic year

Schools moderated from Special Measures to Serious Weaknesses/Notice to Improve1

Schools moderated from Special Measures to Satisfactory

2000/01 to 2008/9 19 4 1 The designation for this judgement changed from ‘serious weaknesses’ to ‘notice to improve’ during the period in question.

In 2009, the responsibility for this work transferred to Ofsted’s Quality Assurance Division. The following figures show the number of special measures judgements that have changed in each academic year since 2009.

Academic year

Andrew Stephenson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have successfully appealed against being placed in special measures by [97070] Ofsted in each year since 1992.

Written Answers

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12

Schools moderated from Special Measures to Notice to Improve

Schools moderated from Special Measures to Satisfactory

5 5 2

0 1 0

809W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

A school given a notice to improve is, like a school placed in ‘special measures’, judged to be providing an unacceptable standard of education, although the leaders and managers in the former have demonstrated their capacity to improve provision. A copy of this reply has been sent to Nick Gibb MP, Minister of State for Schools, and will be placed in the Library of both Houses.

Schools: Teaching Methods Chris Skidmore: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of children in secondary schools were taught in classes with (a) streaming and (b) setting in each year since 1996-97; and if he will make a statement. [97854] Mr Gibb: Ofsted holds data on the number and proportion of lessons observed during inspections in which setting, streaming or banding by ability is used. Since the data are based on lessons seen by inspectors, they may not represent arrangements in the school as a whole, and may not therefore be an indicator of the use of these forms of grouping at a national level. Ofsted has provided the data on the proportion of observed lessons in secondary schools from September 1996 to August 2011 which were taught in set or streamed classes. This includes all subjects except physical education. The data have been placed in the House Libraries. The Department has not provided specific guidance to schools on setting. However, case studies showing the effective use of setting in schools are available on the Department’s website: http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/pupilsupport/ inclusionandlearnersupport/onetoonetuition/a00199773/ setting-case-studies

Science: GCSE Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students taking GCSE science subjects in Gillingham and Rainham constituency achieved a pass rate of A* to C; and how many such students continued to study science subjects at A-Level in the most recent period for which figures are available. [96722]

Mr Gibb: Estimates of the number of pupils in Gillingham and Rainham constituency entering and achieving A*-C grades in science subjects, for the cohort who completed key stage 4 in 2007/08, are shown in Table 1. The number and proportion of these who went on to enter science AS levels by 2008/09, and science A-levels by 2009/10, are shown in Tables 2 and 3 respectively. Table 1: Number of pupils1,2,3 entering science GCSEs and percentage achieving A*-C grades4,5 in Gillingham and Rainham constituency6, 2007/08 Number of pupils: Percentage achieving taking each achieving A*-C grades GCSE A*-C Biology Chemistry Physics Additional science Core science Source: National Pupil Database

302 157 157 228

165 144 147 130

55 92 94 57

924

394

43

Written Answers

810W

Table 2: Number and percentage of pupils1,2,3 achieving science GCSEs at A*-C4,5 who entered science AS levels by 2008/09 From GCSE A*-C AS level AS level AS level biology chemistry physics No. of pupils GCSE achieving % of % of % of subject A*-C No. A*-C No. A*-C No. A*-C Biology 165 57 35 223 1 20 12 Chemistry 144 55 38 21 15 20 14 Physics 147 54 37 21 14 20 14 Additional 130 10 8 9 7 3 2 science Core 394 11 3 11 3 3 1 science Source: National Pupil Database Table 3: Number and percentage of pupils1,2,3 achieving science GCSEs at A*-C4,5 who entered science A levels by 2009/10 From GCSE A*-C A level A level A level biology chemistry physics Number of pupils GCSE achieving % of % of % of subject A*-C No. A*-C No. A*-C No. A*-C Biology 165 57 35 22 13 20 12 Chemistry 144 55 38 21 15 20 14 Physics 147 54 37 21 14 20 14 7 7 — — Additional 130 6 5 5 4 science 7 7 — — Core 394 7 2 6 2 science 1 Figures do not include pupils recently arrived from overseas. 2 Figures include all maintained schools (including CTCs and academies). 3 Pupils at the end of key stage 4 in the 2007/08 academic year. 4 Percentage achieving A*- C based on the number of pupils entering each subject. 5 Including attempts and achievements by these pupils in previous academic years. 6 Parliamentary constituency figures are based on the postcode of the school. 7 Indicates that a figure of less than three pupils has been suppressed Source: National Pupil Database

Science: Schools Caroline Dinenage: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to encourage more schools to become specialist in science, technology, [97742] engineering and mathematics subjects. Mr Gibb: The Government want all schools to excel in teaching STEM subjects and are doing much to achieve this. Over the current spending review period we will be investing up to £135 million to improve the quality of science and mathematics teaching. Our schools reforms include the development of Teaching Schools, many of which will lead in STEM subjects and use that expertise to help improve the quality of STEM education in other schools. We are also developing University Technical Colleges, all of which will provide opportunities for 14 to 19-year-olds to experience high quality technical education, and we taking forward proposals to develop specialist mathematics schools for 16 to 18-year-olds.

811W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Secondary Education Damian Hinds: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what the (a) unique reference number and (b) establishment number is of each maintained secondary school in England that has been open since at least 2000; how many year 11 students each such school had in 2010; how many pupils at such schools entered GCSE English with WJEC in each year between 2000 and 2010; and what proportion of pupils at such schools attained each grade at GCSE English in each year [97440] between 2000 and 2010. Mr Gibb: This information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost. Students: Finance Michael Ellis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education for what reasons bursary payments for Postgraduate Certificate in Education students were (a) discontinued in the academic year 2011-12 and (b) reintroduced in academic year 2012-13; and whether he plans to reimburse students who started their course in [93352] academic year 2011-12. Mr Gibb: We continued paying training bursaries in academic year 2011/12 to those training in the priority subjects of physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, biology, combined/general science and modern foreign languages. We stopped making them available in other subjects. The training bursaries are an additional incentive to train. All trainees continue to be able to access the student loans and grants paid through the Student Loans Company for which undergraduate students are

Written Answers

812W

eligible. The bursaries were introduced in 2000 during a time of teacher shortages which have since alleviated. We have introduced different bursary arrangements for graduate trainees in 2012/13. The new bursary arrangements have been designed to attract the highest quality graduates into teaching particularly in those subject areas where it is still difficult to recruit enough trainees. They also take account of the higher tuition charge cap. Teachers: Employment Bill Esterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the number of teachers at each teaching grade who are actively seeking employment. [97475]

Mr Gibb [holding answer 1 March 2012]: It is estimated that about 24,000 inactive teachers will actively seek employment in a maintained school or academy in England during the current academic year. This excludes newly qualified teachers who are looking for work in the two years following qualification. The Department does not produce estimates by teaching grade. Teachers: Recruitment Bill Esterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many teachers were recruited at each teaching [97476] grade in each of the last two years. Mr Gibb [holding answer 1 March 2012]: The following table provides the headcount number of qualified teachers taking up a new post in publicly funded schools for the academic years 2008-09 and 2009-10 broken down by grade.

