Slundervats Yontibule

17348 The Journal of Neuroscience, November 30, 2011 31(48):17348 17357
Behavioral/Systems/Cognitive
Reduced Prefrontal Connectivity in Psychopathy

Julian C. Motzkin,1 Joseph P. Newman,2 Kent A. Kiehl,3,4 and Michael Koenigs1
1
Department of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53719, 2Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, 3The MIND Research Network, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, and 4Departments of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131
Linking psychopathy to a specific brain abnormality could have significant clinical, legal, and scientific implications. Theories on the neurobiological basis of the disorder typically propose dysfunction in a circuit involving ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC). However, to date there is limited brain imaging data to directly test whether psychopathy may indeed be associated with any structural or functional abnormality within this brain area. In this study, we employ two complementary imaging techniques to assess the structural and functional connectivity of vmPFC in psychopathic and non-psychopathic criminals. Using diffusion tensor imaging, we show that psychopathy is associated with reduced structural integrity in the right uncinate fasciculus, the primary white matter connection between vmPFC and anterior temporal lobe. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we show that psychopathy is associated with reduced functional connectivity between vmPFC and amygdala as well as between vmPFC and medial parietal cortex. Together, these data converge to implicate diminished vmPFC connectivity as a characteristic neurobiological feature of psychopathy.
Introduction
Psychopathy is a neuropsychiatric disorder that imposes a substantial burden on society. Typified by callous and impulsive antisocial behavior, psychopathy is present in approximately a quarter of adult prison inmates, and it is associated with a disproportionately high incidence of violent crime and recidivism (Hare, 2003). The identification of neural correlates of the disorder could thus have profound implications for the clinical and legal management of psychopathic criminals, as well as for the basic understanding of the biological substrates underlying human social behavior. However, consistent and replicable neural correlates of psychopathy have remained elusive, due in large part to the methodological and logistical challenges associated with using neuroimaging to study this population (Koenigs et al., 2011a). Systems-level neurobiological models of psychopathy have focused primarily on limbic and paralimbic structures (Kiehl, 2006) involved in the regulation of emotion and social behavior, particularly the amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) (Blair, 2007, 2008). Perhaps the most compelling support for a central role of vmPFC dysfunction in psychopathy has emerged from the study of neurological patients with focal vmPFC lesions. For decades, neurologists have noted that the
Received Aug. 15, 2011; revised Sept. 21, 2011; accepted Oct. 10, 2011. Author contributions: J.P.N., K.A.K., and M.K. designed research; J.C.M. and M.K. analyzed data; J.C.M. and M.K. wrote the paper. This work was supported by a University of Wisconsin (UW)-Madison/UW-Milwaukee Intercampus Research Incentive Grant and grants from the National Institutes of Health (MH070539, DA026505, MH086787, T32MH018931-21, and T32GM007507). We thank Keith Harenski for his assistance with MRI data collection and C. P. Frost for his assistance with amygdala tracing. We thank many at the Wisconsin Department of Corrections for making this research possible. Correspondence should be addressed to Michael Koenigs, Department of Psychiatry, University of WisconsinMadison, 6001 Research Park Boulevard, Madison, WI 53719. E-mail: mrkoenigs@wisc.edu. DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4215-11.2011 Copyright 2011 the authors 0270-6474/11/3117348-10$15.00/0
personality changes accompanying vmPFC damage (e.g., lack of empathy, irresponsibility, and poor decision making) bear striking resemblance to hallmark psychopathic personality traits. Indeed, the personality changes associated with vmPFC damage have been dubbed pseudopsychopathy (Blumer and Benson, 1975) and acquired sociopathy (Eslinger and Damasio, 1985). In recent studies, we have addressed this similarity experimentally. Using laboratory decision-making tests, we found that psychopathsparticularly the low-anxious or primary subtype perform remarkably similar to vmPFC lesion patients on measures of social economic choice (Koenigs et al., 2010) and moral judgment (Koenigs et al., 2011b). Together, these data suggest that vmPFC dysfunction may be a critical neurobiological substrate underlying psychopathy. Of course, the hypothesized role of vmPFC in psychopathy depends on the reciprocal interactions between vmPFC and other cortical and subcortical brain regions involved in affective processing, social cognition, and decision making. Two areas of particular interest in this regard are the amygdala and a medial parietal area including the precuneus and posterior cingulate cortex (PCC). Both the amygdala and precuneus/PCC are densely and reciprocally connected with vmPFC (Price, 1999; Barbas, 2000; Raichle et al., 2001; Greicius et al., 2003), and both areas have been associated with reduced activity in psychopathy (Kiehl et al., 2001; Glenn et al., 2009). Moreover, the interactions between vmPFC and these areas are thought to subserve key functions related to psychopathy. vmPFCamygdala interactions are thought to underlie aspects of emotion regulation, aggression, and stimulus-reinforcement associations (Davidson et al., 2000; Milad et al., 2006; Blair, 2008; Delgado et al., 2008), while vmPFCprecuneus/PCC interactions are thought to underlie aspects of self-reflective processing (Buckner et al., 2008; Qin and Northoff, 2011). Therefore, investigating the structural and functional connectivity between vmPFC and these brain regions will
Motzkin et al. Reduced Prefrontal Connectivity in Psychopathy
J. Neurosci., November 30, 2011 31(48):17348 17357 17349
be a key step toward understanding the disordered neural interactions that contribute to psychopathic behavior. In the present study, we employ two complementary neuroimaging methods to quantify the structural and functional connectivity of vmPFC in psychopathic and non-psychopathic prison inmates. Using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), we test the hypothesis that psychopathy is associated with reduced structural integrity of the uncinate fasciculus (UF), the primary white matter pathway connecting vmPFC with anterior temporal lobe structures, including amygdala. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we test the hypothesis that psychopathy is associated with lower levels of correlated activity between vmPFC and interconnected brain structures (amygdala and medial parietal cortex) at rest. For both imaging measures, we conduct follow-up analyses to determine whether any of the observed neurobiological differences between psychopaths and nonpsychopaths are driven by a particular subtype of psychopathy (low-anxious or primary vs high-anxious or secondary).
Materials and Methods

Participants
Participants were adult male inmates recruited from a medium-security Wisconsin correctional institution. Inmates were eligible if they met the following criteria: 45 years of age, IQ 70, no history of psychosis or bipolar disorder, and not currently taking psychotropic medications. Informed consent was obtained both orally and in writing. The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) (Hare, 2003) was used to assess psychopathy. The PCL-R assessment involves a 60 90 min interview and file review to obtain information used to rate 20 psychopathyrelated items as 0, 1, or 2, depending on the degree to which each trait characterizes the individual. A substantial literature supports the reliability and validity of PCL-R assessments with incarcerated offenders (Hare, 2003). To evaluate interrater reliability, a second rater who was present during interviews provided independent PCL-R ratings for eight inmates. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.85. PCL-R Factor 1 and 2 scores were computed following procedures outlined in the PCL-R manual (Hare, 2003).
Participant groups
Participants were classified as psychopathic if their PCL-R scores were 30 or greater and non-psychopathic if their PCL-R scores were 20 or less (Hare, 2003). (The use of these cut scores affords clear distinction between high and low levels of psychopathy, but precludes the correlation of imaging data with PCL-R factor or facet scores, which would require a more continuous range of PCL-R scores.) Following the convention of previous studies identifying psychopathic subtypes (Arnett et al., 1997; Lorenz and Newman, 2002; Brinkley et al., 2004; Hiatt et al., 2004; Koenigs et al., 2010), psychopaths were subdivided based on a median split of Welsh Anxiety Scale (WAS) scores (Welsh, 1956). Thus, in our sample low-anxious psychopathy was defined as having a PCL-R score of 30 or greater and a WAS score of 13 or less, while high-anxious psychopathy was defined as having a PCL-R score of 30 or greater and a WAS score of 14 or greater.
MRI data collection

All MR imaging data were acquired using the Mind Research Networks mobile Siemens 1.5 T Avanto Mobile MRI System with advanced SQ gradients (max slew rate 200 T/m/s, 346 T/m/s vector summation, rise time 200 s) equipped with a 12-element head coil. Head motion was limited using padding and restraint. All prisoners were scanned on correctional facility grounds.
along 30 non-collinear directions (b value 800 s/mm 2). Five interleaved non-diffusion-weighted (b value 0 s/mm 2) volumes were collected during each run to enable corrections for motion and eddy current distortions. Images were collected with the following parameters: repetition time (TR) 9200 ms, echo time (TE) 84 ms, field of view (FOV) 256 mm 256 mm, matrix size 128 128, slice thickness 2 mm, no gap, voxel size 2 mm 2 mm 2 mm, 70 slices. The sequence was repeated twice and the data combined to improve SNR. Data processing was conducted using the FSL (http://www.fmrib.ox. ac.uk/fsl/) and CAMINO (Cook et al., 2006) software packages. Eddy current distortions and head movements were corrected by affine registration of all images to the first non-diffusion-weighted volume (FSL). Nonbrain tissue was removed using the brain extraction toolbox (BET) in FSL (Smith, 2002), and the resulting brain masks were carefully inspected before performing nonlinear diffusion tensor estimation using CAMINO (Jones and Basser, 2004; Alexander and Barker, 2005). Diffusion tensor images for each subject were screened for extreme outlier voxels and resampled to 1.75 mm 1.75 mm 2.5 mm resolution. Fractional anisotropy (FA), a scalar measure of fiber coherence and microstructural white matter integrity, was calculated from the diffusion tensors at each brain voxel. FA maps for each subject were nonlinearly registered to the standard MNI152 white matter template and resampled to 1 mm 3 resolution (Andersson et al., 2007). Aligned images were averaged into a group mean FA image, which was thinned to create a study-specific white matter skeleton mask. This mask was projected onto each subjects native space FA image and whole-brain estimates were acquired by extracting the mean FA value across the white matter skeleton. Group differences were examined in the UF, the primary structural connection between the amygdala and vmPFC, and in comparison tracts with documented frontal and temporal connectivity, in which no group differences were expected (inferior longitudinal fasciculus/inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus, ILF/IFOF; superior longitudinal fasciculus, SLF; superior fronto-occipital fasciculus, SFOF). Individual FA estimates for each region of interest (ROI) were acquired by projecting the Johns Hopkins University (JHU) white matter atlas onto each subjects native space FA image and computing the mean value across the tract labels of interest (Mori et al., 2005). FA values for each ROI were scaled to whole-brain FA and entered into two-sample t tests to assess group differences between psychopaths and nonpsychopaths. To determine the effects of psychopathy subtype (primary, low-anxious and secondary, high-anxious) on structural connectivity, mean scaled FA estimates from the right UF were entered into nonparametric MannWhitney U tests. All DTI analyses were considered significant at p 0.05. To confirm the anatomical validity of UF ROIs used in the betweengroups analysis, UF tracts were verified in every subject using tractography. Briefly, fiber tracking was performed from every voxel in the brain (brute force method) using the tensor deflection (TEND) algorithm in CAMINO (Lazar et al., 2003). Individual UF tracts were isolated by filtering tractography results to include only those tracts that passed through the UF ROI defined by the JHU atlas (Fig. 1a). Tracts acquired in this way were compared to tracts derived using the manual two-ROI approach, a technique shown to reliably identify tracts with the characteristic C shape of UF fibers (Wakana et al., 2007; Hua et al., 2008). Fiber trajectories for each subject were confirmed using known neuroanatomical landmarks and white matter atlases to verify that the ROIs sampled from white matter regions containing predominantly UF fibers. All tractography data were processed and analyzed using TrackVis software (Wang et al., 2007).
DTI study
DTI participants. A total of 27 inmates (n 14 psychopaths and n 13 non-psychopaths) meeting the inclusion criteria participated in the DTI study (Table 1). DTI data collection. Diffusion-weighted echo-planar magnetic resonance images were acquired by applying diffusion sensitizing gradients
Rest-fMRI participants. A total of 40 inmates (n 20 psychopaths and n 20 non-psychopaths) meeting the inclusion criteria participated in the rest-fMRI study (Table 1). Twenty-six inmates had both DTI and rest-fMRI data. Rest-fMRI data collection. Resting state functional images were collected while subjects lay still and awake, passively viewing a fixation cross. T2*-weighted gradient-echo echoplanar functional images (EPIs) were acquired with the following parameters: TR 2000 ms, TE 39 ms, flip
Rest-fMRI study
17350 J. Neurosci., November 30, 2011 31(48):17348 17357
Table 1. Participant group characteristics DTI study Variable Demographic Age Race (Cauc/Afr Am) Neuropsychological IQa Digit span back Anxiety/Neg affectb Psychopathy PCL-R total Factor 1 Factor 2 Substance abusec Alcohol Prevalence Age of onset Cannabis Prevalence Age of onset Cocaine Prevalence Age of onset Stimulants Prevalence Age of onset Opioids Prevalence Age of onset Sedatives Prevalence Age of onset Hallucinogens Prevalence Age of onset Non-psychopaths (n 13) 31.7 (7.9) 12/1 102.3 (12.5) 7.1 (2.6) 13.5 (10.7) 14.6 (2.7) 5.3 (1.9) 7.5 (3.0) 5/10 21.0 (5.2) 4/10 19.8 (4.7) 2/10 17, 18 1/10 30 2/10 15, 35 0/10 n/a 0/10 n/a Psychopaths (n 14) 32.9 (6.9) 10/4 97.9 (11.1) 6.4 (3.3) 13.2 (7.2) 32.2 (1.8) 12.1 (1.7) 17.4 (1.4) 7/11 17.7 (2.2) 7/11 19.7 (8.6) 3/11 16, 16, 26 2/11 20, 23 2/11 16, 20 1/11 20 3/11 15, 20, 21 p 0.69 0.33 0.36 0.57 0.93 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.67 0.39 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.21
Rest-fMRI study Non-psychopaths (n 20) 31.1 (7.5) 18/2 101.4 (12.6) 6.9 (2.2) 11.2 (9.5) 14.2 (3.4) 4.7 (2.1) 7.9 (3.1) 9/16 22.4 (6.5) 7/16 17.9 (4.7) 3/16 19.7 (2.9) 2/16 16, 18 3/16 20.7 (5.1) 1/16 27 1/16 20 Psychopaths (n 20) 32.6 (6.8) 15/5 99.6 (10.2) 6.7 (3.4) 13.4 (8.3) 31.9 (1.7) 11.8 (1.8) 17.2 (1.5) 11/16 19.0 (3.4) 11/16 19.3 (6.8) 6/16 20.2 (5.4) 4/16 15, 20, 23, 30 6/16 21.7 (7.3) 2/16 20/22 4/16 15, 17, 20, 21 p 0.53 0.41 0.63 0.84 0.44 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.72 0.29 0.43 0.65 0.43 0.99 0.33
a Based on Shipley Institute of Living Scale (Zachary, 1986), bbased on Welsh Anxiety Scale, cbased on diagnosis of abuse or dependence in the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Disorders (SCID) (First, 2002), which was administered to 10/13 non-psychopaths and 11/14 psychopaths in the DTI study and 16/20 non-psychopaths and 16/20 psychopaths in the rest-fMRI study. p values for race distribution and substance abuse prevalence were computed with Fishers exact test. All other p values are based on t test (means presented followed by SDs in parentheses). p values were not calculated for substance abuse age of onset due to relatively small sample sizes of abusers for most substances.
angle 75 , FOV 24 24 cm, matrix 64 64, slice thickness 4 mm, gap 1 mm, voxel size 3.75 mm 3.75 mm 5 mm, 27 sequential axial oblique slices. Resting-state scans lasted 5.5 min (158 volumes). A high-resolution T1-weighted structural image was acquired using a four-echo MPRAGE sequence (TR 2530; TE 1.64, 3.5, 5.36, 7.22 ms; flip angle 7, FOV 256 256 mm, matrix 128 128, slice thickness 1.33 mm, no gap, voxel size 1 mm 1 mm 1.33 mm, 128 interleaved sagittal slices). All four echoes were averaged into a single high-resolution image, which was used to aid in the spatial normalization of EPI volumes and visualization of group statistics. Preprocessing. All fMRI data analysis was performed using AFNI (Cox, 1996) and FSL (http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl/). EPI volumes were slice time corrected using the first slice as a reference (sequential acquisition, Fourier interpolation) and motion corrected by rigid body alignment to the first EPI acquisition. Any subject with motion 4 mm in any direction was excluded from further analysis. The first three volumes were omitted from the EPI time series and the data were despiked to remove extreme time series outliers. Time series data were bandpass filtered (0.009 f 0.08) before spatially smoothing with a 4 mm full-width at half-maximum Gaussian kernel. EPI time series data and high-resolution T1 images were normalized to the Talairach coordinate system (Talairach and Tournoux, 1988) using a 12-parameter linear warp and the EPI data were resampled to 3 mm cubic voxels for subsequent functional connectivity analyses. Normalized T1 anatomical images were segmented into gray matter, white matter, and CSF segments using FAST in FSL (Zhang et al., 2001). White matter and CSF segments were used as masks to extract a representative time series from each tissue type. ROI selection and correlation analysis. To investigate differences in vmPFC connectivity between psychopaths and non-psychopaths, we ex-
amined two functional networks with documented vmPFC involvement. To test the hypothesis that psychopathy is associated with reduced vmPFCamygdala connectivity, we seeded the right and left amygdala in each subject. Amygdala ROIs were manually traced on the Talairachaligned group average T1 anatomical image (Nacewicz et al., 2006) and subsequently edited by cycling through each subjects T1 image, excluding voxels in which the group mask overlapped with adjacent, nonamygdalar, tissue (Fig. 2a). The final exclusionary mask contained only voxels overlying the amygdala in all subjects. To test the hypothesis that psychopathy is associated with reduced vmPFCmedial parietal connectivity, we seeded the precuneus/PCC region (Fig. 3b) using the coordinates reported by Fox et al. (2005) (5, 49, 40; 6-mm-radius sphere). Functional connectivity was assessed by computing whole-brain correlations with the mean time series derived from each of the seed ROIs. The mean time series was included in a GLM with eight regressors of no interest, including six motion parameters (three translations, three rotations) obtained from the rigid body alignment of EPI volumes, the ventricular time series acquired by averaging across the CSF mask, the white matter time series acquired by averaging across the white matter mask, and a second-order polynomial to model baseline signal and slow drift. Voxelwise correlation coefficients for each ROI were converted to z scores via Fishers r to z transform and the resulting z-score maps were entered into second-level statistical analyses. Statistical analyses of correlation maps. To investigate differences in functional connectivity between psychopathic and non-psychopathic prisoners, we performed unpaired two-sample t tests on the z-score maps derived from each seed region of interest. Based on our a priori interest in connectivity with the vmPFC, we restricted group comparisons to a region encompassing the medial surface of the PFC bilaterally, ventral to
Figure 1. DTI results: reduced white matter integrity is specific to the right UF in psychopaths. a, The UF ROI (circled in red) in serial axial slices and a single coronal slice. b, The UF ROI (red) superimposed on an entire UF tract, as computed with tractography (see Materials and Methods for additional details). c e, Bar plots of mean scaled FA values in three comparison tracts, in each hemisphere: ILF/IFOF (c), SLF (d), and SFOF (e). f, Bar plots of mean scaled FA values in the UF. Psychopaths exhibited significantly lower scaled FA values only in right UF. Error bars indicate SEM. *p 0.05. the genu of the corpus callosum (z 6.5; Figs. 2a, 3b). The vmPFC ROI was created using the WFU PickAtlas (Maldjian et al., 2003) and subsequently edited in AFNI to exclude regions dorsal to the genu. Group difference maps were corrected for multiple comparisons using clusterextent thresholding at an uncorrected p 0.005, 0.05 (cluster size 14 voxels, 378 mm 3). Cluster extents were computed using Monte Carlo simulations implemented in the 3dClustSim program (AFNI). Group correlation maps were overlaid on the normalized mean anatomical image. All coordinates are reported in Talairach space. To assess whether group differences were specific to vmPFC, we examined connectivity in two additional regions per seed in which we expected no group differences in functional connectivity. For the right amygdala seed, we investigated connectivity with the anterior superior temporal gyrus (aSTG) and contralateral amygdala, regions with documented right amygdala connectivity (Roy et al., 2009). Connectivity with the aSTG was assessed by placing a sphere of 6 mm radius at coordinates reported by Roy et al. (2009) (aSTG: 34, 10, 26). Connectivity with the left amygdala was assessed using the hand-drawn amygdala ROI from the previous connectivity analysis. For the precuneus/PCC seed, connectivity was assessed in bilateral parahippocampal gyrus and inferior parietal lobule (IPL) masks created in using the WFU PickAtlas (Maldjian et al., 2003). Group differences were considered significant at a corrected p 0.05 (uncorrected p 0.005, cluster size 14 voxels, 378 mm 3). To determine the effects of psychopathy subtype on resting connectivity, masks were generated from significant clusters and parameter estimates were extracted for each subject. These estimates were entered into a 2 2 ANOVA with anxiety and psychopathy as between-subjects factors.
matter structural connectivity between psychopathic and nonpsychopathic prisoners. Before examining FA values in the UF, we first computed a measure of whole-brain FA for each subject, equal to the average FA within all major white matter tracts. Overall, psychopaths had significantly lower whole-brain FA than non-psychopaths (t 3.5, p 0.002). Therefore, in subsequent analyses of specific tracts, we computed a scaled FA value, equal to the FA value in the specific tract of interest divided by the subjects whole-brain FA value. Using the scaled FA values, we addressed our first hypothesisthat psychopaths would have reduced structural integrity (lower FA values) in the UF. Indeed, relative to non-psychopaths, psychopaths had significantly lower scaled FA values in the right UF (t 2.1, p 0.048) (Fig. 1a,b,f ). To assess the anatomical specificity of this finding, we computed scaled FA values for three additional major fiber tracts involving the frontal lobe: the superior fronto-occipital fasciculus, the superior longitudinal fasciculus, and the inferior longitudinal fasciculus/inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus. In none of these comparison tracts were FA values significantly different between psychopaths and non-psychopaths (all p values 0.14) (Fig. 1c e). These DTI data associate psychopathy with a reduction of white matter integrity in the right UF. Functional connectivity: rest-fMRI results To assess the resting functional connectivity of vmPFC, we defined two seed regions known to be functionally interconnected with vmPFC at rest: amygdala (Roy et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2011) and precuneus/PCC (Greicius et al., 2003; Fox et al., 2005). In light of our DTI findings in the right UF, we first examined resting functional connectivity between the right amygdala and vmPFC (Fig. 2a). For each group (psychopaths and non-
Results
Structural connectivity: DTI results FA is a scalar measure that is sensitive to the microstructural integrity and fiber coherence of white matter tracts (Pierpaoli and Basser, 1996). Here, we used FA to probe differences in white
Figure 2. Functional connectivity between the right amygdala and anterior vmPFC is reduced in psychopaths. a, Group differences in connectivity were assessed in the vmPFC mask (red) for correlation coefficients computed using the mean time series extracted from the hand drawn right amygdala seed (blue). b, Mean right amygdalavmPFC connectivity maps for non-psychopaths and psychopaths are shown separately on the group mean anatomical image, thresholded at a cluster corrected p 0.05. Scale bars depict the uncorrected t statistic. Both groups exhibit significant resting connectivity between right amygdala and regions of vmPFC. The group difference map indicates an area in anterior vmPFC where non-psychopaths have significantly greater connectivity than psychopaths (x 3, y 66, z 10, cluster size 14 voxels). c, A three-dimensional rendering of the group mean anatomical image shows the location of the amygdala seed (blue) and significant vmPFC cluster (red) in relation to the UF (green). d, The bar plot depicts the significant group difference in connectivity estimates (Fisher z-transformed correlation coefficients) within the vmPFC cluster. Error bars indicate SEM. Filled circles represent values from individual subjects.
psychopaths), we computed the spatial map of voxels in vmPFC exhibiting a significant correlation with the BOLD signal derived from the right amygdala seed region (Fig. 2b). To test the hypothesis that psychopaths would have reduced vmPFCamygdala functional connectivity at rest, we then computed the spatial map of vmPFC voxels with significant differences in correlated activity with right amygdala (Fig. 2b). In support of our hypothesis, we found a cluster of voxels in the right anterior vmPFC exhibiting significantly lower correlation with right amygdala in psychopaths than in non-psychopaths. To address the anatomical specificity of this finding, we also assessed resting connectivity between the amygdala seed region and two other areas of the brain that have previously been shown to be functionally connected with the right amygdala: the contralateral (left) amygdala and a region of right aSTG (Roy et al., 2009). Although there were significant BOLD correlations between right and left amygdala as well as between right amygdala and right aSTG in both psychopaths and non-psychopaths, there were no significant between-group differences in amygdala connectivity with either area (both p values 0.17). In other words,
psychopaths exhibited normal functional connectivity between right amygdala and left amygdala, as well as between right amygdala and right aSTG. These fMRI results associate psychopathy with a reduction in vmPFCamygdala functional connectivity. To examine whether psychopaths also exhibit reduced functional connectivity between vmPFC and cortical brain regions, we computed resting BOLD correlations with a seed region located in right precuneus/PCC (Fig. 3b). The precuneus/PCC and vmPFC are known to exhibit significant correlations in BOLD signal at rest; together, they comprise the major midline structures of the default mode network (Shulman et al., 1997; Raichle et al., 2001; Greicius et al., 2003; Fox et al., 2005). Indeed, in our sample, both subject groups (psychopaths and nonpsychopaths) demonstrated significant correlations between precuneus/PCC and areas within vmPFC (Fig. 3a). In the betweengroup comparison, we again found a cluster of voxels in the right anterior vmPFC exhibiting significantly lower correlation with right precuneus/PCC in psychopaths than in non-psychopaths, as well as a cluster in more posterior vmPFC overlapping the rostral anterior cingulate cortex (rACC) (Fig. 3a).
Figure 3. Functional connectivity between medial parietal cortex and vmPFC is reduced in psychopaths. a, Mean precuneus/PCCvmPFC connectivity maps are depicted separately for nonpsychopaths and psychopaths on the group mean anatomical image, thresholded at a cluster corrected p 0.05. Scale bars indicate the uncorrected t statistic. Both groups exhibit significant resting connectivity between right precuneus/PCC and regions of vmPFC. The group difference map indicates two separate clusters within vmPFC where non-psychopaths have significantly greater connectivity with the precuneus/PCC seed than psychopaths (vmPFC: x 12, y 51, z 12, cluster size 27 voxels; rACC: x 9, y 39, z 6, cluster size 15 voxels). b, Group differences in connectivity were assessed in the vmPFC mask (red) for correlation coefficients computed using the mean time series extracted from the PCC seed (blue; x 5, y 49, z 40). c, The bar plots depict group differences in connectivity estimates (Fisher z-transformed correlation coefficients) within each significant cluster. Error bars indicate SEM. Filled circles represent values from individual subjects.
To address the anatomical specificity of this finding, we assessed resting connectivity between the precuneus/PCC seed region and two additional areas within the default mode network that have been shown to be functionally connected with precuneus/PCC at rest: the IPL and the parahippocampal gyrus (Greicius et al., 2003; Fox et al., 2005). Although both psychopaths and non-psychopaths had significant positive connectivity between each area and the precuneus/PCC, in neither ipsilateral area were there significant differences in connectivity between groups. In other words, psychopaths exhibited normal functional connectivity between right precuneus/PCC and right IPL, as well as between right precuneus/PCC and right parahippocampal gyrus. By contrast, psychopaths exhibited abnormally low levels of functional connectivity between right precuneus/PCC and vmPFC. In sum, these fMRI data associate psychopathy with a reduction of resting functional connectivity in circuits involving vmPFC. Follow-up analyses: psychopathy subtypes For each of the three main findings associated with psychopathy in this study (reduced FA in right UF, reduced resting vmPFC BOLD signal correlation with amygdala, and reduced resting vmPFC BOLD signal correlation with precuneus/PCC), we next considered whether each finding was driven by a particular subtype of psychopathy (low-anxious/primary vs high-anxious/ secondary). First we examined the DTI finding of reduced FA in the right UF among psychopaths. Because of the relatively small numbers
of inmates with primary and secondary psychopathy in the DTI sample (n 7 and n 7, respectively), we used non-parametric MannWhitney U tests to assess differences between subtypes. As can be seen in Figure 4b, the high-anxious non-psychopaths exhibited significantly lower right UF FA values than the lowanxious non-psychopaths ( p 0.046), whereas the high-anxious psychopaths and low-anxious psychopaths did not significantly differ ( p 0.75). Next we considered the rest-fMRI finding of lower vmPFC amygdala BOLD signal correlation among psychopaths. Given the slightly larger number of inmates with primary and secondary psychopathy in the rest-fMRI sample (n 12 and n 8, respectively), we conducted a 2 2 (psychopathy: high/low anxiety high/low) ANOVA. Here we found a significant interaction between psychopathy and anxiety (F 9.1, p 0.005), such that higher anxiety was associated with greater connectivity among non-psychopaths, but lower connectivity among psychopaths (Fig. 4c). Post hoc t tests revealed no significant difference in connectivity between high- and low-anxious non-psychopaths (t 1.7, p 0.12), but significantly greater connectivity in lowanxious (primary) psychopaths than high-anxious (secondary) psychopaths (t 2.6, p 0.02). Thus, in addition to discriminating between psychopaths and non-psychopaths, amygdalavmPFC connectivity distinguishes between psychopathy subtypes. Finally we considered the rest-fMRI finding of lower vmPFC precuneus/PCC BOLD signal correlation among psychopaths. Here we found no significant interaction between psychopathy
Figure 4. Analysis of DTI and rest-fMRI findings with respect to psychopathy subtype. a, Depiction of each significant finding in the main between-group analyses (psychopaths vs nonpsychopaths). b, For right UF FA values, among non-psychopaths, the low- and high-anxious subgroups significantly differ ( p 0.046); there is no such difference among psychopaths. c, For the cluster identified in the right amygdalavmPFC connectivity analysis, there is a significant interaction between psychopathy and anxiety ( p 0.005), indicating that connectivity is differentially modulated by anxiety subgroup in psychopaths and non-psychopaths. d, e, There are no significant interactions between psychopathy and anxiety for medial parietalvmPFC connectivity. Error bars indicate SEM. Asterisks indicate significant differences between anxiety subtypes.
and anxiety for either the anterior vmPFC area (F 0.002, p 0.97) (Fig. 4d) or the rACC area (F 0.73, p 0.40) (Fig. 4e). In sum, consideration of psychopathy subtype (low-anxious vs high-anxious) yielded significant effects for UF structural integrity and vmPFCamygdala functional connectivity, but not for vmPFCmedial parietal functional connectivity.
Discussion
In this study of psychopathic and non-psychopathic prison inmates, we found evidence of significantly reduced vmPFC connectivity among psychopaths: lower FA in right UF and lower BOLD signal correlations with amygdala and precuneus/PCC at rest. In addition, we found preliminary evidence that the structural and functional differences in vmPFCamygdala connectivity between psychopaths and non-psychopaths may vary as a function of psychopathic subtype. In the following sections, we discuss each of these findings in turn. Structural connectivity: reduced FA in right UF Ours is not the first study to use DTI to assess white matter structural integrity in psychopathy. The only previous study to do so also found that individuals with higher psychopathy scores had significantly lower FA values in right UF than those with lower psychopathy scores (Craig et al., 2009). Although the data presented here support the conclusion of the previous study (reduced structural connectivity between vmPFC and amygdala in psychopathy), our study has several notable methodological differences. One advantage is a more rigorous subject classification scheme. The previous study included n 9 adult males with relatively high levels of psychopathy, defined as PCL-R score 25 (mean 28.4). We used a more stringent PCL-R cutoff of 30 to
define our psychopathic group, in accordance with the PCL-R recommendations (Hare, 2003) and in recognition of the fact that individuals with intermediate PCL-R scores (2129) are in some experimental paradigms more similar to non-psychopaths (PCL-R 20) than actual psychopaths (PCL-R 30) [e.g., in tests of emotion-modulated startle (Patrick et al., 1993) and moral judgment (Koenigs et al., 2011b)]. In addition, our psychopathic and non-psychopathic groups were well matched on demographic variables, intelligence, and substance abuse histories (Table 1). A second distinguishing feature of the DTI component of our study is the single ROI-based approach to calculate UF FA values. The ROI we used was within the dense insular segment, or isthmus, of the UF. This ROI excludes terminal regions of the UF that intermingle with adjacent tracts (Ebeling and von Cramon, 1992). Combining this ROI approach with the correction for whole-brain FA differences allowed us to isolate regions of particular interest, while accounting for non-specific global differences throughout the brain. Finally, due to a larger sample of psychopaths (n 14), we were able to address the role of psychopathic subtypes in mediating the observed effect (see Psychopathic subtypes below for detailed discussion of this point). Despite the methodological differences between studies, the fact that both DTI studies reveal the same specific finding supports a robust association between psychopathy and reduced FA in right UF. Functional connectivity: reduced vmPFCamygdala correlation at rest Although several previous fMRI studies have associated psychopathy with abnormal activation of the amygdala and vmPFC (see
Koenigs et al., 2011a for review), our study is the first to demonstrate aberrant functional connectivity between vmPFC and amygdala in psychopathy using rest-fMRI. Moreover, the collection of neuroimaging data from n 20 psychopaths with PCL-R scores 30 is the largest such sample ever reported in an MRI study. The finding of reduced vmPFCamygdala correlation at rest coincides with our structural DTI data; both findings indicate diminished connectivity between vmPFC and amygdala in psychopathy. These convergent results support the central hypothesis of this study, and join a substantial corpus of research highlighting the importance of vmPFCamygdala interactions in the regulation of emotion and social behavior (Barbas, 2000; Davidson, 2002; Milad et al., 2006; Delgado et al., 2008). Additionally, these neuroimaging findings are consistent with the longstanding psychological perspective that impaired decision making in psychopathy is due to deficient integration of affective information (Cleckley, 1976; Hiatt and Newman, 2006; Blair and Mitchell, 2009). The amygdala is understood to signal the affective salience of environmental stimuli (Davis and Whalen, 2001; Adolphs, 2010), and the anterior vmPFC is purported to discriminate the relative value of options and outcomes during decision making (ODoherty, 2004; Grabenhorst and Rolls, 2011). Accordingly, our finding of reduced functional connectivity between these regions suggests a plausible neurobiological mechanism underlying abnormal decision making in psychopathy. More generally, the convergent DTI and rest-fMRI results suggest that the socio-affective deficits characterizing psychopathy may reflect impaired communication between vmPFC and amygdala. This conclusion is supported by a previous study of adolescents with callous and unemotional traits, which revealed reduced functional connectivity between the amygdala and vmPFC during facial affect processing (Marsh et al., 2008). The convergence of findings across distinct demographic samples and experimental contexts suggests that reduced amygdalavmPFC connectivity may be a consistent neurobiological feature of populations in which callous unemotionality and impaired empathy are major characteristics. A goal for future research will be to use task-related fMRI to examine whether reduced vmPFCamygdala connectivity is an invariant feature of the psychopathic brain, or if this abnormality is diminished or exaggerated during certain cognitive or affective tasks. Additionally, it will be important to investigate with more anatomically precise imaging techniques whether the connectivity differences we observe in psychopaths are driven by particular subnuclei of the amygdala. Functional connectivity: reduced vmPFCprecuneus/PCC correlation at rest The second major rest-fMRI finding of this study is reduced connectivity between vmPFC and precuneus/PCC. Again, ours is the first study to demonstrate this effect. The vmPFC and precuneus/ PCC comprise two nodes of the default mode network (Raichle et al., 2001; Greicius et al., 2003). It is important to note that the reduced correlation between vmPFC and precuneus/PCC activity among psychopaths does not simply reflect diminished functional connectivity throughout the default mode network. Functional connectivity was normal between right PCC/precuneus and two other nodes of the network: right inferior parietal lobule and right parahippocampal gyrus. Although the functional significance of the vmPFCprecuneus/PCC circuit remains to be fully elucidated, preliminary ac-
counts suggest involvement in self-reflective cognition (Buckner et al., 2008; Qin and Northoff, 2011). Previous empirical and theoretical work on psychopathy has proposed an underlying defect in self-reflection, particularly as it pertains to observed decision-making impairments (Newman and Lorenz, 2003; Koenigs et al., 2010). However, at this point it may be premature to speculate on the precise functional significance of reduced vmPFCmedial parietal connectivity in psychopathy. For the primary aim of this study (identifying neural correlates of psychopathy), the default network provides a well validated means of testing the functional connectivity of vmPFC. As with the amygdala seed, the precuneus/PCC seed reveals diminished functional connectivity of vmPFC in the psychopathic brain. Psychopathic subtypes This is the first neuroimaging study to directly test whether the neural correlates of psychopathy vary as a function of psychopathic subtype. In light of the decades of theoretical and empirical work emphasizing a distinction between low-anxious (primary) and high-anxious (secondary) psychopathic subtypes (e.g., Karpman, 1946; Lykken, 1957; Blackburn, 1975; Cleckley, 1976; Newman et al., 1990, 1992; Hiatt et al., 2004; Koenigs et al., 2010), we evaluated whether trait anxiety/negative affect among psychopaths has any significant bearing on the observed neurobiological differences between psychopaths and non-psychopaths. With respect to the DTI finding of reduced FA in right UF, the effect appears to be driven primarily by a difference between low-anxious psychopaths and low-anxious non-psychopaths. Among non-psychopaths, we observed the expected relationship between UF and anxiety; namely, lower levels of anxiety were associated with greater structural integrity of the UF (Kim and Whalen, 2009), presumably due to more efficient regulation of emotion through greater PFCamygdala connectivity (Davidson, 2002; Milad et al., 2006). Psychopaths, on the other hand, did not exhibit this relationship between UF integrity and anxiety. We speculate that the low levels of anxiety in primary psychopathy may be mediated by a different neurocognitive mechanism than efficient top-down regulation of emotion through a PFCamygdala circuit. Perhaps the low anxiety (and overall emotional unresponsiveness) of primary psychopaths is driven instead by deficient bottom-up integration of affective information (Hiatt and Newman, 2006; Blair and Mitchell, 2009; Baskin-Sommers et al., 2011). With respect to the rest-fMRI findings of less correlated activity in vmPFC circuits among psychopaths, we saw a significant interaction between psychopathy and anxiety for vmPFCamygdala connectivity, but no significant interaction between psychopathy and anxiety for the vmPFCprecuneus/PCC connectivity. Thus, the significant effect of psychopathic subtype is restricted to structural and functional connectivity between vmPFC and amygdala. In particular, we note that vmPFCamygdala functional connectivity not only distinguishes psychopaths from non-psychopaths, but also primary (low-anxious) psychopaths from secondary (high-anxious) psychopaths. Although this finding merits attention as the first evidence for dissociable neural substrates of psychopathic subtypes, the functional significance of these subtype data is not immediately clear. Future work with larger samples and tasks specifically designed to elicit vmPFCamygdala interactions (e.g., reversal learning or emotion regulation) will be necessary to better understand the effect of psychopathy subtype on amygdalavmPFC connectivity. We believe that the present data, while preliminary, indicate that consideration of psychopathic subtypes may be of critical
Motzkin et al. Reduced Prefrontal Connectivity in Psychopathy Cox RW (1996) AFNI: software for analysis and visualization of functional magnetic resonance neuroimages. Comput Biomed Res 29:162173. Craig MC, Catani M, Deeley Q, Latham R, Daly E, Kanaan R, Picchioni M, McGuire PK, Fahy T, Murphy DG (2009) Altered connections on the road to psychopathy. Mol Psychiatry 14:946 953, 907. Damasio AR, Tranel D, Damasio H (1990) Individuals with sociopathic behavior caused by frontal damage fail to respond autonomically to social stimuli. Behav Brain Res 41:8194. Davidson RJ (2002) Anxiety and affective style: role of prefrontal cortex and amygdala. Biol Psychiatry 51:68 80. Davidson RJ, Putnam KM, Larson CL (2000) Dysfunction in the neural circuitry of emotion regulationa possible prelude to violence. Science 289:591594. Davis M, Whalen PJ (2001) The amygdala: vigilance and emotion. Mol Psychiatry 6:1334. Delgado MR, Nearing KI, Ledoux JE, Phelps EA (2008) Neural circuitry underlying the regulation of conditioned fear and its relation to extinction. Neuron 59:829 838. Ebeling U, von Cramon D (1992) Topography of the uncinate fascicle and adjacent temporal fiber tracts. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 115:143148. Eslinger PJ, Damasio AR (1985) Severe disturbance of higher cognition after bilateral frontal lobe ablation: patient EVR. Neurology 35:17311741. First MB, ed (2002) Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders, Research Version, Non-patient Edition. (SCID-I/NP). New York: Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute. Fox MD, Snyder AZ, Vincent JL, Corbetta M, Van Essen DC, Raichle ME (2005) The human brain is intrinsically organized into dynamic, anticorrelated functional networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:96739678. Glenn AL, Raine A, Schug RA (2009) The neural correlates of moral decision-making in psychopathy. Mol Psychiatry 14:5 6. Grabenhorst F, Rolls ET (2011) Value, pleasure and choice in the ventral prefrontal cortex. Trends Cogn Sci 15:56 67. Greicius MD, Krasnow B, Reiss AL, Menon V (2003) Functional connectivity in the resting brain: a network analysis of the default mode hypothesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:253258. Hare RD (2003) The Hare psychopathy checklist-revised, Ed 2. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. Hiatt KD, Newman JP (2006) Understanding psychopathy: the cognitive side. In: Handbook of psychopathy (Patrick CJ, ed), pp 334 352. New York: Guilford. Hiatt KD, Schmitt WA, Newman JP (2004) Stroop tasks reveal abnormal selective attention among psychopathic offenders. Neuropsychology 18:50 59. Hua K, Zhang J, Wakana S, Jiang H, Li X, Reich DS, Calabresi PA, Pekar JJ, van Zijl PC, Mori S (2008) Tract probability maps in stereotaxic spaces: analyses of white matter anatomy and tract-specific quantification. Neuroimage 39:336 347. Jones DK, Basser PJ (2004) Squashing peanuts and smashing pumpkins: how noise distorts diffusion-weighted MR data. Magn Reson Med 52:979 993. Karpman B (1946) Psychopathy in the scheme of human typology. J Nerv Ment Dis 103:276 288. Kiehl KA (2006) A cognitive neuroscience perspective on psychopathy: evidence for paralimbic system dysfunction. Psychiatry Res 142:107128. Kiehl KA, Smith AM, Hare RD, Mendrek A, Forster BB, Brink J, Liddle PF (2001) Limbic abnormalities in affective processing by criminal psychopaths as revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Biol Psychiatry 50:677 684. Kim MJ, Whalen PJ (2009) The structural integrity of an amygdalaprefrontal pathway predicts trait anxiety. J Neurosci 29:11614 11618. Kim MJ, Gee DG, Loucks RA, Davis FC, Whalen PJ (2011) Anxiety dissociates dorsal and ventral medial prefrontal cortex functional connectivity with the amygdala at rest. Cereb Cortex 21:16671673. Koenigs M, Kruepke M, Newman JP (2010) Economic decision-making in psychopathy: a comparison with ventromedial prefrontal lesion patients. Neuropsychologia 48:2198 2204. Koenigs M, Baskin-Sommers A, Zeier J, Newman JP (2011a) Investigating the neural correlates of psychopathy: a critical review. Mol Psychiatry 16:792799. Koenigs M, Kruepke M, Zeier J, Newman JP (2011b) Utilitarian moral judgment in psychopathy. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. Advance online publication. doi:10.1093/scan/nsr048.
importance for clarifying the neural correlates of psychopathy. Further research will be necessary to elucidate whether, within the neurobiological characteristics that broadly distinguish psychopaths from non-psychopaths, there are also features that reliably distinguish between psychopathic subtypes. Limitations A limitation of the extreme groups design used in this study is that we are unable to determine whether our findings are driven by a particular factor of psychopathy (interpersonal-affective or impulsive-antisocial) or by particular behavioral characteristics (e.g., aggression). Future work in populations with more continuous distributions of psychopathy scores will be necessary to assess whether a particular dimensional factor drives the effects we report here. Conclusion Collectively, the structural and functional neuroimaging data presented here converge to specify diminished vmPFC connectivity as a robust neural correlate of psychopathy. Human lesion studies have long implicated vmPFC dysfunction in the pathogenesis of psychopathic behavioral and affective traits (Eslinger and Damasio, 1985; Damasio et al., 1990; Koenigs et al., 2010). The imaging findings presented here provide direct evidence of vmPFC dysfunction in criminal psychopaths, and putatively identify a specific neurobiological abnormality underlying psychopathy.
References
Adolphs R (2010) What does the amygdala contribute to social cognition? Ann N Y Acad Sci 1191:42 61. Alexander DC, Barker GJ (2005) Optimal imaging parameters for fiberorientation estimation in diffusion MRI. Neuroimage 27:357367. Andersson JLR, Jenkinson M, Smith S (2007) Non-linear registration, aka spatial normalisation. FMRIB technical report TR07JA2. Arnett PA, Smith SS, Newman JP (1997) Approach and avoidance motivation in psychopathic criminal offenders during passive avoidance. J Pers Soc Psychol 72:14131428. Barbas H (2000) Connections underlying the synthesis of cognition, memory, and emotion in primate prefrontal cortices. Brain Res Bull 52:319 330. Baskin-Sommers AR, Curtin JJ, Newman JP (2011) Specifying the attentional selection that moderates the fearlessness of psychopathic offenders. Psychol Sci 22:226 234. Blackburn R (1975) An empirical classification of psychopathic personality. Br J Psychiatry 127:456 460. Blair RJ (2007) The amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex in morality and psychopathy. Trends Cogn Sci 11:387392. Blair RJ (2008) The amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex: functional contributions and dysfunction in psychopathy. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363:25572565. Blair RJ, Mitchell DG (2009) Psychopathy, attention and emotion. Psychol Med 39:543555. Blumer D, Benson DF (1975) Personality changes with frontal and temporal lesions. In: Psychiatric aspects of neurological disease (Benson DF, Blumer D, eds). New York: Stratton. Brinkley CA, Newman JP, Widiger TA, Lyman DR (2004) Two approaches to parsing the heterogeneity of psychopathy. Clin Psychol Sci Practice 11:69 94. Buckner RL, Andrews-Hanna JR, Schacter DL (2008) The brains default network: anatomy, function, and relevance to disease. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1124:138. Cleckley H (1976) The mask of sanity, Ed 5. St. Louis: Mosby. Cook PA, Bai Y, Nedjati-Gilani S, Seunarine KK, Hall MG, Parker GJ (2006) CAMINO: open-source diffusion-MRI reconstruction and processing. 14th Scientific Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Seattle.
Motzkin et al. Reduced Prefrontal Connectivity in Psychopathy Lazar M, Weinstein DM, Tsuruda JS, Hasan KM, Arfanakis K, Meyerand ME, Badie B, Rowley HA, Haughton V, Field A, Alexander AL (2003) White matter tractography using diffusion tensor deflection. Hum Brain Mapp 18:306 321. Lorenz AR, Newman JP (2002) Deficient response modulation and emotion processing in low-anxious Caucasian psychopathic offenders: results from a lexical decision task. Emotion 2:91104. Lykken DT (1957) A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality. J Abnorm Psychol 55:6 10. Maldjian JA, Laurienti PJ, Kraft RA, Burdette JH (2003) An automated method for neuroanatomic and cytoarchitectonic atlas-based interrogation of fMRI data sets. Neuroimage 19:12331239. Marsh AA, Finger EC, Mitchell DG, Reid ME, Sims C, Kosson DS, Towbin KE, Leibenluft E, Pine DS, Blair RJ (2008) Reduced amygdala response to fearful expressions in children and adolescents with callousunemotional traits and disruptive behavior disorders. Am J Psychiatry 165:712720. Milad MR, Rauch SL, Pitman RK, Quirk GJ (2006) Fear extinction in rats: implications for human brain imaging and anxiety disorders. Biol Psychol 73:6171. Mori S, Wakana S, Nagae-Poetscher L, van Zijl PCM (2005) MRI atlas of human white matter. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Nacewicz BM, Dalton KM, Johnstone T, Long MT, McAuliff EM, Oakes TR, Alexander AL, Davidson RJ (2006) Amygdala volume and nonverbal social impairment in adolescent and adult males with autism. Arch Gen Psychiatry 63:14171428. Newman JP, Lorenz AR (2003) Response modulation and emotion processing: implications for psychopathy and other dysregulatory psychopathology. In: Handbook of affective sciences (Davidson RJ, Scherer K, Goldsmith HH, eds), pp 904 929. Oxford: Oxford UP. Newman JP, Patterson CM, Howland EW, Nichols SL (1990) Passive avoidance in psychopaths: the effects of reward. Pers Individ Dif 11:11011114. Newman JP, Kosson DS, Patterson CM (1992) Delay of gratification in psychopathic and nonpsychopathic offenders. J Abnorm Psychol 101:630 636. ODoherty JP (2004) Reward representations and reward-related learning in the human brain: insights from neuroimaging. Curr Opin Neurobiol 14:769 776.
J. Neurosci., November 30, 2011 31(48):17348 17357 17357 Patrick CJ, Bradley MM, Lang PJ (1993) Emotion in the criminal psychopath: startle reflex modulation. J Abnorm Psychol 102:8292. Pierpaoli C, Basser PJ (1996) Toward a quantitative assessment of diffusion anisotropy. Magn Reson Med 36:893906. Price JL (1999) Prefrontal cortical networks related to visceral function and mood. Ann N Y Acad Sci 877:383396. Qin P, Northoff G (2011) How is our self related to midline regions and the default-mode network? Neuroimage 57:12211233. Raichle ME, MacLeod AM, Snyder AZ, Powers WJ, Gusnard DA, Shulman GL (2001) A default mode of brain function. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:676 682. Roy AK, Shehzad Z, Margulies DS, Kelly AM, Uddin LQ, Gotimer K, Biswal BB, Castellanos FX, Milham MP (2009) Functional connectivity of the human amygdala using resting state fMRI. Neuroimage 45:614 626. Shulman GL, Fiez JA, Corbetta M, Buckner RL, Miezin FM, Raichle ME, et al. (1997) Common blood flow changes across visual tasks: II. Decreases in cerebral cortex. J Cogn Neurosci 9:648 663. Smith SM (2002) Fast robust automated brain extraction. Hum Brain Mapp 17:143155. Talairach J, Tournoux P (1988) Co-planar stereotaxic atlas of the human brain. New York: Thieme Medical. Wakana S, Caprihan A, Panzenboeck MM, Fallon JH, Perry M, Gollub RL, Hua K, Zhang J, Jiang H, Dubey P, Blitz A, van Zijl P, Mori S (2007) Reproducibility of quantitative tractography methods applied to cerebral white matter. Neuroimage 36:630 644. Wang R, Benner T, Sorensen AG, Wedeen VJ (2007) Diffusion toolkit: a software package for diffusion imaging data processing and tractography. Proc Int Soc Mag Reson Med 15:3720. Welsh G (1956) Factor dimensions A and R. In: Basic readings on the MMPI in psychology and medicine (Welsh GS, Dahlstrom WG, eds), pp 264 281. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Zachary RA (1986) Shipley Institute of Living Scale: Revised Manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Zhang Y, Brady M, Smith S (2001) Segmentation of brain MR images through a hidden Markov random field model and the expectationmaximization algorithm. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 20:4557.
32GB RAM FOR Dell PowerEdge 2900 , works in Ver I, II, III 100% ...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/170916520469?ssPageName=STRK:MEW...
Buy
Hi, solver123! (Sign out)
My eBay
Sell
Community
Customer Support
CATEGORIES
Back to My eBay
ELECTRONICS
FASHION
MOTORS
DAILY DEALS
| Listed in category: Computers/Tablets & Networking > Enterprise Networking, Servers > Servers, Clients & Terminals > Servers Remove
Saved in your Watch list |
32GB RAM FOR Dell PowerEdge 2900 , works in Ver I, II, III 100% Gurantee
Item Used condition: Quantity: Price: 3 available / 1 sold
eBay Top-rated seller

network-servers (5407 )
370.00
Buy it now Add to basket

Add to list
100% Positive Feedback

Consistently receives highest buyer ratings Dispatches items quickly Has earned a track record of excellent service
Collect 370 Nectar points | Conditions Link your Nectar card or join Nectar
Save this seller See other items
Postage: Free Standard Delivery |
See details
Item location: Basildon, United Kingdom Post to: European Union See exclusions
Visit Shop:
NETWORK-SERVERS
Registered as a business seller
Delivery:
Between Tue. 02 Apr. and Wed. Apr. to RH123SH Estimated via eBay FAST & FREE , Postal order/Banker's draft |
payment information Read details See
03
Payments:
Returns: Returns accepted |
Sell one like this
Description
Postage and payments
Print
Item number:
Rep
1709
Seller assumes all responsibility for this listing. Last updated on 13 Jan, 2013 13:33:56 GMT View all revisions
Item specifics
Condition: Used: An item that has been previously used. The item may have some signs of cosmetic wear, but is fully ... Read more
NETWORK-SERVERS
Visit my eBay Shop
Sign up for newsletter
1 of 3
27/03/2013 22:41
Shop categories
Shop home Computers/Tablets & Networking Enterprise Networking, Servers Computer Components & Parts Drives, Storage & Blank Media
Location Code: SCOFFcab

Description
32GB RAM FOR Dell PowerEdge 2900 , works in Ver I, II, III 100% Gurantee Specifications:
8x 4gb PC2-5300 Fully buffered ram 2Rx4 ( dont mistake this for the 4Rx8) dell fits 2Rx4 ( if you see it cheaper ask them if its 2Rx4 These ram were taken from 4 Poweredge 2900 we bought today!!!!!!!!!!!!! and are fully tested and working
picture shows the server fo which you are buying the ram for!
Payment and Shipping Info Payment Options, Postage / packaging, Collection Paypal, BACS, Cheque,debit card,Cash on collection free From SS14 3WB
Details
About shipping cost:--------------Locations: We ship to all areas in the UK using Interlink Express and most European countries Using Fed-Ex, DHL. For small packets we use the royal mail sign for services Signature Handling
Required: All items shipped requires a signature on delivery.
Time: Products ordered by 12:00PM GMT Monday-Friday will usually be shipped the same day or next day the latest. Products ordered that are bulky and requires testing before despatch will be shipped the next business day or soon after (See stated handling time). The customer will be contacted if any unexpected delays occur while orders are being processed. Shipping Limitations / Delays: All shipping dates and estimated delivery dates are approximate and are based upon current availability of materials and prompt receipt of all necessary information. We will not be liable for any damage, loss, fault or expenses arising out of delays in shipment or other act caused by or imposed by strikes, fires, disasters, riots, Acts of God, governmental action or any other cause or condition beyond our reasonable control.
Shipping Carriers: Other shipping carrier options are available on request. However we may use our discretion also to provide the safest and best service. You may organise your own transportation, but remember that the shipping cost quoted includes packaging material custom made boxes and there will be a charge for those which can be agreed prior to sale FOB Origin / Taxation: All international orders are quoted exempt of Taxes which means that we are not responsible for any duties, taxes, customs broker fees, or any other additional costs that may be imposed when your shipment arrives in your country. By placing an order with us, you agree to accept any and all charges that may be in addition to regular shipping and insurance costs. If you choose to not pay these fees, then you agree that you have abandoned your package and are not entitled to any refund from us. Once the package leaves the UK, the package is your responsibility to either claim or abandon.
Import Restrictions: Please be aware that certain items may be restricted for import into your country. It is your responsibility to ensure that items ordered are legal / allowed to be imported
2 of 3
27/03/2013 22:41
Business seller information

ASDMicrolectronics Ltd Contact details VAT number: UK 726083831
Returns policy
Return policy details
You accept the Item(s) is/are second-hand goods unless otherwise stated and that the Item(s) is/are sold on an as is basis with a 30 day warranty period. During this period if you belie the item(s) is/are faulty, you will need to return the item at your expense. The item(s) will then be fully tested and if found not to be faulty shall be returned to you at the same cost as origin postage stated in the Ebay auction, you will be contacted beforehand to arrange payment for returning the item. If the item(s) is/are found to be faulty then either a refund or replacement w be given.For (DSR)Distant selling regulation reason, its ok to change your mind and return the item within 7 days of receipt in orriginal packaging at your cost, item must be trackable and h proof of delivery.
Most Buy It Now purchases are protected by the Distance Selling Regulations, which allow you to cancel the purchase within seven working days after the day you receive the item. Find out more about your rights as a buyer a exceptions .
Questions and answers about this item

No questions or answers have been posted about this item.
Ask a question
00307
Sponsored results
Dell PowerEdge Buy High Performance Dell PowerEdge Servers w/ Intel Xeon Online Now. www.dell.com/uk Dell PowerEdge Mr Memory 100% Guaranteed, Server Memory RAM. In Stock, Free & Fast Delivery www.mrmemory.co.uk/Free_Delivery PowerEdge 2900 III Memory Your Cheap Dell Ram Upgrades Here. Free UK Delivery, Lifetime Warranty www.offtek.co.uk/PowerEdge_2900_III Server Memory / RAM Buy DellPowerEdge Server Memory Free Expert Advice: 0800 032 5095 www.orcalogic.co.uk/Server_Memory 627814-B21 HP32GB UK 1x32GB Quad Rank x4 PC3L-8500 DDR3 Brand New,Next Day Shipping,VAT inv www.controlaltdeleteit.co.uk/
Back to My eBay
About eBay Announcements Buy Hub Safety Centre Partner Centre VeRO: Protecting Intellectual Property Policies Feedback Forum eBay Wish list Site Map Customer Support eBay official time
Copyright 1995-2013 eBay Inc. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners. Use of this website constitutes acceptance of the eBay User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
3 of 3
27/03/2013 22:41
Tuesday 2 July 2013
Volume 565 No. 27
HOUSE OF COMMONS
OFFICIAL REPORT
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday 2 July 2013
500
Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2013 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/.
729
2 JULY 2013
730
House of Commons
Tuesday 2 July 2013 The House met at half-past Eleven oclock PRAYERS [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND TRANSPORT FOR LONDON (NO.2) BILL [LORDS] Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Wednesday 10 July at Four oclock (Standing Order No. 20). HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (FILMING ON HIGHWAYS) BILL [LORDS] Second Reading opposed and deferred until Wednesday 10 July at Four oclock (Standing Order No. 20).
deserve. Making the system fairer for defendants does not, of course, compromise access to justice for claimants, and we will seek to restore balance to the civil justice system. Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab): As the Minister knows, the vast majority of claims are genuine. Rather than being obsessed with this issue, should not the Government be targeting some of the practices of the insurance industry, such as cold-calling victims or referring them to its in-house lawyers in the hope of settling claims cheaply? Why are the Government not doing that? Is it because, again, they are on the side of the big battalions rather than the consumer? Mrs Grant: The hon. Lady has got it absolutely wrong. We know that the Government, the insurance industry and claimant lawyers must all work to tackle fraud, because it is completely unacceptable. We fully expect the industry to pass on the considerable savings that it will make to the public in the form of reduced insurance premiums. Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): Having suffered a severe whiplash injury after someone shunted my vehicle many years ago, I have great sympathy for genuine victims, but there is widespread evidence that gangs have moved into what they see as a profitable business, generating deliberately fraudulent claims, and that that is driving up premiums for ordinary motorists. Mrs Grant: I agree. Unfortunately, a compensation culture was allowed to develop under the last Government, and we are having to deal with it now. Our reforms will ensure that meritorious claims will always be possible, while also ensuring that unnecessary claims are avoided. Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP): Given that the cost of car insurance is very high in Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to whiplash injuries, and given that the issue was referred to the Competition Commission last year, will the Minister tell us whether she has received any progress reports from the commission? Mrs Grant: I personally have received no progress reports, but I am happy to look into the matter for the hon. Lady. The Automobile Association recently reported a 4.1% reduction in premiums, which it attributed to the impact of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and the Governments other reforms, but it is clear that much more needs to be done. Restorative Justice 2. Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD): What assessment he has made of the use of restorative [162385] justice on the secure childrens estate. The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green): The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office have commissioned an evaluation of a number of restorative justice pilot schemes, some of which have involved young people, but there has been no specific evaluation of the use of restorative justice on the youth secure estate.
Oral Answers to Questions

