Nov 6, 2012 - contact with Carwyn Jones, the First Minister for Wales, who is obviously also ...... administrative data
Tuesday 6 November 2012
Volume 552 No. 64
HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday 6 November 2012
£5·00
© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2012 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/.
709
710
6 NOVEMBER 2012
House of Commons Tuesday 6 November 2012 The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock PRAYERS [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER) Second Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 13 November (Standing Order No. 20).
Oral Answers to Questions TREASURY The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked— Affordable Housing 1. Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab): What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on fiscal incentives to encourage the construction of affordable [126517] housing. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander): The Chancellor is at the G20 meeting in Mexico, so I have been asked to reply. On 6 September, the Government announced an ambitious package to boost housing supply, including an additional 15,000 new homes for affordable rent and bringing 5,000 empty homes back into use. We will also help a further 16,500 first-time buyers get back on the housing ladder through Firstbuy. The package includes a £10 billion debt guarantee, which will enable housing associations to benefit from the Government’s hard-earned fiscal credibility. Pat Glass: I thank the Minister for that answer, but we have lost 120,000 construction jobs since 2010 and we are building 100,000 fewer affordable homes than even this Government tell us we need each year. When the Minister reflects on the choices he had before him, does he still believe that slashing the affordable housing grant by 60% at the same time as giving a massive tax cut to millionaires was the right thing to do? Danny Alexander: In fact, the decision we made to move to a new affordable rent model to get more homes for the money available to us—the auction was oversubscribed, with 170,000 properties in the affordable sector being built under that model—was a good use of very limited resources, and a much more efficient use of them than the previous Government achieved.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con): Has the Chief Secretary had a chance to look at the report by the National Self Build Association, “Lessons from International Self Build Housing Practices”, and does he agree that if we were to do more to help self-builders, we could help solve many of our housing problems, as well as increase local council tax revenue and stamp duty for the Treasury? Danny Alexander: I have not had a chance to study that report, but, in the light of my hon. Friend’s question, I certainly will. He will know that the new national planning policy framework specifically encourages self-build, and many of the planning system reforms the coalition Government have pushed through will help self-builders to achieve their aspirations. Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/ Co-op): The Chief Secretary spoke about the bidding for affordable housing, but the well has now run dry. Housing associations in my area have no more money to spend on affordable housing, and the birth rate in my area is increasing. What will the Chief Secretary do to ensure that in future people in Hackney and around the country have affordable homes to live in? Danny Alexander: I want to see more affordable homes built. That is why this Government are the first Government to put in place Government guarantees for housing associations; that was never done by our predecessors. The Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012, which received Royal Assent last week, will enable housing associations to benefit from £10 billion of Government guarantees, lowering their cost of finance and enabling them to build more homes. That has been widely welcomed in the housing association sector, including by the National Housing Federation. I think the hon. Lady should welcome it, too. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): I greatly welcome the progress that has been made, but it is equally important to ensure that we have good construction standards for new housing. May I also impress upon Ministers the importance of supporting the zero-carbon homes target? Danny Alexander: Let me start by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend for the work he did at the Department for Communities and Local Government, especially his leadership of the empty homes programme, which is making a major contribution to bringing homes back into use. I understand the importance of the zero-carbon homes programme. The building industry has argued for that, and I hope we will make progress on it soon. Job Creation: Private Sector 2. Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con): What fiscal steps he is taking to encourage job creation in the private [126518] sector. 8. Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con): What fiscal steps he is taking to encourage job creation [126525] in the private sector.
711
Oral Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander): Despite these tough economic times, under this Government private sector employment has increased by more than 1 million since 2010, as firms benefit from our stable and credible fiscal policy, but, of course, we are not complacent. We are helping private sector growth through a radical programme of reforms and investment, including the £2.5 billion regional growth fund, issuing up to £50 billion in guarantees for infrastructure and housing, and funding 250,000 more apprenticeships than the previous Government had planned. Chris Skidmore: Today marks the halfway point of the coalition Government. As the Minister said, there are 1 million more private sector jobs than there were in 2010 and more people in employment than ever before. Will he work even harder to build on his fantastic record in the second half of this Government’s term? Danny Alexander: Yes, I certainly will. [Interruption.] I know the Opposition do not like to hear this, but my hon. Friend is right to highlight the good performance of the British labour market and the facts that the private sector has created more than 1 million new jobs in the last two and half years and that there are more people in employment in this country than ever before. Gavin Williamson: Under the Labour Government, we lost 65,000 private sector jobs in the west midlands. In stark contrast, since 2010 my constituency alone has already secured £400 million in investment. What more will my right hon. Friend do to secure private sector jobs in South Staffordshire and the west midlands? Danny Alexander: My hon. Friend is right to say that the Labour party’s record on encouraging the private sector was at its most catastrophic in the west midlands, for which the figures he gave are absolutely correct. That is why another £124 million of funding for projects in the west midlands was announced in round three of the regional growth fund and why we are providing additional support for the automotive sector, which is so important in his constituency and region. Of course the improved climate for business, the removal of regulations and the funding for apprenticeships will benefit businesses in the west midlands, as well as in the rest of the country. Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): Yesterday, a report from the Welsh Government showed that scrapping tolls on the Severn bridge would increase the value of the Welsh economy by £107 million. Will the right hon. Gentleman commission a report to show how quickly the cost of reducing and getting rid of the tolls would be offset by the increase in income tax resulting from more jobs created in Wales? Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman mentions finance in Wales, so I would have thought he might have started by welcoming the announcement I made two weeks ago on a new funding settlement for Wales and the commitment, in principle, for the first time ever—this was never made by the Labour party when it was in government—to borrowing powers for the Welsh Government. That is a major step forward. We will hear shortly from the Silk commission, which is examining
Oral Answers
712
revenue-raising powers. I will certainly consider the matter the hon. Gentleman raises in response to the Silk commission. Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP): The Chief Secretary to the Treasury will be aware of ongoing ministerial discussions about setting the rate for corporation tax in Northern Ireland. Can he advise on the recommendation the Treasury will make to the Prime Minister, who will be setting that level and making a determination shortly? Danny Alexander: I am not going to prejudge the work of the joint ministerial working group, which includes Ministers from the Northern Irish Government, my colleague the Exchequer Secretary, who is there on behalf of the Treasury, and the Northern Ireland Secretary. That group will soon produce a report, which will come to the Treasury and to the Prime Minister. We look forward to considering it and responding in due course. Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con): Does the Chief Secretary agree that the seed enterprise investment scheme announced by the Government in the past year is the sort of highly attractive fiscal incentive that will both encourage angel investors to back entrepreneurs and, at the same time, stimulate the job growth in the private sector that we need? Danny Alexander: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he has been doing to promote the seed enterprise investment scheme. His description of it is absolutely right, and I know it is being looked at widely by investors who wish to invest in small firms in this country. I hope it will help to transform the landscape for that sort of investment in newly formed companies in this country, and I hope that he will continue his hard work. Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Coop): When the Government introduced their flagship policy on a national insurance holiday scheme they proclaimed that about 400,000 businesses would benefit. In answer to a parliamentary question in May, Ministers told me that about 16,000 applications had been received. Will the Chief Secretary tell the House how many businesses have now applied? Is it not time to listen to Labour and the Federation of Small Businesses, and extend this scheme across the country and ensure that all small businesses can benefit from it? Danny Alexander: I think we have heard yet another unfunded spending commitment from the Labour party in that question. The hon. Lady is right to say that this scheme has not been taken up as widely as we had expected, which is why we are putting in place other measures to support small and growing businesses: the funding for lending scheme will get finance to small firms; tax incentives of the sort just mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) will help to get investment in small and medium-sized enterprises; and of course the Government have set a target of 25% of procurement from small firms, too. That is the right policy for small businesses in this country.
713
Oral Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Labour Statistics 3. Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): What recent assessment he has made of the level of employment in (a) Kettering constituency, (b) Northamptonshire and [126519] (c) England. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid): The number of people in employment in the year to June 2012 was 47,000 in Kettering, 347,000 in Northamptonshire and 24,497,000 in England. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the number of people employed in each of those three areas is higher than when the Government took office. Mr Hollobone: The employment rate in Kettering is well above the national average. Of all the policy options before the Chancellor, which offered the best prospects of sustained, long-term and lasting employment growth for my constituents in the borough of Kettering? Sajid Javid: The one policy that brought the coalition Government together was our determination to deal with the record budget deficit we inherited. When the Government came to power, the previous Government were borrowing £300,000 a minute. We have cut the deficit by 25%, which has brought confidence and jobs back to Britain. Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): As an English and a Yorkshire MP I have a great interest in how the Heseltine review, “No Stone Unturned”, will help my region. Some of us in Yorkshire are very pleased with the report, because there is a glimmer of hope for more jobs and more investment in Yorkshire. What will the Treasury do to follow up the report that it commissioned? Sajid Javid: This Government rightly commissioned the report because we believe that Lord Heseltine has a lot of experience in that area. We will study it carefully and will respond in due course. Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): Does the Minister realise that unemployment in my constituency went down last month? Does he also realise that in the neighbouring constituency, Corby, the unemployment level fell by 5%? Does that not show that the Conservativeled Government is succeeding in Northamptonshire? Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the first two years of this Government, the private sector created 1 million new jobs whereas in the last 10 years of the previous Government the sector created about half of that figure. Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab): One way to tackle youth unemployment in Kettering and Northamptonshire and across the UK would be for the Government to commit now to repeating Labour’s tax on bank bonuses on top of the bank levy to fund much-needed new jobs for young people. Is the Minister aware that in some parts of Northamptonshire, such as Corby, the number of under-24s on the dole for more than 12 months has gone up by a shocking 233% in just the last year?
Oral Answers
714
Sajid Javid: I am not surprised that the hon. Lady is talking about youth unemployment, because in the last 10 years of her Government it rocketed by 72% from 534,000 to 921,000. The previous Government created the problem and this Government’s policies are bringing the number down. Employee Ownership 4. Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con): What assessment he has made of the fiscal implications of the Government’s proposed employee-owner scheme. [126521]
6. Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con): What recent representations he has received from businesses on the fiscal implications of employee [126523] ownership. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke): The Government expect that the scheme will cost up to £100 million in 2017-18. The initial estimate will be refined following the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consultation on the implementation of the new employee-owner status, which involves engagement with business and others and will close on 8 November. The annual breakdown of the estimated Exchequer cost of the policy will then be published at the autumn statement once it has been certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility. Pauline Latham: Will the Minister update the House on the response he has had from businesses and business organisations about the new employee organisation ownership scheme? Mr Gauke: I am pleased to tell the House that the likes of the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Directors have warmly welcomed the proposal, which will help entrepreneurs and start-up businesses. Jesse Norman: Studies have shown that employee-owned companies grow as fast as limited companies, are more resilient and better at creating and keeping jobs, and have higher levels of staff well-being and fairer pay, which means that they are proven to create social value. As well as removing current tax incentives, will the Government consider a new capital gains tax relief for businesses sold into employee ownership? Mr Gauke: My hon. Friend will be aware of the Nuttall review, which reported last week. The Treasury is also considering its role in helping employee ownership to support growth as well as options to remove barriers, including tax barriers. That work is being considered in the run-up to the autumn statement. Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab): Does the Minister agree with the chief executive of Sainsbury’s, who said that “trading employment rights” for company shares is “not what we should be doing”?
Mr Gauke: What Sainsbury’s does is a matter for Sainsbury’s, but I also point out the comments made by the likes of the leaders of the Federation of Small
715
Oral Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Directors, who have said that this measure will help entrepreneurs, start-up businesses and the fast-growing companies that we need. Surely the whole House should welcome that. Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab): Given that the Government have been keeping extremely mum about the tax avoidance implications of the scheme and that it looks like a wide-open tax loophole for the better off, what capital gains tax avoidance does he estimate it will create? Mr Gauke: In the design of the scheme we will take steps to deal with tax avoidance opportunities to ensure that we do not create any loopholes, but this is a scheme that will encourage entrepreneurs and start-ups to provide businesses with an opportunity to expand rapidly, and it is exactly the sort of flexible approach that this country needs in the current economic climate. Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD): Will the Minister clarify the status of the idea of trading employee rights for share ownership? It has been described as a voluntary scheme, but does the Minister accept that it will swiftly become a de facto compulsory scheme? What level of employee shareholding is anticipated? The media have speculated that it could range from 2,000 from 50,000. It might be acceptable at 50,000, but it would be very different at 2,000. Mr Gauke: There will be a range of options—the minimum is 2,000, and the maximum is 50,000—but this is not going to be a matter that is compulsory. It will not be the right answer for every business, but there are some businesses that need flexibility to find employee status somewhere between a full employee and someone who is self-employed such as a partner, as many hundreds of thousands of people are. I think that it is a sensible, pragmatic response. Public Sector Borrowing 5. Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab): What the level of public sector net borrowing was in the (a) first six months of 2012-13 [126522] and (b) equivalent period in 2011-12. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark): Public sector net borrowing totalled £37 billion in the first six months of 2012-13, compared with £62.4 billion in the equivalent period in 2011-12. However, income and expenditure vary throughout any year, and it is too early to draw firm conclusions about the year as a whole. Tom Blenkinsop: Between 2010 and 2015, debt will increase under the coalition by £465 billion in just five years in real terms. How much of that debt is due to an increase in borrowing for higher welfare benefit costs as a result of the Chancellor’s double-dip recession? Greg Clark: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman has the temerity to talk about debt when the legacy of the previous Government has made it clear that it has been the worst in the G7. The Office for Budget
Oral Answers
716
Responsibility has said that the changes in Government spending have directly added to gross domestic product, and have helped matters, rather than subtract from it. Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): Government borrowing will be higher when multinational companies pay royalties, management charges and technical licence fees between group companies and across borders, which will depress taxable profits in the UK and shift them abroad. Ensuring such payments properly reflect the service or technical knowledge provided is a complex transfer pricing issue, so does the Minister share my view that tackling abuses in that area is not about the number of HMRC staff but about ensuring that they have the right expertise and experience? Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is crucial that the right skills are there, but we have taken a role internationally in leading this. In fact, in Mexico, the Chancellor is leading the way across the world in making sure that we have a co-ordinated regime. Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op): I do not quite understand why the Minister is reluctant to be straight with the House on the facts, particularly given the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop). Mr Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that any Minister would be anything other than straight. He may want to deploy another word with reference to dealings with the House. Chris Leslie: Absolutely. Perhaps it was inadvertent—I would not in any way wish to imply that the Minister was deliberately obfuscating on the facts. I wanted to pick up on a specific question. As I understand it, public sector borrowing in the first six-month period of the last financial year was £62.4 billion. It was £65.1 billion in the first six months of this financial year, so will he confirm that that is £2.6 billion higher, that borrowing has risen, and that the deficit has gone up? Greg Clark: No, the numbers vary from month to month. The hon. Gentleman needs to wait until the end of the financial year. January is the key month for these things, as he knows, but if he is interested in getting matters straight on the facts, will he clarify the shadow Chancellor’s suggestion that there was no structural deficit before the recession, because according to the IMF not only was there a structural deficit but it was the worst in the G7? Chris Leslie: As I understand it, Mr Speaker, we ask the questions—the Minister is supposed to answer them. Why will he not confirm that borrowing figures are higher and that the deficit has risen? Will he stop being so complacent, get a grip of our economy and public expenditure, and confirm that the Government will keep their promise? The Chancellor said that the coalition Government will take responsibility for balancing Britain’s books within five years, so will they keep that promise? Greg Clark: The facts are as I set out, but if the hon. Gentleman is implying that in some way he is against a deficit, that he wants to pay down the deficit, can he
717
Oral Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
explain why he can hold that position and simultaneously be in favour of increasing borrowing? The shadow Chancellor is on the record as saying that his plans mean a short-term increase in borrowing. Let him say by how much and when. Mr Speaker: Order. I am chairing these proceedings. Let me just make it abundantly obvious to the Minister: the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) gets two questions. He does not get a third and it is not the business of the Opposition to answer questions in this Chamber—that is the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman in respect of Government policy. Let us be clear about that. MrEdwardLeigh(Gainsborough)(Con):Notwithstanding what we have just heard, surely, given the still very high and worrying levels of public debt, is it not incumbent on all coalition Members, from whatever party, to continue to support the Chancellor in the very difficult decisions he may have to take in the coming months that may amount to further cuts to public spending? Greg Clark: It is in everyone’s interest to support the path we have embarked on to pay down the deficit. We know that the confidence in the UK economy, which has led to record low interest rates, depends on credibility—a credibility that the policies of the Opposition, by borrowing more, would jeopardise. Long-term Unemployment 7. Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op): What recent assessment he has made of the effect of the Government’s fiscal policies on the level of long-term [126524] unemployment. 9. Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab): What recent assessment he has made of the effect of the Government’s fiscal policies on the level of long-term [126526] youth unemployment. 15. Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op): What recent assessment he has made of the effect of the Government’s fiscal policies on the [126533] level of long-term youth unemployment. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid): The UK labour market is showing some signs of recovery. There are more people in work now than ever before, and youth unemployment is at its lowest since 2011. The Youth Contract was launched in April to support up to 500,000 young people into employment, and the Work programme has been under way since 2011. Gavin Shuker: In my constituency, long-term youth unemployment is not up by 11% or 110%, but by 1,150%. Will the Government now apologise for their complacent decision to scrap the future jobs fund? Sajid Javid: I think it is the hon. Gentleman who should be apologising. He is probably having a hard time explaining to his constituents why the number of young people on jobseeker’s allowance in the last five years of the previous Government went up by 45%. I have some good news for him, however. Under this
Oral Answers
718
Government, that number is down, and under this Government the number of vacancies in his local jobcentres is up by 30%. Rushanara Ali: All other Olympic boroughs received a much-needed economic boost from the Olympic games, but the Office for National Statistics figures show that youth unemployment increased in my constituency between June and October, not to mention the 141% increase in long-term youth unemployment in the past year. Does the Minister agree that tackling this problem requires action from the Government, with a bank bonus tax to fund 100,000 jobs for young people, and action locally by the council, to take this issue seriously? Sajid Javid: I know the hon. Lady takes this issue very seriously, which is why I believe she took her right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor to Queen Mary university recently to discuss it with young people. I hope that they told young people that under the previous Government youth unemployment was created as a problem—up 72% in 10 years. I hope she also told them that youth unemployment has fallen by 62,000 in the last quarter because of the Youth Contract, the Work programme, investment in apprenticeships and other Government policies. Tom Greatrex: Long-term youth unemployment in my constituency in the past two years has increased by 188%. Rather than flinging back his low-grade abuse, could the Minister explain to the House his objection, as we approach bank bonus season, to implementing a bank bonus tax to help fund jobs for those young people? Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have introduced a permanent tax on bank balance sheets, which will raise far more than a bank bonus tax. If he is interested in the fiscal action the Government are taking to create jobs, maybe he can tell his constituents about the brownfield allowance the Government introduced for North sea oilfields a couple of months ago. A few weeks later there was investment of £1.6 billion, creating up to 2,000 jobs in Scotland and beyond. Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con): One of the fiscal measures that best increases the incentive to find work for those who have been out of work for a long time is the benefit cap. Is the Minister surprised to learn that this morning a measure that will save the taxpayer half a billion pounds over the next two years and greatly increase the incentives to work was voted against by the Labour party? Sajid Javid: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that to the House’s attention, and I am not surprised to learn it, given Labour’s opposition to the benefit cap. The Government are determined to make the welfare system work in order to help people find employment, and that includes the benefit cap as well as the introduction of universal credit. Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con): Does my hon. Friend recognise that it was virtually impossible to be long-term unemployed under the last Government,
719
Oral Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
because they used to take people off the register, put them on a short-term course, and then put them back again, and is he pleased that we are being more straightforward? Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend makes a good point. A number of people have made those accusations. The important thing is that youth unemployment is falling— down by 62,000 in the last quarter. Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): Has my hon. Friend considered the submission that the Government have received from FairFuelUK showing that putting up fuel duty will hinder job creation, and will he give serious consideration to cancelling the planned January fuel duty increase inherited from the Labour party in order to boost job prospects? Sajid Javid: We carefully consider all submissions from stakeholders, including the FairFuelUK campaign. The important thing is that had the Government continued with their inheritance on fuel duty, that duty would have been 10p higher, which would have made things a lot more difficult for ordinary people. Affordable Housing 10. Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab): If he will use the revenue received by the Exchequer from the forthcoming auction of the 4G mobile telephone spectrum for the purpose of building affordable homes [126527] over the next two years. 11. Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab): If he will use the revenue received by the Exchequer from the forthcoming auction of the 4G mobile telephone spectrum for the purpose of building affordable homes [126528] over the next two years. 12. Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab): If he will use the revenue received by the Exchequer from the forthcoming auction of the 4G mobile telephone spectrum for the purpose of building affordable homes [126529] over the next two years. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander): No decision has been taken on how to use the full revenue from the 4G mobile spectrum auction, but the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills was allocated an entitlement of up to, but no more than, £600 million for science projects from the fund. As I said in answer to an earlier question, on 6 September the Government announced an ambitious housing package to boost housing supply, building on our £4.5 billion investment to deliver 170,000 affordable homes over the spending review period. Chi Onwurah: Perhaps the Chief Secretary is reluctant to commit because he does not trust his colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to overcome their history of delay and dither when it comes to 4G. In Newcastle, thousands of families are on the council house waiting list and thousands of construction workers are unemployed. Does he not agree with the director general of the CBI, who said that this plan was exactly what the economy needed?
Oral Answers
720
Danny Alexander: I recognise the concerns that the hon. Lady and other MPs have about the provision of housing in their own constituencies, and that is precisely why, on 6 September, we announced, among other things, the availability of up to £10 billion of Government guarantees for housing associations—precisely to enable them to build more affordable housing. Emma Reynolds: In the last quarter, there was a 2.5% contraction in the construction sector, and since the Government came to power 119,000 construction jobs have been lost. Why, therefore, do the Government not take their own advice, cut through the dither, sell off 4G, and use the money to construct 100,000 affordable homes and create 150,000 jobs? Danny Alexander: The Department is getting on with the sale of 4G as quickly as possible, but the hon. Lady should be a bit wary about the policy she is promoting. For a start, it is based on assuming that we continue with the Government’s affordable rent policy, which her colleagues oppose, but without it the costs would be a great deal greater. Also, I think she is proposing to reverse the £600 million investment in science policy, which we have already committed to from this fund. Gordon Banks: My question is very, very simple. Will the Chief Secretary use the revenue from this sale to create jobs? Danny Alexander: I note that when the Labour party was in government and had receipts from the 3G auction, it used the resources to pay down debt, which was very prudent. Instead, we are bringing forward policies to support housing, such as the Government guarantees, which will be available to housing associations in Scotland, as well as in other parts of the country. Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con): Alton in east Hampshire has just benefited from a much-needed £9.5 million affordable housing scheme. What more can be done, working with other Departments, to bring on more such schemes, partly using council land, especially in the overcrowded south-east? Danny Alexander: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of releasing public sector land for development for housing, including affordable housing. The Homes and Communities Agency is well ahead of its targets for releasing such land and for schools— Mr Speaker: Order. Are we referring to the proceeds of the auction? Danny Alexander: I am answering the question, which relates to the proceeds of the auction. We are using other policies, rather than the proceeds of the auction, to support this objective. Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con): Rather than spending money we do not yet have, would it not be better for the Department to continue to work with the Department for Communities and Local Government and others in unlocking major housing schemes which have become stuck in recent years, such as the proposed
721
Oral Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Oral Answers
722
new town of Sherford in my constituency? Is that not a better way of building affordable homes and boosting the economy?
ensuring that there is competition in the energy markets, and of course we are determined to do what we can to get people on lower tariffs.
Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member. The question is about using the revenue from the auction —
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): Does the Minister accept that the Government’s increase in VAT has led to 5p on a pint of beer and 3p on a litre of fuel?
Mr Streeter: I am talking about affordable housing. Mr Speaker: Order. That is the term of—[Interruption.] Order. No assistance is required from the hon. Gentleman. He will accept my ruling and he can like it or lump it. Danny Alexander: Rather than the proposal to use revenues from the auction, there are other policies that we can use to support the objective highlighted in the question, including those highlighted by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter)—planning reform, releasing public sector land and other fiscal steps that the Government can take which do not involve committing to this policy now. Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): Will the Minister confirm answers to my written questions—that the reserve for the auction is £1.4 billion and that half has been allocated to science and higher education investment? Is this a case of Labour spending money that we do not have, yet again? Danny Alexander: It is exactly that. The reserve price is £1.4 billion, of which £600 million has been allocated to important science projects, such as the Graphene institute in Manchester. Were we to follow the advice of the Opposition, we would have to cancel significant science projects which are vital to growth in this country. That would be the wrong policy for the British economy.
Mr Gauke: We have to take action to try to deal with the deficit that we inherited, and let us not forget that. The hon. Gentleman mentions fuel. Because of the steps that we have taken on fuel duty, petrol pump prices could be as much as 10p lower per litre than they would have been had we stuck with the fuel duty escalator that we inherited. Banking Reform 16. Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con): What recent steps he has taken to reform banking and to redirect banking fines to the public purse. [126535] The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark): The draft Banking Reform Bill outlining fundamental reforms to the banking sector was published last month and is undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny. We have tabled amendments to the Financial Services Bill which provide for fine revenues net of enforcement costs to go to the public purse in future. The Bill is being debated today in the House of Lords. Some £35 million of those fines received so far this year will be used to support armed forces charities. Andrea Leadsom: Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways to ensure good practice in future is through more transparency and competition in the banking sector? Does he further agree that full bank account portability could be a great way to achieve that?
Cost of Living 14. Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con): What fiscal steps he has taken to reduce the cost of living. [126532]
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke): The Government have taken wide-ranging action to support households. We cut fuel duty last year and have kept it frozen since then. We have also helped those in work by raising the personal allowance by £1,100 in April 2013—the largest tax cut for the median earner in more than a decade. The Government recently announced another year of a council tax freeze and a reduction of the rail fare cap for two further years. Glyn Davies: A major factor in the costs facing families across the United Kingdom is the rapidly increasing cost of energy. Does my hon. Friend agree that Governments have a responsibility to limit such increases as far as possible, including the costs to energy users of paying for the unsustainably large subsidies paid to onshore wind farm developers? Mr Gauke: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of energy prices. The Government are doing what they can on that front. We are supporting Ofgem’s work in
Greg Clark: I do agree that we need much more competition in the banking industry, and account portability can have a major role in advancing that. The Vickers commission looked at it, and my hon. Friend has been very vigorous in proposing ways in which she thinks it can be implemented. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and I will meet her to discuss how we can advance these proposals. Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab): Small businesses are responsible for 40% of the jobs in my constituency, but with the banks not lending to small businesses, it is very hard for them to grow and create the extra jobs that are needed. What action will the Minister take to make sure that the banks do lend to small businesses so that they can play their part in the growth and jobs desperately needed in my constituency and elsewhere in the country? Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is crucial that we get funds to small businesses to get them lending. In fact, lending to small and medium-sized enterprises is up 13% over the past year. He will know that the new funding for lending scheme, which is being conducted in co-operation with the Bank of England, is making £80 billion available to the banking system for the purpose of lending.
723
Oral Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con): We need more competition in banking. Later today, I will chair a meeting with Mr David Fishwick, who has been trying to start a responsible and trustworthy local bank but has found that the barriers to entry are far too high. Will my right hon. Friend look at Mr Fishwick’s report on community banking and consider meeting him to discuss his experiences and see whether we can make it easier for communities to create the banks they need? Greg Clark: I certainly will. I think that there has been a concentration in the number of banks as a result of the financial crisis, and that is not a situation I want to see endure. If the suggestions in the report will help to reverse that, I am all ears. Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op): Comparisons between banking fines for similar offences in this country and in the United States show that we are well behind the curve in that regard. Has the Minister had an opportunity to speak to the Financial Services Authority about a more robust form of regulation that will ensure that fines are appropriate to the issue at stake? Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished member of the Treasury Committee, makes an important point. It is crucial that the change we need in the culture of banking is achieved through leadership and also through a clear warning that abuse, mis-selling and all the other vices that banks can fall into will be punished rigorously. The FSA knows my views on that and I will reinforce them to the authority. Tax Evasion and Avoidance 17. Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con): What recent steps he has taken to tackle tax evasion and reduce tax [126536] avoidance. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke): The Government are investing over £900 million is strengthening Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ response to evasion and avoidance and are on course to bring in around £7 billion in additional tax each year by 2014-15. HMRC is increasing the number of staff working on compliance and using innovative approaches to improve how it identifies and tackles evasion. The Government will soon introduce the UK’s first general anti-abuse rule while also strengthening avoidance disclosure rules and publicity. Bob Blackman: I am a strong supporter of lowering direct tax rates on individuals and companies, but hardworking families in my constituency want to know that companies and high-worth individuals are paying their fair share of tax. What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure that individuals and companies pay their fair share of tax rather than avoiding it? Mr Gauke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we are taking action to strengthen HMRC’s compliance capability, why we are introducing a general anti-abuse rule, why we want to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of tax, and why the Chancellor made it clear yesterday in Mexico that we are working at an international level to ensure that the system that applies to multinational companies does just that.
Oral Answers
724
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): The Minister talks—it might be wishful thinking—about bringing in an extra £7 billion a year, but the tax gap is at least £120 billion a year, and some people think it is more. Is it not time that the Government took chasing billionaire tax dodgers more seriously and stopped cutting public spending and squeezing the poor? Mr Gauke: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the figure of £120 billion does not have much support from anyone who knows much about statistics. The actual figure is £32 billion. That is the number we inherited from the previous Government and we are determined to bring it down. Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD): The Minister will be well aware of the anger of many of our constituents about the activities of companies such as Starbucks and Amazon to minimise their tax rates through aggressive tax avoidance. Is not part of the answer more international co-operation, perhaps among OECD countries, to restrict the ability of those multinationals to siphon off profitable activities into low tax havens? Mr Gauke: My hon. Friend is right to point out that we need to be vigilant about aggressive tax avoidance and the diversion of profits from where genuine economic activity occurs. That is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is leading the way on that, working with the German Finance Minister, and why we had the announcement from Mexico yesterday that the G20 is focusing on that and encouraging the OECD to progress its work so that we can deal with this as soon as possible. Economic Growth 18. Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab): What estimate he has made of the level of economic growth since the October 2010 spending review. [126537] The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid): The economy grew by 1.8% in 2010 and 0.9% in 2011. The Office for Budget Responsibility is responsible for producing independent economic and fiscal forecasts. Mr Mudie: The Minister will be aware that the Chancellor boasted that there would be growth of 2.6% in 2011 and 2.8% in 2012. Actually, growth has averaged 0.6% over the past two years. What went wrong? Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished member of the Treasury Committee, and I think he knows better than that. The Government introduced an independent Office for Budget Responsibility to make forecasts, and the OBR report in October 2012 said that there were several reasons why the out-turn has been different from the forecasts, including “deteriorating export markets…impaired credit conditions”
and “euro area anxiety”. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can welcome yesterday’s report from the Centre for Economics and Business Research, which said that Britain would be the fastest-growing economy in Europe in 2013 and 2014. [Interruption.]
725
Oral Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Oral Answers
726
Mr Speaker: Order. The shadow Chancellor is perfectly free to decide not to speak when he is on his feet, but that does not mean that instead he can speak from his seat.
August. Does not the Government’s failure to address that decline show exactly why the IMF downgraded GDP estimates for Britain by 0.6% for this year, and a further 0.3% for next year?
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con): On behalf of my constituents, I welcome the news that the economy has returned to growth, and I draw the Minister’s attention to the success in the life sciences sector. Eli Lilly has announced a new early-stage neuroscience facility in the UK, Johnson and Johnson has made Britain the home of its new global innovation centre, and more than £1 billion has been raised this year in early stage funds. Is that not the only sustainable route to a really balanced recovery?
Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman calls for action, but I would have thought that the funding for lending scheme was precisely the type of action that he wanted. The Bank of England has been clear that, in the absence of funding for lending, it was quite possible that rates and lending would have declined because of the turbulence and anxiety in the eurozone. Actually, it has been an important factor in getting money to businesses. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that. Topical Questions
Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The only sustainable growth is long-term growth in private sector jobs. Unearned Wealth 20. Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD): What his policy is on taxation on unearned wealth; and if he will make [126539] a statement. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke): The Government are committed to a fair tax system in which those with the most contribute the most. The UK’s tax system is a progressive one, and wealthy individuals make a substantial contribution to the Exchequer. The Government have increased that contribution in a number of ways since the election. Mr Sanders: Social mobility for younger people in Torbay is often curtailed by inequality not of income but of wealth, meaning that far too many will never be able to buy their own homes. Will he redress that imbalance by taxing unearned income as much as we tax the wages of the vast majority of my constituents? Mr Gauke: The Government have increased stamp duty land tax on the most valuable properties. We have also increased the rate of capital gains tax. It is a question of balancing that with practicalities; we think that some of the proposals in this area may have a number of practical difficulties. But we have taken action on some of the taxes that have increased the burden on the wealthiest. Bank Lending 21. Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): What recent assessment he has made of the effect on economic growth of the level of bank lending to [126540] businesses. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark): As I said to the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), the Government and the Bank of England are taking action to improve the flow of credit to business. The £80 billion funding for lending scheme is designed to incentivise banks to maintain and boost their lending to businesses and households. Mr Bain: According to the Bank of England, net lending by the banks to small and medium-sized businesses fell by a further £2.4 billion in the three months to this
T1. [126542] Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander): The core purpose of Her Majesty’s Treasury is to ensure the stability of the economy, promote growth and employment, reform banking and manage the public finances so that Britain starts to live within her means. Tim Loughton: That is all very interesting, but Anne Marie Carrie, the excellent head of Barnardo’s, recently said that the proposal to remove housing benefit from all under-25s “is reckless and unfair as it will leave some of this country’s most vulnerable people stranded.”
I am particularly concerned about the impact on care leavers, who do not have a family home or family to fall back on and for whom a safe and stable roof over their heads means they can keep off the streets, out of the NEET statistics and out of trouble. Will the Chief Secretary guarantee now that he will work with other Ministers to make sure that any changes to housing benefit for under-25s do nothing further to disadvantage that already disadvantaged group? Danny Alexander: My hon. Friend makes a very important point about care leavers. These ideas have been floated as part of a discussion within Government on the next phase of welfare reform. I will certainly make sure that his point is brought to bear in any discussions on that proposal. Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab): At a time when we are seeing cuts to the budgets for police, NHS and schools, it is right that last week this House gave the Government a mandate to negotiate a real-terms cut in the EU budget. However, instead of developing a strategy to deliver this, the Prime Minister has simply resorted to threatening a veto before negotiations have even begun. Of course, walking away is always an option for any EU Government, but can the Chief Secretary confirm that if Britain or any other country just turns up and uses the veto, the budget will rise in line with inflation anyway, costing British taxpayers an extra £310 million? Danny Alexander: I start by congratulating the hon. Lady on the news that she is expecting a child, which was announced a few weeks ago. I am sure that the whole House would wish to join me in that.
727
Oral Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Labour’s position becomes ever more extraordinary; its opportunism on Europe seems to know no bounds. That is why we have heard words of unease from several Labour Members who thought that Labour was a proEuropean party. This Government have taken the toughest position of any European Government in these negotiations. We saw what happened with the previous Government’s negotiating tactics when they gave away half of Britain’s rebate. We are not going to do that all over again. Rachel Reeves: I am not sure whether I caught an answer there. Frankly, the Chief Secretary should know better. After all, he was not only the chief press officer for the Cairngorms national park but the chief officer for Britain in Europe, and he should know that the only way to deliver a real-terms cut is to argue for one and build alliances to deliver it. Perhaps he should listen to his Cabinet colleague who said last week that it is “absolutely ludicrous” to threaten the veto now, weeks before the summit. Is that not just the desperate ploy of a weak Prime Minister with no influence, no allies and no strategy? He should get a good deal for Britain—a cut in the budget. Danny Alexander: The hon. Lady was a pro-European once; I still am. We seem to be seeing an outbreak of amnesia on the Labour Benches. Not only has the hon. Lady forgotten what Labour did in the last multiannual financial framework negotiation, when it gave away half of Britain’s rebate by not forming any alliances and instead giving up vast amounts—billions of pounds—of Britain’s money, but the shadow Chancellor seems to have forgotten that more recently his party was running the largest structural deficit in the world economy in the good times, leaving this country more exposed than ever to the financial crisis. This country does not want amnesia from Labour—it wants an apology. [126546] Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con): T5. Manufacturing in this country halved during the Labour period, falling from 22% of GDP in 1997 to 11% in 2010, and during that period the sector employed half the number of people it did in 1997. With this in mind, what recent representations has my right hon. Friend received regarding investment in manufacturing industry in the north-west?
Danny Alexander: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the work that we are doing to increase manufacturing through, for example, the advanced manufacturing technology institute and investment from the regional growth fund. We have had a number of representations from the north-west, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), who has made representations on capital allowances for businesses. T2. [126543] Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): Nearly three in 10 workers in my constituency, including half of all part-time workers, earn less than the living wage of £7.45 an hour. Does the Chief Secretary, unlike the Prime Minister, back the living wage? Is he not wrong to boast about a recovery that is not being felt in the pay packets of millions of people on low and middle incomes? Danny Alexander: Labour Members had 13 years to introduce a living wage; if they believed in it so much they could have done something about it when they
Oral Answers
728
were in office. This Government are increasing the income tax personal allowance towards the goal of £10,000 set in the Liberal Democrat election manifesto. As of next April, the amount of income tax paid by someone working full time on the minimum wage will have been halved under this Government. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would want to welcome that. T7. [126548] Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD): The regional growth fund is a great help in sorting out the economic devastation left by the previous Government in areas such as Redcar and Middlesbrough. Does the Minister agree with Michael Heseltine that areas such as the Tees valley can become economic powerhouses again, and will he support a further round of the regional growth fund? Danny Alexander: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about the regional growth fund. With him, I have visited recipients of that fund in his constituency, and seen at first hand the benefits on Teesside. He will also welcome the fact that Teesside is a candidate in the next wave of city deals, which will provide an opportunity further to enhance the economy of that area. I hear his representation for a fourth round of the regional growth fund, and I will consider that alongside other policies in the normal way. T3. [126544] Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab): Instead of insulting hard-working parents and calling them “fiscal nimbys”, will the Minister explain how it is fair that a couple earning up to £100,000 a year will keep all their child benefit, while a one-earner family on £50,000 will see theirs cut? The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke): We looked at introducing this measure on the basis of household income, but it would mean bringing 8 million households into the tax credit system and impose a much greater administrative burden on many people. At least Labour Members are consistent: they have opposed every measure to try to reduce the welfare budget, whether it be the welfare cut or child benefit for higher earners. It is time for us all to look at public spending in that area and bring it under control, but the Labour party will simply not do that. T10. [126551] Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con): In the light of a recent report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research, which suggests that UK growth will outstrip many of our European neighbours in 2013 and 2014, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will continue to deal with the UK’s structural deficit? That deficit started to emerge before 2008, despite repeated protestations to the contrary by the shadow Chancellor. Danny Alexander: Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance he requires. The coalition Government have put Britain back on the path to fiscal credibility, and we have cut the deficit by a quarter in our first two and a half years in office. We intend to continue in that policy direction, which is endorsed not only by the CEBR but by many other organisations.
729
Oral Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Oral Answers
730
T4. [126545] Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op): What is the Minister going to do about all those multinational companies that are paying little or no tax? Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs claims that it is powerless because those companies are gaming the system. Instead of pious statements issued from Mexico about what we might or might not do, may we have some action from the Minister? He could start by increasing from 65 the number of tax experts that actually deal with this problem.
right way to address the issue. We have a tradition of taxpayer confidentiality in this country, as does every major economy.
Mr Gauke: Anyone would think that there was a completely different arrangement in 2010, but I am afraid that is not the case. The Government are working at an international level to ensure that multinationals pay the tax that is due, and that profits on their economic activity is paid where it occurs. We are also strengthening HMRC’s capacity in that area and giving it greater skills to tackle the issue. I would have thought the Labour party would welcome the progress we are making when compared with the lack of progress under the previous Government.
Mr Gauke: The cost of implementation of the child benefit policy will be £100 million over five years, but it will bring in £1.7 billion in the first year. I should also point out that the likelihood is that the number of people in self-assessment next year will be no higher than the number in self-assessment last year.
T8. [126549] Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab): Will those on the Treasury Bench tell us the expected cost to HMRC in, for example, extra staffing and IT support of dealing with the massive number of extra self-assessment returns—it is estimated at around 500,000—that will result from child benefit changes?
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con): Will my hon. Friend tell the House what steps he is taking better to support small and medium-sized enterprises through the tax system?
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to stimulate additional growth is through better use of the prompt payment code? Will he join me in calling on businesses and public sector organisations to adopt that code and adhere to it?
Mr Gauke: We have taken a number of measures, including reducing the small profits rate from 22%, which it would have been, to 20%. We have also introduced measures such as seed enterprise investment schemes and small business rate relief. We have taken such measures because we recognise that small businesses will be an engine for growth for our economy and in employment.
Danny Alexander: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and we have already raised that issue with central Government Departments. We will certainly reinforce that message. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General has been advancing that as part of the reforms to public procurement, and I will pass on my hon. Friend’s concerns to him.
T9. [126550] Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op): The Prime Minister has said that a family with children will lose an average of £511 under the Government’s changes this year alone. Is that fair when the Government are cutting taxes for the most wealthy?
[126547] Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab): T6. When universal credit is introduced next year it will cut the living standards of hundreds of thousands of working people—yes, working people. Will the Minister join the Archbishop of York, the Mayor of London and the Labour party and demand a living wage?
Danny Alexander: The Government are increasing taxes on the wealthiest in society and using that money for a number of things, including to put in place a new free child care entitlement for disadvantaged two-year-olds; to extend the child care entitlement of three and fouryear-olds to 15 hours a week; and to reduce the income tax personal allowance, which benefits families in work. The hon. Lady should welcome rather than criticise those policies.
Danny Alexander: I think the hon. Gentleman’s criticism of universal credit is extraordinary. Universal credit will simplify the benefits system and ensure a single, clear process for all people in receipt of benefits. Having a clear single taper will ensure that everybody knows they will be better off in work—something they could not be sure of under the previous Government.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): Some pensioners with capped draw-down and self-invested pension plans have seen their retirement income halve as a result of decisions by the Government Actuary’s Department. How would the Minister suggest those pensioners cope in retirement with such a sharp fall in access to what is, after all, their own money?
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con): The Government have seen the benefits that transparency can bring. Would it be good to require large corporates to publish their tax returns so that we can all see how they achieve the low rates of tax they pay?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid): My hon. Friend is right to point out that pensioners are facing pressure because of low interest rates and longevity. The Government Actuary’s Department makes recommendations to the Government and we must take them seriously—we keep the matter constantly under review.
Mr Gauke: It is right that large corporates engage in this debate, and there is a lot of public interest in the matter. One must ask whether tax returns in themselves will provide the full information—my hon. Friend has great expertise in this area—and whether that is the
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): The Government make a great deal of creating 1 million private sector jobs—[HON. MEMBERS: “Hear, hear!”] Wait, wait. Half
731
Oral Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
of those jobs, according to their statements, were in place after eight months of their coming to office, meaning that in the following 22 months only another half a million jobs were created. That suggests that the rate of growth has slowed substantially as a result of the Chancellor’s policies. Danny Alexander: Once again, Labour Members are on the search for bad news, but the hon. Lady has picked the wrong subject. More than 1 million private sector jobs have been created since the election. The most recent figures show that tens of thousands more jobs have been created in the private sector and the largest ever number of people in employment in this country. That should be welcomed by everyone in the House, including her. Several hon. Members rose—
Oral Answers
732
Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Mr Andrew Bridgen. Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): Will the Minister update the House on steps he is taking to ensure that the affordable housing programme remains on course to deliver the £19.5 billion of public and private investment in affordable housing over the course of this Parliament? Danny Alexander: Yes, I will. The affordable rent programme was over-subscribed and will deliver more homes than originally expected. My colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government will ensure that they are delivered as quickly as possible. By putting in place the new guarantee programme for housing associations, we can further accelerate that programme, ensuring that we meet the targets my hon. Friend describes.
733
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Child Abuse Allegations (North Wales) 12.34 pm The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May): With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on historic allegations of child abuse in the North Wales police force area. In 1991, North Wales police conducted an investigation into allegations that, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, children in homes that were managed and supervised by Clwyd county council were sexually and physically abused. The result of the police investigation was eight prosecutions and seven convictions of former care workers. Despite the investigation and convictions, it was widely believed that the abuse was in fact on a far greater scale, but a report produced by Clwyd council’s own inquiry was never published, because so much of its content was considered by lawyers to be defamatory. In 1995, the then Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), appointed a QC to examine all the relevant documents and recommend whether there should be a public inquiry. The recommendation was that there should be not a public inquiry but an examination of the work of private care homes and the social services departments in Gwynedd and Clwyd councils. This work revealed not only shortcomings in the protection of vulnerable children, but that the shortcomings had persisted even after the police investigation and subsequent prosecutions. In 1996, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), the then new Secretary of State for Wales, invited Sir Ronald Waterhouse to lead an inquiry into the abuse of children in care in the Gwynedd and Clwyd council areas. The Waterhouse inquiry sat for 203 days and heard evidence from more than 650 people. Statements made to the inquiry named more than 80 people as child abusers, many of whom were care workers or teachers. In 2000, the inquiry’s report “Lost in Care” made 72 recommendations for changes to the way in which children in care were protected by councils, social services and the police. Following the report’s publications, 140 compensation claims were settled on behalf of the victims The report found no evidence of a paedophile ring beyond the care system, which was the basis of the rumours that followed the original police investigation and, indeed, one of the allegations made in the past week. Last Friday, a victim of sexual abuse at one of the homes named in the report—Mr Steve Messham—alleged that the inquiry did not look at abuse outside care homes, and he renewed allegations against the police and several individuals. The Government are treating those allegations with the utmost seriousness. Child abuse is a hateful, abhorrent and disgusting crime, and we must not allow these allegations to go unanswered. I therefore urge anybody who has information relating to the allegations to go to the police. I can tell the House that Mark Polin, the chief constable of North Wales police, has invited Keith Bristow, the director general of the National Crime Agency, to assess the allegations recently received, review the historic police investigations and investigate any fresh allegations reported to the police into the alleged historic abuse in north Wales care homes. He will lead a team of officers from the Serious and Organised Crime Agency and other investigative assets as necessary, and the Child
Child Abuse Allegations (North Wales)
734
Exploitation and Online Protection Centre will act as the single point of contact for fresh referrals relating to historic abuse in north Wales care homes. He will produce an initial report reviewing the historic investigations and any fresh allegations by April 2013. I have made it clear to Mark Polin and Keith Bristow that the Home Office is ready to assist with the additional costs of that work. In addition, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, the Government will ask a senior independent figure to lead an urgent investigation into whether the Waterhouse inquiry was properly constituted and did its job. Given the seriousness of the allegations, we will make sure that that work is completed urgently. Given that there have also been serious allegations about other historic child sex offences, I should also inform the House of the work being conducted by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. This will establish a full picture of all forces that have received allegations in relation to Jimmy Savile, examine whether these allegations were investigated properly, and identify wider lessons from the response of the police forces involved. I have been assured by HMIC that its work will also take into account any lessons that emerge from these latest allegations. Before I conclude, I would like to warn hon. Members that if they plan to use parliamentary privilege to name any suspects, they risk jeopardising any future trial and, therefore, the possibility of justice for the victims, which I believe the whole House wants to see. I believe that the whole House will also be united in sending this message to victims of child abuse: “If you have suffered and you go to the police about what you have been through, those of us in positions of authority and responsibility will not shirk our duty to support you. We must do everything in our power to do everything we can to help you, and everything we can to get to the bottom of these terrible allegations.” I commend this statement to the House. 12.39 pm Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab): I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. She is right that these are deeply disturbing allegations. Child abuse and sexual abuse of children and young people are among the most despicable of crimes. When adults who should be trusted to care for children abuse their power and position of trust by committing violent crimes, it can haunt those young people for the rest of their lives. That is made worse if society and the institutions charged with protecting children, including in the criminal justice system, fail to step in to provide greater protection or hold the perpetrators to account. The Home Secretary is therefore right to act on the latest concerns. There are three major issues, each of which needs to be addressed. First, where crimes have been committed or suspected, we need a proper criminal investigation, led by the police in the pursuit of justice. Secondly, we need to know whether there has been an institutional failure to deal with the issue before, be it turning a blind eye, covering things up or simply failing to get to the bottom of what happened. Thirdly, we need to know what further changes are needed to our current framework for safeguarding children and investigating abuse. However, we cannot look at the allegations around north Wales in isolation. The same three questions—about criminal
735
Child Abuse Allegations (North Wales)
6 NOVEMBER 2012
[Yvette Cooper] allegations, potential institutional failure and the lessons for today—are just as significant when it comes to the abuse by Jimmy Savile, as well as more current problems, such as the events in Rochdale or the work that the Children’s Commissioner is doing on child sexual exploitation. I am concerned that the Home Secretary’s response will not be wide enough to cover all those issues. Let me take each in turn. I welcome the points that the Home Secretary has made today about the new criminal investigation into the allegations in north Wales, and in particular the involvement of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, which has considerable expertise. Clearly the investigation must go more widely than north Wales if that is where the evidence takes it. I hope that she can provide that assurance to the House. On the historic reviews, I welcome her decision to look again at the Waterhouse inquiry, which I assume will involve looking at whether child abuse that might have taken place outside the care system was sufficiently considered. However, we have a whole series of inquiries under way into similar problems, in addition to important police and criminal investigations. As I understand it, there are three BBC inquiries into what happened with Jimmy Savile, a Department of Health inquiry—as well as several separate hospital inquiries—a Crown Prosecution Service inquiry, a new north Wales inquiry and an inquiry by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary into other forces that may have received allegations about Jimmy Savile. The Home Secretary will know that we have already raised our concern that the Savile investigations should be brought under a single inquiry. We remain concerned that these multiple inquiries have no way to draw together the common themes, the problems or the lessons that need to be learned. Of course we need to get to the bottom of what is happening in each case, but at the moment the framework that the Government have set out risks being confused. The reason this is important is that we have to have a proper way to learn the right lessons for the current framework for safeguarding children, because there are clearly current lessons to be learned. Obviously a series of child protection policies have been introduced since many of the events took place. Big changes include the Children’s Commissioners, strengthening the law repeatedly, new measures and policies on safeguarding in schools and social services, and the creation of CEOP. However, we all remain concerned that victims of sexual abuse, particularly children, are too often simply not believed or taken seriously enough—abuse that was ignored for too long against girls and young women in Rochdale very recently, as well as concerns that have been raised in Rotherham. We have also seen the forthcoming Children’s Commissioner’s report, which will raise concerns about wider child exploitation. We have raised concerns too about some of the policy changes that the Government have introduced, such as changes to vetting and barring arrangements and changes to the way in which CEOP will operate. Primary care trusts have also raised concerns about the way in which child safeguarding will be treated in the NHS as a result of the reforms. There are wider concerns, and lessons for today that need to be learned alongside the detailed historic investigations that rightly must take place. I know that
Child Abuse Allegations (North Wales)
736
the Home Secretary is deeply concerned by these crimes, and that she takes them extremely seriously. I therefore urge her to look again at the framework for these inquiries and at the possibility of a single overarching inquiry or review that would draw all the evidence together and consider what needs to be done to protect children now. It is extremely hard for the victims of child abuse and of sexual abuse against young people to speak out and to talk about crimes that are so intimate and so deeply disturbing, and they show great bravery when they do so. We need to show them that they will be listened to, that we will give them the support that they need and that everything possible will be done to protect children in the future as well. Mrs May: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for the approach that she has taken to these serious issues. It is right that we should work together across the House to find the best solution, not only to get to the bottom of anything that we have failed to uncover so far, but to support the victims—which, as she and I have said, is so important. In looking at these issues, it is right that we should first look into the police investigations to see whether any avenues that should have been followed were not pursued, and whether any issues have been uncovered as a result of the allegations that are now coming forward that should be dealt with. We must also pursue any criminality that comes forward, so that the victims can see that justice is being done. That is why I have put an emphasis on the police investigation, and on the NCA working with the North Wales police to look into the historic allegations and ensure that everything necessary was done. If there are any avenues to be pursued in any criminal investigations, I am absolutely clear that the police should take them wherever they go. It is important that the NCA’s director general should bring in various assets, including, crucially, the Serious Organised Crime Agency and CEOP. CEOP is renowned for dealing with these issues, and it is right that it should be the single point of contact for any fresh allegations that come forward. If, at the end of the processes that we have set in train, it appears necessary to move forward to a wider investigation, of course we will look at that. At this stage, we need to get the police investigations into any criminality under way, and to ensure that the Waterhouse inquiry did as it was intended to do, and did it properly. As I have said, however, if there is a case to be made for a wider inquiry at some stage in the future, we will of course look at the issue. I shall return to the point on which the right hon. Lady and I ended our statements today. She was right to say that other police investigations had taken place in which there were issues over whether the victims were believed. We need to be able to reassure victims that, when they come forward, they will be listened to and taken seriously. It is incumbent on all of us in the House, in the positions of authority and responsibility that we hold, to ensure that that is the case. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on the urgency with which he has responded to this matter, and the Home Secretary is to be congratulated on the speed
737
Child Abuse Allegations (North Wales)
6 NOVEMBER 2012
with which she has come to the House today. Many weeks ago, when the Savile affair first reared its ugly head, I said that it was just the tip of the iceberg. We should not be surprised that child abuse has now raised its head in the political spectrum as well. As the shadow Home Secretary has said, we now have a multiplicity of inquiries, and the Home Secretary has just announced an inquiry about an inquiry. Rather than waking up to find a new institution involved in this mire every week, is it not now time to have an overarching and robust public inquiry into all the failings in child protection in various institutions—the BBC, the health service, the police, the Church and so on—during the latter part of the 20th century? All institutions involved with children and young people should be made to have a robust child protection policy that is fit for purpose in the 21st century. All perpetrators should be exposed and brought to book, and all victims should be given credence and closure at last. Mrs May: I commend my hon. Friend, who has championed the interests of children and child protection throughout his time in this House. He has a worthy record of bringing these issues before the House and the public. My hon. Friend talked about bringing perpetrators to book, but as I said in my response to the shadow Home Secretary, what matters at this stage is that we are able to let the police do the job of identifying the allegations brought forward, pursuing the investigations and bringing perpetrators to book where possible. He has rightly said that this is not just an issue that has hit the care homes in north Wales, as the allegations of child abuse and actions of child abuse go wider in respect of the number of institutions involved in various ways over the years. As I said to the shadow Home Secretary, let us see the criminal investigation routes pursued, and if there is a case to go wider, of course the Government will look at that. Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab): In February 2000, I was the Secretary of State for Wales and reported Sir Ronald Waterhouse’s report to this House of Commons. Does the Secretary of State agree that, although the report exposed monumental wickedness and came up with superb recommendations, including the creation of a Children’s Commissioner for Wales, and that however important it is to look at Sir Ronald’s inquiry, it is much more important to deal with the investigations into fresh allegations that are now before us? Secondly, will the Home Secretary assure the House that she is in close contact with Carwyn Jones, the First Minister for Wales, who is obviously also dealing with this issue, as social services are devolved? Mrs May: I recognise that when the Waterhouse inquiry was set up and when it reported, it was generally welcomed in the House for the work it had done. Given the fresh allegations, however, I think it is important to ask somebody to look again at that work. Alongside it, what is of course important, as the right hon. Gentleman said, are the police investigations, looking into any fresh allegations that have been made and, as I say, looking at the historic allegations and investigations, too, to ensure that those were indeed conducted properly and went as widely as they needed to. As for the First Minister for
Child Abuse Allegations (North Wales)
738
Wales, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has spoken to him. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, policing is not a devolved matter, but there will be further discussions with the First Minister on a number of these matters, including the review of the Waterhouse review. Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): My right hon. Friend has just announced a number of inquiries, but I agree with the right hon. Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)and for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) and with my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) in that there is a real imperative and priority for the police to get on with their job now, which is to investigate fresh allegations of criminality—and they must be left unhindered to do that, without being inhibited by other forms of inquiries into inquiries. I urge my right hon. Friend to allow the police to get on with that and, if necessary, to delay any inquiries into the inquiries so that the suspects can be prosecuted and, if necessary, found guilty, and the innocent can be relieved of the suspicion that is current in the media. Mrs May: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his comments. It is absolutely right that the police should be unhindered in their work of investigating any fresh allegations and, as I say, any historic allegations as well. If any charges are to be brought, the individuals need to be identified and criminal prosecutions pursued. The review into the Waterhouse inquiry will not, I think, get in the way of the police investigations, as it is a review into how that inquiry was conducted. It is right that the police are allowed and able to get on with the job. If people have committed horrendous crimes, we all want to see them brought to justice on the basis of the evidence and we want the criminality to be pursued. Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): I commend the Home Secretary for the speed with which she has acted on this issue. I remind her that when the children’s commissioner gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in its inquiry into Rochdale, she said that child abuse was happening in every town and city in this country. At the end of the day, I think the right hon. Lady is going to have to have a public inquiry—an overarching inquiry that brings all the strands together. In the meantime, will she assure us that the National Crime Agency will have this co-ordinating function with all the other inquiries that are going on? Will she please involve the Director of Public Prosecutions at the earliest opportunity. In the end, the victims want to see people prosecuted. Mrs May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. He has reminded us of the remarks made by the children’s commissioner when she came before the Home Affairs Committee. The director general of the NCA, Keith Bristow, working with SOCA, CEOP and any other assets he feels necessary to bring to bear at the invitation of the chief constable of North Wales, will primarily be looking into those allegations. If it is the case that other allegations surface in another context, which it would be appropriate to wind into the investigation, the director general of the NCA would, of course, be able to do that.
739
Child Abuse Allegations (North Wales)
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): These allegations are indeed very distressing. In the original Waterhouse inquiry, 28 people were named but their names were not publicly reported because the judge reasonably assumed that it would prejudice any future trial—a trial that never happened. Does the Home Secretary agree that whenever there is an inquiry into what happened historically, as opposed to the recent allegations, it must get to the bottom of why there was no follow-up police investigation after Waterhouse concluded? Mrs May: My hon. Friend is right. One point of bringing extra resource in to support the North Wales police on this issue is to look at the historic allegations and to investigate whether everything was done that needed to be done in respect of following up criminal prosecutions as well as ensuring that all the evidence was taken. Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC): I commend the Home Secretary for her statement today and the urgent action she has taken. I am very pleased that CEOP will be involved and that every extra resource will be there, if necessary. Some of these allegations, however, are not fresh; they were made during the proceedings of the Waterhouse inquiry. I believe that the right hon. Lady is right that a two-strand approach is vital and that the police should get on with it immediately. As to the inquiry itself, if the individual looking into it says, as others have said here today, that we need a further, overarching public inquiry, will the Home Secretary agree to it? Mrs May: We will of course listen to any comments, remarks or proposals that come from the individual who looks into the Waterhouse inquiry, and we will treat them with the seriousness with which they should be treated. David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): I welcome the fact that, following these serious allegations, the Home Secretary has acted very quickly indeed to investigate the specific problems in north Wales. Will she reaffirm that if anybody is found to have been involved in this, they can expect absolutely no mercy and that the full force of the law will be pursued in the courts? Mrs May: I am sure that what we all want, especially for the victims, is that justice is done and seen to be done. As I said, it is for the police to follow any avenue of inquiry that they believe they should follow and to follow it without fear or favour. Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab): The lesson of Hillsborough and hacking is that a narrowed down investigation is the basic building-block of a cover-up. To limit this inquiry to north Wales and Savile would, in my view, be a dereliction of the Home Secretary’s duty. It would guarantee that many sickening crimes will remain uninvestigated, and some of the most despicable paedophiles will remain protected by the establishment that has shielded them for 30 years. Will the right hon. Lady please guarantee that the SOCA inquiry has licence to follow any lead it finds in what will be, after all, a serious criminal investigation. There should be no historic sexual abuse of children which is off limits to this
Child Abuse Allegations (North Wales)
740
investigation, and the police should be supported by a dedicated team of child protection specialists, many of whom have been raising their concerns for years. Whether someone was raped and tortured as a child in Wales or in Whitehall, they are entitled to be heard. The media may be transfixed by the spectre of a paedophile Cabinet Minister abusing children, but what actually matters are the thousands and thousands of children whose lives have been ground into nothing, who prefer to kill themselves than carry on, who have nowhere to turn, to whom nobody listens and whom nobody helps. Does the right hon. Lady sincerely want to start making amends, or can she live with being what she has just announced—the next stage of a cover-up? Mrs May: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to take that tone. I know that he is keen to see the large-scale inquiry to which a number of Members have referred. I have explained why I think it important for the criminal investigation to run its course, and to be pursued without fear or favour. I assure him that what I, and the Government, want to do is ensure that we establish investigations, and that, if there are people who should be pursued for the purpose of prosecution, such a process then takes place. I have made that absolutely clear. It is entirely true that there have been a number of instances, over the years and across the country, of different forms of child sexual abuse. We now see the online and on-street grooming of children, and a number of other variations of child abuse. What is so horrific is the extent to which that abuse has been taking place in our country and throughout our communities over the years. There are various ways in which the police are investigating these matters and inquiries are taking place. In relation to the issue in north Wales, it is important for the police to be able to pursue any criminal investigations without fear or favour, taking those investigations, absolutely clearly, where the evidence leads them. That is what they should be doing, that is what they will be doing, and that is what I believe is the best way in which to bring justice to the victims. Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con): Today’s statement concerned some of the most shocking incidents that I can remember occurring during my political life in Wales. Like others, I greatly commend the Prime Minister on the speed with which he established the urgent investigation. It may well be true that we must have the wide-ranging inquiry to which several Members have referred. However, we do not want to lose sight of the fact that there is an issue in north Wales that must be dealt with comprehensively. We must ensure that those responsible are brought to book quickly, and that we do not lose this particular shocking issue in a wider investigation that will take a long, long time. Mrs May: I share my hon. Friend’s concern. As a number of other Members have pointed out, we need to ensure that the police are able to investigate, to do that speedily, and to ensure that anyone who should be brought to justice is indeed brought to justice.
741
Child Abuse Allegations (North Wales)
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab): Does the Home Secretary agree that one of the fundamental flaws in the Waterhouse inquiry lay in its terms of reference? That is why we need a far more widespread inquiry. Mrs May: The review of the Waterhouse inquiry will examine, among other issues, the way in which that inquiry was constituted. However, I believe that at the time when the terms of reference were set, the entire House was comfortable with them. Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con): I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend’s swift action, in relation to both the independently led review of the Waterhouse inquiry and the involvement of the National Crime Agency, which I think is very important. Does she agree that all the evidence collected by “Newsnight”, by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and by others should be placed in the hands of the police immediately? That is absolutely essential if justice is to be delivered not only to the victims, but to those who have been unfairly libelled on the internet in recent days. Mrs May: That is a very valid point. I would encourage all who have any evidence or any allegations of child abuse to put that evidence or those allegations before the police. It is for the police to investigate, and to take evidence where it leads. Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab): There has clearly been institutional blindness to abuse, whether it has taken place in Rochdale council, at the BBC or even within political parties. We now need a Government framework that encourages all victims to come forward, whatever cases are involved. Does the Home Secretary not agree with that? Mrs May: I am happy to repeat what I said in my statement, and also a minute or so ago. I think that anyone who has been a victim and who feels that there are allegations to be made should make those allegations, but I also think that such people should go to the police, who should be investigating the allegations and ensuring that we can, where possible, bring the perpetrators to justice. Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con): Tomorrow, after a year-long inquiry, the Education Committee will produce its report on child protection in England. There has understandably been a great deal of focus on the perpetrators in recent weeks, but we focused unapologetically on the victims. May I ask the Home Secretary to look at the report carefully? What is most important—even more important than bringing people to justice—is ensuring that no child suffers as children suffered in past years when, overall, the system let them down. Mrs May: I will, of course, look at the Committee’s report carefully. As my hon. Friend says, we often concentrate on the perpetrators. We hope that part of that involves giving the victims an opportunity for justice, but concern for the victims must also drive what we are doing.
Child Abuse Allegations (North Wales)
742
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House so promptly, but the problem with what she has said today is that the victims have heard what she has said in the past. They gave evidence to the Waterhouse inquiry, but that evidence was not listened to and did not become public, and no prosecutions—or not enough prosecutions—followed. What can the Home Secretary do to assuage the feelings of those victims, and to make them understand that this inquiry will actually lead to the taking of some responsibility? Is it not about time that we had openness, after all these years, about the evidence that was given to the Waterhouse inquiry? Mrs May: I would say to anyone who has been a victim and is concerned about what has happened in the past that the whole point of setting up a police investigation under the director general of the National Crime Agency is to enable a body of police to look into the investigations and inquiries that took place previously, and to establish whether they were properly conducted or whether avenues of inquiry or allegations that should have been pursued were not pursued, in order to identify instances in which it will be possible to bring perpetrators to justice. This is not just an inquiry into what has happened; it is a police investigation, and it will focus on precisely that issue. John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): On 26 October, the Government voted down proposals to make cover-ups harder and to protect children in care. What measures do they propose to ensure, in particular, that people have a right to complain to someone independent? Mrs May: The hon. Gentleman has led me on to territory that is not fully within my remit, but I can say that one of the messages we hope will be conveyed by the action we are taking today is that people who make serious allegations will be listened to and taken seriously, because that issue has arisen in many areas. We want to ensure that people do not feel that they cannot come forward because they will not be taken seriously or because action will be taken against them, and that when child abuse has taken place, it is uncovered and dealt with properly. Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): Is the Home Secretary asking the security services to review and, where appropriate, share any intelligence that they have relating to cases and places of abuse and to the persons, networks and patterns involved, not just in north Wales but—as other Members have suggested—more widely, including, but not only, in respect of Kincora? Mrs May: The National Crime Agency, whose investigation will take place at the request of the chief constable of North Wales police, will pursue whatever avenues they need to pursue to ensure that they can take an appropriate approach to bringing perpetrators to justice. Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that many fresh allegations could come from individuals who have hidden the appalling attacks made on them so many years ago, and who will be reluctant to come forward because that would disturb
743
Child Abuse Allegations (North Wales)
6 NOVEMBER 2012
[Sir Paul Beresford] the life that they have built since? Do such people not need the reassurance and protection that can be provided by CEOP, the police and others if they do come forward? Mrs May: That is an important point. For many victims who wish to come forward, it will not be an easy process but a very painful process, which, as my hon. Friend says, could disrupt the lives that they have been able to build subsequently. However, I assure him that CEOP is well able to deal, and well used to dealing, with people who are in difficult circumstances and who may find it difficult to come forward. That is why I think it so important for CEOP’s ability and specialism to be brought to bear on the investigation.
Child Abuse Allegations (North Wales)
744
Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the work done by HMIC will lead to a report that the House will then have a chance to debate? Mrs May: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I am sure the House will want to return to this issue either in relation to the HMIC report or anything further that comes out of the investigations being set up today. One issue HMIC will be looking at in a number of forces is whether the police respond properly to these sorts of allegations. As a number of Members have said, one of the more general concerns is that victims often find it difficult to be heard, or do not come forward because they do not think they will be listened to.
Mrs May: If there are similar concerns about any other inquiries, we would look at them on a case-by-case basis and consider the appropriate way of dealing with them.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab): As a former prosecutor of historical sexual abuse cases in care homes and institutions, as well as within the family, I informed the House in a debate some months ago that sexual abuse of our young people is very common and much more prevalent than we appreciate. We need not only an inquiry into any abuse that has been taking place in care homes or other institutions but to take a proper look at what we should do to protect our young children in the future and what rules we should put in place to make it easier for young victims to come forward and tell us what has happened to them. I repeat that it is not only care homes that have sexual abuse problems; there are also sexual abuse problems in the home and the family.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con): I was a Clwyd county councillor representing Wrexham at the time of the north Wales children homes inquiry, and I was on the panel that looked at the report that was never published. Let me tell the House that its contents were horrendous. Can the Secretary of State assure me and the House that no stone will be left unturned to make sure that the people who came forward can have closure and that those responsible for these dreadful crimes can be punished?
Mrs May: I acknowledge the hon. Lady’s experience in this area, and she raises an important point about the extent of such abuse and the scenarios in which it takes place. She says we should look at the broad issue of child protection. She will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) informing the House that the Education Committee will publish its report on child protection tomorrow, and I am sure the whole House will want to look at that issue very seriously.
Mrs May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing her personal experience with the House, and I assure her that no stone will be left unturned. The entire House wants to see that justice is done.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con): As my right hon. Friend may be aware, rape crisis centres are reporting a considerable increase in activity as victims of historical abuse come forward. While it is welcome that people are responding to how seriously we are all taking these allegations, we do not want to be unable to right the wrong they have suffered by not being in a position to give them adequate support. Will she make sure that the infrastructure we have in place to support rape and abuse victims is satisfactory and supports them to get closure?
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab): Given what we now know about the powers of investigation and terms of reference used in the north Wales inquiry, will the Home Secretary have regard to other similar inquiries? I am thinking in particular of the Staffordshire “pindown” inquiry undertaken by Allan Levy. Can the Home Secretary assure the House that if similar questions arise in relation to any other inquiry, they will be encompassed within any further investigations?
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): Will the Home Secretary look into whether there was a systemic problem in north Wales whereby those accused of child abuse without conclusive evidence to prove it were redeployed within the wider world of social services? Although they no longer had direct access to children, they were still part of that system. If that is the case, we will need a much wider inquiry. Mrs May: One issue that has been raised both in the past and more recently is the question of whether the inquiries went sufficiently far outside the care system. As the police look at the historical allegations, they will also consider how far the investigations should go. Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): One of the major concerns in all this is the number of credible claims of child abuse that were made to the police about Savile and others that never resulted in charges being brought.
Mrs May: I recognise the problem my hon. Friend raises, and only last week I heard directly from representatives of rape crisis centres about the increase in the number of historical victims coming forward. The Government have been able to provide some extra funding for rape crisis centres to put them on a more stable footing and to open some new centres, but I recognise that there are issues in respect of their ability to handle the volume of people coming forward and also the appropriate way to deal with them, as many of the recent therapies have not always satisfied the needs of some of those victims.
745
Child Abuse Allegations (North Wales)
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): One of the boys involved in this case was persuaded to give evidence only to find that, after going through the horror of churning up the memories of the dreadful things he had suffered, there was no justice at the end of it. He later took his life. I know that the hard-bitten reporters who persuaded him to give evidence on the promise that there would be justice have lived with that sense of injustice ever since. I ask the right hon. Lady to look not only at the fresh evidence but at the evidence that was available at the time and that was almost certainly suppressed by powerful people. Will she look at the evidence produced by Paddy French and the Rebecca Television website on an edition of “Wales this Week” that was never broadcast? Mrs May: The police investigation will look at the evidence that was available at the time in these historical abuse allegations, and at whether the evidence was properly investigated and whether avenues of inquiry were not pursued that should have been followed up and that could have led to prosecutions. I can therefore say to the hon. Gentleman that the police will, indeed, be looking at that historical evidence. That is part of the job they will be doing. Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con): I, too, welcome the Home Secretary’s decision today. Does she agree that if there is a single message that must go out from all these inquiries and investigations it is that all victims of child abuse or sexual exploitation who come forward will be believed? Even if there is a successful police investigation and even if the Crown Prosecution Service decides the victim is a credible witness, too often they feel that they are treated like the criminal in court. Will the Home Secretary work with the Director of Public Prosecutions to make sure all special measures are implemented so that that does not happen in any prosecutions that come out of this inquiry? Mrs May: I am very happy to raise that issue with the Law Officers in relation to what happens in court. We have made considerable progress in dealing with victims of these crimes in court, but I recognise that some still find it very difficult to give evidence, and without that evidence the prosecution is often not possible. Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): I also welcome the statement and the speed with which the Home Secretary has made it. In recent days she and her officials will have rightly been in close discussion with North Wales police about the work to be done by Keith Bristow, and it is very welcome that the Home Office is offering financial support. When serious issues such as these have to be dealt with in future, what role will police and crime commissioners have in discussions between the Home Office and local police forces? What part will they play in making decisions about future action? Mrs May: The police and crime commissioner will replace the police authority. There will be certain circumstances in which it is right, as it would have been for the police authority, for the commissioner to be part of initiating a particular piece of work. There will be other circumstances in which it is entirely right for the chief constable to do that.
