parliamentary debates - United Kingdom Parliament

Friday 22 October 2010

Volume 516 No. 57

HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Friday 22 October 2010

£5·00

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2010 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected]

1211

22 OCTOBER 2010

House of Commons Friday 22 October 2010 The House met at half-past Nine o’clock PRAYERS [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): I beg to move, That the House sit in private. Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163). Question negatived.

Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill Second Reading 9.34 am John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. This measure is the first private Member’s Bill of the new Parliament, and several other excellent Bills, which I mainly support, are also listed for today. The previous Parliament lost the confidence of the nation as a result of the expenses scandal, but also through the way in which we dealt with our business. Private Members’ Bills were used almost as toys, and talked out when there was real legislation to be made. I hope that in the new Parliament, with so many new Members, we will treat private Members’ Bills differently—in the right manner for addressing serious issues, with proper discussion. On that basis, I urge all Members to consider matters carefully this morning and allow a Division on the Second Reading of each Bill so that the will of the House can be tested. If there are disagreements, they can be ironed out in Committee and then at our final opportunity on Report. Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman give way? John McDonnell: One of the techniques for delaying Bills was intervention after intervention. I am no longer willing to participate in that charade. I will take two or three interventions, but it negates the purpose of the House if we allow interventions that simply delay proper democratic decision making. Mr Bone: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman’s case and I think that reform is needed. However, if we cannot have a debate before we vote, does he believe that a Bill should still go into Committee? John McDonnell: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. He has intervened very thoughtfully several times in debates on legislation. I hope that we can structure our business co-operatively to allow debate on all measures on Second Reading. Putting away childish toys and the puerile behaviour that has occurred when considering

Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill

1212

private Members’ Bills in the past would show that we had learned some lessons from the previous Parliament and be a sign of maturity. The Bill deals with trade union rights and the rights of employers. The measure is extremely small—a couple of clauses—but it could make a significant impact on restoring basic civil liberties and changing the climate of industrial relations in this country. Private Members’ Bills are intended for such small reforms. I shall give some background and speak for a short time; then we can hopefully have a proper debate and move to a Division. Trade unions have existed in this country for more than two centuries. Statements from every political party in the House support and respect the role of trade unions in representing their members. One of their main roles is collective bargaining on behalf of their members on pay, conditions at work, health and safety and other matters. However, part of collective bargaining is also unions’ ability to take industrial action when negotiations fail. That can take many forms: work to rule, an overtime ban and, yes, on occasions, when everything goes wrong, as a very last resort, the right to withdraw the labour of trade unionists. There is no explicit right to strike in British legislation—there never has been. If a trade union induces its members to take industrial action, it is still a tort in civil law and can therefore be injuncted against. However, since the Taff Vale judgment and the trade union legislation in 1906, trade unions gained immunity from legal action being taken against them for tort, which was usually the breaking of a contract. That legislation lasted in its general form until the 1980s. However, in the 1980s and 1990s, 10 successive pieces of legislation attached conditions to that immunity. I was around at the time and heard the debates in this House, and I have looked over them again. The Conservative Government’s stated intention at that time was to ensure and secure the democratic rights of individual trade unionists to participate in decisions on industrial action and to be heard. That was the intention of the original legislation. It meant that a union was protected in law only if it first conducted a secret postal ballot that was independently scrutinised. Other conditions were added later, including that the employer be notified in detail of the balloting procedure and who was to be balloted, and notified of the outcome. The employer was then to be given a period of notice before any industrial action. As I said, there were 10 pieces of trade union legislation in the ’80s and ’90s that apply conditions to that immunity. For employer and trade union alike, that created a complex and extremely arduous process that trade unions had to abide by if they wished to take industrial action. The code of practice on industrial ballots and notice to employers was developed—it is dear to every trade unionist’s heart—and approved by the House in 1990. It was revised in ’91 and again in ’94, and added to in 2000. The code statutorily required trade unions to provide, for example, the exact number of trade union members who were to be balloted, details of their workplaces and the categories of those to be balloted. It also required the union to keep meticulous records of the members’ addresses, jobs and workplaces.

1213


22 OCTOBER 2010

[John McDonnell] That is complicated in itself, but over time, with different industrial practices, particularly the sub-division of companies, outsourcing and privatisation, it became increasingly so. There is now a requirement to produce a matrix of information, which is onerous and complex. Nevertheless, unions have sought to abide by the code, as best they can, to ensure that they retain their immunity. The legislation even goes into the details of what will be written on the ballot paper and how the result is reported. Failure to satisfy any of the conditions renders the union open to injunction. The House realised that it was increasing the complexity of the legislation, that people are fallible and that mistakes would be made. Therefore, section 232B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 provided that a trade union that failed to comply with the specific requirements would still be protected if there were a small, accidental mistake in the balloting procedure or a failure of another sort that was unlikely to affect the result of the ballot. If for those reasons the trade union failed to comply with the specific requirements, it would still be protected and have immunity. That was a reasonable decision by this House. The problem is that it has not worked in practice as it was intended. I do not think the wishes of the House have been translated to the real world because of a series of legal actions. Legislators thought they were providing protection from accidental, minor error, but that has not happened. In fact, in a succession of court cases, a minority of employers have used minor errors in the balloting or notification process to secure injunctions and prevent the implementation of the majority decision of the trade union. Those judgments have resulted in a lack of clarity about whether a mistake is accidental or minor. The scope of the exceptions is also unclear: do exceptions include balloting but exclude the notice procedure? There is also a degree of uncertainty about whether a particular error, no matter how minor, affects the overall outcome of the ballot. Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge picked up the irony that legislation enacted in this House to ensure and protect the democratic right of individual trade unionists to vote and participate in decisions on industrial action is now used to prevent the democratic wishes of those people being respected. That extraordinary irony has occurred as a result of those individual decisions. The judgments frustrate the democratic process that this House thought it was installing and strengthening within trade union legislation. There are many examples, but I shall provide only a few, based on cases that I have had some involvement in. We have briefings on them from the TUC and the individual unions. By the way, this was one of the key issues debated at the TUC conference this year— representatives of all political parties were present—and unanimously, the TUC supported the promotion of the Bill to create a better climate of industrial relations. One dispute that has soured industrial relations in this country occurred in my constituency—Unite v. British Airways. In December 2009, Unite undertook a ballot for strike action. There were 12,000 workers and the turnout was 80%, which is greater than the turnout of electors for any Member of this House. Some 92.5% of those who voted did so in favour of industrial action.


1214

An injunction was granted on the grounds that during the balloting period, 811 union members were offered and took redundancy. The employer sought and gained an injunction because it successfully argued that those 811 people should not have participated in the ballot, even though the union was not to know which of its members would take redundancy, and even though 811 votes had no material effect on the ballot. At that stage of the dispute, I genuinely thought we could achieve a negotiated settlement, but the injunction set us right back to square one. It alienated all those who participated and exacerbated the situation. Let me give another example. EDF energy injuncted the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers in 2009. The RMT was in negotiations about a small number of its members in three separate workplaces. They were listed on the unions books as “engineers/ technicians”. The union had been in negotiations with the employer on wages and conditions, job evaluations and a range of other issues. There had been dialogue with the employer for a period of time, so it was clear who the negotiations were about and the employer clearly understood. However, the employer gained an injunction because the RMT listed the workers as “engineers/technicians”and the employer said that although it listed engineers, it did not have a “technicians”category— people doing those jobs were characterised as fitters and other grades. EDF won an injunction, but that only exacerbated the situation. I do not know of a case in which a re-ballot following an injunction has not resulted in a greater majority for industrial action. Parliament legislated to give, secure and enhance trade unionists’ democratic rights, but it also legislated to try to improve the industrial relations climate in this country. Some of the examples are quite staggering and it is difficult to see how they were justified in court, but they were. Let me cite that of Metrobus v. Unite in 2009. Some 90% of those working for Metrobus who were balloted by Unite voted in favour of industrial action. Such ballots are usually undertaken by the Electoral Reform Society, and the ballot result was sent to the union, but there was some delay in passing the result from the union to the employer. From reading the judgment, it looks as though the result went to the office but by the time it got handed to an official it was gone 5 o’clock, so it was not sent to the employer that night. So it was 20 hours later that it was sent to the employer. The employer then sought and gained an injunction on the basis that the notice was not provided promptly enough. It was a 20-hour delay. At best, from the close of the ballot to when the employer received it, no more than two and a half days had passed. To be frank, that is how long it takes to deliver a letter first-class virtually, but the injunction was granted. Part of the decision of the court was because the union had not put at the bottom of the paper that the information it had on its members was contained on its computer register and it was classified. A phone call from the employer to the union could have solved that one—“Where did you get this information? Where is this list?” It is the norm to put down that information, particularly so that it can be checked against the computer data. I want to mention one final case: British Airways v. Unite, again in my constituency. The High Court granted an injunction on the second ballot because Unite had

1215


22 OCTOBER 2010

not reported the full result. There were two grounds for the decision: first, United had not mentioned in an e-mail sent round or on the website that there were 11 spoilt ballot papers out of 12,000. The union received the notice at 3.59 pm. By 4.45 pm, the report was given to union representatives, who put copies on the notice boards of the crew report centres—where the crew assemble as they go on duty—within 30 minutes. They were made available in union offices and posted on displays on stands outside the offices in my constituency and in other airports. Representatives handed members the report in the crew areas. A press release was put on the website, and text messages and e-mails were sent to every member. People who work for BA are required to use their computer everyday to get their rosters; it is a job requirement. The cabin crew were informed. Yet the company gained an injunction, because it was decided that the union had not fulfilled its responsibility to engage in active communication. I do not know what more it could have done. There was real anger in my constituency about this injunction. Some of the employees concerned had never been on strike in their lives. I had people in my office in tears, including young women who had never before been involved in industrial action. They could not believe what was happening to them. They thought that the vote was a democratic process and that, regardless of whether they voted yes or no, their wishes would be respected, but they were not. There was some good news though: the union went to the Court of Appeal and only by majority—the court was split—was it decided that the union had complied with the communication requirements. Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge commented on the irony of an employer relying on the provisions designed to protect trade union members in order to circumvent their wishes. It is extraordinary. Lord Neuberger dissented, but Lady Justice Smith argued— rightly, I believe—that the relevant legislation was not intended “to create a series of traps or hurdles for the union to negotiate”,

but “to ensure a fair, open and democratic ballot.”

She also introduced the concept that, where there is substantial compliance with the provisions of the legislation, the decision should be appropriate and judged accordingly. The problem was, however, that the judgment was split, and we have no idea what the next judgment will be. Such judgments rely on the individual decisions of individual judges, who often allow an injunction to be made, dragging us into the appeals process. That is destroying the industrial relations climate in certain sections of our industrial base. As Lady Justice Smith said, unfortunately the relevant labour legislation sets traps and hurdles that were never intended by the House. I have introduced my Bill to give clarity to the original decision and intention of the House when it passed that legislation, and to restore the provision that the House thought it was implementing in the real world. The Bill does not seek to alter the core trade union obligations. A union organising an industrial ballot would still have to comply with the requirements to give seven days’ notice of a ballot, for it to be independently organised and scrutinised, to inform members and employers of the result and to give seven days’ notice of industrial action.


1216

My Bill does not propose changes to the requirements of each of these stages; it simply addresses the consequences of technical and minor non-compliance with any of the stages of the process. It would bring our law that bit further into compliance and consistency with the UK’s obligations under the European convention on human rights, the International Labour Organisation’s standards and other domestic law. For example, under electoral law, under which we have all been elected, minor errors and even crimes that do not affect the overall result are disregarded. The Bill would amend section 232B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to allow for small, accidental failures in respect of the requirements to give notice of ballots and industrial action, to give notice of its result to employers and members, and in respect of the ballot itself. It would complete the intention of the original legislation and covers the gaps interpreted by the courts. Such failures would be disregarded where there has been substantial compliance with the process itself, and the employer would be able to establish substantial compliance because of the level of information that would still be required to be given to the employer and the members themselves. Minor errors would also be disregarded where the failure “is unlikely to affect…the result of the ballot”—

exactly as was intended by the House— “or (in the case of a notice) a reasonable recipient’s understanding of the…notice.”

So the latter provision applies where a reasonable person can be expected to understand what was written on the notice before them. Where a union claims substantial compliance, the burden will be placed on the employer to prove non-compliance. That is not an onerous task, because during the interlocutory process the employer only has to demonstrate that there is a serious issue to be tried. It does not have to prove that something has gone wrong; it just has to say that there is an issue worthy of being tried and heard before the court. Finally, I stress that the Bill would not lessen the obligations on trade unions seeking to organise industrial action, but would merely apply where there are small, accidental failures, particularly on notification and balloting. There would be no decrease in the amount of information to be provided to the employers, so it would not make it easier or harder for them to plan for industrial action. It would bring industrial action legislation into a consistent relationship with electoral law and practices generally, and more into compliance with ILO standards and the standards, rules and regulations set by the European Court of Human Rights. This is a minor Bill that could have significant implications in improving the climate of industrial relations in this country at a time when it is most needed, and I commend it to the House. This small private Member’s Bill would allow courts to interpret the will of the House as originally intended, and I hope that it gains the support of all parties. 9.59 am Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak in this Second Reading debate? It is a great honour and privilege to have the opportunity to speak on this first Friday sitting of this new Parliament. Indeed, not only is this the first

1217


22 OCTOBER 2010

[Mr David Nuttall] Friday, but I am the very first speaker to be called other than the promoter of this, the very first private Member’s Bill, of the many the House will no doubt consider, not only in this Session, but throughout this Parliament. I should start by declaring an interest, in that I am the president of CAW—Conservatives at Work, which is the new name for Conservative Trade Unionists—for the north-west region. To be fair, it is some years since the name was changed, from the CTU, as it was back in the 1980s, to Conservatives at Work. The name was changed to reflect the fact that the organisation accepted not only members of a trade union. Indeed, there were many other members who had never been member of a trade union, but who were nevertheless interested in industrial matters and industrial relations generally. I have never been a member of a trade union myself, although—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. There is a lot of chattering taking place. Whether Members are yet captivated by the hon. Gentleman’s speech I do not know, but they should certainly give themselves the chance. We need a more orderly atmosphere; this is rather unconventional. I call Mr David Nuttall, who I feel sure will shortly address the Bill. Mr Nuttall: I will indeed, Sir, but I feel it important that I should declare my interest. Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP): Is it the hon. Gentleman’s intention to talk out this Bill? Are we going back to the old tactics, or is he being constructive? Mr Nuttall: I intend to take interventions, as is the normal custom in this House. I have no intention to speak at great length, but I look at it like this: the public out there expect the other side of the argument to be fairly put, and that is what I intend to do, because I am not persuaded that the Bill is merely a technical measure. Nobody would have gone to the time and trouble of bringing this matter before the House if it was such a trivial matter. It is not trivial; it proposes to change the law of the land. It deserves careful analysis and detailed examination, and that is what is going to happen on the Floor of the House this morning. To return to the CTU, let us not forget that there are many members of trade unions who are not paid-up members of the Labour party. There are many who are members of the Conservative party, of the Liberal Democrats—I am sorry to see that they are not present in great number on the Government Benches this morning, although I hope that they will be here before too long—the Scottish National party or Plaid Cymru. There are also many—they may well be the majority—who are members of no party at all. I therefore do not regard this issue as a particularly party political matter; rather, it concerns good industrial relations. For 16 years I was an employer. I ran a small solicitor’s practice, and in the end I was responsible, along with my partners, for employing 40-odd people, so I know quite a bit about employing people. I know a lot about keeping staff happy, and I know how important it is that there are good relations between an employer and


1218

an employee. Members of the CAW wanted to work with their trade unions to help their employers be successful. It is rarely the case that an employer can be successful if their employees are withdrawing their labour. The result is invariably that the company and the employees both lose out, and in the long run that is of no great benefit to either. In the 16 years that I was running the firm, we never had any problems with the unions. To be fair, there was no unionisation, but they were free—[Interruption.] I always said that if any of the staff wanted to join a union, they were entirely free to do so. However, without being too immodest, I like to think that the fact that there was no unionisation was perhaps because we tried to be good employers and because the staff did not feel it necessary to join a union. They were quite free to do so, but as far as I can recall, none of them ever decided to withdraw their labour. Let me declare a further interest, in that my brother is a merchant seaman. As will become apparent later, when I consider some of the detailed provisions in the Bill, that is particularly relevant, as the Bill seeks to amend subsections (2A), (2B) and (2C) of section 230 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): Does my hon. Friend not think it strange that the previous Labour Government, who were in office for 13 years, made changes to the 1992 Act in 1999 and 2004, and yet on both occasions, when they were reviewing and amending the legislation, decided to leave those provisions intact? They thereby indicated that they thought that they were perfectly sensible. Now that Labour Members are in opposition, after 13 years of being in government, is it not bizarre that they seem to think that those provisions are no longer appropriate? Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend is quite right. I will have something to say on that later, although I should point out now that section 232B, entitled “Small accidental failures to be disregarded”, which the Bill seeks to amend, was actually introduced by the previous Labour Government, through the Employment Relations Act 1999. We can therefore safely assume that this measure, which was not originally in the 1992 Act, was one that the previous Labour Government wanted included in that Act. Subsections (2A), (2B) and (2C) of section 230 of the 1992 Act contain special provisions relating to the requirements that are applicable to merchant seamen—who have special requirements owing to the nature of their work—who are also members of a trade union. I genuinely congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington on his perseverance with this measure. On Thursday 23 November 2006, almost four years ago, he came 16th out of the 20 successful Members in the ballot in that Session. He then decided to introduce the Trade Union Rights and Freedoms Bill, which was part of a campaign being pursued by the unions following the trade union congress of 2005, which had passed a motion calling for a trade union freedom Bill in the wake of the dispute between Gate Gourmet and its catering staff at Heathrow airport. Members will note a common thread involving Heathrow airport and airport matters. One of the principal provisions of the trade unions’ motion was the simplification of the complex

1219


22 OCTOBER 2010

regulations on notices and ballots, which restrict the ability of unions to organise industrial action when a clear majority of members have voted in support. I do not agree that the regulations are necessarily complex. The hon. Gentleman introduced his Bill on 13 December 2006, and it was scheduled for Second Reading on 2 March 2007 but, unfortunately for him, there was insufficient time for it to be considered. It was not given a Second Reading and it subsequently fell. I should add that the introduction of that Bill was followed by early-day motion 532, which stated: “That this House recognises that free and independent trade unions are a force for good in UK society around the world and are vital to democracy; welcomes the positive role modern unions play in providing protection for working people and winning fairness at work; notes the 1906 Trades Disputes Act granted unions the legal freedom to take industrial action; regrets that successive anti-union legislation has meant that trade union rights are now weaker than those introduced by the 1906 Trades Disputes Act”—

I do not know whether that was a critical attack on Labour’s own 1999 and 2004 legislation. The motion went on to say that it “therefore welcomes and supports the TUC campaign for a Trade Union Freedom Bill whose principles include better protection for workers, such as those sacked by Gate Gourmet in 2005, the simplification of ballot procedures and to allow limited supportive action, following a ballot, in specific circumstances; and therefore urges the Government to bring forward legislation to address these proposals.”

The motion was moderately successful, unlike some that attract only— Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has now been on his feet for 15 minutes. I understand that he wanted, very properly, to declare his interests, and a modest preamble in situations of this kind is understandable, but I must gently say to the hon. Gentleman, who is a new Member, that this is not an occasion for a general discourse on the merits or demerits of trade unions or for the discussion of the Trade Union Rights and Freedoms Bill, which is not before the House this morning. It is the occasion for a focus on the specific content of the Bill before the House, which contains two clauses. I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman will now deal with those matters and remain focused on them for the remainder of his speech. Mr Nuttall: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Bone: Will my hon. Friend give way? Mr Nuttall: Certainly. Mr Bone: I am genuinely undecided about how to vote today. I want to know whether the Bill has been introduced purely because of the ridiculous action that British Airways took, or whether there is a more general problem. I hope that this will come out in the debate. I do not think that we should make law based on one case, and I want to know whether there is a genuine problem. Mr Nuttall: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I agree that this is important. I shall look at the case law shortly.


1220

I shall turn to the detail of the Bill very shortly, Mr Speaker. The early-day motion was signed by 133 Members, including the previous Member for Bury North. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is to be commended for his determination in bringing this Bill before us today. The House must not take the Bill lightly. It contains just two clauses—one is substantive, the other deals with the short title and details of the commencement provisions—and there is a real danger that, because of its brevity, many Members might think that it is a trivial matter that can be disregarded. We should not take it lightly, however. There is a danger that, because its title contains the word “lawful” and, in parentheses, the words “minor errors”, we could be lulled into a false sense of security. Those words might suggest that it is a trivial piece of legislation that will merely tidy up some long-forgotten legislation that contained one or two technical errors, but nothing could be further from the truth. Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is in fact a Trojan horse, out of which could spring lots of legislation that could lead to making the UK economy far less competitive, damaging industrial relations and the potential for growth in the economy in the difficult times ahead? Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a real danger that the Bill could be a Trojan horse. It could easily take us into new territory. It could also take us back to a previous era that many people outside the House thought they had seen the last of. Philip Davies: My hon. Friend has a legal background, and I do not. The case being made by Labour Members seems to be that they do not think that judges should interpret the law, and that the law should be clear and straightforward. The Bill seems to be throwing us out of the frying pan into the fire, however, because it says that a judge has to accept a ballot if there has been “substantial compliance” with the provision in question. Can my hon. Friend tell me, in legal terms, whether there is a legal definition of “substantial compliance”? For example, would 51% compliance count as “substantial”, or would it need to be 60% or 80%? Or are we going to go straight back to having judges deciding what is substantial and what is not? Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend is broadly right. The Bill seeks to move the law from a situation in which the courts are asked to consider whether something is a small, accidental failure that should be disregarded to one in which they consider whether there has been “substantial compliance” with the law. I will come to that point in a moment. I was just saying that I do not think that we should be lulled into a false sense of security simply because the title of the Bill refers to “minor errors”. The Bill is, I believe, worthy of comprehensive analysis and scrutiny if only because our constituents would rightly expect it. This Bill will not affect trade unionists alone; it will affect everybody and the lives of everybody affected will be blighted. One can only assume that the thrust of this proposed legislation is to make it easier for trade unions to organise strike action. That will affect—it will potentially

1221


22 OCTOBER 2010

[Mr Nuttall] affect; it could affect—every family in this country. That is why I believe the Bill deserves somewhat more detailed scrutiny. I appreciate that I am a new Member, so I might gloss over or miss things that others with longer service might not. They will be better placed than me to give it the examination that I think the Bill deserves. Philip Davies: My hon. Friend made a good point when he said that the Bill’s title refers to “minor errors”. I believe that the Network Rail v. RMT case was cited in support of this Bill, but does my hon. Friend agree that balloting people from 11 signal boxes that did not exist, some of which had been shut down 44 years ago and one of which, on the union’s own admission, had burned down hardly constitutes a “minor error”? Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend is right. My concern is that if this legislation were allowed to proceed in this form, that sort of slipshod behaviour might be allowed to continue in future. I submit that one reason why a line of cases has been brought before the courts is that employers have upheld the will of this House and have sought to secure full compliance with what was originally intended. I stress again the importance of what was intended not by the 1992 Act but by the Employment Relations Act 1999, which was introduced by the Labour Government. In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said—I agree with him—that we begin to understand the full effect of this proposal only by looking at the legal framework in which employees and employers operate. The starting point is the contract of employment itself. Under such a contract one individual, the employee, provides his or her services or labour for the benefit of another, the employer. In return, they are paid for the labour they provide. The work is manual labour in some cases or it could be “white collar” work, as we call it, or it could be providing expertise on a particular subject. It follows that withdrawal of that labour is a very serious matter and, unsurprisingly, the law attaches serious consequences if someone breaches that agreement, as it does with any other breach of contract,. Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con): Is it not the case that elections are held by other legal entities, such as public limited companies or national organisations, and are sometimes used for trustees and so forth? With those other legal entities, is it not the case that complete compliance with the law is necessary, rather than “substantial compliance”—whatever that vague term means legally? Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In most areas of the law, people are quite rightly expected to follow it to the letter. In the particular area of trade union law, the possibility of human error coming into the process is taken care of, I submit, by the provisions of section 232B of the 1992 Act, which specifically allows for minor, small, accidental failures to be completely “disregarded”. That raises the question of why on earth this Bill is being introduced at all, particularly following the decision of the Court of Appeal in the British Airways plc v. Unite case earlier this year. I accept that it was only a majority judgment, but it was nevertheless


1222

a judgment of the Court of Appeal, so it should be given time to bed down, as it put forward a fairly clear view of the law. Andrew Bridgen: Can my hon. Friend think of any other aspect of the law where “substantial compliance” is considered sufficient? Mr Nuttall: There are various areas of the law. We have a de minimis rule, for example, which covers cases where there has been a trivial or minor breach. The judges will often overlook such a trivial or minor error if it could be construed as complying with the de minimis exclusion for understandable human error. Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so graciously and so often and for elucidating so many points in this debate. Does he agree that it is only right that trade unions be held to the highest standard of accuracy in holding these ballots, because they get a special exemption from the contract law to which their members would otherwise be subject? As they are getting an exemption under the law, should they not be required to do things absolutely properly? Perhaps the Bill should be amended to tighten the regulations rather than to loosen them. Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was about to come on to the history of how we arrived at where we are today, albeit briefly as I do not want to go too far back. It is important to remember that a couple of hundred years ago it was completely illegal for workers to join together at all. We have now happily moved on, but there is perhaps a case for tightening trade union legislation, and I believe that a number of other matters could be more usefully included in the Bill. I assume that people in the trade union movement want to see it prosper, go forward and make itself ready for the 21st century. Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): Does my hon. Friend think that now is the time to be passing legislation to make it easier to strike, when we need to pull ourselves out of this massive recession the country has had to face, thanks to the shambolic economic policies of the Labour Government? At another time in the future, when the country is perhaps doing better— Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab): Absolute nonsense. Charlie Elphicke: It is not nonsense; it is accurate. It was Labour Members who caused the recession and now they are trying to make it easier to strike. That is not a fiscally responsible thing to do. Mr Nuttall: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which highlights the real danger. He strikes to the heart of the matter, because as the nation tries to emerge from the recession, we need to do everything we can to put dynamism back into British business. The last thing that we want is a return to the dark days of the 1970s, and the problems of the 1980s, when the news headlines were dominated by industrial unrest and strife. If those days returned, the economic competitiveness of British business would be damaged, and that would be good neither for this country nor for trade unions in general.

1223


22 OCTOBER 2010


1224

Philip Davies: I want to drag my hon. Friend back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) about the Bill’s terminology of substantial compliance. Does he agree that it would be interesting if Labour Members accepted substantial compliance as the basis for legislation generally? For example, in the case of a major health and safety problem at work, would their presumption be that the employer should face no sanction if that employer had displayed substantial compliance throughout the rest of the year. Does my hon. Friend agree that the concept of substantial compliance might have merit after all?

the terms of their contract of employment. That was first accepted, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned, as long ago as 1906 when the Trade Disputes Act was passed. Prior to that, the common law provided that trade unions were liable to claims for damages for inducing a breach of contract. The 1906 Act granted them immunities from those liabilities. As I mentioned in response to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), 100 years earlier the Combination Acts of 1799 and 1800 made it illegal for workers to join together and press employers for shorter hours or increased pay. Those Acts remained on the statute book until 1824 when they were repealed, to be replaced by the Combination Act of 1825.

Mr Nuttall: I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Mr Speaker is most upset that he has not been able to stay and listen to the rest of this interesting debate, but he will be able to read it later. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who raises an interesting question. The point was made earlier that the provision might be a Trojan horse. If we go down the path of referring to matters as substantially complied with, or saying that, taken together, there has been substantial compliance, there is a danger that it leaves open a gaping hole. What is not substantially compliant? What should we do if someone complies with their health and safety policy for 51 weeks, but not in the other week? Such an approach does not make sense. During detailed examination of clause 1(3), I shall consider whether the Bill takes us any further forward.

Philip Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that when we consider what is fair and reasonable in such legislation, part of the equation that should be considered, and that appears to have been considered in cases such as British Airway v. Unite, is the impact of the strike action on the business and its customers? If, as in the case of Unite, there is an attempt to wreck Christmas holidays for over 12 days, which would have affected British Airways and its customers to a devastating effect, the highest possible standards must be expected of unions in such circumstances.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is not just with substantial compliance some of the time, but with the fact that some groups will be allowed substantial compliance, whereas other groups will have to adhere to complete compliance all the time?

Mr Nuttall: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will indeed. If I may, I will deal briefly with the intervention made on me, and then bring us up to date and consider the detail of the Bill.

Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend is right. I can well understand those who comply with the law for all of the time not being too happy about other groups being allowed to comply with the law for only part of the time. The rest of the time they can say, “Well, we have substantially complied with the law.” What should we do with a burglar who said, “Well, I’ve been substantially compliant with the law for 364 days of the year, but today I happen to have fallen foul of the law”? Should we let him off ? What absolute nonsense. Any employee who breaches their contract of employment leaves themselves open to the risk of being found liable, under the law of tort, to their employer, for breach of contract. That applies whether the contract is for unskilled manual labour, skilled manual labour, or what is often termed white collar services. The liability applies equally to those organising industrial action, such as—but not necessarily exclusively—trade unions, because those concerned will seek to procure a breach of contract, which is a tort under English law. Under those circumstances, both individuals and trade unions risk incurring liability to the employer. I add that there is also a potential liability to third parties. In individual terms, the employee is also, of course, liable to be dismissed. Only through the protection afforded by statute can employees and trade unions escape the consequences of their actions in withdrawing their labour and breaching

Mr Nuttall rose— Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. May I gently remind the hon. Gentleman about the remarks made at the beginning of this debate about a new way of debating in the House. He has been speaking for nearly 40 minutes. If he has set the scene, I would be grateful if he now dealt with the details of the Bill?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He has set the scene, so he can deal with the intervention. However, I then expect him to address his remarks to the Bill. Mr Nuttall: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is right about the devastating effect of industrial action such as that to which he referred. In the case in question, it looks as though the action was specifically arranged and organised to hurt people who had waited all year for their holiday. Therefore, it is not surprising that the law drawn up in 1999 should expect the highest standards of compliance. In view of what you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will skip over the next portion of my remarks. Let us jump forward to the late 1970s. I think that this is relevant, because that was the time when trade union powers reached what could be described as their zenith. Andrew Bridgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that Bill seeks to send industrial relations between employees and employers back to the late 1970s should come as no surprise, given that the new Leader of the Opposition seeks to swing the politics of the Labour party back to that time, and that the great consolation for Conservative Members is that Labour will therefore be out of government for a very long time? Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab): Absolute rubbish.

1225


22 OCTOBER 2010

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me also remind the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), before he rises to reply to his hon. Friend’s intervention, that I have already told him very specifically that, having spoken for after 40 minutes, he should end his general remarks and begin to deal with the contents of the Bill. Before he replied to the earlier intervention, he assured me that he would do that, but he then broadened the debate. I should be grateful if, in replying to the intervention from the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), he would refer directly to the Bill. Mr Nuttall: I certainly will, Madam Deputy Speaker. To be fair, I think that I have already dealt with my hon. Friend’s point. I agree that there is a danger that that will happen if the Bill is allowed to proceed in its current form. However, I think it relevant to point out briefly—very briefly, and for the good of the trade union movement—that trade union membership has halved since the 1980s, from 13 million to 6.5 million. I fear that if the Bill were allowed to proceed and a further period of industrial unrest were to follow, there could well be a further decline, perhaps—although it is not for me to say—a terminal decline in union membership. Let me now do what you have rightly asked me to do, Madam Deputy Speaker, and turn to the detail of the Bill. Charlie Elphicke: Given that the Court of Appeal reversed the injunction in the British Airways case, does my hon. Friend think that the Bill is necessary at all?


1226

Let me now return to the detail of clause 1, which seeks to amend section 232B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Subsection (2) would add the words “or notice”. Previously compliance had been required only if a ballot had been held, but sections 226 to 230 require notice to be given to the employer as well. Section 226A requires the notice to be given “not later than the seventh day before the opening day of the ballot”,

and to be “received by every person who it is reasonable for the union to believe”

should receive it. In considering whether this is a sensible provision, I ask myself why notice should not be given to all the other people who would be affected. I would consider it sensible for the Bill to require it to be given not just to the employer, but to others who would be affected by the union’s actions, such as post office and railway users’ groups. Section 226 states that it would help the employer to be able to make plans and bring information to the attention of some of his employees, because other employees might be seriously affected if half their colleagues walked out on strike. It is entirely right that there should be compliance—full compliance—with the requirement for notice to be given. Andrew Bridgen: Compliance with the notice period is essential because, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, there are suppliers downstream and users upstream of the business who need to be informed of potential industrial action.

Mr Nuttall: No, I do not. We have not yet had time to see the details of the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of British Airways plc v. Unite. The court’s judgment, which was quoted by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, was quite clear in regard to the effectiveness of the law. There has been such a long line of cases of this kind, and it is interesting to note that time and again they have involved the same union: Unite. One would think that by now Unite, and the people whom it employs to conduct the ballots, would have learned how to do it, but apparently not. The Master of the Rolls recognised that. Delivering his dissenting judgment in the Court of Appeal, he said that he agreed with Mr Justice McCombe, who had delivered the earlier judgment in the Queen’s Bench Division. He said that he did

Mr Nuttall: Indeed. The time is needed so that other people—not just other employees—can be notified. Deliveries may need to be stopped, and customers may be waiting for those deliveries. There is a strong argument for increasing the notice period. Section 226A(1)(a) requires only seven days’ notice, which is not very long. It will include a weekend, so there will be only five working days. That is not a long time in which to make all the necessary preparations, especially when the company involved has never experienced a strike before and does not know what to do. There will be a lot to be done in those seven days. There is a lot of merit in the argument that the period should be extended to 14 or 28 days, so that people know where they stand if a union starts to take industrial action.

“not consider that the Union has a good prospect of establishing at trial that it complied with section 231. On the contrary, I would not regard its prospects as promising.”

Charlie Elphicke: My understanding—correct me if I am wrong—is that the substantial compliance provision would allow for exemption from section 234A of the 1992 Act, which deals with the notice to employers of industrial action. Does my hon. Friend think that substantial compliance might be a notice sent in the post but not delivered? Is that substantial compliance or not? Should not an employer receive actual notice and have some certainty about that?