JUSTICE The Secretary of State was asked Whiplash Injuries 1. Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD): What steps he is taking to reduce the cost and quantity of claims [162384] for compensation for whiplash injuries. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant): Earlier this year, the Government consulted on proposals to reduce the number and cost of whiplash claims. We will publish our response after we have considered the Transport Committees report, which we expect to be published before the summer recess. Mr Ward: Car insurance premiums in Bradford are the highest in the country. The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries has released information showing that the number of third-party whiplash claims rose by 5% in the year 2010-11, although the number of accidents fell. According to the institutes chairman, 60% of the claims were exaggerated, misrepresented or fraudulent. Will the Secretary of State look again at the period within which claims can be made? At present, a claim can be made up to three years after a whiplash accident. Mrs Grant: We have no plans to change the law on limitation, but I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are absolutely committed to tackling fraudulent whiplash claims, while also ensuring that those with genuine neck injuries receive the compensation that they need and
731
Oral Answers
2 JULY 2013
Oral Answers
732
Stephen Gilbert: We know that reducing the unnecessary criminalisation of children should be a key priority, and clearly children within the secure estate are particularly vulnerable. We also know that restorative justice approaches deliver better outcomes for all involved. Will the Minister commit to introducing a specific study on the use of restorative justice in the secure childrens estate? Damian Green: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentlemans underlying point. Restorative justice has proved to be an extremely successful method; evaluation has found that 85% of victims who have participated in it said that they were satisfied with the experience. We will certainly keep a close eye on how it can be used most effectively for young people. Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC): Last year the Justice Committee visited Northern Ireland to see how restorative justice was working there. It is a mainstream means of disposal in Northern Ireland, and it works extremely well. Would the Minister care to look at the way in which it works in Northern Ireland in order to inform his decisions? Damian Green: I would be very happy to do that. I am aware of the work that has been done in Northern Ireland, which has been extremely successful, and I should remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Crime and Courts Act 2013 places pre-sentence restorative justice on a statutory footing for the first time, so I very much share his underlying thoughts on this. Reoffending 3. Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con): What assessment he has made of the contribution that financial inclusion programmes can make towards reducing [162386] reoffending rates. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling): Alongside our probation reforms, it is important to look at other areas in which we help offenders when they leave prison. It is often the basic things, like having a bank account, that they need help with to avoid slipping back into a life of crime. We recognise the importance of financial inclusion, which is why we grant-fund Unlock, a programme that helps prisoners establish a relationship with a commercial bank. Indeed, the prisons Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), is doing a lot of work at the moment with the banks to try to ensure we can offer financial services to those who leave prisons, so they can get their lives back together. Damian Hinds: Does my right hon. Friend agree that credit unions can play a unique and valuable role not only in providing the nuts and bolts of banking, but in improving financial capability and promoting savings to increase financial resilience? Chris Grayling: I am a great fan of the credit unions. I have seen their work both in my previous role as employment Minister and now as potential contributors to the process of rehabilitating offenders. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we should support and encourage the work of credit unions. They can make a huge difference for those who cannot access financial services through other means.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): In terms of reducing reoffending, will the Secretary of State look urgently at the case of John Cronin, a convicted sexual predator who was originally given a life sentence? He has now been released on licence and has broken the terms of that licence, and apparently has not been returned to jail and cannot be put on the sex offenders register. He is a very dangerous man. Will the Secretary of State look urgently at that case? Mr Speaker: Order. He is indeed, by all accounts, a dangerous man, but it is not immediately apparent what the relevance of his case is to the issue of financial inclusion programmes Steve McCabe: I was talking about reoffending. Mr Speaker: Indeed, but not financial inclusion, which was the purport of the question. However, the Secretary of State is a dextrous fellow, and I am sure he can respond appropriately. Chris Grayling: Well, Mr Speaker, I simply say that I will take a look at the case. Mr Speaker: Indeed. Drug Testing (Prisoners) 4. Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): If he will introduce mandatory drug testing for prisoners on entry to and exit from prison. [162387] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright): The right hon. Gentleman knows that we already have a system of random and intelligence-led drug testing in prisons. He knows, too, that we are not persuaded of the merits of adding further testing for all prisoners at the fixed points of arrival and departure from custody. However, we are working with the Department of Health to test an end-to-end approach to tackling addiction from custody into the community, which includes looking at which prisoners should be tested and when. Keith Vaz: The Minister is right: I do, in fact, know all that. However, it does not deal with the problem. The problem is that 35% of those in prison have a drug addiction and 6% acquire that addiction once they are in prison, so more come out with an addiction than went in with one. Why do the Government not feel that mandatory testing on entry and exit will help break the cycle of drug dependency? Jeremy Wright: We are in agreement, because I knew all that, too, but it is worth saying to the right hon. Gentleman that we have one or two issues with the suggestion he and his Select Committee make in what is, I concede, an excellent report that makes a substantial contribution to this debate. The concerns we have are that if tests are done at a fixed point of exit, particularly from custody, the offender knows that is coming and can do things to try to mitigate the effect of the test. We think it is important to test on a random, and perhaps frequent, basis. We entirely agree with him and his Committee, however, about the importance of extending our testing to include prescription drugs as well as
733
Oral Answers
2 JULY 2013
Oral Answers
734
illegal drugs, because of the widespread abuse of those drugs, and I hope he will support the private Members Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), which will achieve exactly that. Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the effectiveness of drug recovery wings in prisons? Jeremy Wright: We are very much in favour of the approach that attacks this problem in an intensive way and makes sure that prisoners understand that they need to get off drugs and stay off drugs. Drug recovery wings are extremely effective in that regard, and of course prisoners have an opportunity to move on to another wing thereafter, where they will be able to stay drug-free. That is an extremely important approach. Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab): If the Government cannot control the taking of unlawful drugs in a prisona completely controlled environment what messages does the Minister think that sends out to the rest of society for reducing the drug problem? Jeremy Wright: It is important to recognise that the rate of mandatory drug testing producing a positive result has dropped considerably, from 25% or so in 1996-97 to about 7% now. So it is not that we are without success, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is no cause for complacency. We do everything possible to prevent the influx of drugs into our prisons, but that is an extremely difficult exercise. It is important to attack demand as well as supply, and to make sure that prisoners come off drugs and stay off them. Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): I warmly welcome last weeks announcement of a new prison to be built in north Wales. Will the Minister undertake that from the moment the new prison opens it will be 100% free of illegal drugs? Jeremy Wright: I suspect it would be unwise for me to make such a pledge, but we will make sure that in all our prisons we do everything we can to restrict the inflow of illegal drugs, by whatever means. As I said, we will also make sure that we provide the maximum effort to get prisoners off drugs and keep them that way. Probation System 5. Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab): What progress he has made on his plans to reform the probation [162388] system. 6. Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): What his plans are for the future of the probation [162389] service. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright): We will open up rehabilitation to a diverse range of organisations and introduce new payment incentives for providers to focus relentlessly on reforming offenders. We plan to commence the competitive process for our new providers at the end of this summer. We will also create a new national public sector probation service, which will work to protect the public.
Mark Tami: Given the magnitude of the proposed changes, why is the Minister not piloting this scheme? Jeremy Wright: It is a myth that there is no learning already available to the Government on payment by results; learning is available across government activities, and a number of pilots within the probation field have begun. Not all of them have been completed, but, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, it is possible to learn something from a pilot even if it is not completed. We are confident that payment by results is the right way to approach this matter. It is also the right way, of course, to release the savings we need to pay for an additional 50,000 offenders who currently receive no supervision. If he has a better way of doing that, we look forward to hearing it. Paul Goggins: The Minister is in the unusual position of wanting to both privatise and nationalise the probation service at the same time. Will he explain to the House why the probation service is to be trusted with the supervision of the most dangerous, but will not be allowed to bid to work with less serious offenders? Jeremy Wright: We think that a combination of approaches will work best. We think that the probation service has particular skills in dealing with the most dangerous and high-risk offenders, so we want to give it the opportunity to concentrate on those offenders. We also think that there is a huge range of innovation and good ideas among bodies of all sorts, in the voluntary sector as well as in the private sector, and we want to bring those ideas to bear on what has been an extremely intractable problemdriving down reoffending rates. Priti Patel (Witham) (Con): Despite record spending on prison and probation services, reoffending rates are still far too high. Will the Minister give an assurance that the new probation reforms will seek to address that issue, while also delivering value for money for the taxpayer? Jeremy Wright: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. She is right to say that reoffending rates are far too high; 50% of those released from custody reoffend within 12 months. That is unacceptable, and people within the probation service know that. We need to bring those rates down, and the best way to do so is to unlock the innovation I spoke about a moment ago and to have a system where, if people succeed in driving down reoffending rates, they receive the maximum reward and if they do not, they will not. Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con): One of the biggest weaknesses of the criminal justice system has been a failure to engage with short-term prisoners. Does the Minister therefore agree that probation assistance with that group of offenders is vital to curb reoffending rates? Jeremy Wright: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. He puts his finger on a big gap in the system up to this point in that those offenders who receive a custodial sentence of 12 months or less receive very little or no supervision at all. It is very important that they should, because that is the group with the highest rates of reoffending. Some 60% reoffend within 12 months. We need to address that and we will do so.
735
Oral Answers
2 JULY 2013
Oral Answers
736
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab): Highly respected former chief inspector of prisons Lord Ramsbotham has called on the Justice Secretary to withdraw his plans for probation as they are too complex to be achieved safely. Concerns about public safety meant that not a single Cross Bencher voted with the Government on his amendment in the Lords. The timetable is unrealistic, the IT is not ready and the Departments risk assessment states that the proposal is unlikely to work. Is it not time for the Government to take stock and rethink before they waste any more resources on this rapidly unravelling plan? Jeremy Wright: The hon. Lady will not be surprised to learn that I do not agree with her. This is an important and urgent reform. She must recognise that every single year 600,000 offences are committed by people who have previously committed an offence. Until we start to address reoffending effectively, that number will not come down and we will not avoid the creation of tens of thousands of new victims every year. That is why this is urgent. As far as I understand the position of the hon. Ladys party, she agrees that reoffending rates are too high, that something must be done about that and that there is a problem with the group with sentences under 12 months, yet we hear nothing from her about what she would do about that if it was not what we propose to do. If she has an alternative, let us hear it. Legal Aid (Barristers) 7. George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con): What assessment he has made of the effect on barristers of [162390] his proposed changes to legal aid. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling): Our analysis, based on applying our proposals to the cases handled by the Legal Aid Agency last year, suggests that overall the majority of criminal advocates would either be better off or see their income unchanged as a result of the fee proposals, while civil barristers affected, who generally receive higher fees than other civil advocates, could see their income reduced. George Hollingbery: Could the proposals not have been centred around a fixed-fee per case, salami-slicing budget cuts across the board or restructuring? Will not this arrangement protect the incomes of lower paid barristers? Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was part of our objective. Some people argued that we should go for one case, one fee, but that would in my view do deep long-termif not totaldamage to the Bar. We chose not to go down that route. We have put together a package of proposals that, on the basis of the case mix carried out last year by junior barristers, should leave a substantial proportion of them either with an unchanged income or a slightly increased income.
[162402] John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) 19. (Lab): If legal aid cannot be paid unless permission is granted for a judicial review, does the Justice Secretary accept that lawyers will be unable to take on some of the strongest cases such as when local authorities might refuse to recognise their duty to house a homeless family? Those are exactly the kind of cases where they will offer an early settlement or a no-cost settlement.
Chris Grayling: I am afraid that I think the current situation is unacceptable, whereby we are obliged to provide legal aid to anyone who starts a judicial review regardless of the strength of their case. If an individual has a strong case with their lawyer against a local authority, they should seek to recover their costs from that local authority. It is not the job of the taxpayer to bank-roll all cases. Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): Has the Lord Chancellor heard from the Bar Council since the Law Society sent me a letter yesterday describing the constructive progress that had been made in discussions? Does he recognise the genuine concern that when a fundamental change is made in the relationship between the two sides of the profession, it has to be after very careful consideration? Chris Grayling: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Over the past few weeks, I have had very constructive engagement with the Law Society and I welcome the counter-proposals it has put to us. We have recognised many shared objectives in that and it has behaved with professionalism over this matter. I was very disappointed that when the Bar Council submitted its report and recommendations to us in response to our consultation it did not contain the same degree of constructive engagement. I am due to meet the Bar Council later today and I hope we will see that change. Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab): Now that the Lord Chancellor concedes that client choice is integral to the criminal justice system, when will he announce that price-competitive tendering has been dumped once and for all? Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman needs to realise that the concept of competitive tendering in criminal legal aid was originated by his own party. Now we are hearing the Labour party oppose the things for which it argued for years, and it is typical of this Opposition that they will say one thing when in government, and when in opposition will say something completely different. I am proud to be part of a party that is defending health budgets and taking tough decisions in other areas; the hon. Gentleman is part of a party doing the opposite. Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): Although legal aid is no longer available for most family litigation, it is still available for family mediation, yet many mediation services have seen their inquiries halve since April because clients are under the mistaken belief that it is caught up in the changes. Given that mediation is often better than litigation, what can the Secretary of State do to advertise the fact? Chris Grayling: I am very concerned to pursue that. I am aware of the issues that my hon. Friend mentions. It may well be down to the fact that there was a surge in cases prior to the legal aid changes that came into effect in April, but I can give him an assurance that this is very much on my radar, and I intend to pursue it. Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): Last week, the Lord Chancellor was telling some of the 16,000 respondents to his legal aid consultation that their responses had been automatically deleted, but he must
737
Oral Answers
2 JULY 2013
Oral Answers
738
have read some of them, as they provoked his embarrassing U-turn on choice of solicitor yesterday. Will he now also U-turn on forcing small firms out of business and on giving cash incentives for guilty pleas, and will he abandon the further cuts in civil legal aid that will, according to the Parole Board among others, cost several times the 6 million he claims they will save? Chris Grayling: Labour Members really do not get it, do they? Government Minister consults on proposals, listens, makes some modifications, and gives an early decision to help people, so they are not attacking proposals that have changed. Labour Members never listened to anybody when they were in government; they just ploughed ahead regardless. The hon. Gentleman is the person who said, in 2011, that the Government should look for
efficiencies in the criminal legal aid system,
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): Could the Secretary of State assure the House that none of the e-mailed responses to his consultation has been deleted? To make everybody happy, will he ensure that every single one of them is published, because there seems to be a story out there that somehow or other his Department is not interested in the response to the consultation process, and therefore it has been deleting unwanted e-mails? I am sure that is not the case, but could he assure the House that it is not so? Chris Grayling: My understanding is that that is not the case, and if there is any suggestion that it is the case, we will ask the people who sent the e-mails to resend them. However, I can assure the House that as far as I am aware, every submission is in our hands, is being read, and will be considered properly. Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD): All of us understand the need to control costs, but I wonder how the Secretary of State will ensure that the creation of a single fixed fee, payable regardless of whether an individual pleads guilty, will not create a direct conflict of interest between the legal representative and his or her client. Chris Grayling: It is clearly in our interests to have a system where we encourage people who are guilty to plead guilty early. That saves money. It is the right thing to do for society. I do not believe or accept that we would be in a position where any qualified lawyer would try to encourage someone to plead guilty when they were not guilty, but of course we are listening to all the responses from the consultation and will bring forward further proposals in due course. Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab): May I say, in the most courteous way, to the Justice Secretary that he should revisit some of the answers on legal aid he has given today? He is just wrong on a number of points. There is now a general consensus that his Departments reform of court translation services was a shamblesthe Select Committee on Justice, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee all agree. What differences are there in his plans to reform legal aid to avoid repeating the mistakes made in the previous set of reforms? Chris Grayling: Let us be clear: it is no secret that the handling of contracting of translation services could have been better, and lessons have been learned. However, that service is now delivering to a very high standard and saving the taxpayer millions of pounds. The Opposition simply do not get that we have to take tough decisions to save money to deal with the mess they left behind. Small Claims Procedure 9. George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con): What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of [162392] the small claims procedure. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant): In April, the Government increased the limit in the small claims track from 5,000 to 10,000, with the aim of ensuring that more claims are resolved in a way that is accessible, proportionate and cost-effective.
to
savemoney.[Official Report, 2 November 2011; Vol. 534, c. 958-9.]
We are now doing that; they have changed their minds. It is shambolic. Criminal Legal Aid 8. Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con): What representations he has received from smaller law firms on his proposals to reform criminal legal aid. [162391] The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling): The recent consultation Transforming Legal Aid generated around 16,000 responses, which, contrary to reports, have been read extensively by individuals, including many by myself. Many were from smaller law firms or those who work within a smaller law firm. I have personally attended events organised by the Law Society where I met many solicitors who practise with smaller firms. I met a number of people from smaller firms in the north-west last week, and we will continue to talk to all the representative bodies in the weeks ahead. Andrew Stephenson: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. On 24 May, when I met a number of solicitors and barristers from across Pendle, they raised several concerns with me. However, principally they believe the savings that my right hon. Friend is planning to make have already been made, and the figures the Government are using are out-of-date legal aid totals. What reassurance can he provide to them? Chris Grayling: I can give my hon. Friend my assurance that that is not the case. There are a number of false rumours floating around. The figures that we used for the recent consultation were based on the criminal legal aid spend in 2011-12, which were the most up-to-date figures when we published the document. When developing these proposals, we have also taken fully into account the savings that came out of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which were presaged by the previous Government, who set in train the initial process towards cutting legal aid costs. However, given the continuing pressure on public finances, we do, I am afraid, still need to bear down on the cost of legal aid.
739
Oral Answers
2 JULY 2013
Oral Answers
740
George Eustice: I am grateful for that answer and welcome the raising of the threshold from 5,000 to 10,000, but a constituent of mine has highlighted some of the difficulties people have enforcing some judgments. My constituent had a judgment in his favour for 475 against a tradesman who failed to complete a task, but never received the money; he found that his only remedy was to incur further legal and court costs. Does the Minister agree that we need to review enforcement in such cases where payment is not made? Mrs Grant: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Our Solving disputes in the county courts consultation considered reforms to the attachment of earnings order and the third party debt recovery order. We support those reforms and will implement them as soon as resources allow. Changes have been made to the charging order and order for sale procedures, which will help both creditors and debtors. Reoffending 10. Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab): What steps he is [162393] taking to reduce reoffending. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright): Under our Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, every offender released from custody, including those sentenced to less than 12 months in custody, will receive statutory supervision and rehabilitation in the community. We are also putting in place an unprecedented nationwide through-the-prison-gate resettlement service, whereby most offenders are given continuous support by one provider from custody into the community. Ian Mearns: The Minister has already referred to the number of offenders who reoffend within 12 months, and we know that prisoners are spending an awful lot of time banged up in their cells, when what many of them really need is education, because all too many failed in or were failed by the education system before embarking on a life of criminal activity. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that more time in prison is devoted to prisoners education, so that they are better prepared for life outside and for employment? Jeremy Wright: The hon. Gentleman is right: education is extremely important, especially for offenders who have very low levels of educational attainment before going into custody, of whom there are many. We are working on that. More prisoners are now doing education coursesmore this year than last year. Of course, it is also important that prisoners go to work while they are in custody, and more hours were worked last year than the year before. I hope very much that that trend will continue. Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab): Just last week, I met the Prisoners Education Trust and was told that much prison work is low skilled and does not in any way improve employability on release. What will Ministers do to ensure that prison work increases peoples qualifications, improves their CVs and gives them a genuinely better chance of taking up work following release from custody?
Jeremy Wright: The hon. Lady will understand that there are restrictions on the types of work that can be offered in a custodial environment, but there are jobs that will contribute to prisoners qualifications and experience. However, there is a wider point, which is that, for a great many prisoners, who simply have no experience of the world of work, the softer skills they need to be employableworking in a team, getting up in the morning and going to work for a full dayare valuable, too, and we will seek to extend those skills as far as we can. Presumption of Death 11. Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con): If he will take steps to ensure that in cases where a person has disappeared and is presumed dead, their family and loved ones are better able to deal with the practical and administrative issues that arise. [R] [162394] 13. Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con): If he will take steps to ensure that in cases where a person has disappeared and is presumed dead, their family and loved ones are better able to deal with the practical and [162396] administrative issues that arise. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant): We are working with the General Register Office to create the rules and regulations necessary to implement the Presumption of Death Act 2013, which will create a single certificate of presumed death equivalent to a death certificate. Nigel Adams: I welcome that response, and so will the family of missing York woman Claudia Lawrence. We have certainly moved on in the past few months and I am very grateful. Can my hon. Friend confirm that a Bill will be put before the House to deal with the issues around guardianship, and will she tell the House the likely time scale for that? Mrs Grant: A consultation on guardianship will be launched this year, with a view to taking a final decision on guardianship next year. Caroline Dinenage: Leading Seaman Timmy MacColl went missing while in Dubai with the Royal Navy last May. He leaves behind a wife and three small children. The Royal Navy is now seeking to get a certificate of death without any face-to-face consultation with his wife. On top of the emotional strain, this casts a question mark over the familys financial future and where they will live. To what extent can the Ministry of Justice liaise with the armed forces in such cases and ensure that the family are much more involved in these decisions? Mrs Grant: I know that my hon. Friend cares deeply about these issues and has worked tirelessly in assisting this family in her constituency whose loved one has gone missing. The Ministry of Defence has its own procedures for presuming missing service personnel to be dead and does not liaise with the Ministry of Justice in individual cases, but if my hon. Friend would like some further information on the involvement of family members, I am happy to make representations to the Defence Secretary on her behalf.
741
Oral Answers European Convention on Human Rights
2 JULY 2013
Oral Answers
742
12. Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): What his policy is on whether the UK should continue to be a contracting party to the European convention [162395] on human rights. The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green): The Government remain committed to the European convention on human rights and to ensuring that those rights continue to be enshrined in UK law. We are also closely involved in the process to reform the Strasbourg Court. Mr Bain: The Foreign Secretary promised that there would be no downgrading of human rights under this Government, so can the Minister explain why the Justice Secretary and the Home Secretary believe it is right to end 60 years of strong human rights protection drawn up by British lawyers and politicians, which have served both the United Kingdom and Europe so well? Damian Green: Every Member of this Government is concerned with making sure that human rights remain one of the bases of a good democratic society. There is no secret about the fact that the two parties in the coalition Government may have slightly different views about how to enhance human rights in future. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that on behalf of my party I am leading work to make sure that human rights do not get devalued by being exploited, particularly in the courts, by those who should not be exploiting the legislation for their own ends. Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con): I thank my right hon. Friend for this reply. Is he aware that one interpretation of the European convention on human rights could be that people are prevented from exercising freedom of conscience in relation to same-sex marriage in practising their profession while wanting to maintain their religious beliefs? Damian Green: There are clearly a number of areasmy hon. Friend has mentioned onein which the potential interpretation of the existing human rights legislation could lead to effects which many in this House and outside would regard as perverse. That is precisely the sort of area which we are looking at very carefully so that human rights can remain something that we all unquestioningly support. Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): I and my colleagues very much welcome the Ministers commitment that this Government will stay within the ECHR. Does he agree that those who wish to leave ought to make it clear which articles of the convention they have a problem with, and which aspects they do not agree with? Are there any that he does not agree with? Damian Green: Again, every Member of the Government has made it clear that the original convention was written well and expresses views that all of us in the House share. Members in all parts of the House, even in the Labour party, might admit that the way the legislation
is now being used bring human rights into disrepute and that we need to do something about it. That is the work that I am leading on behalf of the Conservative party. Prisoner Literacy 14. Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con): What steps he is taking to improve literacy amongst [162397] prisoners. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright): Part of a prisoners induction involves screening for literacy needs, and where such needs are identified, prisoners are offered teaching and support as a priority. Improving prisoners literacy is a key objective of the learning and skills service in custody. Improving literacy skills means that a prisoner has a greater likelihood of getting and holding on to a job when released, which helps to reduce reoffending. Mr Raab: According to a recent Ministry of Justice survey, one in five prisoners needs help reading and writing. Charities like the Shannon Trust have pioneered peer mentoring and synthetic phonics to improve literacy rates. What steps is the Minister taking to expand such innovative programmes, and does he agree that they are absolutely crucial to equipping offenders with the skills they need to go straight on release? Jeremy Wright: I agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to cite the Shannon Trust. Its Toe by Toe project is an extremely good example of what we are discussing. We will help it in any way we can. I hope that he will hear a little more about that over the rest of the summer. The important changes we have made to the incentives and earned privileges scheme go beyond simply what we may take away from prisoners; they are also about the incentives we give them to help other prisoners. In order to reach the enhanced level of the scheme, a prisoner will have to help someone else in prison. That is a good opportunity for more mentoring and more learning coaching of the type he describes. Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op): How supportive is the Minister of creative agencies getting into prisons to help improve language and literacy, and is he aware of any barriers they might have experienced to running workshops in prisons? Jeremy Wright: I am certainly in favour of anything that can be demonstrated to assist in reducing reoffending, but there is another test that needs to be applied: a public acceptability test. The public have certain expectations of what should and should not happen in prison, so we need to apply that filter, but I am certainly interested in imaginative ideas that will help to drive down reoffending rates. Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP): Can the Minister assure the House that improving literacy among prisoners is provided equally across the United Kingdom? What consultation has he had with the Minister of Justice in the Northern Ireland Assembly?
743
Oral Answers
2 JULY 2013
Oral Answers
744
Jeremy Wright: I understand the hon. Gentlemans point. I think it is important to learn from good practice wherever it happens across the United Kingdom, and we will continue to try to do that. Legal Aid 15. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): What impact assessment he has conducted on the potential effect of his proposed changes to legal aid on the quality and equity of legal representation in criminal cases. [162398] The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling): Although we are clear that we must continue to bear down on the cost of legal aid, under our proposals, and indeed under any actions we take, quality legal representation will still be available to all who need it. John Pugh: I congratulate the Government on having the political maturity to rethink their proposals. Does the Secretary of State agree that we cannot compromise the quality of British justice, even in a time of austerity? Chris Grayling: I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, I regard the qualifications available to both the solicitors profession and the Bar in this country as being of a high international standard. If a qualified solicitor or barrister is available to help somebody in a legal predicament, that is a sign that we are doing the right thing to support them and that will not change. Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab): Why, then, did the Secretary of State think it was a good idea to limit whom a person can pick to be their solicitor? Chris Grayling: My key concern is to ensure that we have universal coverage, even in tough times. I have consulted the legal profession, put forward ideas and listened, which I think is what they hoped a Government would do. I have made a modification, but nobody, and certainly not the Labour party, should be under any illusions: we have to meet financial targets and tough decisions lie ahead. The question is whether the Opposition support those changes, because I have heard no suggestion that they would reverse them. Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): My right hon. Friend and I have already spoken about this subject. I believe that there would be very great difficulties for people in need of legal aid on the Isle of Wight. The travelling times and the difficulty and cost of accessing legal advice on the mainland would be of a completely disproportionate magnitude to those experienced elsewhere in the country. Will he outline how he plans to address that problem? Chris Grayling: One of the comments from colleagues in the House and elsewhere, which we must clearly factor in when developing the next stage of the proposals, is what we will do in areas that are rural or have particular geographical issues. That is something I am very mindful of Karl Turner: It is a mess.
Chris Grayling: It is all very well for Labour Members to say that it is a mess, but we are making changes that they recommended and said were necessary. We are making a financial decision to sort out a mess they left behind. [Interruption.] Where do they stand? Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) should not keep prating noisily from a sedentary position. When he was practising at the Bar, he would not have behaved like that in the courts. Due decorum should be observed by the hon. Gentleman. Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab): This Governments handling of the proposed changes to legal aid has been absolutely shambolic. Not only are they proposing to restrict access to legal aida right that goes back to Magna Cartabut their proposal will actually cost more. When will the Minister get a grip? Chris Grayling: Sometimes, Mr Speaker, you have to pinch yourself when you hear Labour Members. It is true that we are going to limit access to legal aid to people who have a net disposable income of more than 3,000 a month after tax, national insurance, mortgage payments, food, council tax, and child care. My view is that if people have that much disposable income, they can make a contribution. Labour is only a party for the rich these days. Judicial Review 16. Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con): What assessment he has made of recent trends in the development of [162399] judicial review. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant): There has been a significant growth in the number of judicial review claims, increasing by 86% between 2007 and 2012. Judicial review will continue to play an important role in holding Government and others to account. Mark Menzies: Does the Minister agree that too much time and money are being spent on weak and unmeritorious cases, and that this needs to be addressed with some urgency? Mrs Grant: My hon. Friend makes an excellent and astute point. Judicial review is a crucial check on the power of the state, and it will remain so. However, it is also subject to abusestifling innovation, frustrating reforms and incurring considerable cost. Our reforms will tackle the burden while maintaining the benefits of the rule of law and access to justice. Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab): Aside from the near impossible job of getting the AttorneyGeneral to quash an inquest, the only route that families have to challenge a coroners decision is through judicial review. The Government have already stopped bereaved families having a proper coroners appeal system. Is not the restriction of judicial review a further kick in the teeth for bereaved families?
745
Oral Answers
2 JULY 2013
Oral Answers
746
Mrs Grant: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is well aware of the actions that have been taken for bereaved families. I will not go into too much detail now, but I will say, picking up the point about judicial review, that these proposals strike the right balance and a fair balance, and they are proportional and targeted. The system is already subject to abuse. The reforms that we will put forward will not restrict access to justice or the rule of law, nor the right to a fair hearing. Topical Questions T1. [162409] Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): If he will make a statement on his Departmental responsibilities. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling): My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) has already referred to the new prison in north Wales, and I thought it might be helpful to update the House on our plans. The purpose-built institution that we are planning will hold about 2,000 prisoners and bring about 1,000 jobs and a 23 million boost each year to the regions economy. We expect work to start on the build in summer next year, with the aim of being fully operational by late 2017. I want to put on record my thanks to the Welsh Government and the local authorities in the region for their co-operation in helping this, the first prison in north Wales, to become a reality. We will announce the specific set of sites in due course. I believe that this is the right thing for this part of the country and the right way to meet prison capacity demands. New prison builds represent much better value for money for the taxpayer, but as the recent report from Policy Exchange recognised, they are also the right way for us to cut this countrys stubbornly high reoffending rate. That is another reason why the announcement of this Government investment is such welcome news. Kelvin Hopkins: Only two years ago the probation service was awarded the British Quality Foundation Gold Medal for Excellence and was lavishly praised by the then responsible Minister, who was later sacked to be replaced by hard-line privatisers who are now determined to force more public money into private pockets, whatever the consequences. Is not that the simple truth? Chris Grayling: It is important that Labour Members understand what they are saying when they oppose these reforms. Every day of every week, a young person, very often somebody who has grown up in the most difficult circumstances and found themselves with a short sentence in jail, is walking back on to our streets with 46 in their pocket and no support, and the majority reoffend. That is a scandal, it needs to stop as quickly as possible, and that is what we are aiming to do. T2. [162410] Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con): May I commend my right hon. Friend for his courage in trying to tackle the legal aid budget, which certainly does need to be addressed, and thank him for the genuine consultation exercise on which he has embarked? May I gently suggest to him that, in particular, the plans for large criminal law legal aid contracts in rural areas need to be looked at? I am concerned about the decimation of specialist firms in Plymouth. I support his approach, but could he please look again at that issue?
Chris Grayling: I can give that assurance. As I said a moment ago, this is one of the things that has come out of the consultationit is a genuine consultation, although I know that Labour does not believe that it should be genuineand we are listening and I will review it over the next few weeks. Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab): And all said with a straight face! It is a statement of fact that the Justice Secretarys plans for the probation service will lead to serious sexual and violent offenders being supervised by the likes of Olympic security and Work programme experts G4S, A4e and others. Why has he refused my freedom of information request to see the risk register for these plans? Chris Grayling: Labour simply will not accept the need for change and for those under-12-months prisoners to be supervised. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, when his party was in government he did not publish risk registers, either. This is another example of Labour doing one thing in government but wanting the rules to change the moment it moves into opposition. It is very unedifying. Sadiq Khan: May I gently advise the Justice Secretary to seek advice from the Leader of the House, the former Secretary of State for Health, about how that movie ended for him? The rest of us saw leaks of the risk register in last weeks media. What would the risk register need to say for the Justice Secretary to change his plans, or does he really not care? Chris Grayling: Again, the right hon. Gentleman has conveniently forgotten what the purpose of a risk register is: it is a management document designed to ensure that we look at all the issues a project should address when formulating its plans and that we take the necessary steps to ensure that the process runs smoothly. That is what we are doing, and we are doing it because there is a large group of mostly young people on our streets who are likely to reoffend and have no support at all at the moment. I think that that is a problem worth sorting. T3. [162411] Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD): May I pursue a little further the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) about the impact of these legal aid changes in rural communities? Does the Secretary of State recognise that in remote communities like my North Devon constituency all this work is currently undertaken by small firms that will not be big enough to tender for contracts, and that if they are not able to keep the critical mass of work in this area, they will not be there to be subcontracted to by bigger firms? How far will my constituents have to go for legal representation in the future? Chris Grayling: We need to ensure two things. We have to bring down the cost of criminal aid, so no change is not an option. We have consulted on a package of proposals and there will have to be change in the solicitors sector. The Law Society itself accepted that in a letter to the Select Committee yesterday. However, as I
747
Oral Answers
2 JULY 2013
Oral Answers
748
have said, one of the issues that arose from the consultation related to rural areas and we will consider it very carefully. T4. [162412] Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): In answer to questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) and others a few minutes ago, the Secretary of State and his colleagues were less than clear about the European convention on human rights. Which part of it do they object to and want to change, and are there plans to leave the convention altogether? The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green): I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not hear my answer. There is genuine discontent about the way in which the perfectly reasonable articles in the convention have been misused in this countrys legal system, such that in many cases people who should not be able to use them misuse them in order to abuse this countrys hospitality by staying here when they have no right to do so and generally bring the whole concept of human rights into disrepute. The hon. Gentleman and I would agree that human rights ought to be the bedrock of a democratic society, but the problem with the current system is that that is in danger of no longer being the case. I would have hoped that he would welcome our attempts to reform it. T5. [162413] Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): If it is true that there are still almost 11,000 foreign national offenders in our prisons, what steps are being taken to negotiate compulsory prisoner transfer agreements with other nations so that these people can be sent back to secure detention in their own countries? The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright): My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that is the right objective. We have negotiated a compulsory prisoner transfer agreement with Albania, which is a high-volume country. That was concluded in January. We are making better use than ever before of the European Union prisoner transfer agreement. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that some 200 cases are currently processing through that method. We will remove as many as we can because, as my hon. Friend has heard me say before, the right place for foreign national offenders is their own country, not ours. T6. [162414] Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op): Is the spoof Twitter account @FailingGrayling a reference to the failing Work programme or to the rushed probation reforms, which are sure also to fail? Chris Grayling: The Work programme is not in my remit now, but Members will have noticed that in the past couple of weeks we have published figures showing that more than 300,000 people have started work through the Work programme and that 132,000 of them have completed lengthy periods in work, all at a fraction of the cost of the programmes that we inherited from the previous Government.
T8. [162416] Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): The Secretary of State has expressed his concern recently about the use of cautions for people who commit burglary. What progress has he made on strengthening sentences, particularly for those who have been convicted of burglary, because it remains a serious offence? Damian Green: I share my hon. Friends concerns. He will know that burglars now face sentences of up to 14 years and that those who commit a third domestic burglary face a minimum sentence of three years imprisonment. I am also happy to inform him, and those who are chuntering on the Opposition Front Bench, that the number of burglaries is clearly going down. Over the past 12 months, the number of burglaries has fallen by 3,000. That is an example of how our police reforms are working and how crime is falling in this country. T7. [162415] Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): The Conservative party has always claimed to be suspicious of an over-mighty state. Why, then, do the Justice Secretarys plans for judicial review reform strengthen the role of the state at the expense of the rights of individual citizens? Chris Grayling: I do not believe that anyone should just be able to make a case, find a lawyer and have the initial application paid for. That is what we are going to change. T9. [162417] Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD): In its court translation services, Capita is delivering only 90% compliance against a contract level of 98%. Will the Minister tell the House the overall cost of that failure to the Courts Service and the total amount of the penalties that have been levied on Capita? The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant): The were difficulties and teething problems at the beginning, but the contract is now running at a very good success rate. The contract saved the taxpayer 15 million in the first year. I believe that it will be more effective, accountable and transparent than the previous version. T10. [162418] Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab): There are significant questions of confidence relating to the Justice Secretarys plans to privatise courts, not least from the Lord Chief Justice, and the Justice Secretarys own officials have little confidence in his plans to privatise the probation service. Does anyone in the criminal justice system have any confidence in the Justice Secretary? Chris Grayling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to make it clear that I have no plans to privatise the Courts Service. I have every intention of giving it additional commercial freedoms so that it is able to charge a proper rate from those who can afford to pay it. For example, when Russian oligarchs come to London to use our courts, it is right and proper that they should pay a significant amount for the job, as well as their substantial legal fees. I am sorry to hear that the Labour party is championing low bills for the rich and not the right job for this country.
749
Oral Answers
2 JULY 2013
Oral Answers
750
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con): Will the Secretary of State refute again the ridiculous scare stories? Does he agree that even combined courts in the counties can be more flexible, efficient and innovative, and that any talk of privatisation is ridiculous? Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. What we are hearing from Opposition Members throughout this sitting is that they are the same old Labour party: they have no answers to any of the problems, they oppose any change and they oppose savings. Frankly, they are not fit to be an Opposition, let alone a Government. Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab): The appointment of registered intermediaries is an underused special measure for child witnesses. Because children do not hear or understand language in the same way as adults, they can find cross-examination very confusing. What more can Ministers do to encourage the appointment of registered intermediaries to help children give good quality evidence in court? Damian Green: The hon. Lady is right that registered intermediaries do an extremely good job. On the wider front, I hope she is aware of the measures that we are taking to protect vulnerable witnesses and young vulnerable witnesses in particular. We have announced the reform that will allow them to give interviews by video link, so that they do not have to be in court; we are looking at ways to avoid unnecessary multiple cross-examinations by barristers; and we are piloting ways of allowing them to give evidence by video in advance. We have a number of ways to protect such witnesses. Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): I understand the need to bear down on costs that is driving the Lord Chancellors legal aid reforms. Given the disproportionate cost of defending corporate fraud cases, will he consider other ways to make savings, such as requiring those costs to be met out of companies public liability insurance? Chris Grayling: I am all in favour of making anyone involved in our court system make greater use of insurance, as they do in Germany. However, it is a difficult place to get to if we are asking victims of crime to contribute to the cost of prosecuting that crime. John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Further to Topical Question 1, will changes to the probation service mean that reoffending rates rise or fall? I am not asking for another paean for privatisationwill reoffending rates be cut or will they rise? Chris Grayling: Evidence from where we have put such changes into practice in Peterboroughwe have just published the first findings of the kind of mentoring approach I am talking aboutshows a noticeable drop
in the level of reoffending. I am confident that the reforms will deliver that. It is much needed. Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con): What plans does my right hon. Friend have to improve the number of court cases that go ahead on the day that has been scheduled, in order to reduce the upset caused to victims and witnesses? Damian Green: My hon. Friend is right to identify that problem. We have just published a wide-ranging transformation of the criminal justice system, which will include much better use of technology to ensure that information available to the court helps the case go ahead on the day. There is also the use of more specialist courts for high-volume regular business that can be taken out of magistrates courts. That will enable magistrates to use their expertise where it is used bestin more complex casesand enable cases to go ahead more often on the day planned, for the greater convenience of victims. Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): Will the Secretary of State promise the House that if he were to close a womens prison, he would ensure that some of the savings that arose went towards preventing women from going into prison in future? Chris Grayling: The answer is yes. Our probation reforms will also involve greater mentoring support for those who receive community sentences. Our aim is to stop people going to prison in the first place, and help prevent them from going back if they do end up in prison. Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con): My constituents expect prison to be a place of punishment and rehabilitation, not to provide a more comfortable lifestyle than the one inmates enjoy on the outside. Will the Secretary of State explain how the incentives and earned privileges scheme will operate in the new prison planned in north Wales, and say whether daily life will be significantly different from elsewhere? Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the incentives and earned privileges scheme will operate in all our prisons from 1 November. It will mean that prisoners have to earn their privileges by doing more than just keeping their nose clean, and by engaging in their own rehabilitation. That is good for combating reoffending, and is the sort of process that people would expect to happen in our prisons. Several hon. Members rose Mr Speaker: Order. I would love to hear from more colleagues but we must move on.
751
2 JULY 2013
Afghanistan and EU Council
752

12.32 pm The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron): With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Afghanistan, and also report back on last weeks European Council. I visited Afghanistan on Armed Forces day, to pay tribute to the extraordinary men and women who risk their lives every day to serve our country. We should remember in particular the 444 who have lost their lives in Afghanistan. I hope the whole House will welcome the decision to use money from banking fines to build a permanent memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire so that our generationand every future generationcan remember and honour the sacrifice that they have made for us. We are in Afghanistan for one reason: to protect our national security by stopping that country being used as a base from which to launch terrorist attacks against our people and our allies around the world. That requires a security response: resisting Taliban insurgent attacks, driving out al-Qaeda, and training Afghan forces to take on that task for themselves. It requires a political response: supporting the Afghans to build a more peaceful, democratic and prosperous future, including a peace process. It also requires a diplomatic response, working in particular with Pakistan, which has a vital role in fighting terrorism in the region. Let me take those three points in turn. On security, four years ago three quarters of the most serious terrorist plots against the UK had links to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Today, it is less than half. British and international forces have stopped Afghanistan acting as a safe haven for al-Qaeda, and Afghan forces are taking the lead on security right across the country. At the weekend I went to Camp Bastion, Lashkar Gah and the forward operating base at Durai. The British forces I met are absolutely clear about the capability, confidence and leadership of the Afghan forces. Afghan forces already deliver 90% of their own training, and all the 1,000 police patrols in central Helmand each week are now conducted alone without international security assistance force support. It is that growing capability that enables us to draw down our troops. Our numbers in Afghanistan have already reduced from 9,500 to 7,900. By the end of this year, they will be about 5,200. Until recently, we were in 137 different bases. We are now in 13 bases and by the end of the year it will be four or five bases. By the end of next year, when Afghan forces take on full security responsibility, there will be no British troops in any kind of combat role at all. Beyond 2014, small numbers of British troops will remain to help the Afghans deliver their national army officer academy, and this was a request from the Afghan President himself. We will also contribute 70 million a year as part of international financial support for Afghan security beyond 2014. A strong security response must be also be accompanied by a strong political response. In Helmand, we have been working for many years to support the development of better governance, local justice, public services and the chance for Afghans to build sustainable livelihoods that do not involve drugs. Some 130,000 children are now in school, including 30,000 girlssomething that would have been impossible under the Talibanand
80% of the population can now get health care within 10 km of their home. At the national level, the political process is moving forward too. At the weekend, President Karzai assured me of his commitment to the first peaceful democratic succession of power in living memory, following next years elections at the end of his second and final term. More than 50,000 new voters have already registered, including over 10,000 women. Britain is supporting this with 4.5 million of aid targeted specifically to increase womens participation. The progress in Afghanistan is a challenge to the Taliban. The combination of the successful build-up of the Afghan national security forces and progress on the ground demonstrates that the way to a role in Afghanistans future is not through terror and violence, but only by engaging in a political process. So I welcome plans to begin direct talks with the Taliban. The peace process must be Afghan led, but we should do all we can to support it. That does not signal any weakening of our security response, but if we can persuade people that there is a legitimate political path for them to follow, we should do so. We also know that the problems in Afghanistan will not be solved in Afghanistan alone. The support of neighbouring countries such as Pakistan will be vital. On my visit to Pakistan, I was greatly encouraged by the commitment of the new Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif. His election was the first ever democratic transition in that country from one elected Government to another. I believe that that represents a precious sign of progress in Pakistan. We discussed our trade, economic and cultural ties. We also agreed to work together in countering extremism and radicalisation, investing in education, tackling poverty and dealing with all the issues that can fuel terrorism. Building on the trilateral process I have been leading between the UK, Afghanistan and Pakistan, I welcomed the Prime Ministers commitment to working with Afghanistan in defeating terrorism across the region. Let me turn to last weeks European Council. This was rightly focused on sorting out Europes economy by doing what we are doing in Britain: getting a grip on spending and supporting private enterprise to create jobs and growth. On spending, the Council finalised, with the European Parliament, the seven-year budget deal we successfully negotiated in February. This agreed new flexibilities between different years and between different budget headings. Crucially, the deal delivers, for the first time, a real-terms cut in the credit card limit for EU spending for the next seven years. There was no change to the February deal, which set total payments at 908.4 billion across the next seven years. That compares with 943 billion in the past seven years. However, in this process there was a further attempt to unpick the British rebate. In February, after repeated attempts to water down the rebate, we reached a clear deal that it would remain unchanged. This was reflected in the Council conclusions that I reported back to this House. The discussion that took place was not necessary and frustrating, and it was frankly unacceptable that we had to go through it all over again. The proposal to remove our rebate on agricultural spending in new member states would have cost the British taxpayer more than 1.5 billion. That has now been categorically rejected. We will continue to get the rebate in the years ahead on the same basis that we do now. It is fair, it is right, and, unlike the previous Government, this Government will not agree to weaken it or give any part of it away.
753
2 JULY 2013
754
At the Council there was a particular focus on tackling youth unemployment by supporting the private sector to create jobs and tackling burdens that hold back our businesses competing in the global race. [Interruption.] What we didto answer the shadow Chancellorwas agree that the European Investment Bank would increase its lending by 40%, with more finance for small and medium-sized businesses. We agreed to do more to help young people not working to acquire the skills that the private sector needs through proper educational training very much along the lines of Britains 1 billion Youth Contract. We also agreed to scrap unnecessary EU regulation, which ties up our businesses in red tape when they should be growing and creating new jobs. To give additional detail and urgency to the Commissions work, in the UK we will establish a new business task force with six of our best business leaders to take a fresh and ambitious look at the impact of EU regulation on our companies. It is vital that we expand our trade and increase overseas investment into the UK. That is one of the reasons I was the first serving British Prime Minister to visit Kazakhstan on Sunday and Monday. Since 2000, that country has seen growth at an annual rate of between 8% and 9%. Per capita income has doubled and Kazakhstan has the potential to be the sixth largest oil and gas producer in the world. My business delegation signed deals worth over 700 million, all of which will help to create and sustain jobs right here in the United Kingdom. Finally, the Council welcomed Croatia, which became the newest member of the European Union at the weekend. We also agreed to start negotiations on accession with Serbia, and on a stability and association agreement with Kosovo. When we remember what happened in the Balkans within our political lifetimes, it is a remarkable achievement that these countries are now joining or preparing to join the EU, with a sense of peace and stability. Britain is proud to support them. Each of these steps at the Council was about doing what is right for Britain and right for Europe. It is in our national interest to get spending under control, to make Europe more competitive and to expand EU membership to the Balkan states. Openness, competitiveness and flexibility are vital elements of the fresh settlement that I believe is needed for the European Union. We want more of a say for national parliaments and powers to flow back to member states, not just away from them. This is a new settlement that I intend to put to the country in a referendum within the first half of the next Parliamenta referendum that will give the British people the in/out choice they want and which my party will offer at the next general election. It is a referendum that my party will be voting for in this House on Friday, and I commend this statement to the House. 12.42 pm Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab): May I start by associating myself with the Prime Ministers remarks about Afghanistan? I join him in paying tribute to our troops for the extraordinary job they have done over the last decade. I join him, in particular, in remembering all those who have lost their lives andand their families and loved ones as well. It is right that the Government have set a date for the withdrawal of our forces from Afghanistan, but it is also right that the international
community, including the UK, continues to make a contribution to Afghanistans long-term security post 2014. Let me ask about post-2014 arrangements, political stability in Afghanistan and co-operation with Pakistan. On the arrangements for 2014 and after, can the Prime Minister provide a bit more detail on the specific nature of the UK forces role? Can he say whether, beyond officer training, there will be further responsibilities for any UK forces? Can he say at this stage what objectives will determine the length of stay of any residual UK force? On political reconciliation in Afghanistan, I agree with him about the importance of a proper political process. Can he tell us what the prospect is, in his view, of getting the political talks on trackincluding with the Taliban, which he mentioned in his statementand on what timetable that might be possible, given the end-2014 deadline for our combat forces? Turning to relations with Pakistan, I join the Prime Minister in recognising the vital bilateral relationship between Pakistan and the United Kingdom. I also join him in expressing the belief that the UK will need to build strong working relationships with the newly elected Pakistani Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, especially with regard to the future of Afghanistan. There is wide support across this House not just for an inclusive political settlement in Afghanistan, but for a regional settlement involving Afghanistans neighbours. That was the reason for the Prime Ministers Afghanistan-Pakistan Chequers summit five months ago. In the communiqu there was a commitment to building
a peace settlement over the next 6 months.
Can the Prime Minister say what progress has been made since and what more can be done to achieve that goal? Let me turn to the European Council. I join the Prime Minister in welcoming Croatias entry into the EU, the start date for EU-Serbia accession negotiations and the association agreement with Kosovo. On the European budget, the House was right to vote for a real-terms cut last October, and we support the recent agreement on the European budget and rebate, including the European Parliaments agreement. It would be a shame to let this occasion pass without quoting the Prime Ministers flowery words at his press conference last week. I am sure the House will be interested to hear that he said that
in this town you have to be ready for an ambush at any time, and that means lock and load and have one up the spout.
I have to say that that sounded more Carry On up the Council than High Noon, but let us leave that to one side. Let me turn to the discussions on youth unemployment, which was supposed to be the main subject of the summit but which formed only a small part of the Prime Ministers statement. There are 26 million people looking for work in the European Union, and nearly 6 million unemployed young people. Nearly 1 million of those young people one in six across the European Unionare here in Britain. Targeting any extra resources at tackling youth unemployment is welcome, but does the Prime Minister really believe that the response was equal to the scale of the challenge? At the press conference after the summit and again today, the Prime Minister said the council had agreed to take action
very much along the line of Britainsyouth contract.
755
2 JULY 2013
756
[Edward Miliband] That is worrying news. Last year, the Prime Minister launched the Youth Contract, which he said was
going to do enormous amounts on youth unemployment.[Official Report, 9 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 24.]
So will he explain why a survey of 200 employers last week revealed that none of themnot a single onehad used the Youth Contract to hire a young person? The Youth Contract is not the solution to Europes unemployment problem. Frankly, the summit did not mark the longoverdue recognition that the current economic approach across the EU is leaving millions of young people without employment or prospects, and fearing for their future. Of course we should look at EU regulation, as the Prime Minister proposes, but does he seriously believe that that is the solution to youth unemployment, including in Britain? The European economy is struggling and the British economy has not grown as the Government promised. That is why nearly 1 million young people are still looking for work here in Britain. That is also why long-term youth unemployment is up by 158% since he took office and why his Youth Contract failing. The truth is that the Prime Minister can hardly argue effectively for action in Europe on youth unemployment when he is so transparently failing here at home. The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his response. Let me take his questions in turn. First, on the post-2014 position in Afghanistan, we have not taken any decisions beyond those that I have described on the officer training academy and the force protection that will go with that, and on the funding of the Afghan forces going ahead. In terms of other commitments, I would make the point that this country has played a very big part but we have also paid a very big price. So I think it is right to focus on the one thing we have been asked to do by the Afghans, and we will take pleasure in running the officer training academy rather than looking for ways to go beyond that. On the political process, the timetable is urgent and we want the meetings to take place as rapidly as possible. I spoke to Mr Rabbani, who runs the High Peace Council and who is ready to meet and speak to the Taliban. We have to accept, however, that the opening of the Doha office and the way in which that was done and advertised have caused a setback and are deeply unpopular in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, the idea of a peace process, and of getting them to talk, is right, and I believe that it will happen. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Pakistan and the democratic transition. I also agree with what he said about the trilateral process, which has helped to move the agenda forward. Since Chequers, for instance, there has been progress on the release of prisoners so that talks can take place, and other discussions on conferences, borders, police and military co-operation have also made progress. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the EU, and mentioned my rather flowery language. The point I was trying to make is that we have to recognise that 27 other countries want to get rid of the British rebate, and we can add to them the European Council President
and the European Commission. That is why you have to make sure that you take a tough approach and that you are ready for anything. We know that Labours approach is to go in with their hands up and waving a white flag. That is what you get. The difference between us is that we have kept the rebate while they gave so much of it away. That is the truth. The right hon. Gentleman talks about youth unemployment. Let me point out to him that youth unemployment in the UK is down by 43,000 this quarter and down 60,000 since last year, but we are not in the slightest bit complacent. He asked about the Youth Contract, and 100,000 young people have used work experience, which has got many of them off benefits and into work. Our Work programme, according to the figures announced yesterday, has seen 320,000 people getting work. That makes it almost twice as successful as the flexible new deal. In terms of international comparisons, over the last year youth unemployment fell faster than in the USA, Germany, Canada, France and Italy. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Youth Contract, and I have already told him that 100,000 young people are getting work experience. I know that Opposition Members think that that is not worth while, but we on the Government side think it is worth while. What I thought was interesting about the right hon. Gentlemans response was that we heard not a word about the referendum that we are going to discuss and debate on Friday. I think I know why. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is not in favour of a referendum; the shadow Chancellor has said that it is pretty stupid not to have a referendum; his chief adviser has said that it is conceivable that they might have a referendummind you, his chief adviser thinks all sorts of things are conceivable. Now the Labour leader has a new approach, announced in The Sunday Timesthat Labour is not going to talk about a referendum. I think I can sum up the right hon. Gentlemans policy in three words: weak, weak, weak. Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con): May I ask the Prime Minister a question that I have asked other Ministers over the years? To which central authority will the Afghan national army owe its allegiance? As the army is mainly recruited and officer-led by Tajiks and Uzbeks, with the Pashtun very unrepresented, what is more likely than that there will be a civil war between the old Northern Alliance and the Taliban after 2014, which will put Afghanistan back into the chaos that existed when the Russians withdrew? The Prime Minister: Let me try to answer all my right hon. Friends questions. In terms of the Afghan national security forces, which are getting towards the number of 340,000a sizeable investment that the international community has madethe Afghan army will be accountable to the Afghan Government and the Afghan President. That is how it should work. My right hon. Friend is right to say that we still need to work on the balance of the different ethnicities in the Afghan national army, but Pashtuns are being recruited to it. I recently had the great honour of speaking at the passing-out parade of new officers at Sandhurst, and I gave an award to a Pashtun from Helmand who had passed out of Sandhurst and was about to serve in the Afghan national army.
757
2 JULY 2013
758
My right hon. Friends point about the need to avoid a splintering of Afghanistan is absolutely right. We want to avoid that, and I think the Afghans want to avoid it. That is why it is so important that we continue, long after our troops have left the combat role, to fund the Afghan national security forces, as well as continuing to fund Afghanistan. If we do that, and if the successor to President Karzai properly balances and understands the different pressures in the country, I see no reason why it cannot stay together. Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab): The Afghan forces have improved their capability year on year, but there are still challenges in logistics and equipment. I am told that there are no plans for us to pass over or gift any equipment to the Afghanseven some of the more theatre-specific equipment that we have acquired over the years. If all the ISAF countries adopt the same attitude, how are those challenges going to be met after the draw-down of the combat mission? The Prime Minister: First of all, we look at all the equipment we have and at individual Afghan requests to see whether it is something that we can make available. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the capabilities of these forces have increased. As he knows, in talking to our forces out in Afghanistan, it is striking to find out that we are talking to people on their second or third tour, who have seen a radical improvement in what is available. One of the challenges is making sure that the Afghan army has all the enablers and all the assistance it needsand the Americans are specifically looking at that problem. What has been noticeable about the recent attacks on Kabul is that they were dealt with entirely by the Afghan national security forcesand dealt with very effectively. Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD): May I commend the Prime Minister for his decision to ensure that a proper memorial will be created at the National Memorial Arboretuma decision that I am sure the whole House would welcome? In the course of his discussions with the new Prime Minister of Pakistan, was there any consideration of the problems caused by the border tribal areas, which have been used in the past as a safe refuge for those elements of the Taliban determined to thwart the efforts of NATO and, indeed, to bring down the Karzai Government? So long as the borders remain porous and these particular areas provide safe havens, it will be very difficult indeed to achieve the objectives that our Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Pakistan obviously agreed upon. The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his question. On the memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum, I think this is the right move and I think it is important that some elements of the very moving memorial at Camp Bastion are transferred to the arboretum so that there is real continuity. On the issue of the tribal areas in Pakistan, this problem has dogged the country for decades. I did discuss the issue with both the Afghan President and the Pakistan Prime Minister. The simple point is this: it is in both countries interests that the danger of Talibanisation is dealt with. It is a threat to Pakistan that there are
Pakistan Taliban in Afghanistan, and it is a threat to Afghanistan that there are Taliban in Pakistan. Both countries need to understand their shared interest in dealing with both these threats. They need to recognise the importance of dealing with them together, so that we have a safe, stable and democratic Pakistan and a safe, stable and democratic Afghanistan. Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): When the Prime Minister discussed issues with fellow leaders at the weekend, did he mention to them his Bill on the referendum on Friday? In particular, what view was taken of the fact that he required the good offices of one of his Back Benchers to bring it forward as a private Members Bill and not a Government Bill? The Prime Minister: I did not explain all the intricacies of parliamentary procedure, but during the very good debate on the future of economic and monetary union, which was one of the sessions of the European Council, I made clear the view that I have often made clear in this Housethat, just as the countries within the eurozone need change and need to integrate more, so countries such as Britain, which in my view will not and should never join the eurozone, need changes, too. We need to make the European Union flexible enough to include both sorts of countries. I think there is a growing recognition that this is the case. Several hon. Members rose Mr Speaker: Order. Given that Ministers were originally proposing to have their names on the private Members Bill, it is probably as well that the Prime Minister was not seeking to explain the intricacies of parliamentary procedure to his European colleagues. Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con): I quite agree with the Prime Minister that the correct message to the Taliban is that stability is best achieved not through violence, but through negotiations. Further to questions from the Leader of the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend say what the prospects for the talks are? To what extent are regional players going to be involved, and will Pakistan be a part of that regional settlement? The Prime Minister: I think the overall prospects for talks between the Taliban and the High Peace Councilthe right body in Afghanistan to hold these talksare good. We have to recognise, however, that the way in which the Doha office was established, when it advertised itself as the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan, has caused a setback, and that is rightly deeply unpopular in Afghanistan. As I discussed with President Karzai, the sense is that it is in the interests of Afghanistan for all Afghans to see a Government and a future in which they can have confidence and for the Taliban to lay down their arms and stop fighting. That is in their interests, so although there has been a setback, the underlying logic of what needs to happen is still there. Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab): When the right hon. Gentleman was in Islamabad, did he discuss with our high commissioner the operation of the entry clearance office, which is currently preventing the mother of a constituent of mine who is dying of
759
2 JULY 2013
760
[Sir Gerald Kaufman] cancer from visiting him in Manchester before he dies? Did he discuss with Nawaz Sharif the American drone attacks on Pakistan, which violate Pakistans sovereignty, kill very large numbers of innocent people and are a war crime, violating international law? The Prime Minister: I did not discuss any specific cases with our high commissioner, but I did discuss with him the important operations of our visa processing and the very important work that he does. I think this is a good moment for me to pay tribute to our high commissioner and to his hard-working staff. As for the second issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman, nothing was off the table during my discussions with Nawaz Sharif. I think that the right approach is to maintain a very tough security response to terrorism. There is no doubt that the presence of al-Qaeda in both Afghanistan and Pakistan has been radically reduced in recent years and that that has made us safer here in the United Kingdom, but we must ensure that such reductions are accompanied by the proper combating of terrorism in all its forms, which means ensuring that we deal with the underlying narrative on which the terrorists depend. It is with that combined approach that we will succeed. Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con): On the proposed EU-US trade deal, will my right hon. Friend tell us what are the contents and the areas covered by the negotiating mandate which was agreed behind closed doors last weekend? It is governed by a qualified majority vote of which the UK has only 12%, and it is an exclusive competence controlled by the European Commission. Can my right hon. Friend explain why the European Scrutiny Committee, which is looking into these matters, has not been supplied with the mandate, and can he tell us when we will receive it? The Prime Minister: I can tell my hon. Friend that the discussions are going ahead on the basis of the maximum level of inclusion of all topics. I think it has been announced in the House that there is a reserve on audio-visual matters, as there has been with all the EU mandates for trade talks, but in this case, uniquely, there is the opportunity to opt back in to discussing those matters as well. As for my hon. Friends point about the European Scrutiny Committee, I shall have to look into that and see whether there is anything I can do to help. Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP): I welcomed the Prime Ministers visit to Afghanistan, and I pay tribute to the bravery of our troops who are fighting terrorism there. While we must never forget the sacrifice made by those who have died in the field of conflict, can the Prime Minister assure us that the troops who return homemany of them wounded both in body and in mindwill receive all the attention they need? The Prime Minister: I certainly want to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I think it is clear from the advances that have been made in recent years in the availability of defence medicinein Afghanistan, in aircraft transporting troops back from Afghanistan, and here in the UK, at Queen Elizabeth hospital in
Birmingham and then at Headley Courtthat it is second to none, and that we can be proud of what we make available. However, we must think about what happens next as well, and that is what the centres of expertise around the country are all about. It is also important for us to proceed with the work on the military covenant that is being done by the Armed Forces Covenant Sub-Committeechaired by the Minister for Government Policyand to continue to channel resources into these vital areas. Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): Most of the injured and the 444 British dead to whom the Prime Minister referred were brought home either through his constituency or through Royal Wootton Bassett in mine. The people of Britain are hungrily looking forward to the end of combat operations, and will welcome the withdrawal from a large number of forward-operating and patrol bases in Afghanistan that the Prime Minister has announced today. However, can he bring us up to date on what will happen to Camp Bastion once we have left Afghanistan? Will it remain as some kind of strategic base, or will we simply abandon it? The Prime Minister: Let me first, through my hon. Friend, pay tribute to the people of Royal Wootton Bassett, and also to people in Carterton and Brize Norton in my own constituency, who I think have shown the best side of Britain in welcoming back, sombrely and properly, those who have fallen in combat operations in Afghanistan. No final decision has been made about Camp Bastion, but it is likely that it could be used as one of the bases led by the Americans for the purpose of their continued presence in Afghanistan. That would obviously be quite helpful in terms of the timetable governing the return of our resources. However, as those who visit Camp Bastion will see, a great deal of work is being done to return kit to the UK now. Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab): Did the Prime Minister have any opportunity in the margins to discuss, even informally, the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe, especially in the light of the EUs removal of some of its restrictive sanctions? Will he continue to urge South Africa, and the Southern African Development Community generally, to send more international monitors to the country as soon as possible? If that is not done, we shall see another stolen election. The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady speaks about this issue with great expertise. I did not discuss Zimbabwe at the European Council, but we did hold a National Security Council meeting relatively recently, at which our high commissioner in Zimbabwe was present. We have been working out how best to maximise the leverage and influence that we have in order to secure a proper election and a proper democratic transition, and that is why we have taken the steps in the European Union to which she referred. However, we keep all these matters under review to ensure that we do all that we can to assist the transition that Zimbabwe so badly needs. Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con): If western work in Afghanistan is not to unravel after next year, one of two things must happen. Either the Taliban must be persuaded that they made a terrible mistake in giving
761
2 JULY 2013
762
house room to al-Qaeda, or the Americans must retain one or more strategic bases to dissuade them from offering it house room in the future. Does the Prime Minister know whether either of those things has happened or will happen? The Prime Minister: I may be a little more optimistic than my hon. Friend, but I think the most likely outcome is that both those things will happen. One of the reasons why I think a peace process can get under way is the fact that, in recent statements, the Taliban have effectively said that they do not want Afghanistan to be used to harm other countries. I believe that the decoupling of the Taliban from al-Qaeda is well under way, and I think that that is positive. I also do not believe that America, NATO, ISAF or any of us are walking away from Afghanistan, and I think that that is positive as well. As I have said, we will maintain the officer training academy and our funding of the Afghanistan national security forces, and I think it likely that the Americans will maintain a presence in the countryto be negotiated, of course, with the Afghan Government. Obviously we want to see a peace process succeed, but, as we have always had to explain, our security response of training the Afghan national army and police force is the key part of making sure that the country will not fall back under Taliban or al-Qaeda control, and, having observed the effectiveness of those forces, I think we can be confident that they are capable of ensuring that that happens. Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op): Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to praise the skill, persistence and dedication of the European Unions High Representative, Cathy Ashton, and her staff in securing the welcome agreement between Serbia and Kosovo on normalisation on 19 April? Will he also take this opportunity, while he is supporting further enlargement of the EU, to explain why we are in favour of other countries joining the EU, but many members of his party want us to leave? The Prime Minister: Let me first pay tribute to Cathy Ashton and the very good work that she does in the European Union, which I see at first hand. We work very closely together, and I know that she works very closely with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. While some of the dossiers for which she is responsible must be immensely frustratingI am thinking particularly of the Iranian negotiationsthere is no doubt that she can take a huge amount of credit for the opening of accession negotiations with Serbia and the completion of the process of accession for Croatia. I made that very clear at the European Council meeting. As for the hon. Gentlemans comments about my party, let me point out that the Conservative party has always been in favour of the widening of the European Union. We have been arguing for that for decades. Indeed, we were arguing for it, and delivering it, in the 1980s, when the hon. Gentlemans party stood on rather a different ticket. Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con): For the many of us who supported the expulsion of al-Qaeda but opposed the morphing of the mission into one of
nation building, this has indeed been a long and sad road, and that has been compounded by the fact that we should have been holding talks with the Taliban a long time ago. Will the Prime Minister therefore use his best offices to ensure that talks with the Taliban are truly unconditional? This has been a stumbling block in the past, particularly with the Americans. The Prime Minister: Since the very first day on which I took office as Prime Minister in 2010, I have pursued the agenda of a peace process and a political process, and I have been discussing it with the Americans and others for all that time. Of course historians will argue about whether the Berlin peace conference of 2001 was established in the right way, but let us leave that to the historians; we should be dealing with the here and now. I do not agree with my hon. Friend on one point. I think that a very important condition needs to be fulfilled. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) pointed out, there must be an understanding that the Taliban do not believe that Afghanistan should be used as a base for foreign attacks and that they will not allow it to be so used. Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): I am delighted that the Prime Minister finally acknowledges that the right place for a European nation with a population of 5 million is as an independent member state of the EU. However, on the issue of EU competitiveness, this week there was some good news about mobile phone roaming charges that I think Members on both sides of the House will welcome. That was a great success for the EU, although curiously the UK Government have published a report suggesting that somehow the old charges will remain in a sovereign Scotland. That has been reacted to by the Prime Ministers deputy chairman in Scotland as silly, by Tory donor John McGlynn as puerile, and by his favourite Conservative commentator Alan Cochrane as tripe. Will the Prime Minister show some leadership and end these puerile, silly scare stories? The Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman cannot hide from is the fact that the legal advice is absolutely clearclear from the Government and clear from the European Commission. Of course, his party said it had legal advice, yet it had absolutely none, but the legal advice is clear. If Scotland votes to become independent it will have to queue up behind Serbia, behind Macedonia and behind Kosovo in order to get back into the European Union. That is the truth, inconvenient though it may be for the hon. Gentleman. Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the country will not understand if Members of Parliament fail to engage in this Fridays debate on the need for us to renegotiate our membership of the EU and to let the people decide in a referendum whether they want our membership of Europe on that renegotiated basis? This is not an issue that Parliament and Members of Parliament can run away from. The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend, who has a long track record of support for the EU, makes a very sensible point, which is that when it comes to this Bill on Friday, and when it comes to the issue of a referendum, people can either be in favour of holding an in/out referendum or they can be against holding an in/out
763
2 JULY 2013
764
[The Prime Minister] referendum, but surely they must have an opinion. My hon. Friends and I will be voting for that Bill; we will be voting in the Lobby on Friday. What is Labour going to do? Is it simply going to decide it does not want to talk about this issue? I think the whole country will find that completely feeble. Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab): Is it not surprising that, in view of the considerable concern that has been expressed abroad over US intelligence operations against friendly European countries, including EU offices in Washington and New York, there was apparently no discussion of that at the European Council? Surely it is an item that should have been considered, and perhaps the Prime Minister can give us his views about what the US has been doing? The Prime Minister: I say the same thing publicly and privately, and in the European Council and this House, which is that I do not comment on national security and intelligence matters as I think that would be wrong, but I think it is important to remember that our security services operate under the law. We do not use co-operation with foreign intelligence services to get around our own procedures here in the UK, and it is worth remembering that the intelligence and security gathering we do is of huge benefit to those partners, including many in the EU, with whom we share it. It helps to keep us safe and it helps to keep them safe, and we should praise what our intelligence and security services do on our behalf. Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD): Will the Prime Minister say how the women of Afghanistan may be represented in any talks with the Taliban, and what assurances can he give to the women of Afghanistan that their hard-won advances in terms of the right to education for girls and the right to a livelihood for women will be sustained in the 2015 settlement and thereafter? The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend asks an important question, and the answer to it is that the Afghan President and Government are absolutely clear that any discussions need to proceed on the basis of the Afghan constitution, which has safeguards on those and other issues. It is important to note that whereas in 2001 there were almost no girls in school in Helmand, there are now over 30,000. Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): I was pleased to hear from the Prime Minister, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), that he is still a passionate champion of enlargement, but does he agree that it is not sufficient just to welcome countries like Croatia into the EU, as we need to support them to ensure they are of benefit to the EU, rather than a burden? The Prime Minister: I agree: we should support Croatia, and we have agreed to the use of the European budget to make sure Croatia gets its receipts from the EU as well as making its payments into the EU. The strength of widening the EU is not only that when those countries come in they become even greater trading partners and investment partners for Britain, but that as part of the process of preparing to join they have to put their own
houses in order to tackle corruption, improve the rule of law and so forth. We have seen that in Croatia, we are seeing it in Serbia, and it is very welcome. Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): Last night I had a phone call from Afghanistan, from my son. He wanted to express to this House how much the serving members of our armed forces who are out there appreciate the efforts of the Prime Minister in coming out there and speaking to them personally. I hope the Prime Minister will accept those thanks. The Prime Minister: May I, through my hon. Friend, thank his son for his service in Afghanistan? We have been there for many years now, and we come across people now who are on their second or third tour of Afghanistanpeople who have spent many months of their lives working under very difficult conditions. We can be proud of the fact that when we sit in a room with our armed forces and ask them about the job they are doing, the morale is high; they are enthusiastic about the capabilities of the Afghan security forces, and they are also enthusiastic about the kit they receive. There are still issues we need to deal withmore access to wi-fi and one or two other thingsbut generally speaking I found people in high morale who are enthusiastic about the job they are doing. Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab): The Prime Ministers usual advisers are gentlemen in uniform, but may I ask him to reconsider the use of drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan, because a consistent body of evidence has shown that drones have killed far more civilians than al-Qaeda operatives, and with countries such as Pakistan openly objecting to the use of drones, that is also a violation of their sovereignty? Please will the Prime Minister therefore take a thorough relook at this whole issue of drone use? The Prime Minister: As this issue relates to Pakistan, it is an issue for the United States and Pakistan, although what I have said about the huge damage that has been done to al-Qaeda is beyond debate; it is a fact. On Afghanistan, I think it is important that we give our armed forces every protection they can possibly have, and the use of ISTAR drones and other cameras and the like have done a huge amount to keep our armed forces safe and to make sure we defeat the Taliban insurgency. Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con): What exactly does the Prime Minister mean by fundamental renegotiation of our relationship with the EU? The Prime Minister: As I set out in the speech I made at the end of January this year, I believe we need to recognise that change is taking place in the EU. That means the single currency countries will have to integrate further, but it should be available to non-single currency countries to see powers flow back to them. I gave one example my hon. Friend might be interested in: I think the phrase ever closer union should be disapplied from the United Kingdom. I do not think it is ever something we in this country were comfortable with. It was something we never really wanted to sign up to in the 1970s. I think we do need that different sort of European Union, and then to give people the choice about whether they want to join or leave it.
765
2 JULY 2013
766
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): Can the Prime Minister help me by telling us what he really thinks about Afghanistan? We have been there for 12 years, we have lost over 400 soldiers, thousands of others have died, 17 billion has been spent, an illegal drone war is going on in Pakistan and neighbouring countries, and now there are talks with the Taliban in Qatar. Does he not think it is time to reassess the whole question of intervention, what it does in terms of the hatred between this country and others around the world, and what it does to the peace of the world as a whole? The Prime Minister: Where I take such a different view from the hon. Gentlemans is that we know what non-engagement with Afghanistan leads to, because that is what happened after the end of the fall of the previous regime. There was a process when the world looked away from Afghanistan, and we paid the price in a civil war that went on for years, with plummeting living standards, rampant poverty, and a country that went backwards in every regard, and then became, under the Taliban, a haven for al-Qaeda extremists who carried out plots, killing people on our soil, in America, and in other parts of the world. That is what happens when we do not engage. Of course, the state of Afghanistan is not perfect, but after all the investment and the sacrifice we can at least say, Here is a country where there are not active plots against Britain being hatched. Here is a country that is making economic and social progress. Here is a country with an elected President that is looking forward to a democratic transition. And here is a country that has got security forces which have a good prospect of maintaining Afghanistan into the future.That is the result of engagement. We know the results of disengagement, and I know which I think is better. Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): The Yorkshire Regiment will be marching through Huddersfield later this month on a freedom parade. Does the Prime Minister agree that freedom parades are a fitting way for our communities to pay tribute to our brave servicemen and women for their contribution in Afghanistan? The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which is that there is a yearning in this country to find new ways to recognise what our armed forces do and all they represent. For some years in the pastthis is not a political point; I think that the last Prime Minister recognised thiswe did not really do enough and we were not quite sure how to show our appreciation. Armed Forces day was a good step forward and the military covenant is a good step forward [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) says it was a Labour achievement, but I think he will find that the military covenant was put into law by this Government. I was attempting not to make a political point, but he made me diverge. I also think these parades are a great way, on a cross-party basison a no-party basisof everyone turning out on to our streets and saying thank you. Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Will the Prime Minister seek to change the rules of this House so that the names of the fallen can be honoured by being read out in this Chamberthe same Chamber that sent
them to their deaths? What lasting achievements have there been in Afghanistan that justify 37 billion of taxpayers money and 444 deaths? The Prime Minister: We do read out the names of those who have fallen, and we rightly pay tribute to them because they have made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our country and our security. The hon. Gentleman asked what this has achieved, and the point I make is that before 2001 Afghanistan was a haven for terrorists who were plotting actively to do harm to people in this country and elsewhere, but since 2001he can ask the security services about this himself if he wantsthere have not been major, serious plots hatched in Afghanistan and carried out against us. That is a big and important achievement, but we also have to look at the capacity Afghanistan has today to continue to deliver that. When I first visited Afghanistan in 2006, there were no Afghan security forces in Helmand province; they did not exist. They have been built from scratch. I do not think we honour those who have paid this price by talking down, in any way, the extraordinary achievements that we have seen there. That is not to say that things are perfectof course they are notand it is not to say that there is not more that needs to be done, but on the ledger of Britains engagement in Afghanistan, we should correctly identify the good points as well as the difficulties that still remain. Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con): I welcome the focus on tackling youth unemployment at the European Council. What confidence does my right hon. Friend have that that will not be just a one-off declaration, but a determined and long-term effort to defeat this scourge? The Prime Minister: I am grateful for my hon. Friends question. Of course the 6 billion package is important, and 400 million of that is available for spending in the five regions of the UK with the highest rates of youth unemployment. But there is a growing recognition in the European Union that simply spending money on schemes is not going to be enough; it is the structural changes that we need, because the European Union contains countries, such as Germany or Holland, with youth unemployment rates of about 9%, and countries, such as Spain, where the rate is more than 50%. The structural reforms and the flexibility of the labour markets also need to be addressed. Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab): The Prime Minister said that 4.5 million was being made available to increase womens participation in Afghanistan. Can he spell out how that will be used to ensure that womens voices really are heard in the direct talks with the Taliban? The Prime Minister: That specific piece of money, which is part of an overall large Department for International Development budget, is simply about getting women to register to vote. At the moment, the new electoral registration laws are being passed through the Afghan Parliament, and it is very important that women register to vote in the forthcoming presidential election in April next year. Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con): I certainly welcome the news that the European Investment Bank is going to increase its investment in small and medium-sized businesses
767
2 JULY 2013
768
[Neil Carmichael] by 40%. I would like to see the same in some other banks. Is there any genuine appetite to include energy in a more competitive framework, perhaps a single market? The Prime Minister: First, Britain supports the EIB. Our policy has always been one of saying, Look, on fiscal policy we do have to take tough and radical actions, but on monetary policy we should be looking at all the ways we can help to get money from banks and other institutions into businesses. That is what the funding for lending scheme is all about and what this EIB expansion should be about. On energy, we continue to push for the completion of the energy single market, where progress has been made, but it is an ongoing battle. Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab): The Prime Minister is right to say that we need to expand trade and overseas investment, and I am pleased that he discussed trade with the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Does he think that his efforts on trade will be helped or hindered if the Home Secretary imposes a 3,000 visa bond on visitors from India and Pakistan? The Prime Minister: What the Home Secretary is looking at is the idea of using bonds in some immigration circumstances to make sure we do what needs to be done and what the previous Government did not do, which is to differentiate between people who want to come here to contribute, for example, by studying at a British university and those who want to come here simply as economic migrants. We need an immigration policy that really does have an emphasis on quality and on control, and that is exactly what we have. One of the points I was able to make in Pakistan, as I made in Kazakhstan and as I have made before in India, is that under our rules there is no limit on the number of overseas students who can come to study at a British university. There is no limit at all; they just have to have an English language qualification and a place at a British university. That is what is required. But, at the same time, we have shut down about 180 bogus colleges that were operating while the hon. Gentleman was assisting his Government. Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD): I join the Prime Minister in again paying tribute to our armed services. Many of us, including me, did that at the armed services events in our communities at the weekend. Against the welcome background of the knowledge that our troops are going to come home and that there will be a conflict resolution process involving the Taliban, will the Prime Minister say what role he envisages UK troops or civilians, and people from neighbouring states, playing to make sure that the elections in Afghanistan in 2014 are peaceful, democratic and respected? The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend makes a good point about these important elections. Obviously, security in Afghanistan is now provided predominantly by Afghan national security forces, as are patrols, so they should predominantly provide security during the elections, in comparison with the last set of elections in 2009 in which we were more engaged. As for how we make sure they are as good a set of elections as they can
be, obviously all sorts of international bodies will want to engage and we need to make sure that the elections are properly monitored. Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op): Khalsa Diwan Afghanistan, based in my constituency, has raised with me and with representatives of the Foreign Secretary its concerns for the welfare of minority Sikhs and Hindus in Afghanistan, and for the rights and representation of women. What commitment has President Karzai given in discussions with the Prime Minister to maintain womens political representation and minority rights? The Prime Minister: The commitment President Karzai has given me on this issue is that he remains committed to the Afghan constitution and he believes that any discussions with the Taliban should take place on the basis of a commitment to that constitution. Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con): At last weeks EU Council meeting, the greater mobility of young people was discussed as a way of tackling youth unemployment across the EU. Can I have assurances from my right hon. Friend that that will not lead to greater benefit tourism in this country? The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. This Government are engaging with others in Europe to try to cut down on benefit tourism and to look at what we can do to make changes to the habitual residence test so that people can come to work but cannot come to claim benefits. It is also worth making the point that as new members join the EU, such as Croatia, this Government will put in place the transitional controls that should have been put in place when members joined under the previous Government. Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab): When we, on both sides of the Atlantic, bring our troops home from Afghanistan, one of the knots that ties the transatlantic relationship together will inevitably loosen. So may I ask the Prime Minister to comment not on the security matters, but on the political implications of the allegations in the newspapers about electronic eavesdropping by the United States on the EU? Will he say specifically what Britain can do to help to heal that rift between the US and other countries in the EU? The Prime Minister: On the hon. Gentlemans first point, I do not believe that the ending of combat operations in Afghanistan will in any way loosen the bonds between Britain and America. I think the Americans are deeply appreciative of the fact that we have been the second largest troop-contributing nation, understand the very high casualties that we have taken and also welcome the role that we play at the heart of the command structure. The commander of ISAF is an American general and the deputy commander is a British general, Nick Carter, with whom I spent some of the weekend. On the second issue, I have said all that I want to say. I do not comment on intelligence and security matters, but in this country we operate very clearly under a legal process. Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con): I congratulate the Prime Minister on being the first international world leader to visit Pakistan and meet
769
2 JULY 2013
770
Prime Minister Sharif, which clearly shows our two countries close collaboration and links. Will the Prime Minister clarify one point? Were discussions had with Prime Minister Sharif about reforming the madrassahs, the religious schools, in Pakistan, which have often been seeing as a recruiting ground for extremist and radicalised organisations? Does the Prime Minister agree that we need to ensure there is a wide spectrum of education in Pakistan, so that students can move away from ethnic and radicalised violence in the country? The Prime Minister: In my discussions with Prime Minister Sharif, he made it very clear that his three priorities were the economy, energy and extremism. On combating extremism, I think that we agree not only that there is a need for a tough security response, but that we need to drain the swamp of extremism, including by reforming education. He particularly praised the work that British aid has delivered in the Punjab, where his brother is the Chief Minister. Sir Michael Barbera well-known British civil servanthas worked his socks off making more than 30 visits to the Punjab and delivering a programme that has meant that millions of Pakistani children have had schooling that they otherwise would not have had. That is all down to his hard work and to British aid. Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I had the opportunity two years ago to visit Afghanistan and, in particular, to visit Lashkar Gah, where the police recruits were being trained. The US Government have invested $6 million in their training college. The policing training might be rudimentary, but it is very important. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how many police officers are trained each quarter and whether they are on target to deliver sufficient police officers for all of Afghanistan? The Prime Minister: I do not have the specific figures for police officer training, but in our monthly update to Parliament, which I instituted, Members can see the police training numbers, the army training numbers, the overall national security force training numbers and the retention numbers. This is a good moment to pay tribute to all those from Britain, including those from Northern Ireland, for the role that they have played in helping to train the trainers in those important programmes. Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): Does the Prime Minister agree that the accession of Croatia yesterday will increase the burden on the EU budget, as it will be another net recipient of EU funds? The Prime Minister: That obviously puts a little extra pressure on the budget, which has been reflected, but it is a pretty modest additional amount. It is in Britains interests that the EU continues to enlarge and expand. Croatia has been added to what is already the worlds largest single market, and Britain as a trading nation will have all sorts of opportunities to increase our trade with and investment in Croatia. We will put in place the transitional controls available for new nationsthe Government have already made that decision. Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): I welcome the Prime Ministers leadership on deregulation in Europe. The Commission has been worse than useless at understanding the burdens that it places on our smallest
businesses. How do Britains 5 million small and mediumsized enterprises input into the new taskforce that he set up last week? The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We must recognise that the Commission has made some progress and we will probably get further if we credit it with that but push it harder for more, which is my tactic. It has consulted business on the top 10 most burdensome regulations. For the first time, it has committed to exempt micro-businesses with fewer than 10 employees from new EU proposals and has also looked through the forthcoming regulation and removed 17 new regulatory proposals. Overall, the burden on business is down by some 25% in recent years. There is some progress, but it is not going fast enough, which is why I am setting up a regulation review panel comprising Marc Bolland from M&S, Ian Cheshire from Kingfisher, Glenn Cooper from ATG Access, Louise Makin from BTG, Dale Murray, who is an angel investor, and Paul Walsh, the former CEO of Diageo. That is a list of very senior businessmen and women, and small businesses can write to them and send in their ideas for what they want changed. Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con): I, too, am pleased that my right hon. Friend has been able to establish an early and productive relationship with the new Prime Minister in Pakistan. May I urge him to keep high on his agenda the treatment of the Hazara community, which continues to face severe persecution? The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. One of the advantages of getting in there early as the first Prime Minister to go and meet Prime Minister Sharif is that we can have that sort of dialogue. We have a full strategic partnership with Pakistan and a national security dialogue, so all these issues can be raised. Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con): I congratulate the Prime Minister on being the first western leader to visit Nawaz Sharif following his election and the first peaceful and democratic transition of power in Pakistan since its independence in 1947. A lasting stable peace in Afghanistan cannot be achieved without the involvement of Pakistan, but trade, energy, relations with India and a whole range of other issues will be higher up Prime Minister Sharifs agenda. What can our Prime Minister do to ensure that momentum on Afghanistan-Pakistan relations is not lost? The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a good point. This democratic transition is an incredible moment for Pakistan, and I believe that it should use it as a moment to get the world to look afresh at this remarkable country, which has an enormous population and great economic prospects for the future if it makes the tough and necessary decisions. We must accept that Prime Minister Sharif has many priorities. He needs to deal with energy shortages, to get his economy on track and to deal with extremism. It is in dealing with that last element where we need to work together to demonstrate that the extremism suffered in Pakistan cannot be addressed without addressing the extremism from which Afghans are suffering, too. If we can try to achieve joint working between the President and the Prime Minister and the two Governments, that is the key.
771
2 JULY 2013
772
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to tackle the scourge of youth unemployment across the EU is through the creation of jobs and growth and that the best way to do that is to raise our vision above the horizon of the EU and look to countries such as India and China, where two fifths of the worlds population live, to rid ourselves of burdensome regulation and to make Europe a more competitive environment? The Prime Minister: I agree that the creation of private sector jobs is absolutely key, particularly for those countries that have large budget deficits. We have seen the decline of public sector jobs, but perhaps three times as many private sector jobs have been created. To achieve that, we need to rebalance our economy and to trade more, so, particularly as the European Union is a low-growth areaor a no-growth area in terms of the eurozonewe must look for new trading partners. That is why we should be look at countries such as Kazakhstan, where we are the second largest investor but where trade volumes are quite low. That is why we need, as I have put it, to compete in the global race and forge partnerships with all of the fastest growing countries of the world. Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con): The Leader of the Opposition rightly mentioned youth unemployment, which has fallen by 15% in my constituency since Labour left office. One way to drive it down further is to expand the single market, so I welcome what the Prime Minister said about accession negotiations with Serbia. Does he agree that the long-term aim should be an EU from the Atlantic to the Urals, but that if the EU is to include more diverse countries, it needs to change fundamentally? The Prime Minister: I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend says. Britain has always believed in a wider,
looser Europe and it is that that we should be fighting for. As he says, if we want it to be that sort of Europe, it must make changes and must be more flexible. The countries in the eurozone will need greater integration, but if we are to be attractive to other countries as a European Union, we must be more flexible and competitive. Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con) rose Mr Speaker: I have been saving up the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) so that the House can savour him. Mr Hollobone: My right hon. Friend will know that there are almost 11,000 foreign national offenders in our prisons, many from EU countries. There is an EU-wide compulsory prisoner transfer agreement, but only the United Kingdom and 12 other member states have ratified it. If it was not discussed at this EU Council, will the Prime Minister use his best endeavours to ensue that it is on the agenda for the next EU Council, ahead of the removal of transitional immigration controls from new entrant countries? The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. This prisoner transfer agreement is absolutely in Britains interests. We have held specific National Security Council discussions about prisoner transfers and about foreign national offenders, because I think that we need to do much better in getting people out of our jails and back to the countries where they belong. We are making some progress, but it is hard work. This European Union agreement is a potential benefit for us and we have to do everything we can, both at the European Council and bilaterally with other countries, to get them to sign and implement. That is a programme that the Government are very much working on.
773
2 JULY 2013
Stop and Search
774
Stop and Search

1.39 pm The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May): With permission, I would like to make a statement on the powers of the police to stop and search members of the public. Police officers have been given the right to stop and search people by several Acts of Parliament, although most searches are conducted through the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. These Acts say that officers must have reasonable grounds to suspect that the subject is guilty of some form of criminal behaviour before they are allowed to conduct a search. Owing to the sensitivity of stop and search, officers are required by law to record various pieces of information about each search they undertake. I would like to start by making it clear that the Government support the ability of police officers to stop and search suspects. It is an important power in their daily fight against crime, and it is especially important in relation to combating gangs, knife crime and drug offences. For example, in the last 12 months, stop and search in London has resulted in 45,000 criminals being arrested, including 3,212 criminals carrying weapons and guns, 7,287 criminals in possession of suspected stolen goods and 1,484 criminals in possession of tools used to steal or cause damage. As long as I am Home Secretary, the police will maintain their right to stop and search. But as important as stop and search undoubtedly is, we have to be frank about widespread public concern regarding its use. Official statistics show that more than 1 million stop-and-search incidents are recorded every year. But on average only about 9% of those incidents result in an arrest, and that figure prompts me to question whether stop and search is always used appropriately. In fact, the search-to-arrest ratio varies considerably across forces: in Cumbria, the figure is 3%; in Kent, it is 19%. In London, where most stop-and-search incidents take place, it is 8%; in Greater Manchester, it is 8%; and in the West Midlands, it is 7%. Now, of course, we should not expect all stop-and-search incidents to lead to arrest, but those percentages are far too low for comfort. The Government are concerned about the use of stop and search for two reasons. First, it must be applied fairly and in a way that builds community confidence in the police rather than undermining it. Secondly, given the scale of recording requirements placed on the police, when stop and search is misapplied, it is a waste of police time. I want to deal first with fairness and community confidence. The official statistics show that, if someone is from a black or minority ethnic background, they are up to seven times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than if they are white. Now we should not rush to conclusions about those statistics, but everybody involved in policing has a duty to make sure that nobody is ever stopped just on the basis of their skin colour or ethnicity. The law is clear that in normal circumstances, stop and search should only ever be used where there is a reasonable suspicion of criminalityand that is how it should be. I am sure we have all been told stories by constituents and members of the public about what it is like to be a young, law-abiding black man who has been
stopped and searched by the police on more than one occasion. If anybody thinks it is sustainable to allow that to continue, with all its consequences for public confidence in the police, they need to think again. The second reason that I am concerned about stop and search is that if it is being used too much or with the wrong people, that is a dreadful waste of police time. It is estimated that a police officer spends 16 minutes conducting a stop and search and then completing details of the incident in compliance with the law. Given that there are just under 1.2 million stop-and-search incidents every year, we are talking about a total of 312,000 hours per yearthe equivalent of 145 full-time police officers. Since the election, I have made it a priority to cut red tape and free up police time, and the changes that we have made, including changes to stop-and-search recording, should save up to 4.5 million police hours a yearthe equivalent of an extra 2,100 officers on the streets. There is no point in making all those changes if police officers then spend their time conducting pointless stop and searches, with all the bureaucracy that goes with them. In London, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, has changed the Mets guidance, improved training and set a target that at least 20% of stop and searches in London should result in an arrest or drugs warning. And since then, they have made good progress. The latest figures suggest that in the last year 18.3% of stop-and-search incidents in London led to an arrest or drugs warning. In Hackney, it was as high as 26.3%, and the overall use of stop and search in London has fallen, too, from 500,000 to 350,000 in the past year. That shows that it is possible to make changes to stop and search without jeopardising public safety. So, too, do the changes I made in March 2011 to the operation of stop-and-search powers under the Terrorism Act 2000. Then, I introduced a much more limited power that enables the police to stop and search people and vehicles without reasonable suspicion, but only in exceptional circumstances where there is a real threat of terrorist attack. This power has not been used outside Northern Ireland since it was introduced in March 2011, and there has been no effect on public safety. Last year, I commissioned Her Majestys inspectorate of constabulary to conduct a comprehensive inspection into the use of stop-and-search powers. Its report is due to be published next Tuesday. I have not seen it yet, but the report should provide us for the first time with a comprehensive evidence base of how stop and search is used and recorded across the country. However, on an issue as important as stop and search, it would be wrong to consult HMIC and work with the police without also consulting the public. So I can tell the House that today I am launching a consultation, lasting six weeks, that will give members of the public the chance to have their say about the future use of stop and search. Copies of the consultation document will be made available in the Library. By the end of the year, the Government will respond formally to both the HMIC report and the public consultation. That response will then inform our work with HMIC, the College of Policing and police forces up and down the country to make sure that stop and search works fairly and in everybodys interests. I want to see stop and search used only when it is needed; I want to see higher search-to-arrest ratios; I want to see
775
Stop and Search
2 JULY 2013
Stop and Search
776
[Mrs Theresa May] better community engagement; and I want to see more efficient recording practices across the country. At its best, stop and search is a vital power in the fight against crime; at its worst, it is a waste of police time and serves to undermine public confidence in the police. It is time to get stop and search right, so I commend this statement to the House. 1.46 pm Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab): I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. She has not given me a copy of the consultation, so I have not seen its proposals, but I do welcome the principles behind it. I agree with the Home Secretary that the stop-and-search powers are important and can help the police tackle serious problems. However, the way in which they have been used has raised serious concerns about, for example, the scale of use, the lack of intelligenceled approaches and the disproportionate use against ethnic minorities and the potential waste of money. Stop-and-search powers are useful for the policefor example, enabling them to search for weapons or stolen goods without needing to arrest someone. The Home Secretary knows about Operation Blunt, run by the Met in 2009, which delivered a 13% reduction in knife crime and a 23% reduction in youth killings and seized over 1,000 knives and which did use intelligence-led stop and search as part of that strategy. People have been arrested for possession of guns, knives and other offensive weapons as a result of stop and search, too. But where stop and search is used inappropriately or too widely, it can cause a very wide range of serious problems. Given the relatively low proportion of searches that lead to arrest, I welcome the work that has been done to reduce the number of stop and searches, which has fallen since 2008. I welcome the work by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the former Home Secretary, to restrict inappropriate use, which helped deliver an initial 10% reduction in stop and searches. I also welcome the decision by the Home Secretary to restrict and change section 44 stop and searches. I welcome the decision of the Met commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, to restrict section 60 stop and searches and some of the work that he has done since then. However, I think that it is right to go further, especially in the light of the Equality and Human Rights Commission report on stop and search three years ago. The Home Secretary knows that that report found that,
some forces are using their powers disproportionately suggesting they are stopping and searching individuals in a way that is discriminatory, inefficient, and a waste of public money.
Will the Home Secretary set out what has been done since the EHRC reported in 2010 to address the concerns that it raised? The Home Secretary announced after the 2011 riots that she had asked the Association of Chief Police Officers to review stop and search. Has that review happened and will she publish the results? Does the Home Secretary share my concern that that proportion of stop and searches that lead to an arrest has fallen, not risen, in the past five years? Previously, 12% of searches led to an arrest; now, a proportion of 9% is more likely. The right hon. Lady did not set out any specific proposals in her statement. What proposals in her consultation might make a difference to those figures and tackle the problem of searches being disproportionately targeted at ethnic minorities? Some of the figures that she quoted are seriously worrying. She will know that the EHRC examined evidence to see whether there are any explanations for those figures and found none sufficient to justify the disproportionate number of searches. The EHRC made specific recommendations for individual forces and for policing as a whole. Three years on, have those recommendations been implemented and what results have been delivered? Can she assure the House that her proposals will not jeopardise the recording of whether ethnic minorities are being targeted disproportionately? Clearly, we need to have that information. I welcome the intention behind todays statement and the consultation. The Home Secretary is right to support the principle of stop and search and right also to say that practice needs to be reformed to make sure that there is no discrimination and that it does not waste money or cause more problems in communities. However, it would help if she were more specific about her consultation proposals and how she plans to address the concerns. Mrs May: I welcome the shadow Home Secretarys support for the consultation on stop and search going ahead. As she says, there has been a number of reports on the operation of stop and search. The EHRC, whose report was published a matter of weeks ago, looked again at the issue in five forces, including the Met and Thames Valley police. It identified that it had been possible for those forces to reduce the number of stop and searches, perhaps by targeting them better on an intelligence-led basis, and that doing so had also had an impact on the search-to-arrest ratio, but no discernible effect on public safety. The EHRC reinforced the view that we can get stop and search right; that if we get it right, it can be the valuable tool we want it to be; but that we can reduce the number of stop and searches without having an impact on public safety. I did indeed ask ACPO to look at stop and search and best practice across the country, and it has done so. I also asked HMIC to do a piece of work across forces on how stop and search is used and recorded. I think that that report, which comes out next week, will, by providing information on the practices used on the ground, give the best evidence base on which to look ahead. The right hon. Lady asked about recording. At a very early stage, we made changes to the amount of information that needs to be recorded on stop-and-search forms, but we retained, for example, ethnicity as one of the matters
It also found:
The evidence points to racial discrimination being a significant reason why black and Asian people are more likely to be stopped and searched.
It concluded:
A reduction in disproportionality does not have to result in a rise in crimeon the contrary in the case of both Staffordshire and Cleveland
where the EHRC worked with those forces

it has gone hand in hand with reduced crime rates and increased levels of public confidence in the police.
777
Stop and Search
2 JULY 2013
Stop and Search
778
that should be recorded. We were able to reduce bureaucracy somewhat, but it remains the case that if a stop and search is undertaken when it is not necessarywhen there is not reasonable suspicionit can be a waste of police time. The right hon. Ladys main accusation seemed to be that, in my statement, I had not set out any firm proposals on stop and search, but the whole point of the public consultation is to go out and ask members of the public what has been their experience of stop and search, how they feel it should be used and what changes, if any, they think should be made. The consultation will include questions such as whether local communities should be more involved in working out how stop and search should be used in their area. There are some good examples, including in the London borough of Brent, of work being done with the local community. The point of the consultation is to ask people what they think; then, we will look the results alongside the evidence base in the HMIC report and come to the House in due course with firm proposals that I believe will enable us to get stop and search right. Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): My right hon. Friend said that the percentage of stop and searches that led to arrest were far too low for comfort. What figure would make her comfortable? Mrs May: My hon. and learned Friend will know that I am not naturally inclined to set targets in these matters, and I do not think it would be appropriate at this stage if I were to state a figure. The Met Commissioner has done so, having set a 20% target, and, as I said, recent figures have been far closer to that 20%. But let us look at the evidence base and hear what the public have to say about how stop and search should operate. Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): This is an excellent statement, which I warmly welcome. The Home Secretary gave us a figure of 7%; in fact, under section 60, a black or Asian person is 25 times more likely to be stopped and searched than a white person. It cannot be right that, in Britain, anyone should be targeted because of the colour of their skin. It is also important to look at the diversity of the police force, and I urge the right hon. Lady to read the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, to be published on Monday. If the public are to have confidence in the police, the police need to reflect the public as a whole. Finally, I hope that the consultation will not be merely a paper exercise, but that the Home Secretary and Ministers will go our major cities themselves. I am happy to invite her to Leicester, where we could sit on the same side of the table, rather than on opposite sides, as we do during Select Committee meetings. Rather than have just an online consultation, it is important that Ministers hear what communities have to say about this practice. Mrs May: The right hon. Gentleman is right about the number of times members of black or minority ethnic communities are stopped and searched under section 60; the number is significantly higher than for white people. The Met police have already looked at
their planned section 60 authorisations and significantly reduced the numberfrom 103 in June 2011, to just 6 in June last year, for example. The right hon. Gentleman tempts me with an invitation to come to Leicester and to stand on the same side as him and listen to the community. Nearly two years ago, I visited a charity involved with the Met that works on getting young people more involved with the police and improving their interaction. I remember that stop and search was raised by two members of the group of young people I met on that occasion. As the right hon. Gentleman says, it makes an impact when one hears people who have been subject to stop and search talk about their concerns and their feelings about the police as a result of how it was conducted. Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con): I welcome my right hon. Friends statement and her recognition of how corrosive it can be to the spirit of young people when they are stopped and searched for no better reason than the colour of their skin. I echo the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee in encouraging my right hon. Friend to have an extensive consultation. Can she provide some examples of how she will engage communities in the consultation? It is a fantastic initiative, but it must have teeth if it is to bring real hope to people who have suffered from prejudice for far too long. Mrs May: There will be a place for responses to the consultation on the gov.uk website, but we intend also to hold a number of consultation meetings with people who are involved in the issue. Obviously, we want to speak with those who administer stop and search, as well as groups who have commented on it in the past, but I am sure that there will be opportunities to hear directly from people who have been subject to stop and search, as well as from communities about how they feel stop and search should be used in their community. Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab): The Home Secretary will be aware that no single police activity causes more unhappiness and antagonism between the police and young black people than stop and search. That goes all the way back to the 1980s and the Brixton riots. Even after the 2011 riots, when I spoke to young people in Hackney about what triggered the riots, they said, Stop and search. Will the Home Secretary join me in welcoming the work of Chief Superintendent Matthew Horne at Stoke Newington police station, who is responsible for the improved figures on the efficacy of stop and search in Hackney? Does she appreciate that it is not just that respectable young black men who get stopped on a weekly basis do not like it? What they object to is not the simple fact of being stopped and searched, but the way the police talk to them. There is a lot to be done in training. Stop and search is an important weapon for the police, but proper training should stop its being used in a way that is detrimental to community relations. Mrs May: The hon. Lady rightly speaks from experience of an issue that I know she has spoken about on a number of occasions in the House, and I am happy to commend the work of the chief superintendent at Stoke Newington who has been working to ensure a different approach and those different figures in Hackney. She is
779 [Mrs May]
Stop and Search
2 JULY 2013
Stop and Search
780
also rightwhen I talk to police officers, they will often say it is how they do it as much as what they are doing that can be the issue for those who are being stopped and searched. That is why there is some very good practice across the country, and also good practice with communities, explaining why stop and search is being undertaken in a particular community at a particular time so that people understand it, rather than feeling that it is something that is just being done to them within the community. Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con): I welcome my right hon. Friends statement. Does she agree that what the public are seeking is consistency in the conduct of the police across the country? In my constituency, Erewash, the police work hard to get the right balance between keeping residents safe and respecting citizens going about their business. A review of the guidelines can only help to achieve that consistent practice that the public expect. Mrs May: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. She is right. People expect such powers to be used fairly and consistently. There are many good examples where the police are working hard in the application of the powers but, sadly, the figures show us that we need to look at the guidance that is being offered and at the training of police officersI did not respond on training to the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)to ensure that stop and search is always used fairly and properly. David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP): I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. I am glad to see that the police will retain the power of stop and search. Of course there needs to be fairness. It should not be the case that someone is stopped because of the colour of their skin. But does the right hon. Lady agree that at the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland stop-and-search powers saved many lives from terrorists? Mrs May: Yes, I absolutely agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. As I said in my statement and as he acknowledged, stop and search, properly used, at its best, is a vital tool for the police, and long may that continue. Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): Stop and search has far too often been misused, weakening trust in the police, particularly among those from black and ethnic minority backgrounds, so I welcome the Home Secretarys statement, although it is a slightly novel approach to launch a consultation the week before the evidence base comes out. I assume that there are reasons for that. Does she agree that when the police do ask people for information, such as name and address, they should make it clear whether compliance with the request is a requirement or purely voluntary? Mrs May: My hon. Friend talked about the launch of the public consultation this week. This is a different thing from the report that Her Majestys inspectorate of constabulary will be producing, which will provide an evidence base. We have figures already that I think make it right for us to question whether stop and search
is always used appropriately. It is therefore right to say to the public, We think this is a matter on which we want to hear the publics views. On the matter of what information needs to be recorded and what information will need to available under any changes that are made to the guidance and so forth, I can assure my hon. Friend that we will, of course, make it clear where information is required and where it is voluntary. Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op): I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. I think all Members of the House will welcome the consultation, which I hope will put an end to the experience of many young people of repeated stop and search. But as we are approaching the summer break, can she explain the timing of the consultation and why she thinks six weeks might be long enough, bearing in mind that people may be going on leave? It gives very little time for extending the consultation out into our communities. Mrs May: I encourage the hon. Lady to do just that, and I hope she will be able to ensure that in her constituency people are aware of the consultation and are able to respond. I think six weeks is an appropriate length of time for us to be able to undertake the consultation. We will then be able to come back to the House in the autumn on the basis of both the consultation and the HMIC report, and make firmer proposals to the House on stop and search going forward. Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): I am obliged to declare my interest as a special constable of the British Transport police and, in that role, as someone who has conducted stop and searches. May I urge the Home Secretary to use this opportunity to clear up the law with regard to face coverings? If there were a riot in Parliament square and, under section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, an inspector or above banned the covering of peoples faces with a balaclava, the British Transport police in Westminster tube station would not, as I understand it, be able to stop and search people for having a balaclava on their person, and if they did discover such balaclavas, they would not be able to remove them. That is an anomaly which could be addressed by the consultation. Mrs May: I commend my hon. Friend for the work that he does as a special constable, and the limited number of Members of this House who are special constables both with the Met and other police forces and with the BTP. I am happy to look at the issue that he raised. We are looking at a number of matters in relation to the various powers of the police more generally and of the British Transport police, looking to iron out any anomalies, so I will certainly take that on board and have a look at it. Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC): Does the Secretary of State have figures for the search-to-arrest ratios for the Welsh police forces? Mrs May: I do not have the figures to hand for the ratios for the Welsh police forces. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman in relation to that matter. Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con): I welcome todays statement and the public consultation. Owing to the
781
Stop and Search
2 JULY 2013
Stop and Search
782
sensitivity of stop and search, it is important that we balance genuine public concerns about the effect that that has on public confidence the polices legitimate need for stop-and-search powers. In my area Lancashire police formed a group within the community to act as an advisory group to help monitor police actions and provide them with community feedback, which I warmly welcome. May I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that, in addition to community meetings, details of the consultation are sent to all mosques and faith-based groups across the country so that we can ensure that all parts of the community are able to respond in good time? Mrs May: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. We will make sure that knowledge of the consultation is as widespread as possible to enable all those who may have a great interest in responding to do so. The example that he referred to in Lancashire, of the work being done with the local community, is a good exampleand there are others across the countrywhere police have actively tried to work with the community to explain the purpose of stop and search so that communities become more responsive to it and more willing to accept it when it takes place. Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): I, too, thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Every time I come to Westminster the news records yet another vicious knife attack, and often a fatal attack. Many people feel that stop and search is a necessity and must continue. The Secretary of State mentioned that 3,212 criminals were stopped and found with weapons, and many people in the community feel that that should continue. Will
she give an assurance to those who wish to see stop and search continue that that will happen? Mrs May: Yes, I am absolutely clear that stop and search, when used properly, is a vital tool for the police and it is right that it should continue. As I said in my statement, as long as I am Home Secretary it will continue. But when we see half a million stop and searches in the Metropolitan police area and an arrestto-search ratio of 9%, with 45,000 criminals being arrested as a result of that half a million stop and searchesthe numbers for the Metropolitan police in terms of arrests have been increasing and the number of stop and searches reducingit is right that we ask whether it is always used as appropriately as it should be. But it should stay as a tool. Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con): In the past my party has not taken seriously enough the concerns of Londons black and minority ethnic communities about the way in which they are policed. It reflects huge credit on the Home Secretary that she is addressing this ongoing concern. Given that policing in this country is based on the principle of consent, does she agree that stop and search is a technique that can protect young people, but that it must be done with respect, it has to be based on intelligence and it has to enjoy the support of those who are being policed? Mrs May: My hon. Friend has neatly put his finger on the issue. Stop and search is a valuable tool, but it must have the confidence and support of the community. It can be a vital tool in the protection of young people, as he says, but it has to be dealt with on a basis of respect and intelligence, and with the support of the community.
783
2 JULY 2013
Letting Agents (Competition, Choice and Standards)
784