Recruitment of qualified teachers to publicly funded schools, by grade. Years: 2008-097 and 2009-107 Coverage: England Headcount Full-time

2008-09 Part-time1

Full-time

2009-10 Part-time1

Total

Total

Main pay scale Upper pay scale AST and Excellent teacher Total classroom

32,230 3,000 50

6,740 4,430 20

38,960 7,430 70

27,770 2,730 50

6,280 4,410 10

34,050 7,130 60

35,280

11,190

46,470

30,540

10,700

41,240

Leadership grades3

800

100

900

770

130

890

1,690

160

1,850

2,050

170

2,210

37,770

11,450

49,220

33,350

10,990

44,340

Entrants to teaching2 Classroom grades

Unknown4 Total Regrades5 Classroom grades Main pay scale Upper pay scale AST and Excellent teacher Total classroom

4,930 17,930 850

1,200 4,040 70

6,130 21,970 920

4,290 16,790 770

1,100 3,900 50

5,380 20,690 820

23,710

5,310

29,020

21,840

5,050

26,890

Leadership grades3

12,330

520

12,850

10,880

660

11,540

813W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

814W

Recruitment of qualified teachers to publicly funded schools, by grade. Years: 2008-097 and 2009-107 Coverage: England Headcount Full-time

2008-09 Part-time1

Full-time

2009-10 Part-time1

Total

Total

1,410

330

1,740

320

170

490

37,440

6,170

43,610

33,040

5,880

38,920

Main pay scale Upper pay scale AST and Excellent teacher Total classroom

13,830 6,540 100

2,400 2,680 20

16,220 9,220 120

13,850 8,070 140

2,730 3,360 20

16,590 11,430 160

20,470

5,100

25,570

22,060

6,110

28,170

Leadership grades3

1,870

70

1,940

2,910

140

3,050

10

10

20

30

20

50

22,350

5,180

27,520

25,010

6,270

31,270

Main pay scale Upper pay scale AST and Excellent teacher Total classroom

50,990 27,470 1,000

10,340 11,150 110

61,320 38,620 1,110

45,910 27,580 960

10,110 11,670 80

56,010 39,250 1,040

79,460

21,600

101,060

74,440

21,860

96,300

Leadership grades3

14,990

700

15,690

14,550

930

15,480

3,100

500

3,610

2,400

360

2,750

Unknown4 Total Recruitment at the same grade6 Classroom grades

Unknown4 Total All recruitment Classroom grades

Unknown4

Total 97,560 22,790 120,350 91,390 23,140 114,530 1 Part-time figures are underestimated by around 15%. This is due to the underreporting of teachers who have not opted to be members of the Teachers’ Pensions Scheme,. 2 Teachers recorded as ’not in service’ as a qualified teacher in the English publicly funded sector at the commencement of the year including new and re-entrants to teaching and those moving from other education sectors. 3 Information is only available for the leadership group as a whole due to an issue with the recording of individual grades within this group. 4 Includes teachers whose grade is not recorded or qualified teachers recorded on the unqualified pay scale. 5 Teachers who changed grade and were in service in the sector at both the beginning and the end of the year. These include both promotions and moves to posts of lesser responsibility. Figures include movements between grades between and within schools. 6 Teachers who have taken up a new post in a different school at the same grade. Figures are not available for teachers who have taken up a new post in the same school at the same grade, (eg those that have taken on a role with additional responsibility). 7 Provisional. Notes: 1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10. 2. Totals may not add to component parts because of rounding. Source: Database of Teacher Records

Teachers: Redundancy

Workforce Statistical First Release, November 2010, (Provisional)’ at the following web link:

Bill Esterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many teachers at each teaching grade have been [97477] made redundant in the last two years.

http://www.education.gov.uk/researchandstatistics/statistics/ allstatistics/a00196713/school-workforce-sfr

Teachers: Training Mr Gibb [holding answer 1 March 2012]: The information requested is not collected centrally. Information on the number of teachers who retired prematurely in 2010/11 is available in table H4 of the additional tables that were published in the ’School

Simon Hart: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he will consider including a module on organising a school visit in teacher training courses; and if he will [98155] make a statement.

815W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Mr Gibb: The Government recognise the important contribution that school visits can make to engaging and supporting pupils in their education. All staff who take pupils on school visits should be properly trained and prepared to do so. It is the responsibility of head teachers to ensure that their staff have the necessary knowledge and skills before taking pupils on out of class activities. This preparation may include some form of additional training, if they consider this to be necessary and appropriate. The new Teachers’ Standards, which set out what is expected of all qualified teachers, require teachers to be able to plan out of class activities to consolidate and extend the knowledge and understanding pupils have acquired. It is for training providers to decide what trainees should be taught to enable them to achieve the Teachers’ Standards. The Department does not mandate content of initial teacher training courses. University Technical Colleges Julie Elliott: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what criteria were adopted and applied by his Department to determine which universities should be invited to establish a university teaching school; and when the [98303] application process was made public. Mr Gibb: In the White Paper: ’The Importance of Teaching’, we said that we would invite higher education providers of initial teacher training to open university training schools. Officials from the Department and the Training and Development Agency have been responding to universities who have expressed an interest. The Department has not published formal criteria as yet so has not invited any universities to attend meetings. Our working assumption has been that universities will run a school, provide outstanding initial teacher training and continuing professional development and undertake research. We aim to make an announcement shortly. Independent of this announcement, the Institute of Education, in partnership with a group of parents, submitted an application last year. As the Free School bid had many of the features of a prospective university training school all of the parties involved agreed to develop the proposal as a pathfinder UTS and this is now progressing through the Department’s Free School application process. The university of Birmingham has also registered an interest in setting up a university training school as part of their proposals submitted this year. Universities, which would like to discuss their plans to set up a university training school, should contact Michele Marr at the Training and Development Agency (TDA) at: [email protected]

HEALTH

Written Answers

816W

Mr Simon Burns: Unused stock of Pandemrix held centrally was disposed of by incineration. The cost of incineration was estimated at £45,000. Local national health service bodies will have been responsible for the disposal of stock held locally and details of local disposal costs are not held centrally. The value of the unused stock remains confidential as, given other information in the public domain, it could be used to calculate a unit price for the vaccine, which is still considered commercial in confidence. National Health Service Commissioning Boards Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the principal functions of the proposed National Health Service Commissioning Boards are; and what its principal powers and responsibilities are. [98227]

Mr Simon Burns: The proposed powers, functions and responsibilities of the NHS Commissioning Board are set out in the Health and Social Care Bill, and are therefore subject to parliamentary approval. The main functions envisaged for the Board are: to provide national leadership on commissioning for quality improvement and reducing inequalities in access to, and the outcomes of, health care; to promote and extend public and patient involvement and choice; to establish and support the development of clinical commissioning groups and hold them to account for outcomes and financial performance; to commission certain services directly, including primary care and specialised services; and to allocate and account for the resources used to commission national health service services.

The NHS Commissioning Board Authority has been established as a special health authority to prepare for the establishment of the board later this year. The authority’s proposals for developing the NHS Commissioning Board and more recently on the design of the NHS Commissioning Board are available on its website at: www.commissioningboard.nhs.uk

Asthma Nic Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people diagnosed with chronic asthma wait [97017] more than 48 hours to see a doctor. Paul Burstow: The latest results from the GP Patient Survey show that, of everyone surveyed who said that they had asthma or a long-term chest problem, 51% of people saw their doctor either on the same day or the next working day (compared to the rest of the population where the percentage was 49%).

Influenza: Vaccination

Cancer: Drugs

Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 28 February 2012, Official Report, column 251W, on influenza: vaccination, how the stock of unused vaccine was disposed of; what the cost was of disposing of the stock; and what the value was of the unused stock. [98038]

Mr Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information his Department holds on the number of cancer patients in the UK treated with fluorouracil; and how many such patients have had subsequent health problems due to that treatment; [98253]

817W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

(2) how many cancer patients died as a result of fluorouracil being administered during treatment in the [98254] latest period for which figures are available. Mr Simon Burns: The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) does not hold data on the number of cancer patients in the United Kingdom treated with fluorouracil. The Yellow Card Scheme provides for voluntary reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) by health care professionals and members of the public. The scheme is run by the MHRA and Commission for Human Medicines and collects ADR reports from across the whole UK for all medicines. There is also a legal obligation for pharmaceutical companies to report all serious ADRs for their products that they are aware of. As the scheme is voluntary, it is recognised that not all ADRs are reported. Data collected through, the Yellow Card Scheme do not represent all patients who have suffered an adverse reaction to a medicine. Therefore it is not possible to provide the number of patients who have had subsequent health problems due to treatment with fluorouracil. Up to 1 March 2012, the MHRA has received a total of 460 UK spontaneous ‘suspected’ADR reports associated with fluorouracil. 35 of these reports had a fatal outcome. 316 of these reports were associated with intravenous administration, 34 with topical administration and 110 with the route of administration as other or not stated. It is important to note that the reporting of a suspected adverse reaction does not necessarily mean it is related to the drug. We ask reporters to send us ‘suspicions’ of adverse drug reactions: however, these are not proven. Many factors have to be taken into account in assessing causal relationships including temporal association, the possible contribution of concomitant medication and the underlying disease being treated. Cancer: Health Services Mr Leech: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what (a) pharmacological treatments and (b) associated indications which the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has recommended for cancer treatment through either single of multiple technology [98233] appraisals since NICE was established; (2) what (a) pharmacological treatments and (b) associated indications the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has recommended for cancer treatment under the end of life criteria since the criteria [98234] was introduced in 2009; (3) what (a) pharmacological treatments and (b) associated indications the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has not recommended for [98235] cancer treatment since it was established; (4) what (a) pharmacological treatments and (b) associated indications the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has recommended for (a) prostate cancer, (b) lung cancer, (c) bowel cancer, (d) breast cancer and (e) kidney cancer through (i) single or multiple technology appraisals and (ii) under the end of life [98237] criteria since it was established; (5) if he will publish the final calculated cost per quality adjusted life year of each pharmacological treatment and associated indications which the National Institute