He reached the conclusion that “the requirements of section 231 seem… at least as at present advised, to be unnecessarily prescriptive and strict, particularly insofar as they can be relied on by the employer and particularly in a case such as this… Having fallen foul of the technical rules of the 1992 Act in a ballot a few months earlier, the Union might have been expected to take particular care over complying with all those rules in what was effectively a rerun of that ballot.”

So there we have it: the Master of the Rolls saying in terms that the union had had one chance, and had got it wrong. A few months later it did effectively the same thing, and got it wrong again. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) is quite right.

Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which we will look at in more detail when I look at the next paragraph of the subsection. The problem with the Bill is that it not only introduces the novel concept of substantial compliance, but extends the scope of the 1992 Act to cover not just the ballot but the

1227


22 OCTOBER 2010

notice provision. Therefore, it is doing two things at the same time. Incidentally, the provision also extends the number of sections to which the exemption applies, which we will look at later. May I move on to the subsection (1)(b) of section 232B, which states that the failure will be disregarded if “the failure is accidental and on a scale which is unlikely to affect the result of the ballot”.

It seems that, when the 1992 Act was amended, the then Labour Government knew exactly what they were doing. They were providing for minor errors to be discounted. In section 232B, they specifically allowed for a failure which is “accidental and on a scale which is unlikely to affect the result of the ballot or, as the case may be, the failures are accidental and taken together are on a scale which is unlikely to affect the result of the ballot”.

That seems to be straightforward and simple to understand. Philip Davies: It may be straightforward to someone as intelligent as my hon. Friend, but may I ask him to clarify the matter for those of us who do not have his intellectual capacity? Does the law as it stands say that the failure would be disregarded if it were, “accidental and does not affect the ballot” or does it say that it would be disregarded if it were “accidental or does not affect the ballot”? If the problem in the vote were not accidental, presumably it would not matter if it made any difference, because the union would have to meet both tests: the failure would have to be accidental and not make any difference. Can he clarify whether both tests have to be met at the moment? Mr Nuttall: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is more complex perhaps than I originally intimated. Section 232B(2)(b) says that, in relation to a ballot, if there is a failure or there are failures in respect of a provision mentioned in subsection (2) or other provisions, and the failure or failures are accidental and on a scale that is unlikely to affect the result of the ballot, those can be disregarded. It is worthy of note that the section already makes provision not just for a single failure but for failures, so it already provides for more than one failure. There could be several failures and the law accepts that at the moment. It accepts that there could be multiple failures and the existing legislation would still potentially allow those to be disregarded by the courts, as happened in the case that has been so often referred to this morning—the case of British Airways plc v. Unite. There were a number of errors. The Court of Appeal, by a majority, decided to allow the appeal and discharged the injunction that had been obtained at first instance by the court. Andrew Bridgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill effectively will give special rights, privileges and concessions to unions that are not given to any other groups in this country? Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend is right. The concept that is introduced by the proposed amendment to section 232B of “substantial compliance” is a novel concept. I have not heard in the opening remarks in the debate about any other legislation where that is referred to and therein lies quite a major problem with this legislation. I turn to what is the crux of my argument.


1228

Philip Davies: This appears to get down to the nitty-gritty of what is accidental. It seems to me from the judge’s summing up that Unite got it wrong in its dispute with BA. The judge said that he thought that “it therefore seems clear that the union was aware, or certainly ought to have been, that the figures provided to BA in the ballot notice included a substantial number of those who were shortly to leave on voluntary redundancy, and therefore included members who the union could not reasonably have believed would be entitled to vote in the ballot.”

In that case, the mistakes might have been minor, according to the interpretation of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, but they certainly could not have been accidental if the union was balloting people whom the judge ruled it should have known, or did know, were not entitled to vote. Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. One of the problems with the interpretation of the clause relates to what is accidental and what is not. I submit that we are going to have exactly the same problem if we change the law and introduce the concept of substantial compliance. We are not any further forward than we were. Henry Smith: Does my hon. Friend think it in order that the House should legislate to allow for incompetence, whether accidental or deliberate? Mr Nuttall: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I certainly do not think that it is appropriate that the House should legislate for incompetence, and effectively that is what this Bill is leading towards. It is effectively saying that there could be 70%, 60% or 80% compliance with the law and that would be okay. I might be wrong, but I am of the opinion that members of the public outside this House rightly expect a trade union, or indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire said, any other group to comply with the law to a much higher degree. I think the degree of compliance should be 98% or 99%, which was the intention in 1999 when the then Labour Government introduced section 232B providing for small accidental failure to be disregarded. The new provision refers to “the failure…or the failures taken together”,

so it mirrors the current situation in that duplicate failures would be permitted. It also states that “there has been substantial compliance with the provision or provisions in question”

and “on a scale which is unlikely to affect (in the case of a ballot) the result of the ballot or…a reasonable recipient’s understanding of the effect of the notice”.

The problem is that that provision takes us no further forward. Employers are just as likely to say, “Well, has there been substantial compliance or not?” It is not clear, so we are no better off than if we were to ask whether there had been a minor or accidental failure. Therefore, this provision will prove to be a treasure trove for lawyers. Philip Davies: Given that the purpose of the Bill is to try to avoid any misunderstandings, does my hon. Friend agree that it would have been more helpful if the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) had included a definition of substantial compliance? If he had, we might have avoided some of these problems.

1229


22 OCTOBER 2010

Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend is right. One of the defects of the Bill is that there is no definition of what constitutes substantial compliance under the law; we have no idea at all about that. The current law is particularly detailed, however. For example, section 226A of the 1992 Act requires that a union must give notice “not later than the seventh day before the opening day of the ballot”

to “every person who it is reasonable for the union to believe (at the latest time when steps could be taken to comply with paragraph (a)) will be the employer of persons who will be entitled to vote in the ballot.”

All sorts of questions arise, such as what happens if someone is set to become an employee but is not working on the day? They will never have a chance to vote; are they to be included or not? I do not want to address all these questions today. I simply put that one as an example of the problems that will arise if the Bill is enacted. Henry Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is precisely why the 1999 and 2004 legislation introduced by the previous Government—to whom I do not give credit for very much—did not allow for substantial compliance? The point my hon. Friend makes illustrates precisely why they saw the sense in not allowing for that. Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Back in 1999 there was a new Labour Government with a substantial parliamentary majority, and they could very easily have introduced a measure along the lines of the Bill, but they did not do so because it is a bit of a dog’s breakfast. It is not clear what substantial compliance means; there is no definition in the Bill and our attention has not been drawn to any previous case law or to any academic analysis of what would or would not constitute substantial compliance. Andrew Bridgen: Is not the crux of the matter that if substantial compliance had been fully defined in the Bill, that would merely move the legal argument on to the question of whether actions might or might not be likely to affect the ballot? Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend is right. Whether or not something may or not result in the ballot being affected is a very moot point indeed, and it could exercise the courts for a very long time. I think there is a danger that the lawyers are sitting out there rubbing their hands with glee, because when they see the Bill they must think, “Marvellous! We’ve almost run our course in respect of the 1992 and 1999 legislation, which have been to the Court of Appeal, but we are now going to move back to square one and start again. We can spend hour after hour in the Queen’s bench division and then the Court of Appeal.” That is because the issues will not be dealt with in, say, Uxbridge county court. Philip Davies: Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), is there not an irony here in that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has introduced the Bill to benefit his friends in the trade unions and they have got a Court


1230

of Appeal decision that is favourable to them that they could presumably use in further cases as case law, yet he wants to scrap that judgment, which eventually found in their favour, to introduce a new element to the law that is uncertain? If the hon. Gentleman wants to help his friends in the trade unions, should he not leave the law as it stands with this clear verdict from the Court of Appeal, rather than try to introduce a new Bill that introduces new uncertainty? He is not even helping the people his Bill is designed to help. Mr Nuttall: Absolutely. My hon. Friend is right that there is a real danger that this Bill will not only move industrial relations back three decades, but will move the analysis of the case law back to square one—back to 1992 or 1999. We will be starting with a blank page, and the lawyers will be able to say, “Well, here we are. All past judgments are out of the window because there will now be a new piece of legislation.” All the previous cases that have been cited this morning will, effectively, be made redundant because the measure that has been tested before the courts on several occasions will no longer be on the statute book, and we will be faced with a new measure that has never been tested before the courts. It will not be long before an employer is required to put the matter to the courts for a decision and, as I said, these are not the sort of matters that could be dealt with in a county court. They would inevitably have to be dealt with in the High Court. They would then be appealed to the Court of Appeal for civil cases, and who knows whether they would go on to the Supreme Court. They would be lengthy and expensive actions, and I submit that we would be no further forward in having clarity in the law—which, after all, is why we are here in Parliament. We thought we had nearly got there in the case of British Airways and Unite earlier in the year. If we now go back to square one, we will be no further forward. Philip Davies: I am pleased my hon. Friend agrees with me about that. However, has not the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington reasonably identified that the crux of the BA case is the definition of accidental? It was the judge’s view that in this case accidental did not mean unintentional—that there was not enough to satisfy the demands of the law. If the hon. Gentleman wants to deal with the BA problem, to which he referred at length in his speech, would he not be better off just amending the law to give a definition of accidental, rather than going back to the drawing board and introducing a completely new concept altogether? Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend is right, because rather than deal with the matters raised in the judgment, such as the definition of “accidental”, the Bill seeks to introduce a novel concept of whether there had been “substantial compliance” with something. I shall now deal with the next subsection, if Madam Deputy Speaker will allow me. Subsection (5) deals with the burden of proof. The existing legislation under section 232B of the 1992 Act contains no subsection (5), so this would be a new insertion into the original provision. Subsection (5) states: “In any proceedings in which reliance is placed on this section, any failure to comply with a provision mentioned in subsection (2) is to be treated as meeting the terms of subsection (1)(b) unless the contrary is proved.”

1231


22 OCTOBER 2010

In simple terms, that means that the burden of proof is being placed completely on the employer, who will have to prove this novel concept of what constitutes “substantial compliance”. As has been said this morning, that arrangement is entirely the wrong way round. It is and has always been incumbent on the trade unions to show that they are complying with the requirements of the law, because it, unusually, exempts them from the liabilities that otherwise exist under British law. Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with having the onus on the companies and the employers is that that imposes a huge responsibility and potential cost on them in tough economic times, because they will have to try to prove something and get information to which they do not have easy access? That is why the onus in the Bill is completely the wrong way round and why the onus should remain on the unions. Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that point, although I had not thought of it, because employers face having to start delving into matters into which they will probably never have delved and that could be, as he says, a very expensive and time-consuming business. It would be far better for employers to get on and deal with the job that they are there to do, which is to try to run their businesses and companies profitably. Subsection (5) deals with the burden of proof and makes it the job of the employer to prove that there has been a failure of “substantial compliance”; it puts the burden of proof on the employer. I submit that it is the job of the trade union to prove that it has complied with the rules. I sometimes refer to this as the 51:49 rule, because proving something on the civil standard of the balance of probability means that on a 51:49 balance it is more likely than not to have occurred. I believe that I am right in saying that we were told during the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington that proving this was not difficult, but if that is the case, it is not difficult for the trade unions to prove that they have substantially complied with whatever provision they are alleged not to have complied with. As we have said, what does or does not constitute substantial compliance is a matter of great debate. For example, has there been substantial compliance where a notice has been sent but not in the right form or where it has been partially or badly photocopied? Charlie Elphicke: Will not the reversal of the burden of proof and the introduction of this wholly uncertain new test be very counter-productive, because we have such strong and well understood case law and precedent in this area that this approach might damage the position of trade unions? Mr Nuttall: There is a real danger of that. One of the reasons it would be wrong for us to pass this Bill in its current form is that it would damage the standing of the trade unions. There is a real risk that they will find it more difficult to recruit new members if they are seen to be moving back to the 1970s, and if there is such a return, there is a real risk that our economic competitiveness will be damaged. Before I deal with which groups might be affected by this measure—it is important that we examine that and consider who will be affected outside this House if the Bill is allowed to pass into law—I shall


1232

address the requirements of subsection (5). Placing the burden of proof on to the employer would be a major change and such a provision was not in the previous legislation. I have heard no good reason this morning why it would be a sensible way to proceed. Clause 2, which deals with the short title of the Bill and commencement, is relatively uncontroversial. However, it might be suggested that the period of one month before the legislation comes into force is not sufficient. Clause 2(3) contains a fairly unusual provision. It states: “This Act applies in relation to industrial action taking place (or proposed to take place) on or after the day on which it comes into force.”

That leaves the definition of what “proposed to take place” means open to some doubt. Jacob Rees-Mogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that the clause is particularly dangerous, because it allows errors that have been made, which may or may not have been considered to be substantial before, to be reconsidered after the fact? It is most unsuitable to legislate in that way, so the clause is one of the worst in the Bill. Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is slipped in at the very end, in the last couple of lines of a clause that might otherwise be uncontroversial and remain unconsidered. I might have overlooked it, were it not for the fact that in parentheses, it says “or proposed to take place”.

That changes the whole ballpark of the meaning of the clause. One could understand if action were actually taking place—that would be quite understandable, and we can see whether someone is on strike or not—but where there is a requirement to consider whether it is proposed to take place, who makes the proposal? Is it someone who has proposed action in a branch meeting? Should it be proposed at a national level? Should there have been a ballot? Should there have been notification? How far down the line does it have to have gone before it is regarded as an proposed action? What happens if one union member has proposed it to his mate? Is that regarded as a proposal for action? The whole Bill is a minefield; it is a treasure trove for lawyers and I submit that in its current form it will do nothing to help trade unions and industrial relations in this country. Before we go further, we should consider the groups that will be affected by this Bill. Principally, four groups will be affected. The first group is the trade union members. Some members might have their views excluded because, if one assumes that the thrust of the Bill is to make it easier for mistakes to be made—that is what we are talking about, we are making it easier for people to be missed out—there will be a greater likelihood that ordinary trade union members will not have their views taken into account. They will quite rightly ask why they are being denied a say and they are certainly a group that we should have in the forefront of our minds when we are deliberating on which way we should vote on this Bill. The second group is the trade union members who are consulted. Regardless of whether they are consulted in support of or against any particular proposed industrial action, there is a real danger that their hard-earned moneys, which are paid over as union subscriptions and union dues, will be wasted and lost in the pockets of the

1233


22 OCTOBER 2010

[Mr Nuttall] lawyers and in payment of court fees while day after day is spent debating in the courts the merits and demerits of the Bill. The third group is the employers. Where is the line to be drawn? The law already allows small accidental failures to be disregarded and it is reasonable to assume that the Bill is seeking to relax those provisions. It does prompt the question of what degree of error is now to be disregarded. I would ask the House to accept that as the current description is “small”, the proposed disregard must by definition be a level higher than “small”. The question is what degree of disregard is greater than “small”. Is it, for example, “quite small”, but not “small”? Is it “little”, but not “small”? Is it “modest”, but not “small”? Perhaps it is not “quite small”, “little” or “modest”, but in fact—I suspect that this is where the law is intended to go—quite a major failure. We are moving towards “substantial compliance” allowing for quite major failures of the law and allowing the law to be breached in quite a major way while still being disregarded. That cannot be right. Brandon Lewis: A couple of issues come to mind. Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as moving employers into a position where they would have the onus and could therefore be seen as aggravating the situation by doing research into any potential disregards, there is also the chance—as he has said—that although what is currently seen as being small is hard to define, if it is in law it has the ability to grow even once it has been refined? What we see as small in one case might become larger and larger as time goes on. The value of members who are unable to use their vote and are not given the opportunity because of an accident or mistake is devalued, rather like constituencies in which we have more people with less value to their vote. Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. One difficulty in defining a small or minor error is the size of the electorate. Something that could be regarded as a small error that could be safely disregarded in one trade union would not be appropriate as a matter to be disregarded in another trade union. Even when a conclusion has been reached in proceedings that might at first sight result in apparent settlement of the law, that is not necessarily the case if the union involved is the size of Unite rather than the size of the garment workers’ union, which might have nowhere near the same number of members. This is an important issue that will affect employers and the law will not be clear even after the Bill is passed. Andrew Bridgen: Perhaps I could bring to my hon. Friend’s attention another complication that might not have been considered of the possible implications of this Bill. If we move the burden of proof from the unions to the employers regarding substantial compliance with the provisions and the phrase “on a scale…unlikely to affect”,

does my hon. Friend agree that there could be a field day for the lawyers when employers, perhaps reasonably, claim that the unions have not complied fully with providing them with the information they need to decide whether there has been substantial compliance with the


1234

Bill or whether any errors are on a scale unlikely to affect the Bill’s provisions? Would that not therefore require further legislation to give employers the rights to obtain the information from the unions in a reasonable, timely and full fashion? That is yet another field day for the lawyers and, yet again, will fail to achieve the aims of the Bill. Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend is quite right. That is a point that I did not consider fully—I apologise for that—when going through clause 1(3). There is a risk that that subsection, taken together with subsection (5), will mean that the employer now has the problem—it will be a problem—of bringing before the courts evidence that there has been substantial compliance or noncompliance. All the evidence might well be in the hands of the trade unions, and it will be very difficult for an employer to be able to satisfy a court and, under this Bill, they would have that responsibility. Employers would have that burden placed on them. How on earth can they be expected to fulfil and meet that requirement when the information is in the hands of the trade unions? As my hon. Friend reasonably and rightly says, it would perhaps be more understandable for there to be a provision in the Bill to require the information that the court needed to be handed over so that there could be no doubt that there was a full requirement on the part of the trade unions to hand over to the employer all the relevant information to enable the employer to submit an action to the court. Without that information, the employer would have no reasonable basis on which to instruct their solicitor, and there would be no way for a solicitor to instruct counsel, because they would not have the facts and figures to enable them to make their case. Charlie Elphicke: My hon. Friend is making a technical and detailed speech, but do I understand his case correctly? Is it that the Bill will create uncertainty for trade unions and employers, and that it will benefit lawyers and result in a massive wodge of cash for them? That is just what happened when the previous Government handed over all coal compensation cases to a bunch of lawyers. Surely that is unacceptable. Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend makes a good, reasonable point. The law would not be clarified in any way by the Bill, but there is a real danger, as I have pointed out, that it would take us back to the situation we faced in the 1970s and 1980s. Much of the case law would be made redundant, and we would face yet more legal actions— Madam Deputy Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to make a number of points on the Bill, but he is repeating himself; he has come back to those points on a number of occasions. Perhaps he could carry on with the rest of his comments, rather than telling the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) what he has already said. Mr Nuttall: I will indeed. I was just dealing with the intervention. Philip Davies: Although my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) is right, the category of person that appears to be in danger of being ignored in

1235


22 OCTOBER 2010

this debate is not the trade unions or employers but the paying public—the customers. At the end of the day, it is they who are most inconvenienced by all the strike action. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) accept that if the Bill were to have a Second Reading today, it is not the impact on trade unions or employers that should be at the forefront of our mind, important though that is, but the impact on the customer and the paying public? Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend is quite right. He has perhaps anticipated my fourth point. I was about to say that fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, there is the question of the paying public, who would be the ones most affected by the changes. I am concerned that if the law is changed, we will see a return to the dark days of the 1970s. I am concerned for my constituents in Bury North—for the working mum who is forced to make last-minute arrangements for child care because teachers have gone on strike; for the small business man who is waiting for a customer’s cheque to arrive, and who faces the ruin of his business because the postmen have gone on strike; for the taxi driver who needs to renew his licence, and faces the loss of his livelihood because he is preventing from renewing it because the officials in the town hall are on strike. I could go on and on; there are so many categories affected. Earlier, we touched on the family who save for, and look forward all year to, the one holiday that they have, and who are then denied the opportunity to go because one small group of workers has withdrawn its labour and gone on strike. The law as it stands cannot be that difficult to comply with. The 2009 “Annual Abstract of Statistics” issued by the Office for National Statistics has details of how many working days were lost through labour disputes by industry in 2009. It shows that in transport, storage and communications, 657,000 working days were lost. In public administration and defence, 325,000 working days were lost. The figure was 31,000 in education; 16,000 in manufacturing; 5,000 in health and social work; 4,000 in other community, social and personal services; 2,000 in construction; and 2,000 in other industries and services. So it is not impossible to comply with the law as it stands. All those industrial disputes were able to proceed, quite lawfully, under current legislation. Let me conclude by saying that the Bill risks taking the trade union movement back to the 1970s and ’80s. I submit that it represents a huge missed opportunity to modernise the trade union movement. It tries to simplify existing legislation, but it runs the risk of creating new uncertainties. It introduces the concept of “substantial compliance”; and, as I say, lawyers must be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of spending more time in court. Those words would have to be tested in the courts, because we know nothing of what they actually mean. The Bill does nothing about the underlying problem that it seeks to solve. It does nothing to help the trade unions, or those engaged by them, to conduct the ballot in accordance with the letter of the law. After all, the issue is the will of Parliament and ultimately, therefore, the will of the people. The level of compliance is set where it is because that is where the public want it to be. For the sake of hard-working families who fear having their everyday lives disrupted by a return to the disastrous days of some three decades ago, we should not allow the Bill to proceed.


1236

Having considered the merits and principles of the Bill, I am not persuaded that it is a sensible way forward. I am not convinced that the changes it seeks to make would, in any way, shape or form, improve on the existing law. Indeed, I would respectfully submit that the provisions would introduce a whole new area of uncertainty into trade union law, and that would be bad not just for the trade unions and employers, but for our economy. In short, it would be bad for Britain. For all those reasons, I propose voting against the Bill, and I urge the whole House to do likewise. 11.38 am Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing this debate on his Bill. He is renowned for his determination in campaigning on issues such as the one that we are discussing. The overwhelming majority of employers, as well as trade union leaders and their members, working in a wide range of contexts and within different structures, recognise that good employer-employee relations are crucial in an increasingly competitive world. They recognise the importance of good communications and clarity in respect of negotiating structures. They recognise the need to exercise responsibility and show restraint. Indeed, during the economic downturn, trade unions and employers have made some very difficult and responsible decisions; employees have accepted pay freezes or agreed to work fewer hours, with a subsequent drop in take-home pay, to avoid redundancies and keep their companies in business. On a more optimistic note, only last week we heard a very good news story: Jaguar Land Rover and the trade unions reached a landmark deal which will mean a multi-million pound investment in the Jaguar Land Rover business here in the UK, securing the future of the three plants at Castle Bromwich, Solihull and Halewood, creating 5,000 new jobs and safeguarding up to 50,000 jobs in the supply chain, including jobs in my constituency, Llanelli, where there is a ThyssenKrupp Tallent plant that supplies components to Jaguar Land Rover. This would not have been possible without the brave leadership of Unite, leading a ground-breaking change and flexibility agreement. Indeed, day and day out, behind the scenes and away from the glare of publicity, trade union leaders and employers negotiate and reach agreement. They see industrial action as the last resort. They understand the importance of a properly conducted ballot in enabling employees to express their views before taking strike action. The Opposition recognise the importance of legislation in providing a proper framework in which to work, and during our time in office we introduced several measures to improve rights at work and to help to provide security at work. On trade union protection, that means that every worker now has the right to be a member of a trade union and to be represented in grievance and disciplinary hearings. It means that if a majority of workers in a workplace want it, employers have to recognise a trade union. More than 1,000 new trade union recognition deals have been signed since 1999. We also improved protection against unfair dismissal, with protection now kicking in after 12 months in a job instead of two years, and the maximum compensation has risen from £12,000 to £66,200.

1237


22 OCTOBER 2010

[Nia Griffith] The Opposition are committed to ensuring that trade unions operate within a strong legal framework. That means ensuring that strikes cannot take place without a properly conducted ballot, but the way in which the law has developed in recent cases is undermining the intention of the 1992 Act. In recent years, employers have successfully challenged ballots, not because there was any doubt about the view of the majority of those balloted, but because of minor technical non-compliance that had no impact on the result. It has created a lawyers’ charter, with the main beneficiaries being lawyers. It has encouraged employers to seek legal loopholes rather than get on with the real business of negotiating. The current situation is unsatisfactory and is undermining confidence in the law among trade union members. If trade unionists believe that the law is being used wrongly to stop lawful and democratically agreed activity, it is likely to lead to very considerable frustration and to encourage unofficial action, actions organised over the internet, and wild-cat strikes outside the law and outside democracy. That will help nobody. In the recent BA dispute, one judge pointed out that the purpose of the legislation “is not to create a series of traps or hurdles for the union to negotiate”,

but “to ensure a fair, open and democratic ballot.”

The Appeal Court overturned an injunction that had been granted to the employer on the grounds that the requirements for strike ballots had been interpreted too narrowly. There is a clear need to restore the original intention of the 1992 Act, together with a minor extension to the original legislation to cover the sections relevant to the requirement to give notice to an employer before a ballot is held and to give notice before industrial action commences. This Bill provides an important opportunity for Parliament to consider these issues. There may be more than one way to achieve the Bill’s objective. Although the Opposition recognise the need to restore the original intention of the 1992 Act, we cannot today endorse the particular legal mechanism proposed in this Bill. It would reverse the onus of responsibility to prove that the ballot would not have affected the result by placing the onus on the employer. I am very clear that an alternative would be to ensure that trade unions could establish clearly that minor errors that would not have affected the outcome of the ballot would not be the basis for legal action. Although I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing the opportunity for Parliament to debate this issue, further careful consideration should be given to the best way forward. It is of course the Government who must take responsibility for participating fully in—indeed leading—this debate. The law that both sides defend today was introduced by a Conservative Government. It is that law, working properly, that should be at the heart of the law governing lawful strikes. The Government must share the desire to ensure that we do not see any growth of illegal, undemocratic or unofficial strike action. I hope the Minister will indicate the Government’s willingness to respond positively to the issues raised today. Today we are discussing a private Member’s Bill, and it should be in the hands of the House to decide whether it should make progress.


1238

11.45 am Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): It is not my intention to speak at great length or to filibuster the Bill, but it does need legislative scrutiny. I take issue with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) who suggests that any desire to scrutinise, examine or otherwise consider this Bill is somehow reprehensible or wrong. After all, the Opposition spend most of their time doing that to Bills, and when we put pressure on them they roundly criticise us for not allowing proper scrutiny. It is right that this House should scrutinise Bills. The new intake may be new, but we are not naive. We have been sent here to scrutinise legislation and to clean up politics. For many of us in the new intake, the behaviour of previous Parliaments and the disgraceful abuse of expenses were unacceptable, inappropriate and wrong. The disrespect to this House—including its symbols—by Members of the previous Parliament was inexcusable, inappropriate and wrong. To bring before this House a private Member’s Bill that is obviously controversial and highly partisan in nature is an outrageous and disgraceful thing to do. This day should be for legislation that will pass with the support of both sides of the House. It is wholly wrong and inappropriate to waste the time of this House by bringing before it legislation that will divide it. There are other issues that we could have been discussing today on which the House is united and agreed. I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is inappropriate, inexcusable and wholly wrong to do this to this House and the other Members who have legislation to be considered today. We could have been passing useful law today, but I do not think that that will happen. We could have been talking about matters that unite us, but for which there is too little parliamentary time. I especially condemn the hon. Gentleman because not only does his Bill lack support on this side of the House, but—as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith)—it lacks support on his side of the House. Mr Nuttall: That point is important. When I made my brief comments, I was not aware of Opposition Front Benchers’ stance, but I am not surprised because the Labour Government introduced the provisions in 1999 and therefore it is to be expected that Labour Front Benchers will stand by what they said. The provisions have stood the test of time and no one has sought to change them before now. Charlie Elphicke: I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful point. The Bill is highly technical and seeks to change things that seem technical, but it has the support of no major party in the House. The Bill is also highly controversial in that it seeks to extend the right to strike, but in reality would extend only uncertainty and the getting of money by our legal friends—I used to be one, I regret to confess. We should not proceed in that way. As a member of the new intake, I was driven to be here today at the request of several constituents, who wrote to me. One letter stated: “John McDonnell’s Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill will have its Second Reading in the House of Commons on 22 October and I urge you to attend Parliament to ensure this takes place.

1239


22 OCTOBER 2010

The Bill has been introduced in response to a raft of recent cases where courts have ruled”

as we have heard, and I will revert to that shortly. The letter goes on: “These cases have meant British law now imposes fetters on unions in relation to ballots which are unprecedented in Europe”.

That piqued my interest. I thought that I had to respond to my constituent because, unlike Members of Parliament in former times, I believe in writing back to my constituents and taking an interest in that in which they wish me to take an interest. I am nothing if not a servant of my constituents. I therefore read the Bill and the explanatory notes. Paragraph 6 of the explanatory notes, which, I believe, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington wrote, states: “A number of recent judicial decisions have revealed a degree of uncertainty on the scope and application of section 232B—for example, in the meaning of ‘accidental’ in subsection (1)(b). The cases have also highlighted, among other things, that the section does not apply to errors, however minor, in the giving of notice under section 226A or 234A. It remains unclear where the burden of proof lies in the event of a dispute as to whether an error involves loss of the protection of section 219.”

Yet, as we have heard in the debate, the Bill creates a new uncertainty. Those provisions of trade union law have been in place for the past two decades and more, and they are well understood by the courts and the legal system. Will introducing the new test of “substantial compliance” help the unions? I do not think so. It will help create uncertainty and it will help lawyers, but it will not help the trade unions. I say that as someone who is broadly a supporter of trade unions and their legitimate right to use their economic power to withdraw their labour if that is the collective democratic will. As a supporter in principle of the right to strike, I think that the Bill is wrong because it creates a new uncertainty where certainty had been garnered over time. As a supporter of trade unions, I think that the measure’s aim is wrongful; as a supporter of employers, I do not believe that their time should be taken up in instructing lawyers and coping with new uncertainty. They need some certainly for their business planning. Is the Bill necessary? Paragraph 7 of the explanatory notes states: “In May 2010 an interim injunction was granted by McCombe J in British Airways plc v. UNITE the Union on the basis of alleged failure to comply with the provisions of section 231 of the 1992 Act regarding information about the result of a ballot. The Court of Appeal… reversed that decision.”

It threw out the injunction. The explanatory notes continue: “Smith LJ stated that ‘it appears to me very likely that the judge at trial would hold that there had been substantial compliance’”.

The explanatory notes cite a case as the mischief that necessitated the Bill, when it actually proves the opposite. Paragraph 7 goes on to say that in paragraph 149 of the judgment, Lord Justice Smith “observed: ‘I consider that the policy of this part of the Act is not to create a series of traps or hurdles for the Union to negotiate. It is to ensure fair dealing between employer and Union and to ensure a fair, open and democratic ballot’… However, the other two members of the Court reached their decision on different grounds.”


1240

The hon. Gentleman’s case is that a mysterious uncertainty remains over the effect of insubstantial errors on the operation of the ballot and notice provisions, but I think there is no such uncertainty. It seems to me that the Court of Appeal ruled fairly and squarely in favour of discharging that injunction. The mischief cited as a reason for introducing the Bill seems, when one gives it close examination and reads it with some degree of care, not to be a mischief at all. Jacob Rees-Mogg: I would be extremely grateful if my hon. Friend, as a lawyer, explained to us whether the Court of Appeal’s decision is precedent-setting for future judgments. Charlie Elphicke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Court of Appeal decisions, by our system of precedent, bind future decisions of that court and all lower courts. As I am sure he knows, only the Supreme Court can change and overrule a precedent. That is highly unlikely, and highly unusual in cases such as BA v. Unite. Mr Nuttall: One real danger of the Bill is that the current set of established legal precedents would effectively become worthless. We would be back to square one, because new section 232B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 has not been considered by the courts. Charlie Elphicke: I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a strong, powerful point. The situation is that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington alleges an uncertainty that seems not to exist. The Bill would seem on the one hand to reverse the burden of proof, and on the other to introduce a concept of substantial compliance that creates even more uncertainty. As a former lawyer, the concept “substantial” is relatively well understood: it normally means 80:20. However, substantial compliance in the context of the Bill creates a further question. What is 80:20 in terms of compliance? Mr Nuttall: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that 20% of members need not be consulted? Would that be regarded as substantial compliance under the Bill? That would be outrageous. Charlie Elphicke: My hon. Friend makes a good point. What does substantial compliance mean? I am not sure. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington really should have drafted the Bill properly to include a proper definition of substantial compliance. That might at least have earned Labour party support, if not necessarily Conservative support. If before laying the Bill without any discussion he had worked with the Government, it might have been less controversial. He could have worked with his own party to produce something that could achieve the kind of consensus that there should be for private Members’ Bills. Andrew Bridgen: The salient point is on substantial compliance. Imagine if in canvassing our constituents we were to comply substantially with a ballot by delivering papers only to the 80% of people we thought likely to vote in the direction we wanted. Would that be substantial compliance or democracy?

1241


22 OCTOBER 2010

Charlie Elphicke: My hon. Friend asks a fair question. Would it be okay to have substantial compliance in electoral law? I have received letters from the Electoral Commission threatening all manner of prosecution if I do not comply completely with absolutely everything. Should politicians and campaigners only substantially comply? Must an employer substantially comply when it comes to dismissing a member of staff ? I do not think so. That is not how employment law works. The rules on compliance are strict, and rightly so. Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is extremely generous of my hon. Friend to give way once again. The concept of substantial compliance is desperately worrying, because if in a Division of the House we had had only to be substantially compliant on an 80:20 basis, the result could almost always be reversed. Charlie Elphicke: I thank my hon. Friend. He makes a fair point. There are many cases in which there should be full and proper compliance—for instance, in an investigation by an employer into staff misconduct. An employer seeking to dismiss a member of staff should comply fully with all the procedures under employment law and employment practices, and likewise a trade union wanting to strike should be fully compliant with the procedures for all the notifications and other regulations that go with it. That is the right way to do things. It is not good enough to say, “Employers’ behaviour has to be perfect”—and politicians nowadays, we learn belatedly, have to be perfect, or at least try to do the right thing most of the time—“but it is okay for trade unions broadly to do what they like and not to comply with anything.” That seems to be the thrust of the argument put by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. To return to my central point, the hon. Gentleman knows that his argument will never have the support of Government Members. He might one day garner the support of the Labour party, but it will never have our support. I enjoin him to reconsider whether he really wants to put this Bill to the House, given that there are so many uncontroversial Bills that we could, and should, be discussing and putting to the House on which there is broad agreement. He should withdraw it on the grounds that it is wholly inappropriate for a controversial private Member’s Bill to be put to the House in this way, killing a whole load of other business. He knows that we have no option or choice, because of our philosophy and viewpoint, other than to oppose the Bill. Even the Labour party leadership takes the view that the Bill should not be supported. I therefore invite him to consider withdrawing the Bill. 12.1 pm Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): It is a pleasure to participate in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on getting off the blocks quicker than anybody else and having his private Member’s Bill debated on the first available day. I am probably slightly more generous than my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) in that, even though I do not agree with the Bill, I think that the hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to introduce legislation that he feels is important to him and his constituents. However, I share my hon. Friend’s frustration that that means that more worthwhile private Members’ Bills could be sidelined today. That is extremely unfortunate.