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) 2.9 pm John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a national mandatory licensing scheme for letting and managing agents, with established standards and redress for landlords, tenants and leaseholders, and prohibition of letting and management agent fees; to enable local authorities to administer and enforce the scheme; to require that tenants, landlords and leaseholders have written agreements; and to empower local authorities, either alone or in partnership, to trade as letting and managing agents.
had information about their fees on their website. One lady in Shelters report speaks for all private renters. She was charged 540 in administration fees alone. She said:
The rental market is a horrible place right now While Im not on the cusp of poverty, this sort of thing could easily spiral. Frankly it is terrible that the government does not see this sort of thing as a priority matter.
The Bill is unfinished business for me. As Housing Minister in the last year of the Labour Government, my priorities were driven largely by the extraordinary economic circumstances we faced: helping people keep their homes, preventing the collapse of private house building and launching a new wave of social house building, especially council housing, to kick-start the economy in the wake of the global financial crisis. All of that we did successfully. However, I ran out of time to reform the private rented sector and, in particular, deal with the growing problem of the housing market middle men who answer to no oneletting and managing agents. The detailed plans for reform that I set out in 2010, following the Rugg review, did not make it into legislation and were all dropped by coalition Ministers. I am now making the case for change anew, with cross-party support and backing from housing charities and industry bodies. There is a silent crisis in the private rented sector. More than 9 million people now rent their home from a private landlord, a higher proportion than at any time for almost half a century. It is no longer just the young and mobile biding their time until they can buy their own home; half of those in private rented homes are over 35 and more than 1 million families with children are basing their lives on landlords who can evict them at a month or twos notice. Generation rent has no organised voice and little market muscle. We have better consumer rights when buying a fridge or hiring a car than we do when renting a home. Now that the majority of private tenancies are let through agencies, anyone can set up as a letting or managing agent, even if they have a bad track record or a criminal record. There is no system of licensing or standards, no requirement for a money protection scheme or a system of redress, and no legal right to a written tenancy contract. In addition, tenants are often hit by huge and hidden up-front fees. Multiple charges for administration, inventories, references, credit checks, deposit handling, contract preparation and tenancy renewal are common. In our local area in Rotherham, the council reckons that tenants are being asked to pay hundreds of pounds for such fees. Research recently released by Shelter reveals that the average cost of up-front fees charged by letting agents is almost 350, and Which? reported last year that none of the 32 letting agents it surveyed
She is right. This affects not only people on low incomes, but people like her on middle incomes. However, it would be a mistake to think that only tenants suffer from sharp practice. Landlords often report letting or managing agents failing to provide the services expected or hitting them with hidden and excessive charges. Even people who own their own home as leaseholders can suffer when managing agents acting for the freeholder adopt the same high-cost, low-standards business model that plagues so many other parts of the sector. The worst drag down the reputation of the rest, which is why many of the legal changes I propose are backed by the associations representing letting agents, managing agents and landlords. The Association of Residential Letting Agents, the Association of Residential Managing Agents, the Southern Landlords Association and the British Property Federation have all joined Shelter, Crisis, Which? and the National Union of Students to support my call for regulation to raise standards in the sector. Self-regulation has failed. Legal regulation is required to improve choice, competition and standards in the market. That is exactly what my Bill would do. The Government were recently forced by Labour in the Lords, led by Baroness Hayter, to agree to introduce a redress scheme. That is widely seen as necessary but nowhere near sufficient. It will only offer help after the damage has been done. Therefore, the legal changes in my Bill would include a legal right to a written tenancy agreement, a ban on agency charges beyond a deposit and rent in advance, a comprehensive redress scheme when things go wrong, and mandatory national licensing for all agents, with core standards and a fitness to practise test. For those rightly concerned about the cost of regulation, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors has used the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills impact assessment model to show that such basic legislation would have an initial cost of 46 million but would bring net benefits of over 20 million a year. However, the changes simply cannot be done from the centre. Local authorities must be at the heart of improvements in the lettings market. That is why my Bill would also give councils strong enforcement powers and new powers to set up their own local letting agencies as public sector comparators and competitors to their private sector counterparts. That model of market challenge by the public sector already works well for low-end rented properties in places such as Derby, Lewisham and Newham. I believe that a new system of mid-market local letting agents, run by the public service, would help drive up standards and drive down fees. Councils could run such operations under their existing trading powers, so local tenants and landlords would benefit and local council tax payers could too. Our home is our biggest financial outlay, whether we buy or rent. The basic regulation now in place for estate agents is still missing for letting and managing agents. The private rented market is now failing too many despairing tenants who feel let down by low standards
785
2 JULY 2013
786
and ripped off by high fees. This sector has been called the property markets wild west. It is high time Parliament brought the rule of law to bear on the cowboys, and my Bill would do just that. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That John Healey, Mr Gareth Thomas, Lucy Powell, Sir Peter Bottomley, Andrew George, Lilian Greenwood, Ian Mearns, Mr Steve Reed, Clive Efford, John Pugh, Derek Twigg and Natascha Engel present the Bill. John Healey accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 October, and to be printed (Bill 83).
Finance Bill
[2ND ALLOCATED DAY] Further consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee New Clause 7 RESTRICTIONS ON INTERIM PAYMENTS IN PROCEEDINGS
RELATING TO TAXATION MATTERS
(1) This section applies to an application for an interim remedy (however described), made in any court proceedings relating to a taxation matter, if the application is founded (wholly or in part) on a point of law which has yet to be finally determined in the proceedings. (2) Any power of a court to grant an interim remedy (however described) requiring the Commissioners for Her Majestys Revenue and Customs, or an officer of Revenue and Customs, to pay any sum to any claimant (however described) in the proceedings is restricted as follows. (3) The court may grant the interim remedy only if it is shown to the satisfaction of the court (a) that, taking account of all sources of funding (including borrowing) reasonably likely to be available to fund the proceedings, the payment of the sum is necessary to enable the proceedings to continue, or (b) that the circumstances of the claimant are exceptional and such that the granting of the remedy is necessary in the interests of justice. (4) The powers restricted by this section include (for example) (a) powers under rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (S.I. 1998/3132); (b) powers under Part II of Rule 29 of the Rules of the Court of Judicature (Northern Ireland) (Revision) 1980 (S.R. 1980 No.346). (5) This section applies in relation to proceedings whenever commenced, but only in relation to applications made in those proceedings on or after 26 June 2013. (6) This section applies on and after 26 June 2013. (7) Subsection (8) applies where, on or after 26 June 2013 but before the passing of this Act, an interim remedy was granted by a court using a power which, because of subsection (6), is to be taken to have been restricted by this section. (8) Unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (3) applied at the time the interim remedy was granted, the court must, on an application made to it under this subsection (a) revoke or modify the interim remedy so as to secure compliance with this section, and (b) if the Commissioners have, or an officer of Revenue and Customs has, paid any sum as originally required by the interim remedy, order the repayment of the sum or any part of the sum as appropriate (with interest from the date of payment). (9) For the purposes of this section, proceedings on appeal are to be treated as part of the original proceedings from which the appeal lies. (10) In this section taxation matter means anything, other than national insurance contributions, the collection and management of which is the responsibility of the Commissioners for Her Majestys Revenue and Customs (or was the responsibility of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or Commissioners of Customs and Excise)..(Mr Gauke.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
787 2.19 pm
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
788
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 7 makes changes to the procedure for the granting of interim payments in common law court claims relating to taxation matters. Its effect will be to limit the circumstances in which interim payments may be granted in the rare tax cases originating in a common law claim as opposed to appeal through the tax tribunal. The new clause will bring the treatment of tax cases under the two routes into closer alignment. It will simplify the process and lessen administrative burdens for the Revenue and for claimants. I should like to set out some of the background to this change. It corrects a difference in treatment with respect to the granting of interim remedies on tax disputes that arise depending on whether the claim is appealed to the tax tribunal or originates before the High Court, or the Court of Session if in Scotland. Generally speaking, appeals against a decision by Her Majestys Revenue and Customs on a tax matter are appealed to the tax tribunal. This system is provided for in statutory tax legislation and is the standard route of appeal for a taxpayer who disagrees with a decision by HMRC. There is no procedure for the granting of interim payments under this system. Instead, tax is paid or repaid as appropriate when a decision is made on the case. This is a sensible arrangement. The interim award procedure was not designed to be a remedy in a tax dispute. Its common application is to victims who have suffered serious injury to their health but the long-term prognosis leaves it unclear how much they should receive. An interim payment allows them to have enough money to make adaptation to their homes and to pay for care. Clearly, the complex adjudication of a tax dispute is a very different circumstance unsuited to the application of anticipatory payments in advance of final judgment. It is therefore right that the normal practice in tax disputes is not to grant an interim payment. However, difficulty arises where a tax claim originates in common law. In such circumstances, it would currently fall outside the scope of the tribunal system and would therefore be appealed instead to the High Court. Here claimants may obtain interim payment before the matter is finally settled. Such payments may then need to be returned to the Revenue as the direction of jurisprudence changes at different stages of litigation. This back-and-forth process is administratively burdensome on both parties and adds to the cost of the litigation. Furthermore, it exposes the Revenue to a risk of non-recovery in the event that the taxpayer becomes insolvent after obtaining an interim payment that it is later required to hand back. Let me set out a little more detail on the new clause. The measure will operate by limiting the power of a court to grant an interim payment to a claimant whose application for such payment is founded, at least in part, on a point of law which has yet to be finally determined. The court will, however, still be able to grant an interim payment to whatever extent is necessary to fund the ongoing litigation, as well as in some other defined circumstances where there is a strong case for granting such award. The measure relates only to those
rare tax cases that fall outside the scope of the tribunal system. It is a procedural matter, not a change in tax policy. John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab): The Minister said that such cases are rare. How many are there each year, and how quickly will they be dealt with under the system proposed in new clause 7 as compared with now? Mr Gauke: How quickly a particular case will be dealt with depends on the length of time it takes to be resolved. The right hon. Gentleman will know from his considerable experience as a Treasury Minister that some of these cases can take a number of years. It is worth pointing out that, by and large, large corporates tend to be involved in this type of litigation. The length of time it will take for a case to be resolved is ultimately unaffected by these changes. Their only significance is that there will not be interim payments in these rare cases. The right hon. Gentleman asked how many cases there are per year. I cannot give him the number straight away, but it is very low. In the vast majority of cases, disputes are taken through the tax tribunal. As I say, this is about making common law cases consistent with tax tribunal cases. It is difficult to give the precise number of cases per year, but we are talking about low numbers. Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab): I thank the Minister for responding to my right hon. Friends useful question. Will he clarify why the Government are proposing this change as a new clause to the Finance Bill? What has come to light between the initial drafting of the Bill and this stage in the proceedings, which is clearly very late given that the Bill is due to receive its Third Reading today? Mr Gauke: We have introduced it at this point because recent jurisprudence has crystallised our view in this regard. As I say, we want consistency between common law cases and tax tribunal cases. A degree of volatility has been created in terms of tax revenues that none of us should welcome. In short, the answer to the hon. Ladys question is that the reason is recent jurisprudence. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman a little more detail in response to his question about rare cases. HMRC is aware of fewer than 10 strands of litigation where tax issues are being handled through the High Court. That is not to say that they would necessarily all involve interim payments, but I hope that that gives some sense of the scale of the issue. As I say, it is a procedural matter. John Healey: It is helpful of the Minister to give the House an indication of the scale in terms of the number of cases. Can he also indicate the scale in terms of the amount of tax at stake in such cases? Mr Gauke: The first point to make is that this does not ultimately change the amount of tax at stake, because a litigant will either win or not win. If a litigant who ultimately wins has not had access to an interim payment as a consequence of this measure, that does not change what they will ultimately receive. Some of these cases involve large sums of money, sometimes
789
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
790
many millions of pounds. In some cases, interim payments have been very significant. However, I stress that this does not ultimately change how much money will end up in the pocket of the litigant. It is a question of timing and ensuring that we have some consistency. Turning to why we are doing this now, it follows recent jurisprudence of the Court relating to the application of the interim awards procedure. This jurisprudence has crystallised our view that the interim payment procedure is not suitable for complex tax disputes. There is also an element of risk management in this. HMRC is routinely involved in litigation where the tax at stake may be for very high sums of money. The granting of payments on an interim basis before a final decision has been reached contributes to the volatility of tax revenues. By limiting the application of the interim payment procedure in common law court claims relating to taxation matters, and bringing the system into better alignment with what is standard practice in the tax tribunal, the new clause will cut down on complex work associated with calculating claims on a contingent basis before matters relating to liability and quantum have been resolved by the judiciary. Catherine McKinnell: The information being provided by the Minister is very helpful. The impact note states that the change will have no Exchequer impact, but that Her Majestys Revenue and Customs will benefit from reduced administrative costs and burdens. Is the Minister able to put a sum on that economic benefit to the Treasury? 2.30 pm Mr Gauke: That is a fair question and there will be a benefit to HMRC, but it is difficult to put a sum on it. I do not want to overstate the argumentwe are not talking about an administrative saving of many millions of poundsbut clearly these cases are difficult to deal with. They involve the additional complexity involved in large-scale litigation matters that are taken through the courts. There is a saving, but I do not want to overstate it. The hon. Lady raises a perfectly fair question, but it is difficult to provide a precise number. At a time when there is considerable pressure on resources, it is difficult to justify the considerable additional work that the interim payment procedure creates for the Revenue by adding stages to the litigation process. We have, therefore, taken the decision to legislate now in order to achieve better alignment between the treatment of different tax cases at the earliest opportunity. The Government believe that this will help bring an end to misalignment whereby the availability of interim payments in the context of tax differs depending on whether claims are brought in the court system or the tribunal system. Catherine McKinnell: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive account of new clause 7 and for responding to our queries. As he has said, the Government want to introduce a number of new clauses and amendments to the Bill. Could you clarify, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether we are dealing with just new clause 7 at this stage, or are we taking any other amendments? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Just new clause 7.
Catherine McKinnell: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I appreciate that clarification. New clause 7 makes changes to the procedure for the granting of interim payments in common law claims relating to taxation matters so that the treatment of tax cases commenced under common law court claims and tax tribunals will be more closely aligned in future. We support this simplification process, and the Ministers response to our probing questions during his generous explanation of the new clause has clarified the issue. Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con): Is it appropriate, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I now speak to amendments 52 and 53, tabled in my name? Mr Deputy Speaker: No. Question put and agreed to. New clause 7 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 175 ELECTION TO BE TREATED AS DOMICILED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM Mr Gauke: I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 175, page 105, leave out lines 4 to 13 and insert
(3) Condition A is that, at any time on or after 6 April 2013 and during the period of 7 years ending with the date on which the election is made, the person had a spouse or civil partner who was domiciled in the United Kingdom. (4) Condition B is that a person (the deceased) dies and, at any time on or after 6 April 2013 and within the period of 7 years ending with the date of death, the deceased was (a) domiciled in the United Kingdom, and (b) the spouse or civil partner of the person who would, by virtue of the election, be treated as domiciled in the United Kingdom..
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 2 to 7 and 35 to 51. Mr Gauke: These Government amendments make important changes to the UKs inheritance tax rules. Amendments 1 to 7 will bring in greater flexibility and provide more individuals with the option to elect to be treated as UK domiciled for the purposes of inheritance tax. They demonstrate the Governments willingness to listen to the views of external interested parties and act where there is a principled case for change. Amendments 35 to 51 are being made as a result of comments by interested parties. They clarify the technical interpretation of the legislation and change the commencement provisions with respect to certain liabilities. Let me turn first to amendments 1 to 7 to clause 175. The clause reforms the inheritance tax treatment of transfers between UK-domiciled individuals and their non-UK-domiciled spouses or civil partners. The changes allow individuals who are not domiciled in the United Kingdom but who have a UK-domiciled spouse or civil partner to elect to be treated as domiciled in the UK for the purposes of inheritance tax.
791 [Mr Gauke]
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
792
The amendments are being made following comments from two key interested partiesthe Chartered Institute of Taxation and the London Society of Chartered Accountantsabout how the Finance Bill as drafted amends the inheritance tax treatment of spouses and civil partners not domiciled in the UK. Their further representations since the publication of the Bill in March have helped us understand the concerns raised in more detail. Considering the points raised has taken time, but the amendments will resolve these issues. The clause as drafted stipulates that a person must be non-UK-domiciled and married at the time they make an election. Consequently, a person who has recently become UK domiciled would not be able to make a retrospective election that would cover a period when he or she had been non-domiciled. Effectively, they are trapped if they are not aware of the possible IHT consequences at the point just before they become UK domiciledfor example, if they decide to remain in the UK indefinitely after having children here. This might be especially harsh in situations where the original UK-domiciled spouse dies suddenly having made potentially exempt transfers to the surviving spouse. Similarly, the Bill as drafted requires a person to remain married to, or in a civil partnership with, the UK-domiciled spouse or civil partner throughout the relevant period preceding the election, which can be up to seven years. Therefore, in circumstances where the marriage or civil partnership has been dissolved and the person is a non-domiciled individual, they are prevented from making an election retrospectively and hence prevented from gaining access to spousal relief for the period when they were married in return for their overseas assets being brought into IHT. That was not the intention of the policy. Amendments 1 to 7 remove the condition that a person must be non-UK-domiciled at the time of making an election. They also remove the requirement that the person making the election is married or in a civil partnership with the UK-domiciled individual throughout the relevant period. The amended clause stipulates instead that they were married or in civil partnership at any time during the relevant period. As a result of these amendments, individuals who are domiciled in the UK but who were previously domiciled elsewhere will be able to make a retrospective election. Similarly, the amendments will also enable individuals previously married or in a civil partnership to make a retrospective election following divorce or dissolution. This will ensure that changes in domicile or marriage status do not restrict the ability of individuals to elect to be within the UK inheritance tax system. Amendment 1 simply removes a sub-paragraph that is no longer required as a consequence of amendments 2 to 6, while amendment 7 provides clarity that the provision for revoking an election applies only to the person who made the election and not to that persons personal representatives. Let me now turn to amendments 35 to 51 to schedule 34. Clause 174 and schedule 34 reform the inheritance tax treatment of outstanding liabilities. They introduce new conditions and restrictions on when a liability can be deducted from the value of an estate.
The current rules allow almost all outstanding liabilities at death to reduce the value of an estate, irrespective of how the borrowed moneys have been used, or whether the loan is repaid following the death. That creates opportunities for avoidance and can lead to decisions and arrangements being made purely for tax reasons. A range of contrived arrangements and avoidance schemes on the market seek to exploit the current rules. The number of those is expected to grow as other avoidance routes are closed off. There is an inconsistency in how the current rules treat liabilities that are used to acquire assets that qualify for relief, but that are secured against different types of assets. That creates an advantageous tax position and distorts decision making by encouraging individuals to secure business loans against their personal property where there may be no need to do so. The Government believe that the tax system should neither encourage nor penalise the choice of one form of security over another. Clause 174 and schedule 34 address those opportunities for avoidance and inconsistency in three ways. First, deductions will be disallowed where the loan has been used to acquire excluded propertythat is, property which is excluded from the charge to inheritance tax. Secondly, where the loan has been used to acquire relievable propertythat is, property which qualifies for a reliefthe relief will be allowed against the net value of the property after deducting the loan. Thirdly, the loan will generally be allowable as a deduction only if it has been repaid from assets in the estate. The Government are making those changes to improve the integrity and fairness of the inheritance tax system, close avoidance opportunities and remove the inconsistency in the treatment of loans. Following the publication of the Finance Bill in March, Her Majestys Revenue and Customs has received comments from representative bodies, practitioners and individuals that have highlighted sections of the legislation that could be clarified. Interested parties have also expressed concern that the new provisions will apply retrospectively where individuals have secured business loans on their non-business property for commercial reasons, rather than for avoidance purposes, before the changes were announced. Those individuals would face a higher IHT bill if they died before the debt was repaid. Amendments 35 to 49 clarify the interpretation of the legislation to ensure that it works as intended, and address some of the technical issues identified in feedback. If a loan has been used to acquire excluded property, which later becomes chargeable to IHT, amendment 37 will allow the deduction for the liability. Conversely, if chargeable property subsequently becomes excluded property, the amendment will deny the deduction. Where a loan has been used to acquire relievable property and that property is given away before death, amendments 41 and 42 will ensure that the liability is not deducted again against other types of property if it has already been taken into account. Amendment 45 will widen the meaning of estate to allow the liability to be repaid from property that is usually treated as being outside a persons estate for IHT purposes, such as foreign property that is owned by an individual who is not domiciled in the UK. Where a loan has not been repaid and the deduction is disallowed, amendment 47
793
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
794
will make it clear that the liability will not reduce the amount that would be eligible for the inheritance tax exemption for transfers between spouses or civil partners. The Government recognise that some lenders may require security in the form of personal assets and that individuals who have secured existing loans against their personal property to finance business investment may not be able to restructure the loan or unwind the arrangements. Amendments 50 and 51 will therefore amend the commencement date so that the new rules dealing with liabilities incurred to acquire relievable property will apply only to new loans taken out on or after 6 April 2013. That will mean that someone who took out a business loan in the past secured against their other assets will not be affected by the new provisions. The commencement date for the other provisions in schedule 34 will remain unchanged as the date of Royal Assent. Those provisions will apply to other liabilities, irrespective of when they were incurred. Catherine McKinnell: The Minister is again providing a thorough explanation of the Government amendments. He may recall that the Chartered Institute of Taxation expressed concerns that clause 174 and schedule 34 were profoundly anti-business and did not recognise economic realities. Will the Minister provide reassurance that the Government are confident that those concerns are addressed by todays amendments? Mr Gauke: We have sought to address many of the concerns that have been raised. It is perhaps worth outlining the policy objective of limiting the deduction for liabilities. It removes a tax advantage that certain schemes and arrangements seek to achieve. It removes an anomaly in the current rules that may distort business financing decisions. The measures will ensure that the value of an estate that is subject to IHT reflects the normal economic consequences of incurring a liability. They support our policies on anti-avoidance and fairness. 2.45 pm We have demonstrably listened to the concerns that have been raised. We are seeking not to prevent or deter individuals from starting a business or investing in an existing business, but to close down an avoidance opportunity. The change will not prevent a business from securing a loan against non-business assets or disrupt business activity. It will only remove the anomaly that can provide a tax advantage for restructuring debts in one way over another. The amendments will improve the inheritance tax rules. They will bring greater flexibility and provide more individuals with the option to elect to be treated as UK domiciled for the purposes of inheritance tax. They will ensure that the new provisions in clause 174 and schedule 34 reduce potential tax losses and reduce the role of inheritance tax in business financing decisions, while minimising the impact on legitimate arrangements. Catherine McKinnell: Amendments 1 to 7 will make technical changes to clause 175, which introduces provisions by which an individual who is or has been married to or who is or has been in a civil partnership with someone who is domiciled in the UK can elect to be treated as UK domiciled for inheritance tax purposes. The Minister has set out in detail the reasons for the changes and the expected impact.
I have one additional question. The impact note that was published with the amendments states that there will be a negligible impact in this year, but that in future years there is expected to be a 5 million negative impact on the Exchequer. Will the Minister clarify how and why that negative impact will be realised? Amendments 35 to 51 will alter schedule 34 and clause 174 on the treatment of liabilities for inheritance tax purposes. Understandably, the Minister focused on those proposals for the majority of his remarks, because they have been the subject of significant concern from a number of quarters. As he explained, the clause was drafted in response to avoidance schemes and arrangements that sought to exploit the inheritance tax rules that allow for a deduction for liabilities owed by the deceased against the value of an estate, regardless of whether the debt is paid after death. HMRC has outlined some of those arrangements. Some involve contrived debts that are subsequently not repaid, so there is no real reduction in the value of the estate. Others involve loans that are used to acquire assets that are not chargeable to inheritance tax or which qualify for a relief so that the value of the estate is doubly reduced. The policy intention of the measure is to remove the tax advantage that such schemes and arrangements seek to achieve through the exploitation of that loophole. Obviously, that is an aim that the Opposition support. The impact assessment shows a net positive return to the Exchequer of 5 million in 2013-14, rising to 20 million in 2014-15, then falling and remaining steady at 15 million after 2017-18. It is obvious why the impact will be lower in 2013-14, but it would be helpful if the Minister would clarify why the return is expected to peak at 20 million and peter down to 15 million on an ongoing basis. Presumably, individuals who are aware of the changes will, as executors, adjust their tax planning behaviour, but it would be interesting to understand why we expect that increase in 2014-15, and why the return will continue at 15 million on an ongoing basis. Is that return expected to continue indefinitely in terms of tax protected by the Exchequer? A number of concerns about this measure were raised in Committee, and also expressed by several external organisations that the Minister mentioned. Most notably, there is concern that the new rules are too broad and may unintentionally catch genuine existing arrangements, rather than solely avoidance behaviour. It is welcome that amendments 35 to 51 seek to focus the new rules more tightly, and clarify the legislation where appropriate to minimise the impact on those with innocent arrangements. Despite the amendments, there are still a number of concerns about clause 174 and schedule 34. I have already asked the Minister whether he is confident that those concerns have been addressed, because even despite the amendments, concerns continued to be raised. It would be helpful if the Minister would provide comfort to the House, members of the public and tax professionals who are concerned about the clause. The key concern expressed by the Chartered Institute of Taxation relates to debts that are not discharged from the estate of a deceased person. New provisions in clause 174 appear to mean that if a debt has not been discharged directly out of an estate, it will not be deductible for inheritance tax purposes. For example, if the deceaseds estate contains a house subject to a
795
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
796
[Catherine McKinnell] mortgage, the mortgage debt might be repaid from the proceeds of an insurance policy, payable directly to the beneficiary. Although a spouse or civil partner would not be subject to inheritance tax under such circumstances, a cohabitee or orphan child would be. Alternatively, if there is no insurance to pay off the mortgage, the beneficiary might take on the mortgage debt. In either case, as liability will not have been discharged directly out of the estate, which is a requirement of the new provision, it appears that it will not therefore be deductable. I understand that HMRC intends to deal with such scenarios in its guidance, but it would be helpful for the Minister to clarify the position in his response. The Chartered Institute of Taxation previously expressed concerns that the measures are profoundly anti-business and do not recognise economic realities. Indeed, it went so far as to state
we can hardly think of a more counter-productive measure than to deny relief for lending related to business.
The yield from measures in clause 134 and schedule 34 comes from two main types of avoidance scheme that will be closed by these provisions. The main impact on one will be relatively short-lived. The hon. Lady is right to point out that we expect tax agents providing tax avoidance schemes to move on to new schemes in other parts of the tax code, and that will have a behavioural impact. That explains the peak in one year2014-15and the 15 million yield for subsequent years. The hon. Lady mentioned the impact on business and I refer her to my earlier remarksas you will have noted, Mr Deputy Speaker, I covered quite a lot of ground in a fairly lengthy speech. Estates will continue to get a deduction for loans or liabilities, provided they are not used to acquire assets that are not chargeable to inheritance tax and are repaid after death, unless there are genuine commercial reasons for non-repayment. Business and investment decisions are made on a range of factors, including tax. One of the Governments key principles for good taxation is that the tax system should be efficient. It should neither favour nor penalise one form of lending or security over another. The new provisions will ensure that this is the case. 3 pm The hon. Lady referred to a point raised by the Chartered Institute of Taxation that debts not discharged directly out of the estate will not be IHT deductable. The definition of out of estate will be extended by amendment 45 to include indirect assets not normally included in the estate, such as excluded property. Otherwise, no deduction will be due, but this reflects the economic consequence of incurring a liability and repaying it. It would disadvantage the Exchequer to provide for relief where debts are not repaid and do not reduce the inheritance tax being passed on. On whether that will harm business, and whether the amendments deal with concerns that have been raised, it is worth pointing out that independent research published in the SME Finance Monitor suggests that the majority of business overdrafts and loans are unsecured. Where security is provided, it is typically in the form of a charge on business property, such as commercial mortgages. That is supported by a review of recent IHT returns. Most estates with such liabilities will therefore be unaffected by the changes. On consultation, the provisions are designed primarily to tackle avoidance schemes, such as those involving debts between connected parties. As is normal practice for such measures, there was no consultation and draft legislation was not published in advance. To do so would have exposed the avoidance schemes to greater publicity, potentially encouraging more schemes to be set up. Following the publication of the Finance Bill, the Government, as expected, received comments from interested parties and are responding to the many concerns raised by tabling amendments on Report to clarify and improve the Bill. Catherine McKinnell: I appreciate the Ministers point, but I question the reference to how the majority of small businesses manage to secure funding. Small businesses in particular are struggling to obtain funding from banks.
I am sure the Government will want to respond to that strong concern, given current economic conditions and their stated desire to stimulate economic growth. I am sure it is not their intention to enact measures that could be counter-intuitive to that desire. The Governments amendments mean that new rules on liabilities incurred to acquire a relievable property will apply to loans taken out or varied on or after 6 April 2013. That is important because of the retroactive nature of schedule 34, which has been criticised given the significant implications for business loans taken out many years ago and secured against a persons house. The Chartered Institute of Taxation continues to be concerned that the amendments do not provide adequate protection for small businesses. If a business loan was taken out many years ago but is varied after 6 April 2013, the transitional protection offered by the amendments falls away. That could trap small business owners into existing loans, or hinder anyone whose loan comes to an end, where the bank wants to alter the terms, or if the individual wants to refinance. Ultimately, the Chartered Institute of Taxation fears that that could result in people facing an unenviable choice between selling the family home and selling their business if the business owner dies. I would be grateful to hear the Ministers comments on those concerns. To return briefly to my comments on amendments 1 to 7, the impact assessment states that the proposed changes could impact on small businesses. There has been no consultation with small firms or any other groups, so perhaps the Minister will confirm that both sets of changes will not have the detrimental impact on small businesses and business lending that many tax professionals are concerned about. Mr Gauke: I will try to address the hon. Ladys points. First, on inheritance tax and non-domiciled spouses, she correctly mentioned the costs of the policy, which are largely due to an increase in the lifetime limit set out in the Budget documents. Clause 176 increases that limit from 55,000 to 325,000it has not been increased since 1982, and we wanted to address that to be fair to non-domiciled spouses. That is the reason for the cost.
797
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
798
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. We are wandering away from the amendment, and I know the hon. Lady just wanted to make a point on the amendment. Catherine McKinnell: My point relates specifically to the amendment, Mr Deputy Speaker. Many businesses that manage to obtain funding are often required to provide their home as security. If this provision has a detrimental impact on small businesses and puts family homes in jeopardy, will the Government keep it under review? Mr Gauke: I can appreciate why the hon. Lady raises that point, but recent evidence from inheritance tax returns suggests that the majority of business overdrafts and loans continue to be unsecured. There may well have been changes to the balance between secured and unsecured business overdrafts and loans in recent years, but it remains the case that the majority are unsecured. Where security is provided, it is typically in the form of a charge on a business property. I understand why she raises the point, but the evidence suggests that this will not cause the concern that she anticipates. All measures are kept under review and this will be no exception, but we believe that we have got the balance right. This will address a distortion and an avoidance opportunity. I therefore hope that these proposals, as refined by the amendments, will become part of the Bill. Amendment 1 agreed to. Amendments made: 2, page 105, leave out lines 39 to 43. Amendment 3, page 106, line 4, leave out spouse or civil partners and insert deceaseds. Amendment 4, page 106, line 7, leave out from first date to end of line 19 and insert
if, on the date (a) in the case of a lifetime election (i) the person making the election was married to, or in a civil partnership with, the spouse or civil partner, and (ii) the spouse or civil partner was domiciled in the United Kingdom, or (b) in the case of a death election (i) the person who is, by virtue of the election, to be treated as domiciled in the United Kingdom was married to, or in a civil partnership with, the deceased, and (ii) the deceased was domiciled in the United Kingdom..
Mr Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 9 to 16. Mr Gauke: Clause 14 and schedule 2 provide a wideranging simplification of the four tax advantaged employee share schemes, following recommendations by the Office of Tax Simplification. The Government are introducing amendments 8 to 16 to provide further clarity on the rules that apply where company events involving general offers take place. When clause 14 was discussed in Committee, we highlighted some of the improvements that we are making to simplify the tax advantaged employee share schemes, and I shall provide hon. Members with some background on the specific provisions relating to these amendments. Current legislation allows employees affected by certain company events, such as takeovers, to exchange their original scheme shares or options for shares or options in the acquiring company. The schedule also creates new rights for participants to realise scheme shares or exercise options without tax liability in the event of a cash takeover of their company. Earlier this year, a tax tribunal hearing a particular case published a decision on what constitutes a general offer for the whole of the ordinary share capital of a company. Following this decision, and a number of requests from taxpayers and advisers, the Government consider it desirable to clarify the scope of what constitutes a general offer for the purposes of the provisions. The amendments clarify the position across all four tax advantaged employee share schemes, and confirm the rules as they have been consistently applied by HMRC. Our aim is to remove any uncertainty for advisers and taxpayers, consistent with the general simplification theme of the changes. The amendments, alongside the changes that already form part of the Bill, demonstrate the Governments commitment to simplifying and clarifying the tax rules where possible. Catherine McKinnell: These are technical amendments tabled in response to concerns about the operation of the share incentive plans in section 498 and schedule 2 to the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. The amendments will clarify save-as-you-earn option schemes. We support the clarification of the rules that apply when general offers take place. Amendment 8 agreed to. Amendments made: 9, page 144, line 45, after (7), insert
For the purposes of sub-paragraph (5) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means. (8) .
Amendment 5, page 106, line 21, leave out spouse or civil partner and insert deceased. Amendment 6, page 106, line 27, leave out or (4)(b). Amendment 7, page 106, line 41, leave out a lifetime or death election and insert
an election under section 267ZA(1).(Mr Gauke.)
Amendment 10, page 146, line 20, at end insert

(3DA) In subsection (3D)(a) the reference to the issued ordinary share capital of the relevant company does not include any capital already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person and in subsection (3D)(b) the reference to the shares in the relevant company does not include any shares already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person. (3DB) For the purposes of subsection (3D)(a) and (b) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means..
Schedule 2 TAX ADVANTAGED EMPLOYEE SHARE SCHEMES Mr Gauke: I beg to move amendment 8, page 144, line 34, at end insert
(10A) For the purposes of subsection (10) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means..

(1A) After sub-paragraph (3) insert
799
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
800
(3A) In sub-paragraph (3)(a) the reference to the issued ordinary share capital of the company does not include any capital already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person and in sub-paragraph (3)(b) the reference to the shares in the company does not include any shares already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person. (3B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(a) and (b) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means. (1B) A SAYE option scheme approved before the day on which this Act is passed which contains provision under paragraph 37(1) of Schedule 3 to ITEPA 2003 by reference to paragraph 37(2) has effect with any modifications needed to reflect the amendment made by sub-paragraph (1A)..
person connected with that person and in sub-paragraph (2)(a)(ii) the reference to the shares in the scheme company does not include any shares already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person. (2B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a)(i) and (ii) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means..

Enterprise management incentives 30A (1) In Part 6 of Schedule 5 (company reorganisations) in paragraph 39 (introduction) after sub-paragraph (3) insert (4) In sub-paragraph (2)(a)(i) the reference to the issued share capital of the company does not include any capital already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person and in sub-paragraph (2)(a)(ii) the reference to the shares in the company does not include any shares already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person. (5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a)(i) and (ii) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means. (2) The amendment made by this paragraph comes into force on such day as the Treasury may by order appoint..(Mr Gauke.)
Amendment 12, page 147, line 37, leave out subparagraph (1) and insert
(1) In Part 7 of Schedule 3 (exercise of share options) paragraph 38 (exchange of options on company reorganisation) is amended as follows. (1A) In sub-paragraph (2)(c) (a) after 982 insert or 983 to 985, and (b) after shareholder insert etc. (1B) After sub-paragraph (2) insert (2A) In sub-paragraph (2)(a)(i) the reference to the issued ordinary share capital of the scheme company does not include any capital already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person and in sub-paragraph (2)(a)(ii) the reference to the shares in the scheme company does not include any shares already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person. (2B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a)(i) and (ii) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means.
Schedule 9 QUALIFYING INSURANCE POLICIES The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid): I beg to move amendment 17, page 205, line 7, after (g), insert or (4A). Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 18 to 29. Amendment 52, page 213, line 2, at end insert
(aa) the policy has an annual premium of 3,600 or less..

(2HA) In subsection (2H)(a) the reference to the issued ordinary share capital of the relevant company does not include any capital already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person and in subsection (2H)(b) the reference to the shares in the relevant company does not include any shares already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person. (2HB) For the purposes of subsection (2H)(a) and (b) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means..

(ab) the policy is subject to capital gains tax..

(3A) In sub-paragraph (3)(a) the reference to the issued ordinary share capital of the company does not include any capital already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person and in sub-paragraph (3)(b) the reference to the shares in the company does not include any shares already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person. (3B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(a) and (b) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means..
Amendment 15, page 151, line 6, leave out subparagraph (1) and insert
(1) In Part 6 of Schedule 4 (exercise of share options) paragraph 26 (exchange of options on company reorganisation) is amended as follows. (1A) In sub-paragraph (2)(c) (a) after 982 insert or 983 to 985, and (b) after shareholder insert etc. (1B) After sub-paragraph (2) insert (2A) In sub-paragraph (2)(a)(i) the reference to the issued ordinary share capital of the scheme company does not include any capital already held by the person making the offer or a
Sajid Javid: Amendments 17 to 29 make a number of technical changes to schedule 9 of clause 25 to ensure that the qualifying insurance policy regime works as intended. Let me set out some brief background to these changes. The qualifying policy regime was introduced in 1968 to preserve pre-existing tax treatment for traditional moderate value, long-term, regular premium savings policies that contain a significant element of life insurance. No upper limit was set for the investment premiums that could be paid into a QP, which allowed individuals to obtain unlimited relief from higher rates of income tax. In the 2012 Budget, the Government announced a restriction to the tax relief available for QPs. Clause 25 and schedule 9 introduce an annual premium limit of 3,600 on qualifying life insurance policies. This restriction limits the amount of premiums payable into QPs for an individual to no more than 3,600 in any 12-month period, with effect from 6 April 2013. This measure supports the Governments objective of promoting fairness in the tax system by ensuring that tax reliefs for QPs are correctly targeted. Consultation since the Bill was introduced has continued and identified the need for Government amendments to clause 25 to deal with points of detail in 13 areas. None of these represents a change of policy; as I have said, they are technical adjustments to ensure that the rules operate effectively and as intended. The amendments have been discussed with industry representatives and have benefited from the comments received.
801
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
802
Let me briefly explain the amendments in slightly more detail. The purpose of the changes is to provide flexibility to deal with potential future exclusions from the non-assignment rule and potential future exclusions from the circumstances under which beneficiaries must make statements, to extend the period by which an individual must first make a statement and to clarify what information an insurer must provide and obtain from a policy beneficiary and what an insurer must provide to HMRC. In addition, a number of amendments make minor corrections or consequential changes to the more material changes that I have described. If I may, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will speak to amendments 52 and 53, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), at the end of the debate. Harriett Baldwin: I rise to speak to amendments 52 and 53, standing in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) and for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer). I tabled these amendments to schedule 9 after being alerted recently to the consequences of the proposed changes to the life insurance qualifying policy regime for a small business in Malvern in my constituency, which is a market maker in traded endowment policies. The business provides a price at which it will both buy and sell an endowment policy, which creates welcome liquidity in these financial instruments. The firm has been recognised for its work with a Queens export award for industry. The Association of Policy Market Makers estimates that the traded endowment policy market involves about 7,000 policies a year, out of the 20 million policies outstanding, and has a value estimated at approximately 150 million. The reasons why someone might want to sell an endowment policy vary. The most significant reason accounting for 20%is poor investment performance, although someone might be selling their house or trying to get some equity release. People sell endowment policies when they want to reduce their mortgage or improve their homeperhaps at retirement or when they lose their jobs, are bereaved or are getting divorced. Someone might want to buy a second-hand endowment policy to get a better rate of return than cash without a stock market risk. Endowment policies are also popular products with people with lump sumssuch as victims of accidents who receive large payoutsbecause they have capital protection at maturity and tend to be priced to beat inflation. The market is in natural decline, as endowment policies are no longer very popular and the existing 20 million policies have a finite end date. Nevertheless, there are thought to be seven such small businesses in the UK, employing about 200 people, including in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester and for Finchley and Golders Green. These firms worry that they will be put out of business by the change of tax treatment for these policies contained in schedule 9. 3.15 pm I completely understand, support and appreciate the Chancellors desire to restrict tax relief for higher-rate taxpayers to 3,600 a year for all new policies that are issued. What I am raising is the impact on existing qualifying policies, which have hitherto been subject to
capital gains tax after they change hands. However, the tax treatment might now become so unattractive that the secondary market will dry up. I fear that the Chancellor and the Exchequer will lose out on the potential capital gains tax created by future transfers of such policies. The potential capital gains from the industry as a whole are estimated at 750 million, depending on how much changes hands and the rate of capital gains tax at the time. That is a not inconsiderable sum of money. In setting the 3,600 annual limit for new policies, the Treasury needs at the same time to limit the number of qualifying second-hand endowment policies that any one individual can buy. My amendments simply seek to set the same annual premium limit for existing policies as that for new policies under this legislation. That would create a fair and level playing field between new policies, which are being restricted, and any outstanding existing policies that might change hands. I know that the Minister would not want to close down small financial services businesses because of this change in the tax treatment of policies issued many years ago. I think that we can all agree that that would be excessive and retrospective. I hope that by considering my amendments the Government will find a way to restrict the tax relief on new policies in the futurewhile still allowing the secondary market in existing qualifying policies to continueand continue to allow those capital gains tax revenues for the Exchequer. I appreciate that we are talking about a small, specialised secondary marketI was not aware that it existed until 10 days ago. I also appreciate that the industry was not able to feed into the consultation at the end of the yearit was not alerted to the potential changebut it has now fed into the process, via the business in my constituency. I hope that by giving serious consideration to my amendmentsand, I hope, accepting themthe Government will allow the industry and the endowment policy market to die of natural causes in due course, as the policies mature, rather than killing it off suddenly with the Bill. Sajid Javid: Allow me now to turn to amendments 52 and 53, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). I recognise that she speaks from experience and in support of concerns raised by her constituents. I have listened very carefully to those points, and I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue. In providing some additional background to the annual premium limit, I hope that she will be reassured by the safeguards that we have introducedand the reasons for introducing themand will consider not pressing her amendments. Amendments 52 and 53 ask that the Government exclude assignments that make a policy non-qualifying where either the policy has an annual premium of 3,600 or less, or the policy is subject to capital gains tax. Let me respond to some of the points raised by my hon. Friend. She commented that seven small businesses selling second-hand endowment policies could close as a result of the change to the tax treatment of qualifying policies. We recognise that these policies are likely to sell for less on the market where the purchaser is an individual who is a higher or additional rate taxpayer, due to the income tax charge when the policy matures. Let me reassure her that there is currently no bar to the sale of non-qualifying policies on the market and that research
803 [Sajid Javid]
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
804
from the industry shows that non-qualifying policies are currently sold in the market. We envisage that this market might actually increase as a result of fewer QPs being available for sale. Let me reassure the House that any adverse impact of the tax changes will be limited to those purchasers who are higher or additional rate taxpayers. Where a secondhand endowment policy is bought by a corporate investor or a basic rate taxpayer, there will be no impact on the tax position of the buyer when the policy matures. As a result, the loss of QP status will not make these policies any less attractive for those investors. My hon. Friend made a point about capital gains. Previously, the purchaser of a traded endowment policy would have been liable to tax under the capital gains tax regime. That tax treatment was based on the maturity proceeds, less what the purchaser paid to acquire and maintain the policy. Capital gains tax treatment was more favourable, in that no additional tax would be payable unless the gains exceeded the annual exempt amount. In practice, it is likely that higher or additional rate taxpayers structured their affairs so as to ensure that little or no capital gains tax would be payable by using their full annual exempt allowance for a tax year. For 2013-14, that amount is 10,900. There is an additional safeguard for basic rate taxpayers who fall into the higher tax bracket as a result of the policy maturing. If that happens, the individual will get top-slicing relief, which reduces any additional tax payable. The relief is not available if the taxpayer is already a higher or additional rate taxpayer when the policy matures. My hon. Friend has stated that her amendments would set the same annual premium limit for traded endowment policies as that set for new policies and existing policies. The annual premium limit of 3,600 applies to each individual rather than to a single policy. The effect of amendment 52 would be to exclude a policy from the limit if it had an annual premium payable of 3,600 or less. Purchasers of traded endowment policies will already have an annual premium limit of 3,600 applying to their own policies. As a result of that amendment, they would also be able to acquire as many traded endowment policies as they could afford, so long as each of those policies had premiums payable under the threshold. That would put an individual who had taken out a qualifying policy from the outset at a disadvantage to an individual who later acquired a policy. Amendment 52 would not result in a level and fair playing field. Rather, it would inadvertently create an unfair advantage for purchasers of these traded endowment policies. My hon. Friend understandably referred to the restrictions on assignments for consideration, which are an essential part of the policy. The aim of our measure is to help to promote fairness in the tax system by limiting the tax relief available to higher rate and additional rate taxpayers. Without this restriction, individuals in a financial position to purchase traded endowment policies would be able to acquire qualifying policies without limit, while everyone else would be subject to the 3,600 annual premium limit. That would put an individual who had taken out a qualifying policy from the outset at a disadvantage to an individual who later acquired a policy, which would be unfair and inconsistent.
My hon. Friend considers that there is an element of retrospection about applying the annual premium limit to any QPs existing before 6 April 2013. Let me reassure her that there is no element of retrospection. The sale of a traded endowment policy on or after 6 April 2013 is treated no differently from an individual varying an existing policy after that date either to change the term or to vary the annual premiums payable. In all those cases, an individual will have made a conscious decision with regard to an existing product in full knowledge of the tax consequences resulting from that decision. The Governments position is therefore that it would be unfair, inconsistent and disproportionate to allow all pre-6 April 2013 policies to remain qualifying following assignment to maintain the secondary traded endowment market. The Government have listened to my hon. Friends concerns, however. As a result of the representations made, we would like to remind her that amendment 19 proposes giving HMRC a power to deal, in regulations, with any additional circumstances for which exclusion may be appropriate. I will ask officials to meet my hon. Friends constituents and to work with the industry to ensure that the annual premium limit remains proportionate as it beds in. I want to reassure her that if the evidence shows that the impact of the annual premium limit would prematurely bring to an end the traded endowment market, as she fears, the Government would consider using their power in amendment 19 to address the matter in a proportionate way, following discussions with interested parties. I hope that that provides her with a degree of reassurance that the Government are listening, and I respectfully ask her not to press her amendments to a vote. These important technical changes enjoy the broad support of the life insurance industry. They will provide a more effective and more proportionate regime for the operation of the annual premium limit on QPs, and help to ensure that tax reliefs for QPs are appropriately given. I therefore commend Government amendments 17 to 29 to the House. Amendment 17 agreed to. Amendments made: 18, page 206, line 32, after (g), insert or (4A). Amendment 19, page 213, line 25, at end insert
(4A) The Commissioners for Her Majestys Revenue and Customs may by regulations provide that sub-paragraph (2) does not apply if prescribed conditions are met in relation to the assignment. Prescribed means prescribed by the regulations. (4B) Regulations under sub-paragraph (4A) may (a) make different provision for different cases or circumstances, and (b) contain incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision..
Amendment 20, page 213, line 27, after (3), insert or (4A). Amendment 21, page 213, line 48, after (g), insert or (4A). Amendment 22, page 214, line 33, at end insert
(6A) The Commissioners for Her Majestys Revenue and Customs may by regulations provide that an individual is not required to comply with sub-paragraph (2) if prescribed conditions are met. Prescribed means prescribed by the regulations.
805
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
(a) has not been disposed of, and (b) is no longer excluded property.
806
(6B) Accordingly, if by virtue of regulations under subparagraph (6A) an individual is not required to comply with sub-paragraph (2), sub-paragraph (3) does not apply because that individual does not comply with sub-paragraph (2)..
Amendment 23, page 214, line 42, leave out Finance Act 2013 is passed and insert
first regulations under paragraph (c) below come into force.
(3A) To the extent that any remaining liability is greater than the value of such of the property mentioned in subsection (1) as (a) has not been disposed of, and (b) is still excluded property, it may be taken into account, but only so far as the remaining liability is not greater than that value for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (3D). (3B) Subsection (3C) applies where (a) a liability or any part of a liability is attributable to financing (directly or indirectly) (i) the acquisition of property that was not excluded property, or (ii) the maintenance, or an enhancement, of the value of such property, and (b) the property or part of the property (i) has not been disposed of, and (ii) has become excluded property. (3C) The liability or (as the case may be) the part may only be taken into account to the extent that it exceeds the value of the property, or the part of the property, that has become excluded property, but only so far as it does not exceed that value for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (3D). (3D) The reasons are.

(8A) Sub-paragraph (8B) applies in relation to a policy if the obligations under the policy of its issuer are at any time the obligations of another person (the transferee) to whom there has been a transfer of the whole or any part of a business previously carried on by the issuer. (8B) In relation to that time, in sub-paragraph (2) the reference to the issuer of the policy is to be read as a reference to the transferee..
Amendment 25, page 215, line 13, after sub-paragraph insert (6A) or. Amendment 26, page 221, line 38, leave out from regulations to end of line 9 on page 222 and insert
(a) requiring relevant persons (i) to provide prescribed information to persons who apply for the issue of qualifying policies or who are, or may be, required to make statements under paragraph B3(2) of Schedule 15; (ii) to provide to an officer of Revenue and Customs prescribed information about qualifying policies which have been issued by them or in relation to which they are or have been a relevant transferee; (b) making such provision (not falling within paragraph (a)) as the Commissioners think fit for securing that an officer of Revenue and Customs is able (i) to ascertain whether there has been or is likely to be any contravention of the requirements of the regulations or of paragraph B3(2) of Schedule 15; (ii) to verify any information provided to an officer of Revenue and Customs as required by the regulations..
Amendment 38, page 425, line 19, leave out excluded. Amendment 39, page 425, line 20, leave out subsection (3)(a) and insert this section. Amendment 40, page 425, line 23, at end insert
remaining liability means the liability mentioned in subsection (1) so far as subsections (2) and (3) do not permit it to be taken into account;.
Amendment 27, page 222, line 10, leave out (2) and insert (1)(b). Amendment 28, page 222, leave out lines 20 and 21. Amendment 29, page 222, leave out lines 29 and 30 and insert
relevant person means a person (a) who issues, or has issued, qualifying policies, or (b) who is, or has been, a relevant transferee in relation to qualifying policies. (6) For the purposes of this section a person (X) is at any time a relevant transferee in relation to a qualifying policy if the obligations under the policy of its issuer are at that time the obligations of X as a result of there having been a transfer to X of the whole or any part of a business previously carried on by the issuer..(Sajid Javid.)
Amendment 41, page 426, leave out lines 12 to 19. Amendment 42, page 426, line 37, at end insert
(7A) Subject to subsection (7B), to the extent that a liability is, in accordance with this section, taken to reduce value in determining the value transferred by a chargeable transfer, that liability is not then to be taken into account in determining the value transferred by any subsequent transfer of value by the same transferor. (7B) Subsection (7A) does not prevent a liability from being taken into account by reason only that the liability has previously been taken into account in determining the amount on which tax is chargeable under section 64. (7C) For the purposes of subsections (1) to (4) and (7A), references to a transfer of value or chargeable transfer include references to an occasion on which tax is chargeable under Chapter 3 of Part 3 (apart from section 79) and (a) references to the value transferred by a transfer of value or chargeable transfer include references to the amount on which tax is then chargeable, and (b) references to the transferor include references to the trustees of the settlement concerned..
Schedule 34 TREATMENT OF
LIABILITIES FOR INHERITANCE TAX PURPOSES
Amendments made: 35, page 424, line 36, leave out subsection (2) or (3) and insert subsections (2) to (3A). Amendment 36, page 424, line 38, leave out excluded property and insert property mentioned in subsection (1). Amendment 37, page 425, leave out lines 11 to 14 and insert
(3) The liability may be taken into account up to an amount equal to the value of such of the property mentioned in subsection (1) as
Amendment 43, page 426, line 45, after 162A(1), insert or (3B). Amendment 44, page 427, line 13, after 162A(1), insert or (3B). Amendment 45, page 427, line 22, after estate, insert
or from excluded property owned by the person immediately before death.
Amendment 46, page 427, leave out lines 32 to 34 and insert

(b) securing a tax advantage is not the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, of leaving the liability or part undischarged, and.
807
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
808

( ) Where, by virtue of this section, a liability is not taken into account in determining the value of a persons estate immediately before death, the liability is also not to be taken into account in determining the extent to which the estate of any spouse or civil partner of the person is increased for the purposes of section 18..
Amendment 48, page 427, line 43, leave out from (2)(b) to end of line 46. Amendment 49, page 428, line 9, after 162A(1), insert or (3B). Amendment 50, page 428, line 19, leave out The and insert
(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), the.
whether he has realised that his Government are borrowing 245 billion more than they planned to do, because they have failed. Their economic plan has failedit has failed on living standards, on growth and on getting the deficit down. The Chancellor promised in 2010 that by 2015 he would have balanced the books, yet he is borrowing 245 billion more than he plannedand those books will not get balanced in the time frame that he promised. Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op): I support new clause 10 because it is really important to see whether the measures in the spending review will increase tax receipts. My hon. Friend is highlighting the failure over the last three years to get the economy growing and the impact of that on tax receipts. That explains the reality of the further and deeper cuts that the Chancellor promised us we would not have to face. Catherine McKinnell: I thank my hon. Friend for that interjection, which gets to the crux of the matter. The Chancellor had to come here last week to announce further spending cuts in 2015-16, planning for future failure, because he is failing to deal with the economic reality that we face today. Ultimately, we are tabling this new clause because we hope that the Government will take stock of the situation in which they are leaving households up and down this country. The price of the failure of the Chancellors economic plan is not being paid by those at the top. We debated at great length yesterday the fact that the top-earning taxpayers are getting a tax cut from this Government, while it is ordinary families that rely on public services that are paying the price for this economic failure throughout the country. 3.30 pm Despite the pain being meted out to those who are least able to bear it, the coalitions self-defeating economic policies have resulted in the Government failing their own economic tests. They are borrowing more than they planned and they are not going to balance the books by 2015. Rather than spending his time planning how to boost jobs and growth now, the Chancellor is planning for failure in 2015. He should be laser-focused on injecting a stimulus into the economy to secure jobs and growth now, so that we no longer need to plan for failure and for further cuts in 2015. It is common sense. Andy Sawford: My reading of the new clause is that the review would have to be placed in the House of Commons Library within six months. Is it my hon. Friends intention to urge the Government to look at infrastructure spending in the review and, specifically, to include the figures on the impact of cutting capital investment again, year on year, in the spending review and what that does for our economy? Catherine McKinnell: Indeed, it is very much the hope that the Government will shine this laser focus on measures to boost spending and boost jobs and growth now in order to stimulate the economy, get people into work and get the welfare bill down. We know that that bill is rising as a result of the failure of the Governments economic plan. They should focus on infrastructure spending, which is not just what we say, but what the IMF says, too.

(2) Section 162B of IHTA 1984 (inserted by paragraph 3) only has effect in relation to liabilities incurred on or after 6 April 2013. (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), where a liability is incurred under an agreement (a) if the agreement was varied so that the liability could be incurred under it, the liability is to be treated as having been incurred on the date of the variation, and (b) in any other case, the liability is to be treated as having been incurred on the date the agreement was made.. (Sajid Javid.)
New Clause 10 IMPACT OF