Child Abuse Allegations (North Wales)
746
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con): I welcome the statement. As a Leeds MP, it has been sad to see how the Jimmy Savile allegations have rocked people’s trust. As a councillor in Wrexham at the time of the inquiry, I remember how it sent shockwaves throughout the community. Even after the inquiry, there was considerable angst among people in the area about the appalling things that had happened. My right hon. Friend has rightly encouraged anyone with accusations to come forward, but there were rumours at the time of people who were too frightened and anxious to do that because of the exposure it may have given to their family and the complete lack of trust they had in the authorities who were supposed to be looking after them in the first place. Can she assure me that those who do come forward will be listened to without fear of recrimination and that everything will be done to support them through a very difficult process? Mrs May: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. This is why it is particularly important that the single point of contact for people will be CEOP, which has the experience of and expertise in working with victims of these appalling crimes. CEOP has the ability to work with those who find it difficult to come forward, and it will enable them to do so in a way that allows their story to be heard and listened to. Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): As a former social worker who worked in child protection in Wales, I welcome the statement, but if this is to be a successful examination, we have to look at the reasons why this was able to happen and what the lessons are for today—the lessons will go wider than just the Home Office. May we have an assurance that there will be an examination across Departments as to why we continue to place vulnerable children away from their home areas, and away from their families, their friends and the support networks they trust, where they can have the assurance that if they go back to those networks such revelations will not be buried and hidden? We are failing generations of children by still placing them far away from their families because of cost and because we no longer have local authority children’s homes in which places can be found for vulnerable children. Mrs May: The hon. Lady raises a wide issue about the way in which we treat children and young people who are in care and are the responsibility of the state. Sadly, this country has an appalling and shameful record on the way in which we have dealt with young people in care, across a range of issues. Obviously, the points that she has made will be noted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, under whose remit this primarily comes. Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab): Will the Home Secretary tell us more about the terms of reference for the appointee who is looking into whether the Waterhouse inquiry did its job? Surely these must be as wide as possible, given this dreadful case. Mrs May: I am not able to give the terms of reference at this stage. Wide discussions are being held, including, as I understand it, with the Opposition, about what those terms of reference should be.
747
Child Abuse Allegations (North Wales)
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab): I am grateful to the Home Secretary for coming to the House to make the statement and to my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary for calling for a single overarching inquiry, as I believe there will be a great deal of support for that in north Wales, as well as in other places. Most of us cannot even begin to imagine the pain that many victims of this dreadful abuse will be going through today. They will be watching and reliving some of their experiences, which, in many cases, may have been buried for decades. The hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), a former Wrexham councillor, raised this point eloquently. My concern is that many people would like to go to the police to say what happened to them but they fear that the perpetrators are much more powerful than they are. They want to know that we will be on their side. If any Member of the House of Lords were found to be guilty and to be a perpetrator, would the Government support stripping them of their peerage and taking them out of the House of Lords for life? Mrs May: Obviously, what would happen to any individual who was found to be a perpetrator following any potential criminal prosecution is a matter that would need to be determined at the time. I think that the whole House shares a view on the valid point that the hon. Lady makes about those who fear that they will not be heard; we in this House have responsibility, authority and power, and we should make sure that the message that goes out from us clearly today is that victims will be heard. If someone has been a victim and has allegations to make, I ask them please to bring them forward and take them to the police. The purpose of the investigation is to ensure that we follow all avenues of inquiry, and that victims can see that their voice is heard, that they are listened to and that, where possible, perpetrators are brought to justice. Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab): The Secretary of State said that she has not had direct contact with the First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones. May I suggest she does make contact with him and also with the Children’s Commissioner for Wales to ensure that there is full co-operation and the free flow of information across all UK borders—those of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands—in a Welsh inquiry or in an overarching UK inquiry? Mrs May: As I understand it, a number of conversations are being held with the First Minister in Wales—as I indicated earlier, the Secretary of State for Wales has already been in touch with him. I think there will be discussions about the nature of the review of the Waterhouse inquiry as part of that. Of course, as instances emerge—as allegations are made and victims come forward—it will be necessary to ensure that there is an exchange of information in the investigations. One benefit of being able to bring the director general of the National Crime Agency, along with the assets of SOCA and CEOP, and other force assets, as necessary, into this investigation is to make sure that all the information sharing that is necessary is done. Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): Keith Bristow is a very highly regarded senior police officer but, as he told the Home Affairs Committee the other week, he is already up to his neck in another serious,
Child Abuse Allegations (North Wales)
748
high-profile police investigation and he is also trying to establish the National Crime Agency. Is the Home Secretary absolutely confident that he will be able to give this matter the full attention that it obviously demands? Mrs May: Yes, indeed I am. This investigation provides a good example of the benefits of having a central authority—a central body—that can draw resource from a number of areas, particularly the specialist resource from CEOP and SOCA, and bring that to bear. Before the invitation came from the chief constable of North Wales police we of course discussed with Keith Bristow his ability, and that of the various assets under him, to undertake this, and he is clear that he is able to do so. Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab): I, too, thank the Home Secretary for her statement. There is a wide difference between police forces in not only how they respond to allegations of child sexual exploitation, but how well they currently assess risks to children in their area. What has happened to these children in the past is terrible and we must do all we can to ensure that we safeguard children from sexual abuse. Does she agree that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary should make it a priority to inspect police forces to see how well they safeguard children in their area? Mrs May: One issue that HMIC will be examining in its work on Savile and on the lessons learned from this north Wales investigation and, if necessary, others, is how the police deal with these matters. One of HMIC’s tasks will be to ensure that forces are taking those lessons seriously and embedding them in what they do. Of course, once the college of policing is up and running, it will also be a body with responsibility for developing standards and good practice in a number of areas, and I would expect this to be one of those areas. Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): I, too, thank the right hon. Lady for today’s statement and for the speed with which the Government have brought it to the House. As is clear from the Jimmy Savile abuse and the north Wales care home abuse, paedophile groups were prevalent in many parts of the United Kingdom in the 1970s and 1980s. Organisations that give help to abused children are almost being overwhelmed by the phone calls they are receiving—they are reporting a 100% increase in calls for help from young children. What assistance can she give organisations tasked with helping these vulnerable children? Mrs May: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the number of people now coming forward. As more revelations of a historical nature are made, I hope that people will feel better able to come forward to indicate their concerns and the problems they have been dealing with in their lives. As he says, a number of organisations are working with and helping those children. The issue of child protection is one that this House and the Government have taken and will continue to take seriously in terms of ensuring not only that there is child protection in the first place, but that when there are victims they can come forward and are given the support they need.
749
Child Abuse Allegations (North Wales)
750
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Coop): I served as a member of the inquiry team that looked into and reported on abuse of children in residential care in Edinburgh and it was some of the most harrowing work I have ever done. From that experience, I am very aware of how difficult it is for victims to come forward. I appreciate the importance of CEOP, as well as what the Home Secretary is saying about the police, but many victims will fear that they will not be believed or will worry that they will be let down again. What resources will she put in place for social services departments, the voluntary sector and counselling organisations to enable people to come forward, tell their stories and be supported throughout, whatever action is taken? Mrs May: It is not for me to put resources into social services departments, as that is obviously another area of responsibility, but we will be considering the issue across Government. I hope that the message that has gone out from this House today to reassure victims that they will be listened to will be heard and that people will have the confidence to come forward. The hon. Lady’s point about wider support for victims has been raised by a number of other Members and I will ensure that it is considered by the responsible Departments. Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab): The Education Committee heard worrying evidence that there is still a big problem with older children not being listened to or believed because of what is regarded as difficult behaviour. That is consistent with what happened in Rochdale and with what a number of other Members have said. Notwithstanding that, does the Home Secretary agree that it is very important for child protection to have greater co-operation between the police and other agencies so that children are put at the centre of all child protection work? Mrs May: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about co-operation at a more local level in responding to cases involving individual children. All the evidence suggests that the best protection and results happen when agencies work together and when not just one single agency considers the protective needs of a child. He makes an interesting point that we will take away and consider.
Point of Order 1.32 pm Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Ash dieback disease is a major national disaster of huge proportions, and of direct and immediate interest to every hon. Member of this House. It is therefore disappointing to learn that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has written a detailed letter updating hon. Members on this environmental emergency, but that the letter has been exclusively distributed by the Government Whips’ admin unit to Government—governing party—MPs only. As you are guardian of the rights of this House, Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance on the appropriateness of a Secretary of State, in a moment of great national emergency, seeking to use the functions and resources of the private office to exclusively brief only his own party colleagues. Surely every hon. Member of this House is equal in their standing and equal in their need to hold the Executive to account. Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. If Ministers acting as Ministers with the support of the civil service are making information available to hon. and right hon. Members of this House, they should without question do so equally. That requirement does not of course apply to political parties making information available to Members of the House. I hope that that distinction is clear and intelligible to the House. I cannot have a debate with the hon. Gentleman about it and there is no requirement to do so, but if he is seeking genuine clarification—his brow is furrowed in such a way as to suggest that that is so—I shall briefly indulge him. Huw Irranca-Davies: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I do not intend to detain the House any longer than I need to. Further to that point of order, the letter is signed not by a party political unit but by the Secretary of State in name as the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. If I were to share the letter with you, Mr Speaker, perhaps you could offer some clear advice on whether it falls within the remit of the civil service or party politicking. Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his follow-up point of order. I have not had sight of the letter and I am happy to look at it, but I do not think that I need now to add to anything that I have said.
751
6 NOVEMBER 2012 Free School Meals (Children Over the
752
Age of 16)
Free School Meals (Children Over the Age of 16) Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) 1.34 pm Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision to introduce free school meal arrangements for children over the age of 16 who attend colleges to bring them into line with arrangements for children who attend schools, academies and free schools; and for connected purposes.
Free school meals are a vital tool in ensuring that all students have access to education regardless of their background. More than 100 years have passed since Campbell-Bannerman’s Liberal Government gave local councils the power to give free meals to children from poor families. It was the great 1944 Education Act that made it an entitlement for children to have a free school meal. Consequently millions of young people, for over a century or more, have benefited from free school meals, which has increased both access to education and social mobility. The situation today, however, is not entirely satisfactory as there remains a significant inequity in the provision of free meals for the over-16s. Students who meet eligibility requirements can claim free school meals if they attend school sixth forms, academies, university technical colleges or free schools, but their contemporaries at sixth-form colleges and further education colleges cannot. That long-standing injustice is an issue that I have raised continually since my election to this House two and a half years ago. Along with MPs from all parties, I contributed to a Westminster Hall debate in June led by the former Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett). The strong concern expressed by all Members from both sides of the House in that debate demonstrated the breadth and depth of support for addressing the injustice. From my 30 years’ experience of working with post-16year-olds and four years as principal of John Leggott college in Scunthorpe, I know the direct impact that not having access to a college meal in the daytime has on concentration, attendance, retention, achievement and, inevitably, a young person’s progression on to other things. Free school meals should be available to those who need them regardless of where they choose to study. If the eligibility of students who meet the criteria for free school meals depends on the type of institution they attend, that is not only morally wrong but potentially piles disadvantage on top of disadvantage. The fact that 16 to 18-year-olds in colleges miss out is particularly unfair when 13.3% of them are from disadvantaged backgrounds compared with 8.3% in maintained school sixth forms and academies. It gets worse, because some areas of the country are served more heavily by colleges for post-16 education than by schools, which means that young people lose out through a postcode lottery because of where they live. That injustice affects not just a minority of students, but a significant proportion. Across the country, some 103,000 students are missing out on a free lunch to which they should be entitled. In Yorkshire and the
Humber, that is 10,700 students, including 257 students who attend Scunthorpe’s North Lindsey college and 103 students who attend Scunthorpe’s John Leggott college. There are three reasons why there is greater urgency now about addressing the injustice than hitherto, and why the Association of Colleges’ campaign “No Free Lunch?” on fairness for FE students is so timely and deserving of our support. The landscape has been transformed, first by the scrapping of the education maintenance allowance, secondly by the raising of the participation age to 17 and then to 18, and thirdly by the increasingly fragmented nature of post-16 provision. The existence of EMAs masked the disadvantage of being unable to access free school meals. With the EMA gone, the injustice is even starker. The raising of the participation age will mean more students from disadvantaged backgrounds will stay on beyond 16, and they deserve to be supported with a free school meal, if they are eligible, whichever institution they study at. Why should new institutions like free schools, academies and UTCs be able to provide free school meals while FE and sixth-form colleges cannot? The availability of free school meals at some institutions but not others not only damages the education and well-being of individuals, but promotes division in the education system. Let us take as an example the bizarre situation in Hackney, where a UTC opening on the same site as the college can offer free school meals to its students while the college cannot. Let us also look at an example of the real-life impact of this unfair policy on young people. Ryan Ashton attends Lancaster and Morecambe college, and is seven months into a two-year level 3 national diploma in sport. Despite being eligible for free lunches at school, he was shocked to find when he began college that he was no longer eligible to do so. As he is studying sport, his day can be very physical, and when he has not had enough to eat he can feel faint and dizzy. There is a family history of diabetes, so good diet is particularly important. He says: “I do think this campaign is very important. I know I’m not one of the worst off, but still need some support. I think there needs to be help for students like me.”
To afford his lunch, Ryan works as a football referee, and also uses this income to fund his travel. This is a story that will resonate with thousands of students who are forced to take on part-time jobs or go to other additional lengths just to be on a level playing field with their counterparts in school sixth forms and academies. That is completely at odds with the Government’s commitment to social mobility and equal opportunity, which is why the urgent action sought by the Bill is needed. Another consequence of the current injustice is that colleges have to fund free school meals out of their own squeezed budgets. Last year, North Lindsey college in Scunthorpe spent £5,000 on providing meals for students in particular need. At a time when all education institutions have to cut costs, why should some be forced to pay for free school meals and others not? Anne Tyrell, principal of North Lindsey college, says: “There is a wealth of educational research that demonstrates that effective learning can only take place once basic needs are satisfied (food being one of these). There is no justification for the fact that students in colleges do not have the same right for a free
753
754
Free School Meals (Children Over the 6 NOVEMBER 2012 Age of 16)
school meal say they would if they had stayed on at a school sixth form. As real family incomes are reduced, and combined with the removal of EMA, there is even more need to ensure that at the very least there is parity on the issue. This may seem a small step but it is essential if we are to truly widen participation and ensure social mobility and access to education, training and qualifications for all our young people.”
The lifetime public finance cost of young people aged 16 to 18 not participating in education, employment or training is estimated to be at least £12 billion. There is also a significant cost to individuals of not participating and therefore not securing skills and qualifications. The estimated cost of extending the right to free meals to college students is £38 million in the Department’s overall budget of £56 billion. That is the equivalent of 1p in every £14 spent, so the numbers add up and make good business sense. The Government could use the review of eligibility for free school meals under universal credit to consult on reviewing the eligibility for institutions to provide that to the qualifying demographic. Toni Pearce, National Union of Students vice-president for further education, said: “There can be no justification for the basic inequity which says that you can’t get free school meals if you study at a college from the age of 16 to 18, but can if you study at a school sixth form. Eligibility for free meals should clearly be based on need—not on where you choose to study.”
Janet Grauberg, UK director of strategy for leading children’s charity, Barnardo’s, said: “Even the Secretary of State for Education has acknowledged this anomaly, which means the most disadvantaged students are penalised for choosing to study in a further education college rather than a school sixth form. We now need action, not words, to stop this happening. Barnardo’s report, ‘Staying the course’, found some of the poorest students are skipping meals just to afford the bus to college. We fully support AOC’s No Free Lunch? campaign and urge the Government to correct this disparity as soon as possible.”
As part of its investigation into 16 to 19 participation in education, the Select Committee on Education unanimously concluded: “There is no logic in making free school meals available to 16-18 year olds in schools but not in colleges”.
The case for extending the right to free school meals is clear-cut and compelling, and I believe that the Government acknowledge the need to address it. In a very positive meeting with representatives of sixth-form colleges and with me last month the Secretary of State recognised the need to look seriously at this issue. In a recent written answer, the Minister for Schools accepted that it was a long-standing anomaly and said that the Government were working through the available options. I hope that the option in this ten-minute rule Bill is one that he will grab with both hands. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Nic Dakin, Mr David Blunkett, Sir Roger Gale, Sir Bob Russell, Caroline Lucas, Angela Smith, Caroline Dinenage, Mr David Ward, Jim Shannon, Yvonne Fovargue, Robert Halfon and Ian Swales present the Bill. Nic Dakin accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on 1 February 2013 and to be printed (Bill 87).
Standards and Privileges 1.46 pm The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley): I beg to move, That this House (1) approves the Second Report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 635); (2) endorses the recommendation in paragraph 62; and (3) notes that Mr Denis MacShane has been disqualified as a Member of this House.
The report by the Standards and Privileges Committee into Mr MacShane’s conduct describes it as “the gravest case which has come to us for adjudication, rather than being dealt with under the criminal law”.
This was deeply reprehensible conduct, including, as the report says, actions “plainly intended to deceive.” That will have angered many of our constituents and Members of this House alike. In this House, we are determined to meet the highest standards in public life. The events that were the subject of the complaint against Mr MacShane took place between 2005 and 2008. Since the expenses scandal three years ago, we have instituted measures to seek to rebuild trust in our procedures and in Members themselves. The Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 provides for an offence of providing false and misleading information to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. This is designed to ensure that anyone submitting false invoices now would be caught and could be prosecuted. We are committed to ensuring that such behaviour could not take place now or in the future, but we must recognise that independent scrutiny and enforcement is not enough. We should expect Members of the House themselves to set and meet the highest standards of conduct. That they have not is a matter of deep regret, and in this House I know we will be determined to demonstrate that we will not tolerate such lamentable breaches of those standards. We must make it clear that such breaches will be dealt with seriously and proportionately. It is in pursuance of this that I have moved the motion. Mr MacShane has sought and secured disqualification from the House. The motion notes this, but none the less approves the report by the Committee on Standards and Privileges and its recommendations. To do so will establish that the House would act against Members on the basis of the Committee’s report and the Commissioner’s inquiries and conclusions. It may be that Members will not wish to debate in detail the findings of the report and investigations by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, recognising that any possible further action now lies outside this place. None the less, in my view, it is important that we put the endorsement by the House of the Committee’s report on the record. The Chair of the Committee will wish to explain its conclusions and recommendations in further detail, but I should like to put on record our thanks to him and his Committee, and to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, for their work in this case, and for their continued work in the House. It has been the practice of this House to endorse the findings of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and I invite hon. Members to do so today.
755
Standards and Privileges
6 NOVEMBER 2012
1.49 pm Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab): May I add my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, and to the other members of the Committee for the work that they have done on the report? I rise following the speech made by the Leader of the House to support the suggestion in the motion before us today that: “This House approves the Second Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges…and endorses the recommendation in paragraph 62.”
The motion before us goes on to point out that the former Member of Parliament for Rotherham took the decision to resign his seat after he was made aware of the content of the Committee’s report on its publication last Friday. His own stated reason for doing that was that it was right that he should take responsibility for the mistakes that he has made and be accountable for them by leaving Parliament. We believe that in these circumstances he has done the right thing. His resignation emphasises the importance of respecting the rules for claiming reimbursement of expenses incurred by Members of the House in the performance of their Parliamentary duties. It is crucial that the public have confidence in these arrangements, too. The report deals with claims made between 2004 and 2008. Therefore, they relate to the system that was in place prior to the creation of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. This has led, as the Leader of the House pointed out, to a much more robust and transparent system that minimises the chances of such abuses occurring in the future. This sorry episode will serve to reinforce both the importance of the rules and the gravity with which serious breaches are regarded by this House.
Standards and Privileges
756
conducting a criminal investigation and neither is the Committee. As we said in the report: “The decision as to whether conduct is criminal and as to whether proceedings should be brought is one for the police and the CPS.”
In 2008, the Committee, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the police agreed that criminal investigations should take precedence over the House’s disciplinary proceedings. For that reason, we agreed in 2010 that the case should be referred to the police, and the commissioner referred it. After a long investigation, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to proceed. They doubtless considered that decision very carefully. They now have our report and may consider it again. That is their decision, not ours. If our report contains new material, the police can use it to guide their investigations. Receipts, invoices and claims are not privileged, and do not become so simply because they are reproduced in a parliamentary report. It is true that the correspondence between the commissioner and those he investigates could not be used in court proceedings without impeaching and questioning proceedings in Parliament. It is our view that that would be a breach of article 9 of the Bill of Rights. In reality, however, that correspondence is likely to be inadmissible anyway. There are strict legal safeguards about the gathering and use of evidence in criminal proceedings. The House’s disciplinary procedures are scrupulously fair, but they are disciplinary processes, not criminal investigations. It would be most unwise of the House to speculate on the criminality of an hon. Member’s conduct. The Committee has given its judgment on breaches of the code, and the House is invited to agree. Whether or not conduct like that described in our report is criminal, it is clear that we will not tolerate it. I welcome that, and I hope that the House agrees.
1.51 pm Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab): I will be very brief. The Committee’s report sets out the circumstances of the case clearly. The inquiry related to claims made between 2005 and 2008 under the old expenses system. I cannot be certain that this is the last of the expenses scandal, but I hope that it is. On a personal note, I have known Denis MacShane since he was first selected to contest a by-election in Rotherham in 1994. I have worked with him as one of the three MPs in the borough since then and know he has always had the interests of his constituents, and the wider Rotherham borough, at heart. The events of the last three years will not totally overshadow my memory of the work that Denis has done in Rotherham. The Committee, however, was united in its finding that this was the gravest case that has ever come before it. The absolute sums were not the issue; it was the manner in which they were claimed, the flagrant disregard for the rules of the House, and the failure to co-operate with the commissioner’s investigation that most concerned the Committee. We judged that to be a breach of the code of conduct. There may have been suggestions that hon. Members are above the criminal law. That is not true, and that needs to be addressed. The commissioner’s investigations are into possible breaches of the code of conduct, not criminal matters. The procedures are fair, but the commissioner is not
1.55 pm Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con): Clearly, as a member of the Committee I support the findings and I support the motion. I do not want to go through the report, but I just want to raise an issue that comes from it. The commissioner’s inquiry was in two parts. The first included a measure of co-operation from the Member in question combined with research into retained files. That evidence was sufficient for the Committee to decide to pass further inquiries to the police, which we have already had explained to us. The second half was subsequent to the police investigation. This time the Member refused to co-operate and a fuller investigation was partially blocked. It is a requirement of the House that Members co-operate with the commissioner. There is no fifth amendment; co-operation is expected. It is the very often core of the inquiry for the commissioner to have that response and co-operation. I have not been a member of the Committee for very long, but I understand that there has been at least one case, and perhaps more prior cases, where a Member has refused to co-operate. In at least one case, the House imposed a suspension after which the Member returned to the House, leaving the Committee with an unsatisfactory report and no real resolution. This is a concern that the Committee and the House should
757
Standards and Privileges
6 NOVEMBER 2012
look into, because I suspect that this will not be the last occasion when this type of reaction to the commissioner will happen. 1.56 pm Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): It is with some regret that I raise, on behalf of my constituents who have raised it with me—this is not to mitigate anything in respect of the report and the actions of Denis MacShane—the question of why there seem to be double standards. The Minister for Schools, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), was clearly guilty of falsely claiming £60,000 of House expenses and has been returned to the Cabinet, yet other Members have been recommended for expulsion from the House. Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has concluded his remarks, but they were outside the terms of the motion. Of course, if he wanted to pursue the matter, it would require a substantive motion. Question put and agreed to.
758
European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill [Relevant document: The Seventeenth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, on Croatia: monitoring the accession process, HC 86-xvii.] Second reading 1.58 pm The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. I convey the regrets of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary who is unable to attend today’s debate. As you know, Mr Speaker, he is in Laos today attending to official business on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government. The Bill provides for parliamentary approval of the Croatian Accession treaty and for a protocol on the concerns of the Irish people, the so-called Irish protocol, which is to be added to European Union treaties. The Bill also provides for the secondary legislation that will be required to apply transitional immigration controls on Croatian nationals exercising their right to free movement once Croatia accedes to the European Union. Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con): I very much welcome those transitional immigration controls that will be imposed for the accession of Croatia. We learned from that mistake in 2004 when countries from elsewhere in eastern Europe joined the European Union, and I support the Government’s actions. Mr Lidington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I hope to say more about the transitional controls later, but he will have observed that the Minister for Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), is here, and I can assure him that the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are working hand in glove on the preparation for Croatian succession. For many years, EU enlargement has enjoyed firm cross-party support in the House. We can look back to the premiership of the noble Lady Baroness Thatcher to see support being expressed for enlargement covering the newly enfranchised democracies beyond what was once the iron curtain, at a time when it was not fashionable or even believed feasible that those countries of central and eastern Europe could become full members of the European family of nations. Today, for the countries of the western Balkans, including Croatia, that process of accession provides a means of entrenching political stability, democratic institutions, the rule of law and human rights —traditions and values that that part of our continent needs but which were crushed for much of the last 100 years. Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): I endorse the Minister’s comments. May I invite him to underline that the accession agreement foresees not only the points that he has made but the fact that on accession Croatia will nominate a commissioner, take up a seat on the Council of Ministers and have 12 MEPs? Mr Lidington: The hon. Gentleman is right. Our support should not only be about what Europe is or ought to be; I also want to stress the point that enlargement, and Croatia’s accession in particular, is firmly in our national interest.
759
European Union (Croatian Accession 6 NOVEMBER 2012 European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill and Irish Protocol) Bill
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): Just to clarify, as well as the rights and responsibilities that will come to Croatia if we pass this accession Bill, is it also correct that it will have to join the Schengen area and eventually become part of the eurozone, with the agreement that it will join the euro? Mr Lidington: Croatia’s accession treaty provides for it to join the Schengen area and the eurozone, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows well, if Croatia is to join either, it will be required to meet some further tests. It is already understood in Zagreb and throughout the Schengen area that it will be at least two years before Croatia can contemplate a successful application. I know from the debates on the bids by Bulgaria and Romania to join the Schengen area that the current members look carefully at the strength of internal and external controls over immigration and asylum before they concede the much greater rights of freedom of movement and freedom from all kinds of border checks that go with Schengen membership. Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con): The Minister referred to Romanian and Bulgarian accession. He will recall that before they joined the EU in 2007 they had to clear various hurdles and various parts of their economy had to be shown to be compatible with the EU, but at that juncture there was only a very limited stipulation stating that, if they failed to do so, their accession would simply be delayed by 12 months. Will he go into detail about precisely what hurdles Croatia will have to clear, particularly any penalties if it fails to meet economic requirements? Mr Lidington: I want to come to that in greater detail later, but I can say now that the process that Croatia has gone through has been much more demanding than what was expected of Romania and Bulgaria or earlier accession states. One lesson that EU member states drew from the experience of Romanian and Bulgarian accession was that we needed to invent an additional category of accession conditions covering justice and fundamental rights measures. That is now embodied in chapter 23 of the accession process. Those things that, in the case of Romania and Bulgaria, ended up being addressed—in my view, rather unhappily, in terms of the actions of all sides—through the co-operation and verification mechanism post-accession have, in the case of Croatia, been addressed upfront. We heave learned further lessons from Croatia’s accession process. Although chapter 23 has been a significant advance, we recognise that, as we look forward to an accession process that in the Government’s view should embrace all the countries of the western Balkans, we need to find a way of ensuring not only that the accession process provides incentives for, and insists upon, rigorous reforms of the administrative and judicial life of an applicant country but that the applicant country has the opportunity to establish a clear track record of implementing those reforms. With the decision earlier this year to open accession negotiations with Montenegro, a new approach has been introduced under which those chapter 23 measures—and, for that matter, the chapter 24 measures applying to home affairs matters—will be dealt with first. The objective is to open those negotiating chapters early on, to see those reforms
760
under way and then to hold those chapters open until the end of the process, so that it becomes a question not only of seeing reforms enacted but of seeing a consistent track record. Mark Field: I hope that the Minister will forgive me, but his answer prompts a further question. He referred to the coalition Government’s support for other nations in the western Balkans joining the EU in due course. Would the same apply to Serbia, assuming that Croatia was happy about it and assuming that Serbia wished to join and met all the guidelines? Would the Government approve that too? Mr Lidington: Yes, we have made it clear—my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary repeated this in Belgrade in the past couple of weeks—that we support Serbia’s ambitions to join the EU. It is also, however, important that while remaining vigorous supporters of EU enlargement we remain committed to rigorous accession criteria. That is in the interest of the candidate countries and of the integrity of the EU. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): My constituency is home to some Bosnian Muslims. The accession of Croatia will erect a much more significant border between Croatia and the other Balkan countries—setting Montenegro aside—particularly the significant ones to the south, Serbia and Bosnia. Before Serbia attains accession, which might be many years ahead, the relationship may change. Does the Minister have any thoughts about how that relationship might change in the future? Mr Lidington: I hope that the requirement to police the external EU border between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina will provide an additional incentive to political leaders in the latter to commit themselves with greater energy to the task of political and economic reform, particularly political reform and reconciliation, which is needed if they, too, are to qualify for EU membership. One of the sadnesses about the western Balkans today is that Bosnia and Herzegovina, which a few years ago saw itself as at the head of the queue of potential new members of the European Union has now fallen behind not only Croatia, but Montenegro in that race. I want to see Bosnia and Herzegovina move towards EU membership, and for that matter NATO membership too. I hope that one impact of Croatian accession is that people and leaders in Bosnia and Herzegovina will see that they need to commit themselves with renewed energy and vigour. The United Kingdom’s interest in Croatian accession lies partly in the fact that we have a national interest in the long-term political stability of the western Balkans, and partly in the fact that there are economic benefits to expanding the single market. Our trade with the eastern and central European countries continues to grow. To give the House one example, United Kingdom exports to the “emerging Europe” countries of central Europe have trebled over the past 10 years, reaching around £16 billion in 2011. More recently, in the first quarter of this year our exports to countries in the east of Europe have increased by no less than 28%, so in economic
761
European Union (Croatian Accession 6 NOVEMBER 2012 European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill and Irish Protocol) Bill
terms, amidst the current financial crisis, the project of EU enlargement remains as relevant now as it ever has been to our economic as well as our political interests. Following the ratification of Croatia’s accession treaty by all 27 EU member states, Croatia is expected to join the EU on 1 July 2013. Meanwhile, we expect Croatia to sustain the momentum of six years of significant reform, particularly on judiciary and fundamental rights issues, so that it meets fully all EU requirements by the time of accession. This is something to which I know the Croatian Government are committed. When I visited Zagreb in July this year to discuss the ongoing reform progress, I was impressed with the dedication in evidence, particularly from the Foreign Minister and the Justice Minister of Croatia. They are very aware of the challenges that face their country and they are keen to prove to us as their neighbours and friends, and to their own citizens, that they can make a success of accession. It is on that basis that we look forward to welcoming Croatia to the EU as the 28th member state. Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab): Is that not a rather pious hope? Once Croatia is a member, if it decides to resile from the commitments, what actions can be taken? What actions have been taken as Hungary has departed from the standards that we would expect from a member of the European Union? The answer is none. Mr Lidington: There are within the treaties articles that can be invoked. For example, if a member state departs from fundamental standards of human rights and democratic values that are embodied in the articles of the treaty, ultimately its full rights as an EU member can be suspended. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) reminds me that when a far right party entered the Government of Austria a few years ago, Austria found that it started to get frozen out of normal EU business. So although they may be blunt instruments that are in the treaties, the instruments are there. Also, in the pre-accession monitoring arrangements for Croatia there is a provision under which, if Croatia fails to deliver on what she has promised, the Council is entitled to take all necessary measures to deal with the situation. That might, for example, mean that if Croatia were to fail to carry through the necessary market reforms of its shipbuilding sector—I do not expect that—certain EU financial benefits could be withheld until those reforms had been implemented. I do not think we are as lacking in sticks as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) suggests. Michael Connarty rose— Mr Lidington: Let me say this, then I will give way. Croatia has applied for European Union membership both because it sees this as of symbolic political importance and its leaders want to entrench democratic values, human rights and the rule of law in their country, and because Croatia sees some significant economic benefits to participation in the single market. Croatia also wants to move on and apply for Schengen membership. The one thing that Croatia’s leaders know is that if they were to depart from the promises that they have given,
762
their chances of benefiting in the way that they hope and that their people expect would be reduced accordingly. That remains a powerful motive. Michael Connarty: The Minister has led on to the question that I wished to ask. He mentioned application for Schengen and cross-border rights, but the Schengen acquis requires countries to sign up to a great deal of immigration and co-operation in cross-border law and other aspects. Is it expected that the Schengen acquis will be put in place part by part before the application, or is Croatia not expected to do anything in relation to those things? That is relevant as we struggle with opt-ins and opt-outs. Mr Lidington: What Croatia has to do is what was set out in the negotiating chapters, particularly in chapter 24, to equip itself to deal with the responsibilities of European Union membership. I shall say a little about the borders issue later to try to address those comments. Membership of Schengen requires Croatia and any other member of Schengen to go further. The pace at which any reforms specific to Schengen are introduced and implemented is a matter between Croatia and the Schengen members. It is difficult for me as a Minister for a country that has chosen to stay outside Schengen and has no intention of joining it to try to prescribe what the pathway should be for Croatia’s hopes to join the Schengen agreement. In its report the European Scrutiny Committee made a number of criticisms of the Commission’s and the Government’s conclusions about the readiness of Croatia to join the European Union. The Government will of course reply formally to the report of the Scrutiny Committee in due course, but as the Committee has chosen to tag its report to the debate today, I thought it might be helpful to respond to the main thrust of the Committee’s criticisms now, during the debate. We will have other opportunities during later stages of the Bill to explore the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and his Committee raised, and as I said, there will be a formal Government response to the Committee in due course. I shall try to deal briefly with three or four of the main issues raised by the Committee in its conclusions. Let me take first the issue of war crimes, both co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and domestic war crimes. On co-operation with the tribunal, I want to stress that not just the United Kingdom but the European Commission and the tribunal itself believe that Croatia is fully co-operating with the tribunal. Indeed, the chief prosecutor, Mr Brammertz, has now said that he sees no need for him to visit Zagreb again and he has taken the decision to wind down the status of the tribunal’s office in Croatia. On 3 May this year, while visiting Zagreb, Mr Brammertz said that there were “no outstanding issues” that might burden relations between Croatia and ICTY. On 7 June, in a statement to the UN Security Council, he said: “The Office of the Prosecutor continues to rely on Croatia’s cooperation to efficiently complete trials and appeals. In the current reporting period (as at 14 May 2012), the Office sent 18 requests for assistance to Croatia. The Croatian authorities have given timely and adequate responses to the requests made and it has provided access to witnesses and evidence as required. The Office will continue to rely on Croatia’s cooperation in upcoming trials and appeals.”
763
European Union (Croatian Accession 6 NOVEMBER 2012 European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill and Irish Protocol) Bill
[Mr Lidington] The chief prosecutor, who in the past has been critical of what he saw as shortcomings in Croatia’s level of co-operation with him, has now said that in his view Croatia has co-operated, and continues to do so, in the way he would rightly expect. The issue of domestic war crimes is a difficult one. One need only look to our own country’s history in Northern Ireland to see how difficult it can be to get to the truth about some of the most vile murders. There are about 1,200 cases on file relating to domestic war crimes in Croatia, but we need to break that total down into three categories. There are about 400 cases for which trials are pending, about 400 where the accused cannot be found and a further 400 or so where the indictments are in a pre-investigative phase but the perpetrator is unknown—it is believed, on the basis of evidence, that a war crime might have been committed but no individual or group of named individuals can be cited as having been responsible. The average length of a trial for a domestic war crime is about six to seven months. In 2010, four specialised chambers were established to deal with domestic war crimes. In May 2011, new legislation took effect to require the transfer of outstanding cases to those chambers and, in the autumn of 2011, new judges were appointed to those specialist tribunals. So far, 87 cases have been transferred to the specialist tribunals. The Government’s view is that progress has been too slow and that the Croatians need to devote more resources to that work. Our assessment is that the commitments Croatia made can be described as “almost complete” but that more progress is still required. We are confident, given the commitments we have had from the Croatian Justice Ministry, that that acceleration will have taken place by the time we reach the expected accession date. Some of that progress is simply about procedural reforms: new listing priorities have now been established; prosecutorial standards are being applied better; there is, importantly, improved co-operation between the Croatian and Serbian authorities in investigating war crimes; and the Croatian side has submitted a draft agreement between those two countries for co-operation in the prosecution of such cases. The Commission has said that more still needs to be done to secure the attendance and protection of witnesses, who might well fear for their safety when giving evidence in this kind of case. We think that progress has been slower than it ought to have been but are confident about the seriousness with which the Croatian authorities are taking it. I will move on to borders and address the point that the former Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), made in his earlier intervention. Croatia has been making good progress. She already has 81 fully operational border crossing points and has given assurances that the necessary infrastructure and technology will be in place to support those crossing points and ensure strong border management by the time she accedes to the EU. The most important outstanding element is the need to provide formal border crossing points in the Neum corridor, which is the very narrow stretch of Bosnian territory that divides Croatia. The Croatians have told us that they are on course to complete the border crossing points in that important area next spring.
764
After Croatian accession, of course, there will continue to be border controls between Croatia and its European Union neighbours. Because Croatia will not join Schengen straight away, those neighbouring countries that are EU member states already will maintain their border controls with Croatia, so any third-country national who got into Croatian territory, whether before or after EU accession, would still be subject to the same level of controls in a country such as Slovenia, and certainly in the United Kingdom, as they are today. I will add that one key advantage for us of Croatia’s accession is that she will come within the scope of the Eurodac regulation and the Dublin agreement on returns and readmissions, which will be helpful to us in the case of any people who manage to get through and abuse the asylum system and need to be returned to Croatia. Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con): There will obviously be a seven-year transition period on economic migration from Croatia. Can the Minister tell the House—this is a general point relating also to Romania and Bulgaria— whether it would be possible under British law for us to extend that transition period if we think that is right for Britain? Mr Lidington: The answer is that we cannot go beyond the period for transitional controls laid down in the treaties. I will say a little more about arrangements for Croatia later. For Romania and Bulgaria, we have extended the transitional controls for the maximum period committed and they have to come to an end by the end of 2013. Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): May I add a rider to the Minister’s answer? This is without a “notwithstanding” clause to the European Communities Act 1972, but this Parliament could of course do that if it wanted to. Mr Lidington: This Parliament can of course pass any legislation it wishes to. In that sense, what my hon. Friend says is constitutionally correct, although I in no way want to mislead him into thinking that the Government intend to introduce such an amendment to the 1972 Act. Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con) rose— Mr Lidington: I know that I will have disappointed my hon. Friend grievously. Mr Cash: My right hon. Friend, far from disappointing me, has enlivened me to rise, and I do so for this very good reason: this is the first time, as far as I am aware, that any Minister has conceded from the Dispatch Box that the constitutional principle of the “notwithstanding” formula is valid. I was delighted to hear what he had to say. Mr Lidington: My hon. Friend is tempting me dangerously far from the scope of the debate, but I simply refer him to the happy day we spent in Parliament debating the sovereignty clause of what became the European Union Act 2011. If he looks at the Hansard record, I think he will find that I stated very clearly that if Parliament wanted to amend the 1972 Act at any stage, it is open for it to do so but—
765
European Union (Croatian Accession 6 NOVEMBER 2012 European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill and Irish Protocol) Bill
Mr Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is a most earnest and assiduous member of Her Majesty’s Government, but the safest path for him to tread is in the direction of Croatia and the borders thereto. Mr Lidington: I am grateful for that rescue, Mr Speaker. I want to move on to one other element of the Committee’s criticisms. Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): I understand that there has been a long-standing dispute about moneys held in the Ljubljanska banca in Slovenia which, it is suggested, belong to Croatia. Has that issue been resolved? Mr Lidington: I discussed that with both the Slovenian and Croatian Governments when I was visiting Ljubljana and Zagreb earlier this year. We encourage both countries to find a bilateral solution. It is clearly not for the United Kingdom to lay down how that should be done, but they need to find a bilateral agreement that is in accord with the various international treaties to which the two countries are party. We hope that they succeed in the very near future. The Committee was critical of the Government’s assessment that Croatia was making good progress with the reform of the judiciary and the courts. I am conscious that I have given way a lot and that other Members want to speak, but I want to deal with the most egregious element of the problems with the legal system in Croatia: the backlog of civil cases, to which the Committee drew particular attention. The backlog in criminal cases in Croatia has fallen for some time and continues to fall, and we ought to pay tribute to the work that the Croatians have done to achieve that. They are still finding it a battle to reduce the backlog in civil cases, but it is important that we should not be misled by grand totals of the number of civil cases before the courts. According to the figures that I have for the first half of 2012, roughly 844,000 new civil cases reached the Croatian courts; in the same period, roughly 836,000 cases were resolved. Although the total number of cases pending increased slightly, it would be wrong to think that 800,000-plus cases simply sat there in the “pending” tray and never moved. The truth is far from that. There has been a reduction in the backlogs in respect of the older cases—those over 10 years old or over three years old. The Croatians have also assigned a significant number of additional judges to focus on the backlog. Again, although we accept that further work needs to be done, we think that Croatia has made good progress and is committed to completing it. We do not believe that that is a reason to delay its accession. I move on to migration. Croatia has a modest population of about 4.5 million. The potential impact of Croatian migration is relatively small, but we know that appropriate immigration controls are crucial for stability in our labour market, particularly in the current economic climate. Recently, the Home Office published its intention to impose transitional controls on Croatian workers in line with the Government’s policy to impose such controls on workers from all new member states, under the terms provided for in their accession treaties. The accession treaty for Croatia sets out the framework within which member states may apply transitional controls to Croatian nationals who wish to work in
766
their country. That framework is as follows. During the first two years following accession, the existing 27 member states can apply either national immigration controls or those resulting from bilateral agreements to regulate access to their labour market by Croatian nationals. From the third year to the fifth year, member states have the option either to continue to apply the same controls as in the previous two years or, if they choose, to grant Croatian nationals the right to move and work freely, in accordance with European Union law. For the fifth year, member states must grant Croatian nationals the right to move and work freely in accordance with EU law. However, if member states find that they are subject to serious disturbance of their domestic labour markets—this has to be an evidence-based assessment of the kind that we seek from the Migration Advisory Committee—those member states may choose to continue to apply controls for a further two years, taking us up to a seven-year maximum period after accession, having first notified the European Commission. The Home Office will be bringing forward detailed regulations on the transitional controls early in 2013, so the House will have the chance to debate the detail of those ahead of Croatia’s planned accession date. However, the Government’s intention is that for the first two years at least we would continue with the current arrangements under which Croatian nationals who would qualify to come and work here under the points-based system would be allowed to do so, although we do not envisage further relaxation beyond that. Angus Robertson: For decades since independence, there have been associations between the former Yugoslavia and the subsequent nations. There are decades of experience of citizens from that part of the world working in Germany and Austria as Gastarbeiter. Based on that assessment, do the Government agree that when the free movement of labour comes into force, those citizens are most likely to travel to countries with which there is an historic association—in the first instance, Germany and Austria? Mr Lidington: The hon. Gentleman is right. According to our figures for 2011, about 2,000 Croatians emigrated to other EU member states and half of those went to Germany. UKBA figures for 2011 show that only 115 Croatian nationals were admitted to the United Kingdom to work. Michael Connarty: I appreciate the Minister’s argument about the small number of those likely to immigrate legally. The problem is that the equivalent-sized country of Moldova, which has a population of 4.5 million, has a trafficking record similar to that of a country with 50 million people. It is used as a gateway. The problem is not legal migration but whether there is a prospect of the mafia—for want of a better word—of the Balkan states using Croatia as a gateway for people trafficking. That would be the concern. Are the police in Croatia up to dealing with such an influx? Mr Lidington: That is a perfectly fair question, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no evidence at the moment that Croatia is being used by traffickers as he says has happened in Moldova. However, people traffickers are extremely professional, well organised
767
European Union (Croatian Accession 6 NOVEMBER 2012 European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill and Irish Protocol) Bill
[Mr Lidington] multinational businesses. We have to be vigilant and continue to work closely with the Croatian authorities, trying to provide the practical advice, support and training that we have been giving them as they carry out their immigration, asylum, judicial and administrative reforms, so that their own systems are up to scratch in ensuring that they cannot be exploited by traffickers. The Croatian Government would not want that to happen, and nor would we. Now I want to talk briefly about the Irish protocol. The addition of the Irish protocol to the EU treaties does not have a significant impact for the United Kingdom. It relates to a series of guarantees given to the Irish people as a condition of their ratification of the Lisbon treaty, but it does not change the substance or application of the treaty. It confirms the interpretation of a number of its provisions in relation to the Irish constitution. Helpfully, the Irish interpretation of the Lisbon treaty aligns with our own. Angus Robertson: I invite the Minister to take the opportunity to acknowledge that the Irish protocol underlines the rights of member states to set their own tax rates. The Irish Government sought that important guarantee. However, that rings true not just for the Irish Republic but for all member states of the European Union in future, which is welcome. Mr Lidington: It is very welcome that the Irish protocol makes that assertion about tax sovereignty, which is in line with our own interpretation of the Lisbon treaty and previous European Union treaties. The Irish protocol also confirms that neither the charter of fundamental rights nor the Lisbon treaty in the area of freedom, security and justice affects the scope and applicability of the Irish constitution as regards the right to life, protection of the family and protection of rights in respect of education. It confirms that the Union’s action on the international stage, particularly under common security and defence policy arrangements, does not prejudice the security and defence policy of individual member states or the obligations of any individual member states. It also deals with other matters specific to Ireland, such as its long-standing position of military neutrality. It was formally agreed by Heads of State and Governments of the 27 member states in June 2009. It amounts to a guarantee in international law that the concerns raised in Ireland were unaffected by the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty. Once all 27 countries have formally ratified the Irish protocol, it becomes binding in terms of the European Union as well as of international law. The Government’s original intention had been that we might include with this legislation a comparable but differently worded protocol as regards the Czech Republic. That is still stalled in the Brussels decision-making process. The European Parliament has yet to produce an opinion on the Czech protocol, and until that has come out of the Brussels negotiations it would be premature for us to think about bringing forward legislation here in Parliament. Jacob Rees-Mogg: I wonder whether, while negotiating the Irish protocol and the Czech protocol, Her Majesty’s
768
Government considered repatriating any powers to the United Kingdom which could have been part of this treaty negotiation. Mr Lidington: As I said, the protocol was negotiated in 2009, so I fear that my hon. Friend’s challenge has to be for my predecessors in office who are now on the Opposition side of the House. Nothing would have been served in terms of the United Kingdom’s interest by our now saying that we would block ratification of the Irish protocol unless we obtained some concession of our own, because the thing at stake would not have been the ratification of the Lisbon treaty but the ratification of the Irish protocol, to which we have no objection and which is wanted by one of those countries with which we have an extremely close bilateral relationship. Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): Does the Minister accept that the protocol confirms the pre-existing sphere of competence of Ireland under its own constitution, further supplemented by the confirmation in relation to neutrality? Mr Lidington: Yes, I do. Jacob Rees-Mogg: I wanted my right hon. Friend to confirm, as I think he has, that it was open to the UK, as with any treaty negotiation, to use this as an opportunity to negotiate for our own interests, but the Government decided on this occasion that it was not worth doing so. Mr Lidington: The point of principle that my hon. Friend makes is certainly right—that during a treaty negotiation it is open to any member state to withhold its consent unless it receives a concession that it is seeking. Obviously, during such a negotiation every member state has to calculate where its national interest lies and what kind of bargain it wants to achieve. However, this is now water under the bridge, as these events took place before the previous general election. Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): No, the Minister is wrong. What a member state tries to do, across the piece and over a period of time, is to decide what its main priorities may be. That does not mean that every time a treaty is coming up, it decides to put yet another thing on the table. Indeed, I would argue that the problem with the Government’s current approach is that they are trying to fight the European Union on too many fronts at the same time and will not secure any of their intended outcomes. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has only just come in, but we do need shorter interventions. I know that he gets carried away, but I am sure that he will be shorter in future. Mr Lidington: I am not going to get drawn into a historical battle about my predecessors’ record in office. I would argue that the previous Government were too reluctant to use the leverage that we had from negotiations at the time of the Lisbon treaty, but that is a matter that the House can debate and historians will no doubt wish to comment on in future, and I do not want to spend further time on it today.
769
European Union (Croatian Accession 6 NOVEMBER 2012 European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill and Irish Protocol) Bill
The measure before us will provide for the accession of Croatia to the European Union, thus marking another step in the Government’s long-held support—this country’s long-held support under successive Governments—for the enlargement of the European Union. Enlargement has been a project whereby the European Union has benefited from the United Kingdom’s ideas, engagement, and—dare I say it?— leadership over many years and under successive Administrations. If we compare the history of Europe in the 20 years since the fall of the Berlin wall with the 20 years following the treaty of Versailles, drawing a contrast between, in the earlier period, a time when fragile new democracies collapsed under the strain of domestic political tension, dictatorship and invasion, and, in the 20 years just passed, a time when we have seen democracy, the rule of law and human rights entrenched in ever more countries on our continent, we can see the advantage that European Union enlargement has brought, and we can be proud of our own nation’s contribution to that process. In that spirit, I ask the House to support the Bill’s Second Reading. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): I call Michael Connarty. [Interruption.] Sorry, I mean Emma Reynolds. 2.46 pm Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will attempt to be relatively brief, or at least briefer than the Europe Minister, in order to allow my colleagues and others to speak. The Opposition welcome the Bill, which will, first, give effect in UK law to the treaty on the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union and provide parliamentary approval of that treaty; and secondly, provide approval for the so-called Irish protocol, which gives specific guarantees to the Irish people regarding the extent and application of the Lisbon treaty and safeguards Ireland’s right to decide its own policies on the right to life, family and education, taxation, and Irish neutrality. With regard to the accession treaty, there is, as the Europe Minister underlined, cross-party support for enlargement of the European Union in this House, and that has long been the case. This support is based on both the political and the economic case for enlargement. The process of EU accession has provided, and continues to provide, an incentive for peace, democratisation, economic reform, the promotion of human rights, and the development of anti-discrimination legislation. That is the clear political case for enlargement. The Nobel peace prize committee rightly recognised that the EU has played a vital role in unifying a continent ravaged by wars and inspired peace and democracy beyond its borders. In terms of the economic case, again I find myself in agreement with the Europe Minister. It is clearly in the UK’s national interest for British companies to have access to the largest single market in the world, with some 500 million consumers, and for that market to continue to grow with enlargement. We are confident that British businesses will find new opportunities in a reformed Croatian economy.
770
When the Labour party was in government, we supported the accession path for the western Balkans. Since the end of the bloody conflict in the former Yugoslavia and the signing of the Dayton accords, which took place only some 17 years ago, there has been remarkable progress. We were strong supporters of Slovenia’s accession in 2004. Croatia started accession negotiations in the same year and those negotiations were concluded in June last year. Croatia has transposed the 35 chapters of European law into its national legislation, and that is no mean feat. We welcome the transformation of Croatia’s society, economy and democracy that adopting these laws has brought about, although we still have concerns about progress in certain respects; I will come to those later. In December last year, the accession treaty was signed by Croatia and all 27 member states, and it was approved by the European Parliament. Parliaments in all other member states are now debating the accession treaty and going through the process of ratification, as are we, and 16 member states have so far ratified it. In the run-up to accession, Croatia has “active observer status.” Its 12 observer MEPs are allowed to speak but not vote in the European Parliament, and it has the same rights on Council working groups and Commission committees. The Commission’s recent enlargement report, published last month, set out three areas in which Croatia must do more—competition, judiciary and fundamental rights, and security and justice. This time last year a debate in this House looked specifically at Croatia’s progress on chapter 23 of that report—judiciary and fundamental rights—and several right hon. and hon. Members made the point that we should learn lessons from previous rounds of enlargement. It is important that the momentum Croatia has built up does not stall, and that progress is made before accession. We must avoid a situation where the European Union has to put in place a co-operation and verification mechanism to monitor areas that have not seen sufficient progress prior to accession. I am therefore happy to see that pre-accession monitoring is ongoing in Croatia, and we are expecting a further report from the European Commission some time in the new year—spring, I believe —and before Croatia’s expected accession on 1 July. When in government, the Labour party led the way in putting pressure on Croatia and all states in the western Balkans to engage fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to bring war criminals to justice. Indeed, chapter 23 of the report was opened so late because at the time the Labour Government judged that they needed that leverage to ensure the Croatian Government co-operated fully with the ICTY. I think we were right to do so, and all outstanding fugitives wanted by the tribunal are now on trial in The Hague. In April last year, former military commanders, Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac, were sentenced by the Court for their role in the war. Those convictions show that justice has been done, and that the international community can and will pursue the perpetrators of war crimes. Engaging constructively with the Court is a test of Croatia’s willingness to draw a line under its past and look towards a brighter future within the EU. The European Commission also highlighted that increased effort is needed to strengthen the rule of law, improve the judicial system and fight corruption. There
771
European Union (Croatian Accession 6 NOVEMBER 2012 European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill and Irish Protocol) Bill
[Emma Reynolds] is still significant concern over the extent of corruption at both local level within the public procurement process and in some state-owned companies. Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): The hon. Lady will know that another very important European debate was to take place in Westminster Hall this afternoon, but the lead speaker did not turn up. Does the hon. Lady have any excuse for why that happened and why hon. Members did not get that debate? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. That has no relevance to this debate, and hon. Members should know a little better than trying to embarrass each other. Surely we have better manners. Emma Reynolds: I remind the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that today’s debate is about Croatia’s accession to the European Union. Should other states wish to join, there will be debates in this House and Parliaments around the EU about that accession, and I am sure that conditions will be attached. I am sure there will be future opportunities to debate the subject to which the hon. Gentleman refers, even if that is not in order today. To return to the subject, there is concern about conflicts of interest and the way that political parties and electoral campaigns are funded in Croatia. The European Commission has recommended that a conflict of interest commission “be established without delay”, and the Opposition support that demand. On competition policy, Croatia has taken positive steps to strengthen its anti-trust laws, but further progress is needed in relation to state aid in the steel and shipbuilding industries. As the Europe Minister said earlier, progress is also needed in restructuring the Croatian shipbuilding industry. On border security, notwithstanding the Minister for Europe’s earlier remarks, Croatia will at some point assume responsibility for the EU’s south-eastern border. What happens on that border will directly impact the rest of the EU, and indeed the UK, in terms of preventing illegal immigrants from entering the EU, and breaking up and stopping human trafficking—my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) referred to that issue. Croatia’s role in those areas will be vital, and we therefore welcome increased co-operation between Croatia and its neighbours. I welcome what the Europe Minister has said about the UK’s assistance in that area. More widely, Croatia has taken positive steps towards accession in a number of areas, which should be welcomed. The police force and courts have undergone important reforms. A new police law has raised standards and removed political pressure, and respect and protection for human rights—in particular LGBT rights—has improved. During the debate in the House last year, I raised the issue of LGBT rights in Croatia, and expressed concern that a gay rights parade in Split had been attacked with no intervention or protection from the police. I am pleased to say that since that debate, gay pride events in Split and Zagreb have taken place peacefully and been protected. The European Commission and MEPs have continued to put pressure on the Croatian Government, and in particular I put on the record my
772
thanks to Michael Cashman, a Labour MEP who has continued to put pressure on that Government for those welcome improvements. Mr Lidington: I am sure the hon. Lady would want to join me in paying tribute to the strong personal commitment of Vesna Pusic, the Croatian Foreign Minister, who has made it something of a priority to see that Croatia makes good on its pledges and obligations concerning civil rights of the kind mentioned by the hon. Lady. Emma Reynolds: I welcome that intervention, and the commitment of the Croatian Foreign Minister in that area. Clause 4 of the Bill provides “a regulation-making power to make provision on the entitlement of Croatian workers to work and reside in the UK;”
and I welcome the further clarification provided by the Europe Minister. The Opposition believe that the Government should implement the maximum transition period for Croatian nationals who want to come to the UK to work, as we did when in government with the accession of Romania and Bulgaria. As I stated in a European Scrutiny Committee debate earlier this year, the Labour party fully supports the Irish protocol, which it helped to negotiate when in office. We value the continued partnership between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, and recognise the special relationship that our two countries share. As we have heard from the Minister, the draft Irish protocol contains safeguards for Ireland on the right to life, family and education, taxation, and Irish neutrality, and it provides a clarification on the application of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, and the treaty on the European Union, and does not change the content of these treaties. We welcome that clarification, and support the Irish protocol as part of the Bill. In conclusion, Croatia’s preparations to join the European Union have been more thorough than in previous accessions. An impressive range of reforms have been introduced and valuable lessons have been learned from previous accessions. Croatia’s accession to the EU will send a signal to the rest of the Balkan countries that their future belongs in the EU, and it will provide encouragement and incentives to those Governments not to let up on the pace of reform, but to root out corruption, reform their political and judicial systems, and modernise their economies. 2.57 pm Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): May I say what a particular pleasure it is to see that the Prime Minister, in his wisdom, has tabled a motion for 7 pm so that this debate may continue “until any hour”? It is always reassuring when European debates are not limited by an unnecessary constraint on time, although I note that having done that, the Prime Minister has left the country. Perhaps he does not want to hear hon. Members’ full ruminations on this subject. I begin by commiserating with Croatia, which has decided that it wishes to join the European Union—an organisation that others may be looking to get out of if they possibly can. One always has a certain sympathy with nations that gained their freedom not so long ago and now wish to hand it over to another body and organisation.
773
European Union (Croatian Accession 6 NOVEMBER 2012 European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill and Irish Protocol) Bill
I refer hon. Members to the report by the European Scrutiny Committee, which the Minister touched on. It concerns me that, once again, the European Union is not learning from experience. It always thinks that countries may be ready for something, yet it comes as a nasty shock when those self-same countries are not ready. We saw that with monetary union, which the EU pushed on member states that were not conceivably ready to join. It said that there was an efficient system afterwards to ensure that countries would be brought into line, and that everything would be made to work ex post facto, but that is precisely what did not happen. We see the same with Romania and Bulgaria, which are constantly found to be in breach of their commitments. The European Scrutiny Committee has highlighted various issues, some of which go beyond the Minister’s remarks, while others reiterate his points about the difficulties of Croatia’s membership of the EU. I would highlight Croatia’s 2,000 mile border. My concern is not Croatia’s 4 million population, but that lots of people can get through a border, as we have seen in Greece. Unless a country has a rigorous system of citizenship in the first place, people can establish rights to be members of it, or pretend to have done so. Once they are inside the EU, they can come waltzing into England without so much as a by-your-leave, as they can into Scotland—I am pleased to see so many of our friends from the Scottish nationalist party in the Chamber for the debate. Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP): It is the Scottish National party. Jacob Rees-Mogg: Not nationalist? I do apologise. If a country has weak borders, it undermines the free movement of people within Europe. Kelvin Hopkins: There has been discussion in recent years of the possibility of passport controls at internal borders. If there were, and if everyone had to carry a passport if they were not a resident of a country, we would solve some of that problem. Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am very reluctant to see controls on the free movement of people within the UK. We ought to have secure borders, and the extension of the EU has weakened our border controls and allowed member states to give their citizenship away. One recent case is Hungary, which sells citizenship. If Hungarian citizenship is sold, UK citizenship is also effectively sold, because people will have the free right to move and settle here. In due course of time, when the provisional practices that apply to countries such as Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania end, their citizens will also be able to work here. That ought to concern us. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has said that we need to look at the whole question of the free movement of people, because of certain extraordinary anomalies within it, which were highlighted on “The World Tonight” on Radio 4 last night. The programme explained the difficulties that UK citizens have in bringing in a dependant who is not an EU national. However, a member of another EU nation state who is resident in the UK can bring in a dependant who is not an EU national.
774
One could argue that the structures of the free movement of people in the EU are in fact racist, because they deny the right of people from Commonwealth countries, who are often non-white, and who have very close associations with the UK, to come here, when people within the EU, with whom we sometimes have very little connection, can come here. We must therefore look at the free movement of people of the EU. It used to be a rich man’s club, but it is a European man’s, and indeed woman’s, club that excludes members of the Commonwealth who are not also EU members, who are often not white. This is a serious question for us to think about. Is the basis of the free movement of people within the EU fundamentally a racist principle? We need to consider whether seven years will be enough for Croatia, and whether we should amend British law to restore controls over immigration that are fair to people across the world, and that do not discriminate favourably towards Europe but unfavourably towards others. Croatia might not be ready to join and might fail to meet the requirements of the EU. On tackling corruption, the Commission is concerned that only three people have been found guilty of abuse of office. The Commission states: “The implementation of the Law on the Police should be ensured, in particular to depoliticise the police and increase professionalism”.
That that problem has not been tackled is a difficulty. What if we cannot have confidence in the police in a country that is about to join? Even if it is not part of Schengen, it will be part of the European arrest warrant arrangements, but it does not have a de-politicised police force or one that has been made sufficiently professional. Are we really, after the middle of next year, going to allow British subjects to be arrested on the say-so of a Croatian court, when Croatia has a police force in which even the European Commission does not have confidence? The European Scrutiny Committee report shows that what is sought from Bulgaria and Romania is not happening. The same applies to some extent to Croatia. Is there an autonomously functioning and stable judiciary? That, too, relates to justice and home affairs agreements. We allow the judiciary of foreign countries to have an effect on subjects of Her Majesty going about their business in the UK, but countries that are joining the EU do not meet basic standards. The report states that we have not seen “concrete cases of indictments, trials and convictions regarding high-level corruption and organised crime”.
We are therefore concerned that the state is corrupt at the highest level, and yet we are allowing it to join before the problems are sorted out. That is once again the triumph of hope over experience—can letting them in and hoping to sort it out possibly be the right way forward when we have so many commitments through joint recognition of standards in fellow member states? We are also concerned that Croatia does not have “a legal system capable of implementing the laws in an independent and efficient way.”
We must be more careful and prudent. Widening is a good thing—it is splendid to have a wider rather than a deeper EU—and it is good thing that newly emerged democracies have been able to come into the EU fold. However, when we have so many commitments to the EU that can be enforced upon us by foreign countries, is
775
European Union (Croatian Accession 6 NOVEMBER 2012 European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill and Irish Protocol) Bill
[Jacob Rees-Mogg] it right that we should let them in before the requirements have been met or without installing protections for ourselves by amending the treaties? I therefore have concerns that the opportunity to negotiate repatriations of power to the UK that could protect us from some of the inadequacies of the Croatian state before it joins the EU has not been taken—whether by the previous Government or this one is beside the point. In that context, it is worth looking at what Ireland has done. As we know, Ireland was bullied by the EU into voting twice. That was a classic example of the EU believing in democracy for others but not for itself. It is a question of them saying, “Vote as often as you like until you give the right answer, and then you don’t need to vote again.” Mr Cash: The problem is not only with the application of the principles of democracy, but with the rule of law, as we will debate later. The EU makes the law, claims it has a legal framework for the rule of law, and then breaks European rules itself. Jacob Rees-Mogg: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is a problem with how the rule of law applies across the EU. How can the EU have a rule of law when it allows in countries that do not meet the basic tests of being free of corruption and of having a properly functioning judiciary? They can then apply their law to our citizens. Surely that cannot be just or in line with the rule of law. On the concessions Ireland received, I give my wholehearted support for what the Prime Minister said in 2009, when he thought it was a good idea to do what the Irish did and to get concessions for the UK. In his brilliant speech, he said he wanted “the return of Britain’s opt-out from social and employment legislation in those areas which have proved most damaging to our economy and public services, for example the aspects of the Working Time Directive which are causing real problems in the NHS and the Fire Service”.
I agree with him, but we should have brought those powers back in the negotiation on the treaty we are debating. He also said he wanted a “complete opt-out” from the EU’s charter of fundamental rights, and was once again absolutely right. The Minister for Europe ought to go back to our European friends and say, “This is what the Prime Minister wanted in the treaty, so perhaps we could have it.” The Prime Minister also said he wanted to limit “the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level, and”
ensure “that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain”.
The Prime Minister showed brilliant prescience. He knew what this country needed and what it ought to get back. The Bill could have brought it back, because we could have said to our European partners that we will not agree to Croatia’s entry or Ireland’s protocols if we are not given—[Interruption.] You are looking as if you were doubtful that my remarks would be relevant to the subject matter at hand, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can assure you that—
776
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I knew he would come into order. It was only a matter of time. Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. How lucky it is that there is unlimited time for this particular debate. The Irish have shown with their protocol that it can be done. In fact, this is an exciting opportunity for this country. The Bill will be taken, and will be amendable by, a Committee of the whole House, and there has been much rejoicing at the conversion of the Labour party to deep, true-blooded, thorough-going Euroscepticism. Emma Reynolds: I assure the hon. Gentleman that Labour remains a pro-European party. On Croatian accession and the Irish protocol, does he seriously think that his Government could withhold support for the Bill and negotiate and repatriate all the things that he has just mentioned? I do not think that he believes that to be a realistic prospect, because he is far too sensible. Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is as flattering and charming as always, but it is good enough for the Irish, who got some serious concessions. The concession on taxation is a very important one. It establishes that taxation is not to be set at the European level. In fact, it is clever of the Irish to have got it, because Lisbon is bringing in an awful lot of things by the back door and the Irish have managed to close that back door, or the stable door as one may like to call it. Mr MacNeil: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that the Irish have been more adept and a bit more clever than the UK in playing their hand in Europe? Jacob Rees-Mogg: I know it is implausible that the Irish could have been more adept than people living in Na h-Eileanan an Iar, but they did indeed manage to get something by virtue of having a proper democracy that required a referendum on the treaty of Lisbon, to which the Irish people had the sense in the first instance to say no, but then they were bullied by Europe into saying yes at a later stage, with some guarantees. If we had had a referendum, I think that the British Government might have been able to get some pretty serious guarantees. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) asked whether I really believe that the Government could have negotiated concessions for the United Kingdom. Yes, I absolutely do, because the European Union wants the Lisbon treaty to function fully; the Lisbon treaty only functions fully with the Irish agreement, because it had to be agreed by unanimity; the Irish agreement was conditional on the protocols given in the Croatian accession treaty; and therefore it follows that if the United Kingdom had insisted on concessions to us that would have let the Lisbon treaty carry on for everybody else, we would have been in a very strong negotiating position to achieve them. That is probably still the case. I want to return to the general rejoicing at the socialists having become a new Eurosceptic party, as, of course, they were, rather less successfully, under Michael Foot not so many years ago. As a Eurosceptic party, they voted last week to stop spending more money in the
777
European Union (Croatian Accession 6 NOVEMBER 2012 European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill and Irish Protocol) Bill
European Union. It occurs to me that the Bill could be amended to say that it will only come into effect at the point at which our full rebate—which was given away by our Labour friends when they were last in government—is restored. Now that the Labour party is so committed to cutting expenditure in the European Union, it would almost certainly be willing to support such an amendment, so we can use this Bill on the Floor of the House to achieve the reduction in spending that so many Members of this House showed that they wanted last week. Indeed, I think it is the united will of the Conservative party that less money should go to Europe. Graham Stringer: Is there not a deeper point to the Bill? Although expansion has genuine economic and political benefits, the United Kingdom’s influence is being diminished. Under qualified majority voting we will have less influence. Another country will also be a recipient of funds, as opposed to a donor, so our position is weakened. Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He makes a crucial point, which we will discuss further in our second debate, in which we will see that eurozone votes, as a qualified majority, are able to outvote everybody else, which seriously diminishes the UK’s voting power, as does this Bill. By adding another member state, we will go from 17 to 18 recipient, mendicant countries and 10 that pay in. It also means that one more part of the qualified majority will be against us and for more spending and for the ratchet of Europe. We need to be very cautious about what we do when we do not get anything in return—that is my main point. I am quite happy to welcome other nations to the European Union, if they really want to join. I understand that the Scottish nationalists might want to rejoin. I thought that the great argument for Scottish nationalism was that they would be free from Europe as well, but that is not the way they are going. We are not getting anything in return. Mr MacNeil: To clarify for the hon. Gentleman, the point of the 2014 referendum will be to transfer political power pertaining to Scotland from Westminster to Edinburgh. Jacob Rees-Mogg rose— Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. May I tell the hon. Gentleman that he does not need to respond to that intervention, because he need only address the Bill? Jacob Rees-Mogg: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was merely going to say, “From Westminster to Brussels,” but never mind—that will be debated at a later point. The crux of the matter is that this was an opportunity for Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that we improved matters with regard to the free movement of people, extended the time for which that could be implemented, and asked the right questions about whether Croatia is ready to join and then delayed that until the right time. We are taking a risk with home affairs and justice by allowing this to go through and by recognising the
778
Croatian justice system when it may not yet be fit. We are not taking the opportunity that the Irish have taken. We should do what the Prime Minister said in 2009 and use every single treaty negotiation to reinforce the repatriation of powers and to ensure that the United Kingdom can govern herself. This Bill is a great opportunity, because it is required to be passed unanimously by all member states of the European Union. We have an opportunity to tag on a budget-related concession to our ratification of the Bill, to ensure that article 312(4) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union does not automatically kick in to force a rise in EU expenditure when the British people and many others want it to be cut. Let us give this Bill a Second Reading, but let us amend it in the Committee of the whole House to put British interests first. 3.17 pm Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for my temporary promotion to speaking on behalf of the Opposition in this debate, which is not, unfortunately, something that has ever been, or is likely to be, accorded to me by those who run my party. Some would say that it is their loss, but it is my great pleasure to speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), who is my party’s Front-Bench representative and has been assiduous in her work and done a great job since she took over the brief. I see this debate in three parts. The first is about whether the UK Parliament supports Croatia’s membership of the European Union. I hope that hon. Members—apart from those who may demur from the wish of any country to join the European Union—would not want to deny Croatia or, indeed, the European Union the benefits that they will get as a result of further enlargement. In that spirit, I hope that hon. Members will support the proposal. Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): As my hon. Friend will know, I have been a strong proEuropean all my political life, but I am very worried that yet another country is coming in from eastern Europe without a great democratic tradition. Hungary seems to be breaking every rule of a modern democracy, yet the European Union does nothing about it. I am getting more concerned about— Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. The hon. Gentleman has only just walked in and the usual courtesy is to listen to a little bit of the debate before intervening. We also need shorter interventions. I call Michael Connarty—it is up to you whether you answer. Michael Connarty: I understand the emotions that are running among those who have been pro-EU in their —[Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) should know better than to challenge the Chair. It is not my fault that he may have been somewhere else in the House. If his preference is to be on a Committee rather than here, that is his choice, but he should not expect to walk in and intervene in that way.
779
European Union (Croatian Accession 6 NOVEMBER 2012 European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill and Irish Protocol) Bill
Mr Sheerman rose— Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made my ruling. Mr Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Deputy Speaker: It had better be a point of order. Mr Sheerman: I was on a Statutory Instrument Committee upstairs, and I have every right as a Member of Parliament to intervene on my colleague. Mr Deputy Speaker: What I have said is that it is discourteous to other Members of this House not to have listened a little bit to debate, but instead to walk in and intervene straight away. That is my ruling. Michael Connarty: I repeat: I understand that people who have been supportive of the EU process over many years are now expressing great concerns. Those concerns have been expressed in the European Parliament, and they are certainly expressed at great length in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, on the basis of human rights, as some of the issues in Hungary are a challenge in that respect. The question for us today is not what the EU should do about Hungary, however, but what we should do in relation to Croatia’s application to join the European Union. As hon. Members know, I work on behalf of this Parliament as a member of the Labour delegation in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In fact, I work in the committee on culture, science, education and media, which is chaired by Mr Gvozden—I believe that is the correct pronunciation—Flego, who is a professor from Croatia. He is very dedicated to human rights; in fact, a number of his colleagues are leading the way in challenging their Government to come up to the standards we require in the European Union and to support the application. The problem—the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) alluded to this—is that this treaty is one of the ones that, when the Government introduced the European Union Act 2011 and said that they would renegotiate the terms and relationship with the EU in this Parliament, was listed as not requiring a referendum because it is an accession treaty. That is a great pity, because the accession treaty not only allows Croatia to enter, but allows protocols to be added to the Lisbon treaty—that is, to amend it. It is a great regret for many people in this country that we did not take the Lisbon treaty to a referendum, as we would have had to do if it were a constitutional treaty. Hon. Members will recall that when I chaired the European Scrutiny Committee and we reported on this matter, we came to the conclusion that the Lisbon treaty was not much different from the constitution, apart from a few flags, bunting and anthems. Really, it maybe should have been decided then whether a referendum was required. It will always be a great point of contention with the British people—and, I think people in this Chamber—that we did not get that clarified at the time. Mr Cash: I should remind the hon. Gentleman that the Conservative party voted en masse for a referendum on that treaty.
780
Michael Connarty: I remember the unity of the Conservative party at that time, although most people have forgotten about it, given the number of attacks that the hon. Gentleman has led on his own Government. In fact, if that unity had continued, we would not have seen the ridiculous situation of him and others joining the Labour party last week to vote down his Government on an issue to do with the EU. It might have been better for his party if it had remained unified; for us, it has exposed the faultline that runs through the parties. Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just for the record, it was a Conservative amendment that the Labour party supported. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): As the hon. Gentleman well knows, that is not a point of order. The other thing is that we are getting distracted from what is before us. Rather than being tempted into discussing the decisions of a previous House many years ago, let us get back to Croatia and Ireland. Michael Connarty: The point has been made that there should be a wider mandate in deciding whether the treaty should go through. It should not just rest with this House. As you have said, Mr Deputy Speaker, that has been decided before, but the Bill contains provisions on the Irish protocol, which, as has been pointed out, provides only a clarification. It is the same protocol that the UK got in the original Lisbon treaty, but as was pointed out in many debates and in many legal opinions that we received in the Committee, all it stated was what was already in existence—that every country has the right to its own Bank and that no country will lose any rights that it already has because of the Lisbon treaty coming into force. The protocol did not change anything, but if the Irish people require that reassurance, that is fine. However, it does trigger a change in the Lisbon treaty, and a change in a major treaty should, in reality, be required to be put to the British people—if, as has been pointed out, we are also to get the credibility of the Irish people. They may not do things they like; indeed, I remember when the Irish delegation came to tell us that they because Ireland was a small country—one of my colleagues, the leader of the Scottish National party, was at the meeting when they said this—it had to do what Europe wanted, whereas the UK was a big country that could argue its corner much more strongly. The protocol will make no difference to the situation in Ireland, but it is in the Bill and it changes the treaty. Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Michael Connarty: I certainly will, as I named the hon. Gentleman. Angus Robertson: If the hon. Gentleman believes that Ireland does not have clout because it is a small country, can he explain why we are discussing an Irish protocol today? Michael Connarty: The simple point is that it is because unanimity is required for an accession treaty. Clearly the concession was given to Ireland, and the concession for the Czech Republic is still being debated. However, as for what happened in the Lisbon treaty,
781
European Union (Croatian Accession 6 NOVEMBER 2012 European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill and Irish Protocol) Bill
I take our Irish colleagues’ word for it, because they are the people who have to live day in, day out with the consequences of what is being forced on their Government, citizens and industries by the European Union, because of the European Union’s decision on the present crisis. That is the context in which they were speaking. Let me return to the question of whether Croatia is fit to be a member of the European Union at this time, which has taken up a lot of the Committee’s time and was referred to by the hon. Member for North East Somerset. As he is in the party of the majority, I would have thought that he would put on record the context and the comments that were made throughout the whole process. For example, when the Minister came to us in March, he said: “It is important that the Commission’s Comprehensive Monitoring Report in the Autumn is able to reflect significant further progress”.