1242

I would say in passing, Madam Deputy Speaker, that although it is good to see you in the Chair, it was a great pleasure to see Mr Speaker in the Chair for the start of the debate. Recently, it had got to the stage when the Speaker was rarely seen on a Friday for private Members’ Bills, but his appearance today shows how important such Bills are to Parliament. I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will pass on my thanks to him for giving Fridays the respect they deserve by attending the start of the debate. I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and his hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), decided to take a novel approach to debates in the House by not wanting to take interventions. The House of Commons is not a lecture theatre but a debating chamber, and often during debates and through interventions we can tease out the strengths and weaknesses of legislation. I hope, therefore, that that trend will not be repeated in future weeks and debates on private Members’ Bills. I found the opportunity to intervene, and the reply given was actually quite informative, so I say to the hon. Lady that taking interventions in a debate is to be commended, because it allows us to tease out the issues. Mr Nuttall: Had interventions been taken, we might have got on a lot quicker this morning, because we could have got answers to some of the questions I raised. Instead, we were left hanging in the air. Had the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) taken one or two interventions, we would not be in this position, because he would have been able to deal with those matters straight away. Philip Davies: I tend to agree with my hon. Friend. As it happens, I am a fan of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, who is a great parliamentarian. However, it was rather uncharacteristic of him to make it abundantly clear at the start of his speech that he did not want to take any interventions. My hon. Friend pointed out that he had not provided a definition of substantial compliance in the Bill, which made it all the more unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman started by saying that he did not want to take any interventions, and woe betide anyone who tried to intervene—that was the gist of his starting point—because otherwise we might have been able to ask him what he thought substantial compliance meant. That might have shed some light on the matter. Andrew Bridgen: Is not the reason why the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) did not take any interventions in his opening statement that he did not have any answers to the interventions that were coming? As we have shown today, this Bill has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese. Philip Davies: There may be an element of truth in what my hon. Friend says. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington tried to describe the Bill as a simple and non-contentious piece of legislation that, really, nobody could possibly quibble with, and it was helpful to him in presenting that case not to take any interventions, so that none of the flaws in the Bill could be exploited. Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con): Perhaps the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) regarded his view—and his view alone—as substantive and sufficient grounds to go along with the Bill? I think we have demonstrated that that is not necessarily so wise.

1243


22 OCTOBER 2010

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is right. One of the things that I have learned in my short time in Parliament is that those on the Labour Benches tend to be very intolerant of anybody who holds a different opinion to them. I do not think that is particularly sensible in a parliamentary democracy. It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Dover and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who both made tremendous contributions to this debate. I particularly want to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North on his bravura performance in filleting the Bill and pointing out its many flaws, which hon. Members on both sides of the House were perhaps not aware of until he made his contribution. When I was first elected to this place, my mentor in Parliament was the late, great Eric Forth, the former Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. It is fair to say that he will be smiling down on us after the performance that my hon. Friend has given today, in the knowledge that his memory lives on in another guise. My hon. Friend should be extremely proud of the contribution that he has made to this debate. As it happens, I perfectly understand the frustration felt by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and his motivation for bringing the Bill forward. On the face of it, I understand why some trade unionists in the cases that he identified—he quoted a couple of cases that were illuminating, and I want to touch on that later—felt that although a substantial majority were in favour of strike action, they had been thwarted by their employers through the courts on a technicality. His Bill is an attempt to deal with that problem, and I certainly understand his motivation. However, I think that he is misguided, for a number of reasons, and I want to explain why. I want to start by simply looking at the Bill from the hon. Gentleman’s perspective of wanting to do the best for his friends in the trade unions, by trying to enable them to pursue strike action more readily when they feel that it is in their interests to do so. The first reason is the one that my hon. Friends the Members for Dover and for Bury North both mentioned, which is the fact that we are now getting some clarity in the original law. Given that the hon. Gentleman has received a favourable verdict from the Court of Appeal, it seems bizarre that he should want to rip up the law that delivered that favourable judgment and start all over again. I hope that, when he sums up the debate, he will explain why he does not accept the favourable judgment of the Court of Appeal, and why he wants to start all over again, with all the uncertainty that that brings. I cannot see any logical reason for doing that. Perhaps his decision to introduce this private Member’s Bill was made before the Court of Appeal’s verdict, in which case perhaps he might wish to reflect on whether it is now surplus to his requirements. I do not believe that the Bill addresses the frustrations of the trade unions. The problem in some previous cases has been the wording of the law, and its interpretation, but the law does not need to be completely ripped up. It simply needs clarification or very minor tweaking. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North pointed out that the current legislation requires unions to provide employers with notice of ballots on industrial action, and to provide exact numbers, workplaces and categories of those to be balloted and their addresses. It also states that any errors must be “accidental and taken together are on a scale which is unlikely to affect the result of the ballot”.

That is the law as it stands.


1244

As we have rather helpfully teased out in the debate, the existing law does not state that the errors should be accidental or on a scale unlikely to affect the result of the ballot. I think that this is the point that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington was trying to make. He and the unions seem not to like the fact that the existing legislation provides for the fact that the errors must also be accidental. All the focus has been on the fact that the mistakes were on a scale unlikely to affect the result of the ballot and that the strike action should have been allowed to continue on that basis alone. He did not seem to like the fact that court was also including the test of whether the mistakes were accidental, as the law currently requires. We can argue about whether that is a good idea, but I suggest that he would be far better off simply making a small amendment to the existing law, replacing the word “and” with the word “or”. That would appear to solve his problem. I do not particularly agree that we should change the law in that way, because I believe that the current provision is a good one, but from the hon. Gentleman’s perspective, he needs only to make a very small change to deliver what he and his trade union want. It would be much more sensible and simple for him to go down that route. Charlie Elphicke: Picking up on that point, I would not want the House to think that I intended any personal disrespect to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, who has brought the Bill to the House with the noblest of intentions. My frustration, as a new Member, is that we might lose the rest of today’s business because we cannot vote against this measure in a way that should be possible. I put it to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that the previous Government did not always listen to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington or give him the respect that he deserves, and I hope that the new Government will listen to his proposals in greater detail, and not simply knock them out of court, so that they can be adopted and bring new clarity and certainty to trade union law. Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Anyone who knows him will know that he would never intend any discourtesy to anyone, and I had certainly taken that as read, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will be grateful to him for that clarification. My hon. Friend certainly did not need to explain that to me, however; knowing him as I do, I know that he would never be discourteous to anyone on either side of the House. There are simpler ways for the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington to pursue his campaign, although I would not necessarily endorse them. Part of the hon. Gentleman’s frustration is not to do with the law as it stands. How could it be? As we have explored, the Court of Appeal agreed with his particular standpoint. He cannot therefore have any quibble with the law as it stands. I think the hon. Gentleman’s real quibble is with judges who grant injunctions and the basis on which they do so. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington certainly needs no advice from me—neither does anybody else for that matter—and I am sure that he will not take it, but I am certainly prepared to give it to him free of charge. My suggestion is that he start a campaign around the whole issue of judicial injunctions. What

1245


22 OCTOBER 2010

[Philip Davies] tends to happen when people seek an injunction from a judge—not just in this case, but in other cases, and we often see it in libel or privacy law—is that everything happens very quickly. That is why people seek an injunction—because something is about to happen very quickly. It might be a strike action within a day or two, or a story being printed in a newspaper that is going to have very damaging effects on somebody’s reputation. That is why an injunction is sought at very short notice. On what basis should a judge be able to grant an injunction? That is the issue. Let me deal with what happens when people seek injunctions. I feel rather nervous about making these points when I am surrounded by so many esteemed people from the legal profession. As a non-lawyer, however, let me clarify my observation of what happens. Because something is going to happen that could have a devastating effect—on a business, on customers or on somebody’s reputation—judges are, in effect, risk averse. If something is about to happen—an article to be published, a strike to take place—and there is some uncertainty over the law, a judge cannot go back and change the law to stop it happening. What judges quite understandably do is to take a risk-averse view. They feel that the law might need some clarification and it is not entirely clear whether something is legal or illegal, so they adopt the risk-averse option of granting an injunction on the basis that a court can overturn the injunction later. If an injunction is not granted, something cannot be stopped from happening after it has happened. That is why I think the hon. Gentleman might want to pursue the whole area of injunctions and the level of proof or certainty judges need before they can grant them. I believe that that would help his side of the argument; it would certainly be more helpful than promoting this Bill. Mr Nuttall: Let me explain why my hon. Friend’s point is a good one. When asked to grant an interlocutory injunction, the courts will by definition have to act very quickly, as he says. They do not have the time to consider all the evidence in detail, so if there is a prima facie case to grant an injunction, they will grant it—without looking into the merits of the case. My hon. Friend is quite right about that. This is perhaps the root cause of the Bill and the real concern that it addresses. Philip Davies: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. He got rather technical during the course of that intervention, at which point it went beyond my capabilities. The bit that I understood, however, I certainly agreed with. Knowing my hon. Friend as I do, I am sure that I would have agreed with the bits that I did not understand. I therefore commend whatever my hon. Friend said to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington who, having a greater intellectual capacity than me, will have understood everything that my hon. Friend said.


1246

hon. Friends can take it as read that I agree with them on any matter with regard to the law, because they are in a far better position to argue their case than I would be. I am still warming to my theme of how the intentions of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington can better be advanced. His supporters in the trade union movement also take exception to the definition in legislation of “accidental”. We can all probably accept the definition of making a difference to the result. If a certain number of ballot papers were affected, all of which voted one way, but the result would not have changed, the wording in the current law of, “on a scale unlikely to affect the result of the ballot”

is perfectly clear. From that starts the frustration. The issue is the “accidental”point. If the hon. Gentleman attacked that problem, as he sees it, by instilling some definition of “accidental” in the Bill, his supporters might find that a more fruitful way forward. In the case of BA, which he quoted most during his speech, the judge, summing up his ruling to grant an injunction, said: “I do not consider that there is evidence capable either of establishing that UNITE held a reasonable belief in the entitlement to vote of all its members, or enabling it to rely on an ‘accidental failure’ within section 232B.”

The point that Unite was making was that any failings in its ballot were unintentional, and that that met the definition of “accidental”. The judge said in his conclusion: “In my judgment, an unintentional failure, as it was categorised by”—

Unite— “in the circumstances of this case, cannot be regarded as an accidental failure within the meaning of that section, even applying a purposive construction to its provisions.”

Therefore, the problem for Unite was that it did not get over the first hurdle of “accidental”. The problem was not, as the hon. Gentleman said, in relation to the test of “on a scale unlikely to affect the result of the ballot”—

the judge did not even get to that—but that, as far as the judge was concerned, Unite had not got over the “accidental” hurdle. The hon. Gentleman’s unhappiness with the existing legislation can be only with the definition of “accidental”. If he wishes to move things forward, from his perspective, I suggest that he does so by instilling a definition of “accidental” that meets his requirements. Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend makes the point, which was touched on earlier, that the way around the problem, with which the judge had to deal when considering the case, relates to the current provision’s use of the word “and”. If the Bill were to introduce the word “or”, one could easily understand the rationale for it. Philip Davies rose—

Charlie Elphicke: One oddity about injunctions is their application to Members of Parliament. They are very hard to enforce, given the freedom from civil arrest that we enjoy. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has already made that recommendation about how the Bill could be better drafted. We might be repeating the point.

Philip Davies: I am being tempted by people who are more expert in the law than I am to comment on matters that they know far more about than I do. My

Philip Davies: It is a red letter day for me, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I have just found out that you were listening to my speech.

1247


22 OCTOBER 2010

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say, Mr Davies, that I listen to every Member of the House’s speech, and I particularly listen when you are speaking. As you are such an accomplished parliamentarian, it behoves the Chair to concentrate. Philip Davies: You are very kind, Madam Deputy Speaker. It really is a red-letter day now. I shall put that in the literature I will distribute at the next election. However, what surprised me was not just that you were listening to my speech, but that anyone was listening to it. I am afraid that my experience is usually otherwise. I hope that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will accept at least some of my suggestions of alternative ways in which to promote his side of the argument. Jacob Rees-Mogg: I too have been listening to my hon. Friend’s speech with great interest. Does he believe that the Bill could be amended in Committee, or does he think that we should vote it down and kill it off as early as possible? Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that I have the pleasure of listening to his own speech today, because I enjoy his speeches immensely. I intend to develop this point further, but my direct answer to my hon. Friend’s question is that I believe we should vote against the Bill. I do not think that any of my suggested alternatives could be incorporated into an amendment, because the Bill goes off at a tangent to them. At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said that, although others might perceive flaws in the Bill, it should proceed straight to Committee, where any such flaws could be ironed out. That strikes me as an argument for never giving a Bill a Second Reading. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North helpfully pointed out, the Bill has two clauses, and given that both appear to contain flaws, I do not think that amending them in Committee is an option. We should try to vote them down and start again from scratch. The fact that I have given advice to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington does not mean that I would agree with any of the amendments that I have suggested should he introduce them; I merely think that they would help him to deliver what he wants to achieve. In deciding whether to approve the Bill, we must also decide whether it is necessary. It was, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover who suggested that it was a solution looking for a problem. I hope that when he sums up his argument, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington—with his court verdicts in the bag—will tell us what problems the Bill solves, because all the evidence that he gave earlier involved problems that have now been cleared up by the Court of Appeal. It would be helpful if he told us about any current problems of which he is aware, because it seems to me that the Bill is wholly unnecessary. Charlie Elphicke: Does my hon. Friend agree that the errors in the Bill, although themselves minor, prevent us from supporting it today, and that we should enjoin the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington to work positively with the Government to find a way of dealing with his concerns? That would enable the trade unions’ own


1248

concerns to be taken on board properly, would enable us to vote on them properly if it were found that the law needed to be changed in Government time, and would ensure that account was taken of any merits in the hon. Gentleman’s argument. His Bill might then actually hit the statute book. Philip Davies: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. As it happens, I am content with the law as it stands. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I do not know what he will say and I do not want to pre-empt it, but I hope he will say that the Government have no intention of changing the current law, because, as the court has ruled, it is perfectly adequate. I am sure that the Government will always work closely with any Member if they feel that an injustice needs to be corrected, but I am not sure that that is the case in this instance. Mr Nuttall: On 21 June 2010, the BBC carried a report headlined “Government shuns call to change strike laws”. The report said the Government had indicated that there were “no plans” for alterations in the law on industrial action. That might help my hon. Friend. It will be interesting to see whether the Minister has changed that position. Philip Davies: That is helpful and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Knowing the Minister as I do, I am sure that his position has not changed in the short time since then, because he is a very solid chap who would not change his mind so loosely and so quickly. Therefore, we need not worry about that, but we will listen with interest to what he says. It is important to note that the original legislation that the Bill tries to change—the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992—gave protection to trade unions; it was not anti-trade union. Some of its provisions protect the rights of workers in a union that takes action, if necessary by striking, to defend and support their interests when reasonable notice is given and in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. The Act protects the rights of workers to organise in or leave a union without suffering discrimination or detriment. It also defines trade unions and states that they are subject to legal rights and duties. It provides a framework for unions to engage in collective bargaining for better workplace or business standards with employers, so the thrust of the legislation already on the statute book should be welcomed by Opposition Members. On the proposals of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, the Institute of Employment Rights states that the purpose and effect of the Bill is to ensure that small accidental failures in ballots will be disregarded. I am not entirely sure that that is entirely the case, because my understanding of the existing legislation is that it does just that—it provides that small accidental failures in ballots will be disregarded. That is the wording of the existing legislation. The hon. Gentleman is trying to change it so that, so long as unions have demonstrated substantial compliance, such failures will be disregarded. In passing, I wonder about the titles of Bills because they often seem to contradict completely their supposed purpose. For example, the Equality Bill was about all sorts of things but it certainly was not about equality. The Bill that the previous Government introduced to restrict jury trial should have been called the “We think

1249


22 OCTOBER 2010

[Philip Davies] the public are thick Bill”. We should have some honesty about what Bills are trying to do. This Bill is called the Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill, but it seems that it is not trying to stop minor errors being taken into account, as the law already does that; it is trying to allow unions to be able to make some major errors in the ballot and have those disregarded, too. If the hon. Gentleman ignores all my earlier advice, which I am certain he will do, and brings back the Bill at another date, if he does not manage to get it through on this occasion, I will ask him for the sake of clarity to change the title to the Lawful Industrial Action (Major Errors) Bill because then we might have a better idea of what we are dealing with. The Institute of Employment Rights also claims that minor errors in the information about the result of the ballot will be disregarded and forensic examination of procedures will end. That will worry people. The institute says that the forensic examination of procedures of unions carrying out their ballots will end and be replaced just with the concept of substantial compliance. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is renowned for having a laissez-faire attitude to things, but he certainly has a laissez-faire attitude to the running of ballots if he does not think that forensic examination of the procedures involved in the running of a strike ballot should be taken into account. As we have heard, the burden of proof in injunctions will shift in that evidence will be required that substantial compliance has not taken place. How on earth can we expect the employer to carry out that burden-of-proof task of saying whether or not a union ballot was substantially compliant? Others have made that point, but it has to be emphasised because, clearly, only the union itself can demonstrate whether the ballot was substantially compliant. How on earth can the employer make that decision when they have had no control over the running of it and do not have the necessary information? In the speech of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington? I heard no explanation of how on earth an employer could be expected to do that. I suspect that that is because the hon. Gentleman knows that the employer could not possibly do it, and that therefore this is a tactic to ensure that the employer will never be able to stop any kind of strike action because they will never be in a position to do so. I hope that in his summing up the hon. Gentleman will give some examples of how he thinks employers would be able to demonstrate clearly that a ballot has not been substantially compliant. Even though the original legislation was passed in 1992 by a Conservative Government—for the purposes that I have outlined—it was amended twice by the previous Labour Government, in 1999 and in 2004, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) made clear, the provisions the hon. Gentleman does not like were supported by his party when it was in government. I have not researched this, and I would not want to embarrass anybody in particular, but I certainly hope the hon. Gentleman did not at that time vote for those proposals in a Bill that he must have thought was completely unacceptable. It would be interesting to discover how many of the Members who voted for it in 1999 are today up in arms and complaining that this is an unacceptable piece of legislation, because they seem to be complaining about their own legislation.


1250

The previous Labour Government amended the legislation twice, therefore: in 1999 and again five years later. They had acquired five years of evidence of the workings of the legislation before they changed it for the second time, yet they did not take the opportunity to introduce the change the hon. Gentleman proposes. I can only presume that they did not do so because they thought the legislation was working perfectly well, and I venture to suggest that the situation is the same now. The unions also argued in their earlier court cases that the current legislation was contrary to article 11 of the European convention on human rights. I am not a lawyer—and I am certainly not a human rights lawyer as I do not like the Human Rights Act and I would like it to be scrapped—so I do not know whether the unions are right. However, if the hon. Gentleman thinks the existing legislation is incompatible with that convention, his union members can take their case to the European Court of Human Rights. If he is right, they are therefore already protected in law. If he and the unions are absolutely certain that it contravenes the European convention on human rights they do not need to change the law through this Bill as they can be safe in the knowledge that the convention, which we are signed up to and which is enshrined in our legislation through the Human Rights Act, is in place. It needs to be made clear at the outset that this Bill has some vehement opponents, ranging from think tanks and the esteemed Mayor of London to the CBI. I believe that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Dover who said we are relying on business to get us out of the financial mess that we are in. We need the private sector to be flourishing, so we should take note of what it says with great interest. All those opponents argue that the balance of power between trade unions and employers has shifted too much towards the unions over the past 13 years. That touches on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who said that perhaps we ought to be looking not at giving further powers to the trade unions and shifting the balance even further towards them, but at whether or not there should be greater regulation of the industrial action that is causing so much damage to our economy. He asked whether we should be considering that, rather than making such action easier. The points that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington made seemed to suggest that his Bill was based on two cases. I could mention other cases, but I do not wish to detain the House unduly by going through all of them at length, as that would be unnecessary. The two cases that his remarks concentrated on were Network Rail v. RMT and British Airways v. Unite. I just want to touch on those cases and the reasons why they are not a good basis on which to introduce this Bill. Mr Nuttall: I just want to clarify things so that we are talking about the right judgment. There are two cases with the same title and the only way of differentiating them is by the name of the judge involved, so is the British Airways case that my hon. Friend is referring to the one dealt with by Mrs Justice Cox, which I believe was the first one, or the second case, which came before Mr Justice McCombe? Will my hon. Friend be discussing both cases or just one?

1251


22 OCTOBER 2010

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is, as ever, on the ball. He has just demonstrated to the House how knowledgeable he is on these matters and he rightly says that there are different cases. Either case makes the point, but I am sure that the House will be happy to benefit from his expertise on both if the need should arise and there is any further confusion. I believe I am right in saying—he will correct me if I am wrong—that in the case of Network Rail v. RMT the dispute was largely over safety. So far as I can tell, the case was not about an employment matter, because the signallers were not subject to any proposals for staff redundancies—it is not as if their jobs were being threatened—and the RMT was complaining about a safety issue. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington gave the impression, to me at least, that these cases were clear-cut victories for the unions in terms of their recommendation for a strike and that there should be no impediment to that democratic process being applied. I have to take issue with that initial premise, because the result of the ballot in the case of Network Rail v. RMT was that 3,199 votes were cast, 1,705 of which were in favour of strike action and 1,481 of which were against, with 13 spoiled papers. Therefore, the majority was just 224. I do not know whether or not my hon. Friends would say the same, but I was not originally given the impression of that margin of victory in the speech made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. He seemed to imply that there had been an overwhelming vote for strike action. Before we get on to the niceties of why the unions fell foul of the law and why it is right that they fell foul of the law, as it stands, we must take into account—I think that the law should take this into account—the effect of strike action, if it were to go ahead, on the employer, on the economy and on the general public. That should be a factor in determining whether an injunction is granted. If it is going to have a disproportionate effect, we would want the judiciary to be risk adverse in deciding whether to grant an injunction. According to Network Rail, the cost of the strike action would have totalled about £20 million. That is a substantial amount of money and it was perfectly right that a judge should insist that everything was done rightly and properly, all above board, before action with such a financial impact on a business—on the taxpayer, I might add—was proceeded with. In the court papers, Network Rail claimed—the RMT did not dispute this, so we can safely say that we are on firm ground—that the strike action would have had the effect of preventing 80% of all rail services in the UK from running. That would have had not only a devastating effect on Network Rail as an industry but a massive effect on many employers, businesses and people who rely on getting about by rail to fulfil their daily duties. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington might think that the RMT had a perfectly legitimate complaint against Network Rail that Network Rail was being irresponsible. That might or might not be true, but I am not entirely sure what grudge the RMT has against businesses, commuters and shoppers up and down the country who would have been negatively affected by that action. I am not entirely sure why they should be penalised for any actions by Network Rail that the hon. Gentleman seems to disagree with, but that is the impact that the strike action would have had. The RMT union


1252

did not dispute that in the court case. It is perfectly proper that a judge should consider the impact on other people when bearing in mind whether to grant an injunction. Network Rail made it clear that it would have caused immense damage to the economy, to businesses that depend on rail for freight or transport, to commuting workers and to a great many individual rail users. Nick de Bois: I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way. In effect, we have a situation in which every cause will have an effect. My hon. Friend outlines admirably the fact that in this case, if the processes are not followed and a strike subsequently takes place, many people outside the immediate target of the strike action are affected. They have no recourse. They have nowhere to go. When I was running my company, we were in the unfortunate position of having to make a small number of redundancies. We had to go through—and rightly so—a strict but nevertheless somewhat burdensome process and, as a result of a minor technical error, there was the right for redress for those involved. It strikes me that in this situation, the process should be adhered to as strictly as possible because there is no form of redress for those outside the immediate consequences of the action. Does he agree? Philip Davies: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I know that he is a great advocate for rail commuters in his constituency—he has even had Westminster Hall debates on the problems that his commuters face. He is a great champion for his constituents and I agree with him. This is a very interesting point. If the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington wants to make it easier to have strike action, perhaps, as a quid pro quo, he might consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) says and introduce into his Bill a provision that some statutory consultation must take place with all affected parties before any strike action, so that people can understand the full consequences of that action. It might well be that when a union decides that it wants to go out on strike because of a grievance with a particular employer, it does not take into consideration the wider impact it will have on innocent third parties who are no part of the dispute at all. My hon. Friend makes a very good point—perhaps that is an anomaly that should be addressed in legislation. I hope that the Minister was listening carefully to his intervention, because he is in a far better position to do something about that than I am. It is certainly worth considering. Mr Nuttall: I am not sure that my hon. Friend has picked up on exactly the right point. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) was making the point that if the novel concept of substantial compliance is introduced with regard to the balloting procedure for industrial action by trade unions, surely it would be right, fair and sensible to introduce a similar provision in the legislation relating to redundancies. Has my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) had any representations on what the unions would think if that were the case—if an employer needed only to comply substantially with the law when making people redundant? Philip Davies: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He turns the argument on its head: he says that rather than giving unions more arduous responsibilities so

1253


22 OCTOBER 2010

[Philip Davies] that they have to meet the same demands as employers, perhaps employers should be given the liberty to take the more flexible approach that the Labour party clearly wants to give to trade unions. Whichever way we consider it, it is perhaps unarguable that they should both be subject to the same treatment. My hon. Friend is right to concentrate on substantial compliance, because it is, in many respects, a nonsensical concept to introduce into law. Virtually anybody could claim, when they flouted the law, that they were substantially compliant with it. If we extended the concept right across the criminal justice system, we would probably find that nobody could ever be found guilty of anything, because they could easily demonstrate that they were substantially compliant with the law—they had broken just one part of it. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington should go back to the drawing board and think again about whether he wants to introduce the concept of substantial compliance in law. Let me come back to the point that I was making about the impact that the strikes would have had if they had gone ahead. Three million passengers and freight users would have been affected, and the strike would have coincided with the first day back at work after the Easter holidays. That would have had a devastating impact. It is true to say that Network Rail had a robust contingency plan in place, but this comes back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) made about the importance of giving notice to employers, so that they have an opportunity to mitigate the worst impacts of strike action. Even with that robust contingency plan in place, Network Rail could have run only approximately 4,500 trains on the day of the strike action; the normal figure is 24,000. We are talking about 20% of the service running, and 80% not running. Some of the most important lines into the capital would have run at just 11%. That would have had a devastating effect on the economy of the country, and it is right that judges take that into consideration. Turning to why the injunction was granted by the courts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North said, minor errors are already covered by the existing legislation. I have already outlined the relatively narrow margin of victory in the vote for strike action. Most people would consider some of the errors to be not minor at all; I think that some people would consider them to be rather more major. Network Rail successfully argued that there were serious errors made in the balloting of members. For example, 11 signal boxes were balloted that no longer exist, including East Usk in Newport, Gwent. The RMT balloted it to gather the votes of six registered voters, despite it having burnt down in a previous year. That is not a minor error—it is quite a serious error. Mr Nuttall: I have to come back to this point: bearing in mind that the Bill also seeks to transfer the burden of proof to the employer, if the union does not know where its own members are employed, it is a bit rich to turn the law around and expect employers to do the job that we are talking about. In the case that my hon. Friend mentions, even the trade union could not get its notices sent to the right place.


1254

Philip Davies: That is a fair point, and one might legitimately ask the RMT how close it is to its members when it balloted a signal box that burnt down years ago. It does not give one much confidence that the union has a close working relationship with its members. People may forgive the RMT for not knowing that the signal box at Pelham in Lincolnshire was demolished in 2008 or that the signal box at Ascot in Berkshire was closed in October 2009. People might ask how the union could be expected to know these things—although I would presume that it should know. However, it is surely difficult for it not to be aware that the signal box at Chalford in Gloucestershire closed down in 1966. One would have thought that the union would have been aware of that. Nor should it have overlooked the fact that the signal box at Northallerton in North Yorkshire closed in 1980. I personally think that those are rather serious errors, not the minor errors that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington suggests when he uses the case as a reason why the law should be changed. The problems were not confined to signal boxes that were closed down 44 years ago. In 67 locations, the number of RMT members balloted exceeded the total number of employees. I do not know what the rate of union membership is among the staff of Network Rail, but I would be astonished if it were more than 100%. But that is what the RMT seems to think. A further 26 places, with up to 100 employees, were missed out completely, including the key signal box at Rugby. As we have heard, the difference in the vote between those who voted for strike action and those who voted against was 224. It is therefore difficult to argue that the examples that I have given—of the balloting of signal boxes that had burnt down or been closed, of ballot returns of more than 100% and of the failure to ballot some locations—were not material factors that should have been taken into consideration. Those are substantial errors that could have made a material difference to the result. Jacob Rees-Mogg: It occurs to me that if the Bill were enacted and then used too widely, it would allow malevolent people to use it to push through something against the will of their members and then claim that only minor errors had been made. That would be a slippery slope. Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is right, and we should guard against that. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman wants to exempt minor errors, which are already protected. He wants to exempt major errors from the scrutiny of the courts and we should be very wary of doing that. In 12 locations, there were no operations staff and workers were clearly ineligible to vote— Andrew Bridgen: I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way in this most interesting debate. Does he agree that the Bill is not merely a Trojan horse but a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and an attempt to legitimise electoral errors—I am being generous in calling them “errors”—that would disgrace a banana republic? Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is right. That is why I am so disappointed that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington made it abundantly clear from the outset that he did not want to take interventions. He has left the impression—rightly or wrongly—that he was

1255


22 OCTOBER 2010

trying to portray a small change in the law to clear up a small anomaly, and that no one could argue with that because it was all common sense. However, when one gets to the nitty-gritty— John McDonnell claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36). Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Ideally, I would like to hear from the Minister before I accept that motion. I understand, Mr Davies, that you have been entertaining the House for 59 minutes. It is a red letter day for all of us, and we are clearly gripped by everything that you are saying, but if you are now able to bring your remarks to a close so that the House can be informed of the Government’s position on the Bill, I would be extremely grateful. Philip Davies: I think that that is a sensible way forward because we all want to hear what the Minister has to say. I will toss away the Network Rail arguments if you will give me permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, to touch on the British Airways dispute, because the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington spoke about that most of all. The hon. Gentleman made it clear that the errors that were made may not have made a material difference to the result of the ballot in the BA dispute, but they were clearly not deemed accidental. We should have some protection in law for employers who face strike action by people who have not followed what the law requires of them. The law is not particularly onerous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North said, many strikes take place throughout the country every year—far too many already happen. It is not difficult for people to take strike action. All we expect is that people fulfil their obligations under the law. In the BA v. Unite case, it is perfectly clear that the judge who granted the injunction felt that the errors were not accidental, that Unite should have known or did know about them, and that they should not be deemed minor. I will conclude to follow your will, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am afraid that the House will have to miss out on the rest of my contribution. [HON. MEMBERS: “Shame!”] I am very grateful to my hon. Friends. I urge all hon. Members not to consider only the simplistic side of the debate and the opportunity that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington offers to clear up a small technicality, but to bear in mind the massive impact that the Bill would have on employers and the paying public throughout the country—those who rely on our services. The Bill will be hugely damaging at best. However, even from the hon. Gentleman’s perspective, it is unnecessary and does nothing to help trade unions. 1.3 pm The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on coming first in the ballot for private Members’ Bills. The Bill gives us a chance to debate an important and topical subject—industrial action law. That issue is receiving wide attention in the media. As hon. Members know, some organisations, including the CBI and the Policy Exchange think-tank, are calling for that body of law to be strengthened, and we heard those


1256

voices loud and clear in the debate today. Of course, that is the exact opposite of the effect that the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve through the Bill. It is not the first time in recent years that the hon. Gentleman has presented a private Member’s Bill. A couple of years ago, he tabled the Trade Union Rights and Freedoms Bill, which also centred on industrial action law. I commend him for his determination and consistency of purpose. He has a justified reputation in the House as a doughty defender of trade unions. His knowledgeable and often impassioned contributions to our debates show his deep commitment to that cause. That commitment does him credit, even though many in the House, including some of his hon. Friends, do not always share his views. If my memory is correct, the last Bill the hon. Gentleman introduced included proposals for root-and-branch reform of strike law. For instance, it contained provisions to restore the lawfulness of secondary industrial action and to repeal the requirement on trade unions to provide notice to employers in advance of industrial action. He presents his current Bill as a modest measure in comparison—it is undoubtedly more modest than his previous Bill, which I suspect was rather closer to his heart and true beliefs than this one—yet modesty is often in the eye of the beholder. Saying that this Bill is more modest than his last does not make it so, despite its seductive title. The Bill is admirably short—just two clauses. It works by changing section 232B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. However, as I shall demonstrate in my speech, the Bill is not so modest as it appears at first sight. In fact, it would have the effect of altering the applications of about 15 other sections of the 1992 Act. In some cases, it would significantly relax the procedures that trade unions must follow when organising industrial action, which the previous Government considered and rejected. In the hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks, he made one or two points that the House ought to consider more carefully. He argued that his Bill tries to achieve the original intention of section 232B by applying it to all 15 sections of the 1992 Act, but that is wrong. Section 232B is clearly drafted so that it applies to just four sections of the 1992 Act. Parliament did not therefore intend that it should apply so widely as he suggests, and it is important that hon. Members hear that argument. The hon. Gentleman referred to a number of court cases, but it is worth reminding the House that in recent times, the trade unions have been the ones scoring wins in the courts—many of my hon. Friends referred to such cases. For example, the Court of Appeal ruling in BA plc v. Unite this year, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) referred in some detail, found very strongly for Unite and rejected the employer’s argument. In Milford Haven Port Authority v. Unite, the Court of Appeal again found for the trade union. In a third case this year—Metrobus v. Unite— although the Court gave an injunction against the trade union, it dismissed many of the employer’s arguments with respect to notices, saying that the errors were small and should therefore not be considered. The case law that has amassed this very year suggests that the concerns of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington are not based on what is true. I strongly urge Labour Members to think carefully about the fact