THE
SPENDING ROUND 2013 ON TAX

REVENUE
The Chancellor shall publish, within six months of Royal Assent, a review of the impact on revenue from rates and measures in this Act, resulting from the Spending Round 2013. He shall place a copy of the Review in the House of Commons Library..(Catherine McKinnell.)
Brought up, and read the First time. Catherine McKinnell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The Oppositions new clause 10 challenges the Chancellor to publish, within six months of Royal Assent, a review of the impact of last weeks spending review announcements on tax receipts. Should the Government agree to undertake such a review, as we hope they will, we suspect that its conclusions would be pretty short, given the Chancellors comprehensive failure to deliver the economic boost that this country so desperately needs. It was a dead duck of a spending review, and it was even more disappointing, given the context in which it was made. The Chancellor did not want to come to the House to announce a spending review last week, but he was forced to announce a further 11.5 billion of spending cuts in 2015-6. Why? Because his economic plan has utterly and categorically failed. David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): Is the hon. Lady suggesting that the Government should be borrowing even more billions of pounds than is already the case, or that they should make further cuts? If it is the latter, she should not be surprised if she gets some support from the Government side of the House. Catherine McKinnell: I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman suggesting that those on the Government Benches are considering supporting our proposal. I wonder
809
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
810
John Pugh (Southport) (LD): How does the hon. Lady think she could work out the true implications and effect of the spending review in only three months? Why did she choose three months rather than six months, nine months or one year? Catherine McKinnell: That is an interesting question because the new clause suggests that the review should be published within six months, so I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has simply misread our new clause. We feel that there is no time to lose, but that six months is a reasonable period to give the Government time to consider the likely impact of the spending round in 2013 on tax receipts. Ultimately, if we are to balance the books and get borrowing down, we are going to have to increase our tax receipts into the Exchequer. John Pugh: Does the hon. Lady recognise that one of the biggest effects of the spending review will be on local government expenditure, which of course has to be dealt with in the following Mayfalling outside the six-month period? Some of the greater impact of the spending review will be felt after she has asked the Government to produce the report. Catherine McKinnell: I am pleased that we have the hon. Gentlemans support in principle for the fact that the Government need to take stock of the impact of these spending decisions and his acknowledgement of the devastating impact of the cuts to local authority projects, which we have rehearsed many times here, particularly in areas such as the one I represent. We will not see the impact straight away; we will see it in six months, 12 months, 18 months or two years time. The Government have imposed cuts without allowing the economy time to grow, create jobs and consolidate the debt in a responsible way, so we will face the consequences of this economic approach for many years to come. I am pleased, as I say, that the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) recognises that. Andy Sawford: My hon. Friend has mentioned local government cuts. According to my reading of the spending review, capital spending in the budget of the Department for Communities and Local Government is to be cut by 35.6%. Could the review take account of that, although it will be some time before we are aware of its full impact on the economy? Catherine McKinnell: The purpose of the proposed review is to encourage the Government to become laser-focused on the impact of their spending review. My hon. Friend is certainly laser-focusednot just on the impact of the cuts on local authority budgets, but on their impact on jobs and economic growth up and down the country. Common sense tells uswell, it tells everyone but the Government, it would appearthat boosting growth and living standards this year and next would bring in tax revenues and reduce the scale of the cuts that will be needed in 2015, but nothing in the spending review will boost the economy over the next two years. It seems incredibly complacent and counter-intuitive to come to the House and simply plan for the consequences of economic failure in 2015. We believe that the Chancellor should have used his spending review to concede that he
has got it wrong and has failed to secure growth. He should be proposing genuine investment in infrastructure this year. Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab): My hon. Friend is, again, making a powerful speech. Is it not the case that 1% growth since 2010 would have generated an additional 335 billion in the economy? As a result of this incompetent economic policy, however, the Government are having to come back and ask for more. Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend has made a very good point. I should be interested to hear the Ministers response to the figures that she has given, and to what she has said about the lost opportunities for growth. Those opportunities, moreover, have not just been lost over the last three years; the Government are planning on the basis of a further two years of lost economic growth, which simply defies common sense. According to the International Monetary Fund, they should be investing in infrastructure this year to boost economic growth and the housing market, and to encourage job creation and increased tax receipts. The Government seem to be ignoring not only what we are saying, but what the IMF is saying. Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con): The hon. Lady has referred several times to the impact of Government policy on jobs. Does she not recognise and welcome the fact that under the present Government there are more people in work that at any other time in our history? We have created more than 1 million private sector jobsthree for every job lost in the public sector. Catherine McKinnell: I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not think that it can be linked to the economic realitythe reality of what households and people are experiencing. Many people are in insecure work, many are on zero-hour contracts, and many are self-employed. People all over the country feel that their living standards are being squeezed to such an extent that they cannot afford to pay for what they need by the end of the week. Debbie Abrahams: The fact is that the employment rate is lower now than it was in 2008. Absolute numbers mean nothing. The rate is lower now than it was before the recession. Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. The debate is, to put it politely, starting to go a little wide of the new clause. Perhaps we could focusin a laser fashion!on new clause 10. Catherine McKinnell: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I think that my hon. Friend has made an important point. What we needed to hear from the Chancellor last week was a plan for economic growth that would boost tax receipts and increase the number of jobs. Ultimately, that is how we can balance the books and reduce the deficit: by getting people into work and reducing their dependence on welfare. My hon. Friend made a powerful point: the Government should not be so complacent about the unemployment situation in this country, and in particular the long-term unemployment situation.
811
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
812
Mr Gauke: On a point of clarification, if the hon. Ladys party was in government, would it be cutting VAT? Catherine McKinnell: Well, I am pleased that the Minister is engaging with the need to review his own Governments spending plans so they can take stock of precisely how those plans are working to resolve the unemployment situation and the lack of economic growth in this country. If the Minister could provide some reassurance that his Government are focused on reducing the debt, that would be very helpful. Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/ Co-op): My hon. Friend was speaking about the spending reviews failure in respect of living standards, and that is crucial. Real wages are set to fall by 2.4% over this Parliament, meaning people will be worse off at the end of the Parliament than they were when this Government came to office. That is the real story: it is a spiral of lower wages, lower living standards and lower tax receipts, and then ultimately more debt, more borrowing and a higher benefits bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the spiral we are in? Catherine McKinnell: Yes. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and it highlights the complacency of this Government. They feel it is a case of job done as some jobs have been created in the private sector, but ultimately the reality families are facing is that they cannot afford to pay for heating and buy food and what they need for their children and their families because living standards are being so desperately squeezed. Mr Gauke: I just want to give the hon. Lady another opportunity to answer the simple question I asked. The position of her party has for some time now been to favour a cut in VAT. We do not support that approach, but does she support it? Does the Labour party still believe that, at this precise moment, VAT should be cut to 17.5%? Catherine McKinnell: The Government clearly do not support that approach because one of the first things they did when they came to power was increase VAT and the costs for ordinary families up and down the country. We have said all along that we would not have taken those decisions. We would not have chosen to give a tax cut to those on the highest incomes. We would not have slapped a 2.5% charge on poor families who are struggling to make ends meet. We have made that very clear, but the Government have ignored that call. We think the Government should be taking action now to try to stimulate the economy and put some money back into very hard-pressed families hands. Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): My hon. Friend is stating the case for this new clause very clearly. Does she agree that the increase in VAT took a lot of individuals spending power out of the economy and also took out a lot of confidence, and that that is what has led to the decline in growth? Catherine McKinnell: Yes, it was a huge blow for families across the country to see costs spiral overnight. This Government seem incredibly complacent about the impact their spending decisions have had, not only
on families but on economic growth. We need to look at the facts. The Chancellor promised growth of 6% in 2010. He also promised that he had asked the country for all he would ask for and would not come back for more, but there he was last week, planning for more cuts in 2015 and completely failing to recognise both that his economic plan has resulted in 1% growth, not the 6% he promised, and that his increase in VAT was very much a part of the reason for that. Mel Stride: May I press the hon. Lady for a third time on the question my hon. Friend the Minister has been asking? At this moment in time, given where we are with VAT at 20%, would she advocate, as her party has in the past, that it now be reduced to 17.5%? Also, is her party still in favour of the five-point plan for growth, of which the VAT reduction is but one part? Catherine McKinnell: It is very strange that Government Members, who are in power and making the spending decisions that are having such an impact on families, are solely obsessed with what Labour would be doing. We are in opposition. The hon. Gentleman can speak to his Minister and implore him to make the necessary changes that will bring economic growth back to this country. That is what the Government need to be focused on. The Chancellor is so obsessed with his own economic failurea failure to recognise that his plan has completely failedthat the Government simply obsess about and focus on what we would be doing, but we are not in government. 3.45 pm Andy Sawford: I came in to support my hon. Friend in pushing for new clause 10, which focuses on the impact of the spending review on the economy and, in particular, on tax revenue, so I am a little surprised at the nature of the debate. However, would she envisage the review examining the implications of the tax cut for millionaires on the economy over the past few years? Would it examine the impact of giving the richest people in our country a tax cut, as that is an actual policy? Catherine McKinnell: To be fair, and to stay laser-focused on the new clause, I should say that we hope and envisage that the Governments review would look at the impact of the spending review they announced last week. We heard more promises of action from the Government last week, but we did not hear about action that will take place next week, next month or even next year. We heard the Government pledging action on infrastructure investment in two years time. That would be bad enough even if the Government had a proud record, or indeed any record at all, on delivering on the infrastructure projects they announced three years ago. As we have heard a few timesit bears repeating because the figures are so shockingjust seven out of 571 so-called priority projects identified by the Government in 2011 in their national infrastructure plan have actually been completed; 80% of the projects announced have not even got off the ground. Despite all the hype, if we delve into the figures, we find that the Government are cutting investment in infrastructure in real terms by 1.7% by 2015. Instead of an urgent boost to jobs and growth, which this country is crying out for, by bringing forward long-term investment in infrastructure,
813
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
814
as advocated not only by us but by the International Monetary Fund, all we got was a series of empty promises for two years timeand some for beyond thatfrom a Government who lack all credibility on this issue. Andy Sawford: My hon. Friend rightly talks about how few of the Governments priority infrastructure projects have begun. Does she hope the review would also examine progress on the Governments priority school building programme? I understand that there are 261 projects, and I wonder whether she has had time to consider how much progress has been made on them. Catherine McKinnell: That is another absolute failure in terms of the promises made by this Government that are simply not delivered. I hope that the Government will agree to undertake the review we are calling for today and that the House will, by voting with us, acknowledge that the economic plan the Government have so far pursued is failing and that they need to examine what last weeks spending review will deliver. I hope that there will be a recognition that they promised to rebuild, again as part of a priority programme, 261 schools and only one project has begun. It is devastating, not just for the children who need those new schools, but for the communities that need those jobs and the small businesses that need to supply the construction industry, which, as we know, has been brought to its knees by this Governments failure to invest in infrastructure. Instead of investing in affordable homes, improving transport links and repairing Britains broken roads, which would give the country the short, medium and long-term returns that we are looking for, the Government are cutting capital spending in 2015. Announcing infrastructure projects for two years time will not create a single job today. Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is making a crucial point about the impact on jobs. I had hoped that the spending review would consider jobs in the construction sector, where 84,000 jobs have been lost since the Tory Government came to powerthat is, between the second quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2013. That is a shocking figure: 84,000 jobs have been lost when we should have seen 84,000 jobs created in the construction sector. Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend makes his point very powerfully. It is a fact that a number of jobs have been lost in the construction industry that should have been created if the Government were taking not just our advice but that of the IMF and investing in infrastructure projects now. If they did so, tax receipts would improve this year and next year and we would not have to plan for failure in 2015, which is what the Chancellor came here to do last week. Andy Sawford: My hon. Friend is right when she talks about the implications of the Governments failure to invest in house building and construction in this country on the revenue from rates. Does she think that the review placed in the Library ought to consider the implications of the lack of receipts from house building in the Governments vaunted programmes, such as the community infrastructure levy and so on, as well as of the business rates raised from firms in the construction industry? Is
scepticism not one reason behind this request for a review? Four major housing announcements have been made in the past three years, and there have been 300 announcements, four launches and no action, and the lowest house building in 2012 for 70 years, so is there not some scepticism behind it? Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend tempts me to suggest a less than honourable motive for our tabling the new clause. I appreciate that there may be some scepticism about the Governments commitment to investing in infrastructure and growth and that last weeks announcement was simply about planning for more cuts to public services rather than a genuine attempt to try to look for opportunities for growth. It must be said, however, that the spending review, which plans more cuts in 2015 and was accompanied by an infrastructure announcement on Thursday that was mostly reheatedI think my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) described it as a microwave statement as its announcements had been reheated so many times failed to impress anybody. Liberal Democrat Members in particular should be concerned by statements from the Deputy Prime Minister. He has commented that
the gap between intention, announcement and delivery is quite significant.
He puts that rather mildly, and I would hope that by supporting our new clause the Government could take stock of the impact mot just of the 2013 spending round they announced last week but of the delay in delivering any of the projects that have already been announced, as well as the delay pursuant to the announcements that have been made for 2015. This is an important opportunity for the Government to take stock and consider why their economic plan has so catastrophically failed. That would mean that rather than planning for failure in 2015, they could take the steps necessary now to bring forward infrastructure investment and put into play the infrastructure investment that has already been announced so that we can start to create jobs and opportunities for communities up and down the country that are suffering from stagnation in the economy. Mel Stride: The hon. Lady has made the link between infrastructure and its impact on the construction industry and jobs. Does she therefore welcome the recent survey by the ManpowerGroup of more than 2,000 companies in the construction sector, which concluded that we have the best outlook for construction job creation for five years? Catherine McKinnell: I would welcome any signs of positivity in economic growth from any sector of our economy, especially the construction industry, which has suffered catastrophically from the cuts and stagnation in the economy over the past three years. I would indeed welcome that small piece of good news. It is a step in the right direction, but our amendment calls on the Government to take stock and do more. Andy Sawford: I think construction is an incredibly important part of the economy, so I think it is right that the hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) suggests that the review six months after the spending review would look at construction. I hope it would explore the
815 [Andy Sawford]
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
816
figures that I have seen, suggesting that the volume of new construction orders fell by 10% between quarter 4 of 2012 and quarter 1 of 2013. Construction is going in the wrong direction at the moment, and we need to know from the review whether the measures in the spending review will actually make that worse. Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Ultimately, it is about what we hear in our communities when talking to businesses about confidencethe confidence to invest, the confidence to take seriously the Governments commitment to investing in infrastructure and growth. The reality on the ground is deeply worrying. Members of the public will be concerned about the complacent tone that the Government adopt towards the economic situation. The Government are apparently ignoring the fact that they promised 6% growth and delivered only 1%, that they promised 576 infrastructure projects and have delivered only seven, that they promised 261 rebuilt schools and have only put spades in the ground in one. Members of the public will be worried to hear how complacent this Government seem to be. That is why we tabled the new clauseto give the Government the opportunity not just to make the announcement and walk away, hoping that nobody will notice that they are doing nothing about economic stagnation, but to spend some time reflecting on what these announcements will mean in real terms in respect of expected tax receipts. There is one key Government Department that is capable of increasing tax receipts to the Exchequer, and that is Her Majestys Revenue and Customs. Indeed, without the receipts that HMRC collects, there would be no funding to invest in public services. HMRCs capacity and resources are therefore absolutely critical, and it is widely accepted that it can make a pretty impressive return on investment. Last year, senior HMRC officials brought in 16.7 billion over and above what was returned voluntarily by businesses and individuals. Andy Sawford: I am very pleased to hear my hon. Friend highlight the important role that HMRC plays in our economy. Whatever the review shows about the implications of the spending review, one of the key aspects is HMRCs effectiveness in bringing in tax revenue. Will my hon. Friend therefore urge the Government, in this review, which I hope they will support, to look at the implications of underpayment of wages to people, particularly minimum wage avoidance issues? HMRC recently sent a team to my constituency, and found that 100,000 was owing to local workers. There are huge implications for receipts at HMRC. Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. I have tabled several parliamentary questions to the Minister on that subject, and I look forward to his response outlining what action the Government are taking, alongside HMRC, to ensure that it not only collects tax throughout the country but ensures that employers abide by the national minimum wage legislation to ensure that employees do not fall short despite the fact that they are working. It is imperative that HMRC has the Governments support and also has the correct resources to ensure that workers are not
exploited in the way that my hon. Friend suggests is prevalent in his part of the country and which I have no doubt is a phenomenon that impacts on hard-working people countrywide. Despite the headlines suggesting that everybody is avoiding tax, we are generally a tax-compliant nationI believe the current figure is approximately 93%. Of course, it is the 7% for which HMRC needs extra support and resources to get the returns. The Association of Revenue and Customs estimates that a senior tax official earning 50,000 a year can expect to generate additional yield of at least 1.5 million a yeara return 30 times greater than the cost of their salary. That is a good investment, I think most would agree. 4 pm When the Chancellor announced a further 11.5 billion of cuts to public expenditure, what did that mean for HMRC, a department already faced with a net reduction in funding of 2 billion over this Parliament and the loss of an additional 10,000 staff ? Well, the right hon. Gentleman announced that HMRCs target for additional revenues raised, including from tax avoidance and evasion, would be increased to 24.5 billion in 2015-161 billion more than the 2014-15 target and 10 billion than the 2010-11 target. According to the spending round report, HMRC will be required to contribute
to deficit reduction through the collection of an additional 95 million in tax credit debt on an innovative payment by results funding basis.
However, under the funding settlement announced by the Chancellor last week, at the same time as it is required to bring in those additional revenues, HMRC must cut its costs by a further 5% in 2015-16, on top of the significant efficiency savings and cuts it has already been expected to make. Can the Minister confirm, for the benefit of the House and as part of the review for which we are calling, precisely how much funding will have been cut from HMRC between the coalition coming to power in 2010 and the end of financial year 2015-16? A clear picture of the figures would be useful. Also, will he confirm the total number of HMRC posts that are expected to have been lost during that period? Andy Sawford: My hon. Friends question to the Government is incredibly important and I hope we hear an answer. Does she share my concern that some of the measures in the spending review will have serious implications for tax collection unless HMRC has sufficient resources? For example, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said of the shares for rights policy that it has all the hallmarks of another tax-avoidance opportunity, and Lord Forsyth, the former Conservative Employment Minister, said it
has all the trappings of something that was thought up by someone in the bath.[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 614.]
HMRC will have to be very alive to these issues of tax avoidance. Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Bill Committee debated at some length the fact that the Government like to talk the talk on tax avoidance, but have created another tax-avoidance opportunity in the hare-brained shares for rights scheme. I think we all agree with Lord Forsyth.
817
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
818
Mel Stride: The hon. Lady talks about the importance of clamping down on tax avoidance, and the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) talks about tax avoidance in the context of share transactions. Does she, as I do, condemn the 1.65 million donation to her party by John Mills using precisely that type of schemea share donationas means to tax efficiently avoid tax? Catherine McKinnell: The hon. Gentleman seems to be expressing some consternation about his Chancellors new shares for rights scheme. I am not sure I heard him express the same concerns when this House debated and voted on that scheme. He knows that any donations made to the Labour party are made within all the rules on donations, and any tax due on those donations will be paid. I think he can rest assured that that is in hand. Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), it is vital that when additional tax avoidance opportunities are created, HMRC has the resources to deal with them, and that it does not take its eye off other aspects of its activity, such as enforcing national minimum wage legislation and general customer service. We know that the National Audit Office report on HMRCs customer service performance, which was published in December last year, contained some worrying figures on HMRCs ability to handle customers. We hope that the review that we are calling on the Government to undertake will look at HMRCs ability to recover tax receipts and ensure that its customers, many of whom are not customers by choice, get the support they need in order to pay their taxnot just individuals, who are often dealing with tax credits and find that they need support from HMRC, but small businesses that need support in order to pay the right tax. It is not right that individuals and small businesses in particular, but large businesses too, are left struggling to pay the tax that they wish to pay HMRC voluntarily. The Government should be aware that there is a limit to the extent to which HMRC can do more with less, as they are asking of it in the spending review. Mel Stride: Given the hon. Ladys response to my previous intervention, I wanted to clarify the issue of John Mills and his donation to the Labour party. Does she accept that his donation is a case of tax avoidanceyes or no? [Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. Mr Sawford, I do not need your help in chairing the debate in the Chamber today. I have done enough Finance Bills to know what is in order and what is not in order. The question that has been put is about tax receipts, excluding the reference to individuals, and that is in order. Catherine McKinnell: It is open to the Government to support our proposed review of spending round 2013 and the impact that that may have on tax receipts. If the hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) wants to support our motion today and the Government in undertaking such a review, it is open to him to do so. We have not specified exactly what should be included in that review and it is open to the Government to look at whatever avoidance opportunities they consider relevant to ensuring that we protect future tax receipts.
I know from written answers that I have received from HMRC recently that staff numbers were projected to fall from 88,875 in March 2009 to 58,464 by March 2014. Will the Minister provide an update on those figures, and in particular what HMRCs headcount is expected to be by March 2016, following last weeks spending review and the additional resource reduction flowing from it? It is concerning that despite muchpublicised announcements about increased investment in tax avoidance and evasion activity, the number of HMRC staff working in enforcement and compliance was expected to fall from 34,762 in March 2009 to 26,905 in March 2014. I assume that given the Governments much-stated commitment to getting tough in this area, the predicted fall in staff numbers is no longer going to happen and that we will see a rise in the number of HMRC staff dedicated to enforcement and compliance work. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that for the House and tell us how many HMRC staff will be working in this area between this year and 2015-16. In conclusion, the Government had the opportunity last week to boost tax receipts by announcing measures that would provide the short and medium-term boost our economy needs while providing a long-term return for the country, yet despite the catastrophic failure of their economic plan to date, the Chancellor came to the House and announced that he would continue ploughing the same infertile furrow he has been on since 2010. He just cannot bring himself to admit that it has gone badly wrong. We believe that conducting the review set out in new clause 10 might just help the Government to take stock and note the error of their ways to date. I therefore urge all Members to support the new clause, not only for the sake of their constituents, but for that of our countrys finances. John Pugh: I will try to say something positive about new clause 10. It is quite laudable, in a way, because it would link spending to taxation and get us to engage in retrospective analysis, and frankly we do not do enough of that in this place. We talk about policy a great deal, but the long-term effects are often hidden from us. It can be quite counter-intuitive. We had an interesting debate yesterday on the 50% tax rate, the Laffer curve and the effect that such a rate might or might not have. There are plenty of other examples where the effect of taxation needs to be adequately scrutinised. In Committee we debated what tax avoidance measures would do to peoples behaviour, what petrol taxation would do to peoples behaviour and to the revenue we get, what landfill tax would do to councils behaviour, and what the video games industry would make of the various changes that will affect it. My problem with what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) is saying is that I think Parliament should do what she is suggesting. It seems to me that Parliament does not have enough good, accessible data and that we make no real effort to examine the whole business of tax revenue yields in any systematic, thorough, regular or routine way. When it comes to spending, there is a very similar picture. There is no real scrutiny of spending in this place. The scrutiny we do is not even as good as that which might be found in a local council. We have the big events, such as the announcement of the spending review, but there is no detailed examination of expenditure.
819 [John Pugh]
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
820
If Members do not believe me, they should come along to estimates day tomorrow and see the examination of estimates that is imposed in this place. The last time we had an estimates day, I was actually ruled out of order by the Deputy Speakernot you, Madam Deputy Speakerfor talking about the estimates, which was thought improper. We do not examine the non-controversial, everyday departmental expenditure that goes on from year to year and the errors that occur in it. The Public Accounts Committee does a very good job of looking at the controversial stuff, but there is no rigorous, effective or ongoing examination of expenditure. We do not do enough of that and we do not know enough about what tax policy actually does, how Departments spend and what the profile of a Departments is on a day-to-day, month-to-month and year-to-year basis. Arguably, somebody in the basement of the Treasury knows the spending profile of Departments, but they would probably be unable to give the hon. Lady the answer she wants in three months, and probably not in six months. I think she has to recognise that she is making a hard ask and, in my view, probably a futile one, because if we do not do any real scrutiny of taxation in this placewe scrutinise policy, but certainly not outcomesbeyond headline figures and big grandstanding days such as the announcement of the spending review, then what we are essentially doing with the Government finance is firefighting. What takes place in this place is not effective financial scrutiny. We do not look at the boring, pedestrian, routine and important spending, which is massive. The new clause asks the Treasury to mark its own work, and I am sure that it would be perfectly happy in some contexts to do so, but what we really need is to get Parliament to do the work and to give us an answer that would satisfy us, including the hon. Lady. Nic Dakin: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), who began by underscoring how important it is to have retrospective analysis, which is exactly what the new clause asks for. It is difficult to see how it can be argued against. It says:
The Chancellor shall publish, within six months of Royal Assent, a review of the impact on revenue from rates and measures in this Act, resulting from the Spending Round 2013.
off of the tap of infrastructure spending. The figures now show that infrastructure spending is much less than it would have been if the plans that were in place and were helping to drive the economy forward had been continued. That has had an impact on business confidence. We have already highlighted the crucial importance of construction as a driver of the economic health of the nation. Construction businesses have been having a torrid time over the past few years. Sadly, a serious number of subcontractors have gone out of business. Local construction companies tell me that the difficulty they are having in getting sufficient credit from their builders merchants to do the jobs which are now beginning to emerge in the economy presents another structural problem. The root cause of that is the fact that so much Government infrastructure spending was taken out of the economy in 2010, 2011 and 2012. Many businesses have struggled and lacked confidence. Some do have reserves, but they are wisely holding on to them for a rainy day. They are not spending and making the investments in the future direction of their businesses that they might otherwise have done because they do not have the confidence to do so. The Government are not spending, businesses are not spending, and, equally, individuals are lacking confidence and not spending. When we debated VAT earlier, the Minister posed an interesting question, and rightly so. However, the reality is that putting up VAT when his Government did had an immediate hit on individuals spending confidence which has helped to create this downward spiral. The new clause would ensure that there are marks in the ground to show where the Government must come back to the House to account for the impact of their policies. When the Chancellor set out his policies in his emergency Budget, which has led us to the sorry pass we are in today, he was confident that we would be in a completely different place. If he had implemented the provision in new clause 10 at that time, that would have assisted him in rethinking his policies. It would also have assisted the British people in not having to suffer the consequences of those policies for so long, because he would have reappraised the situation. The new clause is needed to help every Member carry out one of our fundamental duties on behalf of our constituents, namely taking action to improve the nations economic performance and to build the confidence of businesses and individuals. John Pugh: Every Budget begins with the Chancellor giving a rsum of the implications of his policies. I cannot remember that ever being greeted with wholesale acclamation from all parties. What the hon. Gentleman is asking for is more of the same, is it not? Nic Dakin: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Chancellors sometimes glance back at the effect of their Budgets with rose-tinted glasses instead of seeing the real effects of their economic policies, including the decisions made in 2010, 2011 and 2012. I congratulate the Government on moving their rhetoric to the right place: suddenly, words such as growth and investment are as prominent in their lexicon as they always should have been. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) has pointed out, their promise on infrastructure
That would assist good governance and assist the people out there whom we come here to represent. Indeed, so far the arguments have been supportive, although there has been useful interrogation of the issues as the debate has progressed, which everybody has welcomed. 4.15 pm The economy expands and responds positively to acts by the Exchequer or the behaviour of individuals, the Government or business. At the time of the 2010 election, our economy was not in great health but was steadily moving in a positive direction. There was growth and good stimulus in the economy through, in particular, the strong infrastructure spending that was driving it forward. The then Government were, properly, using their resources to drive forward spending, confidence and movement in the right direction. This Government came into office in a state almost of panic and switched
821
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
822
spending is to spend tomorrowmost of it in 2014, 2015, 2016 and even 2017rather than now. It is spending decisions taken now that will have an impact on the lives of people today, rather than waiting and hoping for things that may happen at a future date. Boosting growth and living standards this year and next year would bring in more tax revenues and reduce the scale of the cuts needed in 2015. Taking action now to boost economic growthby, for example, bringing infrastructure plans forward so that they happen now rather than tomorrowwould make a real difference. That is why the new clause would be helpful: it would test the impact of the spending round on tax receipts and, as my hon. Friend has said, do so in time to make any necessary adjustments to improve not only the economy, but peoples lives and living standards. The figures revealed by the Government last week showed another cut of 1.7%or nearly 1 billionto capital investment in 2015-16. One would not have thought that to be the case on hearing the announcement, but having looked at the plans I know that that is what they reveal. Capital spending is down by 1.7% in education, by 2.3% in defence and by 17.6% in the Home Office. In the Department for Communities and Local Government, including housing, it is down by a massive, staggering 35.6%, and by 57.6% in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Those are large figures and we need to know whether their impact on the economys behaviour will be beneficial or, as I fear, not. Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC): The coalition has more or less mirrored the capital spending plans of the former Labour Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), so is the hon. Gentleman saying that he was wrong in his allocation of capital spending? Nic Dakin: If we move away from the rhetoric and look at the facts, we will see that in their first three years this Government have spent 5.6 billion less in capital investment compared with the plans they inherited from Labour. That amounts to a 5.6 billion cut to spending that would have taken place had this Government continued with the plans they inherited from the previous Government. What has happened illustrates the importance to the health of the economy of continuity in large infrastructure projects. It is difficult to get that right between the parties, but we must recognise that there are plans for infrastructure spending so that the tap cannot be turned off easily, as the Government did with the Building Schools for the Future programme. If that programme had been carried forward, it would have assisted economic development, as well as continuing to revolutionise the learning environment of children up and down the land. In the three months to April 2013, output in the construction industry was 4.7% lower than in the same period a year earlier. Construction output is down by 11.2% since the 2010 spending review. Constructionthat energetic sector that drives the economycontinues to struggle. That is why we need to check, three months down the line, the effect on the economy of the decisions that are being made today to ensure that we are moving in the right direction. The volume of new construction orders fell by 10% between quarter 4 of 2012 and quarter 1 of 2013. That is a massive dip. The number of new orders for
infrastructure fell by 49.8% over the same periodthe largest fall since 1987. The value of public sector infrastructure orders fell by 2 billion between quarter 4 of 2012 and quarter 1 of 2013. Those are significant contractions of demand in the economy. That clearly has an impact on jobs. At the end of the day, jobs are what transform peoples lives. There is unanimity about that across the Chamber. The construction sector has lost 84,000 jobs since the Government came to power. That has an impact on the well-being and quality of life of individuals, as well as on the economy and the livelihoods of people beyond the construction industry. There is much more that I could say, but I will return to the essence of this simple, helpful, concise new clause. I can see no argument for the Government not accepting it. It would help us all if they accepted it gracefully so that we can move forward together in harmony. Debbie Abrahams: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). I agree with him totally and will speak in support of new clause 10. The points made by the Institute for Fiscal Studies last week when the comprehensive spending review was published support what we are trying to do with the new clause:
The documentation and explanation accompanying yesterdays spending review announcements was woeful.
It went on to say:
Publishing such a small amount of information with little explanation is not an exercise in open government.
That warning says it all. It reflects the Governments total incompetence on the economy. Last weeks spending review was further evidence that the Governments economic policies are failing. They were warned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) that cutting too far and too fast would smother growth, and that is just what has happened. The Chancellor promised that he would deal with the deficit by 2015. That will not happen. He promised that his emergency Budget and his first comprehensive spending review in 2010 would deal with the nations finances and put the country on the road to recovery. Again, that has not happened. Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con): It is interesting to hear the hon. Lady refer to the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls). She is critical of our Governments policy, but does she support increasing the debt? She criticises not bringing down the deficit faster, but if she followed her right hon. Friends policy, I am afraid the deficit would be going up, as would the debt. 4.30 pm Debbie Abrahams: I am afraid I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I thank him for his intervention. Perhaps I could that mention his right hon. Friend the Chancellor said:
We have already asked the British people for whats needed.
He promised that he would not come back asking for more, yet last week we were here again. I hate to draw parallels with Oliver Twist, but it is a little like him
823 [Debbie Abrahams]
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
824
coming back for more. In three years, the Chancellor has managed to hollow out the economy. He has not sorted out the City, and he is passing it off as everybody elses fault, rather than his own. Mr Newmark: There is a thing called chutzpah. Is the hon. Lady saying that her party bears no responsibility whatsoever for the enormous debt legacy and deficit the country was left with? The Government are making progress. More men and women are in work than ever before and the deficit is down by a third. Yes, the debt is not going down as fast as possible Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. Mr Newmark, this is not an opportunity for you to make a speech; it was an intervention on new clause 10, and we would like it to be relevant. Debbie Abrahams: On the hon. Gentlemans final point, there is more to come in my speech: And theres more, I promiseI never did a good impersonation of Frank Carson. On employment, however, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Employment is lower than in 2008 and I will come on to thatthose are official statistics, so he cannot refute them. At the end of 2010, our economy was growing, yet we have been bumbling along the bottom for three years. We had a double-dip recession and barely escaped a triple-dip recession. Growth has been downgraded at every turn. Mel Stride: Will the hon. Lady give way? Debbie Abrahams: No, I will not give way now, as I want to carry on with my argument. There may be an opportunity later. Amazingly, just a few months after the Chancellor delivered his autumn statement, he had to halve his estimates for growth this year. We will be borrowing 245 billion more than planned since 2010, and as we have heard, the deficit will not be eradicated as the Government promised in 2010. In spite of being told how important austerity was for economic confidence and low interest rates, the triple A rating has been downgraded by not one but two credit rating agencies. The Government tried to blame everybody except themselves and said that austerity was the only way, only to receive an embarrassing rebuke from the chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility who said that public spending cuts wiped 1.4% off growth last year. The International Monetary Fund followed suit shortly afterwards. Should anyone wish to know how we relate to the rest of the world, we come 18th in the G20, due to our appalling economic performance. Even after the IMF revised its multiplier, the Chancellor remains steadfast. I could go on[Interruption.] I am tempted. Our rate of inflation is way above the Bank of Englands 2% target. Employment is lower now than in 2008 and one in 10 people are underemployed. Whatever economic indicator we use, the Government are failing. By all accounts, the public are now starting to see that. Earnings are falling in real terms by 2%, and a recent poll showed that four out of five people feel that austerity is not working. As we have heard, the Chancellor is resolute
and sticking fast. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have also tried to pass this off as everybody elses fault, but we need to examine the arguments put forward to explain why we are in this mess. The previous Labour Government have been blamed, but that ignores the fact that this was a global financial crisis. We should remember that at the time the Chancellor and the Prime Minister failed to suggest that our financial institutions required more regulation. The Chancellor has tried to suggest that it is a public spending issue, but public spending as a percentage of GDP was 36.5% in 2007, compared to 42.5% in 1997. In other words, the Labour Government did repair the roof when the sun was shining. We brought down the deficit when we were in power, and it is outrageous to suggest anything else. After injecting funds into our banks, public spending rose to 60% of GDP, but the Citys debt was 245% of GDP. For this Government to pass the crisis off as a sovereign debt problem is absolutely outrageous. This was a problem in our financial institutions that they said nothing about when they were in opposition. They are still failing to grapple with this major issue. They have not managed to improve it. The Government are trying to distract attention away from our financial institutions and blame what they refer to as shirkers and scroungers. Their attack on the social security budget is outrageous. We must not forget that 43% of social security is paid to older people through old age pensions. This attack is on our pensioners, and that is disgraceful. Growth of just 1% a year since 2010 would have generated 335 billion more. If growth had been 2% a year, that figure would have been 551 billion. Many economists have said that the lack of growth as a result of the failure of economic policy may not be recoverable. On the areas taking the biggest hits in the spending reviewI have just alluded to the Department for Work and Pensionswe must not forget local government. What will the cuts hit? They will hit our social care budgetthe budget for the most vulnerable in our society. That is outrageous. Although the NHS budget has been protected, the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that job losses are likely to continue. We have already seen 300,000 people lose their jobs in the public sector. It is estimated that another 300,000 will lose their jobs in the next two years. The indirect effect of cuts to work and pensions, local government and the NHS will be to hit our pensioners and increase the number of children growing up in poverty, which will affect the rest of their lives, to more than 1.1 million. We are also seeing, for the first time in decades, life expectancy coming down in certain areas. I could go on, but I will finish there. Mr Gauke: New clause 10 asks for a review of the impact on tax revenues of the measures set out in the 2013 spending review. I note that the Labour party again seems to be interested in discussing matters that are not in the Bill as such. Rather than discussing the Bill, Labour Members want to discuss the spending reviewalthough given how the spending review went for the Opposition, they might have done better to spend last week debating the Finance Bill. Let me explain briefly why new clause 10 is unnecessary. The House will be aware that in 2010 this Government created the Office for Budget Responsibility in order to
825
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
826
ensure that the impact of Government policies is independently scrutinised. The OBR routinely publishes economic and fiscal outlooks, which provide a transparent and independent assessment of the impact of Government policy on the public finances, including receipts, and the economy. The impact of the policies announced in the 2013 spending round will be reflected in the OBRs autumn forecast, which will be published alongside the autumn statement, so there is no need for a parallel review, which is what new clause 10 would involve. We have had an interesting debate about the measures in the spending review. At times I have been somewhat confused about the Oppositions position. I had understood that they accepted the spending review envelope, although it certainly did not sound like it from what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said. She described local government spending cuts as devastating, so we assume that she opposes that measure. She was not quite clear about where further cuts would be made to compensate for that, but no doubt she will enlighten us in future. We also heard the Opposition make the argument that we should take steps to boost growth now, rather than focusing on 2015-16. That was not an endorsement of changes such as planning deregulation, which can help growth, or a more competitive tax system. Indeed, we have tried to work out exactly what Labour believes in this area, but it was not clear. We have consistently heard about a five-point plan from the Opposition, including a cut in VAT, which was the flagship of that plan. On three occasions the hon. Lady was asked whether Labour still favoured a temporary cut in VAT under the current circumstances; on three occasions that question was evaded. I will happily give her the opportunity to intervene now if she wants to provide an answer. Do the Opposition believe in cutting VAT now? [Interruption.] She is not going to answer that question. I think we have seen the abandonment of the five-point plan Andy Sawford rose Mr Gauke Unless the hon. Gentleman is going to bring it back. Andy Sawford: One of the frustrations for my constituents is hearing the Government give highly political answers when they are being held to account. New clause 10 is important because it seeks to look at the impact of the measures in this spending round. The Minister says it is unnecessary, but if he looks at the contrast between the OBR forecast at the time of the 2010 spending review and real growth in the economy, he will see that it was wide of the mark and that our economy has been flatlining for the last three years. That is why we need to know the real implications. Mr Gauke: If the hon. Gentleman accepts the OBR numbers, he really ought to accept the OBR analysis of why what he describes has not happened. However, let me not go into that. Rather, let me turn to what appears to be the panacea coming from the Opposition, which is to say that we should borrow more in order to invest in capital infrastructure. It ignores the fact that the Darling planLabours plan to partially address the deficitinvolved substantial cuts in capital spending. It also ignores the comments made by the
right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) about some of the challenges of using infrastructure for pump-priming purposes. The argument also ignores the fact that we will be spending more on capital infrastructure as a proportion of GDP in this decade, a period of austerity, than in the previous decade, when the Government were throwing money around. It also ignores the measures that we have set out for delivering the biggest programme of road investment since the 1970s, for updating our rail networks, for securing our energy infrastructure, for investing more in science and innovation, for building new homes and schools, for establishing the single local growth fund, for expanding digital coverage and for investing in our flood defences. 4.45 pm Catherine McKinnell: Will the Minister give way? Mr Gauke: I will give way, to get the hon. Ladys answer on VAT. Does she favour cutting it or not? Catherine McKinnell: I was hoping to leave the Minister time to respond to some of the serious concerns that we have raised, but this complete fantasy-land account of the Governments record on infrastructure investment has prompted me to jump to my feet. Will he confirm that his Government are investing less in infrastructure than was proposed under the Darling plan? They are investing 1.7% less in real terms over the course of this Parliament, and again in 2015-16. They are also borrowing more. Mr Gauke: It is clear that the balance of our plan has focused much more on current spending, as compared with capital spending, than did the plans that we inherited. I want to turn to the issue of HMRC, which the hon. Lady rightly raised. I can assure her that, as a consequence of the measures we are taking, HMRCs yield is going up compared with what we inherited. By 2015-16, yield will have increased by approximately 70%, which represents a staggering increase in the performance of HMRC under this Government. Yes, staff numbers are falling but, when it comes to enforcement and compliance, staff numbers will be higher in 2015-16 than they were under the previous Government. We should not always focus on inputs; we should focus on outputs. The record on outputs is very good. If the hon. Lady wants to focus on inputs, however, she should be aware that the record of the previous Government involved the number of staff working in enforcement and compliance falling by 10,000. Under this Government, that number will be increasing. I have run out of time, but I believe that the spending review is evidence of a Government who are prepared to take the difficult decisions that we need, and a Government who have economic credibility. The contrast with Labour could not be greater. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 303. Division No. 40]
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane Abrahams, Debbie Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob Alexander, rh Mr Douglas Alexander, Heidi Ali, Rushanara
[4.47 pm
827
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
Seabeck, Alison Shannon, Jim Sharma, Mr Virendra Sheerman, Mr Barry Sheridan, Jim Shuker, Gavin Simpson, David Skinner, Mr Dennis Slaughter, Mr Andy Smith, rh Mr Andrew Smith, Owen Spellar, rh Mr John Straw, rh Mr Jack Stringer, Graham Stuart, Ms Gisela Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry Tami, Mark Thornberry, Emily Timms, rh Stephen Turner, Karl Twigg, Derek Twigg, Stephen Umunna, Mr Chuka Vaz, rh Keith Vaz, Valerie Walley, Joan Watts, Mr Dave Weir, Mr Mike Whiteford, Dr Eilidh Whitehead, Dr Alan Williams, Hywel Williamson, Chris Wilson, Phil Winnick, Mr David Winterton, rh Ms Rosie Wishart, Pete Wood, Mike Woodcock, John Wright, David Wright, Mr Iain
828
Anderson, Mr David Ashworth, Jonathan Austin, Ian Bailey, Mr Adrian Bain, Mr William Balls, rh Ed Banks, Gordon Barron, rh Mr Kevin Bayley, Hugh Beckett, rh Margaret Begg, Dame Anne Benn, rh Hilary Benton, Mr Joe Berger, Luciana Betts, Mr Clive Blackman-Woods, Roberta Blenkinsop, Tom Blomeld, Paul Blunkett, rh Mr David Brennan, Kevin Brown, rh Mr Gordon Brown, Lyn Brown, Mr Russell Bryant, Chris Buck, Ms Karen Burden, Richard Byrne, rh Mr Liam Campbell, Mr Alan Campbell, Mr Ronnie Caton, Martin Champion, Sarah Chapman, Jenny Clark, Katy Clarke, rh Mr Tom Clwyd, rh Ann Coaker, Vernon Coffey, Ann Connarty, Michael Cooper, Rosie Corbyn, Jeremy Creagh, Mary Creasy, Stella Cruddas, Jon Cryer, John Cunningham, Alex Cunningham, Mr Jim Cunningham, Sir Tony Curran, Margaret Danczuk, Simon Darling, rh Mr Alistair David, Wayne Davidson, Mr Ian Davies, Geraint De Piero, Gloria Denham, rh Mr John Dobbin, Jim Dobson, rh Frank Docherty, Thomas Dodds, rh Mr Nigel Donohoe, Mr Brian H. Doran, Mr Frank Doughty, Stephen Dowd, Jim Doyle, Gemma Dromey, Jack Dugher, Michael Eagle, Ms Angela Eagle, Maria Edwards, Jonathan Efford, Clive Ellman, Mrs Louise Engel, Natascha
Esterson, Bill Evans, Chris Farrelly, Paul Field, rh Mr Frank Fitzpatrick, Jim Flello, Robert Flynn, Paul Gapes, Mike Gardiner, Barry Gilmore, Sheila Glass, Pat Glindon, Mrs Mary Godsiff, Mr Roger Goggins, rh Paul Goodman, Helen Greatrex, Tom Green, Kate Greenwood, Lilian Griffith, Nia Gwynne, Andrew Hain, rh Mr Peter Hamilton, Fabian Hanson, rh Mr David Harman, rh Ms Harriet Harris, Mr Tom Havard, Mr Dai Healey, rh John Hepburn, Mr Stephen Hermon, Lady Hillier, Meg Hodge, rh Margaret Hodgson, Mrs Sharon Hoey, Kate Hopkins, Kelvin Hosie, Stewart Howarth, rh Mr George Hunt, Tristram Irranca-Davies, Huw Jackson, Glenda James, Mrs Sin C. Jamieson, Cathy Jarvis, Dan Johnson, rh Alan Johnson, Diana Jones, Graham Jones, Helen Jones, Mr Kevan Jones, Susan Elan Joyce, Eric Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald Keeley, Barbara Kendall, Liz Khan, rh Sadiq Lavery, Ian Leslie, Chris Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma Lewis, Mr Ivan Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn Long, Naomi Love, Mr Andrew Lucas, Caroline Lucas, Ian MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan Mactaggart, Fiona Mahmood, Shabana Malhotra, Seema Mann, John Marsden, Mr Gordon McCabe, Steve McCann, Mr Michael McCarthy, Kerry McClymont, Gregg
McDonagh, Siobhain McDonald, Andy McFadden, rh Mr Pat McGovern, Alison McGovern, Jim McGuire, rh Mrs Anne McKechin, Ann McKenzie, Mr Iain McKinnell, Catherine Meacher, rh Mr Michael Meale, Sir Alan Mearns, Ian Miller, Andrew Moon, Mrs Madeleine Morden, Jessica Morrice, Graeme (Livingston) Morris, Grahame M. (Easington) Murphy, rh Mr Jim Murphy, rh Paul Murray, Ian Nash, Pamela Onwurah, Chi Osborne, Sandra Owen, Albert Pearce, Teresa Perkins, Toby Phillipson, Bridget Pound, Stephen Qureshi, Yasmin Raynsford, rh Mr Nick Reed, Mr Jamie Reynolds, Emma Reynolds, Jonathan Ritchie, Ms Margaret Robertson, Angus Robertson, John Robinson, Mr Geoffrey Rotheram, Steve Roy, Mr Frank Roy, Lindsay Ruane, Chris Ruddock, rh Dame Joan Sarwar, Anas Sawford, Andy
Tellers for the Ayes:

Nic Dakin and Julie Hilling
NOES
Adams, Nigel Afriyie, Adam Aldous, Peter Alexander, rh Danny Andrew, Stuart Arbuthnot, rh Mr James Bacon, Mr Richard Baker, Steve Baldry, Sir Tony Baldwin, Harriett Barclay, Stephen Baron, Mr John Barwell, Gavin Bebb, Guto Beith, rh Sir Alan Bellingham, Mr Henry Beresford, Sir Paul Berry, Jake Bingham, Andrew Binley, Mr Brian Birtwistle, Gordon Blackwood, Nicola Blunt, Mr Crispin Bone, Mr Peter Bradley, Karen Brady, Mr Graham Brake, rh Tom Bray, Angie Brazier, Mr Julian Bridgen, Andrew Brine, Steve Brooke, Annette Browne, Mr Jeremy Bruce, Fiona Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm Buckland, Mr Robert Burley, Mr Aidan Burns, Conor Burns, rh Mr Simon Burrowes, Mr David Burstow, rh Paul Byles, Dan Cairns, Alun Campbell, rh Sir Menzies Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Carmichael, Neil Carswell, Mr Douglas Cash, Mr William
829
Chishti, Rehman Chope, Mr Christopher Clappison, Mr James Clark, rh Greg Clegg, rh Mr Nick Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Coffey, Dr Thrse Collins, Damian Colvile, Oliver Cox, Mr Geoffrey Crabb, Stephen Crockart, Mike Crouch, Tracey Davey, rh Mr Edward Davies, David T. C. (Monmouth) Davies, Glyn Davies, Philip Davis, rh Mr David Dinenage, Caroline Djanogly, Mr Jonathan Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen Dorries, Nadine Doyle-Price, Jackie Drax, Richard Duddridge, James Duncan, rh Mr Alan Dunne, Mr Philip Ellis, Michael Ellison, Jane Ellwood, Mr Tobias Elphicke, Charlie Eustice, George Evans, Graham Evans, Jonathan Evennett, Mr David Fabricant, Michael Fallon, rh Michael Farron, Tim Featherstone, Lynne Field, Mark Fox, rh Dr Liam Francois, rh Mr Mark Freeman, George Freer, Mike Fuller, Richard Garnier, Sir Edward Garnier, Mark Gauke, Mr David George, Andrew Gibb, Mr Nick Gilbert, Stephen Glen, John Goldsmith, Zac Goodwill, Mr Robert Gove, rh Michael Graham, Richard Grant, Mrs Helen Gray, Mr James Grayling, rh Chris Green, rh Damian Greening, rh Justine Grieve, rh Mr Dominic Griffiths, Andrew Gummer, Ben Hague, rh Mr William Halfon, Robert Hames, Duncan Hammond, rh Mr Philip Hammond, Stephen Hancock, Matthew Hancock, Mr Mike
Finance Bill
Harper, Mr Mark Harrington, Richard Harris, Rebecca Hart, Simon Harvey, Sir Nick Heald, Oliver Heath, Mr David Heaton-Harris, Chris Hemming, John Henderson, Gordon Hendry, Charles Herbert, rh Nick Hinds, Damian Hoban, Mr Mark Hollingbery, George Hollobone, Mr Philip Holloway, Mr Adam Hopkins, Kris Horwood, Martin Howarth, Sir Gerald Howell, John Hughes, rh Simon Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy Hunter, Mark Hurd, Mr Nick Jackson, Mr Stewart James, Margot Javid, Sajid Jenkin, Mr Bernard Johnson, Gareth Johnson, Joseph Jones, Andrew Jones, rh Mr David Jones, Mr Marcus Kawczynski, Daniel Knight, rh Mr Greg Kwarteng, Kwasi Laing, Mrs Eleanor Lamb, Norman Lansley, rh Mr Andrew Latham, Pauline Laws, rh Mr David Leadsom, Andrea Lee, Jessica Lee, Dr Phillip Leech, Mr John Lefroy, Jeremy Leigh, Sir Edward Leslie, Charlotte Letwin, rh Mr Oliver Lewis, Dr Julian Lilley, rh Mr Peter Lloyd, Stephen Lord, Jonathan Loughton, Tim Luff, Peter Lumley, Karen Main, Mrs Anne May, rh Mrs Theresa Maynard, Paul McCartney, Jason McCartney, Karl McIntosh, Miss Anne McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick McPartland, Stephen McVey, Esther Menzies, Mark Mercer, Patrick Metcalfe, Stephen Miller, rh Maria Mills, Nigel Milton, Anne
2 JULY 2013
Mordaunt, Penny Morgan, Nicky Morris, Anne Marie Morris, James Mosley, Stephen Mulholland, Greg Munt, Tessa Murray, Sheryll Neill, Robert Newmark, Mr Brooks Newton, Sarah Nokes, Caroline Nuttall, Mr David OBrien, rh Mr Stephen Offord, Dr Matthew Ollerenshaw, Eric Opperman, Guy Ottaway, Richard Paice, rh Sir James Patel, Priti Pawsey, Mark Penning, Mike Penrose, John Percy, Andrew Perry, Claire Phillips, Stephen Pickles, rh Mr Eric Pincher, Christopher Poulter, Dr Daniel Prisk, Mr Mark Pugh, John Raab, Mr Dominic Reckless, Mark Redwood, rh Mr John Rees-Mogg, Jacob Reid, Mr Alan Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm Robathan, rh Mr Andrew Robertson, Mr Laurence Rogerson, Dan Rosindell, Andrew Rudd, Amber Ruffley, Mr David Russell, Sir Bob Rutley, David Sanders, Mr Adrian Sandys, Laura Scott, Mr Lee Selous, Andrew Sharma, Alok Shelbrooke, Alec Shepherd, Sir Richard Simpson, Mr Keith Skidmore, Chris Smith, Miss Chloe Smith, Henry Smith, Julian Soames, rh Nicholas
Finance Bill
Soubry, Anna Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline Spencer, Mr Mark Stanley, rh Sir John Stephenson, Andrew Stevenson, John Stewart, Bob Stewart, Iain Stewart, Rory Streeter, Mr Gary Stride, Mel Stuart, Mr Graham Sturdy, Julian Swales, Ian Swayne, rh Mr Desmond Swire, rh Mr Hugo Syms, Mr Robert Tapsell, rh Sir Peter Teather, Sarah Thornton, Mike Thurso, John Timpson, Mr Edward Tomlinson, Justin Tredinnick, David Truss, Elizabeth Turner, Mr Andrew Tyrie, Mr Andrew Uppal, Paul Vaizey, Mr Edward Vara, Mr Shailesh Vickers, Martin Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa Walker, Mr Charles Walker, Mr Robin Wallace, Mr Ben Walter, Mr Robert Ward, Mr David Watkinson, Dame Angela Weatherley, Mike Webb, Steve Wheeler, Heather White, Chris Whittaker, Craig Wiggin, Bill Willetts, rh Mr David Williams, Mr Mark Williams, Stephen Williamson, Gavin Wilson, Mr Rob Wollaston, Dr Sarah Wright, Jeremy Wright, Simon Young, rh Sir George Zahawi, Nadhim
830
Tellers for the Noes:

Jenny Willott and Greg Hands
Question accordingly negatived. Clause 38 REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS: UK REITS WHICH INVEST IN OTHER UK REITS Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Coop): I beg to move amendment 57, page 15, line 16, at end insert
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 13 of Schedule 18, that Schedule shall come into force after the
831 [Cathy Jamieson]
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
832
Chancellor has conducted, and placed in the House of Commons Library, a review of the operation of the interaction of REITs with the Housing Market. The Review shall consider (a) tax measures in place to support house building; and (b) what steps HM Government have taken to support house building..
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 30 to 34. Cathy Jamieson: I am tempted to start by saying that I am sure this is the part of this afternoons proceedings that everyone has been waiting for, and that there is much excitement about the prospect of talking about real estate investment trusts, and that many Members will want to contribute on this very important issue. Amendment 57 is another amendment that I have regularly described as very mild-mannered. It proposes that the Government must ensure that the impact of their policy is examined and reported on, and that all Members are subsequently able to access information on its impact from the House of Commons Library. In this amendment, we are asking for that information to be examined and made available before schedule 18 is implemented. The amendment also asks that the Government conduct a review of the interaction of real estate investment trusts with the housing market and that the Government consider in particular measures that are in place to support house building and what measures they have taken to support house building. I suspect that the Minister may well say this is not necessary because everything is always kept under review so far as the Government are concerned, but he will be awarebecause he has heard me say this before both in Committee and on the Floor of the Housethat I think Governments always tend to say things are under review, but there is a great difference between something that sits on a shelf that may be dusted down and had a look at if someone asks a parliamentary question or writes to a Minister, and something that is a proactive review, whereby policy is examined and modelling work is done and different facts and figures are placed in the House of Commons Library so that we can all benefit from that information. That is really why we have tabled this amendment now. I keep making this plea to the Minister to take up, at least once, the opportunity to look more favourably on such reviews. In last years Finance Bill Committee and once again this year, we have had important discussions about real estate investment trusts, or REITS. For hon. Members who have not followed the Committee musings over the two years or had the opportunity to read in Hansard the record of the excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), who said just a few words about REITs during those deliberations, I shall outline briefly what this is about and why our amendment is so important. REITs are securities that sell like a share on stock exchanges and invest in real estate directly, either through properties or mortgages. As of September 2012, 34 nations had REIT-like regimes in place. REITs are tax-advantaged vehicles set up to encourage investment in the property
sector. I will, of course, be developing that theme, and people may wish to consider my comments in the light of the need for the review. REITs are exempt from corporation tax on profits and gains arising from their property rental business as long as profits are distributed. In that way, taxation of income from property is moved from the corporate level to the investor level. REITs have been given tax advantages to encourage diverse investment in the property sector, where fellow investors can have a different tax status. We seek to amend a simple, one-line clause introducing schedule 18, which of course contains considerable detail. I am sure the Minister will speak to the Government amendments in some detail in due course, but these provisions would allow UK REIT income derived from investing in other UK REITs to be treated as income of its tax-exempt property rental business. Until now, REITs have predominantly invested in commercial propertiesfor example, office and retail properties. We had lengthy discussions about that when debating a previous financial Bill. According to Treasury consultation documents published in April 2012, there are more than 20 UK REITs, with a market capitalisation of more than 20 billion, so this is obviously an important issue. As I said, the Committee discussed in detail why it is important to reform the REIT regime. We did not oppose clause 38 in Committee and we are not seeking to do so now; we are simply seeking this review and reporting back. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East recognised that REITs are important investment vehicles that have changed the investment scene relating to property and those financial instruments. He spoke about that in Committee, also acknowledging that the Government appeared to be proposing relatively sensible pieces of housekeeping on the cash flow and investment profiles of the REITs. He further acknowledged the argument that REITs could make better returns on such cash if they were allowed to invest short term in other REITs. That was seen as promoting greater liquidity in the property market and potentially attracting additional investment income, particularly into the built environment. However, at that time my hon. Friend also raised a number of specific points with the Minister. For example, he asked what the policys effect would be on revenues to the Exchequer. He probed further the broader impact on tax treatments and also sought to discover whether HMRC had done any modelling on how the arrangement might affect yields. My hon. Friend was interested in what the REIT vehicles are investing in and in how they are linked to commercial property arrangements and the circumstances in which residential property REITs exist. In Committee, he also sought further information from the Minister on the impact of REIT arrangements on the residential property market and its prices, given that there has been some concern in various quarters about the Government perhaps looking more at the demand side of the housing market equation than at the supply side. I shall say a little more about the housing market later, but in Committee my hon. Friend specifically pressed the Minister on whether the Treasury had analysed the general impact of REITs on property prices in the residential sector and whether there was any overlap between the Help to Buy arrangements and investment in REITs.
833
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
834
The Committee also heard during that debate that although the Government originally consulted on the idea of using REITs as a vehicle to support social housing investment, they decided not to take that forward. There was no REIT vehicle arrangement to help with what the Opposition believe to be the prioritythat is, of course, dealing with the need for social housing and affordable housing. I shall say something further about that in due course. To be fair to the Minister, he advised the Committee that only 15 written responses to the Governments consultation were received and that there was consensus that amending the tax treatment of REITs would generate positive benefits for the industry and his Governments wider objectives, as he saw them. In response to the questions from my hon. Friend, the Minister referred to the tax information and impact note that, as he pointed out, states that
the provision will have a negligible impact on the Exchequer.
It would be helpful if the Minister would say a bit more about that, because he also said in Committee:
For some stakeholders, the changes to the REITs regime in the Finance Act 2012 were already sufficient to enable them to set up a social housing REIT.
I would be interested to hear what discussions have taken place, and how the Minister intends to work with the sector to see whether it is feasible, and whether it is advantageous, to try and set up something in that regard, because other interested parties currently not considering establishing a social housing REIT were concerned that housing at social rents alone would be unable to generate sufficient returns to attract investors. I hope the Minister will say something more on that. For those parties, further additional changes to the REIT regime, such as the removal of the listing requirement, would be unlikely to make any difference to the thinking. The thrust of the Ministers argument was:
Essentially, we did not believe that the various ideas that we looked at to encourage social housing REITs would be effective. [Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 4 June 2013; c. 318.]
He went on to explain:
It removes a barrier that has prevented REITs from investing in REITs, which has generally not happened because it has been an inefficient structure. As a result, the cost of the change to the Exchequer will be negligible.
That is all fair and proper, but his response to the question on the impact on house prices was perhaps less definitive. At that stage, the Minister suggested that the Government could not
yet assess the impact on house prices as there are not yet any substantial residential REITs on the market, so the answer is that they have not had an impact on house prices. [Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 4 June 2013; c. 318-19.]
Although I can see the logic in that argumentit comes from a factual perspectivemy hon. Friend was probing a question on which I invite the Minister to say more today. Has the Minister considered whether he would use some of the extensive resources at his disposal to do some further modelling work, not just to consider what is happening now but to make projections for the future? That would give us some idea of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal, particularly as regards the impact on house prices, and would allow us to identify the concerns and, if any were identified, to see how they could be mitigated. That was what my hon. Friend was seeking and is part of the reason why we have tabled the amendment once again. 5.15 pm The Minister, in Committee, responded to questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East on issues relating to the wider policy and REITs and the Help to Buy scheme. At that stage, the Minister drew a clear distinction between what he saw as the policy on REITs and the policy on Help to Buy. He stated:
There is nothing to prevent REITs from investing in residential property.
In Committee, we heard the Minister acknowledge that dealing with REITs was a relatively small part of the much bigger picture of the housing market. That is absolutely correct, and he was right to say that. I have laid out several areas where it is important to look further at some of those issues for the future and to do some of that work and report back to the House in due course. Our amendment provides the vehicle to do that. The Minister was absolutely correct to acknowledge that the REIT regime was a relatively small part of that much bigger picture, so let me spend a few minutes looking at that bigger picture. This also relates to the part of our amendment that would provide for further work to be done on the tax implications of different regimes, and on what the Government are seeking to do to support house building and create further housing opportunities for those who need them. It is therefore relevant to our amendment. I do not think it is overstating the case to say that we face the biggest housing crisis in a generation. The Opposition recognise the seriousness of the issue. We know how crucial house building is to economic recovery. Whether it is a young family seeking an affordable home in which to bring up their children, or whether it is those at a different stage in life, seeking to downsize or to change their accommodation as their needs develop, it is of course important that a range of housing options is available, and at a cost that people can afford at that stage in their life. That is key. For the three years that I have been in this place, Opposition Members have consistently called for action on housing, especially affordable housing. I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) for his conviction and clarity on housing policy, and his understanding of the impact of what is happening in the real world on those who are trying to get on the housing ladder, or trying to obtain their first tenancy in a social housing situation. Yesterday I quoted some comments by both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on taxation, and there were some groans and some cheers. If the House will allow me, I shall continue that pattern for a moment and quote once again, but this time from the Prime
He did acknowledge that

currently returns are not high enough to attract investors.
At that stage he also advised the Committee:

Responses to the consultation suggest that the need for further changes to the REIT regime to support social housingwas seen as not particularly pressing.
835
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
836
Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, who are all in it together, of course. In the foreword to the Governments housing strategy, they wrote:
The housing market is one of the biggest victims of the credit crunch: lenders wont lend, so builders cant build and buyers cant buy.
in Stevenage in 30 years. As for infrastructure, my local hospital redevelopment is part of a 150 million hospital rebuilding scheme, and a section of the A1M is being widened. It is not all as bad as the hon. Lady makes out. Cathy Jamieson: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am sure his constituents will appreciate the fact that he has raised the matter in the Chamber today. The people who make use of that homeless shelter no doubt welcome the fact that it is there for them but, with respect, that does not get away from the wider need to ensure that we have good quality, affordable housing right across the country. Although his constituents may be benefiting at present, sadly I see in the places that I visit and right across the country that there are areas where that level of investment is not happening. People are finding their living standards squeezed and they are finding it extremely difficult not only to balance their own household budgets, but to plan for the future. The hon. Gentlemans intervention leads me neatly on to the subject of house building, although I suspect that that is not what he intended to do. None the less, it gives me the opportunity to move seamlessly into that part of my speech. The Government have had four major housing launches in three years and they have made more than 300 announcements on housing. Some areas would have welcomed 300 houses, never mind 300 announcements. We know, notwithstanding the hon. Gentlemans comments, that house building is at its lowest level since the 1920s, and research by the House of Commons Library confirms that no peacetime Government since the 1920s have presided over fewer housing completions than this Government have in the past two years. So for all the launches and all the statements, are things going to get any better on this Governments watch? That is a question that the Minister has to answer. John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab): Is my hon. Friend aware that of even that paltry number of housing finishes, the Labour Government were responsible for many of them? For example, the Strata Homes development in Retford in my constituency was started under the Labour Government only because of a capital grant given to get it going, and given as a present to this lousy coalition? Cathy Jamieson: I could not have put it better myself. My hon. Friend speaks with great passion and I know that he always seeks to do the best for his area, but he makes important points that the Government would do well to take into account. Is the situation going to get better? From what we know already, it is getting worse rather than better. Housing starts fell by 11% in 2012 to below 100,000. The construction sector has been hit particularly hard by the Governments policies, which are hurting rather than helping. An estimated 80,000 construction workers are out of work and there has been an estimated 8.2% fall in construction output, despite recent signs of the beginning of change. Even in respect of home ownership, which one imagines this Government of all Governments would advocate, there are 136,000 fewer home owners than when the Government came to power. Home ownership has fallen from 67.4% to 65.3%. Crucially, on affordable homes, the official figures from the Homes and Communities Agency show that the number of affordable housing starts collapsed in 2011-12 by 68%.
They continued:
it is right for government to step in and take bold action to unblock the market.
We do not disagree, because of course the Government must act and deliver bold action, but in practice, yet again, the rhetoric does not match up with the reality. In housing, as in so many other things, this Government have promised much but delivered very little on the ground. Housing investment is well short of what Labour was proposing; house building has fallen; rents are rising; home ownership is becoming harder to achieve; and homelessness has risen. The Governments record offers little hope to hard-working families who are trying to do the right thing and aspire to better things, but who are held back by the combination of the squeeze on their incomes and the lack of suitable affordable housing that is available to them. One of the reasons I came into politics is that way back in 1979, when I was a student, I spent some time living in London and working for a project for homeless people. I recall all the improvements made in subsequent years during Labours period in office to enable homeless people and those who were living on the streets to obtain accommodation and support to get back on their feet. I never thought I would see in my lifetime some of the things that are happening now to people who have lost or are at risk of losing their home. Although I am straying somewhat from the amendment, let me say that I am worried about the impact the Governments policy on the bedroom tax is having on many decent people. The amendment, which would ensure that the Government review and produce further work on the housing market and taxation, is important. Perhaps we should not be surprised by the Governments poor record on housing. We heard in the previous debate about their warm words but weak action on infrastructure. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) pointed out that just seven of the 576 projects in the 2011 infrastructure plan have been completed, and that five of those were started under Labour; and that despite their warm words, the Government are cutting capital infrastructure spending by 1.7% from 2014-15 to 2015-16. She also gave a stark reminder that of the 261 new school building projects the Government have said will be delivered, only one has started. We have had hollow promises to kick-start the economy, hollow promises to get growth going, and hollow promises to balance the books in this Parliament. When the British people, right across the country, look at this Governments record, they understand that this Government have failed to deliver, time and again. Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con): Does the hon. Lady accept that there are some success stories? In my constituency, for example, the Government are giving almost 2 million for a purpose-built homeless shelter, which will serve a large part of Hertfordshire, and we have provided the funds to build the first council houses
837
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
838
I referred earlier to my own experiences when I worked on a homelessness project while I was a student in London back in 1979, which was one of the reasons that I got involved in politics in the first place. It is appalling that homelessness and rough sleeping are up by a third since the election. The Government must take responsibility for some of these awful situations. The number of families with children and pregnant women being housed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for six weeks or more has risen by more than 800% since the coalition Government came to power. A staggering 125 councils have had to house families in B and Bs for six weeks or more. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is right: it is a waste of taxpayers money. It is not only a waste of money, which is important, but a human tragedy for the families living in those conditions. I ask hon. Members to pause for a moment and reflect on how they would cope if life events meant they had to live like that. What if they were uprooted from somewhere they had been staying and had to pack up their belongings? What if they found themselves, perhaps with children, having to live for an extended period in one room in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, with nowhere to keep their belongings, nowhere to call home, and nowhere to do all the things that we take for granted with our own families? 5.30 pm Let us take a closer look at the Governments so-called bold action plan. If the Housing Ministers claims are to be believed, the new homes bonus will deliver an additional 400,000 properties by incentivising growth in planning permissions for new housing and the output of new homes, but the figures show that fewer homes are being delivered, not more. In reality, their flagship scheme has delivered a reduction in both permissions and outputs since 2010. In 2010, residential planning permissions totalled 135,000, but they were down to 115,000 in 2011, to just 95,000 in the first nine months of 2012, and in 2012 they fell by 11% to below 100,000. A National Audit Office report stated that the Governments assumptions about the new homes bonus were unreliable, unrealistic and
contained a substantial arithmetical error.
Given that the National Audit Office report was so damning, by no stretch of the imagination could the new homes bonus be called a success. If we couple that with the rest of the record I have described, we might even call it unforgiveable. Then there is the Help to Buy scheme, which the Treasury Committee dubbed a work in progress. It took us some time to get any real answers from the Minister when we probed how the scheme would work in practice. The Opposition desperately want to help first-time buyers, but the Government are making the crisis worse. As I have said, affordable house building is down. Indeed, many commentators, including those the Government might well have assumed would be on their side, are concerned that the scheme is pricing people out of the market. The Government need to take action on the supply side by building more affordable homes, just as the International Monetary Fund has been arguing. I wonder whether the Minister agreed with the IMF when it said:
There is a risk that, in the absence of an adequate supply response, the result would ultimately be mostly house price increases that would work against the aim of boosting access to housing.
Let us take a look at how well the affordable rent programme has worked. Labour invested 8.4 billion in the three years from 2008 to 2011, while the Tories will invest just 4.5 billion in the four years from 2011 to 2015. The Government have cut the budget for new affordable homes by 60%. No doubt they will try to argue that they are getting more for less and that this is all about lean Government, but that is not borne out in reality. Affordable housing starts have collapsednot stalled, not flatlined, but collapsed. The Government like to claim that they are going to deliver 170,000 affordable homes by 2015, but the NAO report confirms that despite the relentless spin, over 70,000 of those were commissioned by the previous Labour Government. Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): If it is about getting more for less, the result will be to push up rents, so these so-called affordable homes will not be affordable. That, in turn, will push up the cost of housing benefit, which will undermine many of the other claims the Government are making on reducing the housing benefit bill. Cathy Jamieson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. She spent a long period working on housing issues in Scotland and taking forward a number of very positive policies in her previous life at Edinburgh city council, so I always listen carefully to what she has to say, and I hope that the Minister does the same. We have to ensure that policies have no unintended consequences. That is why, in this very mild-mannered amendment, we are suggesting a review to look more broadly at the impact of these policies as regards taxation and the Governments record on housing, to produce information, and to put it in the House of Commons Library so that we can all be aware of it in looking to the future. This Government appear to care more about spin than substance. Even with a record that shows they have failed on issue after issue, there is more, because their failure to deliver also extends to the NewBuy scheme. So far, 12 months in, the scheme has delivered fewer than 2.5% of the promised 100,000 mortgages. At this rate, they will not meet their target until 2058. In September last year, the Government announced 10 billion-worth of
The report found little evidence that the new homes bonus is increasing house building or approvals for housing and that it is rewarding behaviour that would have happened anyway. It also found that the Government are not even monitoring the impact of the 1.3 billion of taxpayers money, which is another reason why it is important that we have the review. Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend also accept that the heat map for the new homes bonus is completely unfair, because it affects the ability of local authorities to spend on other projects such as house renovations, rather than new build? It is a Treasury policy that is not working. Cathy Jamieson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. New build is of course important, but so too is bringing existing dwellings up to modern standards and ensuring that families have decent accommodation. That is a useful point to which I hope the Minister can respond.
839 [Cathy Jamieson]
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
840
housing guarantees that were due to open for bids in April 2013. However, as the Financial Times reported recently, the plans are in disarray because no financial group has come forward to run the scheme. On right to buy, the Government extended the discounts, promising one-for-one replacement. Notwithstanding the rhetoric, the reality is that since the extension of right to buy, 3,495 homes have been sold but just 384 homes have started to be built or have been acquired as replacement stock. Graham Jones: My hon. Friend raises an important point. People were promised that there would be one-for-one replacement in social housing. The fact that it was not like-for-like replacement was another folly in the Governments policy. It should be put on the record that it is not one for one but one for nine, and that is a tragedy. Cathy Jamieson: My hon. Friend puts his point powerfully on the record. His phrase, one for nine, will perhaps hit home more vividly than my expressing it as 3,495 homes sold but just 384 starting to be built. It is also right to say that those houses that are being built should meet the needs of people who are seeking either to get their first home or to move. I do not want to spend too much time on the bedroom tax, but it is sad that the Government constantly say that people are living in homes that are far too big for their needs. I know from my own area and the work I did before coming to this place that many people who live in such housing are rooted in their local community. They do not want to move to another town, village or even another street. If homes of a decent standard that met their needs were available in their area, perhaps they would be prepared to move in order to free up some of the larger family houses. John Mann: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we built environmentally friendly, small, local authority bungalows with a little bit of garden, like we used to, many people would queue up to move into them? If only the Government would get their act together and provide the funding to build them. Cathy Jamieson: My hon. Friend makes another very good point. I know of areas where elderly people would welcome such an opportunity. Indeed, I know of some elderly people who have been persuaded, because they felt it was the right thing to do, to move into good-quality housing where everything is on the flat and they have a small garden, a common area and locally provided services. It is also important that such housing is environmentally friendly and has affordable heating and rent. Graham Jones: Elderly accommodation is a chronic problem in my constituency and other areas. Does my hon. Friend know whether the Government, as part of their housing strategy, have undertaken any assessment that has identified the need for accommodation for the elderly? Cathy Jamieson: I cannot answer for the Government, but I would have thought that any Government reflecting on the needs of citizens throughout the country particularly given the number of elderly people in our
communities and the fact that people are living longer would want to undertake a proper and thorough assessment of future needs and that its projections would be translated into a comprehensive housing plan for the future. If such a plan is in place, I am sure the Minister will enlighten us on it before the end of this debate. This is about peoples homes, but Government Members seem to think that it is about the number of bedrooms and do not really understand the emotional link that people have to the home that they may have been born and brought up in, that they may have raised their family in, or that they may be set to retire in in their later years. Surely any compassionate society should take that into consideration. We should also take every possible step to ensure that people do not become homeless; we must not let that become another scandal. I will finish soon because others wish to speak on this important issue. Ministers promised last summer that the Government were on course to smash their ambition to release enough land for 102,000 homes, but they have now conceded that they are only a third of the way towards that target. I will not give into the temptation to go back over every Government failure, but they have missed target after target. After all the warm words, hot air and relaunches, it is clear that this Government are making the housing crisis worse, not better. People who are out in the cold looking for their first home, looking to move, or looking for somewhere to live out their later years in comfort without having to worry whether it is affordable might look back at Labours record. There were 2 million more homes under Labour and we built 500,000 affordable homes. A million more families were able to buy their own homes, housing standards improved and homelessness fell by 70%. 5.45 pm My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who might want to comment on the work that he has been doing, is right to call for investment in house building to tackle the housing crisis, bring down the benefits billwe have not dwelt on that in this debate, but it would feature in a review if the Government accepted the amendmentand put a roof over the heads of the families and individuals who need a home. It would also create thousands of jobs and apprenticeships, and rebuild Britain as we need it for the future. This is another mild-mannered amendment. I do not see what objections the Minister could have to conducting a review. It would answer a number of the questions that were posed in Committee. Graham Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way? Cathy Jamieson: I will, but only briefly because I am on my last words. Graham Jones: My hon. Friend has made some valuable points in what is an excellent speech. Does she agree that the Government and certainly the Treasury ought to consider in the review what impact a VAT cut would have on the construction industry and on the renovation and refurbishment of properties? That should be part of the review because half the country is being left behind.
841
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
842
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): I do not think that we need to worry about that. We should stick to the amendment. Cathy Jamieson: Thank you for that guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I had feared that the Exchequer Secretary would jump up and ask a supplementary question about the Oppositions position on cutting VAT. Mr Newmark: Will the hon. Lady give way? Cathy Jamieson: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman wants to stray into the territory where Mr Deputy Speaker has suggested we do not go. Suffice it to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) makes yet another suggestion that the Minister would do well to consider as part of the wider review. I look forward to hearing his response. Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab): My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), in her powerful speech, pointed to the biggest housing crisis in a generation that is gripping our country. House building is down to the lowest level since the 1920s. Homelessness is up by 30% since the general election, after it fell by 70% under the Labour Government. We have a mortgage market in which millions struggle to get mortgages and a private rented sector with 8.6 million tenants, or 1.1 million families. There are many good landlords, but many bad ones too. There are chronic problems of security, stability, affordability and quality. One in three homes in the private rented sector does not meet the decent homes standard. Like my hon. Friend, my interest in housing goes back a long way. When I was a lay trade union activist, I was also secretary of the Tenants and Residents Federation. I was a founding member of the Housing Action campaign. For older Members of the House who remember the occupation of Centre Point, I was proud to be one of those who organised what was an effective demonstration against office block speculation, against the background of rapidly rising homelessness and bad housing. I never thought that we would be back here 30 years later debating a crisis worse than that one. John Mann: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would elucidate more for the benefit of us younger Members. Jack Dromey: There was an office block speculator called Harry Hyams. Those were the days when people could build office blocks and not pay rent on them, and they would appreciate two or three times in value every year. That happened against the background of a chronic housing crisis. We rightly protested against that and the incoming Labour Government rightly changed the law for Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. We are trying to deal with an amendment. Going down memory lane is all very well, Centre Point is very interesting and Mr Mann will always have a response, but I know that Members are desperate to get back to the amendment. Jack Dromey: You are right, of course, Mr Deputy Speaker.
We are here to stand up for the people we represent, and we all see the impact of the housing crisis in our constituencies. I see the impact in the shortage of homes being built in Erdington56 certified by the National House-Building Council in 2012and the building worker, one of 79,000, who lost his job, a big man who burst into tears on his front doorstep in Marsh lane and said, Ive lost my job three times; I am desperate to provide for my family. I simply cant cope any longer. I also see the impact on the homeless families who come to my surgeryon one occasion, they had just been evicted desperate for a decent home, and the young people in the Orchard project run by the YMCA in my constituency, where numbers of young homeless people double every year. Mr Newmark: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that homelessness today is at its lowest for the past 30 years? It has been lower in only three of the past 27 years. It has been bad, but homeless today is the lowest it has been for 27 out of 30 years. Jack Dromey: I prefer to rely on statistics from the hon. Gentlemans Government: homelessness has risen by 30% since the general election. A teacher and a firefighter in their 20s came up to me on Erdington high street and poured their hearts out about how they are desperate to buy their own home but simply cannot get a mortgage. Evidence from Shelter has shown that typically, couples in their 20s will have to save for 11, 12, 13 or 15 years to afford a deposit. Extraordinary statistics show that the number of people between 25 and 34 who own their own home has fallen from 2 million to 1.3 million, and census figures showed that for the first time since the 1950s home ownership has fallen in our country. I have seen the problems in the private rented sector in my constituency, such as the lady in Streetly road who had to be rescued by the councils private tenancy team from a premises for which she was being charged a fortune in rent, but which was deeply dangerous because of faulty electrical wiring. Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab): My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. One sad thing that I reflect on is that a lot of property in the private rented sector is in grossly bad condition, yet the rent is paid by the taxpayer through housing benefit. I do not for the life of me see why we do not have better regulation of the private rented sector when a vast amount of public money goes into that market through housing benefit. Jack Dromey: My hon. Friend is right. We call it protection for good tenants and landlords alike; the Government call it red tape and have rejected every move since 2010 to regulate the private rented sector more effectively. No Government have done enough in our lifetime, but my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun was right: I will compare favourably anytime the record of our Government to the current Government. Mr Newmark: I hate to throw facts at the hon. Gentleman, but 421,000 social homes were lost under the previous Labour Government. This Government
843 [Mr Newmark]
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
844
are building 170,000 homes by 2015. This Governments record is far better than that of the past 13 years under the previous Government. Jack Dromey: Let me spell out the facts: 2 million new homes; 1 million more mortgage holders; half a million more affordable homes; and 1.6 million social homes brought up to a decent homes standard after our Government inherited a 19 billion backlog in housing repairs. In the 1980s, the hon. Gentlemans Government stood back and allowed a tidal wave of mortgage repossessions. In 2008, we took action to keep people in their homes and, through the kick-start programme, sustained the building industry against collapse and got Britain building again. I will compare that record favourably anytime to the miserable track record of failure of the hon. Gentlemans Government. Sheila Gilmore: Does my hon. Friend share my perplexity about the figure for the amount of homes lost that Government Members have come up with in recent debates on housing? If social homes are lost, they are lost through the right to buy. The Government have decided to increase the size of discounts and further encourage the right to buy, so they will probably lose more social homes than they build. We cannot compare net figures with gross figures. Jack Dromey: Indeed, when the former Housing Minister, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps)a man who gives hubris a bad namelaunched the new enhanced right-to-buy campaign, he said that there would be one-for-one replacement. One for nine is what is happening. In addition, as freedom of information requests have just shown, Labour councils are building council homes at twice the rate of Conservative and Liberal Democrat councils. Ian Mearns: Another explanation for the loss of units under the previous Government is that, because they were investing in upgrading homes through the decent homes standard, some homes, particularly in high-rise blocks, were too expensive on a unit cost basis to improve. It was costly, but they had to be demolished. We lost units because we were trying to improve the overall stock. Jack Dromey: My hon. Friend is right: tough decisions had to be made. All of us in our constituencies have seen the benefits of that decision to invest in the decent homes programme: it has transformed the lives of millions of tenants. Why have the Government made these mistakes? They started with the catastrophic error of judgment of cutting 4 billion in affordable housing investment in 2010, which led to a 68% collapse in affordable house building. What we have had subsequently are a succession of false dawns: four get Britain building launches, 300 separate initiatives and thousands of press statements. I once said of the former Housing Minister that if we had a home for every press statement that he issued we would not have a housing crisis. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun looked at the track record: NewBuy was to produce 100,000 homes, but thus far there have been 2,500. When the Minister comes to respond on NewBuy,
he might care to refer to the recent Help to Buy announcement, when the Prime Minister ruled out, from the Dispatch Box, any question of its being used to buy second homes. I tabled a written question:
To Mr Chancellor of the Exchequerwith which organisations or companies (a) he and (b) other Ministers in his Department have met to discuss the mechanism that will be put in place to stop people using the Help to Buy Mortgage Guarantee Scheme to purchase a second home.
In answer, I was told that