Written Answers

818W

for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has not recommended for cancer treatment since NICE was established; [98335] (6) if he will publish the final calculated cost per quality adjusted life year of each pharmacological treatment and associated indications which the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has recommended for cancer treatments; and which such treatment and indications have been recommended for cancer treatment under the end of life criteria since [98336] NICE was established; (6) if he will publish the determined population size for each pharmacological treatment and associated indications which the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has recommended for cancer treatment under the end of life criteria since [98337] NICE was established; (7) if he will publish the determined population size for each pharmacological treatment and associated indications which the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has recommended for cancer [98338] treatment since it was established. Mr Simon Burns: The information requested is not held by the Department. I have asked the chief executive of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to write to the hon. Member with this information. A copy will be placed in the Library. Cardiovascular system: Health Services Andrew Gwynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps will be taken to ensure continuity of care for patients diagnosed with acute myocardial [98350] infarction; and if he will make a statement; (2) what plans he has to improve the information, support and advice given to patients diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction about their medication to improve compliance with their treatment regime; [98351]

(3) when the outcomes strategy for cardiovascular [98354] disease will be published. Mr Simon Burns: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is currently developing guidance on the acute management of myocardial infarction. NICE is also updating its 2007 guidance on secondary prevention in primary and secondary care for patients following a myocardial infarction. The guidance recommends that after a myocardial infarction patients should have the opportunity to make informed decisions about, their care and treatment, in partnership with their health care professionals. NHS Improvement has produced a resource for the national health service on primary angioplasty and health information provision. The topic of acute coronary syndromes (including myocardial infarction) has been referred to NICE for Quality Standard development. Quality Standards provide a valuable source of advice and guidance for commissioners and providers as they describe what high quality, clinically and cost-effective care should look like.

819W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

The development of the cardiovascular disease outcomes strategy is in its early stages and no date has yet been set for its publication. Andrew Gwynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce a national [98352] cardiovascular patient experience survey. Mr Simon Burns: The Department currently has no plans to introduce a national cardiovascular patient experience survey. However, it is intended that patient groups will be invited to contribute to the development of the cardiovascular disease outcomes strategy. Departmental Manpower Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff are working on implementing the national health service transition programme; and how many such staff are (a) directly and (b) indirectly [98245] employed. Mr Simon Burns: The NHS transition programme to implement the structural and system changes in the Health and Social Care Bill encompasses all the primary care trusts, strategic health authorities, the Department of Health, and several of the Department’s arm’s length bodies. Each of these organisations are employing staff on transition work. However, information is not held centrally on the number of both direct and indirect staff employed and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Departmental Senior Civil Servants Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to unwind the use of personal service companies by senior civil servants in his Department and its agencies; for what reason he is taking any such [98226] steps; and at what cost. Mr Simon Burns: No senior civil servants in the Department or its agency, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), are paid their salaries or other payments through the use of personal service companies. The Department Sources specific skills and experience through commercial means where this is required to meet business needs. This requires payments to private companies for, for example, temporary staff or contractors, and to consultancies. Some of the payments are for the services of staff filling senior civil service equivalent roles. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), has announced an urgent review of the tax arrangements of senior public sector appointments, to report by the end of March 2012. As part of this, the Department is currently carrying out a major data gathering exercise which includes the MHRA, nondepartmental public bodies and the national health service in order to determine the contracting arrangements of senior appointees. This exercise is expected to be completed by mid-March.

Written Answers

820W

Health: Finance Mr Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on the proposed allocation of public health funding to the London borough of Bexley council. [98114] Mr Simon Burns: Alongside the recent correspondence from my hon. Friend dated 16 February, the Department has also received correspondence from the Leader of Bexley council, Teresa O’Neill, about the implications of the recently published estimates of baseline public health spend in 2010-11 uplifted to 2012-13 values. We have encouraged the council to continue to work together with their local primary care trust, and to inform the Department if they feel adjustments are needed to correct their estimated baseline spend. HIV Infection: Greater London Mr Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in (a) the London borough of Bexley and (b) London were diagnosed with HIV in [97984] each of the last five years. Mr Simon Burns: The number of people who were diagnosed with HIV in the London borough of Bexley, and in London as a whole, over the last five years is provided in the following table. New HIV diagnoses made in the London borough of Bexley and London: 2006-10 Bexley London 2006 * 3,097 2007 6 3,029 2008 6 3,043 2009 0 2,842 2010 0 2,891 Notes: 1. Numbers between one and four have been anonymised with an ‘*’. 2. There are no genitourinary medicine clinics (the main providers of HIV testing) in the borough of Bexley, therefore it is most likely that residents travel to neighbouring boroughs in London to access HIV testing services. Consequently the number provided is not reflective of the number of people diagnosed with a HIV infection who live in the borough.

Lyme Disease Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is provided to GPs on the [98294] diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. Mr Simon Burns: Guidance for clinicians on the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease is published on the Health Protection Agency’s website along with advice for the public on how to avoid infection and what to do if bitten by a tick at: www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/InfectionsAZ/ LymeDisease/

The chief medical officer issues regular updates to clinicians about Lyme disease to remind them of the signs, symptoms and treatment of Lyme disease and the appropriate diagnostic tools at their disposal.

821W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to raise awareness of the prevention and causes of Lyme [98295] disease. Mr Simon Burns: The chief medical officer issues regular updates to clinicians about Lyme disease to remind them of the signs/symptoms and treatment of Lyme disease and the appropriate diagnostic tools at their disposal. Guidance for clinicians on the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease is published on the Health Protection Agency’s (HPA) website along with advice for the public on how to avoid infection and what to do if bitten by a tick at: www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/InfectionsAZ/ LymeDisease/

The HPA issues an annual press release in the spring to raise public awareness of ticks, tick bites and Lyme disease and how to avoid infection. The HPA has also produced a leaflet in conjunction with the Royal Parks and the New Forest district council on ticks and Lyme disease which gives advice on how to avoid infection. Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were diagnosed with Lyme [98296] disease in (a) 2009, (b) 2010 and (c) 2011. Mr Simon Burns: Borrelia spp, the causative agent of Lyme disease, is a notifiable causative agent in the Health Protection (Notification) Regulations 2010, and all laboratory isolations of Borrelia spp in a human sample must now be notified to the Health Protection Agency (HPA) in England. The HPA has confirmed that the number of laboratory confirmed reports of Lyme borreliosis were 973 in 2009 and 905 in 2010. The figures for 2011 have not yet been confirmed and will be published on the HPA’s website when available. The number of people diagnosed on the basis of clinical symptoms alone and without laboratory confirmation is not available. Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS consultants were involved in the treatment of extreme cases of Lyme disease in the [98298] latest period for which figures are available. Mr Simon Burns: The information requested is not collected centrally. Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department is undertaking [98299] on the treatment of Lyme disease. Mr Simon Burns: The Department has no research projects in place concerning the treatment of Lyme disease. Lyme Disease: Blood Tests Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what blood tests are available for the testing of Lyme disease and associated tick borne diseases. [98293]

Mr Simon Burns: National health service laboratories offering tests to assist in the diagnosis of Lyme disease use CE-marked test kits. A wide range of validated and

Written Answers

822W

CE-marked test kits to detect the presence of antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi, the causative agent of Lyme disease, is available for use in the European Union. In the United Kingdom, reference laboratories perform additional in-house validation exercises prior to their introduction into routine diagnostic use to ensure that their performance parameters (sensitivity and specificity) have also been tested thoroughly under local conditions. The Health Protection Agency’s Lyme reference laboratory uses commercially produced and CE-marked Trinity Biotech EU Lyme IgM and EU Lyme+VlsE IgG western blots as supplementary (second stage) tests in the investigation of suspected Lyme borreliosis. This two stage testing for Lyme disease conforms to internationally agreed criteria for testing for Lyme disease. Maternity Services Richard Fuller: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the clinical outcome review programme for maternal and newborn health will be resumed. [98476]