That was the offer to us, as it were, to say that things were not going particularly well in Croatia on coming together on the aspirations we had. We talked strongly in our Committee about the need for conditionality, because Romania and Bulgaria did not accede with the conditions met. In fact, in many instances they slipped back from the original agreements once they were in. That was a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer)—and possibly the Member behind me—who intervened to say that once a country is in the European Union, very little can be done to make it speed up. The temptation for economic advancement from the European Union is slipping away as the crisis in Europe becomes more and more of a problem; therefore, the European Union has less and less of a carrot to offer countries, and it would appear that it is not willing to use sticks in the way that might be encouraging to those countries either. At that time we waited for that report, which duly came to us. The report was not one to fill members of my Committee with joy and pleasure, because it was full of criticism of the Croatian position. It was quite true that some advances had been made, but the report also said, for example, that Croatia needed to “Complete the adoption of related by-laws, to ensure the implementation of the police law,”
so there were problems in police law. The report said: “While Croatia’s preparations in the field of migration and asylum are nearly complete, the government still needs to finalise and adopt the new migration strategy,”
adding: “While border police staffing targets have nearly been met and training continues, Croatia needs to achieve the established recruitment target for border police for 2012”—
this is the autumn report for 2012 we are talking about. The report also talks about the integrated border management plan, which is vital, as the Minister admitted, because of the strange situation whereby a piece of Bosnia splits Croatia in half, so that two borders face each other with another country in the middle, which is a real faultline. I want to draw the attention of the House to some of the points in the final report of the Committee, for 2012-13, which was considered by the Committee on 24 October. That is the most recent document that we have, and people should take the trouble to read it. I want to highlight some of the deep concerns expressed by the Committee. Paragraph 1.82 states:
782
“Addressing impunity clearly remains a major challenge, with the majority of war crimes yet to be successfully prosecuted”.
One of the basic demands of the Balkan countries is that they co-operate fully with the International Criminal Court. It is a matter of concern that, when they come into the European Union, there would be no pressure on them to continue in the desired direction. Perhaps it is only the temptation of membership that makes them focus on this issue. The report continues goes on to state that “further measures are needed to facilitate the protection and attendance of witnesses.”
A country cannot get prosecutions without witness protection, and it cannot therefore be a country that is fully co-operating with the International Criminal Court. I have mentioned trafficking, and I shall go into more detail in a moment. Paragraph 1.83 of the report states that the Commission has noted “in particular that training for judges, prosecutors and others dealing with trafficking needs to be improved, and that sentencing in this area is very low compared to other types of organised crime.”
I recall a comment by a senior police officer in the UK, who caused a great scandal by telling a woman police inspector who tried to pursue a human trafficking case, “We don’t do human trafficking here. We do burglary and violence.” The worry is that Croatia does not see human trafficking as a major problem, but it is certainly a major problem for those who are trafficked. Paragraph 1.84 of the report states: “Tackling the scope for corruption in Croatia also still requires much work.”
That was in October, after the matter had been considered by the Minister and his Department, and by our own senior officials who give us evidence and support in our Committee. These warnings cannot be ignored. The paragraph goes on: “Croatia has not efficiently implemented all legal measures to prevent conflict of interest. Local-level corruption needs attention, particularly in public procurement.”
Corruption is an endemic problem. It comes from the former Soviet Union countries, and it must be properly addressed. Paragraph 1.85 states: “Croatia needs to ensure that a strong system is in place to prevent corruption in state-owned companies.”
Again and again, we are getting strong warning signals that Croatia is not yet in a good place to enter the European Union. Paragraph 1.86, in reference to our call for conditionality, states that “the Commission is still seeking of both Bulgaria and Romania: an autonomously functioning, stable judiciary, which is able to detect and sanction conflicts of interests, corruption and organised crime and preserve the rule of law”.
Those were conditions for Bulgaria and Romania in 2007, yet both were allowed in without meeting their conditionality provisions. We still do not believe that those conditions are being correctly met by Croatia. The Commission is also seeking “concrete cases of indictments, trials and convictions regarding high-level corruption and organised crime”—
of which there is still no evidence— “and a legal system capable of implementing the laws in an independent and efficient way…That state has clearly not yet been attained in Croatia. It is doubtful that it will be prior to
783
European Union (Croatian Accession 6 NOVEMBER 2012 European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill and Irish Protocol) Bill
[Michael Connarty] accession. Yet, despite the demonstrable ineffectiveness of postaccession monitoring, that now seems the only option open to the EU.”
It is as though we are heading for the only doorway, but that doorway will not lead to reality for the people of Croatia, and we must be concerned about that. I aspire to seeing Croatia joining the EU and becoming part of the wider family of Europe. I do not have confidence, however, that when it gets in, its lifestyle and its approach to the issues that we are discussing will be better than they were before it joined the EU. The factor that is changing things is the attraction of going into the EU, but that will be lost once Croatia goes through that door. I want to raise the matter of human trafficking, because I think that people are blind to what is going on. I want to talk about human trafficking for slavery as well as that for prostitution and sexual abuse, which is massive. The latest figures, which I read in a pamphlet entitled “This Immoral Trade”, suggest that 27 million people are in some kind of slavery around the world. That situation is not helped by what we know is going on, through our work with the EU group, Parliamentarians Against Human Trafficking. That work is based on the work of the Human Trafficking Foundation, which is based here in London and should be commended. Concern has been expressed that there is trafficking from Montenegro and Bosnia into Croatia. Although the numbers involved are relatively small, this appears to show the inability of the authorities to protect the victims. There is also a question about trafficking from Turkey through Bosnia. The Human Trafficking Foundation in London has gathered quite a lot of statistics on that matter. In many places, the movement is not only into Europe but into the middle east, which illustrates a new way of targeting people for exploitation. I would like the Minister to tell us what he has been doing with the Croatian Government to make them more aware of the growing number of people being trafficked through Croatia into Europe. Reference has also been made to Slovenia in this regard. It has a weird situation, in that it grants 300 artistic dance visas every year. The women involved turn out to be employed in strip clubs and brothels in Europe, having come through Slovenia. That is a bogus use of such visas to help traffickers, and we wonder whether these subjects will be discussed. Will the Minister reassure us that, if Croatia comes into the EU, he will encourage it to join the organisation that I have just mentioned, Parliamentarians Against Human Trafficking? It could then join us and other European countries in trying to stop this vile trade. I am worried by the lack of awareness of judges in this context, and by the low tariffs being applied in cases of trafficking because of the low status afforded to the activity. We need assurances that the accession process will mean that Croatia will have to sign up to the directives on human trafficking and on the exploitation and sexual abuse of children. Turning to the final point in my three-part analysis, I want to know what lessons have been learned from the process. Article 49 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, which deals with a country applying to join the EU, states:
784
“The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded, which such admission entails, shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant State. This agreement shall be submitted for ratification by all the contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.”
That is what we are doing today. When the Minister was asked about Schengen, he said that an application to join Schengen would be expected from Croatia within a couple of years, but he did not say whether there would be an obligation on it to join. I should like clarification on that point, and I imagine that colleagues from the various parties and constituencies in Scotland would as well, as this is a hot subject. Would an accession country have to join Schengen, and what would the conditions be? There is another question to which we have not had a clear answer. At the moment, we are torturing ourselves over various parts of the acquis communautaire and the Amsterdam treaty, including the opt-ins and opt-outs. For me, the significant thing about 2014 will not be the anniversary of some battle that took place at Bannockburn, down the road from where I used to be a councillor in Stirling. It is that we will have to decide—I believe we have to take the actual decision in 2013—whether to opt out en bloc from all the co-operation that we have set up on policing and immigration—all the things that are fundamental to the Amsterdam treaty and are part of Schengen—that give us a unified rule of law that protects all our citizens and takes on those who wish to damage their lives. In that situation, would the acquis have to be signed up to piece by piece, or could Croatia just sit there for two years and then say, “Let’s not make an application for Schengen; let us not bother; it is too much trouble. Our people will get the right to travel after four or five years in any case, without Ministers having to sign up to Schengen”? The Minister has not clarified that. We do not know what the conditions are. Can a country really say yes to join the EU, but not bother applying to join Schengen two years hence—or must it join Schengen? This issue is important for this country, for Croatia and for the future debates that will take place about other countries that wish to break away from one country and then reapply for membership of the EU. I think it is important that we get some answers in the context of Croatia. I would be deeply concerned if the Minister told me that Croatia need not apply for Schengen membership in a couple of years’ time—that it does not need to apply. The attraction is that its citizens will be able to travel, but we hear that so few of them travel in any case. Will they not bother? Will they not become part of the wider protection system that I always thought Schengen was about—throwing a ring around the European Union to protect our citizens from the lack of rule of law, and to co-operate across citizenships and across the police and other authorities. In the finality, I welcome Croatia coming into the European Union, but I do not do so blindly. I worry that those who drive the machine that is the European Commission want enlargement at any cost—regardless of the fact that it might bring in more problems. We have got to stop the Commission from doing this. Unfortunately, from the reports we have had from the Minister and from our Committee, it seems that we have not done well enough as yet—but I will vote for the Bill.
785
European Union (Croatian Accession 6 NOVEMBER 2012 European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill and Irish Protocol) Bill
3.40 pm Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con): I very much endorse the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), and I agree, too, with many of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). The real question is whether Croatia should become part of the European Union. I think it is a matter for Croatia. If it wants to apply, as far as I am concerned, it is that country’s affair. It also affects us, and the comments in our European Scrutiny Committee report stand on the record, so nothing further needs to be said that has not been said already. I believe, however, that if Europe enlarges and includes Croatia, it will simply be yet another example of the manner in which—as the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset have said—the whole of the European Union is enlarged without regard to the impact it will have. I take a simple view about this issue. I believe that the European Union is, as I have said in many previous debates, at a crossroads. I think that a fundamental change is taking place within the EU, and I believe, as the vote on the EU budget indicated, that this is increasingly recognised on both sides of the House. I have also picked this up from other member states, when I go to meetings of COSAC—the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union—as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. Croatia will have become a member of the European Union as it now is and, no doubt, even if there were to be a fundamental shift in the relationship between ourselves and other member states, it would continue to remain a member in some shape or form of the new European Union, which I am absolutely certain is being created in people’s minds, although it has not yet got into the formalities of the arrangements. I do not really need to say any more at this time. I wish the people of Croatia well; actually, I wish the European Union well, too, but the truth is that the current arrangements are in need of very substantial change. I think that change is going to come and I do not think that anything can stop it. As I said to the Prime Minister the other day, the tectonic plates have moved—they are not merely moving—so the question is: what is the tsunami that will follow? The Croatian accession is something I can live with, but I believe that it will be caught up in the fundamental changes that I am certain are in the process of being achieved even as we speak. 3.43 pm Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Stone (Mr Cash) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), as we served together in the European Scrutiny Committee for over a decade. I am delighted to participate in today’s debate—first, because of a connection I have with Croatia that goes back 21 years to when I was given one of my first journalistic assignments as a new, young and keen journalist working in Vienna. I was sent down to Croatia to report from the front line of the Croatian civil war. It was a bizarre experience. Many right hon. and hon. Members will have been to Vienna—a
786
splendid city. I found it remarkable that it was possible to get into a car and drive for three hours to the border crossing at Spielfeld—shortly after the Austrian army had stationed tanks to stop any incursion from the then former Yugoslavia, although Slovenia had declared independence by that stage—and then to cross the border and drive for another two hours through Zagreb and just past it to the city of Karlovac, which was the front line in the war at that stage. I was there to interview refugees and others in Croatia for a broadcast that was intended to bring home the realities of the situation in Croatia for the purposes of the largest charitable collection for refugees in the former Yugoslavia, Nachbar in Not or Neighbours in Need, which was in the process of being established. Let me pass on a couple of recollections. It should be borne in mind that this was only 21 years ago. I recall talking to a priest outside his church, and asking him where the front line was. He replied “Right there”, indicating the corner of the very street on which we were standing, and suggested that it would probably be a good idea for me to get off the pavement and out of the firing line. Shortly after that, I spoke to a group of women who had just arrived from just south of Karlovac, which was then occupied, after being forced to leave their homes. The fate of their husbands and children was uncertain: they did not know whether they had been taken into captivity or worse, and they were understandably beside themselves with worry. There I was, in my early twenties, having just driven down a motorway from a western European country into the middle of what was a circumstance of total horror for people living in Croatia. Now, only 21 years later, here we are, discussing the pros and cons—or rather just the pros, given that, as far as I am aware, no one opposes it—of allowing Croatia to join us and the other European Union member states. We have not really discussed the fact that Slovenia has been, very successfully, a member of the EU since 2004. Looking back at what has happened in both Slovenia and Croatia, which will shortly be in the EU together, is breathtaking. I am strongly in favour of Croatia’s membership, which has already been voted on in the European Parliament. The result there was overwhelming, and I welcome it. All four groups of which most of us are part—the European People’s party, the Social Democrats, the Liberals in the European Parliament and the GreensEuropean Free Alliance—voted almost unanimously in favour of Croatia’s accession. I want to take up some of the observations made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk. There are a number of important points to be made about Croatian accession. There is still work to be done. I suggest that anyone who is interested in the subject should consult the House of Commons Library research paper 12/64, and also the recent European Scrutiny Committee report entitled “Croatia: monitoring the accession process”. All the Committee’s members have been looking closely at issues on which further progress is required, notably those relating to judiciary and fundamental rights. Pages 8 and 9 of the House of Commons research document deal with questions that I think should be put on the record. It states that “a detailed new negotiating chapter on judiciary and fundamental rights… applied… to Croatia”
787
European Union (Croatian Accession 6 NOVEMBER 2012 European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill and Irish Protocol) Bill
[Angus Robertson] with “31 ‘benchmarks’ (compared with between three and six for most other chapters), covering”
areas such as “judicial transparency, impartiality and efficiency; corruption and organised crime; minority and other rights; refugee return issues; and full cooperation with the ICTY”
—the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Those are all very important, but specific reforms that are still needed between now and accession, as has been pointed out by the European Commission. On 10 October, only last month, it produced findings on Croatia, pointing out that specific reforms are still needed in respect of: implementing and advancing measures set out in September 2012 for increasing the efficiency of the judiciary and reducing the court backlog—that was addressed by the Minister for Europe—and adopting the new enforcement legislation, in order to ensure the execution of court decisions and reduce the backlog of enforcement cases. The number of civil, commercial and enforcement cases outstanding in the courts has increased in 2012. The Minister made the point that a large number of cases have been dealt with, but more cases have come into the queue and that is not a good indication of the sustainability of implemented reforms. I have not yet heard any mention of the fact that post-accession safeguard clauses are in place. It is important to understand them, because there are many concerns about Bulgarian and Romanian membership and what has happened subsequently. That is a prism through which we must understand the position on Croatia, because the monitoring mechanisms for Bulgaria and Romania are not being replicated in relation to Croatia. However, three safeguard clauses and various transitional provisions in Croatia’s accession treaty can apply for several years after accession. They are designed to deal with difficulties that might be encountered after membership and are as follows: a general economic safeguard clause; a specific internal market safeguard clause; and specific justice and home affairs safeguard clauses. I know that the Minister is listening closely so perhaps he will help us by setting out the Government’s position on whether there is full confidence that the safeguard clauses will deliver what everybody requires from Croatia. It is also worth noting that queries about Croatia’s accession have also been raised in the Parliaments of other member states. Within the past month, there have been pretty outspoken commentaries from the president of Germany’s Bundestag, Norbert Lammert, the chairman of the European committee in the Bundestag, Gunther Krichbaum and the SPD’s European spokesperson, Michael Roth. They are not Europhobes—they are not anti-European in any way—but they have asked a series of questions, so it is important that we should examine the points they have made. We should also note that in reaction to those points other senior figures in Europe have intervened to suggest that the concerns are not everything they have been cracked up to be. Thus, European Parliament president Martin Schulz has intervened subsequent to those views being expressed from the Bundestag, and in recent weeks the European Parliament’s rapporteur on Croatian accession, Hannes Swoboda, has said that
788
“new obstacles should not be created for Croatia. There are some issues which Croatia must solve, and it is feasible. Enthusiasm in Europe for Croatia’s entry in mid-2013 should not wane. I am absolutely certain that Croatia will be in in mid-2013, a small portion of work remains to be done, but one should be serious and not set new obstacles”.
That is helpful in putting into perspective where the outstanding issues lie. Michael Connarty: Like me, the hon. Gentleman is a great enthusiast for countries that wish to take on the mantle of European Union citizenship, but is he not playing it a little light? He is quoting someone from the European establishment, which is determined to have a greater Europe that it will administer. The worry is that when Croatia comes in, its citizens will find that the people who should protect them will start to slide back and the life they hoped to have will not be realised. Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point but this is not simply about the citizens of Croatia. It is also about all other EU citizens; we are talking about the impact on other EU citizens who will be in Croatia in the future. That is why these provisions are important to citizens here and there and why I asked the Minister for Europe to clarify the point about the safeguards. I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely and everybody—citizens of Croatia and everybody else in the EU—wants to be reassured that the uniform minimum standards will be upheld everywhere. That is, after all, the advantage of the European Union. Now that I have spoken about Croatia, I want to touch on the matter of the Irish protocol. I intervened to ask for clarification on the point about tax-varying powers, which are very important to the Irish Republic. It shows that as a small member state of the European Union, Ireland has been able to influence the process by seeking protocols and clarification on such important subjects. If they were unimportant, we would not be discussing them. Every single member state of the European Union is discussing in its Parliament the priorities of the Irish Government, as we are today. Rather than concentrating on tax, I want briefly to mention Ireland’s defence and security priorities. It is important to acknowledge that Ireland views the protocol as very important in its maintaining its peacekeeping role and traditions and we should take the opportunity to reflect on that. Why? In my 11 years in this place, I have never heard anybody pay tribute to the scale of Ireland’s contribution to the United Nations. There have been 56,000 individual missions to 54 different UN peacekeeping operations. That service has not been without cost. To date, 85 members of Irish defence forces have given their lives in the cause of world peace. The high standing of the Irish defence forces in UN peacekeeping is reflected in the senior positions that have been held by Irish military personnel: force commander in Cyprus; force commander on the Syria-Israel border; force commander in Lebanon; chief of staff in the United Nations; troop supervision organisation in the middle east and in Liberia; and chief military observer on the India-Pakistan border. Most recently, of course, we saw the European Union’s endeavours to deal with the genocide in and its impact on the countries neighbouring Darfur, which was commanded by Irish Lieutenant General Patrick Nash, who was the EU’s operational commander to Chad and the Central African Republic
789
European Union (Croatian Accession 6 NOVEMBER 2012 European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill and Irish Protocol) Bill
in 2008. In addition, an Irish general commanded the multinational task force centre in Kosovo in 2007 and defence forces officers serve in key positions in UN headquarters in New York. The importance of the protocol and Ireland’s UN commitments have been underscored by Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Eamon Gilmore, who stressed the triple-lock of approval for international missions involving the UN, the Irish Government and Dail Eireann. Today we are affirming those priorities and that is a good thing. It is good to reflect on the contribution made by Ireland to the EU and the UN. It is also good to reflect on the role of smaller countries, both those in the EU and those that are joining. The Minister helpfully clarified that Croatia, a country with a population of fewer than 5 million, will join other EU member states of similar size, that is, Denmark, Finland and Slovakia. He confirmed that it will have 12 MEPs, a Commissioner —an important role, as we all know how powerful the Commission is—and seven votes in the Council of Ministers. In addition, Croat nationals will take up important EU posts, with Commission plans to hire 249 Croat officials, one of whom will serve as a director general. That is extremely beneficial for Croatia. Let me contrast that with the position of another European nation with a population of 5 million that is entitled to only half the Croatian entitlement of MEPs, has no right to nominate a Commissioner and has no guaranteed votes in the Council of Ministers. That nation, of course, is Scotland and I look forward to Scotland having full membership rights after the 2014 independence referendum. Unlike Croatia—perhaps I can clarify accession mechanisms in response to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk—Scotland would assume its membership from within the European Union, as recently outlined by the honorary director general of the European Commission, Graham Avery. Michael Connarty rose— Angus Robertson: I shall make my point, then give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to respond. I listened with great interest to what he said, and I am now clarifying the matter that he raised in the debate. In recent parliamentary evidence, Graham Avery said: “Scotland’s 5 million people, having been members of the EU for 40 years, have acquired rights as European citizens; for practical and political reasons, they could not—”
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that passing reference is one thing, but we will end up in a major debate. He is not where he was when he began speaking on this subject. There was much that was great in his history of Croatia, but I do not need to hear the history of Scotland. Angus Robertson: I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] If I can respond to Mr Deputy Speaker and say that I was pleased to be able to discuss the different ways in which nations plan to accede to the EU. It is a simple statement of fact that there is a different position for those within the EU and those who are outside it.
790
Wayne David: Has the hon. Gentleman received the legal advice that the Scottish First Minister has clearly not received? Angus Robertson rose— Wayne David: Was the hon. Gentleman listening to what I said? Angus Robertson: I have. I am delighted— Mr Deputy Speaker Order. Two Members cannot be on their feet at the same time. We will end up with three of us on our feet. Angus Robertson: If the intervention by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) is in order, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] It is not in order, in which case I am disappointed that I will not be able to complete the answer as I would wish. Michael Connarty: Having read the opinion—it has been given in writing, I think, to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs—on the question of Scotland’s accession, has the hon. Gentleman read the other 13 submissions that contradict Mr Avery and do not take the same position, to say— Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that Mr Robertson wants to get back on to the subject, and that no hon. Member wants to distract him. He is not a man who is easily distracted. Angus Robertson: You are very kind, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am disappointed that the hon. Members for Linlithgow and East Falkirk and for Caerphilly (Wayne David) have been ruled out of order when trying to mention Scotland in the way that they did. However, they had an opportunity to take part in the Westminster Hall debate earlier this afternoon. Unfortunately, they were not able— Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been very generous, but I am not going to be as generous now. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to contribute a lot more to the debate, and we do not want to open up a debate about Westminster Hall. That is something that we are not going to do. Angus Robertson: I shall conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, by saying that I think that a nation of nearly 5 million— Croatia—joining the EU in 2013 is a good thing. It is good for the citizens of Croatia, and it is good for citizens in the rest of the European Union. We need to reflect on unresolved issues. Trafficking is a very serious matter, and there is a long track record in the European Scrutiny Committee of Members who care deeply about it. I commend the non-governmental organisation that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk cited. We need to obtain assurances on those issues. It is important not only for the citizens of Croatia and the rest of the European Union but for those people who may be trafficked in future through any EU member state, which is why I again appeal to the Minister to take the opportunity to clarify the fact that the safeguards are of the highest standards and that we can have confidence in them.
791
European Union (Croatian Accession 6 NOVEMBER 2012 European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill and Irish Protocol) Bill
[Angus Robertson] We can look forward to Croatia’s membership. I reflect that I have not heard a single intervention today to suggest that it is a bad thing for this nation of 5 million people to take its seat at the top table in agreement with the Croatian Government. It is a gain in sovereignty for it to be able to take part directly in the EU, not just in the Council of Ministers, but with 12 MEPs in the European Parliament and a Commissioner playing an important role. That bodes well for Croatia and for the western Balkans, leading to greater confidence in peace and stability in the region. We should send a strong message to other nations, whether Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia or others, that the door remains open to them. We are in favour of further enlargement. Beyond the issue of Croatia, reflecting on the fact that the Irish protocol is something that the Irish Government and people thought was important, Europe has listened. The protocol and the assurances within it— Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op) rose— Angus Robertson: This is my peroration. The protocol and the assurances relating to tax-varying powers are welcome, and for that reason, my right hon. and hon. Friends will support the measure as it proceeds through Parliament. 4.4 pm Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). I am sure that throughout the debate we will have a few flashpoints over our differences in interpretation of the treaties, and the lessons of the Bill. It is a testament to how far Croatia has progressed in the past nine years since it first applied for EU membership that we are being asked to approve the Bill that will ratify its likely accession to the EU as the 28th member state on 1 July 2013. Whereas 20 years ago it was recovering from the aftermath of the conflict with Serbia, the siege of Dubrovnik and the break-up of Yugoslavia, Croatia now has exciting plans to diversify its economy and invest in energy and tourism, and is cutting its deficit to under 4% of GDP, albeit in a period of somewhat patchy economic growth. Although members of the European Scrutiny Committee are right to point to the further progress that needs to be made on judicial reform, the elimination of corruption in state-owned companies and the detection of crime, and that more must be done to bring suspected remaining war criminals to justice, it is also fitting that we now ratify the accession treaty signed on 9 December 2011, following 18 other EU member states that have done so, or have voted to do so, since February. In January, some two thirds of those voting in Croatia’s referendum supported its accession to the EU as a means of embedding the rule of law and democratic values, and as a route to prosperity. There are, as hon. Members have mentioned, still some outstanding issues in connection with the ratification of the accession treaty by Slovenia, which has indicated that an agreement with Croatia over debts arising from the collapse of Ljubljanska banka in the 1990s still has to be reached.
792
Croatia proceeded through the 35 chapters of accession in the period of just more than five years, prior to the Commission’s making a favourable recommendation on its membership status. The political criteria required Croatia to ensure the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for, and protection of, minorities. The economic criteria require the existence of a functioning market economy, as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the EU. The acquis criterion refers to the ability to take on the obligations of membership arising from the treaties and the Union’s legislation—the acquis—including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union, which would mean in due course Croatia adopting the euro as its currency, as under article 5 of the accession treaty it has no opt-out from participation in economic and monetary union. Indeed, no other accession state has had an opt-out, and no newly acceding or re-acceding member state would be likely to have one in future either. The Commission’s monitoring report from last month found real progress being made on many fronts, although further attention had to be paid to the protection rights for LGBT people, the selection of new judges and prosecutors, and rooting out corruption in public procurement. On asylum and immigration policy, Croatia shows a good level of compatibility with the EU acquis, although further progress is required on visa requirements. As a new member state that will have to sign up in due course to the Schengen acquis, further work before entry to the Union will be required with regard to the free transit agreement with Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is interesting to note that the record for the shortest period from application to accession in the history of the EU was Slovakia, which completed all stages within two and a half years. Croatia’s accession process, which has taken five years, compares relatively favourably with that. Of course, the example of Slovakia’s accession is a cautionary tale for all states intending to accede or re-accede that believe the process to be a mere formality. As we know from remarks by the Commission, the President of the EU Council and the FCO, that would not be the case for any state seeking accession or re-accession. Croatia had to make speedy progress in several areas of the accession process, demonstrating the standard that the EU expects of new aspirant member states or—dare I say it—parts of member states that decide to separate and form new entities that might seek entry to the EU. This debate is instructive, therefore, not only because of what Croatia had to do to satisfy the entry criteria or what other aspirant states, such as Serbia or Turkey, might have to do in the future, but in terms of what Scotland might have to do to become a member state if it votes for separation in 2014. The first area where Croatia had to make significant reforms was in relation to the creation of an independent central bank. The EU Council issued a draft common position on the progress of the access negotiations with Croatia in 2009 in which it commented extensively on the advances made in the administrative capacities and remit of Croatia’s central bank, the HNB. It noted that during the financial crisis of 2008 the bank adopted prudential measures regarding reserve requirements and foreign currency liquidity requirements. In particular, it
793
European Union (Croatian Accession 6 NOVEMBER 2012 European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill and Irish Protocol) Bill
reduced the reserve requirements from 17% to 14%, decreased the foreign currency liquidity ratio from 28.5% to 20% and raised banks’ maximum allowed open foreign exchange positions. The HNB has been designated by the Council as the component supervisory authority for electronic money institutions—a vital step in ensuring financial stability, which is a prerequisite of EU entry. The Council also accorded significant importance to the capacity of the central bank in its foreign currency liquidity requirements. Croatia has implemented regulations aligning it with the EU acquis on the new capital framework, the supervision of electronic money institutions, the winding up and reorganisation of credit institutions, the supplementary supervision of financial conglomerates and deposit guarantee schemes, and the enforcement of prudential requirements. Croatia required all this financial infrastructure before the Commission recommended that it be accepted for entry. Let us apply the example of Croatia to the debate on other potential aspirant countries seeking accession or re-accession. Such a state, if it did not have its own central bank, would have to rely on another sovereign country’s central bank in order to harden or relax financial rules and requirements. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. We are drifting. I have pulled up other Members for doing the same. We need to stick to the subject in hand, rather than turning to other areas of accession. Mr Bain: It does not follow from the EU’s deliberations with Croatia that Croatia’s offering another state’s central bank would have been acceptable to the EU in order to obtain the Commission’s recommendation for approval. That has intriguing lessons for future accessions and re-accessions. That is the implication of the Bill. Croatia, through the State Agency for Deposit Insurance and Bank Rehabilitation, can guarantee bank deposits. It made significant improvements to this scheme in anticipation of complying with EU directive 94/19/EC, which specifies that all member states must have in place a safety net for bank depositors. It cannot be a criterion, then, for future accession or re-accession countries to fail to have a system to protect bank deposits. That is the implication that comes from Croatia’s accession process and which is reflected in the Bill. The obvious question arises—the FCO mentioned this in a statement on Thursday—of how, if part of the EU were put into limbo, it could possibly meet the terms of such an EU directive, having no independent central bank, no machinery to guarantee bank deposits and having to rely on the central bank of another state to guarantee bank deposits. Those are all implications that come from Croatia’s accession process. The lessons of the negotiations for any new aspirant state highlight the following issues: does it have its own financial services regulator or would it seek to continue with the current regulatory framework, which would be conducted by another state? What would be the governance arrangements for any financial services regulator? What degree of independence from Government would that have? What institution would be prepared to stand behind financial services firms with large deposits or policy holder liabilities? Indeed, how would it be possible to provide lender of last resort facilities without assuming regulatory control over financial transactions such as
794
mortgages, insurance and even pensions? All these are issues that arise out of the Bill and the accession process that Croatia went through. Finally, a framework to wind up failing or failed banks is required. In Croatia’s case, in chapter 9 of the 2009 common position document, the EU welcomed the alignment of Croatia’s legislation to the EU acquis with regard to bank accounts, branch accounts and the re-organisation and winding up of banks. In addition, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, in its 2010 to 2013 strategy for Croatia, considered the securities market regulator highly effective in pursuing complex cases. All those steps were essential in showing compliance with the EU acquis in order for Croatia’s application for membership to be accepted. With reference to the rights of EU citizenship being conferred on Croatians joining the EU, it is appropriate that the Bill permits a phasing in of the right to work. The Minister was right to say that the UK should make use of the flexibility that allows up to seven years before full free movement rights will apply to Croatian nationals in the UK, as was the case with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU earlier. The Opposition support future enlargement on the proper criteria. We note the applications made by Serbia, Montenegro and Turkey. Serbia was granted candidate status on 1 March this year, but has been advised by the EU that it can commence formal accession negotiations only if progress is made on the status of Kosovo and its future relations with Kosovo. The Bill is important for Croatia’s relations with the rest of the EU and the outside world. In demonstrating that a country engaged in a bloody conflict two decades ago can emerge and be in a position to join the EU now, it shows the powerful benefits of full membership of the EU—benefits that go far beyond being a member of the European Free Trade Association. Simply being a member of that institution could render a country liable to be a net contributor to the EU budget but without any influence over how it is spent, and to be bound by the rules of the single market but with no ability to shape those rules. It was interesting that we had some figures this morning from the recent past of Scottish politics advising that a separate Scottish state should, instead of seeking EU membership, seek membership of EFTA instead— Angus Robertson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Would I be right in remembering your ruling to Members of the House that the debate should be about Croatia, not Scotland? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): That is not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. I have mentioned to Mr Bain that I need him to come to order on Croatia. I am sure he will do that, in the same way as other Members did who drifted when we pulled them back into order. That is where Mr Bain is now going. Mr Bain: Indeed, that demonstrates Croatia’s wise decision to join the EU proper rather than seeking membership only of the European Free Trade Association, given the clear advantages that will accrue to its people when it becomes a full EU member state.
795
European Union (Croatian Accession 6 NOVEMBER 2012 European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill and Irish Protocol) Bill
[Mr Bain] Furthermore, the Bill demonstrates precisely what states must do and the entry criteria with which they must comply before becoming members of the EU. I congratulate the people of Croatia on the progress they have made and welcome their entry next year. However, I also believe that it demonstrates the value of membership of the United Kingdom, the votes we have as a member of the EU Council and the ability to influence key decisions. That is a real benefit, and one that I and Opposition Members would not wish to see Scotland lose in coming years. 4.20 pm Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op): I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate—possibly more briefly than I had anticipated, given your recent ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. Debates on the EU in this House often focus on our membership, and rightly so, but I think that it is important that, as the UK is a member state, we also engage with the wider issues, so I am pleased that we are debating Croatia’s accession. As my hon. Friend the shadow Europe Minister and other Members have said, we support Croatian accession and EU enlargement more widely, provided that the proper criteria are met. With every new country that joins, the single market is widened and new markets are opened up for our exports. That can only be good for business across the UK and for our economy as a whole. However, it is very important that we ensure that candidate countries are ready to join before accession. Although Bulgaria and Romania were granted conditional accession, that turned out perhaps not to be a good model, and I think it is right that it was not repeated in Croatia’s case. Given Croatia’s difficult not-too-distant history, and that of the wider Balkans region, I am particularly pleased that we are debating such progress and such a positive step. The EU has developed and progressed significantly since its relatively modest beginnings after the second world war, and Croatia’s accession reminds us of the power of the EU in moving on from conflict and as a mechanism for countries working together for positive aims. As we have heard, Croatia will be the second state from the former Yugoslavia to join the EU, and I very much hope that others will make progress towards membership. Over the past 10 years or so, I have visited Croatia and other Balkan countries a number of times, sometimes on holiday and sometimes as part of a visiting group of political representatives, both as a Member of Parliament and before I was elected. I continue to be interested in the region, its progress and the challenges it faces. Earlier this year I joined other hon. Members from both sides of the House on a visit to Bosnia. Although she is not present, I want to thank the hon. Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) and her office for arranging what was a very informative trip, and also for her good company. I had previously visited Bosnia about 10 years ago, and at the time I was struck by the sense of optimism and hope for the future. I must say that I encountered quite a different and much less optimistic mood when I visited this year. I came home with renewed interest in
796
what is happening in that country and a deep sense that we need to pay much more attention to Bosnia’s situation. At times, the situation in that country has seemed intractable, and I fear that it might get harder to resolve. I hope that we can support other countries in the region to move forward alongside Croatia. Hon. Members will be aware that this has not been an easy process for Croatia. From the creation of its Ministry of European Integration in 1998 and the submission of its formal application for membership in 2003, it appears, hopefully, that the people of Croatia will finally be granted EU membership by July 2013, ending a 15-year journey. However, there is still work to be done by the Croatian Government to ensure that they are ready to finalise accession, most notably in relation to security of the new EU border that they will control. I have crossed the border from Slovenia into Croatia; the Minister mentioned the border crossing, which is where the narrow strip of Bosnia juts into Croatia. I have also crossed from Croatia into Montenegro. I thought I might end up spending longer than I wanted at that crossing; as we approached from Dubrovnik, my now husband stalled the car and we went kangarooing into the checkpoint with rather a lot of noise and commotion—not really what people want to do as they approach a border checkpoint. For whatever reason, however, the officers simply checked our passports and waved us through; I assume that they thought that no one who was up to no good would make such a dramatic entrance. Notwithstanding the border issue, membership of the EU will make a real difference to Croatians, enshrining basic rights and principles, opening up Europe to them and signing them up to the single market. Given the history and struggles of their country, that is a significant step as it progresses into the future. I am conscious, Mr Deputy Speaker, of your remarks about comments concerning other countries that might accede to the EU and I know that you are aware of the ongoing debate about that issue. What is not helpful in that debate are baseless assertions from the Scottish Government that continuing seamless membership of the EU is guaranteed. That has been discredited by clear statements from the current President of the EU Commission. It will have taken Croatia 10 years to meet the criteria necessary to join the EU, from negotiating issues relating to its financial regulatory system to its external political relationship. I do not think that people in Croatia would have put up with the leaders of their country misleading the public about the legal advice on membership of the EU as we have seen the Scottish First Minister do. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. As I have made clear, we do not want to drift. I know that the hon. Lady is making comparisons, but I am sure that the people of Croatia are not discussing Scotland, just as we will not. Gemma Doyle: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. A new country needs to establish itself and the appropriate institutions, and Croatia has shown how difficult that process can be. I am sure that that will be a lesson for all new states seeking to join the EU. EU
797
European Union (Croatian Accession 6 NOVEMBER 2012 European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill and Irish Protocol) Bill
membership is not automatic and is not easy to obtain, but after significant progress in the past 15 years, I very much support the Bill and look forward to welcoming Croatia’s accession to the EU next summer. 4.27 pm Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): My comments will be brief and I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I will not mention Scotland. If we are honest with ourselves, the European Union often comes in for justifiable criticism these days, particularly on the Floor of the House. However, in many ways it has been a success story, given how the single market has developed and become successful—and will become more successful in future, I hope. It has also been successful in having been one of the contributory factors to western Europe not experiencing a war since the two we saw in the last century. The big exception is the Balkans, of course. I well remember the appalling loss of life that occurred in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s and the European Union being unable or unwilling to do anything—relying on NATO and the Americans in particular to intervene to ensure peace and eventual stability in that region of Europe. If there is an eloquent testimony for the need for the European Union to work collectively to ensure that such a thing never happens again, it is the experience of the former Yugoslavia. Linked to that is the third big achievement of the European Union—its gradual increase in size, from its original six members to today’s 27, and we are looking further afield. That is a tremendous success for the European Union. It speaks volumes about how the EU is often perceived by people outside it, rather than ourselves within it, as something worth belonging to. That momentum will continue, albeit in a different way, into the future. I welcome the Bill. As hon. Members have said, the whole process of Croatia coming closer to the European family has been quite a long one; it has taken at least 10 years. It is important for us to recognise that lessons have been learned from the previous enlargement processes. In particular, the Minister referred to the process by which Romania and Bulgaria joined the European Union, as did Slovakia. Looking at it objectively, things could have been done better in relation to those member states, where the struggle to create a fair and open justice system still has some way to go. I think that the lessons have been learned and are reflected in how Croatia’s accession has been approached. To Croatia’s credit, many of the difficult experiences of the recent past have been confronted by apprehending and bringing to justice war criminals, and that process needs to continue. Painful though it is for some elements in the country, it is important for that process to be firmly set in stone and ongoing. As a major trading nation, it is important that we do everything possible to open up the Balkans to trade and to establish effective market mechanisms. Croatia has gone through quite a lot of economic difficulty over the past few years, and things are far from easy today. Nevertheless, we need to support its people as much as possible in making sure that they get over the difficulties they have experienced and complete the transition to a fully market-oriented economy, albeit one with social responsibilities.
798
It is important, too, to recognise that we live in a world that is becoming increasingly integrated—we live in a global economy, as is often said—but we are also seeing the free movement of people around the globe in an unprecedented way. I well remember receiving a briefing from a chief constable in Gwent in which, when I asked him where the major source of crime in Gwent emanated from, he said that it was the Balkans. That brought the point home graphically. Although he might not have been thinking specifically of Croatia, he highlighted the fact that while we are often concerned about tackling the problems in our country, we have to be aware that many of them begin elsewhere. International crime— Members have referred to the trafficking of human beings—is clearly a case in point. One of the foremost concerns expressed by Members is immigration. Those concerns must be recognised. The Government have correctly said that secondary legislation will be introduced to ensure that we have an effective transition period prior to the free movement of labour, but it is worth bearing in mind that we have lessons to learn. For example, Lithuania is a relatively small country that is less populous than Croatia, and it has been estimated that the number of Lithuanians resident in the United Kingdom has increased from 14,000 to 128,000. I am not against the free movement of peoples, and I am not against Lithuanians or Croatians coming to live in this country if they have work to do and can contribute to our economy, but we must be careful to ensure that we have in place the proper infrastructure so that those people are fully integrated and the necessary facilities so that they are supported as they should be. Will the Minister provide reassurances about the anticipated number of people who will seek residence in the United Kingdom once Croatia has full EU membership and the transitional period has come to an end? I hope that Croatia’s accession will not be the end of the beginning of the process of enlargement, but that it will lead to future enlargement. Iceland has been mentioned, as has Turkey for many years. Unfortunately, Turkey has not made good progress recently, but it is nevertheless a key state for consideration. In the western Balkans I hope that the good example of Croatia—and Slovenia before it—will be noted by other states. As the Minister said, it is unfortunate that Bosnia and Herzegovina’s likely membership of the EU has slipped back, but we must be as encouraging as possible to ensure that it, too, has the prospect of joining the European family. Labour Members, and I hope Government Members, welcome this Bill and, with all necessary safeguards and caveats, we look forward to Croatia becoming a member of that European family. 4.36 pm Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD): First, I apologise to Members on both Front Benches for arriving late to this debate; I was somewhat caught out by the change in timetabling that has taken place, and no disrespect was intended. Like my fellow Celt who spoke before me, I shall not be tempted into matters domestic in terms of Scotland, not least because of my role on behalf of the Liberal Democrats and the Better Together campaign. Indeed, I will be talking about little else for the next two years, so I consider this debate a burst of the oxygen of freedom that will not be with me for much longer.
799
European Union (Croatian Accession 6 NOVEMBER 2012 European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill and Irish Protocol) Bill
[Mr Charles Kennedy] I have listened to your constructive admonitions, Mr Deputy Speaker, about the dangers of straying off topic. However, I cannot help recalling anecdotally that when the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) occupied the office of Europe Minister in Mrs Thatcher’s Government, a rather sudden reshuffle saw George Younger become Secretary of State for Defence, and the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington be appointed Secretary of State for Scotland. The following weekend the Scottish Constitutional Convention was launched. The late, great Donald Dewar spoke as shadow Scottish Secretary, and he reflected on the ever-disputatious state of British politics, and Scottish politics in particular, as evinced on that occasion by the absence of the SNP. The new Secretary of State for Scotland looked around and thought of what he had been dealing with in eastern Europe and its emergent democracies, and all the turmoil, chaos and upheaval. He was now unexpectedly and suddenly appointed Secretary of State for Scotland, but he must have looked at his previous job and thought how much easier life was when he had only the rest of the world to worry about, and not Scotland. I think that will be the fate of several of us over the next couple of years. I want to look at this issue not just from the perspective of the House of Commons, but, together with others in the Chamber, at a wider Europe as represented in the Council of Europe—I know the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) will have spoken about that earlier in the debate. In welcoming Croatia’s accession in due course, it is worth bearing in mind the role that Croatia has already played as a valuable ally in continuing tough times, for us and for our other international obligations. For example, it has contributed 320 troops to the international security assistance force in Afghanistan, which speaks strongly and well. It has contributed to peacekeeping and associated activities in Libya and elsewhere in the world. It has demonstrated its internationalist credentials, and we are right to pay tribute to that today. The Government was recently defeated in a contentious vote in the House of Commons. It was pointed out to me that each and every Liberal Democrat MP was present and—unbelievably—all voted for the coalition, I think for the first time. We voted on the losing side; it was the reverse Midas touch that we always bring to great parliamentary occasions. It is worth bearing in mind the bottom line as far as Croatia is concerned. Political agreement was reached by the Council that the cost of accession to the EU should, in the current financial perspective, be met within existing headings—in other words, it should be budget neutral. At a time of such contention about the budget, it is only correct and proper that we put that agreement on the record. Although the next multi-annual financial framework—the term rolls off the tongue—has yet to be agreed, the benchmark has been set by how this accession has been handled. The UK played a role within the Council of Europe in assuring it. If Conservative Members are as worked up as they were last week, they might want to give credit where it is due, and approve of the financial implications of this accession. Thehon.MemberforGlasgowSpringburn—[Interruption.] Is that correct?
800
Mr Bain: It is Glasgow North East. Mr Kennedy: I was near enough. I have represented constituencies such as Ross, Skye and Inverness West, or Ross, Cromarty and Skye. Single title constituencies always have me scratching my head. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) has said, the negotiations were successful. The political and social distance travelled in just a couple of decades is immense—that is not a long time, and Croatia is not far distant from us in global terms. Nevertheless, the accession negotiations were tough. Croatia was the first country to negotiate under the new chapter 23—tough new rules on judicial reform and fundamental freedoms that were introduced at European level as a result of the lessons learned from the Romanian and Bulgarian accessions. Therefore, the European institutions have acquitted themselves well in dealing with Croatian accession both politically and in terms of financial prudence, and according to the founding principles of Europe, which follow from the founding principles of the Council of Europe—human rights, the rule of law and democracy. We hear so much that is negative, so it is worth putting those things on the record. On the Irish dimension of the Bill, it is worth stressing that the protocol does not change the content or application of the treaties. Indeed, the European Council conclusions adopted in 2009 confirm that the guarantees given to the Irish, which form the subject of the protocol, “will clarify, but not change either the content or the application of the Treaty of Lisbon.”
The conclusions also state that the contents “will in no way alter the relationship between the EU and its Member States”
and are “fully compatible with the Treaty of Lisbon and will not necessitate any re-ratification of that Treaty”.
Those who might be tempted down another diversionary line—another fault line in parliamentary politics—might wonder whether the Bill could be used to prise open the argument over the repatriation of other powers, but the answer is most definitely non, non, non. That was made crystal clear some three years ago, but it is worth underscoring in the debate. When the Conservatives were in power alone back in the ’80s, with very large majorities and Mrs Thatcher at the helm, the Foreign Office and Prime Minister argued in support of the enlargement of Europe. Many of us who came at the argument from an instinctively proEuropean point of view believed that the Conservatives supported the widening of Europe to prevent the deepening of Europe. It was a colossal political misreading. It was not, perhaps, as colossal as Mrs Thatcher’s instinctive initial opposition to the reunification of Germany, but it was of that order—a classic Conservative misreading of the way in which Europe would develop. As we have seen over the 20 to 25 years since then, the widening of Europe has necessitated, in so many respects, a further deepening, resulting in a European Union, or a European Community or Common Market, as it was initially known. It began with six members, now has more than two dozen, and is likely to have many more. Common sense alone suggests that one does not have to be a constitutional lawyer to see that a deepening and a greater democratic process at the core of that deepening
801
European Union (Croatian Accession 6 NOVEMBER 2012 European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill and Irish Protocol) Bill
are needed if those individual component parts, the member states, as well as the overarching body itself are to function effectively. Croatia and what will follow in its slipstream in coming years, in tandem with the ongoing arguments about the fate of the single currency, mean that there will have to be further European deepening in many respects if the institutions of Europe are to serve their purpose. If the House of Commons passes this Bill, it would show that it supports that purpose, and I would welcome that. 4.46 pm Emma Reynolds: With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to reflect briefly on our wide-ranging debate on the Bill. Indeed, it has been so wide-ranging that at one point I wondered whether we were going to embark on a full-blown debate about the UK and its constituent parts, but we managed to avoid that. The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) made a characteristically long speech, while the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) made an uncharacteristically short speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) stressed the need for conditionality for new accession states and for co-operation between our Government and the Croatian Government on preventing human trafficking. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) spoke about his time in the former Yugoslav Republic, as it then was, during the conflict and described the progress in both Slovenia and Croatia, rightly, as breathtaking. My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) and for Caerphilly (Wayne David) all stressed that the Croatian experience demonstrates that the accession of new member states is by no means a straightforward process. It is lengthy and, rightly, thorough, and that should be borne in mind for future reference. Last but not least, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) rightly put on record the contribution that Croatia is already making to the international community and to international efforts, not least the 320 troops in Afghanistan and its contribution to peace-keeping in Libya. He also stressed, importantly, the budget neutrality of Croatian accession. The vast majority of hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken are in favour of Croatia’s accession. It is certainly true that progress needs to be made in some areas, such as those highlighted in the recent European Commission report, but progress has been made in many other areas. For that reason, the Opposition support the Second Reading of the Bill. 4.48 pm Mr Lidington: With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to reply briefly to some of the points that have been made. I thank Members of all parties who have taken part in the debate. Although a number of criticisms have been made of the stage that Croatia has reached in preparing for EU accession, there has been pretty nigh universal support for the principle that Croatia should be welcomed as a full member of the European Union. Let me deal first with the points that have been made about the Irish protocol. I was asked why no referendum was required under the European Union Act 2011. As
802
my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) said just now, the truth is that the protocol is declaratory. It changes neither the content nor the application of the EU treaties. The European Council conclusions of June 2009 said that the protocol was “fully compatible with the Treaty of Lisbon and will not necessitate any re-ratification of that Treaty”.
That was at the heart of the formal opinion set out by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his statement on 2 July this year, in which he explained why, having examined the protocol, as required under the 2011 Act, he had concluded that it fell within one of the exempt categories of legislation. I should say to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) that while I completely accept—and not just in respect of the Irish protocol—that the smaller EU members play a vital and welcome role in the functioning of the European Union, he will also, I am sure, have taken note of the fact that, between Croatia’s application and accession, 10 years elapsed before all the details were sorted out and accession arrangements put in place. Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): Will the Minister give way? Mr Lidington: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me; I think the House would want me to make progress. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) asked about the lack of action on a police law. In about a week to eight days’ time—well ahead of the proposed Committee stage of the Bill—I will make available to the Committees and in the Library the detailed tables in respect of chapter 23, which was the supporting basis for the report, which the Committees have seen. Those tables are with the Ministry of Justice at the moment. As we did in April, we will make those tables available to the House following the Commission’s October report, and I undertake to do so in good time before the Committee stage. To deal with the point my hon. Friend made, progress on the police law could be said to have fallen victim to the democratic process. The previous Croatian Government, led by the HDZ, passed a law on the recruitment of police officers shortly before the Croatian general election. After a new Government were elected in Zagreb, they wanted to consider the position and decided that they wished to repeal the law. They have now had detailed discussions with the European Commission and decided to go ahead with the previous law, subject to some amendments. The details of the police law are finalised and we expect everything to be in place well ahead of Croatia’s expected accession date. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) asked about the risks of trafficking, a subject in which he has taken a long and detailed interest. We have not identified any victims of trafficking from Croatia in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the 2011 report by the US State Department, which ranks countries in terms of their capacity to tackle trafficking and protect victims, designated Croatia as a tier 1 country, alongside the United Kingdom. The evidence suggests that Croatia already has a robust system in place, but clearly we will want to work with the Croatians to ensure that that remains the case. Countries close to
803
European Union (Croatian Accession 6 NOVEMBER 2012 European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill and Irish Protocol) Bill
[Mr Lidington] Croatia, such as Kosovo and Albania, are indeed source countries for traffickers. The Croatian Government are fully aware of the risks and are committed to strengthening measures to tackle trafficking. For example, Croatia intends to continue training border staff and police. A training programme on trafficking in human beings has been drafted and will be implemented as part of the border police training system. We believe that Croatia is on track to meet its commitment to tackling human trafficking. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the need for border management. The EU monitoring reports released in April and October highlighted delays in implementing the infrastructure and equipment required for the integrated border management programme. That will be addressed as part of pre-accession monitoring, but in the meantime Croatia continues to make progress. As at August this year, the national border management information system was live at 81 border crossing points, which represents significant progress on 2011, when only 37 were so equipped. In 2011, Croatia apprehended 3,461 illegal migrants, a significant increase on the 1,946 apprehended in 2010. The total number of border officers is now 6,017, of which 4,647 are at the external border. Croatia plans to recruit 406 additional border officers before the end of the year. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk asked whether Croatia would be obliged to join Schengen. The act of accession provides for much of the Schengen acquis to apply to, and be binding on, Croatia from the date of her accession, but the actual lifting of border controls to other Schengen area member states will not take place at the time of Croatia’s accession. That will take place later, following a separate Council decision, and it will happen only if Croatia meets the requirements of the Schengen evaluation procedures to the satisfaction of the Commission and the existing Schengen area member states. The hon. Member for Moray asked about the postaccession measures. Articles 38 and 39, relating to safeguards to the single market and to chapters 23 and 24, can indeed be invoked after accession, as well as before it under the special pre-accession monitoring arrangements. In answer to a further point raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, the conflict of interests commission is in the process of being established, and we expect it to have been established before the end of the year. One reason for the delay is that the Croatian Government have decided to be completely transparent about the process, and they have interviewed every one of the more than 200 applicants for the post involved. I shall perhaps have an opportunity to say more about the general issue of anti-corruption measures when we reach the further stages of the Bill. Today, I would simply say that we are now seeing action being taken in high-profile cases, with convictions secured against a former Prime Minister, a former economy
804
Minister and a former defence Minister. At the lower level, too, the Croatian bureau for combating corruption and organised crime has issued indictments against 257 people, secured 209 judgments including 205 convictions, and launched 191 new investigations, all between January and August 2012. Again, that is evidence of the determination of the Croatians to push forward and deliver on their promises to take rigorous measures against corruption. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber rightly referred to the part that Croatia has played in contributing to the international security assistance force operations in Afghanistan. I also look forward to the prospect of Croatia, as a full member of the European Union, serving as a role model for the other countries of the western Balkans and, through her own diplomatic and political activity, leading them towards full integration with the European family of nations, as well as strengthening the institutions that provide for democracy, the rule of law and human rights for everybody. Although there is still work to be done in the months leading up to accession, this Government believe that Croatia has achieved remarkable progress. She is on track to deliver on her promises by the date of accession, and that is why we have brought the Bill to the House and ask the House to support it tonight. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. EUROPEAN UNION (CROATIAN ACCESSION AND IRISH PROTOCOL) BILL (PROGRAMME) Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)), That the following provisions shall apply to the European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill: Committal 1. The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House. Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and Third Reading 2. Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in one day in accordance with the following provisions of this Order. 3. Proceedings in Committee and any proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced. 4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day. Programming committee 5. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to the proceedings on the Bill in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading. Other proceedings 6. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Joseph Johnson.)
Question agreed to.
805
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union [Relevant document: The Fourteenth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, on Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union, HC 86-xiv.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Mr William Cash. 4.59 pm The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark): I beg to move, That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 13682/12, a draft Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1093/2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) as regards its interaction with Council Regulation (EU) No…/… conferring specific tasks on the European Central 5 Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions, No. 13683/12, a draft Regulation conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions, No. 13854/12, Commission Communication: A roadmap towards a Banking Union, and an unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum: Towards a Genuine Economic and 10 Monetary Union: Interim report; and welcomes the Government’s decision to remain outside the new supervisory arrangements while protecting the single market in financial services.
I welcome these debates. The subject matter of today’s debate is, if anything, even more important than what we discussed last week. It is essential that proposed developments in the EU are robustly scrutinised by this Parliament. I am grateful for all the work done by the European Scrutiny Committee and its equivalent Committee in the House of Lords, as they applied their attention to the 1,100 European documents that were referred to them last year. One theme we will come on to is how we can strengthen the scrutiny of sovereign national Parliaments over the institutions and policies of the EU. I believe that that is essential. It is principally Members of this House and our colleagues in the other place who will search for assurance that our national interest is not being blown away by a Zeitgeist that is capable of carrying people along in the wrong direction. This week is a particularly appropriate one in which to recall the value of that questioning voice. It was 15 years ago on 10 November 1997 when the then Leader of the Opposition first stood out against all fashionable opinion at the time and, in a speech to the Confederation of British Industry conference, committed my party to oppose joining the proposed euro. I had a hand in preparing that speech, and I recall one of the lines that I was proud made the cut. It said: “if the nightmare of our experience in the ERM teaches us anything, it is not to steer by the siren voices of a supposed consensus, but to exercise the independent judgement of a cool head.”
Of course, the two people responsible for that decision and that speech are now our Foreign Secretary and our Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were excoriated at the time for declaring on that day that they intended “to campaign against British membership of the single currency at the next general election”.
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
806
I believe that this caused the brand-new Labour Government of the day to hesitate, and by missing the moment, they spared Britain from a disastrous fate. Fifteen years on, the documents that we are considering today are a direct consequence of the creation of the euro and, in particular, of the failure to address from the outset some of the inevitable factors. Now, as then, it is imperative that the United Kingdom exercises the independent judgment of a cool head to determine whether the new policies being proposed are consistent with the interests of our own economy. Let me deal first with the proposals on banking union. The first thing to say is that we and the EU need to tread particularly carefully on matters that affect financial services. The financial services industry, including banking, is not evenly distributed across all member states of the EU. The United Kingdom has a vastly greater strength in the conduct of, and international trade in, financial services than any other member state. Financial services and related areas employ more than 2 million people in this country—two thirds of them outside London—and contribute £1 out of every £8 of Government revenue. That is about £1,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. We have a £37 billion trade surplus in financial services and Britain accounts for 61% of the whole of the EU’s exports of financial services. Commissioner Barnier said last month: “It is in our general interest in Europe to have the biggest financial centre in the world. A strong City is good not only for Britain but for Europe.”
That is a welcome recognition. We will never jeopardise an industry of such particular importance to the United Kingdom. In scrutinising these proposals, we need to have a clear fact in mind. People do not need banking union because they are part of a single market. The appetite for banking union arises solely because of the problems of the single currency. However, although banking union is primarily a matter for members of the eurozone, it strongly engages Britain’s interests in two ways. Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): Does the Minister honestly believe that the Prime Minister throwing a tantrum, walking out of a Council meeting and claiming that he exercised a veto when he did not is helpful to Britain’s national interests? Greg Clark: I and, I think, the country are pleased that the Prime Minister was prepared to stand up for British interests, and I know that he will always do so. It is certainly not a matter of regret. I think it is desirable from the point of view of the British economy that, since the eurozone exists, it should be successful, rather than a source of economic weakness. Indeed, as the Governor of the Bank of England has said: “The biggest risk to the recovery”
in this country “stems from the difficulties facing the euro area, our main trading partner.”
Secondly, we need to be vigilant to ensure that our access to the single market in banking, now and in the future, is not undermined and jeopardised by the creation of a banking union. That means putting in
807
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
6 NOVEMBER 2012
[Greg Clark] place safeguards to ensure that the UK cannot be discriminated against in the future in single market decision-making processes. The Commission’s current proposals are not yet acceptable in that respect. For example, the European Banking Authority—which, as Members know, is the organisation that currently ensures that there is a level playing field for banking within the single market—operates on the basis not of unanimity but of majority voting. The European Central Bank regulation specifies that that the ECB would “coordinate and express a common position of representatives from competent authorities of the participating Member States in… the EBA”.
That effectively requires participating member states in the euro to caucus in adopting positions and voting in the European Banking Authority. Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): I warmly welcome the approach that my right hon. Friend is taking to the whole issue, and to voting rights in particular. Are not the voting arrangements for the European Banking Authority completely unacceptable to our national interests, as he has described them, in that they will result in a banking authority that is determined by a caucus that has been arranged in advance and in which this country is deprived of its say? The Labour party may think that that is somehow in accordance with our national interests, but it most certainly is not. Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I do not think that we should be shy about insisting on protecting something that is very important to us. The single market in financial services is essential, and the current proposals would compromise it. Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con): I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend’s approach, but may I caution him about the double-edged invocation of the single market? We are threatened not just by the voting rights in the European Banking Authority, but by those in the Council of Ministers. It is equally possible that the member states of the eurozone that are in the banking union will caucus in the Council and use a single-market measure to create a single market in banking services to reflect the policy already adopted by the banking union. How are we to be protected from that? Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is right to be alert to those dangers and risks. One of the clear principles on which we have insisted throughout all our negotiations on all the different dossiers is that we will accept nothing that would compromise our ability to participate in the single market. Let me say a bit more about our stance on the EBA. What is currently proposed would not just require but enable members of the eurozone to caucus and adopt positions, which poses the clear risk that the ECB could dominate EBA decision-making. Given that 17 of the 27 EBA members are in the eurozone, that would constitute a blocking minority on all issues decided by qualified majority voting, and indeed a qualified majority under the new Lisbon rules.
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
808
Moreover, such action by the Commission would create an asymmetry of treatment between supervisory bodies. The proposal reflects the legal position that, as an EU institution, the ECB cannot be legally bound by EBA decisions on binding mediation, whereas the Bank of England could be. We have argued since the start of the negotiations that it would be inequitable and unacceptable if the Bank of England could be directed in that way but the ECB could not. We are pleased that our concerns are finally being acknowledged, but the asymmetry must be resolved if there is to be any final agreement. As is required by both the motion and the amendment tabled by the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), we will certainly use what the amendment describes as our “best endeavours to ensure that the proposed changes…in the European Banking Authority are not adopted”.
In fact, that is an uncharacteristically mild form of words from my hon. Friend. We will insist that those changes are not adopted, and we will require full protection for the position of the United Kingdom and the other non-eurozone members in the EBA. Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con): I am very pleased to hear what the Minister is saying, but can he tell us what concrete guarantees would exist if the Government’s proposals were adopted to ensure that the City of London’s interests could not be adversely affected by qualified majority voting by eurozone members, the ECB or anyone else on the continent? That is the key question that concerns us today. Greg Clark: A number of mechanisms could require that, for example, the requirement for a dual majority. A number of possibilities are being discussed at the moment. What I have set out clearly is a very firm principle that we will not find ourselves in a position where we will be dominated by the ECB. That is what we are taking into the negotiations. We take a firmer view even than we are urged to do by the amendment. Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend not accept that because this is governed by qualified majority voting, even with our best endeavours the reality is that it is not merely likely but it is as certain as we could imagine, given what we hear from other side of the European Union, that we will be outvoted? To follow on from the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), what guarantee can the Minister give, in the light of the fact that this is so important for the City of London? Greg Clark: As my hon. Friend knows, the ECB aspect of the regulation requires unanimity, and we regard both aspects of this as reinforcing each other. We have made it plain, as I am doing from the Dispatch Box today, that it is an absolute requirement that we will not be dominated by the ECB. After the Prime Minister goes to the Council he will come back to this House. If he has been able to establish agreement, he will set out what that is, and if not, he will set out why it was not possible.
809
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Let me deal with the second part of my hon. Friend’s amendment, where he draws attention to the need to ensure that the powers of the ECB’s governing council are not delegated to the single supervisory function in a way that is unlawful in terms of the treaties. That is a serious matter. It is vital that the weighty responsibilities that the single supervisory mechanism will discharge are vested in a way that is accepted to be legal. His observation in his amendment that it would ultimately be a matter for the European Court of Justice if there were doubts about the legality of the final arrangements is very constructive and accurate, and I hope that he will accept my assurance that our criteria in evaluating the SSM will be as in his amendment. In other words, they will be: first, that it is lawful—we reserve the right to establish that; secondly, that the integrity of the single market is respected, as I said; and, thirdly, that the UK cannot be discriminated against in the way that is proposed. Mr Cash: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in relation to the fiscal compact our representative at UKRep, Sir Jon Cunliffe, wrote a letter to the SecretaryGeneral of the European Council specifically stating that the UK Government wanted a legal reserve in respect of the illegality of that matter? On this issue, where there is clear evidence from the Council of Ministers’ legal adviser that the matter is regarded as unlawful, will my right hon. Friend guarantee that not only have we received a legal reserve, but, unlike on the previous occasion, we have followed it through with a reference to the European Court? So far, we have got a promise but no completion of it. Greg Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I am not as familiar as he is with what went on in the previous exchange of correspondence, but I can say that it is essential that the arrangements need to be legal. There is no point marching up a hill of banking union if the whole thing falls apart—I mix my metaphors, but he understands what I mean. There are also other matters on which we would need to be satisfied before any of the proposed measures can be adopted. Mr Jenkin: My right hon. Friend made an important point when he said that the British Government would reserve their position on the legality of this new instrument and how it might be used. Will he just expand on that? Would it not be sensible for UKRep to write a letter similar to the one written in the case of the fiscal union treaty, at the very least, in order to make that clear? Greg Clark: I do not think that there is any difference between us on this. It is essential that this arrangement is legally sound. At the moment, the negotiations are continuing and the shape of the regulation is evolving, but the sensible commitment I have given is to make sure not to proceed unless we are satisfied that it is legally robust. Let me talk about some of the other measures we need to bear in mind. We must make it absolutely clear that both now and in the future there should be no requirement, for example, for clearing houses that handle significant amounts of euro-denominated business to be located geographically in the eurozone, as proposed by the ECB—a proposal against which we have launched legal proceedings. That blatantly undermines the single
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
810
market and the United Kingdom’s financial services industry. It is a poor indication of the ECB’s attitude if it intends to proceed in such a way. We need to be clear, too, that London is home to more clearing houses than any other EU capital and such proposals are unacceptable. As the House will see, there is some way to go before the banking union proposals are acceptable to the Government. They will not be agreed by the United Kingdom unless and until we are satisfied that the UK’s position in the single market has been secured. Let me turn briefly to the document known as the four presidents’ report, which was published on 12 October. It is an interim report that gives a general overview of the measures that the euro area member states might want to consider taking to improve the functioning of the euro. At this stage, there is little detail in the report apart from in the area of banking union and a great deal more discussion will be needed before there is agreement even on which issues should be explored further. The House will have a particular interest, however, in the discussion about democratic legitimacy and accountability. I emphasise again that although the UK will not be part of the arrangements, it seems to me to be important that when significant decisions are being taken at the eurozone level about national matters, national Parliaments should be able to scrutinise those decisions, just as the Bank of England, the UK regulatory authorities and not least Ministers are accountable to this House and the House of Lords. Wayne David: I welcome what the Minister has just said, but does he accept that in much of the documentation we are discussing, as the European Scrutiny Committee has pointed out, preference is given to the European Parliament rather than national Parliaments as regards accountability? Greg Clark: Indeed it is. The point I am making very clearly—perhaps not clearly enough—is that I think there should be a greater role for national Parliaments. The Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, was characteristically eagle-eyed and meticulous in his regard for independence when he baulked at the line in my explanatory memorandum that stated that “there should be further consideration of how we can use national parliaments to enhance legitimacy and oversight.”
He is absolutely right that “use” is not the mot juste and instead I should have said that the authority of national Parliaments should be respected. It was the very independence and rigour of his and the Committee’s scrutiny that I was commending, and anyone who labours under the misapprehension that his Committee can be used does not know him or his colleagues. I will be more exact in future. When the document was considered in the October Council, the Prime Minister secured an explicit commitment that the final report and road map in December must include concrete proposals to ensure that the single market’s integrity is respected. I look forward to this afternoon’s debate and tell all hon. Members who will participate that their guidance and advice will be taken seriously by the Government as the detailed
811
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
6 NOVEMBER 2012
[Greg Clark] negotiations on all these matters proceed in Brussels and across capitals in Europe over the weeks and months ahead. Several hon. Members rose— Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Order. Before I call the shadow Minister, let me remind the House that the debate is time-limited and will end at 6.29 pm. When the shadow Minister sits down, I will announce the time limit to ensure that all Members who have indicated that they wish to speak get in. 5.18 pm Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op): No pressure there, then, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have a lot of sympathy with the Minister today. Let us hope that he is a little luckier than he was last Wednesday, although of course the curse of Tunbridge Wells will have its way. In a way, as he explained, banking union is a natural downstream consequence of monetary union. It would be wrong to resist it for the eurozone, as the eurozone crisis has exposed a series of risks to economic stability, not least of which is the relationship between sovereign debt and banking debt and the need to find credible ways to prevent private banking losses from dragging down sovereign fiscal positions. The UK has its own banking union and our monetary policy sovereignty has given us a measure of protection during the sovereign and bank debt crises that have engulfed the eurozone. I thought the Minister was perhaps labouring under the impression that his plucky Members of Parliament kept us out of the euro between 1997 and 2010—that is too funny, as of course that was the decision of the previous Labour Administration. It was the right decision. Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con) rose— Chris Leslie: I will not give way yet, as I am conscious of the time. We were right, too, to bail out the banks in 2008, but that came at a high cost for the taxpayer and for the country’s economic prospects. UK public debt was adversely affected by the purchase of banking assets and the subsequent loss of revenues from financial services. These issues are now affecting countries around the world, especially in the EU. Monetary policy sovereignty has allowed the UK to adopt an active interest rate policy to counteract those economic headwinds—something less available to those in the eurozone. To save the euro, the eurozone has looked at new rules to grip the fiscal policies of its member states. Fiscal union in the EU is now widely recognised as dependent on banking union. Germany initially insisted on that, and it has asked that the single supervisory mechanism—the eurozone nation state regulators and Governments—be completed before banks can access the European stability mechanism and the European Central Bank’s outright monetary transactions programme, hence the imperative to agree these matters. In recent weeks, however, Germany is rumoured to have lost some enthusiasm for that tougher banking union and
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
812
its consequences, especially as some of its smaller banks face major regulatory upheaval. It is right that the ECB’s role in supervisory policy should be triggered, by unanimity if necessary, as required in the Maastricht treaty. Central banks are increasingly in the driving seat in financial regulation, as is the case in the UK, and it is necessary for the ECB to have a clear capability in its role overseeing the operation of the eurozone. The ECB is a full treaty institution, and it must be governed by treaty rules and member state unanimity, as we heard from the Minister. In that process, the rights of non-eurozone members, particularly the UK, must be safeguarded in several ways. We should not be party to any deposit guarantee mechanisms or pre-fund recovery or resolution mechanisms. The UK has undertaken its own measures in that respect, and there are no proposals on the table that would affect our taxpayers directly. The rules for the single market, including a single rule book for the financial services sector in the EU, should involve all 27 member states. The European Banking Authority—as well as other European supervisory authorities—is the vehicle for preserving the integrity of the single market. The Commission says in its documentation that “it is proposed that voting arrangements within the EBA should be adapted to ensure EBA decision-making structures continue to be balanced and effective and preserve fully the integrity of the Single Market”.
That is absolutely crucial, but we need more far more details about how that will work. The 17 eurozone countries will act en bloc through the ECB in their seats on the EBA, which could represent a permanent majority on all issues, as the Minister explained. The EBA has rule-making powers under qualified majority voting decisions, it mediates between supervisory institutions, and it shares supervisory best practice. There is a real risk of the ECB bloc acting as a permanent caucus to overrule the 10 non-eurozone nation states. Mr Baron: What does the hon. Gentleman understand our guarantees to be to ensure that City interests are not adversely affected by QMV if the regulations go through unamended? Chris Leslie: As I shall come to, we should seek such key guarantees. I do not think that there is a sufficiency under the proposals on the table. As I said, I am sympathetic to the Government’s situation. However, there is a crucial difference between the Opposition and the Government. We believe that it is really important that we stay in the room somehow so that our voice continues to be heard and we can shape and mould supervisory rules, given the importance of financial services to our economy. How can we continue to be involved while not being at risk of being overridden by the 17 eurozone members? That is the conundrum with which we are trying to grapple, and it is shaping up to be a test case in the two-speed Europe debate. Mr Clappison: The phrase, “Staying in the room” is one we often hear. However, is it not the reality of the voting arrangements that the hon. Gentleman would be staying in one room and the important decisions would be made in another?
813
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
814
Chris Leslie: It is right for the hon. Gentleman to voice that anxiety. I do not want us to be on the margins, unable to promote the best interests for our nation and our economy. Given that our financial services sector represents approximately 40% of the total of the European Union’s financial services sector, that is absolutely at the core of our vital national interests. It is therefore imperative for us to remain an active driving force in the EU single market in financial services.
Chris Leslie: I do not want to get too much into the history of these things. We could go back to the Maastricht treaty, the formation of the eurozone and the inexorable logic of how we have got to where we are today. All I know is that it is important that we try our best and redouble our efforts to ensure that we have a negotiating strategy that secures the best deal possible for the UK.
Mr Jenkin: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is trying to have his cake and eat it. Either he is going to be in the room—in the banking union—or not. If he is not going to be in the banking union, the question that he is failing to grapple with is this: what safeguards and protections do we need given that we will not be in the room because we will not be in the banking union? Perhaps he could provide an answer to that question instead of just waffle.