Treasury Ministers have met with a number of companies in the mortgage industry to discuss a wide number of issues, such as the Help to Buy mortgage guarantee scheme, including through the Home Finance Forum.[Official Report, 1 July 2013; Vol. 565, c. 408W.]
Has a mechanism been agreed? Graham Jones: My hon. Friend makes a valid point regarding going from First Buy to homebuy to Help to Buy. When the Government talk about affordable housing, is there any explanation of why the upper limit in the previous schemes of 280,000 was increased to 600,000 in the current scheme? How does that qualify as affordable housing, and how does it help people who are struggling? That is surely redirecting money at people who could afford a more modest property. Jack Dromey: Those of us on the Opposition Benches stand for homes for all; the Government stand for homes for the better-off. Another example of hype was what the 10 billion guarantee scheme would deliver, including in investment in the private rented sector. However, the Government have failed to get anyone to run the scheme for them. Another examplethere are endless examplesis self-build. The former Housing Minister said in opposition that the Conservatives would oversee a housing revolution led by self-build. He said they would have an action plan in government to double self-build homes. He introduced that action plan in 2010. He then tried to conceal whether it had worked, but ultimately the Information Commissioner forced his hand. We now know that self-build has fallen under this Government, not increased. 6 pm John Mann: Is my hon. Friend as disturbed as I am by the Governments failure to deliver on their promise to exempt self-build from the community infrastructure levy and the affordable housing levy, despite repeatedly saying in this Chamber that they would do so? Jack Dromey: We have been strong supporters of self-build. The Government have promised a great deal on self-build, but done pitifully little. The figures speak for themselves: a decline in self-build under a Conservativeled Government, compared with what happened under a Labour Government. The simple reality is that we have seen catastrophic mistakes, a succession of false dawns and, to be frank, downright cheekthe point has already been made that sometimes the Government have claimed the figure is 170,000, when 70,000 of those homes were commissioned by a Labour Government. The comprehensive spending review last week was a missed opportunity. There are indications of a moderate uptake in house building;
845
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
846
what we needed was a major investment programmeI will say more about that in a moment. It was a missed opportunity at the worst possible time, and we now run the risk of seeing five wasted years for housing under this Government. Let me make some brief points about the announcement made last week. It represents a cut in investment in affordable house building, instead of the necessary ambition of approach. I would simply contrast two figures. In the final comprehensive spending review under a Labour Government, 8.4 billion was committed for the three-year period from 2008 to 2011. For the three-year period from 2015 to 2018, this Government propose to invest but 3.3 billionless than half of what Labour proposed to invest in affordable house building. In addition, we are seeing an approach on the part of the Government that will mean the slow death of social housingthe mistakes made in 2010, with the cuts in investment; the progressive reigning back of councils ability to use section 106 to insist on affordable and social housing; and, now, the Housing Minister talking about the need to convert to the affordable rent model, which is unaffordable for many people and will push up housing benefit bills. We also see the Government once again restating their determination finally to crack the problem of bringing public land to market. We have heard it all before. They have promised a great deal and delivered pitifully little. It is little wonder that the National Housing Federation was critical of the statement, despite the Government saying that the role of housing associations would be central. The federation attacked it as representing a cut in investment. It is also little wonder that the Chartered Institute of Housing said that the statement lacked the necessary ambition. Just when the country needed a sense of urgency and ambition, the Government let the country down. That is why our amendment argues for a serious approach, designed to get Britain building. First, we have to tackle the biggest housing crisis in a generation. There should be decent homes for all, to rent or buy, at prices people can afford. Secondly, history tells us that there has never been a recovery from a depression, such as that in the 1930s, from a war or from any recession since the war without a major public and private housing programme. That is why the shadow Chancellor has said that the Government should heed the advice of the International Monetary Fund. Were they to invest that 10 billion in a house building programme, 400,000 homes would be built, and 600,000 jobs and 100,000 apprenticeships would be created. The Government need to invest now, rather than looking beyond 2015. They need to build now, in order to get people back into work now and to bring the cost of failure and the housing benefit bill down. It cannot be right that 95p in every 1 spent on housing investment goes on housing benefit. We need to get that money shifted into bricks. Such investment would ultimately bring down borrowing as well. Ian Mearns: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I have to criticise the Government for the fact that if every one of their announcements on this matter had been a house, we probably would not have a housing crisis now. They have talked an awful lot about house building but, brick upon brick, it is not happening in very many places in this country.
Jack Dromey: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. As I said earlier, if we had a house for every press statement issued by the Government, we would not have a housing crisis. Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is making some powerful points, and I entirely agree with him on the need for a house building programme. Would not the advantage of such a programme be that there would be a ready revenue stream in the form of rental repayments? Jack Dromey: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. All the benefits that I have referred to, plus others, would result from such a programme. If we were to invest in retrofitting as well as in new build, we could tackle some of the chronic problems that are costing the national health service 2.5 billion a year. We could also tackle the problem of a whole generation of young people being held back at school because their overcrowded homes impact on their ability to do their homework. That impacts on their exam results, which in turn impact on their lifelong earnings potential. If the Government were to invest in housing as we would do, they could also reflect the demands of an ageing population. They would be able to help people of all tenures to downsize, rather than using the obscene weapon of the bedroom tax, which has no place in a civilised society. Graham Jones: My hon. Friend has made a powerful point. The Governments policy is totally focused on an under-supply of housing, but he makes the valid point that the Treasury should be looking at the other part of the problem, which is the over-supply of housing and its consequences. The Treasury needs to take this matter on board. In constituencies such as mine, people suffer chronic ill health as a result of poor housing. Jack Dromey: My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is not just about new build, where appropriate; it is also about retrofitting, about regeneration and about bringing empty homes back into use. It is also about recognising that the housing market and the problems associated with housing should not simply be seen through the prism of London and the south-east. Housing markets vary considerably nationwide. Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): I have listened very carefully and I understand the logic of what the hon. Gentleman has said. My only worry and concern is where we are going to get the money to invest in housinginvestment in housing is a good thing. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we would get the money back, but we will not get it back quickly. Jack Dromey: What is happening for certain is that the country is paying the price of failure, with 245 billion more being borrowed because of it. Ultimately, it comes down to this: it is a choice between paying for the costs of failure or investing for success. All the evidence shows in transmission times that investing in house building is the quickest way to get a sluggish economy moving. It would build badly needed homes for people to rent or buy; it would put building workers back to work; it would create apprenticeships and hope for the nearly 1 million young people out of work; it would progressively bring down the cost of housing benefit; and, ultimately, reduce borrowing rather than increase
847 [Jack Dromey]
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
848
it. That is the choice that the Government and the country now face: do we invest public money for failure or invest it to build for success? Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab): My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. Is it not the case that the 25 billion that goes into housing benefit supports rentier capitalism and not entrepreneurial capitalism? Would not that money be better invested in bricks and mortar? One of the solutions that the left and the Labour party have for this problem is to bring in rent controls. Does my hon. Friend agree that rent controls would help to bring down the housing benefit budget? Jack Dromey: I would make two points in response. First, the single biggest factor that would make a difference is, of course, significantly increasing supply. What is so wrong about the Governments approach is that it has been too much focused on demand and not sufficiently focused on supply. On the issue of demand, we have heard criticisms from the IMF, the Treasury Select Committee and others about the impact of Help to Buy on pushing up house prices, without necessarily seeing a significant increase in supply. Secondly, we definitely need to look at a very different type of private rented sector for the future, where quality standards will be raised and where there will be longer-term tenancies and flexibility for those who wish it and security for those who need it. Index-linked rents, for example, could see people having predictable and more affordable rents. If we look at existing evidence of such longer-term tenancies with the indexation of rents, we find that tenants pay significantly less and landlords have a reliable income stream, so it works for good landlords and tenants alike. The time has come for a very different private rented sector in the future. Sometimes we refer to the continental modelof security, affordability and higher quality, where people enjoy a higher status in a sector of choicenot what we have at the moment. Millions of people will have waited for last weeks comprehensive spending review with hope, but their hopes have been dashed. What we had was hyperbole from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I have to say that I sat gobsmacked at his contribution. When it comes to writing the history of hyperbole, he will deserve a chapter of his own, as we have heard it all before. The simple reality is that this Governments housing policies, like their economic policies, have failed and will continue to fail. Whether it be First Buy, NewBuy or Help to Buy, the British people know from experience that getting a decent home at a price they can afford and getting Britain building once again will ultimately mean sending this message to this Government at the next general electiongoodbye. Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab): Let me begin by drawing attention to my interests as declared in the Register of Members Financial Interests. I am very pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who made a powerful and persuasive speech about the importance of expanded investment in housing, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), who presented a masterful overview of the whole range of housing expenditure.
6.15 pm The state of the housing market in Britain today can only cause alarm, for a variety of reasons. Output is far below the level that would enable it to meet the current need, and that is bad for people who are themselves in need. It is bad for people who want to buy their homes but find it impossible to do so at prices that they can afford; it is bad for people who are looking for social housing, because the waiting lists are overstretched and the supply is inadequate; and it is desperately bad for people who risk homelessness. The number of homeless people has, alarmingly, been rising in the last three years, after, it must be said, a period during which there was enormous success in driving down the level of homelessness. The state of the market is also bad for people in private rented housing, which, curiously, is the one of the few success stories of recent housing history. The amount of private rented housing has increased, but unfortunately it has increased on the back of very steep rent increases. That has created a huge problem for people who simply cannot afford to pay such rents without the help of housing benefit, and it has created a real problem for the Government. All the Governments rhetoric is about reducing housing benefit, but the policy that is being promoted by both the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government is leading to increased calls for it. Increased dependence on private renting and higher rents in the social housing sector, both of which are explicit policies of the DCLG, inevitably drive increased demand for housing benefit. The Government have got themselves into an extraordinary mess. One arm of Government is talking about cutting housing benefit, while the other is deliberately fuelling demand for it. Graham Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Treasury does not seem to be taking account of evidence which shows that the cost of private renting housing, per unit, is roughly twice the cost of social housing? At that rate, the more reliance there is on the private rented sector, the higher the housing benefit will be. Mr Raynsford: I entirely agree. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington pointed out, it is important to support the private rented sector, but it must be helped to do the job it does best, which is providing for people whose incomes are higher than the incomes of those who have traditionally depended on social housing. The Government have created a problem for themselves by trying to use the private rented sector, with high rents, as a substitute for social housing, with lower rents. That is inevitably a recipe for more dependence on housing benefit. It traps people who are dependent on benefit, which is bad for them, and it increases the bill for housing benefit. What we need are policies that encourage both the growth of a private rented sector for people who can afford to pay a market rent for their housing and will not be dependent on benefit, and, in parallel, the revival of a social housing sector that meets the needs of those who require housing at sub-market rents. Sheila Gilmore: Sometimes the issue of private rents is presented as though it involved people living in mansions, but many of those high private rents are actually charged
849
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
850
in former council properties. Ironically, two tenants living next door to each other may both be receiving housing benefit, but the rents involved may be very different. People who are not living in mansions are simply having to pay high rents. Mr Raynsford: My hon. Friend has made a fair point about the fact that the rise in rent levels means that many people are paying above the odds for accommodation that is not particularly good. However, that is a product of shortage. We need an increased supply of good-quality private rented housing which commands a market rent. There will be people who are perfectly happy to pay that rent, and to benefit from good-quality accommodation as a result. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington said, we need to bear down on exploitative landlords who are letting sub-standard properties and charging above the odds for them. We also need to ensure that councils and housing associations provide an adequate supply of alternative housing for people who genuinely cannot afford to pay a market rent, and who would otherwise be left either dependent on housing benefit or homeless. Ian Mearns: My right hon. Friend is making some very powerful points. The private rented housing market is very diverse, but in areas like mine in Gateshead in the north-east of England, where we have a substantial private rented sector, unfortunately much of the property in that sector is housing of last resort and people are having to pay inflated rents for itrents that are much higher than they would have to pay for much higher-quality socially rented housing in the neighbourhood. Mr Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a very good point that again illustrates just how dire the consequences of current policies are for people in need of housing. If the current housing policy and current housing market are bad news for people in housing need, they are also bad for the economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington rightly emphasised, there would be huge economic benefits from an expanded house building programme. Not only would we see an increase in employment and demand for materials, most of which are sourced within the UK, but there would be huge impacts on the supply chain. Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab): I agree with what my right hon. Friend is saying. Does he agree that there would be a particular impact on young people? There are more than 1 million young people in this country who are desperately in need of a job. Many young people in Wigan were employed in the construction industry and on apprenticeships before this Government came to power, so they would experience a very positive effect from the changes he is describing. Mr Raynsford: I entirely agree. I happen to be the president of Youthbuild UK, which is one of the bodies that has been campaigning specifically for more effective opportunities for young people, in particular disadvantaged youngsters, to get the training and skills necessary to secure employment in the construction industry. I wholly endorse what my hon. Friend says.
There are benefits in terms of the economy. There are benefits in terms of employment. There are wider supply chain benefits. I am thinking in particular of all the industries that provide the materials, furniture, furnishings and equipment that go into houses when they are built. When people move into a house, they need carpets, furniture and various fittings, and all of that additional demand will be good for the UK economy. There is therefore a real multiplier effect from an expanded house building programme. It is not just about new homes. As has been said, it is also about retrofitting existing homes that are in poor condition. Here the Government have got themselves into another mess, but not through lack of a good idea. The idea behind the green deal is a sound one: that we try to put in place a mechanism that enables people to borrow the money required to fund improvements in the energy efficiency of their home and they can then pay for that out of the savings they make through reduced bills because the home demands less energy. That is in principle a very good idea. The problem is that the scheme the Government have managed to come up with after quite a long gestation period has proved so complex, opaque and financially disadvantageous that it is at present struggling to get any takers. I admire the ambition displayed by the Minister responsible for the scheme in trying to get it off the ground. He has put a huge amount of effort into trying to promote it, but as it is currently constituted it is simply not attracting the interest of the British public, and without doing that it will not fly, so we will have a continuation of the problems of energy inefficient homes that are bad for the environment because they pour out unnecessary carbon emissions. That will be bad for the fuel poor who end up paying more for fuel than they need to, and it will be bad for the construction industry because all those potential jobs in retrofitting existing homes will not be taken up. Graham Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is an indictment of the Governments shambolic housing policy that they rejected the idea that private landlords should in the near future be forced to implement the green deal and energy efficiency measures in properties? The Government have put that backstop date back to 2018, which allows private landlords still to have houses that do not meet the lowest of energy ratings for many years. Mr Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting that, because it is a cause of real concern that the energy efficiency programmes that were in place have come to an end, and as a result of the introduction of the new onesthe green deal and the energy company obligation programmethe level of activity on energy efficiency retrofitting has plummeted. I talked to a housing association, active in my constituency, that has done a magnificent retrofit of about 1,000 properties in Charlton. That has hugely improved the comfort of its tenants, who can now keep warm at much less cost. It has improved the appearance of the estate and has won plaudits from everyone, and it was done with a work force that included a number of young unemployed people from the area, who were trained specifically to be able to take up the advantages of employment as part of the scheme. It was an admirable
851 [Mr Raynsford]
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
852
scheme. When I was congratulating the housing association on it, the one and only disappointment came when it told me Well of course this was funded under the old community energy saving programmeCESPwhich made it possible and has now ended. We would probably not be able to do this again if we were starting from scratch today. That is an obvious problem. Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab): My right hon. Friend is talking about the ending of schemes. Does he agree that this is not just about renovating properties where people are living, but about the large number of empty properties in boroughs like mine which are crying out to be renovated? They are in places where people want to live, where communities can be recovered in the way he just described, but nobody is living there now. Does he agree that the Government need to revisit the issue of funding for empty properties? Mr Raynsford: The thrust of my whole speech is about the importance of the Government finding more effective measures to stimulate investment in housing in all sectors. That includes bringing empty properties into use, improving the existing substandard housing stock and building new homes that are needed to increase the supply. The case is overwhelming, but, sadly, as the figures cited in this debate so far have shown, the Government are failing to meet the needs. I am not going to go into that in detail, because it has already been covered. I wish to draw attention to the new homes bonus. It an extraordinary scheme, and our Front-Bench spokesperson made some pertinent remarks about it. It was launched by the Government as, supposedly, the panacea for the problem of opposition among some local communities to new house building in their area. The theory was that if a financial incentive was given to councils and to communities for agreeing to build new homes, we would get a different attitudewe would have enthusiasm for new house building rather than hostility. And so the new homes bonus was launched. The new homes bonus is a very expensive scheme. As the National Audit Office report demonstrates, it is costing 668 million in the current year, but that is due to rise to 905 million next year, to 1.1 billion in 2015 and on beyond that, because it is a cumulative bonus that is paid for a six-year period. I have given only the individual one-year costs. When we add in the cumulative costs derived from previous years awards, we find that by 2018-19that is six years ahead, so at the end of the six-year periodon current trends, expenditure on the scheme would be 7.5 billion. It is a very, very expensive use of public money, which is mostly taken from local authorities. The Government talk about it as though it is a Government scheme, but they are putting in only 250 million a year, with the rest coming as a top-slice from local government funding. Graham Jones: My right hon. Friend is making a strong argument about the new homes bonus, which is top-sliced from local authorities and given back to those who build. On other policies, such as empty homes and retrofitting, local authorities that have had their income reduced substantially, and are in low-demand areas like mine and unable to build new homes, encounter
a perverse incentive, whereby a slew of issues, such as empty homes and dealing with the private rented sector, cannot be dealt with. The money is simply given to authorities that are cash rich and are building more homes, and it is not really in their interests to build any more because they have got enough money. 6.30 pm Mr Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The NAO made an absolutely damning commentI am astonished that the Government have not looked at this one sentence and said that they clearly need to reconsider the scheme. It is, quite simply:
We found no association between individual local authorities planning application approval rates and their numbers of homes qualifying for the Bonus.
There we have it: the NAO can find no correlation between the granting of planning consent and the awarding of the bonus, yet that is what it is supposed to doit is supposed to incentivise councils to improve their performance in granting planning consent. No wonder the Government are embarrassed. Rather than doing what they ought to by carrying out a thorough and quick review of the scheme and winding it up if it is proved to be as ineffective as the NAO indicates, the Government have done another extraordinary thing and announced in the spending review last week that they will take 400 million of new homes bonus money and transfer it to local enterprise partnerships. It is not their own moneyonly 250 million is Government money, and the other 150 million would otherwise have been paid to local government. It will now go to the LEPs. Whatever happened to localism? I thought the Governments mantra when they came into office was that they would allow more decisions to be taken locally. This decision muddies the waters and it will be even more confusing to work out where the money goes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) pointed out, there is already gross inequality between different parts of the country, many of which are contributing to the new homes bonus and getting nothing out of it while others, which have done nothing to improve their housing performance because they already have a high demand for housing and because it is already been built in those areas, benefit from the scheme. It is a most extraordinary scheme and it will be made even more opaque and confusing. Clearly, such a scheme has no prospect of achieving the incentive effect it was supposed to achieve. John Healey: My right hon. Friend has put his finger on it. There is not an economic rationale for the policy, but a political one. Essentially, it is a stealth redistribution from poor areas to wealthier ones with a more active, buoyant and successful housing market. Mr Raynsford: My right hon. Friend, as always, is very acute and he realises that this is a political move. The change is being introduced with no analysis and no evidence baseit is a political move that will have significant redistributional consequences in favour of some areas at the expense of others, paying no regard whatever to the principles of localism that the Government used to proclaim.
853
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
854
John Healey: May I tempt my right hon. Friend to reflect on one other aspect of the subject he just touched on? If his figures are rightI am sure they areby 2017-18 this will cost 7.5 billion in total. That cannot be described as a top-slice from local government as it represents almost a third of the total local government expenditure in England. The proposal will fundamentally destabilise the whole system of local government funding within five to six years. Mr Raynsford: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point, and it is a further argument for the serious and thorough evidence-based review of the subject that the Government ought to be undertaking. It is shameful that they are continuing to tinker with this failed scheme at a time when there is such an urgent need for the limited funds that are available to be used to best effect to stimulate investment in housing and to have the beneficial economic effects that my hon. Friends and I have been talking about. The amendment specifically calls for a review of the operation of REITs and their interaction with the housing market. That is important because the scale of investment necessary to secure the level of house building and home improvement we need will require a combination of public and private investment. We must therefore have measures that encourage more private investment in both private and social rented housing. Institutional investment in private renting has been a bit of a holy grail for many years for people who saw it as a way of ensuring an improved private rented sector driven by responsible investors who would be keen to see high standards of investment and management. Graham Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way once again. Will he congratulate my local Labour authority, Hyndburn borough council, which has private institutional investors? The council has got a pension company to invest in private lets to the tune of 14 million and is using that capital to regenerate and provide affordable housing for rent for people who need it. Does he not agree that there should be more such schemes in the UK? That flagship programme has appeared on many television programmes and I am proud to say that a Labour authority is doing it. Mr Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a valid point and highlights the fact that throughout the country, there are a series of partnership agreements between the public and private sectors which are successfully helping to attract increased investment to meet social needs. That is what we need to encourage. I very much welcome amendment 57 because it calls for precisely that: it calls for a review of the REITs programme and how it interacts with the housing market. The thinking behind it is entirely about how we can ensure more effective blending of public and private finance to meet housing needs. I have gone on quite long enough, so I will let others contribute. I conclude by saying that current policies are not working. We have a stagnant housing market, which is showing very limited signs of recovery. We have massive unmet needs., and we have huge economic problems which should be addressed by an expanded house building programme. I hope the Government will change course.
Mr Gauke: It is a pleasure to return this debate to the amendments to clause 38 and schedule 18 of the Finance Bill before us. Before I discuss Opposition amendment 57, I shall say a few words about amendments 30 to 34, which are designed to ensure that clause 38 and schedule 18 work as intended. The clause and the schedule make improvements to the REITs regime. This years Finance Bill improves the REITs regime by allowing a UK REIT to treat income from another UK REIT as income of its tax-exempt property rental business. Therefore these amendments do not affect the policy, but rather ensure that it works as intended. The change would generate positive benefits for the REIT industry, and also meets the Governments wider objectives. Let me provide some background. During the technical consultation in February, stakeholders told us that the changes as drafted might not work quite as intended. HMRC has consulted further with interested parties, and we agree that minor changes are necessary to achieve the desired policy aims. The problem, as presented by interested parties, concerned the balance of business test, which requires that at least 75% of the REITs profits must come from a property business. Interested parties were concerned that in certain circumstances, a REIT that invests in another REIT might fail that test even though the lower-tier REIT derives all of its income from a property business. Consideration of the issue has revealed that minor amendments are required both to the new and the pre-existing legislation. These amendments together will ensure that the Bills changes correctly implement the intended policy, which is that profits of a property rental business comprising the new type of tax-exempt income do not include amounts attributable to capital allowances and other tax adjustments. Turning to Opposition amendment 57, we have had a very broad debate this afternoon. Indeed, it has felt more like an Opposition day debate on housing than a debate on the clause and the schedule. The amendment proposes that the schedule shall come into force after the Chancellor has conducted a review of the interaction of REITs with the housing market, and I hope to address the issue of REITS and the housing market in my remarks. Cathy Jamieson: I hoped the Minister would understand that the nature of the debate reflected Opposition Members genuine concerns about the Governments record on housing. But specifically on REITs, when he responds to the arguments in favour of the review, will he be able to say something more about the future of REITs and social housing? Mr Gauke: The hon. Lady can rest assured that I will address that very point, if not necessarily every point made in the wide-ranging debate. The proposal set out in amendment 57 is that
The Review shall considertax measures in place to support house building; andwhat steps HM Government have taken to support house building
but the Governments view is that there is no need to postpone the changes to the REIT regime, as the proposed review would add little value at this time. There is something of a routine here of the hon. Lady requesting a review and me turning it down, and she asks so nicely that I feel almost pained in doing so, but the reason we believe in this case that a review would add very little is
855 [Mr Gauke]
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
856
that there are not yet any REITs with substantial housing assets on the market, so it is too early to assess any interaction of REITs with the housing market. We do not accept the amendment and I urge her not to press it to a vote. The new changes to the REIT regime are an example of tax measures to support house building. As REITs represent the supply side of the property market, any improvements to the REIT regime are expected to have a positive impact on the market. The hon. Lady made a couple of points on how the REIT regime works: the first, which I believe we touched on in Committee, was whether the regime could support people who want to own their own home. It is worth pointing out that residential REITs can provide accommodation only in the private rented sector, so they are not designed, nor could they be used, for the purpose of home ownership. The second point, on which the hon. Lady intervened, was on the relationship with social housing and what role REITS could play in that sector. There was full consultation in summer 2012 involving a number of one-to-one and group meetings with interested parties in the social housing sector. The reality is that yields on, for example, affordable rents do not appear to be high enough to attract investors into that sector, but I assure her that discussions are ongoing with non-social housing entities and other interested parties to explore the possibility of residential REITs. If a workable residential model can be found, it might be possible to use it to further a move into social housing, and we certainly would not rule that out. At the moment there appears to be no interest in using REITs for those purposes, but we are entirely pragmatic about that. We believe that REITs have a valuable role to play and we do not want to delay the implementation of the schedule while we conduct a review from which there is little to be gained. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment. We discussed wider housing policy, but I do not intend to be drawn into a lengthy, general debate on housing. I just point out that we announced 5.4 billion of additional support for housing in the last Budget, building on the 11 billion this Government have already committed to investment in housing over the spending review period. Last weeks spending round announcement confirmed a total of 5.1 billion-worth of investment to support housing in England from 2015-16 to 2017-18; 3.3 billion of that new funding is for affordable housing over those years and will support the delivery of 165,000 new affordable homes in England over the next three years. I can also point out some of the recent housing numbers. Housing building starts in England rose by 4% in Q1 2013, seasonally adjusted. Housing starts are 15% higher than in the same quarter last year. Starts are now 62% above the 2009 trough. Graham Jones: Will the Minister give way? Mr Gauke: No, I want to give the hon. Lady a moment or two at the end of the debate to respond to the points that I make.
The amendments before us, alongside the changes that already form part of the Bill, show the Governments continued support for REITs and the UK property sector. I believe the Government amendments will be welcomed by interested parties. The delay that would result from Opposition amendment 57 would be unfortunate and I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw it. Cathy Jamieson: I find myself in the same slightly pained position that the Minister described. He said no so nicely, as he normally does, that I hesitate to come back with extremely critical comments. I am disappointed once again that he has not heeded our arguments, especially the argument for a review and a look at how the wider tax regime deals with housing issues. 6.45 pm As I said earlier, we did not seek in Committee to strike clause 38 or the schedule from the Bill, but we considered it opportune for the Government to consider a wider review. The Minister said that our debate had gone wider than real estate investment trusts. That is true, and it is because the Opposition are so concerned about the Governments lamentable record on housing. I was disappointed that the Minister did not see fit to deal with some of the issues that were raised, particularly the criticisms arising from the work of the Treasury Committee on the Help to Buy scheme and National Audit Office report on the new homes bonus. I noticed also that the Minister was not tempted to respond to the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends about forward planning, housing strategy, how that would be funded, especially for people who require care and support, and accommodation suited to the elderly. I am disappointed that once again the Government have come up with warm words, as I mentioned during the debate. Although the Minister said very nicely that he would not have a review, that is exactly the same mantra as we have heard from the Government all the way through the Bill. On every occasion when we simply wanted the Government to scrutinise their policies and report back to the House, they have refused to do so. For that reason, I unfortunately cannot accommodate the Ministers request to withdraw the amendment. I can see that he is terribly disappointed but not surprised. I therefore intend to press the amendment to a Division. Question put, That the amendment be made. The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 301. Division No. 41]
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane Abrahams, Debbie Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob Alexander, rh Mr Douglas Alexander, Heidi Ali, Rushanara Allen, Mr Graham Anderson, Mr David Ashworth, Jonathan Austin, Ian Bailey, Mr Adrian Bain, Mr William Balls, rh Ed Banks, Gordon Barron, rh Mr Kevin Bayley, Hugh Beckett, rh Margaret Begg, Dame Anne Benn, rh Hilary Benton, Mr Joe Berger, Luciana Betts, Mr Clive Blackman-Woods, Roberta Blenkinsop, Tom Blomeld, Paul Blunkett, rh Mr David Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben Brennan, Kevin Brown, Lyn Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
[6.49 pm
857
Brown, Mr Russell Bryant, Chris Buck, Ms Karen Burden, Richard Byrne, rh Mr Liam Campbell, Mr Alan Campbell, Mr Ronnie Caton, Martin Champion, Sarah Chapman, Jenny Clark, Katy Clarke, rh Mr Tom Clwyd, rh Ann Coaker, Vernon Coffey, Ann Connarty, Michael Cooper, Rosie Cooper, rh Yvette Corbyn, Jeremy Creagh, Mary Creasy, Stella Cruddas, Jon Cryer, John Cunningham, Alex Cunningham, Mr Jim Cunningham, Sir Tony Curran, Margaret Dakin, Nic Danczuk, Simon David, Wayne Davidson, Mr Ian Davies, Geraint De Piero, Gloria Denham, rh Mr John Dobbin, Jim Dobson, rh Frank Docherty, Thomas Dodds, rh Mr Nigel Donohoe, Mr Brian H. Doran, Mr Frank Doughty, Stephen Dowd, Jim Doyle, Gemma Dromey, Jack Dugher, Michael Durkan, Mark Eagle, Ms Angela Eagle, Maria Edwards, Jonathan Efford, Clive Ellman, Mrs Louise Esterson, Bill Evans, Chris Farrelly, Paul Field, rh Mr Frank Fitzpatrick, Jim Flello, Robert Gapes, Mike Gardiner, Barry Gilmore, Sheila Glass, Pat Glindon, Mrs Mary Godsiff, Mr Roger Goggins, rh Paul Goodman, Helen Greatrex, Tom Green, Kate Greenwood, Lilian Griffith, Nia Gwynne, Andrew Hain, rh Mr Peter Hamilton, Fabian
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Qureshi, Yasmin Raynsford, rh Mr Nick Reed, Mr Jamie Reynolds, Emma Reynolds, Jonathan Ritchie, Ms Margaret Robertson, Angus Robertson, John Robinson, Mr Geoffrey Rotheram, Steve Roy, Lindsay Ruane, Chris Ruddock, rh Dame Joan Sarwar, Anas Sawford, Andy Seabeck, Alison Shannon, Jim Sharma, Mr Virendra Sheerman, Mr Barry Sheridan, Jim Shuker, Gavin Simpson, David Skinner, Mr Dennis Slaughter, Mr Andy Smith, rh Mr Andrew Smith, Owen Spellar, rh Mr John Stringer, Graham
Finance Bill
Stuart, Ms Gisela Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry Tami, Mark Thornberry, Emily Timms, rh Stephen Trickett, Jon Turner, Karl Twigg, Derek Twigg, Stephen Umunna, Mr Chuka Vaz, rh Keith Walley, Joan Watts, Mr Dave Whiteford, Dr Eilidh Whitehead, Dr Alan Williams, Hywel Williamson, Chris Wilson, Phil Winnick, Mr David Winterton, rh Ms Rosie Wishart, Pete Wood, Mike Woodcock, John Wright, David Wright, Mr Iain
858
Hanson, rh Mr David Harris, Mr Tom Healey, rh John Hermon, Lady Hillier, Meg Hilling, Julie Hodgson, Mrs Sharon Hoey, Kate Hopkins, Kelvin Howarth, rh Mr George Hunt, Tristram Irranca-Davies, Huw Jackson, Glenda James, Mrs Sin C. Jamieson, Cathy Jarvis, Dan Johnson, rh Alan Johnson, Diana Jones, Graham Jones, Helen Jones, Mr Kevan Joyce, Eric Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald Keeley, Barbara Kendall, Liz Khan, rh Sadiq Lammy, rh Mr David Lavery, Ian Leslie, Chris Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma Long, Naomi Love, Mr Andrew Lucas, Caroline Lucas, Ian MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan Mactaggart, Fiona Mahmood, Shabana Malhotra, Seema Mann, John Marsden, Mr Gordon McCabe, Steve McCann, Mr Michael McCarthy, Kerry McClymont, Gregg McDonagh, Siobhain McDonald, Andy McFadden, rh Mr Pat McGovern, Alison McGuire, rh Mrs Anne McKechin, Ann McKenzie, Mr Iain McKinnell, Catherine Meacher, rh Mr Michael Meale, Sir Alan Mearns, Ian Miller, Andrew Moon, Mrs Madeleine Morden, Jessica Morrice, Graeme (Livingston) Mudie, Mr George Murphy, rh Mr Jim Murphy, rh Paul Murray, Ian Nandy, Lisa Nash, Pamela Onwurah, Chi Osborne, Sandra Owen, Albert Pearce, Teresa Perkins, Toby Phillipson, Bridget Pound, Stephen

Mr Frank Roy and Susan Elan Jones
NOES
Adams, Nigel Afriyie, Adam Aldous, Peter Alexander, rh Danny Andrew, Stuart Arbuthnot, rh Mr James Baker, Steve Baldry, Sir Tony Baldwin, Harriett Barclay, Stephen Baron, Mr John Barwell, Gavin Bebb, Guto Beith, rh Sir Alan Bellingham, Mr Henry Beresford, Sir Paul Berry, Jake Bingham, Andrew Binley, Mr Brian Birtwistle, Gordon Blackwood, Nicola Blunt, Mr Crispin Bone, Mr Peter Bradley, Karen Brady, Mr Graham Brake, rh Tom Bray, Angie Brazier, Mr Julian Bridgen, Andrew Brine, Steve Brooke, Annette Browne, Mr Jeremy Bruce, Fiona Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm Buckland, Mr Robert Burley, Mr Aidan Burns, Conor Burns, rh Mr Simon Burrowes, Mr David Burstow, rh Paul Byles, Dan Cairns, Alun Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Carmichael, Neil Carswell, Mr Douglas Chishti, Rehman Clappison, Mr James Clark, rh Greg Clegg, rh Mr Nick Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Coffey, Dr Thrse Collins, Damian Colvile, Oliver Cox, Mr Geoffrey Crabb, Stephen Crockart, Mike Crouch, Tracey Davey, rh Mr Edward Davies, David T. C. (Monmouth) Davies, Glyn Davies, Philip Davis, rh Mr David Dinenage, Caroline Djanogly, Mr Jonathan Dorries, Nadine Doyle-Price, Jackie Drax, Richard Duddridge, James Duncan, rh Mr Alan Dunne, Mr Philip Ellis, Michael Ellison, Jane Ellwood, Mr Tobias Elphicke, Charlie Eustice, George Evans, Graham Evans, Jonathan Evennett, Mr David Fabricant, Michael Farron, Tim Featherstone, Lynne
859
Field, Mark Fox, rh Dr Liam Francois, rh Mr Mark Freeman, George Freer, Mike Fuller, Richard Garnier, Mark Gauke, Mr David George, Andrew Gibb, Mr Nick Gilbert, Stephen Glen, John Goldsmith, Zac Goodwill, Mr Robert Gove, rh Michael Graham, Richard Grant, Mrs Helen Gray, Mr James Grayling, rh Chris Green, rh Damian Greening, rh Justine Grieve, rh Mr Dominic Griffiths, Andrew Gummer, Ben Gyimah, Mr Sam Halfon, Robert Hames, Duncan Hammond, rh Mr Philip Hancock, Matthew Hancock, Mr Mike Hands, Greg Harper, Mr Mark Harrington, Richard Harris, Rebecca Hart, Simon Harvey, Sir Nick Hayes, rh Mr John Heald, Oliver Heath, Mr David Heaton-Harris, Chris Hemming, John Henderson, Gordon Hendry, Charles Herbert, rh Nick Hinds, Damian Hoban, Mr Mark Hollingbery, George Hollobone, Mr Philip Holloway, Mr Adam Hopkins, Kris Horwood, Martin Howell, John Hughes, rh Simon Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy Hunter, Mark Jackson, Mr Stewart James, Margot Javid, Sajid Jenkin, Mr Bernard Johnson, Gareth Johnson, Joseph Jones, Andrew Jones, rh Mr David Jones, Mr Marcus Kawczynski, Daniel Kelly, Chris Kirby, Simon Knight, rh Mr Greg Kwarteng, Kwasi Laing, Mrs Eleanor Lamb, Norman Lancaster, Mark
Finance Bill
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew Latham, Pauline Laws, rh Mr David Leadsom, Andrea Lee, Jessica Lee, Dr Phillip Leech, Mr John Lefroy, Jeremy Leigh, Sir Edward Leslie, Charlotte Letwin, rh Mr Oliver Lewis, Dr Julian Lilley, rh Mr Peter Lloyd, Stephen Lord, Jonathan Loughton, Tim Luff, Peter Lumley, Karen Main, Mrs Anne Maude, rh Mr Francis May, rh Mrs Theresa Maynard, Paul McCartney, Jason McCartney, Karl McIntosh, Miss Anne McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick McPartland, Stephen McVey, Esther Menzies, Mark Mercer, Patrick Metcalfe, Stephen Miller, rh Maria Mills, Nigel Mordaunt, Penny Morgan, Nicky Morris, Anne Marie Morris, James Mosley, Stephen Mulholland, Greg Munt, Tessa Murray, Sheryll Neill, Robert Newmark, Mr Brooks Newton, Sarah Nokes, Caroline Nuttall, Mr David OBrien, rh Mr Stephen Offord, Dr Matthew Ollerenshaw, Eric Opperman, Guy Paice, rh Sir James Patel, Priti Paterson, rh Mr Owen Pawsey, Mark Penning, Mike Penrose, John Percy, Andrew Perry, Claire Phillips, Stephen Pickles, rh Mr Eric Pincher, Christopher Poulter, Dr Daniel Prisk, Mr Mark Pugh, John Raab, Mr Dominic Reckless, Mark Redwood, rh Mr John Rees-Mogg, Jacob Reevell, Simon Reid, Mr Alan Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
Teather, Sarah Thornton, Mike Thurso, John Timpson, Mr Edward Tomlinson, Justin Truss, Elizabeth Turner, Mr Andrew Tyrie, Mr Andrew Uppal, Paul Vaizey, Mr Edward Vara, Mr Shailesh Vickers, Martin Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa Walker, Mr Charles Walker, Mr Robin Walter, Mr Robert Ward, Mr David Watkinson, Dame Angela Weatherley, Mike Webb, Steve Wharton, James Wheeler, Heather White, Chris Whittaker, Craig Whittingdale, Mr John Wiggin, Bill Willetts, rh Mr David Williams, Mr Mark Williams, Stephen Williamson, Gavin Wilson, Mr Rob Wollaston, Dr Sarah Wright, Jeremy Wright, Simon Young, rh Sir George Zahawi, Nadhim
860
Robertson, rh Hugh Robertson, Mr Laurence Rogerson, Dan Rosindell, Andrew Rudd, Amber Russell, Sir Bob Rutley, David Sanders, Mr Adrian Sandys, Laura Scott, Mr Lee Selous, Andrew Shapps, rh Grant Sharma, Alok Shelbrooke, Alec Shepherd, Sir Richard Simpson, Mr Keith Skidmore, Chris Smith, Miss Chloe Smith, Henry Smith, Julian Smith, Sir Robert Soames, rh Nicholas Soubry, Anna Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline Spencer, Mr Mark Stanley, rh Sir John Stephenson, Andrew Stevenson, John Stewart, Bob Stewart, Iain Stewart, Rory Streeter, Mr Gary Stride, Mel Stuart, Mr Graham Sturdy, Julian Swales, Ian Swayne, rh Mr Desmond Swinson, Jo Swire, rh Mr Hugo Syms, Mr Robert

Anne Milton and Jenny Willott
Question accordingly negatived. 7.4 pm More than four and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, 1 July). The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E). Schedule 18 REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS: UK REITS WHICH INVEST IN OTHER UK REITS Amendments made: 30, page 310, line 36, at end insert
(1A) After subsection (4) insert (4A) In the case of a group, for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) a distribution falling within section 549A(5) or (7) received by a member of the group is to be treated as profits of a property rental business in accordance with section 549A(1) notwithstanding section 549A(4A). (4B) In the case of a company, for the purposes of subsections (1) and (3) a distribution falling within section 549A(5) or (7) received by the company is to be treated as profits of a property rental business in accordance with section 549A(1) notwithstanding section 549A(4A)..
861
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
862
Amendment 31, page 311, line 9, leave out paragraphs 5 and 6 and insert
5 (1) Section 548 (distributions: liability to tax) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (5) after 2009) insert so far as the distribution is a distribution of exempt profits. (3) In subsection (6) after 2005) insert so far as the distribution is a distribution of exempt profits. (4) After subsection (8) insert (9) This section does not apply in relation to a distribution falling within section 549A(5) or (7) so far as the distribution is a distribution of exempt profits. (10) For the purposes of this Chapter a distribution is a distribution of exempt profits so far as the distribution falls within section 550(2)(a), (aa), (c) or (d). (11) In applying section 550 for the purposes of subsection (10) in relation to a distribution made by the principal company of a post-cessation group or by a post-cessation company (a) subsection (1)(a) is to be read as referring to the principal company of the post-cessation group, or (as the case may be) (b) subsection (1)(b) is to be read as referring to the post-cessation company. 6 (1) Section 549 (distributions: supplementary) is amended as follows. (2) In subsections (2) and (2A) after shareholder insert so far as they are distributions of exempt profits. (3) After subsection (3) insert (3A) Relevant distribution does not include a distribution falling within section 549A(5) or (7) so far as the distribution is a distribution of exempt profits. (4) In subsection (4) after the first shareholder insert (so far as they are distributions of exempt profits)..

(4A) Subsection (1) applies in relation to a distribution only so far as the distribution is a distribution of exempt profits. This is subject to section 531(4A) and (4B)..
Hon. Members might not have spotted the announcement on this matter in the Chancellors Budget in March. It is a little-noticed provision that was buried on page 64 of the Red Book in the table that sets out whether individual policy decisions will mean a gain or a loss to the Exchequer. This decision did not hit the headlines and very few people spotted it. I should look back and see whether the Chancellor even referenced it in his Budget speech. This little-known provision is the abolition of something called the stamp duty reserve tax. It is not quite the same as the stamp duty on share transactions that many hon. Members are familiar with. That is, for want of a better term, a financial transaction tax of 50 basis points or 0.5% on share transactions. The stamp duty reserve tax is the equivalent change that was introduced in schedule 19 to the Finance Act 1999. It is essentially a proxy for stamp duty on the return of units in unit trusts to the investment managers who deal in those transactions. If individuals buy units in unit trusts and then surrender or sell them back to the investment manager, a stamp duty of 0.5% has not unreasonably been paid. The Chancellor, in his wisdom, has decided that that must go. He has decided to forgo the princely sum of 150 million in every financial year henceforth. I am afraid to tell hon. Members that there is a lot of this story to be told. The abolition of stamp duty reserve tax is essentially a decision by the Chancellor to give a tax cut to investment managers. The new clause calls on the Chancellor, within six months of Royal Assent, to publish and lay before the House of Commons a report on the distributional impact of the change detailing who has benefitedwhether it is the lower and middle-income households and families in all our constituencies or the privileged and wealthy investment managers. Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con): Does the shadow Minister not recognise that the abolition of the reserve tax will be a great enhancement to the UK unit trust industry, which has been losing a lot of business to Switzerland, Singapore and elsewhere? Although he has characterised the beneficiaries as being very wealthy, this change will ensure that jobs are retained in this important industry, especially back-office and middleoffice jobs, as it goes from strength to strength in the decades ahead. Chris Leslie: I commend the hon. Gentleman for doing his duty to his constituents in the City of London. I confess that they probably will be right up there among the beneficiaries of this change. He is assiduous in speaking up for his constituents, but I am sure he would concede that they are not exactly typical of people in the rest of the country. The people who engage in investment trust transactions and unit trust arrangements may well benefit from this 150 million tax cut. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was supposedly faced with difficult choices and cuts in the Budget. That he has chosen to give a tax cut of this order at this time is a reflection of his priorities, which are beyond understanding for many Opposition Members. Mark Field: Would the shadow Minister be willing to extend his new clause to ensure that it takes into account what has happened since 1999 when the tax was instituted
Amendment 33, page 312, line 39, leave out 4 and insert 4(2) to (4). Amendment 34, page 312, line 41, leave out subparagraph (2) and insert
(2) Subject to what follows, the amendments made by paragraphs 5 to 7 above have effect in relation to distributions received on or after the day on which this Act is passed. (3) A distribution received by a member of a group UK REIT does not fall within section 549A(5) or (7) of CTA 2010 if it is received in an accounting period of the principal company of the group beginning before the day on which this Act is passed. (4) A distribution received by a company UK REIT does not fall within section 549A(5) or (7) of CTA 2010 if it is received in an accounting period of the company beginning before the day on which this Act is passed..(Mr Gauke.)
New Clause 11 STAMP DUTY RESERVE TAX

The Chancellor shall, within six months of Royal Assent, publish and lay before the House of Commons a report detailing the distributional impact of any changes to or abolition of Schedule 19 to the Finance Act 1999..(Chris Leslie.)
Brought up, and read the First time. Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
863 [Mark Field]
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
864
under the previous Labour Administration? More importantly, would that reflect Britains place in the world and what proportion of the global asset management industry was in Britain in 1999 and is still here today, compared with other countries? That may have a direct impact on why the Chancellor acted as he did in the Budget. Chris Leslie: Times are tough, and for most people in the country life is getting harder. I confess, however, that I have not been lobbied by or seen those poor, unfortunate City investment managers knocking at my door, coming to my surgeries, or writing e-mails and saying, Please, the one thing we need is the abolition of the stamp duty reserve tax. There is massive hardship among investment managers at this time, which demands a 150 million tax giveaway.Frankly, I think the investment management community is doing reasonably well relative to the rest of the country. Moreover, I do not think that the City of London is uncompetitive. Indeed, all the evidence suggests the opposite and that the City continues to thrive and do exceptionally wellsomething like 5 trillion in funds is under the management of those investment managers affected by this tax change, and a tax cut of 150 million quid is small change to that community. We are having this debate because we need to know why the Chancellor decided on this prioritycui bono would be the Latin adage. In whose interest is this? Who benefits from this change? I doubt it is my constituents in Nottingham East, and Government Members must forgive me if I am left with a slightly bitter taste in my mouth when we see the hardship caused by cuts to tax credits, the increase in VAT and the bedroom tax. The Chancellor says that individuals affected by those things must feel the pain and the squeeze, but when it comes to the City and the investment management community, I do not see how they are all in it together or sharing that anxiety. Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab): Yet again I am back on my old hobby-horse about the economy. If this measure is passed and people benefit from it, what will that do to the local economy? Will we see massive spending on our high streets? Will it help to regenerate the economy? Chris Leslie: Dare I say that my hon. Friend knows the answer to his question? I do not think it will make a blind bit of difference to the successor otherwiseof the investment management community, and I have seen no evidence from the Government that this measure is the thing that will transform the economy at this time, or make a massive difference to jobs and growth in society at large. Let me put this in context: 150 million is a lot of money. In fact, it is exactly the same amount that the Chancellor cut from young mothers when he abolished the health in pregnancy granthon. Members will remember from the Chancellors first Budget that the health in pregnancy grant was given to mums-to-be to ensure they ate healthily and had a little help at that time. That was slashed; that had to go because 150 million had to be saved, yet in next years Budget the Chancellor
is introducing a 150 million tax cut for the investment management community. That is about the same amount of money as was cut from the child tax credit supplement for one and two-year-olds in that original Budget. In fact, it is about the same amount of money that the pasty tax and the caravan tax were supposed to saveI am sure the Minister will remember that from the ill-fated omnishambles 2012 Budget. All the hassle that fell on the Chancellors shoulders at that time was due to saving 150 million. In that context, this is a strange choice by a strange Chancellor. Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is making a strong point. Does he, like me, think that people will be bemused by this measure when the Government voted recently against a reasonable motion on an international financial transaction tax? When people see those two things, as well as the bedroom tax, what will they make of this Government? 7.15 pm Chris Leslie: We had that debate on a financial transaction tax a few weeks ago. I think we managed to extricate from the Minister, despite his reluctance, a suggestion that somehow, somewhere, buried in the Government, there was still some flicker of interest in a financial transaction tax. I am not sure whether it has been snuffed out by this particular measure. If this is the abolition of stamp duty on unit trust transactions, what will be next? What else will they give away to this particular set of fortunate investors? Will the Minister rule out plans to abolish the other financial transaction tax, the stamp duty on equity transactions? Do the Government have that long-standing financial transaction tax, which has been around for several hundred years, in their sights? Conservatives are second to none when it comes to defending the best interests of the wealthiest in society, and I take my hat off to the Minister for managing to slip this little one through in the Budget provisions without anybody really spotting it. Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): My hon. Friend has already pointed out that this 150 million saving per year for the very richest should be compared with the bedroom tax saving of 450 million from the very poorest. The difference between the two measures is that the bedroom tax is hitting thousands upon thousands of the poorest people. The bedroom tax costs about 10 per week, and I have had people tell me that their disposable income is being reduced from 30 to 20 per week. With this tax, the 150 million saving is going to a very small number of people who will receive a large amount of money. These are the choices we face in Britain today. Does my hon. Friend think that that is disgraceful? Chris Leslie: I am more disappointed that the Government think they can get away with it. I want very much to hear the Minister defend this decision. I am sure he will do so with gusto and alacrity, as ever, but I know that deep insidethe record will reflect that I am looking into his eyeshe realises that this is a completely daft idea. This is not a priority at this time. It is a crazy priority when the public are struggling, and I know that in his heart of hearts he agrees with me. It is not clear where this idea has come from. I saw something
865
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
866
on the Deloitte website that said there had been many decades of lobbying in favour of this particular change. Perhaps the lobbying is something that the Treasury has eventually succumbed to. When we line this measure up alongside other examples of largesse the Government have shown to those who are doing very well, it is notable. We cannot take it out of the context of the paucity of the bank levy, which was supposed to raise 2.5 billion in the previous financial year but did not. Last night, the Minister said that they will try to get 2.7 billion next year instead, but they are already 1.9 billion in arrears from the previous two financial years. It will be more than a decade before they are able to recoup the loss. It was notable last night that he did not say that he was certain that 2.5 billion would be brought in from financial years 2011-12 and 2012-13. I will put the bank levy to one side. After all, what is a couple of billion pounds between friends? The Government refuse to repeat the bank bonus tax, despite the fact that financial services bonuses leapt by 64% in the first month of this year, when all those who benefited from the reduction in the additional top rate of taxearnings over 150,000 were taxed at the 50p rate, but from, I think, 6 April they were taxed at the 45p raterushed out all those bonus payments. Of course, those individuals found ways and means to avoid the higher rate of tax, as the Government helpfully flagged the change up for them far in advance. Geraint Davies: Does that not contrast sharply with the 2 million people in Britain who are on payday loans? They could each be given 70 with that 150 million. They are desperate for the money, but instead these tens and hundreds of thousands of pounds are all focused on, again, the very rich. Does that not speak volumes about the cruel values of the Tories? Chris Leslie: The point is the context in which these things arrive from the Government. Perhaps it is our fault that we have not successfully flagged up for the wider country what exactly is happening in the Budget or what will happen in future Finance Bills; but for the time being, it is incumbent on the Minister to do at least this one thing: let us have the distributional analysis showing who benefits from the change. Which deciles, in terms of the affluence of society, will gain the most from this 150 million tax cut? The case for it has not been made. It has not been high on the public agenda. There is no problem in the City or the investment management community of such significance that it merits this intervention by the Chancellor, at the expense of the health in pregnancy grant or the cuts to tax credits that merited the pasty tax and the caravan tax. This 150 million tax cut is an incredibly important totem of the Chancellors priorities. It is a sign that he does not care about the fact that most peoplethe typical familywill be paying an extra 891 this year because of the tax and benefit changes made since 2010. Those who have found themselves pushed into greater deprivation and poverty will look at the decision and be absolutely disgusted that this is the Governments priority now. This change has no justification. The Minister has not made the case for it. We need more information about who benefits from the arrangement.
All that comes on top of the Governments giveaway on the bank levy, their failure to repeat the bonus tax, the millionaires tax cut from 50p to 45p and other changes hidden in the Bill, such as making the additional tier 1 debt coupon tax deductible for the banks, which The Times described thus: Chancellor to the banks rescue with secret 1 billion tax break. Lots of people will have questions, although not necessarily about this Ministers priorities. He is doing the best of a bad job and having to cope with the hand he has been dealt. He is, I am sure, a decent and honourable chap, but when he goes home this evening, turns on the television and sees the hardship afflicting families up and down the country, I would ask him to keep in mind whether making a tax cut of 150 million for those investment managers was the right call to make at this point in the economic cycle, such as there is a cycle involved. Mr Russell Brown: I come very much from the school that says that if someone is under a bit of pressure and is struggling, it is only right for the Government to try to step in, but I am amazed by the figures. In 2011, the UK fund management industry was up 5%, after doubledigit growth in the previous two years. The industry is not struggling. Why on earth should we consider giving even more money to people who, at the end of the day, are not in desperate need? Chris Leslie: That is the 150 million question. The tax cut is 150 million in the key years, but it goes up to 160 million in financial year 2017-18. It gets greater and greater as time goes on. If we roll all the numbers together, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is wont to do when presenting figures in the Budget, we get a total of 600 million of tax cuts in this area in the Red Book. I am sure that you could think of a good use for 600 million, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the very least, we want a distributional impact assessment. We want to know who will benefit from the measures, and it is incumbent on the Minister to tell the House the facts. Geraint Davies: I have been provoked to stand up and speak on this outrageous stealth tax, which is an attempt to subsidise the very richest in a clandestine way. If hon. Members had known about the 145 million being crept into the back pockets of the very richest people in the City, the Chamber would have been full of Members speaking in protest, as I am doing now. The direction of travel in the Budget and the spending review continues unabated. It consists of blaming the poorest for the bankers errors, punishing them with cuts in public service jobs and wages and cuts in welfare benefits, particularly outside London and the southeastand especially in Walesthen pumping all the infrastructure growth opportunities into London and the south-east, to line the pockets of the very richest, many of whom were responsible for the disaster in the first place. The Government are allegedly trying to balance the books, but they are dismally failing to do so. They have decided to sack 600,000 public sector workers. This is having a disproportionate effect in certain parts of the country. Many parts of Wales, for example, are 50% more likely to have public sector workers than London, and it is in those areas that the cuts are biting deepest. Meanwhile, the money is going to places such as London,
867 [Geraint Davies]
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
868
where the cuts are not so deep, not only in infrastructure investment but in measures such as this one. We are talking about getting rid of stamp duty on transactions in the City of London, where a small community of people will benefit from that tax cut of 145 million a year, and rising. We must set against that the fact that 2 million people are already using payday loans. Dividing the 145 million between those 2 million people would give them about 70 each. Only today, I have been talking to colleagues in Swansea about the emerging problem on our council estates, and on estates generally, of companies setting up shop to take advantage of people in dire need by offering them payday loans. At the same time as the Chancellor announced this cut in stamp duty, he asked the newly unemployed to wait an extra week before receiving their money. That will of course feed the stomachs of the payday loan sharks. Those sharks are not just the well-known wonga people; they are also the new, smaller operations setting up in very poor communities. They hire people in the community, on a commission basis, to persuade their neighbours to take out loans at exorbitant rates of interest that they cannot afford. They then harass them by phoning them in the middle of the night or following them into the supermarket, for example, until they repay the loan. That is the cruel reality of Tory Britain today. Alongside that reality, we have this ghastly attempt to give another 145 million to some of the richest people in the banking community, who were part of the problem in the first place. The alleged justification is to make the City of London more competitive. It appears that these whizz kid City folk, with their red braces, zoom up in their Rolls-Royces to see their old Etonian friends, such as Ministers, and look in awe at them and say, Have another champers, will you, Minister? and all that sort of stuff. 7.30 pm The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark): I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that I went to a comprehensive school in Middlesbrough, not to Eton. Geraint Davies: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman no longer has any school friends. Those who have abandoned the communities from which they came have proposed legislation to punish the poorest and reward the richest, which is a great shame. It is not too late for the Minister to think again about what is fair and right in distributive economics. The reality is that the marginal impact of this change on the competitiveness of the City of London is very small indeed; it is not a serious argument. I can imagine the greed-fuelled lobbyists who come here on behalf of the City to demand an extra 145 million being the sort of people who say, Oh, well, we have got to give these people more money, because otherwise they will leave the country. We have heard all that before. In any case, many of those individuals have all sorts of tax havens, about which the Government pay lip service to investigating. At the same time as we hear alleged concerns about those rich people avoiding tax, the Government say to them, Ill tell you what; heres another 5p off the income
tax. People sometimes ask why there has been a 64% increase in bonuses this year. Could it be because the Government have provoked it, as people move their income from a tax year where they pay 50p to a tax year where they pay 45p? It was completely predictable, and it was even factored into the Treasury figures in the form of behavioural changes. The perverse thing was to hear the argument, Oh, well, we are going to move to 45p instead of 50p because more money can be raised that way. Look, we are going to encourage our mates to move all their money to save tax[Interruption.] That proves that it is an absolute farce. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Geraint Davies: Of course. I was wondering whether the mumbling man was listening to anything, but I shall certainly give way to him. Tim Loughton: There is of course always a temptation not to listen when the hon. Gentleman is on his feet. Does he remember the Finance Bill 1997, on which Committee he and I both served? I remember him making a similarly prejudicial class-bashing speech then and accusing merchant bankers or anyone working in the City as parasites, yet this industry accounts for many billions of pounds of revenue to the Exchequer and employs 1 million people. Does he still hold to that completely outrageous viewfrom what he is saying, it sounds as though he does? Geraint Davies: It is interesting to see that the hon. Gentleman has changed from his red braces to blue bracesand very nice, too! I obviously do not regard the whole City of London and the banking community as parasites, as they are a major engine for exports, growth and productivity in Britain. The issue is about managed capitalism and what is the acceptable face of capitalism. It seems to me that many people on the hon. Gentlemans side are not at all concerned, as more and more money is given to people who have already acquired enormous pots of money. The distribution of income has shifted massively since 2010. We have seen the incomes of a large number of people in the top 10% growing by 5.5% each year over the past two yearsat a time when most people have had pay cuts or pay freezes, certainly in the public sector, or lost their jobs. We have heard the Government boastingthis is their latest creative thoughtthat an extra 1.2 million people are in jobs, yet that has been contradicted by the Office for National Statistics. Even if there were another million extra people in work, with no extra growth and no extra output in the economy, productivity is going down and things are not going well. Nevertheless, the answer from the Government is still to give more and more money to the richest people and less to the poorest, and that is supposed to get us out of the mess, but it does not. This stamp duty on transactions is the tip of an iceberg. I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have come on to describe the entire iceberg rather than the tip at the top, which we are talking about. It is important for people to stand up and be counted on this issue. There is no justification for these extra few buckets of money being thrown in the direction of those who have
869
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
870
most. There is a great need for a more balanced growth strategy, whereby there is investment in infrastructure across the piece and where the opportunities for tax and spend are more fairly spread, so that together we can build a future that works and a future that caresa one-nation Britain of which we can all be proud. I do not think that this suggestion makes sense, so I am very much in favour of putting a halt to this 145 million handout to people who are already rich, as it will not make any appreciable difference to the competitiveness of the City of London. Greg Clark: This has been an astonishing debate. I have a lot of time for the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), but he must have been pretty dozy in recent months if he thinks that this is a Budget measure that has emerged by stealth having hitherto been hidden from view, because it was given considerable prominence in the Chancellors Budget speech. The Chancellor said, in the Chamber,
I also want Britain to be the place where people raise money and invest. Financial services are about much more than banking. In places such as Edinburgh and London we have a world-beating asset management industry, but they are losing business to other places in Europe. We act now with a package of measures to reverse that decline, and we will abolish the schedule 19 tax, which is payable only by UK-domiciled funds.[Official Report, 20 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 939.]
the hon. Member for Nottingham Eastnot just as shadow Financial Secretary, but as a Nottingham Member of Parliamentdid not recognise the important contribution made by investment management in his city. He should be aware that the professional services sector in Nottingham is an important component of the citys economy. Chris Leslie: The Financial Secretary is characterising the Opposition as if we were somehow denigrating the investment management community. Far from it. We are simply asking this question: where is the hardship that justifies 150 million of generosity from the taxpayer at this point in time? Greg Clark: I shall come to that. The hon. Gentleman professed not to recognise the problem that existed. As I have said, given the position that he enjoys, I would expect him to be aware of the long-standing damage to the competitiveness of an industry that employs people in his constituency. There are some very distinguished firms in his constituency. The Nottingham office of Brewin Dolphin has been there for 150 years, and I think that it is a vital component of our regional economy. These are valuable jobs, and they exist throughout the country. The British investment management industry has a strong reputation internationally, yethere we come to the reason for the reformsince 2000, countries such as Luxembourg and Ireland have increased their market share of domiciled funds dramatically in comparison with the United Kingdom. In fact, the UKs share of EU domiciled funds has dwindled to less than half that of Luxembourg and has been overtaken by Ireland. What is the reason for that? It cannot be because the reputation of British fund management has declined, as many of the funds domiciled elsewhere in Europe are in fact managed remotely by fund managers within the UK. It cannot be because the fundamental competitiveness of UK financial services has declined, because we have maintained, and very often increased, our market share in other parts of the financial services industry. For example, twice as many euros are traded in the UK than in the entire eurozone. One of the principal reasons for this competitive decline is a consequenceunintended, I am sureof a change in the tax system that was made in 1999, and whose effect everyone agrees has been deleterious. Schedule 19 of the Finance Act 1999 imposed a special stamp duty reserve taxSDRTon the investment management industry when fund managers match investors leaving a fund and surrendering their units with those joining the fund and purchasing the units. Because the fund manager is not buying any UK shares, no stamp duty reserve tax is payable, but schedule 19 imposes a tax of 0.5% on the fund manager, as if the shares have been bought. Of course, whenever a fund manager buys UK shares within a fund, full stamp duty is paid. As well as being complex and burdensomerequiring frequent tax calculations and returns to be sent to HMRCthere is a major flaw with schedule 19. Anyone who does not wish to pay schedule 19 can simply invest in otherwise identical funds, have them managed by a UK fund manager, but have them domiciled elsewhere, and that is what has happened in recent years. Such a non-UK fund could hold exactly the same equities as a UK fund, and that is happening in large numbers. It could be
However, the measure did not only feature in the Chancellors Budget speech. It was the subject of a press conference, and received quite a lot of publicity on the money pages. I should have thought that the shadow Financial Secretary would be aware of that, and would know what a good reception the proposal was given in the very important financial services industry. Many misconceptions need to be cleared up. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) talked about banking, but this measure has nothing whatever to do with banking. A regrettable consequence of what has happened in recent years is that the financial services sector as a whole has too often been equated with the banking industry and associated with its frequently catastrophic misjudgments and regulatory failures, and people have been tainted unfairly by that association. Just as there are hundreds of thousands of ordinary working people employed by banks who bear no responsibility forindeed, are sickened bysome of the misdeeds that were committed by those at the top before and during the crisis, there are people who work hard for a living elsewhere in financial services, who contribute to our national income, the taxes that pay for our public services and our foreign exchange earnings, and who have certainly not put taxpayers funds at risk in the way that characterised the worst excesses of the banking industry. The investment management industry in this country is a case in point. It employs 30,000 people across the United Kingdom, mostly in areas such as administration, IT and legal services. At least 10,000 of these people, who are directly employed in the sectorI am not talking about those who are ancillary to itare based outside London and the south-east. A large number of them are concentrated in ScotlandI should have thought that the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) would be aware of thatand in the north-west and the north midlands. In fact, 12% of the asset management industry is in Scotland. I am amazed that
871 [Greg Clark]
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
872
managed by a UK fund manager, but the investor wouldby investing in a fund in Luxembourg or Ireland, for instancenot need to pay schedule 19. Why should this matter? [Interruption.] I think the shadow Chief Secretary should take an interest, since he was not aware of the problem to which this is the solution. What are the advantages of having funds domiciled in the UK? First, there are advantages in terms of jobs, particularly in the regional economy. While fund managers can operate from anywhere, most jobs in fund management come from ancillary services and the professional services associated with them. These are high-value jobs in IT, legal services and accountancy support, and they are typically in the jurisdictions in which the funds are domiciled. Secondly, there are advantages in terms of tax revenue. Although schedule 19 imposes SDRT on fund managers matching investors for UK funds, the Exchequer would be advantaged by having more funds domiciled in the UK, as that would involve the paying of income tax, national insurance, VAT, business rates and other taxes by people who would be employed here, rather than in Luxembourg, Ireland and other countries, and corporation tax by the companies supplying ancillary services. Finally, who pays? It is pensioners who pay. Schedule 19 does not come out of the pay of fund managers. It is a cost of business that is invariably passed on to UK investors. It comes out of the returns and lessens the funds that are otherwise available. Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con): My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and I am listening with great interest. Is there not a further point in that, given that the Government have just started rolling out auto-enrolment, many lower paid workers across the country have a real interest in the health of the fund management industries for their pensions, and probably want their money managed in the UK rather than Luxembourg? Greg Clark: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is absolutely right. Already 81% of investors in UK funds are pension funds or insurers, meaning that peoples income in retirement is impaired and fewer funds are available for investment in the real economy. Two-thirds of individuals approaching retirement are contributing to a pension fund from where these charges are taken, and the introduction of automatic enrolment will mean that many more ordinary working people will be saving into a pension for the first time and will be affected. So there is a double imperative to act now to correct this situation in which funds are moving from being domiciled by choice in this country to overseas. First, any continuing loss of competitiveness by the UK fund management industry risks destroying, possibly for ever, the critical mass and prominent global position that the industry has had. Secondly, we are on the cusp of a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the UK fund management industry, and, with it, the UK economy, because in July the EUs alternative investment fund managers directive comes into force, creating a much more effective single market across Europe in fund management. It is estimated that 250 billion of funds
may be available for the UK, and other competitors, to play host to. That is to say nothing of the significant growth shown in the emerging economies, where a burgeoning middle class is looking to make investments for which the EU is an attractive home. 7.45 pm The opportunity for the UK to attract those funds depends on the abolition of schedule 19. That is why the Budget proposed, in pretty high-profile terms, the abolition of schedule 19. The measure will be included in next years Finance Bill. The draft legislation, including a tax information and impact note, will be published for consultation in the autumn, to inform the consideration of next years Finance Billthat never happened under the previous Government; this is totally transparent. The costs that have been included very prudently in the Red Book represent a conservative case; they do not include any of the effects or any assumption of what would happen if we reverse this relative decline compared with jurisdictions such as Ireland and Luxembourg so that we have an increasing tax take from people being employed there. The included costs do not reflect the potential boost to stamp duty reserve tax revenue empirically, investment funds tend to have more active investment strategies than direct investors and are more likely to incur it. Those aspects will be further elaborated during the consultation and the tax information and impact note during the next six months. Geraint Davies rose Greg Clark: I want to conclude now. I hope that the House will welcome, as commentators universally have, a significant boost to the competitiveness of a very important sector for jobs in every part of the United Kingdom. I hope that, having had the explanation, the hon. Member for Nottingham East will feel willing to withdraw the new clause and await the formal consultation, which will accompany next years Finance Bill. Chris Leslie: You have to hand it to the Financial Secretary, because he managed to keep a straight face throughout that, but I can almost hear the thumping of those trading desks across the City of London as people are delighted at the largesse of a 150 million tax giveaway to those poor, downtrodden investment managers, who really need that helping hand just now. That 150 million is the same amount as the Government saved when they abolished the health in pregnancy grantthat was not a priority; making sure that they abolish stamp duty reserve tax on unit trust transactions is where that 150 million had to go. That is completely crazy. They cannot even agree to a distributional analysis because they know that it is the wealthiest in the society who benefit from this. Therefore, we shall be pushing new clause 11 to a Division. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 274. Division No. 42]
AYES
Abrahams, Debbie Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob Alexander, rh Mr Douglas Alexander, Heidi Ali, Rushanara Allen, Mr Graham Anderson, Mr David Ashworth, Jonathan
[7.48 pm
873
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Morris, Grahame M. (Easington) Mudie, Mr George Murphy, rh Mr Jim Murphy, rh Paul Murray, Ian Nandy, Lisa Nash, Pamela Onwurah, Chi Osborne, Sandra Owen, Albert Pearce, Teresa Perkins, Toby Phillipson, Bridget Pound, Stephen Qureshi, Yasmin Reynolds, Jonathan Ritchie, Ms Margaret Robertson, Angus Robertson, John Robinson, Mr Geoffrey Rotheram, Steve Ruane, Chris Ruddock, rh Dame Joan Sarwar, Anas Sawford, Andy Seabeck, Alison Shannon, Jim Sharma, Mr Virendra Shuker, Gavin Simpson, David Skinner, Mr Dennis
Finance Bill
Slaughter, Mr Andy Smith, rh Mr Andrew Smith, Owen Spellar, rh Mr John Tami, Mark Thornberry, Emily Timms, rh Stephen Trickett, Jon Turner, Karl Twigg, Derek Twigg, Stephen Vaz, Valerie Walley, Joan Watts, Mr Dave Weir, Mr Mike Whiteford, Dr Eilidh Whitehead, Dr Alan Williams, Hywel Williamson, Chris Wilson, Phil Wilson, Sammy Winnick, Mr David Winterton, rh Ms Rosie Wishart, Pete Wood, Mike Woodcock, John Wright, David Wright, Mr Iain
874
Austin, Ian Bailey, Mr Adrian Bain, Mr William Balls, rh Ed Banks, Gordon Barron, rh Mr Kevin Bayley, Hugh Begg, Dame Anne Benn, rh Hilary Benton, Mr Joe Berger, Luciana Betts, Mr Clive Blackman-Woods, Roberta Blenkinsop, Tom Blomeld, Paul Blunkett, rh Mr David Brennan, Kevin Brown, Lyn Brown, rh Mr Nicholas Brown, Mr Russell Burden, Richard Byrne, rh Mr Liam Campbell, Mr Alan Campbell, Mr Ronnie Caton, Martin Champion, Sarah Chapman, Jenny Clark, Katy Clarke, rh Mr Tom Clwyd, rh Ann Coaker, Vernon Coffey, Ann Connarty, Michael Cooper, rh Yvette Corbyn, Jeremy Creagh, Mary Creasy, Stella Cruddas, Jon Cryer, John Cunningham, Alex Cunningham, Mr Jim Cunningham, Sir Tony Curran, Margaret Dakin, Nic David, Wayne Davidson, Mr Ian Davies, Geraint De Piero, Gloria Denham, rh Mr John Dobson, rh Frank Docherty, Thomas Dodds, rh Mr Nigel Donohoe, Mr Brian H. Doran, Mr Frank Doughty, Stephen Dowd, Jim Doyle, Gemma Dromey, Jack Dugher, Michael Durkan, Mark Eagle, Ms Angela Eagle, Maria Edwards, Jonathan Efford, Clive Ellman, Mrs Louise Engel, Natascha Esterson, Bill Evans, Chris Field, rh Mr Frank Flello, Robert Flynn, Paul Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry Gilmore, Sheila Glass, Pat Glindon, Mrs Mary Godsiff, Mr Roger Goggins, rh Paul Goodman, Helen Greatrex, Tom Green, Kate Greenwood, Lilian Griffith, Nia Gwynne, Andrew Hain, rh Mr Peter Hamilton, Fabian Hanson, rh Mr David Harris, Mr Tom Havard, Mr Dai Healey, rh John Hermon, Lady Hillier, Meg Hilling, Julie Hoey, Kate Hopkins, Kelvin Howarth, rh Mr George Hunt, Tristram Irranca-Davies, Huw Jackson, Glenda James, Mrs Sin C. Jamieson, Cathy Jarvis, Dan Johnson, rh Alan Johnson, Diana Jones, Graham Jones, Helen Jones, Mr Kevan Keeley, Barbara Kendall, Liz Khan, rh Sadiq Lavery, Ian Leslie, Chris Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn Long, Naomi Love, Mr Andrew Lucas, Caroline MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan Mactaggart, Fiona Mahmood, Mr Khalid Mahmood, Shabana Malhotra, Seema Mann, John Marsden, Mr Gordon McCabe, Steve McCann, Mr Michael McCarthy, Kerry McClymont, Gregg McDonagh, Siobhain McDonald, Andy McFadden, rh Mr Pat McGovern, Alison McGovern, Jim McGuire, rh Mrs Anne McKechin, Ann McKenzie, Mr Iain McKinnell, Catherine Meacher, rh Mr Michael Meale, Sir Alan Mearns, Ian Miller, Andrew Moon, Mrs Madeleine Morden, Jessica Morrice, Graeme (Livingston)

Susan Elan Jones and Mr Frank Roy
NOES
Adams, Nigel Afriyie, Adam Aldous, Peter Alexander, rh Danny Andrew, Stuart Arbuthnot, rh Mr James Bacon, Mr Richard Baker, Steve Baldry, Sir Tony Baldwin, Harriett Barclay, Stephen Baron, Mr John Barwell, Gavin Bebb, Guto Bellingham, Mr Henry Beresford, Sir Paul Berry, Jake Bingham, Andrew Binley, Mr Brian Birtwistle, Gordon Blackwood, Nicola Blunt, Mr Crispin Bone, Mr Peter Bradley, Karen Brady, Mr Graham Brake, rh Tom Bray, Angie Brazier, Mr Julian Bridgen, Andrew Brine, Steve Brooke, Annette Browne, Mr Jeremy Bruce, Fiona Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm Buckland, Mr Robert Burns, Conor Burns, rh Mr Simon Burrowes, Mr David Byles, Dan Cairns, Alun Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Carmichael, Neil Carswell, Mr Douglas Cash, Mr William Chishti, Rehman Clappison, Mr James Clark, rh Greg Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Coffey, Dr Thrse Collins, Damian Colvile, Oliver Cox, Mr Geoffrey Crabb, Stephen Crockart, Mike Crouch, Tracey Davies, David T. C. (Monmouth) Davies, Glyn Davies, Philip Dinenage, Caroline Djanogly, Mr Jonathan Dorries, Nadine Doyle-Price, Jackie Drax, Richard Duddridge, James Duncan, rh Mr Alan Ellis, Michael Ellison, Jane Elphicke, Charlie Eustice, George Evans, Graham Evans, Jonathan Evennett, Mr David Fabricant, Michael
875
Fallon, rh Michael Farron, Tim Featherstone, Lynne Field, Mark Foster, rh Mr Don Fox, rh Dr Liam Francois, rh Mr Mark Freeman, George Freer, Mike Fuller, Richard Garnier, Mark Gauke, Mr David George, Andrew Gibb, Mr Nick Gilbert, Stephen Goodwill, Mr Robert Gove, rh Michael Graham, Richard Grant, Mrs Helen Gray, Mr James Grayling, rh Chris Green, rh Damian Greening, rh Justine Grieve, rh Mr Dominic Griffiths, Andrew Gummer, Ben Gyimah, Mr Sam Halfon, Robert Hames, Duncan Hammond, Stephen Hancock, Matthew Hancock, Mr Mike Harper, Mr Mark Harris, Rebecca Hart, Simon Harvey, Sir Nick Hayes, rh Mr John Heald, Oliver Heaton-Harris, Chris Hemming, John Henderson, Gordon Hendry, Charles Herbert, rh Nick Hinds, Damian Hoban, Mr Mark Hollingbery, George Hollobone, Mr Philip Hopkins, Kris Horwood, Martin Howell, John Hughes, rh Simon Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy Hunter, Mark Jackson, Mr Stewart James, Margot Javid, Sajid Jenkin, Mr Bernard Johnson, Gareth Johnson, Joseph Jones, rh Mr David Jones, Mr Marcus Kawczynski, Daniel Kelly, Chris Kirby, Simon Knight, rh Mr Greg Kwarteng, Kwasi Laing, Mrs Eleanor Lamb, Norman Lancaster, Mark Lansley, rh Mr Andrew Latham, Pauline Laws, rh Mr David
Finance Bill
Leadsom, Andrea Lee, Dr Phillip Leech, Mr John Lefroy, Jeremy Leigh, Sir Edward Leslie, Charlotte Letwin, rh Mr Oliver Lewis, Dr Julian Lilley, rh Mr Peter Lloyd, Stephen Lord, Jonathan Loughton, Tim Luff, Peter Lumley, Karen May, rh Mrs Theresa Maynard, Paul McCartney, Jason McCartney, Karl McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick McPartland, Stephen McVey, Esther Menzies, Mark Mercer, Patrick Metcalfe, Stephen Miller, rh Maria Mills, Nigel Milton, Anne Mordaunt, Penny Morgan, Nicky Morris, Anne Marie Morris, James Mulholland, Greg Munt, Tessa Murray, Sheryll Neill, Robert Newmark, Mr Brooks Newton, Sarah Nokes, Caroline Nuttall, Mr David OBrien, rh Mr Stephen Offord, Dr Matthew Ollerenshaw, Eric Opperman, Guy Paterson, rh Mr Owen Pawsey, Mark Penning, Mike Penrose, John Percy, Andrew Perry, Claire Phillips, Stephen Pincher, Christopher Poulter, Dr Daniel Prisk, Mr Mark Raab, Mr Dominic Reckless, Mark Redwood, rh Mr John Rees-Mogg, Jacob Reevell, Simon Reid, Mr Alan Robertson, rh Hugh Robertson, Mr Laurence Rogerson, Dan Rosindell, Andrew Rudd, Amber Ruffley, Mr David Russell, Sir Bob Rutley, David Sanders, Mr Adrian Sandys, Laura Scott, Mr Lee Selous, Andrew Shapps, rh Grant
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
Turner, Mr Andrew Tyrie, Mr Andrew Uppal, Paul Vickers, Martin Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa Walker, Mr Charles Walker, Mr Robin Wallace, Mr Ben Walter, Mr Robert Watkinson, Dame Angela Weatherley, Mike Wharton, James Wheeler, Heather White, Chris Whittaker, Craig Whittingdale, Mr John Wiggin, Bill Willetts, rh Mr David Williams, Mr Mark Williams, Stephen Williamson, Gavin Wilson, Mr Rob Wollaston, Dr Sarah Wright, Jeremy Wright, Simon Young, rh Sir George Zahawi, Nadhim
876
Sharma, Alok Shelbrooke, Alec Shepherd, Sir Richard Skidmore, Chris Smith, Miss Chloe Smith, Henry Smith, Julian Smith, Sir Robert Soames, rh Nicholas Soubry, Anna Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline Spencer, Mr Mark Stanley, rh Sir John Stevenson, John Stewart, Bob Stewart, Iain Stewart, Rory Streeter, Mr Gary Stride, Mel Stuart, Mr Graham Sturdy, Julian Swales, Ian Swayne, rh Mr Desmond Swinson, Jo Swire, rh Mr Hugo Syms, Mr Robert Teather, Sarah Thornton, Mike Timpson, Mr Edward Tomlinson, Justin

Jenny Willott and Greg Hands
Question accordingly negatived. New Clause 1 TRANSFER OF