1257


22 OCTOBER 2010

[Mr Edward Davey] that real case law developments are helping trade unions. The hon. Gentleman tried to argue that the Bill would reduce uncertainty and therefore that it would give greater clarity and assist the process. As many of my hon. Friends clearly demonstrated—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—changing the accidental test in the current law and replacing it with a “substantial compliance” test would create uncertainty, because case law has clarified the law, which is in the unions’ interests. Therefore, some of the core arguments behind the Bill are flawed. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on his speech. Using his legal background, he forensically showed that the test of substantial compliance had extreme shortcomings, and said that it would result in some bizarre outcomes if applied more generally in law. I welcome the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) to her new position as Opposition spokesperson and look forward to our debates, not only on this Bill but on the Postal Services Bill, on which no doubt we will spend some weeks in Committee. She rightly praised the actions of many unions, especially how, during the recession, they have engaged and worked with management in many firms—large and small—up and down the country to preserve and create jobs. I, too, would like to put on the record my praise for those unions and employers who have been prepared to work flexibly—in respect of family-friendly flexibility, pay cuts and reduced work hours—with management to prevent redundancies. That sort of progressive trade unionism needs to be highlighted and pinpointed. I often think that it removes some of the passion from this debate by showing that many trade unions are committed to ensuring that our economy is vibrant and prosperous and do not want to undermine firms’ ability to move on. I was pleased that the hon. Lady committed the Opposition Front-Bench team at least to the framework of industrial relations law, as Labour did time and time again when in government. I was also pleased that she made it clear that her Front-Bench team will not be supporting the Bill today. She made one argument against it: she clearly opposes the part of the Bill that reverses the onus of responsibility on to employers. That is one argument against it, but, as I will seek to show in due course, there are others on which the House should reflect carefully. On the wider industrial relations context in which we should view the Bill, I want to comment on an intervention made by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that went to the heart of the matters before us. He reminded the House that trade unions have immunity from prosecution for breach of contract going back to the Trade Disputes Act 1906, which was brought in by a Liberal Government. That immunity is an important special privilege for trade unions, so it is right that Parliament imposes conditions on how they are used. Over the years, all three main parties have supported the role of Parliament in ensuring that there are conditions on the uses of those privileges. When one looks at the rationale for the Bill, one must bear in mind the industrial relations context in which it is set. It is important to establish that upfront, because there are significant differences in our respective understandings of how industrial relations in the UK


1258

are evolving. It is because we start from such different points that I fear our attitudes towards the merits of the Bill will not fully coincide. I suspect that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and his supporters view industrial relations in rather more divided terms than I do. Sometimes from listening to him—I have done so for many years—his seems to be a world in which bosses are always seeking to gain an advantage over the work force. In other words, without the countervailing power of the trade unions, individual workers are always chronically disadvantaged in the work place. His Bill therefore seeks to reinforce and strengthen the countervailing power of trade unions and tilt the balance of the current law and our industrial relations practices in favour of trade unions. Conflict and confrontation are, of course, a feature of work place life in some work places, but it is much less common than it once was. One only has to think back to the 1970s, when on average 12.9 million days were lost each year through strikes. I am delighted to say that modern-day industrial relations are very different. Of course, the 1970s were also a time of high unionisation in both the public and private sectors, but total union membership has declined significantly since then. In fact, it has almost halved. As a supporter of progressive trade unionism, I take no pleasure in pointing that out. However, those trends are particularly apparent in the private sector. Just 15% of private sector employees are now union members and there are large areas of the private sector where unions are completely absent. They are simply not a part of the landscape. As I have said, I and the Government more generally are supporters of progressive trade unionism. We feel that unions have much to offer this country. Even now, trade unions represent the largest voluntary organisations in this country—one could perhaps say that they are an expression of the big society. That is why this Government and my Department want to engage with trade unions. We want to hear their considered views, and to develop a common understanding and an approach to the severe problems that this country faces, which include not just our economy, but the critical state of the public finances. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets the TUC’s general secretary, Brendan Barber, each month. I and other BIS Ministers have also had meetings with the TUC and other trade unions. From those discussions we have explored issues of particular concern to trade unions. For example, decisions that I have taken on the national minimum wage, working with the Low Pay Commission, speak to those concerns. We and other Departments operate an open-door policy for trade unions, and in most cases we have retained the joint bodies, such as the public services forum, and partnership arrangements that the previous Government established. We want to hold a constructive dialogue with trade unions, but of course it takes two to talk. That places an onus on us to listen and to understand the union position on the matters before us and others, but just as importantly, it places a duty on trade unions to engage realistically with the issues that the country and the Government face. Most trade unions are committed to a mature and positive dialogue of this kind. Sadly, there are a few exceptions to that, but I should pay credit to the many unions that do engage. The Government also understand that trade unions have a positive role to

1259


22 OCTOBER 2010

play in the workplace when they engage with the employer. I want to pay tribute to the role of union learning representatives, who help tens of thousands of their fellow workers with their learning and development needs. The Government have therefore committed themselves to continuing to provide support to their work through unionlearn, the training arm of the TUC. That said, it remains the case that the protective umbrella that the trade unions once provided this country’s work force has disappeared across large swathes of the economy. However, employees in the private sector are not subject to widespread exploitation, nor are they generally dissatisfied with their employment. Indeed, most surveys show that union members tend to be more dissatisfied with their working environment than their non-union counterparts. There are many reasons why surveys show that and why the decline of trade unionism has not led to widespread dissatisfaction or the spread of bad working practices. One reason is that the law provides many more rights to workers—many were introduced by those on the Labour Benches—than it once did. These days, it is the law, rather than the presence of active trade unions necessarily, that provides the guarantee of decent working conditions and fair treatment to millions of men and women up and down our country. Another key reason, which I want to stress, is that working life and the approach of employers have moved forward. I am glad to say that it has become the consensus among a vast majority of employers that they should develop a new style of employment relations based on engaging and involving employees. Employers are not taking that approach simply because it is fair and progressive in itself, though it is; they have other, hard-headed commercial reasons for adopting such enlightened policies. Employers realise that obtaining the active co-operation of the work force is vital if they want to increase productivity and raise competitiveness in today’s tough market conditions. The quality and creativity of workplace performance are increasingly important for business success. More and more employers are developing innovative ways to engage their employees. I do not know whether Labour will take this position in opposition, but the previous Labour Government certainly grasped that point. Indeed, they were enthusiastic enough to promote the message of employee engagement, which in many ways is the zeitgeist of employment relations, and they commissioned a special and very informative study into the subject, by David MacLeod and Nita Clarke, a former adviser to Mr Blair when he was Prime Minister. I have met them both, and I have encouraged them in that work and given support to it from the Department. This forward-looking agenda for employment relations is about securing greater co-operation and engagement in the workplace. It is about identifying common interests between employers and employees, and achieving the shared business goals. It is also about encouraging more employee participation and new forms of ownership. That is not a zero sum game, and this is certainly not about reliving the battles of the 1970s or 1980s. Looking at the context of the industrial relations behind the debate today, I fear that the hon. Gentleman’s Bill does not engage with the new agenda. In many ways, it seems to be a throwback to a previous age, and he and we need to draw a line under our industrial


1260

relations history and turn the page. His Bill does not do those things. So, at a very basic level, I have serious reservations about his proposal. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is promoting the new style of industrial relations, and I believe that it has much to offer to our debates in this area. I recently visited the ACAS head office and spent some valuable time with its chairman, Ed Sweeney, and his colleagues. I was deeply impressed with the expertise available to ACAS, and with the commitment of its work force. It is best known for its work on conciliating the settlement of industrial disputes, and its record on that is impressive. Less well known is its work on advising employers and trade unions on good employment practices and the management of change. That work helps to raise productivity and performance, and nips potential workplace problems in the bud. Importantly, it creates a culture of collaboration and mutual support at work. I believe that this approach to industrial relations improves— John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for giving us the opportunity to hear the Government’s response to the Bill, which we have now done. There is other important Back-Bench business today, and I would like formally to move that the question be now put. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): I shall accept the closure motion. John McDonnell claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36). Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put. The House divided: Ayes 87, Noes 27. Division No. 95] [1.21 pm AYES Abbott, Ms Diane Alexander, Heidi Barron, rh Mr Kevin Berger, Luciana Blenkinsop, Tom Blunkett, rh Mr David Bone, Mr Peter Brown, Lyn Brown, rh Mr Nicholas Campbell, Mr Ronnie Clark, Katy Connarty, Michael Crausby, Mr David Creasy, Stella Cruddas, Jon Cryer, John Dobbin, Jim Doran, Mr Frank Dowd, Jim Dromey, Jack Dugher, Michael Elliott, Julie Farrelly, Paul Fitzpatrick, Jim Flello, Robert Flynn, Paul Fovargue, Yvonne Gapes, Mike Gilmore, Sheila Glass, Pat

Glindon, Mrs Mary Godsiff, Mr Roger Greenwood, Lilian Griffith, Nia Gwynne, Andrew Havard, Mr Dai Hilling, Julie Hodgson, Mrs Sharon Hoey, Kate Hollobone, Mr Philip Irranca-Davies, Huw Jackson, Glenda Jamieson, Cathy Jones, Susan Elan Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald Keen, Alan Lammy, rh Mr David Lavery, Ian Lazarowicz, Mark Lloyd, Tony Love, Mr Andrew Lucas, Caroline MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan Mactaggart, Fiona McCarthy, Kerry McDonnell, John McGovern, Alison McGovern, Jim Meacher, rh Mr Michael Mearns, Ian

1261


Michael, rh Alun Miller, Andrew Mitchell, Austin Morrice, Graeme (Livingston) Morris, Grahame M. (Easington) Mudie, Mr George Pearce, Teresa Pound, Stephen Riordan, Mrs Linda Rotheram, Steve Sharma, Mr Virendra Sheridan, Jim Skinner, Mr Dennis Slaughter, Mr Andy Smith, rh Mr Andrew

22 OCTOBER 2010

Spellar, rh Mr John Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry Thornberry, Emily Timms, rh Stephen Turner, Karl Twigg, Stephen Walley, Joan Wicks, rh Malcolm Williams, Hywel Wilson, Phil Winnick, Mr David Wood, Mike

Tellers for the Ayes: Jeremy Corbyn and Kelvin Hopkins

NOES Bacon, Mr Richard Blunt, Mr Crispin Bridgen, Andrew Browne, Mr Jeremy Burns, Mr Simon Davey, Mr Edward Davies, Philip de Bois, Nick Ellison, Jane Francois, rh Mr Mark Grayling, rh Chris Green, Damian Greening, Justine Harris, Rebecca Heath, Mr David

Hendry, Charles Jackson, Mr Stewart Kelly, Chris Menzies, Mark Mundell, rh David Nuttall, Mr David Penrose, John Randall, rh Mr John Reckless, Mark Rees-Mogg, Jacob Teather, Sarah Watkinson, Angela

Tellers for the Noes: Miss Chloe Smith and Jeremy Wright

The Deputy Speaker declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative because fewer than 100 Members voted in the majority in support of the motion (Standing Order No. 37). John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Today we have seen a revisiting of past practices of filibustering to deny the will of the House—practices that brought this House into disrepute and that we thought this new Parliament would put to one side. I believe it is a shame and a disgrace. May I ask you to take this matter back to Mr. Speaker, to see whether we can review the Standing Orders of the House so that the objectives of democracy are no longer frustrated by a small group of Members? Mr Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mr McDonnell. You have made your point, and I will ensure that Mr. Speaker reads what you have said. Debate resumed. 1.33 pm Mr Davey: May I say to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, for whom I have the utmost respect, that he did not take interventions during his opening remarks? As many of my hon. Friends made clear, that would have assisted the progress of the Bill. I think that new politics is about engagement in debate, and I hope that he will engage in that way in future. We need to consider the details and the rationale behind the Bill. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington tried to make a case for changing industrial action law. He considers the current legal framework to be intrinsically


1262

unfair and that, because it is complicated, it gives rise to great uncertainty and unnecessary legal challenges against trade unions. Industrial action law has been a bone of contention for most of the last century or more, and hon. Members have referred to past discussions. When we look at the history, we see many key moments. We need only think of Barbara Castle’s “In Place of Strife” to remind ourselves how divisive and politically damaging to certain Governments this issue can be. Then there was the bruising period of the 1980s and early 1990s, when the Conservative Governments of those days introduced a succession of laws to establish a new legal framework to regulate and democratise the taking of industrial action. I believe that those reforms were long overdue, but it is worth reminding the House that they were resisted every inch of the way by the Labour party when it was in opposition. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been trying to follow what the Minister is saying, and it appears to me—I do not know whether you have the same impression—that he is deviating a long way from the terms of the Bill. He is giving his view of the history of industrial relations in the 1980s and early 1990s, when he should be addressing whatever concerns the Government have about my hon. Friend’s Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker: I am listening to what the Minister has to say, and if I consider that he is out of order, I will certainly call him to order. However, I know that he will want to relate his comments more directly to the Bill. Mr Davey: I certainly intend to do that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I hoped it would help the House if I set out some of the context of the debate. I think that people sometimes have amnesia when it comes to what actually happened in the past. It is worth reminding Opposition Members that the laws we have today relate not only to the laws passed in the 1980s and 1990s, but to the changes in those laws made by the last Government. My hon. Friends made it very clear that the last Government reviewed and made changes to this very part of our law, and did not adopt changes such as those that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is trying to persuade the House to support today. They did not want to make any significant changes to the law on ballots and notices. Indeed, the last change of any substance that they made was in 2004. That is probably why the hon. Member for Llanelli was unable to support the Bill. She and the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe)—when he was doing the job that I am doing now—examined the law extremely closely, and found no case for changing it. It has been hardly a secret that trade unions wanted to extend the disregard in section 232B, but I presume that when the last Government examined the law, they decided not to listen to those trade union voices. I am pleased to observe the consistency in the position adopted by the hon. Member for Llanelli. Successive Governments have taken the view that the legal framework of our industrial relations law is basically sound, and this coalition Government certainly share that view. Mr Nuttall: I realise that we need to stick to the point, but I think that the historical context is very relevant. The certainty of the law is of great benefit not just to employers but to trade unions. The danger posed by the Bill is that it will reintroduce a great element of uncertainty.

1263


22 OCTOBER 2010

Mr Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I urge Opposition Members, when they debate this issue—not just today but during the weeks, months and years to come—to think about where the trade union interest actually is. The fact that a body of case law has been developed, much of which, as I said earlier, has found in favour of trade unions, is creating certainty. It is clarifying what was previously uncertain. If we changed the law now in the radical way proposed—it is certainly not modest—we should have to go through that whole process again, which would increase uncertainty, and do precisely what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington says he is trying not to do. Outside the trade union movement, which understandably has its own interests to pursue, I hear no clamour for the law to be changed in the way proposed. It seems that the average worker and even the typical union member do not see the law as unjust; still less is it seen as unfair by the general public. They do not want to see public services disrupted because striking has been made easier—quite the reverse. They want trade unions to help us to manage the painful adjustment that is needed to put this country’s finances in order. The supporters of the Bill argue that the law is too complex. According to them, it places too many procedural obligations on trade unions and as a result it is difficult for unions to comply with the last dot and comma of the law’s many provisions. It follows, they say, that trade unions must be given more wriggle room to ensure that they can operate within the law. According to the Bill’s sponsors, the existing disregard, which provides some wriggle room, needs to be extended. Again, I have to ask what has changed to make life so intolerable for trade unions. This legal framework has maintained its shape, give or take some refinements and amendments, for 20 years or more. Surely both trade unions and employers should be accustomed to it by now. They should know its requirements and they should know what needs to happen at every stage of the process to achieve compliance. Let us remember that we are not talking about matters that are devolved to ordinary members or to local representatives of trade unions to organise unaided on their own. If that were the case, those local representatives perhaps could not be expected to know every provision of the law, but that is not the position that we face, or it should not be the position that we face. Rather, the taking of industrial action is a very serious matter and no sensible union would permit strikes to proceed without the specific authorisation of the union’s leadership and the involvement of its professional cadre of workers at every stage of the process. By and large, that is what happens. Nick de Bois: The Minister touches on a point on which I would welcome some clarity: the consequences of industrial action go far wider than have been mentioned so far, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) highlighted. There is no call for redress for those who are affected outside of the immediate action. Therefore, surely it is responsible for the law as it stands to require the maximum process to ensure that strike decisions are not taken lightly. In that way, those who will suffer as a consequence of that action can at least draw some grim satisfaction from that maximum process. They have no other form of redress.


1264

Mr Davey: My hon. Friend puts his finger on it. We need to weigh in the balance not just the rights of ordinary trade union members, but the rights of the business, the shareholders, the public, customers and other businesses that are affected by strike action. That is why the law has evolved as it has. It is a balancing act. Sometimes people say that the democratic result of a ballot was clearly in favour of strike action but ignore the fact that the procedural way in which the ballot was conducted was against the current law. They fail to understand why the procedures are there. They are there for good reason. Jacob Rees-Mogg: I thank the Minister for giving way with characteristic graciousness. Does he agree that not requiring the trade unions to stick to a rigorous programme risks their going back to the 1970s? All of us have memories of massed meetings, Red Robbo and the will of the membership being entirely overlooked by terrible abuse of procedure, using the law as it then existed to its utmost to stop members having their say. The law as it stands prevents our going that way again. Mr Davey: I agree. I put it in another way, which complements the argument that my hon. Friend is making. I think that progressive trade unions welcome the law as it is. It ensures that their reputation, the way they work and their relationship with members is protected because they can show that they have gone through the right procedures. That improves their reputations with not just their members but the public, so I ask Labour Members who support the proposed change to reflect on the long-term implications for trade unions if we went down that route. Every union must ensure that it has a good grip of the procedures when it enters disputes and that those procedures are professionally run. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask them to ensure that their information systems and membership records are as accurate as possible, using the vast power of information technology currently at our disposal. I suspect Opposition Members would be as intolerant and unforgiving as I am if organisations in other walks of life failed to keep accurate records or provided mistaken advice or a second-rate service. We should expect high professional standards from trade unions, just as we expect the same high standards from others. The truth is that the previous Government understood that. From their extensive political contacts with unions, they knew there were problems with how some of them were managed. I suspect that they believed union leaders were a mixed bag in terms of their professional competence. That is why they argued for, and introduced, the union modernisation fund. They wanted to inject public funds into unions to bring them up to scratch. Millions of pounds were spent on projects to update membership databases, adopt new technologies and inject modern managerial methods into the running of trade unions. Mr Nuttall: On the question of new technologies, the Bill would have been better if it had addressed the problems raised by the judges in the Court of Appeal, and if, instead of changing the rules on substantial compliance, it had provided specifically for the internet, e-mail, Twitter and text to be valid means of electronic communication for the purposes of the legislation. That

1265


22 OCTOBER 2010

[Mr Nuttall] would have provided a specific clarification that Members on both sides of the House might have been able to support. Mr Davey: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Court of Appeal thought about that carefully in coming to its judgment, but I would not want to go any further and say the law has to be tightened up in that way, because the judge’s statements are already quite helpful. I see the thrust and power of my hon. Friend’s argument, however. If the UMF had worked as intended, it should have rectified the deficit in this area. I suspect, however, that problems remain and inefficiencies persist. While we all need to make sure that unions can try to reform in that area, I do not think the law should be relaxed to preserve poor methods of working within unions. Rather, it should be designed—as, by and large, it is—in the expectation that trade unions will run themselves efficiently and spend the money they collect well; their total annual income is more than £1 billion. The current law not as rigid as the Bill’s supporters suggest. At virtually every point, the provisions are designed to take account of the fact that trade unions, just like any other organisation, do not have perfect knowledge and complete information at their disposal. Many provisions in the law are flexible enough to take account of what is “reasonable”or “reasonably practicable” for the unions to achieve. Let us take the example of the law on ballot notices, which is a major part of the Bill. I know trade unions criticise these provisions a lot. Obviously, notices need to convey information, but according to the law— section 226A of the 1992 Act—that information needs to be “as accurate as is reasonably practicable in the light of the information in the possession of the union at the time”.

That is not an onerous condition, and it is because of those sorts of conditions in the current law that the unions have won a number of cases in this year alone. Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Minister is being enormously helpful to the House by taking so many interventions. Is this not the absolutely right and just application of the legal maxim that the law is not concerned with trifles? Mr Davey: I have to confess that that is the first time I have heard that maxim. I will have to ask my wife and family about it. Jacob Rees-Mogg: It was quoted from the other side of the House in Latin: de minimis non curat lex. Mr Davey: I am afraid I only did Latin O-level, and I have forgotten a lot of it. Turning to the notices informing the voters and the employer of the outcome of the ballot, sections 231 and 231A respectively require only that the union take, as “soon as is reasonably practicable after”

the ballot, “such steps as are reasonably necessary”

to inform all persons entitled to vote and every relevant employer of the outcome.


1266

The Bill’s supporters also believe that the law loads the dice in favour of the employer. According to their analysis, the law makes it difficult, and even impossible in some cases, for trade unions to defend the interests of their members but, again, where is the evidence that the strike weapon has lost its potency, if used responsibly? The level of industrial action varies from year to year, but in the past 12 months for which data are available about 620,000 days were lost through industrial action. I would like that figure to fall, but such levels of industrial action in the UK are about the average for the EU overall, when allowance is made for the size of each country’s work force. In 2007, the latest year for which EU data are available, EU countries lost, on average, 34 days through industrial action per 1,000 workers. The UK figure was similar, although a little higher, at 38 days per 1,000 workers. That does not suggest that the UK laws on industrial action are out of step or are more difficult for British trade unions to navigate than laws elsewhere in the European Union. Mr Nuttall: Just as a matter of interest, is the Minister aware of whether any other European Union country has a provision similar to the one proposed in this Bill? Mr Davey: I am not, although I think it is highly unlikely that any EU country does, for the following reason. The way in which industrial relations laws have developed in different countries reflects different traditions, and that is how it should be; I do not think that there is a standard approach in the EU. The British view obviously draws on a very different tradition from elsewhere, but the effect is not dissimilar in terms of the average number of days lost. So the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, the promoter of this Bill, has not made his case; he has not provided evidence to show that our trade unions face particular problems. The hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks contained references to various observations made by advisory bodies to the International Labour Organisation, but the data simply do not support the argument that unions in the UK are uniquely disadvantaged when it comes to organising strike action. The previous Government made it clear that Britain upholds its commitment to the ILO conventions; indeed, there has never been a challenge at the supreme authority of the ILO that we have transgressed our international commitments to those conventions. Some people make rather too much of this by saying that we are somehow breaching ILO standards and other human rights obligations on freedom of association. It is also worth noting that employers normally choose to settle disputes before industrial action takes place—only a minority of industrial action ballots actually lead to industrial action. According to our estimates, in about 80% of cases where employees have voted for industrial action, no industrial action is subsequently taken. Both sides treat the outcome of the ballot as a stimulus to further negotiation. Once again, such behaviour is difficult to square with the conclusion that employers invariably have the upper hand under our law and could easily obtain an injunction to stop a strike in its tracks or impose their will unilaterally. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and others have discussed recent court cases. He said that they have made matters much worse for trade unions, but we have heard that argument rebutted.

1267


22 OCTOBER 2010

Mr Nuttall: On court cases, does the Minister agree that it would have been sensible for the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington to wait before introducing this Bill until the case that the RMT is taking to the European Court of Human Rights had been dealt with, as that may shed some light on the matters that we have been considering this morning? Mr Davey: My interpretation of the fact that there are some cases before the European Court of Human Rights is that we do not need the legislation at all. Those court cases are dealing with the issues of uncertainty that remain and the case law is helping to develop the situation. Andrew Bridgen: Will the Minister shed some light on whether we need this Bill and whether there is any requirement for it? Is he aware of the proportion of ballots by unions that have been challenged legally? Mr Davey: My hon. Friend anticipates what I was about to say. Although it is true that in recent years there have been more applications for court injunctions, we must put that increase into some perspective. It is still relatively rare for the courts to intervene in industrial disputes. Over the past five years, just seven injunctions have been sought, on average, per year. During the five years from 2005 to 2009, there were on average 132 work stoppages each year. With an average of seven injunctions and 132 work stoppages, it is clearly not the case that employers are always going to court and that it is difficult for trade unions to ballot their members, give notices in the proper way and hold industrial action when their members so vote. I am afraid that the facts are entirely against the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. Moreover, these cases have not always gone the way of the employer, even when there have been injunctions, as my hon. Friends have said. The Bill’s explanatory notes refer to the case of British Airways v. Unite the Union. That case concerned the way that the union notified its members about the outcome of an industrial action ballot. On this occasion, the Court of Appeal upheld the union’s appeal and the injunction was overturned. There are of course other cases in which the trade union lost. Reference has been made to another case involving British Airways and Unite. I freely acknowledge that most balloting processes across our society will contain some flaws. Existing industrial action law makes some allowance for such small errors, but in the case of British Airways and Unite that Unite lost, the union had made serious mistakes in the balloting process and a large number of people were mistakenly accorded an entitlement to vote. We are talking about a tightly knit group of workers, all belonging to the same, very wellresourced, branch of the Unite union. The union should have known better. Frankly, the union got it wrong and, quite rightly, it had to re-run the ballot. Nick de Bois: I am grateful to the Minister, who has been very generous with his time. Given the small number of applications for injunctions, would the Minister like to speculate on the motives behind this Bill? It strikes me that it is simply a device to allow and encourage more industrial disharmony at a time when we clearly


1268

cannot do such a thing, as well as to cover up the failure of unions to get their act together when they wish to follow this process. Mr Davey: I always like being invited to speculate, but the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is an hon. Gentleman, so I could only ascribe honourable motives to him. Nick de Bois: I would not wish to suggest otherwise; I was merely asking about the situations that might arise at a time we can ill afford them. Mr Davey: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that were we to pass this Bill, it would not help the economy, in its current fragile state, to recover. There would be a danger of more strike action and that is not something that we want. The courts are helping to develop everyone’s understanding of the practical applications of the law. Let us take the case of Metrobus v. Unite the Union, which is something of a cause célèbre in union circles, and which centred on the time taken by the union to inform the employer of the outcome of a ballot. The employer, of course, has an intense interest in knowing the ballot result. The law therefore specifies that the union should notify the employer as soon as reasonably practicable. In this case, the court considered that the union should have informed the employer sooner. I can understand that the ruling may have inconvenienced Unite, but the ruling sets a clear standard for all unions to follow in future. There should therefore be less uncertainty and fewer legal complaints on that issue, as my hon. Friends have argued. Let me turn to the detail of the Bill. As I said at the beginning of my response, the Bill amends section 232B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. That section was inserted in the 1992 Act by section 4 and schedule 3 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. Several years later, in 2002 and 2003, the previous Government reviewed the practical operation of the 1999 Act. As a result, section 232B of the 1992 Act was slightly amended. Those amendments were introduced by the Employment Relations Act 2004. So what does section 232B do? Its provisions enable the courts to disregard small failures by a trade union to comply fully with certain legal provisions concerning the organisation of an industrial action ballot. Those failures concern the requirements set out in four places in the 1992 Act. The first of those is section 227(1), which defines those who should be accorded an entitlement to vote by the trade union. The second is section 230(2), which places an obligation on the trade union to ensure that those entitled to vote are provided with a voting paper by post and are given a convenient opportunity to vote. The third is section 230(2B), which deals with the corresponding obligation on trade unions to ballot those persons entitled to vote who are merchant seamen. The fourth provision relevant to the disregard is 232A(c), which deals with the obligation on trade unions not to induce a person to take industrial action if that person was not accorded an entitlement to vote in a ballot. The disregard applies to a small failure or failures to comply with those particular provisions. “Small” is defined as “on a scale which is unlikely to affect…the result of the ballot”,

1269


22 OCTOBER 2010

[Mr Davey] and the measures also apply if “the failures taken together” are on a scale that is unlikely to affect the result of the ballot. That test has a strong quantitative component, and it can therefore be used as an objective measure, so the test is relatively easy to apply in practice. Importantly, section 232B applies the law only to “accidental” failures by the trade unions. We have heard quite a lot of comments on that point. As I have said, the original provision of the disregard was reviewed by the previous Government in 2002 and 2003, and after a detailed and thorough review, they were basically content with the operation of the disregard. They also concluded that other changes they had made to industrial action law had operated broadly as intended, so let hon. Members be in no doubt: the last Government saw no need for provisions such as those in the Bill. Having considered the case for them, and having reviewed them extensively on more than one occasion, they rejected the case for the amendments before the House. So what are the proposed changes to section 232B? There are four major amendments proposed. I say “major”; the title of the Bill refers to “Minor Errors”, but we are talking about major ones. First, the Bill would apply the disregard to many more provisions in the 1992 Act. I counted that the disregard would apply to every aspect of 15 separate sections of the 1992 Act. In combination, those sections specify virtually all the procedures that trade unions must follow when organising industrial action. The disregard would apply to the running of ballots and to the notices that trade unions must provide to the employer or employers concerned before an industrial action ballot and before any subsequent industrial action. That, by any standards, is a substantial change to section 232B. Secondly, the changes would remove the requirement for the failure by the trade union to be “accidental”. It would be replaced by the notion that the disregard applied where there had been “substantial compliance” with the provision or provisions in question. That therefore leaves open the possibility that the disregard will apply to situations in which the trade union knowingly makes a mistake or deliberately decides to flout the safeguards in the Act. We could not accept that change. Thirdly, as the disregard would be extended well beyond the balloting provisions, we would be introducing a new way of defining the size of the failure to which the disregard applies, where the failure concerns a notice. In such cases, the disregard applies if the failure “is unlikely to affect a reasonable person’s understanding of the effect of the notice”.

That alone raises many questions that are totally unanswered by the Bill. Fourthly, the Bill places the burden of proof on the employer or other complainant to demonstrate that the failure does not qualify for the disregard. In other words, it is assumed that any failure by the trade union will be small scale and therefore covered by the disregard, unless the complainant demonstrates otherwise—a significant shift in the law, with a new presumption in favour of the trade union. Earlier in my speech, I identified concerns that the Government have about the overall case for introducing this Bill. But, even if we were to assume that there is a


1270

compelling case for some changes to be made to section 232B, the Government would have serious misgivings about the way the Bill would amend the section. We cannot accept that the disregard should apply to every one of those 15 sections. That would be a major extension of the disregard and cannot be considered a modest measure. Just by way of example, the disregard would extend to section 230(1)(a), which provides that union members should be allowed to vote without interference from, or constraint imposed by, the union or any of its members. Where is the interest in allowing errors with respect to this safeguard? Jacob Rees-Mogg: As I said earlier, this would be a slippery slope. It is an attempt to take trade union law back to where it was in the 1970s. It would run a coach and horses through the attempts since then to ensure democracy, control, proper procedures and orderly ballots. It is a frightening little Bill that attempts to undermine all that in just two clauses. Mr Davey: As I looked in detail at the Bill, I became increasingly concerned. I thought initially that it might be something with which we could engage seriously and examine the possible need for reform. But if one forgets the title and looks at what is actually proposed, one realises that it is a significant attempt to shift the law in a direction we do not want it to go. Philip Davies: The Minister glossed over his last comment too quickly for my liking. Am I right in thinking he said that, as the Bill stands, the union could interfere in the free vote of a few of its members in a ballot but could still argue that it had been substantially compliant? Mr Davey: That is indeed my interpretation. I may have glossed over it because the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends made a clear analysis of that point in their contributions. I therefore felt that he had already grasped it, as he does so readily. We strongly oppose removing the requirement for an error to be accidental. The suggested new disregard would apply to situations in which a union had deliberately denied members the entitlement to vote. It could also apply to a situation in which the union pressurised or coerced some individuals to vote in particular ways. Such behaviours are inexcusable, even if they were to occur on a small scale. They would undermine the democratic principles on which the current law is based. The Government cannot support a provision that could allow such democratic abuse to be excused. We have serious difficulties with the proposal to reverse the burden of proof—[Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Order. Mr. Skinner, your sedentary remarks can easily be heard from the Chair, and that should not be the case. Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have a new coalition Government for the first time in 40 years. It seems to me—and you may wish to rule on this point—that the Tory part of the coalition is setting up the Lib Dem to talk the Bill out. Mr Deputy Speaker: I would not care to comment, and that is my ruling.

1271


22 OCTOBER 2010

Mr Davey: I have enjoyed the sedentary interventions of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) over the years, but this Liberal Democrat has his own, independent mind, and he opposes the Bill. Mr Nuttall: I am sure that hon. Members who have been present throughout the debate know that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) had many more comments to make and has not had the opportunity to do so. The idea that opposition is being artificially engineered is far from the truth, because my hon. Friend had much more to say, and could well still have been speaking at this moment. Mr Davey: I am grateful for all the interventions, but I want to present my arguments because there are genuine concerns about that Bill that the coalition partners share, and it is important to put them to the House. We have serious difficulties with the proposal to reverse the burden of proof. To date, in any proceedings, once the employer has established that there has been a breach of the safeguards, the burden shifts to the union wishing to avail itself of the statutory defence to establish whether section 232B applies. That is consistent with the rules on the burden of proof: the burden generally lies on the party making the proposition. However, the Bill contravenes that general rule of evidence. In addition, it ignores another general rule that parties are not required to establish a negative. Under the Bill, the employer has to establish that the breach does not qualify for the disregard under section 232B. On a practical level, it is unrealistic and unfair to imply a level of knowledge on the part of the employer, which enables the employer to show not only that the law has been broken, but that the lack of compliance is substantial and meets certain thresholds. Andrew Bridgen: As the Minister said, it is difficult to prove a negative. Also, the burden of proof will be on the employers, yet the unions will have all the information that the employers require to reach such a conclusion. Mr Davey: I listened to my hon. Friend when he expanded on that point in the debate and he was spot on. It would be a bizarre shift in the law. As one of his colleagues said, it would create a lawyers’ charter. Let me summarise the Government’s response to the Bill. Broadly speaking, there is a disconnect between the measure and the modern world of industrial relations. It will do nothing to shift employment relations on to the new ground of employee engagement. At this time, we need all employers and all workers to pull together in a common cause to lift individual businesses and the economy at large out of the doldrums of weak growth. We need to pull everyone together in that effort. I want trade unions, as well, to exert their positive influence. The forward-looking agenda is theirs, too. They should adopt their rightful place and be on the inside of the debates. I greatly hope that they will engage with the Government at all levels. In contrast, the Bill is about division at the workplace, and its effect would be to deepen those divisions by encouraging more strikes and other forms of industrial action. Contrary to the views of its supporters, the Bill proposes a major shift in the balance of the law. There is no consensus in our society for such a shift. In fact, employers believe that we should move in the opposite direction.