Chris Leslie: I should like to make a little progress if I may. I know that hon. Members will say, “How can we manage to secure these particular arrangements? What should our stratagem be?” Government Members will recall Lady Thatcher’s invocation of the Luxembourg compromise—a quiz question for hon. Members who recall that device. It has not been in use in recent times, but it was a way, in certain circumstances for qualified majority voting arrangements, to ensure that there was a capability of promoting vital national interest. There was at one point a recognised device for ensuring that one could stay in the room. If vital national interests were affected, then certain levels of protection were possible. I do not in any way deny that that is a difficult position, but that is the sort of scale of proposition that the Government should be more actively asserting. The Government need to negotiate a clearer and more distinct set of rules that protect our status outside the eurozone while ensuring that we have an ongoing role in how new rules develop across the whole EU. In our view, that must be the Prime Minister’s negotiating objective. We have other concerns and questions about the SSM. How can it connect with the wider public and be subject to democratic accountability? That is an important point, because the bodies at the heart of the SSM will need to be more transparent. I am not clear whether they will publish their minutes in the same way as the Bank of England or the Federal Reserve, but we need to start addressing some of those transparency questions. Furthermore, what will be the relationship between the ECB’s monetary policy stance and its approach to decisions on financial supervision? The composition of the SSM is complex and lines of accountability are extremely confused. For example, the European Central Bank is a superior treaty institution, yet the EBA will in theory sit on a junior institution. It is extremely difficult to see lines of accountability and how the legal issues raised in the amendment will be resolved. What will happen in the intervening months and potentially years before this complex constitutional wiring is settled? What if new market pressures force banking crises that require the stability mechanism or outright monetary transactions to be triggered, and what if there is no SSM in place? How do we prevent City of London institutions and firms, which contribute about one sixth of Britain’s GDP, from changing their opinion about London in the long run as the right place to locate, when there is a risk that we will be marginalised in the decision-making forum for EU banking rules? They will worry about the prospects of operating under a different set of rules from those on the continent. Our vital national and economic interests are at stake, so we need to ensure that we keep involved, do not get pushed out and avoid being marginalised, while of course reserving our rights.
Chris Leslie: The hon. Gentleman is too kind, as uncharacteristic of him as that may be. I am afraid that this is a tall order for the Government to negotiate. It is a conundrum. I do not in any way shrink from the mountain that needs to be climbed in squaring this circle, if I may mix my metaphors in that way. I am just concerned that the Government’s approach—perhaps an echo of their approach to the EU budget—is not ambitious enough. I urge hon. Members to talk to institutions across the City of London and to financial services practitioners across the country. They are very worried about their position if they are not able to be part of a single market. They know very well that there are forums in which the rules will be made and shaped, and yet of course they want to reserve our rights from a UK position. Somehow, we have to try to forge a negotiating strategy that manages to do better. Mr Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Chris Leslie: I will in a moment, but I am conscious of time. The motion expresses, in only the most general terms, the Government’s policy to “remain outside the new supervisory arrangements while protecting the single market in financial services.”
That is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Perhaps it would be better if Ministers found ways to stay outside the scope of the eurozone’s rules—the point made by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin)—but somehow still be in the room on EU-wide supervision matters as they develop, and to secure protections in any future settlement on EBA rule-making and mediation. Mr Cash: Surely the hon. Gentleman is missing one major point, which is that the transfer of the jurisdiction under the single market arrangements that took the City of London away from the United Kingdom and gave it to the European Union was a decision taken by his Government. That is why the problem he is now having to deal with—the anxieties he referred to—has arisen. That the coalition has acquiesced in that is another story. The fact is, however, that the real responsibility lies with those who transferred the jurisdiction, as I pointed out in the Financial Times three years ago.
Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
815
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Wayne David: My hon. Friend has set out a precise and appropriate agenda for the country to pursue, but does he agree that for that agenda to be pursued effectively we need the ability to put across arguments and to persuade? What we do not want is rhetoric and empty gestures, which is what we are getting from the Government. Chris Leslie: I worry that that is the problem with the Government’s approach to the negotiations. I do not deny for a moment that this is a tall order as a negotiating strategy, but it is necessary to protect our national interests. Of all the 10 non-eurozone countries, we have the most at stake. As I said, 40% of the EU financial services sector comes from Britain. We cannot allow ourselves to be treated as an afterthought in these negotiations. Why are the Government letting others shape the thinking and make all the running on EU banking union reform? Our vital national interests are on the line. We need a clearer negotiation strategy from the Government from the one we have seen to date. Several hon. Members rose— Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Order. We will start with a six-minute limit, but it will have to be lowered. I call Mr Cash to move his amendment. 5.32 pm Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con): I beg to move amendment (a), in line 10, leave out from ‘and’ to end and add ‘whilst welcoming the Government’s desire to seek safeguards for the UK, calls on the Government in respect of Regulation (EC) No. 1093/2010 to use its best endeavours to ensure that the proposed changes in the voting rights in the European Banking Authority are not adopted, to use its veto in respect of European Union Document No. 13683/12 so as to ensure that the powers of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank are not unlawfully delegated to the Single Supervisory Mechanism without an amendment of the treaties and/or to refer that matter to the European Court of Justice for adjudication of that proposal.’.
I am deeply troubled by the wording of the motion. In my judgment, it simply does not make sense to state that the House should welcome “the Government’s decision to remain outside the new supervisory arrangements while protecting the single market in financial services.”
We acquiesced in to the Lisbon treaty, the Labour party agreed to the transfer of jurisdiction over the City of London to the EU, which was wrong—the Single European Act was never remotely intended to produce such a result—and, furthermore, views I have received from the City clearly demonstrate that it does not believe that the proposals in the motion will protect the UK or a single market in financial services. There is another massive issue about the rule of law in Europe. The Foreign Secretary, in his speech to the Körber Foundation conference in Berlin a fortnight ago, said that what bound us together in the EU and the reason for the Government wanting to remain part of it was that it “has helped to spread and entrench democracy and the rule of law across Europe.”
The tragic reality is that the EU does not subscribe to the rule of law. On 17 December 2010, Madame Lagarde said about the first bail-out fund, the European financial stability mechanism:
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
816
“We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone.”
Germany and France themselves broke the stability and growth pact. Furthermore, both the Government and the Attorney-General are clearly of the view that the agreement on the fiscal compact was unlawful, but in reality nothing has been done—hence my call for the legal reserve on this matter, although the legal reserve issued before has never been implemented. The Government know that the proposals referred to in the second part of my amendment are unlawful. The Council of Ministers’ own legal adviser, in a lengthy opinion which I have seen and which the Government cannot dispute, states that there will have to be an amendment to the treaties if the powers of the governing council of the ECB are to be delegated to the single supervisory mechanism. The legal opinion says on the proposal amending the EBA regulation, in effect, that in terms of the EBA’s dispute resolution powers there is no justification for treating the ECB differently from banking authorities in non-eurozone member states by exempting it from those powers. To do so would be a clear breach of the principle in law of non-discrimination. As to the proposal giving the ECB prudential oversight of credit institutions in the eurozone, the legal opinion states that in establishing the single supervisory mechanism the council must respect the legal framework for decision making within the ECB set by primary law—that is, the treaties. This framework does not allow the ECB’s governing council to delegate decision-making functions on banking supervision to a subsidiary body such as the SSM. There is nothing in the legal base for the SSM proposal, in article 127(6) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, which would permit secondary law—that is, this draft regulation—amending the rules laid down in primary law. There is no question about it and the Government know that. Non-eurozone member states are not entitled to participate in the ECB’s decision making, so they can have no formal decision-making role in the SSM as conceived. Furthermore, the law on banking supervision in the EU will be made up of directives to a significant extent. This is a requirement of the treaties. That means that the ECB cannot propose one-size-fits-all legislation on banking union. Rather, it can propose legislation which allows for differences in national transposition. We simply cannot countenance a situation in which there is a wilful breach of the rule of law and where the dysfunctional European Union vaunts the rule of law, yet deliberately breaks its own rules. This is precisely what led to the kind of constitutional crisis that we have seen in our own history when Governments from the Stuarts onwards claimed a divine right to rule but then broke the common law. This is the primrose path to constitutional disaster not only for the United Kingdom, but for Europe as a whole. I hope the House will understand my concern, as I suggested back in the 1990s that this would happen. I hear what the Minister says but I cannot understand why and how, given comments that I have received from the City of which I am sure he is aware. Those in the City make it clear that the single market would be put at risk by an imperfect single market in financial services in which rules differed by level of membership of the EU. Furthermore, they say:
817
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
6 NOVEMBER 2012
“It is essential that voting arrangements within the European Banking Authority are clarified so as to avoid members of the Banking Union voting together en bloc and imposing financial regulation on non-Eurozone members through qualified majority.”
For “clarified”— Mr Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend give way? Mr Cash: I will certainly give way once. Mr Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend agree that for us to invoke the single market is doubled-edged, because in the end it will be the Commission that invokes the single market as a pretext for levelling the playing field which has been unlevelled by measures taken by the Banking Union? We will therefore finish up with measures that we do not want being imposed on us by qualified majority voting. Mr Cash: That is precisely right. It was never intended when we voted—and I voted at the time, with a reservation about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament, which I was not allowed to debate—that we would be in this very position. That was in 1986 when I voted for the measure, but it was with that reservation. To complete my point, where the comments from the City say “clarified”, I would say changed. We must change the rules, not merely clarify them, but we cannot do so because of QMV. That is the problem and it comes from the Single European Act. Mr Baron: Will my hon. Friend give way? Mr Cash: Just once more. Mr Baron: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s defence that QMV cannot be extended to decisions regarding the City cannot be right, and their defence of the idea that the ECB cannot override noneurozone members is at least highly questionable when it comes to the legal situation that my hon. Friend is highlighting, and that therefore there is a distinct danger? Mr Cash: I would go further and say that the Council’s legal adviser knows exactly what the position is, as do the whole European Union and our own Government. The opinion is out there; I have read it and it is crystal clear. The reality is that there is absolutely no question about it. I have great sympathy for the Minister and pay tribute to him. I will not go into the details, but it was because of him that we got the documents in the first place. He is a man of great integrity, and I think that he is in a very difficult position tonight, stuck between a rock and a hard place. I have to say that I do not believe that what he has told us really gives us the necessary guarantees and satisfaction. This is not about what we think, or about grandstanding or being difficult for its own sake; as he said at the beginning, this is in many respects—I would not say entirely—on a par with the matters on which we rebelled last week. We do not want to have to do this, but it is a matter of fact that we face this situation. I have another commentary from City analysts stating that the concern is that the UK could
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
818
“still lose the ability to prevent a decision from being taken by the EBA to intervene in a UK bank directly under the EBA’s binding mediation powers.”
They make a similar point about the need for amendments to the treaties. The truth is that it would not be right for Members of Parliament not to register their votes against these proposals in the hope—like Mr Micawber—that something would turn up, because I am afraid that what this amounts to is complicity by our own House and our Government in the violation by the EU of its own laws and the avoiding of amending the treaties for reasons of mere expediency. Even if the EU does come up with something, I believe that it will be merely a fix to avoid revealing its real intentions and, of course, the real results, which will cause so much harm to the UK and the City of London. I blame the Labour party for much of this, as I warned of it several years ago. The so-called remorseless logic of advocating a banking union is more of a remorseless shift away from our own national interests while the banking union moves the eurozone into an ever deeper and blacker hole with money, either invented or printed, pouring into it. That is a recipe for economic disaster. 5.41 pm Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): I wish to speak briefly in support of the amendment, which I have signed, and to applaud everything the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) said, apart from his comments about the Labour party. I believe strongly that banking regulation should be determined by national Governments and Parliaments and that, if there are to be international agreements, they should be bilateral or multilateral agreements between Governments and not determined by the European Union. I am certain that my views on banking regulation are very different from those of Government Members, but I agree that we should determine what it is, not the European Union. The most damaging change for Britain was when Mrs Thatcher abandoned exchange controls in 1979, which was the most serious act taken by the Conservative Government in those years. Since then, we have seen all the crises arising from globalisation. We cannot put the genie back in the bottle, although I think that in time we might have to try, but it would take another massive crisis before that happens. With regard to the euro, I have always been wholly opposed to economic and monetary union and wrote my first paper about it in 1979, when I opposed the European monetary system. I wrote another paper about the exchange rate mechanism and predicted its crash, and I opposed Maastricht. I have written and spoken thousands of words on these matters over many years, and I am afraid that I have been proved right. The crisis now affecting us is quite appalling. In Greece there is now a fascist party infiltrating the police and threatening to undermine democracy while the Greek economy disappears into a black hole, and that is the result of a mad economic policy and strategy. Countries should have their own currencies and should be able to determine their own parities relative to other countries. The Government ought to go into the negotiating room at any time feeling strong, because the European Union needs Britain much more than we need it. We buy vastly more from the EU than it buys from us. With Germany and France now predicted to be going into recession, they will need our trade even more. Our
819
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
6 NOVEMBER 2012
[Kelvin Hopkins] exports, compared with our imports, are tiny. The German economy is heavily dependent on massive exports to Britain, so we can negotiate from a position of strength and say, “If you make life very difficult for Britain, we could make life very difficult for you as well.” We do not want to do that; we want to be comradely and internationalist. But let us not think of ourselves as a weak country, because we are very strong. 5.44 pm Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): I warmly welcome the approach taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and the words that he used to describe the situation. However, I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). It is an important amendment, which complements the Government’s motion. It questions the legality of the arrangements and, in particular, the voting arrangements, which I drew attention to in an intervention. My right hon. Friend spoke entirely correctly—with great conviction and accuracy—about the lawfulness of the delegation of powers. The only comment that I make in addition to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said is that it is important, given that the EU is governed by a legal framework and is a treaty organisation, that we should have certainty when it comes to the legal provisions of those treaty arrangements. All too often we have seen not certainty but legal terms and conditions being overridden by political will. The situation that we are discussing looks very much like another case of that type, and in such cases one simply cannot trust the legal arrangements. On the voting arrangements set out in the regulation on the European Central Bank and their implications for the European Banking Authority, while the single supervisory mechanism in the ECB concerns the eurozone, the European Banking Authority concerns all members of the European Union and the whole single market. It sets the rulebook for the single market and has important supervisory responsibilities. The arrangements in the ECB regulation are breathtaking. It is not just a question of having the political will for nations to cohere together; it is a condition of the EU’s law—a regulation—that the member states of the eurozone work together, co-ordinate their actions and take a common position when it comes to the European Banking Authority. That means that in the European Banking Authority’s arrangements for voting, the eurozone bloc will have the whip hand in each of the decisions taken. They will be determined in advance. The situation is a bit like those council meetings that we sometimes see in this country in which political groups with a majority decide everything in advance in a caucus. They then go into the council to debate a decision, but everybody knows what it is going to be. The same is happening here—the European Banking Authority is being turned into a sham. All the decisions will have been taken elsewhere and in advance and we will be deprived of our say. Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD) rose— Mr Clappison: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he is able to put a different complexion on the matter.
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
820
Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point, but it surely only emphasises the importance of carefully negotiating the voting rights of the United Kingdom and non-eurozone members within the European Banking Authority. Does not the process advocated by the amendment—a veto and then Court adjudication, effectively—blow that negotiation out of the water and risk damaging this country’s rights within Europe? Mr Clappison: The proposals are here in black and white. I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman will join us in supporting the Government to take every measure, up to and including a veto if necessary, to preserve our position and to stand up for our interests in the European Banking Authority. We simply cannot have a sham. It is no use pretending that by talking nicely, going into the room, being at the top table and all the rest of it is going to be the solution. We have heard those warm sentiments so many times in the past. We are discussing a matter of negotiation to protect our interests, and we have to be prepared to take decisions that are unpalatable. Jacob Rees-Mogg: Further to the point made by our hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), is it not the case that every member state of the European Union, with the exception of the United Kingdom and Denmark, is obliged to join the euro at some stage? When 25 out of 27 EU members are members of the euro, they will have a majority whatever voting system is cooked up. Mr Clappison: My hon. Friend pre-empts my next point. I am drawing attention to the voting arrangements laid down as a matter of European law in a regulation that gives the eurozone the whip hand, as matters stand. But of course he is absolutely right that other non-members of the eurozone have the ambition to join the euro and that, along with Denmark, we do not have to join it as a result of the opt-out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said, even without the legal obligations we could expect members of the eurozone to cohere together to be a majority, and we can see that it will be a growing majority. Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con): If the opt-in countries and eurozone members are subject to the ECB rules but are not legally called a caucus because the ECB does not write it down as such, they will nevertheless, de facto, hunt as a pack and outvote us in the European Banking Authority, so it does not matter what the regulation says. Mr Clappison: My hon. Friend is right. It is quite extraordinary to have a regulation setting out that they must act in a caucus, even though it is probably likely that they will do so anyway of their own free will; they will certainly see a common interest in it. This sets a very worrying precedent for the future whereby the eurozone is going in one direction in working together as a political, coherent body, and being required to do so as a matter of law. For the avoidance of any doubt, and particularly for the benefit of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), I will read
821
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
6 NOVEMBER 2012
out the provision that is in black and white—not up in the air somewhere, subject to negotiation—on page 33 of our documents. It requires member states of the eurozone: “To co-ordinate and express a common position of representatives from competent authorities of the participating Member States when participating in the Board of Supervisors and the Management Board of the European Banking Authority, for issues relating to the tasks conferred on the ECB by this Regulation.”
That is European law, and if they fail to do what it says they will be breaking it—although they may, of course, choose do it anyway of their own free will. This is a striking illustration of the fact that the eurozone is going in one direction, seeing its political interests as a whole cohering together, while we stand in a quite different position. This provision, and the nature of the relationship that it seeks to put in place between the ECB and the EBA, should give us all a lot of food for thought, because it has major implications for our future in the European Union. Several hon. Members rose— Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Order. The time limit has been reduced to five minutes. 5.52 pm Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con): Like all Members here, I urge the Government to consider renegotiating Britain’s relationship within the European Union as a full member but using every opportunity that presents itself to get a better deal for British taxpayers. I firmly believe that that is entirely possible and that the establishment of the European Banking Authority may give us one of the greatest opportunities yet to negotiate not just to defend British financial services but to get something back that enables us to expand our financial services activities. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) talked about the Luxembourg compromise, which was proposed in 1966 following General de Gaulle’s refusal to take part in European Council proceedings. It urged the EU to recognise nation states’ vital interests in particular industries. For example, the French have a veto over the common agricultural policy and the Spanish have a veto over fisheries policy. The automotive industry is as important to the Germans as financial services are to the UK, but they are able to use not only qualified majority voting but competition legislation to defend their industry, which is much less flighty than financial services. We in Britain have less protection than any other member state for this strategically vital industry which produces 1 million jobs directly within it and represents 10% of our GDP and 10% of our annual tax take. I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) for his work on looking at the legality of European banking union, but I urge that instead of focusing on that aspect, which is a given—I do not for one moment believe that our Government would sign up to something that is illegal at EU level—we should instead focus on what we can get in return for our consent. Of course, European banking union is in all our interests; it is absolutely crucial for our economic growth because if the eurozone collapses, we are in big trouble too. Nevertheless, financial services are core to
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
822
us as well. As the Prime Minister showed by using his veto last December, he is not afraid to stand up for this most important sector. I would like the Government to negotiate three things. The first is a legal safeguard for the single market so that no other eurozone caucusing can put up protectionist barriers and prevent British financial exports from being sent into the rest of the European markets. That is a basic key point. Secondly, I believe that in the culture and honour of the Luxembourg compromise, the rest of the EU needs to recognise the strategic importance of the financial industry to Britain, and give us the ability to impose an emergency break at European Banking Authority level if we believe that a proposal from the EU directly harms that industry. Under qualified majority voting we have an 8% vote at the EBA, yet Britain represents 36% of EU wholesale financial services markets. We are therefore greatly underweighted in what we can do to defend our financial services sector, and I urge the Government to make that case strongly in negotiations with the rest of the EU. The third point is more proactive. The EU focuses its attentions on negotiating free trade agreements mainly for goods, and there is little intra-EU service trading. In spite of British UCITS—undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities—being the most successful financial export ever, that is only within the EU and not externally. The future for growth in the financial services lies in big emerging markets such as Brazil and China, and involves not Government bond trading, but basic things such as mortgages, life insurance policies, health insurance and so on. I hope the Government will urge the EU to commit—in return for our consent—to promoting free trade agreements with emerging economies in services, and specifically financial services. British success in financial services generated more than 1% growth in GDP per annum across all key EU member states during the financial boom. We now need to solve the financial crisis together, but Britain is in the uniquely strong position of being able to gain something back at the same time. 5.57 pm Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con): I remember well those long-gone days when we were told that monetary union would bring strength to the EU, be enduring and serve to bring our economies together. By golly, how time does fly, and how truth changes the vision. Recent experience has shown that political ambitions exceeded economic reality, and fault lines were built into the single currency from the start. Structures have been put to the test and, quite frankly, been found wanting. The problems facing the euro might not have started in financial services, but the crisis has certainly highlighted those fundamental flaws. Sovereign debt might not be limited to the eurozone, but its constraints within the economic and monetary union exacerbated the crisis. Unless Europe gets to grips with those problems, the entire project could disintegrate before our very eyes. That is the situation we are facing. We are debating a desperate attempt to apply sticking plaster to a serious wound. The flaw is inherent; the mistake already made. Membership of the single currency was extended way beyond that initially envisaged, and therein lies the fault, which is not dealt with by any of the measures
823
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
6 NOVEMBER 2012
[Mr Brian Binley] proposed today. Banking union may sound like a measured response, but the creation of a European banking union is a world away from a co-ordinated international response. President Barroso revealed his agenda in his “State of the Union” speech, raising the issue of banking union in the context of a push towards a federal European state. That is the truth of the matter. Our first priority must be to resist any financial transaction tax. That is not a new idea; in 1984, Sweden introduced a 0.5% tax on the purchase or sale of shares. By 1990, 30% of all Swedish equity trading had moved offshore—more than half of it to London—and the volume of bond trading had declined by 85%. That is the damage that a financial transactions tax can do to this country. It is vital that the Government have the courage to resist it. Will the Minister expand on the references to fiscal probity that allow for spending on social fairness? Is that a get-out clause for grossly indebted Governments who want to keep spending they do not have? It sounds very like it to me. The report on EMU accepts that public opinion is key, but that is another way to justify spending taxpayers’ money on propaganda. Our Government have stopped the money-go-round in local government and quangos. It would be totally inconsistent to allow Eurocrats to deploy hard-earned taxpayers’ money to propagate grand visions that have already proved to be failures. Earlier comments on the document made it clear that fiscal integration is about a continued movement to a federal Europe. I could quote page after page, but I will not bore the House. The truth of the matter is that we need to be sure that our Government’s promises to us are absolutely watertight, fast and hard-held. If they are not, the House will be doing a massive disservice to our children and grandchildren. That is what this measure is about. I noticed a slight smile on the face of the Minister when I made a point about social well-being. If he looks into it a little more, he might begin to agree with me. If I had the time, I would explain. Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) said, we need to take this opportunity as a base to renegotiate— Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Order. 6.2 pm Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con): In some respects, this is a modest debate compared with last week’s, although it is worth reflecting that employment in the City, as reported by City AM, has collapsed by more than 100,000 since the peak of 2007. Some of that was self-inflicted, but much of it was inflicted by increased regulation. The Centre for Economic and Business Research reports that employment in the City is set to fall much lower. Most of the jobs are highly paid, high-taxpaying jobs, on which the economy in general and the economy of London and the south-east in particular depend very deeply. I commend the sincerity of my right hon. Friend the Minister’s approach. He is in a difficult position. The difficulties he is confronting are a microcosm of the conundrum of the UK’s place in the EU. We are not in
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
824
the room, so we cannot function as a positively engaged member of the EU on our current terms of membership, but we are also not negotiating the alternative terms of membership that would protect us from the effects of the treaties we have already signed. It needs to be pointed out that banking union simply was not envisaged in the Lisbon treaty. We now find ourselves confronted with a new institution and a reform that simply was not regarded as necessary when the Lisbon treaty and its predecessors were signed. The treaty is not fit for purpose for a banking union. The problem is that no arrangements that nibble at those problems will protect the UK’s interests—a wholesale change in our relationship is the only way to protect them. Sadly, the motion represents the Government yet again passing up a substantial opportunity to start laying the foundations of a different relationship and to start leveraging the renegotiation of our terms of membership. That is a matter of great significance. Andrea Leadsom: Will my hon. Friend give way? Mr Jenkin: I give way to my hon. Friend, who made a very able speech. Andrea Leadsom: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I have to challenge him, because I think that the Government are absolutely committed to renegotiating. Why does he think that they are not? Mr Jenkin: Unfortunately, our party’s leadership does not intend to start substantive renegotiation of our relationship until after 2015, long after this particular opportunity will have passed us by. If we attempt to remediate this measure and its effects on our interests, we will not succeed. This is happening in case after case—the fiscal union treaty is another example. Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that we should use every opportunity and not waste any of them? We have an opportunity to make a difference. If we just keep noting everything and do not use our opportunity, that will be another chance gone and the electorate will not forgive us for it. Mr Jenkin: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right that failure to get the maximum leverage out of these opportunities means that they will be forgone for ever. We may well get to 2015 and find that all the major decisions to federate the eurozone will have already been taken and our opportunities to then renegotiate will look slim and incredible. I will close by picking up on the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who is the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee and whose comments add a Götterdämmerung-like quality to this debate. Hitherto, the architects of European integration have, like the gods in “The Ring”, attempted to construct their Valhalla on the basis of principles and the rule of law, yet they are now compromising those very principles, on which the legitimacy of this structure depends, and, in doing so, sowing the seeds of their own destruction. If this was being done properly—I invite the House to reflect on this—it would be a treaty change and there would be an intergovernmental conference. There would
825
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
6 NOVEMBER 2012
be a huge amount of debate about what other changes needed to flow from an intergovernmental conference and we would end up with a whole Act of Parliament, which would have to pass through both Houses of Parliament in this great building. The issue, however, is being debated in a mere 90 minutes on a quiet Tuesday afternoon before the Minister is sent—haplessly, perhaps —to the Council of Ministers to either agree or disagree with these momentous changes. Major changes are being made in a more casual manner as the European Union becomes more desperate to shore up its previous mistakes. “Macbeth” comes to mind: the worse a situation gets, the more rash and irrational the actors become in defence of the indefensible. I hope that hon. and right hon. Friends will remember this debate, because the move from legality to illegality is a very big step, yet that is what we are witnessing as the Government approach this particular decision. I hope yet that they will see sense and veto the proposal. 6.8 pm Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): I have a feeling that Christmas has come particularly early this year, because I had the opportunity to speak in a European debate just three hours ago, and to speak twice on Europe in one day is almost as joyful as 25 December. The Government have a problem and I am sympathetic to them. The report of the European Scrutiny Committee—its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), spoke brilliantly, as always, and has tabled a sensible amendment—shows that the Government’s problem is that, of the two decisions that they face, the one that they support requires unanimity and the one that they oppose will be decided by qualified majority voting. I have quite an easy solution for them— I think they are looking for a solution—namely that they should use the threat of not supporting what they support to get leverage on the decision that they do not support. As we have heard from the Minister, there is widespread agreement across the House on the things that the Government do not support and on concerns about the European Banking Authority, particularly on voting and caucusing in the voting, and the nature of the European Central Bank, as against other central banks, in relation to the European Banking Authority. When it comes to caucusing, getting a particular voting arrangement in the European Banking Authority will be no good at all. It will be a temporary palliative, because unless a voting system is devised that gives the UK a permanent veto, which personally I would be all in favour of, but which seems unlikely, then as soon as other member states begin to join the euro—which they are under a treaty obligation to do, with the exception of the United Kingdom and Denmark, as I said earlier— the non-euro member states will be easily outvoted. Therefore, we need to look, with the veto we have got, at the whole system of financial regulation and how it affects the United Kingdom. I understand that total renegotiation of the treaties is not currently being considered. I appreciate that in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats—which includes my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who loves the European Union and everything that comes from it—it is difficult to get a renegotiation that would satisfy Conservatives.
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
826
Martin Horwood: Just to put the record straight for the benefit of Hansard, I do not love everything that comes out of the European Union. I simply regard it as another level of authority with which we must negotiate gently and carefully, rather than necessarily taking the rather Gaullist approach that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are taking today. Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend, who gives me an extra minute every time. This is an important and good opportunity for the Government to get back powers that should never have been given away. It was a great folly to give away financial regulation to the power of the European Union, because as my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) so wisely said, we have much more financial services in this country—I think she gave the figure of 36% for wholesale financial markets in the whole of the European Union that are in the UK. Therefore, we ought to regulate our own affairs and we ought not have delegated that to the European Union. We need to be careful about what is being proposed when it comes to the regulation of what are substantial international banks based in the United Kingdom in their business—which may be subsidiary business—with eurozone countries, because there is obviously a risk that they will find themselves under the auspices of a European regulator when they ought more appropriately to be under the auspices of a British regulator. I think the Government’s position is quite strong, and I think the amendment is extremely sensible. It is interesting that we learn only through the Financial Times that the proposals that have come forth from the Commission are illegal. We do not learn it from the Government or the Commission; we learn it from an underhand leak, which comes via a newspaper to inform our debates, which is a pity. It would be nice if we could get such information directly to a sovereign Parliament, so that we knew what was or was not legal. Perhaps the Government will consider releasing the legal advice that will guide them—or perhaps ought to guide them—in their approach to this debate. I would encourage the Government to accept the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. I listened very carefully to the Minister—I always do: he is a great Minister, who is much admired on this side of the House, and I imagine in other parts too. There was nothing he said which in essence contradicted my hon. Friend’s amendment, so I ended up thinking that what we were really debating was which way up an egg should be eaten—whether it should be the big side or the little side up. We are united as egg eaters in this context, and we think it would be “egg-cellent”—if I may carry on with this theme—to support my hon. Friend’s amendment, to which I was pleased to add my name, because it provides us with a solution in our negotiations in Europe and a clear way forward. Several hon. Members rose— Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Order. I am calling the wind-up at 6.24 and we have two speakers left.
827
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
6 NOVEMBER 2012
6.14 pm Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con): I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who is perhaps one of the most articulate Members on the Government Benches. I am not going to argue the whys and wherefores of whether we should bring financial regulation back to this country. That is an important question, and I totally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on it, but I am going to argue on the narrow question before us—namely, the substantive motion and the amendment. As a non-eurozone member, we will not be participating in European banking unification. I agree, however, that we need to ensure that the measures taken by our European partners do not adversely affect British interests, particularly in the banking and financial services sector, given its importance to UK plc. The City of London is the pre-eminent financial services centre not only in Europe but in the world, and we want it to remain so. Remaining globally competitive is critical to the United Kingdom and to the eurozone, and it is important that the single supervisory mechanism for the eurozone should function effectively. As long as we remain outside the eurozone, the mechanism will be aimed primarily at eurozone banks and not at our own financial institutions. As many colleagues have pointed out, however, there could be unintended consequences at some future date that could have an impact on us. The Minister has given us assurances today that the Government will seek to secure sufficient changes to the European Banking Authority voting arrangements to protect the interests of member states, such as the UK, that are not members of the eurozone and that do not choose to enter into the proposed co-operation arrangements. I am therefore happy to support the Government’s substantive motion. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) has tabled an amendment to the motion. I congratulate him on his leadership of the European Scrutiny Committee and on his tenacity, perspicacity and overall determination to protect Britain’s interests. He has always been a strong defender of our interests and I congratulate him on that. In fact, I wholly endorse the opening line of his amendment, in which he welcomes “the Government’s desire to seek safeguards for the UK”,
and the reasonable tone that he adopts in asking the Government to use their best endeavours. That is reasonable, and it is not didactic. I have a problem with the second part of my hon. Friend’s amendment, however, in which he calls on the Government to use their veto to “ensure that the powers of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank are not unlawfully delegated to the Single Supervisory Mechanism without an amendment of the treaties”.
We have heard from the Minister’s mouth today that we will not proceed unless the arrangements are legally robust. I have had no insights into the matter, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset that it would be good to see the leaked document, but, unlike many others, I have not had the privilege of doing so. I fear, therefore, that the amendment is somewhat tautological, if not unnecessary, in that the Government would neither support an illegal arrangement nor table a motion that was not in order. I will therefore put my faith in the Minister’s assertion that there is nothing
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
828
illegal about the proposed arrangements and that he would not waste Parliament’s time by proposing anything that was illegal. I will therefore support the Government’s motion and vote against the well meant but unnecessary amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone has put before us today. Several hon. Members rose— Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Order. I call Mr John Baron, and I ask him to sit down no later than 6.24 pm. 6.19 pm Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con): Like many other Members, particularly on the Government Benches, I have a healthy respect for the Ministers sitting on the Front Bench this evening—the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and the Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington)—but I believe that they are trying to defend the indefensible. I find it hard to understand how a Government who are prepared to use the veto, and who have used it in defence of City interests, can be prepared, by passing these regulations unamended, to enter negotiations without being able to assure the House that cast-iron guarantees are in place to ensure that qualified majority voting will not be allowed adversely to affect the City. I have asked the Minister at the Dispatch Box where those concrete guarantees are. Unfortunately, I have not heard anything to convince me that they actually exist. The idea that the European Central Bank would not be allowed to overrule or override non-members of the eurozone is, I am afraid, not a strong enough guarantee. I do not see where that stands up, particularly given that the legal opinion that has been sought and confirmed brings that sort of red line very much into dispute. There is no guarantee there at all. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about what other concrete guarantees exist in defence of the City. Going into negotiations or allowing these regulations to pass without a clear idea of what the guarantees are could, I suggest, turn out to be a fool’s errand. We all know how the eurozone has got into this mess. The eurozone went for monetary union, courtesy of the single currency, but we all know that there cannot be monetary union without fiscal union, so now it is playing catch-up. Easy credit and easy money have led to Governments borrowing too much, and the eurozone is trying to sort out this mess. I have to say to the Minister, if he is listening, that having just returned from Germany with the Foreign Affairs Committee and having asked about the possible solution, I know that fiscal union or fiscal compact is definitely on the table—despite the fact that most members of the fiscal compact that is coming into effect next year have already broken the parameters of the financial limits set. The universal answer, whether one spoke to politicians of the left or the right or to trade unions, businesses or lobby groups, was more integration and more political union in order to make the fiscal compact work. We are on a collision course with the proposals that are now coming out of the eurozone.
829
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
6 NOVEMBER 2012
My suggestion is that that is fine: let the eurozone members get on with it; we wish them well in their endeavour. I doubt whether it will succeed, because the economics do not stand up and time does not allow any further exploration. Let them proceed, but my concern as they do proceed along that journey is what damage they will do to our interests. My deep concern is that, if we are not careful, we are going to walk into negotiations without having the ability to call upon cast-iron guarantees if they are needed, and that our interests will be adversely affected as a result. We all accept that in this country we perhaps need to rebalance the economy somewhat and to get manufacturing up. We cannot, however, ignore the importance of the City to our economy. We have been prepared to use the veto in the past, and it makes no sense for the Government’s proposals to proceed without those cast-iron guarantees in place. There is little doubt that if we enter into negotiations without those safeguards in place, we will stand a real risk of allowing others adversely to affect the City’s interests and, in the end, our prosperity as well. I look to hear from the Minister what those concrete guarantees are. If, as I believe, they are not forthcoming, I will have no hesitation, having put my name to the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), in supporting him in the Lobby—[Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to cut back his winding-up speech to just five minutes so that every Back Bencher who wanted to could participate in the debate. 6.24 pm The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington): I think that what has united all my hon. Friends who have spoken tonight is their justified anxiety to safeguard a vital strategic interest of the United Kingdom, namely our financial services industry. Let us never forget that most of the jobs in financial services in the United Kingdom are outside London, and that when we talk of the City we are also talking about firms that employ thousands of people in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the northern and midland cities of England. The City has thrived through a single market in European financial services. Roughly a third of its business is in Europe, and we should be proud of the fact that it is not just a strategic asset for the UK. The presence in London of a global financial services centre is an asset for Europe as a whole, and we should be prepared to shout loudly about that: about the millions of French workers whose savings are invested through London funds, about the energy companies throughout Europe whose exposure to dollar exchange rates is hedged by funds in London, and about the projects involving privatisation and public-private partnerships in eastern and central Europe that look to London for both expertise and capital. We are standing up for the interests of the British people and, indeed, those of citizens throughout Europe in defending the interests of the financial services sector. For a single market, we need a common rule book, and we need the EBA to help with the enforcement of common rules. I felt that there was a lot of common ground between the views of my hon. Friend the Member
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
830
for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) and the Government’s position. We do indeed believe that, in negotiating free trade arrangements with the rest of the world, the EU should ensure that services constitute one of the key dossiers, and that is what we are pressing for in every free trade agreement negotiation. I also agreed with the strictures expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) about the financial transaction tax. We could not have made it clearer that we will not accept such a tax on a European level. If other countries are so foolish as to implement it, that is a matter for them. We are faced with the reality that our friends in the eurozone are committed to a single currency. We respect their decision and want that currency union to be stable, which must involve a banking union. The package of measures that we have before us groups together some elements on a single market treaty base which will be determined by qualified majority, along with, critically, a key measure which, under article 127(6) of the Lisbon treaty, requires the establishment of a single supervisory mechanism in the European Central Bank that requires unanimity. We have always seen those different elements as a package. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) that we could not have been clearer about the fact that we will not agree to a measure to establish the single supervisory mechanism under article 127 unless the package overall protects our interests. In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said that we would insist that the proposed changes in the EBA were not acceptable, and would require full protection for the UK and the other non-eurozone members’ positions within the EBA. The documents that we have here are draft texts which do not represent the final position. If they were to represent the final position, we would not agree to them in their current form. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) that the amendment, although well intentioned, misses the point. We are not going to agree to something that is unlawful, and neither is Germany. I ask the House to have confidence in the Government’s determination to defend and advance the interests of the United Kingdom, and in particular to safeguard our financial services sector. I also ask the House to contrast that with the view of Labour’s Front-Bench team, the logic of which was not simply to be in the room, not simply to take part in negotiations, but to follow it through to join— 6.29 pm One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (Standing Order No. 16(1)), That the amendment be made. The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 273. Division No. 94]
[6.29 pm
AYES Baron, Mr John Blackman, Bob Bone, Mr Peter Campbell, Mr Gregory Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cash, Mr William Chope, Mr Christopher Clappison, Mr James Cooper, Rosie Corbyn, Jeremy
831
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
Davies, Philip Dodds, rh Mr Nigel Field, rh Mr Frank Goldsmith, Zac Hoey, Kate Hollobone, Mr Philip Jackson, Mr Stewart Jenkin, Mr Bernard Main, Mrs Anne McCartney, Jason McDonnell, John Nuttall, Mr David Paisley, Ian
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Percy, Andrew Pritchard, Mark Reckless, Mark Rees-Mogg, Jacob Rosindell, Andrew Shannon, Jim Simpson, David Skinner, Mr Dennis Stringer, Graham Tapsell, rh Sir Peter
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Brian Binley and Richard Drax
NOES Adams, Nigel Afriyie, Adam Amess, Mr David Andrew, Stuart Bacon, Mr Richard Baker, Norman Baldry, Sir Tony Baldwin, Harriett Barclay, Stephen Barker, rh Gregory Barwell, Gavin Bebb, Guto Beith, rh Sir Alan Bellingham, Mr Henry Benyon, Richard Beresford, Sir Paul Berry, Jake Bingham, Andrew Birtwistle, Gordon Blackwood, Nicola Blunt, Mr Crispin Boles, Nick Bottomley, Sir Peter Bradley, Karen Brady, Mr Graham Bray, Angie Brooke, Annette Browne, Mr Jeremy Buckland, Mr Robert Burley, Mr Aidan Burns, Conor Burrowes, Mr David Burstow, rh Paul Burt, Lorely Byles, Dan Cable, rh Vince Campbell, rh Sir Menzies Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Carmichael, Neil Chishti, Rehman Clark, rh Greg Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth Clegg, rh Mr Nick Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Coffey, Dr Thérèse Collins, Damian Colvile, Oliver Cox, Mr Geoffrey Crabb, Stephen Crockart, Mike Crouch, Tracey Davey, rh Mr Edward Davies, David T. C. (Monmouth) Davies, Glyn de Bois, Nick
Dinenage, Caroline Djanogly, Mr Jonathan Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen Doyle-Price, Jackie Duncan, rh Mr Alan Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain Dunne, Mr Philip Durkan, Mark Ellis, Michael Ellison, Jane Elphicke, Charlie Eustice, George Evans, Graham Evans, Jonathan Evennett, Mr David Fallon, rh Michael Farron, Tim Featherstone, Lynne Field, Mark Foster, rh Mr Don Fox, rh Dr Liam Francois, rh Mr Mark Freeman, George Freer, Mike Fuller, Richard Gale, Sir Roger Garnier, Sir Edward Garnier, Mark Gauke, Mr David George, Andrew Gibb, Mr Nick Gilbert, Stephen Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl Glen, John Goodwill, Mr Robert Gove, rh Michael Graham, Richard Grant, Mrs Helen Green, rh Damian Grieve, rh Mr Dominic Griffiths, Andrew Gummer, Ben Gyimah, Mr Sam Halfon, Robert Hames, Duncan Hammond, Stephen Hancock, Matthew Hands, Greg Harper, Mr Mark Harrington, Richard Harris, Rebecca Hart, Simon Harvey, Sir Nick Hayes, Mr John Heald, Oliver Heath, Mr David
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
Hemming, John Hendry, Charles Herbert, rh Nick Hinds, Damian Hoban, Mr Mark Hollingbery, George Hopkins, Kris Horwood, Martin Howarth, Sir Gerald Howell, John Hughes, rh Simon Huhne, rh Chris Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy Hunter, Mark Hurd, Mr Nick James, Margot Javid, Sajid Johnson, Gareth Johnson, Joseph Jones, Andrew Jones, rh Mr David Jones, Mr Marcus Kennedy, rh Mr Charles Kirby, Simon Knight, rh Mr Greg Kwarteng, Kwasi Laing, Mrs Eleanor Lamb, Norman Lancaster, Mark Lansley, rh Mr Andrew Latham, Pauline Laws, rh Mr David Leadsom, Andrea Lee, Jessica Lee, Dr Phillip Leslie, Charlotte Lewis, Brandon Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian Lidington, rh Mr David Lilley, rh Mr Peter Lloyd, Stephen Long, Naomi Lopresti, Jack Lord, Jonathan Loughton, Tim Lucas, Caroline Luff, Peter Macleod, Mary Maude, rh Mr Francis May, rh Mrs Theresa Maynard, Paul McCartney, Karl McIntosh, Miss Anne McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick McPartland, Stephen McVey, Esther Menzies, Mark Mercer, Patrick Metcalfe, Stephen Miller, rh Maria Mills, Nigel Moore, rh Michael Morgan, Nicky Morris, Anne Marie Morris, James Mosley, Stephen Mowat, David Mulholland, Greg Mundell, rh David Munt, Tessa Murray, Sheryll Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks Newton, Sarah Norman, Jesse Offord, Dr Matthew Ollerenshaw, Eric Opperman, Guy Osborne, rh Mr George Ottaway, Richard Paice, rh Sir James Parish, Neil Patel, Priti Paterson, rh Mr Owen Pawsey, Mark Penrose, John Phillips, Stephen Pickles, rh Mr Eric Pincher, Christopher Poulter, Dr Daniel Prisk, Mr Mark Pugh, John Randall, rh Mr John Reevell, Simon Reid, Mr Alan Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm Ritchie, Ms Margaret Robathan, rh Mr Andrew Robertson, Mr Laurence Rogerson, Dan Rudd, Amber Russell, Sir Bob Rutley, David Sandys, Laura Scott, Mr Lee Selous, Andrew Shapps, rh Grant Sharma, Alok Shelbrooke, Alec Simmonds, Mark Simpson, Mr Keith Skidmore, Chris Smith, Miss Chloe Smith, Henry Smith, Julian Smith, Sir Robert Soames, rh Nicholas Soubry, Anna Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline Stanley, rh Sir John Stephenson, Andrew Stevenson, John Stewart, Iain Streeter, Mr Gary Stride, Mel Stunell, rh Andrew Sturdy, Julian Swales, Ian Swayne, rh Mr Desmond Swinson, Jo Swire, rh Mr Hugo Syms, Mr Robert Teather, Sarah Thurso, John Timpson, Mr Edward Tomlinson, Justin Truss, Elizabeth Turner, Mr Andrew Tyrie, Mr Andrew Uppal, Paul Vara, Mr Shailesh Vickers, Martin Walker, Mr Robin Wallace, Mr Ben
832
833
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
Walter, Mr Robert Ward, Mr David Watkinson, Angela Weatherley, Mike Webb, Steve Wharton, James Wheeler, Heather White, Chris Whittaker, Craig Willetts, rh Mr David Williams, Mr Mark
834
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Williams, Stephen Williamson, Gavin Wilson, Mr Rob Wollaston, Dr Sarah Yeo, Mr Tim Young, rh Sir George Zahawi, Nadhim
DELEGATED LEGISLATION Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): For the convenience of the House we will take motions 8 to 12 together. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Tellers for the Noes: Jenny Willott and Anne Milton
Question accordingly negatived. The Deputy Speaker then put the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. Main Question agreed to. Resolved, That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 13682/12, a draft Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1093/2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) as regards its interaction with Council Regulation (EU) No…/… conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions, No. 13683/12, a draft Regulation conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions, No. 13854/12, Commission Communication: A roadmap towards a Banking Union, and an unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum: Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary Union: Interim report; and welcomes the Government’s decision to remain outside the new supervisory arrangements while protecting the single market in financial services.
Business without Debate TRUSTS (CAPITAL AND INCOME) BILL [LORDS] Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Orders Nos. 59(3) and 90(5)), That the Bill be now read a Second time. Question agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63). TRUSTS (CAPITAL AND INCOME) BILL [LORDS] Ordered, That the Public Bill Committee to which the Trusts (Capital and Income) Bill [Lords] is committed shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.—(Anne Milton.)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW That the draft Forestry Commissioners (Climate Change Functions) (Scotland) Order 2012, (Consequential Modifications) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 10 July, be approved.
CAPITAL GAINS TAX That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Bahrain) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 16 July, be approved. That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Barbados) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 16 July, be approved. That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Singapore) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 16 July, be approved. That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Liechtenstein) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 16 July, be approved.—(Anne Milton.)
Question agreed to. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), TAXES That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Switzerland) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 16 July, be approved.—(Anne Milton.)
Question agreed to. Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): With the leave of the House we will take motions 14 and 15 together. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), DELEGATED LEGISLATION That the Police and Crime Panels (Precepts and Chief Constable Appointments) Regulations 2012 (S.I., 2012, No. 2271), be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee. That the School Premises (England) Regulations 2012 (S.I., 2012, No. 1943), be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.— (Anne Milton.)
Question agreed to.
835
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Polycystic Kidneys Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.) 6.46 pm Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): I would like to begin by declaring an interest. I am a joint chair of the all-party parliamentary kidney group. Earlier this year, the group heard a moving presentation from representatives from the Polycystic Kidney Disease charity, led by Tess Harris, its chief executive. I would also like to mention my constituent Judith French, who suffers from polycystic kidney disease. It is the testimony I have heard from those two ladies that brings me to the Chamber today. We have known about polycystic kidney disease since the 1500s, but in spite of such a long history, significant breakthroughs in research have been achieved only in the past 20 years. King Bathory is regarded as one of Poland’s most successful monarchs. During his short 10-year reign, he reformed the army and judicial system, and notably saw off Ivan the Terrible in 1581. Sadly, he died early because he suffered from polycystic kidney disease. His diagnosis was confirmed only 400 years after his death, when academics analysed his case. Since King Bathory’s reign, our ability to treat and cure a wide range of complex conditions has developed beyond what many would have thought was possible. Sadly, that progress has not been felt by those diagnosed with polycystic kidney disease, known as PKD. That is all the more surprising because it is not a rare condition. The cause is a mutation in one gene that leads it to function abnormally. The disease is characterised by the progressive enlargement of cysts in both kidneys. There are two types of PKD: autosomal dominant PKD, which affects 85% of patients, and autosomal recessive PKD. The second type is rare, affecting 1 in 20,000 live births. Tragically, newborn babies with that condition have a high mortality rate in the first month of life. Those who survive are likely to have a much reduced life expectancy. I shall focus my remarks on ADPKD. Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con): I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this Adjournment debate. Does she agree that although the condition might not be rare, it is relatively unknown, and as a consequence of the lack of awareness, unfortunately mistakes can be made, for example in the assessment of the ability of people with PKD to work? I have had recent experience of such a case involving a constituent of mine. Mrs Moon: The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. This is a little-known condition, and the horrific nature and impediments caused by the condition as it progresses are little known and little appreciated. Often, people can look quite normal but be suffering tremendously. I commend her work in trying to raise awareness. For individuals with ADPKD, it is a truly disabling, painful and limiting condition. Kidneys become enlarged, leaving patients disfigured and appearing prematurely pregnant. The kidneys continue to function normally, but eating, sleeping and even breathing can be difficult because of the size of the kidney and the pain experienced. The liver can be affected, too, and many patients are
Polycystic Kidneys
836
often diagnosed with PKD and liver disease. Besides the effects on the kidneys and the liver, there is a range of other complications: heart disease, bowel problems, hernias, infections and a high risk of intracranial aneurysms. The kidneys can weigh up to 17 lb—upwards of 10% of a person’s body weight—and in one case a patient was recorded as having kidneys weighing 48 lb. An affected liver can grow more quickly than the kidneys, effectively squashing them. PKD affects people of working age and is characterised by premature mortality. Tragically, end-stage kidney failure is common at an average age of 55—within working age, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) mentioned. PKD affects an estimated 12.5 million people around the world and is the fourth most common cause of kidney failure. It is more common than sickle-cell anaemia, cystic fibrosis, autonomic dystrophy and Down’s syndrome combined. We simply do not know how many people are affected by PKD in the UK. On the one hand is the answer to my parliamentary question in July. The Department of Health said that a total of 1,100 hospital admissions in 2010-11 were identified as resulting from PKD, although I was informed that that might include repeat visits by the same individuals. On the other hand, PKD Charity’s own figures suggest that the number is far higher. On the basis of the number of people requiring a kidney transplant and dialysis as a result of PKD, it estimates that as many as 60,000 to 70,000 people could have the condition in the UK. Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to the Floor of the House. My nephew, Peter Shannon, was born with posterior urethral valves, which meant a kidney transplant for him. Had he not had one, he would be dead. Does she agree that we need a bigger push to get people to sign on to the organ transplant donor list in the interest of those with kidney diseases, and those with PKD specifically, who are currently being kept alive by dialysis treatment? Transplants are important. If Members have not signed up, they should do so and encourage others in their constituency to do the same. Mrs Moon: I completely endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments. It is imperative that kidneys be available for these transplant patients. It is the most generous commitment that anyone can make. I am particularly grateful to Sandra Buckland and her husband for allowing me to quote directly from her remarks at the kidney group meeting. She bravely shared with us her experience of PKD, and I would like to share them with the House. Sandra’s powerful remarks underscore many of the points I want to make about what needs to be put in place to tackle this condition. Sandra was particularly brave in doing so, because she had also recently lost her sister, who died from PKD. She said: “I suffer from polycystic kidney and liver disease. I am married with two sons, both with polycystic kidney disease and the youngest with polycystic kidney and liver disease. My elder son has an eight-year-old daughter with PKD and my younger son, a four-year-old son with both polycystic kidney and liver disease. My father died at age 39 with heart failure due to side effects of PKD.”
She left the group with the following question:
837
Polycystic Kidneys
6 NOVEMBER 2012
“Why, when I lost my own father at 17 to this dreadful disease, are lives still being lost and progress appears to be at a standstill? If more successful research could be performed, halting the genes that allow PKD to continue, it would remove the stress, heartache and trauma for many families.”
Sandra Buckland clearly demonstrates the cost of PKD to an individual and her family. It is a long-term, devastating diagnosis. At a national level the costs to the NHS are unknown, although an estimate is possible. The PKD charity believes the annual cost is £330 million. As I said in my opening remarks, PKD is currently incurable and can be managed only with dialysis and transplants, combined with monitoring, all of which are expensive. It was only in 1994 and 1996 that the two ADPKD genes were discovered. The ARPKD gene was characterised only in 2002. Funding for research is limited. In the US, $360 million has been invested in research over the past 15 years —$45 million in 2009 alone. The House will be shocked to learn that the total investment in research in the UK and the European Union is zero. The PKD charity recently funded a small biobank of PKD kidney cells at the UCL-Royal Free, and together with the US PKD foundation, it has funded one small laboratory study in Sheffield. This funding is all reliant on donations. It is telling that in the past 12 years there has been no improvement in the life expectancy or average age of renal replacement therapy of 55 years for someone diagnosed with ADPKD. It cannot be acceptable for PKD to remain a neglected condition in terms of research and the development of treatments. Transplants and dialysis are costly. Developing treatments would not only improve the quality of life for patients, but reduce the cost to the NHS. The PKD charity has recently begun work with the UK renal registry to develop an analysis of PKD patients on renal replacement therapy. Would the Minister consider supporting the extension of this work to include pre-dialysis patients by asking the Renal Association to develop quality standards relating to ADPKD? Would she also support changes to governance requirements that would enable the UK renal registry to collect the data, and provide the necessary funding of £500,000 for the analysis and publication of these data? I appreciate that £500,000 may appear a large sum, but compared with the long-term savings, it is a small investment for a huge return. Funding the registry would overcome a major barrier to understanding ADPKD, support care planning and counselling, and provide cohorts for clinical studies. The information is not available at present, so there is no foundation in place on which to build a meaningful research programme. New drug treatments are being developed, but getting access to them is not without its challenges. One PKD patient with polycystic liver disease contacted me to describe how she self-funded her involvement in a drugs trial in Italy over three years, travelling back and forth to Italy monthly for three years at her own cost. During the trial, her symptoms improved considerably. The trial has finished and her condition is rapidly deteriorating. Her local PCT refused to fund ongoing treatment. Her long-term survival is being determined by finances. Last December the Prime Minister announced a package of support for the life science sector, which included an early access scheme for seriously ill patients with limited treatment options to receive promising new drugs in
Polycystic Kidneys
838
clinical trials. This accurately describes PKD patients. Will the Minister take steps to ensure, as a matter of priority, that PKD patients are included in access to drugs in clinical trials? Last weekend a drugs trial in the Netherlands reported positive results in altering the progression of ADPKD. The drug will now be presented to the European Medicines Agency for licensing— 7 pm Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)). Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.) Mrs Moon: The drug is not without its limitations, but it does represent progress. I ask the Minister to look at ways of supporting the trails in the UK and helping ADPKD patients to participate. There is also a lack of clear guidance about the management of ADPKD and ARPKD patients. Guidelines should include regular MRI scans to monitor kidney volume, which is an early predictor of later kidney loss and could guide future treatment decisions. Guidelines should also address access to genetic testing, which is particularly helpful in assessing young living related donors and for atypical or early onset cases. Only two centres will conduct those tests, and in the vast majority of cases PCTs will not fund them. Will the Minister give an undertaking to support with funding, as necessary, the development of guidelines and address the gaps? There is a need to develop access to specialist services, such as neurology and genetic counselling. One solution would be to establish specialised multi-disciplinary teams or clinics that could help patients be properly assessed, counselled and managed. Those teams or clinics would require a dedicated nephrologist with an interest in ADPKD, support from a specialist nurse and input from a clinical geneticist. Will the Minister work with the NHS to develop such a service? I have raised many issues in a short space of time. I ask the Minister to meet me and representatives of the PKD Charity at a later date to discuss the problems they face. We cannot wait another 500 years for significant progress in this field. 7.2 pm The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) on securing the debate; I know that this is an issue she campaigns on regularly. I pay tribute not only to her work, but to the excellent work of the Polycystic Kidney Disease Charity right across the UK in raising awareness of the condition and supporting those with it. I am of course more than willing to meet her and the charity and look forward to doing so. I think it will be a very worthwhile meeting. I will do all I can to answer the hon. Lady’s many question and deal with her requests, and not only in my remarks this evening, because, as she knows, I will not be able to respond to everything tonight. It might well be that a letter can deal with her questions, so I will certainly take away all she has said. I hope to give her some assurance about the work that is being done. As I know she understands, I can respond only as the Minister
839
Polycystic Kidneys
6 NOVEMBER 2012
[Anna Soubry] responsible in England, because health is a devolved matter. I am confident that she will raise these matters with the Welsh Assembly. The Welsh Assembly Government—we have made inquiries—published in April 2007 a national service framework and policy statement, “Designed to Tackle Renal Disease in Wales”. Improving the quality of care for people with renal disease, or at least at risk from it, is the cornerstone of that policy statement and of the national service framework—the NSF. In 2008, the Welsh Assembly Government issued a further three-year strategic framework, for 2008 to 2011, setting out the key interventions required of the NHS in Wales in implementing NSF standards. In England, we have successfully introduced a number of programmes to change outcomes for people with kidney disease. For example, we have introduced into the quality outcomes frameworks—known as QOF—the identification and management of chronic kidney disease and the inclusion of chronic kidney disease in the NHS health checks programme. Having raised awareness of chronic kidney disease in primary care, we now have 2.3 million people on primary care registers in England, but we want to do still more. The NHS health checks programme is being rolled out across England this year and next. The programme invites everyone between the ages of 45 and 74 to a vascular health check. It is estimated that up to 20,000 cases of diabetes and kidney disease will be detected earlier every year. Such early identification is key to the better management of people with these conditions and ensuring they receive optimum treatment and improved outcomes. On the particular issues raised about polycystic kidney disease, unfortunately, as the hon. Lady mentioned, PKD is not preventable; it is a genetic disorder. I pay tribute to how she has relied on the various experiences of her constituents and others connected with her work to explain with great compassion and care how the disease affects so many people and to set out its awful nature. I am pleased to hear that international studies are currently under way, three of which are being hosted by the National Institute for Health Research, looking at the viability of new drug therapy and disease management to give improved quality of life for those with PKD. I very much heard the hon. Lady’s comments about clinical drug trials and the gathering of data. As she said, the £50,000 cost seems large, but it may be argued that in the overall sum of things it seems like a drop in the ocean, although of course I cannot make any promises. I am sure that somebody somewhere will take that on board and we will explore the matter more when we meet. The hon. Lady asked for increased access to radiological and ultrasound scanning, and rightly so, and I would welcome the development of guidelines about best practice in that area. I know that a quality standard for chronic kidney disease was published last year by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. That sets out what high-quality, cost-effective care looks like so that commissioners and providers can assess standards of care and target improvement efforts where they are most needed.
Polycystic Kidneys
840
The NICE quality standard clearly states that patients with a genetic family history of PKD over 20 years of age should be referred to secondary specialist care. Chronic kidney disease, or CKD, is associated with reduced quality of life. Quality of life varies depending on the disease stage, medical management and the presence of co-morbidities and complications. It is crucial, therefore, that those diagnosed with PKD have access to specialist care to help them deal with this long-term condition and to support them and their families emotionally. As we have heard, it is a genetic disorder. Tracey Crouch: The Minister will have heard from my intervention that a constituent of mine suffers from polycystic kidneys. He was recently assessed under the Work programme as fit for work despite suffering from that horrific condition. The decision has been reversed, as there is now proper understanding of the condition and its impact on his ability to work. However, will the Minister work with the Department for Work and Pensions in issuing guidance so that unnecessary pressure is not put on people suffering from this debilitating disease during assessments? Anna Soubry: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention; as ever, she makes a good case. I will take the issue up and explore it further. If she will be good enough to put her points in a letter, that will help me in my consultations and discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions. We estimate that up to one in 1,000 of the population has PKD globally. Based on that estimate, more than 60,000 people in the UK are at risk of developing PKD. However, we do not currently collate centrally the numbers of people with PKD in England, a point raised by the hon. Member for Bridgend. I will ask the national clinical director for kidney disease to see what further action can be taken accurately to determine national incidence in England. If the hon. Lady is good enough to make the same representations to the Welsh Assembly and indeed the Scottish Assembly, we will have a far better picture of the situation throughout the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] I should also include Northern Ireland, of course, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is urging me to do. Looking at the care received by people with polycystic kidney disease, most patients are seen in general renal clinics, and they may receive little or no genetic counselling or specific disease management advice, or a thorough needs assessment. I am aware that in the early stages there may be no symptoms, and sometimes the cysts may not be noticed until adulthood or through family screening. However, some children present early with symptoms that can be confused with another form of PKD called, as the hon. Lady said, autosomal recessive PKD. The common symptoms will vary by individual and may include back or abdominal pain, recurrent urinary infections or blood in the urine, kidney stones, and kidney failure. People with polycystic kidney disease can require special consideration for dialysis and transplantation due to the nature of their disease and size of the cysts. I welcome all the comments made by the hon. Member for Strangford about transplants and donors and the urgent need to make sure that more people donate their kidneys—indeed, all their organs.
841
Polycystic Kidneys
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con): Does the Minister agree that we have a duty as parliamentarians to do everything in our power to increase the level of organ donation? Does she also agree that we should implement every recommendation of the organ donation taskforce? It is working very well, but we need to move quickly to maximise the number of organs available. Anna Soubry: I absolutely agree with everything that my hon. Friend says. I was horrified to discover in a recent meeting that unfortunately in England we are not making the progress on organ donation that we should. It is a serious problem. We know that so many lives can be saved or seriously improved if people are good enough to indicate that they are willing, on their death, for their organs to be donated. Let me go further and say this: of course I understand why, when somebody dies, the family struggle in their bereavement to give permission to allow the loved one’s organs to be donated. However, I urge people to do so, even in those very difficult situations. It is a most wonderful way to create a real legacy by enabling somebody literally to live on through someone else. If more people could, in those dark moments, see that, it would make a profound difference to improving, and indeed prolonging, lives. Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her pertinent words about transplants. I understand that when people renew their driving licence there is a box they can tick if they want to be on a donor register for the rest of their life. It is a painless exercise that commits them for ever and provides the authority for all their bodily items to be transplanted. Given that it is so easy to tick that box, perhaps more of those who are renewing their licence should do so to say, “Yes, I want to be a donor.”
Polycystic Kidneys
842
Anna Soubry: The ability to do that is a golden opportunity for people, and I wish they would take it. One of the problems, though, is that someone applying for a licence will think, “Well, I’m applying for a driving licence and I can’t deal with all that now; I’ll come back to it another day”, and unfortunately they do not return to it having got their driving licence. I would very much welcome a serious look at how we can solve this problem by campaigning harder to ask people to tick the box, make their views known, and speak to their families. Each and every one of us should talk among our families about the things that we want on our death. I know that these are difficult subjects, but this is, as we all know, a wonderful legacy that people can leave which makes a huge difference to the quality and length of the lives that people could lead. As provision could be improved with the introduction of evidence-based best practice guidance both at diagnosis and for the management of people with polycystic kidney disease, I will ask my officials to raise this with the appropriate agencies to see what further actions can be taken. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady and all those who have contributed to this debate, and thank them for drawing attention to this specific and important disease area. I also congratulate those at PKD Charity on all their hard work. I look forward to meeting them and the hon. Lady to make sure that we raise the profile of polycystic kidney disease. Question put and agreed to. 7.14 pm House adjourned.
173WH
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Westminster Hall Tuesday 6 November 2012 [SIR ROGER GALE in the Chair]
Ford Motor Manufacturing Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.) 9.30 am Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con): It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank Mr Speaker for his assistance in securing this important and timely debate, as well as the many right hon. and hon. Members present today from the immediate Southampton area and further afield. I am conscious that several other colleagues would also have been present if not for ill health and delegations to other parts of the world. Two weeks ago, Ford announced a major restructuring of its operations in Europe and confirmed that it would be closing its assembly plant at Swaythling, the factory where the iconic Transit, the world’s most famous van, is assembled. I am sure that the Transit needs no introduction; the name is now synonymous with light industrial vehicles in the same way that the name Hoover is synonymous with vacuum cleaners. The first Transit, sold in 1965, was manufactured at Langley in Berkshire, before the plant moved to Southampton 40 years ago. The Southampton plant, much bigger than Langley, was able to handle the considerable growth in demand that the Transit enjoyed among tradesmen—and, if Jeremy Clarkson is to be believed, armed robbers. Over the years, the Transit has been made at plants in Belgium and the Netherlands, which, along with the Swaythling plant, have either closed or will now close. The Transit continues to be manufactured in Turkey and China. I am tempted to focus on the bigger macro-economic issues that have brought about this situation, including globalisation and large corporations’ ability to shift production to countries where the cost base is lower. I could also concentrate on the granting of a European Investment Bank loan in June to the Ford factory at Kocaeli, Turkey, which will now benefit directly from the closure of Swaythling. That £80 million loan, which EIB documents state was for the modernisation of the factory, is guaranteed by the British taxpayer. I remind hon. Members that the decision does not merely have political implications; nor does it solely impact on the profit and loss forecast. It is not just an accounting decision or an issue simply of where a vehicle is assembled. As community leaders have emphasised, it is a human issue, especially for the approximately 2,000 people in the Southampton area who depend on Ford in one way or another for their livelihoods. Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con): Does my hon. Friend recognise that it also affects the London economy? The hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) will undoubtedly want to speak later. The stamping and tooling operations plant at Dagenham, where Ford began its UK operations in the 1920s, will close next July. Does my hon. Friend
Ford Motor Manufacturing
174WH
agree that we need to work across parties, support the Mayor of London in his plans and, in particular, consolidate all the Ford activities at Dagenham south of the LondonSouthend railway line to ensure proper regeneration north of that area? I hope that Ford will play an active role in fulfilling its community obligations in the months and years ahead. Caroline Nokes: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I have consistently called for a cross-party, as well as a cross-country, effort. I am conscious of the efforts that the Mayor of London is already making. The news is devastating to those employed by Ford, especially contractors and those active in the supply chain, who cannot benefit from the redundancy payments available to direct employees. I am thinking particularly of the residents of Mansbridge, in the shadow of the Ford plant. As well as losing a significant economic driver and employer, they now face uncertainty about what will happen to the plant when Ford ceases production. Wherever this debate leads, we must bring ourselves back to the heart of the matter: how can we in the House give practical support to those who have just lost their jobs? We must be forward-looking and find solutions to the immediate problems faced by the community. Although the decision has been made and will not be reversed, Ford none the less has questions to answer. I am sure that Opposition Members will also pick up on that theme. The fact that Ford is developing a plant in Turkey that will benefit from UK redundancies with a loan guaranteed by the UK taxpayer has caused concern and anger. It is imperative that Ministers seek to establish from Ford when the decision was made to close Swaythling. Was it before the loan was signed off on 27 June this year? If so, did anyone in Government know of the decision to move production to Turkey before the announcement the week before last? If it is shown that Ford decided to close Swaythling before accepting the loan, serious questions must be asked about the company’s conduct. Indeed, if Ford accepted the loan knowing that it would be used to consign Swaythling to history, then I, like many in my local community, expect Ford either to repay the loan or, better still, make a corresponding payment to the Solent local enterprise partnership that could be used to regenerate Southampton’s economy. Ford had a moral duty to declare its hand before asking UK taxpayers to fund their own redundancies. I seek the Minister’s assistance in helping Ford to understand that and account for its actions. As I argued last week, the issue is of national significance. Although the net impact of the closure is the loss of 500 direct jobs at the factory and further jobs in the supply chain, Southampton is a key economic driver in the south and south-east and has an important part to play in the national economy. What hits Mansbridge and Swaythling, like a stone thrown into a pond, will send waves across Southampton, the region and the whole country. This debate should therefore touch on three key issues. First, why and when was Ford’s decision reached? Secondly, what impact will it have? Thirdly and most importantly, what can be done to minimise negative effects on the city and the wider region?
175WH
Ford Motor Manufacturing
6 NOVEMBER 2012
[Caroline Nokes] On the first question, the people of Southampton have a right to know whether there was anything the Government could have done to prevent the decision. I look to the Minister for assistance, particularly on the question of the EIB loan, which needs explanation and justification. However, I suspect that the answers can only come from Detroit, not from Ministers. To some extent, however, it is a moot point. Whether the money signed off in June was granted before or after Ford decided to close Swaythling, the money loaned to assist the Turkish plant could only have disadvantaged Southampton and would never have benefited it. By guaranteeing the loan, the UK taxpayer has helped Turkey to import British jobs at the undoubted expense of the UK taxpayer. It is therefore up to Ford to show some moral responsibility toward those who have just subsidised their own redundancy. The UK taxpayer should not be supporting the dividends of Ford’s shareholders. I could not help but notice that in the hours following Ford’s announcement, its share price jumped from £10.36, itself a considerable improvement on the immediate past, to £11.16. The markets may have reacted well to job losses in Hampshire, but Ford now has a duty to those on whose P45s its future profitability has been built. We must be assured that another loan granted to Ford—from the regional growth fund, and intended for research and development of low-carbon technologies—did not prejudice the operation in Swaythling or represent Ford’s reneging on any previous commitments to Southampton. It is in Ford’s best interests to demonstrate good faith in both those matters. Of course Ford’s financial performance must be considered. It is in no one’s interest for a company to risk insolvency that, even after the redundancies in Southampton and Dagenham, employs nearly 14,000 people in the UK. Undoubtedly, there has been a huge fall in demand for the Transit. Sales are down 20% since 2007, and so far this year, Ford Europe has lost $468 million on the back of a 26% decline in revenue. Sales are down 17% from last year. Ford also states that the Turkish factory offers labour costs that are one third of those in Southampton, and the excess capacity there means that Southampton’s production can easily be absorbed in Turkey. On the face of it, even taking into account the costs of redundancies and site amelioration and disposal, the closure of the Southampton factory may seem a rational, commercially sound decision; but if adopted, that position must be balanced against the fact that Ford globally made an enormous $2.2 billion profit last year, $200 million more than the previous year. Although Ford wishes to act to preserve its commercial viability and profitability, and some of that profit will undoubtedly have been reinvested in plant, research and development and product development, I struggle to see why a subsidiary of a company making $2.2 billion needs cheap loans from UK taxpayers to export UK jobs to a country that is still outside the EU. Ford has a moral and social responsibility to both the city it is leaving behind, which it once called the home of the Transit, and the supply chain, which will now be broken, to ensure that the economic hole it is creating is filled with sustainable employment and economic activity.
Ford Motor Manufacturing
176WH
Ford should not look to the Government or the taxpayer to subsidise its moral and social responsibilities. It should step up to the plate and work with Government, local business and other agencies to ensure that its exit does not harm the local and regional economy, but benefits it by fuelling economic growth and sustainable, high-skilled, quality jobs, thereby ensuring that Turkey’s gain in the long term might also be Southampton’s gain. Secondly, on the impact of the decision, Southampton has some of the south-east’s most deprived areas in terms of employment, health, housing and education. It is ranked 81st out of 326 local authorities for deprivation. It has some of the region’s highest levels of young people not in education, employment or training, levels that are comparable to parts of the north-east—a problem that this decision will make worse, given that Ford is my constituency’s single biggest employer. That is why community groups are so concerned and why I am so keen that Ford face up to its responsibilities to the community in which it has co-existed for so long. Rather as Ghandi wished the British to retreat from India as friends, the legacy of Ford’s time in Southampton could be both ongoing and positive for the city and Ford’s reputation. Thirdly, and for me, most importantly, we must look ahead. This debate must highlight the need for the business community to expand and create new jobs. I have emphasised the need for the Solent region to be successful in its bid for city deal funding, but there are other ways in which the Government can provide support. Hampshire already has a local enterprise zone at HMS Daedalus, but I cannot think of a better location for a second one than at Swaythling, adjacent to the M27 motorway, where significant junction improvements are scheduled to make access to the major road network easier. Additionally, the Government’s Growing Places fund has already provided money to the LEP, but in this situation further specifically targeted support is needed. I seek Government help in encouraging Ford to augment existing help, particularly for those in the supply chain who will not benefit from generous redundancy payments. Ford must not merely aim to meet its legal minimum requirements; it has a wider responsibility. I was heartened to learn that Ford has a trust fund which, with some modification of its limits, could be used for this purpose. Although the fund makes relatively small grants aimed at education, the trust also aims to “develop a skilled workforce committed to improving the business whilst maintaining employment opportunities now and for the future “.
Therefore, in line with its own stated social responsibility aims, I call upon Ford to outline how it will fund and work with the local business community, the city and county councils, neighbouring local authorities, and national Government to ensure that the legacy of Ford’s time in Southampton is a highly skilled work force filling high-skilled jobs. The Ford trust states: “Being a good corporate citizen is an essential part of how we do business. Both globally and locally, we have an ongoing commitment to helping and supporting the communities we operate in “.
I hope that this commitment to communities in which Ford operates is also extended to the communities in which it used to operate.