Paul Burstow: The re-tendering of the Maternal and Newborn Clinical Outcome Review Programme is in its final stage. A new supplier will be in place from 1 April 2012 to manage this programme. The Health Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP), who manage the Clinical Outcomes Review Programme, has interim management of the secure web-based portal that supports the collection of maternal and perinatal mortality data. This continues to operate as usual under the management of HQIP, and the notification of maternal and newborns deaths continues as before. Medical Treatments abroad Chris Skidmore: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many UK citizens received treatment abroad as part of EEA agreements in each year for which figures are available; and in what country such treatment [98480] took place. Mr Simon Burns: Due to the nature of the claims process between member states, the Department is unable to disaggregate this information for the number of individuals using the European Health Insurance Card or for United Kingdom state pensioners that have retired abroad. The following table shows the number of elective treatment, requests, granted under European Union regulations, for UK citizens to receive treatment in another European economic area country: Number of E112/S2s issued by UK 2008 2009 2010 2011

1,477 1,609 1,442 1,519

NHS: Procurement Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that primary care trusts and clinical commissioning groups that commission NHS

823W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Continuing Healthcare adhere to a single set of national eligibility criteria to ensure consistent application of standards and prevent geographical inequalities in eligibility. [98531]

Paul Burstow: Health care is a devolved matter. Decisions about national health service continuing health care (CHC) are a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government. In England, the Department is working closely with strategic health authorities, and the NHS Commissioning Board special health authority, to ensure a smooth transition for NHS-funded CHC, and to take opportunities to improve consistent application of the National Framework to ensure consistent national standards of eligibility. NHS: Reform Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to minimise disruption for staff during the period of transition in the national [98484] health service. Mr Simon Burns: The Department has put a number of measures in place to minimise the disruption to staff during the current transition period, including Human Resources Transition Frameworks covering the organisations to be affected. People Transition Policies for the new bodies have also been developed in partnership with trade unions and representatives from the national health service, arm’s length bodies and the Department to guide staff affected by the transition through these current reforms.

As referred to in the report, this work will continue in 2012. Important initiatives include the national survey of bereaved relatives, the roll-out of electronic palliative care co-ordination systems, the work on palliative care funding, support for the national Dying Matter coalition and implementation of the End of Life Care for Adults Quality Standard developed by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Patient Access Scheme Mr Leech: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what (a) pharmacological treatments and (b) associated indications for a patient access scheme have been recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence since it was established. [98236]

Mr Simon Burns: The treatments recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence where a patient access scheme was considered as part of the relevant technology appraisal are listed in the following table. Further information is available on the Institute’s website at: www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/paslu/ patientaccessschemesliaisonunit.jsp Technology appraisal (TA) number

Treatment

Indication Multiple myeloma Macular degeneration (Acute wet AMD) Non small cell lung cancer Renal cell carcinoma Multiple myeloma

TA176

Bortezomib (Velcade) Ranibizumab (Lucentis) Erlotinib (Tarceva) Sunitinib (Sutent) Lenalidomide (Revlimid) Cetuximab (Erbitux)

TA179

Sunitinib (Sutent)

TA180 TA185

Ustekinumab (Stelera) Trabectedin (Yondelis)

TA186 TA192 TA215

Certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) Gefitinib (Iressa) Pazopanib (Votrient)

TA218

Azacitidine (Vidaza)

TA220 TA221

Golimumab (Simponi) Romiplostim (Nplate)

TA225 TA233 TA235

Golimumab (Simponi) Golimumab (Simponi) Mifamurtide (Mepact)

TA238

Tocilizumab (RoActemra) Nicotinic (Taiga)

TA129 TA155

Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the principal efficiency savings derived from his transition programme in the NHS will be.

TA162 TA169 TA171

[98228]

Palliative Care Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to improve palliative care for patients in the last year; and what further steps [98297] he plans to take in 2012. Paul Burstow: Progress in implementing the end of life care strategy and in related activities over the last year is detailed in the End of Life Care Strategy Third Annual Report, which was published in September 2011, The report has already been placed in the Library and is available on the Department’s website at:

824W

www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/ PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_130239

NHS: Reorganisation

Mr Simon Burns: The principal efficiency savings derived from the programme of modernisation in the national health service relate to the reduction in administration costs by reducing and delayering bureaucracy. This will result in total savings of £4.5 billion by 2014-15 and annual savings of £1.5 billion thereafter. These savings will contribute towards overall annual efficiency improvements in the NHS of up to £20 billion by 2014-15. The efficiency savings and other benefits of the proposed reforms are described in more detail in the published impact assessments of the Health and Social Care Bill.

Written Answers

TA241

Metastatic colorectal cancer (first line) Gastrointestinal stromal tumour Moderate to severe psoriasis Advanced soft tissue sarcoma Rheumatoid arthritis Non small cell lung cancer Advanced renal cell carcinoma Myelodysplastic syndromes, chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia and acute myeloid leukaemia Psoriatic arthritis Chronic idiopathic (immune) thrombocytopenic purpura Rheumatoid arthritis Ankylosing spondylitis High grade resectable nonmetastic osteosarcoma Systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis Imagine-resistant chronic myeloid leukaemia

825W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

826W

(2) how many pharmacists have sold prescription drugs abroad through wholesale subsidiary companies.

Physiotherapy: Administrative Delays Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of (a) the provision of and (b) waiting times for NHS physiotherapy services [98054] in (i) Crawley and (ii) West Sussex. Mr Simon Burns: No assessment has been made centrally. It is the responsibility of local national health service organisations to commission services to meet the needs of their communities, including the provision of physiotherapy services. Currently there are no mandated data held centrally regarding physiotherapy waiting times unless part of a consultant-led episode within 18-week pathways. The Allied Health Professions (AHP) Referral to Treatment (RTT) Revised Guide, published in December 2011, sets out a framework of rules for clock starts and clock stops to measure waiting times for patients when accessing NHS AHP services including physiotherapy. This was followed by a letter to the service from the Chief Health Professions Officer on 16 January 2012. All AHPs delivering NHS funded care are encouraged to base their local data collections, local flows and reporting of AHP RTT data on the Community Information Data Set structure in anticipation of a national mandate for collection and reporting of data. Work is ongoing to provide the mechanisms for information flows to report AHP RTT centrally. The ‘Allied Health Professional Referral to Treatment Revised Guide 2011’ can be found at: www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/ documents/digitalasset/dh_131969.pdf

and a copy has been placed in the Library. Prescription Drugs: Shortages Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of prescription drugs manufactured in the UK were sold abroad since (a) January 2011 and (b) January 2012; [98128] (2) which drugs the NHS and pharmacists are experiencing shortages of in each primary care trust. [98130]

Mr Simon Burns: This information is not available centrally. Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what meetings he has had with pharmaceutical manufacturing companies and wholesalers on prescription [98122] drug shortages since February 2011; (2) what meetings he has had to discuss shortages of [98124] prescription drugs since February 2011. Mr Simon Burns: The Department has regular meetings with supply chain representatives to discuss and mitigate the impact of supply difficulties associated with parallel exports. The Department also works closely with pharmaceutical companies, wholesalers, pharmacists and the national health service to ensure patients can continue to obtain their medicines quickly and conveniently. Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many wholesalers operate in the UK selling prescription drugs from manufacturers to pharmacists; whether this number is limited; and who is responsible [98126] for setting any such limit;

[98127]

Mr Simon Burns: The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), an executive agency of the Department, regulates manufacturers and wholesale dealers of medicinal products for human use in the United Kingdom on behalf of the UK Licensing Authority. Records held on the MHRA’s main data repository for information on wholesale dealers’licences have identified that 1,711 licensed wholesale dealers are authorised to wholesale deal in Prescription only Medicines for human use. The Licensing Authority regulates in the interest of public health. It is not a competition regulator and does not set a limit on the number of UK licensed wholesale dealers. However licensed wholesale dealers must meet statutory safety standards. Only a licensed wholesale dealer may wholesale distribute medicines to other European Economic Area member states. The Licensing Authority does not hold any data on such wholesale distribution transactions. Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health which prescription drugs UK pharmacists and hospitals are experiencing shortages of; and which drugs were in [98123] short supply in 2011. Mr Simon Burns: This information is not available centrally. The Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee collates reports from pharmacy contractors on medicines that they have had difficulty sourcing and publishes the Branded (medicines) Shortages List on their website. Spinal Injuries: Health Services Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he plans to form a single spinal injuries [98533] commissioning body. Paul Burstow: There are no plans to form a single commissioning body for spinal injuries. Certain elements of services for people with spinal injuries are currently designated as “specialised”. Under the provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill, the NHS Commissioning Board will in future commission such services. By commissioning these services once through the NHS Commissioning Board, we will be able to avoid duplication in planning and ensure that the highest level of care is commissioned for patients regardless of their geographical location. Other services are currently commissioned and provided locally. These services will, subject to the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill, be commissioned by clinical commissioning groups. Clinical commissioning groups will have the freedom to decide which aspects of commissioning activity they undertake fully themselves and which aspects require collaboration across several groups, for example through a lead commissioner managing the contract with a large hospital or commissioning low volume services not covered by national and regional specialised services.