1272

Successive Governments, with the previous Government very much to the fore, did not want to unsettle the balance of the law on industrial relations. The coalition Government share that mainstream view. We therefore have no current plans to change industrial action law either in the direction proposed by the Bill or in that proposed by others. The case that the Bill’s supporters presented for changing the law is not compelling. The legal framework has been in place for many years, and there is no evidence that it causes problems for trade unions that efficiently go about their lawful business. Parties should know what is needed to comply with the law. The Bill itself has major defects in its drafting and would encourage undemocratic and coercive behaviour by trade unions. Sadly, it is not a Bill that the Government can support. I therefore ask hon. Members to vote against Second Reading. 2.14 pm Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): Listening to the debate on the Bill since just after Prayers this morning has been of great interest, as have the points that have arisen and been made by hon. Members on either side. However, I ought to start with a point made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who said that we were in some kind of new politics. I think we should be very suspicious of that phrase, because if we look at the annals of history, as I know the House likes to do from time to time, we will see that every generation looks back at the past, and says, “That was a golden age, an age when they knew what to do and did things right and properly. And now look at the times we live in! O tempora! O mores!” as the great Cicero so famously said. He lived in the time of Julius Caesar, so people were making that complaint back in the ’50s BC. It seems to me to be wrong to expect the procedures of this House to be adjusted for some absurd new politics. As we all know from the book of Ecclesiastes, there is nothing new under the sun. That is actually right. Politics is never new or old; it is always the same. People want to get what they want and use strategems and sometimes even tricks to get it. We may be shocked at the tricks, but that is the reality. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said on a point of order that the will of the House was not being shown, but I think it was. The vast majority of the House decided that, actually, the Bill was not of sufficient importance to warrant their attendance. Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. The Bill’s title was designed to encourage exactly that response from Members. To be fair to them, I can quite appreciate that they would look at that title and think, “There’s not much here, move along,” but in fact, when we study the detail of the Bill, we find that it is a very substantial piece of legislation indeed. Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was about to say that his speech reminded me of an age of politics when things worked. His was the form of speech that this House was used to when it was at its greatest, when it was the House from which legislation came that ruled an empire and a quarter of the world.

1273


22 OCTOBER 2010

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Order. My education is furthered every time I listen to you, Mr ReesMogg. I am more of an expert now on Cromwell, Cicero and a lot of other great historical figures, but I was wondering whether there was any vague possibility of addressing the Bill before the House today. Jacob Rees-Mogg: Mr Deputy Speaker, I was referring to the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and following up on those, as I now wish to follow up on the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). His speech was in a fine tradition of the House. In the 19th century, speeches of two and a half hours were common. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) was here for the Don Pacifico debate—[Interruption.] I am pleased to hear it. The great Palmerston spoke for two and a half hours in that debate, and I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North is becoming Palmerstonian in his approach to the House. It is important that our procedures are respected and that they operate fairly and properly. Part of that procedure is that if 100 do not go through the Division Lobby to support a closure motion, there can be no closure. That is perfectly justifiable, and it ought not to be brushed away by some airy-fairy talk of new politics. Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I am not quite sure that I am so grateful for his history lesson. When he talks about these days past and the British empire and so on, does he mean when working class people knew their place? Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman is trying to lead me astray. Mr Deputy Speaker asked me not to carry on talking about history, but I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman’s point. On the specifics of the proposals, we have to look at the Bill in its context. We need not go back to the great strikes of early history. I was thinking initially of Achilles sitting in his tent and about whether that was a first example of industrial action and the withdrawal of labour, and about whether we should get on to Patroclus and so on, but I thought that would be too abstruse at this time in the afternoon. However, the Bill is important because it would take us back to the industrial relations of the 1970s and 1980s, so the immediate historical context is of tremendous importance. I remember growing up—I was a child once, although I never normally admit to it. We had a wonderful debate the other day with all sorts of people saying they had once been 16. I sat here wondering whether I had ever been 16 and hoping that it had passed by quite quickly. However, when I was a child, I saw the streets, including Leicester square, used as a dumping ground for rubbish because of strikes. They were strikes that had been called not with any democratic oversight, but because unions had the ability to bully their members. The great lady, Margaret Thatcher—Baroness Thatcher, Lady of the Garter—came in and pulled this country up by the scruff of its neck. She introduced legislation, which was opposed every time by the socialists—they opposed everything she did—to democratise the trade unions and bring them under the control of their members


1274

and to allow this country to be run by its democratically elected Government, rather than by the grand, godfatherlike bosses of the trade union movement. Anything that takes us back to those days would be desperately unfortunate and risk our seeing the same number of strikes that we saw in the 1970s and 1980s and the destruction of British industry. Our car manufacturing was destroyed by strike after strike called from mass meetings. Do hon. Members remember those mass meetings? Do they remember watching them on the television? Do they remember the voice votes controlled by a few bullies? A hand or two would go up, but they would never be counted. That was the type of behaviour we had in this country before the laws that Margaret Thatcher introduced. That put us back on to a proper footing, where prosperity could arise, commerce could take place and business could flourish. We saw the launch pad built for an amazing economic performance that was no longer being destroyed by the trade unions. Philip Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is further to go down this route, and that if we are trying to make potential strike action fairer, which seems to be the purpose of the Bill, we should instead be providing that more than 50% of those balloted, rather than just of those who voted, have to have voted for strike action before a strike is called? Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend knows that I have an affinity for thresholds in other circumstances. Obviously, I am not going to talk about that, because it is not germane to the Bill, but I think it right that a sufficient number should express their will for it to be valid, and that while we are debating Second Reading, we ought to think about what else it could have said, had it been a better Bill—a Bill that the House might have liked and approved on Second Reading. It could have contained further reforms to give power back to the members. I actually believe in the slogan used by Baldwin for his election: “Trust the People”. The people are the masters of their politicians, and they know what is best for them, and the greater the democracy in trade unions, the better it is for their members. I was struck by the Minister’s comments that the Bill would make 15 sections of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 subject to accidental mistakes and a broad interpretation. Does that not make the hairs on the backs of hon. Members’ necks stand up, when they think of what has gone before, and when they think of the possibilities for manipulation and for people to stand over others as they fill out their ballot papers? Perhaps it would be done in the canteen. Perhaps one person would gather everyone together, and if only 20% of the vote went astray, nobody would mind. It would not be substantial; it would be a minor error, a small failing, a little bit on the side. Andrew Bridgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that were the Bill to become law, it could be viewed by a vast number of unions and union officials, who are quite capable of running a ballot in line with the current regulations, as a complete insult to their intelligence? Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If a union cannot run a ballot properly, that is a disastrous state for that union to be in, but people use the mechanisms to hand. We should always be

1275


1276

22 OCTOBER 2010

suspicious—always cautious, always careful—about allowing exemptions, because as soon as we do, people work out how to use them for a purpose other than that which was initially intended. That is why legislation in this place needs to be so properly considered—and considered in due and appropriate detail—because when it is not, people might actually believe the title of the Bill, which I come back to. As the Minister so rightly said, the title refers to “Minor Errors”. Clause 2 deals with the short title, and although I doubt whether the short title of a Bill should very often be a contentious matter, on this occasion I think that it is. I do not think that the Bill ought to be called the Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill. If passed, it should be called the Lawful Industrial Action (Coach and Horses) Act 2010, because that, as I said in an intervention on the Minister, is what it would do to the law as it stands. The Bill would get rid of so many safeguards, and this House is here to safeguard the British people—our electors—not just from over-mighty government, but from over-mighty private organisations that may wish to use and abuse their power. Philip Davies: On that theme, does my hon. Friend agree that one thing that the Bill does not address is the damages that have to be paid by unions that call for action that is later found to be unprotected? Damages are capped at £250,000 in those cases, whereas the strikes at BA, for example, cost BA £40 million. Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend makes an extraordinarily good and wise point. This would have been a better Bill if it had sought to raise that cap and made unions responsible for their unlawful errors. Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con): As I might not get the chance to make my own contribution, I wonder whether my hon. Friend shares my concern that, throughout this debate, this new concept of “substantial compliance” has not been properly addressed. It has been introduced to us in this small, minor-errors Bill, but it is actually a big idea and quite a concerning idea. However, at no point has anyone on the Labour Benches risen to make any attempt at giving us a definition. This debate would have been a great deal more substantial had someone attempted to put some flesh on the bones of that small phrase. Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is spot-on. We had a discussion about that on this side of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) elucidated for us what was meant by “substantial”, and said that in law, it meant an 80:20 level. I am not lawyer, but I was interested by that. Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of members is presumably that of the Carlton club and his knowledge of the shop floor presumably that of Fortnum and Mason. Does his knowledge of the law lead him to understand the jurisprudential concept of de minimis non curat lex? Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am so grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which is one that I made to the Minister myself, when sadly he was not present. Indeed,

the Hansard reporters asked me to spell it out, so the hon. Gentleman will notice that it is in Hansard tomorrow. De minimis non curat lex is, of course, a right and just principle, but it is in existing law. The question of what is “substantial” is the important one, and an 80:20 test is deeply unsatisfactory, because it simply allows too much impropriety to take place. For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, who is interested in my clubs—I believe that I am allowed to answer this point, Mr Deputy Speaker, as it was raised in an intervention—I should add that I am not a member of the Carlton club, although I think it is in a very fine building and has excellent membership, and that I think that Fortnum and Mason is a very fine shop, and would be very happy to place that on record. I would like to return to the Bill. Andrew Bridgen: In the light of the interventions from various Labour Members, does my hon. Friend agree that pretending that only they care about workers’ rights is a fallacy? My great-grandfather was one of the founders of the union movement. My grandfather was a miner, and my other grandfather— 2.30 pm The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 11(2)). Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Friday 29 October.

Business without Debate SPORTS GROUNDS SAFETY AUTHORITY BILL Bill read a Second time; to stand committed to Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63). SECURED LENDING REFORM BILL Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time. Hon. Members: Object. Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December. ELECTORAL LAW (AMENDMENT) BILL Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time. Hon. Members: Object. Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 14 January. PARLIAMENTARY STANDARDS (AMENDMENT) BILL Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time. Hon. Members: Object. Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 12 November. SAFETY OF MEDICINES BILL Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time. Hon. Members: Object. Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 12 November.

1277

22 OCTOBER 2010

Marine Training and Employment (River Thames) Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jeremy Wright.) 2.31 pm Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD): I am grateful to Mr Speaker for giving me this opportunity to have my first Adjournment debate in this new Parliament. I am also pleased that the UnderSecretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) is going to respond. I am smiling to myself a little, because I can remember the days when he first came to the House to work for our party as one of its key researchers. Clearly, the mentoring that some of us gave him has worked to good effect, and we welcome him to this responsibility and his important job in the Department. During the election campaign, I decided, for the first time in the eight campaigns that I have fought, to set out the top 12 issues that I wanted to flag up as commitments to my constituents. One of those—No. 5 on my list—was entitled “Jobs and the river”, and in it I pledged to negotiate with the Greater London authority, the Port of London authority and local councils “to provide a local site for boat building and repair, giving jobs and apprenticeships to Southwark residents.”

The reason that I am starting that campaign here and now is that the riverside constituencies in London that have a tradition of providing work, and workplaces, for people in the river industries need to have that interest rekindled. The Thames should not simply pass Southwark’s northern shores; we need activity to take young people and others into training and apprenticeships, and then into work, in river-based industries. There are some places in which people can start to acquire those skills. The London Nautical school, just over the border in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), serves her constituency and mine. It is a state school, a community school, with a very fine tradition, and it takes boys from the age of 11 who have an interest in marine and maritime matters, on which its curriculum places a special emphasis. It produces people who go off to work in the Royal Navy and the merchant navy, as well as into all other walks of life. South Bank university, Southwark college and the other further education colleges also provide some of the necessary engineering skills. There is no sense, however, that we are producing people with the skills to work on the river or that we are trying to recruit from the local work force to do the jobs on the river. You may think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the days of glory of trade and work on the Thames have gone because there is not as much bustle outside the windows of the Palace of Westminster as the pictures and prints portray, but the reality is that the port of London is hugely successful and the tidal Thames is getting busier, not less busy. There is not only more tourist traffic, but more commercial traffic. It is interesting to note that there is much more commercial traffic doing things that are environmentally good, such as taking waste from one part of London to another, which used to be carried on the roads but was not well received when it was transported in that way.

Marine Training and Employment (River Thames)

1278

There are likely to be major pieces of work ahead related to the river. First, there are the plans of Thames Water to have a new mains sewage plant installed across London, which will involve a lot of digging, some of it controversial when it comes to my constituency, but I shall not go into any more detail on that for now. The work for the 2012 Olympics is also producing a lot of construction traffic, much of it using the river. Boats come up and down with materials and products and then take waste and other things out of the way. The port of London handles 50 million metric tonnes a year; it is the largest port in southern England. About 2 million tonnes move within the Thames area, moving from one part of the river to another. There are links to business on the river—in the City as well as local firms—involving 46,000 full-time jobs; and there are 70 working port facilities on the river, 25 of which are west of the Thames barrier. There are 4 million passenger journeys made on the river every year, and nearly half all the traffic on inland waterways in the UK is on the Thames. That shows that this debate is not relevant only to me and my parliamentary neighbours—or to those of us who, like my hon. Friend the Minister, have the privilege of representing riverside constituencies—as the issues are of national as well as regional and local relevance. The Thames will get busier in the future. The building of the Thames tunnel from 2013 will mean an extra 100 boats. Then there is the building of Crossrail, bringing the need to transport all the soil dug out of the ground. Further developments are planned in Charlton, for example, and Sainsbury’s has a large distribution centre on the river and it is thinking about opening up the wharves nearby to allow for the distribution of goods to shops along the river. Then there is the possibility of a dedicated cruise terminal near Greenwich. If we are to service all that, we will need new boatyards and repair facilities on the Thames. I want to deal with two reports, which I commend to the Minister. I hope that he will take what they say away with him—not just for his own Department, but for other Departments with an interest. The issues straddle the Departments. My hon. Friend is good enough to reply to my debate on behalf of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and Local Government are also interested. I would like to share with the Minister some of the conclusions from a report entitled “Assessment of Boatyard Facilities on the River Thames”, which was produced in 2007. It points out that there has been an “increase of 20% in the number of vessels registered”

for commercial use between 1999 and 2006, but: “The availability of boatyards in Greater London has remained largely unchanged since 2000”.

The London plan seeks to protect boatyards against development for housing and other uses, but there has often been a struggle about that—for obvious reasons, as these are valuable bits of real estate on the river, where property developers have an interest in building luxury flats. The report also informs us: “Only two boatyards regularly build boats”,

1279


22 OCTOBER 2010

but a larger range and number of boatyard facilities are available for private boat owners than for commercial operators—and there are 16 boatyards working for the private owners. What we need, and what the report recommended just three years ago, is, first, a “site for a new boatyard to maintain passenger boats, support vessels and river piers”.

Secondly, we need action taken “to improve the availability of facilities for emergency repair”—

an issue to which I shall return in a few seconds. Thirdly, the report stresses the importance of having repair facilities here, because otherwise boat building and boat repair have to go from the Thames and round to the east coast. By definition, that takes a while—it is a journey of several days—and has the risk that some vessels are not licensed for that sort of North sea journey, although they are licensed and equipped to work on the Thames. Another recommendation three years ago was there should be an “opportunity to link the provision of new boatyard facilities with training in marine industry skills”.

The report also stated: “The opportunity for the public sector activities and facilities in maintaining boats and passenger vessels should be explored”,

with some of the private developments that may come on stream. It also recommended: “Opportunities should be taken to provide additional facilities for private boat owners in the redevelopment of Thames side sites”.

I know the pressures that exist. When I was first elected—more than a quarter of a century ago—I used to be able to walk along the river and see boatyards, boatbuilding and boat repair in my constituency around the Surrey docks. Yes, we have marinas, at Greenland dock and South dock, but we do not have the repair and maintenance facilities. There is nowhere that a 16-year-old can go to learn the skills, which the Thames and Britain need, of working on boats on the river. Strangely, no facilities exist locally to carry out emergency repairs on the river to rudders and propellers. People therefore use the traditional method of beaching the boat at low tide and doing the repair there. Self-evidently, that is not nearly as satisfactory. The Thames has three working boatyards, but the biggest boats cannot use them. The largest passenger boats must go to East Anglia—to places such as Lowestoft. There are dry docks in use, small boatyards in my hon. Friend the Minister’s area of, Kingston and Richmond, some Thames repair facilities in Gravesend and the Port of London authority facility in Denton, and a dry docking facility that has been retained. However, that is not enough by a long way, given the big businesses that still exist, such as Tate and Lyle at Silvertown, which was the largest sugar refinery in the world. There is an eminent firm based in my constituency called City Cruises, run by two of the great protagonists in redevelopment along the river, Gary and Rita Beckwith, to whom I pay tribute for their work generally and for pressing me and others to do something about producing a new facility. There is Thames Clippers based in Trinity buoy wharf, and Thames Luxury Charters based on HMS Belfast in my constituency. An integrated approach is needed from central Government and local government.


1280

Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab) rose— Simon Hughes: If I can delay the hon. Lady a moment, I will make another point. We need to make sure that the price of development land does not price out such activities. Therefore, there is a planning issue for central Government and local Government. When the localism Bill is introduced later in the Session, we need to ensure that central Government and the London government have the necessary powers. We need to ensure that the PLA has the powers to retain yards, if it needs them, and that we do not lose any more sites. Another point—I think this is the matter on which the hon. Lady wants to intervene—is that we do not have enough qualified people with local navigational knowledge as boatmen on the river. Therefore, during times of peak tourist demand, not enough people are available to run all the boats on the river. In this age, we must not introduce regulations that make it impossible for those who have traditionally worked on the river to retain their qualifications. We must not lose their skills. Kate Hoey: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, my friend and constituency neighbour, on his chairmanship of the successful Mayor’s Thames festival. I agree with all his comments, and I am particularly concerned about the seemingly unnecessary extra regulation, which is being interpreted by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Skilled, experienced boat masters, whose standards of safety should make us proud, are being asked to go and take examinations again. For many of them, that is quite insulting. Will he join me in urging the Minister to ask the MCA to engage constructively with Thames boat masters to reach a solution that preserves their existing skills and experience and does not subject them to something that is not legally necessary and does not happen in other inland waterways? Simon Hughes: I will not repeat the hon. Lady’s point: I hope that the Minister will take up the matter with colleagues across Government. I am not arguing for a deskilled or less skilled work force—I was my constituency’s MP at the time the Marchioness sank, and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), whom I also much respect on these matters, also remembers those days. We need a highly skilled work force, but we also need to use the skills that are historically acquired, because the Thames is a dangerous river to work on. People sometimes underestimate the strength of the tides and currents, which are extremely dangerous and can be fatal, as was seen at the time of the Marchioness and has been seen on occasions since. It is vital that we retain our current work force, but also build a new generation to take the jobs. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests with regard to the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. The RMT has learned that some boat masters are being tested on parts of the river on which they never sail. It seems that this is being used almost as an income earner for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, rather than a genuine new regime for ensuring safety.

1281


22 OCTOBER 2010

Simon Hughes: I should be happy to talk to the Government about that, along with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). No one is saying that there should not be an assurance that people have the skills that will enable them to continue to do the job. The Port of London authority tells me that the tests are not full-blown examinations, but oral checks and so forth. We are not asking for a draconian change in the rules or any lessening of safety provision, but we need to ensure that we do not lose the skills that are required. My grandfather was a sailor—he had sailed since he was 16—and I know that as much can be learned from experience as from books, manuals and maps. I commend to the Minister—I will ask his Department to look at it, and to respond to me—a proposal for a London marine hub, which builds on the Government’s policy of using our ports to develop new industries. One of the potential sites is Deptford. City Cruises says that the hub would give us “strategic infrastructure… a cluster of marine skills and expertise which can develop into a centre of excellence”,

along with “employment creation in an area of London”

—an area that has traditionally suffered from high unemployment— “where there are… few new businesses offering skilled and semi-skilled manual work”.

That would allow the experience of the old generation to be retained and shared with the new generation. I hope that the Government will respond positively by examining the proposal with the Greater London authority, the Port of London authority and others. The Government are very committed—as I am—to ensuring that we give much better skills to people who do not aspire to be academics or acquire doctorates, but have manual skills and can use their hands along with their brains in the interests of the economy and the city. We, in boroughs such as mine, are certainly willing to support such initiatives, using our universities and further education colleges. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will see this as the beginning of a dialogue that will, sooner rather than later, provide opportunities on the river for people to be given training and work, while also helping the river business by providing the facilities that we have lost, or are in danger of losing, from the Thames, so that it can become not just a great river to look at and a great symbol of London, but a great working river once more, bringing jobs, skills and success to the London and British economies. 2.47 pm The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) on securing the debate. It is typical of him that, having made a promise to his constituents at the time of the general election, he is already mounting a very effective campaign. I hope that, working with the Mayor of London and others, he will be able to achieve his aims. It has always been a privilege to work with my hon. Friend. I have campaigned with him in his constituency, and it is quite humbling to knock on doors and find that, apparently, everyone knows Simon and has been helped by him. He is held in huge regard by his constituents,


1282

and, of course, by many in the House. When I worked as an adviser to the Liberal Democrat party before being elected to Parliament, I worked with him on issues such as the environment and employment. It therefore comes as no surprise to me that he is currently campaigning for employment on the River Thames for his constituents. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I cannot answer every point that he has raised, not least because some were directed at the Department for Transport— although I shall try to assist to a small extent—but also because I am standing in for the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes). However, I hope that I can reassure him about some of the issues that he mentioned, and, indeed, encourage him in his campaign. As he said, I represent a London constituency that borders the Thames. Indeed, I live five minutes from the Thames, where there is a small boatyard, Harts Boatyard, as well as a firm called Turk Launches and many pleasure and leisure activities. My hon. Friend’s point about the river’s potential for improving our economy was extremely well made. I share his interest in how we can harness the river’s considerable potential to fuel economic growth and provide jobs, especially for our young people, in the marine industries. As he said, the Thames already plays a significant role in the economy of London and the south-east. The port of London, for example, is estimated to contribute £3.7 billion a year to the economy. As he said, the port handles over 50 million tonnes of cargo, from fuel to food, cars to containers. It sustains people in a diverse range of employment—manufacturing workers, cargo handlers, drivers, warehouse staff and ships’ agents, to name but a few. In addition, the Thames is growing in importance as a means of transporting commuters and indeed tourists around London. According to Transport for London, the number of passenger journeys has risen substantially in just two years—from 2.75 million in 2006-07 to 3.9 million in 2008-09. That speaks to the need for investment in skills, so that that growing activity can be serviced in the way my hon. Friend talked about. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that there are ambitious plans to increase the Thames area’s already substantial economic contribution. The London Gateway scheme, headed by DP World, is delivering £1.5 billion of inward investment to build a new deep-sea container port and Europe’s largest logistics park. The development, at Stanford-le-Hope in Essex, is the most significant port development in the UK in the past 20 years. London Gateway is the single largest job-creation project in the UK today. It is expected to deliver 36,000 direct and indirect jobs, and contribute around £3.2 billion to the UK economy. Those are developments that I am sure my hon. Friend will welcome. It is essential that we equip people, particularly our young people, with the skills that they will need to take advantage of those and other job opportunities in the marine industries along the Thames. World-class skills are the bedrock of sustainable economic growth. That was why I was pleased that in the comprehensive spending review this week the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced increased funding for apprenticeships. The Government will boost spending on adult apprenticeships by up to £250 million by the end of the CSR period to

1283


22 OCTOBER 2010

create an additional 75,000 apprenticeship places. I hope and believe that the creation of new jobs and apprenticeships in marine industries in the River Thames basin can benefit from that investment. The Maritime Skills Alliance, a sector body that works to increase training opportunities within the sector, has recently developed a level 2 maritime apprenticeship. Many of the MSA’s members operate along the Thames and it will be encouraging them to offer the apprenticeship to new recruits. Port Skills and Safety, the industry body that includes the Port of London Authority among its members, is developing a level 2 stevedoring apprenticeship, which it hopes to implement soon. North West Kent college, based at Gravesend, will be a major provider of these new maritime apprenticeships, as well as offering bespoke courses to meet the needs of specific companies. Of course we should not forget the 2012 Olympics and the opportunities that the Games will create. Transport for London expects that river transport will play an important role in taking spectators to and from venues. All those opportunities and developments within the apprenticeship sector will speak to my hon. Friend’s desire to provide those skills to his constituents, so that they can have jobs along the Thames. Simon Hughes: I am encouraged and it is helpful to get these things on the record. I hope that colleagues in Government will be positive about promoting and boosting those things. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister might reflect on the fact that one of the things that we still need to do is to provide sites for shipbuilding and boatbuilding. Most of the vessels—the Queen Elizabeth was launched by the Queen the other day—are built abroad now, rather than in this country. If we have the skills and traditions, with the space available, we should seek to build more of our own river-based and other ships here, rather than having to buy them abroad and only maintaining them here. Mr Davey: Although I cannot promise my hon. Friend that we will have a rebirth of the shipbuilding industry on the Thames to the extent and capacity that he has talked about, I share his view that we must support companies that are connected with those issues—repair stations, boatbuilders and manufacturers—so that we can develop that skilled work force. As my hon. Friend is probably aware, the Greater London Authority is working with the Port of London Authority to identify sites for new boatyards, and although they may not be of sufficient size and capacity to accommodate international ocean-going liners, we certainly hope and expect they will be successful in delivering new sites. The National Apprenticeship Service has identified manufacturing and engineering as two of its target sectors. It will be working with employers and training providers to make additional apprenticeship places available where there is local demand both in the Thames area and nationally. These various initiatives are a good start, but more can be done, which is what my hon. Friend is striving to achieve. I therefore welcome the news that next week NAS London, the GLA and the Sector Skills Council for Science, Engineering and


1284

Manufacturing Technologies are meeting to discuss exactly this issue. My hon. Friend’s debate is therefore timely. Local authorities also have an important role to play in working with local businesses to generate new economic opportunities for their areas. That is why we are introducing local enterprise partnerships, putting in place a structure that will support this vital collaboration and enable boroughs such as Southwark to work with their businesses to focus on economic priorities, including unlocking the untapped economic potential of the Thames. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) talked about boatmen licences, and I know from discussions I have had with my own constituents who work on the Thames that there has been concern about the changes to the regulations in recent years. My hon. Friend and the hon. Lady will know that these changes arose in part from a need to react to changes in a European Union directive, and this has not been without its challenges. It would be wrong for me to go into too much detail because I am not the Minister with responsibility, but I will ask colleagues at the Department for Transport to respond in detail to the concerns raised. I am not sure whether there is an easy or quick solution, but the fundamental point that has been made is that we must not allow regulations to get in the way of our making sure our young people can have careers on the river, and navigate its dangerous waters safely in the service of Londoners and the many people who visit our capital city. Everyone knows that we have to put health and safety right at the heart of our strategy for using the Thames—my hon. Friend better than anybody given the work he did after the tragedy of the sinking of the Marchioness. We must work with trade unions and local authorities to try to ensure that we have a sufficient supply of boatmen who can provide that critical service. Without their skills we will not be able to make the most of the economic potential of the river; they are central to our strategy for unlocking that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on the skills element, therefore. It is of relevance that the Government are taking bold steps on apprenticeships. We have made it a central part of a very difficult spending review to ensure that apprenticeships, further education and adult education remain as strong as possible despite the difficult financial situation. That speaks to a number of agendas including social justice as well as the one my hon. Friend talked about. He has always strongly argued that the FE sector often provides training and education opportunities that other parts of our education system do not, in that, along with adult education, it gives people a second chance. He is right to highlight that. I hope that I have given my hon. Friend at least some cause for hope. I and my colleagues across the coalition will be very happy to work with him to try to make sure that his campaign is successful. The coalition is committed to building the economy and spreading economic opportunity both on the Thames and across London and the country. Question put and agreed to. 2.59 pm House adjourned.

75WS

Written Ministerial Statements

22 OCTOBER 2010

Written Ministerial Statements Friday 22 October 2010

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

General Affairs and Foreign Affairs Councils Agenda (25 October) The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington): The Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council will meet in Luxembourg on 25 October. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council. I will attend the General Affairs Council. GENERAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL EU Summits with Third Countries The Foreign Minister of Belgium (which holds the rotating EU presidency) will chair the GAC. The Council President Herman Van Rompuy will host a dinner the previous evening, at which he intends to focus on EU summits with third countries. Drawing on the experience of the recent summit with China, he will invite Ministers to look ahead to summits with the US, Ukraine and Russia later this year. The Government believe that the EU needs to focus these summits on a few key priorities, including advancing the EU’s trade relationships. This issue will be discussed further at the following day’s FAC (see below). October European Council Ministers will look ahead to the October European Council, which takes place in Brussels on 28-29 October and will be attended by the Prime Minister. The Council agenda includes economic governance, the Single Market Act, climate change, the Seoul G20 summit, and the EU-US summit. There may also be discussions on the EU-Russia summit, Pakistan (see below) and the EU budget review. Serbia Ministers will debate whether to take the next step on Serbia’s EU membership application. The Government support doing so, by referring Serbia’s application to the Commission for an assessment of its readiness to begin membership talks (an “avis”). September European Council Ministers will consider follow-up to the September Council. The key UK interest here is on Pakistan. The September Council invited the Commission to present in October a proposal for “immediate and time-limited reduction of duties on key imports from Pakistan, in conformity with WTO rules”. This would be part of an ambitious trade and development package for Pakistan. The Government support quick passage of the trade proposal adopted by the Commission on 7 October, providing Pakistan with significant trade concessions until 2014.


76WS

European External Action Service (EEAS) The compromise texts for the Amending Staff and Financial Regulations for the EEAS have been agreed and should be adopted by November. Member states may take the opportunity of the GAC to congratulate the presidency and Baroness Ashton for their work in completing the procedures necessary to get the EEAS up and running. It is unlikely that there will be substantial discussion. We will stress the importance of budget neutrality and the need for progress on efficiency savings. We will also emphasise the need for recruitment to be meritocratic, and for the EEAS to support member states’ foreign policy objectives, complementing rather than replacing national diplomatic services. FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL

EU Summits with Third Countries Baroness Ashton will chair the FAC. Following the GAC discussion on EU third country summits (see above), we expect the FAC to focus on specific objectives for the US, Ukraine and Russia summits. The Government would like to see an agreement on the importance of support to Pakistan and a revitalised Transatlantic Economic Council with the US; a reaffirmation of the importance of the EU-Ukraine free trade agreement; and a push on Russian WTO accession with a view to finalising an ambitious EU-Russia New Agreement with trade provisions. Cuba Discussion on Cuba was deferred from the June FAC, to allow time for Cuba to make progress on an anticipated release of political prisoners. The EU will discuss how to respond to these recent developments in Cuba. The Government recognise that some progress has been made on prisoner releases, and believe that any EU response should be measured, and aimed at encouraging further progress. Middle East Peace Process Baroness Ashton will update Ministers on her recent visit to the region. Ministers will discuss developments in the latest talks and what the EU can do to support progress. The Government believe that the EU has a role to play, in supporting US-led efforts to broker peace in the region. Sahel Ministers will discuss Sahel on the basis of a recent joint paper by the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council on security and development issues in that region. The discussion is likely to highlight increasing concerns about security in the Sahel and the importance of the EU’s political, security and development engagement. Union for the Mediterranean There will be a discussion of proposals from Baroness Ashton for a one-year transitional arrangement for the EU co-presidency of the Union for the Mediterranean. The Government have concerns regarding this proposal, including around the basis on which the Commission would represent the EU at this intergovernmental meeting. We would like a long-term solution to be found on a legal basis that is acceptable to all member states, and which respects national sovereignty. The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) We expect a brief discussion on the Commission’s consultation exercise on the ENP with member states and partner countries. The Government believe that the ENP needs to be more ambitious, with access to EU

77WS


22 OCTOBER 2010

markets linked to demonstrable progress by partners on economic and political reforms. The application of this conditionality should be the basis of the EU’s engagement. Georgia We expect a short stocktake of bilateral EU-Georgia relations, following recent Georgian elections. Ministers may cover the EU’s role in continuing efforts to foster regional conflict resolution, and Georgia-Russia relations. EU-UN Although not currently on the FAC agenda, some member states may raise the EU’s status at the UN following last month’s “no action” motion in the General Assembly. NATO-EU Following the NATO Defence and Foreign Ministers’ meeting of 14 October, there is the possibility of a FAC discussion on NATO-EU co-operation.

HOME DEPARTMENT Vetting and Barring Scheme Remodelling The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May): I announced on 15 June that further implementation of the Vetting and Barring Scheme would be halted pending a review of the scheme. Together with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Health, I am today announcing the terms of reference for this review which we have collectively agreed. The review will be thorough and consider afresh the principles and objectives of the scheme and recommend what, if any, scheme is now needed. The review will be developed by officials working jointly across our three Departments and recommendations are expected early in the new year. The protection of children and vulnerable adults must be paramount. But we must also ensure that arrangements are proportionate and support a trusting, caring society where well-meaning people are encouraged rather than deterred. In parallel, a review of the criminal records regime will take place, led by the independent Government Adviser for Criminality Information Management, Mrs Sunita Mason. This will be undertaken in two phases and will report firstly on employment vetting systems which involve the Criminal Records Bureau, followed by a report on the broader regime. The terms of reference for these are below. Vetting and Barring Scheme Remodelling: Terms of Reference In order to meet the coalition’s commitment to scale back the vetting and barring regime to common-sense levels, the review will: Consider the fundamental principles and objectives behind the vetting and barring regime, including; Evaluating the scope of the scheme’s coverage; The most appropriate function, role and structures of any relevant safeguarding bodies and appropriate governance arrangements; Recommending what, if any, scheme is needed now; taking into account how to raise awareness and understanding of risk and responsibility for safeguarding in society more generally.


78WS

Criminal Records Review: Terms of Reference The Criminal Records Review will examine whether the criminal records regime strikes the right balance between respecting civil liberties and protecting the public. It is expected to make proposals to scale back the use of systems involving criminal records to commonsense levels. The review will include consideration of the following issues: In phase 1: (i) Could the balance between civil liberties and public protection be improved by scaling back the employment vetting systems which involve the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB)? (ii) Where Ministers decide such systems are necessary, could they be made more proportionate and less burdensome? (iii) Should police intelligence form part of CRB disclosures?

In phase 2: 1. How should the content of a “criminal record” be defined? 2. Where should criminal records be kept and who should be responsible for managing them? 3. Who should have access to criminal records databases, for what purposes and subject to what controls and checks? To what extent should police intelligence be disclosed? 4. What capacity should individuals have to access, challenge and correct their own criminal records? 5. Could the administration of criminal records be made more straightforward, efficient and cost-effective? 6. Could guidance and information on the operation of the criminal records regime be improved? 7. How effective is the integration of overseas data into the criminal records regime?