177WH
Ford Motor Manufacturing
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Ford can do a number of things immediately. It can create a rescue fund to which suppliers can apply for funding to help them develop new markets, and announce how it intends to dispose of a critical 52-acre employment site on the edge of the city. Perhaps Ford will even consider donating an ameliorated site to the city council for the establishment of a business park and local enterprise zone. Much of this could be funded by the reallocation of money received from the European Investment Bank to modernise the factory that will be building the Transit vans once built in Southampton. This House is where the country looks to in times of trouble. It is where, in times past, some of the greatest words of encouragement have been uttered and where worried people have historically looked for answers. At this sad and worrying time for the people of Southampton, the country will once again be looking to this House to debate their concerns and fears, and for new optimism. I hope that Ford will join with other agencies and heed the calls in this debate for it to leave a legacy that will endure and be a testament to excellent corporate and social responsibility, not one that reflects the unacceptable face of global capitalism. It is important—I look forward to the Minister’s response on this point particularly—that the local enterprise partnership, BIS Local and other local agencies work together to ensure that retraining opportunities are maximised. I know the Minister is currently looking at that with the local growth White Paper, which sets out the Government’s aspiration for growth to be driven by local communities and businesses. This will, I hope, focus on retraining, which Ford should be a partner in and providing funds for. Finally, I ask the Minister urgently to consider creating a Southampton local enterprise zone, which would be an engine of growth, job creation and retraining in Southampton. As Ford’s decision to close its factory illustrates, that is now more urgently needed than ever. Several hon. Members rose— Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair): Order. This is a matter of importance to Members of Parliament in the Southampton area and nationally. It is therefore important that the Opposition and Government Front-Bench spokesmen have a significant amount of time to respond, where ordinarily we might curtail those responses in the interests of Back Benchers. For that reason, I shall exercise my powers to impose a six-minute time limit on speeches, which I hope will allow hon. Members to contribute while at the same time giving the Front-Bench spokesmen an equally adequate time to respond. We have a piece of high technology that will give hon. Members one minute’s warning. 9.46 am Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab): I will work within the time you have allocated, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on securing the debate. The Ford Motor Company has behaved shabbily. I have worked with the company over many years, sometimes with good news and sometimes, more recently, with bad
Ford Motor Manufacturing
178WH
news, but the relationship has always been one of openness, transparency and willingness to engage. None of those characteristics have been present in this decision. I should read into the record a letter I received from John Fleming, then European head of Ford, in February 2009: “Dear John, Thank you for making the time for our discussion earlier this week”.
Having set out some of the economic challenges, he continued: “In November last year I offered my assurances to yourself, Lord Mandelson and to your constituency colleagues in Southampton would receive the necessary investment to manufacture the Chassis Cab version of the next generation Transit. After extensive studies, which were shared with our union colleagues, this was the only investment option that met both the cost and profitability requirements demanded of the business. I remain committed to the future of Southampton and, as I have stated in my recent letter to all Ford of Britain employees, I can re-confirm that it is our plan to build the next generation Transit Chassis Cab there. The sourcing and Chassis Cabs to Southampton gives the plant a meaningful and profitable manufacturing future and I trust you will continue to share my view that this is a positive development for the plant.”
That is the last official communication that I ever had from Ford about the future of Southampton; at no stage since has there been any indication of doubts about that strategy. It is true that its implementation was delayed because of the investment required to move to the chassis cabs, but the latest that that was to happen was next summer—indeed, the unions at Ford had been discussing with the management how the summer closedown would be handled to enable that shift to take place—but then the decision was announced. Last spring, with my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), I was at a dinner of what could be called Ford’s Labour MPs, where the discussion was not about closure, but about the possibility of winning extra orders. The irony of ironies is that, at that dinner, Ford asked us to lobby the European Union about a trade deal with other countries that was going to be harmful to manufacturing in Europe. Given the outcome of Ford’s decision, that seems extraordinary. Reputations are hard won and easily lost. I believe that it will be a long time before any Government of any colour in this country will sit down with Ford without wondering whether the people on the other side of the table are telling the truth. It saddens me to say that, but that is where we are today. A parliamentary reply I received on Friday revealed 12 meetings since the last election between Ford and Ministers in the current Government. We cannot fault Ministers for their willingness to meet with the Ford Motor Company over that time. I believe Ministers when they tell us that Ford did not let them in on the plans or share them, which is bad conduct by the company. I have two or three things to say quickly, because I do not have much time. It is extraordinary that a regional growth fund grant was made to Ford without the Government being aware of the wider Ford strategy. I simply say that that is a weakness of the regional growth fund compared with the old regional development agency structures, which were much more likely to ensure that the bits of government dealing with major
179WH
Ford Motor Manufacturing
6 NOVEMBER 2012
[Mr John Denham] companies were aware of the whole of the company strategy. By dividing the regional growth fund into separate grants, there is no sense of engagement with the company. Similar issues apply to the European Investment Bank. I am grateful to the office of Peter Skinner, MEP, for this information. Yesterday the EIB was claiming that the loan was fine because Turkey is “upstream” of the UK and is an assembly site, not a component manufacturer. Well, Southampton is an assembly site and not a component manufacturer. Those involved in the EIB decision have questions to answer. The Chancellor is a governor of the EIB; Britain was represented by an official, Peter Curwen; and there would also have been an opinion from the European Commission about the loan. We need to know whether the Commission, the EIB and the UK representatives were aware of the situation in Southampton and the likely implication of the loan for the future of that site. The truth is that it is impossible for Governments to dictate to transnational companies what they do. They can influence to some extent what such companies do, but only if every sinew is strained to ensure that they have the maximum influence on the company. I had hoped to speak for longer, but let me now turn to the existing work force. As the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North said, Ford’s commitment must go way beyond those directly employed by the company. There are more than 200 non-Ford employees on the site; they are not working in logistics or making the seats for the Transits, and they are not covered by the redundancy terms now on offer. Ford must extend its support to far more people. Finally, I emphasise to the Minister that the taskforce established under the leadership of the city council and the local enterprise partnership will need serious resources. The last time we had such a taskforce, we had RDAs, colleges had money to spend and local government had money to invest, but none of those resources exists now and significant additional funding will be necessary to make any taskforce viable. That will be needed to support not only the individuals affected, but the supply chain companies—81 supply the factory in Southampton—which need help to reorient their businesses to win orders from elsewhere in British manufacturing, other parts of the motor industry, or overseas. We must have resources from the Government, Ford and whoever to make the taskforce viable. Simply recycling some money that might have been coming in Hampshire’s direction anyway as a result of the LEP or other growth strategies will not be good enough. 9.52 am Chris Huhne (Eastleigh) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for securing the debate, with the strong support of the other local MPs. The most crucial point to make about the closure of the plant at Southampton is that the work force have done absolutely everything in their power to make a success of the plant, with substantial increases in productivity and substantial savings in costs. No fault
Ford Motor Manufacturing
180WH
can conceivably attach to any of the employees. The plant is a key part of our local economy. It is on the southern edge of my Eastleigh constituency and many of the employees come from the town, in particular, Boyatt Wood. As my hon. Friend said, the plant has been manufacturing Transits since 1972; that is an iconic vehicle and the plant is its home. I have two fundamental concerns about Ford’s decision. The first, which is similar to that expressed by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), is that the Ford Motor Company made commitments which it has broken. On 28 November 2008, three local MPs—myself, the then Member for Romsey, Sandra Gidley, and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead)—went to see the head of Ford’s European operations, John Fleming, at the company offices in London. The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister at the time, but was clearly there in spirit. We had all campaigned hard to save the plant and we all came out of that meeting without any doubt about its significance. We all told the local media the same thing—I have a cutting with me. The plant was safe, despite the downturn in the market and despite what might turn out to be the loss of a considerable number of jobs. Appropriately, the right hon. Gentleman quoted the letter he received from John Fleming in which Ford’s head of European operations made a clear commitment to investment in chassis cab production and to a future for the plant. Those commitments are what make the closure different. Ford is a major multinational and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North has shown, is profitable globally, yet it is flying in the face of its past promises. It has done so in a way that may be difficult to challenge in court, but there was clearly a moral commitment on the part of the company. Unlike bond holders, employees cannot take the company to court for breach of its promises, but customers will no doubt draw their own conclusions about a company that is prepared to walk away from firm commitments when they consider the value of Ford warranties, for example. In addition, as the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen, said, Ministers will, before signing any further cheques for the company, rightly ask for clear understandings, including of why the company considers it appropriate to go back on its commitments. There has been no change in management; John Fleming, the head of European operations at the time, is now the head of global operations, based in Detroit, so it is not a question of the Ford Motor Company changing management and therefore forgetting its commitments. Furthermore, in 2008 and 2009 two big pieces of material help were available to Ford: a £450 million EIB loan, of which more than £380 million had to be guaranteed by the UK taxpayer as a condition of its extension; and the scrappage scheme introduced by the previous Government, which was designed to boost demand in the car and van market. Indeed, we pressed for the scheme to include the commercial van market, and it was of material help. It beggars belief that such help could have been agreed without commitments being made to Ministers, so we have to ask: what commitments were made to Ministers? That is not advice to Ministers in a previous Government so it is not covered by privilege; any meeting between a Minister and an executive of the Ford Motor Company would have had present a member of the Minister’s private
181WH
Ford Motor Manufacturing
6 NOVEMBER 2012
office taking an extensive note of exactly what the Ford executive said, and that will be a matter of record within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I ask the Minister to find out exactly what the record was and what the undertakings were, and to draw the necessary conclusions. That is crucial to the second big issue about the closure, which is the position of the rest of the work force. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North said, it is not only a question of those directly employed by Ford, who have had a commitment that there will be no compulsory redundancies. Although that is a limited commitment, given the absence of alternative Ford workplaces in the area, I have no doubt that the company will do the right thing by its own employees, but what about the subcontractors on site, such as the Penske employees? What about the supply chain? What about the commitment to the whole local economy and to making sure that we survive this hammer blow, as we have survived many other blows in the past? I want the Minister’s assurance that he will make absolutely certain that Ford respects its previous commitments and, if it does not, that he uses that to come away with clear commitments not only to the direct Ford employees, but to the wider work force dependent on the plant. 9.59 am Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): I want immediately to take up where my colleagues who represent south Hampshire left off this morning. An important aspect of this debate is the extent to which, at all stages, hon. Members for the area affected by Ford in Southampton have, in good times and bad, rallied to ensure that Ford was supported as far as it could be. They have ensured jointly that as much information as possible about Ford’s plans was obtained and disseminated, and as the right hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) said, they have taken part in meetings at which Ford gave assurances about how the Southampton plant would operate and its prospects. As the right hon. Gentleman emphasised, at the meeting with John Fleming in November 2008, the three hon. Members from the area around Ford’s operation who attended obtained cast-iron assurances about the plant’s future, what it would be doing and its development of a chassis cab. The hon. Members present understood that those assurances extended not just to Ford’s central operation, but to its whole operation, including all the ancillary supply chains and the associated arrangements. I recall that that was part of the discussion at that time. Everything seemed fine with those assurances, as Ford sought to suggest in briefings, until three or four days before it set out its decision. The suggestion that suddenly, on a Thursday afternoon, its international management decided to pull stumps on its plants in Genk and particularly in Swaythling is incredible. That underlines the urgency of obtaining answers to questions about the money that Ford obtained from the regional growth fund and, as importantly, the £80 million loan from the European Investment Bank. It is difficult to believe that those loans were obtained when the original 2008 assurances stood at the time that the discussions were entered into. Either Ford did not give the information that should have been before both bodies before the loans were agreed, or the people who
Ford Motor Manufacturing
182WH
were responsible for discussing them had information that could and should have caused them to take a more careful view of how those loans should have been set out. That underlines what my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) emphasised: the extreme sadness with which some Members of Parliament in the Southampton area feel about the break between past working arrangements with Ford locally and the clear issues that now arise. I like to think that, even at this stage, Ford might consider what that means for its national and international reputation, its responsibilities to Southampton, its past investment in Southampton and, more importantly, Southampton’s investment in Ford’s operation for many years. I join my colleagues in making three suggestions. First, the work force who are involved not centrally in production but in the supply chain that has supported Ford’s success in Swaythling should be considered on an equal basis with those in the Ford plant as far as future support is concerned. Secondly, any decisions by Ford about the plant’s future should take account of whether it can continue with a presence in the area, in any shape or form. That might provide the opportunity for Ford employees to relocate, as the right hon. Member for Eastleigh said, in not very favourable circumstances, as there are no Ford plants anywhere near Southampton. If there is a continuing presence in Southampton, perhaps some of the work force currently employed at Swaythling could be relocated more locally, Thirdly, Southampton has invested in Ford’s Transit operation for more than 40 years, and the vehicle and the site are iconic. The workers have probably paid for it many times over in the work that has gone into it and the profit that has come out. If Ford attempts to raise funds by selling that site, in addition to the funds that it obtains by exporting its benefits to Turkey, that will be an additional slap in the face for the local area, which has put so much into Ford in the past. The minimum that I expect Ford to say is that the site will not be sold for development or other purposes, but will be donated to the community and the city that have put so much into Ford and have been such a pivotal part of its success in making that site work for so many years. If that happens, we might at least have the opportunity in Southampton and the surrounding area to bring to that site some of the industry, jobs and prosperity that have been part of it in the past. If Ford would leave that small legacy to the city of Southampton, it would be at least some reparation for what seems to me is a grubby episode. 10.7 am Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab): As is the custom, I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on securing this debate and those who have made contributions. We share the deep concern for our constituents and their material well-being following the announcement. The workers who are employed at the Ford Dagenham stamping plant and tool room operations were shocked and bewildered by the hundreds of Ford job losses announced a couple of weeks ago. I have spoken to many of the workers who have been affected by the announcement, and the consistent response was almost disbelief. We were blind-sided on Thursday 25 October, which was a bad day for manufacturing in the UK, in Southampton and in my part of east London.
183WH
Ford Motor Manufacturing
6 NOVEMBER 2012
[Jon Cruddas] The Dagenham estate was built in 1929 and has been Ford Motor Company’s centre of production ever since. A couple of weeks before the announcement, I visited the stamping plant, the tool room and the two parts of the engine facility to meet management and workers to discuss bringing more workers to the plant. No one mentioned possible closure; it was not an issue. We knew that announcements were coming, but our concern was to secure more investment in the engine plant by getting the new Panther engine into Dagenham. The background is that the Dagenham diesel engine plant and diesel centre covers some 2.5 million square feet, and employs approximately 2,000 employees. In 2011, nearly 1 million engine units were shipped from the estate. At present, the Lynx engine operation in Dagenham has an annual capacity of some 320,000 engines. That is scheduled to finish in the second quarter of 2013. The Puma engine capacity is another 400,000 a year. Our emphasis in the discussions was on securing the Panther engine at the Dagenham estate, because there is a natural fit in both the time line and capacity at the estate. We have been lobbying people at the highest level of the Ford Motor Company internationally and the Government regarding the new engine, to ensure that the investment comes to Dagenham, so guaranteeing future jobs. An application for round 3 of the regional growth fund, covering questions of plant readiness and training requirements, was included in that process. News of the job losses will worry many local families who are either employed directly by Ford or have a business that relies on trade created by the plant. At a time when the economy is suffering so much and when families are struggling to pay their monthly bills, the announcement is not good. I am sure that there will be generous voluntary redundancy offers from the company, and it has assured us all—I assume—that those who want a job will be redeployed at least across the Dagenham estate. In reality, however, the jobs will be gone for good. Those quality manufacturing jobs will not be available to young people in the borough in future, and the closure will shake down in terms of the supply chain, affecting local families and people’s future job prospects. However, in the bipartisan spirit of our debate, I add that I am pleased that the Mayor of London has convened an emergency taskforce to deal with the effects of Ford’s announcement in east London. That will include representatives from the London enterprise panel, the London borough of Barking and Dagenham, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Skills Funding Agency, the Department for Work and Pensions and Jobcentre Plus. It has already met, and some of us will meet Ford’s chairman, Joe Greenwell, over the next couple of days to alert him to the establishment of the taskforce and to ask him for help. The Mayor of London is important for the future of parts of the estate, and the Greater London authority is a significant landowner in the area. The Dagenham stamping and tool room operations site is immediately adjacent to the GLA’s Beam Park and Chequers Corner sites, as well as being within close proximity to the Sanofi site due to close next year.
Ford Motor Manufacturing
184WH
I urge Ford to investigate how Sanofi has dealt with its exit from my constituency over the last couple of years. Sanofi has worked brilliantly with the local community to redevelop its site and build more jobs and community facilities in the area. I request that Ford enters into similar discussions to ensure that the stamping and tooling operations site is decommissioned with limited detrimental impact to the local area and with an eye on future regenerative potential. The majority of redundancies will not come into effect until mid-2013. The expectation is that the stamping plant building will be decommissioned and shuttered, with all parts stripped and sold, and that that will take nine to 12 months after the closure next July. As with Sanofi, I would like to think that Ford will release land for regeneration north of the railway line, following both demolition and clearance of the stamping plant and all related buildings, including remediation, decontamination and cleansing of the released land. That should be done with a view to future economic regeneration, perhaps as part of the Ford exit costs, given the benefits that the company has extracted for nearly 100 years from our part of east London. I must put on record, however, that Ford’s announcement had some positive elements that should not be ignored; by that, I mean the decision to invest in the new two litre, four cylinder, low carbon dioxide Panther diesel engine at the Dagenham engine plant. The combined engine output will remain at approximately 1 million engines a year, and the new engine will support some 3,500 engineering, design, admin and support jobs in nearby Dunton. Overall, although I welcome the news about the investment in the new Panther engine in my constituency —we have been fighting for that for months—I cannot hide my disappointment about the latest decision. We must do everything that we can to support local residents affected by the closures and those in the broader community. We will raise those points with Mr Greenwell here in Parliament this week. 10.13 am Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): I had not intended to speak, Sir Roger, as I am conscious of the local interest in Dagenham and Southampton in this matter, but I would like to make one point relating to the UK Automotive Council. Will the Minister ask that organisation whether any aspect of Ford’s actions was raised with any officer or individual from the council? The organisation is, of course, jointly chaired by the Secretary of State. Has the issue as a whole been contemplated in discussions of automotive strategy that take place at that organisation? It is an important body, which has been a key part of the renaissance of British manufacturing and the automotive sector in the UK economy. Much depends on frankness between the parties involved. It means that the Government come to the aid of the industry when it is in trouble. The right hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) mentioned the car scrappage scheme. Ford was extremely vocal to me at that time of great crisis in the UK automotive industry, calling for the introduction of the scrappage scheme. At that difficult time, all political parties supported the scheme’s introduction. If there is no frank relationship between the industry and the Government, it means that should
185WH
Ford Motor Manufacturing
6 NOVEMBER 2012
there be a difficult time in future and should a similar call be made, the Government and those who have taken part in this debate will think twice before assisting businesses such as Ford. Ford must realise the ill will among good people caused by its decision, and in particular by the fact that individuals who had worked hard with the business over the years to improve its prospects and help it in times of need were given no opportunity to try to safeguard the future of the jobs at Southampton and Dagenham. That has a cost. It is unfortunate that we are in this position, but I hope that that message is carried back to Ford at the highest level, because there will be a major impact on the relationship between the automotive sector and the Government, and particularly, between Ford, Members of the House, and the Government. Mr Denham: While my hon. Friend is on that theme, does he agree that there is a sharp contrast between the way in which companies such as Nissan, Toyota, Honda and BMW responded to the assistance that they were given after the global banking crisis? They worked together through the Automotive Council to build up vehicle assembly in this country, so that it is now one of the success stories of the British economy that we can celebrate? The Ford Motor Company has pursued a very different strategy: although there has been investment in engines, it has run down its vehicle assembly in this country. Ian Lucas: There is a marked contrast. One of the most disappointing aspects of the announcement was that it followed positive announcements on the automotive industry over the past four years. Britain has become an investment destination of choice as far as the international automotive industry is concerned, so it is very difficult to understand why Ford was not even prepared to engage with the UK Government and MPs to try to address the difficulties that the company had in continuing the manufacturing in Southampton and in those parts of the Dagenham operation that are to cease. I hope that Ford will listen carefully to the debate, and that it will consider closely its relationship with both the Automotive Council and the Government. I hope, too that it will engage and be open in discussions and ensure that this type of decision—without notice, without partnership—does not happen again. 10.18 am Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on securing this important and timely debate, and I pay tribute to the Members who have supported her. My immediate concern, as it has been throughout the course of today’s debate, is about the 1,100 Ford workers who will lose their jobs with the closure of both the Transit factory in Swaythling and the stamping operation in Dagenham, as well as the wider impact that will have on subcontractors, the supply chain, and workers in those areas. The workers at those plants, many of whom have worked either directly or indirectly at Ford for many years, have important skills for our manufacturing base, and naturally they will be anxious about their future and that of their families.
Ford Motor Manufacturing
186WH
The message from today’s debate is obvious, and the Minister must clearly set out what reassurances he can provide. What precisely will his Government, working with the company, local council leaders, the Mayor’s office and others, do to secure to alternative employment? How will the workers at Southampton and Dagenham be helped? What specific initiatives, whether the formation of an enterprise zone or of a focused taskforce such as the one already set up in east London, are being put in place to help? What is the Minister doing to co-ordinate action across central and local government for the benefit of the workers employed both directly and indirectly and in the wider supply chain who are at risk of redundancy? As you quite astutely said, Sir Roger, there is a wider and more fundamental issue. The repercussions extend beyond Southampton and Dagenham. Let us be in no doubt: this is a devastating blow to this country’s manufacturing base. Ford is an important global company and we want the company to stay and to prosper in the UK. In that regard, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) said, its £1.5 billion programme of investment in advanced manufacturing and the production of the new low-carbon Panther diesel engine, designed and engineered at Dunton and made in Dagenham, is very welcome. It reinforces the UK’s competitive advantage in Europe’s engine design and manufacturing market, and we need to continue that. However, the point and the blow remain: this announcement is the end of an era. It brings to an end a century of Ford vehicle manufacturing in Britain. Ford started in Dagenham some 90 years ago—when we think of Ford, we often think of Dagenham, and vice versa. The iconic Ford Transit van, which for 40 years has been the symbol of Britain’s white van man and is the automotive industry’s modern-day equivalent of the workhorse, will no longer be made in this country, but will instead be produced in Turkey, as the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North said. At a time when Ministers from the Prime Minister down speak of the need to rebalance the economy towards manufacturing and of the march of the makers, this decision in a sector that is often lauded as a productive and efficient part of the economy shows the need for business and Government to work ever closer together to implement an active industrial strategy. I have a number of questions to put to the Minister, supplementing much of what has already been discussed in today’s excellent debate. I will speak in very broad terms. I would like to hear the Minister’s assessment of what the volume car market in Europe will look like in the future, and how that assessment affects Government’s approach to the sector. As the hon. Lady pointed out, car and van sales have fallen dramatically on the continent in the past couple of years—by some 20%. There is, let us be honest, overcapacity in car and van production capabilities in Europe. Ford’s decision in the UK a couple of weeks ago must be seen in the wider context of what the company has done with the closure of an assembly plant in Belgium, as well as the closure of a factory near Paris for Peugeot Citroën and the shutting of facilities for Opel. Mr Denham: My hon. Friend talks of overcapacity in Europe. Does he acknowledge the point made by a number of the Southampton Members present that
187WH
Ford Motor Manufacturing
6 NOVEMBER 2012
[Mr Denham] what Southampton has been up against is not overcapacity in Europe, but overcapacity in Turkey? Ford has pursued a strategy of developing a 300,000-plus vehicle plant in Turkey, with the assistance from the European Investment Bank, and that is what many of us question. That is at the root of Southampton’s problems, so the question is really about the company’s strategy in seeking to locate such a massive proportion of its production for the European market outside the European Union. Mr Wright: I shall respond to my right hon. Friend in two ways. First, he is absolutely right about overcapacity in Turkey and the extent to which British taxpayers helped to push production away from the UK to Turkey. That will be one of my themes. Secondly, my right hon. Friend makes an important strategic point about Ford’s direction of travel. Other car makers—Nissan, Honda, Toyota and others—have worked very successfully with the current Government and the previous Government in setting out a clear, long-term strategy to have assembly, design and manufacture here in the UK, but also to expand the markets further afield. Jaguar Land Rover is a very important case in point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who was an excellent Minister for the automotive sector, said, that close co-operation between business and Government when it comes to setting out a long-term strategy and expanding export markets has been for the benefit of the car industry. I would like something similar to what we have seen with Nissan, Honda, Toyota, Jaguar Land Rover and others to have been implemented with Ford. Sadly, that has not been the case. I would like to hear what Minister’s thinks the car industry, and particularly volume car makers with European manufacturing capability, will look like in the next few decades. Is the decline and overcapacity cyclical or structural? If it is structural—if the Minister thinks that we are seeing a general movement away from Europe towards new markets in the east and in south America— what impact will that have on other volume car and van manufacturers in the UK? We have talked about the UK automotive industry being a success story—something that, on a cross-party basis, we all want to see continue—so what does the Minister expect other manufacturers to do, given Ford’s decision? What are Government doing, in working closely with business, the Automotive Council and others, to ensure that we can mitigate the risks in this country? What co-ordination is taking place across Europe to ensure that general economic conditions on the continent, and specifically lack of demand, are being addressed? What discussions is the Minister having with his counterparts across Europe to ensure that the European car industry is not lost altogether? My reference to discussions between Government and business brings me to my next question. Where does Ford’s decision leave the Government’s industrial strategy? The Secretary of State can talk a good game—he has had plenty of practice, having made 16 speeches on the matter since coming to office. In his speech of 11 September at Imperial college, the he mentioned how Government “must plan for the long term. Government must work with business.”
Ford Motor Manufacturing
188WH
He went on to say: “The second strand of our industrial strategy is to build a collaborative strategic partnership with key sectors. The examples I often give are aerospace, automotives, and life sciences... What is the starting point for this? We are dealing on a global scale with fierce competition—between companies and countries... Different industrial sectors require varying degrees of government support... At the other end are sectors that require a long-term, strategic partnership with government. We have the institutions to deal with them; the Automotive Council and Aerospace Leaders Group are models of what I have in mind.”
Indeed, the BIS paper entitled “Industrial Strategy: UK Sector Analysis”, which was published at the same time as the Secretary of State’s speech, stated: “The UK has a strong comparative advantage in the aerospace and automotive industries which, because of their highly innovative nature, are a major source of knowledge and innovation spillovers... Both industries also have very important local economy and rebalancing effects.”
Certainly rebalancing is very important: we need a rebalancing towards manufacturing. On the other point, about local economies, the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North and other hon. Members have made very important and pertinent points about the impact that this decision will have on the Southampton economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham mentioned the importance of the Ford plant to the east London economy. We agree with much of the analysis by BIS. Much of current policy in terms of the setting up of the Automotive Council and the ensuing benefits in terms of increased investment in the likes of Jaguar Land Rover and Nissan began under the previous Labour Government. Continuity of policy, to allow global firms to plan investment in the UK for the long term, is something on which Opposition Members will support the Government. However, in relation to Ford’s announcement, the Secretary of State’s words about an active industrial strategy ring hollow. As I said, he often talks a mean game about assisting and working with productive sectors of the economy to allow them to improve and thrive, and we all want to support the UK automotive industry, but Ford’s decision showed him to be out of the loop, floundering and too weak within Whitehall to be able to offer a constructive solution. There was no dialogue between Government and the company—indeed, following the announcement, the Secretary of State told The Southern Daily Echo that Ministers had felt “let down” and would have asked Ford “what on earth was going on”.
So much for open, constructive and honest dialogue between Government and business. Answers to parliamentary questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna)further revealed Ministers’ ignorance of the facts and failure to ask the right questions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) said, since the coalition came to office in May 2010, Ministers have met Ford executives on—well, I make it 13 separate occasions, but I might not be able to count; my right hon. Friend said 12. Mr Denham: I was not including the meeting the Minister had after the announcement. Mr Wright: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s clarification.
189WH
Ford Motor Manufacturing
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Since coming to office, the new Minister has met Ford on two occasions. We welcome such early engagement; that is exactly how it should be for an iconic global manufacturing company in a key industrial sector for the country. In his response today, will he outline what was discussed when he met Ford? Were the company’s future strategic direction and capacity issues within Europe not discussed? Did he not inquire what the company’s response might be to overcapacity on the continent and how that might affect Ford’s manufacturing in the UK relative to the company’s operations in Belgium, Valencia or even Turkey? Has Ford, as has been suggested today, reneged on previously agreed commitments? Does the Minister agree that joined up, co-ordinated government is part of an effective active industrial strategy? Did he make Ford executives an offer to discuss matters relating to Ford and future investment with other Ministers? Did he speak to Ministers in the Department for Transport about how the competitiveness of Swaythling and Dagenham could be enhanced through infrastructure improvements in logistics or connectivity, improvements to the road network and the M27, or improvements to rail networks in the east end of London? That is what the Secretary of State should have been thinking about when he referred in his speech to the fact that: “We are dealing on a global scale with fierce competition—between companies and countries.”
Instead, I have to say, with some degree of sadness, Government Ministers have been asleep at the wheel. Assistance from Government inevitably comes down to finance. I have two questions, both of which were raised in the debate. The European Investment Bank approved the £80 million loan to Ford Otosan, which runs the Turkish plant, as part of a £452 million structuring deal for the production facility to “support the future manufacturing of the new Ford Transit”.
The 27 EU countries own the EIB, and its board of governors includes the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The role of the governors, as it says on its website, includes deciding “on the Bank’s participation in financing operations outside the European Union as well as on capital increases”.
Given that, what role did the Chancellor have in fulfilling his duties as a governor of the EIB in signing off the investment? What role did he and officials play in ensuring that the investment went to Turkey? It simply defies belief that British taxpayers, as well as other European taxpayers, have provided funds to a facility in a country outside the EU that undermines the competitiveness of manufacturing in the UK. Will the Minister specifically address that point? The second aspect of Government funding concerns the award of regional growth fund money to Ford a matter of days before the closure announcements. In answer to a written parliamentary question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen, the Minister stated: “As part of its relationship with Ford UK, the Department’s Automotive Unit has regular and ongoing discussions with the company. Those discussions included understanding the context to Ford’s bid for…(RGF) support… The RGF Secretariat did not have any other discussions with Ford UK about their strategic plans.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2012; Vol. 552, c. 430W.]
Ford Motor Manufacturing
190WH
As my right hon. Friend said, is that not a huge failing in the RGF process? What did Ministers and their officials know about the wider context of Ford’s strategy in the UK? Did they not inquire about the longer-term view of the company in this country? If not, why not? Does not that show that Ministers are incapable of producing a proper co-ordinated and long-term active industrial strategy? As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham said, we cannot have a productive and honest relationship between business and Government, or rebalance the economy towards manufacturing, by tossing a few grants here and there. As Lord Heseltine said in his growth review published last week, we need a strategic approach to each sector and to ensure that each pound of taxpayers’ money offered to companies gives the best possible long-term, sustainable, competitive deal. Is the Minister suggesting that no such strategic discussion or consideration took place as part of the RGF bid? Mr Denham: First, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be good to hear the Minister accede to the request from the right hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) to make available any notes on discussions with the company in 2008 and 2009? I believe that they would show that Ministers discussed topics such as the future of Swaythling in discussions about EIB loans and so on. Secondly, it would be helpful, and I mean this in a non-partisan way, if the Minister undertook to review his Department’s and the Treasury’s engagement in the RGF and the EIB to see what lessons can be learned from these two extraordinary events. Mr Wright: My right hon. Friend makes two important points that I hope the Minister will address. I will sit down now, because right hon. and hon. Members have raised many significant concerns during this important debate. There are huge implications not only for Southampton and Dagenham—I say that with the greatest respect—but for the wider manufacturing base in a key sector that should be productive for the UK economy. Manufacturing must be at the heart of what we do and the automotive industry must be at the heart of manufacturing. Ford’s announcement is a blow. I hope the Minister will address the concerns raised today. 10.36 am The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on securing this important debate. I thank all of those who have contributed for doing so in a relatively non-partisan way. Hon. Members have spoken frankly and asked some tough questions, but, until the previous contribution, we have approached the issue in a non-party political way. I will focus on some of the broad areas that I have been asked about, but I am happy to address specific questions, be interrupted or to reply by letter if I have missed anything out. I shall address: what we were told in the Department; the circumstances surrounding the European Investment Bank loan; the support that we are able to offer Southampton and Dagenham now; and Ford’s future in the UK. I hope to wrap up in that most of the points made in the debate.
191WH
Ford Motor Manufacturing
6 NOVEMBER 2012
[Michael Fallon] First, what were we told when? As recently as 7 September, when my officials specifically asked Ford about Southampton, Ford assured us that it would continue to produce the new chassis cab variant in 2013. Ford has invested regularly in Southampton, including significant sums this year. We therefore had no reason to question what we were told. Amid a sharp deterioration in the mainland European vehicle market, Ford’s board decided on Friday 19 October to close the site. Ford contacted my Department the next working day, Monday 22 October, to arrange a discussion between the Secretary of State and the Chairman/CEO of Ford Europe. That phone call took place on the evening of Wednesday 24 October. We did not know of Ford’s plans in advance of that conversation. We are obviously disappointed that, on this occasion, Ford chose not to engage with us until the day before the announcement. It gave us no opportunity to discuss the decision, which we would have expected and preferred. It made the decision based on a thorough analysis of its commercial operations in Europe. Last Tuesday, 30 October, Ford published its latest financial results, which revealed a $1.02 billion pre-tax loss for the first nine months of 2012 for its operations in Europe, reinforcing why it has had to take difficult commercial decisions to restructure its European business and place it on a more sustainable footing. Demand for light commercial vehicles has fallen dramatically in Europe over recent years, with the Transit seeing a sharp fall in sales. The company is clear that it can no longer support two van production facilities in Europe and must seek to consolidate production at one. Unfortunately, the Southampton plant is unable to compete with Ford’s newer factory in Turkey where labour and production costs are significantly cheaper than those in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State and our officials probed that differential with the company, but we are clear that those differences are too high to bridge. Let me turn now to the circumstances surrounding the European Investment Bank loan. The loan to Ford for its Turkish Transit van operation was approved as part of the EIB’s support for Turkey’s integration into the European Union economy. The Turkish operation has been in existence since 2001, and since 2009, it has made all versions of the Transit apart from the chassis cab variant, which is made at Southampton. The EIB loan for the Turkish operation was for retooling the Turkish plant for the production of the next model in 2013 and was not based on the cessation of production at Southampton. It is therefore incorrect to imply that the EIB loan is itself responsible for exporting jobs from the UK. Indeed, Ford tells us that it will not be increasing capacity at the Turkish site. The EIB makes investments in key markets outside and inside the European Union. For instance, Ford UK benefited from up to £400 million of EIB funding back in 2010. Mr Denham: For the record, I do not think that any Member has suggested that the loan to Turkey was responsible for the closure of the Southampton plant, but rather that it undoubtedly helped Ford to develop Turkey, which therefore helped it to close the plant.
Ford Motor Manufacturing
192WH
The key question is, would British officials involved in that decision have given the go-ahead to that loan—it was a loan rather than a grant—had they been aware of Ford’s plans for Southampton and Dagenham? Michael Fallon: I do not wholly accept that. Ford was already planning to develop the new model at its Turkish plant. That plant has the capacity to produce more than 100,000 units per year of all types of van. Southampton, as we know, only made 28,000 units of one van variant each year. Even if the Turkish factory had not got the loan from the EIB, it is unrealistic to suggest that the entire new model production would have moved to the smaller Southampton factory, and that is the issue. On the assistance that we need to make available to those affected by the move, I fully appreciate the concerns that have been expressed for the workers at Southampton and those at the associated stamping plant at Dagenham, along with their families and the wider communities in each area. I accept that it should be the Government’s priority and responsibility to do their very best to help those affected. In Southampton, both the Secretary of State for Business and I have been in discussion with the chairman of the Solent local enterprise partnership, Doug Morrison, to ask directly what we can do to help. As Members here will know, the local enterprise partnership held an emergency board meeting on Thursday. I discussed the matter with the chairman on Friday, and he told me that a multi-agency taskforce is now being established, including representatives from the local enterprise partnership, Southampton city council, Eastleigh borough council as well as officials from my Department and other agencies, including Jobcentre Plus and the Skills Funding Agency. The taskforce will work in partnership with Ford until the plant closes next summer to ensure support is in place for affected employees and small and medium-sized enterprises in the supply chain. Caroline Nokes: On that point, the Minister will no doubt be aware that between 2003 and 2008 there was, within the automotive and aerospace sectors, the supply chain group programme, which was funded by the regional development agencies. Has the Minister given any thought to the introduction of a similar scheme, which might be of specific assistance to those companies in the supply chain? Michael Fallon: I will certainly look at that point. The local enterprise partnership has said that it will try to identify the specific impact on the supply chain. If it has requests to make as a result of that work, we certainly stand ready to assist it. It also asked us for specific assistance in two other respects. First, it asked whether it was possible to accelerate the roll-out of phase 2 of the Bridging the Gap project, which, rather confusingly, was announced under round 3 of the regional growth fund in the middle of October. The project will provide grant support to individuals and small businesses in the Southampton and Isle of Wight area. Secondly, the LEP asked whether it was possible to broaden the remit of the scheme so that Ford employees living outside the specific boundaries of the local enterprise partnership could also benefit from the proposal. On the first point, I have asked officials to see what can be done to accelerate the due diligence required of the bid. I am confident that we can shorten that process
193WH
Ford Motor Manufacturing
6 NOVEMBER 2012
and ensure that money is made available more quickly. Bidding under round 3—the arrangements for the finalisation of the selected bids—is already subject to faster time limits, which were put in place after the experience of rounds 1 and 2. As for the boundaries, I think—I hope that hon. Members will agree—that it would be wrong to discriminate against someone who has worked at the plant simply because they live outside the geographical boundary of the local enterprise partnership area. I have asked officials to look specifically at what we can do to ensure that there is no such discrimination. The future of the site itself has also been raised today. I can understand that the community and the local enterprise partnership are keen to retain such a prominent and iconic site for manufacturing use, but that will depend on the site’s ownership and planning status, which is, in the first instance, a matter for the planning authority. Let me say though that we, too, are keen to see it remain in industrial use. We have already notified its availability to UK Trade and Investment to ensure that inward investors are aware of the opportunity there, and we are happy to work with the local planning authority to do everything that we can to ensure that the site remains in manufacturing or industrial use. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North suggested extending the enterprise zone. There is already an enterprise zone in the area on the Daedalus site, some 15 miles away. I understand her request that we should create another one. Of course we will await advice on that from the Solent local enterprise partnership. The LEP covers Southampton and Portsmouth, and it really is for it to advise us on whether it sees the need to create a specific zone around the site, or whether it wants to enlarge the other zone and so on. We await advice from the local enterprise partnership. It would be wrong not to touch on the Dagenham area. The hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) has spoken eloquently for his constituents, and I know that he is in regular touch with the plant there. Following the Mayor of London’s standing commitment to lead a response to any large-scale redundancies in London, he hosted a constructive meeting of partners, including Jobcentre Plus, the Skills Funding Agency, the London borough of Barking and Dagenham and my officials, last Friday. The Mayor will work with all those partners and with Ford to develop support arrangements for the affected Ford workers and their families. In partnership with the London enterprise panel, the Greater London assembly and the borough are already considering the long-term impact on the Dagenham area, including how new opportunities to retain a high value-added and high-skills local economy can be realised on the back of the continuing and substantial commitment of Ford to Dagenham, about which the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham has spoken and which we should not forget in the circumstances surrounding the regrettable decision to close the Southampton plant. Ford has indicated that it hopes that the inevitable redundancies will be voluntary. It expects that around 300 people may want to relocate within Ford’s remaining UK operations, rather than take the voluntary redundancy package, and it has hired Lee Hecht Harrison, a global outplacement provider, to work with it at both the
Ford Motor Manufacturing
194WH
affected sites to help individuals. Whatever criticisms we may have about the circumstances in which the decision to close the Southampton plant was made, we should welcome Ford’s commitment to do everything that it can to help its employees after that decision was made. Chris Huhne: Has the Minister had any contact with Ford executives about extending that package to the subcontractors on site and, indeed, to people in the supply chain, particularly given the availability of an outplacement agency, which can have an important effect on job opportunities in the future? Michael Fallon: I am very happy to undertake to look at that point. The right hon. Gentleman raised the supply chain in his meeting with the Secretary of State. As I say, we will certainly look at that point. We are waiting for more evidence from the local enterprise partnership about the scale and degree of the supply chain, and exactly where the jobs affected might lie, but I am happy to consider that point and I will get back to him. As I was saying, we have ensured that the local Jobcentre Plus teams and the Skills Funding Agency are involved in both Southampton and Dagenham. The SFA will work with colleges and training providers in the local areas to ensure that support is available to any employees who are at risk of redundancy, and the national careers service can offer free careers advice on upskilling or retraining for alternative employment. I will turn shortly to the future of Ford in the UK, but before I do so I will attempt to answer some of the questions that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) put to me. He asked me to assess the European market. I am not sure whether it is for me to do that, but the manufacturers certainly tell us that there remains significant and structural overcapacity throughout the European marketplace. We have seen that in the closures proposed at Peugeot and in the recent profit warning from Renault. I do not think that there can be any doubt that some quite significant restructuring lies ahead for the European market. Of course, that is a market that the Turkish Ford plant supplies. The hon. Gentleman asked me more specifically if I had discussed these matters in my discussions with Ford. I met Ford on 5 September—my second day in office—and again on 25 and 26 September, in the meetings that I had with most of the major automotive companies in the margins of the Paris motor show. Yes, we certainly discussed overcapacity, but we were given absolutely no hint that that overcapacity had any implications for Ford’s operations in the UK. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether we talk to other Departments. Yes, we talk to other Departments, and issues are raised with us by the major investors, not least about the taxation of low-carbon vehicles, and so on. So, as I say, we do talk to other Departments. The hon. Gentleman finally asked about the strategic approach, and discussing that approach is the point at which I should turn to the future of Ford’s long-term commitment to the UK and to the efforts that we and previous Governments have made to secure that
195WH
Ford Motor Manufacturing
6 NOVEMBER 2012
[Michael Fallon] commitment to research and development and, in particular, to engine design and manufacturing operations in the UK. It is important to remind ourselves that Ford is a very important part of the UK automotive sector and has been for more than a century. Ford employs more than 12,000 people in the UK and invests more than £400 million each year here on high-quality R and D—about a quarter of the total UK automotive R and D spend. Even more significantly, the UK supplies more than a third of Ford’s total global demand for petrol and diesel engines. As part of that, the UK supplies more than half Ford’s total global diesel engine requirement. These are astonishing statistics, all the more so because the engines are not only built here but designed here. That is why, despite the circumstances that have brought us together this morning, I am delighted that Ford has subsequently confirmed that it will design, engineer and build its brand new low-carbon diesel engine in the UK. Of course, Ford applied for help from round 3 of the regional growth fund to enable that project to go ahead. On 19 October, we announced our conditional offer of £9.3 million to support Ford’s investment of £156 million into Dagenham to build an all-new engine series at the plant. It may be of no comfort to those in the Southampton area, but that investment will safeguard some 450 jobs and create 50 new jobs, while supporting many more in the supply chain and wider economy. Ford expects to follow that project with a new petrol engine at Bridgend, and together these projects will ensure that the UK retains its crown as Ford’s global centre of powertrain excellence. I was specifically asked about the circumstances of the regional growth fund bid. Of course, the bid is appraised by an independent panel, chaired by Lord Heseltine, and it is separately appraised by our secretariat, assessing it on its own merits against the fund’s objectives, which include the employment that the bid would create or safeguard, as well as the investment and the benefits to the wider community that it would bring to the UK. I need to be absolutely straight with colleagues here and say that we look at such bids independently; we do not have discussions with the company about the rest of its strategic plans right across the UK; and we look at each bid on its merits and measure its compliance with our criteria. Of course, all the allocations are then subject to due diligence—an important process that is built in to protect the public purse.
Ford Motor Manufacturing
196WH
Mr Denham: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but perhaps I can just put it on the record that this is where we disagree and that, in the view of many of us, the regional growth fund should engage with a company’s wider strategy and not simply assess the merits of an individual decision. Michael Fallon: I note that point and I heard the right hon. Gentleman make it in his earlier contribution. I am not sure whether, under the old system, the four regional development agencies that would have been involved—I think that is the number—would have been part of that process, but I will certainly reflect on what he has said. What is important is that we are capturing this new work in the UK and we are playing to our world-class strengths of design, engineering and advanced manufacturing. That is the direction that we should be moving in, as we seek to rebalance our economy, drive forward growth and secure greater export revenues. That is the front and centre of our industrial strategy. Without our support, the Ford projects that I have mentioned would have gone elsewhere, which would have undermined the UK’s position as the centre of choice for Ford’s engine programme and our ability to bid for and win new work. In conclusion, a number of points have been made today. Let me re-emphasise that I share the disappointment of every Member who has spoken in the debate at Ford’s decision to close the Swaythling plant. I regret the circumstances in which that decision was made and communicated to the Department and, indeed, to colleagues here in Parliament. Nevertheless, we will commit to work with local partners; we will do all that we can to help those affected by the closures; and we will continue to work with Ford to build on its major and ongoing commitment to the automotive sector in the UK. Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair): May I take this opportunity to thank all right hon. and hon. Members who are in Westminster Hall, both for the largely non-partisan manner in which the debate has been conducted and for seeking to accommodate both Front Benchers in the manner that they have been accommodated? As I said earlier, this is an important subject, and I hope and believe that those watching in a wider audience may just have seen a little of the House of Commons at its very best this morning. Thank you all very much indeed. If the right hon. and hon. Members who are leaving Westminster Hall could do so quietly, in a moment we will proceed to the next debate.
197WH
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 11 am Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. May I welcome the Minister to his post? I have great admiration and respect for him in his current role, and the same was true when he was in his previous role. I hope that he has had a chance to read my speech, which I sent over yesterday, and particularly the 10 specific questions I will be asking him to address. In recent years, we have witnessed the proliferation of the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, better known as drones. These remotely piloted aircraft are predominately used by states to conduct intelligence and surveillance, and, increasingly, to carry out armed strikes. This debate looks at the military use of armed drones by the United Kingdom and the United States. It appears that the Government see drones as having an ever greater role in our armed forces. According to the vice-chief of the defence staff, General Nicholas Houghton, we may see a tipping point by the mid-2020s, when the UK will “move away from manned fast jets to Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles and missiles”.
The Government recently announced that the number of Reaper drones the UK operates in Afghanistan was to double to 10 and that operations were, for the first time, to be conducted from RAF Waddington, in Lincolnshire. Currently, the UK’s five Reaper drones are operated by British personnel from Creech air base in Nevada, and the latest figures show that those drones have flown 40,000 hours and fired 345 missiles in Afghanistan. Although drones offer the potential to target insurgents without having to put our armed forces in harm’s way, we need to ensure that all steps are taken to prevent civilian casualties. Despite the growing significance of drones, there has been little debate about this issue, and the time is right for a review into how they are used and how they may be developed and deployed in future. The first question I would like the Minister to address is, what is the Government’s policy on the use of drones, particularly in Afghanistan and Pakistan? My second question is, how many civilians have been killed by UK drone strikes in Afghanistan? My third question, which is linked to that, is, does he agree that the death of civilians in Afghanistan undermines the aim of winning hearts and minds, and feeds anti-west feeling? If civilians cannot be protected, does he agree that we should consider suspending the use of drones? Earlier this year, I visited Pakistan, having been a former adviser to Benazir Bhutto, and I met President Zardari, senior Ministers and many local people. Everywhere I went, concerns were raised about the use of drone strikes in Pakistan by foreign countries. There were real concerns that such strikes would feed into the anti-west attitude played on by radical elements. Although the UK has operated drones only in Afghanistan, the United States has used them as part of its counter-terrorism strategy in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. According to reports, that has resulted in hundreds of civilian causalities. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism believes that more than 350 strikes have
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
198WH
taken place in Pakistan since 2004, and 3,378 people may have been killed, including 885 civilians. That has fed into anti-west feeling, with 74% of Pakistanis now seeing the US as an enemy, and only 17% supporting its use of unmanned strikes. One victim was Daud Khan, a local tribal elder from Datta Khel, who was killed in March 2011, along with 40 other people, while attending a jirga, which is a peaceful council of elders. His son, Noor Khan, has launched legal proceedings in the United Kingdom, alleging that the British Government provided locational intelligence to the CIA about individuals of interest to the United States and that this intelligence is then used to direct drone attacks in Pakistan. The legal statement for the case asserts that if Government officials assisted the CIA to direct armed attacks in Pakistan, they are, in principle, liable under domestic criminal law. Such allegations damage our relationship with Pakistan, which will draw its own inferences from the Government’s refusal to confirm or deny whether intelligence has been shared with the United States. Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the House. Does he agree that, while we regret the loss of civilian lives, the drones’ military objective of taking on terrorism is vastly important? Is it not better to use them to save British Army lives? Rehman Chishti: I thank the hon. Gentleman. That is an important point. I am not against the use of drones, but it has been asserted that the United States operates drone strikes not simply against known targets, but against suspects, and that is completely unacceptable when somebody may or may not be an insurgent. Drones have their place; if they can be deployed, and the intelligence is good, of course we have to look at using them. However, in Pakistan, there have been 885 fatalities in 3,330 strikes, which is completely unacceptable. I am therefore asking the Minister for assurances that we will ensure that drones are linked to proper intelligence. If steps can be taken to avoid civilian casualties, drones can, of course, be used to target known militants, as they have been. Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): As a former RAF officer, may I say that a poorly targeted air strike is a poorly targeted air strike, whether it is carried out by a Tornado, a Mirage, an F-15 or a remotely piloted vehicle? I praise my hon. Friend for bringing in the phrase “remotely piloted vehicles”, because drones are not unmanned—they have a pilot, and they are remotely piloted. We must get away from the idea that this technology is flying around, as in “The Terminator”, just destroying targets. Last week, I saw the Reaper squadron combating Somali piracy, and they are really helping to reduce attacks. Does my hon. Friend agree that drones have good uses when used well by allied forces? Rehman Chishti: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that key point about drones being used well. I have seen drone strikes in Pakistan, where Baitullah Mehsud, a known terrorist, was taken out, and drones of course have their uses. The other key element, however, is the huge number of civilians who are losing their lives. That undermines the work being done in Afghanistan,
199WH
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
6 NOVEMBER 2012
[Rehman Chishti] because the hearts and minds that we want to win are lost when we lose so many civilians. Of course drones should be used—absolutely—but there is also the issue of proportionality and of ensuring that drones are used with proper intelligence. I thank my hon. Friend for his expertise. The point I was making—I have touched on it previously—is that the use of drones fosters anti-west sentiments, which could be a danger to our security in this country. My fourth question is, can the Government make clear whether the UK has shared locational intelligence with the United States, leading to drone strikes in Pakistan? Question No. 5 is, what is the Government’s policy on the circumstances in which intelligence may be lawfully transferred? Question No. 6 is, do the Government believe that there is an armed conflict in Pakistan? If not—this is question No. 7—do they accept that a UK national who carried out a targeted killing in Pakistan could, in principle, be liable under domestic criminal law? My question No. 8 is whether, in that case, the Government accept that if UK officials were to share intelligence with the CIA that they knew or believed would be used to assist in drone strikes they could, in principle, be liable under UK law. I recently asked the Secretary of State in the House a question about locational intelligence and his reply raised more questions than it answered. He said: “The United States operates in Afghanistan under a different basis of law from the one under which we operate.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 696.]
As I understand matters, there is only one basis for international law, so my next and ninth question to the Minister is, under what legal basis do the Government believe the United States to operate, and why is that so different from international law? Drone use by the United States raises several legal questions. It has been argued that drone strikes in Pakistan have been carried out in violation of international humanitarian law. The high number of civilians killed in such attacks who were not participants in armed conflict raises questions about whether their use is proportionate. Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial killings, has even suggested that some of the drone attacks may constitute war crimes. A recent report by Stanford university and New York university called “Living Under Drones” describes the strikes’ effect on cultural, religious and community life in Pakistan, where some families even refuse to send their children to school, in case they are attacked. The authors also detail the use of double tap strikes where the same area is attacked multiple times, deterring humanitarian assistance. At a time when Pakistan faces severe poverty and one in four live on £1 a day or less, drone strikes threaten to undermine the work achieved through international aid. By 2015, Pakistan will become the UK’s largest recipient of aid. Yet that good will is threatened by such military activity. We need to ensure that Afghanistan and Pakistan are safe, secure countries but drone strikes can undermine the important battle to win hearts and minds. My tenth question to the Minister is whether drones are being used proportionately and whether enough is being done to protect civilians.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
200WH
The issues that I have raised deserve serious consideration. If drones are to be more widely used, we must ensure that they are deployed so as not to create a risk of civilian deaths and collateral damage, or pose a risk to international relations or a danger to our national security. I urge the Minister to ensure that the United Kingdom’s policy on drones and sharing intelligence that may be used in drone strikes is fully compliant with the relevant national and international law. In answer to the interventions of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), I would say that if drones are used in accordance with our national law, and international law, I do not have a problem with that. However, there are concerns at the moment, linked to the issue of sharing intelligence with the United States, which may lead to attacks in Pakistan, about whether they are being used properly under national and international law. Those are serious questions that need to be answered, and they damage the excellent work that this country does around the world, in rightly giving international aid and winning hearts and minds. The tragic London bombings of 2005 were linked to the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We need a secure and prosperous Afghanistan and Pakistan, which may be linked to international security. Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair): Order. In half-hour Adjournment debates only the sponsoring Member may speak, unless others have the consent of that Member and the Minister. My understanding is that both Yasmin Qureshi and Nick Harvey have sought consent to do that, but the Chair deprecates the fact that a Minister is sometimes left without sufficient time to respond; so I should be grateful if hon. Members kept their contributions very brief. 11.14 am Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) on securing the debate. This issue is incredibly important, especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I have constituents of Pakistani Kashmiri and Afghan heritage, and they have several times come to see me, and written many e-mails and letters to me, about drone attacks, especially as some of them have family members living in the relevant parts of Pakistan—Waziristan and other areas. They have told me in person about the effects of drone attacks. They ask, “How would you feel if you were asleep at night and suddenly you heard drone attacks—buildings being destroyed and people being killed: you would not know from day to day what would happen. One minute you are peacefully asleep in bed, and the next an attack is happening.” How would we like that—if people were asleep in Bolton, for example, and that were to happen, with the deaths of young children as well as adults, including old people. Much has been made of the shooting of young Malala, but there are many other young Malalas in that part of the world—and young boys, too, and families being destroyed. Our argument for using drone attacks in the countries in question has always been that we are trying to get rid of the Taliban or al-Qaeda. According to some statistics— and these were in a recent American study—only 2% of people killed in all drone strikes could possibly have
201WH
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
6 NOVEMBER 2012
been called al-Qaeda or Taliban; 98% of the people were civilians and not involved in armed conflict. It is fine to protect our country. I live here, and I want to be protected as well; but is it really fair that we should engage in actions that lead to that proportion of deaths of ordinary innocent civilians? I am sorry to say that is not right, and the reason is the way the drones are used. I entirely accept the fact that if they are used properly and targeted at people who are known to be involved in illegal or criminal activities, there could be a justification. Under article 2.4 of the United Nations charter, force can be used if the host nation agrees, and the action is in self-defence. From everything that we have heard from the Pakistan Government, they do not agree to the use of drones in their country. Recently at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the Pakistan Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar said that they object. There is therefore a question of the legality of the weapons. That issue is coupled with the fact that drones are not targeted properly. It is not the case that there are particular houses or positions, with people known to have committed criminal or terrorist offences. It might just be right to target such positions if it accorded with international law; but the evidence increasingly shows that drones are being targeted not at specific people but randomly, that they are being controlled, in America, not by the army but the CIA, and that there are successive strikes with more than one hit in the same place. That cannot be right. I am sorry if I sound very passionate about this, but thousands of innocent lives have been taken in Pakistan and Afghanistan—and in Yemen and elsewhere, although I do not have many constituents from there. I can talk more about Pakistan and Afghanistan, where the most intensive drone use has been. There are ways to fight a battle, but we must abide by international law. I am grateful that an investigation is being carried out by the UN rapporteur on counterterrorism, the British lawyer Ben Emmerson QC, on whether the use of drones is legal, and I wonder whether the Minister will also welcome that. If it is found that they are illegal, will we desist from using them in our campaign? My final question for the Minister is: if drones are being used legally, are they being used strategically? At this moment in time, the evidence tells us that they are not being used properly, and that they are wrecking the lives of thousands and thousands of innocent people. We would not like it if, when going to a wedding, funeral or procession, we did know whether we might suddenly be attacked. We should put ourselves in the position of the people living in that country. 11.19 am Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD): There is nothing inherently wicked or virtuous about a remotely piloted aircraft. The moral questions that have been raised hinge entirely on what is done with them. In that sense, there is little, if any, valid comparison to make between what the United States does with remotely piloted aircraft in Pakistan, and what we do with them in Afghanistan. It is up to the United States, not to a British Minister, to justify what the US does with them in Pakistan, and we will all have our own view on that. On our use of remotely piloted aircraft in Afghanistan, we should be very proud of and pleased with the part they are playing in our campaign. I have visited Creech
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
202WH
in Nevada, and I have also watched the RAF pilots who remotely pilot aircraft in Afghanistan. They do tours of duty of about a couple of years, so they very often have a more intimate knowledge of the situation on the ground than those sent to patrol on foot, who do a six-month tour of duty. From what I have seen, I believe that in many instances remotely piloted aircraft have a restraining impact on what actually takes place on the ground. Their ability to hover, loiter and build up an intelligence picture over as much as 24 hours—to use that information and share it with those on the ground—has a civilising effect on the nature of the combat that takes place. To suggest that remotely piloted aircraft are inherently evil and should be discarded from our inventory would be to make a bad mistake. I hope that the vice-chief’s prophecy that they will become increasingly common in years to come will prove true. 11.21 am The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) on securing this important debate on the Floor of the House. This subject clearly arouses considerable passions, some of which are better informed than others, but all of which are important. This is a good opportunity to place the Ministry of Defence’s use of unmanned aerial vehicles— UAVs—on the record, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall endeavour to answer as many of his detailed questions as I can in the time available. I will take a few minutes to explain the context in which UK armed forces operate our fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles. They are often referred to as drones, but that term is misleading, as it implies that there is no human input into the operation of UAVs. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), who has direct experience, military personnel are intimately involved in the operation of UAVs flown by UK forces, with professional pilots being in control and military and civilian personnel analysing the collected intelligence. I know that the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, prefers “remotely piloted aircraft”, a term which was mentioned by my hon. Friend. That better reflects the fact that trained personnel are always engaged in the decision-making process. For the sake of clarity, I will use the more widely recognised UAV terminology, although I entirely agree with the Air Chief Marshal’s sentiment. The UK has a number of UAV systems currently deployed in support of operations in Afghanistan, and they are vital to the success of the mission. I recognise that their use is often emotive, but we can use this debate to dispel some of the misapprehensions that surround their deployment. UAVs are saving the lives of both British and coalition service personnel and Afghan civilians on a daily basis. Their use is predominantly as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance—ISR—assets and, when weapons are deployed, the decision-making process leading to the identification and engagement of a target is identical to that for manned aircraft.
203WH
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
6 NOVEMBER 2012
[Mr Philip Dunne] The UAV systems being operated in Afghanistan form part of a mix of airborne ISR capabilities. They are but one, albeit an increasingly important, component of those systems. They complement the more traditional manned surveillance capabilities provided by aircraft such as Sentinel or the Sea King helicopter. Uniquely, UAVs provide an unblinking and persistent ISR presence that can be exploited with crews being relieved while the aircraft remain airborne, as was made clear by the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey). That would be too resource-intensive to provide from manned aircraft alone. Persistent surveillance provides a significantly more complete intelligence picture, which decreases the risk of misidentifying targets of interest. The ability of UAVs to loiter over areas to survey for enemy activity, feeding video and imagery intelligence to commanders in real time, makes them an invaluable asset on the ground in Afghanistan and allows coalition forces to stay one step ahead of the enemy. As with all our deployed capabilities, UAV capability in Afghanistan is constantly under review. Reaper is the UK’s only medium-altitude, long-endurance ISR platform currently in service, and it has provided ISR capabilities to coalition forces in Afghanistan since October 2007. Rehman Chishti: On Afghanistan, will the Minister clarify whether he has the facts and figures about how many civilian casualties have occurred as a result of those drones? Mr Dunne: I will come on to address my hon. Friend’s specific question. Reaper has provided more than 40,000 hours of persistent intelligence in support of our front-line troops, giving vital situational awareness and helping to save military and civilian lives in Afghanistan. Its success has been such that, in December 2010, the Prime Minister announced an increase in the number that the Royal Air Force operates. The Army also operates unarmed tactical UAVs for ISR purposes, and it has introduced a range of the latest nano-UAV technology to service operations this year. Together, the UK’s fleet of UAVs have carried out well over 100,000 hours of flying in Afghanistan. Its primary role is ISR, but Reaper is also the UK’s only armed UAV. In its armed configuration, Reaper has been certified for use only in support of ground forces in Afghanistan. For example, it was not used during Operation Ellamy over Libya. In answer to their questions, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham and the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) that it has not been operated in Pakistan. Reaper is not used in Somalia either; my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley was perhaps thinking of Predator UAVs operated there by the US. Rehman Chishti: Will the Minister give way? Mr Dunne: I have only a short amount of time, and I must still deal with many of my hon. Friend’s questions. It is important to note that Reaper does not have the capability to deploy its weapon systems unless commanded to do so by the flight crew. They are trained to operate
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
204WH
under the Geneva conventions on the law of armed conflict, which is otherwise known as international humanitarian law. On the rare occasions that weapons are used—349 precision-guided weapons have been employed since Reaper went to Afghanistan—the strict rules of engagement for the use of weapons are the same as those that apply to manned combat aircraft, which have been designed to minimise the risk to civilians. The selection and prosecution of all targets is based on a rigorous scrutiny process that is compliant with international law. Reaper is launched and recovered by crews deployed in Afghanistan, but its missions are exclusively controlled by RAF personnel based outside Afghanistan. That means that, rather than being rotated through a six-month deployment to theatre, operators build up an unsurpassed degree of knowledge and experience. The weapons carried by Reaper are all precision-guided, and the type is carefully selected in every engagement to ensure the most appropriate munition is used to deliver the required effect, so minimising the risk to civilians and their property. I am aware of only one incident of civilians having been killed by weapons deployed from a UK Reaper. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham may know, on 25 March 2011 a strike on two pick-up trucks carrying a significant quantity of explosives resulted in the death of four Afghan civilians, as well as of two insurgents. That incident was highly regrettable, but the subsequent report concluded that the actions of the Reaper crew had been in accordance with extant procedures and UK rules of engagement. The moral, ethical and legal issues associated with the operation and use of weapons from UAVs are the same as those for manned aircraft. As I said at the beginning, there is always a human in the loop. Although technological advances are likely to increase the level of automation in some systems, just as in other non-military equipment, the Government have no intention of developing systems that operate without human intervention in the weapon command and control chain. My hon. Friend raised some questions regarding the use of armed UAVs by the United States. I am not going to comment on the operations of our allies and—this is long-standing Government policy—for reasons of operational security, the Ministry of Defence does not comment on its intelligence-sharing arrangements with coalition partners. Countries can, of course, make their own interpretation of what they are permitted to do under international law, and it is a matter for the US Administration, whoever they are after today’s election, to assure themselves that the actions they undertake are lawful. In Afghanistan, our UAVs are an increasingly important means of providing vital information to our ground forces. They have been proven to provide great military benefit. I can reassure my hon. Friend and the House that I am satisfied that the UK’s policy on UAVs is fully compliant with national and international law. 11.30 am Sitting suspended.
205WH
6 NOVEMBER 2012
High Speed Rail (Scotland) [MR CHRISTOPHER CHOPE in the Chair] 4 pm Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I sought the debate because of the huge importance that high-speed rail has for us in Scotland—for our economy and for Scotland’s development over a long period into the future. Obviously, like many other Scottish MPs, I have a personal interest: when Parliament is sitting, I spend nearly 10 hours a week sitting in trains. I quite enjoy it and I can get a lot done, but I think we are on the cusp of being able to achieve a modal shift in the way that people travel between Scotland and London. That is important, including for environmental reasons, because at the moment the journey time is such that on some occasions or in some circumstances, flying seems preferable. That adds to the pressure on London airports. If we could make progress on rail, it would help us to meet our environmental targets. This debate follows a debate earlier this year led by my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy). Since then, two things have happened. First, we have a new Secretary of State and a new Minister of State. Secondly, and perhaps even more important, the new Secretary of State made a very important commitment in his speech at the Conservative party conference last month. This is what he said: “At the start of this year, the government committed to build a new line not just to Birmingham but on to Manchester and Leeds. Soon, I’ll publish detailed plans for the route north of Birmingham, but I want even more parts of our country to benefit. So we’re launching a study on the way to get fast journeys further north still, with the aim of getting the journey from Scotland to London to under three hours and making sure the north-east benefits too, because this will be a scheme for every person in Britain.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): To follow on from what the hon. Lady is saying, this scheme will benefit everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does she envisage this high-speed rail having contact with Larne, Cairnryan and Stranraer, thereby ensuring that the people of Northern Ireland can also benefit from the high-speed rail link, which ultimately will take them to London? Based on a very significant business plan— Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair): Order. We must keep interventions short. Sheila Gilmore: I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his intervention. I am sorry, but I was reading out a quote; it was the speaker of those words who stopped at Britain and did not talk about the United Kingdom. I think that any options that can be built in for some of these things would be very useful. Anyone who has ever travelled to Stranraer using the current arrangements will know just how difficult that is. It is a big disadvantage for both Northern Ireland and Scotland that we do not have a particularly good rail link down to the ferry ports. In the debate in April, we talked about getting the journey time down to three and a half hours—that is what the previous Minister said—but a commitment to
High Speed Rail (Scotland)
206WH
bring it down to three hours is a welcome further step in the right direction. That would hugely enhance connectivity. It would improve links, not just the Scotland-London link, but links to other parts of England and the major conurbations, which would make Scotland a much more attractive place to do business. It would boost jobs and growth throughout the country. Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab): In the event of separation, what incentive would there be for the rest-ofthe-UK Government to extend high-speed rail beyond Manchester to Carlisle and further north? Sheila Gilmore: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I shall go into that in a little more depth later. It does reveal the issue that we might be faced with. The importance of the scheme, particularly the northern part, to Scotland is probably greater, at this stage at least, than it might seem to be to what we are tending to refer to as the rest of the UK at that point. I certainly hope that the situation alluded to is not one in which we find ourselves. Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con): I congratulate the hon. Lady on obtaining the debate. Does she agree that it is very important to connect Scotland and England and that it would perhaps be advisable for the Government to consider starting with high-speed rail from Scotland to the north of England, and then finally down to London when the airport policy is decided, not least because that would send a signal to people in Scotland, who will be facing the referendum, that we want them in the United Kingdom? Sheila Gilmore: I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. It would certainly be an interesting prospect if we were to be placed at the forefront of this. I agree that the connection with the debate about air travel and airports is also important. We should have a very clear, unified transport policy, not only for transport reasons but for environmental reasons, yet at times it feels as though there is a disconnect there. When it comes to people’s travel from Scotland, I am sure that if we did achieve high-speed rail in the near, not the very distant, future, we would see a huge transfer of both business and leisure travel to rail. That would be highly beneficial. If there is to be a study, I have some questions for the Minister. Who is carrying out the study that we were told is to take place? Is it HS2 Ltd, the Department, or another external organisation? When are we likely to get a report with the information? That is important, especially in terms of timing, because it will determine whether the additional sections of line to Edinburgh and Glasgow could be incorporated in phase 2 of the project. Phase 2 is the part that involves the building of the Y network from Birmingham to Leeds and to Manchester. Broadening the scope of phase 2 would be critical in ensuring that the benefits of High Speed 2 are realised sooner rather than later. The alternative is that what I have described becomes phase 3, which would be very disappointing. The estimated completion date of phase 1 is 2026. For the existing phase 2, it is 2033-34. If building to Scotland were to be a completely separate phase, on that sort of time scale we would not see the network reach Scotland until well into the 2040s. From our perspective, and in terms of growing the Scottish economy, that would be extremely disappointing.
207WH
High Speed Rail (Scotland)
6 NOVEMBER 2012
[Sheila Gilmore] We know that the Secretary of State intends to publish plans for the route between Birmingham and Manchester and Leeds by the end of this year. A recent written answer revealed that the Minister wants to bring forward consultation on phase 2 from 2014 to 2013. I warmly welcome all that, but I argue that the plans to build to Scotland should be published and consulted on, so that, at the very least, that section of the route can be included in the hybrid Bill for phase 2. I acknowledge that planning is likely to be at a fairly early stage, but there some key issues about the route to Scotland on which I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some reply, or at least an undertaking that he and his Department will examine that. One issue is whether building to Scotland would involve two separate lines—one from Manchester to Glasgow on the west coast and one from Leeds to Edinburgh—or one line, probably from Manchester, that would split into a further Y in southern Scotland and link to both Edinburgh and Glasgow. That is already in place for certain rail journeys, and has been for a long time, as anyone who travels north or south on the sleeper will know. That mechanism enables Edinburgh and Glasgow to link to not only London on conventionalspeed rail, but many other parts of the country, and it is a big boon for many people who travel that way. Will the stations in the existing phase 2 be throughstations or terminuses, as planned for Birmingham? I would argue that through-stations are vastly preferable, because each service to and from Scotland could call at stations on the line, which increases connectivity and reduces the need for additional point-to-point services or people having to change to complete their journey. At this stage, it is important to acknowledge that regardless of when the high- speed network is extended to Edinburgh and Glasgow, passengers in Scotland will benefit as soon as the first phase of the project is complete. Sometimes, the impression is given that high-speed rail is irrelevant to us at that stage, but if the line from London to Birmingham is connected to existing lines, it will allow trains to continue beyond Birmingham at conventional speeds, which could cut journey times from Scotland to London by half an hour. I hope that Scotland will be part of phase 2, but even without that or a phase 3, journey times could be down to three and half hours. Such reductions in journey times are critical when we are looking at the best methods of travel. To return to the environmental issue, it is the kind of difference that will make people realise that rail is by far the better way to travel. It will also fit in with our business needs, because travel will still be from city centre to city centre. Will the Minister confirm that, from the completion of phase 1, through-running trains will go to both Glasgow and Edinburgh? HS2 will be linked to the west coast main line at Lichfield, and traditionally trains on that line serve only Glasgow, not Edinburgh. We are aware that there are capacity constraints on the west coast main line, but it would be frustrating if Edinburgh had to wait for the completion of phase 2 to benefit from through-running trains. We are not only talking about Edinburgh, but the entire east coast; people coming from further north would also be able to make use of such a connection.
High Speed Rail (Scotland)
208WH
I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes that I would say a little about the circumstances that would arise should the referendum result in independence. The HS2 project, probably more than any other, encapsulates why we are better together. The Union means that Ministers in Westminster have a responsibility to look out for the interests of people in Scotland alongside those of people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is demonstrated by the decision to facilitate through-running to Scotland from the completion of phase 1 and by the Secretary of State’s stated ambition to drive down journey times further in future. Should Scotland separate from the rest of the UK, it is possible that a benevolent Government in Westminster might retain those commitments, but that is not guaranteed. If Ministers decided that they would not fulfil those commitments, there would be no formal means of redress though, for example, voting against governing parties at the next general election. There would not even be forums such as Westminster Hall where Members representing Scotland could directly raise and debate the issues. On a purely practical level, I cannot envision the Government of a separate Scotland persuading Ministers in the UK to pay for the hundreds of miles of expensive, high-speed track necessary to link Leeds and Manchester to the Scottish border. I believe that that is the point my hon. Friend wanted to make. UK Ministers would probably expect a Scottish Government to pay for that in addition to what would be required in Scotland—a huge additional expense. Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She makes a powerful argument for the completion of the line to Edinburgh and Glasgow. On the latter point, does she take the view that an independent Scottish Government would not have the financial resources to ensure that the high-speed rail link continued to Edinburgh and Glasgow? Sheila Gilmore: I think that is an extremely likely scenario. We are often faced with proponents of separation suggesting that nothing will change—we can keep the Queen, the pound and all sorts of things—so they will no doubt tell people that they can keep high-speed rail, but that is most unlikely to happen. Even if the UK Government decided to build the sections between Manchester and the border, or the Scottish Government decided to pay for them, what would happen if there was a concerted campaign against the route and local people decided that they did not want the line to cross their communities? In such circumstances, why should a UK Government expend the political capital necessary to overcome the objections? We could again find ourselves unable to influence the debate. I do not expect the Minister to say too much about independence, but I would like answers to the questions on the study, the possible route and through-running to Edinburgh. When will the study report? Will any proposed route be incorporated into the hybrid Bill for phase 2? What is the likely route to Scotland? Will the stations in the current phase 2 be through-stations or not? Will there be through-running trains to both Glasgow and Edinburgh when services start after the completion of phase 1 in 2026?