827W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Transplant Surgery: Waiting Lists Gareth Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people in (a) Kent and (b) Dartford constituency have been (i) waiting on the organ transplant list and (ii) received organ transplants [98256] in each of the last five years; (2) how many people in (a) Kent and (b) Dartford constituency died whilst waiting on the organ [98258] transplant list in each of the last five years. Mr Simon Burns: The information requested is provided in the following tables. Number on the active1 transplant list as at 31 March 2008 to 2011 and on the current list as at 1 March 2012, by organ and financial year, for Kent March each year Organ 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Kidney 101 114 127 124 118 Kidney/ 3 7 5 5 8 pancreas Pancreas 1 0 2 1 1 Heart 3 6 4 5 3 Lung(s) 9 6 8 4 3 Heart/lung 1 0 0 0 0 Liver 5 7 6 10 12 Other multi 0 1 0 1 0 organ Total 123 141 152 150 145 1 ‘Active’ means the patient is currently in a state to receive a transplant. Source: NHS Blood and Transplant Number of organ transplants, 1 April 2007 to 29 February 2012, by organ and financial year, for Kent 2011Organ 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 121 Kidney 23 24 (deceased) Kidney 31 44 (live) Kidney/ 4 4 pancreas Pancreas 1 2 Pancreas 0 0 islets Heart 1 2 Lung(s) 3 3 Liver 18 15 (deceased) Liver (live) 0 1 Other 0 0 multi organ Total 81 95 1 1 April 2011 to 29 February 2012 Source: NHS Blood and Transplant

25

31

20

46

35

30

8

3

4

0 2

0 0

0 0

6 5 22

3 7 13

2 4 16

0 3

0 0

0 0

117

92

76

2 0

6 0

828W

Number on the active1 transplant list as at 31 March 2008 to 2011 and on the current list as at 1 March 2012, by organ and financial year, for Dartford constituency March each year Organ 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Lung 0 0 1 .0 0 Liver 0 4 1 3 3 Total 2 10 12 11 7 1 ‘Active’ means the patient is currently in a state to receive a transplant. Source: NHS Blood and Transplant Number of organ transplants, 1 April 2007 to 29 February 2012, by organ and financial year, for Dartford constituency 2011Organ 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 121 Kidney 0 1 (deceased) Kidney 1 4 (live) Kidney/ 0 0 pancreas Lung(s) 0 0 Liver 3 1 (deceased) Total. 4 6 1 1 April 2011 to 29 February 2012 Source: NHS Blood and Transplant

1

1

2

2

1

1

0

1

0

0 4

1 0

0 3

7

4

6

Deaths on the organ transplant list—by financial year, for Kent 2011Organ 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 121 Kidney 6 6 Kidney/ 1 0 pancreas Pancreas 0 0 Heart. 0 0 Lung(s) 2 1 Liver 6 4 Other multi 0 0 organ Total 15 11 1 1 April 2011 to 29 February 2012 Source: NHS Blood and Transplant

4 0

1 0

3 1

1 0 0 5 1

0 0 1 1 0

0 1 0 1 0

11

3

6

Deaths on the organ transplant list—by financial year for Dartford constituency 2011Organ 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 121 Kidney 0 1 Liver 0 0 Total 0 1 1 1 April 2011 to 29 February 2012 Source: NHS Blood and Transplant

1 0 1

0 1 1

1 0 1

HOME DEPARTMENT

Number on the active1 transplant list as at 31 March 2008 to 2011 and on the current list as at 1 March 2012, by organ and financial year, for Dartford constituency March each year Organ 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Kidney Kidney/ pancreas

Written Answers

9 1

8 0

4 0

Alcoholic Drinks: Redditch Karen Lumley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will estimate the costs to the police of alcohol abuse in Redditch constituency in the [98409] latest period for which figures are available.

829W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

James Brokenshire: The Home Office estimates the annual cost to society of alcohol related crime in England and Wales at £8 billion to £13 billion. This estimate was published in the impact assessment accompanying the Government’s proposal for a mandatory code of practice for alcohol retailers which can be found at: http://www.ialibrary.bis.gov.uk/uploaded/ IA%20Alcohol%20Mandatory%20Code.pdf

Breakdowns below the national level or relating specifically to the police are not available. Alcoholic Drinks: Southampton Caroline Nokes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she has made of the cost to the police of alcohol abuse in the city of Southampton in the latest period for which figures are [97874] available. James Brokenshire: The Home Office estimates the annual cost to society of alcohol related crime in England and Wales at £8 billion to £13 billion. This estimate was published in the impact assessment accompanying the Government’s proposal for a mandatory code of practice for alcohol retailers which can be found at: http://www.ialibrary.bis.gov.uk/uploaded/ IA%20Alcohol%20Mandatory%20Code.pdf

Breakdowns below the national level or relating specifically to the police are not available. Asylum Dr Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of expenditure contained in her Department’s Spring Supplementary Estimate 2011-12 relates to asylum support; for what reason that expenditure is lower than originally forecast; and what proportion that expenditure is of [98652] reduced spending at the UK Border Agency. Damian Green: The asylum support budget for 2011-12 was £391 million, which is 4% of Home Office Resource DEL (departmental expenditure limit). The supplementary estimate memorandum confirms that this budget was reduced during the course of the year, reflecting a lower than anticipated population of supported asylum seekers. The lower population reflects both a lower than anticipated intake of new asylum seekers and a higher level of cessations. The UK Border Agency annual report will set out actual spend in 2011-12 in due course. Civil Disorder Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many claims under the Riots (Damages) Act 1886 in relation to public disorder in London in August 2011 have been (a) made, (b) [97877] accepted as valid and (c) paid.

Written Answers

830W

Crime Martin Horwood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of the number of (a) individuals and (b) gangs engaged in cross-border criminal activities broken down by the nature of the criminal activity in each of the last 10 years. [98445] James Brokenshire [holding answer 6 March 2012]: The police recorded crime data collected centrally by Home Office Statistics have details of the nature of the crimes which are reported to and recorded by the police. However, it is not possible to state from these data the number of individuals or gangs involved in the commission of offences or whether these involved cross-border activities. Detention Centres Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in immigration detention were primary carers for children before they [98086] were placed in detention. Damian Green [holding answer 5 March 2012]: The UK Border Agency does not hold statistical information centrally on this subject, and the resource required to interrogate individual records manually would be of disproportionate cost to the Department. Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many single parents with dependent children are being held in immigration detention [98087] facilities in the UK. Damian Green [holding answer 5 March 2012]: The Home Office publishes quarterly and annual statistics on the number of people in detention, held solely under Immigration Act powers. Q4 2011 detention figures were published on 23 February 2012 and are available from the Library of the House and from the Home Office Science, research and statistics web pages at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/researchstatistics/migration/migration-statistics1/

Detention Centres: Children Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children are being held in UK Border Agency immigration detention facilities [98085] with their parents. Damian Green [holding answer 5 March 2012]: The Home Office publishes quarterly and annual statistics on the number of people in detention, held solely under Immigration Act powers. Q4 2011 detention figures were published on 23 February 2012 and are available from the Library of the House and from the Home Office Science, research and statistics web pages at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/researchstatistics/migration/migration-statistics1/

Drugs: Crime Nick Herbert: Claims under the Riot (Damages) Act are made directly to police authorities. Police Authorities assess claims made to them and then pay such compensation as they see fit. The Home Office will reimburse all payments made by police authorities under the Riot (Damages) Act.