JUSTICE Oxfordshire Coroner The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke): I have today placed copies of the post-mortem examination report and the toxicology report relating to the death of Dr David Kelly in July 2003 in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Ministry of Justice website at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/ kelly-pm-toxicology-reports.htm I am publishing these reports in the interests of maintaining public confidence in the inquiry into how Dr Kelly came by his death. While I firmly believe that the publication of these documents is in the public interest, I am mindful that the contents may be distressing. I hope that the privacy of Dr Kelly’s family will be respected at this difficult time. TRANSPORT EU Transport Council (15 October) The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond): The first Transport Council of the Belgian presidency was held in Luxembourg on 15 October. The United Kingdom was represented by the Deputy Permanent Representative. The Council reached a political agreement on the directive amending Directive 1999/62 on charging of heavy goods vehicles (the Eurovignette directive). The political agreement was acceptable to the UK.

79WS


22 OCTOBER 2010

Neither the existing directive nor the proposed amendment require the use of tolls or user charges but where member states choose to apply them they must respect the rules. The presidency had tabled a compromise proposal, the main elements of which were: to remove all requirements for mandatory hypothecation of revenues to transport projects, to remove the possibility of adding a supplement for congestion, while allowing significant variation of charges within the overall revenue limit; and to allow member states the choice not to apply tolls and charges to lorries below 12 tonnes. Further modifications made by the presidency at the Council, included provision that the cleanest vehicles would be exempt from any external cost charges for four years after dates of application; and that EURO V and EURO VI standard vehicles would have a zero charge for air pollution until the end of 2013 and 2017 respectively; on the key issues for the UK (mandatory hypothecation and inclusion of vehicles under 12 tonnes) the text was acceptable. The UK and Sweden entered a minutes statement, stating that in our view the directive should have been taken on a fiscal legal base. The Council adopted a mandate authorising the Commission to open negotiations with Brazil on a comprehensive air transport agreement, with the aim of opening up traffic rights between the EU and Brazil. The UK supports the opening of negotiations. There was an exchange of views on strategy and the future of transport 2010-2020, in advance of publication of the European Commission’s White Paper on transport policy, expected in December or January. In the debate, member states supported the need to develop a more sustainable transport network. There was wide support for a financial framework to support infrastructure developments and intelligent transport technology (ITS) implementation, although some member states pointed out that the EU must not undermine domestic efforts to cut deficits. The UK highlighted the need to focus on areas with proven EU added value and ensure long-term fiscal stability. Major EU projects such as SESAR and Galileo should be completed on time and budget. Long-term priorities should be the full liberalisation of the single market, transport safety and security, recognising trade opportunities, and moving to a low-carbon economy. Under AOB, the Commission presented a draft Council decision on the public regulated service of the Galileo satellite navigation programme. This should be ready to put to the Council early next year. The Commission also presented a proposal for a recast of the rail liberalisation package, on which discussions in the working group have already started.

England’s Transport System in Winter

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond): On 26 July 2010 I responded to the interim findings of the independent review panel examining the resilience of England’s transport systems in winter. The panel are publishing their final report today. I would like to thank David Quarmby CBE (chair) and his


80WS

fellow panel members Brian Smith and Chris Green, for their further thoughtful analysis and recommendations. Copies of the review have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. As today’s report notes, much action has already been taken by local and national highway authorities, salt suppliers, Government and others to help keep our road network moving in the event of snow and ice this winter. But as the previous two winters have shown, we cannot be complacent. Following July’s interim report, I immediately instructed the Highways Agency to build up a national strategic salt supply of last resort. I am pleased to report that the Highways Agency has made arrangements for the import of 250,000 tonnes of salt which is expected to start arriving this month. I am in full agreement with the panel’s view that this should be considered as a short-term reaction to current exceptional circumstances following two successive severe winters. I therefore welcome the recommendations to improve resilience in salt supply in the longer term through: greater efficiencies in salt utilisation; increased throughput flexibility by suppliers; a new recommended standard of 12 days (48 runs) pre-season stockholding by local highway authorities; and regular monitoring of the national stock position. I urge all parties to take forward the recommendations that relate to them. The Department for Transport has already been monitoring the national salt stock position in the run up to winter, in order to help highway authorities and suppliers to make better informed decisions. Working with the UK Roads Liaison Group the Department has also commissioned the production of technical guidance for local highway authorities on standards and methods to reduce the utilisation of salt without compromising effectiveness. This guidance, which will be available from the end of this month, will help to ensure that salt is spread at appropriate and effective levels, but not over-spread, thereby helping to conserve stock as well as reducing costs to local highway authorities. Today’s independent report also highlights the economic and social costs of winter disruption, which highway authorities and others will wish to consider when making their future local investment decisions. I note the review panel’s conclusion that the rail industry had learnt valuable lessons from the winter of 2008-09 and overall coped well with the severe weather in 2009-10. I agree that the industry can improve performance further still by considering the additional measures around emergency timetables, technical improvements, and ensuring that the industry works closely with local highway authorities regarding responsibilities for de-icing key areas. The report notes that the aviation industry generally anticipates and manages the effects of severe weather to a very high standard of resilience and is already pursuing measures, including additional resilience around the supply of de-icing materials. I welcome the recommendation that the Civil Aviation Authority should consider improving the availability of performance information for passengers and the market. Across all modes of travel, the report acknowledges the importance of communications in extreme weather for the travelling public. I agree with the panel that

81WS


22 OCTOBER 2010

those delivering transport services should continue to look to the opportunities that advances in technology may provide to improve communications with their customers. Finally, in response to public concerns about the fear of litigation and following a recommendation in the panel’s interim report, the Government are today publishing brief guidance for households and traders who wish to clear snow and ice from paths in front of their property, pavements and other public spaces. I hope that this will empower those who wish to act in a neighbourly way.


82WS

WALES Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan): I am pleased to inform the House that the explanatory memorandum explaining the Government’s proposal for a framework power in the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill are available in the Vote Office, Library and the Printed Paper Office, and on the Wales Office website: (www.walesoffice.gov.uk).

881W

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

Written Answers to

Written Answers

882W

BAE Systems Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings he has had with BAE Systems on the recent (a) grounding of the BAE Systems Hawk T.1 Trainer and (b) temporary suspension of all but non-essential Typhoon aircraft. [18013]

Questions Friday 22 October 2010

Peter Luff: None. Ministry of Defence officials have, however, had a number of meetings with BAE Systems in order to maintain the continued airworthiness of the Hawk T1 and Typhoon aircraft. Both aircraft fleets are currently airworthy and available for operational tasking.

DEFENCE Afghanistan: Security Forces Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information his Department holds on the number of persons who have (a) enlisted in and (b) deserted from the (i) Afghan National Army and (ii) Afghan [18668] Police in each of the last 12 months. Dr Fox: We are making excellent progress on growing the Afghan national security forces and are currently ahead of schedule for meeting the target of 171,600 Afghan National Army and 134,000 Afghan National Police by the end of 2011. Recruitment and retention are matters for the Government of Afghanistan but we will continue to work closely with them to help build their capacity and capability. Armed Forces: Young People Dr Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has sought legal advice from (a) the AttorneyGeneral and (b) external sources on the compatibility with human rights legislation of the terms of service in the armed forces of people under the age of 18 years. [18242]

Mr Robathan: The long-standing rule, recognised by successive Governments, states that whether advice has been or has not been received from the Attorney-General is not normally disclosed outside Government. We are content that our personnel’s terms and conditions of service are fully compatible with human rights legislation. The UK ratified the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict in June 2003. It requires all feasible measures to be taken to ensure that members of the armed forces who have not attained the age of 18 years do not take part in hostilities. Dr Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the Government’s response to the recommendations in respect of under 18-year-olds in the Army contained in the 25th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session [18260] 2008-09, on Children’s Rights, HC 318. Mr Robathan [holding answer 19 October 2010]: The Department has received five letters from Members of Parliament and interested parties which make specific reference to the 25th Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on Children’s Rights.

Departmental Manpower Mr Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) officials and (b) external advisers are working on his Department’s Strategic Defence and [16562] Security Review. Dr Fox: Within the Ministry of Defence (MOD), a team of about 30 people was established to co-ordinate the Defence contribution to the Strategic Defence and Security Review. A wide range of personnel across the MOD and armed forces participated in developing that contribution. The Department also consulted a number of external experts during the Review. The National Security Secretariat in the Cabinet Office conducted a series of formal and informal consultation exercises with external experts which senior officials from the MOD participated in. No external experts were employed by the Department for this work. Departmental Visits Abroad David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent on overseas visits for senior officials in the last 12 months for which [18415] figures are available. Mr Robathan: Business expenses incurred by the most senior civil servants (director general and above) on official visits, including overseas, are published by the Ministry of Defence on a quarterly basis at the following website: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/ CorporatePublications/FinancialReports/Expenses/ SeniorStaffBusinessExpenses.htm

Radioactive Materials: Transport Mr Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 30 April 2008, Official Report, column 484W, on radioactive materials: transport, what the cost of the procurement of new truck cargo heavy duty tractor heads and trailer refurbishment was; and what the unit cost was of the [17925] new vehicles. Peter Luff: The total cost of the procurement of nine new truck cargo heavy duty tractor heads, eight refurbished truck cargo heavy duty trailers plus associated research and development costs was £12 million at outturn prices.

883W

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

Strategic Defence and Security Review Jonathan Reynolds: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what (a) meetings and (b) other consultation his Department has (i) held and (ii) planned with members of academia as part of his Department’s [17179] Strategic Defence and Security Review. Dr Fox: The Ministry of Defence has engaged a wide variety of academic organisations, including the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) and Chatham House. I have also spoken on a number of occasions at these institutes on the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), as have my officials and senior members of the armed services. This engagement will continue into the SDSR implementation stage.

Written Answers

884W

Mr Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the last formal design review of Trident nuclear warhead took place; and when the next such review is expected to take place. [17299] Dr Fox: The most recent formal Trident nuclear warhead design review was undertaken in 2006. The date of the next such review has yet to be decided. Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Initial Gate for the Trident successor programme to be approved by (a) the Investment [18018] Approvals Board and (b) his Department. Dr Fox: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 12 July 2010, Official Report, column 447W, to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark).

Trident Mr Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the likely savings accruing to his Department’s research and development budget for the new generation of Trident missiles of postponing the programme for those missiles by one year. [16722] Dr Fox: The Trident D5 missile is expected to remain in-service until the 2040s. While there is some associated life extension work to allow that length of service, as the 2006 White Paper “The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent” (Cm 6694) made clear “decisions on whether we wish to acquire a successor to the life-extended D5 missile and what form any successor might take are unlikely to be necessary until the 2020s”.

There is therefore no planned research and development spend on a new generation of ballistic missile at this point. Mr Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of extending the service life of a Vanguard Class submarine by (a) one year and (b) each of the subsequent four years after its original decommissioning date. [16776]

Dr Fox: As the 2006 White Paper ‘The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent’ (Cm 6994) made clear, we will extend the life of the Vanguard Class beyond its original decommissioning date by five years to deliver a service life of 30 years. To achieve that five year extension will require three additional Long Overhaul Periods (LOPs). Planning is at an early stage but initial estimates suggest this will cost around £1.3 billion between 2014 and 2024.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT Bible: Anniversaries David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport whether his Department plans to mark the 400th anniversary of the first publication of the King James Bible in 2011. [18366]

Mr Vaizey: The Department is not planning to mark this anniversary. However, the British Library plans to highlight the linguistic contribution of the King James Bible in its exhibition on the English language, ‘Evolving English’, scheduled for November 2010 to April 2011 in London. They plan to feature a first edition from 1611 as a star exhibit. Digital Broadcasting: Radio Jake Berry: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what his policy is on steps to protect the interests of smaller commercial radio [18128] stations during digital switchover. Mr Vaizey: Government recognise the importance of local commercial radio stations to the communities they serve and have committed to reserving part of the FM spectrum as a platform for local and community radio stations, for as long as it is needed. In addition the vast majority of digital receivers already receive FM and Government will work to ensure all future digital sets incorporate FM. Digital Economy Act 2010

Mr Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans to publish the Initial Gate Business Case for the Trident Successor programme once it has been approved; and whether he will publish a summary of the expected costs of the Successor [17297] programme following such approval.

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of OFCOM’s performance in discharging its duties under the Digital Economy Act 2010; and if [18043] he will make a statement.

Dr Fox: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on 12 July 2010, Official Report, column 447W.

Mr Vaizey: I have been asked to reply in my capacity as a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

885W

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

This Department is in regular contact with Ofcom about their work on developing the Code of Practice known as “The Online Copyright Infringement Initial Obligations Code”. The making of the code by order requires the consent of the Secretary of State and the code will be laid before Parliament, before coming into force. Under section 126D (2) (b) of the Communications Act 2003 Ofcom have been notified that the code must be made by 31 March 2011. I have every expectation that Ofcom will be able to meet that deadline. Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport if he will publish the data used by his Department to inform its decisions on the apportionment of costs for the implementation of the notice sending regime under the Digital Economy Act [18044] 2010. Mr Vaizey: I have been asked to reply in my capacity as a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The Department has consulted extensively on the policy underpinning the file-sharing provisions in the Digital Economy Act. Decisions on the apportionment of costs were informed by the data about costs supplied to this Department as a result of those consultations and a specific consultation on the proposals for cost sharing. The first consultation on unlawful P2P and the responses can be found at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100216092443/ http://www.berr.gov.uk/consultations/page47141.html

The second consultation on the DEA proposals and the responses can be found at: http://www.bis.gov.uk/Consultations/illicit-p2p-filesharing?cat=closedwithresponse

The consultation on cost sharing can be found at: http://www.bis.gov.uk/Consultations/online-infringement-ofcopyright?cat=closedwithresponse

EU Law Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what estimate he made of the cost to his Department and its non-departmental public bodies of compliance with (a) domestic, (b) European and (c) other international human rights requirements in each year since 1997; and if he will [18742] make a statement. John Penrose: Compliance with the requirements of human rights instruments whether domestic, European or international is part of the mainstream activity of the Department, and, where appropriate, its arm’s length bodies. We are unable to disaggregate the cost of human rights work without incurring disproportionate cost. Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport if he will estimate the cost to his Department and its non-departmental public bodies of implementing and monitoring compliance with legislation transposing EU requirements in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [18889]

Written Answers

886W

John Penrose: Compliance with EU requirements is part of the mainstream activity of the Department, and, where appropriate, its arms length bodies. There are however no records of the costs to the Department in implementing and monitoring compliance with EU requirements. As such no reasonable estimate can be made, save at disproportionate cost. Film Jake Berry: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what consideration he has given to the merits of introducing a UK film quota. [18130]

Mr Vaizey: At a recent roundtable with various organisations involved in the film industry, which discussed how best to strengthen its sustainability, a number of those present commented on the pivotal role played by distribution in the film value chain. This is something we will explore further with the industry in the coming months. Consideration will inevitably be given to all the distribution options available at that stage. Newspaper Press Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what meetings Ministers in his Department have had with (a) Rebekah Brooks, (b) James Murdoch and (c) representatives of News International since 6 September 2010; and if he will [17852] make a statement. Mr Vaizey: Since 6 September 2010, Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have not formally met with Rebekah Brooks, James Murdoch or other representatives of News International Ltd. Olympic Games 2012: Business Andrew Bingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what recent estimate he has made of the average cost to a small business of compliance with the bidding process for contracts related to the London 2012 Olympic Games set out on the [18352] Business Link Olympics website. Mr Prisk: I have been asked to reply. This Department has made no such assessment. The free “CompeteFor” service enables all businesses to compete for many contract opportunities linked to the London 2012 games. However, the actual cost of bidding for such contracts depends on the requirements of the buyer, which may vary, depending on the type of product or service being procured. Business Link advice is available to help bidders.

TRANSPORT Aviation: Carbon Emissions Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent progress he has made in securing agreement at global level on reducing aviation emissions. [18331]

887W

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

Mrs Villiers: At the 37th Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which took place between 28 September and 8 October, a climate change resolution was adopted which agreed the following: A collective, global aspirational goal of carbon neutral growth from 2020 for international aviation in addition to a 2% per year fuel efficiency improvement; 15 guiding principles for the design and implementation of market-based measures for international aviation; Work to develop a framework for market-based measures; Exemptions from certain activities for small emitters; Provisions on assistance for developing states.

While this agreement represents a significant step forward internationally, the UK, along with 43 other European states, placed a collective reservation on those elements of the resolution where we believed more ambition is required and where the text could potentially compromise the effective introduction of aviation into the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) in 2012. A number of other states also placed reservations on this resolution for different reasons. This is the first global sectoral emissions target but the UK remains committed to pressing for more ambitious international action on tackling the climate change impacts of aviation and in the meantime we will continue with preparations to include aviation in the EU ETS. Aviation: Insolvency Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions he has had with Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing on reform of its financial protection scheme; [17690]

(2) if he will bring forward proposals to guard against future failures of tour operators and airlines.

Written Answers

888W

Employment: Legislation Julian Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what employment legislation his Department is responsible; and what progress his Department has made on the Government’s review of employment law. [18927]

Norman Baker: Department for Transport officials are collating information on all employment law that affects the transport sector. This work has had to follow more immediate priorities in the reducing regulation agenda and will be developed in conjunction with the Department for Business Innovation and Skills. Motor Vehicles: Registration Angie Bray: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department is taking to ensure that drivers with foreign number plates are (a) complying with the requirement to register their vehicle properly and (b) if not, if he intends to ensure that this [18521] is enforced. Mike Penning: The Department for Transport has operated a strategy of education, warning and direct enforcement action to help tackle non-compliant unlicensed foreign vehicles. The approach has included presentations to community leaders, articles in the media and the issue of information leaflets. It also involves warning notices being placed on vehicle’s windscreens. If there is evidence that a foreign vehicle is in breach of the rules, it can be clamped and impounded.

[17691]

Mrs Villiers: We are taking the need to update the Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing (ATOL) financial protection scheme very seriously, and are working on what can be done to ensure that it remains relevant to today’s travel market. The Department for Transport is having ongoing discussions with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) regarding possible options for reforming ATOL and we hope to be able to make an announcement soon. The finances of UK airlines are regularly monitored by the CAA as a condition of the operating licences issued by the authority, which should reduce the risk of failure. I understand that the European Commission is considering the options for airline insolvency protection across the EU. Driving Offences: Visits Abroad Mr Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many motorists had their driving licence endorsed with points for offences committed while overseas in [19457] each of the last five years. Mike Penning: There is no mutual recognition of penalty points between Great Britain and other countries, therefore the answer is none.

Railways: Finance Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has made an estimate of the expenditure by each train operating company on (a) stations and (b) [18371] ticketing systems in the last 10 years. Mrs Villiers [holding answer 20 October 2010]: Ministers have not made an estimate of the expenditure by each train operating company on either stations or ticketing systems in the last 10 years. Roads: Accidents Simon Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road traffic (a) accidents, (b) fatalities, (c) accidents involving motorcyclists, (d) fatalities involving motorcyclists, (e) accidents involving cyclists and (f) fatalities involving cyclists there were in (i) Norfolk and (ii) Norwich South constituency in each of [19122] the last five years. Mike Penning: The information requested is shown in the following table.

889W

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

Reported personal injury road accidents and fatalities, accidents involving motorcyclists and pedal cyclists and fatalities in these accidents: Norfolk local authority and Norwich South constituency1: 2005-09 Year of accident 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Norfolk All accidents All fatalities Accidents involving motorcyclists Fatalities in accidents involving motorcyclists2 Accidents involving pedal cyclists Fatalities in accidents involving pedal cyclists2

Written Answers

890W

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE Armed Forces: Children Mr Gregory Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions he has raised the issue of child soldiering with his counterparts in those countries where the [19045] practice is prevalent since his appointment.

2,653 65 386

2,354 66 385

2,411 56 386

2,074 38 351

1,962 50 310

8

10

16

14

10

Mr Bellingham: In his speech on ‘Britain’s Values in a networked world’ on 15 September 2010, my right hon. friend the Foreign Secretary said:

245

211

233

216

233

“Our starting point for engagement on human rights with all countries will be based on what is practical, realistic and achievable, although we will always be ready to speak out as a matter of principle.”

6

5

2

1

1

Norwich South1 All accidents 352 285 306 255 256 All fatalities 1 2 2 0 1 Accidents 69 50 55 43 43 involving motorcyclists 0 1 1 0 0 Fatalities in accidents involving motorcyclists2 Accidents 83 65 60 58 73 involving pedal cyclists 0 0 1 0 0 Fatalities in accidents involving pedal cyclists2 1 Based on 2010 constituency boundary. 2 Includes fatalities to other road users, not just the road user type specified.

Transport: Finance Rachel Reeves: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he made of transport spending per head in (a) England, (b) the UK, (c) Yorkshire and the Humber, (d) London, (e) the North West, (f) the West Midlands and (g) the North East in 2008-09.

Although my right hon. friend the Foreign Secretary has not yet had occasion to raise the issue of child soldiering in bilateral contacts since his appointment, our ambassadors overseas do so as a matter of course with relevant interlocutors. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office also maintains regular contacts with the Office of the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary General on Children and Armed Conflict, and used the UN Open debate on 16 June and the 15th session of the UN Human Rights Council on 13 September 2010 to press for further action by serious offenders. We will continue to call for protection of children in armed conflict, and encourage co-operation of armed groups and national governments with the United Nations in particular. Nagorno-Karabakh Robert Halfon: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to seek to secure progress in respect of the [18505] political situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. Mr Lidington: I have recently encouraged both Azerbaijan and Armenia to work with the Minsk Group towards a durable peaceful settlement, and to avoid unhelpful exchanges of rhetoric. I spoke to the Armenian Foreign Minister, Edward Nalbandian, on 18 October, and met President Aliyev, Foreign Minister Mammadyarov and other key figures during my visit to Azerbaijan on 20 and 21 October and delivered these messages, reiterating the UK’s support for the Minsk Group process.

[17033]

Norman Baker: The HM Treasury annual publication Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA) details identifiable transport expenditure per head for 2008-09 as follows: (a) England: £314; (b) the UK £334;

Transcaucasus: British Nationals Abroad Robert Halfon: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has made a recent estimate of the number of British nationals resident in (a) Armenia, (b) Azerbaijan and (c) Georgia. [18503]

(c) Yorkshire and the Humber £248; (d) London £641; (e) the North West £287; (f) the West Midlands £259; and (g) the North East £234.

Mr Lidington: The most recent estimates from our embassies in the South Caucasus are that there are the following numbers of British residents: (a) around 50 in Armenia, (b) around 2,000 in Azerbaijan, and (c) around 200 in Georgia.

891W

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

Zimbabwe: Politics and Government Mr Gregory Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss with his counterparts in southern African countries the implications for the stability of the region of the announcement by President Mugabe of his intention to [19046] end the coalition government in Zimbabwe. Mr Bellingham: We discuss the situation in Zimbabwe regularly with our interlocutors at all levels in the southern African region, including its regional implications. We will continue to do so. Despite President Mugabe’s recent announcements, the Inclusive Government remains in place with no date set for elections. In his statement of 7 October Prime Minister Tsvangirai reaffirmed his commitment to the Inclusive Government, which continues to offer the only credible means of transforming Zimbabwe and delivering basic services to its people. We will continue to support President Zuma and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) in their efforts to facilitate discussion between the parties in Zimbabwe and to press for the reforms outlined in the Global Political Agreement. Credible and properly conducted elections will be key to Zimbabwe’s future. We, with our international partners, will continue to work closely with the region to try and achieve this.

Written Answers

892W

CABINET OFFICE Departmental Carbon Emissions Jeremy Lefroy: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office whether he has made an estimate of the change in the level of carbon dioxide emissions from his Department since May 2010; and what steps he plans to take to meet his Department’s target of reducing such emissions by 10 per cent. by May 2011. [16803] Mr Maude: Since May 2010, the Cabinet Office has reduced the carbon emissions from its estate by 9.1% compared to the same period last year. The Department is currently taking forward a series of projects aimed at further reducing its carbon footprint, and meeting the target. These include measures such as the installation of voltage optimisation kit, power factor correction and improving the insulation of buildings on the estate. Departmental Visits Abroad David Simpson: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much his Department spent on overseas visits for senior officials of (a) his Department, (b) the Prime Minister’s Office, (c) the Leader of the House’s Office and (d) the Deputy Prime Minister’s office in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [18419]

Mr Maude: Details of expenses incurred by the Cabinet Office’s senior officials can be found on its website: INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/about-cabinet-office/plansperformance/expenses.aspx

Departmental Visits Abroad

Honours

David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much his Department spent on overseas visits for senior officials in the last [18407] 12 months for which figures are available.

Mr Laurence Robertson: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office whether he plans to review the honours and awards system with a view to changing eligibility [19008] criteria; and if he will make a statement.

Mr Duncan: The Department for International Development (DFID) spent £108,421 on overseas visits for senior officials during the 12 months ending in June 2010.

Mr Maude: The system of state honours and awards is kept under continuous review. At the request of the Prime Minister, the independent honours committees are now seeking to give particular weight to candidates who have been working in support of the Big Society.

Somalia: Overseas Aid

Public Bodies Mr Gregory Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions he has had on steps to ensure the safety of UK-based [19047] aid workers in Somalia. Mr Andrew Mitchell: The UK Government take the safety of British aid workers in Somalia very seriously at all times. The Department for International Development (DFID) works closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and other agencies to assess threats and vulnerabilities. The FCO currently advises against all travel to Somalia. Where UK-based aid organisations decide to work in Somalia and choose to discuss this with the UK Government, we make them aware of travel advice and the need for them to ensure that they have adequate security measures in place. The FCO would attempt to provide all possible consular assistance in Somalia, although it should be noted that there is no current HMG representation in the country.

Mr Bain: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office pursuant to the statement of 14 October 2010, Official Report, columns 505-06, what estimate he has made of the wind-up and reorganisation costs in respect of the closure of the non-departmental public bodies, nonministerial departments and public corporations referred to in the statement in each of the next five [18183] years. Mr Maude: All costs associated with public bodies reform, including redundancies, will be met from within each Department’s budgetary settlement as determined by the spending review. Mr Bain: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office pursuant to the statement of 14 October 2010, Official Report, columns 505-06, what estimate he has made of the net savings likely to accrue from closure of

893W

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

Written Answers

894W

the non-departmental public bodies, non-ministerial departments and public corporations referred to in the [18184] statement in each of the next five years.

Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply. Letter from Stephen Penneck, dated October 2010:

Mr Maude: The primary purpose of the quango review is to increase accountability; however, savings will also be generated through cutting down on duplication, executive pay, administrative overheads and communications. From closing RDAs we expect to save £270 million, and from BELTA we expect to save £80 million. However we have purposely not put an overall figure on this as it is down to individual Departments to develop their own implementation plans.

As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking what estimate he has made of the proportion of gross domestic product used to pay interest on the national debt (a) between 1980 and 1990, (b) between 2000 and 2006 and (c) between 2006 and 2010. For the purposes of your question, we have interpreted ’interest on the national debt’ to mean interest and dividends paid by all parts of the public sector, including local authorities and public corporations. Statistics for the 2010 calendar year are not yet available. Interest and dividends paid by the public sector, expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product, were as follows: a) 1980 to 1990 inclusive: 4.6% b) 2000 to 2006 inclusive: 2.2% c) 2006 to 2009 inclusive: 2.1% For information, I have attached a table, as an Excel spreadsheet, giving data for each of the calendar years 1980 to 2009 inclusive.

Public Sector Debt: Interest Charges Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what estimate he has made of the proportion of gross domestic product used to pay interest on the national debt (a) between 1980 and 1990, (b) between 2000 and 2006 and (c) between 2006 and 2010. [18035]

I Public sector: Interest and dividends paid to private sector and rest of world (£ million)

Public sector interest and dividends as a proportion of GDP II II Gross Domestic Product Public sector: Interest at current prices and dividends paid as % (£ million) of GDP

1980

11,567

233,184

5.0

1981

13,838

256,279

5.4

1982

15,144

281,024

5.4

1983

15,737

307,207

5.1

1984

17,220

329,913

5.2

1985

18,743

361,758

5.2

1986

18,920

389,149

4.9

1987

19,612

428,665

4.6

1988

19,949

478,510

4.2

1989

20,850

525,274

4.0

1990

20,720

570,283

3.6

1991

18,523

598,664

3.1

1992

18,691

622,080

3.0

1993

19,896

654,196

3.0

1994

22,813

692,987

3.3

1995

26,054

733,266

3.6

1996

27,476

781,726

3.5

1997

29,163

830,094

3.5

1998

29,930

879,102

3.4

1999

26,136

928,730

2.8

2000

26,200

976,533

2.7

2001

23,722

1,021,828

2.3

2002

21,576

1,075,564

2.0

2003

22,836

1,139,746

2.0

2004

23,892

1,202,956

2.0

2005

26,513

1,254,058

2.1

2006

27,774

1,328,363

2.1

2007

31,774

1,404,845

2.3

Period

Public sector: Interest and dividends paid as % of GDP

1980 to 1990

4.6

2000 to 2006

2.2

895W

Written Answers

I Public sector: Interest and dividends paid to private sector and rest of world (£ million)

22 OCTOBER 2010

896W

Written Answers

Public sector interest and dividends as a proportion of GDP II II Gross Domestic Product Public sector: Interest at current prices and dividends paid as % (£ million) of GDP

2008

32,943

1,445,580

2.3

2009

27,271

1,392,634

2.0

2010

—

—

—

Period

Public sector: Interest and dividends paid as % of GDP

2006 to 2009

2.1 —

Voluntary Organisations

Departmental Work Experience

Dr Whitehead: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what research his Department has undertaken on the effects of public spending reductions on demand [18081] for services provided by the voluntary sector.

Luciana Berger: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many interns his Department has engaged in the last 12 months; and how many were (a) unpaid, (b) remunerated with expenses only and (c) paid a salary. [17220]

Mr Hurd: The Government recognise this is a particularly challenging time for the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector and are working closely with partners in the sector, across Government, and at the Third Sector Research Centre to understand and mitigate the impact of public spending reductions on the sector. It is currently too early to assess the impact of these reductions on demand for voluntary sector services; however recent research has demonstrated the increasing demand for services as a result of the recession, in conjunction with a more difficult funding situation. The Government remain committed to ensuring the sector can play a key role in building a stronger civil society and are working to open up a range of opportunities for the sector. This includes a £100 million fund to support the sector in the transition to delivering public services. We are also working to open up new sources of funding through the Big Society Bank. Throughout this the Government are dedicated to limiting the impact of spending reductions on the sector and are working with local partners and the sector to share best practice in reducing spending.

TREASURY Departmental Internet Lisa Nandy: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 14 September 2010, Official Report, column 969W, what assessment he has made of the merits of moderating submissions to his Department’s Spending Challenge website before they are posted to [16772] that site. Danny Alexander: The Government received over 100,000 suggestions through the Spending Challenge website, including over 45,000 from members of the public. We were clear that offensive and inappropriate ideas were not welcome and, initially, a team of moderators pro-actively reviewed ideas post-publication to ensure compliance with our moderation policy. In response to a small number of malicious attacks on the website, the Government took steps to disable interactive features and pre-moderate ideas submitted prior to publication.

Justine Greening: In the past 12 months HM Treasury has engaged 42 paid student placements, all of which were paid above the national minimum wage. There is no central record of unpaid placements which are occasionally arranged on an ad-hoc basis. EC Budget Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had at EU level on the orientation of priorities for the reform of the EU budget in the period 2014-20; and if he will make a statement. [18340] Justine Greening: The Government engage regularly and actively on EU reform issues with other EU member states and with our EU partners at all levels. Discussion of the EU budget for the post-2013 period began just days ago with the publication of the European Commission’s Budget Review document. We are keen to engage in a thorough debate around reform of the EU budget. We will highlight in our discussions with our European partners that the Government aim first and foremost to reduce the overall level of EU spending, in line with the tough budgetary decisions that member states are taking domestically. We will also continue to press the case for re-prioritisation of EU-level spending, with a view to enhancing the effectiveness and value-added of EU Budget expenditure within a smaller envelope. EU Budget Mr Clappison: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications for his Department’s policies of (a) the European Commission’s recent proposals for reforms of the EU budget and (b) the likely effect of such proposals on the future of the [19050] UK budgetary rebate. Justine Greening: We welcome the Commission’s focus on the need for reform of the Budget to support the EU’s priorities—in particular economic growth. But the Review does not go anywhere near far enough on recognising the economic and fiscal context. We need to see a much stronger focus on prioritisation and where savings can be made. The UK will not support a new

897W

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

Written Answers

898W

EU tax, and such proposals are a distraction from the key issues of how to reduce spending and best support the economy. The Prime Minister also made clear that we will not support any increase to the EU Budget in the next Financial Perspective. The document made no specific proposals on the UK abatement. The Government are committed to preserving the UK abatement. Income Tax: Gateshead

On 22 September 2010 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills announced his intention to conduct a comprehensive review into corporate governance and economic shorttermism. This review will be published shortly and we will consult on this issue.

Ian Mearns: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people in Gateshead borough (a) who will pay no income tax as a result of the increase in personal allowance from April 2011 and (b) who were in employment but below the income tax threshold in each of the last three years.

Peter Bottomley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the tax revenue foregone in respect of the exemption from value added tax of Royal Mail’s business mail services in each year since 2005-06. [18384]

[18423]

Justine Greening: The personal allowance for under 65s will be increased by £1,000 in April 2011, with the gains limited to basic rate taxpayers. The Government have estimated that the 880,000 lowest income taxpayers will be removed from tax altogether. However, the information requested is not available at district level clue to small survey sample sizes at this level of geography, and because the information is based on 2007-08 survey data which would not be reliable for this purpose. Available information on incomes and tax by district based on the latest available Survey of Personal Incomes (2007-08) can be found in Table 3.14 ‘Income and tax by borough and district or unitary authority’: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_distribution/menu.htm

Please take into account the confidence intervals in table 3.14a ‘Income and tax by borough and district or unitary authority, Confidence Intervals’. Estimates of numbers of employed persons earning below the income tax threshold are not available from HM Revenue and Customs data sources as these are fully representative of taxpayers only. Estimates using Office for National Statistics surveys would not be reliable due to small sample sizes associated with the specific information requested. Public Finance Mr Knight: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on his plans to publish details of all new Government spending over £25,000 [18101] from November 2010. Danny Alexander: All Departments are on course to meet the new publication requirements. These requirements are to publish expenditure over £25,000 for April to September by the end of October 2010, and then to publish this information on a monthly basis from November 2010 onwards. A small number of Departments have already published their datasets ahead of the end October deadline. Shares Rehman Chishti: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has assessed the effects of different classes of shares with differential voting rights on the long-term [18532] profitability of public limited companies. Mr Davey: I have been asked to reply.