PERSONAL ALLOWANCES BETWEEN SPOUSES
After section 37 of the Income Tax Act 2007, insert 37A Transfer of personal allowances between spouses (1) This section applies to an individual who is entitled to a personal allowance under sections 35 to 37 for a tax year if (a) the individual is a person whose spouse who is living with the individual for the whole or any part of the tax year, (b) the individual is, for the whole or any part of the tax year, usually resident with at least one child who is under the age of 5 years at the end of the tax year, or such other age as is specified by order; and (c) the spouse meets the requirements of section 56 (residence, etc). (2) If (a) the allowance exceeds the individuals income; (b) the individual makes an election; and (c) the individuals spouse makes a claim; the individuals spouse is entitled to an allowance for the tax year equal to the amount of the transferable allowance subject to a maximum amount, if any, specified by order. (3) The individuals transferable allowance is found by (a) taking any personal allowance to which the individual is entitled for the tax year, and (b) subtracting the amount of the individuals income. (4) For the purposes of this section spouse includes civil partners. (5) For the purposes of this section an order means order made by statutory instrument a draft of which has been laid before and approved by resolution of the House of Commons. (6) This section shall have effect for the tax year 2014-15 and subsequent years.
877
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
878
37B Election for transfer of allowance under section 37A (1) An election under section 37A (a) must be made not more than 4 years after the end of the tax year to which it relates; (b) cannot be withdrawn; and (c) cannot be made before 6 April 2015. (2) If an individual makes an election for a tax year under section 37A the individual is treated as also giving notice under section 51(4) that section 51(1) (tax reductions for married couples: transfer of unused relief) is to apply for the tax year...(Tim Loughton.)
Brought up, and read the First time. 8 pm Tim Loughton: I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to new clause 1, albeit very briefly. It is rather ironic that this issue has probably been one of the most over-reported aspects of this Finance Bill, when it was not even in the Bill and we have only a minuscule amount of time to discuss it. Many colleagues here would like to speak to the new clause, and many others have come up to me to express their support. There has been a lot of misreporting about the new clause, which has commonly been referred to as some sort of rebel amendment. It is strange when a manifesto commitment, which was also in the coalition agreement, to a measure of which the Prime Minister himself is a huge fan becomes a rebel amendment. We are not rebels. There has been no campaign to orchestrate some sort of rebellion; in fact, there was never any intention to force the new clause to a vote, as anyone who had asked would have found out. New clause 1 is simply a helpful amendment, tabled solely in my name, to nudge the Chancellor to give a formal commitment in law to a Conservative party pledgea popular one at thatand to name the day, and so dispel the concerns caused by vague references to the measure being introduced in due course. The measure was good enough to be in the Conservative party manifesto. It was good enough to be argued out in the coalition agreement, with accommodation for the Liberal Democrats. It has been good enough for the Chancellor and Treasury Ministers and the Prime Minister quite rightly to reaffirm its importance, so surely it must be good enough to get on with now, to lay to rest any uncertainty about the commitment to its implementation and to end any delay in its becoming a reality. I am therefore delighted, even if I have little time to express my delight this evening, that the Prime Minister has indicated that the measure in the new clause will now be brought forward. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me from the Dispatch Box this evening, or, if there is no time, by writing to me and other hon. Members, that the measure will be in the next autumn statement, with a view to putting it in the next Finance Bill, so that, hopefully, the money will be in peoples pockets by the time of the next election. I have framed the new clause to give the Chancellor maximum flexibility to determine the exact details of its execution. Spouses, civil partners and indeed the beneficiaries of same-sex marriage, if that Bill goes through, will qualify. There is no prescription about whether the provision applies to basic rate or higher rate taxpayers, or whether the whole or part of an allowance should be
transferable. That can be specified by order to suit the Chancellor. It is suggested that the tax relief should focus on couples with at least one child under the age of fivethat is, under school ageand therefore correspond to the child care allowances to be introduced from 2015, but that, too, can be changed by order. This is not a prescriptive amendment. What is uncertain is the timing. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm what the Prime Minister said in the briefing that he and officials gave on the other side of the world that the measure will be in the next Finance Bill. Perhaps the most extraordinary aspect of this debate has been the reaction of the left to the proposal. This is a popular proposal, and a modest one. It is popular among the public and among the majority of Labour voters. The Lib Dems are split on it, but one would expect that: it is party policy to oppose it, but only recently the Business Secretary attacked the prejudice against stay at home mothers. When we have an organisation, Dont Judge My Family, apparently formed solely to oppose the measure, saying that it is a throwback to a 1950s fantasy family image, that is deeply insulting not only to the many millions of married couples who decide to make a lifelong commitment to each other in front of their families and friends that is recognised in law, but to the 90% of young people and the 75% of cohabiting under-35s who in recent opinion polls have said that they aspire to get married. There are many different forms of family in the 21st century, and most do a fantastic job of keeping together and bringing up children, often in difficult circumstances, yet almost uniquely among large OECD countries, the UK does not recognise the commitment and stability of marriage in the tax system until one of the partners dies. Worse still, one-earner married couples on an average wage with two children face a tax burden 42% greater than the OECD average, and that gap has been getting worse. So to introduce a recognition of marriage in the tax system, particularly in the modest form suggested, is not to disparage those single parents who find themselves single through no fault of their own, perhaps as a result of having had an abusive or deserting partner, nor is it to undermine two hard-working parents, all of whom get help and support from the state in other forms, and quite rightly. But uniquely, married couples, civil partners and same-sex married couples in future are discriminated against in the tax system. Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I am conscious of the time. Like him, I passionately believe in marriage, as do my constituents in Strangford. They are keen to see the benefits for their families and their children in Strangford, across the whole of Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom. Does the hon. Gentleman have an assurance from the Government that the time scale will be met? In other words, will the marriage tax allowance be delivered before the next election? Tim Loughton: I very much hope so. That was the clear indication that the Prime Minister gave in his briefing in Pakistan. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to confirm, because the timing of the measure is important, that it is not something that will be done in due course, but in the next Finance Bill.
879
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
880
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): Will my hon. Friend allow me? Tim Loughton: I briefly give way to my hon. Friend, who has been a great champion of this measure for many years. Sir Edward Leigh: Not just the Prime Minister in a faraway place, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in my own home, not 300 yards away, in front of 40 MPs, gave a solemn pledge that this was going to be brought in before the general election. This will and must happen. Tim Loughton: So the mystery is why on earth it is not happening and the Prime Minister has not been able to say, We back this amendment. However, I trust what he has said. Those I do not trust are those who oppose the amendment, because those who oppose it as some sort of 1950s throwback are the ones who are being judgmental about how certain people choose to live their relationships. That view has been endorsed on many Labour party members blogs. Disgracefully, they seek, in effect, to pit working mums or dads against stay at home mums or dads, who are of course no less, and often more, hard-working. But my support for a transferable married couples tax allowance has never been based on some moral stance on types of relationship. My concern, as might be expected, is based on what is best for children. That is why I have suggested that it is limited in the first instance to families with children under the age of five. Two statistics say why. For a 15-year-old living at home with both birth parents, there is a 97% chance that those parents are married. For a five-year-old with parents at home, there is a one in 10 chance of those parents splitting up if they are married, but a one in three chance if they are not married. The cost of family breakdown is 46 billion and rising. That is what we need to attack. Marriage accounts for 54% of births but only 20% of break-ups among families with children under five. We must recognise that in the tax system and we do not. That is what this modest amendment seeks to put in statute as a starting point to appreciate that. Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that we encourage many things in the tax systemfor example, employees cycling to work? It is therefore no great surprise that we want to support marriage, given the number of families that split up each year. Tim Loughton: And marriage was invented before bicycles, so why do we not support that, recognise it and value it, as we all do? There are those who have come up with arguments against the figures, saying it is all about causation and effect. The millennium cohort research revealed that the poorest 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples, so it is insulting to say that marriage is the preserve of the middle classes or better educated or better-off people. This amendment alone will not solve all the problems that I have laid out. I am not naive enough to suggest that 150 or whatever the end result may be when this amendment becomes law in some form, as we hope, represents the difference between staying married or
getting divorced, or getting married or cohabiting, but it does send a clear and strong message that we value families who take the decision to bring up their children within marriage. When I stood on our manifesto in 2010, and for many years before, my Front-Bench colleagues agreed with that. My amendment makes that a reality, beyond all doubt. Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): Is it not also a matter of fairness and social justice, because the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that 70% of the benefit of a transferable tax allowance would go to those currently on the lower half of the income distribution scale? Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that that dispels many of the myths being put around against the measure. I hope that the Minister will take the new clause absolutely in the way it was intended. I do not intend to force it to a vote. I think that the Prime Minister has acknowledged the imperative of getting on with it now. I hope that, at last, our constituents can expect to benefit from the proceeds before the next election, both financially and with regard to our clear commitment to marriage, and that we can benefit from delivering on a popular, practical and achievable pledge, rather than the promise of jam in due course. If we can do that, it will be box ticked, job done. Several hon. Members rose Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. Mr Leslie, please ensure that you leave time in the debate, which will end at 8.19 pm, for the Minister and perhaps some Back Benchers as well. Chris Leslie: I will be very brief. I want first to pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). I have to hand it to him: he has got the Government jumping around and on the run on this issue. However, I am afraid that the Opposition are not convinced that the millions of people who are separated, divorced, or indeed widowed, would benefit from this policy, let alone those married couples where both partners work. I am all in favour of marriage, and Mrs Leslie might at first glance like the idea of the 150 give-away, but because she works and earns above the personal allowance, it would not be of benefit in our circumstances. Sir Edward Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point? Chris Leslie: I would rather hear from the Minister. I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) was right when he called this policy social engineering. He said that when he joined the Conservative party it was opposed to it. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham seems to have got a commitment that something will be done in the autumn, and we will hear what that happens to be in a moment. In a nutshell, the Oppositions view is that if there is to be a tax break, it should be for all families, not just a select few, and for all households on lower and middle incomes. That is where tax breaks ought to be focused. I want to hear what the Minister has to say.
881
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
882
Mr Gauke: My hon. Friends will be aware that at the last election the Conservative party set out a policy of allowing married couples and civil partners to transfer up to 750 of unused tax-free personal allowance where the recipient is a basic rate taxpayer. They will also be aware that two points in the coalition agreement are relevant to this debate: first, our commitment to increasing the personal allowance to 10,000, to be prioritised over other tax cuts; and secondly, the provision for Liberal Democrats to abstain on Budget resolutions introducing transferable tax allowances for married couples without prejudice to the coalition agreement. I want to be very clear that the Government support the principle behind the new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). We are committed to recognising marriage in the tax system. As we have made clear, and indeed as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has pointed out, we are committed to legislating for that in this Parliament. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we will be announcing our plans shortly. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham wants us to be specific on implementation. I can assure him that we want to implement this at the earliest opportunity. Of course, recognition of marriage involves a new attribute to our income tax system, requiring Her Majestys Revenue and Customs to link married couples in a way that does not currently happen. That is deliverable, but I am not going to set out a timetable today. Once we are able to make an announcement on timing, the Chancellor will do so, but I repeat that we want to do this as soon as possible. There are some differences between the Conservative partys position at the last election and new clause 1. The new clause is targeted at a subset of married couplesthose with children under the age of 5and does not limit the amount of the allowance that could be transferred, although it gives the Chancellor the ability to restrict that by order. However, it does not apply any income limits or restrictions on the rate of relief, which means that it could provide double the benefit to those paying tax at the higher rate. Obviously we want to make sure that this is well targeted. There are some specific points about new clause 1 that would need to be addressed regarding the measure of income, the definition of child, and the date of election set out in new section 37B(1)(c). However, I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that we are considering these points in great detail and that an announcement of further details on how we want to take this measure forward will be made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the months ahead. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is satisfied with those reassurances and that he feels able to withdraw new clause 1 now that I have put on record our commitment to and belief in legislating for this and our desire to implement it at the soonest opportunity. 8.15 pm Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab): Had we voted on the new clause tonight, I would have voted for it. I encourage the Government to be much more ambitious in the review that they are undertaking. The new clause
is about how we maintain greater tax equity between households with two earners and those with one earner, whichever sex those earners may be. When the Government abolished child benefit for higher rate taxpayers, they did an injustice to the tax system. May I briefly recall why? The background to this, which you will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that we used to have family allowances and child tax allowances. The tax allowance and the benefit were merged into the single payment of child benefit. Child benefit then had two functions: it was a cash payment to mothers but it also maintained tax equity between people further up the income scale who have children and those further up the tax scale who do not have children. By abolishing child benefit for higher-rate taxpayers, the Government forewent the one instrument at their disposal to maintain tax equity for higher-rate taxpayers between those who have no children and those who do have children. Might I make a plea to the Minister? When the Government undertake the review about the workings of this measure, will they extend it and rectify the injustice whereby in abolishing child benefit for higher-rate taxpayers they abolished the tax-free income for higher-rate taxpayers if they had children and therefore put them on the same level as people who do not have children? We never had that in the tax system before; we have had it in the past couple of years. Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): The House will know that I led a debate on this issue in Westminster Hall on 28 November last year. I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and others who have been so stalwart in this campaign. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) will have a word with his Front Benchers, because this is about social justice and redistribution. It is about a transferable allowance for married couples disproportionately benefiting those in the lower half of the income distribution much more than under the current policy of encouraging the personal income tax threshold. That is a fact. The make work pay argument is very important too. Transferable amounts would help to make work more rewarding for many of the poorest in society. Moreover, we are out of line, on international comparisons, in not supporting the family. Those are important issues and this is a big subject. I am sorry that the Ministers speech was so short, but delighted that those on the Treasury Bench have seen fit to give us these assurances. We will hold them to their word. Jim Shannon: Transferable allowances work by families claiming against them for the previous year. Thus this years Finance Bill makes provision for transferable allowances for the financial year 2014-15. People will not be able to claim against them until the financial year 2015-16. I will be seeking from the Government an assurance that that will be addressed this year so that it can happen. Sir Edward Leigh: This is simply a matter of justice. There are 2 million families where one partner is working and the other is not. They are uniquely disadvantaged in the benefits system, and it is a matter of justicelets do it.
883
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
884
8.19 pm Six hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, 1 July). The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time. Question negatived. Third Reading 8.20 pm Mr Gauke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. The Finance Bill 2013 delivers the Governments commitment to creating a tax system that is fair, that promotes growth and competitiveness and that rewards work. This Bill supports enterprise, helps families and ensures that everyone pays their fair share of tax. We should pause for a moment to remember the background to the Bill. The Government inherited the largest peacetime deficit since the second world war, a deficit we have already reduced by a third over the three years since 2009-10. During this time, more than 1 million new jobs have been created by British business. We have had to make some tough choices, but the results show that we are making the right choices. The Government are leading the road to recoveryto putting the economy back on courseand this Bill continues that agenda. Mr Russell Brown: Does the Minister recognise that the 1 million jobs that have been created are allocated disproportionately across the UK? My local authority area has lost 2,000 private sector jobs and the average wage has now fallen 24% below the national average. Some areas are hurting. Mr Gauke: It was not that long ago that we were told that the reductions in public sector employment would not be met by new jobs in the private sector, but they have been met many times over. The reality is that we have an astoundingly good record on job creation over the past three years, despite the fact that the economy has faced significant challenges. This Government have established a corporate tax system that attracts international investment to the country and that encourages UK businesses to grow. Corporation tax will be eight percentage points lower in 2015 than the levels we inherited in 2010. This Bill cuts the main rate to 21% next year and 20% the year after, which will give us the joint lowest rate in the G20, the lowest of any major economy in the world and the lowest rate this country has ever known. The Bill does that alongside separate action to incentivise activity across the economy. It introduces a new abovethe-line credit for large company research and development investment, provides reliefs that are among the most generous in the world for the animation and high-end television industries, and gives long-term fiscal certainty to the oil and gas industry on decommissioning tax relief. Mr Stewart Jackson: There was no time to debate new clause 3 on air passenger duty so I will not speak to it, but will the Treasury continue to review the effects of APD on the travel industry and the wider economy?
Mr Gauke: We keep all taxes under review. My hon. Friend is a prominent voice on this particular matter and I am sure he will continue eloquently to make the case on APD to Treasury Ministers. Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind): I am grateful to the Minister for taking a second intervention so soon after the first. Does he realise that APD is particularly damaging to the ambition of rebalancing the economy in Northern Ireland, especially when there is such a low level of APD just over the border in the Republic of Ireland? Will he undertake to look seriously at the issue with regard to Northern Ireland? Mr Gauke: The hon. Lady will be aware that we have made a number of concessions in that area with regard to Northern Ireland and I say again that we will keep those matters under review. The Bill will support a wide variety of sectors, encourage innovation and send the clearest possible signal that business is welcome in the UK. The Governments strategy is underpinned by our commitment to fairness. The Bill will reward hard work and help families with the cost of living. It will lift an additional 1.1 million individuals out of income tax with the largest ever cash increase to the personal allowance. The allowance will be set at 9,440, making assured progress towards the longer-term objective of making the first 10,000 of income free from income tax. That objective will allow people to keep more of the money that they earn. I should not have to remind hon. Members that the Bill keeps fuel duty frozen, nor that it removes a penny from beer duty. Those measures will make a real difference and support individuals on low incomes who want to get on. We are taking steps to ensure that those with the most contribute the most. We have introduced a charge on owners of high-value properties placed in a corporate envelope, along with an extension of capital gains tax on the non-natural persons disposing of those properties. We are targeting reliefs appropriately. The cap on the previously unlimited income tax relief and the reduction of the pensions tax relief lifetime and annual allowances are significant in ensuring that everyone pays their fair share. We have taken significant action to crack down on tax avoidance and evasion. The Bill legislates for the UKs first general anti-abuse rule, which provides a significant deterrent to abusive tax avoidance schemes. Where they persist, it will give HMRC the tools to tackle them. Just because something is not covered by the GAAR does not mean that it will not be addressed in other ways. We have closed 15 loopholes that have been used to avoid tax, and strengthened the successful disclosure of tax avoidance schemes regime. Since its introduction in 2004, more than 2,000 tax avoidance schemes have been disclosed to HMRC. The changes made in the Bill will improve the information that promoters have to provide to make it even more effective. Our position is clear: non-compliance and contrived tax arrangements will not be tolerated. The Bill will help to reduce the tax gap, make the law robust against avoidance and optimise our operational response.
885
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
886
Jonathan Edwards: The Minister will be aware that the Silk commission on Wales stated that the Finance Bill would be the appropriate legislative vehicle to implement its findings. Those findings have not been implemented in the Bill, so what legislative vehicle will the Government use to implement the Silk report when they respond? Mr Gauke: As the hon. Gentleman says, the Government will respond to the report in due course. Further details will be provided at that point. On simplification, we continue to shape the tax landscape. A tax system should be easy to administer and to understand. To that end, the Government set up the independent Office of Tax Simplification in 2010. I pay tribute to the invaluable work that it has done. The Bill takes forward the recommendations from its review of small business tax. It introduces two optional simpler income tax schemes for small incorporated businesses and a new time-limited disincorporation relief for small businesses that feel that a corporate form is burdensome. Small businesses make a vital contribution to the UK economy and public finances, and these measures recognise that contribution. We have acted to provide certainty and clarity in other areas. The statutory residence test and the reforms to ordinary residence are a significant and welcome simplification of the tax code, if not a shortening of it. Many of the measures in the Bill have been subject to extensive consultation and scrutinyprocesses that are entrenched in the Governments approach to making tax policy. The statutory residence test was consulted on three times between summer 2011 and February 2013. The Chartered Institute of Taxation said that that was a
good example of how to make good tax law
not do much to help the economy or do much good for the country at large. I am afraid the Bill offers just more of the same: carrying on regardless of the urgent need for action to stimulate our economy. We know that the Chancellor, scarred as he was from the omnishambles Budget in 2012, decided to go in the opposite direction this year and produce a Budget that contained so little of any import or substance that the Governments Office for Budget Responsibility said on page 42 of its Budget report, that the Bill would have
no impact on the level of GDP at the end of the forecast horizonthese measures reduce GDP growth
in 2013. It is a Finance Bill that sees the economy moving backwards. This is in the context of a great deal of humiliation for the Chancellor, including the downgrading by not just one but two credit rating agencies. The cherished prize that was supposed to be at the heart of the Governments strategyretaining and defending that benchmark triple A statusis gone. Then, of course, as we saw in the most recent figures, there was the humiliation of a rising deficit, not a fall in levels of borrowing. This Finance Bill has its priorities all wrong. The lowlights include there being little on growth, but yet persisting with the cut to the top rate of income tax. It means that the fortunate 13,000 people who earn more than 1 million a year will get a lovely, juicy tax cut of 100,000, while typical families will be 891 worse off this year on average because of the changes to tax and benefits introduced since 2010. There are failures in a number of different ways, but it has been particularly piquant this evening to focus on the Governments largesse and the City tax cut to the stamp duty reserve tax that gives 150 million to the investment manager community. Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con) rose Chris Leslie: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is a former investment manager, but I wonder what his view is of that change. Richard Fuller: I am grateful for the shadow Ministers indulgence in allowing me to intervene, and to answer his question, no I am not. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the cut to the top rate of tax and the house tax that Labour wants to introduce. Yesterday, I sat through the debate on Report, and the Opposition Front-Bench speaker was unable to say whether, if Labour get into government in 2015, it would increase the rate of tax and introduce a house tax. For the record, will the hon. Gentleman say whether that is the intention of the Labour party, or is it again just fine words but no real meat? Chris Leslie: Fortunately for the hon. Gentleman, but unfortunately for the rest of us, there are still two years of this Parliament to go. He has probably two years of employment left in his parliamentary career and although we think there should be a Labour Member in his seat, we will miss him. In two years time, we will set out the detail in our manifesto. When the Conservatives are in Opposition after the general election, we hope to implement a radical manifesto that actually does something to benefit our economy. Today, we would implement a mansion
and we would agree. The Government have shown their commitment to greater transparency and broadening the range of impacts that they consider. For the Finance Bill 2013 we published more than 400 pages of draft legislation, and we are grateful for the 400 or so responses we received. Through such engagement we have considered the views of interested groups and taxpayers, and we considered them further in Public Bill Committee with more than 49 hours of scrutinyto some of us, it may have felt longer. I thank all those involved in the Bill, whether officials, interested parties, parliamentary counsel, my hon. Friends the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Opposition Members, and Back Benchers, who all contributed to the scrutiny of the Bill. This Finance Bill delivers real reform, supports business and growth, upholds principles of fairness, rewards work, and demonstrates the Governments commitment to creating a tax system that reduces the deficit and builds a prosperous economy. I commend the Bill to the House. 8.30 pm Chris Leslie: I agree with the Minister about one thingit was certainly a long and well-scrutinised Bill. To elaborate on that brief moment of cross-party agreement, I, too, pay tribute to all Members who served on the Committee, the Clerks, and the officials who helped pull together a substantial legislative moment in the parliamentary calendaralbeit that the Bill does
887 [Chris Leslie]
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
888
tax that would raise a significant sum that we would give away as a tax cut for lower and middle-income households with a new 10p band of income tax. Government Members struggle with this, but we will judge what needs to be in the manifesto in two years time when we can judge the needs of the economy. Government Members think they already know what their fate will be in 2015, hence the Chancellor coming forward with his cuts programme for 2015 when any responsible Chancellor would be rolling his sleeves up this summer and getting on with bringing forward capital infrastructure investment and doing something to stimulate the economy now. There is nothing in the Budget, nothing in the spending review and, more to the point, nothing in the Finance Bill to help growth. Indeed, the most interesting measures are conspicuous by their absence. There is no mansion tax, although there is provision for an annual tax on enveloped dwellings, which usefully illustrates that it is feasible to move in that direction. Lady Hermon: In an earlier intervention on the Minister I asked about air passenger duty. In the context of Northern Ireland, would the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues agree to reduce air passenger duty? Rebalancing the economy in Northern Ireland will be difficult to do if this matter is not addressed. Where do the Opposition stand on reducing air passenger duty more generally? Chris Leslie: I am sorry that we did not have the opportunity to consider this matter on Report. I think it was given some consideration in Committee. I think we are still waiting for the Governments review to come to fruitionI am happy to give way to the Minister if he wants to confirm thatand we need to see the evidence. If we feel that any changes in tax and in spending are necessary, we want to spell out clearly where we would get the resources to pay for them. The fact that the Government have ignored not just our advice[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. Can we stop the chuntering from Front Bench to Front Bench while someone is trying to speak? Minister, you were listened to in silence and with proper courtesy, so it would be good if you showed that same courtesy to the shadow Minister. Perhaps Ministers and shadow Ministers could pay attention rather than shout at each other. Chris Leslie: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your protection from the sedentary chuntering of Government Members. They ignore anything they hear, not just from the Opposition but from the International Monetary Fund, which has pointed out that this has been the slowest recovery for a century. There has been barely 1% growth since the 2010 spending review, and the Chancellor predicted there would be 6% growth by now. Living standards have fallen and many families are finding it difficult to make ends meet. Life is much harder. Mel Stride: The hon. Gentleman mentions the important pursuit of growth. Will he enlighten the House on what happened to his partys five-point plan for growth, including his commitment to a reduction in VAT?
Chris Leslie: We are desperately keen for the Government to bring forward any measureswhether measures on VAT or bringing forward capital infrastructurethat would stimulate growth. Any Chancellor worth his or her salt would have used last weeks statement in the House to make at least a passing reference to the importance of growth in the economy, but there was absolutely nothing, and the same goes for this Bill. The problem is not just the neglect of growth and living standards; it is the Governments failures on borrowing and the deficit, which should be to their shame. They have been totally unable to deliver the promises they made on deficit reduction. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office can tell his constituents that the deficit was 118.5 billion in 2011-12 and 118.7 billion in 2012-13. Even he, with all his skill and acumen, can tell that that is an increase in the level of borrowing from that year to this. No wonder the Government find it an uncomfortable fact that they have failed on their promise and are not on course to balance the books in 2015 as they said they would. That was their solemn promise to the electorate. It is a busted flush. This Bill is a reflection of the fact that the Government have no answers. They do not know where to go on this issue. It is time we had a Finance Bill to boost the economy, instead of the Government neglecting their duties to achieve strong and sustained economic growth. This is Bill is bereft of the bold measures we need to kick-start Britains economy. The country deserves better. We oppose a Third Reading for this Bill. 8.41 pm Jim Shannon: I want to say a few quick words. I thank the Minister and his team for the hard work they have done during the passage of this Bill. They have made a valuable contribution. I also thank the Opposition for their contribution. The Government have made a number of welcome legislative changesthey are in the Bill, so they will happenon child care and family provisions. Like other speakers, I listened with great interest to what the Prime Minister said at the weekend. The subsequent confirmation from Downing street that transferable allowances would be introduced in the 2014 Finance Bill came not a moment too soon. However, I would have liked more positivity from the Government about the time scale for the married tax allowance in new clause 1 to be introduced. It would have been better to have had that opportunity, although we might get it yet. Reference has also been made to the air passenger duty in Northern Ireland. We know how important it is to the economya point that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has made clear. There have also been contributions and input from the Minister for Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). That has enabled some of the work done in the Bill to suit the Northern Ireland Assembly and the people of Northern Ireland. In conclusion, let me say on behalf of my party that I would have been happier with a positive commitment to the married tax allowance, although we might get it yet. Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
889
Finance Bill
2 JULY 2013
Finance Bill
Reckless, Mark Redwood, rh Mr John Rees-Mogg, Jacob Reevell, Simon Reid, Mr Alan Robathan, rh Mr Andrew Robertson, rh Hugh Robertson, Mr Laurence Rogerson, Dan Rosindell, Andrew Rudd, Amber Ruffley, Mr David Russell, Sir Bob Rutley, David Sanders, Mr Adrian Sandys, Laura Scott, Mr Lee Selous, Andrew Shapps, rh Grant Shelbrooke, Alec Shepherd, Sir Richard Simpson, Mr Keith Skidmore, Chris Smith, Miss Chloe Smith, Henry Smith, Julian Smith, Sir Robert Soames, rh Nicholas Soubry, Anna Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline Spencer, Mr Mark Stanley, rh Sir John Stephenson, Andrew Stewart, Bob Stewart, Iain Stewart, Rory Streeter, Mr Gary Stride, Mel Stuart, Mr Graham Sturdy, Julian Swales, Ian Swayne, rh Mr Desmond Swinson, Jo Syms, Mr Robert Teather, Sarah Thornton, Mike Timpson, Mr Edward Tomlinson, Justin Turner, Mr Andrew Tyrie, Mr Andrew Uppal, Paul Vara, Mr Shailesh Vickers, Martin Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa Walker, Mr Charles Walker, Mr Robin Walter, Mr Robert Ward, Mr David Watkinson, Dame Angela Weatherley, Mike Wharton, James Wheeler, Heather Whittaker, Craig Whittingdale, Mr John Wiggin, Bill Willetts, rh Mr David Williams, Mr Mark Williams, Stephen Williamson, Gavin Willott, Jenny Wilson, Mr Rob Wollaston, Dr Sarah
890
The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 217. Division No. 43]
AYES
Adams, Nigel Afriyie, Adam Aldous, Peter Alexander, rh Danny Andrew, Stuart Arbuthnot, rh Mr James Bacon, Mr Richard Baker, Steve Baldry, Sir Tony Baldwin, Harriett Barclay, Stephen Baron, Mr John Barwell, Gavin Bebb, Guto Beith, rh Sir Alan Bellingham, Mr Henry Beresford, Sir Paul Berry, Jake Bingham, Andrew Binley, Mr Brian Birtwistle, Gordon Blackwood, Nicola Bone, Mr Peter Bradley, Karen Brady, Mr Graham Brake, rh Tom Bray, Angie Brazier, Mr Julian Bridgen, Andrew Brooke, Annette Bruce, Fiona Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm Buckland, Mr Robert Burns, Conor Burns, rh Mr Simon Burrowes, Mr David Cairns, Alun Campbell, rh Sir Menzies Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Carmichael, Neil Cash, Mr William Chishti, Rehman Clappison, Mr James Clark, rh Greg Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Coffey, Dr Thrse Collins, Damian Colvile, Oliver Cox, Mr Geoffrey Crabb, Stephen Crockart, Mike Crouch, Tracey Davies, David T. C. (Monmouth) Davies, Glyn Davies, Philip Dinenage, Caroline Djanogly, Mr Jonathan Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen Dorries, Nadine Doyle-Price, Jackie Drax, Richard Duddridge, James Duncan, rh Mr Alan Ellis, Michael
[8.43 pm
Ellison, Jane Elphicke, Charlie Eustice, George Evans, Graham Evans, Jonathan Evennett, Mr David Fabricant, Michael Fallon, rh Michael Farron, Tim Featherstone, Lynne Field, Mark Foster, rh Mr Don Fox, rh Dr Liam Francois, rh Mr Mark Freeman, George Freer, Mike Fuller, Richard Garnier, Sir Edward Garnier, Mark Gauke, Mr David George, Andrew Gibb, Mr Nick Glen, John Goodwill, Mr Robert Gove, rh Michael Graham, Richard Grant, Mrs Helen Gray, Mr James Grayling, rh Chris Green, rh Damian Greening, rh Justine Grieve, rh Mr Dominic Griffiths, Andrew Gummer, Ben Gyimah, Mr Sam Halfon, Robert Hames, Duncan Hancock, Matthew Hancock, Mr Mike Harper, Mr Mark Harrington, Richard Harris, Rebecca Hart, Simon Harvey, Sir Nick Hayes, rh Mr John Heald, Oliver Heaton-Harris, Chris Hemming, John Henderson, Gordon Hendry, Charles Herbert, rh Nick Hinds, Damian Hoban, Mr Mark Hollingbery, George Hollobone, Mr Philip Holloway, Mr Adam Hopkins, Kris Horwood, Martin Howell, John Hughes, rh Simon Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy Hunter, Mark Jackson, Mr Stewart James, Margot Javid, Sajid Jenkin, Mr Bernard Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph Jones, Andrew Jones, rh Mr David Jones, Mr Marcus Kawczynski, Daniel Kelly, Chris Kirby, Simon Knight, rh Mr Greg Kwarteng, Kwasi Laing, Mrs Eleanor Lancaster, Mark Lansley, rh Mr Andrew Latham, Pauline Laws, rh Mr David Leadsom, Andrea Lee, Jessica Lee, Dr Phillip Leech, Mr John Lefroy, Jeremy Leigh, Sir Edward Leslie, Charlotte Letwin, rh Mr Oliver Lewis, Dr Julian Lilley, rh Mr Peter Lloyd, Stephen Lord, Jonathan Loughton, Tim Luff, Peter Lumley, Karen May, rh Mrs Theresa Maynard, Paul McCartney, Jason McCartney, Karl McIntosh, Miss Anne McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick McPartland, Stephen McVey, Esther Menzies, Mark Metcalfe, Stephen Miller, rh Maria Mills, Nigel Mordaunt, Penny Morgan, Nicky Morris, Anne Marie Morris, James Mosley, Stephen Mulholland, Greg Munt, Tessa Murray, Sheryll Neill, Robert Newmark, Mr Brooks Newton, Sarah Nokes, Caroline Norman, Jesse Nuttall, Mr David OBrien, rh Mr Stephen Offord, Dr Matthew Ollerenshaw, Eric Opperman, Guy Paice, rh Sir James Patel, Priti Paterson, rh Mr Owen Pawsey, Mark Penning, Mike Penrose, John Percy, Andrew Perry, Claire Phillips, Stephen Pincher, Christopher Poulter, Dr Daniel Prisk, Mr Mark Raab, Mr Dominic
891
Wright, Jeremy Wright, Simon Young, rh Sir George Zahawi, Nadhim
Finance Bill Tellers for the Ayes:

Greg Hands and Anne Milton
2 JULY 2013
Lavery, Ian Leslie, Chris Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma Long, Naomi Love, Mr Andrew Lucas, Caroline MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan Mahmood, Mr Khalid Mahmood, Shabana Malhotra, Seema Mann, John Marsden, Mr Gordon McCabe, Steve McCann, Mr Michael McCarthy, Kerry McClymont, Gregg McDonagh, Siobhain McDonald, Andy McFadden, rh Mr Pat McGovern, Alison McGuire, rh Mrs Anne McKechin, Ann McKenzie, Mr Iain McKinnell, Catherine Meacher, rh Mr Michael Meale, Sir Alan Mearns, Ian Moon, Mrs Madeleine Morden, Jessica Morrice, Graeme (Livingston) Morris, Grahame M. (Easington) Mudie, Mr George Murphy, rh Mr Jim Murphy, rh Paul Murray, Ian Nandy, Lisa Nash, Pamela Onwurah, Chi Osborne, Sandra Owen, Albert Pearce, Teresa Percy, Andrew Phillipson, Bridget Pound, Stephen Qureshi, Yasmin Raynsford, rh Mr Nick Reed, Mr Jamie Reynolds, Jonathan Ritchie, Ms Margaret Robertson, Angus Robertson, John Robinson, Mr Geoffrey Rotheram, Steve Ruane, Chris Ruddock, rh Dame Joan Sarwar, Anas Sawford, Andy Seabeck, Alison Shannon, Jim Sharma, Mr Virendra Sheridan, Jim Shuker, Gavin Simpson, David Skinner, Mr Dennis Slaughter, Mr Andy Smith, rh Mr Andrew Smith, Owen Spellar, rh Mr John Stringer, Graham Stuart, Ms Gisela Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry Tami, Mark Thornberry, Emily Timms, rh Stephen Trickett, Jon Turner, Karl Twigg, Derek Twigg, Stephen Vaz, Valerie Walley, Joan Watts, Mr Dave Weir, Mr Mike Whiteford, Dr Eilidh Whitehead, Dr Alan Williamson, Chris Wilson, Phil Wilson, Sammy Winnick, Mr David Winterton, rh Ms Rosie Wishart, Pete Wood, Mike Woodcock, John Wright, David Wright, Mr Iain
892
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane Abrahams, Debbie Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob Alexander, rh Mr Douglas Alexander, Heidi Ali, Rushanara Allen, Mr Graham Anderson, Mr David Ashworth, Jonathan Austin, Ian Bailey, Mr Adrian Bain, Mr William Balls, rh Ed Banks, Gordon Barron, rh Mr Kevin Bayley, Hugh Beckett, rh Margaret Begg, Dame Anne Benn, rh Hilary Benton, Mr Joe Berger, Luciana Betts, Mr Clive Blackman-Woods, Roberta Blenkinsop, Tom Blomeld, Paul Blunkett, rh Mr David Brennan, Kevin Brown, Lyn Brown, rh Mr Nicholas Brown, Mr Russell Buck, Ms Karen Burden, Richard Byrne, rh Mr Liam Campbell, Mr Alan Campbell, Mr Ronnie Caton, Martin Champion, Sarah Chapman, Jenny Clark, Katy Clarke, rh Mr Tom Clwyd, rh Ann Coaker, Vernon Coffey, Ann Connarty, Michael Cooper, Rosie Cooper, rh Yvette Corbyn, Jeremy Creagh, Mary Creasy, Stella Cruddas, Jon Cryer, John Cunningham, Alex Cunningham, Mr Jim Cunningham, Sir Tony Curran, Margaret Dakin, Nic David, Wayne Davidson, Mr Ian Davies, Geraint De Piero, Gloria Denham, rh Mr John Dobbin, Jim Dobson, rh Frank Docherty, Thomas Dodds, rh Mr Nigel Donohoe, Mr Brian H. Doran, Mr Frank Doughty, Stephen Dowd, Jim Doyle, Gemma Dromey, Jack Dugher, Michael Durkan, Mark Eagle, Ms Angela Eagle, Maria Edwards, Jonathan Efford, Clive Ellman, Mrs Louise Esterson, Bill Evans, Chris Farrelly, Paul Field, rh Mr Frank Flello, Robert Flynn, Paul Gapes, Mike Gardiner, Barry Gilmore, Sheila Glass, Pat Glindon, Mrs Mary Godsiff, Mr Roger Goggins, rh Paul Goodman, Helen Green, Kate Greenwood, Lilian Griffith, Nia Gwynne, Andrew Hain, rh Mr Peter Hamilton, Fabian Hanson, rh Mr David Harris, Mr Tom Healey, rh John Hermon, Lady Hillier, Meg Hodgson, Mrs Sharon Hoey, Kate Hopkins, Kelvin Howarth, rh Mr George Hunt, Tristram Irranca-Davies, Huw Jackson, Glenda James, Mrs Sin C. Jamieson, Cathy Jarvis, Dan Johnson, rh Alan Johnson, Diana Jones, Graham Jones, Helen Jones, Mr Kevan Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald Keeley, Barbara Kendall, Liz Khan, rh Sadiq Lammy, rh Mr David

Mr Frank Roy and Susan Elan Jones
Question accordingly agreed to. Bill read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), EDUCATION
That the draft Education (Amendment of the Curriculum Requirements) (England) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 10 June, be approved.(Mr Swayne.)
Question agreed to.
893
2 JULY 2013
HPV Vaccine
894
HPV Vaccine
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.(Mr Swayne.) 8.58 pm Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con): I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for granting me this debate on vaccinations against the human papillomavirus, otherwise known as HPV. My main aim is to raise the issue of the inherent inequality of the vaccination programme, which excludes men. Discussing this issue involves raising topics that people often do not want to talk about, but such discussion is easier than having to deal with the illnesses and diseases that arise from not vaccinating. Embarrassment is preferable to the many cancers that are associated with HPV. Let me begin by saying that it is important to acknowledge the success of the programme. Since its launch in 2008-09, it has successfully screened and vaccinated more than 80% of applicable girls. Last year the original HPV vaccine was replaced with the quadrivalent HPV vaccine, which provides protection against the two strains of HPV that cause at least nine in 10 cases of genital warts. Of course this added protection is above the primary purpose of the vaccination programmeto bring down rates of cervical and vaginal cancer in women. Men are, however, up to six times more likely than women to have oral HPV infection, thereby increasing the risk of cancers of the throat, neck and head. Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con): I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend mention throat cancers in men. Will he address how much the treatment of such diseases would cost compared with the cost of the vaccine? Mike Freer: Yes, I will raise the cost-effectiveness of the vaccine as compared with the treatment costs of many cancers, including oral or pharyngeal cancer, which is throat cancer. In 2009, just after the HPV vaccination programme started, there were over 6,500 cases of these cancers, with 47% of penile cancers and 16% of head and neck cancers thought to be HPV-related. Today, however, overall rates of HPV-related cancer and warts should should, I stresssubsequently come down in heterosexual men, because of so-called herd immunity. Herd immunity is where men have sex with vaccinated women and thereby get protection against warts, as well as other cancers including penile, anal, oral and pharyngeal cancers. However, they only get such protection if they have sexual contact with UK-born women who have been vaccinated, or with Australian women or those of the very few countries that have had a mass vaccination programme. Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree it might be better if we had a regional vaccination programme not only for England and Wales, but for Scotland and Northern Ireland as well, so we can address issues of education and intervention UK-wide first, but also globally? Mike Freer: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. On a small island such as ours it is important that men who are having sex with women, or men having sex with
men, are having sex with partners who are vaccinated, and I believe that is not just a matter for England and Wales, but the whole of the United Kingdom, and we would also then be setting an example for the rest of the world. Herd immunity is valuable, but it is not foolproof for heterosexual men. I have mentioned that it is valuable where heterosexual men are having sex with vaccinated women, but men who have sex with men are not subject to herd immunity, and that is another element of inequality. Evidence from other countries suggests herd immunity will eventually prevent most, but not all, cases of HPVrelated cancer in heterosexual men. There is still work to be done, therefore, on all men having vaccinations against HPV-related cancers. Some HPV-related cancers are on the rise in the UK, despite the vaccination programme. Throat cancer has overtaken cervical cancer as the leading HPV-related cancer in the UK. Men who have sex with women who are not vaccinated remain at risk. This is of concern to men who, for example, have sex while on holiday or while living outside the UK, or who have sex with unvaccinated migrants to the UKbut men, straight or gay, remain at risk. The current programme is inequitable, as those men who stray from the herd by having sex with unvaccinated women or men will remain at risk. That is why I am seeking a commitment for the HPV vaccination programme to be widened. The key issue I wish to press is the health inequality in respect of gay men and anal cancer, an inequality perpetuated by the current vaccination policy. Gay men already experience poorer sexual health as a group; they are at an increasing and far higher risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections compared with the wider population. Rates of anal cancer in gay men are now equivalent to those for cervical cancer in women before the cervical cancer screening programme was introduced in 1988. HPV is associated with 80% to 85% of anal cancer in men, yet it is not yet possible to screen for or effectively treat anal pre-cancer, as it is for cervical cancer; HPV vaccination is the only effective form of prevention, and it is being denied to men. Gay men with HIV are particularly susceptible to HPV-related anal cancer and as the number of gay men with HIV continues to rise year on year, so will cases of anal cancer, other HPV-related cancers and warts. In addition to having a disproportionate effect in HIV-positive men, HPV can increase the risk of HIV transmission. HPV can increase skin fragility and overt anal warts can bleed, which enhances the risks of acquisition or transmission of HIV infection. This health inequality between gay men and the general population will continue to widen as long as gay men remain unprotected against HPV. I stress this point as it relates to gay men, but it also affects heterosexual men who are equally unprotected. Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on making a powerful argument on a difficult subject. Michael Douglas, the actor, was given much criticism in the press recently for talking about these difficult issues. I know about this, because I had the HPV vaccine as a 17-year-old, so I am glad the hon. Gentleman has brought the matter to the Floor of the House. I just want to highlight the fact that this is an issue not only for homosexual men in terms of the vast
895 [Pamela Nash]
HPV Vaccine
2 JULY 2013
HPV Vaccine
896
health inequalities they have here in the UK, but for heterosexual men. Although we have a successful HPV vaccination programme for young women, we by no means have the whole herd vaccinated just yet. Mike Freer: The hon. Lady makes a good point. Herd immunity is valuable only for those who are sleeping within the herd. Those who have sex outside the herd are at risk, and that inequality needs to be addressed. The best way to protect all males against HPV-related cancers and warts would be to offer the vaccine to all boys aged 12 to 13, as well as girls, as part of the school-based immunisation programme. The vaccine is most effective when given at this younger age, before people start having sex and before exposure to the strains of HPV. Other countries are starting to do that; the vaccine is available for boys in a number of other countries, including Australia and the United States. I firmly believe that we should follow suit. If we do not have a widespread vaccination programme for boys, at least, and as a as a bare minimum, gay men should be offered the vaccine when they first present at a sexual health clinic as men who have sex with men. That would match the current policy on offering hepatitis B vaccinations to gay men. Given the expense of treating HPV-related cancers and warts, there is a strong costeffectiveness argument for extending the availability of the HPV vaccine. If the inequality is not a powerful argument, the cost savings to the Department of Health must be. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation inquiry that began last year is welcome, although little is known of the progress it is making. If the JCVI looks into the cost-effectiveness of vaccination initiatives, it will find that the case to extend the programme to boys is irrefutable. Each HPV vaccination for the three-dose programme costs 260. Compare that with the lifetime treatment and care cost of an HIV-positive man or woman at 280,000 a year, the 13,000 cost of treating anal cancer, the 11,500 cost of treating penile cancer, the 15,000 cost of treating for oropharyngeal cancer or the 13,600 cost of treating vulval and vaginal cancer transmitted by an infected male. In 2010, the cost of treating anogenital warts was 52.4 million. Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. If the Minister and the Department are considering reviewing the vaccine in the light of his speech, may I ask the Minister whether she will also consider another aspect of thisthat is, the number of young women who have had a severe adverse reaction to the vaccine? My constituent, Stacey Jones, received the vaccine five years ago and since then she has struggled with memory loss, loss of concentration, mood swings and a need for continuing treatment by the neurology department at the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham. Does the Minister accept that it cannot be an acceptable price to pay for what might be an otherwise beneficial vaccine programme if some young women undergo such a severe reaction? Will the Minister and her officials look into this to see how many other young women are in
that position and whether changes can be made to reduce the number of young women who have had such a reaction or even stop it altogether? Mike Freer: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for intervening on me to ask the Minister a question and I am sure that she will answer it in due course. He makes a valuable point, however. I, too, have a constituent who had an adverse reaction to the vaccine and who is believed to have myalgic encephalomyelitis as a result. Statistically, such reactions might only be small in number compared with the benefits of the widespread vaccination programme, but he makes a good point in that it is important that the Department of Health tracks them to see whether a pattern emerges over time. Mr Spencer: My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. Is screening available on the NHS to prove whether someone is a carrier of HPV? If I presented myself to my local GP and asked to be screened, would such screening be readily available? Mike Freer: To be honest, I am not sure that I can answer the question. I suspect, however, that if my hon. Friend presented at a sexual health clinic, the staff might be able to advise on what screening or tests were available to identify whether he is a carrier of HPV. It is quite common in men, so in all probability he is. He might want to visit a sexual health clinic tomorrowif I have not frightened him too much. I understand that the JCVI inquiry is limited to considering cervical cancer, which restricts the review to women and girls. I press my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that the JCVIs scope will be extended to include all HPV cancers so that we can look at how best to vaccinate boys, girls, women and men. The Department of Health must redefine the formal aim of the programme, because if it does not it will be compounding inequality and cost-ineffectiveness. Males must be protected against the four strains of HPV. The herd immunity that will potentially result from the current programme is often used as a defence for not vaccinating boys, but that implicit intention of excluding men who have sex with men or men who have sex with women who are not vaccinated is simply not sustainable. The inequality of health protection is obvious and so are the cost savings that I have identified. I know that the Minister will be as concerned as I am that that cost-ineffectiveness and inequality cannot be allowed to continue, and I look forward to hearing her confirmation that the scope of the review will be widened. 9.13 pm The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) on securing the debate and bringing this important subject before the House. He speaks, as ever, with considerable knowledge and makes a powerful argument. I would not expect anything other than that from my hon. Friend. I shall not rehearse the statistics on vaccination, as they were well explained by my hon. Friend, and the success that it has had in its take-up among young women. It has been a success. Seven million doses have
897
HPV Vaccine
2 JULY 2013
HPV Vaccine
898
been given so far in the United Kingdom, and we have achieved one of the highest rates of HPV vaccine coverage in the world, with 87% of the routine cohort of girls completing the three-dose course in the 2011-12 academic year. That contrasts with 35% take-up in America. The very low take-up in America explains why America has extended the vaccination to boys as well as girls; it is only 35% in girls. As my hon. Friend explained most ably, because of the high uptake of HPV vaccine amongst girls, it is argued correctly that many boys are indirectly protected against HPV-associated cancers, such as anal cancer and head and neck cancers, as transmission of the virus between girls and boys should be substantially lowered. But of course, my hon. Friend is making the point that it does not protect men who have sex with men, and men who have sex with women who have not had the vaccine. Jim Shannon: In my intervention on the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), I made the point about conducting campaigns regionally and UK-wide. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Health Minister in Northern Ireland, for instance, or the Health Minister in Scotland to ensure that we have a UK-wide strategy to address this issue? Anna Soubry: I am going to repeat everything that has been said, and I agree; that is a very important point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green argues, the vaccine does not protect men who have sex with women who have not been vaccinated, because they may have been in a country where the vaccine was not available to them. So I completely take the point, which is well made, and ask my officials to take it back to the Department. As hon. Members know, the Department of Health is advised on all immunisation matters by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisationan independent expert advisory committeeand our HPV vaccination policies are accordingly based on the advice of the JCVI. When the committee considered the introduction of the HPV vaccine in relation to cervical cancer, it did not recommend the vaccination of boys because with high vaccine uptake among girls, as is the case in the UK, it is judged that there would be little benefit in vaccinating boys. With the high uptake of HPV vaccine among girls, we would expect many boys to be indirectly protected against vaccine-type HPV infections and associated diseases, including anal cancer, head and neck cancers and penile cancers. However, the JCVI recognises that under the current programme, the same protection may not be provided to men who have sex with men, and of course men who have sex with women who have not had the vaccination. Mr Spencer: I hope the Minister would recognise that, obviously, ideally we should be vaccinating boys who are pre-puberty, and at that stage we have no idea of their sexual orientation or whether they may fulfil their career abroad or in the UK, so we have no way to identify whether they are at risk. Anna Soubry: I am going to struggle, because that is another good point. I always try to be honest when I come to the Dispatch Box and when hon. Members
make good pointspoints that were made not only by my hon. Friend, but by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash). The point raised by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) is related to the actual vaccine, and I am more than happy to discuss that case, or any other adverse reactions of young women to the vaccine, with him. I am very sorry for his constituent, and I am more than happy to have that discussion with him and help in any way I can. He raises an important point. As we have heard, in June 2012 the JCVI was presented with data on HPV infections and it noted that there is early evidence to suggest that the HPV immunisation programme in England is lowering the number of HPV 16 and 18 infectionsthe strains of HPV that are linked to these unpleasant cancersin females in birth cohorts that have been eligible for vaccination. I accept that the data are very limited on the prevalence of HPV infections among men who have sex with men, but we hope that research under way at University college London will provide more data and an age profile of HPV prevalence. HPVs, particularly types 16 and 18, are associated with the majority of anal cancers as well as cervical cancers, and to lesser degree with penile, vaginal, vulval and head and neck cancers, but HPV types 16 and 18 predominate in cancers at those sites that are HPV-related. Data on the impact of HPV vaccination on infection at some of these non-cervical sites are limited. The JCVI noted that the potential impact of HPV vaccination on non-cervical cancers would make the current HPV immunisation programme even more costeffective, but it would remain the case that, given the expected effects of immunisation on HPV transmission and the indirect protection of boys that accrues from high coverage of HPV vaccination in girls, vaccination of boys in addition to girls was unlikely to be cost-effective. That argument, which we know is advanced, is combated by all that has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood and for Finchley and Golders Green, who urge us to consider the cost of treating someone who has one of these cancers. Evidence for indirect protection would continue to be evaluated by the ongoing HPV surveillance programme at the former Health Protection Agency, now part of Public Health England, but the JCVI agreed that there may be little indirect protection of men who have sex with men from the current immunisation programme. Therefore, the impact and cost-effectiveness of vaccination strategies for men who have sex with men, with the offer of vaccination through general practice and/or at genitourinary medicine clinics, needed to be assessed. In addition, data on the prevalence by age of HPV infections in men who have sex with men and in the settings where vaccination could be offered to them were needed to determine the potential effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination of men who have sex with men. It would also be important to understand better the rates of HPV-related disease in men who have sex with men and the influence of HPV on HIV infection. As we have heard, in August 2012, the JCVI issued a call for evidence from interested parties, including for information to inform a study on the impact and costeffectiveness of HPV vaccination of men who have sex with men. Any new proposals for the vaccination of
899 [Anna Soubry]
HPV Vaccine
2 JULY 2013
HPV Vaccine
900
additional groups will require supporting evidence to show that this would be a cost-effective use of resources. The JCVI also asked the HPA, now part of PHE, to undertake that study. The study is under way and, once completed, will be considered by the JCVI, at the earliest in 2014. The Department will consider carefully the advice from JCVI, once the committee has completed its assessment. Pamela Nash: May I reiterate the point the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made about the need to have conversations with ministerial colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? As the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) argued powerfully, this is about homosexual men and men who have sex with men, but also men who have sex with women who have not been vaccinated. It is important to have those conversations with the other nations. Anna Soubry: I am grateful for that intervention. I was about to conclude by saying that it is only fair and right to acknowledge the powerful arguments that have been advanced by a number of hon. Members this evening. They have certainly caused me to take the view that I will not hesitate to contact the JCVI, as a matter of urgency, to raise all these important points with them. The committee is an independent expert body, and when it gives its advice to the Government, the Government arequite rightlybound to accept that advice. Mike Freer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the commitment and the confirmation that the JCVI is now looking at this, but while we are waiting for 2014 and the results, can my hon. Friend confirm, if not tonight then in writing, that the Department of Health will give some guidance that sexual health clinics and GUM clinics can offer the vaccinations as an option before that becomes mandatory, should the JCVI recommend that?
Anna Soubry: I had thought that that was already the situation; but if I am wrong, I will not hesitate to agree to a quite proper, reasonable request. I think that I am wrong. Mike Freer: My hon. Friend is being very generous. May I confirm that the vaccination is only available to men on private health schemes and that they have to pay for it? Anna Soubry: Forgive meit is available, but people have to pay for it. The point being made is that they should not have to pay for it. It should be available, like any other vaccination. That is a good point, and one that I am more than happy to take up. These are all important and powerful arguments, especially when they are advanced on the basis of inequality, which should concern us all, wherever it may lie, and a good argument has been made that it is simply not fair on men who have sex with men that they should not have the same sort of protection as heterosexual men. If for no other reason, that demands that I make further inquiry. As I repeatI am sorry to have to repeat itthe committee is an independent body, but it has such force and power that when it makes a recommendation, there is no debate or argument about it: the Government follow its recommendation. I am more than happy to take the matter forward and to make sure also, which is very important, that the committees recommendations and findings are made as soon as possible. At present, I am told that that will be in 2014 at the earliest, but it seems to be the sort of matter that requires everybodys most urgent attention. I hope that is a positive note on which to finish. Question put and agreed to. 9.26 pm House adjourned.
169WH
2 JULY 2013
Wright Committee
170WH
Westminster Hall
Tuesday 2 July 2013
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): I am following the hon. Gentlemans speech with great interest, and he is making a powerful case. Page 27 of the coalition agreement, which brought the present Government to power, says in black and white:
We will bring forward the proposals of the Wright Committee for reform to the House of Commons in fullstarting with the proposed committee for management of backbench business. A House Business Committee, to consider government business, will be established by the third year of the Parliament.
[MR DAVID CRAUSBY in the Chair]
Wright Committee
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.(Mr Swayne.) 9.30 am Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab): It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby, in this debate about the Wright Committee. In this country, we elect a Parliament, but we do not elect a Government. A Government without legitimacy must find that legitimacy elsewhere; in our case, they do so by taking over and running our Parliament. Almost all the problems of our democracy can be traced to that fundamental failure to have a genuine separation of powers. For example, the public, and even some Members of Parliament, see the parliamentary interest and the Government interest as one. To be truly a pluralist democracyone in which many independent and legitimate institutions interactwe need belatedly to tread the path of virtually every other western democracy and to be allowed directly to elect our Government. Only then will Parliament, free from Executive control and domination, be fully functional and fit to fulfil its purpose which, in Gladstones words, is not to run the country, but to hold to account those who do. Until then, those of us who believe in building a broad-based democracy need to point out, not least to Ministers, that by dominating Parliament, the Government cheat themselves of an effective partner, as well as denying the people their separate legislature and their democratic voice. That system has been seen to fail over and over again, and we are still in the midst of it. We need to recognise the changes that are necessary to get us to a different place, and part of the education and reform effort involves demonstrating how an effective Parliament could work. There is no better example of that than the work of the Wright Committee. Its creation was a fluke; its legitimacyit was the first parliamentary Committee elected by MPs themselves in a secret ballot was a miracle; and the timing of its report, which appeared just before the radical and never-to-be-repeated first year of a new Government, was fortunate. The strength of its cause, the determination of its members and the masterful maximisation of opportunity by its Chair led to some significant change. However, although a tired Government, strong leadership and a radical Leader of the House meant that some change happened, the window soon closed. When the former Opposition came to power, they were soon taught it was their historic Executive duty to prostitute Parliament. Parties that come to power without an understanding of the power relationship between the Executive and the legislature are always doomed to follow that path.
Why does the hon. Gentleman think the Government have not fulfilled their pledge, which is written in blood in the coalition agreement? Mr Allen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I also congratulate him on being an obvious example of those colleagues in the House who put the parliamentary interest above the alternative Executive interest, and he is always courageous in doing so. He makes a good point about the coalition agreement, although I do not wish to intrude on private grief between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat partners. However, the Liberal Democrats were always great reformers when they had no chance of being in government. On many of these issues, I agreed very much with their viewseven more than with the Labour partys views. However, the appeal of those views seems to have lost its glitter for them in the past three years, as the seduction of being in government, and of being seen to be the leading personalities in the Government, has overtaken the desire actually to do something about this issue. The Labour party should take cognisance of that. On the specific point about why the Government have done nothing, I will let the Minister respond, because he is better placed to do so. He will be able to tell us the ins and outs of why the problem has occurred and why nothing has happened. What we have seen is, however, part of the process of integration; it is almost reminiscent of the old show trials, in that people are put through the fire and made to recant. Sometimes they have to appear in the dock, holding up their trousers because their belt has been taken away, as in the 1930s movies of the reformed Communist party in the Soviet Union. However, perhaps the Minister is wearing a belt todayI look forward to finding out. It is strange that the indignity involved here is crystal clear because, as the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) said, the words are in the coalition agreement. There is no room for equivocation in the words he read out, as the agreement says the changes will happen. None the less, the Minister, whom I have a lot of time for, and the Leader of the House get up in public to recant and deny; they tell us what their sins were and say they will not repeat them, even though their earlier words are written, as the hon. Gentleman said, in blood in the coalition agreement, which apparently governs the country. That is a great shame, because hard-won manifesto commitments and sacred commitments in coalition agreements between parties should not be cast aside lightly or quietly. One reason I applied for the debate was so that the House could seeshould it wish towhy such a strong promise has been broken. Those who believe in the parliamentary interest, as I and most other people in the Chamber do, need to prepare for the next opportunity. Opportunities are rare, but in 2015, when a new Government come to
171WH [Mr Allen]
Wright Committee
2 JULY 2013
Wright Committee
172WH
power, there will be a brief moment when further progress can be made on reforming the House. We should do that not in a starry-eyed way, but in the certain knowledge that if we press too far, the Executive will block any serious change. We need to be ready for incremental change, and we need leadership and commitment from various parties to make it happen. The hon. Gentleman has tempted me to talk a little about the coalition. My assumption is that there will be an attempt before the 2015 election to differentiate the two coalition partners. I hope that the Conservative party takes the opportunity to restate its commitment to this issue, particularly as it may, in the past few years, have witnessed Parliament operating more effectively than at any point during my time in the House. I also hope that the Liberal Democrats will rediscover their tradition of democratic reform, which is much needed. I hope, too, that Labour party Front Benchers will see that just running the machine without an effective Parliamentthat keeping Parliament down and placated is choosing to tackle our nations serious problems with one hand tied behind our backs. Let us become an effective partnership, with Parliament doing its job and its duty of making the Government better. The Wright process introduced much of which we can be proud, but still there is a great deal to be done. Many in the large 2010 intake of new Members thankfully take the progress for granted, but they should know that much of it was incredibly hard won, and was fought for over decades. It needs to be preserved and extended in the face of Executive powera power that is unfettered by a clear constitution. That power will always try, when the opportunity arises, to regain total control over its parliamentary vassal and vehicle, if there are no bulwarks against that inevitable process to prevent the internalised culture in Whitehall from making its mark. That process has been made more difficult by the fact that the Government are a coalition. However, a return to one-party business as usual will bring a strong revival of Executive retrenchment and many people will be licking their lips at the prospect of putting Parliament back in its place where it belongs, to do what it is told. I speak not out of fantasy, but as one who served some time in the Government Whips Office and saw that process. I saw a clear demonstration of how that power is used against the parliamentary interest. It is incumbent on all of us who believe in an independent Parliament to outline the next steps in the unfinished business of the Wright Committee and to help to formulate some proposals. Then, in the brief window after 2015, if all the other astrological conjunctions occur as they did at the time of the Committee, it may be possible to take a few more steps forward. First, however, let us celebrate and take a rare moment to savour some of the achievements. The election of Select Committee members by MPs in a secret ballot, rather than their being appointed by the agents of the Government, was one of the biggest steps forward. Some new Members do not believe that things were ever done in another way. I warn them that they were, for my political lifetime, done differently, and that, if parliamentarians are not vigilant, those days could return. The second achievement was the election of Select Committee Chairs by MPs in a secret ballot of the whole House, meaning that they now speak for
Parliament and their colleagues, rather than being awarded their chairmanship as a consolation prize for losing office, as often happened. That has led to a glimmer of an alternative path for parliamentarians who want to pursue a legitimate, respected and honourable trade as a member of the legislature, disdaining offers of office and feeling that their role is not to be in office, but to hold the Government to account. Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful speech and I agree entirely with the gist of what he says, although I would probably be more adventurous than him by wanting to go a little further. In my view, the Chairmen of Select Committees are more powerful than many junior Ministers, but they are paid less. Surely a Select Committee Chairman should be paid an equivalent salary to a Minister. Mr Allen: Select Committee Chairs, of whom I am one, regard their post as the most incredible honour particularly now that it is awarded by colleagues. The quality of Select Committee work has improved immeasurably in the past few years. The quality of the reports, and the fact that Chairs speak not only for their Committees but for the House, mean that there is greater strength in what they say. Their effect as well as their status has improved. I can give only a personal answer to the hon. Gentleman, who is strident in his support of the parliamentary interest as opposed to the Executive interest, often at some cost to himself. For me, the honour of being a Select Committee Chair is a great thing, and I did not seek it for recompense. I would be happy to have a personal assistant for the Committeenot a Committee Clerkbecause I would regard that as a greater advantage and help to me, in the job that I do, than the extra payment. I do not even know what that payment is, but perhaps we should all put those sums into a pool to strengthen the efforts of our Select Committee structure and build it even more strongly. The final achievement, in addition to the election of Select Committee members and Chairs by secret ballot, without the assistance of the Government or the alternative Government to help Members decide, was the creation of the Backbench Business Committee, which enabled Parliament to get the smallest toehold to show that it can run even a small part of its own business with maturity and creativity. I commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who chairs the Select Committee, and I am delighted to see her in the Chamber. She did not always agree with the direction of the Wright Committee, but she has turned herself into a central figurewhether she likes it or notin the reform of the House of Commons. I congratulate her on the serious and mature approach of the new Backbench Business Committee. Everyone thought that if we had such a Committee, civilisation would collapse, but it has proved its case. Perhaps above all, the Backbench Business Committee gives us the confidence to say, We can do this; we do not need some unnamed civil servantI shall not name anyone, but they know who they are: the most powerful people in British Government who run the House of Commons. My hon. Friend can do her job capably, and Select Committee Chairs can run their
173WH
Wright Committee
2 JULY 2013
Wright Committee
174WH
Select Committees very well. The House should take confidence from the progress of the Backbench Business Committee and, instead of fearing that something might be lost, should use it as a base from which to build an ever-stronger and more independent House of Commons and Parliament. What is the unfinished business? The main thing is the creation of a House business committee. Parliament is not allowed to set its own agenda, or even to be consulted on it, other than in the most ritualistic, formulaic way. Remarkably, the very Government who are meant to be held to account set the agenda of the institution that, theoretically at least, is meant to do that holding to account. If this were any other walk of life, the average High Court judge would throw out such an arrangement as counter to natural justice, but in Parliament we swallow the mythology and treat it as part of everyday life, without challenge. It takes centuries of self-deception to get normally intelligent people to swallow that without question, but we are now being given the opportunity, through the Wright Committee proposals, to question that seriouslyperhaps for the first time. I do not mean that the Government should not get their business. I am clear about that, as was the Wright Committee. We introduced stringent safeguards, up to and including the nuclear weapon enabling the Government to vote through the business statement if they ever felt the slightest bit challenged. It is not a weapon that we give the Government gladly, but it is there if they want to take it up. However, the Government getting their own business need not mean that Parliament cannot be properly involved and consulted on its own agenda. The Backbench Business Committee proved that that can happen without civilisation collapsing. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that I chair will report on that issue soon, and it is no secret that we shall try to propose ways forwardbeing co-operative, and being partners in the processthat will not make the Government anxious. Parliament might be the emaciated pet mouse of the 800 lb gorilla of Executive power, but we are ever conscious of how sensitive and highly strung our master is, so our proposals will not be too frighteningI say that to all Front Benchers listening attentively everywhere. There is a lot more unfinished business beyond that of the House business committee. The Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee is still not elected effectively and properly, for example. We are grown up enough, as many democracies are, to elect our own person. It beggars belief in this day and age that we are treated like children incapable of making decisions on such sensitive matters. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire might want to say more in her contribution, but timetabling Back-Bench business for Thursdays lowers its status. A number of Members take the opportunity to go early. If we were properly respected, much, if not all, of that business would be taken at times when we could guarantee greater attendance in the House. That needs to be examined so that we can do that job properly. Mr Hollobone: I am enjoying the hon. Gentlemans speech immensely. He is making a good point about Thursdays, but of course it is not the whole point. In the early days, Back-Bench business on Thursdays often
had a votable motion, and the attendance proved to be large, the votes were well supported and the debates much enhanced. Mr Allen: There is a nuance in the debate on votable motions for Back-Bench business. In setting up the Backbench Business Committee, I certainly felt that we did not want to frighten the Government, and I was not in favour of votable business from the Backbench Business Committee. That now needs to be reconsidered, however, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire, who chairs the Committee, will mention that, too. One area where we could perhaps make immediate progress is on having more votes on the recommendations of carefully put together, impartial Select Committee reports. The Select Committees of this House, which are now not the creatures of the Whips but are elected independently, should be capable of speaking for the House and making recommendations on policy, with some of the key recommendations heard on the Floor of the House. I hope we can take that matter further as part of the unfinished business of Wright. Mr Bone: Is not one of the problems the fact that the Backbench Business Committee, under the excellent chairmanship of the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), started off very well but that the Whips then got to work? The Whips did not give the Committee dates in advance, and they gave fag-end days when they did give datesthe last day of term or Thursdays. The new doctrine the Whips have invented is that, when a votable motion is carried, the Government can ignore it. The Executive are carefully downgrading something that was working very well. Mr Allen: I am conscious of trying to make this new creation both effective and sustainable, and the hon. Gentleman tempts me to stretch the elastic a little. My fear is of breaking that elastic in the first couple of years of an innovative Select Committee, but I think now is the time to reconsider such things. He makes his point wisely and with great passion, as he is known to do. Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab): I am listening to the hon. Members for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who were inaugural members of the Backbench Business Committee and without whose work the Committee would not be what it is today, but Thursdays, even though people think of them as fag-end days, are sitting daysthey always have been, and they continue to be so. In fact, even on those days when debates are scheduled that are not on votable motions but are on topics of interest, the Chamber is packed in a way that we have not seen in previous Parliaments. That is because those debates have been chosen by Members themselves, and it is the act of taking responsibility for those debates that means the Chamber is very full and there is always a time limit on speeches. We still have votable motions, including on Thursdays, and it is down to individual Members to ask for votable motions or general debates. How the Government or the Whips respond to those votable motions is down to
175WH [Natascha Engel]
Wright Committee
2 JULY 2013
Wright Committee
176WH
them, and it is up to us as Back Benchers to hold them to account for the business that we have voted through Parliament. Mr Allen: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. In looking to improve around the margins some of the things that the Backbench Business Committee does, we should not miss the big picture. The Committee has been an incredibly powerful change, it is progress for the House and it gives us great courage and strength when considering what further the House could do. At the time of the recommendation, people were saying, This is ridiculous. These people will be out of control. They will be doing pet topics. It depends who seizes control of the Committee, and it will be absolute chaos. Well, people should look at private Members Bills if they want to talk about chaosthey are another issue that needs to be resolved and cleaned up. The Backbench Business Committee has proved that the House is capable of executing its own business and agenda responsibly and maturely, and it gives us great faith that that could happen in the proper context of a House business committee. There are other things that we need to consider, and I have mentioned private Members Bills. What a shameful farce it is to talk to members of the public about the process for private Members Bills. The process has always been a farce, and it needs to be cleaned up so that the House can proceed with a small number of Billsperhaps only three or fourthat are guaranteed to be given a Second Reading and to go into Committee, if a majority in the House agrees. Such Bills could be voted down if the Government do not like them, but we should end the nonsense of talking stuff out, using procedural tricks and all the other stuff that just brings the House and Members into disrepute. Let us be honest about private Members Bills. There are many other things. Early-day motions are political graffiti. The Wright Committee recommended that a number of motions could be used to secure Members debates on the Floor of the House. Again, there would be a small number of occasional debates, but early days could be found so that some credibility is restored to early-day motions, rather than their being used to buy off constituents who have raised a particular issue with their Member of Parliament and feel that signing an early-day motion will change something. Let us actually create a process through which we can change something where there is sufficient cross-party support for an early-day motion. The Governments abuse of petitioning also needs to be addressed. The Government have stuck their nose into e-petitioning and have misrepresented what it can do. They have tried to foist the consequences on to the Backbench Business Committee and the legislature. We should send e-petitioning back to the Government and say, If the Government are petitioned, they must answer and respond. If people wish to petition and e-petition the House separately asking for a proper debate, the House should take that seriously, but it should not be given a ceiling. Editors in newsrooms tell their journalists they have to pump up the numbers so that they can press the House to have a vote on something that is on their agenda; petitions should be given back to the
people. The Government should separate from Parliament on petitioning, and we should address petitions in our own way internally. Hopefully, it will result in a number of debates taking place on which people have genuinely petitioned the House. We also need to revisit the inadvertent squeeze on minority parties caused by the changes. The Wright Committee proposed that the Speaker be allowed to nominate one person to Select Committees. That power would be used wisely, I am sure, by the incumbent, who would ensure that minority parties were represented where they otherwise would not be. The question of filling casual vacancies on Select Committees needs to be addressed, and will become ever more pressing as we approach an election and colleagues leave Select Committees, some to go into Government and some to defend a marginal seat a little more assiduously than they attend Select Committees. Some Select Committees are already experiencing that pressure. The question must be addressed now, and as the Executive control Parliament, they must address it, rather than letting it happen and then saying, Look, these people cant even fill the Select Committees. It is the Government who cannot fill casual vacancies in Select Committees. Committee members are not elected. Those vacancies need to be filledagain, ironicallyby the very people whom Select Committees hold to account. I have two last items of unfinished business. One main item is pre-legislative scrutiny. We have invented pre-legislative scrutiny because legislative scrutiny is so pathetic. We have a new process, for which I was partly responsible, but it is a convention, so when very important matters come before the House, it is open to Government to ram them through. When the Government need to react to the media or tomorrows newspapers, they can introduce a Bill. A classic recent example is the lobbying Bill, which will have no formal pre-legislative scrutiny. It will be rushed forward, even though my Select Committee considered the issue and produced a serious report more than a year ago. The Government have not replied to that report. They are pretty casual about replying Theres no real need; lets just chill out and do it when were readybut given a couple of scandals, they react: Weve got to show were doing something. Even though what they are doing has no relevance to the two cases that recently hit the headlines, they are ramming the Bill through quickly to get it into the sausage machine. Prostituting Parliament in that way will not make people respect the laws that are finally produced. Pre-legislative scrutiny is important. It is not a nice add-on; it should be central business of this House, and in my opinion, it should be in our Parliaments Standing Orders that as well as Second Reading, Report and consideration by the Lords, pre-legislative scrutiny should be mandatory unless the Speaker, in an emergency, says that it should not take place. The final issue that needs to be tackled is Report. If there is a Member here who feels that Report is a good process and shows the House in a great light, I will gladly give way. It is shameful how Government and their administrators abuse the House of Commons by flooding the Order Paper with late amendments. Not content to do so on Report in the Commons, they then do the same in the House of Lords and when the Bill returns to the House of Commons. They are treating
177WH
Wright Committee
2 JULY 2013
Wright Committee
178WH
the House with absolute contempt. It is one of the hallmarks of our subservience to the Executive that we tolerate it and see it as a sensible way to do our business. It is not. It should be sorted out, and when it is, we may have a Parliament worthy of the name. The Wright Committee did a great job. Tony Wright, the Chair, did an absolutely magnificent job of steering it. Its recommendations were not picked up by the then Labour Governmentthey were blockedbut we finally made some progress in the early days of the new Government. We must remember that next time: a solemn and binding promise agreed by not one but two partiesarguably, by threehas been broken. Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab) indicated dissent. Mr Allen: My colleague on the Front Bench shakes his head. Do I take it from that that the Labour party in Parliament did not agree with the creation of a House business committee? Thomas Docherty indicated assent. Mr Allen: He affirms that that is the case, which I think is sad, and it proves how much work we all have to do if we get into government and do something with government other than just change the bums on the seats. There is an awful lot of work still to do, but the Wright Committee has made great progress. As far as I am concerned, this debate should be a signal to those who believe that we should have a strong and independent Parliament that it is possible to win small victories, but we must ensure in the longer term that we continue to make our democracy into something with Parliament at the heart of it, where the parliamentary interest is separate, and hopefully separately elected, from the Government interest, which needs to be properly elected and legitimised. When that day comes, we will have two strong institutions working together. Our democracy will be stronger for it, and our nation will too. 10.6 am Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) on a powerful speech. I entirely agree with its content, so I shall go a littlein fact, a lotfurther and faster. I think that his reluctance to do so is due to the fact that unfortunately, he has spent a bit of time in the Whips Office, which does something to dent the spirit. When I first came to the House in 2005, I had a whole mound of mail, which I spent most of my time throwing in the bin. I opened an envelope, and there was a little book signed by the author, Graham Allen. It was an interesting book about the relationship with the Prime Minister: was he now actually the President? I could not put it down, and I have treasured it. It was nice to get it, but it was also a well-argued book. One of the debates that the book raises is whether we should have separation of powers and an Executive that is completely independent of Parliament. On balance, I think that is a bad thing, because we have the wonderful
opportunity, even if only on a Wednesday now, to ask the head of the Executive questions. There are still advantages to how our system works. However, the problem is that people in opposition who want to be in Government or become Prime Minister can analyse things correctly and sensibly. When the current Prime Minister was in opposition, he produced a wonderful speech called Fixing Broken Politics, which I urge every Member to read. Everything in it is right. He decided how he was going to correct things. He is now Prime Minister, and none of those things have been corrected. I argue that in many cases, they have got worse. There are a lot of things that we could easily do to bring Parliament back, even just a little. We can only move the pendulum back a bit at the moment, but one simple thing that we could do is restore Prime Ministers questions to twice a week, and have one occasion on a Thursday. At the moment, Members come down late on Monday for a vote in the evening, and on Wednesday evening, after Prime Ministers questions, they want to go. One thing that I have never understood is why so many Members work so hard to be elected and come to this place when, once they are here, all they want to do is get away from it. It is an extraordinary state of affairs. Regrettably, this debate is not particularly well attended. It should be packed. This is what parliamentarians should care about. Thomas Docherty: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that what we lack in quantity we make up for in quality? Mr Bone: As the hon. Gentleman and I recently slept together[Laughter.] I must explain that a little; it was an attempt by the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), who is in the Chamber, another colleague and me to take a little power back from the Executive. We spent four nights sleeping outside the Table Office, so that we were first in the queue for presentation Bills. We presented about 50 Bills last week; we took that power away from the Executive, so that we could introduce Bills. One of the Bills that I introduced was for an allowance for married couples, which I did not realise that the Chancellor was to take up this very week. In a small way, doing such things achieves something, although it is ridiculous that we have to spend four nights sleeping in a small attic room to take a little power back for Parliament. Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) look at the minutiae of how things might get done, but what about the broad idea of considering private Members Bills on Wednesday afternoons, rather than on Fridays, so that Members do not have to disengage from their constituencies and stay here for matters that are prioritised by those who are in the ballot? Mr Bone: I take the hon. Gentlemans point. I would argue differently. Absolutely, we need to reform how private Members business is done. I do not like the idea of, in effect, reducing the amount of time Members are in Parliament, so I like sitting for 13 Fridays a year. We do not sit that often in the House, and I do not want to consider private Members Bills on a Wednesday if that means no one is here on a Friday.
179WH [Mr Bone]
Wright Committee
2 JULY 2013
Wright Committee
180WH
If someone has a really important Bill, which the Member wants to get through but the Executive does not want to put on the agenda, it is incumbent on that Member to get other Members to feel passionately enough to turn up on a Friday. That is one of the hurdles that we should have to overcome; it should not be easy to get a private Members Bill through, but it absolutely should be possible, and it should not be possible merely to talk it out, as happens at the moment. I do not want to speak for long, because other eminent Members wish to contribute, but I will run through some of the things that annoy me about how the system works. One is programme motions. When the Conservative party was in opposition, we routinely opposed programme motions; we thought they were the worst things because they reduced scrutiny, as happened to a terrible degree under Prime Minister Blairs reign. Yet what have we done? We have come into power and made it 10 times worse. Every single thing, even if it is an amendment to the Scottish provisions for something or other, is timetabled, which is patently absurd. An important issue will be timetabled to such an extent that some of the amendments that we want to debate on Report will not be reached. I tabled an amendment to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, for example, proposing a referendum, but it was not discussed, because it was not reached in time. When a controversial issue is due to be discussed, it is a sure bet that there will be two statements on the same day, reducing the time even further. If statements are made, we should be able to go through the moment of interruption on a timetabled motion and add on the amount of time taken by the statements. I would move away from programming; the House is quite capable of running its own affairs. We would not be sitting to 4 oclock in the morning every night, but if an issue needs proper discussion, we should let it be discussed; if Members want to be here, let them. I do not understand how we have allowed the Executive to make the House of Commons so ineffective that we do not scrutinise Bills properly. Without the House of Lords, most of the Bills would not get the proper, detailed scrutiny that is desired. I would get rid of programming at a stroke, which, in opposition, the Prime Minister indicated needed to happen. The hon. Member for Nottingham North talked about only the election of Chairs of Select Committees, but we need the election of all Chairs of all Committees. Why on earth can we not do that? Why on earth does the Chair of the Statutory Instrument Committee, for example, have to be appointed? He or she could be elected. Some key Committees absolutely need to be elected. The Committee of Selection is a farce; it is appalling that the Whips try to appoint its Chair. Earlier this year, we blocked an attempt to throw out the current Chair, but in general that Committee needs to have members elected by the whole House, and it should then do the proper job of selecting the membership of Committees and choosing Members who are interested in the Bill to be scrutinised. That would make a huge difference to how we work. The Backbench Business Committee has done a tremendous job, and we are lucky to have its Chair, but the Whips are slowly undermining itthere is no question
about that. We can have a vote on something in the House of Commons, but the Government might have said to their Members, Please dont turn up and please dont vote. It is not only the Executive who are wrong about this; the Opposition, or shadow Executive, also do not want to change anything, because they are planning to get into power and to behave in exactly the same way. That is one of the saddest things about how parliamentary democracy works at the moment. We need a proper business committee, which should run the House on the basis of the Jopling priorities. The Government should have enough time to get their business through, but equally the Opposition should have enough time to scrutinise that business, and Back-Bench Members should have time to bring forward their own proposals. That is what we desperately need. I am agnostic on whether we keep the Backbench Business Committee separate or roll it into the business committee, but a committee for the business of the House must be introduced. Mr Allen: I have heard evidence on the matter, and no one now wishes to change the Backbench Business Committee and roll it into a business committee. That was a thought in the original Wright Committee report, but experience has taught us a better way to do things separately, electing both Committees. Mr Bone: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, although he may hear one such wish, because I am not sure yet. I do not trust the Government or the shadow Executive on the subject. I think that they will say, Because the Backbench Business Committee is great, that is doing Back-Bench business. The other committee, therefore, must be for the Executivea business committee would be an Executive one. That is the danger. If we have a proper committee for the business of the House, it should have no members of the Executive or shadow Executive on it, it should be elected by the House and it should produce a timetable that is amendable and can be voted onthat might go a little further than the hon. Gentleman intended. That is the real way to do things. We are a grown-up place; if we are to be a Parliament, that is how it should work. Otherwise, perhaps we should go completely the other way and have separation of powers. At the moment, however, we have a pretend Parliament on so many different issues. It breaks my heart that, with rare exceptions, Parliament does not bite back. Recently, we have had two good examples of how Parliament does and does not work. On same-sex marriages, because all the party leaders and their Front Benchers agreed with it, the Bill was rammed through Parliament without proper debate, and many amendments were not even reached. That was completely what is wrong with Parliament. The week before, we had the amendment to the Queens Speech, arising from a revolt among BackBench Members that had resulted, unbelievably, within the week, in the Government completely changing their policy on an issue, because Parliament had said, This is what we want to happen. We need more of that, and less of stuff being rammed through. There is so much we can do, but I am disappointed, because I do not think we will achieve any of it. The Deputy Leader of the House will give us a wonderful explanation of why we have not had the business committee
181WH
Wright Committee
2 JULY 2013
Wright Committee
182WH
in three years. It will be an absolutely wonderful explanation and it will be, of course, total rubbish, because I know the reason why we have not had that committee. I know what the Government care about because of where I sit in the House of Commons. You probably know, Mr Crausby, that I sit on the second Bench, behind the Ministers and the Whips. Any time there is discussion of the business committee of the House, the Whips, including the Leader of the House and Chief Whip, say, Over my dead body! I assume that that is what the Deputy Leader of the House will tell us. The Whips are completely opposed to the idea of a business committee of the Houseit is just not going to happen. Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman must have misspoken. Surely the Chief Whip could not have said, Over my dead body because it is on the record that the Chief Whip was a huge enthusiast in his previous job for a business committee and surely he cannot have changed his mind now that he is a Whip. Mr Bone: Was that before he became the Government Chief Whip? Thomas Docherty: Yes. Mr Bone: I think we have answered the question then. It is a wonderful piece of magic that these things happen when people change their position. Having said that, however, if I was sitting on the second Bench on the opposite side of the House of Commons, the Labour Whips would be saying exactly the same as the Government Whips, and that is the problem. It is not as if the Opposition are pushing for a business committee; they are not. The Opposition are mutedthey say nothingand I am really sad about that. I hope that what the hon. Member for Nottingham North has said today highlights the problem and I also hope that colleagues take it up. There may be a window of opportunity at the beginning of the next Parliament, but at the moment I see that we are going backwards rather than forwards. 10.21 am Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) on securing the debate and on his fine, principled and even visionary statement about how the House could and should operate. I do not think that there is anyone in the House with a longer or more robust record of wishing to see reform to parliamentary procedure, so it is a great pleasure to follow him. On the key question of the House business committee, which is central to the debate, and to which my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) referred, the Government made it absolutely clear in their coalition agreement that such a committee would be introduced within three yearsin other words by May this year, which is now two months ago. It is by far the most important of the Wright Committee reforms that have not been implemented so far. One normally gets only two chances a year to ask a question to the Prime Minister, but I was called at the beginning of the year to ask him about progress on the business committee. The Prime Minister said that the matter was very firmly under consideration, so we
would like to know from the Deputy Leader of the House why, after three years, these considerations are continuing to go on endlessly. The purpose of the House business committee, as proposed by the Wright Committee, was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North said so eloquently, to enable the House to gain control of its own agenda. At present, the Executive, under Standing Order No. 14, overwhelmingly control the use of parliamentary time, even following the creation of the excellent Backbench Business Committee. The Executive not only decide what business is put before the House, but the scheduling of that business. The Wright Committees proposal was that the House agenda should be determined not unilaterally by Ministers, but rather by the House itself, working in collaboration with Ministers. Ministers would still have adequate time to carry through their own businessno one is challenging thatbut the rest of the business should be not a matter for the Executive alone, but for the House as a whole. The main reform recommended by Wright for that purpose was that the House as a whole should be able to vote on the agenda for the next week or weeks, rather than, as we all know is the case at present, the agenda being delivered to the House ex cathedra by the Leader of the House, although sometimes, of course, that is after prior consultation with the Opposition through the usual channels. I repeat again, because this must not be used as an argument against change, that that process would in no way prevent the Governmentindeed, this could be written into the Standing Orders if necessary from being able to bring forward all their business for proper debate and a vote on the Floor of the House, and within an agreed time scale, so there would be no threat to the Government at all. Instead, the aim was to ensure that the remainder of parliamentary business was managed in a way that required the consent of the House and that was not manipulated in a manner designed to suit the interests of the Executive. At present, as has been said, Backbench Business Committee debates are invariably shunted to Thursdays. I am very glad that the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), is sitting beside me, and it is perfectly true that those Thursday debates are well attended. The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake): The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that 56 Members attended a Thursday debate about cycling. Mr Meacher: Yes, but it is also true that when more controversial issues are discussedalthough the great advantage of the Backbench Business Committee is that a lot of issues that would never arise in the House, but are of great interest to a significant proportion of the public, are debatedas the last vote is often on Wednesday at 7 pm, those debates are not sufficiently well attended to secure a vote that would properly reflect the balance of the whole House. Of course, many Members depart for other commitments on a Wednesday. That is their choice, even if many of us think that they should not do so, but the temptation to do so, because of the organisation of the agenda, is considerable. Private Members Bills are largely marginalised because they are confined to Fridays, when most MPs are in their constituencies, and there is a high voting bar to
183WH [Mr Meacher]
Wright Committee
2 JULY 2013
Wright Committee
184WH
secure Second Reading. Such Bills are also subject to severe time constraints, and they can be readily squeezed out due to filibustering on prior Bills taken the same day. The Report stage of Bills is crucial, but it is often a caricature of scrutiny: inadequate time is allotted to consider extremely important issues; many MembersI will return to this pointare not properly informed about what they are voting on; and many significant amendments are simply not reached at all. Equally, Lords amendments, which generally focus on issues that are not only the most controversial, but the most important, are frequently not given the time and consideration that they clearly deserve. Given the time pressure, less important business is often given a measure of priority that could be challenged. All those drawbacks and deficiencies could begin to be redressed by the principle of a votable agenda. I repeat that the Government would still command a majority in the House, but they would have to listen much more carefully to the strongly held views of Members, particularly when there was a consensus between the Opposition and Government Back Benchers. Crucially, it would introduce transparency into setting the agenda, which could involve all Members, not simply Front Benchers engaged in discussions through the usual channels behind the scenes. The Wright Committee envisaged that the votable agenda motion would supersede Thursdays business questions, and that it would be subject to debate and amendment, with the Speaker having the right to select and group amendments as happens now with other business. If an amendment was selected, it could be debated for up to 45 minutes, with time-limited speeches of perhaps five minutes. If no amendment was tabled, there could of course still be a question and answer session, which would be similar to what happens now. Clearly a votable motion could be presented by the Leader of the House and amended via the formalities of open debate on the Floor, followed by a Division. However, the whole process of agreeing the business agendaagreement is the key pointis likely to be far better negotiated, in a more inclusive and participative manner, if there have been detailed discussions between representatives of both the Executive and the legislature beforehand. Surely all Members must agree that openness is key to achieving better democratic accountability. Regular meetingsperhaps weeklybetween both sides, in the forum of a House business committee, are much more likely to secure the outcome that the management of Government business is a genuinely shared process that is not subject to hidden traps that the House discovers only later, at considerable cost, as happens all too often at present. The object of the exercise is not in any way to aggravate the Executive or to contest votes, but to build a consensus. It is about involvement in the actual decision making for the scheduling of Government business, not merely the scrutiny of decisions already taken. I shall say a quick word about how the House business committee might work, as several questions need to be settled. First, it should not pre-empt, incorporate or supersede in any way the excellent work of the Backbench Business Committee, which has been referred to strongly
in the debate. That Committee has an entirely separate function and, by general consent, has fulfilled it extremely well. It has established the right of Back Benchers to debate issues that otherwise might never have been debated, which often does not accord with the wishes of either Front Bench team. That should continue and not become confused with the very separate role of specifically scheduling Government business. Secondly, if the House business committee is not to be the usual channels writ large, it should not be chaired by either the Government Chief Whip or the Leader of the House. Since the essential characteristic of the chair should be exercising a non-partisan role, the obvious person to chair it would be the Speaker. Thirdly, the membership of the House business committeeof course, considerable discussion of this issue is neededshould be equally balanced between the legislature and the Executive. In a Committee of 15 members, for example, the Executive could choose its own seven representatives, while the other seven might be composed of, say, three chosen by the Opposition parties and two elected by Back Benchersin other words, excluding Front Bencherswith two ex-officio members, whom I would suggest could be the Chairs of the Liaison Committee and the Backbench Business Committee. Fourthly, the secretariat would have to provided both by the seconded civil servants who work for the Executive and by the Clerks whose broad role is to support Parliament in holding the Executive to account. Any disputes between them would have to be settled by the House business committee itself. I want to make another key point very quickly. An utterly essential and fundamental way of improving the scrutiny of Government legislation is to ensure that Members have a clear and readily available opportunity to ascertain exactly what they are being asked to vote for when amendments or new clauses are considered in Committee and on Report. At present, especially on Report, Members who have not participated in the Bills Committee stage often do not know, or have made little effort to find out, precisely what they are voting for. Many times, when the bell rings and, like everyone else, I troop down the escalator through to the Palace, I turn to whoever is standing beside me, of whichever party, and ask, By the way, what are we voting for? Perhaps a third of Members shrug their shoulders. Another third say, Oh its the Social Security Bill, and when I ask, Yes, but what exactly are we voting for? I doubt that more than one or two Members actually know. I am guilty of that tooI am not being holier than anyone else, but that seems to be a huge failing. This is a matter of great significance because Report is often the only real opportunityespecially if the Minister and Government Whip have kept the Committee stage of a Bill on a tight leashfor the House to modify a Bill. The debates on Report are usually focused on important issues about which the public hold strong views. It is a reasonable assumption that if the public were aware that matters of considerable importance to themselves were treated in such a cavalier fashion by many Members, if not most, and that they vote blind without even knowing what they are voting for, there would be a huge outcry that Parliament was abusing its proper functions.
185WH
Wright Committee
2 JULY 2013
Wright Committee
186WH
If a Member is diligentand some areit is necessary to obtain a copy of the Bill, a copy of the amendments and, on the day of consideration, a copy of the grouping of amendments selected by the Speaker. Of course, a number of Members with a particular interest will do that but, in most cases, they will be in the minority. In the absence of obtaining the necessary documentation, applying it to understand the point at hand, which is quite difficult, and reaching a considered viewperhaps after taking account of arguments advanced by letter or e-mail from interested individuals or organisationsthe default position is for Members to troop in, see on which side their Whips are standing, and just follow them into the Lobby like sheep. Even if a Member took the trouble to get and read the relevant documents, however, it is often difficult for someone who has not been following a Bill closely to understand precisely what an amendment is designed to do. Some amendmentseven important onesmay seem obscure to someone who is not familiar with the underlying arguments behind a Bill, and I think that that is a very serious flaw. A key proposal to remedy that problem from the Wright Committee and the Parliament First all-party group, which I chair, is that every amendment or new clause tabled by the Government, the Opposition, the smaller parties or individual Back Benchers should have a short statement attached to it of no more than 50 words that explains the measures purpose. Those statements would be set out on the amendment paper, and one would appear at the bottom of every amendment. Let me turn, for one minute, to the objections to that proposalapart, of course, from those of the Whips, whose control over every aspect of the parliamentary process might begin to be questioned more. The only objection raised, as far as I know, is that while the Government have their civil servants to deal with amendments and to provide explanatory statements, the Opposition do not have the same resources, and adding a requirement for explanatory statements would impose too great a burden. To put it simply, I think that that is utterly untenable. It takes a great deal of time to get to grips with a new Bill, to consult outside experts over all its detailed aspects, to identify areas in which modifications need to be sought and to draft amendments in an acceptable parliamentary form. However, once all that has been done, drafting a short statement that distils the essence of the amendment would take no more than seconds. I hope that explanatory statements, as well as the House business committee, are something that the Government will look on favourably and introduce quickly. Mr Hollobone rose Mr David Crausby (in the Chair): Order. I want to call the first Front Bencher at 10.40 am, so I call Mr Hollobone to make a very short speech. 10.38 am Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): Thank you, Mr Crausby. The establishment of the Backbench Business Committee, under the outstanding chairmanship of the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), has been a tremendous success and the outstanding advance of this Parliament. Gone are the days when the
Chamber is empty for debates chosen by the Government. Whether the motions are votable or not, Back-Bench business debates attract keen interest, and the public want to see Parliament busy. The Backbench Business Committee shows that Parliament can run its own affairs, which is why a House business committee should be established along the lines that hon. Members have indicated this morning. E-petitions need to be taken away from Her Majestys Government and given to Parliament. After all, the big green bag that sits on the back of the Speakers Chair is Parliaments big green bag, not the Governments. The Committee of Selection needs to be elected by the whole House and its hearings need to be held in public. Hon. Members need to present themselves in front of the Committee, under the scrutiny of TV cameras, to justify their place on a Bill Committee. This is my personal favourite. If we can hold the Executive to account, it does not matter where in the Chamber hon. Members sit. They should be able to sit on either side of the House, because Parliaments function is not primarily to represent ones party; it is to hold the Government to account on behalf of the constituents who elect us all. 10.40 am Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab): I am grateful, Mr Crausby, to have the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship. As I said to you last night, I think that this is the first time that I have had such a pleasure. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) on securing the debate. The discussion has been quite lively and thought provoking. Unfortunately, I do not agree with all his analysis, not least the point about separation of powers. There is an excellent book called Plain, Honest Men, which I commend to him. It is about the constitutional convention in Philadelphia. It is a thoughtprovoking book that gives some idea as to why the United States has a separation of powers between the Executive and the legislature, but like many things from the United States, it is in itself a reason not to go down that route. Parliament would be weaker if we separated our Executive from our legislature in the way that I think my hon. Friend was alluding to. Mr Allen: I shall send my hon. Friend my book, which is called The Last Prime Minister: Being Honest About the UK Presidency. If he reads mine, I shall read his. Thomas Docherty: That is a splendid offer. I look forward to receiving the book. There are seven or eight points that I would like to respond to in the limited time that I have. First, this might be heresy to some colleagues, but the Wright report is not a panacea. There is now this mythology that somehow it got everything right. I think that it is about time that a reality check was applied to that. This Parliament has made huge strides towards modernisation, but not just because of the Wright report. There are three other factors that have changed the dynamic of this Parliament compared with previous ones. One factor is the 2010 intake of Members. I do not say that just because that was my intake; we have seen that it has been the most rebellious of intakes. In the excellent blog by the right hon. Member for Wokingham
187WH
Wright Committee
2 JULY 2013
Wright Committee
188WH
[Thomas Docherty] (Mr Redwood), he busts the myths about some of the rebellions that have taken place on the Government side and he points out that some of the most effective and important rebellions were led by Members who were part of the 2010 intake. I am referring to the entirely sensible pushing back against the Deputy Prime Ministers nonsensical ideas for House of Lords reform, the EU budget vote that took place and what happened on the EU referendum. Those rebellions were all led by Members from the 2010 intake. They have been much more effective and much more willing to challenge their own Government than perhaps was the case in previous Parliaments. The second factor is Mr Speaker. I am a huge fan of the current Speaker. He has changed how Parliament engages with the wider public and the use of urgent questions. I think that in the last Session, there were 130 days on which an urgent question was granted to hold the Executive to account. That should be commended. Thirdlythis is not a good changethere is the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. IPSA has changed how Members of Parliament operate. It has driven Members away from taking part in Parliament. I think that, so far, Professor Wright has failed to change IPSA now that he is a board member and that he needs to be held to account for that failure to curb IPSAs worst excesses. On Select Committees, I agree that we have some very effective Select Committees, butI say this very gently there has been a contradiction today. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North applauded the fact that the choice of Select Committee members has been taken out of the hands of the Whips, but later he bemoaned the fact that keeping hold of Select Committee members as we get closer to the general election becomes harder and harder. This is a valid point. One problem that we have is that because they were elected by colleagues from their own party, many Members went on to Select Committees on the basis of their name. They arrived in the House in the 2010 intake with a reputation from outside and were elected on to Select Committees, but they have not been very effective performers in many cases. We must recognise the drawbacks. If I may criticise the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North Michael Connarty: Will my hon. Friend give way? Thomas Docherty: May I just finish this point? I think that the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North meets on the wrong day of the week, at the wrong time. It is an excellent Select Committeehe has mentioned its work on lobbying, for examplebut unfortunately it clashes with the highlight of the week, which is business questions. I think that if he moved it off the Thursday morning, he would have many people coming before it or wanting to take part in it. Michael Connarty: I just want my hon. Friend to clarify his criticism of those Members who go on to Select Committees. Is he suggesting that the Whips should put Members on Select Committees regardless of their aspirations?
Thomas Docherty: I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. My point is that this is a balancing act. We should not consider that simply having had an election has made the system better, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North said, some Select Committees are struggling to get quoracy because Members were put on them at the start of the Parliament and have lost interest, been promoted or whatever else. There is also a broader point about whether Front Benchers should routinely be allowed to serve on Select Committees. I think that, in the previous Parliament, that happened. Many members of what was then the Conservative Opposition served on Select Committees. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but on the Education Committee, the Defence Committee and others, there were Front Benchers who served, and there is merit in that, because Select Committees have more opportunity to learn about the intricacies of a Department than Oppositions do. Mr Allen: Will my hon. Friend give way? Thomas Docherty: I will not, because I am conscious of the time and my hon. Friend was given half an hour at the start. I also disagree about the Intelligence and Security Committee. That must be dealt with by the usual channels, because of the very sensitive work that that Committee, by its very nature, undertakes. The Defence Committee struggled earlier in this Parliament, because, as we all know, there was a problem with one of its members. Not just our Government but other Governments refused to share information with the Defence Committee, because they believed that one of its members was unsound. We need to be very careful about the Intelligence and Security Committee and where we get to with that. A number of points were made about things such as private Members Bills and early-day motions. Let me gently point to the fact that the Procedure Committee has either published reports or is in the process of publishing reports on those two issues. I say to the House that it is worth waiting just a couple more weeks until we get those reports. The issue of the petitioning system was raised. I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House wrote just last week to both the Backbench Business Committee and the Procedure Committee to invite them to look at the whole petition systemboth electronic and written petitions. Again, I refer to the three previous reports from the Procedure Committee about e-petitions. I hope that when the motion comes forward in my name and that of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), all Members will put it through on the nod to allow e-petitions that reach the threshold to be the subject of a Westminster Hall debate on a Monday afternoon. That worked pretty well in the last Session, and I hope that it continues. On the House business committee, let me clear up the matter once and for all. As the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), said in front of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee just a few weeks ago, the Opposition remain deeply sceptical about the House business committee. Even after three and a half years, the Government have yet to come up with proposals. We therefore welcome the fact that on 20 June the Leader of the House confirmedand provided some certainty
189WH
Wright Committee
2 JULY 2013
Wright Committee
190WH
in the debatethat the Government do not propose to bring forward a House business committee. It could be argued that this is a bit like the proverbial tree falling over in a wood. The Leader of the House has, by my estimation, now said three times that the Government do not plan to bring forward a House business committee, yet we continue to have a discussion about when he is bringing one forward, so we welcome that certainty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) made quite a lengthy contribution about explanatory statements. Let me gently point him to order 47 in the Future Business section of the Order Paper, which is in my name and the names of the Deputy Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House, the Leader of the House and the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. It precisely says that there shall be explanatory statements on a permissive basis and that the House will provide such assistance as is required. I hope that he will add his name to it. [Interruption.] It has to be permissiveI hope that I can eat into the time of the Deputy Leader of the House by 30 secondsbecause there will be times when it is common sense that an explanatory statement is not required. I do not think that it requires the time or effort to produce an explanatory statement if all we are doing is changing a date, for example from 2017 to 2014to take a private Members Bill that may be debated. Furthermore, we cannot bind the Speakers hand so that he will accept only amendments for which there are explanatory statements. I gently refer my right hon. Friend to the Procedure Committees fourth report of 2012-13, which sets out why that is the case. I am conscious that I am eating into the time of the Deputy Leader of the House. I commend the debate and I hope I have provided some clarity. 10.50 am The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby, and to respond to this timely debate on the implementation of the Wright Committees outstanding recommendations. We are in the third year of this Parliament, which provides an opportunity to reflect on the success of recent reforms and allows time to deliver further reform in this Parliament, where the case for such reform is made. Before addressing the points raised by Members, which relate to the outstanding recommendations, I would like briefly to reflect on what has been delivered, because there is a positive story to tell. The reform Committee made 50 recommendations in its report, and a majority have been implemented in full or require no further actionin other words, those cases where there was a statement of principle, for example. Specific achievements that directly relate to the recommendations include the election of Select Committee Chairs; the election of Deputy Speakers; the ability to debate substantive motions; the provision of Monday afternoons in Westminster Hall for debates on e-petitions, which I hope we are about to renew; the endorsement of September sittings; and, arguably the most important change, the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee. In addition, I remind Members of the changes we have introduced for the scrutiny of legislation, which a few Members have suggested is wanting in some respects.
Some of those changes were made in direct response to recommendations of the reform Committee. They include an increased number of multi-day report stages, so two days on Report is now common for major Bills, although I would not say that it was routine; the increased use of pre-legislative scrutiny, which Members welcome, with 17 sets of measures published in draft last session; and more time for scrutiny: most Public Bill Committeesnearly 80%in the 2012-13 Session finished early. The changes also include successful pilots on public readingsfor example, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 and the Children and Families Bill; and successful pilots of explanatory statements on amendments, and I welcome the fact that that will proceed. I wondered whether the Oppositions initial reluctance was because they were not certain what their amendments were going to do, but given that they are going to support explanatory statements, that is clearly not the case. Thomas Docherty: Our concern was about not only the official Opposition, but individual Members and minority parties, which do not have the resources. We are not as well served as the Deputy Leader of the House is by his excellent civil servants. Tom Brake: I agree and I understand the point. It was just a cheap jibe, to which the hon. Gentleman responded. The changes also include the use of social media by Select Committees during inquiries and meetings. Having put on record some of the substantial achievements, I shall respond to some of the points made in our debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) on securing the debate. I do not share his rather apocalyptic vision of our parliamentary democracy. He knows that Parliament and the Executive are not separate. I do not believe, as he seems to, that Government are dominating Parliament. The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), might have been slightly offended by that suggestion, because it is widely recognised that her Committee has grasped a substantial proportion of what was previously Government time and on the back of that initiated a series of important debates, a third of which have taken place on days other than Thursday. They do not always take place on Thursdays, but as she commented, Thursday is a sitting day. Many of us spent many years campaigning to secure our positions in Parliament, so one would expect Members to be willing to work or stay on Thursdays to participate in debates that take place then. I think the hon. Member for Nottingham North encouraged me to push reform, if not in government then certainly in a future Liberal Democrat manifesto. David Howarth, who is no longer a Member of Parliament, did a good job of pushing that agenda when he was here, and he continues to do so. I am sure we will want to return to this matter in a future manifesto. We have achieved a substantial amount. The hon. Gentleman threw down the gauntlet to meas did other Members, including the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher)over the creation of a House business committee, and I will throw down the gauntlet gently in his face, to mix my metaphors. The Governments position is that if there were a House business committee
191WH [Tom Brake]
Wright Committee
2 JULY 2013
Wright Committee
192WH
proposal on the table it would have to pass certain tests, and some Members outlined what those tests should be. The Government should retain control of their legislative programme, and the committee should respect the remit of the Backbench Business Committee; it should take into account the views of all parts of the House; it should retain the flexibility to change the business at short notice in response to fast-moving events; and it should co-ordinate business with the House of Lords, to which I do not think any Member referred. If any Members came forward with such a proposal, I am sure that other Ministers and I would want to look at it carefully. Mr Allen: I accept all the tests that the Deputy Leader of the House has put on the table. I return the gauntlet unsullied, and with it I will send him the report by the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, which is under consideration at the moment, within a matter of weeks. Its recommendations meet all the tests and I will be keen to see the reforms move forward, and perhaps even the promise kept. Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for gently throwing the gauntlet back at me and I look forward to receiving that report, to which we will give considerable attention on publication. He also referred to the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny and said that it should be central to the business of Government. I agree, but there will always be circumstances in which that is not possible due to timing. To some extent, the hon. Member for Wellingborough shared the apocalyptic vision of our failing democracy. I am glad that he explained why he had been sleeping with the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I welcome the Sunday columnists suggestion that the hon. Member for Wellingborough might be a Liberal Democrat plant, campaigning on behalf of the Liberal Democrats within the Conservative party by pushing an agenda that includes restoring the
death penalty. I congratulate him on his commitment to raising such issues and on trumping the Government in securing time to highlight things that he wants to address. He referred to the Committee of Selection. The Procedure Committee is looking at elections to that body. Mr Bone: I am delighted that I can do anything to help the Liberal Democrat party, because it needs help. Is the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) right? Have the Government dropped the idea of bringing in a House business committee? Why are we still in the third year of the Parliament? I reckon it is the fourth year. Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If he looks at the evidence the Leader of the House gave to the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Nottingham North, he will see that the Government have accepted that we were unable to deliver the commitment within three years set out in the coalition programme. Part of the explanation for that is that the tests to which I referred, which the hon. Member for Nottingham North says will be met in the report he will soon publish, have not been met by any proposals so far. The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton shared the significant concerns about the House business committee not being delivered. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that explanatory statements will be provided for amendments. I agree that they are essential for Members to understand what is happening in this place. He will also welcome the Good Law initiative, which seeks to make laws clearer, so that Members will be able to understand them more easily. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) was able to make only a short contribution, but I welcome what he said on e-petitions. The Government are willing to look at them and ensure that the House has responsibility for them. E-petitions are under active consideration. I thank the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife for his supportI thinkfor some proposals that the Government are putting forward.
193WH
2 JULY 2013
Saville Products Ltd and HMRC
194WH