Mr Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were charged with possession of drugs in (a) Bexleyheath and Crayford constituency and (b) London in each of the [94412] last five years.

831W

Written Answers

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

James Brokenshire: Charging data are not collated centrally and therefore proceedings data taken from the Ministry of Justice Court Proceedings Database have been provided in lieu. The number of persons proceeded against at magistrates courts for possession of a controlled drug in the Greater London area (includes the City of London and Metropolitan police force areas) from 2006 to 2010 (latest available) can be viewed in the table. Court proceedings data are not available at parliamentary constituency level. Annual court proceedings data for 2011 are planned for publication in May 2012. Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates courts for possession of a controlled drug, Greater London1, 2006-102, 3 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Number 7,205 8,213 10,109 10,546 11,549 of proceedings 1 Includes City of London and Metropolitan police force areas. 2 The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. 3 Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services—Ministry of Justice

Emergency Calls Gareth Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) genuine and (b) malicious emergency calls were received by Kent police in each of the last three years. [98260] Nick Herbert: The latest figures are available from the Home Office and show the number of 999 calls received by Kent police, 2008-09 to 2010-11. These figures are provisional, subject to change and have not been verified by the force. The breakdown of whether the emergency calls were genuine or malicious is not held centrally by the Home Office. Number of 999 calls received by Kent police, 2008-09 to 2010-111, 2 Number 2008-09 188,191 2009-10 259,227 2010-11 265,934 1 All figures are provisional, subject to change and have not been verified by the force. 2 Source: Home Office using data received from police forces via the Annual Data Requirement, ADR441.

Freezing Orders Mr Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether (1) Alexi Anichin, (2) Oleg Logunov, (3) Oleg Silchenko, (4) Alexander Matveev, (5) Gennady Karlov, (6) Natalya Vinogradova, (7) Alexander Ryabinin, (8) Sergei Oleinik, (9) A A Malygina, (10) M O Sapunova,

832W

(11) E V Mikhailov, (12) R A Gritsai, (13) I A Varganov, (14) N I Dmitrieva, (15) Artem Kuznetsov, (16) Aleksey Droganov, (17) Dmitri Tolchinskiy, (18) A A Krechetov, (19) Aleksandr Klevtsoc, (20) Anatoly Mikhalkin, (21) Pavel Karpov, (22) Ivan Glukhov, (23) Nikolai Budilo, (24) Oleg Urzhumtsev, (25) Aleksandr Kuvaldin, (26) Victor Voronin, (27) Stanislav Gordievsky, (28) Natalia Yakimovich, (29) Sergei Lazutkin, (30) Arkady Mazhaev, (31) Aleksandr Burov, (32) Andrey Pechegin, (33) Viktor Grin, (34) Yelena Khimina, (35) Sergei Zhemchuzhnikov, (36) Raisa Burmistrova, (37) Aleksandra Kuznetsova, (38) Yulia Koltunova, (39) Olga Stepanova, (40) Olga Tsymay, (41) Svetlana Dubrovskaya, (42) Olga Davydova, (43) Yekaterina Frolova, (44) Olesya Shargorodskaya, (45) Maksim Tretyakov, (46) Ivan Prokopenko, (47) Dmitry Komnov, (48) Dmitry Krato, (49) Larisa Litvinova, (50) Sergei Podoprogorov, (51) Aleksey Krivoruchko, (52) Svetlana Ukhnalyova, (53) Yelena Stashina, (54) Galina Filippova, (55) Tatyana Korneyeva, (56) Rufina Gazizova, (57) Andrey Yushkov, (58) Jelena Kim, (59) Ildar Salimzyanov and (60) Margarita Zinurova is the subject of (a) a UK visa ban and (b) a ban order freezing their assets in the UK. [97309] Damian Green [holding answer 29 February 2012]: In line with long established practice the Home Office does not comment on individual cases. Licensed Premises: Greater London Mr Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many establishments in (a) the London borough of Bexley and (b) London have had their licence to sell alcohol withdrawn in each year [96808] since 2005. James Brokenshire: Available data relates to the numbers of premises licences suspended by a court or served a closure notice and club premises certificates withdrawn (under section 90) for the London borough of Bexley and all London boroughs in total. The information is available from 2006-07 to 2009-10 and is given in the tables set out as follows: Table 1: Number of licences suspended by a court1 or withdrawn2, Bexley and London boroughs, April 2006 to March 2007 Premises licences Club premises certificates Withdrawn Licensing authority Suspended by a court (section 90) Bexley borough 0 0 London boroughs 6 0 total 1 Where a premises licence is suspended following a review, or from 6 April 2007, where a premises licence is suspended by a court, under section 147B(1) of the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended by the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006) for the sale or supply of alcohol, following an offence of persistently selling to underage children. 2 Where a club premises certificate is withdrawn under section 90 of the Licensing Act 2003. Table 2: Number of licences suspended by a court1, served closure notice2 or withdrawn3, Bexley and London boroughs, April 2007 to March 2008 Premises licences Club premises certificates Licensing Suspended by Withdrawn authority a court Closure notice (section 90) Bexley borough

0

0

0

833W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Table 2: Number of licences suspended by a court1, served closure notice2 or withdrawn3, Bexley and London boroughs, April 2007 to March 2008 Premises licences Club premises certificates Licensing Suspended by Withdrawn authority a court Closure notice (section 90) 3 17 1 London boroughs4 total 1 Where a premises licence is suspended by a court, under section 147B(1) of the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended by the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006) for the sale or supply of alcohol, following an offence of persistently selling to underage children. 2 Where a premises is prohibited from selling alcohol for 48 hours following a closure notice under S.169A. This information was collected for the first time during 2007-08. 3 Where a club premises certificate is withdrawn under section 90 of the Licensing Act 2003. 4 The borough of Bromley could not extract closure and withdrawn information from their system. Table 3: Number of licences suspended by a court1, served closure notice2 or withdrawn3, Bexley and London boroughs, April 2008 to March 2009 Premises licences Club premises certificates Licensing Suspended by Withdrawn authority a court Closure notice (section 90) Bexley borough 0 0 0 London 2 4 2 boroughs total 1 Where a premises licence is suspended by a court, under section 147B(1) of the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended by the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006) for the sale or supply of alcohol, following an offence of persistently selling to underage children. 2 Where a premises is prohibited from selling alcohol for 48 hours following a closure notice under S.169A. 3 Where a club premises certificate is withdrawn under section 90 of the Licensing Act 2003. Table 4: Number of licences suspended by a court1, served closure notice2 or withdrawn3, Bexley and London boroughs, April 2009 to March 2010 Premises licences Club premises certificates Licensing Suspended by Withdrawn authority a court Closure notice (section 90) Bexley borough 0 1 0 London 0 16 0 boroughs total 1 Where a premises licence is suspended by a court, under section 147B(1) of the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended by the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006) for the sale or supply of alcohol, following an offence of persistently selling to underage children. 2 Where a premises is prohibited from selling alcohol for 48 hours following a closure notice under S.169A. 3 Where a club premises certificate is withdrawn under section 90 of the Licensing Act 2003.

Alcohol licensing statistics for 2005 are not available centrally. Members: Correspondence Mr Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when she expects to respond to the letter of 24 February 2012 from the hon. Member for Harrow West on the possible deportation of a constituent to Sri Lanka; and if she will make a statement. [97659] Damian Green [holding answer 1 March 2012]: I refer the hon. Member to my letter of 28 February 2012.