VAT: Royal Mail

Justine Greening: Figures for the cost of the general postal services exemption are published on HM Revenue and Customs’ (HMRC) website at: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_expenditures/tablel-5.xls

HMRC does not provide figures for specific business activities as this would breach taxpayer confidentiality.

HEALTH Advisory Group for National Specialised Services Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to announce the future arrangements for (a) national specialist commissioning and (b) the functions and remit of the new Advisory Group for [18346] National Specialised Services. Mr Simon Burns: Our White Paper “Equity and Excellence—Liberating the NHS” published on 12 July includes our future intentions for the commissioning of specialised services. It proposes that specialised services should in the future be commissioned by the National Health Service Commissioning Board. The Advisory Group for National Specialised Services (AGNSS) was established following the consultation “Strengthening National Commissioning”. The results of the consultation were announced in March 2010. The role of AGNSS is to advise on: which services and technologies should be nationally commissioned; which centres should provide them; the annual budget for nationally commissioned services and technologies; and the high level strategy for nationally commissioned services and technologies.

AGNSS is an independent stakeholder advisory group. Further details are available at: www.specialisedservices.nhs.uk/info/agnss

Cancer: Children Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent estimate he has made of the average life expectancy of a child with osteosarcoma who is [18345] being treated with conventional treatments. Paul Burstow: We know that the prognosis for children diagnosed with osteosarcoma is significantly better when the cancer is found early and has not spread from the bone to other parts of the body. The national health

899W

Written Answers

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

service is expected to ensure that patients with cancer, are treated by the right person, with the appropriate expertise, within the agreed waiting times standards. This Government are committed to improving outcomes for all cancer patients. We have asked National Cancer Director, Professor Sir Mike Richards, to lead a review of the Cancer Reform Strategy (CRS) to align this with proposals in the White Paper to create an NHS that is more responsive to patients’ needs. The review will set the direction for cancer services up till 2015, taking account of progress since the CRS was published in December 2007; and show how outcomes can be improved for all cancer patients. It is not possible to generate an estimate of life expectancy for children undergoing treatment for osteosarcoma. This is because survival data is not available for people below 15 years of age. Cancer: Drugs Jim Shannon: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will reverse the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence’s decision on the funding of lifeextending drugs for cancer patients; and if he will make [19057] a statement. Paul Burstow: We have no plans to do so. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is an independent body. Its decisions are based on a thorough assessment of the available evidence and its guidance is developed free from political interference. An extra £50 million has already been made available in the current financial year to fund additional national health service cancer drugs in England. Building on this, the Cancer Drugs Fund will, from April 2011, provide cancer patients in England with greater access to the clinically effective drugs their doctors think will help extend or improve their quality of life. Following publication of the spending review, we will publish our consultation on arrangements for the Cancer Drugs Fund very soon. This consultation will set out the available funding for the next three years, along with detail on how we anticipate the fund will operate. Circumcision Andrea Leadsom: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment his Department has made of the likely effects on health of circumcision of [19052] male infants. Paul Burstow: The Department has made no recent assessments of the likely effects on health of circumcision of male infants. Andrea Leadsom: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department issues to GPs and health care professionals on the circumcision of [19053] male infants. Paul Burstow: The Department has not published guidance on male circumcision. General guidance is that doctors should communicate treatment options, outcomes and risks with the patient and gain consent for any procedure. Doctors should make every effort to discuss with parents what is in the best interests of the

900W

child. The welfare of infants must be paramount, whatever the reason for undertaking the procedure. Any medical procedure must be undertaken in hygienic conditions, with appropriate pain relief and aftercare. Dementia: Drugs Mrs Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence on its review of dementia drugs. [18522] Paul Burstow: We have had no such discussions with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). NICE is currently carrying out a routine review of its technology appraisal guidance on the use of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. NICE is an independent body. Its guidance is based on a thorough assessment of the available evidence and is developed free from political interference. Dental Services Dr Pugh: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the role of local dental committees will be in the restructured NHS referred to in his Department’s White Paper, “Equity and Excellence: Liberating the [18229] NHS”. Mr Simon Burns: Local dental committees would continue to exist and it is anticipated they would fulfil a similar statutory role under the proposals set out in the White Paper, “Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS”. Further details will be available at the introduction of the Health Bill into Parliament, which will follow later this year. Departmental Sick Leave Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for Health for how many days on average his Department’s staff in each pay grade were absent from work as a result of ill [18573] health in 2009-10. Mr Simon Burns: The information is as follows: Grade

1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 Average working days lost

Administrative officer Executive officer Higher executive officer Senior executive officer Grade 7 Grade 6 SCS Overall

9.2 6.9 5.7 4.0 3.7 2.7 1.6 4.5

Diseases: EU Action Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken to ensure compliance with the Council Recommendation on European Action in the field of rare diseases adopted [18342] on 8 June 2009.

901W

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

Written Answers

902W

Mr Simon Burns: Officials in the Department have held meetings with the devolved Administrations and also met with several key stakeholders as part of the development of a plan for rare diseases. The plan will be ready by 2013 in line with the council recommendation.

arrangements. The most recent meetings were held on 27 and 28 September and included discussions on current and possible future changes to general practitioner contractual arrangements across the four United Kingdom countries.

Epilepsy

Health Centres: North Yorkshire

Teresa Pearce: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what epilepsy awareness training is provided to paramedics working in the National Health Service.

Julian Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spent on external consultants for the building of new health centres in Bentham and Settle in 2009-10. [18931]

[18689]

Mr Simon Burns: The Department expects the local national health service to have arrangements in place for managing the treatment of all types of seizures, including epilepsy. Epilepsy awareness is a focus throughout ambulance training levels, from those administering basic first aid through to paramedics and staff are expected to act in line with specific clinical guidelines such as those set out in the Joint Royal Colleges Ambulance Liaison Committee’s clinical practice guidelines. A copy of the clinical guidelines is available on the Joint Royal Colleges Ambulance Liaison Committee’s website at: www.jrcalc.org.uk/guidelines.html

General Practitioners: Finance Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 15 September 2010, Official Report, columns 1110-11W, on general practitioners: finance, how the formula for the allocation of funding by the NHS Commissioning Board to GP consortia will [18526] take account of levels of need. Mr Simon Burns: This will be a matter for the NHS Commissioning Board. However, the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation will continue to advise the Secretary of State on the equitable distribution of national health service resources during the transition period. Currently, a weighted capitation formula, based on a programme of statistical and economics research, determines the target allocation for each primary care trust. The formula is made up of several components including an adjustment to reflect differences in the age and morbidity of the population and an adjustment to reflect other factors that affect the need for health care, including a number linked to deprivation such as the proportion of the local population with no qualifications and the numbers claiming pension credit. Further details about the future allocations process and the distribution of resources will be announced in due course.

Mr Simon Burns: The Department did not spend any money on external consultants for the building of health centres in Bentham and Settle in 2009-10. North Yorkshire and York primary care trust, and the Yorkshire and the Humber Medical Deanery may have done so, but this information is not centrally available. NHS Dr Pugh: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he plans to put in place to ensure effective co-operation between the NHS Commissioning Board and local health and well-being boards. [18231] Mr Simon Burns: The consultation document, “Liberating the NHS: local democratic legitimacy in health”, which has already been placed in the Library, set out how the NHS Commissioning Board might relate to proposed health and well-being boards. The Government intend to publish further details on its proposals later this year, following the consultation and engagement that has taken place over the summer. NHS: Pensions Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the net cash requirement for the NHS pension scheme was in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and whether any excess was paid into the Consolidated Fund as income in each [18816] year in which the requirement was negative. Mr Simon Burns: The information requested is only available in the form requested after 2002-03. The following table includes data from the most recent seven years on the net cash requirement for the NHS Pension Scheme as well as details of the actual cash paid to the Consolidated Fund.

Net cash requirement

General Practitioners: Wales Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with Welsh Assembly Government Ministers on the effect of his proposed reforms to the duties of general practitioners on the terms and conditions of general practitioners in Wales. [18671]

Mr Simon Burns: Departmental officials meet regularly with officials from the devolved Administrations, including in respect of primary medical care contractual

£000 Actual cash repaid to the consolidated fund in the financial year

2009-10 0 1,964,081 2008-09 0 2,063,404 2007-08 0 2,257,971 2006-07 0 2,994,770 2005-06 0 2,068,614 2004-05 0 1,942,371 2003-04 25,000 1,874,969 2002-03 45,750 293,574 Source: Schedule 1 of the NHS Pension Scheme and NHS Compensation for Premature Retirement Scheme Resource Accounts

903W

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

Organs: Donors Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the cost to the public purse was of payments to external communications agencies for the purpose of promoting organ donation and the organ donation register in (a) 2008-09 and (b) 2009-10; [18347]

(2) how much his Department spent on organ donation communication campaigning in (a) 2008-09 and (b) [18348] 2009-10. Anne Milton: A public awareness campaign on organ donation was a recommendation of the Organ Donation Taskforce (ODTF) first report “Organs for Transplants” published in January 2008. The Department of Health provided specific funding to NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) to take this recommendation forward. The amounts paid to external communication agencies for the purpose of promoting organ donation and the organ donation register for 2008-09 and 2009-10 are set out in table 1. The total amount of money spent by NHSBT on the organ donation communication campaign in 2008-09 and 2009-10 is set out in table 2. The figures in table 2 are for total spend and therefore include the figures set out in table 1. The campaign, launched in November 2009, included television, radio, press, digital advertising, roadshows in major cities and targeted messages to black and minority ethnic (BME) communities as well as campaign evaluation.

Type of agency

Table 1 Amount ex VAT (£)

2008-09 Communications planning 2009-10 Advertising

Communications planning Public relations

Organ donation taskforce scoping

433,506.00

Media commission and press production costs Media commission Agency fees

278,121.00

Agency specialising in targeting black and minority ethnic groups

25,000.00

904W

These include providing people with information about risks and safer sex and through provision of open access confidential genito-urinary medicine (GUM) clinics. Quick access to GUM services is important to diagnose and reduce the spread of infections. In August 2010, 99.6% of people were offered an appointment to be seen within 48 hours at a GUM clinic. This means that more people are being tested early and having infections detected, preventing onward transmission. The National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP) aims to control the most prevalent STI, Chlamydia, through opportunistic screening of asymptomatic infections and early detection and treatment, therefore preventing complications and reducing onward transmission. Since the launch of the NCSP, over 3.6 million young people have been tested and over 266,000 have tested positive. The Health Protection Agency has in place comprehensive surveillance systems that can detect outbreaks as well as monitor trends and inform prevention programmes. The agency also has a lead role locally, regionally and nationally in coordinating investigations and respond to and control of outbreaks/epidemics of STIs such as infectious syphilis and lymphogranuloma venereum. We know that more needs to be done to ensure all people regardless of age get the right information and advice at the right time to make responsible choices, to increase awareness of risks, to prevent infection, to access screening and treatment, and we are considering how we can tackle these issues. Later this year we will publish the Public Health White Paper which will set out a cross-government strategy for public health and plans for the new Public Health Service. Speech and Language Disorders

Detail

4,250.00

40,513.00

Written Answers

Jim Shannon: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether local authorities administer funding provided by his Department for speech and language services on his Department’s behalf; and if he will make a statement. [19055]

Anne Milton: I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave him on 18 October 2010, Official Report, column 580W.

Agency fees

JUSTICE Departmental Visits Abroad

Table 2 £ Costs to promote organ donation Total Note: Costs exclude VAT.

2008-09

2009-10

5,160.00

5,634,531.76

Sexually Transmitted Diseases Jim Shannon: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department has put in place to prevent epidemics of sexually-transmitted diseases; and [19056] if he will make a statement. Mr Simon Burns: There are a range of measures in place to control the spread of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and prevent epidemics.

David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much his Department spent on overseas visits for senior officials in the last 12 months for which [18406] figures are available. Mr Djanogly: The Ministry of Justice’s accounting systems do not differentiate between expenditure by members of the senior civil service and junior officials. It would incur disproportionate costs to examine and investigate every transaction to see which grade of staff it related to. Medway Secure Training Centre: Restraint Techniques Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 11 October 2010, Official Report, column 144W, on the Medway Secure Training

905W

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

Centre: restraint techniques, how many (a) minor and (b) serious injuries there were in (i) 2007-08 and (ii) [18339] 2008-09. Mr Blunt: All secure establishments submit monthly data returns to the Youth Justice Board (YJB) on the number of injuries from restrictive physical interventions (RPI). Data on injuries are reported against common definitions of minor injury requiring medical treatment (which includes cuts, scratches and grazes) and serious injury requiring hospital treatment (which includes fractures and loss of consciousness). Data have been collected on the injuries arising from RPI from secure establishments since April 2007 and these figures have been provided in the table for Medway Secure Training Centre.

2007-08 2008-09

Minor injury requiring treatment

Serious injury requiring hospital treatment

67 38

0 0

This information has been provided by the YJB. These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing and may be subject to change over time. Offenders: Alcoholic Drinks Mrs Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many weeks on average elapsed between the registration of an offender in an offender behaviour programme on (a) alcohol or substance abuse and (b) domestic violence and the start of the programme in the latest period for which figures are available. [18383] Mr Blunt: Waiting times for programmes are managed locally by each probation trust and prison. This information is not collated centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by obtaining information held on offender files or on local data systems, validating it, and then collating it in a common format in order to provide a response. Offenders: Incentives and Earned Privilege Scheme John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many offenders (a) were on the basic level of the incentives and earned privilege scheme and (b) have been placed on that level of the scheme following a finding of guilt at adjudication in the last 12 months; [18328] (2) how many offenders in each prison establishment were on each level of the incentives and earned privilege scheme on the latest date for which figures are [18329] available; and if he will make a statement; (3) for what types of offence against prison rules an offender may be placed on the basic level of the incentives and earned privilege scheme; and if he will [18330] make a statement. Mr Blunt: At the end of September 2010, the total number of prisoners on the basic level of the Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme was 1,386. The adjudication process and the incentives and earned privileges scheme are two separate schemes and therefore operate

Written Answers

906W

independently of each other. No prisoner can be downgraded simply by an adjudication as this is not one of the punishments available to adjudicators. However, an adjudication could be part of a pattern of behaviour leading to a downgrade and punishments also include forfeiture of any of the privileges available under the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme. Forfeiture can be for up to 42 days for adult prisoners and 21 days for young offenders. Data obtained at the end of September 2010 for the three different levels of the incentives and earned privileges scheme at each prison establishment is as follows: Prison Acklington Albany Altcourse Ashfield Ashwell Askham Grange Aylesbury Bedford Belmarsh Birmingham Blantyre House Blundeston Brinsford Bristol Brixton Bronzefield Buckley Hall Bullingdon Bullwood Hall Bure Camp Hill Canterbury Cardiff Castington Channings Wood Chelmsford Coldingley Cookham Wood Dartmoor Deerbolt Doncaster Dorchester Dovegate Downview Drake Hall Durham East Sutton Park Eastwood Park Edmunds Hill Elmley Erlestoke Everthorpe

Basic

Standard

Enhanced

7 5 49 55 0 0

459 243 682 199 38 25

414 316 497 51 175 101

19 6 22 4 0

250 387 825 1,068 0

170 94 121 357 121

3 9 7 7 4 7

235 342 442 612 361 115

280 173 139 140 128 254

15 0

779 120

260 107

4 7 1 6 0 6

227 222 173 627 59 301

282 358 130 184 23 415

21 4 18

491 168 85

171 334 31

2 12 23 1 8 2 3 8 0

221 394 865 181 585 131 78 706 0

285 86 212 39 557 191 208 206 90

4

208

107

6

207

166

15 2 15

830 88 262

329 277 402

907W Prison Exeter Featherstone Feltham Ford Forest Bank Foston Hall Frankland Full Sutton Garth Gartree Glen Parva Gloucester Grendon Guys Marsh Haverigg Hewell High Down Highpoint Hindley Hollesley Bay Holloway Holme House Hull Kennet Kingston Kirkham Kirklevington Lancaster Lancaster Farms Latchmere House Leeds Leicester Lewes Leyhill Lincoln Lindholme Littlehey Liverpool Long Lartin Low Newton Lowdham Grange Maidstone Manchester Moorland—closed Moorland—open Morton Hall Mount New Hall North Sea Camp Northallerton Norwich Nottingham Onley

Written Answers

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

Basic

Standard

Enhanced

9 12 35 0 29

413 293 508 158 942

95 348 121 380 376

7 33 10 7 4 42 2 0 5

130 319 196 205 97 534 222 23 262

101 466 373 626 569 145 86 503 239

20 6 11 22 20 2

174 974 815 402 213 55

441 401 237 516 79 298

5 6

342 798

111 173

25 3 0 0 0 1 14

601 96 14 70 231 120 325

352 230 184 507 38 118 151

0

0

202

3 10 3 0 7 14 16 8 7

791 225 340 97 412 372 666 970 302

239 121 118 415 182 602 407 246 305

5

149

62

15

123

787

0 14 14 0 1

207 816 483 35 198

386 342 281 213 107

14 18 2

264 227 17

483 126 293

6 14 17 20

145 576 835 234

42 140 193 437

Prison Parc Parkhurst Pentonville Peterborough—female Peterborough—male Portland Preston Ranby Reading Risley Rochester Rye Hill Send Shepton Mallet Shrewsbury Stafford Standford Hill Stocken Stoke Heath Styal Sudbury Swaleside Swansea Swinfen Hall Thorn Cross Usk/ Prescoed Verne Wakefield Wandsworth Warren Hill Wayland Wealstun Wellingborough Werrington Wetherby Whatton Whitemoor Winchester Wolds Woodhill Wormwood Scrubs Wymott Total

908W

Basic

Standard

Enhanced

20 13 23 5 37 12 13 13 0 30 17 8 3 0

682 171 908 246 461 277 581 466 132 500 444 148 67 7

415 334 277 83 109 172 174 576 82 557 215 442 204 178

1 3 1

178 332 83

134 394 357

15 27

419 390

399 152

5 3 26 3 14

304 50 309 315 252

111 518 750 106 354

7

87

197

0

99

329

10 21 16 19 19 6 7 16 12 3 3 5 1 17 3

171 392 1,252 94 499 331 229 64 220 252 151 528 111 610 1,064

420 327 346 62 478 402 279 29 90 565 295 158 278 170 191

4 1,386

632 46,815

519 36,202

Prisoners are placed on basic level where they have failed to meet local criteria for admission to standard and enhanced levels. The types of behaviour for which prisoners might, following an Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme review, be placed on basic would include assault, bullying or intimidating behaviour, being in possession of unauthorised drugs or alcohol, non compliance with mandatory drug testing and theft. Prisons: Racial Hatred Mrs Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps his Department has taken to counter racism [18327] in establishments on the prison estate.

909W

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

Mr Blunt: The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) has overseen a sustained programme of work to tackle racism in prisons. The most recent published assessment is contained in “Race Review 2008”, and is available from the House Library. The review, overseen by an independent advisory group and described as ‘honest and rigorous’ by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, concluded that good systems and processes are in place in prisons and that blatant forms of racism have been largely eradicated. However it also concluded that the experiences of black and minority ethnic prisoners and staff have not been transformed and that there remained evidence of differential treatment of black and minority ethnic prisoners. A further programme of work is set out in “Promoting Equality in Prisons and Probation: the NOMS Single Equality Scheme 2009-2012”, also available in the Library, and progress on this will be reported in the 2009-10 annual equalities report which will be published later this year. Probation Officers: Working Hours Mrs Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate he has made of the average proportion of working hours spent by probation officers (a) in contact with offenders and (b) on administrative tasks in the latest period for which figures are available. [18324]

Mr Blunt: Delivery structures across probation areas vary as do the requirements of specific roles, and the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) does not routinely report on the proportion of working time spent in face to face contact with offenders. In December 2008, NOMS undertook a snapshot survey over a one-week period, based on a small sample of probation officer (PO) and probation service officer (PSO) staff. It reported that across England and Wales 24% of PO/PSO time was spent in direct contact with offenders, 41% was involved in computer activity and 35% of time was spent on non-computer—dealing with correspondence, meetings, travel, etc. The reporting of the results against only three main headings means that much of the detail is open to interpretation. For example, it could reasonably be argued that time spent on computer activity involving the production of reports and assessments is work on individual cases. Even if only about three-quarters of this time were included as work on cases this gives a picture of more like 54% of time being spent on work with individual offenders. The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) is taking a number of actions to increase the amount of contact time between probation staff and offenders. These include: allocating resources to the assessment and management of offenders according to the level of risk; as part of the Probation Trusts Programme all areas (including locally initiated mergers) have identified efficiencies through for example the reduction in management overheads, and development, of shared services, to the benefit of front-line staffing levels; a national programme of specifying probation work, and benchmarking performance, to support the effective deployment of front-line staff; identifying opportunities for reducing bureaucracy and other demands currently placed on front-line staff;

Written Answers

910W

expanding the use of video conferencing to reduce the time probation staff spend travelling to interview prisoners; and initiating the Offender Engagement Programme to evaluate and improve the quality of face to face work with offenders, its impact on re-offending, and identify and reduce any barriers to that work taking place. A pilot in Surrey and Sussex Probation Trust to enable the use of professional judgment in deciding how to work most effectively with each individual.

Within the financial constraints placed on all public services NOMS is committed to ensuring that resources continue to be targeted on front-line work. Probation Service: Offenders Mrs Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many offenders have been held under supervision by probation service providers in each of the last five [18325] years. Mr Blunt The following table shows the total case load of offenders supervised by the probation service as at 31 December in each of the last five years. Probation service case load, England and Wales, 2005-09 Total 2005 224,094 2006 235,029 2007 242,722 2008 243,434 2009 241,504 Note: Includes those supervised on court orders as well as post-release supervision.

The data within the table are taken from table 1.2 of the publication “Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009” and can be found at the website: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/ prisonandprobation.htm

These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. Terrorism: Compensation Mr Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many of those seriously injured in the 7/7 attacks in London are still awaiting compensation; and if he [18611] will make a statement. Mr Djanogly: The vast majority of cases lodged with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority have been settled. They received 650 claims for compensation in the years following the London bombings, and are working to finalise five remaining cases. CICA have made interim payments in all the outstanding cases. Women’s Prisons Mrs Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the (a) capacity and (b) population of the women’s prison estate was (i) on the most recent date for which figures are available and (ii) in each of the [18326] last five years.

911W

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

Mr Blunt: The following table shows the capacity and population of the women’s prison estate as at (i) end of August 2010 (the most recent figures available) and (ii) end of August in each of the last five years. These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. Total operational capacity and population of the female prison estate, England, as at August of each year Operational capacity Population 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Note: There are no female prisons in Wales.

5,429 4,846 4,889 4,756 4,822 4,849

4,592 4,559 4,408 4,430 4,256 4,257

Young Offenders: Reoffenders Mrs Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what percentage of young offenders re-offended within one year of being released from custody in the latest [18320] period for which figures are available. Mr Blunt: The latest reoffending rate for young people (those aged between 10 and 17) released from custody in England and Wales in the first quarter of 2008 is 74.3%. Reoffending rates for young people are based on whether an offender has been convicted at court or received an out-of-court disposal for an offence in the year following release from custody.

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS Arts: Industry Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what assessment he has made of (a) the role of and (b) the likely effect on the creative industries of proposals to rebalance the economy (i) in favour of industry and (ii) outside London. [17969] Mr Vaizey: The creative industries have been an increasingly important part of the economy in recent years and we are committed to enabling the sector to maximise its future growth potential, across the whole of the UK in the coming years. Better Regulation Executive

Written Answers

912W

themselves. And we have introduced an ambitious programme of regulatory reform to make that a reality in regulation making. There is no more appropriate part of Whitehall with more skills and experience in regulation policy than the Better Regulation Executive. It has extensive and deep understanding of the regulatory landscape and is firmly re-focussed on developing new policies to deliver the Government’s objectives on regulation. I judge that BRE is appropriate to lead the Government effort. Julian Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how many staff work in the Better Regulation Executive. [18917] Mr Prisk: As at 20 October there were 79 staff working in the Better Regulation Executive. Of those, eight were working for the Secretariat to the Regulatory Policy Committee and two were on maternity leave. Julian Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how many staff in the Better Regulation Executive have managed a small business of [18918] under 10 employees. Mr Prisk: This information is not held centrally, however at least 10 staff in the Better Regulation Executive indicated that they had managed a small business with less than 10 staff when asked on 20 October 2010. Julian Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what short-term measures the Better Regulation Executive has considered to reduce [18919] the regulatory burden on small businesses. Mr Prisk: The BRE is working with Departments to identify regulation which is overly burdensome, particularly on small businesses, and support policy makers in using non-regulatory approaches. We sought suggestions from SMEs and members of the public on regulations to repeal or amend through the ‘Your Freedom’ website and are currently working through the 2,500 responses. The BRE are also undertaking a series of regional visits, speaking to SMEs all over the country to further identify ways to improve the business environment. The Government introduced the ‘One-in, One-out’ rule last month. This means that no new regulations which impose costs on business or civil society organisations can be brought in without regulation of an equivalent value being removed. This is a significant step in stemming the flow of regulation and will focus Whitehall’s attention on finding alternatives to regulation. The BRE will manage and support this cross-Government programme. This Department has also announced a series of measures to help SMEs, which include:

Julian Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what recent assessment he has made of the appropriateness of the mandate of [18916] the Better Regulation Executive.

Extended the Enterprise Finance Guarantee (EFG) by £200 million at June’s Budget, benefiting around 2,000 extra small businesses. We have also announced two new capital funds for SMEs with growth potential, and will shortly respond to the recent Green Paper on the future of business finance.

Mr Prisk: A key tenet of the Government’s Coalition agreement is to move away from rules and regulations to changes people’s behaviour to policy approaches that support and enable people to make better choices for

A rise in entrepreneurs’ relief lifetime limit from £2 million to £5 million, and a reduction in small profits rate (small companies’ rate) from 21% to 20%. Changes to national insurance contributions (NIC), raising the employers’ threshold to increase the number of employees

913W

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

for whom employers pay no NICs by 650,000 and introducing a regional employer NIC holiday to encourage new businesses in selected regions to take on employees.

Julian Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how many staff of the Better Regulation Executive work in other Government [18920] departments. Mr Prisk: There are currently no Better Regulation Executive staff working in other Government Departments. However, Better Regulation Executive staff are working in partnership with staff in Better Regulation Units and policy staff in other Government Departments. Julian Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what the cost to the public purse of (a) the Better Regulation Executive and (b) the Better Regulation Strategy Group was in the last 12 months.

Written Answers

914W

Information on the Better Regulation Strategy Group, including minutes from previous meetings, is available via the following website; http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/better-regulation/betterregulation-executive/better-regulation-strategy-group

Julian Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (a) how many and (b) what proportion of members of the Better Regulation Strategy Group (i) manage a small business of fewer than 10 people and (ii) are based in the North of England. [18914]

Mr Prisk: Two members of the Better Regulation Strategy Group (BRSG) have confirmed that they manage a small business of fewer than 10 people. One member of the BRSG has confirmed that they are based in the North of England. A further one member has confirmed that they are based in Scotland. The BRSG has 12 members.

[18921]

Business: Females Mr Prisk: The cost to the public purse of the Better Regulation Executive in the financial year 2009-10 was £6.4 million. This figure includes the operating costs of the Regulatory Policy Committee Secretariat. The Better Regulation Strategy Group has not incurred any costs to the public purse to date. Better Regulation Strategy Group Julian Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what the name is of each member to join the Better Regulation Strategy Group since his [18913] appointment. Mr Prisk: One member has joined the Better Regulation Strategy Group (BRSG) since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) was appointed. This member is Peter Schofield, director of HM Treasury’s enterprise and growth unit. Mr Schofield was invited to join the BRSG on 5 October and accepted this invitation on 13 October. Other current members of the BRSG are listed as follows. These were all members of the group before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was appointed but have been confirmed as ongoing members of the BRSG since his appointment. John Cridland (deputy director-general, Confederation of British Industry) Robert Devereux (permanent secretary, Department for Transport) Julia Evans (chief executive, National Federation of Builders) Iain Ferguson (chair, Wilton Park) Dame Deirdre Hutton (chair, Civil Aviation Authority) Sir Philip Hampton (chair, board of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc) Scott Johnson (partner, WF Watt Contracts) Lucy Neville-Rolfe (executive director, corporate and legal affairs, Tesco) Philip Rycroft (chief executive, Better Regulation Executive) Sarah Veale (head of equality and employment rights department, Trade Union Congress)

Kerrie Kelly, former director general of the Association of British Insurers (ABI), was a member of the strategy group until she stood down from her position at the ABI in July.

Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills whether he has made a recent estimate of the number of small and medium-sized enterprises run by women (a) nationally and (b) in the [18447] West Midlands. Mr Prisk: The latest estimate of the number of small and medium-sized enterprises run by women was made in 2009, based on survey evidence and statistics published by BIS. BIS estimates that there are approximately 710,000 majority women-led small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK (15% of the UK SME population) and approximately 45,000 majority women-led small and medium-sized enterprises in the West Midlands (12% of the West Midlands SME population). This is based on data collected over the period 2005-08. This estimate will be updated in early 2011, following the publication of the BIS “Small Business Survey 2010”. Business: Higher Education Lorely Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills if his Department will take steps to (a) improve the quality of and (b) increase provision for enterprise education in colleges and universities; [18818] and if he will make a statement. Mr Prisk: Enterprise has a key role in achieving the Government’s goals of social mobility and economic rebalancing, and the foundations for an enterprising society will be laid in our schools, colleges and universities. This Department has brought together a forum of entrepreneurs, educators and sector representatives to build a consensus on how best learning institutions might further improve and promote enterprise education. In collaboration with the National Enterprise Academy, the National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, the Association of Colleges and other enterprise education providers and intermediaries, we will be building on the forum’s work to ensure the opportunities to develop enterprise and entrepreneurial skills, including those needed for self-employment, are supported and promoted throughout education.

915W

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

Written Answers

916W

Businesses: Finance

Higher Education: Gateshead

Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on [18288] access to finance for businesses.

Ian Mearns: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how many young people resident in Gateshead constituency entered (a) higher education and (b) university in each of the last 13 years. [19049]

Mr Davey [holding answer 21 October 2010]: I have had many discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding access to finance for business as part of our ongoing work in this area, and relating to the Green Paper on access to business finance that was published and consulted on collaboratively by our two Departments.

Mr Willetts: The latest available information from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) is shown in the following table. Changes made to constituency names and boundaries in 2010 will be initially applied to HESA data for the 2010/11 academic year. Data for these students will not be available until January 2011. Until then, data based on the old constituencies will continue to be provided. Therefore, this answer uses figures for Gateshead East and Washington West and Tyne Bridge constituencies. Comparable information on entrants to higher education courses at further education colleges is not available. Figures for the 2009/10 academic year will be available in January 2011.

Community Interest Companies Ian Mearns: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how many community interest companies were started in (a) Gateshead constituency, (b) Tyne and Wear, (c) the North East and (d) England [19048] in each of the last five years. Mr Davey: According to the national website for the regulator for community interest companies, the number of CIC registered companies is as follows: Location

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Total

(a) 0 3 4 Gateshead (b) Tyne 1 26 24 and Wear (c) 1 34 42 North East (d) 46 840 506 England Source: Statistics from: http://www.cicregulator.gov.uk/ as at 21 October 2010.

6

3

2

18

35

38

57

181

59

72

91

299

712

1,123

1,185

4,412

Departmental Responsibilities Tom Blenkinsop: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the responsibilities of the Minister of State for Trade and Investment. [16912]

Mr Prisk: The new Minister of State for Trade and Investment’s responsibilities are a matter for the Prime Minister. Departmental Visits Abroad David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how much his Department spent on overseas visits for senior officials in the last [18418] 12 months for which figures are available. Mr Davey: During the period October 2009 to September 2010, the Department spent £75,836 on overseas visits for senior officials (director generals and permanent secretary).

Young1 undergraduate entrants from Gateshead East and Washington West constituency and Tyne Bridge constituency2 UK Higher Education Institutions3 —academic years 1996/97 to 2008/09 Academic Gateshead East and year Washington West Tyne Bridge 1996/97 270 115 1997/98 305 140 1998/99 310 180 1999/ 290 170 2000 2000/01 305 185 2001/02 330 200 2002/03 290 150 2003/04 305 175 2004/05 325 185 2005/06 330 200 2006/07 355 210 2007/08 400 215 2008/09 345 205 1 Covers entrants aged under 21. 2 Exclude entrants whose parliamentary constituency cannot be established due to missing or invalid postcode information. 3 Excludes the Open University due to inconsistencies in their coding of entrants across the time series. Note: Figures are based on a snapshot as at 1 December and have been rounded to the nearest five. Source: Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA)

Internet Governance Forum Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills which Government representatives attended the fifth annual Internet Governance Forum meeting; and what the outcome was of discussions on each item of the agenda of that [17068] meeting. Mr Vaizey: The UK Government were represented at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Vilnius by Dr Sue Baxter, Deputy Director, Europe and International Competitiveness Unit, and one other BIS official with responsibility for internet governance policy.

917W

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

The overall theme of the Vilnius IGF was ‘IGF 2010 —Developing the Future Together’ with five main sessions which effectively formed the ‘agenda’ of the meeting: managing the internet’s critical infrastructure; security, openness and privacy; access and diversity; development; and cloud computing.