209WH
High Speed Rail (Scotland)
6 NOVEMBER 2012
4.14 pm The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker): I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on securing the debate and on her sensible approach to it. To pick up on her last point, we have always believed that the aspiration that we should pursue is for a truly national rail network. Our policy is to maintain the United Kingdom as it is. We are confident of winning the referendum, and we are not planning for independence. I personally think that the Scottish people will conclude, for the reasons that the hon. Lady set out, that independence will be yet another gamble as far as high-speed rail is concerned. Behind all the headline statistics, HS2 is about believing in something better than we have. The coalition Government passionately believes that the public deserve more than just making do with what they have. In the same way that we are not prepared to put up with a fiscal deficit, neither should we put up with an infrastructure deficit. For too long, successive Governments have failed to grasp the nettle on the decisions necessary to achieve our long-term aspirations. Growing demand for inter-city rail travel is putting increasing pressure on existing infrastructure. Without planning for additional capacity, passengers face the prospect of more crowded and more unreliable services. To be clear, the primary, though not the only, justification for HS2 is a clear need for extra capacity north to south. Our plans for a high-speed rail network from London to the west midlands and on to Leeds and Manchester will be the backbone of a new transport system for the 21st century. A new national high-speed rail network will deliver massive benefits in terms of rail capacity, connectivity and reliability that will help to underpin prosperity across the UK and leave a lasting legacy for generations to come. HS2 will benefit every type of traveller on not only the new network, but existing lines. It will free up more space and capacity, which will drive competition on the railway, so changing how rail travel can be marketed and sold. The Government is serious about making the long-term decisions that the country needs to connect our communities better, support the economy and make Britain the best place in the world to do business. Mrs Gillan: My hon. Friend is reading out the public relations blurb on HS2 very expertly. Does he agree that, given that the north of England and parts of Scotland are far poorer than the rich and often overheated south-east, if one of the Government’s aims is to increase the country’s prosperity, it would have been common sense to have started the project in the north or even in Scotland, as I suggested to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore)? What consideration did the Department give that idea before embarking on phase 1? Norman Baker: I personally believe that we are starting at the sensible place, not least because it enables the connection with HS1 to be facilitated, which would not otherwise be the case. Of course if the Scottish Government wants to start building southwards from Edinburgh and Glasgow, there is nothing to stop it from so doing. On the question about what consideration the Department gave, I will have to ask the Minister of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), to write to my right hon. Friend with an answer.
High Speed Rail (Scotland)
210WH
The Department for Transport ministerial team is very much engaged in the question of HS2 as it affects and, indeed, benefits Scotland. I visited Glasgow to discuss the matter in March 2011. The former Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), went there in March this year, and the current Secretary of State intends to visit later this month. There is no question but that Scotland will benefit from the Y network and even from the existing plans that have been announced. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East referred to the reduction in journey times from Birmingham in phase 1 and the subsequent journey time reductions when the Y network to Leeds and Manchester is completed. We have already begun work with partners north of the border to ensure that Scotland gets the most from High Speed 2, and we should not underestimate—I know that the hon. Lady does not do that—the extent of the benefits from the Y network when it is completed. The network is expected to deliver up to £50 billion of business benefits alone, and that will be felt very much in Scotland and the north of England as well as the south. Completion of the Y network to Leeds and Manchester will spread the benefits of high-speed rail across the country, so increasing capacity and enhancing connectivity all the way to Scotland by relieving pressure on the most congested southern end of the line. Seamless transition of trains on to the east coast and west coast main lines will deliver faster journeys to destinations the length of Britain, including to Edinburgh and Glasgow, without the need to change trains. Cutting journey times is important for the competitiveness of not just Scotland but the whole UK. We want to see the benefits delivered as soon as possible, which is why we are exploring options for bringing forward formal public consultation on phase 2 of the Y network to 2013. The claim by some opponents of HS2 that better and faster transport links between north and south will pull economic activity into London and away from the UK’s other great cities is defeatist and misguided. Isolation is not the way to ensure that Scotland thrives. Indeed, the campaign for HS2, which has been particularly strong in Scotland and the north, suggests that people in those areas share that view. I have every confidence that bringing Edinburgh and Glasgow closer to London and the cities of the midlands and the north of England will boost growth across our major conurbations. That confidence is based on the evidence from our European neighbours, which began their high-speed rail journey a generation before we had even started arguing about our first 67 mile stretch of high-speed track from the channel tunnel. Faster journeys will produce more extensive modal shift between rail and air, as the train becomes the mode of choice for more travellers. High-speed rail is already greener than flying, and the gap between the two modes will widen as we make progress in decarbonising the sources of our electricity. A crucial point to underline is that we are pursuing HS2 not just because of the positive benefits that it will generate but because of the pressing need to head off big problems that are heading down the track towards us, which will affect Scotland as well as the rest of Britain. We welcome the enthusiasm and support for high-speed rail north of the border.
211WH
High Speed Rail (Scotland)
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Graeme Morrice: I welcome many of the Minister’s comments. Forgive me for raising independence again— obviously it is something that those north of the border will be focused on for the next two years in the run-up to the referendum—but does he share our view that, in the event of Scotland becoming independent, HS2 would be in serious jeopardy in relation to the rail links continuing to Edinburgh and Glasgow? Norman Baker: I do not think that the population north of the border will vote for independence, so I hope that that is a hypothetical question. I would say not that HS2 is in serious danger, but that it unnecessarily raises a question mark over something that is not there. That in turn brings an air of uncertainty over HS2, which is also not presently there. We are working closely with the Scottish Government throughout this year to understand how HS2 might be extended further north. The coalition agreement makes it clear that we want a genuinely national network. We see phases 1 and 2 of the High Speed 2 project as the best way to make progress towards that goal. None the less, there is a real case for examining whether we should go beyond the Y network, as the Secretary of State said at the Conservative party conference last month. The Department is launching a study on ways to get fast journeys further north and to Scotland and to ensure that the north-east benefits, too. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East asked me a couple of questions about the study and when it would report. The study will involve departmental HS2 officials, who will start a process of work with the Scottish Government and northern English regions better to understand and articulate transport needs north of the Y network. The study will set out a remit for any future work, using as a starting point completion of the Y network. There is likely to be a focus on improvements in capacity and journey time. Once the study is complete early in the new year, we will take stock of the results to ensure that we have a full understanding of the transport needs north of the Y network. We will then have the right base from which we can consider scoping out broad options for bringing high-speed rail further north and to Scotland. The study will not start with any preconceptions but will be open to all options that offer good value for money to the taxpayer. That may include a full high-speed solution, upgrades to existing infrastructure, or a combination of the two. The hon. Lady also asked about journeys to Edinburgh, which she of course is interested in given where her constituency is sited. Let me make it clear that as soon as phase 1 is complete, there will be a link on to the west coast main line from the new high-speed line, which will enable services to be run from Glasgow and Edinburgh on the high-speed network using a bifurcation at Carstairs. That is perfectly possible in operational terms as soon as the link to Birmingham is completed in phase 1. Our plans for HS2 do not mean that we will stop investing in and improving our current transport network. Generally, our investment programme is the biggest since the 19th century. We fully appreciate the need to
High Speed Rail (Scotland)
212WH
enhance our network and improve links between England and Scotland. The inter-city express programme will deliver a brand-new fleet of trains for the east coast main line that will start operating in 2018 and offer faster, greener, higher capacity and better quality services well ahead of the Y network being completed. The trains will boost fast-line capacity from Scotland into King’s Cross during peak hours and cut journey times between London and Edinburgh by 12 minutes, with even larger gains for journeys to Dundee, Aberdeen, Perth and Inverness. A major factor in our decision to press ahead with the IEP was its capacity to enable the continuation of through journeys to and from northerly destinations. On top of that, we have announced a £240 million upgrade of the east coast main line, which will greatly improve journeys between Scotland and England. On the west coast route, the long-awaited new Pendolino carriages have started serving the Birmingham to Scotland corridor. The route will also benefit from an upgrade to its power systems that will enable more passenger and freight electric trains to operate. The Manchester to Scotland route is also due to get new trains, with delivery starting in December 2013 and completion by May 2014. On the east coast, a new timetable introduced last May increased the number of through services between Scotland and London—it includes the Flying Scotsman—linking Edinburgh and King’s Cross with a fast service that can bring Scotland’s key business leaders into the heart of London in four hours, arriving before 10 o’clock each day. We are also investing in stations north of the border. As part of the Department’s sponsored access for all programme, which falls within my portfolio, £41 million has been allocated to making at least 17 stations across the Scottish network accessible to disabled passengers. We are also investing more than £6 million up to 2014 across a wide range of Scottish stations to make smaller access improvements. In conclusion, fast, reliable connectivity between Scotland, London and the cities of the midlands and the north is a crucial component of a successful economy, and we are investing to bring that about. High-speed rail not only supports thousands of jobs in Scotland and throughout the UK but gives us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape the economic geography of the whole country, by bringing our key cities closer together and helping to bridge an economic divide that has defied solution for decades. This is a national scheme in the national interest being delivered by a national Government. I warmly welcome the political consensus on HS2 across the three main parties on the basis that it will help to ensure that the planning and construction of this transformational scheme is carried through to completion. Realising the full benefits of high-speed rail for Scotland is crucial to the economic well-being of the whole country, and we will work with our partners in Scotland to achieve that. If there are any outstanding matters that I have not been able to address, I will ensure that my colleague, the Minister of State for Transport, will write to the hon. Lady with the answers.
213WH
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Onshore Wind Turbines (Lincolnshire) 4.29 pm Stephen Phillips (Sleaford .and North Hykeham) (Con): Thank you very much, Mr Chope, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure and a privilege to serve, for I think the first time, under your chairmanship. It is also a huge pleasure and privilege to be joined today by so many colleagues from throughout Lincolnshire. In opening, I venture to suggest that this is perhaps a timely debate. I want to make it clear to the House that I applied for it well before the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), made comments on this subject last week with which so many of us agreed. Perhaps the strength of this coalition— not its weakness—has been its ability to allow those of us with different views to come together at a time when the country required strong Government to deal with the appalling legacy that we were bequeathed by our predecessors. That appalling legacy may not be the subject of today’s debate, but it is of course a fact. The full truth about climate change, which is inescapably taking place, and the role played by mankind in our changing weather patterns, which is less clear, has yet to emerge. What is clear is that the risks are sufficient that, for the sake of future generations, we ought not to ignore them. How we tackle our over-dependence on fossil fuels is another question, however. Whether one is a believer or a sceptic when it comes to man’s responsibility for climate change, we all ought to be able to agree that moving towards renewable sources of energy is beneficial, not only in reducing emissions but in ensuring our future energy security, particularly when we have passed peak oil and when fossil fuel supplies will inevitably become scarcer in the future. I do not doubt that by diversifying the nation’s energy mix we will move towards a cleaner and more sustainable energy portfolio in the future, with greater security of supply. If correctly placed—I repeat, if correctly placed—onshore wind can perhaps play a part in that process. However, as hon. Members from all parties will know, many parts of rural Lincolnshire are affected by hugely unpopular decisions and proposals for onshore wind turbines—an issue that all of us here today have been contacted about by constituents on numerous occasions. Lincolnshire MPs are very lucky to live in and represent an area with beautiful countryside, but it also seems, regrettably, to be an area ripe for the construction of turbines, perhaps because of our large open spaces. Currently, 10 wind projects are in operation in Lincolnshire, comprising 93 turbines in total, with a further three turbines being constructed. Thirteen projects are in the planning stage, with proposals for another 94 turbines. Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): All Lincolnshire MPs are very supportive of my hon. and learned Friend in his endeavours. Does he think it a cruel paradox and irony that while thousands of Lincolnshire folk are being forced into fuel poverty because they have to pay extra on their fuel bills—and we are not a high-wage area—a few very rich farmers are being awarded sums of up to £250,000 by the
Onshore Wind Turbines (Lincolnshire)
214WH
taxpayer for doing nothing other than irritating their neighbours, and are also making no contribution to the economy? Stephen Phillips: I have considerable sympathy with the point my hon. Friend makes; indeed, I will come on to the subsidies provided by the Government to those who go forward with these proposals. However, I think we can all agree that it is certainly right that those subsidies have to be kept under constant review. Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con): I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend, and neighbour, on securing this debate. Does he agree that the point he was making, which has just gone out of my mind, regarding our area of Lincolnshire—I have completely forgotten what I was going to say. Mr Leigh: My hon. Friend should just say he is against wind farms. Karl McCartney: Well, many of us in Lincolnshire are against wind farms, and obviously the urban area that I represent—Lincoln—will be affected by any turbines that are put up in the rural areas around Lincoln. Stephen Phillips: My hon. Friend’s opposition to wind farms that are not supported by local communities is extremely well known, not only in Lincolnshire but in this House. I also oppose such wind farms, and I know that many Conservative colleagues who represent other constituencies in Lincolnshire also oppose them. The nature of our county inevitably means that turbines have a larger impact on residents in Lincolnshire than they perhaps do in other areas. Quite apart from anything else, these huge structures—some of them greatly overtop the height of Lincoln cathedral, which, I might add, is the most beautiful cathedral in England—can be seen for great distances on all sides around the county. Constituents who live near and far from proposed sites are thus properly concerned that even a small number of turbines have an overwhelming, disproportionate and oppressive visual impact, and they are often understandably worried about the effect of turbines on the value of their properties. That is to leave aside the health concerns about wind farms, which are too often brushed under the carpet. Many people within and outside Lincolnshire are concerned about the possibility of sleep disturbance at night, due to the noise of the blades, and the effects of shadow flicker and strobing during the day. The “whoosh whoosh” noise causes some people even to move home—when, of course, they can find buyers. Many colleagues in the House representing rural communities will have encountered similar concerns, and there is a lingering doubt in my mind, as there surely is in the minds of others: that onshore wind is yet another example of an urban majority ignoring the concerns of those of us who have chosen to make our lives in rural Britain. However, like all Members in this House, I have no direct responsibility for planning, and while I am perfectly prepared to support onshore wind where it has the backing of the communities it will most affect, too often I feel unable to protect and represent properly constituents who feel differently. As an MP, and like so
215WH
Onshore Wind Turbines (Lincolnshire)
6 NOVEMBER 2012
[Stephen Phillips] many of my constituents, I therefore remain concerned about the planning process for applications for onshore wind developments, and it is on that issue that I primarily wish to focus my remarks today. As I have already said, although we in this House have no direct influence on the planning process, which is of course perfectly proper, we have a responsibility for the framework within which decisions are taken. It seems to me that that framework is either broken or, at the very least, lacking in transparency. Too often, local concerns are overridden, even when local people are supported by their councils and councillors. Unpopular planning decisions are taken by inspectors with no knowledge of those local concerns, and over the heads of the councillors that local people elected to represent them and, indeed, to take planning decisions. Like all of us, I always do my best to ensure that constituents’ views are taken into account, but often that is simply not enough. The steady flow of correspondence about these applications is matched only by complaints about feeling powerless to affect decisions that too often simply ignore what local people want. The crux of the problem, which the Minister needs to engage with, is that I and seemingly most of my constituents are simply unsure where the balance lies between this Government’s laudable commitment to local power over planning, and the commitment to renewable energy targets to which we are bound. Although I join my colleagues from all parties in praising the Government’s efforts to bring the planning process down to a local level to give people more of a voice in development that affects them, it remains entirely unclear to me how this admirable aim fits with the goal of increasing the proportion of electricity we generate by renewable means. Consequently, I would like to hear from the Minister a commitment on behalf of his Department to publish full and accurate guidance on how those competing aims will be reconciled within a much simplified and localised planning system. That guidance cannot come too soon. It is not just those who oppose development who are confused; even developers are unsure how the balance works in this area. RenewableUK, a representative body for many developers, says there is “a lack of guidance on how national policies should be applied at the local and neighbourhood level.”
It is in everyone’s interest that such guidance be forthcoming—and soon. However that may be, the problem remains that many of our constituents who object to wind turbine proposals will continue to feel out-gunned and out-argued by the developers, who have their teams of expensive consultants. I venture to suggest that, so far, the balance has swung in favour of what most of us consider an uneconomic technology—at least, uneconomic without the huge subsidies that are paid—and there is a general suspicion that if energy companies and developers push hard enough and spend enough on appeals, they will always be able to override the objections of local residents. Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con): My hon. and learned friend is making a powerful argument. East Lindsey district council is considering an application
Onshore Wind Turbines (Lincolnshire)
216WH
for an extension to a wind farm at Newton Marsh, near Tetney, which is just over the border from my constituency. Residents in Humberston and members of the Cleethorpes tourist trade oppose that application. Does he agree that we have a great opportunity in north-east Lincolnshire to attract business to investing in offshore wind, and that all subsidies should be directed to offshore rather than onshore wind? Stephen Phillips: I agree with my hon. Friend. Far fewer people are opposed to offshore wind, although we need to grapple with the problem of transmission. Offshore wind does not cause the problems for our constituents that onshore wind does. If we are to go down the route of having more wind technology, we need to have most of it offshore. I appreciate that none of us in this House can do anything about the relative wealth of energy companies compared with that of local residents’ groups. The short and simple point for the Minister is that my constituents too often feel that they are not being listened to, and I share their view. I make it clear that that is not nimbyism, nor should that be suggested. In this debate and previously in the House, I have made clear, as have most of those with whom I correspond on the issue, the importance of diversifying our energy mix both to reduce our impact on the environment and to bolster our energy security. If we are to do that successfully, it is vital to take people with us and not to ride roughshod over the feelings and concerns of those who live near proposed turbine sites. We run the risk, if the issue is not dealt with, or not dealt with well, of being seen to revert to the kind of centralised planning decisions that the Localism Act 2011, which we all supported, was designed to consign to history. For that reason, if no other, the Minister needs to know that we all want greater clarity than presently exists on how such tensions are to be addressed. Since the problem cannot be ignored, our generation and this Government must ask whether the focus on onshore wind is the right way forward. Even in a county such as Lincolnshire, the very nature of wind makes it an unpredictable source of power. Technologies to cope with the problems of intermittent supply are under development and are being improved. However, there is no question but that existing turbines have to be supported by other power sources to ensure constancy of supply. Notwithstanding the views of many Liberal Democrat colleagues, to whom I am perfectly prepared to listen, it remains of grave concern to many that there is no short-term solution other than the nuclear one, and that we are failing to devote either resources or political support to making what I regard as an unanswerable case. The Government must—there are no two ways about it—address properly the subsidies that, in reality, are the only thing making onshore wind sustainable or, for that matter, attractive. Certainly, those subsidies are leading to all the applications for turbines across Lincolnshire. The cut in the relevant subsidy earlier this year was welcome, but I know that many remain concerned that it is too large and the cost too great. From April 2002 to February 2012, the total renewables obligation subsidy amounted to more than £8.2 billion, of which onshore wind received about £2.4 billion.
217WH
Onshore Wind Turbines (Lincolnshire)
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Yet providing those incentives—paid for through the higher energy bills that are of such concern to many wage earners in Lincolnshire, who do not have the sort of wages that others have—has encouraged developments that are not properly sited and which would plainly be unviable on purely commercial terms. Distorting markets, however laudable the aims, has never been a route to sustainable policy development or policy application. The Minister and his colleagues plainly need to grapple with that, and I urge him to do so. No one would suggest that wind is the whole solution to our energy needs, but as I hope I have made clear, however much we are concerned, many of us are prepared to see it as part of a sustainable energy mix, provided that we can take with us those most affected by its generation. Future projects need to be in the right location and supported by local residents. If that does not happen, we will have got the approach completely wrong. Let me clearly tell the Minister what the planning system must ensure. First, it needs to encourage projects in the right locations, which are likely to be where there is minimal impact on people’s lives or on the natural environment. In that regard, surely minimum separation distances are appropriate, and perhaps the Minister can say whether that is the case. Secondly, the planning system needs to ensure sustainability, which it cannot do while huge and uneconomic subsidies remain. Thirdly, it needs to engage with and respect the views of the constituents we are here to represent. Although they all need continuity of power supply, that should not be at the expense of their health and peace of mind. The Minister may or may not be prepared to accept all of that from me today. Even if he is not, I tell him that the debate is moving in one direction only: the one in which the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, has begun to steer it—a task in which I am, as ever, only too happy to assist. 4.43 pm The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Don Foster): I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I am particularly delighted that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has secured this debate and that my other hon. Friends have come to show their support for the concerns that he has raised on behalf of, collectively, their constituents in Lincolnshire. He has raised several important issues, including subsidies and the clarity of the current planning system, and he has offered some thoughts about the improvements we need to make. He has also discussed how his constituents and those of my other hon. Friends might benefit more from any wind farms that achieve planning permission and go ahead. I will address all those points, but first I want to thank my hon. and learned Friend for setting the context of the debate. Not only now but, as I know from having studied the record, in previous discussions, he had made absolutely clear the importance of having a more effective mix of energy sources in this country, of increasing our reliance on renewables and of developing renewable supplies such as onshore wind. It is not necessary for me to detail all the arguments, because he has done that
Onshore Wind Turbines (Lincolnshire)
218WH
very eloquently. He recognises that to have energy security in this country—to ensure that we can keep the lights on—we must have such developments. My hon. and learned Friend has raised planning issues, particularly in relation to Lincolnshire. As hon. Members will be aware, the geography of Lincolnshire is such that there is a particular interest in wind farms. People in his and neighbouring constituencies therefore have many concerns about the impact of wind farms on the area in relation to the tourist trade and house prices. Some people even question the effectiveness of wind turbines. My hon. and learned Friend’s comments about subsidies are crucial. He recognises that action has already been taken to reduce subsidies, and I give him an absolute assurance that as the cost of technologies gradually falls and we become more efficient at developing them, as we expect, the level of subsidy will be kept permanently under review and that I expect to see further reductions over time. Mr Leigh: Is there not another reason to reduce subsidies? I understand that, with the applications that are in the pipeline, we are en route to fulfilling our commitments. If it is the case that we have already met our obligations, surely it would be ridiculous to load extra money on to people’s fuel bills? Now is the time to plan ahead for reducing subsidies, is it not? Mr Foster: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have to tell him that I am not the Minister with expertise in that area, but I will draw his point to the attention of the Energy and Climate Change Ministers, who will perhaps write to him about it. We acknowledge, as I hope my hon. Friend does, that onshore wind is one of the more cost-effective and established renewable technologies. As we move to new and cleaner energy sources, it is important that electricity consumers do not, as he said, have to pay more than is necessary to decarbonise UK electricity supplies, which is why we are reducing the subsidy. We have to ensure energy security so that consumers are not subject to the vagaries of spot market prices or international tensions. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham raised the issue of the present planning system, so it might be helpful if I set out not only where we are, but where we will be able to go. The energy national policy statements, which were approved by the House on 18 July 2011, set out the national policy against which proposals for major energy projects will be assessed by the national infrastructure directorate in the Planning Inspectorate—PINS—including those for onshore wind farms of more than 50MW in England and Wales. The crucial point is that PINS must also have regard to any local impact report submitted by the relevant local authority. During the examination period, interested parties, including members of the public, will have an opportunity to comment on the application. Following an application, PINS will report its recommendation to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, who will take the final decision. The energy national policy statements are also likely to be a material consideration in decision making on relevant smaller renewable energy applications that fall under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
219WH
Onshore Wind Turbines (Lincolnshire)
6 NOVEMBER 2012
[Mr Foster] None of that, however, gives anyone an excuse for building wind farms in the wrong places, where there are unacceptable impacts on communities. I cannot say it more clearly than that. That is why our national planning policy framework makes it clear that local authorities should design their policies to ensure that adverse impacts from wind farm developments, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts—another point that my hon. and learned Friend made—are addressed satisfactorily, and it is why the framework states that applications for renewable energy developments, such as wind turbines, should be approved only if the impacts are, or can be made, acceptable. We are committed to safeguarding the natural and local environment, and we have made that clear in the national planning policy framework, which protects valued landscapes. To ensure that the views of local people count, our planning reforms reinforce the importance of local plans. The Government’s aim is for every area to have a clear local plan, consistent with the national planning policy framework, which sets out local people’s views on how they wish their community to develop, against which planning applications and planning appeals will be judged. Because we are clear in national planning policy that the cumulative impacts of renewable energy development should be considered, planning decisions on wind turbines are not taken in isolation from the local context. Decisions on planning applications for wind farms should take into account the combined impacts of developments and be underpinned by the environmental safeguards set out in the national planning policy framework. My hon. and learned Friend will be well aware that the development of local plans is therefore critical, and the most useful thing we can do is ensure that right across Lincolnshire local plans are put in place, because when they are, the level of protection that he and his colleagues seek is provided. Our approach as set out in the national planning policy framework, which allows local councils to identify suitable areas for renewable energy within those plans, is the one that we think preferable. Regarding site-by-site decisions, the current approach of considering each proposal on its individual merits within the context of the local council’s development plan is already well established. It enables a flexible and tailored approach to be taken to each proposal. Decisions are made on a site-by-site basis, which means that the impacts of each proposal can be considered in the individual context. That enables impacts such as noise and shadow flicker to have tailor-made assessments using recognised methodologies, rather than being judged against some arbitrary separation distance, for which some people in Lincolnshire have been arguing. We think that a site-by-site approach is preferable because it enables the impact on the surrounding landscape to be considered and topography to be taken into account. It also means that it is possible to take into account such things as ambient noise levels and any future technological advances that further reduce the impact of turbines. My hon. and learned Friend referred to planning inspectors’ decisions. If applications are refused locally and taken to appeal, they will be judged by an independent planning inspector. Although it is inappropriate for me
Onshore Wind Turbines (Lincolnshire)
220WH
to comment specifically on any individual development proposal, I appreciate the strength of feeling that wind farm developments can give rise to, and how local residents must feel when a planning inspector’s appeal decision gives the go-ahead to a proposal they have opposed. As I have said, onshore wind, along with other renewable sources, plays a role in contributing to our energy security and our low-carbon goals, but the Government are clear that meeting our energy goals is no excuse for building wind turbines in the wrong places. I remind my hon. and learned Friend that planning inspectors determine planning appeals in accordance with the development plan for the area, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In reaching a decision, the inspector will take into account all the relevant material and planning considerations, including local community views and the national planning policy framework. That is why I stress to him and his colleagues that getting local plans in place for the whole of Lincolnshire is crucial, in conjunction, obviously, with local communities. I want to pick up two other points that my hon. and learned Friend made, first on localism in relation to our renewable energy targets. It is important to remember that through the Localism Act 2011, the Government are placing decision making back in the hands of local communities and their councils. It is the Government’s policy, as set out in the coalition agreement, to revoke the existing regional spatial strategies outside London, and we are making good progress in that respect. Stephen Phillips: This Government have rightly abolished those disastrous spatial strategies, which were set up by the previous Government. My right hon. Friend represents the constituency of Bath, but does he agree that utter contempt is being demonstrated here for the people of Lincolnshire? Not a single Labour Member is present, nor has the party put up an Opposition spokesman to deal with the concerns of the people of Lincolnshire. Does the Minister agree that that demonstrates that Labour, along with its ridiculous spatial strategies, does not give a brass farthing about the people of Lincolnshire? Mr Foster: Not only is my hon. and learned Friend here and eloquently representing the concerns of his Lincolnshire constituents, but he is flanked by my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who are doing exactly the same thing, which demonstrates that on this issue, and no doubt on many others, his party is standing up for constituents, and all power to their elbow—with the exception of places where members of my party are standing against them, when I might look for a somewhat different outcome. I want to pick up one other crucial point that my hon. and learned Friend raised, and that is community benefit. We are as a Government keen to explore how our approach to onshore wind can be more localist. There are many examples, such as Baywind in Cumbria and Westmill farm in Oxfordshire, where local people receive financial returns from wind farms, but in many cases local communities have not so far enjoyed the benefits of the developments. That is why the Government are pursuing proposals for local authorities to be able to benefit by, for example, retaining all the business rates paid by new renewable energy projects such as wind
221WH
Onshore Wind Turbines (Lincolnshire)
6 NOVEMBER 2012
farms. I think that that would bring some comfort to my hon. and learned Friend. Such measures are being taken forward in the Local Government Finance Bill, which is currently before Parliament, and which, subject to Royal Assent, will come into effect in April next year. My hon. and learned Friend should also be aware that the Department of Energy and Climate Change has recently launched a call for evidence on onshore wind, which will seek, among other things, evidence on how communities can have even more say over hosting onshore wind farms and how wind farms could deliver greater economic benefits to communities. It will consider, for example, how wind farm developers consult with local communities about their plans, how the local economy can gain, and whether there are innovative ways of benefiting local energy consumers, for example, by offsetting electricity bills. Those are all measures on which we are keen to hear the views of the public, and in particular the views of people in Lincolnshire and of
Onshore Wind Turbines (Lincolnshire)
222WH
my hon. and learned Friend as the representative of his constituents. I urge him to submit his ideas as quickly as possible, because the deadline is 15 November—some nine days away. I hope that he will get his thinking cap on, and get into discussions with his colleagues and the community he represents. There is an appetite for onshore wind in this country. Two thirds of the public believe that it is a way forward, as part of our energy mix. The Government believe that if we are going to have wind farms they have to be sited correctly, and my hon. and learned Friend is right to raise concerns about cases in which he believes that is not happening. We hope that with increased consultation with the community and increased powers for local people, such cases will not arise in the future. Question put and agreed to. 4.59 pm Sitting adjourned.
35WS
Written Ministerial Statements
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Written Ministerial Statements Tuesday 6 November 2012
EDUCATION National Pupil Database The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): I am today launching a public consultation on proposals to amend the Education (Individual Pupil Information) (Prescribed Persons) (England) Regulations 2009 to enable the Department for Education to share extracts of data held in the National Pupil Database for a wider range of purposes than currently possible in order to maximise the value of this rich dataset. The National Pupil Database holds one of the richest educational datasets in the world and forms a significant part of the education evidence base. It is a longitudinal database which holds information on children in schools in England. This includes pupil level data relating to school attended, teacher assessments, test and exam results by subject, prior attainment, progression and pupil characteristics. We have already significantly expanded the content of school performance tables for primary and secondary schools and were commended in the National Audit Office report “Implementing Transparency” (April 2012) for opening up access to our data. Recently, we have also improved the application arrangements for requesting access to data from the National Pupil Database under our existing regulations for those who need pupil level data for research purposes. However, we are aware that the existing Prescribed Persons Regulations may prevent some potentially beneficial uses of the data by third-party organisations, as use is currently restricted to “research into educational achievement”. For example, we have had to reject requests to use the data for analysis on sexual exploitation, the impact on the environment of school transport, and demographic modelling, all of which seem to be legitimate and fruitful areas for further research. We want to give organisations greater freedom to use extracts of the data for wider purposes, while still ensuring its confidentiality and security. Existing arrangements for access to the data would apply to all future requests: all requests to access extracts of data would go through a robust approval process and successful organisations would be subject to strict terms and conditions covering their handling and use of the data, including having appropriate security arrangements in place. Organisations granted access would need to comply with the Data Protection Act, and any reports, statistical tables, or other products published or released, would need to fully protect the identity of individuals. Amending these regulations should encourage more organisations to use the data for wider research, such as socio-economic analysis, or research into equality issues,
Written Ministerial Statements
36WS
including disability, gender or race. It could also help stimulate the market for innovative tools and services which present anonymised versions of the data. If, having listened to the views expressed in the public consultation and subject to the will of the House, I decide to proceed with the proposed amendments, I expect the revised regulations to come into force in spring 2013. The public consultation on this proposal will commence today and run for six weeks. A consultation document containing full details of this proposal and how interested parties can respond to the consultation will be published on the Department for Education website. Copies of that document will also be placed in the House Libraries.
HEALTH
NHS Consultation The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb): I have launched a public consultation on proposals to strengthen the NHS constitution. These changes include: strengthening patient involvement and shared decision making; making clear the importance of patient and staff feedback; setting out a new duty of candour; emphasising the importance of integrated care; clarifying patients’ rights for making complaints; making clear how patient data is protected and used; emphasising the importance of valued, empowered and supported staff to the delivery of high quality patient care; and strengthening commitments to dignity, respect and compassion.
In addition, the Department of Health proposes some minor technical changes to the NHS constitution that are necessary to ensure it reflects legislative changes introduced since its launch in January 2009. This includes making clear that the constitution extends to local authorities in the exercise of their public health functions as set out in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The changes proposed in the consultation respond to the recent recommendations of the NHS Future Forum working group on the NHS constitution, which was tasked in March 2012 with advising the Secretary of State for Health on whether there was scope for strengthening and reinforcing the constitution. The Government accepts the forum’s recommendations in full. Following the forum’s conclusion that awareness of the NHS constitution remains too low and should be increased, the consultation document sets out the Department’s commitment to work collaboratively with the NHS Commissioning Board, clinical commissioning groups, and Health Education England to promote and raise awareness of the constitution. The consultation seeks views on how the NHS constitution can be given greater traction, so that patients, staff and the public know what to do if their expectations are not met. The Department will establish an expert group, which I will chair, to develop proposals to do this. We will consult on these separately in the spring following the report of the public inquiry into the events at Mid Staffordshire NHS foundation trust.
37WS
Written Ministerial Statements
6 NOVEMBER 2012
The consultation will run until 28 January 2013. The Government intend to publish the revised NHS constitution, together with updated supporting documents—the Handbook to the Constitution and Statement of NHS Accountability—by 1 April 2013. “A consultation on strengthening the NHS constitution” has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
PRIME MINISTER Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report (Government Response) The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron): The annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee was laid before Parliament on 12 July 2012 (Cm. 8403). The Government have considered the Committee’s many useful conclusions and recommendations. I have today laid the Government’s response before the House (Cm. 8455). Copies of the response have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
TRANSPORT Green Bus Fund The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker): I am pleased to announce today that the Department is making a further £20 million available to help bus operators and local authorities in England buy low-carbon emission buses through a fourth round of the green bus fund. Operators and authorities will be able to bid for a share of this funding to meet the additional up-front cost of purchasing these buses, and we calculate that this will allow for around 300 new low-carbon buses to be bought. This investment will aid the Department’s overarching objectives of helping to create growth and cut carbon, as well as help to support UK manufacturers. A guidance document will be published later this month giving more details of how bus operators and local authorities can bid for a share of this fund. Copies of this will be placed at the same time in the Libraries of both Houses.
Written Ministerial Statements
38WS
A toolkit has also been published today advising bus operators and local authorities on how quickly they can expect a return from investing in low-carbon emission buses. WORK AND PENSIONS Workplace Pension Reform The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb): Later today I will be publishing a call for evidence: “Supporting automatic enrolment: A call for evidence on the impact of the annual contribution limit and the restrictions on transfers on the National Employment Savings Trust”. The National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) was established to underpin automatic enrolment and has a key role to play in making the workplace pension reforms a success. We estimate that between two and four million people will be enrolled into NEST by the end of implementation. This call for evidence explores the questions raised by the Work and Pensions Select Committee about the impact that two of the constraints on NEST—the annual contribution limit and the restrictions on transfers—are having on employer choice and whether they work as the policy intended. It is critical to the success of automatic enrolment that employer choice leads to individuals getting a good deal when saving for their retirement, provision that is suitable for their savings needs, with charges that offer good value for money. We do not want the achievement of automatic enrolment to be undermined by employers— particularly smaller employers—perceiving the annual contribution limit and the transfer restrictions on NEST as complex and costly to administer, potentially leading to adverse outcomes for individuals. However, evidence currently available to the Department for Work and Pensions is not conclusive that these two constraints are acting as an unintended barrier to employers choosing to use NEST. This call for evidence seeks views and evidence on whether the annual contribution limit and the transfer restrictions imposed on NEST continue to work as intended or whether the Government should consider alternative approaches, especially as smaller employers start to engage with the reforms. The document will be available later today on the Department’s website at: www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations/2012/.
I will also place a copy in the Libraries of both Houses.
1P
Petitions
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Petition Tuesday 6 November 2012 OBSERVATIONS
JUSTICE Proposed closure of Wellingborough Prison The Humble Petition of residents of Wellingborough, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas, Sheweth, that the proposed closure of Wellingborough Prison would result in the loss of up to 600 jobs, reduce capacity in the already overcrowded prison estate and would cost the tax payer millions of pounds as it is the third cheapest prison to run in the whole prison estate, and is mindful of the Borough Council of Wellingborough’s unanimous decision to keep the prison open. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Justice to postpone the closure of Wellingborough Prison until a full review of the prison estate takes place, and a proper cost benefit analysis is undertaken for each prison and an oral statement is made in the House of Commons which, if any, prison should close. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.—[Presented by Mr Peter Bone, Official Report, 4 September 2012; Vol. 549, c. 210.] [P001114]
Observations from the Secretary of State for Justice: Closure decisions are based on a rigorous economic and operational evaluation process. This process was correctly followed in reaching the decision to close
Petitions
2P
HMP Wellingborough, which is a sensible piece of estates planning and will result in a genuine saving to the taxpayer. The last prisoners left HMP Wellingborough on Friday 26 October and its operational closure is imminent. There were 268 staff employed by the National Offender Management Service at HMP Wellingborough when its closure was announced. The closure of the establishment is being managed without the need for compulsory redundancies. Staff are being redeployed to other prisons or if necessary given the opportunity to leave the Service on voluntary terms. Although some prisons are crowded in that they hold more people than they were originally designed for, all prisons provide safe, decent, and legal accommodation and there are sufficient prison places to accommodate all those committed to custody by the courts. The prison population on Friday 26 October was 86,321 against a useable operational capacity of 91,054, indicating that there were over 4,700 unused prison places. In the current financial climate it is not sustainable for the custodial estate to operate with this degree of headroom. HMP Wellingborough has an annual budget of £11.6 million for 588 places, which is relatively inexpensive compared to many other establishments of the same type. But operating costs are only one of the factors taken into account in the economic evaluation part of the prison closure decision making process. In HMP Wellingborough’s case, the size and proximity of necessary capital spending on the physical infrastructure of the site meant that there was a compelling case for its closure. Following operational closure, the site of HMP Wellingborough will be maintained by the Ministry of Justice estates directorate while its future is determined. Plans for the future use or disposal of the site are under consideration and no decisions have been taken.
511W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Written Answers to
512W
Motorcycles: Training Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the locations were of motorcycle approved training bodies in each main postcode district [126036] in April (a) 2008 and (b) 2012.
Questions Tuesday 6 November 2012
TRANSPORT Heathrow Airport Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on the removal of westerly [126666] preference operations at Heathrow airport. Mr McLoughlin: I refer my hon. Friend to the then Aviation Minister’s, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), written statement of 7 September 2010, Official Report, columns 13-14WS. King’s Cross-Hartlepool Railway Line Mr Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information his Department holds on the punctuality rate for the Grand Central Train service (a) from Hartlepool to King’s Cross and (b) from King’s Cross to Hartlepool in (i) November 2011 to October 2012 and (ii) November 2010 to October 2011. [126759]
Norman Baker: The Department for Transport does not hold specific punctuality information requested for the Grand Central route between King’s Cross and Hartlepool. The punctuality figures for Grand Central as a whole (showing the percentage of trains arriving less than 10 minutes late) for the years requested are shown in the following table: Percentage 17 October 2010 to 15 October 2011 16 October 2011 to 13 October 2012 Note: Latest available data. Annual data based on rail periods.
Written Answers
83.0 85.10
London Midland: Franchises Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the defined performance criteria against which his Department will judge whether to end the London Midland franchise at the [126643] initial expiry date. Norman Baker [holding answer 5 November 2012]: The contractual criteria relating London Midland’s franchise continuation review are detailed in schedule 18 of the National Rail Franchise Terms, a copy of which is already available on the Department’s website at: http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/rail-passenger-franchiseagreement-london-midland/lm-franchise-agreement.pdf
Stephen Hammond: As on 30 October 2012, 633 approved training bodies deliver approved training courses from 1,646 approved sites. A list showing the location of each training site has been deposited in the Libraries of the House. The Driving Standards Agency does not retain information on the training bodies that held such approval in April 2008 and 2012. Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of motorcycle approved training bodies which were [126108] operating in April (a) 2008 and (b) 2012. Stephen Hammond: The Driving Standards Agency’s (DSA’s) reporting systems do not allow for retrospective interrogation for certain data sets. Therefore, no data is available for the number of Approved Training Bodies (ATBs) in 2008. However, in October 2009, there were 696 ATBs registered with the DSA. The number of ATBs that are currently registered is 633. Railways: Freight Karl Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which ports have functioning rail freight facilities; and how much freight by tonnage was moved at each such facility in the last 10 years for which [126903] figures are available. Stephen Hammond: Information is not held centrally in the form requested. Information about the location of rail terminals including those at ports is available on the Network Rail website at: www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/10520.aspx
Port freight statistics are at: www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/port-freight-statistics-2011final-figures
West Coast Railway Line: Franchises Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 19 October 2012, Official Report, column 532W, on West Coast railway line: franchises, what other firms were considered for the work taken on by WS Atkins; and what range of [126397] fees was submitted by other bidders. Mr McLoughlin: Bids for this work were received from Atkins, Aecom, Booz & Co, Halcrow, Leigh Fisher, Mott Macdonald and URS Scott Wilson. Capped maximum fee bids were made against a number of work packages. The fees bid are commercially confidential. Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 19 October 2012, Official Report, column 532W, on West Coast line franchises, which other legal firms were involved in the
513W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
competitive procurement process referred to; and what the range of fees was submitted by the other bidders for work on the Intercity West Coast franchise [126398] competition. Mr McLoughlin: All of the firms listed at Lot 8 (Major Projects) of the Government Procurement Service Legal Services Framework were given the opportunity to participate. Bids were received from Eversheds LLP, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP and Norton Rose LLP. Capped maximum fee bids were made against specified scenarios. The fee bids are commercially confidential. Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 23 October 2012, Official Report, column 770W, on West Coast railway line franchise, what fee his Department paid to Eversheds LLP for acting for his Department as legal [126399] advisers for the judicial review. Mr McLoughlin: As of 29 September 2012, the Department has been billed £538,888 for work as legal advisors for judicial review of the InterCity West Coast franchise competition. Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the hours for work billed to his Department by Eversheds LLP were for (a) writing the invitation to tender and (b) awarding the franchise. [126400]
Mr McLoughlin: The categorisation provided in the question does not exactly match the categories used to record working hours. However, Department records show that Eversheds LLP staff were billed to work 149 hours on the initiation and specification of the franchise, and 1,015 hours on the procurement of the franchise. Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the staff provided by Eversheds LLP working for his Department on the Intercity West Coast franchise competition were engaged in (a) writing the invitation to tender and (b) [126401] awarding the franchise. Mr McLoughlin: The categorisation provided in the question does not exactly match the categories used to record this information. However, Department records show that eight Eversheds LLP staff worked on the initiation and specification of the franchise, and 17 worked on the procurement of the franchise. Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the WS Atkins staff working for his Department on the Intercity West Coast franchise competition were engaged in (a) writing the invitation to tender, (b) advising his Department on [126402] bids and (c) evaluating bids. Mr McLoughlin: The categorisation provided in the question does not exactly match the categories used to record this information. However, Department records show that 20 WS Atkins staff worked on the initiation and specification of the franchise, and 20 worked on the procurement of the franchise.
Written Answers
514W
Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the hours for work billed to his Department by WS Atkins were for (a) writing the invitation to tender, (b) advising his Department on bids and (c) evaluating bids. [126403] Mr McLoughlin: The categorisation provided in the question does not exactly match the categories used to record working hours. However, Department records show that WS Atkins staff were billed to work 2,406 hours on the initiation and specification of the franchise, and 2,544 hours on the procurement of the franchise. Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps were taken by (a) officials and (b) Ministers in his Department to ensure that the amount of the subordinated loan facility (SLF) required of bidders for the Intercity West Coast franchise competition was determined in line with his [126404] Department’s own SLF guidance; (2) with reference to paragraph 5.9 of the Laidlaw Review into the collapse of the Intercity West Coast franchise competition, how many officials of each grade determined the subordinated loan facility levels for bids; and when Ministers were (a) consulted on, (b) informed of and (c) asked to endorse the levels; [126405]
(3) with reference to paragraph 5.3.7 of the Laidlaw Review into the collapse of the Intercity West Coast franchise competition, what the grades were of the officials who decided to accept the risk of challenge identified; and when Ministers were (a) consulted, (b) informed and (c) asked to confirm the [126406] recommendation of such officials; (4) what the grade was of the most senior official in his Department who had the awareness referred to in paragraphs 5.3.1 to 5.3.4 of the Laidlaw Review into the collapse of the Intercity West Coast franchise competition; and when Ministers were informed of the [126407] risks identified; (5) which Minister approved the quality assurance processes for the operation of the Intercity West Coast franchise competition; and on what date such decisions [126408] were taken; (6) which Minister approved the arrangements for the governance structure to be applied to the InterCity West Coast franchise competition; and when such a [126409] decision was made; (7) which Minister approved the structure and personnel arrangements for the InterCity West Coast franchise project team; and when such decisions were [126410] taken; (8) whether his Department considered that the effect of the reorganisation of the departmental structure which took place between December 2010 and May 2011 was a risk factor when conducting the InterCity West Coast franchise competition; and what steps were taken to mitigate against such risks; [126411] (9) when Ministers in his Department decided that the GDP model should be the mechanism for determining the annual franchise payment that the franchisee should pay his Department in the InterCity [126412] West Coast franchise competition;
515W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
(10) when Ministers in his Department decided that there should be a minimum subordinated loan facility requirement in the new rail franchise process. [126413] Mr McLoughlin: I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on 15 October 2012, Official Report, columns 46-47, along with the terms of reference of the Laidlaw inquiry and a copy of his interim report, both of which have been deposited in the Libraries of the House. These issues will be considered by the Laidlaw inquiry. I am not going to prejudice the findings of his final report, which is due by the end of November. Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Laidlaw Inquiry will be given full access by his Department to the full base case and [126414] risk-adjusted bidder models. Mr McLoughlin: The Laidlaw Inquiry has been given access to this information. Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department is taking to conduct an e-mail capture and review in order to assist [126415] the conduct of the Laidlaw Inquiry.
Written Answers
516W
Mr McLoughlin: There are no such criteria. The Laidlaw Inquiry team has had the full co-operation of the Department throughout the 10 day initial review process and this remains the case. Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what date his Department will forward to the Laidlaw inquiry all the documentation which it has requested in order to complete its work into the reasons for the cancellation of the West Coast [126419] franchise competition. Mr McLoughlin: The Laidlaw inquiry is an ongoing inquiry and requests for information held by the Department have been and continue to be made at regular intervals. The Department for Transport endeavours to meet all of these requests as soon as possible. The inquiry team has had the full co-operation of the Department throughout the 10 day initial review process and this remains the case. Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) at what level in his Department the decision was taken not to waive legal professional privilege in respect of co-operation with the Laidlaw inquiry into the West Coast franchise competition; [126420]
Mr McLoughlin: I refer the honourable Member to my statement of State to the House on 15 October 2012, Official Report, columns 46-47, along with the terms of reference of the Laidlaw Inquiry and a copy of his interim report, both of which have been deposited in the Libraries of the House. The Laidlaw Inquiry interim report stated that it had not instructed the Department to conduct an email capture and review at that stage. The Laidlaw Inquiry has subsequently requested an email capture and the Department is co-operating with the Laidlaw Inquiry on this issue. Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made by his Department on investigations into the suspensions of three employees following the collapse of the InterCity West Coast franchise competition; and when he expects [126416] such investigations to be completed. Mr McLoughlin: The Permanent Secretary asked Bill Stow to lead an independent investigation to establish the facts about the roles individuals had in relation to the letting of the Inter City West Coast Franchise. The Investigation is working as quickly and diligently as possible and will form the basis for a report to the Permanent Secretary, which will be submitted as soon as he is able to. Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has sought the permission of third parties to waive their confidentiality for the purpose of passing [126417] documentation to the Laidlaw Inquiry.
(2) for what reason his Department has declined to waive its legal professional privilege in respect of Eversheds LLP for the purposes of assisting the Laidlaw inquiry into the West Coast franchise [126421] competition; (3) if he will waive the legal professional privilege Eversheds LLP owe to his Department in order to pass relevant documentation to the Laidlaw inquiry in respect of the West Coast franchise competition. [126422]
Mr McLoughlin: The Department is considering the basis upon which it can facilitate the giving of evidence by Eversheds to the inquiry. Some discussions between the inquiry and Eversheds have already taken place. Communications between legal advisers and their clients—generally—are protected by legal privilege. For the Department to seek to protect the confidentiality of legal advice provided to it is, therefore, to be expected. By the same token, and in circumstances where litigation is extant or may be contemplated, the Department will want to consider the importance of retaining privilege and the implications of waiving it. Advice in relation to privilege issues is provided by the Department’s General Counsel, taking advice from independent counsel as appropriate. Decisions on whether to waive privilege are taken by Ministers or administrators.
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE British Indian Ocean Territory
Mr McLoughlin: Yes, where necessary. Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the detailed criteria by which he has judged which documents will not be [126418] produced for the Laidlaw Inquiry.
Michael Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions his Department has had with US officials on the future of the leasing arrangement held by the [126915] US on Diego Garcia.
517W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Mark Simmonds: The 1966 Exchange of Notes with the US provides that the islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), including Diego Garcia, shall be available to them until 2016 and continuing thereafter for a further period of 20 years unless terminated by either Government in the period 2014-16. There have been no substantive discussions to date with the US on the future of the US presence in BIOT post-2016. Bulent Ecevit Mr Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what files his Department [126605] holds on Bülent Ecevit.
Written Answers
518W
internal review that has been carried out by the Cayman Turtle Farm following allegations of inhumane turtle husbandry at the farm made by the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA). The British Government places great importance on conserving the biodiversity of the Overseas Territories and takes seriously reports of animal cruelty throughout the world. We understand the farm has carried out a review of its operations and found no basis for WSPA’s allegations. The farm itself has ordered that an independent assessment take place in December. We encourage WSPA, the management of the farm and the Cayman Islands Government to continue to engage constructively. Iceland
Mr Lidington: In line with standard departmental recordkeeping policy, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does hold files that may contain information relating to Bulent Ecevit. However, a full list of files is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Cayman Islands Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether (a) officials, (b) staff, (c) contractors and (d) people under employment of his Department will be involved with the independent assessment ordered by the Cayman Turtle Farm into reports of animal cruelty. [126618]
Mark Simmonds: No one under the employment of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be involved in the independent assessment commissioned by the Cayman Turtle Farm into allegations of inhumane turtle husbandry at the farm. Responsibility for the Cayman Turtle Farm rests with the Cayman Islands Government. We understand that the Cayman Islands Government is still in the process of organising the assessment, and selecting the people who will carry it out. We are aware that the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) has conducted an investigation into the Turtle Farm, and that it has recently made its findings public. The British Government places great importance on conserving the biodiversity of the Overseas Territories and takes seriously reports of animal cruelty throughout the world. We understand the farm has carried out a review of its operations and found no basis for WSPA’s allegations; and that the independent assessment will place in December. We encourage WSPA, the management of the farm and the Cayman Islands Government to continue to engage constructively. Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the outcome of the review undertaken by the Cayman Turtle Farm following reports of animal cruelty by the World Society for the Protection of Animals; and whether he plans to take [126619] any further steps. Mark Simmonds: Responsibility for the Cayman Turtle Farm rests with the Cayman Islands Government. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not seen the
Michael Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether his Department has given consideration to an exchange of Icelandic territory or property with the UK in return for the writing off of outstanding loans from that country; [126588] (2) if he will discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Defence the potential benefits of exchanging Icelandic territory or property for outstanding loans from that country. [126589]
Mr Lidington: Iceland has not made such a proposal. Nor has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office given consideration to such an exchange. The UK Government, like the Icelandic Government, are awaiting the ruling of the European Free Trade Area Court. With regard to settling the outstanding loans, I refer my hon. friend to the answer given to him by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), on 22 October 2012, Official Report, column 621W. Pakistan Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps he has taken to discourage the oppression of (a) Christian and (b) other minority communities in [126338] Pakistan. Alistair Burt: I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 15 October 2012, Official Report, column 72-73W.
PRIME MINISTER Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press Inquiry Chris Bryant: To ask the Prime Minister whether he was asked to provide a witness statement and documents to the Leveson Inquiry under Section 21(2) [126937] of the Enquiries Act 2005. The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 5 November 2012, Official Report, column 453W. Chris Bryant: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 19 October 2012, Official Report, columns 449-50W, on Leveson Inquiry, how often he has (a) corresponded with and (b) spoken to Andy Coulson since he left No. 10 Downing Street. [126941]
519W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the Downing street press conference I gave on Friday 8 July 2011. A transcript of the press conference is available on the No. 10 website: http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/prime-ministers-pressconference/
Chris Bryant: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 19 October 2012, Official Report, columns 449-50W, on Leveson Inquiry, how many texts, emails and other forms of correspondence between his Office and News International he reviewed [126942] when responding to the Leveson Inquiry. The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 31 October 2012, Official Report, column 230. Mass Media
520W
Written Answers
Peter Luff: The information will take time to collate. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available. Substantive answer from Philip Dunne to Angus Robertson: My predecessor undertook to write to you in his answer of 10 July 2012 (Official Report, column 199W) regarding your parliamentary question about Defence projects. The following table demonstrates the number of procurement and support projects managed by Defence Equipment and Support involving the contractors you asked about where the projects are presently considered to be overrunning regarding time or budget. Performance against contract can be affected by a number of reasons not all of which are in the contractor’s control. For the purpose of answering this question these contracts have been limited to those with a value of £1 million or more, and where the Ministry of Defence has let a contract directly to the named company as a Prime Contractor. The locations of where the contractors are carrying out the work are also set out in the table. Table 1: Companies overrunning in time and budget
Helen Goodman: To ask the Prime Minister which newspaper and other media proprietors, editors and senior executives he has met since 1 July 2012. [127011] The Prime Minister: Details of my meetings with external organisations, including meetings with newspaper and other media proprietors, editors and senior executives are published on a quarterly basis. Details can be accessed on the Cabinet Office website.
Company
No. of contracts overrunning in time
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent reports he has received on the availability of protective glasses and uniforms in [125990] theatre in Afghanistan. Mr Dunne [holding answer 31 October 2012]: I have received no reports regarding shortages of protective glasses or uniforms to service personnel currently deployed on operations in Afghanistan. Mr Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilians have been killed or injured in drone strikes undertaken by the RAF since [126285] operations commenced in Afghanistan. Mr Robathan: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the then Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), on 26 June 2012, Official Report, column 187W, to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff). Defence: Procurement Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many projects being delivered by (a) Babcock, (b) Boeing, (c) Cobham, (d) European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company, (e) Finmeccanica, (f) General Dynamics, (g) KelloggBrown-Root, (h) Lockhead Martin, (i) Marshall Aerospace, (j) Northrup Grumman, (k) Rolls-Royce, (l) Thales and (m) Ultra Electronics for his Department are overrunning in (i) time and (ii) budget; [111560] and where each project is located.
Location
Babcock
1
HMNB Devonport
0
—
Boeing
1
Gosport and Philadelphia UK
0
—
Cobham
2
Durham and Bournemouth
2
Durham and Bournemouth
European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company
0
—
0
—
Finmeccanica
2
Edinburgh and Basildon
1
Luton
General Dynamics
0
—
0
—
KelloggBrown-Root
1
Leatherhead
0
—
Lockheed Martin.
2
Farnborough and Ampthill
3
Orlando, USA, Farnborough and Ampthill
Marshall Aerospace
0
—
0
—
Northrup Grumman
1
Coventry
0
—
Rolls-Royce
2
Filton and Winsford
1
Cambridge
Thales
4
Belfast and Crawley
1
Crawley
Ultra Electronics
2
Greenford and Loud water
1
Greenford
DEFENCE Afghanistan
Location
No. of contracts over budget
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which projects have had their in-service dates [126445] deferred since May 2010. Mr Dunne [holding answer 2 November 2012]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by the Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), on 15 October 2012, Official Report, columns 31-32W, to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck).
521W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Devonport Dockyard Oliver Colvile: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investment his Department has made at Devonport Dockyard and Naval Base since May 2010.
Written Answers
522W
Mr Dunne [holding answer 2 November 2012]: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 23 October 2012, Official Report, column 809W. Libya
[125650]
Mr Dunne [holding answer 31 October 2012]: Investment at Her Majesty’s Naval Base Devonport, which covers investment in infrastructure projects, plant and machinery and facilities from May 2010 to the end of September 2012 amounts to some £162 million.
Mr Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when the agreement to forward-base Storm Shadow missiles at Gioia del Colle during Operation [126086] Ellamy was signed; (2) whether Storm Shadow missiles were forwardbased for use by Tornado at the Gioia del Colle air base [126344] in Italy.
European Fighter Aircraft Mr Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average hourly cost was of flying the Typhoon fighter (a) with and (b) without fuel costs. [126215]
Mr Dunne [holding answer 1 November 2012]: The standard marginal flying hour cost for a Typhoon is £3,875, including the cost of fuel. Excluding fuel costs the figure reduces to approximately £2,670. Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft Mr Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 23 October 2012, Official Report, column 809W, on joint strike fighter aircraft, what air-to-ground weapons will be available for selection for use on the Joint Strike Fighter F35-B. [125841]
Mr Dunne [holding answer 30 October 2012]: I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave my hon. Friend on 23 October 2012, Official Report, column 809W. Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Joint Strike Fighters he plans [126142] would be deployable at any one time. Mr Dunne [holding answer 1 November 2012]: The number of Lightning II aircraft available to deploy at any one time will depend on how many aircraft are procured. The Government will not take a final decision until the strategic defence and security review in 2015, at the earliest. Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the projected unit cost is of each Joint Strike Fighter which his Department plans to purchase. [126143]
Mr Robathan [holding answer 1 and 2 November 2012]: During Operation Ellamy last year, Storm Shadow missiles were forward-based at Gioia del Colle airbase in Italy. Agreement to base munitions in Gioia del Colle was covered by a pre-existing government to government arrangement signed in 2004. Marine Sciences Michael Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much (a) his Department, (b) its non-departmental public bodies and (c) its Executive agencies spent on marine sciences in (i) 2010-11 and (ii) 2011-12; and what spending for each is forecast in (A) [126740] 2012-13 and (B) 2013-14. Mr Dunne: The Ministry of Defence, its nondepartmental public bodies and Executive agencies have not spent and do not forecast any spending on marine science. Military Aircraft Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the timetable is for the competition for aircraft service provision for the UK Military Flying [125788] Training System. Mr Dunne: The UK Military Flying Training System (UK MFTS) will incrementally procure all flying training for Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force aircrew. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) and its Training System partner, Ascent Flying Training, continue to consider the optimal strategy for the delivery of future flying training services. While the MOD expects the competition for aircraft service provision for the fixed wing elements of the UK MFTS to commence in the near future, due diligence work is still in progress and a precise timetable will not be confirmed until this work is completed. Mobile Phones
Mr Dunne [holding answer 1 November 2012]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by the then Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), on 30 April 2012, Official Report, column 1140W.
Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which companies supply (a) mobile telephones and [125733] (b) mobile data services to his Department.
Mr Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 23 October 2012, Official Report, column 809W, on joint strike fighter aircraft, when the decision on the exact mix of weapons [126503] to be used on the F35-B will be taken.
Mr Dunne: The majority of mobile telephones supplied to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) are provided by Vodafone through an enabling arrangement under the Defence Fixed Telecommunications Service (DFTS) contract with British Telecom. A small number, less
523W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
than 1%, are procured outside this arrangement to meet local operational demands, typically at MOD establishments overseas. Mobile data services supplied to the MOD are provided through the DFTS contract direct with British Telecom. Somalia Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are attached to Headquarter Operation Atlanta; and what the (a) [126438] rank and (b) duty is of each such person. Mr Robathan [holding answer 2 November 2012]: Forty nine UK service personnel are currently attached to the Operational Headquarters of the EU’s Operation Atalanta. The military personnel by rank and roles are shown in the following table. I am withholding the actual number of personnel at each rank as it contains personal data which cannot be released. Rank
Roles
Rear Admiral
Operational Commander
Captain
Command Support
Commander
Command Support, Liaison
Squadron Leader
Operations
Lieutenant Commander
Operations, Intelligence, Command Support, Media Officer
Major
Media Officer, Command Support
Lieutenant
Legal Advisor, Command Support, Communications Support, Medical Support, Logistics Support
Warrant Officer
Communications Support
Chief Petty Officer
Engineer
Petty Officer
Operations, Analysts, Information Support, Clerks, Command Support
Leading Hand
Operations, Information Support, Communications Support, Intelligence
Lance Corporal
Analyst
Senior Aircraftman
Communications Support
Able Seamen
Personal Assistants, Clerks, Communications Support, Analysts
Syria Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the UK has undertaken military [126117] missions to Syria in the last three years. Mr Robathan: The only UK military commitment to Syria was a small Defence section at the British embassy in Damascus. This ceased in February 2012 when the embassy was closed due to the deterioration of the security situation. Trident Mr Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it remains his policy that the development costs of the replacement for Trident will [126931] be met from the core defence budget. Mr Robathan: I refer the right hon. Member to the Statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), on 14 May 2012, Official Report, column 263, in which he stated that the successor nuclear deterrent is included within the core programme.
Written Answers
524W
United Arab Emirates Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the nature and extent is of the Defence Co-operation Agreements signed between the UK and the United Arab Emirates; and if he will place in the Library a copy of those agreements. [126699] Dr Murrison [holding answer 5 November 2012]: The Defence Co-Operation Accord signed between the UK and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 1996 provides a framework for current and future defence engagement activity including training and capacity building in order to enhance the stability of the wider region. There are a number of short complementary agreements, for example relating to Ministry of Defence intellectual property. We have had a long-standing maritime presence off the UAE with continuous Royal Navy patrols in the Gulf since the 1980s protecting Britain’s interests. We also regularly conduct joint air exercises with our Emirati counterparts. It is not normal practice to publish such agreements, or to place copies in the Library of the House. Unmanned Air Vehicles Mr Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 23 October 2012, Official Report, column 812W, on unmanned air vehicles, when the urgent operational requirement for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability for Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships was first agreed; and when the subsequent procurement [126134] project will be delivered. Mr Dunne [holding answer 1 November 2012]: The urgent operational requirement to provide intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability for Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships was agreed on 3 August 2012. The capability will be delivered as soon as is practicable. Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department’s policy is on follow-up drone strikes; and what steps he is taking to ensure that rescue workers and people providing assistance to the injured are not targeted as part of such missions. [126293]
Mr Robathan: Any weapon released by the UK’s Reaper remotely piloted air system is done so under the command of a pilot bounded by Rules of Engagement which are no different from those used for manned UK combat aircraft. The targets are always positively identified as legitimate military objectives, and strikes are prosecuted in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict and UK Rules of Engagement. Strikes should not be directed against non-combatants, including any individuals assisting the wounded or deceased, or individuals who are “hors de combat”. CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT Broadband Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer of 16 October 2012, Official Report, column 259W, on broadband, if she will publish an assessment of the likelihood of the UK meeting its target on the proportion of premises to be covered by superfast [124440] broadband.
525W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Mr Vaizey [holding answer 23 October 2012]: The Government remains confident that the target of ensuring 90% of premises have access to superfast broadband will be achieved, as part of the objective of having the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015. Broadband: Rural Areas Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport whether she proposes that the Independent Assurance review of networks procured under the BDUK rural [126944] procurement process will be made public. Mr Vaizey: The full report from the Independent Assurance Review will be shared with the National Audit Office and relevant suppliers appointed to the Broadband Delivery Framework. A summary report will be shared with those local authorities that have initiated call-off procurements using the Framework. At that stage the reports will not be made available to the general public because they will contain commercially sensitive information sourced from a number of different contracts. Children Dan Rogerson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport how much funding her Department provided to projects targeted at children up to the age of 12 in each year since 2005; and if she will estimate the proportion such funding represents of all funding allocated by her Department [126463] in each such year. Hugh Robertson: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) works to make sure the communications, creative, media, cultural, tourism, sport and leisure economies have the framework to grow and have real impact on people’s lives, including children and young people. DCMS does not directly fund projects specifically targeted at children up to the age of 12. DCMS funding to deliver our policy objectives is predominantly distributed via our arm’s length bodies (ALBs), and it is for the ALBs to prioritise which programmes and projects receive funding. Examples of such new and ongoing programmes can be found as follows. Government funding for the arts is distributed through Arts Council England (ACE), the development agency for the arts in England. ACE is investing in the development of arts and cultural practice and programmes that are inspired by, and produced for, children and young people, such as Artsmark, Arts Award and the museums and schools programme. Youth Music (a Delegated Lottery Distributor of the Arts Council) has a specific focus on supporting young people’s music making, particularly for those with least opportunity. Also, through the £171 million of Department for Education (DFE) funding administered by the Arts Council, a network of 123 music education hubs are taking forward the work of local authority music services, helping improve the quality and consistency of music education across England, both in and out of school. In partnership with DFE and the Department’s ALBs, we are investing a further £15 million in cultural education initiatives for children and young people.
Written Answers
526W
The School Games, a new Olympic and Paralympic style competition, is giving every school and child in England the opportunity to participate in competitive sport, including meaningful opportunities for disabled children. More than £100 million of Lottery and Government funding is being invested in the School Games over the next three years. More information can be found here: https://www.yourschoolgames.com/
Exchequer and Lottery investment in sporting initiatives, aimed at children and young people, is predominantly made via Sport England. An example of one such initiative is Sporting Champions aimed at bringing world-class athletes face-to-face with young people and young adults to inspire and motivate them. Full details of the work Sport England do can be found at the following link: http://www.sportengland.org/about_us.aspx
Crimes of Violence: Females Sir Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport with reference to the Government’s action plan on violence against women and girls, what steps she is taking with media regulators and industry stakeholders to tackle the inappropriate portrayal of women and children; by what means she is communicating the guidance for journalists on reporting issues relating to violence against women, as set out in the action plan; what the reasons are for the time taken to implement the action [127054] plan; and if she will make a statement. Mr Vaizey: The Department meets regularly with media regulators, including Ofcom, and industry stakeholders, to discuss a range of issues. We have worked closely (alongside the Department for Education) with the sector on the implementation of the ‘Letting Children Be Children’ report, and will continue to address any other issues concerning the inappropriate portrayal of women and girls should the evidence of a problem in this area come to light. Draft guidance has been produced by Against Violence and Abuse who are currently liaising with the National Union of Journalists to agree sign off, after which guidance will be published. Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press Inquiry Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport which Ministers of her Department who were witnesses to the Leveson Inquiry were required by notice to provide answers and material under Section 21(2) of the Enquiries Act 2005. [126936]
Maria Miller: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 5 November 2012, Official Report, column 482W. Mass Media Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport which newspaper and other media proprietors, editors and senior [127009] executives she has met since 1 July 2012.
527W
Written Answers
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Mr Vaizey: The Department regularly publishes details of ministerial meetings with outside interest groups including newspaper and other media proprietors, editors and senior executives. Full details of which can be found at the following link: http://www.transparency.culture.gov.uk/category/other/ meetings/
Since being appointed, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), has met with Lord Black, Chris Blackhurst and James Harding. Parliament Square: Flags
Mike Penning: The estimated cost of the boundary review in Northern Ireland between September 2012 and the end of the review is £320,000. A significant portion of that sum has already been committed. Projected expenditure from 1 September 2012 to review end (30 September 2013) Budget component
£
Staff costs and professional services
226,000
Commissioners’ fees and expenses
21,000
Accommodation
53,000
Administration
7,000
Other review costs
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport if she will give consideration to flying the flags of the countries of the Commonwealth from the flagpoles in Parliament [126886] Square on a more regular basis. Hugh Robertson: The flags of the Commonwealth nations are flown on the ceremonial route on occasions including Trooping the Colour and associated events, London state visits and Commonwealth Day. There are no plans to fly them more regularly.
528W
13,000
Grand total
320,000
HOME DEPARTMENT Assaults On Police Gareth Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many assaults on police officers there have been in each of the last 10 years.
Public Libraries: Closures
[126372]
Bill Esterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the effect on pensioners, people with disabilities and people on low incomes of the closure of libraries in (a) Sefton Central constituency and (b) [126939] England. Mr Vaizey: The Department is aware of Sefton council’s plans for their library service, including their assessment of local need, and continues to monitor on an on-going basis proposed changes to public library services across England. The Department takes very seriously compliance by local authorities with their statutory duty to understand the local needs for library services and to provide a comprehensive and efficient service to match those needs. Staff Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what proportion of her Department’s staff are (a) male and (b) female. [126168]
Hugh Robertson: At 31 October 2012, 57% of staff were male and 43% female.
NORTHERN IRELAND Constituencies Mr Gregory Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of expenditure on work associated with the Parliamentary Boundary Review in Northern Ireland in the time between the latest revised proposals being produced and the final review being brought before the House. [127023]
Damian Green: Figures on the number of assaults on police officers in each of the last 10 years are provided within the following table: Number of assaults on police officers 2002-03 to 2011-121,2,3 Number of assaults on police officers 2002-03
13,291
2003-04
9,299
2004-05
8,298
2005-06
12,765
2006-07
5,756
2007-08
9,952
2008-09
10,146
2009-10
8,175
2010-11
7,904
2011-12
7,504
1
Figures are provisional and have not been verified by police forces. 2 Figures are provided on a headcount basis. 3 Figures on the number of assaults include the number of assaults on police officers on duty as well as those assaults on officers off duty, while acting in their capacity as police officers.
Asylum David T. C. Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken is to find accommodation for people presenting to the [126615] UK Border Agency as asylum seekers. Mr Harper: Any asylum seeker who needs accommodation is immediately placed into one of the UK Border Agency’s initial accommodation centres located across the United Kingdom. The support application is then considered in detail, including the accommodation needs of the person and any family members. The time taken to obtain suitable longer term accommodation varies according to the complexity of the case. Data on the average time it takes are not held in a format that is compatible with National Statistics protocols, but I am satisfied that applicants are housed within a reasonable timeframe.
529W
Written Answers
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Asylum: Democratic Republic of Congo Paul Blomfield: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the report into the treatment of failed asylum seekers upon their return to Democratic Republic of Congo will be published; and [126472] how she plans to make this report available. Mr Harper: The UK Border Agency will publish a country policy bulletin for the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) on its web site this month. This will confirm the Agency’s position on returns to the DRC, following allegations made of mistreatment, amounting to torture, of returnees from the UK. Crime: Cumbria John Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many incidences of violence against a person there have been for each type
530W
of offence in (a) Barrow and Furness constituency and (b) Cumbria in each of the last five years; [126963] (2) how many drug offences there were in (a) Barrow and Furness constituency and (b) Cumbria in each of the last five years, by the nature of the offence; [127005]
(3) how many instances of criminal damage there were in (a) Barrow and Furness constituency and (b) Cumbria in each of the last five years, by the nature of [127006] the offence. Mr Jeremy Browne: Statistics are not available for the constituency of Barrow and Furness. The available information relates to offences recorded in the combined Community Safety Partnership areas of Barrow-in-Furness and South Lakeland and is given in the table along with the same offences for Cumbria police force area. Offences are given for violence against the person, criminal damage and drug offence groups broken down by offence classification.
Offences of violence against the person, criminal damage and drug offences recorded in the combined Community Safety Partnership areas of Barrow-in-Furness and South Lakeland and Cumbria police force area Barrow in Furness and South Lakeland
Cumbria
Offence code
Offence description
1
Murder1, 2
4.1
Manslaughter1, 2
4.2
Infanticide1, 2
2
Attempted murder
1
1
0
0
0
2
4.3
Intentional destruction of viable unborn child
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.4
Causing death by dangerous driving2
0
1
1
0
4.6
Causing death by careless driving when2
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
under the influence of drink or drugs2
0
0
0
4.8
Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving2
0
0
5
More serious wounding or other act endangering life
16
n/a
5A
Inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent
n/a
5B
Use of substance or object to endanger life
5C
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
1
0
0
3
1
3
4
0
16
1
2
1
22
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
2
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1
0
0
1
2
1
3
0
1
2
5
n/a
n/a
n/a
57
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
29
23
24
26
n/a
88
68
90
81
n/a
2
0
0
0
n/a
7
7
2
3
Possession of items to endanger life
n/a
0
0
0
0
n/a
3
0
0
0
8F
Inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH) without intent
n/a
45
46
40
37
n/a
113
129
126
126
8H
Racially or religiously aggravated inflicting GBH without intent
n/a
0
0
0
0
n/a
0
0
1
1
37.1
Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.7
Causing or allowing death of a child or vulnerable person
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
531W
Written Answers
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
532W
Offences of violence against the person, criminal damage and drug offences recorded in the combined Community Safety Partnership areas of Barrow-in-Furness and South Lakeland and Cumbria police force area Barrow in Furness and South Lakeland Offence code
Cumbria
Offence description
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
4.9
Causing death by driving: unlicensed drivers, etc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.10
Corporate manslaughter
n/a
0
0
0
0
n/a
0
0
0
0
8A
Less serious wounding
1,305
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3,759
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
8G
Actual bodily harm (ABH) and other injury
n/a
1,129
975
879
928
n/a
3,044
2,765
2,555
2,528
8D
Racially or religiously aggravated less serious wounding
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
10
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
8J
Racially or religiously aggravated ABH or other injury
n/a
2
5
2
3
n/a
7
14
5
12
8K
Poisoning or female genital mutilation
n/a
0
0
0
0
n/a
0
2
1
1
Violence against the person—with injury
1,324
1,208
1,050
950
999
3,836
3,270
2,991
2,823
2,761
3
Threat or conspiracy to murder
4
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
27
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3A
Conspiracy to murder
n/a
0
0
0
0
n/a
0
0
1
0
3B
Threats to kill
n/a
9
6
15
11
n/a
33
34
46
33
6
Endangering railway passengers
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
Endangering life at sea
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8B
Possession of weapons
74
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
228
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
10A
Possession of firearms with intent
n/a
2
3
1
1
n/a
7
10
6
2
10C
Possession of other weapons
n/a
35
35
18
19
n/a
103
93
66
64
10D
Possession of article with blade or point
n/a
35
35
28
34
n/a
106
101
98
88
8C
Harassment/Public fear, alarm or distress
505
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1,641
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
8L
Harassment
n/a
58
109
91
121
n/a
142
258
274
319
9A
Public fear, alarm or distress
n/a
416
343
281
275
n/a
1,597
1,310
1,186
1,114
8E
Racially or religiously aggravated harassment/public fear, etc.