Written Answers

834W

Sir Gerald Kaufman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when she plans to answer the letter sent to the Minister for Immigration by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton on 23 January with regard to Ms N. Ali. [98292] Damian Green: I refer the right hon. Member to my letter of 5 March 2012. Metals: Theft Mrs Ellman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports she has received on the number of instances of metal theft that involved liquified petroleum gas cylinders, in the two most recent years [97429] for which figures are available. James Brokenshire: We believe that the theft of gas cylinders for their scrap value is a growing problem. The Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers are working with UKLPG, the trade association for the Liquid Petroleum Gas industry, and the scrap metal industry to highlight the serious risks associated with handling cylinders that contain flammable gas, and to promote legitimate disposal routes. Crime data held centrally by the Home Office are not however available at the level of detail required to provide specific information relating to the theft of liquefied petroleum gas cylinders. Graham Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the funding set aside for a metal theft task force has been allocated; and in which areas of the UK it is being spent. [97855] James Brokenshire: The British Transport Police is the lead agency for the delivery of the national Metal Theft Taskforce and is responsible for developing, implementing and managing the taskforce, including how funding is allocated and in which areas. The taskforce will operate in England, Wales and Scotland. The Home Office will report on the taskforce’s progress in due course. National Crime Agency: Costs Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the projected cost is of establishing a shadow National Crime Agency as set out in her Department’s Business Plan 2011-15. [97530] Nick Herbert [holding answer 5 March 2012]: The Home Office business plan 2011-15 committed to introducing a shadow the National Crime Agency. Costs will be minimal in this phase as it will primarily be about ensuring better co-ordination of existing law enforcement activity. Any additional costs will be funded from existing budgets. Police Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance her Department issues to police authorities on the effect of the changes in expenditure by her Department on reorganisation of [98081] front-line services.

835W

Written Answers

7 MARCH 2012

Written Answers

836W

Nick Herbert: The Government have not issued any such guidance. Decisions on force spending are for individual chief constables and their police authorities (and, from November this year, police and crime commissioners). The Government do, however, have a clear expectation that frontline services should be prioritised and we are supporting the police service in a number of ways to deliver transformational change in order to do so.

uninsured. Around 90% of businesses and individuals affected by the riots were insured, and able to make a claim to their insurance company. For those without insurance, the Government set up a claims handling bureau to help victims make claims from their police authority and the majority of these have now been processed.

Police: Information and Communications Technology

Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many UK Border Agency (UKBA) employees will be transferred to the UK Border Force when it is separated from the UKBA. [97436]

Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of costs associated with establishing a police information [97776] and communications technology company. Nick Herbert: The costs associated with establishing a police information communications technology company are being examined. The company will be delivered within existing, funding allocations and projected costs will be subject to official scrutiny in the full business case. Reoffenders: Foreign Nationals Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals formerly held in immigration removal centres and released subsequently reoffended in the latest period for which [90042] figures are available. Damian Green [holding answer 16 January 2012]: In the period between April 2010 and March 2011, 153 foreign national offenders who met the deportation criteria and were formerly held in an immigration removal centre have subsequently reoffended. This information is taken from internal management information and is subject to change. Riots (Damages) Act 1886 Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made for (a) acknowledging and (b) reporting progress to claimants on claims under the Riots (Damages) Act [97412] 1886 relating to the riots of August 2011. Nick Herbert: Police Authorities are responsible for acknowledging and assessing claims under the Riot Damages Act, both from insurance companies and those directly from individuals and businesses who were

UK Border Agency

Damian Green: Under current assumptions, it is estimated that 7,539 full-time equivalent Border Force staff will transfer from the UK Border Agency. This does not include any additional UK Border Agency support staff that may transfer as a result of ongoing discussions. West Midlands Police Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many officers are based at each of West Midlands Police Authority’s Road Traffic Policing Unit bases; and how many arrests such officers have made in the latest period for which figures are [98040] available; (2) how many specially trained traffic officers will be employed by the West Midlands Police Authority’s Road Traffic Policing Unit in each of the next four [98042] years; (3) how many specially trained traffic officers worked for the West Midlands Police Authority’s Road Traffic [98044] Policing Unit in each of the last three years. Nick Herbert: This information is not collected centrally. These are matters for the chief constable of west midlands police. Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she has made of the effect of changes in expenditure by her Department on the West Midlands Police Authority’s Road Traffic Policing Unit; and if she will make a statement. [98043] Nick Herbert: No such assessment has been made by the Home Office. Decisions on force spending—including on road traffic policing units—are for individual chief constables and their police authorities (and, from November this year, police and crime commissioners) to make within the resources available.

ORAL ANSWERS Wednesday 7 March 2012 Col. No.

NORTHERN IRELAND .......................................... Bill of Rights ......................................................... Defence Capability................................................. Economic Development ......................................... Inward Investment ................................................. Pat Finucane Review.............................................. Security Situation...................................................

827 831 836 835 833 832 827

Col. No.

NORTHERN IRELAND—continued United Kingdom....................................................

829

PRIME MINISTER .................................................. Engagements.......................................................... Engagements.......................................................... Visits (Central Ayrshire).........................................

837 837 844 844

WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Wednesday 7 March 2012 Col. No.

Col. No.

CABINET OFFICE................................................... 59WS Cabinet Committee List ......................................... 59WS

HEALTH................................................................... 60WS NHS Pension Scheme ............................................ 60WS

DEFENCE................................................................. 59WS Medical Assessment Programme............................ 59WS

HOME DEPARTMENT........................................... 60WS Justice and Home Affairs Council.......................... 61WS Police and Crime Commissioners (Pay).................. 60WS

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS............................................................... 59WS Single Payment Scheme.......................................... 59WS

WORK AND PENSIONS ......................................... 63WS Disability Employment Support............................. 63WS

WRITTEN ANSWERS Wednesday 7 March 2012 Col. No.

Col. No.

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS ............. Departmental Responsibilities ............................... Departmental Secondment .................................... Financial Services: Conveyancing .......................... Foreign Investment in UK ..................................... Higher Education................................................... Industry: Water ...................................................... Office of Fair Access: Manpower........................... Overseas Trade: Egypt ........................................... South West Regional Development Agency: Pay.... Trading Standards.................................................. University Technical Colleges ................................

782W 782W 782W 783W 783W 783W 784W 784W 784W 785W 785W 785W

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT—continued Diamond Jubilee 2012: Medals .............................. 779W Sports: Young People ............................................. 779W

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT . Coastal Communities Fund ................................... Fire Services: Emergency Calls............................... First Time Buyers .................................................. Homelessness: Greater London ............................. Housing Benefit ..................................................... Housing: Construction........................................... Housing Improvement: Finance............................. Land: Planning Permission .................................... Land: Sales ............................................................ Local Government: Calderdale .............................. Local Government: Complaints............................. Local Government: North East ............................. Local Government: Pay ......................................... Planning Permission .............................................. Planning Permission: Incinerators.......................... Urban Areas: Planning Permission ........................ Urban Areas: Regeneration.................................... Waste Management................................................

765W 765W 766W 766W 767W 767W 768W 767W 769W 770W 770W 771W 771W 771W 772W 772W 773W 773W 773W

EDUCATION............................................................ Academies.............................................................. Academies: Private Finance Initiative .................... Boarding Schools ................................................... Building Schools for the Future Programme .......... Food Technology: Curriculum ............................... Free School Meals.................................................. GCSE .................................................................... GCSE: Disadvantaged ........................................... Literacy: Secondary Education .............................. Mathematics: GCSE .............................................. Military Academies................................................ Ofsted: Inspections ................................................ Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education .......................................................... Private Education................................................... Schools: Admissions .............................................. Schools: Capital Investment................................... Schools: Crimes of Violence .................................. Schools: Governing Bodies .................................... Schools: Standards................................................. Schools: Teaching Methods ...................................

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT .......................... 778W Arts: Asians ........................................................... 778W

DEFENCE................................................................. Air Training Corps................................................. Departmental Disclosure of Information............... Future Local Area Air Defence System ................. Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability Programme ........................................................ MOD Bicester........................................................ USA: Military Alliances.........................................

780W 780W 780W 780W 781W 781W 782W 798W 798W 798W 799W 799W 800W 800W 801W 801W 802W 802W 803W 803W 804W 804W 805W 806W 806W 806W 807W 809W

Col. No.

EDUCATION—continued Science: GCSE ....................................................... Science: Schools ..................................................... Secondary Education ............................................. Students: Finance .................................................. Teachers: Employment........................................... Teachers: Recruitment ........................................... Teachers: Redundancy ........................................... Teachers: Training.................................................. University Technical Colleges ................................

809W 810W 811W 811W 812W 812W 813W 814W 815W

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ..................... Departmental Ethnic Minority Staff...................... Natural Gas: Exploration ...................................... Renewable Energy: Feed-in Tariffs .........................