Preparatory discussions were undertaken in 113 workshops, best practice forums, dynamic coalition meetings and open forums. The Chairman’s summary of the full range of issues discussed is accessible at: http://intgovforum.org/cms/2010/ Chairman’s.Summary.Expanded.pdf

The IGF is not a negotiating forum so there are no formal outcomes as such. However, it is clear from the sustained level of support from stakeholders—over 1,450 attendees including representatives from over 90 governments, business experts, civil society representatives, academics, technical experts and parliamentarians, with an additional 600 participating remotely—that the IGF plays an important role in enabling stakeholders to exchange views and best practice on internet public policy. In particular, the UK Government showcased their policy approach on internet inclusion and an online child protection ‘toolkit’ developed for those Commonwealth members with little or no legal framework for criminalising access to and distribution of child abuse images. The UK also held confidential bilateral meetings with Brazil, China and the USA on internet public policy issues and the decision on the future of the IGF to be taken by the UN General Assembly in December. Local Economic Partnerships

Written Answers

918W

Mr Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the oral answer of 14 October 2010, Official Report, column 487, on local economic partnerships, when he expects to publish the sub-regional White Paper. [18869] Mr Prisk [holding answer 21 October 2010]: We expect the sub-regional White Paper will be published shortly. Manufacturing Industries: Government Assistance Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps he is taking together with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assist [18531] manufacturing industries. Mr Prisk: The Government are supporting manufacturing industries by creating a stable business environment that will give businesses the confidence they need to plan and invest for the future. We are doing this by creating a more supportive tax environment, freeing up credit through the banking system, reducing regulation, maximising the flexibility of the labour market and focusing on training and apprenticeships. For example, we have already redirected £150 million to create up to 50,000 extra apprenticeships, which will be workplace-based and employer-led. The Government announced in the spending review that they will invest up to £200 million to support manufacturing and business development focusing on high growth business and innovation particularly among small and medium sized businesses. Later in the year we will be launching a new approach to manufacturing that will highlight key ambitions, identify growth opportunities and set out a new framework of actions for both Government and industry. Motor Vehicles: Government Assistance

Mr Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the oral answer of 14 October 2010, Official Report, column 487, on local economic partnerships, what the scope of the sub-regional White Paper will be; and whether it will include the role of local enterprise partnerships in relation to the management of the European Regional Development [18867] Fund programme. Mr Prisk [holding answer 21 October 2010]: The sub-regional White Paper will set out the Government’s approach to economic development following abolition of the regional development agencies, including the approach to management of the European regional development fund programme.

Gordon Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how many vehicles purchased under the vehicle scrappage scheme were [18653] manufactured in the UK. Mr Prisk [holding answer 21 October 2010]: Although the scheme is now closed for new applications, transactions are still being processed and so the information requested is not currently available. Once final figures are available, further analysis of the data will also be required because certain vehicle models are both imported and manufactured in the UK. Overseas Trade: Philippines

Mr Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the oral answer of 14 October 2010, Official Report, column 487, on local economic partnerships, what discussions (a) ministers and (b) officials in his Department have had with the Department of Communities and Local Government on the content of the sub-regional White Paper. [18868]

Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what estimate he made of the contribution to the gross domestic product of trade with the Philippines in each of the last two years; whether he has had recent discussions with the government of the Philippines on trade; and if he will make a [17334] statement.

Mr Prisk [holding answer 21 October 2010]: All Departments and Ministers with an interest in the sub-regional White Paper, including the Department of Communities and Local Government, have been involved in discussions regarding its content.

Mr Prisk: The benefits of international trade to gross domestic product (GDP) result from greater economic efficiency due to a combination of increased competition in markets, comparative advantages, economies of scale, increased opportunities for learning, and greater incentives

919W

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

for innovation. Due to the difficulty of differentiating between the impact of trade and other factors on growth, it is not possible to quantify precisely the impact of trade with another country on GDP. The following table indicates the scale of UK trade in goods and services to the Philippines for the years 2008 and 2009 as a proportion of GDP:

2008 2009

UK exports to the Philippines: percentage of UK GDP at market prices

UK imports from the Philippines: percentage of UK GDP at market prices

0.03 0.03

0.06 0.04

I have not held recent discussions with the Philippine Government. However, the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office responsible for South East Asia, held bilateral discussions with the Philippine Government when he visited the country between 20-22 July 2010. He called on the President of the Philippines and met key Cabinet Ministers and business leaders. The main objective of his visit was to strengthen trade and investment links between the UK and the Philippines. Regional Development Agencies: Assets Laura Sandys: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what assets of regional development agencies are (a) listed buildings, (b) in conservation areas, (c) in areas of outstanding natural beauty, (d) in sites of specific scientific interest and (e) [15807] in national parks. Mr Prisk: The information is not held centrally in the format requested, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. South East England Development Agency Simon Kirby: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what estimate he has made of the savings to accrue to the public purse from the abolition of the South East England Development Agency. [19085]

Mr Prisk: It is not possible at present to estimate the savings or costs arising from RDA closure. The work will be undertaken in a way that seeks to protect taxpayers’ interests. Students: Disadvantaged

Written Answers

920W

We have no preconceived ideas about the shape of the scheme, except that it will be fair, affordable, and will make a real difference to some of the poorest students. Further information will be made available as the scheme is developed. Students: Loans Ann McKechin: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what the resource accounting and budgeting (RAB) charge on student loans is; and if he will estimate the likely RAB charge consequent on the implementation of the proposals of the Independent Review of Higher Education and Student Finance. [18656] Mr Willetts [holding answer 21 October 2010]: The total amount of income contingent repayment loans issued to English domiciled students studying in the UK and EU domiciled students studying in England in financial year 2009-10 was £5,049 million. The increase in interest and write-off subsidies during 2009-10 was £1,361 million. The RAB charge for 2011-12 and future years will depend on the outcome of the comprehensive spending review which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 20 October, and on the response to the Browne review of higher education and student finance. This is a substantial report and we shall consult further on some of the more detailed proposals before making specific recommendations to Parliament, with a view to implementing the changes for students entering higher education in autumn 2012. Ann McKechin: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what assessment he has made of the effect on funding for student support of any changes to resource accounting and budgeting charges on student loans consequent on implementation of the proposals in the Browne Review of higher education [19212] funding. Mr Willetts: The RAB charge and student support funding for 2011-12 and future years will depend on the outcome of the comprehensive spending review which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 20 October, and on the response to the Browne review of Higher Education and Student Finance. This is a substantial report and we shall consult further on some of the more detailed proposals before making specific recommendations to Parliament, with a view to implementing the changes for students entering higher education in autumn 2012. Summer Time

Mr Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the Oral Statement of 18 October, Official Report, column 629, on education policy, on what the £150 million of pupil premium allocated to enabling students from disadvantaged backgrounds to enter higher education will be spent; under what budgetary heading such expenditure will be [19100] incurred; and if he will make a statement. Mr Willetts: The Government are making funding available for a new national scholarship scheme. This is a separate stream of funding to the pupil premium and will have its own budgetary heading.

Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on proposals for the introduction of single and double summer time. [18322]

Mr Davey: I have not taken part in any recent discussions with the Scottish Executive on proposals for the introduction of single double summer time. However, recent official level discussions have confirmed that the Scottish Government remain opposed to any change to the current arrangement.

921W

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

Telephone Services: Fraud Andrew Stephenson: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps he is taking to encourage telecommunications providers to prevent [18200] dial-through fraud. Mr Vaizey: Fraud is an offence which the Government take very seriously. Dial-through fraud (DTF) occurs when hackers gain access to a PBX voicemail system or VoIP network and then exploit its vulnerabilities to make national and international calls at a company’s expense. According to the Telecommunications United Kingdom Fraud Forum (TUFF) membership survey in 2009, communications and service providers reported that 98% of businesses that were hit by hackers also suffered from DTF. In February 2010, TUFF and BT Wholesale issued a 16 point plan that companies can adopt to prevent DTF and protect their assets. Fraud arising from unauthorised access to dial-through functions can be exacerbated by non-existent or ineffective access security measures to protect against unauthorised access to on-site or remote maintenance functions. The unauthorised reconfiguration of, or access to system information, can facilitate unauthorised access to dialthrough functions. Should companies suspect that they have experienced DTF, they should take the appropriate steps to make their systems as secure as possible. Andrew Stephenson: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what recent estimate he has made of the annual cost to businesses of [18201] dial-through fraud. Mr Vaizey: This Department has made no such estimate. The Telecommunications United Kingdom Fraud Forum (TUFF) surveyed its members in 2009, it found that 98% of businesses that were hit by hackers also suffered losses through dial through fraud. Telephone Services: Missing Persons Justin Tomlinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what progress his Department is making on the implementation of his Department’s proposals on (a) the 116 000 number and (b) missing people’s existing helpline numbers; and [17667] if he will make a statement. Mr Vaizey: Reservation and assignment of the 116 000 number and all other reserved numbers in the 116 numbering range is a matter for the regulator Ofcom. In allocating interested service providers to numbers Ofcom are guided by an advisory committee established under the Contact Council and now co-ordinated by the Department for Business. 116 000 was the inaugural and only number established at the time of the original European Commission Decision (2007/116/EC). Ofcom launched a comparative selection process to identify a service provider for the “Hotline for Missing Children” in February 2009. As a result 116 000 was allocated to the charity Missing People and its chosen communications provider BT on 17 May 2010. 116 000 is now operational alongside Missing People’s existing numbers.

Written Answers

922W

Low key promotion of the 116 000 number will commence in November 2010 at selected UK entry points. Pan-European marketing material provided by Missing Children Europe will be used. Operational readiness will then be assessed, leading to a high profile launch of 116 000 in April 2012. At that point, 116 000 will become Missing People’s prime contact number, replacing the promotion of the existing three helpline numbers. UK Intellectual Property Office: Internet Mr Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (1) on how many occasions and for what periods the website of the Intellectual Property Office has been unresponsive as a result of denial of service attacks in the last three years; [18672]

(2) what reports he has received on the denial of service attacks on the Intellectual Property Office’s website on 16 October 2010; and if he will make a [18673] statement; (3) what reports he has received on denial of service attacks undertaken on websites carried out under the banner of Operation Payback; and if he will make a [18674] statement. Mr Vaizey: This Department was approached by one private sector company that was suffering a denial of service attack attributed to Operation Payback. Officials advised that company where to seek advice and to report the attack to the police. In the past week this Department has been working with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) on the similar attack on their website. This is the first time in the last three years that the Intellectual Property Office website has been unresponsive as a result of denial of service attacks. The IPO have taken advice from experts within Government and their service has now been restored. The Government clearly abhor this sort of direct action and the impact it has on businesses consumers and citizens who rely on access to Government websites for the delivery of important services; and call on those taking part to behave responsibly. The question as to whether this can be regarded as a criminal act is a matter for the appropriate authorities. Yorkshire Forward Mr Ward: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what process his Department has put in place for disposing of the assets of Yorkshire Forward; and when his Department expects to determine the future ownership of (a) the Odeon site and car park, Princes Way, Bradford, (b) the former Bradford Business and Innovation Centre, (c) the former police headquarters at The Tyres, Bradford, (d) land at the former Furniture City warehouse site at Valley Road, Bradford and (e) land at 2-16 Great Horton Road, [18827] Bradford. Mr Prisk: BIS is working with the RDAs and other Departments to develop plans for disposal or transfer of assets and liabilities. These will be based on the existing statutory framework until new legislation comes into force, alongside the guidance in Managing Public Money. These principles will govern Yorkshire Forward’s own closure plans covering the period up to March

923W

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

2012, including disposal of assets in Bradford. No decision has yet been made on any specific asset and no dates have been set for the transfer or disposal of specific assets and liabilities.

NORTHERN IRELAND Departmental Visits Abroad David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much his Department spent on overseas visits for senior officials in the last 12 months [18405] for which figures are available. Mr Paterson: Information reflecting the Department as it is now configured, following the completion of devolution, is not available for the period before 12 April 2010. For the period from 12 April to 30 September 2010, my Department has spent £4,810 on travel by senior civil servants in support of an official visit that I undertook to America. All travel is undertaken in accordance with the Civil Service Management Code.

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE Departmental Contracts Anas Sarwar: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what contracts his Department has awarded to voluntary sector organisations in the last two years; and what the monetary value was of [17606] each such contract. Gregory Barker [holding answer 18 October 2010]: The Department of Energy and Climate Change was formed on 3 October 2008. The Department did not award any contracts to voluntary organisations during the financial year 2008-09. Contracts awarded by the Department during the financial year 2009-10 to such organisations are as follows: Voluntary organisation Action for a Global Climate Community Ltd. Barnardo’s Keep Britain Tidy National Energy Action The London Wildlife Trust The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)

Amount paid (£) 8,000.00 56,226.00 40,000.00 1,209,969.25 1,130.00 50,000.00

Written Answers

924W

Gregory Barker: In 2006, the most recent year for which sub-regional figures are available, there were around 4,800 (14%) fuel poor households in the Gateshead East and Washington West constituency and 75,600 (16%) fuel poor households in the county of Tyne and Wear. Gateshead East and Washington West was replaced by the constituency of Gateshead and the constituency of Washington and Sunderland West in 2010. In 2008, there were 236,000 (21%) fuel poor households in the North East. Heat Pumps Mr Love: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what his most recent estimate is of the proportion of installed heat pumps which fail to meet the required EU standard on coefficient of performance. [18514] Gregory Barker: The EU standard, given in Annex VII of Directive 2009/28/EC, is based on the total useable heat delivered, the average seasonal performance factor and the efficiency of electrical generation. As the Commission have yet to establish how member states are to estimate these factors it is not possible to estimate the proportion of installed heat pumps that will fail to meet that standard. Interim results from recent field trials show there is a significant range of domestic heat pump performance, from good to disappointing. Some of the reasons for poor performance are understood and others are being investigated in these ongoing trials. This information should help us to estimate the proportion that may fail to meet the required standard—once the standard has been established. Human Rights Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what estimate he has made of the cost to his Department and its non-departmental public bodies of compliance with (a) domestic, (b) European and (c) other international human rights requirements in each year since the Department’s [18791] inception; and if he will make a statement. Gregory Barker: The Department of Energy and Climate Change does not collate information on the costs of compliance with human rights requirements. Where relevant, the Department takes account of the domestic and international human rights framework in developing all its policies and practices, as it does other relevant legal obligations; an accurate estimate of the total cost of compliance with human rights obligations could not be made without incurring disproportionate cost.

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Fuel Poverty: North East

Capita

Ian Mearns: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what recent estimate he has made of the number and proportion of households in (a) Gateshead constituency, (b) Tyne and Wear and (c) [19175] the North East in fuel poverty.

Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many contracts his Department has with Capita; and how much it has paid to Capita under such contracts in 2010-11 to date. [18623]

925W

Written Answers

Robert Neill: The Department has only one contract with Capita and the total spend to date in this financial year is £1,296,145. This contract was awarded in December 2009 to establish a managed service for the recruitment of all specialist contractors and interim managers (including finance, IT, HR, PPM, procurement, communications and other niche requirements). Spending for 2008-09 and 2009-10 can be found online on my Department’s website as part of our initiative to open up Government spending over £500. Departmental Pay Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much was paid to officials in his Department and its non-departmental public bodies in bonuses and other payments in addition to salary in each year since 1997; how many officials received such payments; and what the monetary value was of the largest 20 payments made in each such year. [18737]

Robert Neill: The Department for Communities and Local Government was created in 2006. The following table shows the amount paid in bonuses and the number of staff who received them in the main Department since that date.

Number of staff Bonuses (£)

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

478

391

570

587

838,250

1,018,350

1,284,549

1,188,133

The largest 20 bonus payments in these years are shown in the following table (in £5,000 increments): Bonus size £5,000£10,000 £10,001£15,000 £15,001£20,000 £20,001£30,000

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

37

56

54

63

4

37

34

34

0

9

2

0

1

3

1

0

The following table shows the amounts paid in other payments in addition to salary in each year since 2006 although there is a disproportionate cost involved in identifying the numbers of staff who received them.

Allowances (£)

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

514,000

569,000

522,000

674,000

The allowances paid are under review. Departmental Sick Leave Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for how many days on average his Department’s staff in each pay grade were absent from work as a result of ill health in [18566] 2009-10. Robert Neill: The following table outlines the average working days lost by CLG staff in each pay grade as a result of ill-health in 2009-10.

926W

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

Grade equivalent

Average working days lost

AA/AO EO HEO SEO G7 G6 SCS

12.5 6.8 4.2 5.1 3.1 1.7 1.0

Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many days his Department has lost to staff sickness in each year since 1997; and what estimate he made of the cost to his Department of [18740] sickness absence in each such year. Robert Neill: The Department for Communities and Local Government was formed in May 2006 and the following table details the days lost to staff sickness in the Main Department in each financial year since that date, with estimated costs. Financial year

Working days absence

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 20101 1 To 30 September.

Estimated cost (£000)

13,366 15,090 13,335 12,378 6,689

1,196 1,393 1,323 1,191 646

Departmental Visits Abroad David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much his Department spent on overseas visits for senior officials in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [18417]

Robert Neill: For the period 1 October 2009 to 30 September 2010 the Department spent £166,520 on overseas visits. Identifying what was spent solely by senior staff could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Fire Services: Finance Conor Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) how much funding was allocated to each fire authority for the [19068] financial year (a) 2010-11 and (b) 1996-97; (2) how much funding per head of population was allocated to the Dorset Fire Authority for the financial [19069] year (a) 2010-11 and (b) 1996-97. Robert Neill: Formula grant allocated to each single service fire and rescue authority in (a) 2010-11 and (b) 1996-97 is shown in the following table. In 1996-97, only metropolitan fire and rescue authorities were in existence. In shire areas, county councils had the responsibility for providing this service as well as providing other services such as education and social services. It is not possible to identify how much was allocated for fire for those authorities.

927W Fire and rescue authority

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

Formula Grant in 1996-971 (£ million)

Formula Grant in 2010-112 (£ million)

204.722

259.574

58.340

75.335

39.122 25.153

46.305 36.770

30.608

35.570

56.240

80.813

44.562

57.490

n/a n/a

24.879 11.386

n/a n/a

15.423 11.452

n/a

14.443

n/a n/a n/a n/a

18.621 22.382 19.674 31.245

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

11.001 14.529 14.673 32.371 29.266 10.668

n/a

27.174

n/a n/a

29.596 32.608

Leicestershire FRA

n/a

18.840

North Yorkshire FRA

n/a

12.968

Nottinghamshire FRA

n/a

25.010

Shropshire FRA

n/a

8.268

Staffordshire FRA

n/a

18.600

Wiltshire FRA

n/a

9.587

London Fire/ GLA—fire Greater Manchester FRA Merseyside FRA South Yorkshire FRA Tyne and Wear FRA West Midlands FRA West Yorkshire FRA Avon FRA Bedfordshire FRA Berkshire FRA Buckinghamshire FRA Cambridgeshire FRA Cheshire FRA Cleveland FRA Derbyshire FRA Devon and Somerset FRA Dorset FRA Durham FRA East Sussex FRA Essex FRA Hampshire FRA Hereford and Worcester FRA Humberside FRA Kent FRA Lancashire FRA

1

In 1996-97, formula grant comprises revenue support grant, redistributed business rates, principal formula police grant, SSA reduction grant (SSA review), SSA reduction grant (police funding review) where appropriate. 2 In 2010-11, formula grant comprises revenue support grant, redistributed business rates and principal formula police grant where appropriate.

Written Answers

928W

Housing: Immigrants Mr Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what his Department’s most recent assessment is of the effects on housing demand of immigration; what equivalent assessments his Department has made since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [19099] Andrew Stunell: The potential future demand for housing can be informed by CLG’s household projections. The latest projections were published on the CLG website in March 2009: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/ statistics/2031households0309

and are based on the 2006-based population projections produced by the Office for National Statistics. They provide a long -term view of the net growth in the number of households given a projected population and previous demographic trends. As such the household projections do not take into account changes in policy or economic circumstances that may have a material effect on future household formation and do not explicitly reflect the different tenure pattern and household formation of migrant groups. The household projections reflect a net position; the number of newly forming households net of those that dissolve. Using the zero net migration population variant it is estimated that net international migration could account, on average, for 40% of the net growth in households in England over the projection period from 2006 to 2031. However, this does not directly equate to the actual effective demand for housing. This will also be determined by factors such as the ability of individual households to meet the cost of housing which is in turn influenced by the wider economic context. These projections also do not take into account the 2008-based population projections, subsequently published by the ONS, which include lower projected levels of net international migration. CLG expect to publish 2008-based household projections in November 2010. Equivalent assessments were made for the household projections from a 2003-base and 2004-base. Using the zero net migration population variant in the 2004-based projections it was estimated that net international migration could account, on average, for around a third of the net growth in households in England to 2026. The equivalent estimate in the 2003-based projections was that net international migration accounted for around a quarter of household growth from 2003 to 2026. Local Government: Sponsorship

As formula grant reflects changes in funding and functions, a comparison between the two years will not be on a like-for-like basis.

Nicola Blackwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what guidance his Department makes available to local authorities on attracting sponsorship from local businesses to support their services; and what plans he has for the future of [18438] arrangements for such sponsorship.

Dorset Fire and Rescue Authority received formula grant of £15.43 per head in 2010-11. There is no figure for 1996-97 as the authority did not exist. The per head figure has been calculated using the main measure of population used in settlement, i.e. the revised 2004-based sub-national population projection for 2010.

Robert Neill: The Department does not publish guidance on attracting sponsorships. Councils ought to consider opportunities to raise income, including sponsorship, to protect valued local services and keep council tax bills down; decisions on these matters are rightly for individual local authorities to take.

929W

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

Mayors: Referendums Ian Mearns: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of holding confirmatory referendums on directly-elected mayors in each of the [18644] 12 largest cities in England; (2) whether he plans to provide funds for the holding of confirmatory referendums on directly-elected [18645] mayors in the 12 largest cities in England. Robert Neill: Issues relating to the implementation of the coalition agreement commitment to create directly elected mayors in the 12 largest English cities, subject to confirmatory referendums and full scrutiny by elected councillors will be addressed when the Localism Bill is presented to Parliament. Non-domestic Rates: Empty Property Paul Uppal: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government if he will reinstate business rate relief for empty properties by 2015. [19002] Robert Neill: We appreciate the problems caused by the last Government’s increases in the burden of empty property rates, especially given the fact they were imposed at a time when firms faced significant difficulties in renting out empty property. The new Government’s ability to take action on this matter is restricted by the high costs—the last Government estimated that the change would increase net tax yield by £950 million in 2008-09. As a result, any action will need to be balanced against the overriding need to reduce public expenditure and support the economy generally by reducing the deficit. However, we keep all taxes under review, including this specific issue. We recognise the burden of business rates on local firms, and we have already taken action to increase small business rate relief and scrap the unfair ‘ports tax’ on firms which threatened to inflict significant harm on Britain’s manufacturing sector. Parish Councils Julian Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what guidance his Department has issued on the conduct of its review [18934] of parish boundaries. Robert Neill: The Department has published Guidance on Community Governance Reviews jointly with the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to assist principal councils when undertaking parish boundary reviews. The guidance can be seen at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/ localgovernment/guidancecommunitygovernance2010#

Planning Kris Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what plans he has to give local councils and neighbourhoods more powers to take decisions on planning; and if he will [18538] make a statement. Robert Neill: The coalition Government is committed to a radical reform of the planning system to give neighbourhoods far more ability to determine the shape

Written Answers

930W

of the places in which their inhabitants live, based on the principles set out in the Conservative Party publication, “Open Source Planning”. We have already made a good start on returning power to local authorities by scrapping regional strategies and their centrally imposed building targets and scrapping housing density targets. Our action on re-designating back gardens and abolishing the unaccountable Infrastructure Planning Commission also means more control for the local level. Further proposals to decentralise planning back to local authorities and neighbourhoods will be set out in the Localism Bill. Planning Inspectorate Kris Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether he intends to review the (a) role, (b) responsibilities and (c) powers of the Planning Inspectorate; and if he will make a statement. [18539] Robert Neill: There are no proposals to review the Planning Inspectorate in addition to those already announced. My hon. Friend will be aware that on 29 June 2010 the Minister for Decentralisation confirmed that the Infrastructure Planning Commission would be abolished and replaced with a Major Infrastructure Planning Unit, to be established in the Planning Inspectorate, to continue fast tracking major infrastructure projects. This is in line with the coalition agreement. It will affect the role and responsibilities of the Planning Inspectorate, but the details are yet to be finalised. Social Rented Housing: Immigrants Mr Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many and what proportion of the new (a) local authority social lettings and (b) registered social landlord lettings were made to foreign nationals from (i) A8 countries and Romania and Bulgaria, (ii) other EU member states and (iii) non-EU member states in 2009-10; and what the equivalent figures were for each of the last 30 years. [19097]

Andrew Stunell: Figures for the 2009-10 financial year are not yet available but will be published on the Communities and Local Government website in December 2010 in table 754, which can be accessed at the following link: http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/ housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/rentslettings/livetables/

Information on the number of foreign national households receiving social housing is collected through the Continuous Recording of Letting form (CORE). Historically CORE has only collected information from registered social landlords, though a number of local authorities are now also providing information through this process. A question on nationality was first introduced to the form for the 2006-07 data collection period. For historical data, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 27 July 2010, Official Report, column 1048W.

931W

Written Answers

22 OCTOBER 2010

Mr Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what his most recent estimate is of the number of households in social housing headed by a foreign national; what proportion this represents of all households in social housing; and what the equivalent figures were in each year since 1997. [19098]

Andrew Stunell: Data on the nationality of householders have only been collected by the Department since 2005-06 when relevant questions were first included in the Survey of English Housing. In 2008 this survey was merged with the English House Condition Survey to form the English Housing Survey. Estimates of the number of households in social housing headed by a foreign national are presented in the following table. The definition of ‘foreign national’ used is consistent with that used in published results from the Survey of English Housing; namely a foreign national is someone who is not a national of the UK or Ireland. Social sector households headed by a foreign national, England Proportion of all Number of households in social households in social housing housing (thousand) (percentage) 2005-06 and 2006-07 311 7.9 2006-07 and 2007-08 308 7.7 Note: Estimates are presented as a two-year rolling average due to sample size considerations Source: Survey of English Housing

An estimate for 2007-08 and 2008-09 will be available on 27 October 2010 when the English Housing Survey Household Report 2008-09 is published. Supporting People Programme Paul Uppal: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government if he will examine

Written Answers

932W

the effectiveness of operation of the formula used to calculate the grant to local authorities under the Supporting People programme in respect of (a) Wolverhampton and (b) other cities of comparable population. [19004] Robert Neill: Decisions regarding the allocation of the Supporting People programme to local authorities have yet to be agreed. Further details on the allocation will be announced alongside the local government settlement in December. Supporting People Programme: Finance Bridget Phillipson: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what estimate he has made of the change in the budget for Supporting People (a) nationally and (b) in Sunderland local authority area in (i) cash and (ii) percentage terms in [19367] each of the next three years. Robert Neill: My Department has minimised reductions to the Supporting People programme with £6.5 billion investment secured over the next four years. This represents reductions in Supporting People funding to just 12% staged gradually over the four year period. Further details on the local authority allocations will be announced alongside the local government settlement in December. Travelling Showmen Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what his plans are for the future of Planning Circular 04/2007 on travelling showpeople. [18880]

Andrew Stunell: In parallel with the intended revocation of Planning Circular 01/06 on Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Sites, the Government intend to revoke Planning Circular 04/2007 “Planning for Travelling Showpeople” subject to the necessary impact assessments and following a public consultation. The circular will be replaced with a short policy statement and light-touch guidance.

WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Friday 22 October 2010 Col. No.

Col. No.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE..... 75WS General Affairs and Foreign Affairs Councils Agenda (25 October).......................................... 75WS

TRANSPORT ........................................................... 78WS England’s Transport System in Winter................... 79WS EU Transport Council (15 October)....................... 78WS

HOME DEPARTMENT........................................... 77WS Vetting and Barring Scheme Remodelling.............. 77WS JUSTICE................................................................... 78WS Oxfordshire Coroner .............................................. 78WS

WALES...................................................................... 82WS Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill ...... 82WS

WRITTEN ANSWERS Friday 22 October 2010 Col. No.

Col. No.

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS ............. Arts: Industry ........................................................ Better Regulation Executive ................................... Better Regulation Strategy Group.......................... Business: Females .................................................. Business: Higher Education ................................... Businesses: Finance................................................ Community Interest Companies ............................ Departmental Responsibilities ............................... Departmental Visits Abroad .................................. Higher Education: Gateshead ................................ Internet Governance Forum................................... Local Economic Partnerships ................................ Manufacturing Industries: Government Assistance .......................................................... Motor Vehicles: Government Assistance................ Overseas Trade: Philippines ................................... Regional Development Agencies: Assets ................ South East England Development Agency............. Students: Disadvantaged........................................ Students: Loans ..................................................... Summer Time ........................................................ Telephone Services: Fraud ..................................... Telephone Services: Missing Persons...................... UK Intellectual Property Office: Internet .............. Yorkshire Forward .................................................

911W 911W 911W 913W 914W 914W 915W 915W 915W 915W 916W 916W 917W

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT— continued Supporting People Programme: Finance................ 932W Travelling Showmen ............................................... 932W CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT .......................... Bible: Anniversaries ............................................... Digital Broadcasting: Radio................................... Digital Economy Act 2010 ..................................... EU Law.................................................................. Film ....................................................................... Newspaper Press .................................................... Olympic Games 2012: Business..............................

884W 884W 884W 884W 885W 886W 886W 886W

918W 918W 918W 919W 919W 919W 920W 920W 921W 921W 922W 922W

DEFENCE................................................................. Afghanistan: Security Forces ................................. Armed Forces: Young People ................................. BAE Systems ......................................................... Departmental Manpower....................................... Departmental Visits Abroad .................................. Radioactive Materials: Transport........................... Strategic Defence and Security Review .................. Trident ...................................................................

881W 881W 881W 882W 882W 882W 882W 883W 883W

CABINET OFFICE................................................... Departmental Carbon Emissions ........................... Departmental Visits Abroad .................................. Honours................................................................. Public Bodies ......................................................... Public Sector Debt: Interest Charges...................... Voluntary Organisations ........................................

892W 892W 892W 892W 892W 893W 895W

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ..................... Departmental Contracts ........................................ Fuel Poverty: North East ....................................... Heat Pumps ........................................................... Human Rights .......................................................

923W 923W 923W 924W 924W

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE..... Armed Forces: Children......................................... Nagorno-Karabakh ............................................... Transcaucasus: British Nationals Abroad .............. Zimbabwe: Politics and Government .....................

890W 890W 890W 890W 891W

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.. Capita .................................................................... Departmental Pay .................................................. Departmental Sick Leave ....................................... Departmental Visits Abroad .................................. Fire Services: Finance ............................................ Housing: Immigrants ............................................. Local Government: Sponsorship............................ Mayors: Referendums ............................................ Non-domestic Rates: Empty Property.................... Parish Councils ...................................................... Planning................................................................. Planning Inspectorate ............................................ Social Rented Housing: Immigrants ...................... Supporting People Programme ..............................

924W 924W 925W 925W 926W 926W 928W 928W 929W 929W 929W 929W 930W 930W 931W

HEALTH................................................................... Advisory Group for National Specialised Services . Cancer: Children.................................................... Cancer: Drugs........................................................ Circumcision.......................................................... Dementia: Drugs.................................................... Dental Services ...................................................... Departmental Sick Leave ....................................... Diseases: EU Action .............................................. Epilepsy ................................................................. General Practitioners: Finance............................... General Practitioners: Wales .................................. Health Centres: North Yorkshire ........................... NHS.......................................................................

898W 898W 898W 899W 899W 900W 900W 900W 900W 901W 901W 901W 902W 902W

Col. No.

HEALTH—continued NHS: Pensions ....................................................... Organs: Donors ..................................................... Sexually Transmitted Diseases ............................... Speech and Language Disorders ............................

902W 903W 903W 904W

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.................... 891W Departmental Visits Abroad .................................. 891W Somalia: Overseas Aid ........................................... 891W JUSTICE................................................................... Departmental Visits Abroad .................................. Medway Secure Training Centre: Restraint Techniques ......................................................... Offenders: Alcoholic Drinks .................................. Offenders: Incentives and Earned Privilege Scheme............................................................... Prisons: Racial Hatred ........................................... Probation Officers: Working Hours ....................... Probation Service: Offenders.................................. Terrorism: Compensation ...................................... Women’s Prisons.................................................... Young Offenders: Reoffenders ...............................

904W 904W 904W 905W 905W 908W 909W 910W 910W 910W 911W

Col. No.

NORTHERN IRELAND .......................................... 923W Departmental Visits Abroad .................................. 923W TRANSPORT ........................................................... Aviation: Carbon Emissions................................... Aviation: Insolvency............................................... Driving Offences: Visits Abroad............................. Employment: Legislation ....................................... Motor Vehicles: Registration.................................. Railways: Finance .................................................. Roads: Accidents ................................................... Transport: Finance.................................................

886W 886W 887W 887W 888W 888W 888W 888W 889W

TREASURY .............................................................. Departmental Internet ........................................... Departmental Work Experience ............................. EC Budget ............................................................. EU Budget ............................................................. Income Tax: Gateshead.......................................... Public Finance ....................................................... Shares .................................................................... VAT: Royal Mail ....................................................

895W 895W 896W 896W 896W 897W 897W 897W 898W

Members who wish to have the Daily Report of the Debates forwarded to them should give notice at the Vote Office. The Bound Volumes will also be sent to Members who similarly express their desire to have them. No proofs of the Daily Reports can be supplied, nor can corrections be made in the Weekly Edition. Corrections which Members suggest for the Bound Volume should be clearly marked in the Daily Report, but not telephoned, and the copy containing the Corrections must be received at the Editor’s Room, House of Commons, not later than Friday 29 October 2010 STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT GREATLY FACILITATES THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE VOLUMES

Members may obtain excerpts of their Speeches from the Official Report (within one month from the date of publication), on application to the Stationery Office, c/o the Editor of the Official Report, House of Commons, from whom the terms and conditions of reprinting may be ascertained. Application forms are available at the Vote Office.

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES DAILY PARTS Single copies: Commons, £5; Lords, £3·50. Annual subscriptions: Commons, £865; Lords, £525. WEEKLY HANSARD Single copies: Commons, £12; Lords, £6. Annual subscriptions: Commons, £440. Lords, £225. Index: Annual subscriptions: Commons, £125; Lords, £65. LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session. Single copies: Commons, £105; Lords, £40. Standing orders will be accepted. THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is published separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing order. WEEKLY INFORMATION BULLETIN compiled by the House of Commons, giving details of past and forthcoming business, the work of Committees and general information on legislation, etc. The Annual Subscription includes also automatic despatch of the Sessional Information Digest. Single copies: £1·50. Annual subscriptions: £53·50. All prices are inclusive of postage

Volume 516 No. 57

Friday 22 October 2010

CONTENTS Friday 22 October 2010 Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill [Col. 1211] Motion for Second Reading—(John McDonnell) Marine Training and Employment (River Thames) [Col. 1277] Debate on motion for Adjournment Written Ministerial Statements [Col. 75WS] Written Answers to Questions [Col. 881W] [see index inside back page]