11 am Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con): I am grateful for the opportunity to have this short debate in Westminster Hall. I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby, and am delighted to see the Exchequer Secretary in his place to reply. He has been unfailingly courteous and helpful in dealing with this case, as is his usual practice. He finds himself in his current ministerial position towards the end of what has been a 12-year process, and will therefore respond to a debate about events for which, mostly, he carries no responsibility. The debate concerns the case of my constituents, Mr and Mrs Nelson. They are an impressive entrepreneurial and professional couple who took over a business in Ashton-under-Lyne some 15 years ago and who, for much of the past 12 years, have been forced to endure an oppressive investigation by Her Majestys Revenue and Customs. They have had to fight against an unjustified tax charge and to struggle ultimately for proper redress and compensation. As so much attention is now paid to big corporations and the efforts they sometimes make to reduce their tax bills, it is particularly timely to consider the injustice that has been faced by the Nelsons and their small to medium-sized engineering company, Saville Products Ltd. As I have said, the company is located in the Ashton-under-Lyne constituency, and I place on record my constituents gratitudeand minefor the unstinting support of the hon. Member for Ashtonunder-Lyne (David Heyes), and of their Trafford ward councillor, John Lamb. The story begins in 2001, with an investigation into my constituents business, and then personal, tax affairs, which went on for five years and ended only when the Nelsons sought the personal intervention of David Hartnett, the then chief executive of HMRC. It might help if I gave a brief summary of the case, and the difficulties that Mr and Mrs Nelson have faced over the years, in the words of Mr Nelson himself, who wrote to me for that purpose:
HMRC demanded information within an unreasonable timescale with the threat of penalties. In order to comply, we had to spend an inordinate amount of time, under pressure, to the direct detriment of the company. HMRC threatened us with penalties to try to bully us into paying tax we knew we did not owe. HMRC have since admitted this. HMRC deceived us by asking us to settle an amount we did not owe in order to bring the investigation to an end. They failed to inform us, and we only found out later from the companys accountant, that had we agreed to their demands they would have applied that sum to tax bills issued for each of the six previous years and 2 years into the future. This would have bankrupted the company.
the inspector,
and that he neither told us he was seeking the information nor informed us when he had obtained it. Private information about Mrs Nelsons mothers financial affairs was demanded by HMRC, causing distress to the family, when this information was not relevant or connected to the enquiry. Notes of a meeting between the Nelsons and the HMRCs Area Directorwere deliberately doctored to try to justify false accusations. We have the original notes as evidencethe HMRC Complaints Department promised to hold a meeting with us and then withdrew the offerHMRC made us recreate all our personal records which had been lost at the Manchester tax office
while in the possession of Revenue and Customs. The report states:

This was an entire years personal financial information in minute detail and took us hundreds of hours but the Ombudsmans report stated that HMRC had the powers to obtain this information themselves.
Nevertheless, HMRC chose to demand it of my constituents. Mr Nelsons account continues:

HMRC opened an investigation into our personal financial affairs without establishing that there was anything wrong in the companys records.
HMRC gave
the wrong information on expenses claims and subsequently denied having done so even though there was documentary evidence to prove
that that was the case. There was subsequently an apology for that action. Then,
HMRC opened an investigation into another year (2003) and demanded a statement of affairs
from the Nelsons, when there was still no justification

for believing that there was anything wrong in the year already under investigation (2000). HMRC sent a barrage of 23 assessments shortly before Christmas in 2004, without justification.
One has to assume that that was designed to cause worry and alarm. The Nelsons believed that the company would have been bankrupted had the demands been paid. HMRC claimed that it was the Nelsons choice
to prolong the investigation by answeringquestions ourselves but this was disingenuous as the company could not have afforded their fees and they had no knowledge of our personal tax affairs.
The threat of a potential 70,000 tax bill in 2005 meant that Saville Products Ltd lost the opportunity to acquire its major competitor, Autogem, at what would have been a very attractive price.
HMRCs maladministration not only affected Savilles business during 2001-6 because of the amount of time they had to devote to the investigation but also meant that we lost the chance to create a combined company that would have been worth 10 million. Incompetence and poor service from HMRC staff has resulted in major economic loss because we had to sort out the consequences. One example is that the inspector did not understand the Sage accounting system and therefore claimed that we had not put through hundreds of invoices (these were merely carriage costs, separately coded). Another example was the failure to understand the stock valuation.
According to Mr Nelson, the HMRC investigators

attitude towards us was vindictive and we believed he was waging a vendetta against us because we had the temerity to stand up to his bullying tactics. We refused to sign inaccurate meeting notes on two occasionsThe inspectormade a telephone call to the companys accountant at 8.00 am one morning, slandering and discrediting me and trying to elicit information to which he was not entitled.
Mr Nelsons report goes on the state that HMRC

inisted that the Nelsons had to provide information about the disposal of two cars they had sold, one of which had belonged to one of their daughters. It transpired from the Ombudsmans report that this information was already in the possession of
The Nelsons were accused of diverting takings, which they understood to be a criminal offence, and they felt that they were held to be guilty until proved innocent. They also reported that
a cavalier attitude to our personal and company documents, even from Mr Hartnett, endangered our companys security and reputation. Documents were sent to third parties, not marked private, sent through post and not properly parcelled.
195WH
2 JULY 2013
196WH
[Mr Graham Brady] Throughout the process, an unpleasant and oppressive attitude was taken towards a small business and the family who owned and ran it, who were trying to make it into a successful company and employer. That is borne out by the Nelsons accountants, who have stated that what happened had a significant effect on the business. Mr Speakman, a partner at Beever and Struthers accountants, wrote to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in May 2009:
What I can state categorically is that whilst the negotiations to purchase Autogem were going on, HMRC dismissed the appeal made by the Nelsons via the Regional Complaints Office and continued to make unreasonable demands on their time. Mr and Mrs Nelson told me that they could not risk proceeding with the purchase of Autogem whilst they had the uncertainty of a potentially ruinous tax bill hanging over themThe frustration of having to contend with HMRCs repeated failure to look after their personal documents, the fact that they were never believed and that the onus of proof was always on them with the assumption of guilt rather than innocence, the threatening tactics when HMRC bombarded them with tax assessments and demands going back six years and forward two, all these aspects have had a devastating effect on Mr and Mrs Nelson. They are resilient characters but I know they have both suffered stress and disillusion as a result of this investigation.
that any estimate of economic loss based on a departure from a forward projection can only be speculative and a matter of opinion, rather than demonstrable fact. I agree. We can only make recommendations for compensation for financial loss on the basis of firm evidence, and not on the basis of speculationI therefore consider that we were right to conclude that there was too great a level of uncertainty and contingency to recommend that HMRC compensate you for a specific amount of economic loss. The alternative was for my Office to recommend what is called a consolatory payment in recognition that the way in which HMRC conducted the enquiry must have diverted your attention from running your business to a significant extent, and caused you considerable inconvenience and distress.
Consolatory payments by Departments are generally modest and those by HMRC of more than 1,000 are comparatively unusual, so the fact that the ombudsman recommended a payment of 30,000 shows the scale of the wrongdoing and maladministration that she felt she had encountered. However, her terms of reference and her remit did not allow her to venture into realm of compensation for the specific economic loss. Last September, the Minister kindly agreed to meet Mr and Mrs Nelson and me. Following that meeting, Mr Nelson wrote to me saying that, in 2006, Lesley Strathie
wrote to us to acknowledge that we should be compensated for economic loss, yet more than 11 years after this pernicious investigation began we have still not been adequately compensated. Mr Hartnett himself told us that HMRC would pay whatever the Ombudsman instructed them to pay yet he knew full well that the Ombudsman did not have the authority to make an award for economic loss.
Mr Speakman went on to estimate the financial loss that the Nelsons have suffered as a result of the investigation at 2.5 million. From details that I do not have time to go into, that might be a conservative estimate. In response to the Nelsons concerns and finding their complaints largely proved, the ombudsman recommended a significantby the ombudsmans standards payment from HMRC in 2009. In a letter on 25 September 2009, Lesley Strathie, the then chief executive of HMRC, wrote:
I fully accept that we handled the enquiry badly in a number of key respects. In particular, we failed to apply a proper level of management control which should have ensured that the investigation was concluded much sooner and I understand what an adverse impact this has had on your business and on youpersonally.
He also drew attention to the fact that one of the officials at the meeting, Mr Norris, stated that HMRC would normally consider paying the cost of accountancy fees incurred in an investigation but, as Mr Nelson pointed out, when we obtained the minutes of that meeting at the Treasury, there was no reference to such a statement. None the less, Mr Nelson obtained from Mr Speakman at Beever and Struthers an estimate of the cost in professional fees of the 3,000 hours that these small-business people were forced to devote to the defence of their business and reputation. A far lower figure than the 2.5 million for the estimated economic loss, which I have already mentioned, the estimated cost of what the professional fees would have been to mount the defence in the case is 279,000. In fact, the case was defended by Mr Nelson and his wife. Mr Nelson, who is a chartered accountant and had been a senior manager in a merchant bank, was well qualified to do that, but he had to devote a great deal of time to it. In this brief debate, I have sought to highlight the plight of one SME, Saville Products Ltd, and its proprietors, at the hands of an oppressive and unjustified investigation into their tax affairs. The case has attracted sympathy from the Chair of the Treasury Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), and the Chair of the Public Administration Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), in relation to the ombudsmans powers. Mr Michael Izza, the chief executive of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, has raised concerns about it. The case has drawn an apology from HMRC and a damning report from the ombudsman.
Beever and Struthers estimated the scale of that economic loss under the various heads of loss of income, loss in capital value, perpetuating loss of profits and loss of opportunity. The ombudsmans decision in 2009 stated:
Overall, I uphold a significant part of Mr and Mrs Nelsons complaint. Whilst I am not persuaded (despite Mr and Mrs Nelsons strong claims to the contrary) that the objective evidence is sufficient for me to find that individual HMRC officers have been dishonest, I am satisfied that there have been significant specific flaws in HMRCs handling of their enquiry into SF Ltd
Saville Fasteners Ltd. She continued:

More importantly, however, I consider that HMRCs management of the enquiry was seriously deficient, with little, or insufficient, regard being paid to the compliance cost of the enquiry or to proportionality. I uphold the aspect of Mr and Mrs Nelsons complaint that HMRCs internal complaints procedure failed them I am satisfied that, if the enquiry had been conducted without flaw, it would have concluded very much sooner than it did. I consider that the unreasonable continuance of the enquiry amounted to serious maladministration which has caused Mr and Mrs Nelson significant distress and inconvenience, and diverted their attention away from their business at a critical time. However, I am not persuaded that the very substantial claim Mr and Mrs Nelson have made for economic loss has been made out.
In response to further correspondence, the ombudsman wrote to the Nelsons in November 2010, stating that one point is
197WH
2 JULY 2013
198WH
Compensation of 20,000, plus accounting costs of 2,500, was increased by the ombudsman by 50% in recognition of the personal toll on my constituents, but at no point has the financial damage to the company been compensated. The companys accountants have estimated that compensation at 2.5 million, which is probably a conservative estimate. Following our meeting at the Treasury, the company has instead looked for the cost in professional fees that would have been incurred. In 16 years in the House, I have never brought the plight of a local business to the Floor in this way. I have done so because I regard the case as a manifest injusticean unpleasant spectacle of a Department of State treating a small business with disdain. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the case for the sake of my constituents and their business and for the sake of other small and medium-sized businesses facing similar mistreatment. A failure by HMRC to conduct a proper inquiry has been proved, a failure of HMRCs internal complaints procedure has been proved, and a finding of enormous distress to my constituents has been proved. We have seen an SME that cannot afford to take the Goliath of HMRC to court and an ombudsman that does not have the power to make good economic loss. We rely on the Minister to reconsider the case. 11.18 am The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke): It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Crausby. I am grateful to have the opportunity to respond to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) who, as ever, represented his constituents with great eloquence and made a good case on their behalf. I should state that in the case raised by my hon. Friend, Her Majestys Revenue and Customsor the Inland Revenue, which was the relevant organisation for much of the timeclearly did not carry out its investigation appropriately and did not complete its review process to the standards expected. I am aware, both from his comments today and from the previous meeting to which he referred, of the distress and worry that his constituents have suffered as a consequence, and I offer my sincere sympathies and apologies for their experiences during that period. I feel that it would be of most use to address two issues in the course of the debate. First, I shall set out the procedures in place to ensure that all taxpayers, such as my hon. Friends constituents, can receive a fair and independent review of any grievance. Secondly, I will address the issues that he has specifically raised involving Mr and Mrs Nelson. On the first point, I should start by stating that employees of HMRC clearly must understand fully that compliance checks can be stressful to taxpayers. To be fair to HMRC, it sets high standards for professionalism and customer service, and deals with the vast majority of cases fairly and efficiently. With more than 500,000 compliance checks undertaken annually, there are likely to be some cases when claimants feel that those standards have not been met. In such circumstances, it is absolutely right that taxpayers, or their agents, can submit a complaint about the action of HMRC. HMRC has a well-established two-tier complaints process for such situations and makes a concerted effort to resolve all complaints at the first opportunity. That
involves a fully trained and experienced case handler who undertakes a full review of all aspects of the complaint. If the customer remains unhappy following that process, they can ask for the complaint to be looked at again. This second-tieror tier 2review is carried out by a different case handler to help to provide an independent perspective on the case. Again, it is worth noting that the vast majority of cases are resolved over the first two tiers. In the tax year 2011-12, HMRC successfully resolved 98% of complaints over the two tiers. In cases when the taxpayer remains dissatisfied with the response, such as in the case involving Mr and Mrs Nelson, it is right that they can ask the adjudicator or the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to look into their complaint. The adjudicator is a fair and unbiased referee, and the service provided is free to the taxpayer, provided that the complaint falls within the adjudicators remit. The adjudicators role is to investigate and help to resolve complaints from individuals and businesses that remain unhappy about how HMRC, the Valuation Office Agency or the Insolvency Service have handled their affairs, after they have exhausted the relevant organisations complaints handling procedure. That can include complaints about mistakes, delays, poor advice, inappropriate staff behaviour or the use of discretion. As my hon. Friend is aware, a customer can also ask their Member of Parliament to refer the complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The ombudsman is independent of the Government and investigates complaints impartially, specifically on allegations of complicity or malpractice. Investigations by the ombudsman are conducted in private, and the relevant legislation restricts her ability to provide detailed information about specific investigations. I can confirm that if the ombudsman decides that a Department or an arms length body has made a mistake, she will work with it to correct that error. That could involve acknowledging the mistake, issuing an apology and paying compensation. In all cases, it should involve ensuring that the same mistake does not happen again. That leads me to the second part of my response: my hon. Friends interest in the specific case of his constituents. As I mentioned at the outset, it is clear to me, having taken a personal interest in the case, that significant mistakes were made by HMRC and its predecessor organisation. The original investigation was not handled well, and that was further compounded by the failure of HMRC complaints handlers to acknowledge that. In the case of all complaints that are referred to either the adjudicator or the ombudsman and that are upheld, HMRC undertakes a thorough internal review and, as would be expected, steps are taken to ensure that lessons are learned by not just the individuals involved, but the entire body, in an effort to ensure that mistakes are not repeated elsewhere. One area in which HMRC has learned lessons from such complaints and improved its processes is alternative dispute resolution. It uses the skills of an independent HMRC facilitator to work with customers, agents and caseworkers to try to reach an agreement and resolve disputes. HMRC has held a successful pilot and is now rolling out that approach more widely, and I hope that that provides some reassurance that action has been taken, following the ombudsmans report to improve performance
199WH
2 JULY 2013
200WH
[Mr David Gauke] in this area. However, I have seen from correspondence that my hon. Friends constituents raise concerns about the agenda of the ombudsman in failing to uphold entirely the complaint made, and suggest that if I accept the conclusions reached by her, I am condoning dishonesty, deceit and collusion. Although I have every sympathy with my hon. Friends constituents, and I understand the frustrations that they have experienced, I strongly contest that suggestion. There can be no doubt about the independence of the ombudsman from HMRCor indeed any Government Departmentand I therefore believe her judgment in this matter to be sound. My hon. Friends constituents have been critical of the level of payment awarded, as it is significantly below the amount they believe would represent sufficient recompense for the expense incurred and anxiety caused by the compliance check. Compensation has, however, been paid for the identifiable and evidenced expense incurred as a result of the extended investigation and, additionally, a compensation payment has been made for the unnecessary suffering caused by HMRCs handling of the matter, in accordance with the instructions of the ombudsman. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, the payment is much higher than is normally the case in such circumstances. However, the ombudsman did not find sufficient evidence of economic loss and accordingly did not direct HMRC to pay any compensation in that regard. I reiterate my apologies and sympathies to my hon. Friends constituents for the undoubted worry and distress caused to them as a result of failings at HMRC or the Inland Revenue, as it was for much of that time. It is always regrettable when avoidable errors such as those made during this investigation result in the kind of personal hardship that no amount of financial compensation can eradicate. Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con): I have been listening to this debate with great interest and I must say
that Mr and Mrs Nelson have inherited the fighting spirit of the great admiral who shared their surname. I have a similar case in which HMRC is pursuing a medium-sized firm for about 1 million in notional lost tax for goods that were bound for export but were stolen. The firm was an innocent party and the tax is notional, but HMRC is threatening the livelihoods of 40 employees and will not let the matter go. When the Minister says that such cases are always unfortunate and that we should put up our hands and say sorry, will he take a sympathetic view and have a word with the organisation to say that sometimes it is better to prevent the wrong from taking place in the first place, rather than having to apologise for it afterwards? Mr Gauke: I am grateful for my hon. Friends intervention. It is not possible for me to comment on individual cases, although I know that he has taken a close interest in that matter for some time. Perhaps we can have a quiet word about it afterwards. It is not possible for me, as a Minister, to intervene in operational matters, but it is right that HMRC has the correct procedures in place. To return to the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West, it is perhaps worth reflecting on the fact that it originated in 2001. The UKs tax authority has undergone radical changes since then, not least with the formation of HMRC itself. While that does not in any way excuse the errors that were made, the organisation has made significant improvements in the past 12 years. Furthermore, let me reaffirm my faith in the work of the parliamentary ombudsmanin the context of HMRC and beyond. I have trust in her impartiality and independence. Although I appreciate that this is not the answer that my hon. Friend is looking for, and I have no doubt that he will continue to represent the case of Mr and Mrs Nelson strongly, the ombudsman has reached her conclusion and it should be respected. 11.30 am Sitting suspended.
201WH
2 JULY 2013
Local Government and Faith Communities
202WH

[MR CHARLES WALKER in the Chair] 2.30 pm Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con): It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) for the huge amount of work they have done to highlight the importance of faith groups in our communities, and for encouraging colleagues, including me, to request a debate on the subject. I am delighted to have been successful in the ballot, and to be in such good company in Westminster Hall today. The trigger for this debate is the excellent report produced by Christians in Parliament together with the Evangelical Alliance entitled Faith in the Community. The report clearly shows that the work of faith groups is thriving, and that their contribution to society is varied and highly valued by local authorities and the communities they serve. All local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales were surveyed for the report, and 155 of them replied, which is roughly a third of the total number. It is clear from the many responses that local authorities see faith groups as valued and vital partners who are committed to their communities, serving the poorest and most vulnerable people in society. Faith groups provide activities and services for all ages, ranging from mother and toddler groups and youth services to care for the elderly, and from street pastors to food banks. I will pick out a couple of quotes from the many local authorities that responded to the survey. Runnymede borough council commented:
The strength of the churches is their presence in the communities and their long-term work in the parish. This is of particular benefit when working in areas of deprivation.
faith community and might refuse to support people from other faiths, or from the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. Another barrier was cited by Rochford district council, which said that
a key challenge would be the potential for faith based groups to use funding for the delivery of services promoting their faith.
Although the survey provided evidence that these perceptions are not generally borne out, as shown by the wide-ranging access to services provided by faith groups, Tamworth borough council pointed out:
The mere fact that activities take place within a faith setting will mean that many members of the community will not attend due to a misconception that the event is an attempt to draw them into the faith group.
North Yorkshire county council drew similar conclusions, but went on to say:
Generally, all of these perceptions are false or can be overcome through discussion and better understanding of each otherbut they do create barriers.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): I apologise for the fact that I was not in the Chamber for the beginning of my hon. Friends speech, but I congratulate her on securing such an important debate. Is it not interesting that a consistent theme emerged in responses to the survey regarding organisations that have become prevalent across the country? Street pastors, for example, drive a coach and horses through some of those perceptions. The organisation is based squarely on Christians out there, rolling up their sleeves and delivering a great service, restoring confidence in the streets and helping to reduce crime. Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will come on to the subject of street pastors shortly. There is a great deal that can be done to lift those barriers, and I will take the opportunity to discuss just a few of the projects and groups operating around the country, including in my constituency, that make a real difference to the communities that they support. Increasingly, one of the best-known groups is Christians Against Poverty. CAP is a national charity, working across the UK to lift people out of debt and poverty. It offers free debt counselling to everyone and anyone, working through a network of 233 centres based in local churches. Each year, they help 20,000 people to find their way out of the black hole of debt, helping them to work out budgets, to negotiate with creditors and even to go through insolvency procedures. It also runs CAP money courses, which teach 10,000 people a year from across all faith groups, all belief backgrounds and so on, to budget, save and avoid debt. CAP has just launched CAP job clubs. There are 32 CAP job clubs across the UK, and the aim is to have 80 up and running by the end of the year. The new Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, spoke out last weekend in the press against the exorbitant interest rates charged by payday lenders, and he proposed that new credit unions should be set up in church halls. He pointed out that the thousands of churches across the UK are a perfect platform for such practical work to be based in, again without heed to what background, faith or otherwise that any of the individuals who might benefit from it come from.
Harborough district council said:

Faith groups are based within the heart of the local community and are able to identify individuals who may not feel able to come forward and access help and support by themselves.
The report was not all rosy, and it highlights the concerns expressed by some authorities. Those concerns can be grouped into three areas. First, there is an issue with the people capacity for councils and faith groups to engage with each other, and it can be difficult to ensure that they make enough space to understand each other. Examples were given of situations either where a council could not allocate staff to co-ordinate service provision with faith groups, or where churches, on occasion, were unable to deliver a service that they might have undertaken to provide. A second challenging area is the potential for organisational culture clash. The financial and governance requirements of councils can be quite onerous and difficult to meet for faith groups that want to provide a service to their community. Sometimes local authority terminology and the complex protocols can be a bit of a barrier to success. For me, however, the most worrying hurdle to good co-working between councils and faith groups relates to the fears and suspicions about what each partner might require the other to do. Councils expressed concern that faith groups might provide services only to their own
203WH
2 JULY 2013
204WH
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to the House for consideration; it is a very important issue. Although the report she mentioned does not refer to Northern Ireland, I think that many of the things that she referred to apply to Northern Ireland. We have CAP in my constituency: it started just over a year ago and it is doing great work. There are also food banks, set up by Christian organisations, that are doing great work. Does she think that such activity, which involves people working for food banks and organisations such as CAP, and helping the less well-off, is a very practical show of Christian beliefs? Andrea Leadsom: Yes. The hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite right that CAP and other faith-based groups work right across the United Kingdom, and they help people from all backgroundspeople of faith and people of no faith. Absolutely no distinction is made between people; everyone benefits from the services. However, the reason that such groups are set up is because people of faith want to help the needy. He specifically mentioned food banks, which do a superb job across the country, and many of them are led and supported by people of faith. A charity closer to home that I fully support, and of which my husband is a trustee, is the Northampton Hope Centre. It was set up in 1974 by a Christian gentleman who handed out food to rough sleepersfood that he had paid for himself. As more volunteers began to help him, the borough council began to provide small grants to help to pay for the food. By 1984, there were 30 volunteersmainly Christiansand a daily food service for rough sleepers was provided all year round. In 2006, the charity officially took the name of the Hope Centre to reflect its broader range of support and services, which now included providing training and activities alongside food, showers and clothing. In 2008, the Northampton Hope Centre won the Queens golden jubilee award for voluntary services to the community. Today, the Hope Centre helps those suffering from drug or alcohol addiction, mental illness, crippling debt and family disintegration. It offers a wide range of support, including food, clothing, showers, shelter, social activities, therapeutic workshops and skills development. It aims to encourage its users to recover their independence. Each users journey is individual and the Hope Centre aims to support each person at their own pace while creating or finding pathways for people who have all but given up hope of a better future. The centres budget this year is in the region of 400,000, of which only 15,000 will come from public funding. If any Members are around this Friday and find themselves with a spare hour in Northampton, I urge them to pop down to the Hope Centre, where Terry Waite will launch the new hope caf. One of Northamptons most exciting initiatives in recent years is the establishment of a street pastor service, which puts compassionate people of faith in the town centre on Friday and Saturday nights, offering practical help to often vulnerable people. I blogged about this in 2006, under the heading Flip-flops and lollipops, because, as it was described to me, the street pastors would go out and help young people who were often extraordinarily drunk, providing lollipops to the young men, who would rather suck a lollipop than get in a fight, and flip-flops
to the young women, who often lost their high heels on their first steps on the journey of inebriation. It is a practical service that offers sound support and counselling. Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that no greater love can a parliamentary colleague have than to spend a Saturday night/Sunday morning with my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and their street pastors, as I did a couple of Saturdays ago? The street pastors provide a fantastic service in those towns. They are the only people around, other than the police and the ambulance service, actually caring for people. Large numbers of volunteers provide a fantastic service. Andrea Leadsom: I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. It is right to pay tribute to the street pastors, who form a valuable support group for the police on a Saturday night when, too often, trouble in our streets is common. I set up a project in 2006 with Richard Johnson, a Christian, who runs a fantastic youth centre in Uganda. He and I set up links between Northamptonshire and Ugandan schools and now each year groups of students from Northamptonshire travel to Uganda for a conference with Ugandan students. They spend their week based at the Discovery Centre in Jinja, Uganda. That has been an astonishing success, building new friendships between teachers and pupils across the miles, and new opportunities for the schools in both countries to take part in a huge range of different cultural activities. All faith groups, whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, or any other, set great store by their support for their communities. It is important that we in Parliament ensure that their voices are heard. Over the years, over-sensitivity to cultural issues and a growing, muscular secularism has meant that the amazing work done by people of faith, often for the most vulnerable, goes unnoticed. Of course, people of faith are not doing this in return for gratitude or recognition, but we should make space in public life for those of faith. I support many of the reports recommendations and call for three specific things. First, I should like local authorities deliberately to work more closely with faith groups, taking advantage of the support they bring to local communities, to attempt to simplify processes and jargon, and share best practice between local authorities. Secondly, I should like local authorities to look from a plural rather than a secular perspective at the services faith groups offer in their communities. The leader of Churches Together in Northampton, Ted Hale, tells me that he and many others work for non-Christian organisations such as Arthritis Care and Age UK, and so on. It is often people of faith who run such organisations. Jim Shannon: The hon. Lady has been gracious in accepting interventions. In my constituency, an organisation called Youth Link Northern Ireland, which is based in local churches right across the religious strata, funds work to help people who have problems with drug abuse and alcohol addiction. Does she think that the Government, and local government in particular, should work in partnership with such organisations to address the critical issues that many people do not want to bother with at all?
205WH
2 JULY 2013
206WH
Andrea Leadsom: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. Faith-based groups often work with people to whom others are not really keen to provide support. Local authorities should consider a plural rather than a secular approach to service provision. They should recognise that even where organisations volunteering in communities are not faith based, they are often staffed by volunteers doing it for faith reasons. They should give specific recognition to that fact. Thirdly, there is concern about a development from the Charity Commission, which is trying to suggest that certain faith groups should not be given charitable status and is effectively challenging them to provide evidence of the work they do in the community, rather than accepting that a guiding principle of faith groups is that they should contribute to the community in which they live. The Plymouth Brethren are at the moment in disagreement with the Charity Commission about their charitable status. Where we can, we in Parliament should take steps to ensure that there is not an increasing tendency to challenge the very existence of faith-based organisations. Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): It is important that the charity commissioners realise that faith groups are entitled to their own beliefs, even if those beliefs seem idiosyncratic, even exclusive, to many in the secular world. This is often the nature of faith groupsthe nature of their strong beliefs and the way they operate. It is worrying if secular-based organisations impose their own morality and ethos on faith groups. Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend is right. That prompts me to reiterate my second call to action: local authorities and all of us in public life must accept and welcome those of faith and not merely tolerate them, or try to exclude them, which happens all too often. In conclusion, I congratulate Christians in Parliament on this important piece of work and all the support it provides for those of us who are Christians in Parliament. 2.46 pm Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom)on securing this important, welcome debate. Like her, I congratulate Christians in Parliamentand the Evangelical Alliance, which did much of the workon the Faith in Community report. It is an enjoyable read. I want to contribute to this debate on the basis of my work with the all-party group on faith and society. The hon. Lady makes an important point: a wide range of contributions are made to communities from a starting point of faith. She is right to draw attention to the work of street pastors and Christians Against Poverty, whose headquarters in Bradford I visited last month. She also mentioned food banks. If we had had this debate five years ago and asked what would happen if hundreds of thousands of people suddenly found that they were unable to afford enough food for themselves and their families, I am not sure that we would have identified faith groups as the institutions that would come forward to meet that need, but they certainly have done. The Trussell Trust reports that 750,000 people resorted to one of their food banks last year. It is currently opening one new food bank per day, such is the scale of the need, which it is meeting impressively.
The all-party group on faith and society, supported by FaithAction, which provides its secretariat, was formed in April 2011 and aims to promote understanding of faith-based organisations engaged in social action in the UK, to promote recognition of their value and to consider regulatory and legislative arrangements that can make the most of the potential contribution of faith-based organisations around the UK. The group took evidence from some innovative faith-based organisations in this country. We had four meetings focusing on the following areas: welfare to work, in respect of which faith-based groups have been doing impressive work; meeting the needs of children and young people; health and well-being; and international development. For each meeting, FaithAction put out a call for evidence to member organisations, other networks and partners, and asked for groups to make contact if they wanted to present evidence at one of the roundtable meetings. At the meetings, we asked each group to present for five minutes on their current work, setting out what they are doing and the barriers they face. At the welfare-to-work roundtable, for example, we spoke to the Nishkam centre, which is an impressive Sikh organisation in Birmingham. We also heard evidence at that meeting from Spear, which is based at St Pauls church in Hammersmith. At the children and young peoples meeting, we heard from the Hawbush project in Dudley and the Pathway project in the west midlands. There were half a dozen organisations at the meeting on international development, including Jewish Care, Parish Nursing, Khalsa Aid, the LifeLine Network and Muslim Aid. Mr Burrowes: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his work supporting the positive contribution of faith, not least in his position in the previous Government. In his role within the all-party group, has he reflected on how one can improve religious literacy across the country? The myth-buster document was, in many ways, one of the best documents to come out of the previous Government. Does he see the need for guidance, or would he seek to follow the role of the Department for International Development? The 2012 document, Faith Partnership Principles outlined the Governments relationship with international aid, and it could be a good framework to follow in our relationship with local government, too. Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman makes some important points. The all-party group has identified three main areas of concern, the second of which, religious literacy, he has highlighted. Many, if not most, of the concerns are about the relationship with local authorities. First, local authorities and grant-making bodies often seem to be pretty uneasy about faith playing a part in service delivery, as is highlighted in the report that prompted this debate. Consequently, faith-based organisations often feel that they ought to downplay the role and importance of faith in their work. Such organisations are absolutely clear that they cannot take faith out of their faith-based work, and if they attempted to do so, there would not be much left. That would result in a lack of integrity on their part, because faith is the heart and driving force of what they do.
207WH
2 JULY 2013
208WH
[Stephen Timms] Secondly, it is difficult to explain what the faith-based organisations call faith logic to local authority service commissioners. Jewish Care, for example, talked to us about its struggle to express the faith needs of the Jewish community in a particular local authority area to local authority officers in an understandable wayand that is in a community in which 20% of the population is Jewish. Similar concerns were raised in other discussions, and there is a widespread perception, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, of religious illiteracy among local authority officersnot malice, I do not think, but difficulty in understanding what such organisations are about and how best to relate to them. Such religious illiteracy has led to local authorities being hesitant to work with faith groups. One organisation that presented to us described how there was often scepticism about whether its services are professional, even though the organisation in question is accredited by Ofsted. Another organisation found that its local authority is reluctant to work with a single faith group in case doing so offended other faith groups. Such problems are often the result of a misunderstanding, rather than malice. Thirdly, some local authorities are just not aware of the work undertaken by faith-based organisations in their area. Sir Edward Leigh: It is even more serious than that. As far as I know, there is not a single Catholic adoption agency left working in this country, despite the fact that they all worked with the most vulnerable people. They were all forced to close down because they were told by local authorities that they had to abide by equality legislation, which trumps everything. Catholic adoption agencies were not prepared to allow same-sex couples to adopt children, so they have all closed down. There is a serious attack on faith-based organisations and their ethos. Stephen Timms: I would favour local authorities being encouraged to undertake a faith and service audit, which would potentially identify areas for collaboration between different faith groups. It was emphasised in our meetings that such research is potentially important in discovering good initiatives that may otherwise go unnoticed and unsupported. It is important to underline that the groups that attended the roundtables have long-term goals. They expressed their commitment to continue serving the needs of their areas, even when funding is hard to come by. Sometimes that is made easier by the resources that come with faith-based organisations, such as a large base of volunteers, resources, motivation and drive to do the work they are doing, which is unique to such faith groups. I have also been chairing the Demos inquiry into faith, society and politics. Demos has published two of the three volumes in its series of studies, the second of which, Faithful Providers, considers faith group involvement in public service delivery. In particular, Demos has considered the concerns that are sometimes raised about what faith groups do when they deliver public services, and from its discussions with a number of groups it found no evidence to support such fears. As
Demos is not a faith-based organisation, it is worth drawing attention to what it says. It found that faith groups are highly motivated and effective in instilling a public service ethos, and that they
often serve as the permanent and persistent pillars of community action within local communities.
Demos also found that faith groups are

acutely aware of the need to be inclusive, keep religion in the background and not abuse the power imbalance between service provider and user.
That captures well the reality of what such organisations are doing. Finally, we can all see that there are big challenges ahead for our communities. The pressing question is how we can make the most of the potential contribution of faith-based groups in addressing those challenges. The all-party group proposes to draft a covenant that could act as the basis for a fresh conversation between local authorities, and public authorities more generally, on the one hand, and faith communities on the other hand. Similar things have been considered in the past, and I know that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has done some good work on that. The idea of a covenant would be to commit the faith communities that sign up to it to playing their part in addressing some of the pressing community needs and to meeting a set of very high standards, including providing assurances that they would not do the things that sometimes people suspect they might do, while also permitting them to be faithful to the convictions that are the reason for what they do. I hope we will be able to make some specific proposals along those lines quite soon. The previous Archbishop of Canterbury said:
The trouble with a lot of Government initiatives about faith is that they assume it is a problem, its an eccentricity, its practised by oddities, foreigners and minorities.
It should not be like that, and if that impression has been given by authorities in the past, it must not happen in the futurewe cannot afford for that to happen in the future. A clear and fair covenant that recognises the unique position of faith groups may go some way towards addressing those problems. I warmly welcome this debate, and I very much hope that we can make considerable progress in this important area. 2.59 pm Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): I am wholeheartedly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) for introducing this debate. I endorse everything said by her and by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms)I can confidently reassure him that this Government do not treat people of faith as oddities, minorities or foreigners. Perhaps a couple of days after I was appointed Second Church Estates Commissionerit was on one of my first visits to Lambeth palace, so it must have been very early in the life of this Parliament and the coalition Governmentone of the first visitors through the door was the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Lambeth palace has big doors,
209WH
2 JULY 2013
210WH
and the Secretary of State was the first through them for a gathering with the Archbishop of Canterbury and other faith leaders. At the outset, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear to the Archbishop of Canterbury, other faith leaders and people such as myself that he and the Government wanted to work with faith communities. He reinforced the Near Neighbours programme, which has done excellent work in Leicester, Bradford, parts of Birmingham and east London, in and near the constituency of the right hon. Member for East Ham. Throughout, the Secretary of State made it clear that he took a practical and pragmatic approach to central and local government working with faith groups. I appreciate that others wish to speak in this debate, so I shall be brief. However, as this is a debate about Christian action, I hope that hon. Members will excuse me if I make a slightly theological point. There is no way for the state, either centrally or locally, to deliver every human service. The state cannot deliver compassion, comfort the bereaved or relieve people of their loneliness. As it happens, I have hanging in my sitting room at home one of those illuminated Biblical addresses, although it is rather more an instruction than an address, which is from chapter 25 of St Matthew. Jesus is asked:
Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and make you welcome, naked and clothe you, sick or in prison and go to seek you?
Jesus does not reply to the Roman authorities or the Jewish state; he replies entirely to us as individuals:
Then shall he answer them, saying, Truly I say to you, in so much as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, and the righteous into life eternal.
The New Living Translation puts it another way:

And he will answer, I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.
When Jesus was asked, How do you help those who are thirsty, hungry or in prison? he said not, This is the responsibility of the state,but, This is the responsibility of you as Christians and as human individuals. That is a fundamental acknowledgment that we must get our minds around. We, as Christians or as human beings, cannot simply shift all responsibilities on to the state, because the state does not have the capacity to give that human compassion and do all the other things. The state can help to support hospices for the dying, but it is the hundreds of volunteers who help to run hospices who make all the difference. David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP): I agree with the hon. Gentlemans sentiments. A number of weeks ago, I took part with street pastors in some of their outreach work. I witnessed the compassion that he mentioned from young people of the Christian faith who were doing fantastic work among drug addicts and alcoholics. Such work has transformed lives, and our young people have a lot to contribute to that. Sir Tony Baldry: I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made some observations on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church, so I hope that hon.
Members will excuse me if I make a couple of observations on behalf of the Church of England. The Church of England is, of course, a national church. The whole point of the Church of England is that it divides the whole of England into parishes, and every parish has a priest who is responsible for that parish. Archbishop Temple once observed that the Church of England was one of very few organisations that existed for the benefit of people other than its own members. The Church has a mission to the whole community. It must be, and is, a national Church. Recent research by the Church Urban Fund found that thousands of parish churches throughout the country play an active role in their local communities by running lunch clubs for the elderly and after-school clubs for children in deprived areas, and helping to run food banks, as the right hon. Member for East Ham observed. In fact, some 6,500 parishes in England run organised activities to address at least one social need in the community. What was interesting about the Church Urban Funds research findings was that parishes based on council estates and in inner cities were the most likely to be active in the community. Some 80% of Church of England parishes on council estates run activities to address at least one social need. In my experience, they do so with other faith groups. The street pastors, food banks and other initiatives that I have seen involve faith groups working together, and I do not think that there is any problem with that. Every day, throughout the country, thousands of faith-based volunteers quietly go about helping the elderly, isolated people and toddler groups, or doing more difficult work in drug rehabilitation programmes. In Oxfordshire, we have a programme that meets people who have been released from prisonliterally at the prison gateto give them support as they return to the community. In hundreds of different ways, such work is done patiently and tirelessly every day. During my time as a Second Church Estates Commissioner who takes a particular interest in this issue, I have not come across any instances of faith groups or churches saying to me that they feel frustrated or thwarted because local government has not understood them. The idea of a covenant, as proposed by the right hon. Member for East Ham, is extremely interesting and probably well worth pursuing, but I would hopeand I see this throughout the countryfor partnerships between faith groups, and local government and other organisations. When I recently went to Wellingborough and Kettering to see street pastors at work, what impressed me was that at the beginning of the evening, senior police officers came in to brief them about what was happening in the community that night, how things were in the town and what they expected. Those street pastors had the full support and respect of the local police and the local authority, which was much appreciated. Whether helping to tackle isolation, family breakdown, debt or homelessness, or supporting people on low incomes, or with mental health or drug and alcohol abuse problems, people of faith are present. I would hope that central and local government will continue to work out how to maximise that synergy. Occasionally, reality breaks out in the Palace of Westminster, and one reality that has broken out in the past couple of weeks is that the welfare budget is not
211WH
2 JULY 2013
212WH
[Sir Tony Baldry] going to grow exponentially. Members on both sides of the House, including the shadow Chancellor, have acknowledged that, so we will all have to be smarter, cleverer and wiser about how we work within the parameters of the existing welfare budget, which is huge. The House of Commons Library tells me that the total spent on welfare is forecast to be 204.1 billion this financial year. In 2016-17, that will rise to 218.2 billion in cash terms, or 206.9 billion at this years prices, so we will go from 204 billion to approximately 207 billion in three years time, and we will all have to work within that budget. Given the opportunity, faith groups have the capacity and ability to do much with central and local government. 3.10 pm Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): The Faith in the Communityreport, which was produced by the Christians in Parliament all-party group in conjunction with the Evangelical Alliance, is important in many ways, not least because it has helped to highlight the sheer extent and value of faith groupscontribution to local communities throughout the country. Many local authorities acknowledged that they were unaware of the extent of the voluntary work that is often quietly done by people of faith. As Andrew Taylor, a minister at Union street Baptist church in Crewe, said in a report aptly named Hidden Treasure in Cheshire East: Faith Action Audit:
One of the calls of the Christian faith, as other faiths, is that we should love and serve our neighbours, usually quietly and without expectation of recognition and reward. This does not mean that acknowledgement and appreciation are not welcome.
That work is often done quietly, so it has often gone unnoticed and unappreciated, and we have not been as supportive as we could be in our local communities or as a wider society, so I hope that the Faith in the Community report will go a considerable way towards changing that and helping to build the capacity of faith groups that have a desire to make an even greater contribution to our local communities. I therefore want to use the debate to say thank you to faith groups across the country and to send a message of thanks from the House to those groups for their invaluable contribution in our local communities. I also want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing this important debate. I want to say thanks to the more traditionally recognised groups in our communities, such as Mums and Tots. I was interested to note the name of one such group in my local areathe Little Nutters. I also want to say thanks to those who care for our elderly, support the homeless and provide youth clubs. In addition, I want to say thanks to those who provide newer, more contemporary help, such as the debt counselling work done by CAP, Sycamore Trusts restorative justice work in prisons, and the parenting classes run by the Lets Stick Together project, which is promoted by Care for the Family, for couples who have had their first child. Such help also includes enterprise coaching, the provision of office space, IT training and free legal advice clinics. The drug rehab centre in my churchthe Church @ The Foundry, in Widnesis acknowledged by the local authority to be the best in the area. In the church
grounds, there are also more than 20 bungalows that were built many years ago to house and care for elderly people. That remarkable work has been sustained over decades and has been supported by the fellowship in the church. Faith groups provide organisational skills, mentoring, language classes, bereavement counselling, anger management and emergency disaster reliefthe list is endless. We also see franchise-format voluntary work, and we have heard about the street pastors. Best practice is shared among such groups, and there is also good engagement with local authorities. A small but significant category of respondents to the Faith in the Community report said that local authorities have entered into formal contracts for services with faith groups. One example is the library in Grappenhall, in Warrington. I know the library well, because I was a councillor when the cabinet was deciding what to do with it. It was clear the local authority could no longer sustain it, and I have watched with great admiration as local church members have taken over that community facility and maintained it. I pay tribute to Jan and John Ashby for their work. We have also seen collaborative work between Redeeming Our Communities and the police. The organisation, which works in some of the most troubled areas of our country, also sustains a youth project in a fire station. That and the other projects I have mentioned are excellent examples of partnership working between faith groups and local and statutory authorities. However, such good engagement does not always happen. How, then, can local and, indeed, national Government better engage with and support faith groups to develop their voluntary work and undertake it in as professional a manner as possible, as the great majority wish to? The Faith in the Community report clearly states that the first step is for faith groups and local authorities to talk and to develop closer working relationships to break down barriers, whether perceived or real. Such barriers might relate to the language used, concerns about motives, local authorities concerns that faith groups beliefs will be expressed in a way they consider inappropriate, or faith groups concerns that local authorities will not be interested in them and that resources and support will not be available to them just because they are faith groups. Let me turn now to the Hidden Treasure in Cheshire East: Faith Action Audit report, which was produced by the faith community and the local authority in which my constituency lies. I pay tribute to Carolyn McQuaker, who spearheaded the report. The clue to what it is is in the title: an audit of the voluntary and community work of faith groups. The report is interesting because it takes the overview in the Faith in the Community report, which the all-party group on Christians in Parliament and the Evangelical Alliance have just produced, and focuses on just one local authority area. The audit sent out 246 questionnaires to churches and faith communities, of which 154 were returned. Some 150 were from groups that defined themselves as Christian, while one was from a Bahai group, one was from a Hindu group and two were from Unitarian groups. It is interesting that although there was a connection between those groups and local authority agencies, such as the council for voluntary service, childrens centres and youth services, only 12.5% of the responding faith
213WH
2 JULY 2013
214WH
groups said they had any such active connection with their local authority. Faith groups do valuable work, but how much more could be delivered with just a little more engagement, advice and practical support? As statistics from the local authority show, the reach of the various faith groups and the impact that they have on tackling challenges in our society are immense, and I hope that hon. Members will bear with me while I quote some of the statistics. Altogether, the 154 faith communities that responded are responsible for running 536 projectsan average of between three and four regular caring projects per group. Incidentally, those projects exclude any that are established and held for the purpose of teaching religion, which were not counted in the report. More than 16,300 people engage in those weekly projects. Some 2,239 toddlers and their carers attend 79 groups each week, while 5,087 children and young people take part in 207 projects run for them across the area. Some 1,700 elderly people join in 81 activities, while 2,365 people take part in 64 projects to develop life skills and to help with physical, mental and material well-being. Nearly 5,000 people take part in other community projects. In addition to the projects run directly by faith groups, their members also contribute regularly to the life of schools. Some 254 members of faith groups are school governors, and there are an additional 89 school projects. Many church members also give time regularly to the life of local care facilities for the old and the young. If all that work had to be carried out by statutory services, it would require the equivalent of 281 full-time jobs. If those figures are representative of the faith groups in Cheshire East as a whole, 862 projects are being run for more than 26,000 people every week, at a value of many millions of pounds. Of course, that is probably still vastly understated, because many hours go unrecorded, and the figures do not take into account the voluntary time given to activities such as overseeing groups, supporting and managing volunteers and managing the buildings in which events take place. The Hidden Treasure report contains several constructive, practical suggestions to help faith groups to build on their already remarkable contribution. To build capacity, realise potential and achieve best practice, faith groups themselves should work at communicating with, and representing themselves to, the rest of the voluntary and public sector, such as by engaging more closely with local authorities by sitting on local boards set up by, or in partnership with, local authorities. That could help to make the work of faith groups strategic, and prevent opportunities from being missed to develop or follow through an overall vision for an area or a locality. Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab): I was struck by what the hon. Lady said about the proportion of faith groups in her area with pre-existing local authority contacts. Does she think that umbrella faith groups, such as Churches Together or equivalent groups in other faiths, might play a useful role in co-ordinating such links? Fiona Bruce: I agree. Churches Together provides an excellent way of connecting in many towns. In my constituency, Churches Together in Middlewich has recently launched a good neighbours project, especially
to support those who may be lonely at home, in conjunction with the town council and housing association. It is important for local authorities to encourage church groups to engage with them. As we have heard, the language used by local authorities can be a barrier, and staff need to be aware of that. Councils might consider developing a dedicated faith-based support agency to enable them to understand the challenges faced by faith groups, to form a bridge to the wider voluntary community services and statutory sector, and to provide a resource to enable faith groups to understand what support from local authorities is available to them. It is essential that communication is improved. As we have heard, the statutory sector is often not aware of the level or range of activity in the faith sector. Equally, the faith sector is unaware of the scope and scale of issues and priorities that the statutory sector must address, or its plans of action. The two should work together on a common vision and direction, pooling resources on several levelsgeographically, in localities, and thematically, such as across the youth work of an areawith the aim of facilitating networks and more effective joint action. True partnerships of trust should respect and honour peoples values and beliefs, and I shall come on to that at the end of my speech with reference to the Faith in the Community report. People working with faith groups must connect with them in a way that will enhance, rather than detract from, what they are doing, and protect the ownership of the vision and worth that motivates people of faith. Perhaps the statutory sector needs a little training and guidance to help it to work in partnership with groups that have a faith identity, to help them to maintain that, and perhaps to avoid the heavy bureaucracy that can be so off-putting to the groups. Local authorities can also help faith groups to improve their research. Faith groups are often very good at measuring activity, but less good at assessing their own impact. Councils could help them to improve that while respecting the fact that it is often church members who have the closest contact at grass-roots level with those in most need in the community. When I was a councillor, a report was done on our youth workit was not good. One of the problems was that the youth workers worked 9 to 5, and it was the church youth leaders out on the streets, doing the detached work night after night, who understood what young people were coping with and were the most effective. More such joint working and interaction is needed. A further recommendation of the Hidden Treasure report concerns training. Local authorities have huge resources and expertise with which to provide quality training, which could radically help to build capacity among faith groups. I am pleased to note that Cheshire East council has strengthened its offer of training to faith groups because of the report, and that should enable more faith groups to sustain projects. Often they have the passion and vision to start a project, but sustaining one perhaps takes a little more training, support and expertise than many faith groups have. In addition, often relatively small amounts of money, compared with a local authority budget, can have a significant impact on faith groups ability to expand their capacity. However, many do not want to engage in the commissioning process, which they find burdensome,
215WH
2 JULY 2013
216WH
[Fiona Bruce] and nor do they have the capacity to do so. A little more financial support would be appreciated, and it would also be helpful if there was an annual audit and review of the kind of work that faith groups do in every local area so that we may celebrate and highlight the sectors achievements and ensure that local authorities can fully engage with their plans and actions. I said that I would touch on the Faith in the Community report, and I want to clarify two points. It is important that guidance should be issued
that expresses a clear understanding that it is legitimate for beliefs to be manifested
as faith communities go about their work within local communities

without implying proselytisation.
It is important not to confuse the two. Finally, local authorities should provide reasonable accommodation of religion and belief whenever possible. The report states:
An approach should be adopted that allows faith groups to be open about their beliefs and values, and the practices these encourage, rather than emphasise a privatisation of belief ,
and suggests that practical provision should be made

for substantive freedom of religious expression
and belief. After all, that is the very thing that motivates people of faith to undertake the remarkable work that they do. Sir Edward Leigh rose Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair): Order. Each FrontBench spokesman will have 10 minutes, so I shall call Chris Williamson no later than 3.40 pm. 3.27 pm Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): The trouble with a debate such as this is that it can be as reassuring and pleasant as a Christmas carol service. We all agree with each other. We are about to hear the winding-up speeches, and I have no doubt that both Front-Bench spokesmen will be extremely polite about faith groups and pay tribute to all their sterling work. We will all go away feeling very happy. However, a more serious situation exists, which needs to be addressed. I followed what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) said. I do not blame the current Front Bench, but undoubtedly faith, and particularly action in faith, and faith groups, have suffered during the past century, because the state has become a kind of giant mustard treeif we are to use biblical referencesand all other activity has gradually been drained of irrigation. Faith groups, like other voluntary groups, have suffered from the attitude of mind that it is the state that must always take responsibility. We can have a wide-ranging debate about that, and we all know the arguments on both sides. However, there is something much more serious going on, and I want to amplify the two points I made earlier. I made an intervention about the Plymouth Brethren. I think that that is an interesting case, because it is almost a throwback to the politics of the 16th and 17th centuries. There is a religious group whose beliefs, frankly, the
state thinks are weird. Most Members of Parliament either have no faith at all or belong to well established faith groups with broad views. We find it difficult to understand the viewpoint of a group such as the Plymouth Brethren, who, frankly, treat life in literal accordance with the Bible. As a result, they want to have closed services to an extent, which is their right; they also want to mix and work together and to educate their children in their own schools. That sits oddly with the modern ethos of auditthat everything has to subscribe to general notions of the right way to do thingsbut we should consider the attack on the Plymouth Brethren by the Charity Commission as an attack on freedom of belief and association, and it is therefore very important. It is important not only for that admittedly small group of people, but for those of us who belong to Churches that are far more numerous, because we are also under attack from the same attitudes. I mentioned the Catholic adoption agencies earlier, in an intervention on the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). I noticed that he did not answer my questionperhaps he did not want to, or the answer was too difficult. The situation, however, is serious: a mainstream Church was indulging in extraordinarily important work with by far the most difficult families in the country, trying to place children from very disturbed backgrounds with foster parents, but all those adoption agencies have now closed. An important faith group was doing important work that we all lauded and thought was marvellous, but the agencies have closed because the state said that the adoption groups had an ethos that did not fit with its equality ethos. That is extremely worrying. We have heard a lot about covenants, and we will no doubt hear more. Furthermore, in the wind-ups, we will hear a lot about the good work of faith groups and about how we want to encourage local authorities to work with faith groups. If we look at what is happening on the ground, however, we see that serious things are occurring. We have had a big debate about same-sex marriage, and I do not want to repeat all the arguments, but the Government have been loud in their acclamation that they want to protect the position of Churches. I believe that the marriage services carried out by Churches in their own buildings will be protected, for a time anyway, but will freedom of speech in Church schools be protected? Will freedom of action in Church groups be protected? Those are much more difficult questions to answer. Frankly, I am not so interested in covenants and all the rest; I am interested in the state leaving faith groups alone. Leave them alone! Let them run their voluntary organisations, schools, Churches and adoption agencies in the way that they want to run them. Often, the way that the faith groups want to run such organisations will be counter to modern, secular ideas of equality. The trouble with faith, however, is that it is often demanding. The books of faith in any religion make difficult demands of people. Sometimes, admittedly, they are exclusive in their demands; they proclaim a particular truth, and it is difficult for all people to subscribe to those truths. Some people may be excluded because of their set of beliefs, but that is the nature of faith. We have to recognise that they have those strong beliefs, whether on same-sex marriage or anything else, and they are entitled
217WH
2 JULY 2013
218WH
to run their own groups how they want to. In spite of all the warm words that we will shortly hear from the Minister and the shadow Minister, that is not happening, and there is now a war of attrition. Some people say that the faith groups are whinging and whining and that they live in an entirely tolerant and free countrythank God that we do live in a country that still is largely free and tolerant, compared with many others in the worldbut I do not believe that our country is as free for and as tolerant of the faith groups views, which are often difficult, as it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago. No one sitting in the Chamber now can gainsay that point of view. No one can deny that the faith groups, although still largely free to carry on their own services in their own churches, mosques, temples or whatever, are not as free as they were, although they are much freer than in many other parts of the world. The faith groups reach out to the community with their voluntary organisations. The Charity Commission said to the Plymouth Brethren, The reason why we want to take your charity status away is that you are not reaching out to the community. The Brethren know, however, that when they reach out to the community, their beliefs immediately run counter to the demands made on their organisations by the local authorities. Paradoxically, that is why the Plymouth Brethren want to retreat into themselves: they feel under threat from the wider worldtheir ethos is under threat. Therefore, they want to protect their young people, but, having come to the conclusion that the only way in which they can do so is to educate themselves, they find that the Charity Commission says, That is not good enough. You are not reaching out to the wider world. They are in an impossible situation. I ask only one thing of the Minister. Please, ponder the debate and leave faith groups, their organisations and their ethos alone. 3.36 pm Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab): It is a pleasure to be serving under your chairmanship, Mr Walker, I think for the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing the debate, which is important and has been a good and interesting one. I share her exhortation to local government to work with faith groups, which do such a wonderful job in our communities. I shall touch on some of the comments made by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) referred to the need to build the capacity of faith groups. That is an important goal to enable faith groups in the community to provide the support facilities that they might wish to see and from which the community might benefit. She also cited a number of good examples of the excellent work that faith groups are doing in her constituency and in the wider area. We can probably all cite such examples of faith groups doing excellent work. She also referred to the partnership activities in her constituency, such as the work of the fire and rescue service with a faith group. The fire and rescue service is doing a wonderful job throughout the country, so it is good to see a collaboration taking place as she outlined. The hon. Lady mentioned a low level of engagement in
some parts of the country, which we need to be mindful of and to tackle. It is helpful to raise the issue in todays debate as one that needs to be looked at. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has considerable experience in this area, and he does some excellent work. I am sure hon. Members know of his contribution to the whole agenda. He identified the fact that faith groups not only of Christian denominations, but right across the piecefaith groups of all persuasionsdo some excellent work in the community. He also highlighted some of the obstacles to collaboration, which we need to tackle. The hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) said that the state cannot be responsible for delivering everything. I agree, but the state has a role, and the debate is all about how the state can work alongside faith groups. Nevertheless, I take issue with him on his point that the state cannot be responsible for compassion: the national health service is the very embodiment of the state showing compassion to its citizens. Similarly, the establishment of the welfare state is an example of the state showing compassion to its citizens. While it is true that the welfare budget has grown, and the hon. Gentleman made the point that it cannot continue to grow exponentially, we should not expect faith groups and the wider voluntary sector to pick up the pieces, if the cap is set at such a level. In such circumstances, the state should not put the onus on faith groups, but ensure that any cap is imposed compassionately. That means ensuring that employers do not exploit their work force but pay appropriate wages, so that people are not reliant on the state. It also means ensuring that landlords do not profiteer and charge excessive rents, leading to a ballooning housing benefit bill, and that unemployed people are guaranteed employment. By doing those things, we can ensure that no unreasonable burden is placed on voluntary organisations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that having a cap means that it would fall to faith organisations to fulfil the role that the state, rightly, should be fulfilling. Andrea Leadsom: I think the hon. Gentleman might be slightly missing the point of this debate, which is about how to support and empower faith groups to do more in the community. It is not some kind of political talk about austerity and how it might affect the states need to depend on faith groups. He might be looking at the issue from the other end of the telescope. Chris Williamson: I was merely responding to the comments made by the hon. Member for Banbury, who mentioned the cap and the argument that welfare spending cannot continue to grow exponentially. I was merely pointing out, as the hon. Lady did, that the debate is about how we can facilitate and enable faith groups to fulfil their full potential and work in collaboration. However, such groups should not be a substitution for the role of the state. I think the issue is about a partnership and a collaborative approachor at least I hope it is. I was responding to the hon. Gentlemans comments, in case there was any misunderstanding about what he was saying, and I simply wanted to put our views on the record. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) referred to the impact of equalities legislation on the role of some faith groups. He raised the example of adoption agencies that no longer provide a service
219WH
2 JULY 2013
220WH
[Chris Williamson] because of the imposition of equalities legislation. It is important that all organisations and all of us are subject to the law. I do not think that it is appropriate to say that one particular interest group should be exempt from the law of the land. Equalities legislation is the law of the land, and all organisations, whether they are faith groups or otherwise, need to be subject to it. The hon. Gentleman also said that the state should leave faith groups alone and let them get on with what they do. That also potentially misses the point of the debate, which, as we have already touched on, is about how local government can work more closely with faith groups, so it is a question not of leaving them alone but of how they can work more effectively together. Faith groups are integral to the fabric of many communities, and they do some excellent work. We have heard some examples of that, such as youth work, working alongside and providing support to homeless people, food banks and street pastors. That is excellent work. I know that many local authorities value the input from faith groups. Sir Edward Leigh: I may have expressed myself badly, and I apologise. The hon. Gentleman has obviously misunderstood what I said. I was trying to say that if faith groups are put in a position where they feel that they must be supported by local authorities and conform to the authorities ethoshe who pays the piper calls the tunethere is a real danger that they gradually become impoverished in their belief. It will be a kind of vicious circle: as they can survive only because of the money that is provided, they will have to subscribe to secular beliefs and culture. They will lose their very vitality, which is formed by faith. That was the point I was trying to make, perhaps badly. Chris Williamson: I am grateful for that clarification. That is a pessimistic view, to be honest. In my experience, local authorities work well with faith groups and try to facilitate their activities. A shared approach is a partnership approach, and sometimes there will be tension. Part of the reason for having this debate is, I hope, to discuss that and look at ways in which some of those obstacles may be overcome. Some of the difficulties relate to a lack of understanding, and to expectations. Indeed, sometimes there is a lack of awareness or understanding between faith groups. It is important that local authorities try to come up with ways of ensuring that such misunderstanding is overcome. There are some good examples of that happening around the country. In my own constituency, the forum of faith groups, which was established by the local authority, works extremely well. It brings all the faith organisations in the city together and facilitates working between different faith groups and alongside the local authority and other statutory agencies. The work that faith groups do around the country certainly where they work closely with the local authority helps to facilitate community cohesion in their areas, particularly where we have umbrella organisations that bring together the different faith groups and provide an opportunity for discussion. I think that that is valued, and I hope that we will see more of that approach around the country.
To conclude, the key is that the work of faith groups should complement, not replace, the role of local government and public service agencies and the services that they provide. Jim Shannon: I feel that the thrust of this debate among contributors and those who have made interventions is to underline the good work that faith groups do, particularly where the Government have not been or are not working. Surely the thrust should not be that the Government should restrict faith groups, but work alongside them. Chris Williamson: I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. Certainly the Government should work alongside faith groups, and there are plenty of examples of that. There are some examples of their not working so well together, and I hope that we can overcome that. Rather than faith groups doing their own thing and public service agencies doing theirs, much more can be achieved by working together. Where there can be collaboration, faith groups can add value to the public services that are provided by local and national Government. Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Gentleman is saying that the work of faith groups should complement, not replace, that of local authorities, but what about, for example, the hospice movement, which is largely voluntary? That is not complementary to, but instead of, local authorities. Does he not see that on many occasions faith groups provide services instead of local authorities, not alongside them? Chris Williamson: That is a good example, but it does not undermine the general thrust of my point. I am not saying that faith groups should provide services that are already being provided; they are just adding to them. The hospice movement, which the hon. Lady identified, is a good example of an addition that may be provided. We are probably on the same page; I do not necessarily think there is any difference between us on that point. It is important not only to understand the significant role of faith groups, but to try to facilitate a better understanding between local government, other public service organisations, and faith groups. Facilitating that joint approach would enable the services that are provided by both the public sector and the faith group sector to be much enhanced Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had 14 minutes. I call Mr Mark Prisk. 3.50 pm The Minister for Housing (Mr Mark Prisk): Thank you, Mr Walker. In the time available, let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing the debate and on her thoughtful, balanced contribution, which covered an interesting range of issues. I think that that has been the case for the debate as a whole. In a sense, underlying my hon. Friends powerful argument was her question of plurality, although I do not pretend to have an immediate answer to that. I totally understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) about the danger of a society and Government mindset
221WH
2 JULY 2013
222WH
that becomes ever narrower, perhaps for the best of intentions, but nevertheless does not take account of the fact that there are different perspectives that we need to respect in society as a whole. I strongly feel that faith communities play a very important role at the local and national level. It is about helping many people to strengthen their moral outlook, and about the way in which such groups help people and provide a service to others, by being good neighbours. It is also about the way in which we help those in genuine need. As several people have said, it is true that Governments of whatever political persuasion have tended to ignore or misunderstand the role of our faith groups, and todays debate gives us an opportunity. I am a Minister in a Department with a Secretary of State who takes this issue seriously, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) mentioned, and we not only welcome the report, but applaud its contents and the work that it records. As we have heard, Governments have perhaps been cautious in the past about engaging with such things. They have perhaps been wary of being seen to take too strong a role in the direction of certain faiths in a society in which, as has been rightly described, aggressive secularism has a strong and powerful voice. As a Government, we welcome the report and the work of faith groups. The debate and the report have informed us of the huge range of activities in which such groups are involved. Hon. Members have mentioned food banks, fostering services, the work of CAP debt agencies and street pastors. I have been out with the street pastor group in my constituency. Among the flip-flops and the lollipops, they play an important pastoral role. In my case, that was in Bishops Stortford, but the project that my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire visited sounds even more exciting. The fact that senior police officers take it seriously and recognise the role of people in the community who give their time to help others is an interesting sign of what can be achieved. Before I come to the specific questions that have been asked, I will touch on faith groups role in homes and homelessness. I have seen marvellous work undertaken, whether that is through the Passage, the Salvation Army, or St Georges Crypt in Leeds. People are making a difference, not only by providing shelter to those who are homeless, but by helping them to change their lives and get back to being able to stand on their own two feet, and that is very much led by faith. Several hon. Members mentioned the role of Churches Together, and churches and faith groups around them can help new communities as well. In Devonin Cranbrook, near Exeteralongside the work that we are doing as a Government with bricks and mortar to establish a lasting community, I was delighted to see the role of the Churches Together, which has ensured that, from the start, there is a ministernot a Government Ministerfor Cranbrook, Mark Gilborson, who is helping to bind the community together. Whatever I may do as Minister for Housing, communities will not be defined by bricks and mortar; they will be defined by people and how the community binds together. Let me turn to hon. Members specific points. It is right to say that there has been a perception in national and local governmentsometimes falsely, on the basis of misconceptions or fear, but perhaps also due to a lack of understandingabout what faith groups can
be, and of what they do and add. To counter some of the more cautious discussion in the debate, the survey by the Evangelical Alliance, which underpins the report, suggests that things have moved on and that many councils are now positively engaging. There are problems, however. We as a Department are actively involved in ensuring that some problems relating to what is termed overstretch, and to the bureaucracy that can often be overwhelming for small, faith-based groups, can be overcome. It is also important to tackle the problem that even if councils have recognised that faith-based groups are strong, and they are willing to commission services from those groups, we have seen a minority of cases in which they have made it clear to such groups that they need to be quiet about their faith. The Government do not regard it as reasonable for local authorities to impose such conditions in contracts, even though they may legally be at liberty to do so. We are, of course, not talking about public money paying for specific religious worshipindeed, we all want to ensure that services are open and for a common cause when public money is involved. However, let us face it: the vast majority of church and faith groups are perfectly capable of sticking to those rules. The key point is that people need to be able to be honest about their faith, without necessarily needing to impose it on somebody else. That is the balance that I would encourage councils to consider. I am not complacent about the challenge, but more can be done to establish a more productive working relationship with some councils, so I want to offer two or three practical points in response to what hon. Members raised. The Evangelical Alliance is planning a series of road shows to bring together church leaders and senior local government officials to work through the reports findings jointly. The point made by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) about a covenant might well fit into that dialogue. I am pleased to say that my departmental officials are actively involved in that process, and I strongly encourage councils to take part. In fact, I go further and encourage hon. Members in the Chamber to encourage their councils to ensure that they participate. There is an issue about the term religious literacy. There are ways to improve things, whether that is by starting with those groups who are more actively engaged in the community, or by having, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) suggested, a dedicated officer or councillor who can take the lead, change the culture, open minds, and understand that there is a different perspective, because such a process can start to break down some of the misunderstanding. It is also important that we play a role, which is why we will set up our own seminars that will be deliberately designed to start to look at where there are such gaps and problems, and at what can be done to change that. Let me turn briefly to the question of the Plymouth Brethren. As hon. Members will know, I need to be cautious, in that the Charity Commission is independent of Ministers and it is not for me to interfere in any individual decision. We should not rush to any judgment about changing the definition of charity. An appeal has been lodged, and I think it will be held in September. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire and others pointed out, the Brethren do good work, as do so many other faith groups. I want the case to reach
223WH
2 JULY 2013
224WH
[Mr Mark Prisk] a speedy resolution and for both sides to resolve the matter. This needs to be done with open minds, not closed minds. Several other excellent points have been raised. Inter-faith is an absolutely crucial issue, and the Near Neighbours programme and the 5 million we are investing is important. However, let me conclude by saying that this has been a timely debate. It is right to say that, in the past, some of our faith groups have felt either ignored or misunderstood by both central and local government, and that is why I welcome the report. I know that my noble Friend Baroness Warsi, who leads on the issue in the Department, will want to take matters further, particularly with regard to how we increase co-operation between councils. Perhaps rather than using my words, however, I may conclude with those of Dr Sentamu, the Archbishop of York:
Building strong working relationships between local authorities and religious communities should not be based on mere tolerance. It should be about talking, listening, and growing together. Together, working in unity of spirit, we are stronger than when we try to do things in isolation.
Digital Exclusion (Glasgow)