49
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
155
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
8M
Racially or religiously aggravated harassment
n/a
1
3
5
4
n/a
5
7
17
13
9B
Racially or religiously aggravated public fear, alarm or distress
n/a
56
47
42
44
n/a
150
137
101
118
11
Cruelty to and neglect of children
26
26
19
21
16
50
54
55
60
80
12
Abandoning a child under the age of two years
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
Child abduction
2
0
1
3
1
4
0
8
7
7
14
Procuring illegal abortion
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
104
Assault without injury on a constable
102
62
56
51
49
256
191
160
172
157
533W
Written Answers
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
534W
Offences of violence against the person, criminal damage and drug offences recorded in the combined Community Safety Partnership areas of Barrow-in-Furness and South Lakeland and Cumbria police force area Barrow in Furness and South Lakeland Offence code
Offence description
Cumbria
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
512
457
468
457
506
1,843
1,444
1,416
1,420
1,529
5
4
3
2
7
15
11
16
6
12
Violence against the person—without injury
1,279
1,161
1,128
1,015
1,088
4,219
3,843
3,605
3,461
3,536
Total violence against the person offences
2,603
2,369
2,178
1,965
2,087
8,055
7,113
6,596
6,284
6,297
105A
Assault without injury
105B
Racially or religiously aggravated assault without injury
56
Arson
109
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
355
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
56A
Arson endangering life
n/a
1
6
5
2
n/a
10
15
18
20
56B
Arson not endangering life
n/a
93
65
48
51
n/a
281
200
167
176
58A
Criminal damage to a dwelling
665
605
520
455
396
2,567
2,204
1,759
1,633
1,466
58B
Criminal damage to a building other than a dwelling
505
419
361
332
282
1,614
1,201
1,023
889
755
58C
Criminal damage to a vehicle
1,716
1,388
1,164
1,169
1,046
5,144
3,978
3,339
3,081
2,881
58D
Other criminal damage
568
454
393
372
292
1,691
1,265
1,025
1,065
946
58E
Racially or religiously aggravated criminal damage to a dwelling
0
1
0
2
0
2
4
4
3
3
58F
Racially or religiously aggravated criminal damage to a building other than a dwelling
0
3
1
1
1
0
4
6
3
3
58G
Racially or religiously aggravated criminal damage to a vehicle
1
3
2
1
2
2
5
4
3
3
58H
Racially or religiously aggravated other criminal damage
0
1
0
2
0
3
2
0
4
1
59
Threat etc. to commit criminal damage
15
19
15
18
13
47
41
51
50
51
Total criminal damage offences
3,579
2,987
2,527
2,405
2,085
11,425
8,995
7,426
6,916
6,305
92A
Trafficking in controlled drugs
122
152
109
140
71
329
363
349
304
276
92C
Other drug offences
4
6
3
3
3
21
23
10
11
9
92D
Possession of controlled drugs (excluding cannabis)
165
127
119
115
84
559
539
491
550
550
92E
Possession of controlled drugs (cannabis)
228
176
248
255
251
675
631
834
945
984
Total drug offences
519
461
479
513
409
1,584
1,556
1,684
1,810
1,819
n/a = Data not available. Homicide. Indicates brace. Note: Further information on classification changes can be found in the notes to Table A4 published here: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-265883
1 2
535W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Written Answers
536W
Databases
Female Genital Mutilation
Sir Paul Beresford: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress her Department has made in developing the Home Office data hub; how many police forces have provided all the data that they are required to provide to the data hub; and if she will [126627] make a statement.
Karl Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of the number of girls being taken out of the country to have female genital mutilation performed. [126752]
Damian Green [holding answer 5 November 2012]: 42 out of the 44 forces in England and Wales have provided test files and 34 are now supplying regular monthly crime data. Six of these forces’ recorded crime statistics are produced using the data hub alone. It is currently not possible to say to what extent forces are accurately supplying all the required data to the data hub as we are in the process of a quality assurance exercise to determine this. Under the statutory annual data requirement for 2012-13, police personnel data sets are to be delivered in the second half of the financial year. We continue to work with forces to ensure the number that supply via the data hub increases. Driving Under Influence: Drugs
Mr Jeremy Browne: The prevalence of female genital mutilation (FGM) in the UK is difficult to estimate because of the hidden nature of the crime. A study based on 2001 census data suggested that over 20,000 girls under 15 could be at high risk of FGM in England and Wales. Leveson Inquiry Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what material the Leveson inquiry asked her to provide. [126624] Damian Green [holding answer 5 November 2012]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Secretary of State’s witness statement to the Leveson inquiry, dated 30 April, and the associated exhibits. These are in the public domain on the inquiry website at: www.levesoninquiry.org.uk
Angela Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what recent assessment her Department has made of the accuracy of drug driving testing devices in terms of identifying whether a driver (a) is driving under the influence of an illegal drug, (b) is driving while taking prescribed medication and (c) has impaired driving; and if she will make a [126023] statement; (2) what progress her Department has made in developing the type approval process for drug driving [126073] devices; and if she will make a statement; (3) what discussions she has had with (a) Ministerial colleagues, (b) external stakeholders, (c) her Australian counterpart and (d) other overseas counterparts on the implementation in the UK of devices to detect drug-driving; and if she will make a [126191] statement. Mr Jeremy Browne: In 2011, the Home Office published a Guide to Type Approval Procedures for Preliminary Drug Testing Devices used for transport law enforcement in Great Britain. This guide defines the requirements a preliminary drug testing device will need to meet in order to be considered for type approval together with the laboratory and other tests to which it will be subject. The guide was prepared by Home Office scientific advisers, taking full account of experience in other countries and the views of manufacturers, the police and independent experts. Once approved the devices will be available for use in determining whether a driver might have particular potentially impairing drugs in his or her body, whether or not those drugs are controlled, prescribed or available over the counter. If a test result is positive a blood specimen will then be taken to provide evidence for a possible prosecution. It will be for the courts to decide if the person has committed a drug driving offence. The Home Office is currently in the process of testing a number of drug screening devices to be used in police stations. The aim is for any devices which successfully pass all the tests to be type approved by the end of 2012.
The inquiry asked the Secretary of State to provide this material in accordance with their questions which are included in the witness statement. Organised Crime: Sexual Offences Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent estimate she has made of the number of boys involved in gangs who have been [126187] sexually exploited. Mr Jeremy Browne: There are currently no data on the number of boys involved in gang violence that have been sexually exploited. Police: Pensions Graeme Morrice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions she has had with Ministers in the Scottish Government regarding the pensions of the police in Scotland. [126368]
Damian Green: Home Office Ministers and officials have meetings with a wide variety of partners, as well as organisations and individuals in the public and private sectors, as part of the process of policy development and delivery. As was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Government’s practice to provide details of all such meetings. Police: Powers Ben Gummer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the police defines the use of warranted power; and how that definition applies to [126296] the activities of officers on restricted duties. Damian Green: ’Warranted power’ and ’restricted duty’ are not terms which are defined in legislation. Police officers are attested under section 29 of the Police Act 1996 on appointment, and they then have all
537W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
the powers of a constable by virtue of section 30. The specific powers are set out in other legislation, notably the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It is for the chief officer of the police force to decide whether it is appropriate for an officer’s duties to be restricted in some way to take account of either a particular physical condition, while an allegation of misconduct is being investigated or where disciplinary proceedings are pending. Being placed on restricted duties may limit the activities an officer undertakes in the course of his job, but does not remove the powers that they have by virtue of being a constable. Public Appointments Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appointments made to the boards of public bodies overseen by her Department have been (a) male and (b) female since [126145] May 2010. James Brokenshire: Between 1 May 2010 and 30 October 2012, 19 men and 14 women were appointed to the boards of executive and advisory non-departmental public bodies overseen by the Home Office.
Written Answers
538W
the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), reports to Parliament each quarter on the exercise of her powers under that Act. The most recent quarterly report, published on 7 September 2012, confirmed that as of the end of the reporting period (31 August 2012) nine individuals were subject to terrorism prevention and investigation measures. The next reporting period ends on 30 November 2012. Theft: Metals Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of the proportion of metal thefts that took place where the victim belonged to the scrap metal industry in each of the last three years. [126469] Mr Jeremy Browne: This information is not collected by the Home Office. We are aware, as a result of regular engagement with police forces and the scrap metal industry, that legitimate scrap metal dealers have been victims of metal theft. Theft: Motor Vehicles
Staff Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of her Department’s staff are (a) male and (b) female. [126146]
James Brokenshire: As at 31 March 2012, 48% of Home Office employees were male and 52% were female. (Figures are based on paid civil servants only, in line with Office for National Statistics workforce reporting standards). Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of terrorism prevention and investigation measures on preventing terrorist-related [126864] activities; (2) how many people are currently subject to terrorism prevention and investigation measures. [126865]
James Brokenshire: The Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 allows the Secretary of State to impose a powerful range of measures to protect the public from a small number of individual terrorists who we cannot yet prosecute or deport. These powers are part of a package, with substantial extra resources for the police and Security Service, which may increase the opportunities for the collection of evidence that may be used in a prosecution. The Director General of the Security Service has said that he is content that the overall TPIM package mitigates risk. In accordance with section 19 of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend
John Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many thefts of motor vehicles there were in (a) Barrow and Furness constituency and [126267] (b) Cumbria in each of the last five years. Mr Jeremy Browne: Statistics are not available for the constituency of Barrow and Furness. The available information relates to offences of theft of motor vehicles recorded in (a) the combined Community Safety Partnership areas of Barrow-in-Furness and South Lakeland and (b) Cumbria police force and is given in the table. Offences of theft of a motor vehicle recorded in the combined Community Safety Partnership areas of Barrow-in-Furness and South Lakeland and in the Cumbria police force area Number of offences Barrow-in-Furness and South Lakeland
Cumbria
2007-08
153
615
2008-09
113
551
2009-10
118
437
2010-11
94
352
2011-12
59
290
Financial year
John Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many thefts of each category of item there were from motor vehicles in (a) Barrow and Furness constituency and (b) Cumbria in each of [126268] the last five years. Mr Jeremy Browne: Statistics are not available for the constituency of Barrow and Furness. The available information relates to offences of theft from a vehicle recorded in (a) the combined Community Safety Partnership areas of Barrow-in-Furness and South Lakeland and (b) Cumbria police force is given in the table. Information on the item stolen is not available from the police recorded crime statistics.
539W
Written Answers
Offences of theft from a vehicle recorded in the combined Community Safety Partnership areas of Barrow-in-Furness and South Lakeland and in the Cumbria police force area Number of offences Barrow-in-Furness and South Lakeland
Cumbria
2007-08
392
1,567
2008-09
422
1,420
2009-10
394
1,247
2010-11
418
1,098
2011-12
312
1,058
Financial year
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT Affordable Housing Hilary Benn: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many affordable homes he estimates will not be built as a result of implementation of Clause 5 of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill; and how many affordable homes he estimates will be built elsewhere as a result of the funding recently announced by his Department. [126136]
Nick Boles [holding answer 1 November 2012]: Unrealistic Section 106 agreements do not build houses. Our package of planning and housing measures will help ensure more homes are built than would otherwise be the case. In addition, as outlined in the written ministerial statement of 6 September 2012, Official Report, column 30WS, the Government will invite bids to provide up to an additional 15,000 affordable homes through the use of loan guarantees, asset management flexibilities and capital funding. We also intend to extend our successful refurbishment programme to bring an additional 5,000 existing empty homes back into use.
Housing: Construction Mr Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what representations he has received on his Department’s plans to allow hoteliers to convert buildings into residential properties without local authority planning permission agreeing a change of use. [126498] Nick Boles [holding answer 2 November 2012]: The proposals to grant permitted development rights for change of use from hotels to residential properties was one of a number of proposals contained within the consultation document “New opportunities for sustainable development and growth through the reuse of existing buildings”. The consultation closed on 11 September and we are reviewing the responses received. Housing: Hampshire Mr Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many housing starts there were in (a) Hampshire and (b) Southampton in the last quarter, and in the same [126785] quarter in each of the last five years. Mr Prisk: The following table shows the total number of house building starts in Southampton and Hampshire for each quarter since the start of the financial year 2007-08. Total house building starts Southampton and Hampshire 2007-08 to 2012-13 Southampton Hampshire 2007-08
2008-09
EU Grants and Loans Hilary Benn: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether unspent funds allocated to the UK under the European Regional Development Programme are returned to the EU; and whether that returned money leads to any saving to his Department directly or to the Exchequer. [126647]
Brandon Lewis [holding answer 5 November 2012]: The European Union (EU) budget commits European Regional Development Fund allocations to each member state by year. If a member state does not make these payments to eligible projects within the eligible time period, these funds remain within the EU budget. This reduces the costs of contributions for all member states including the UK Exchequer. It does not result in a direct one-for-one repatriation of these funds to the member state responsible. As I informed the right hon. Member in my answer to him of 13 September 2012, Official Report, columns 306-08W, the 2007-13 programme is on course and on track. An average of over 100% of the programme has been contractually committed or is awaiting contracting, with matched funding in place. We are exactly where we would expect to be at this point in the seven-year programme.
540W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
Q1 Q2
217 198
1336 —
Q3
117
967
Q4
207
1373
Q1 Q2
323 302
1527 1069
Q3
218
861
Q4
55
—
Q1 Q2
30 231
— 1078
Q3
220
1149
Q4
152
1041
Q1 Q2
69 169
1185 865
Q3
157
536
Q4
116
—
Q1 Q2
143 77
787 785
Q3
106
532
Q4
46
710
Q1
24
—
Figures for Hampshire are available for quarters only when all Hampshire districts reported data. Data has not been seasonally adjusted. Quarterly data at local authority level is subject to high levels of variation should be treated with caution. In addition to new build, we have a wide range of measures to increase supply. To date, the Government have sold enough formerly used surplus public sector
541W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
land to deliver 33,000 new homes, we’re investing £19.5 billion public and private funding in a programme to deliver 170,000 affordable homes, and we have introduced the NewBuy and FirstBuy schemes to help aspiring homeowners take their first step onto the housing ladder with a fraction of the deposit they would normally require. Local Government: Procurement John Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what guidance he has given to local authorities to help locally-based small and medium-sized enterprises in respect of (a) larger contracts arising from shared services and (b) [126603] other aspects of their procurement services. Brandon Lewis: Procurement in local government is a matter for local discretion but the Government is committed to encouraging a more open and level playing field for small and medium enterprises and has taken steps to improve opportunities for them. Local authorities act independently of central Government and Ministers have not issued guidance to them on these matters. Last year the Prime Minister launched a new, free-to-use, online Contracts Finder portal and a simplified prequalification questionnaire to make it easier and cheaper for small and medium enterprises to bid for public sector opportunities. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr Pickles), has also made clear on several occasions that he expects pre-qualification questionnaires to be removed for contracts under the European threshold of £173,000. Members: Correspondence Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government when he intends to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Mid Sussex of 27 June 2012, reference GCGC018782/12. [126437]
Nick Boles [holding answer 2 November 2012]: This letter was answered on 2 November 2012.
Written Answers
542W
Government’s contribution to mandatory relief on business rates to 50 per cent on local authorities’ revenue; and if he will consider reversing the decision to reduce that contribution. [127086] Brandon Lewis: The Government set out the details of the local business rate retention scheme in the technical consultation published in July 2012. The Government’s response to the consultation will be published in due course. For the avoidance of doubt, there is no change to the mandatory rate reliefs which eligible ratepayers (e.g. charities) actually receive. Under the local retention of business rates, it is proposed that from April 2013, each local authority’s business rates baseline will reflect the funding of mandatory reliefs that they currently grant (in other words, the baseline will be offset by 100% of the value of mandatory reliefs provided to ratepayers). Thereafter, if a local authority’s mandatory reliefs increase, the additional cost will be borne 50:50 between the authority and central Government (conversely, if the cost of mandatory reliefs were to decline, the saving will also be shared 50:50). This 50:50 sharing simply reflects the broader sharing of business rate revenues between central and local government under the new localised system. Private Rented Housing: North West Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the average monthly rent was in the private rented sector in each local authority in the North West in each year since [126809] 2009. Mr Prisk: Statistics on rents in the private rented sector by local authority are published by the Valuation Office Agency. The published information available is from 2011: http://www.voa.gov.uk/corporate/statisticalReleases/ 120823_PRRM_ReleaseNotes.html#tables
Mobile Phones Public Libraries Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which companies supply (a) mobile telephones and (b) mobile data [125673] services to his Department. Brandon Lewis: The Department for Communities and Local Government uses a combination of Orange and Vodafone contracts through cross Government procurement frameworks let by the Government Procurement Service. Having multiple suppliers is a legacy of contracts agreed under the last Administration. In due course, we will be moving to a single supplier to deliver greater value for money. Non-domestic Rates Alex Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what assessment he has made of the effect of the reduction of the
Bill Esterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government if he will consider creating a ring-fenced grant for library [126940] services for local authorities. Brandon Lewis: My Department has no plans to create a ring-fenced grant for library services. Libraries have always been funded and run by local authorities and it is right that local authorities should continue to have the freedom and flexibility to decide how best to provide a library service to their local community. The removal of ring-fencing from local government grants has given local authorities the freedom over the money they receive and allows them to work with their residents to decide how best to make their spending decisions. Whitehall is not best placed to make detailed decisions about how local authorities should apportion funding to their services.
543W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 Chris White: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what support he plans to give to local authorities in implementing the [126788] Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. Brandon Lewis: Local spending decisions are for local authorities themselves, but central Government has a significant role in creating the conditions for effective local procurement. Our approach has been to influence and encourage the sector to streamline their procurement functions and open up tenders to a wider range of potential suppliers, including small and medium enterprises as well as voluntary and community groups. To help local authorities acquire the skills to better commission services we are working with the Cabinet Office and the Local Government Association to provide accessible learning opportunities on commissioning skills for all council officers.
Written Answers
544W
Through the Localism Act, we have given back to councils the freedom to manage their own waiting lists. They are now able to decide who should qualify for social housing in their area, and to develop solutions which make best use of finite social housing stock. Current and former members of our armed forces are one group who have previously lost out in the social housing system, because moving from base to base and living abroad leaves them without strong local connections. We have amended the law such that former personnel with urgent housing needs are always given high priority on waiting lists, and that personnel who move from base to base do not lose their qualification rights. New statutory guidance to councils sets out how their allocation schemes can give priority to current or ex-service personnel, including through the use of local preference criteria and local lettings policies. Some councils are not using these new local flexibilities, and they should be held to account and challenged to justify their actions. Tunnels: Greenwich
Social Rented Housing: Greater London Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) what recent estimate he has made of the effect of immigration on [123843] new social housing lets in London; (2) what estimate he has made of the effect of immigration on social housing waiting lists in London [123844] over the last 10 years. Mr Prisk: Under this Government, we have published a number of research reports on immigration that were commissioned by the last Administration but never published. They were placed in the Library further to the written ministerial statements of 1 March 2011, Official Report, column 19WS and 10 October 2011, Official Report, column 1WS. A comprehensive answer on the limited eligibility of social housing for foreign nationals was outlined in the answer of 17 May 2012, Official Report, column 247W. We do not collect information centrally on the nationality of households on housing waiting lists. Information on the new lettings of social housing by nationality of the tenant is published at: www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/xls/2055516.xls
The figures show that, across England, almost one in 10 of those new to social tenancy are not UK nationals. The ‘CORE’ data source is not comprehensive enough to provide a figure for London, but my Department is taking steps to address the under-reporting by some local authorities in London. Notwithstanding, as outlined in the answer of 17 May 2012, based on data from the English Housing Survey data for 2009-10, it is roughly estimated that around a fifth of households in social housing in London are not British or Irish. Such estimates provide a strong argument for the coalition Government’s reforms to give councils greater powers and flexibilities over the allocation of social housing, so greater weight can be given both to those with genuinely local connections and to current and former members of the armed forces.
Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) what steps his Department has taken to monitor the implementation of the funding agreement for the grant awarded by his Department to the Royal Borough of Greenwich for the refurbishment of Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels; [125245] (2) whether the Royal Borough of Greenwich met the conditions of its contractual agreement with his Department for the refurbishment of the Greenwich [125246] and Woolwich foot tunnels. Mr Prisk: The original Community Infrastructure Fund 2 agreement for the Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels was signed in November 2008 between the Department and the London borough of Greenwich. The total funding allocation was £11.5 million for the refurbishment of the Greenwich and Woolwich rotunda, tunnels, stairwells and replacements of both lifts, including funding the associated mechanical and electrical works. In December 2008 delivery and monitoring of the grants were then passed to Homes and Communities Agency as DCLG’s main delivery body. The agency monitored these grants and were content with progress on the eligible works it funded. The borough confirmed that all eligible works funded by the Homes and Communities Agency were completed as per the conditions of contract and that any remaining works would be funded from their own resources. Responsibility for these grants then passed to the Greater London Authority on 1 April 2012 as part of the wider transfer of the agency’s London responsibilities. Urban Areas John Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on what date he expects to release the funds for successful town team partnership bids to the relevant local authorities. [126997]
545W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Mr Prisk: As announced on 23 October 2012, over 300 town teams applied to become Town Team Partners. The Government’s multi-million pound support programme will help them put key elements of their plans into action. The funds have already been released.
Written Answers
546W
Richard Benyon: We are committed to working to help the conservation of wild animals, including bears, worldwide. While we cannot intervene directly in the protection of wildlife abroad, we recognise that the farming of bears for their bile is an abhorrent practice. This Government raised concerns about animal welfare standards in China, including bears in bear bile farms, in a letter to the Chinese authorities earlier this year. The UK helps to reduce the demand for bear bile by banning all commercial trade in and importation of bear bile or gall bladders irrespective of their source. Under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) some trade in bear products is allowed, particularly in products from captive-bred animals. However, the UK’s ban is stricter than the Convention and is in place because we consider that such trade is likely to be detrimental to the species.
Richard Benyon: The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 requires agencies to maintain plans for preventing emergencies; reducing, controlling or mitigating the effects of emergencies in both the response and recovery phases and to co-operate with each other. Flood and coastal erosion risk management is undertaken by the Environment Agency, local authorities and Internal Drainage Boards, often in collaboration with other local partners such as water companies and flood groups. The Environment Agency, working with Regional Flood and Coastal Committees, oversees the allocation of funding, to agree the flood defence programme each year. We aim to spend more than £2.17 billion over the four years to 2015 on flood and coastal erosion risk management, improving protection for 145,000 homes. The Government has drawn up guidance for multi-agency flood planning, based on good practice and lessons learned from real flooding events. Each Local Resilience Forum has the responsibility of preparing a multi-agency flood plan to ensure the co-ordination of the local response to flooding in their area, including recovery planning where it relates to flooding. In addition to this, the Flood Forecasting Centre and Met Office consistently provide a high quality forecasting service to local authorities, Government Agencies and Departments, as for example during the flooding incidents over the spring and summer this year. They accurately predict risks, which enable appropriate and timely action to be taken on the ground. The Environment Agency and local authorities respond to these warnings by clearing channels and culverts of blockages and debris in advance, checking flood defences and flood storage basins, and putting temporary defences in place.
Bovine Tuberculosis
Floods: Insurance
Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment he has made of progress in developing [126380] vaccines to tackle the spread of bovine TB.
Craig Whittaker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made on the development of a Statement of Principles on the provision of flood insurance from [126239] June 2013.
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS Bears Kelvin Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress the Government has made on seeking to eliminate bear bile farming through international negotiation or other [126389] means; and if he will make a statement.
Mr Heath: Cattle and badger vaccination are risk reduction measures, most likely to be successful in controlling bovine TB when used alongside other disease control measures. We are working on steps agreed with the European Commission to provide the necessary assurances on the safety and efficacy of a cattle vaccine and associated test to differentiate infected from vaccinated animals (DIVA). This is however a lengthy and complicated process, which means that we cannot yet say when a viable and legal cattle vaccine will be available in the field. Oral badger vaccine is still at the research stage and is not yet at the point where an application for a marketing authorisation can be made. An injectable badger vaccine is already available for use but there remain limitations to its practical deployment.
Richard Benyon [holding answer 5 November 2012]: The availability and affordability of insurance in flood risk areas is an important issue for this Government. The existing Statement of Principles, agreed in 2008, provides only limited help in addressing the availability of home insurance in areas of flood risk, and does nothing to address its affordability. We want to reach a sustainable solution that addresses both the availability and the affordability of flood insurance. The insurance industry and the Government continue to work together towards this goal. We are considering a number of options and further announcements will be made in due course.
Floods
Forests
John Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure inter-agency co-operation to (a) reduce the occurrence of flooding, (b) minimise the impact of flooding when it occurs and (c) improve [125846] recovery after flooding.
Barry Gardiner: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the Independent Panel on Forestry report’s recommendation that 15 per cent of the total area of the UK be dedicated to forestry and woodland [126376] by 2060.
547W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Mr Heath: The Government set out in the “Natural Environment” White Paper its ambition for a major increase in the area of woodland in England and for forests and woodlands to play a full part in achieving a resilient and coherent ecological network across England. We are currently considering the report from the Independent Panel on Forestry, including its recommendations relating to increasing woodland cover. We will be responding to the panel’s report in January 2013. Barry Gardiner: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what recent assessment he has made of the effects on health and wellbeing of the Public Forest Estate and general [126458] woodlands; (2) what recent assessment he has made of the benefits to local communities of the Public Forest [126496] Estate and general woodlands. Mr Heath: Forest Research, an Agency of the Forestry Commission, carries out a range of research into people, trees and woodland. Its research aims to develop an understanding about the relationships between forestry and society by concentrating on the social dimension of sustainable forest management, and using qualitative and quantitative research methods in social science. It has published numerous reports covering this subject area which are available on its website. Sky Lanterns: South West Jack Lopresti: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress he has made on mitigating the effect of sky lanterns on the [126694] farming community in the South West. Mr Heath: The Government are aware of concerns about the impacts of sky lanterns on animals, crops and property and has taken steps to raise public awareness about the potential dangers sky lanterns pose, and to encourage people to think carefully before using them. During the approach to bonfire night DEFRA has appealed through local media for people to consider alternatives to sky lanterns. I have commissioned an independent study to examine the scale of the risks associated with the use of sky lanterns, and their impact on livestock, plants and the environment. The results of this study will help to determine whether any future Government action may be required. Trees: Diseases
Written Answers
548W
Turtles: Cayman Islands Mr Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what requests he has received for technical support from the Cayman Islands government in respect of the Cayman Turtle Farm. [125978] Richard Benyon: This Government have not received any requests for technical support from the Cayman Islands Government in respect of the Cayman Turtle Farm.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL National Assembly for Wales Owen Smith: To ask the Attorney-General what the total cost was of (a) legal advice, (b) civil service work hours and (c) other costs of the Law Officers’ Departments’ consideration of whether to refer the National Assembly for Wales (Official Languages) Bill [126999] to the Supreme Court. The Attorney-General: As part of my role, I consider all Bills passed by the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament and I have the power to refer the question of whether any Bill is within legislative competence to the Supreme Court. The Attorney-General’s Office does not separately record the cost of work undertaken on each specific Bill and therefore I cannot provide reliable data without incurring disproportionate cost.
HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION BBC Parliament: Subtitling Kate Green: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, what recent discussions have taken place with the BBC regarding the provision of subtitles to aid deaf viewers of the BBC Parliament [126077] channel. John Thurso: Discussions with the BBC took place most recently in October 2012. The BBC is not under any statutory obligation, but BBC Parliament is increasing its subtitling of proceedings in the Chamber and next year plans to provide subtitling for 65% of sittings.
EDUCATION
Mary Creagh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what date Chalara fraxinea was identified in the UK; and on what date Ministers in his Department were informed. [126499]
Mr Heath: Chalara fraxinea was first confirmed in the UK on 7 March 2012, following investigation on 20 February 2012 of suspect symptoms at a nursery in Buckinghamshire by the Food and Environment Research Agency’s Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate. Ministers were first informed of the finding on 3 April 2012.
Children in Care: Cumbria Sir Tony Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children have been taken into care in Cumbria in the last (a) six and (b) 12 months; and if he will make an assessment of the comparative [126381] figures for other local authorities. Mr Timpson: The number of children who were taken into care in Cumbria in the last (a) six months and (b) 12 months, up to 31 March 2012, was 75 and 120, respectively. The following table shows the same information for all local authorities in England.
549W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Children taken into care are children who started to be looked after under a care order, police protection, an emergency protection order or under a child assessment order. If a child was taken into care on more than one occasion over the year and one of the occasions was in the last six months of the year then that child has been counted in both the 12 months and the six months totals. For this reason, counts for the separate six month periods add up to more than the 12 month figure. The information for children taken into care in the last 12 months is also published in table LAC1 of the Department’s Statistical First Release, ‘Children Looked After by Local Authorities in England (including adoption and care leavers)—year ending 31 March 2011’. This publication can be found at: http://www.education.gov.uk/researchandstatistics/statistics/ allstatistics/a00213762/children-looked-after-las-england
Number
England
Number 2012
Yorkshire and the Humber
Children taken into care during the last 12 months to 31 March 20122
Children taken into care during the last 6 months to 31 March 20123
10,100
6,490
Children taken into care during the last 12 months to 31 March 20122
Children taken into care during the last 6 months to 31 March 20123
1,200
800
Barnsley
55
25
Bradford
120
100
Calderdale
45
30
Doncaster
100
75
East Riding of Yorkshire
45
45
Kingston upon Hull, City of
65
40
Leeds
2012
550W
Children who were taken into care during the year ending 31 March, by local authority1,2,3,4,5, year ending 31 March 2012—Coverage: England
Kirklees
Children who were taken into care during the year ending 31 March, by local authority1,2,3,4,5, year ending 31 March 2012—Coverage: England
Written Answers
North East Lincolnshire
95
70
230
155
25
15
North Lincolnshire
25
10
North Yorkshire
60
45
70
35
Rotherham Sheffield
130
85
Wakefield
85
50
York
50
20
660
440
75
50
North East
500
Darlington
15
330 10
East Midlands
Durham
85
60
Derby
Gateshead
40
40
Derbyshire
Hartlepool
15
5
Middlesbrough
45
35
Leicestershire
60
35
Newcastle upon Tyne
60
25
Lincolnshire
80
55
Leicester
105
85
70
50
North Tyneside
30
20
Northamptonshire
90
55
Northumberland
25
15
Nottingham
85
55
95
55
x
x
1,190
740
280
145
Redcar and Cleveland
40
20
Nottinghamshire
South Tyneside
60
35
Rutland
Stockton-on-Tees
40
35
Sunderland
40
30
West Midlands Birmingham
North West
Coventry
85
55
Dudley
60
45
1,620
1,130
Blackburn with Darwen
65
35
Herefordshire
35
15
Blackpool
50
25
Sandwell
95
55 20
Bolton
80
55
Shropshire
20
Bury
65
55
Solihull
40
35
Cheshire East
50
25
Staffordshire
110
70
Cheshire West and Chester
55
35
Stoke-on-Trent
85
55
Telford and Wrekin
60
35
Walsall
65
40
Cumbria
120
75
Halton
30
20
Knowsley
10
x
Lancashire
210
140
Liverpool
90
60
Manchester
160
130
Oldham
70
40
Rochdale
75
50
Salford
60
60
Warwickshire
95
70
105
70
Worcestershire
55
30
East of England
Wolverhampton
940
580
Bedford Borough
40
35
Central Bedfordshire
40
20
75
45 100
Sefton
60
45
Cambridgeshire
St Helens
35
30
Essex
200
Stockport
60
45
Hertfordshire
135
90
Tameside
60
35
Luton
50
30
Trafford
40
30
Norfolk
130
90
Warrington
45
35
Peterborough
75
50
Wigan
60
45
Southend-on-Sea
35
30
Wirral
80
60
Suffolk
110
60
551W
Written Answers
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Children who were taken into care during the year ending 31 March, by local authority1,2,3,4,5, year ending 31 March 2012—Coverage: England
552W
Children who were taken into care during the year ending 31 March, by local authority1,2,3,4,5, year ending 31 March 2012—Coverage: England
Number
Number
2012
Thurrock London Inner London Camden City of London
2012
Children taken into care during the last 12 months to 31 March 20122
Children taken into care during the last 6 months to 31 March 20123
55
30
1,890
1,130
950
550
65
40
Children taken into care during the last 12 months to 31 March 20122 West Berkshire
Children taken into care during the last 6 months to 31 March 20123
15
10
West Sussex
120
65
Windsor and Maidenhead
15
10
Wokingham
x
x
750
480
20
15 30
0
0
Hackney
60
45
South West
Hammersmith and Fulham
30
25
Bath and North East Somerset
150
55
Bournemouth
65 110
55
100
80
Haringey Islington
70
45
Bristol, City of
Kensington and Chelsea
15
10
Cornwall Devon
75
60
Lambeth
85
55
Dorset
25
20
45
25
Lewisham
75
45
Gloucestershire
Newham
90
70
Isles of Scilly
Southwark
115
50
North Somerset
Tower Hamlets
0
0
15
15
100
60
Plymouth
60
30
Wandsworth
50
25
Poole
25
15
Westminster
45
25
Somerset
95
50
South Gloucestershire
30
20
Swindon
20
20
Outer London
930
570
Barking and Dagenham
105
55
Barnet
65
45
Bexley
50
35
Brent
85
65
Bromley
40
30
Croydon
45
15
Ealing
70
45
Enfield
70
35
110
60
Harrow
25
15
Havering
25
15
Hillingdon
40
30
Hounslow
65
40
Greenwich
Kingston upon Thames
15
10
Merton
25
10
Redbridge
25
20
Richmond upon Thames
10
10
Sutton
30
20
Waltham Forest
40
15
South East
1,340
860
Bracknell Forest
15
10
Brighton and Hove
95
70
Buckinghamshire
50
25
East Sussex
125
60
Hampshire
135
80
Isle of Wight
20
10
275
185
Medway Towns
35
35
Milton Keynes
45
30
100
75
Kent
Oxfordshire Portsmouth
30
30
Reading
45
30
Slough
25
20
Southampton
65
45
130
75
Surrey
Torbay
30
20
Wiltshire
40
25
1
England and regional totals have been rounded to the nearest 10. Local authority numbers have been rounded to the nearest five. 2 Only the first occasion on which a child was taken into care during the year has been counted. 3 Only the first occasion on which a child was taken into care during the six months has been counted. 4 Figures exclude children looked after under an agreed series of short-term placements. 5 Historical data may differ from older publications. This is mainly due to the implementation of amendments and corrections sent by some local authorities after the publication date of previous materials. Notes: 1. Children who were taken into care are children who started to be looked after under a care order, police protection, an emergency protection order or under a child assessment order. 2. ‘x’ = figures not shown in order to protect confidentiality. Source: SSDA 903
Free School Meals: Further Education John Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the cost of extending free school meal eligibility to 16 to 18 year-olds studying at further education or sixth [126996] form colleges. Mr Laws: We are currently assessing options for free school meal eligibility for 16 to 18-year-olds in further education and sixth form colleges. Estimates given to the House by the then Minister of State for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), on 13 June 2012, Official Report, columns 92-95WH, placed costs in a range of £38 million to £70 million: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/ cmhansrd/cm120613/halltext/ 120613h0001.htm#12061355000394l
553W
Written Answers
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Physical Education: Teachers Nic Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he has taken to ensure that primary school teachers are trained in teaching [125571] fundamental movement skills. Mr Laws: The Secretary of State for Education does not set the content of initial teacher training courses or require that training providers deliver teaching in fundamental movement skills. 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. Trainees must know and understand the relevant statutory and non-statutory curricula and frameworks and other relevant information applicable to the age and ability range for which they are trained. Nic Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of the initial teacher training syllabus for primary school teachers is devoted [125854] to physical education. Mr Laws: The Secretary of State for Education does not set the content of initial teacher training courses or require that training providers devote a proportion of
554W
the syllabus to physical education. 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. Trainees must know and understand the relevant statutory and non-statutory curricula and frameworks and other relevant information applicable to the age and ability range for which they are trained. JUSTICE Assaults on Police Gareth Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many convictions for assaults on police officers there have been in each of the last 10 years; and what the sentence imposed was in each case. [126371] Jeremy Wright: The number of defendants found guilty at all courts for the offence of assault on a constable, by sentence breakdown, in England and Wales from 2002 to 2011 can be viewed in the table. Where more serious assaults on a police officer are committed, for example actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm, a more serious offence will be charged and it is not possible to identify these cases from the recording of the offence.
Defendants found guilty at all courts and sentenced for ‘assault on a constable’1, England and Wales, 2002-112, 3, 4 Outcome
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Guilty
6,506
7,883
9,342
9,946
9,654
9,921
9,640
9,189
8,695
9,224
Sentenced
6,510
7,881
9,333
9,943
9,653
9,913
9,622
9,215
8,729
9,241
14
32
15
22
34
32
27
20
22
31
779
1,020
1,115
1,135
1,019
1,124
919
752
814
799
Fine
1,061
1,270
1,335
1,206
987
933
980
1,283
1,253
1,782
Community sentence
3,193
3,874
4,809
5,034
4,459
4,614
4,794
4,710
4,209
4,318
37
39
46
283
1,027
1,119
984
812
768
737
1,277
1,449
1,782
1,960
1,709
1,715
1,589
1,461
1,368
1,255
Otherwise dealt with
149
197
231
303
418
376
329
177
295
319
Average custodial sentence length (months)5
2.9
2.8
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.4
Average fine (£)
148
152
162
170
184
197
192
175
165
144
Absolute discharge Conditional discharge
Suspended suspended Immediate custody
1
Includes offence under: Police Act 1996, S.89 (1) 2 The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. 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. 4 The number of offenders sentenced can differ from those found guilty as it may be the case that a defendant found guilty in a particular year, and committed for sentence at the Crown court, may be sentenced in the following year. 5 Excludes life and indeterminate sentences. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services—Ministry of Justice.
Criminal Injuries Compensation: Cumbria John Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people received compensation payments under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme in (a) Barrow and Furness constituency and (b) Cumbria in each of the last five years; and what the [126995] total cost was in each case in each year. Mrs Grant: I have placed the breakdown of individual payments, including the range of postcodes the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) have used to define Cumbria, in the parliamentary Library. CICA does not hold any information that would allow it to
extract figures based on parliamentary constituencies. For the purposes of answering this question they have therefore defined Barrow and Furness as the postcode range from LA13 to LA16. The overall totals are as follows: Number of claims
Total cost (£)
Cumbria
Of which: Barrow and Furness
Cumbria
Of which: Barrow and Furness
2007-08
341
44
1,334,029
124,038
2008-09
328
40
1,374,616
156,375
2009-10
350
41
2,330,398
167,828
Financial year
555W
Written Answers Number of claims
556W
Prisoners: Death
Total cost (£)
Cumbria
Of which: Barrow and Furness
Cumbria
Of which: Barrow and Furness
2010-11
406
49
2,294,202
174,033
2011-12
354
43
3,200,901
317.456
Financial year
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Judiciary: Pensions Dan Rogerson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 17 July 2012, Official Report, columns 131-32WS, when he expects to bring forward proposals to reform the judicial pension scheme in line with wider public [126387] service pension reform. Jeremy Wright: Discussions are still ongoing and I will make a further statement once they have been concluded. Legal Aid Scheme
Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many people died whilst in custody of the Prison Service in each calendar year (a) from 2001 to 2011 and (b) in 2012 to date; [127221] (2) how many people, by ethnic group, died whilst in custody of the Prison Service in each calendar year (a) [127222] from 2001 to 2011 and (b) in 2012 to date. Jeremy Wright: Table 1 shows the total number of deaths in prison custody by calendar year from 2001 to 2011 and figures to 30 June 2012 and a breakdown of those figures by ethnicity. The latest information on deaths in prison custody can be found in the Safety in Custody Statistics bulletin which is updated each quarter. It can be found at the following weblink; http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/prisons-and-probation/ safety-in-custody Table 1: Deaths in prison custody by year and ethnicity White
Asian
Black
Mixed
Chinese/ other
Total
2001
131
3
7
n/a
1
142
2002
148
6
8
n/a
2
164
2003
167
6
8
n/a
2
183
Jeremy Wright: The information is not readily available. I will write to my hon. Friend once the cases have been identified by the Legal Services Commission (LSC).
2004
186
10
9
3
0
208
2005
145
6
20
3
0
174
2006
134
6
10
2
1
153
2007
151
9
21
7
2
185
Organised Crime: Females
2008
143
13
2
3
4
165
2009
153
6
3
6
1
169
2010
172
11
11
2
1
197
2011
167
8
12
4
1
192
88
6
8
1
—
103
Mr Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the three most expensive criminal cases were in each of the last five years in terms of legal aid [126609] expenditure.
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate he has made of the number of girls involved in gangs that have been sexually [125510] exploited. Mr Jeremy Browne: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Home Department. There are currently very little data on the number of girls involved in gang violence that have been sexually exploited. Research by the organisation Race on the Agenda (2010; 2011) exposed the harm that women and girls can experience as a result of their relationships with gang-associated male family members and peers. To help address this problem, the Government’s ‘Ending Gang and Youth Violence’ report, published in November 2012, announced £1.2 million of additional funding over three years (until March 2015) to improve services for young people under 18 suffering sexual violence, with a focus on sexual exploitation by gangs. Pay Systems Guy Opperman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether he plans to implement payment by [126390] results to prevent offending. Jeremy Wright: By 2015, we intend to apply the payment by results approach to the majority of rehabilitation work conducted with offenders in the community. We will commission providers to rehabilitate offenders, and reward those who are successful at reducing reoffending. We will be announcing detailed proposals soon.
2012 (to 30 June)
n/a = Not available—mixed category used from 2004
Prisons: Private Sector Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice on what occasions private prisons have refused to take new prisoners; and for what reasons such refusals were [127058] made. Jeremy Wright: The information requested is not collected centrally and could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost. All prisons have criteria for accepting new prisoners. Provided the prisoner meets these criteria, he or she will normally be accepted. However, a prison may decline to accept a prisoner for a number of reasons, including the prisoner’s not meeting the acceptance criteria, late arrival at the establishment or the prison having reached its full capacity. Public Expenditure Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to the answer of 8 March 2012, Official Report, columns 853-4W, on public expenditure, how much has been saved by his Department in the areas of (a) administration and (b) front line efficiency since May 2010; and how much he expects to save in each area in (i) 2012-13, (ii) 2013-14 and (iii) 2014-15. [127052]
557W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Mrs Grant: Since the spending review settlement, the Department made savings in its back office (administration) functions of £210 million and £220 million of frontline efficiencies in 2011-12. The Department expects to make additional savings in future years as follows: Frontline
2012-13
250
90
2013-14
20
100
2014-15
50
70
Note: Annual totals rounded to the nearest £10 million.
Therefore, over the course of this spending review period the Department plans to make savings in its back office (administration) functions of £530 million and £480 million of frontline efficiencies. The nature of forecasting savings which are to be delivered in future years mean that figures will inevitably be subject to some change as we move through the spending review period. Reoffenders Guy Opperman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps he plans to take to reduce the number of people going repeatedly through the [126358] criminal justice system on short sentences. Jeremy Wright: We recognise that those sentenced to short custodial sentences have high reoffending rates and we are looking to see how best to deliver rehabilitation for this group, in addition to those who have been sentenced to 12 months or more and those given community orders. By the end of 2015 we intend to apply the payment by results approach right across our rehabilitation work with offenders in the community. Reoffenders: Medway Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the reoffending rate was for (a) Gillingham and Rainham constituency and (b) [126391] Medway in each of the last five years. Jeremy Wright: Proven reoffending statistics for England and Wales are published quarterly, most recently for the period January to December 2010. These statistics provide proven reoffending rates at the national, regional, probation trust and local authority level, but not at the constituency level. Table 1 presents the number of offenders in Kent and Medway local authorities who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates
558W
or cocaine in each of the years, 2006 to 2010; and the proportion that committed a proven reoffence within a one-year follow-up period. Table 1: Number of offenders cautioned, convicted or released from custody in each year between 2006 and 2010 and the proportion who reoffended within a one-year follow-up period
£ million Administration
Written Answers
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
17,138
17,880
17,827
17,482
15,361
24.9
23.5
24.4
23.6
25.1
3,613
3,908
3,647
4,034
3,437
25.0
24.4
25.7
23.9
26.0
Kent Number of offenders in cohort Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%) Medway Number of offenders in cohort Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%)
Proven reoffending is defined as any offence committed in a one-year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one-year follow-up period or a further six-month waiting period to allow cases to progress through the courts. Research Chris Kelly: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what external policy research his Department has commissioned in each of the last six years; from which organisation each such piece of research was commissioned; and what the cost of each such piece of [123189] research was. Jeremy Wright: A list of external policy research projects commissioned by the Ministry of Justice (and formerly by the Department for Constitutional Affairs— DCA—and the Office for Criminal Justice Reform—OCJR) in each of the last six years, the organisation from which the research was commissioned and the cost of the research can be viewed in the following table. Some research that was contracted before 2008-09 (eg research commissioned by OCJR) can only be supplied by the Home Office and is not included in this response. Additionally, because of departmental restructuring and the restructuring of its research and analytical services during the past six years, some research projects may be omitted from the table, or may be duplicated in returns for other Government Departments.
External policy research contracts commissioned by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA), the Office for Criminal Justice Reform (OCJR) and the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) in each of the last six years Year commissioned1
Title of research project
Supplier
Total contract cost (£)2
Office3
2006-07
Access to justice for people with mental health problems
KMRC
19,900.00
DCA
2006-07
Access to justice for vulnerable groups—exploring issues of age, identity, health and social conditions
University of Birmingham
54,840.00
DCA
2006-07
Delivering excellent public services
Dr Chris Fox
28,593.73
DCA
559W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Written Answers
560W
External policy research contracts commissioned by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA), the Office for Criminal Justice Reform (OCJR) and the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) in each of the last six years Year commissioned1
Title of research project
Supplier
Total contract cost (£)2
2006-07
Drivers of public satisfaction in the civil (family and non-family), criminal and tribunal justice systems
Cardiff University
61,084.00
DCA
2006-07
Drivers of satisfaction with the justice system
INLOGOV
34,340.00
DCA
2006-07
Evaluation of the measure to support victims of domestic violence in the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act (2004) and the proposed Croydon Integrated Domestic Violence Court
University of Bristol
105,993.00
DCA
2006-07
Impact of changing court fees on users
Opinion Leader
63,400.00
DCA
2006-07
Impact of changing court fees on users (2)
Opinion Leader
3,579.25
DCA
2006-07
Knowledge review of alternative dispute resolution
University of Salford
25,957.00
DCA
2006-07
North Liverpool Community Justice Centre Evaluation
ECOTEC
247,000.00
DCA
2006-07
Profiling public law s.31 cases
University of Bristol
199,363.00
DCA
2006-07
Public attitudes towards summary justice in England and Wales
Promise
39,250.00
DCA
2006-07
Public attitudes towards summary justice in England and Wales (2) DVD production
Exposure 4
7,300.00
DCA
2006-07
Public knowledge of and attitudes to the jury—An international literature review
ICPR
13,600.00
DCA
2006-07
Public legal education and support (PLEAS)
aB Consultancy
32,000.00
DCA
2006-07
Public protection, proportionality and the search for balance
University of Oxford
24,514.00
DCA
2006-07
Users’ experiences of the coroner’s court
Ipsos Mori
22,665.00
DCA
2006-07
Users’ experiences of the coroner’s court (2)
Ipsos Mori
200.00
DCA
2006-07
Users’ experiences of the coroner’s court (3)
Ipsos Mori
2,325.00
DCA
2006-07
Together Women action research
University of Leicester
100,000.00
NOMS
2006-07
Evaluating the use of mediation in employment tribunals
Peter Unwin
136,807.65
DCA
2006-07
Victims’ advocates pilots evaluation
BMRB
170,913.00
DCA
2007-08
Dedicated drug court pilot—data audit
Matrix
13,515.73
DCA
2007-08
Evaluation of alternative dispute resolution in the Social Security and Child Support Appeals Tribunal
ECOTEC
110,250.00
DCA
2007-08
Race and jury decisionmaking—all white juries
UCL
133,965.00
DCA
2007-08
The court experiences of adults with mental health problems, learning disabilities and limited mental capacity
BMRB
242,014.00
DCA
2007-08
Juvenile cohort study (JCS)
Morgan Harris Burrows
2007-08
The extent and value of pro bono work provided by legal executives and trainee legal executives
ECOTEC
39,813.00
DCA
2008-09
A baseline survey to assess the impact of legal services reforms
National Centre for Social Research (NatCen)
91,770.00
DCA
2008-09
A study of Sharia councils in relation to family law matters in England and Wales
University of Birmingham
21,630.00
DCA
2008-09
Assessment of the early implementation of the minimum dataset specification
AB Consultancy
24,000.00
OCJR
2008-09
Assessment of the implementation of postal charging and requisitions
University of York
43,580.00
OCJR
2008-09
Court fees remission system
PricewaterhouseCoopers
90,000.00
DCA
1,320,422.00
Office3
4
—
561W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Written Answers
562W
External policy research contracts commissioned by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA), the Office for Criminal Justice Reform (OCJR) and the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) in each of the last six years Year commissioned1
Title of research project
Supplier
2008-09
Evaluation of the new public law outline in family courts
National Centre for Social Research
2008-09
Evaluation of the project testing out the conditional cautioning scheme referral to TWP women’s centres
2008-09
Total contract cost (£)2
Office3
104,464.00
DCA
London South Bank University
49,340.00
OCJR
Evaluation on reoffending for community justice initiatives at north Liverpool and Salford
Cambridge University
26,466.00
DCA
2008-09
Examining implementation of the pilot of the stable and acute 2007 dynamic risk assessment tool
NatCen
125,859.00
2008-09
Improving the structure and contents of psychiatric reports: research to develop good practice guidance
BMRB
86,500.00
DCA
2008-09
Mapping support services for victims and witnesses
MVA Consultancy
186,500.00
OCJR
2008-09
Offender management community cohort study
NatCen
2008-09
Polygraph disclosure project
De Montfort University
52,159.90
NOMS
2008-09
Process evaluation of intensive alternative to custody— Derbyshire
Sheffield Hallam University
111,525.00
NOMS
2008-09
Public preferences feasibility study
LSE Enterprise Ltd
108,980.00
NOMS
2008-09
Statistics on women and the criminal justice system
Kings College London
35,800.00
OCJR
2008-09
SWAG evaluation
Sheffield Hallam University
60,300.00
NOMS
2008-09
Together Women (TW) feasibility study
University of Leicester
90,862.36
NOMS
2009-10
A baseline survey to assess the impact of legal services reform
National Centre for Social Research (NatCen)
22,352.50
MOJ
2009-10
Community payback
93,000.00
OCJR
2009-10
Constitutional tracker
BMRB
2009-10
Integrated alternatives to custody: A process evaluation and outcome evaluation feasibility study in IAC pilot areas
Sheffield Hallam University
234,068.00
NOMS
2009-10
Integrated offender management: Feasibility study
Sheffield Hallam University
228,516.20
NOMS
2009-10
Mandatory polygraph pilots
University of Kent
315,777.00
MOJ
2009-10
National Crown court sentencing survey
Methodology and Consulting Services
3,765.00
MOJ
2009-10
Research on the strengths and skills of the judiciary in the magistrates courts of England and Wales (SRG/09/021)
Ipsos-Mori
268,000.00
DCA
2009-10
Right here, Right now
TNS - BMRB
19,900.00
MOJ
2009-10
Sharia research
University of Reading
21,630.00
MOJ
2009-10
Together Woman data collection
QinetiQ
14,600.00
MOJ
2009-10
Together Woman outcome evaluation
University of Leicester
88,108.00
MOJ
2009-10
Virtual court evaluation
WM Enterprise
189,669.38
OCJR
2010-11
Imprisonment for public protection (IPP)
IPSOS MORI
59,475.00
MOJ
2010-11
Homicide service evaluation
National Centre for Social Research (NatCen)
59,093.00
MOJ
2010-11
Peterborough independent assessor
QinetiQ
106,730.00
MOJ
2010-11
Police and CPS case file database and analysis
National Centre for Social Research (NatCen)
194,660.00
MOJ
2010-11
Sentence planning approaches (SPA)
Institute for Criminal Policy Research (ICPR)
72,915.00
NOMS
2010-11
Reflective supervision pilot (RSM)
Institute for Criminal Policy Research (ICPR)
25,625.00
NOMS
2010-11
SPA/RSM literature review
Institute for Criminal Policy Research (ICPR)
18,250.00
NOMS
2010-11
Offender management feedback questionnaire development
Institute for Criminal Policy Research (ICPR)
95,255.00
NOMS
2010-11
Sex offender project
London Economics Ltd
46,800.00
MOJ
2010-11
Prison and crime
Professor Roger Tarling
3,300.00
MOJ
1,730,113.00
18,750.00
NOMS
MOJ
MOJ
563W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Written Answers
564W
External policy research contracts commissioned by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA), the Office for Criminal Justice Reform (OCJR) and the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) in each of the last six years Year commissioned1
Title of research project
Supplier
Total contract cost (£)2
2010-11
The social impact bond at HMP Peterborough
RAND Europe
2010-11
Skills for effective engagement and Development (SEED)— investigating quality
University of Sheffield
176,536.00
NOMS
2010-11
Skills for effective engagement and development (SEED)— evaluation
University of Sheffield
172,541.00
NOMS
2010-11
SPCR missing data project—part 1 and 2
University of Surrey
59,004.25
MOJ
2011-12
Analysis of paedophile interviews
National Centre for Social Research (NatCen)
20,000.00
NOMS
2011-12
Evaluating the low value road traffic accident process
Professor Paul Fenn
12,500.00
MOJ
2011-12
Doncaster PbR process evaluation project
GVA Grimley Limited
99,645.00
MOJ
2011-12
Evidence and practice review of support for victims and outcome measurement
National Centre for Social Research (NatCen)
89,668.80
MOJ
2011-12
FOI study
Market and Opinion Research International Ltd
64,310.00
MOJ
2011-12
Informal mentoring project evaluation
M and E Consulting
75,850.00
NOMS
2011-12
Investigation of prison climate
Nottingham Trent University
15,000.00
NOMS
2011-12
Justice reinvestment project
Sheffield Hallam University
2011-12
PIPES observational evaluation
National Centre for Social Research (NatCen)
2011-12
Security health check of the Traka key management solution at HMP Stocken
QinetiQ
2011-12
SPCR attrition project
Ian Brunton-Smith
39,812.00
MOJ
2011-12
Systematic review for general and violent reoffending
Matrix Insight Ltd
69,137.50
NOMS
2011-12
The effectiveness of different community order requirements for offenders
National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR)
41,240.00
MOJ
2011-12
Circles of support and accountability
University of the West of England
46,475.00
MOJ
2011-12
Exploring a new language for adult sentences to improve public understanding
DUCKFoOT Research and Development Ltd
26,110.00
MOJ
2011-12
Youth justice reinvestment pathfinder evaluation
Sheffield Hallam University
171,591.50
MOJ
97,960.00
143,168.80 39,663.00 2,500.00
Office3 MOJ
MOJ NOMS MOJ
1
‘Year commissioned’ denotes the year in which the contract was originally commissioned. This is not the same as the year in which payments for research were made. ‘Total contract costs’ includes the most accurate information that could be obtained at the time of response on the value of the contract as initially agreed, or the amount finally paid where this was different. 3 MOJ = Ministry of Justice; DCA = the Department for Constitutional Affairs; OCJR = Office for Criminal Justice Reform; NOMS = National Offender Management Service. 4 Costs were shared between MOJ, NOMS and the Youth Justice Board. Note: This response includes policy research commissioned through analysis and research teams within MoJ. Other externally commissioned research (e.g. surveys) is not included. It does not include research by the Home Office’s Centre for Applied Science and Technology (CAST) which is funded by the Ministry of Justice. Some research before 2008-09 (such as research contracted by OCJR) can only be supplied by the Home Office and is not included in this response. Source: Analytical and Business Support Team, Analytical Services Directorate—Ministry of Justice 2
Staff
Percentage Department/Agency
(a) Male
(b) Female
Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what proportion of his Department’s staff are [126156] (a) male and (b) female.
Office of the Public Guardian
39.20
60 80
Jeremy Wright: The following table shows the proportion of male and female staff within the Ministry of Justice.
This information relates to civil servants as of 31 March 2012 and is published on the Office for National Statistics website.
Percentage Department/Agency
(a) Male
(b) Female
Ministry of Justice HQ
42.90
57.10
Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service
29.80
70.20
National Offender Management Service
64.20
35.80
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice on what dates (a) Ministers in his Department and (b) officials at payband SCS3 in his Department have met representatives of (i) G4S, (ii) Sodexo, (iii) Mitie and (iv) Serco since May 2010; what the name was of each attendee at each such meeting; and what the nature was [126184] of each such meeting.
565W
Written Answers
Jeremy Wright: The information requested is being collated from ministerial and official diaries over the period from May 2010 to date. I will write to the right hon. Member as soon as possible.
Toby Perkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the capacity of each young offender institute is; and how many offenders each held on 1 [126925] November 2012.
Toby Perkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many deaths there have been in young offenders institutions in each year since 2005; in which institutions the deaths occurred; and what the cause of [127037] death in each case was.
Jeremy Wright: Information on the capacity and population of each young offender institution is set out in the following table. The data is based on the latest available published figures from 28 September 2012.
Jeremy Wright: It is convention when answering questions on deaths of young offenders in young offender institutions (YOIs), to include all deaths in prison custody of those aged 20 and under irrespective of the type of prison establishment they were held in. This is because the roles of prisons may have changed over time and particular prison establishments may hold both adult and young offenders. A number of 21-year-olds are held in YOIs, some of whom will be in transition to the adult prison estate. Approximately 10% of deaths of 21-year-olds occur in YOIs. By convention, these are excluded from young offender deaths in custody figures. Table 1 shows the total number of deaths in prison custody by YOI/prison establishment by year for those aged 20 or under at the time of their death. Table 2 provides a list of these deaths by apparent cause. In summary, of the 46 deaths of those aged 20 and under, 43 are classified as self-inflicted, two as natural causes and one as other/non-natural. These figures are provisional because the actual cause of death is not determined until the inquest.
Capacity and population data for young offender institutions: September 2012 Population
Operational capacity
Ashfield
211
360
Aylesbury
414
444
Brinsford
529
577
Cookham Wood
121
143
Deerbolt
383
513
Feltham
642
762
Glen Parva
643
808
Hindley
243
506
Isis
582
622
Lancaster Farms
506
530
Northallerton
237
252
Portland
525
530
Reading
214
320
Rochester
642
658
Stoke Heath
641
750
Thorn Cross
299
321
Warren Hill
130
192
Werrington
135
160
Wetherby
280
381
566W
Only those establishments with a predominant function of young offender institution are listed in the above table. Dual-use establishments with other predominant functions are not included. These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible error with data entry and processing.
Young Offender Institutions
Predominant young offender institution
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Table 1: Deaths in prison custody by establishment of those aged 20 or under: 2005-11, England and Wales 2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Total
13
2
9
5
5
4
8
Aylesbury
—
—
—
1
—
—
1
Bedford
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
1
—
1
—
1
—
—
Castington
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
Chelmsford
—
—
1
2
—
—
1
Doncaster
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
Brinsford
Durham Forest Bank Glen Parva
2
1
2
—
1
2
2
High Down
—
—
1
2
—
—
—
Hindley
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
Lancaster Farms
1
—
1
—
—
—
— —
Moorland
—
—
1
—
—
—
New Hall
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
Northallerton
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
Norwich
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
Parc
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
Portland
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
Reading
3
—
1
—
—
—
—
Stoke Heath
1
—
—
—
—
1
1
Swinfen Hall
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
Wetherby
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
Note: The figures exclude four further deaths of 21-year-olds that occurred in YOIs: Deerbolt (2009), Brinsford (2009), Aylesbury (2011) and Glen Parva (2011).
567W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Written Answers
568W
Table 2: Deaths in prison custody by year, establishment and apparent cause of those aged 20 or under: 2005-11, England and Wales Establishment
Apparent cause
2005
Lancaster Farms
Self-inflicted
2005
Stoke Heath
Self-inflicted
2005
Brinsford
Self-inflicted
2005
Reading
Self-inflicted
2005
Reading
Self-inflicted
2005
Norwich
Self-inflicted
2005
Glen Parva
Self-inflicted
2005
Castington
Other non-natural
2005
Glen Parva
Self-inflicted
2005
Durham
Self-inflicted
2005
Reading
Self-inflicted
2005
Hindley
Self-inflicted
2005
Doncaster
Self-inflicted
2006
Glen Parva
Self-inflicted
2006
Parc
Self-inflicted
2007
Glen Parva
Natural Causes
2007
Brinsford
Self-inflicted
2007
Northallerton
Natural Causes
2007
Glen Parva
Self-inflicted
2007
Moorland
Self-inflicted
2007
Lancaster Farms
Self-inflicted
2007
High Down
Self-inflicted
2007
Reading
Self-inflicted
2007
Chelmsford
Self-inflicted
2008
Chelmsford
Self-inflicted
2008
High Down
Self-inflicted
2008
High Down
Self-inflicted
2008
Chelmsford
Self-inflicted
2008
Aylesbury
Self-inflicted
2009
Norwich
Self-inflicted
2009
Glen Parva
Self-inflicted
2009
Swinfen Hall
Self-inflicted
2009
Brinsford
Self-inflicted
2009
Portland
Self-inflicted
2010
Forest Bank
Self-inflicted
2010
Glen Parva
Self-inflicted
2010
Stoke Heath
Self-inflicted
2010
Glen Parva
Self-inflicted
2011
Aylesbury
Self-inflicted
2011
Bedford
Self-inflicted
2011
Stoke Heath
Self-inflicted
2011
New Hall
Self-inflicted
2011
Wetherby
Self-inflicted
2011
Chelmsford
Self-inflicted
2011
Glen Parva
Self-inflicted
2011
Glen Parva
Self-inflicted
WOMEN AND EQUALITIES
Equality: Travellers
Apprentices
Mr Hollobone: To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities what discussions she has had with the Secretaries of State for Health and Education on equality of health and education outcomes for members of Gypsy and Traveller communities. [123294]
Mike Crockart: To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities how many apprentices working in the Government Equalities Office are (a) paid and (b) completing a qualification as part of the [123102] apprenticeship. Maria Miller: On 1 April 2011 the Government Equalities Office ceased to be a separate Government Department. The information requested will be included in the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s reply to your similar questions PQ123089 and PQ123090, which relates to the Home Department.
Mrs Grant [holding answer 18 October 2012]: I have had no such discussions. However, in 2010 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr Pickles), set up a Ministerial Working Group on tackling Gypsy and Traveller inequalities, which included Ministers responsible for health and education issues. The Working Group published
569W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
a progress report in April 2012, setting out 28 commitments from across government, including a number relating to health and education. The report can be found at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/ planningandbuilding/mwgreporttravellers
Written Answers
Esther McVey: The information requested is in the following table: Number/percentage Total number of claimants in receipt of DLA who died in 2011
WORK AND PENSIONS
570W
86,020
Number of DLA claimants in 2011
3,450,360
Proportion of DLA claimants who died in 2011 (percentage)
2.5
Notes: 1. DWP administrative data from the Work and Pensions Longitudinal Survey and National Benefits Database. 2. Data is only available until November 2011.
Billing John Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average time taken by his Department to settle invoices to external suppliers or contractors was in each of the last three financial years. [125305]
Mr Hoban: A table with the information, which lists the figures of DWP payments to external suppliers and contractors, the times taken for these payments and the performance levels, from 2009 to date, will be placed in the Library. Children Sir Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the Child Support Agency makes provision to allow children to be away on school trips organised by recognised youth groups; whether such nights away are counted towards nights when the non-resident parent has custody; and if he will make a [127042] statement. Steve Webb: In the current legislation the purpose of the allowance for shared care is to recognise the additional costs that a parent will incur when they provide overnight care for their child or children by means of a reduction in the amount they are required to pay. The definition of shared care for child support purposes is defined in legislation—Regulation 7(1) Child Support Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases Regulations 2000—and relates to the provision of night-time care. If the child is away on holiday or a school trip, the award of a shared care reduction will only apply if care over the period of the trip or holiday has been provided by the non-resident parent, that care was provided overnight, and that both child and parent were at the same address. Where the reduction is applied, the amount of maintenance payable is reduced pro-rata by the number of nights per week the child stays with the non-resident parent, provided that they share overnight care of the child(ren) for at least 52 nights a year. However it remains open to all parents, including those currently using the CSA, to make their own family-based child maintenance arrangement on whatever terms they can agree between themselves. Child Maintenance Options can provide free support to parents to help them do this. Disability Living Allowance Steve McCabe: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of people in receipt of disability living allowance died in [124215] 2011.
Employment Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will commission a survey into the labour force to obtain further detailed information on (a) the latest employment figures, (b) the number of recently employed people who are in (i) part-time and (ii) temporary work and (c) the number of recently-employed people who were previously in [126454] receipt of a pension. Mr Hoban: I do not believe a further survey would represent an efficient use of Government resources. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) already runs the Labour Force Survey which is the largest household survey in the UK covering around 45 thousand households. That survey provides information on employment, unemployment, and inactivity, including levels of part-time and temporary work, on a timely and regular basis. It also includes information on length of time with current employer and age. Its primary use is to show point in time estimates of the number of people involved in different activities within the labour market. Useful information can be obtained from changes in the aggregate numbers over time, but it is less appropriate for looking at flows of people between labour market statuses. ONS publish experimental statistics on flows between employment, unemployment and economic activity as an aid to understanding the movements in the published Labour Force Survey aggregate estimates, although they are not suitable as labour market indicators in their own right. ONS do not consider data to be of sufficient quality to provide reliable estimates of flows between more detailed states such as part-time or temporary employment. Further to this, the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), which is part funded by Government, allows us to analyse relationships between working and drawing a pension among the 50+ in England. In addition to ELSA, the Wealth and Assets Survey will also provide information about those that have re-entered the work force after beginning to draw a private pension in Great Britain when additional waves of data are available. Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will commission a survey into the labour force to obtain detailed information on changed employment behaviour and incentives in order to learn more about the current labour market and the number of people who have chosen to leave the labour [126455] market to care for children full-time.
571W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Mr Hoban: The Labour Force Survey already provides information about the labour market status of people in the UK. This includes people who are economically inactive and their reasons for not being part of the labour force. In the latest data (June to August 2012) it is estimated that there were 2,315,000 people who were inactive because they were looking after the family or home. This estimate is seasonally adjusted. In June 2012 the Prime Minister set-up a Childcare Commission, led jointly by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education, to look at how to improve the affordability and accessibility of child care for working families. As part of the Call for Evidence which ran from 19 July until 31 August, DFE also commissioned surveys from a number of stakeholders. The Commission is due to report in the autumn. Housing Benefit Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many households have moved home as a result of the changes to local housing allowance that came into force on 1 April 2011; and if [127093] he will make a statement. Steve Webb: The Department has commissioned a consortium of academics and research organisations led by Ian Cole, professor of housing studies at Sheffield Hallam university to undertake an independent review of the impact of changes to the local housing allowance system of housing benefit. Elements of the research include a survey of claimants, including those who move and a spatial analysis of the effects of the changes that will examine movement from one local authority to another. The Department published a report of early findings on 14 June and a copy of the report has been lodged in the House Library. Further findings from the interim stage of the review will be published early next year. Housing Benefit: North West Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in employment received housing benefit in each local authority in the [126810] north-west in each year since 2009. Steve Webb: The available information has been placed in the Library. Jobcentre Plus Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether his Department has issued guidance to Jobcentre Plus staff on the circumstances in which they should seek emergency assistance for a member of the public who requires medical assistance (a) while on his Department’s premises and (b) within [126813] a short distance of such premises. Mr Hoban: DWP has procedures in place for provision of first aid to members of the public while on our premises. Our first aid guidance has recently been updated and includes guidance on seeking emergency assistance.
Written Answers
572W
These specific arrangements and obligations do not extend beyond our premises. However, there are no rules that prevent our staff from helping any individual who needs medical assistance in the vicinity of our premises. Social Security Benefits Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the terms of reference will be for the review of the household benefit cap after its first year of operation; when he expects the review to report; and if he will make a statement. [127094] Mr Hoban: A review of the initial impact of the cap will be published in autumn 2014, which will also contain an assessment of effectiveness of the delivery of the cap. In light of the findings we will then explore the scope for further evaluation. The review, to a great extent, will attempt to evaluate the effect of the cap on the number of people who are currently receiving more than the threshold and thus will have their benefit payment reduced in April 2013. We aim to provide as full picture as possible to this time scale. The scope of the evaluation will assess savings against those forecast in the impact assessment. It will also use administrative data to capture movement of households to affordable accommodation and into work. We plan to engage external experts in the field to advise on feasibility of assessing to what extent we are able to attribute this to the cap. We will also elicit the views of stakeholders with regard to the preparations and mitigations of the cap. Work Capability Assessment Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will publish the evidence he has for the assertion by the hon. Member for Fareham on BBC Radio 4’s The World At One on 11 October 2012 that claimants are withholding medical evidence during their work capability assessments until the [126812] appeals stage of the assessment. Mr Hoban: There was no suggestion made that claimants are deliberately withholding medical evidence, but we would like encourage claimants to gather the right medical information quickly to support their claim. Evidence from the President’s Report, Social Entitlement Chamber: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/tribunals/socialsecurity-and-child-support/publications/president-report2008-09.pdf
suggests that tribunals were given additional evidence not available to the DWP decision-maker in 65% of cases. One of the main reasons for introducing the ‘mandatory reconsideration’ process is that when a claimant queries a DWP decision, they will be given an explanation and helped to identify any additional evidence that could change the decision to enable DWP to ensure that all claimants receive the benefits to which they are entitled at the earliest opportunity.
573W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Written Answers
574W
CABINET OFFICE
Government Departments: Buildings
Construction: Standards
Mr Hollobone: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office with reference to his recent agreement on the lease of Admiralty Arch, whether he plans to reach such agreements for other Government buildings; and what estimate he has made of the likely net proceeds that would arise. [126953]
Mr Doran: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress he has made on the review of Government Construction Standards; and when the Review is expected to report. [126731] Miss Chloe Smith: The Government Construction Strategy One Year On Report confirms that the Government Construction Standards (incorporating the Common Minimum Standards) were refreshed in autumn 2011. We are currently reviewing the Government Construction Standards and the work is on track for consideration at the Government Construction Board’s December meeting. Publication will follow in due course. The Common Minimum Standards can be found at: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/ CMS-for-publication-v1-2.pdf
Emergencies: Planning John Mann: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what information his Department holds on differences in protocol for emergency disaster planning at sporting stadia when the disaster was (a) inside and (b) outside the stadium. [122584] Miss Chloe Smith: The ‘Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds’, published by DCMS, advises that ground management should assess the risk of any incident occurring at a sports ground which might prejudice spectator safety, or disrupt normal operations, and produce contingency plans to provide a structured and graduated response inside the stadium to such incidents which take account of both the internal and external factors specific to the sports ground. Although the contingency plans are prepared by ground management the guide recommends that there should be consultation with the emergency services to ensure that the contingency plans are compatible with any emergency procedures outside the stadium for dealing with a major incident required under the Civil Contingencies Act 1975. Although the ‘Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds’ has no statutory force many of its recommendations will be made statutory at individual grounds by their inclusion in safety certificates issued under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 or the Fire Safety and safety of Places of Sport Act 1987. The advice on drawing up contingency plans in the ‘Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds’ has been supplemented by further detailed advice published by the Sports Grounds Safety Authority in their publication ‘Safety Management’. Alex Cunningham: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent progress he has made on the [126335] Government’s emergency preparedness. Miss Chloe Smith: The forthcoming second Annual Report on the implementation of the National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) will give the most recent assessment of progress on Government emergency preparedness for civil emergencies. It will set out work being done to plan for the highest priority risks, measures being undertaken to improve the resilience of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and larger corporations, and programmes to improve emergency response.
Miss Chloe Smith: The civil estate is kept continually under review and we report regularly on changes. The Cabinet Office’s preference is to consolidate government operations into freehold space where that is practical and cost-effective. Freehold buildings which are no longer required for government use should generally be sold. Since 2010 we have generated over £640 million from the sale of more than 250 freeholds. In some exceptional cases, such as Admiralty Arch, we will retain freeholds of space which we are not using while selling a lease. Immigration: Eastern Europe Mr Frank Field: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many people born in A8 countries of Eastern Europe have been resident in the UK for less than 12 months; what the increase in the population was between 2004 and 2011 from those born in the A8 countries of Eastern Europe; and what the figure was for net migration between 2004 and 2011 from those born in the A8 countries of Eastern Europe. [R] [126754]
Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply. Letter from Glen Watson, dated November 2012: As Director General for the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to respond to your questions regarding (1) how many people born in A8 countries of Eastern Europe have been resident in the UK for less than 12 months, (2) what the increase in population was between 2004 and 2011 from those born in the A8 countries of Eastern Europe and (3) what the figure was for net migration between 2004 and 2011from those born in the A8 countries of Eastern Europe (126754). (1) The Office for National Statistics does not collect country of birth data for short term migrants but does collect citizenship information. The most recent estimate of people with A8 citizenship staying for between 3 and 12 months is 29,395. This data is for the year to June 2010. More recent data will be published in May 2013. This estimate is based on the International Passenger Survey (IPS). (2) The number of people born in the A8 countries in 2004 was 167,000, and in 2011 was 988,000. The increase in this population was therefore 821,000. These estimates are based on the Annual Population Survey (APS). (3) The latest figures for the year to December 2011 for net migration by country of birth will be published at the end of this month. The figure for net migration from 2004 to 2010 is 355,000. This estimate is based on the IPS. Differences between the samples of the IPS and the APS, for example the inclusion of short term migrants in the APS, meant that caution should be applied when comparing the two datasets. More detail on the differences between the two surveys can be found in the document ’Estimating International Migration: An exploration of the definitional differences between the Labour Force Survey, Annual Population Survey, International Passenger Survey and Long-Term International Migration’. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migration1/population-bycountry-of-birth-and-nationality/sources-of-internationalmigration-data/differences-between-sources-of-internationalmigration-data.pdf
575W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Written Answers
576W
Estimates broken down by (a) local authority area and (b) parliamentary constituency are not available.