786W 786W 787W 787W

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS............................................................... Agriculture: Droughts............................................ Broadband: Finance .............................................. Droughts: Subsidence ............................................ Fish: Marketing ..................................................... Pet Animals Act 1951............................................. River Thames: Sewage ........................................... Tyres: Exports........................................................ Water: Olympic Games 2012 ..................................

775W 775W 775W 775W 776W 776W 777W 777W 777W

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE..... Burma.................................................................... Departmental Data Protection............................... Henderson Island................................................... Mali ....................................................................... Nigeria ................................................................... Occupied Territories............................................... Private Education................................................... Yemen .................................................................... Zimbabwe ..............................................................

738W 738W 739W 740W 740W 741W 741W 741W 742W 742W

HEALTH................................................................... Asthma .................................................................. Cancer: Drugs........................................................ Cancer: Health Services ......................................... Cardiovascular system: Health Services ................. Departmental Manpower....................................... Departmental Senior Civil Servants ....................... Health: Finance ..................................................... HIV Infection: Greater London ............................. Influenza: Vaccination ........................................... Lyme Disease ......................................................... Lyme Disease: Blood Tests..................................... Maternity Services ................................................. Medical Treatments abroad.................................... National Health Service Commissioning Boards ... NHS: Procurement ................................................ NHS: Reform......................................................... NHS: Reorganisation............................................. Palliative Care ........................................................ Patient Access Scheme ........................................... Physiotherapy: Administrative Delays.................... Prescription Drugs: Shortages................................ Spinal Injuries: Health Services.............................. Transplant Surgery: Waiting Lists ..........................

815W 816W 816W 817W 818W 819W 819W 820W 820W 815W 820W 821W 822W 822W 816W 822W 823W 823W 823W 824W 825W 825W 826W 827W

HOME DEPARTMENT .......................................... Alcoholic Drinks: Redditch ................................... Alcoholic Drinks: Southampton ............................ Asylum .................................................................. Civil Disorder ........................................................ Crime ..................................................................... Detention Centres .................................................. Detention Centres: Children ..................................

828W 828W 829W 829W 829W 830W 830W 830W

Col. No.

HOME DEPARTMENT—continued Drugs: Crime ......................................................... Emergency Calls .................................................... Freezing Orders...................................................... Licensed Premises: Greater London....................... Members: Correspondence .................................... Metals: Theft ......................................................... National Crime Agency: Costs............................... Police ..................................................................... Police: Information and Communications Technology ........................................................ Reoffenders: Foreign Nationals.............................. Riots (Damages) Act 1886 ..................................... UK Border Agency ................................................ West Midlands Police .............................................

830W 831W 831W 832W 833W 834W 834W 834W 835W 835W 835W 836W 836W

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION.............. 763W Big Ben: Tourism ................................................... 763W Catering ................................................................. 764W INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.................... Conflict Prevention ................................................ Corruption............................................................. Developing Countries: Health Services .................. Developing Countries: HIV Infection .................... Private Sector......................................................... Somaliland............................................................. Sudan: Debts ......................................................... Syria....................................................................... West Africa ............................................................

792W 792W 792W 793W 793W 794W 795W 796W 796W 797W

JUSTICE................................................................... Antisocial Behaviour Orders .................................. Departmental Carbon Emissions ........................... Departmental Public Expenditure.......................... Domestic Violence ................................................. Fines ...................................................................... Prisoners: EU Nationals ........................................ Prisoners: Repatriation .......................................... Public Expenditure................................................. Reoffenders............................................................ Repossession Orders .............................................. Repossession Orders: North West .......................... Sentencing.............................................................. Sentencing: Mental Health..................................... Sentencing: Young People ...................................... Translation Services ...............................................

743W 743W 743W 744W 744W 744W 745W 751W 751W 752W 754W 755W 756W 758W 758W 759W

NORTHERN IRELAND .......................................... Corporation Tax .................................................... Eurozone................................................................ High Profile Anniversaries ..................................... Security..................................................................

774W 774W 774W 774W 774W

TRANSPORT ........................................................... A453 ...................................................................... Action for Employment ......................................... Bus Services: Concessions ...................................... Crossrail: Contracts ............................................... Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency: Disclosure of Information ................................................... High Speed 2 Railway Line .................................... Motorways: Speed Limits ...................................... Oil: EU Action....................................................... Transport: Industrial Disputes ...............................

761W 761W 761W 761W 761W

TREASURY .............................................................. Bank of England: Scotland.................................... Capital Allowances ................................................ Capital Gains Tax .................................................. Capital Gains Tax: Second Homes.........................

731W 731W 732W 732W 731W

762W 762W 762W 762W 763W

Col. No.

TREASURY—continued Excise Duties: Alcoholic Drinks............................. Government Departments: Procurement ............... Higher Education: Northern Ireland...................... Housing Revenue Accounts: Wales ........................ Monetary Policy .................................................... Moody’s Investor Services: Press Releases ............. National Insurance: Insolvency.............................. NHS: Reorganisation............................................. Pensions: Teachers ................................................. Public Expenditure................................................. Public Expenditure: Wales ..................................... Public Sector Net Cash Requirement ..................... Smuggling: Alcoholic Drinks ................................. Tax Avoidance: Civil Servants................................ Tax Collection: Complaints ................................... Taxation: Motor Vehicles.......................................

732W 734W 734W 735W 735W 735W 735W 736W 736W 736W 737W 737W 737W 737W 738W 738W

Col. No.

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES.................................. 797W Equalities and Human Rights Commission ........... 797W Equalities and Human Rights Commission: Scotland............................................................. 798W WORK AND PENSIONS ......................................... Atos Healthcare ..................................................... Carer’s Allowance .................................................. Housing Benefit ..................................................... Mortgages: Government Assistance....................... Nuclear Information .............................................. Pensions ................................................................. Redundancy: Private Sector ................................... Social Security Benefits.......................................... Social Security Benefits: Hyndburn........................ Social Security Benefits: Northern Ireland............. Universal Credit: Housing Benefit .........................

787W 787W 788W 788W 788W 788W 789W 789W 789W 790W 791W 791W

Members who wish to have the Daily Report of the Debates forwarded to them should give notice at the Vote Office. The Bound Volumes will also be sent to Members who similarly express their desire to have them. No proofs of the Daily Reports can be supplied, nor can corrections be made in the Weekly Edition. Corrections which Members suggest for the Bound Volume should be clearly marked in the Daily Report, but not telephoned, and the copy containing the Corrections must be received at the Editor’s Room, House of Commons, not later than Wednesday 14 March 2012 STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT GREATLY FACILITATES THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE VOLUMES

Members may obtain excerpts of their Speeches from the Official Report (within one month from the date of publication), on application to the Stationery Office, c/o the Editor of the Official Report, House of Commons, from whom the terms and conditions of reprinting may be ascertained. Application forms are available at the Vote Office.

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES DAILY PARTS Single copies: Commons, £5; Lords, £3·50. Annual subscriptions: Commons, £865; Lords, £525. WEEKLY HANSARD Single copies: Commons, £12; Lords, £6. Annual subscriptions: Commons, £440. Lords, £225. Index: Annual subscriptions: Commons, £125; Lords, £65. 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, £40. 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 541 No. 275

Wednesday 7 March 2012

CONTENTS Wednesday 7 March 2012 Oral Answers to Questions [Col. 827] [see index inside back page] Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Prime Minister Diamond Jubilee [Col. 849] Motion—(The Prime Minister)—agreed to Opposition Day [Un-allotted half day] Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland [Col. 883] Motion—(Dr McCrea)—agreed to Backbench Business [Un-allotted day] Sergei Magnitsky [Col. 928] Motion—(Mr Raab)—agreed to Employment Support [Col. 952] Statement—(Maria Miller) Petitions [Col. 974] Historical Enquiries Team [Col. 976] Debate on motion for Adjournment Safety of Offshore Oil and Gas Activities [Col. 983] Motion, on a deferred Division, agreed to Westminster Hall Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas) [Col. 271WH] DVLA Closures (Scotland) [Col. 295WH] Veterans (Mental Health) [Col. 302WH] Typhoon Aircraft (Exports) [Col. 326WH] Syria and Lebanon [Col. 334WH] Debate on motion for Adjournment Written Ministerial Statements [Col. 59WS] Written Answers to Questions [Col. 731W] [see index inside back page]