Press: Subscriptions Mike Freer: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much his Department spent on newspapers, periodicals and trade publications in the last [125652] 12 months. Miss Chloe Smith: In the last 12 months the Cabinet Office spent £16,618 with our main supplier of newspapers and periodicals. However Management Units are free to make their own arrangements for the provision of newspapers, periodicals and trade publications and as a result no records are kept centrally of total costs to the Department. Procurement Michael Connarty: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what his policy is on the commissioning of services by non-departmental public bodies and executive agencies; and if he will make a statement. [126922]
Mr Hurd: As with all public bodies we expect nondepartmental public bodies and executive agencies to take an intelligent approach to commissioning services from the most appropriate provider. Intelligent commissioning is a crucial element of high quality public services and this is why we are establishing a Commissioning Academy which is being piloted and will formally launch next year. TREASURY Deficit Reduction 22. Andrew Selous: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to ensure that the wealthiest contribute most to deficit reduction. [126541] Mr Gauke: The Government is committed to a fair tax system in which those with the most contribute the most. The UK’s tax system is a progressive one and wealthy individuals make a substantial contribution to the Exchequer. The Government has increased this contribution in a number of ways since the election. Child Benefit Rachel Reeves: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department’s planned introduction of the high income child benefit charge on [125083] 7 January 2013 is progressing to timetable. Mr Gauke [holding answer 26 October 2012]: Yes. Letters explaining the new child benefit rules have been issued in batches from the week commencing 29 October 2012, on schedule. There will be plenty of time for those affected to consider their options and make an informed choice in time for the 7 January 2013 rule change. Mr Byrne: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people will be affected by the income tax charge for those on higher incomes in receipt of child benefit in each (a) local authority area and (b) [125984] constituency. Mr Gauke [holding answer 31 October 2012]: We estimate that about 1.2 million people will be affected by the child benefit higher income charge nationally.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the capping of child benefit at two children. [126808] Mr Gauke: The Government are exploring further options for making the welfare system fairer and more affordable, and details will be announced in due course. European Central Bank Mr Cash: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the basis in the proposed revised European Banking Authority Regulation is for any difference in treatment between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities of non-Eurozone [125205] member states. Greg Clark: The proposed regulation amending the regulation establishing the European Banking Authority (the ″EBA″) causes some concerns for the UK. In particular, there is a risk of asymmetry in the treatment of the ECB versus other competent authorities in relations with the EBA under the proposed arrangements. Under the proposed provisions the ECB would not be bound by the decisions of the EBA in relation to binding mediations and determinations as to whether there has been a breach of EU law, while national competent authorities would be bound by the decision of the EBA. Binding mediation is the process whereby the EBA can in the event of disagreements between competent authorities adopt decisions requiring the competent authority to adopt measures necessary to settle the matter. As an EU institution, the ECB cannot legally be bound by EBA decisions on binding mediation, and would be subject to a ″comply or explain″ arrangement, whereas other national competent authorities would be bound by EBA decisions. The UK has been clear in negotiations that the EBA should have the same powers and authority in relation to the ECB as other national competent authorities. It would be inequitable if, for example, the ECB and a national competent authority brought a case to binding mediation with only the national supervisor bound by the outcome. The UK will continue to insist on symmetry in the treatment of competent authorities, including the ECB in the performance of its supervisory tasks. Income Tax: Hampshire Mr Denham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many higher-rate taxpayers were resident in (a) Hampshire and (b) Southampton in each of the last [126727] five years. Mr Gauke: The information requested is shown in the following table: Higher rate taxpayers Tax year 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Hampshire
Thousand Southampton
104 112 116 116
7 8 8 10
577W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Higher rate taxpayers Tax year
Hampshire
Written Answers
578W
PAYE Thousand Southampton
2009/10 104 Note: Figures for 2008/09 are currently unavailable.
7
These estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes data. Reliable estimates for later years based on the projected SPI data are not available due to greater uncertainties in projections for small geographical areas. Job Creation: Private Sector Caroline Nokes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fiscal steps he is taking to encourage [126531] job creation in the private sector. Danny Alexander: Despite these tough economic times, under this Government private sector employment has increased by over a million since 2010. The Government are continuing to support private sector growth through a radical programme of reforms and investment including the £2.4 billion regional growth fund, the £1.2 billion Business Finance Partnership access-to-finance scheme and reducing corporation tax to 22% by 2014. The Government are helping the long-term unemployed return to work. The £3-5 billion Work programme will support 2.4 million people by 2017.
Catherine McKinnell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contingency plans are in place to mitigate any potential problems with the implementation of his Department’s real-time [126652] information reporting system. Mr Gauke: HMRC are front loading the migration of employers onto the Real Time Information (RTI) system. This means that most employers, who are not involved in the RTI pilot, will join RTI in April 2013. There will be six months to resolve issues for employers or HMRC before the Department for Work and Pensions starts to roll out universal credit. Universal credit will be phased in over four years and there will be facilities for individuals to self report their income in the event of problems with the real time reporting system. Sovereignty: Scotland Mr Bain: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with Ministers in the Scottish Government on (a) the supervision of the banks and the financial system, (b) membership of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, (c) membership of the Financial Conduct Authority, (d) the supervision of the housing market, (e) the definition of financial stability within the Financial Services Act 2012, (f) the regulation of the pensions industry and (g) the regulation of the insurance sector were Scotland to become a separate state in 2016.
Mass Media Helen Goodman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which newspaper and other media proprietors, editors and senior executives he has met [127007] since 1 July 2012. Sajid Javid: Details of meetings that Ministers have with proprietors, editors and senior media executives are published on a quarterly basis on the Treasury’s website under the Government’s transparency agenda: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/minister_hospitality.htm
Mining: Takeovers John McDonnell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the regulations on reverse takeovers issued by the Financial Services Authority apply to mining companies listed on the London Stock Exchange; and what assessment he has made of the likely effect of the regulations. [124876] Greg Clark: The regulations on reverse takeovers issued by the Financial Services Authority in October 2012 apply to all companies with a premium listing, a standard listing of shares or a standard listing of certificates representing equity securities. This would capture mining companies who have such a listing. The effect of the regulations is a matter for the Financial Services Authority (FSA), whose day-to-day operations are independent from Government control and influence. The FSA has provided a cost benefit analysis in its consultation paper ‘CP12/2 Amendments to the Listing Rules, Prospectus Rules, Disclosure Rules and Transparency Rules’, which is accessible from: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/static/FsaWeb/Shared/Documents/ pubs/cp/cp12_02.pdf
[124478]
Danny Alexander: In relation to the possibility of Scotland becoming a separate state in 2016, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had no such discussion with the Scottish Government on any of the issues set out in the question. Tax Avoidance Mr Meacher: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government has taken to monitor and enforce the principle set out in Annex 4.4.16 of the 2007 Treasury document, Managing Public Money, that central Government bodies should restrict contractors’ use of offshore jurisdictions, consistent with EU and other international obligations and the Government’s stated objectives on tax transparency and openness, to avoid harmful tax competition; how many violations of this principle have taken place in each of the last five years; and what [125329] penalties were imposed in each such case. Danny Alexander: One of the main concepts in Managing Public Money is that every central Government public body should have an accounting officer who is personally responsible for the standards and conduct of their organisation. As it is the individual accounting officers who are responsible for managing their dealings with contractors, detailed monitoring of their decisions and circumstances is not undertaken. It would be prohibitively expensive to find out how many violations of the principles identified in the question had occurred as it would require writing to every public sector body individually to review their records. Although there is no penalty regime specifically aimed at this area; contractor risks losing the specific contract.
579W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
As part of a review of procurement and tax, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Cabinet Office have been charged to come up with a workable solution to address the issue of tax avoidance by companies holding Government contracts and will set out more details later this year. Taxation: Property Mr Thomas: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the potential revenue which would accrue to the Exchequer from a tax levied on an annual basis on property valued at or above £1,000,000; and if [127016] he will make a statement. Mr Gauke: No estimate is available. Exchequer revenues would depend on the design of such a tax.
HEALTH
Written Answers
580W
Health Services: Leighton Buzzard Andrew Selous: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much it cost to run Whichello’s Wharf House in Leighton Buzzard in the last year for which figures are available; what the average number of in-patients was in that year; and how many out-patients were treated there in that year. [127019] Anna Soubry: This is a matter for Lorraine Cabel, the chair of South Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust. We have written informing her of my hon. Friend’s inquiry. She will reply shortly and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library. Lung Diseases Mr Gregory Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being carried out into the threat posed by idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. [127020]
Cancer
Anna Soubry: Strategic clinical networks, including cancer networks, are non-statutory bodies. They will, however, have clear terms of reference and an annual accountability agreement with the NHS Commissioning Board for the programmes of quality improvement they carry out.
Dr Poulter: The Department’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is currently funding a range of research relating to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). The NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme is funding a systematic review of evidence on the benefits, harms and costs of treatments for IPF. The review began in May 2012 and is expected to report in mid 2014. Results will be helpful to patients and carers and also to health care professionals treating IPF. In addition the NIHR is funding two one-year biomedical research fellowships studying IPF.
Drugs: Prices
Mass Media
Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 18 October 2012, Official Report, column 397W, on drugs: prices, how much advance notice he proposes to give to health stakeholders on how prices will be calculated under [126943] value-based pricing.
Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health which newspaper and other media proprietors, editors and senior executives he has met since 1 July [127008] 2012.
Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the NHS Commissioning Board will hold cancer [126491] networks to account after 2013.
Norman Lamb: Within value-based pricing, the proposal is that companies would be free to propose a price for a new medicine at launch. The assumption is that prices at launch will be set at a level that is close to their expected assessed value. The Department’s preference for the new pricing arrangements for branded medicines would be to achieve a negotiated agreement with the pharmaceutical industry, if possible. The new pricing arrangements will be introduced on 1 January 2014. General Social Care Council Karl Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding his Department plans to provide to [125572] the General Social Care Council in 2012-13. Norman Lamb: Funding from the Department in 2012-13 for the General Social Care Council was £5.714 million. This consisted of £1.868 million running costs and £3.846 million one-off closure costs. The General Social Care Council was abolished on 1 October 2012.
Dr Poulter: Details of ministerial meetings with external stakeholders including newspaper and other media proprietors, editors and senior executives are published quarterly in arrears on the Department’s website at: http://transparency.dh.gov.uk/category/transparency/ ministerial-gifts-hospitality/
Midwives Mr Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of midwifery graduates went [126684] on to work as midwives in 2010-11. Dr Poulter: The Department does not collect this information. The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) are the official agency for the collection, analysis and dissemination of quantitative information about higher education. The contact details for HESA can be viewed at: www.hesa.ac.uk/content/view/2/52/
Mr Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many births per full-time equivalent NHS midwife there were in (a) England and (b) each region [126685] of England in 2011.
581W
Written Answers
Dr Poulter: The following table shows the births per full-time equivalent (FTE) national health service midwife in England and for each region in 2011. Special health authorities
Average midwife FTEs1
Live births2
Live births per midwife FTE
North East
1,059
30,527
28.8
North West
2,925
88,752
30.3
Yorkshire and Humber
2,120
66,451
31.3
East Midlands
1,507
55,378
36.7
West Midlands
2,270
73,023
32.2
East of Enqland
2,011
73,220
36.4
London
3,918
132,843
33.9
South East Coast
1,574
53,161
33.8
South Central
1,376
53,971
39.2
South West
1,900
60,794
32.0
England 20,661 2
Average live births per midwife FTE
—
—
—
688,120
—
—
—
33.3
1
Source—Health and Social Care Information Centre, Provisional NHS Hospital and Community Health Service monthly workforce statistics. 2 Source—Office for National Statistics live births by usual area of residence of mother. Notes: 1. Workforce statistics do not include bank staff, therefore the above table is likely to overestimate birth to midwife ratios. 2. Midwives who work in Special Health Authorities are excluded. 3. Average workforce size is used to remove natural monthly variation. 4. Data relate to calendar year 2011.
Mr Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people graduated from midwifery [126747] courses in 2010-11. Dr Poulter: Graduation figures are not collected by the Department. However we do collect information on numbers of training places commissioned each year. Strategic health authorities are responsible for commissioning midwifery training places. Commissions made in 2007-08 give an indication of the number of people graduating in 2010-11. The actual number of training places commissioned between 2007-08 and 2010-11 are shown in the following table:
582W
Dr Poulter: The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) is the regulatory body for nurses and midwives. Registration with the NMC is an essential requirement for working as a midwife in the United Kingdom. However, not all midwives registering with the NMC may go on to work in the national health service. The NMC collects data on the number of admissions to the NMC register by overseas country. The following table shows the number of midwives admitted to the register from outside the UK by the country of their initial training. Country of training
2011-12
2010-11
2009-10
Italy
58
49
25
Poland
23
16
17
Eire
20
21
5
Bulgaria
13
13
18
Greece
10
4
6
7
14
9
France
7
14
14
Denmark
7
9
4
Lithuania
6
6
1
Belgium
4
11
4
Germany
Total average midwife FTEs1 Total live births
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Czech Republic
3
5
5
Estonia
2
4
1
Slovakia
1
0
0
Austria
1
0
2
Latvia
0
2
0
Netherlands
0
4
0
Malta
0
2
2
Switzerland
0
1
0
Iceland
0
0
1
Other
0
0
1
Total
162
175
115
Source: NMC register 2009-12
Midwives: Training Mrs McGuire: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many students were enrolled on midwifery courses in (a) 2009, (b) 2010, (c) 2011 and (d) 2012. [126393]
2007-08
2,071
2008-09
2,272
2009-10
2,482
Dr Poulter: Enrolment figures are not collected by the Department. However we do collect information on numbers of training places commissioned each year. Strategic health authorities are responsible for commissioning midwifery training places. The actual number of training places commissioned in 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are in the following table. The planned number of commissions for 2012-13 is also included in the table.
2010-11
2,488
Midwifery training commissions 2009-12
2011-12
2,484
Midwifery Training Commissions, 2007-11 Number
Note: The figures include degree, 18-month diploma and, in 2007-08, diploma in higher education courses. Source: Multi professional education and training quarterly monitoring returns.
Midwives: Foreign Workers Mrs McGuire: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many midwives from countries other than the UK were recruited to work in the NHS in (a) 2010, [126369] (b) 2011 and (c) 2012.
Midwifery commissions 2009-10
2,482
2010-11
2,488
2011-12
2,484
2012-13 (plan)
2,578
Note: The figures include both degree and 18 month diploma courses. Source: Multi professional education and training quarterly monitoring returns.
Mrs McGuire: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions were held with (a) Ministers and (b) officials in the Scottish Government on [126395] midwifery student intakes since May 2010.
583W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Dr Poulter: There have been no ministerial or official discussions with the Scottish Government on matters relating to midwifery student intakes since May 2010. NHS: Drugs John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total NHS expenditure on (a) cardiac drugs and (b) cancer drugs was in each of the last three [126378] years. Norman Lamb: The cost to the national health service of medicines termed as ″cardiac drugs″ and “cancer drugs” over the period 2009 to 2011 is provided as follows. This is separated into the cost of prescriptions issued for primary care and the cost of medicines used in secondary medical care, due to differences in the way that the data are collected and recorded. Primary care: Net ingredient cost of prescription items written in the United Kingdom and dispensed, in the community, in England £ million British National Formulary (BNF) chapter 2, Cardiovascular System1
BNF chapter 8, Malignant disease and immunosuppression 2, 3
2009
1,627.3
342.3
2010
1,513.0
339.4
2011
1,351.3
315.9
1
The term “cardiac drugs” is interpreted as medicines classified by BNF chapter 2, Cardiovascular System. This includes drugs for hypertension and anticoagulation and other areas which might or might not be regarded as “cardiac.” 2 The term “cancer drugs” is interpreted as medicines classified by BNF chapter 8, Malignant disease and immunosuppression. There may be medicines classified elsewhere in the BNF also having an application in cancer treatment. 3 Includes medicines funded through the Cancer Drugs Fund. Source: Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) system supplied by the NHS Information Centre. Secondary care: Estimated cost of medicines supplied by hospital pharmacies in England1, 2 £ million WHO ATC Group C—Cardiovascular system
WHO ATC Group L—Antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents3
2009
63.2
1,245.1
2010
61.6
1,424.7
2011
60.7
1,630.2
1
Data cover pharmacies in 97% of hospitals in English with acute beds. These figures include some care commissioned from homecare companies who deliver the medicines to patients in their own homes, however, some spend may be missed. 2 The medicine classification used is the World Health Organisation’s Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (WHO ATC) classification system. As with primary care, the classification groups may not be fully comprehensive of all medicines used to treat cardiovascular conditions and cancer. 3 Includes medicines funded through the Cancer Drugs Fund. Source: IMS HEALTH: Hospital Pharmacy Audit supplied by the NHS Information Centre.
Written Answers
584W
NHS: Lobbying John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the employment by the NHS of lobbyists and public relations companies, who are also employed by pharmaceutical companies to promote their products to the NHS. [126290] Dr Poulter: National health service bodies are responsible and accountable for decisions on the employment of their medical, non medical staff and contractors. Model standing financial instructions and standing orders issued by the Department for use by NHS bodies place a duty to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest in regard to any services commissioned or procured. NHS: Redundancy Mr Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of redundancy of staff in the [126653] NHS has been since May 2010. Dr Poulter: Information on redundancy costs is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the following table: Compulsory redundancies and other departures for primary care trusts (PCTs), strategic health authorities (SHAs) and national health service trusts for the financial years 2010-11 and 2011-12 £000 Category Compulsory redundancies Other departures
2010-11
2011-12
87,747
83,106
131,898
91,589
Notes: 1. “Other departures” include early retirements (except those due to ill health), voluntary redundancies, Mutually Agreed Resignation scheme, pay in lieu of notice etc. 2. Voluntary redundancies are not separately identifiable from other departures; therefore, an overall figure for redundancies is not available.
The figures reported in the accounts are for a full financial year (i.e. between 1 April and 31 March). As such, we are unable to provide a breakdown of the cost associated with exit packages solely since May 2010. The data are taken from the audited summarisation schedules of PCTs, SHAs and NHS trusts, which are used to prepare the NHS elements of the Department’s annual report and accounts. The figures reported represent the total resource cost of compulsory redundancies and other departures for staff leaving their organisation during the year. The expense associated with these departures may have been recognised in part or in full in a previous period. The Department does not collect data from NHS foundation trusts. Where an NHS trust obtains foundation trust status part way through any year, the data provided is only for the part of the year the organisation operated as an NHS trust. NHS: Training
Mr Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times the Medicines Supply Chain Forum has met since 15 May 2012; and on how many such occasions it has discussed medicines shortages. [126388]
Mr Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training he requires NHS staff to undertake to ensure they behave in a courteous, considerate and respectful manner to patients at all [126661] times.
Norman Lamb: The Department’s Medicines Supply Chain Group has met twice since 15 May 2012. Medicines shortages were discussed at both these meetings.
Dr Poulter: Every national health service service provider has an obligation to their patients as part of their Care Quality Commission registration requirements to ensure
585W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
people should be cared for by staff, who are properly qualified and able to do their job. All NHS organisations should adhere to the NHS Values outlined in the NHS constitution. The constitution states that organisations should provide the highest standards of excellence and professionalism in the provision of high-quality care that is safe, effective and focused on patient experience and in the people it employs and the education, training and development they receive. Prescription Drugs Andy Burnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in England have been prescribed (a) benzodiazepines and (b) z-drugs for four months or longer in each of the last five years.
Written Answers
586W
representation on; and who represents the SHA on those committees and groups; [126291] (2) how many meetings his officials have had with the Specialist Healthcare Alliance (SHA) in the last 12 months; and who represented the SHA at those [126292] meetings; (3) pursuant to the answer of 12 July 2011, Official Report, columns 305-6W, to the hon. Member for Wells, on the Specialised Services Patient and Public Engagement Steering Group, for what reasons the Specialised Healthcare Alliance was chosen to represent patients; what the name is of each representative of the Specialist Healthcare Alliance who sits on the Specialised Services Patient and Public Engagement Steering Group; and which organisation [126382] each such person represents.
[126938]
Norman Lamb: Information is not held centrally on the number of people prescribed particular medicines or the duration of treatment. School Milk Nic Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that it will remain possible for milk to be delivered to early years settings after the review of the nursery milk scheme; and whether the cost of delivery is included in the price [125936] paid for milk by his Department. Dr Poulter: The Department’s consultation on The Next Steps for Nursery Milk ended on 23 October. Our intention is to continue the scheme as a universal benefit. None of the proposals in the consultation involve a change in the amount of milk provided, or to the age, or to the number of children eligible to receive it. The Nursery Milk Scheme will continue to reimburse child care providers for the full cost of purchasing milk they provide, free of charge, to eligible children in their care. Social Workers Karl Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many social workers were registered with the General Social Care Council in (a) January 2012, (b) February 2012, (c) March 2012, (d) April 2012, (e) May 2012, (f) June 2012 and (g) July 2012. [125573] Norman Lamb: The Department does not hold data on social workers registered each month. The General Social Care Council’s Annual Report 2011-12 stated that the total number of registered social workers in that financial year was 87,246. The total number of social workers registered from April to July 2012 will be given in the General Social Care Council’s Annual Report and Accounts 2012-13, to be laid before Parliament by 31 March 2013. Specialised Healthcare Alliance John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS committees and advisory groups the Specialist Healthcare Alliance (SHA) has
Anna Soubry: No information is available centrally on the national health service committees and advisory groups which have representatives of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance (SHCA). In the last 12 months from October 2011 to October 2012 there have been two meetings between departmental officials within the policy team for specialised services and the SHCA. These meetings have been part of normal departmental business in engaging with a key stakeholder in the field of rare diseases. On both occasions the SHCA was represented by John Murray. He was accompanied by Andrew Wilkinson to one of the meetings. The SHCA was chosen to represent patients on the Specialised Services Patient and Public Engagement Steering Group because it represents over 80 patient-related organisations to which it is accountable. John Murray was the representative of the SHCA.
ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE Billing Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what the average cost to his Department was of processing the payment of an invoice in the latest period for which figures are available; and what proportion of invoices settled in that period his Department paid (a) electronically and [125689] (b) by cheque. Gregory Barker: The average cost of processing an invoice is calculated to be £3.56 inclusive of indirect costs. In the period July to September 2012, of 1,934 invoices paid, (a) 1,911 (98.81%) were by electronic bank transfer and (b) the remaining 23 (1.19%) by cheque. Fossil Fuels: Scotland Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will place in the Library a copy of any representations he has received from the Scottish Government on the decommissioning of oil and gas fields in the event of Scottish separation. [126814]
587W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Mr Hayes: No direct representations have been received by DECC from the Scottish Government on the decommissioning of oil and gas fields in the event of Scottish separation. Nuclear Industry Council Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will publish the membership of the Nuclear Industry Council. [127087] Mr Hayes: The membership of the Nuclear Industry Council will be published with any agendas and minutes of Council meetings Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change who will meet any costs associated with the Nuclear Industry Council. [127090] Mr Hayes: Officials from DECC and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) supported by the Nuclear Industry Association will provide administrative and secretariat support and the cost associated for providing meeting venues. Any particular workstreams or working group activities or issues the Council will want to explore in more detail will be resourced by companies or organisations represented on the Nuclear Industry Council. Nuclear Power Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change with reference to his departmental press release 2012/135 of 30 October 2012 on the purchase of Horizon Nuclear Power by Hitachi Ltd, what assessment he has made of the ability of the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Environment Agency respectively to conduct a rigorous generic design assessment (GDA) of the Hitachi Advanced Boiling Water Reactor in respect of its suitability to be operated in the UK; and whether the regulators will be able to apply full cost recovery to the owner of the [126908] reactor design for such GDA work done. Mr Hayes: I will be asking the independent nuclear regulators to conduct a Generic Design Assessment of the Hitachi Advanced Boiling Waste Reactor, and am confident that they will do so rigorously, as they are doing for other designs proposed for construction in the UK. As with other such assessments, the full cost of GDA will be charged to the requesting party which submits the design for assessment. Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what information he has received from the Office for Nuclear Regulation on its review of the strategic oversight of nuclear safety and securityrelated research, and its arrangements for commissioning and managing research and specialist [126910] technical support. Mr Hayes: The Office for Nuclear Regulation’s (ONR) review, and the development of their research and technical support strategy, has been taking place alongside of (and has informed) the development of the Government’s own long-term strategy for civil nuclear power and an associated nuclear R and D capabilities programme.
Written Answers
588W
The ONR’s is working to establish a Chief Inspector’s Independent Advisory Group, whose role will include advising HM Chief Nuclear Inspector on the adequacy and balance of ONR’s research strategy and programme, as well as further developing the regulatory Nuclear Research Index (NRI), which represents ONR’s view of what research is needed to support existing nuclear facilities. The outputs from the Government’s Nuclear R and D capabilities programme are expected around the end of the year. Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what activities have been undertaken by the G8 Nuclear Safety and Security Group over the last three years; whether reports of its activities are published; and if he will publish its agreed future work programme. [126911] Mr Hayes: The G8 Nuclear Safety and Security Group (NSSG) was established at the 2002 Kananaskis G8 summit and is responsible to G8 leaders for providing technically informed strategic policy advice on issues that could impact safety and security in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. However, the focus of the NSSG is very clearly on nuclear safety rather than security. In 2012, G8 leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the objective of achieving the highest levels of safety and a culture of continuous improvement to nuclear safety. This approach was also adopted by the US presidency, who made G8 influence on the delivering the IAEA’s action plan on nuclear safety a key priority. It is for G8 presidency states to set the objectives during their presidency, therefore there is no formal forward work plan. However, successive states have sought to ensure the delivery of the IAEA action plan rather than undertake new parallel activities. Under the UK presidency in 2013, the NSSG will have three main objectives: (i) To continue the work of delivering the IAEA action plan with a focus on the commitment to seeking continuous improvement to nuclear safety standards. (ii) To deliver agreement across G8 members on improving their co-ordination in the planning for and response to a nuclear emergency, (iii) To co-ordinate the G8 position on the outcome of an August 2012 extra-ordinary meeting of the Convention on nuclear safety in August 2012 which focused on amending the Convention and/or its rules and procedures.
Each G8 presidency state produces a summary document of the action G8 states are committed to taking that forms part of the official documentation of the presidency—the following links are to the documentation produced by the French and US presidencies: http://www.g20-g8.com/g8-g20/g8/english/the-2011-summit/ declarations-and-reports/appendices/report-of-the-nuclearsafety-and-security-group.1355.html http://geneva.usmission.gov/2012/05/21/g8-nuclear-safetyand-security/
Planning Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many chartered town [125805] planners are employed by his Department.
589W
Written Answers
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Gregory Barker: None. The Department employs a number of staff with many years experience in infrastructure planning, some of whom are working towards Chartered Town Planner. Public Appointments Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many appointments made to the boards of public bodies overseen by his Department have been (a) male and (b) female since [126165] May 2010. Gregory Barker: Since May 2010 there have been: (a) 14 male; and (b) One female appointments to the boards of public bodies within the Department’s remit.
590W
Michael Fallon: All export licences for military goods are assessed on a case by case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria. An export licence will not be issued if the decision is not consistent with the criteria. Assessments of export licence applications for military goods to India and Pakistan will take account of the continuing tensions over Kashmir. The following criteria are relevant: Criterion 2 The respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country of final destination. A licence will not be issued if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression;
Criterion 3 The internal situation in the country of final destination, as a function of the existence of tensions or armed conflicts. The Government will not issue export licences for exports which would provoke or prolong armed conflicts or aggravate existing tensions or conflicts in the country of final destination;
Criterion 4 BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS Adult Education Mr Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what assessment he has made of the results of the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education’s annual survey of adult [126773] participation in learning in 2012. Matthew Hancock [holding answer 5 November 2012]: We welcome the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE) survey report and we recognise the patterns of adult learning which are similar to our own analysis. We recognise that some groups of people are less likely to learn than others, so we are pleased to have NIACE supporting our new Community Learning Trust pilots which give providers the freedom, flexibility and support to engage more people in learning, especially those groups we know are less likely to learn. We agree with NIACE that the first step into adult learning is often the hardest, especially for those who did not flourish at school. We have maintained the Community Learning budget and provision for Basic Skills which funds the courses that are often the first step on the ladder for disadvantaged groups; getting them into learning, helping them support their children and preparing them for work. Alongside our policies to support individuals we acknowledge that employers are a vital source of training for many people. We are supporting employers to train their work force through apprenticeships and these continue to increase at a record rate. We are also supporting employers through Employer Ownership pilots. The pilots will enable employers to test different ways of undertaking the training they need to improve productivity and increase the level of employer investment in training.
Preservation of regional peace, security and stability. The Government will not issue an export licence if there is a clear risk that the intended recipient would use the proposed export aggressively against another country, or to assert by force a territorial claim.
Billing Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what proportion of undisputed invoices his Department and its agencies [127001] pay within five days. Jo Swinson: In the period from April to September 2012 the Department paid 90.5% of invoices within five working days. For information, details of the departmental monthly prompt performance is published at: http://www.bis.gov.uk/about/procurement/prompt-payment/ bis-payment-performance
I have asked chief executives of the Executive agencies to respond directly to the hon. Member. Letter from Tim Moss, dated 2 November 2012: I am replying on behalf of Companies House to your Parliamentary Question tabled 1 November 2012, to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, UIN 127001. The proportion of undisputed invoices Companies House pays within five working days is 99.6%.
Letter from Dr Richard Judge, dated 2 November 2012: The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has asked me to reply to your question what proportion of undisputed invoices his Department and his agencies pay within five days. The Insolvency Service, an executive agency of The Department for Business Innovation and Skills, has paid 71% of undisputed invoices within 5 days between April and September 2012. 76% of undisputed invoices were paid within 5 days in the financial year 2011/12. Overall prompt payment performance is published in our Annual Report and Accounts which is reproduced here together with performance between April and September 2012.
Arms Trade: Exports
Percentage Financial year
Gavin Shuker: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills whether his Department makes an assessment of whether weaponry is likely to be used in Kashmir before issuing [126896] a defence export licence.
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/ 131
30 days
99
99
99
99
99
98
8 days
88
90
90
90
90
88
1
To September.
591W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Letter from Sean Dennehey, dated 5 November 2012: I am responding in respect of the Intellectual Property Office to your Parliamentary Question tabled 1 November 2012, to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. The Intellectual Property Office, an executive agency of the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills has paid 91% of undisputed invoices between April and September 2012. The last full year in 2011/12 had a performance of 87% and we continue to monitor and improve our performance.
Letter from Peter Mason, dated 5 November 2012: I am responding in respect of the National Measurement Office (NMO) to your Parliamentary Question tabled on 1 November 2012, asking the Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills what proportion of undisputed invoices his Department and its agencies pay within five days. The NMO pays undisputed invoices twice a week. In the financial year of 2011-12, 58.6% of undisputed invoices were paid within five days of receipt of invoice. In 2010-11, the corresponding figure was 58.9%. These figures are calculated from the date that NMO receives the invoice from the supplier until the date that the money is paid into the supplier’s bank account.
Letter from Kim Thorneywork, dated 6 November 2012: Thank you for your question in asking the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what proportion of undisputed invoices his Department and its agencies pay within five days. Please be advised The Skills Funding Agency paid 74.9% of its 12,194 invoices, including disputed invoices, within five days during the year April 2011 to March 2012. These are the most recent audited figures. The Skills Funding Agency does not hold separate information for undisputed invoices.
Letter from Dr Vanessa Lawrence CB, dated 5 November 2012: As Director General and Chief Executive of Ordnance Survey, I have been asked to reply to you in response to your Parliamentary Question asking The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills “what proportion of undisputed invoices his Department and its agencies pay within five days.” Ordnance Survey, as the national mapping agency of Great Britain, is a Department in its own right with Executive Agency Status operating as a government Trading Fund. It reports to Parliament through the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. Information held on recent payment timescales indicates that since the start of Financial Year 2012-12 Ordnance Survey’s monthly record of payment of undisputed invoices within five days has varied between 32% and 75% of such invoices. The monthly average figure year to date for 2012-13 is 56%. The equivalent average figure for the three months from August to October 2012 is 70.33%. I hope this information is of use.
Letter from David Williams, dated 2 November 2012: Thank you for your question addressed to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what proportion of undisputed invoices his Department and its agencies pay within five days. (127001). Current data shows that the UK Space Agency has paid 95% of undisputed invoices within 5 days.
Letter from John Hirst, dated 5 November 2012: I am replying on behalf of the Met Office to your Parliamentary Question tabled on 1 November 2012, UIN 127001 to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. During 2011-12, the Met Office paid 81.7% of undisputed invoices received from UK suppliers within five working days. I hope this helps.
Letter from Heather Foster: I write on behalf of Land Registry in response to Parliamentary Question 127001 tabled on 1 Nov 2012 which asked the following:
Written Answers
592W
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what proportion of undisputed invoices his Department and its agencies pay within five days. Our Finance Group have a KPI target to pay 80% of undisputed invoices within five days. Our most recent figures (YTD August 2012) show that we have achieved a figure of 95.3%. I hope this information is useful
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills if he will meet representatives of the Expired Copyright Homewares Organisation to discuss the potential effect on furniture retailers of the repeal of section 52 of the Copyright, [125921] Designs and Patents Act 1988. Jo Swinson [holding answer 1 November 2012]: The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), has asked his officials to make themselves available to meet all interested parties. Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what assessment he has made of the Regulatory Policy Committee’s report on the impact assessment of the proposed repeal of section 52 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act [126242] 1988; and if he will make a statement. Jo Swinson: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 11 September 2012, Official Report, columns 210-11W. Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps he plans to take to investigate the risk of any legal challenge to the proposed repeal of section 52 of the Copyright, [126243] Designs and Patents Act 1988. Jo Swinson: All relevant legal risks have been considered. European Space Council David Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what assessment he has made of the potential return on public investment agreed at the European Space Agency’s Ministerial [126895] Council on 20 and 21 November 2012. Mr Willetts: In preparation for the European Space Agency’s Ministerial Council meeting the Department has prepared a full business case assessing the potential return on public investment of a UK investment in European Space Agency (ESA) programmes at the November 2012 ESA Council at ministerial level. This analysis covers the science, economic and public good benefits. A final decision has not yet been made on the level of investment the UK will be making at the meeting. Exports Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what targets (a) he and (b) his Department’s officials have set as part of the Government’s aim to increase the number of [127003] businesses exporting by 2020.
593W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Michael Fallon: The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced, in his March 2012 Budget, a target for the UK to increase the value of its exports to £1 trillion per year by 2020. In support of this the Government has also announced, as part of a National Export Challenge, an ambition to get 100,000 companies exporting each year by 2020. This significant shift will bring the percentage of UK companies exporting in line with the EU average. UK Trade and Investment (UKTI), the Government department that helps UK-based companies succeed in the global economy and assists overseas companies to bring their high-quality investment to the UK, is committed to doubling to 50,000 the number of UK businesses that it supports each year, by 2015. But the Government cannot drive this alone. More needs to be done within the business support community; hence UKTI is undertaking significant work with business support organisations like the chambers of commerce and business intermediaries and other partners, such professional groups (e.g. law firms, accountants and banks) who, through their close association with UK firms, can play an important part in encouraging these firms to pursue growth through exports. Exports: South East Asia Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what targets (a) he or (b) his Department’s officials have set in relation to the Headstart Initiative six month pilot launched on 18 [127002] October 2012. Michael Fallon: The Headstart initiative will provide practical on-the-ground support for SMEs wishing to do business in Singapore, Bangkok and Jakarta via the British Chambers of Commerce in those markets. After six months, following completion of the evaluation of the Headstart service, UK Trade & Investment, the UK-ASEAN Business Council and the British Chambers of Commerce will recommend the future approach to promoting and delivering the Headstart initiative. This initiative is in line with our intention to work with private sector parties in support of our overall target of helping 50,000 companies a year by 2015. Ford Motor Company Mr Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (1) what the purpose was of the European Investment Bank facility loans to Ford in 2008, supported by the UK Government; and [126786] what conditions were attached; (2) what the value was of the European Investment Bank loan facility to Ford agreed in 2008; and what [126803] sum has been drawn down to date. Michael Fallon: The purpose of the European Investment Bank (EIB) loan was to finance the development of next generation engines and vehicles and engine production. The conditions applied are commercially confidential. The value of the EIB loan facility is £450 million. This has been drawn down in full.
Written Answers
594W
Further Education: West Midlands Steve McCabe: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how many further education colleges have received funding for new buildings from his Department in (a) Birmingham and (b) the West Midlands in each financial year since 2006; and what such funding he plans to provide in each financial year up to 2015-16. [126394] Matthew Hancock: It is not possible to separate out funding for new buildings as many further education college projects include a mix of new build and refurbishment. Maternity Leave Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps he has taken to encourage women on maternity leave to return to [126565] work. Jo Swinson: This Government are committed to being the most family-friendly ever. We support the right of women to choose when they feel ready to return to work after maternity leave. We are creating an environment where women and families have greater choice in how they manage their work and family commitments during the first year, which is why we continued with the introduction of additional paternity leave in April 2011, and consulted on introducing flexible parental leave in May 2011. These changes give families more choice over how they manage the childcare and enable women to return to work when they feel it is appropriate to do so. According to the Maternity and Paternity Rights and Women Returners Survey 2009/10, 76% of women now return to work following maternity leave. We also consulted on extending the right to request flexible working to all employees in order to give all employees including mothers the ability to vary their working patterns to accommodate both work and family responsibilities. The Government will publish its report to the modern workplaces consultation shortly. National Skills Academy for Nuclear Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness of 30 October 2012, Official Report, columns 188-9W, on nuclear power, what monies from the Growth and Innovation Fund have been provided to date in support of the National Skills Academy for Nuclear (NSAN) backing for the National Nuclear Gateway; and what plans he has to provide additional financial support to [126905] NSAN from the public purse. Michael Fallon: The National Skills Academy (NSA) for Nuclear has received funding for two major projects through the Growth and Innovation Fund. In 2011 the Growth and Innovation Fund provided a £0.9 million investment to extend the remit of the NSA to deliver a specific skills training system for manufacturing within the nuclear sector, particularly focused on small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and the supply chain.
595W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
In 2012 the Commission for Employment and Skills agreed a £2 million investment to help develop the National Nuclear Gateway. The commission’s investment will be matched by £1.7 million of employer contribution. In addition, a Growth and Innovation Fund investment of £1.07 million has supported Cogent, the Sector Skills body with responsibility for Nuclear to take forward key strands of activity to include the development of a workforce planning model (WPM); to extend training frameworks to the nuclear supply chain and to create a nuclear specific work experience programme. “Skills for Sustainable Growth”set out the Governments ambition for a demand-led skills system. The Growth and Innovation Fund, and more recently the Employer Ownership of Skills pilot programme were established as contestable funds able to help employers overcome barriers to raising skills in sectors. We expect the NSA, in line with Sector Skills Councils and other employer groups, to bid into the available funds when they are able to develop specific projects able to make a key difference to the nuclear skills challenge. Overseas Trade Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what the level of (a) imports from and (b) exports to Georgia has been in [126867] each of the last five years. Michael Fallon: UK trade in goods figures are collected by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and are publically available on the UK Trade Info website: www.uktradeinfo.com £ million (a) UK imports of goods from Georgia
(b) UK exports of goods to Georgia
2011
216
48
2010
190
38
2009
158
26
2008
101
38
2007
144
34
Source: HMRC Overseas Trade Statistics
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what the level of (a) imports from and (b) exports to The Gambia has been [126868] in each of the last five years. Michael Fallon: UK trade in goods figures are collected by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and are publically available on the UK Trade Info website: www.uktradeinfo.com £ million (a) UK imports of goods from the Gambia
(b) UK exports of goods to the Gambia
2011
5
18
2010
9
16
2009
3
16
2008
2
16
2007
2
14
Source: HMRC Overseas Trade Statistics
Written Answers
596W
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what the level of (a) imports from and (b) exports to Mali was in each of [126869] the last five years. Michael Fallon: UK trade in goods figures are collected by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and are publically available on the UK Trade Info website: www.uktradeinfo.com £ million (a) UK imports of goods from Mali
(b) UK exports of goods to Mali
2011
1
8
2010
3
6
2009
2
6
2008
1
7
2007
1
4
Source: HMRC Overseas Trade Statistics
Procurement Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what proportion of suppliers to his Department and its agencies currently [127000] pay their subcontractors within 30 days. Jo Swinson: The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) does not hold individual details of the payment performance to any subcontractors by each direct supplier to BIS. To gather all of this information from all suppliers would incur disproportionate cost. However, as part of the standard departmental terms and conditions, a requirement is placed on any direct contractor to include in the relevant subcontract a provision which requires the contractor to pay for those goods or services within 30 days of the contractor receiving a correct invoice from the subcontractor. In addition, BIS also encourages contractors to sign up to the Prompt Payment Code. This allows any potential subcontractors to view the commitments made by the contractor to pay within the agreed terms between the contractor and subcontractor. I have asked chief executives of the Executive agencies to respond directly to the hon. Member. Letter from Tim Moss, dated 2 November 2012: I am replying on behalf of Companies House to your Parliamentary Question tabled 1 November 2012, to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, UIN 127000. Companies House does not have any information regarding the proportion of its suppliers who currently pay their subcontractors within 30 days.
Letter from Dr Richard Judge, dated 2 November 2012: The Minister for Employment Relations and Consumer Affairs has asked me to reply to your question what proportion of suppliers to his Department and its agencies currently pay their subcontractors within 30 days. The Insolvency Service, an executive agency of The Department for Business Innovation and Skills, does not hold such information relating to the processes operated by its third party suppliers.
Letter from Sean Dennehey, dated 5 November 2012: I am responding in respect of the Intellectual Property Office to your Parliamentary Question tabled 01 November 2012, to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
597W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
The Intellectual Property Office, an executive agency of the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills has a requirement in its standard terms and conditions that “if the Contractor shall include in the relevant sub contract a provision which requires those goods or services within 30 days of the Contractor receiving a correct invoice from the sub-contractor.”
Letter from Peter Mason, dated 5 November 2012: I am responding in respect of the National Measurement Office (NMO) to your Parliamentary Question tabled on 1 November 2012, asking the Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills what proportion of suppliers to his Department and its agencies currently pay their subcontractors within thirty days. The NMO does not hold individual details of the payment performance to any sub-contractors by each direct supplier to NMO. To gather all of this information from all suppliers would incur disproportionate cost. However, as part of the standard Departmental terms and conditions that NMO uses, a requirement is placed on any direct contractor to include in the relevant sub-contract a provision which requires the contractor to pay for those goods or services within 30 days of the contractor receiving a correct invoice from the sub-contractor.
Letter from Kim Thorneywork, dated 6 November 2012: Thank you for your question in asking the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what proportion of suppliers to his Department and its agencies currently pay their subcontractors within 30 days. Please be advised The Skills Funding Agency distinguishes between its suppliers and its providers. Suppliers provide the Agency with goods and services necessary for the running of the Agency and providers receive funding to conduct education and training among other things. The Agency holds no information about the speed with which suppliers pay their subcontractors or by which providers pay their subcontractors. However, it does specify in its contracts with providers that their sub-contracts must refer to payment of a subcontractor’s valid invoices within 30 days and this, like other aspects of the contract, may be subject to audit.
Letter from Dr Vanessa Lawrence, dated 5 November 2012: As Director General and Chief Executive of Ordnance Survey, I have been asked to reply to you in response to your Parliamentary Question asking The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills “what proportion of suppliers to his Department and its agencies currently pay their subcontractors within 30 days.” Ordnance Survey, as the national mapping agency of Great Britain, is a Department in its own right with Executive Agency Status operating as a government Trading Fund. It reports to Parliament through the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. At the pre-selection stage of the tender process for larger contracts. Ordnance Survey seeks information on the ways in which potential suppliers select and manage their sub-contractors. However Ordnance Survey does not acquire or hold information on the on-going commercial business relationships between its contractors and their sub-contractors. I hope this information is of use.
Letter from David Williams, dated 2 November 2012: Thank you for your question addressed to Secretary of State for Business, innovation and Skills, what proportion of suppliers to his Department and its agencies currently pay their subcontractors within 30 days. (127000). The UK Space Agency does not have designated procurement expertise in-house. The Agency is supported by BIS and SSC procurement and as a default uses the preferred suppliers recommended. We therefore do not have access to this information, however by assimilation we expect the relevant details to be recorded within the overall BIS report.
Written Answers
598W
Letter from John Hirst, dated 5 November 2012: I am replying on behalf of the Met Office to your Parliamentary Question tabled on 1 November 2012, UIN 127000 to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. The Met Office does not maintain or have access to information regarding the payment performance of suppliers to their subcontractors. I hope this helps.
Letter from Heather Foster: I write on behalf of Land Registry in response to Parliamentary Question 127000 tabled on 1 Nov 2012. All our supplier contracts have as a standard term the requirement to pay their subcontractors in 30 days. In addition, where the contractor enters into a sub-contract with a supplier or contractor for the purpose of performing its obligations under the contract, we also ensure that a provision is included in such a sub-contract which requires payment to be made of all sums due by the contractor to the sub-contractor within a specified period not exceeding 30 days from the receipt of a valid invoice. To obtain the information from all of our contractors and sub-contractors would lead to a disproportionate cost response, however, I can state that as an example, in August, one of our main contractors paid 154 of their 178 invoices to subcontractors within the 30-day term (87%). We work closely with all sub-contractors to try to ensure that targets are exceeded. Many of our suppliers come via Central Government Contracts (Banner, Redfern Travel, William Lee printing), which will be monitored by central Government procurement teams and not by Land Registry. I hope this information is useful.
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Bangladesh Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 22 October 2012, Official Report, column 719W, on Bangladesh, what the methodological changes were; what the common approach is to attributing results of her Department’s projects; and whether new data has emerged since the original Operational Plan which changes the baseline on which targets were based. [126385]
Mr Duncan: The methodological change was to adopt a common approach to attributing results to DFID spending, across all DFID country offices. The approach takes a share of each programme’s results based on DFID’s financial share of the programme’s total budget. This enables DFID to aggregate its results across countries. New data have emerged since the original Operational Plan was published which change the baseline for the governance and security targets. Full details of the changes and the reasons for them are published in the Operational Plan for DFID Bangladesh. Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 22 October 2012, Official Report, column 729W, on Bangladesh, whether her Department has any midproject outcomes; whether it engages in the auditing process or advises on how to audit; through which Bangladeshi Government Department the project is being implemented; and what criteria her Department has used to measure how successful the programme has [126386] been.
599W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Mr Duncan: Started in October 2009, the Strengthening Public Expenditure Programme (SPEMP) in Bangladesh is made up of three main components. The largest component, on Budgeting and Accounting, works with the Finance Division in the Ministry of Finance. A second component on Audit works with the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General (OCAG). The final component works with the Parliament Secretariat, in support of three Parliamentary Committees responsible for oversight of the budget and expenditure. Funds are channelled through a World Bank Trust Fund. The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General (OCAG) conducts independent audits of the public accounts. Technical support to OCAG is being provided by the firm PKF (Europe), working with the UK National Audit Office (NAO) and the UK accounting institute CIPFA (Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountancy). NAO will work with OCAG to carry out up to 20 pilot audits to show OCAG personnel how to apply improved approaches to the audit of government expenditure. The criteria used to assess the progress of the project are contained in a results framework agreed with the Bangladesh Government, the World Bank and other donors. Detailed indicators measure: Improvements in strategic policy and budget management, in particular the adoption of medium term budgeting by line ministries; Improvements to IT systems for accounting and financial reporting; Numbers of officials receiving technical training, and the development of improved training facilities within the Government of Bangladesh; Improved quality of audit reports, and a more timely response to them by line ministries; More systematic and timely scrutiny of audit reports by the Public Accounts Committee and two other committees, and improved reporting by these Committees to Parliament and the public.
Progress to date includes rolling out a Medium Term Budget Framework (MTBF) in all 57 target line Ministries and Departments, better documentation of the strategy underlying Ministries’ budgets, and improvements to an integrated Budget and Accounting System (IT) to enable the production of more timely and accurate financial reports. The project will help the Public Accounts Committee to further reduce the backlog of audit reports awaiting review. In the last year the Committee has reviewed 350 reports and settled 5,550 objections, some dating back 10 years or more. Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 22 October 2012, Official Report, column 721W, on Bangladesh, what the breakdown was of the project’s costs; how many interactive TV and radio sessions were held; how many Bangladeshi citizens asked decisionmakers questions; and whether there was any screening of Bangladeshis calling into shows to ensure political [126460] balance. Mr Duncan: The Sanglap II project ran from November 2006 to January 2010. Its total cost was £4,971,000. Of this, approximately 48% was spent on the programmes, 11% to produce and test a pilot mobile phone application, 8% on marketing and audience recruitment, 4% on public broadcasting activities, 10% on training and office costs, 5% on monitoring and evaluation and 14% on management costs.
Written Answers
600W
Over the three years, 138 Bangladesh Sanglap TV programmes were recorded, 138 follow-up radio phone-ins were held, and 10 pilots of ‘This Week in Parliament’ were prepared. Bangladesh Sanglap was a local Bangla language version of ″Question Time″. On average, 120 people participated in each programme as the studio audience. Each weekly episode was followed by a radio phone-in programme, where on average 10 people were able to give their opinion. Altogether about 30 people had the chance to ask a question or give an opinion per episode, giving an approximate total of 4,140 people overall. The audience of each programme was selected to ensure political balance, and a balance of men and women, different ages and socioeconomic groups. Each Sanglap panel had four members: one from the ruling party, one from the main opposition party, one from a third party and one from wider society. The questions from the audience were selected following BBC editorial guidelines. The TV programmes were broadcast in the period before and after Bangladesh’s national elections in December 2008. The project ended in 2010. Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 22 October 2012, Official Report, column 718W, on Bangladesh, where the children in hazardous work were withdrawn to; by what means the project ensures workers in the shrimp and garment industry get paid on time; by what means the project helps boys and girls obtain stipends; and what evaluation was made of the cost per child of obtaining such stipends. [126485] Mr Duncan: The children withdrawn from hazardous work in Bangladesh were moved to both mainstream and non-formal education, and in some cases provided with vocational training. Families were given training to help them build alternative livelihoods that didn’t rely on household income generated by their children. This training was focused on generating an income from such activities as livestock-rearing, fisheries, poultry, weaving, tailoring. Those employed within the shrimp and garment industries are provided with training on how to form an organised group and bargain collectively with their employers so that they are paid on time. In addition, the Manusher Jonno Foundation and partner NGOs participate in organised discussions with factory management and the Ministry of Labour to help promote punctual salary payments. The Manusher Jonno Foundation is also engaged in the negotiation of a minimum wage for the shrimp and garments industry. Stipends to encourage school attendance are provided by Government through schools. The NGOs, who partner with the Manusher Jonno Foundation, give parents information on their entitlement to stipends and how they can be accessed. The NGOs then follow this up by helping arrange for parents (especially mothers) and community leaders to ask members of school management committees and parent teachers associations, and government primary education officers, when stipends will be paid, and to whom. The Manusher Jonno Foundation tracks the number of students who obtain stipends in this way. It doesn’t, however, evaluate the cost per child of obtaining stipends.
601W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Written Answers
602W
Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 22 October 2012, Official Report, column 718W, on Bangladesh, what the competitive process is through which funds are awarded; and whether her Department audits the funding stream as it passes through the [126486] different levels of organisations.
Mr Duncan: The Economic Empowerment of the Poorest Programme (2008-15) aims to enable 1 million people to lift themselves out of extreme poverty. The programme supports poor people in Bangladesh to increase their incomes through acquiring assets such as livestock, establishing small businesses, and receiving skills training.
Mr Duncan: The funds which are awarded by the Manusher Jonno Foundation are given through an open and competitive process. Proposals are called for through the national daily newspapers and their websites. Proposals received are judged against criteria including relevance to programme objectives, results and benefits, innovation, scalability, financial management, sustainability and impact Selection is done jointly by management and the governing board of the Manusher Jonno Foundation. The funding stream is audited by a Bangladeshi independent chartered accounting firm (affiliated with Ernst and Young), directly reporting to the chairman of the board. This is verified by a qualified auditor during the annual review process led by DFID. DFID also audits a random selection of grant recipients annually. Around 20% of grant recipients are covered in the process.
Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 22 October 2012, Official Report, columns 726-8W, on Bangladesh, what representations she has received on creating a central list of sub-contractors; and whether her Department compares the outcomes of (a) [126489] contractors and (b) sub-contractors.
Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 22 October 2012, Official Report, column 731W, on Bangladesh, what the fiduciary irregularities were that caused the programme to be cancelled; what evaluation there was of the work done before the programme was cancelled; whether any corruption was found to have taken place in the delivery of this project; and what subsequent actions were taken by the Bangladeshi [126487] government and UK Government. Mr Duncan: The programme, which terminated in 2009, was cancelled due to fiduciary irregularities including non-compliance with procurement procedures; contract management and quality control procedures. For example, some payments were made by the Bangladesh Roads and Highways Department for work which was not completed to the required specification. DFID appointed Ernst and Young to carry out independent internal audits in December 2005 and site audits started in May 2006. DFID also commissioned an audit of the physical condition of the roads in 2005. In addition, a Fiduciary Risk Assessment carried out by DFID in 2006 assessed the risks of budget support being misused as medium to high. The response of the Bangladesh Roads and Highways Department did not improve the standard of work or address the range of irregularities significantly. DFID suspended further payments of budget support under the programme in April 2007. Following a further Fiduciary Risk Assessment in September 2007, which further raised the risk rating, DFID Ministers cancelled the programme: Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answers of 22 October 2012, Official Report, columns 726-8W and 23 October 2012, Official Report, columns 784-6W, on Bangladesh, how many people’s livelihoods the economic empowerment of the poorest project is [126488] intended to improve.
Mr Duncan: As previously stated, DFID does not currently maintain a central database of sub-contracts or contractors. Since the primary responsibility for overall contract performance rests with the lead contractor there has not been a clear business requirement to create such a central record. In terms of comparing the outcomes of each, this would be captured in the project logframe agreed between DFID and the primary contractor, to set output and outcome targets for the project as a whole, to which all sub-contractors contribute. It is the responsibility of the primary contractor to monitor the performance of their sub-contractors closely, and DFID holds them to account on this. Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 15 October 2012, Official Report, column 718W, on Bangladesh, how many lawyers will receive payment from the Manusher Jonno Foundation over the course of the project; and how much will have been spent on lawyers in total by the Manusher Jonno Foundation [126494] over the course of the project. Mr Duncan: Manusher Jonno Foundation assistance will end in March 2013. From 2008 to present, 360 lawyers have received payment, and a total of £120,000 over five years has been spent on lawyers. In addition 618 lawyers provided pro-bono services to grant recipients. The lawyers help the poor to pursue legal cases, a huge majority of which involve violence against women and girls, rights and entitlements of people from ethnic minority and indigenous groups, and issues around access to land. Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether any of her Department’s partners have been affected by the action of the Bangladeshi Government in revoking charity [126495] licences in the last three years. Mr Duncan: The Government of Bangladesh revoked the charity license of one partner of DFID namely Bangladesh Centre for Workers Solidarity (BCWS) in 2010 which received funding from Manusher Jonno Foundation. Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 22 October 2012, Official Report, columns 730-1W, on Bangladesh, what criteria were used to decide who [126506] received the emergency cash transfers.
603W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Mr Duncan: The transfers were provided to households that were displaced or left stranded by flood waters and with no access to food, but excluded those households who were receiving regular adequate income or assistance from another source. Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 22 October 2012, Official Report, columns 730-1W, on Bangladesh, how much was given to each recipient of [126507] an emergency cash transfer. Mr Duncan: Each of the 30,000 households received 1,500 taka (approximately £11) for one month, shared amongst the family (average of five person families). This was designed to complement the response from the Government of Bangladesh and other partners, as well as the World Food Programme’s own targeted nutrition support to pregnant and lactating women, and children aged 6-23 months. Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 22 October 2012, Official Report, columns 730-1W, on Bangladesh, how the emergency cash transfers were [126508] distributed. Mr Duncan: All cash distributions were distributed in accordance with the World Food Programme’s established cash transfer guidelines. The project implementers (Muslim Aid and Shushilan) shared information with beneficiaries to ensure they were fully aware of their entitlements. Each recipient (one per household) received a beneficiary ID card. These were presented and verified at the public distribution site and then the beneficiary received the cash transfer. Beneficiaries were required to sign or thumbprint the cash distribution register to confirm receipt of the full transfer. Local oversight committees of community representatives and Government officials, provided additional monitoring presence at the sites during the distributions. Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 22 October 2012, Official Report, columns 730-1W, on Bangladesh, which organisation distributed the funds [126509] for emergency cash transfers. Mr Duncan: The World Food Programme (WFP) managed the programme. WFP’s partners on the ground, which distributed the funds, were Muslim Aid (in Jessore District) and Shushilan (in Satkhira District). Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 22 October 2012, Official Report, columns 730-1W, on Bangladesh, how much was delivered directly in emergency cash transfers; and what the administration [126510] costs were of delivering those payments. Mr Duncan: 45 million taka (approximately £360,000) was delivered in cash directly to beneficiaries. The operational costs of delivering those payments were £48,000. This included some staff costs of Shushilan and Muslim Aid and the small World Food Programme team on the ground to manage the response, plus transport and local security.
Written Answers
604W
Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 22 October 2012, Official Report, column 720W, on Bangladesh, which Bangladeshi Government Departments the project is working with; how many Bangladeshi Government officials the project is training; and whether the project is delivering technical assistance. [126511] Mr Duncan: The project is working with the Economic Relations Division of the Government of Bangladesh who are responsible for managing the processes for incoming foreign aid. The work extends to line ministries who are involved in supported by foreign aid programmes. The project is delivering technical assistance to build stronger aid management systems and greater capacity in government to manage and target aid flows. Future training is included in the project, in Bangladesh, to (a) build the skills of staff in line ministries to use the newly introduced Aid Information Management System, and (b) build knowledge and skills on improved aid co-ordination Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 15 October 2012 to the hon. Member for Enfield North, Official Report, column 717W, on Bangladesh, how civil servants were identified and selected for training; and how much is being spent on average to [126512] train each civil servant. Mr Duncan: The civil servants selected to participate in the Public Service Capacity Building Programme are at the top levels of the civil service below the Permanent Secretary level. An Inter-ministerial Standing Selection Committee of the Government of Bangladesh selects training participants on the basis of selection criteria and guidelines agreed with DFID, which include: An upper age limit, to focus training on officials with at least seven years left before retirement. Proficiency in the English Language, which is tested by the British Council in Dhaka. Priority is given to eligible women officers, to encourage greater representation of women in the senior levels of the Bangladesh civil service.
The average cost for a participant is approximately £4,300 for the training programme. The programme has targeted around 1,700 senior civil servants over seven years, with the aim of covering 74% of senior officers who are expected to reach Permanent Secretary level. Developing Countries: Schools Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether BRAC or any other partners were given any criteria on the [126457] un-adopted schools they can fund. Mr Duncan: DFID funds three partners providing primary education in Bangladesh: the Government of Bangladesh, BRAC (Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee) and UCEP (Under-privileged Children’s Education programme). This approach is complimentary to the Government’s mainstream education system. BRAC and UCEP only target those children who are omitted from that system.
605W
Written Answers
6 NOVEMBER 2012
There is no such official terminology as to ‘adopt’ schools in the Bangladesh education system. Rather, the government categories of primary schooling include: Government primary schools, registered non-government primary schools, experimental schools, community schools, non-registered non-government primary schools, kindergarten, NGO schools, primary sections of secondary schools, Ebtedayee madrasahs, and primary sections of high madrasahs (dakhil, alim, fazil, kamil). Gambia Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much funding her Department has given to the Gambia in each of the [126881] last five years. Mr Duncan: DFID has provided the following funding from the bilateral programme in each of the last five years for which published figures are available: £ 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
7,723,000 2,412,000 2,467,000
Written Answers
606W £
2009-10 2010-11
2,159,000 1,044,000
Overseas Aid Mr Gregory Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the change of corruption levels affecting nations and regions benefiting from the UK aid budget [127022] since the 2011 review of that budget. Mr Duncan: Measuring the level of corruption in a country is inherently problematic in view of its secretive nature. DFID offices use information from a combination of sources including: the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, the Global Integrity Index, data from the World Bank and other institutions. DFID programmes offer a wide array of assistance to strengthen the ability of countries to tackle both large scale and petty corruption. These include measures such as strengthening public procurement and audit, through to enabling civil society to hold their authorities to account.
5MC
Ministerial Corrections
6 NOVEMBER 2012
Ministerial Correction Tuesday 6 November 2012
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT Growth and Infrastructure Bill The following is an extract from an exchange between the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr Pickles), during the Second Reading of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill on 5 November 2012. Hilary Benn: If my hon. Friend bears with me a moment, I shall come presently to precisely that point. The first question that the House must ask the Government is that if they are to propose such a fundamental change to the way in which planning decisions have been taken since 1947—that is about 60 years of local decision making—the Secretary of State must have had really strong evidence on why such a change is needed, so
Ministerial Corrections
6MC
where is the evidence? I will make this very easy for him, and I will happily give way. Can he name one example of a so-called failing planning authority? Will he name an authority now? Mr Pickles: As the right hon. Gentleman knows and, more particularly, as other Opposition Members know, I have been more than helpful to those Members who have had trouble with planning authorities and I have done my best to move things along, but I am very happy to name the worst, which is Hackney. [Official Report, 5 November 2012, Vol. 552, c. 608-09.] Letter of correction from Eric Pickles: An error has been identified in the answer given to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on 5 November 2012. The correct answer should have been: Mr Pickles: As the right hon. Gentleman knows and, more particularly, as other Opposition Members know, I have been more than helpful to those Members who have had trouble with planning authorities and I have done my best to move things along, but I am very happy to name the worst, which is Haringey.
ORAL ANSWERS Tuesday 6 November 2012 Col. No.
TREASURY .............................................................. Affordable Housing................................................ Affordable Housing................................................ Bank Lending ........................................................ Banking Reform..................................................... Cost of Living........................................................ Economic Growth.................................................. Employee Ownership .............................................
709 709 719 725 722 721 724 714
Col. No.
TREASURY—continued Job Creation: Private Sector................................... Labour Statistics .................................................... Long-term Unemployment .................................... Public Sector Borrowing ........................................ Tax Evasion and Avoidance ................................... Topical Questions .................................................. Unearned Wealth ...................................................
710 713 717 715 723 726 725
WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Tuesday 6 November 2012 Col. No.
Col. No.
35WS 36WS 35WS 36WS
TRANSPORT ........................................................... 37WS Green Bus Fund..................................................... 37WS
PRIME MINISTER .................................................. 37WS Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report (Government Response)......................... 37WS
WORK AND PENSIONS ......................................... 38WS Workplace Pension Reform.................................... 38WS
EDUCATION............................................................ Health .................................................................... National Pupil Database ........................................ NHS Consultation .................................................
PETITION Tuesday 6 November 2012 Col. No.
JUSTICE................................................................... Proposed closure of Wellingborough Prison ..........
Col. No.
1P 1P
WRITTEN ANSWERS Tuesday 6 November 2012 Col. No.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL .......................................... 548W National Assembly for Wales ................................. 548W BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS ............. Adult Education .................................................... Arms Trade: Exports.............................................. Billing .................................................................... Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 .............. European Space Council ........................................ Exports .................................................................. Exports: South East Asia ....................................... Ford Motor Company ........................................... Further Education: West Midlands ........................ Maternity Leave ..................................................... National Skills Academy for Nuclear..................... Overseas Trade....................................................... Procurement...........................................................
589W 589W 589W 590W 592W 592W 592W 593W 593W 594W 594W 594W 595W 596W
CABINET OFFICE................................................... Construction: Standards ........................................ Emergencies: Planning ........................................... Government Departments: Buildings..................... Immigration: Eastern Europe................................. Press: Subscriptions ............................................... Procurement...........................................................
573W 573W 573W 574W 574W 575W 575W
Col. No.
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.. Affordable Housing................................................ EU Grants and Loans............................................ Housing: Construction........................................... Housing: Hampshire .............................................. Local Government: Procurement ........................... Members: Correspondence .................................... Mobile Phones ....................................................... Non-domestic Rates............................................... Private Rented Housing: North West ..................... Public Libraries...................................................... Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012.................. Social Rented Housing: Greater London ............... Tunnels: Greenwich ............................................... Urban Areas ..........................................................
539W 539W 539W 540W 540W 541W 541W 541W 541W 542W 542W 543W 543W 544W 544W
CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT .......................... Broadband ............................................................. Broadband: Rural Areas ........................................ Children ................................................................. Crimes of Violence: Females.................................. Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press Inquiry . Mass Media ........................................................... Parliament Square: Flags ....................................... Public Libraries: Closures ...................................... Staff .......................................................................
524W 524W 525W 525W 526W 526W 526W 527W 527W 527W
Col. No.
DEFENCE................................................................. Afghanistan ........................................................... Defence: Procurement............................................ Devonport Dockyard ............................................. European Fighter Aircraft ..................................... Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft................................... Libya...................................................................... Marine Sciences ..................................................... Military Aircraft .................................................... Mobile Phones ....................................................... Somalia.................................................................. Syria....................................................................... Trident ................................................................... United Arab Emirates ............................................ Unmanned Air Vehicles .........................................
519W 519W 519W 521W 521W 521W 522W 522W 522W 522W 523W 523W 523W 524W 524W
EDUCATION............................................................ Children in Care: Cumbria..................................... Free School Meals: Further Education .................. Physical Education: Teachers .................................
548W 548W 552W 553W
ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ..................... Billing .................................................................... Fossil Fuels: Scotland ............................................ Nuclear Industry Council ...................................... Nuclear Power........................................................ Planning................................................................. Public Appointments .............................................
586W 586W 586W 587W 587W 588W 589W
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS............................................................... Bears ...................................................................... Bovine Tuberculosis ............................................... Floods.................................................................... Floods: Insurance .................................................. Forests ................................................................... Sky Lanterns: South West ...................................... Trees: Diseases ....................................................... Turtles: Cayman Islands.........................................
545W 545W 545W 545W 546W 546W 547W 547W 548W
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE..... British Indian Ocean Territory............................... Bulent Ecevit.......................................................... Cayman Islands ..................................................... Iceland ................................................................... Pakistan .................................................................
516W 516W 517W 517W 518W 518W
HEALTH................................................................... Cancer ................................................................... Drugs: Prices.......................................................... General Social Care Council .................................. Health Services: Leighton Buzzard ........................ Lung Diseases ........................................................ Mass Media ........................................................... Midwives................................................................ Midwives: Foreign Workers.................................... Midwives: Training ................................................ NHS: Drugs........................................................... NHS: Lobbying...................................................... NHS: Redundancy................................................. NHS: Training ....................................................... Prescription Drugs ................................................. School Milk ........................................................... Social Workers ....................................................... Specialised Healthcare Alliance .............................
579W 579W 579W 579W 580W 580W 580W 580W 581W 582W 583W 584W 584W 584W 585W 585W 585W 585W
HOME DEPARTMENT........................................... Assaults On Police ................................................. Asylum .................................................................. Asylum: Democratic Republic of Congo ............... Crime: Cumbria .....................................................
528W 528W 528W 529W 529W
Col. No.
HOME DEPARTMENT—continued Databases............................................................... Driving Under Influence: Drugs ............................ Female Genital Mutilation..................................... Leveson Inquiry ..................................................... Organised Crime: Sexual Offences ......................... Police: Pensions...................................................... Police: Powers ........................................................ Public Appointments ............................................. Staff ....................................................................... Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures . Theft: Metals ......................................................... Theft: Motor Vehicles ............................................
535W 535W 536W 536W 536W 536W 536W 537W 537W 537W 538W 538W
HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION.............. 548W BBC Parliament: Subtitling.................................... 548W INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.................... Bangladesh............................................................. Developing Countries: Schools .............................. Gambia.................................................................. Overseas Aid ..........................................................
598W 598W 604W 605W 606W
JUSTICE................................................................... Assaults on Police .................................................. Criminal Injuries Compensation: Cumbria ............ Judiciary: Pensions................................................. Legal Aid Scheme .................................................. Organised Crime: Females ..................................... Pay Systems ........................................................... Prisoners: Death .................................................... Prisons: Private Sector ........................................... Public Expenditure................................................. Reoffenders............................................................ Reoffenders: Medway............................................. Research ................................................................ Staff ....................................................................... Young Offender Institutions...................................
554W 554W 553W 555W 555W 555W 555W 556W 556W 556W 557W 557W 558W 563W 565W
NORTHERN IRELAND .......................................... 527W Constituencies........................................................ 527W PRIME MINISTER .................................................. 518W Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press Inquiry . 518W Mass Media ........................................................... 519W TRANSPORT ........................................................... Heathrow Airport .................................................. King’s Cross-Hartlepool Railway Line .................. London Midland: Franchises................................. Motorcycles: Training ............................................ Railways: Freight ................................................... West Coast Railway Line: Franchises.....................
511W 511W 511W 511W 512W 512W 512W
TREASURY .............................................................. Child Benefit.......................................................... Deficit Reduction................................................... European Central Bank ......................................... Income Tax: Hampshire......................................... Job Creation: Private Sector................................... Mass Media ........................................................... Mining: Takeovers ................................................. PAYE ..................................................................... Sovereignty: Scotland............................................. Tax Avoidance ....................................................... Taxation: Property .................................................
575W 575W 575W 576W 576W 577W 577W 577W 578W 578W 578W 579W
WOMEN AND EQUALITIES.................................. 567W Apprentices ............................................................ 567W Equality: Travellers ................................................ 568W
Col. No.
WORK AND PENSIONS ......................................... Billing .................................................................... Children ................................................................. Disability Living Allowance ................................... Employment .......................................................... Housing Benefit .....................................................
569W 569W 569W 569W 570W 571W
Col. No.
WORK AND PENSIONS—continued Housing Benefit: North West ................................. Jobcentre Plus ........................................................ Social Security Benefits.......................................... Work Capability Assessment..................................
MINISTERIAL CORRECTION Tuesday 6 November 2012 Col. No.
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT . Growth and Infrastructure Bill..............................
5MC 5MC
571W 571W 572W 572W
Members who wish to have the Daily Report of the Debates forwarded to them should give notice at the Vote Office. The Bound Volumes will also be sent to Members who similarly express their desire to have them. No proofs of the Daily Reports can be supplied. Corrections which Members suggest for the Bound Volume should be clearly marked in the Daily Report, but not telephoned, and the copy containing the Corrections must be received at the Editor’s Room, House of Commons, not later than Tuesday 13 November 2012 STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT GREATLY FACILITATES THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE VOLUMES
Members may obtain excerpts of their Speeches from the Official Report (within one month from the date of publication), on application to the Stationery Office, c/o the Editor of the Official Report, House of Commons, from whom the terms and conditions of reprinting may be ascertained. Application forms are available at the Vote Office.
PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES DAILY PARTS Single copies: Commons, £5; Lords, £3·50. Annual subscriptions: Commons, £865; Lords, £525. LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session. Single copies: Commons, £105; Lords, £60. Standing orders will be accepted. THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is published separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing order. All prices are inclusive of postage
Volume 552 No. 64
Tuesday 6 November 2012
CONTENTS Tuesday 6 November 2012 Oral Answers to Questions [Col. 709] [see index inside back page] Chancellor of the Exchequer Child Abuse Allegations (North Wales) [Col. 733] Statement—(Mrs May) Free School Meals (Children Over the Age of 16) [Col. 751] Motion for leave to bring in Bill—(Nic Dakin)—agreed to Bill presented, and read the First time Standards and Privileges [Col. 754] Motion—(Mr Lansley)—agreed to European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill [Col. 758] Motion for Second Reading—(Mr Lidington)—agreed to Read a Second time Programme motion—(Joseph Johnson)—agreed to Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union [Col. 805] Motion—(Mr Lidington) Amendment—(Mr Cash)—on a Division, negatived Motion agreed to Polycystic Kidneys [Col. 835] Debate on motion for Adjournment Westminster Hall Ford Motor Manufacturing [Col. 173WH] Unmanned Aerial Vehicles [Col. 197WH] High Speed Rail (Scotland) [Col. 205WH] Onshore Wind Turbines (Lincolnshire) [Col. 213WH] Debates on motion for Adjournment Written Ministerial Statements [Col. 35WS] Petition [Col. 1P] Observations Written Answers to Questions [Col. 511W] [see index inside back page] Ministerial Correction [Col. 5MC]