4 pm Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. Last week, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced further plans to roll out superfast broadband across the UK, so that it will reach 95% of the population by 2017. No one doubts that Government investment in that type of infrastructure is key to promoting further growth; and, in comparison with other parts of Scotland, Glasgow ranks as one of the best for superfast broadband availability and is also benefiting from the Future Cities spending. However, one reason why I have requested this debate is to caution that collectively we may have become too fixated on the rate of installing hardware, compared with the level and depth of usage by our citizens. The two are interconnected, but very often our strategic priorities and procurement policies do not match those needs together. I believe that the Government should do more to link their substantial investment in broadband with investment in citizens participation. I hope today, as well as setting out the scale of the challenge, to suggest some practical ways in which the Government could better adapt their policies to provide a more comprehensive strategy. I have long taken a close interestI have done so throughout my years in Parliamentin how Government initiatives and policies, whether lottery funds for community groups, the introduction of tax credits or the recent changes in family migration rules, are understood in my local area. Frequently, bureaucracy underestimates or simply fails to understand how, and to what extent, the general public absorb information and application processes. Many Scottish Members will recall the disaster of the 2007 Scottish Parliament election, caused in part by officials simply deleting one line of instruction at the top of a ballot form. During the past year, I have spent more and more time with local groups and community activists, talking about the impact of the digital divide, particularly in relation to those seeking work and the forthcoming introduction of universal credit. Last year, Ofcom reported that Glasgow had the lowest level of broadband take-up of any major UK city. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) is here today. Sadly, it is not a surprise to those of us who represent a Glasgow seat that it is at the bottom or top of a league table for things that are not very good. There are many historical and economic causes of our citys ingrained poverty, but in the case of digital access, the scale of the gap should result in a call for action, rather than simply a shrugging of shoulders. Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. The statistics from Glasgow show that up to 60% of people have access to broadband. That means that 40% do not. Given that access to many Government services is online only, particularly with some of the welfare changes, does she recognise that that could pose difficulties for the most vulnerable people in the city of Glasgow? Ann McKechin: My hon. Friend has raised the point that I was going to raise in the next paragraph of my speechclearly, he must have had advance sight of it.
225WH
2 JULY 2013
226WH
He has made exactly the right point, because this is a question of social justice, not just access to a certain piece of technology. Ofcoms 2012 consumer market report showed, as my hon. Friend mentioned, that only 60% of Glasgows households had access to fixed broadband, compared with a UK average of 76%. We know that at-home access is vital to allow our citizens to gain the most value from use of the internet. Against that UK average of 76%, it is perhaps not surprising that the Government, in moving to digital by default from this autumn, are working on the assumption of moving 80% of benefit applications online, but let us dig a little deeper into those figures for Glasgow. Last month, I was pleased to host a seminar at Westminster with the Carnegie UK Trust, which has recently published a report called Across the Divide by Douglas White that is an in-depth review of 200 families in the city and how they are affected by the digital divide. There is much to commend in that excellent report, which is instructive not only for Glasgow but for other areas of the country that suffer from high levels of socio-economic deprivation. It should not surprise the Minister that the author pointed to very similar figures in parts of North Ayrshire, West Dunbartonshire and North Lanarkshire, which surround the city area, but I particularly draw the Ministers attention to the charts at the start of chapter 3, which show the gap, in terms of both age and socio-economic groups, between Glasgow and the UK average. For the social group C2a group that is often affected by our social security systemsthe divide is an astonishing 25%. Against a UK average take-up of 72% for that social group, the Glasgow figure is only 47%. What happens when age is added to the equation? In the citys entire 35-to-64 age group, only 35% have access to broadband in their house. In some of the most deprived areas of the city, housing associations and other community groups estimate that only 20% of their tenants at most have direct broadband access. However, as the figures reveal, this issue affects all sections of the community and all demographics. There are a multitude of reasons for the gap, and the report goes into them in some depth, but cost is the primary one. For people on a low income, a fixed phone line is now a luxury that many drop in favour of pay-as-you-go mobile phones. As the Carnegie report showed, the monthly communications budget for the citys lowest socio-economic groups is about 30, compared with a UK average spend of about 100. The Governments aim to move to digital by default is certainly doing more to raise the importance of the issue, but there is a real fear that we simply do not have the scale of resources required, not only for hardware access but for appropriate software and access to training and support. This is not a problem for which a one-sizefits-all approach will work. It needs a comprehensive and segmented strategy, with political commitment over the long term. Citizens Advice Scotland, in a report issued in May called Offline and left behind, which included interviews with 1,200 clients, found that nearly 72% would struggle to apply for a job online and that almost half those who said that they would be completely unable to complete a benefits application online said that the main barrier was that they had never used a computer. Research conducted this year by the Princes Trust with young
people who fall into the NEETs categorynot in education, employment or trainingfound that one quarter dreaded filling in job application forms online, while one in 10 admitted avoiding computers altogether. As the Minister will be aware, literacy and numeracy levels play a very big part in that. Having spoken to my local citizens advice bureau, to welfare rights officers and to my own casework staff, who recently attended a demonstration at the local Department for Work and Pensions office, I understand that the anticipated time to complete a new universal credit application is one and a half hours. Moreover, there is no provision to save information if someone wishes to pause the application process. We all have busy lives. There will be times when we are on the computer and we want to pause it, go away and look for some other bit of information and come back to it, but this is the classic The machine wont let us do it approach. Frankly, it is a completely useless IT approach that by now the Government should have banned from any front-of-house application. Even those experienced in these systems are aghast at the complexity of the process. In addition, as the Minister will be aware, jobseekers allowance applicants are regularly instructed to spend multiple hours each week searching online for work, but little assessment has been carried out of the actual availability of free-to-use computers in local areas. Last year, I started to carry out a survey in my own constituency of where free-to-use computers were available and what training or lessons might be appropriate and accessible if people wanted to go online and complete CVs. I then began to realise that I was the only person trying to collate that information and I was eventually contacted by a Scottish Government agency, which agreed to fund the publication of the list, so that we could distribute it to a whole host of community groups and public offices. Absolutely no mapping has been done of where computer access is available. I know that the DWP is now trying to establish local job clubs in my constituency and many other areas, where people can access computers on an informal basis. That is all well and good, but it has only just begun that process and it takes time for community groups to find the finance, to get organised and to get the equipmentyet we are facing that radical change in a few months time. That is why I urge the Minister to scrap the Governments aim of starting with a target of 80% of benefit applications being made online. It is unrealistic, grossly unfair and runs the risk of vulnerable people losing essential financial support. What is the alternative target? I am sure the Minister will respond by saying that there has to be a target. We should all want greater online access for our constituents, because it means not only the ability to apply for benefits and search for jobs, but the opportunity to benefit from cheaper utility costs, new sources of information and knowledge and greater connectivity with the wider community. Such targets are useful to measure and drive success, but they need to be based on evidence, with a clear strategy to improve take-up. There are good examples to follow, and I point to the programme that introduced digital TV switchover as an excellent example: it adapted messages for different segments of the public; it worked with all tiers of government and local community organisations to ensure efficient delivery; and it constantly analysed evidence throughout the
227WH
2 JULY 2013
228WH
[Ann McKechin] project and adjusted its work to suit, to ensure that it became one of the most successful Government programmes of recent years delivering information and change to the entire public. The question that is always asked in these difficult economic times is, can we find the finance for such work? The answer is yes: to return to the point I made at the beginning of my speech, we need to integrate funding solutions with the provision of the hardware that delivers the service. I suggest that we take a small slice of the funds that we set aside for mass broadband coverage and use it to finance a public community access programme that is fit for purpose. How do we tackle the depth of the problems faced in my home city? I was struck by the success of a community project that began in Liverpool a couple of years ago, and which has witnessed a substantial increase in usage by the population. There are certainly lessons from its success that we in Glasgow need to learn. Glasgow city council launched a digital participation group earlier this year as part of its new digital strategy, which is good, but we need the UK and Scottish Governments to respond positively to that initiative. Both Governments should look at using Glasgow as a pilot for the wider task of tackling digital exclusion wherever it occurs in the country. We need a comprehensive and segmented approach based on good-quality evidence and clear messaging. We need clear branding, which everyone in the community understands at all levels. The Carnegie UK Trust recommended creating local role models or digital champions. Government also have a role in assisting local authorities and communities with procurement. Some of our larger registered social landlords, such as Glasgow Housing Association, are piloting special deals for their tenants that directly address the issue of cost, which is good, but given that more and more people are finding themselves in private residential properties or renting from much smaller landlords, we need to extend such schemes to everyone on low incomes. The Government can disseminate best practice, co-ordinate action and ensure that services are delivered to the public we serve. I hope that both Governments and agencies such as Ofcom will assist with a thorough mapping exercise and bring in the expertise and support of the private sector. I mentioned software and the question of how people with few skills or qualifications can access information on computers if they do not have experience of doing so. We need simplified software that will work for them and to offer support to build their knowledge and experience, rather than just using a couple of apps. Some of the experience has been that those in the lower socio-economic groups, if they have a mobile phone, may use only eight apps in total, so we need to create a deeper and more valuable experience for them. I appreciate that the Minister has been called in at very short notice to respond to this debate. His colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, has advised me that he has a previous and long-arranged engagement with Her Majesty at Holyroodhouse. I well understand why he is otherwise detained, but I should like formally to request a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State in the near future so we can discuss these issues in further detail. I want to be practical today and offer
suggestions to the Government that are achievable and will assist everyone. We do not want people or communities to have a digital divide, but to see a new digital era in which everyone can take part. 4.14 pm The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) on securing this important debate, speaking in large part to the findings of the Carnegie UK Trust report, on the challenge of digital exclusion in Glasgow. In presenting its findings and some of the difficult and challenging issues raised, she did huge justice to the report. I commend her for the typically practical and constructive approach she has taken this afternoon. How we involve more people in the digital community is an important subject, which we take seriously across Government. My right hon. Friends the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Scotland are mindful of the issues the hon. Lady raised this afternoon and are aware of the report. Without wishing to make diary commitments on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State, I am sure that he will be more than happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the topic in greater detail. I will let him arrange that with her. Much of the agenda we have talked about is devolved, and it is in large part the responsibility of the Scottish Government to address the issues, but I assure hon. Members that the UK Government are working hard to raise the level of digital inclusion across the whole of Britain. The Carnegie UK Trust report says that Glasgow has one of the lowest broadband take-up rates in the UK, which is true, but we should not allow that to overshadow the progress that has been made in the city. Take-up in the greater Glasgow area increased by 20% between the start of 2011 and 2012, exceeding the Scotland-wide rate of increase, which is closing the historic gap between Scotlands broadband take-up and the UK average. Catch-up is taking place in Scotland and in Glasgow itself, so we can point to a relatively positive picture, but that does not detract from the gap that the hon. Lady spoke about. The concept of digital inclusion lies at the heart of the Governments digital strategy. Digital by default is our ambition for Government services, but it is not and will not be mandatory for everyone. It is important to stress to all hon. and right hon. Members that we all need to do our bit to dispel any scare stories or myths that suggest that people will not be able to access the services they are entitled to or claim the benefits they need if they do not have access to the internet at home. I was interested to hear the hon. Ladys point about not being able to pause in the middle of an online application for benefits. That is the first time I have heard about it. I will certainly look into it, and not only from a Scottish perspective. We recognise that it will not be possible or appropriate for everyone to receive and manage future payments of universal credit online. The Department for Work and Pensions is working closely with local authorities, to provide access to the benefits system in a variety of ways. As part of that, the Department is sponsoring local authority-led pilots around Britain, including in Dumfries and Galloway and in North Lanarkshire. For
229WH
2 JULY 2013
230WH
those able to use the internet, but without their own computer, all the Governments digital services are available through the free internet access provided at libraries, and in this Glasgow is particularly well served, with 33 local libraries in the Glasgow city area offering free internet access. I completely take her point that internet access at home is particularly important for a jobseeker. Ann McKechin: I am grateful to the Minister for replying in such a positive manner, particularly about the online application form for universal creditmy caseworkers were horrified when they came back from a presentation on it. In some parts of the city of Glasgow, where broadband access is at only 20% and there may be only one small library, there are physical issues with the sheer lack of computers, and that is even if all the libraries in the city provided them. There are queues of people trying to book appointments at the library. They are competing not only with other job applicants, but with other users of library services. Stephen Crabb: I hear what the hon. Lady says. All I can say in response is that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State meet regularly with Scottish Government officials and Ministers, and with city council leaders as well, and if there is a physical capacity issue, in that there is not enough digital infrastructure for the demand, meaning that people who do not have internet access at home cannot benefit from the publicly available services, they can certainly discuss that with them. As the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban) has previously said in the House, all jobseekers claiming benefits have a personal adviser whose role it is to support them back into work. If an adviser identifies that someone does not have the knowledge and skills needed to access online services, they can discuss those needs with the jobseeker and arrange for suitable IT training to be provided. In fact, the Department for Work and Pensions is currently piloting a digital skills assessment tool in four jobcentres in the east of Scotland, which will be used by advisers to assess claimants digital ability. I hope that what I have said goes some way in addressing the hon. Ladys point about jobseekers lack of skills in relation to making job applications or accessing benefits online. The hon. Lady slightly humorously talked about Glasgow being at the top or the bottom of the league table of things that were not very goodI think that was her phrase. We should remember, however, that some really positive and encouraging things are happening in the city. I am sure that she and the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) will be only too aware of those initiatives, and will have done their bit to champion and support them in recent months and years.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a few of Glasgows recent successes. The UK Government are supporting the city of Glasgow to lead the way in using modern technology to support growth and increase sustainability. Glasgow beat off bids from a number of other cities around the UK to be awarded 24 million as the host city for the Technology Strategy Boards future cities demonstrator project. The university of Strathclyde recently secured funding for two of the UK Governments catapult centres, looking at offshore renewable energy and high-value manufacturing, which are important sectors for future growth. In 2013, Glasgow overtook Edinburgh in the global financial centres index for the first time, making it the highest-ranking financial centre in the UK behind London, and Glasgow is to host the Commonwealth games next year, which will be a highlight for the whole of our country. Anas Sarwar: I thank the Minister for listing all those fantastic Labour achievements in the city of Glasgow. May I add another? Glasgow city council has made a commitment to there being free universal broadband right across the city by the end of this council term, and to every single Commonwealth games venue having broadband by the time of the games next year. Stephen Crabb: The hon. Gentleman must have had previous sight of my speech, because that is the very next sentence. Glasgow city council is planning for a free open-air wi-fi network to be available in Glasgow city centre in time for the 2014 games, and I think we all recognise that that will mark another major step in Glasgows progress towards full digital inclusion. I point to the fact that the recent spending round announcements include significant extra resources to support infrastructure investment and growth in Scotland. That is good news for Scotland, because an increase in capital spending means better infrastructure, greater competitiveness and more jobs, which clearly shows how Scotland continues to benefit from being part of the United Kingdom. I conclude by saying that we will make a point not only of ensuring that my colleagues at the Scotland Office see what was discussed this afternoon, but of feeding the comments made and the questions asked through to my noble Friend Lord Freud, the Minister for welfare reform at the Department for Work and Pensions. Some of the issues raised deserve a full response, and we will ensure that the hon. Lady receives that response in due course. I commend the hon. Lady on how she has addressed the issues this afternoon, and the Carnegie UK Trust on its excellent report into digital exclusion in Glasgow, entitled Across the Divide. 4.24 pm Sitting suspended.
231WH
2 JULY 2013
Recession (Standards of Living)
232WH

4.28 pm Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab): I think this is the first time you have chaired an Adjournment debate that I have secured, Mr Walker. I am pleased to have been able to do so. As politicians, it is easy to find ourselves speaking about statistics and general trends, but it is important that we take stock and reflect on what it is like to live in our country. What sort of lives are people living? What sort of hardships are they suffering? We have to put ourselves in the position of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society to remind ourselves how much more work needs to be done. We should judge our society on how we treat the worst-off, not on how we treat our millionaires, and we are failing that test. A key issue that I am keen to stress is that monthly expenses have been bloated by debt repayments and rising transport and fuel costs, leaving families with less spending power. For the fourth consecutive quarter, monthly expenditure by UK families has grown, with current typical outgoings up by 3% since August 2012 and by 22% since November 2011. The rise in living costs has been clearly visible over the past 12 months. Since 2008, the consumer prices index has risen by 17%, but other measures suggest that inflation over that period has been much greater. The minimum income standard used by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation indicates that the cost of a standard basket of goods and services has increased by 25%. Based on those figures, the minimum earnings required to secure an adequate standard of living would be 16,850 for a single person, 19,400 for a working couple and 25,600 for a lone parent. All those are well above the salary of a job that pays the national minimum wage, and they are dangerously close to the average income level in the UK. Although it is true that the average income in the UK has increased in recent years, those figures show that the increase has been accompanied by a disproportionate rise in the cost of crucial commodities. The obvious effect is that standards of living are falling, as people cannot purchase as much of a commodity as previously, meaning that less is spent on luxury items, personal items and leisure goods. The biggest declines in the percentage of people spending on a certain items between November 2011 and January 2013 involve furniture, appliances, clothing, sports equipment, make-up and the motor industry. I am concerned about the broader impact on the economy, as British industry finds that demand in the consumer base is low. Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that pressures on families result not only from the rising cost of food and fuel, but from the fact that most families up and down the country are taking an average 1,200 reduction in their salaries? Mr Cunningham: I am outlining the consequences of the reduction to which my hon. Friend refers, and I want to look more closely at some of the rising living costs. The most basic expenditure to affect living standards is surely food. Despite the growth in the popularity of own-brand food labels and budget supermarkets
during the recession, outgoings on food shopping are still rising. Inflation of 3.13% means that a typical family now spends 234 more on annual food bills than they did in November 2011, which puts significantly more pressure on the earnings required to secure an adequate standard of living for the whole family. An inability to respond to that pressure has left families with an unacceptable standard of living. There is evidence of that across the country, including in my constituency and surrounding areas. Research has shown that about one in five people in the west midlands have to skip meals and go without food to feed their family. Some 70% of families who are suffering from food poverty have to rely on food supplied by schools in the form of free school meals, breakfast clubs and other school clubs. As a result, more than a quarter of families suffering from food poverty are unable to provide all the meals for their children during school holidays. I am sure that we all agree that that situation is unacceptable. If we judge our society on the basis of the situation faced by the worst-off, it is clear that something needs to be done to improve the ability of families to provide meals for their children without having to go without food themselves. Another significant section of expenditure is on travel. Average rail fares increased by 5.9% in January 2013, combined with inflation of 4.96%. Expenditure on everyday travel has grown more than any other costs since November 2011. The typical UK traveller spends 341 more every year, and the fact that there was a further average price rise in January 2013 means that such rises are likely to continue. I have raised my objections to high-speed rail elsewhere, so I will not get into that today. After a previous Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), described high-speed rail as a rich mans toy, I have not been assured that we will not see transport costs rise even further to pay for high-speed rail. Travel costs do not appear to be a real concern for the Government. The increasing prices applied by utility providers are putting significant pressure on households. The resulting energy bills have drained an extra 221 from their budgets every year since this Government came to power. Such increases have caused the cost of living crisis that afflicts millions of families across this country, reducing their ability to secure an adequate standard of living. Those issues are compounded by the fact that, according to a study by the Institute for Public Policy Research, 5 million homes are overcharged by energy suppliers. Yet the Government have backed business as usual in the energy market, with energy companies having paid out 7 billion to shareholders, which is a clear refusal to challenge the practices, pricing and structures in the energy market that are causing such difficulties for families and individuals alike. I believe that it is our responsibility to ensure that energy bills are kept at a manageable level for families. When Labour left office, there were 1.75 million fewer households living in fuel poverty, including 500,000 fewer vulnerable households, because our policiessuch as winter fuel allowances, cold weather payments and improvements in energy efficiency through the Warm Front scheme and tough requirements on energy companies ensured that they could spend the amounts of money required to secure an adequate standard of living, rather than having to overspend on energy bills.
233WH
2 JULY 2013
234WH
Housing expenditure, and specifically rent, makes up a considerable portion of families overall expenditure. As a result, the cost of rent can have a huge impact on a familys standard of living. The greater the proportion of total expenditure taken by rent, the less the familys ability to spend in areas that would secure it an adequate standard of living. Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this massively important debate. May I point him to a comment made by Donald Hirsch, the author of the recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on living standards, who stated that
the next election is likely to be the first since 1931 when living standards are lower than at the last one?
being in debt can affect someones quality of life and financial stability. That matter requires urgent Government attention. That leads me to the related issue of payday loans, which, thankfully, has been debated a good deal recently, so I will speak only briefly on it. Last year, there was a staggering rise in the number of people seeking help with payday loans. More than twice as many people 360,413contacted StepChange for help with payday loan problems in 2012 than during the previous year. The data show that, on average, a clients payday loan debt is up more than 400 on last year, and now exceeds their monthly income. Mr McKenzie: My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. Like me, does he have an increasing number of constituents coming to his surgery who have got into debt? Does he also see an increasing number of shops on his high street offering payday loans? Mr Cunningham: Like every other MP, I have increasing numbers of people coming to see me about debt. My hon. Friend is right to say that we are seeing more and more of those shops opening up on our high streets but, more importantly, nothing is being done about the television advertising that is leading people up the garden path. Payday loans can have a profoundly negative impact on peoples finances, but the problem is wide as well as deep. In March 2013, a compliance review by the Office of Fair Trading estimated that up to 8.2 million payday loans were made in 2011-12, and that a third either could not be paid back on time or could not be paid back at all. We are talking about some 2.7 million loans that could not be paid back on time, which demonstrates the difficulty and the strain felt by the public with regard to payday loans, and that pressure affects peoples standard of living. I fully support any action the Government take to tackle that problem. Let me comment now on the backdrop of public sector pay freezes. In the spending review last week, the Chancellor announced yet another cap on public sector pay. He said wage rises would be limited to an average of up to 1% in 2015-16, thereby extending the clampdown by a further year. He also announced plans to seek savings by reforming the system of pay progression in the public sector. The incomes of millions of teachers, nurses, firefighters, council workers and civil servants will be squeezed even further in future. Furthermore, the long-established and simple principle of pay progression based on experience looks to be the next target. That will be far more complex and potentially damaging to services. I am particularly concerned about the disproportionate impact that the measure will have on equality. Those who will suffer the most from such a freeze in increments will be low-paid women, who tend to have shorter service and not to have reached the full rate for the job. Given the sheer numbers of public sector workers affected by the pay squeeze, the effect on the economy cannot be ignored. Each public sector worker who suffers a continued pay freeze, combined with the rising cost of living, will have a much squeezed budget indeed. If we limit the spending power of such a large sector of the countrys work force that will be sorely felt in other industries.
Does that not represent a failure of the current UK Government? Mr Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I have just outlined the consequences of that. If the issue about rent is taken as a reflection of the overall situation across society, there is serious cause for concern. On top of that, the Prime Minister promised 100,000 new homes under the NewBuy scheme, but there were just 2,000 by May 2013. Indeed, home ownership has fallen from 64% in November 2011 to 59% in January 2013, which is the result of families increasingly shifting to rented properties. The increasing trend towards renting means that 25% of UK families are now in rented accommodation, which is a significant rise from 19% in November 2011. Meanwhile, rent in the social housing sector has gone up by 26%, and the number of families using social housing, including council housing, has increased from 11% to 15% in January 2013. According to the debt charity StepChange, the combination of those factors has caused the proportion of its clients with rent arrears to increase significantly from 5.6% in 2010 to 8.6% by the end of 2012. I would describe rent prices as one of the most pressing problems affecting living standards today, and I believe that it needs to be urgently addressed. StepChanges findings about rent arrears bring me to another key element of expenditure that is risingdebt. Between November 2011 and January 2013, average debt repayments increased by almost 20 a month or 240 a year. That is accompanied by a dramatic rise in the number of families seeking help for utility bills and with council tax and rent arrears. Although overall debt levels have decreased, households are now struggling with priority debts that many were previously able to meet. More than a third of those seeking help from StepChange are in arrears on at least one household bill. I find it particularly striking that clients over 60 have the highest overall levels of arrears and single parents have the highest levels of rent, council tax and water arrears. The sad result is that 78% of StepChanges clients felt that debt problems had undermined their self-confidence and their ability to support both themselves and their family. There are plenty of other examples. According to research by Consumer Focus, the number of households in debt to their electricity supplier has increased by more than 25% to 850,000, and the number in debt to their gas supplier has risen by 20% to more than 700,000. We all know how debt can be extremely destructive:
235WH
2 JULY 2013
236WH
[Mr Jim Cunningham] The Governments cuts are being felt in many other areas. However, they are perhaps most keenly felt in local government. Local authority services can have a significant impact on peoples lives, and they are being hit very hard by the cuts. In the spending review last week, the Chancellor confirmed that a further 10% in local government funding will be cut. Coventry city council has already lost 24 million of Government grant funding in the last three years and will lose a further 19 million next year. Last weeks announcement made it clear that councils will lose a further 18 million in resources. This years budget means that the council can spend 200 less on each resident than it could three years ago. I know that the council is working hard to minimise the impact of such cuts on front-line services, but however hard it works, the cuts will be felt by those who need help the most, and that is the case up and down the country. No discussion of current living standards would be complete without reference to the bedroom tax. It has been discussed at length in the House, so I do not wish to dwell on the matter now. The Government estimated that 660,000 claimants will be affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy in the social rented sector, and the average loss in benefit is 14 per week. Those affected include 60,000 working-age housing benefit claimants living in the social rented sector in the west midlands at the time of its introduction in 2013-14. The Government say that if people do not want to face the housing benefit cut, they can simply move into a smaller property, but where are those properties? There are simply not enough smaller homes available in the housing market. Tens of thousands of people throughout England are being forced to suffer a cut in housing benefit because they are unable to downsize. Like many other MPs, I have heard greatly distressing stories from constituents about how they are being hurt by the bedroom tax. I want to make it clear that I am extremely saddened by the tax and very much hope that the Government will review it in future. We should take every opportunity to make the Government aware of the hardship that they are putting many people through as a result of the under-occupancy penalty. With children spending almost seven hours a day at school, the quality of the school environment has, without doubt, a key impact on their standard of living. In May 2012, the Government announced that work would begin immediately on the priority school building programme, which was welcome. However, of the 261 schools promised, only one has been started. Although the completion of that programme would undoubtedly improve the quality of the school environment for children, delays stand as a considerable barrier to progress on securing a better standard of living for children in our society. Perhaps childrens standard of living could be better secured and enhanced by investing more realistically, and in other ways, in schools. Finally, let us consider for a moment what should happen to people who come into contact with the law. Unfortunately, that is something that happens to many people during the course of their life and, often they are totally unprepared. Equality before the law is fundamental to our society. Quite simply, we do not want to live in a society in which the rich can win legal disputes by
hiring lawyers, and poor people lose because they have to represent themselves. The Governments cuts to legal aid threaten that basic equality. Funding has been removed for private family law such as divorce and custody battles; personal injury and some clinical negligence cases; some employment and education law; immigration where the person is not detained; and some debt, housing and benefit issues. Access to justice through judicial review will be restricted, as lawyers will be more reluctant to take on such cases due to the threat of not receiving payment should the case not get past the permission stage. That also restricts consumer choice for the public. The focus on the quantity of cases, rather than the quality, will lead to more miscarriages of justice, as providers will become motivated by case volume and efficiency, rather than the right to see justice served correctly. There is a good chance that the quality of legal service provided will deteriorate, as the lower fixed fees paid to lawyers under the new proposals cause them to focus on the quantity of cases that they take on, rather than the quality of each case. I am raising the issue of legal aid in the context of living standards because I see treatment before the law and access to justice as an integral part of our quality of life. 4.48 pm Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 5.3 pm On resuming Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab): Through you, Mr Walker, may I thank Mr Speaker for granting the debate and compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) on his comprehensive reply to the impact of the rise in costs of living, particularly on those on minimum wage and below-average wage, whom it has bitten hardest? I am pleased that the Economic Secretary is responding to the debate. I am conscious of the fact that he was, as a Back Bencher, vociferous in his support of Government policies and he is eloquent in his defence of them, now that he has earned his much-justified elevation to the Front Bench, but I do not think that we will have much by way of change in his reply or, indeed, in Government economic policy, which lies at the heart of the problem of the cost of living. The three central objectives of any economic policy for a country as a whole have to be, first, to secure growthwithout economic growth we cannot achieve any of the objectivessecondly, to secure sound public finances and, thirdly, to ensure that our whole population has a rising standard of living. Those are the three basic social and economic objectives of economic policy. I regret to say that the Government have failed on all those and today we are debating the direct consequence of that. Denis Healey, a distinguished former ChancellorI am sure that the Economic Secretary will be aware of thisused to say, When you are in a hole, the first golden rule is to stop digging, but all we do is dig deeper. We were promised 6% growth and we have achieved 1%, and we have promises that, by the austerity policies adopted throughout Europe, we will see the deficit eliminated in 2015, but we now face not a small
237WH
2 JULY 2013
238WH
deficit in that year, but one of approaching 100 billion, and the prospect of eliminating the deficit put off almost indefinitely, but certainly for another three years and, with it, a further three-year squeeze on the standard of living of the ordinary people of this country. It need not happen. Even now, the Government could change course and alter the inevitable further erosion of standards of living in the country. The Minister will try to blame it all on the previous Government, but that is wearing terribly thin now. The Government have been in office for three years. They own this policy; it is their creation and its failure is their failure. We plead now that the Minister takes note of the harm that this policy is imposing on the country as a whole and on individuals, as my hon. Friend so comprehensively detailed. I hope that we hear some change of tone, if nothing else, from the Minister. 5.5 pm The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid): It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) on securing this important debate and presenting his case so eloquently. I also thank the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) for his contribution. I will try to respond to the points raised by both hon. Gentleman. It is fair to say that we all want to see the UK economy performing strongly. It is also fair to say, probably, that although the hon. Member for Coventry South and I agree on that objective, we differ in our views on how best to achieve those goals. I will do my best to respond to the points raised, but it is only right to point out that when the hon. Gentleman came up with the title for the debate, on the effects of the recession on the cost of living, he must have been referring to the most recent recession, which was the one that took place under the previous Government. As we saw last week, the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that not only was that the most recent recession, but it was far deeper than originally thought. Originally, it was thought to be a 6.3% contraction in GDP, which would in itself have been the deepest peacetime contraction in GDP in this country, but it turns out to be even deeper, at 7.2%. No doubt it would have hurt many families throughout the country. This Government are trying to help those families with the cost of living and other issues, and trying to repair the damage done by the previous Government. Let me talk about some actions that we have taken and the results of those. First, there is a lot to discuss about overall economic policy, but the main point is the deficitthe hon. Member for Coventry North West mentioned itwhich is down by a third. We still have a long way to go, but our policies on the deficit have brought economic credibility, which has lowered interest rates to a near record level. In fact, interest rates on Government debt are almost half what they were when this Government first came to office. That has a direct impact on the cost of living for families, most notably through their mortgage bills. If interest rates rose by just 1%, the average mortgage bill for a family would rise by almost 1,000 a year. It is right to mention the impact on employment of our economic policies. As we heard in a statement from the Chancellor last week, we were told by the shadow
Chancellor and many others that our policies would lead to record rates of unemployment. Some left-wing economists were even predicting that unemployment could reach the record level of 5 million. In fact, the opposite has happened. The private sector has created more than 1.3 million net new jobs in the last three years and employment reached the highest level in history. We will continue to build on the measures that we have taken, such as, for example, our cuts in corporation tax, which will from next year make ours the lowest corporation tax rate in the G20. Our employment allowance scheme will make it even cheaper for companies to hire employees. I think that we can all agree that more paid employment is one of the best ways to deal with cost-ofliving challenges. Of course, we have to do more. We have to do things that put money in peoples pockets and we have focused on that. I do not have enough time to mention all the measures, but I will focus on three or four key measures that will, I hope, reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are helping families across the country. Our changes to the tax-free personal allowance, which will rise to a record 10,000 a year by April 2014, are putting almost 700 per annum into the pockets of the basic rate taxpayer. Anyone who enjoyed the 10% tax rate under the previous Government is now effectively paying a 0% tax rate. Anyone working full time on the national minimum wage will find that their tax bill has more than halved because of that single measure. We have also frozen council tax for up to five yearsthe term of this Parliamentwhich will save the typical household some 600 over the period. We have frozen fuel duty, which the previous Government planned to raise year-on-year by inflation plus the escalator. As a result, fuel prices today are 13p a litre lower than they would have been had we continued with the plans that we inherited. Mr Robinson: The Government have done, or are going to do, a number of interesting things, but is not the bottom line that living standards have fallen? Perhaps the Minister will tell us when living standards are scheduled to improve, rather than another empty, completely impossible Treasury promise. If living standards do not improve, we shall face the first occasion since 1931that was the last real recessionwhen a Government have sought a new mandate with living standards lower than they were at the beginning of their term. Sajid Javid: I would take the hon. Gentleman a bit more seriously if he respected the fact that the policies of the Government whom he supported are the reason that so many people face such challenging conditions on the cost of living. We are doing everything we can to address the damage that was done: the deepest recession in post-war history, the biggest budget deficit of any major industrialised country and the largest banking bail-out the world has ever seen. That was our inheritance, and he would get a lot more respect if he accepted that the policies of the previous Government were damaging and are the single most important reason why people are facing such challenges in relation to the cost of living. In the time remaining, I will address a few points raised by the hon. Member for Coventry South. He was right to mention payday loans. There is evidence that
239WH
2 JULY 2013
240WH
[Sajid Javid] some families, despite the action we have taken, are turning to payday lenders to meet their monthly bills, but he also rightly recognises that the Government are taking a lot of action, both on their own and with the regulators. As he knows, the Office of Fair Trading has been responsible for regulation in the sector until now. We have introduced a step change to that regulation, which will now be under the Financial Conduct Authority. The FCA will be a lot more pervasive, and it is a regulator with teeth. Payday lenders will feel the hand of the regulator on their shoulder. Yesterday, I attended a summit set up by the Government with lenders, charities and other interested groups, and the head of the FCA made it clear that he will not hesitate to take action. He has broad powers if he sees further evidence of consumer detriment. Finally, distribution and fairness have also been mentioned. Before 2010, the richest 20% of society contributed about three and a half times as much in tax as they received in public spending; that has now increased to about four times as much. In fact, in every year of
this Parliament, the rich will pay a greater proportion of income tax revenues than they did in any one of the 13 years under the last Labour Government. We have taken steps to ensure that the most vulnerable groups on low incomes are protected against the effects of the economic circumstances. For example, pensioners have seen above-inflation increases to their state pension, and the introduction of universal credit will make 3 million households better off, the majority of which will come from the bottom two fifths of the income scale. I once again congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He obviously and quite rightly feels strongly about the issue, which I respect. As I said at the start, we might have different views on how to address the issue, but I fully respect that it is very important to him and his constituents. I assure him that we understand the financial pressures that hard-working families are facing, and I also assure him that we are taking what we believe are the right steps to help. 5.15 pm Sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(13)).
39WS
Written Statements
2 JULY 2013
Written Statements
40WS
Written Statements
Tuesday 2 July 2013
Trade credit in the UK construction industrya study of the availability of trade credit to UK construction firms and their reliance upon such trade credit to support their operations.
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS Industrial Strategy for Construction The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable): The Government have today published the Industrial Strategy for Construction, which has been produced in partnership with stakeholders from across the industry. Last September I set out the Governments new industrial strategy. This is a long-term, whole of Government approach that has partnership with industry at its heart. Its purpose is to establish a clear and consistent approach to the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead, with a view to stimulating economic growth and creating jobs. Todays construction strategy is one of 11 focusing on key economic sectors. Construction accounts for nearly 7% of the UK economys gross value added, comprises over 280,000 businesses and provides 3 million jobs, equivalent to about 10% of total UK employment1. It has been hard hit by the recession, with output in the private housing market having fallen 40% and private commercial building over 30% since 20072. The strategy identifies three strategic priorities for growth over the next decade. First, smart construction and digital design, where construction companies stand poised to secure a significant portion of the projected 200 billion annual global market for integrated city systems in 20303. Secondly, low-carbon and sustainable construction, the global industry for which is forecast to grow at an annual rate of 22.8% between now and 20174. Thirdly, the significant opportunities to improve UK trade performance and capitalise on forecast growth of over 70% in global construction between now and 2025. This strategy sets out a vision for UK construction in 2025 and outlines four ambitions that will be jointly delivered by industry and Government:
A 33% reduction in both the initial cost of construction and the whole-life cost of assets A 50% reduction in the overall time from inception to completion for new build and refurbished assets A 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the built environment A 50% reduction in the trade gap between total exports and total imports for construction products and materials
These provide a strong evidence base for the industrial strategy. Copies of the industrial strategy for construction, and the other documents mentioned above, will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
1
BIS Analysis of labour force survey micro data, non-seasonally adjusted for wider construction sector. ONS annual business survey, February 2013 release. Technology Strategy Board estimate.
2 3 4
IbisWorld report: Top 10 fastest growing industries, April 2012. The global green and sustainable building constructing is estimated to grow from about $103 billion in 2012 to about $288 billion in 2017.
Scotland Analysis Programme The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable): The Government have today published the fourth paper in the Scotland analysis series to inform the debate on Scotlands future within the United Kingdom. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Scotland analysis: Business and microeconomic frameworkexamines how the UKs business and economic framework supports the large domestic market across all parts of the UK, and the implications of a vote for independence on employers, workers and consumers. The analysis shows the strong trade links between Scotland and the rest of the UK. In 2011 Scotland sold goods and services to the rest of the UK worth 45.5 billion, double the levels exported to the rest of the world and four times as much as to the rest of the European Union. Sales to the rest of the UK represented 29% of Scottish GDP in 2011; exports to Scotland represented 3.5% of the rest of the UKs GDP. The UK has a true single market. This is underpinned by one common set of business regulations that serve the entire UK market and which rank well internationally. Access to this market and a highly skilled UK-wide work-force helps Scotland remain an attractive destination for foreign direct investment. In the event of a vote for independence, introducing an international border of whatever form will create a barrier to the free flow of goods, capital and labour. This will be to the detriment of firms, workers and consumers in both states and risks making it more challenging to attract overseas investors. Creating new rules, regulatory systems and institutionsfor example to replace key UK regulatory institutions such as HMRC, Companies House and the Intellectual Property Office, which would operate on behalf of the continuing UK as beforewould create uncertainty, additional costs and confusion for businesses and investors operating in Scotland. Small companies with little cross-border experience would be hampered most. The analysis concludes that Scotlands integration within the UKs domestic market brings benefits to all. The size and scale of that market brings opportunities to trade, move jobs, collaborate to develop new and future technologies, travel and communicate with each other efficiently and benefit from economies of scale. In
The newly formed Construction Leadership Council will develop an action plan on how to put these ambitions into effect between now and 2025. Activity will focus on delivering the 10 commitments set out in the strategy around supply chains, innovation, skills and image. We are also publishing two pieces of economic analysis alongside this strategy. These are:
UK Construction: An economic analysis of the sector this BIS analytical paper provides an overview of growth, competitiveness and performance in the UK construction sector, including skills, access to finance, innovation and supply chain developments.
41WS
Written Statements
2 JULY 2013
Written Statements
42WS
the event of a vote for independence, the bodies that support the UK in its present form would continue to undertake their functions on behalf of the reminder of the UK. Experience from Europe shows a single market between two separate states is not the same as a fully integrated domestic market. The paper published today follows the Governments paper outlining the financial services and banking implications of independence, published on 27 May. That paper demonstrated that as part of the UK, Scottish firms and individuals benefit from a world-leading financial services sector. The paper concluded that this position would be put at risk if Scotland were to become independent, fragmenting the market and the bodies that have been put in place to protect customers, creating additional difficulties and costs for households and businesses, as well as for financial services firms themselves. Future papers from the Scotland analysis programme will be published over the course of 2013 and 2014 to ensure that people in Scotland have access to the facts and information ahead of the referendum.
TREASURY
ECOFIN The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark): A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Luxembourg on 21 June 2013 and in Brussels on 26 June 2013. At the meeting on 26 June Ministers discussed the following items: Contribution to the European Council meeting on 27-28 June 2013European semester 2013 Council approved the fiscal and economic elements of country specific recommendations (CSRs) for 23 member states and also a recommendation on the economic policies for the euro area as a whole. The UKs CSRs are broadly in line with domestic reform priorities. The Council recommendations are non-binding and there are no sanctions for non-compliance. Additionally, Council approved Council conclusions on Croatia, which joined the EU on 1 July. Implementation of the stability and growth pact Council adopted 15 Council decisions and recommendations on the excessive deficit procedure. Commission/European Investment Bank (EIB) report to the European Council The Commission/EIB presented their joint report Increasing lending to the economy: implementing the EIB capital increase and joint Commission-EIB initiatives. The Commission/EIB then reported to the June European Council on the implementation of the EIBs capital increase. Financial assistance to Ireland and Portugal Council adopted two Council implementing decisions amending previous implementing decisions on granting Union financial assistance to Ireland and Portugal.
ECB/Commission convergence reports and enlargement of the euro area Euro area member states adopted a recommendation in favour of a proposal to allow Latvia to join the currency union on 1 January 2014. The UK does not have a vote on the decision by EU member states to adopt the euro. Council also approved the text of a letter for the President of the Council to send to the European Council on the outcome of its discussion. Development of policy options in the climate/energy field follow-up to the May European Council Following May European Council, at the request of Poland, there was a brief exchange of views on an enhanced role for ECOFIN in the debate on climate change and energy policy, as they are integral to growth, competitiveness and public finances. The presidency concluded that it would reflect with the incoming Lithuanian presidency, on the next steps for taking this forward. ECOFIN report to the European Council on tax issues ECOFIN endorsed this six-monthly report which ECOFIN forwards on to the European Council, summarising the progress made under each presidency on tax issues. Report by Finance Ministers on tax issues in the framework of the euro-plus pact ECOFIN endorsed this six-monthly report which summarises progress made under each presidency on tax issues in relation to framework of the euro-plus pact. Proposal for a Council directive amending directive 2011/ 16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation The Commission presented a proposal on amending the existing administrative co-operation directive. The UK could not support any aspects of the proposal that conflict with or undermine the embedding of a new global standard in the automatic exchange of information. The presidency concluded by noting that the working group will start technical work on this in July. Banking recovery and resolution Council held an exchange of views, with the aim of enabling the presidency to find an acceptable compromise on the banking resolution and recovery directive. However, the Council agreed to meet again on 26 June 2013 to resume discussion. AOB: Update on legislative files The presidency updated Ministers on the state of play of the deposit guarantee schemes directive. At the meeting on 26 June 2013 Ministers discussed the following item: Banking recovery and resolution Council reached a general approach on the banking recovery and resolution directive. The compromise establishes that, through the development of a credible bail-in tool, shareholders and creditors will be first in line to bear losses when a bank fails. Insured depositors will be protected in any bank failure and the UK bank levy can act as the UKs resolution financing arrangement. Trilogue discussions with the European Parliament and the Commission, yet to be timetabled, will commence under the Lithuanian presidency.
43WS
Written Statements EDUCATION
2 JULY 2013
Written Statements
44WS
Academies and Local Government Pension Scheme The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): Too many academies are paying significantly higher local government pension scheme (LGPS) employer contributions than they did as local authority-maintained schools. This is having a detrimental impact on academy budgets; reducing the level of funding available for school improvement and in some cases preventing schools from converting to academies. LGPS administering authorities have told us that they view academies as higher risk as they no longer have the financial backing of the local authority. They have asked that we provide a guarantee that the Department will meet any pension liabilities should an academy close. I can inform the House today that we will provide such a guarantee and a parliamentary minute, which sets out the detail of the guarantee, has been laid in both Houses. We now expect all administering authorities to review academy risk assessments and to treat academies equitably when setting employer contribution rates. In addition, DCLG will be launching a consultation on proposals to amend local government pension scheme regulations requiring administering authorities to pool academies should they wish to do so. I would encourage both academies and administering authorities to take part in this exercise. ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS Executive Agencies The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson): The business plans for the following agencies and their key performance measures have been published today. Business plans are available online at the agencies websites.
Animal Health Veterinary Laboratory Agency, http://www.defra. gov.uk/ahvla/ Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, http://cefas.defra.gov.uk/ Food and Environment Research Agency, http://fera.defra. gov.uk/ Rural Payments Agency, http://rpa.defra.gov.uk/rpa/index. nsf/home Veterinary Medicines Directorate, http://www.vmd.defra.gov.uk/
International justice is central to foreign policy. It is essential for securing the rights of individuals and states, and for securing peace and reconciliation. Through the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the other international courts and tribunals, we are working to make it clear that those responsible for the worst crimes will be held to account and that perpetrators, including political leaders, will not enjoy impunity, and providing a fair hearing for both victims and accused. Our support to these institutions is an important element in our strategy to reduce conflict, promote stability and strengthen the rules-based international system. For calendar year 2012 we provided assessed contributions of 9.2 million to the International Criminal Court, 5.9 million to the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, 3.8 million to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and 1.1 million to the Residual Mechanism which will take on the essential functions of the tribunals when they close. In addition, for the financial year 2012-13 we made voluntary contributions of 2 million to the international component of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, 1 million to the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 2 million to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, and 1 million in total to the International Criminal Court Trust Fund for Victims, with 500,000 of this earmarked for work on sexual violence and made as part of the preventing sexual violence initiative. Our contributions helped these institutions to deliver justice for victims of some of the worst atrocities of the last century and send the message that there will be no impunity for the most serious international crimes. As a state party to the ICC, a member of the United Nations Security Council which oversees the Rwanda and Yugoslavia Tribunals, and a member of the management bodies for the Sierra Leone and Cambodia Courts and the Lebanon Tribunal we engaged actively throughout the year to ensure these institutions were run effectively and efficiently. The coming year will be important for international justice. At the ICC the case against Laurent Gbagbo the former President of Cte dIvoire is proceeding and the Court is now dealing with the case against Bosco Ntaganda a former militia group commander in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The investigations into the situation in Mali are under way. The trials of three Kenyan nationals are due to begin this year. The International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia will both close with their remaining functions transferring to the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals. The Special Court for Sierra Leone is scheduled to complete its work with a verdict in the appeal of Charles Taylor due in September, after which its remaining essential functions will be taken up by the Residual Court. And the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia will finish hearing evidence in the trial of the most senior responsible and surviving members of the Khmer Rouge. We will continue to support these institutions through our assessed and voluntary contributions made through the new international justice fund. We will encourage other states to support the voluntary-funded courts and tribunals and the International Criminal Court Trust Fund for Victims to help ensure their financial security.
I have placed copies of the key performance measures in the Libraries of both Houses. FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE International Justice (UK Support and Funding) The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague): I am pleased to provide Parliament with an account of Her Majestys Governments support for the principles and institutions of international justice in 2012-13, and our plans for funding them in the year ahead.
45WS
Written Statements
2 JULY 2013
Written Statements
46WS
Claiming Over Two Years (Number) 16,420 17,315 18,065 18,515
And we will work to ensure these institutions achieve value for money by actively scrutinising budget proposals and pressing for efficiency. I will provide an update on our progress this time next year and from this point forward I will make one annual statement detailing our financial support to international justice.
Date
February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 Source: ONS Crown Copyright Reserved [from Nomis].
SCOTLAND Parliamentary Questions (Employment) The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore): Further to the written answers given to the Member for Glasgow East on 24 June 2013, Official Report, columns 12-13W, I would like to provide further information in response to each of these questions: Margaret Curran: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, how many people in Scotland have been unemployed for two years or more in each month since May 2010. [161099] Michael Moore: The number of people aged 16 to 64 claiming jobseeker allowance for more than 24 months in Scotland is outlined in the following table:
Date May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 Claiming Over Two Years (Number) 3,385 3,630 3,825 4,125 4,325 4,485 4,510 4,600 4,810 4,840 4,785 4,810 4,920 5,060 5,270 5,525 5,755 6,190 6,570 6,955 7,405 7,900 8,370 8,940 9,470 10,280 10,940 11,600 12,315 13,020 13,745 14,685 15,470
Margaret Curran: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 17 June 2013, Official Report, column 469W, on unemployment, what the geographical location of the increase in employment from February to April 2013 is; and what proportion of such jobs are (a) full-time and (b) part-time. [161152] Michael Moore: The latest available ONS employment data, at a sub-Scotland level, covers the period between January 2012 and December 2012. Data on full and part-time work are only available at Scotland-level for the same period. Information for the period that includes February to April 2013 is expected to become available in October 2013. Margaret Curran: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 17 June 2013, Official Report, column 469W, on unemployment, what assessment he has made of the total loss to the Scottish economy as a result of under-employment. [161153] Michael Moore: An ONS report of November found that between 2005 and 2008, the average under-employment rate for Scotland was 7.2% (UK average rate over same period was 6.7%). For the period 2009 to 2012, the average under-employment rate for Scotland was 9.9% (UK average rate over same period was 9.9%). In line with other economic indicators, this increase reflects the effects of the global recession. However, recent assessments of the economy in Scotland over the last year show that: there are 43,000 more people in employment; unemployment has decreased by 25,000 and 6,800 fewer people are claiming benefit. In addition, since the coalition came into power, over 145,000 more private sector jobs have been created in Scotland. This is welcome news and the Scotland Office will continue to work with partners in Scotland to improve all areas of the labour market.
WORK AND PENSIONS
Fulfilling Potential The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey): Further to the publication of Fulfilling PotentialNext Steps on 17 September 2012, I am delighted to announce that later today I will publish Fulfilling PotentialMaking it Happen which sets out the Governments plans for delivering on our ambition, that disabled people should be enabled to achieve their aspirations and play a full role in society. It also shows how disabled people are seeing improvements in many key outcomes and reduced inequalities with non-disabled people.
47WS
Written Statements
2 JULY 2013
Written Statements
48WS
Fulfilling PotentialMaking it Happen emphasises the need for innovative cross-sector partnerships with disabled people and their organisations and promotes new ways of working to deliver improved outcomes. It underscores the Governments commitment to the UN convention on the rights of disabled people to bring about the changes needed in communities that have a real and lasting effect on the day-to-day lives of disabled people. It harnesses the inspirational power of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic gamesaiming to deliver further lasting change to attitudes and aspirations. Our action plan captures activity and plans across the whole of Government and beyond. It sets out clearly in one place where progress has been made and
also where we are encouraging and supporting the innovative work of the disability action alliance, and disabled peoples user-led organisations. Delivery on the Government commitments in the action plan will be driven by the fulfilling potential strategy group of senior officials and overseen and reviewed by the Social Justice Cabinet Committee. We will also develop new arrangements for engaging disabled people and disability organisations in this process, and will publish an annual report on the outcomes and indicators set out in the document. I will place a copy of the document in the Library.
535W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
536W
Written Answers to Questions

Tuesday 2 July 2013
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT Conditions of Employment Mr Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many staff were retained on zero-hour contracts by (a) his Department and (b) the executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible in (i) 2010-11, (ii) 2011-12 and (iii) 2012-13; [160763] and if he will make a statement. Brandon Lewis: The Department for Communities and Local Government, its executive agencies and nondepartmental public bodies had no staff retained on zero hour contracts in 2010-11 and 2011-12. In 2012-13 the Departments executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies had no staff retained on zero hour contracts and the core Department had two. One of these was Sir Ken Knight, chief fire and rescue adviser. He moved onto a zero-hour contract on 1 November 2012, This was a short-term arrangement so the Department still had access to professional advice until a new appointment had been made and to enable Sir Ken Knight to complete the efficiencies review of the fire and rescues in England. Sir Kens replacement, Peter Holland, started in the Department on 28 January 2013, and Sir Ken worked on the handover of role and on the efficiencies review until his departure on 21 June 2013. The other member of staff was a short-term, fixed appointment who was retained on a zero hour contract for 30-days over a period of three months to take lead responsibility for finalising and sign off of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation accounts following closure. The arrangement ended on 31 May 2013. Electronic Commerce Ann McKechin: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what his Departments policy is on mitigating the effects of [162841] e-commerce on UK high street retailers. Mr Prisk: Electronic commerce and mobile commerce are changing consumer preferences on how and where they shop. This is changing the nature of retail, and thereby the nature of the high street. But it is not a matter of internet versus high street, it is both a challenge, and an opportunity. The high street can offer so much more: a bustling centre to a community, where people can gather for cultural, entertainment and social activities as well as shopping, eating, and evening activities.
It is vital that high streets and the retailers who trade there develop their own strategies to adapt to these massive structural changes that they face. Many small businesses and independent retailers are trading very successfully online and many have grown as a result of trading this way. We should recognise that changing technologies have benefited consumers, in the form of greater choice, more convenience and competitive prices. This should be welcomed rather than something to be denigrated. This Government has acted to close down the VAT loophole that some online retailers in the Channel Islands were using unfairly to compete against UK-based businesses. This continues to be an evolving area, and one in which the role of government is as an enabler. The UK has some of the most competitive and innovative retailers in the world, and it is right that they are free to deliver what customers want, and retailers who are not responsive to that will struggle. The Association of Town and City Management are leading a 1 million, two-year programme of work funded by DCLG to support and develop high streets and town centres, providing support on business planning, offering advice and developing how to guides. The programme is designed to develop high streets fit for the 21st century, and will look at how communities can plan to meet their changing needs. The Future High Street Forum brings together leaders from retail, property, business, academics, voluntary sector, civil society and government to better understand the competition town centres across the country face and to drive forward new ideas and policies to help the high street compete and adapt. Groups within the forum will look at detailed and practical work in areas such as consolidating research on high street trends. Housing Act 2004 Graham Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what assessment he has made of the rate of prosecution for failure to comply with a notice issued under section 35 of the Housing Act 2004. [162405] Mr Prisk: An assessment of the rate of prosecutions has not been made. Local authorities have extensive powers to tackle poor property conditions in their area, including being able to prosecute landlords who fail to repair properties that are in a hazardous condition. We encourage local authorities to use those powers where appropriate. Prosecution is generally a last resort undertaken where the landlord has failed to comply with an improvement notice or prohibition order and is not necessarily a good indication of the scale or effectiveness of enforcement action. Out of Town Shopping Centres: Planning Permission Ann McKechin: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many requests for planning permission for out-of-town retail developments within 10 miles of Portas pilot towns his Department has received in each of the last three years.
[162737]
537W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
538W
Mr Prisk [holding answer 1 July 2013]: The vast majority of planning applications are made to local planning authorities. The Department does not therefore hold the detailed information requested. The official statistics collected include information on total planning permissions granted by local planning authorities but these are not disaggregated by location. Retail Trade: Debts Ann McKechin: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what assessment he has made of current levels of property indebtedness [162736] in the high street retail sector. Mr Prisk [holding answer 1 July 2013]: We do not collect this data. The findings from the Distressed Retail Property Taskforce are expected in the autumn. This should provide valuable insights into the key challenges associated with high street property. Government will be looking at these findings to inform ongoing work. Urban Areas: Regeneration Roberta Blackman-Woods: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for how long the future high streets forum is expected to run.
[162149]
Mr Prisk: The Future High Streets Forum was established in March 2013 and brings together leaders across retail, property and business to better understand the competition faced by town centres across the country and drive forward new ideas and policies. All members are giving their time unpaid. There are therefore no costs currently associated with the forum. Roberta Blackman-Woods: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what criteria were used to decide the membership of the [162172] future high streets forum. Mr Prisk: The Future High Streets Forum was established in March 2013 and brings together leaders across retail, property and business to better understand the competition faced by town centres across the country and drive forward new ideas and policies. It is co-chaired by me and Alliance Boots executive Alex Gourlay. The membership reflects individual expertise as well as seeking to achieve a balanced representation across retail, property, business, academics, voluntary sector, civil society and government. Roberta Blackman-Woods: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the membership of the task and finish groups of the [162232] future high streets forum will be. Mr Prisk: The Future High Streets Forum has established three Task and Finish Groups, with membership at their first meetings as follows:
Task and Finish Group 1, looking at supporting local leadership: the Association of Town and City Management, British BIDs, Business in the Community, the Co-operative, Costa Coffee at Whitbread, the Federation of Small Businesses, Gloucester (GFirst) Local Enterprise Partnership, the Local Government Association, the National Market Traders Federation, the National Skills Academy for Retail, Post Office Ltd. Task and Finish Group 2, looking at barriers and enablers to success: the Association of Convenience Stores, the Association of Market Towns, the Association of Town and City Management, Boots, the British Council of Shopping Centres, the British Independent Retailers Association, the British Property Federation, Dartford Council, Enterprise Nation, John Lewis Partnership, Live Unlimited, Locality, the National Association of British Market Authorities, Stanhope plc. Task and Finish Group 3, looking at research and the future of the high street: the Association of Town and City Management, the British Retail Consortium, Colliers International, the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department of Communities and Local Government, Portas Agency, Southampton University, Tesco, Vodafone.
Mr Prisk: As agreed at its first meeting, the forum will meet approximately every three months up to April 2015. Roberta Blackman-Woods: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how his Department intends to promote the work and recommendations of the future high streets forum.
[162167]
Mr Prisk: All minutes and papers related to the forum are published on the departmental website. The forum will work together to promote its work and recommendations, and ensure that it is successful in driving forward new ideas and solutions. Roberta Blackman-Woods: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government when he expects the future high streets forums practical toolkit [162168] to be published. Mr Prisk: The future high streets forum was established in March 2013, and brings together leaders across retail, property and business to better understand the competition faced by town centres across the country and drive forward new ideas and policies. The forum has established three task and finish groups. One of which has committed to creating a compelling vision of what the town centre and high street of the future will look like, supported by templates (previously referred to as a toolkit) that can be used by individual towns to develop their local visions. Roberta Blackman-Woods: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what estimate he has made of the cost of the future high [162169] streets forum.
The chairman of each Task and Finish Group may change the membership as required to respond to changing priorities in the future. Wind Power: Planning Permission Mr Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 6 June 2013, Official Report, columns 113-5WS, on onshore wind (local planning), if he will expedite the publication of the planning guidelines referred to in that statement.
[162261]
Mr Prisk: We will publish the new practice guidance shortly. Notwithstanding, we have already written to local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate to draw
539W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
540W
their attention to the new approach outlined in the written ministerial statement of 6 June 2013, Official Report, columns 113-5WS, to assist them in their consideration of current and future planning applications.
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS Common Fisheries Policy Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much the UK fishing industry has received from (a) the Government and (b) the Common Fisheries Policy in [160690] the last 10 years. Richard Benyon: Since 1 January 2000 the UK fishing industry has benefited from financial assistance from two European Union funding schemes that have been set up to support the delivery of the Common Fisheries Policy, and associated matched funding from central Government and other public bodies such as local authorities. In the UK, many elements of fisheries management are devolved and therefore funded by devolved Administrations. The table outlines how much funding the English1 fishing industry has received.
1
framework arrangement RM526/L1 for Mobile Solutions II and a contract with Orange Personal Communications Ltd. Vodafone is the main provider for mobile phone and data services to core DEFRA. Orange provides these services where the Vodafone coverage is weak. The current contract arrangements are in place until 30 March 2015 for Vodaphone and 16 January 2014 for Orange. Sea Level: Poole Mr Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate he has made of the expected long-term sea level rise in Poole Bay; and if he will make a statement. [162250] Richard Benyon: The UK Climate Projections (UKCP09) provide the current assessment of long-term sea level rise. Although the recent measured rise in sea level has been about 1.5 mm each year we estimate that by the end of this century it will be rising by 10 mm each year. By 2060 we expect sea levels to be at least 200 mm higher and probably over 400 mm higher, than they were in 1990. Sea levels could be over 700 mm higher by 2100. Shoreline Management Plans (SMP) provide a large-scale assessment of the physical risks associated with coastal processes and present a long term policy framework to reduce these risks. The SMP covering Poole Bay concluded that most of the developed coastline should continue to be defended, although some defences may need to be moved or altered. It also recognised the uncertainty about how some areas, in particular around Poole Harbour mouth, will evolve. Water Supply Eric Ollerenshaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure the UKs future water supplies are [162220] protected. Richard Benyon: There are a range of controls in place in the UK to prevent contamination of water resources. The Water Bill, introduced into the House of Commons on 27 June, will help to reduce the risks and pressures placed on our water supplies by encouraging new companies to enter the water sector. These new companies: might offer new water sources or innovative ways for dealing with waste water; will make it easier for water companies to trade water with each other, increasing flexibility in the system particularly during periods of drought; and will make it easier for owners of small scale water storage who have excess capacity to sell water into the water supply market. The Bill also places a new duty on the Secretary of State, the Welsh Ministers and Ofwat to work to improve resilience. This may include promoting long-term planning and appropriate investment and the full range of appropriate measures to manage water resources and to secure effectual drainage; for example, relevant activities to reduce consumer demand and to ensure the effective management of water resources both within the network and in the wider water environment.
The information provided is limited to England as full data for the UK is not held centrally as both FIFG (Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance) and the EFF (European Fisheries Fund) are devolved schemes in the UK.
million European Union Funding 31.274 14.214 45.488 Central Government funding (DEFRA) 8.126 9.436 17.562 Other public funding (e.g. local authorities) 15.973 2.006 17.979
Scheme FIFG1 EFF2 Total

1
Total 55.373 25.656 81.029
The Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance Schemecovered the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2006 and was succeeded by the European Fisheries Fund. 2 The European Fisheries Fundcovering the period 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013 and will be succeeded by the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund.
MITIE Group Mr Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much his Department spends on contracts with MITIE; and how much was spent on contracts with MITIE in each year [162464] since 2008. Richard Benyon: There is no record of any contract or spend with MITIE by core DEFRA during this period. Mobile Phones Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which companies supply (a) mobile telephones and (b) [162686] mobile data services to his Department. Richard Benyon: Core DEFRA has a contract with Vodafone under the Government Procurement Services
541W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers Cancer: Drugs
542W
Furthermore water companies have a statutory duty to maintain adequate supplies of wholesome water and are currently consulting on their new long-term water resources management plans for the period 2015-40. All of this will help to ensure that the UKs future water supplies are protected.
Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information his Department holds on plans to introduce a value-based pricing system for medicines currently funded by the Cancer Drugs Fund;
[162362]
HEALTH Alcoholic Drinks: Rehabilitation Tracey Crouch: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to maximise the number of patients offered alcohol-related treatment or referral [162839] to a support service. Anna Soubry: Public Health England (PHE) is the new Executive Agency of the Department of Health with the role of supporting local authorities responsible for public health. Provision of alcohol treatment is the responsibility of local authorities, which commission interventions to meet assessed local needs. PHE will support local authorities through their work programme which includes a range of actions such as:
implementation of the Alcohol Health Check in line with guidance; significant expansion of identification and brief advice for alcohol problems across the health (particularly in primary care) and social care and criminal justice sectors; promoting effective models of hospital-based alcohol services, working in liaison with specialist community treatment services; increased involvement of primary care in providing alcohol interventions; and improving the targeting and accessibility of specialist alcohol treatment services in line with National Institute for Care Excellence guidance (including using primary care as access point for entry into treatment, or providing treatment interventions).
(2) if he will estimate the saving to the NHS of introducing a value-based pricing system for medicines currently funded through the Cancer Drugs Fund;
[162363]
(3) what representations he has received regarding the transition arrangements for medicines currently funded through the Cancer Drugs Fund, when the [162364] Fund ceases operation in 2014. Norman Lamb: Value-based pricing will focus primarily on new medicines; therefore no estimate of any savings relating to medicines currently funded through the Cancer Drugs Fund has been made. It is possible that a small number of existing drugs could be assessed under value-based pricing. However, we expect any such cases to be exceptional, and it is not our intention routinely to re-assess under value-based pricing treatments already appraised by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. We have received a number of representations from hon. Members, noble Lords, members of the public, patient groups and the pharmaceutical industry with regard to the future of the Fund. Childbirth Jeremy Lefroy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many babies were born in each consultantled and midwife-led maternity unit in England in (a) [162497] 2010-11, (b) 2011-12 and (c) 2012-13. Dr Poulter: This information is not collected in the format requested. Information regarding maternity deliveries by type of hospital ward for each hospital trust in England for 2010-11 and 2011-12 is set out in tables which have been placed in the Library. David Nicholson Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Health of which pension scheme Sir David Nicholson is a member in respect of his employment by the NHS.
[162791]
Billing Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost to his Department was of processing the payment of an invoice in the latest period for which figures are available; and what proportion of invoices settled in that period his Department paid (a) electronically and (b) by cheque.
[162634]
Dr Poulter: The Department does not routinely collect data on the cost of processing invoices for payment. All invoices received by the Department are paid electronically. This has been the case since August 2006. No cheque payments have been made since that date. Cancer Jim Shannon: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will work with his counterparts in the devolved administrations to issue a UK-wide campaign on the signs and symptoms of cancer. [162603] Anna Soubry: There are no plans for a United Kingdomwide signs and symptoms campaign on cancer. Public Health England works closely with the devolved administrations to ensure consistency of messaging on campaigns.
Dr Poulter: Sir David Nicholson is a member of the premium scheme within the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. Death: Social Class Jim Shannon: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of social class on the likely incidence of death due to (a) cancer, (b) heart disease and (c) other causes. [162765] Anna Soubry: The 2010 Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England (Fair Society, Healthy Lives) led by Professor Sir Michael Marmot observed a social gradient in healththe lower the persons social position,
543W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
544W
the worse his or her health. There is a clear social gradient in the incidence of both cancer and circulatory disease (heart disease and stroke), and in other diseases. Cancer represents around half of all deaths in the under 75s. Cardio-vascular disease is the largest single cause of long-term ill health and disability. The burden of disease falls disproportionately on people living in deprived conditions. The Call to Action to reduce avoidable premature mortality in the under 75s (Living Well for Longer, 2013) aims to reduce avoidable mortality in the five, big killer diseases across the social gradient, to match the best in Europe.. These diseases are cancer, heart, stroke, respiratory and liver disease. The Call to Action confirms this social gradient in each of these major causes of premature death. For example, more than twice as many people from the poorest backgrounds die of circulatory disease as those from the most affluent backgrounds. This Call for Action is a priority for the new health system and builds on current work such as the National Cancer Equality Initiative, which makes it clear that tackling health inequality is essential to improving outcomes and achieving cancer survival rates that match the best performing countries in the world; and the NHS and Public Health Outcomes Frameworks. Working in partnership across the system, we will improve access to healthcare and treatment and tackle unhealthy lifestyles such as smoking, obesity and physical inactivity, which also show a social gradientwhile addressing the social determinants of health across Government. The 2012 Health and Social Care Act introduced the first ever, statutory health inequalities duties. The duties on NHS England and clinical commissioning groups include consideration of the need to reduce inequalities in both access to health services and the outcomes achieved and will make tackling health inequalities central to the functioning of the national health service. Epilepsy: Pregnant Women Mr Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of pregnant women between the ages of 18 to 54 taking anti-epileptic drugs received information and counselling about [162170] contraception and conception in 2012. Anna Soubry: This information is not held centrally. Clinicians are responsible for meeting the individual health care needs of their patients, and would be expected to provide high quality contraception and conception advice to patients with epilepsy as part of their programme of care. Mr Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the advice on training given to prescribing physicians under the quality and outcomes framework on the effect of anti-epileptic [162171] medications during pregnancy. Norman Lamb: The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) produce guidance which sits alongside the Quality and Outcomes Framework on the prescribing of anti-epileptic drugs during pregnancy. NHS England has advised that they would expect clinicians to follow NICE guidance. The guidance can be found at:
http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG137
In addition, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists runs a training programme for clinicians which includes modules on prescribing anti-epileptic medicine during pregnancy. General Practitioners Jim Shannon: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that documents and pamphlets which are available from GP surgeries and health centres are clear and easy to read. [162596] Dr Poulter: As independent contractors, it is for general practitioner (GP) practices to ensure any information they produce for their patients is in a format which is clear and easy to read. The contracts under which GPs provide national health service primary medical services require practices to comply with all relevant legislation, including the requirements in the Equality Act 2010 regarding the provision of information in an accessible format in certain circumstances. If a patient has difficulty in accessing any documents provided by the practice they may raise the matter with the practice informally or formally through the NHS complaints process. Health Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many companies are signed up to the calorie [163025] reduction pledge in the Responsibility Deal. Anna Soubry: Thirty-four companies are currently signed up as partners to the Responsibility Deal calorie reduction pledge. We are seeking further sign up to the pledge from across all sectors of the food industry, in particular businesses providing food in out of home settings. Signatories to the calorie reduction pledge can be found at:
https://responsibilitydeal.dh.gov.uk/pledges/pledge/?pI=23
Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what budget has been allocated for the delivery of the [163026] Public Health Responsibility Deal. Anna Soubry: In 2013-14 the Department has allocated funding of up to 200,000 to cover costs relating to the central running of the Public Health Responsibility Deal. Implementation of the Responsibility Deal pledges will be carried out by partner organisations and the costs of doing this will be incurred by these organisations. Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on achieving the calorie reduction pledge in the Responsibility Deal; and if he [163027] will make a statement. Anna Soubry: The Responsibility Deal calorie reduction pledge enables business to contribute to our challenge to the nation, issued as part of the Call to action on obesity in England in 2011, to reduce total calorie consumption by 5 billion calories a day.
545W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
546W
In total, 34 companies have made commitments so far under the pledge and are taking steps such as product and menu reformulation, reviewing portion sizes, education and information initiatives, and actions to shift the marketing mix towards lower calorie options. It is not possible to measure the exact contribution of business actions to changes in consumers calorie consumption. Departmental Ministers and officials are currently engaged in discussions with food producers, retailers and others to help ensure the largest number of companies .make credible commitments against the pledge. Details of companies annual updates on how they are helping to deliver the calorie reduction pledge are available at:
https://responsibilitydeal.dh.gov.uk/pledges/pledge/?pI=23
These are:
The Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch NHS FT and Poole NHS FT Medway NHS FT with Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust Kings College Hospital NHS FT and Princess Royal Hospital (part of South London NHS Trust)
Human Tissue Act 2004 Dr Offord: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward legislative proposals to introduce extraterritorial jurisdiction to the Human Tissue Act [162255] 2004. Anna Soubry: We have no current plans to bring forward such proposals. Legal Costs
Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff are employed for the delivery of the [163028] Public Health Responsibility Deal. Anna Soubry: The Responsibility Deal is supported by a central programme team which consists of four full-time equivalent members of staff employed to support its delivery. The networks receive support from the obesity and food, alcohol, health at work and physical activity policy teams as required. Hospitals: Mergers Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS hospitals (a) are considering mergers and (b) have merged since the implementation [162143] of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Anna Soubry: The information is not held by the Department centrally. The NHS Trust Development Authority (NHS TDA) has advised that it is working with 14 national health service trusts on some form of organisational transaction (potentially a merger or acquisition). These organisations are:
North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust South London Healthcare NHS Trust Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust Northwest London Hospitals NHS Trust Ealing Hospitals NHS Trust Torbay and Southern Devon Health and Care NHS Trust West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust Bedford Hospital NHS Trust Cambridgeshire Community Services NHS Trust George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust Wye Valley NHS Trust Weston Area Health NHS Trust North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust
Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spent on external lawyers fees in the last year for which figures are [162517] available. Dr Poulter: Information held by the Department for the financial year 2012-13 shows the Department spent 3,536,934 on external lawyers. Medical Detection Dogs Tracey Crouch: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the role of medical detection dogs; and if he will make a [162840] statement. Norman Lamb: Although there is interest in the concept of using dogs for medical detection purposes, there is not yet an established level of evidence to support the systematic application of their use within the national health service at this time. Mobile Phones Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for Health which companies supply (a) mobile telephones and [162688] (b) mobile data services to his Department. Dr Poulter: The Departments mobile telephones and mobile data services are provided by Vodaphone through our contract with our current information, communication and technology service providers, Computer Sciences Corporation. NHS England Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether Barbara Hakins appointment as interim chief operating officer and deputy chief executive of NHS England in March 2013 (a) required [162787] and (b) received ministerial approval. Dr Poulter: The appointment of Barbara Hakin as interim chief operating officer and deputy chief executive of NHS England in March 2013 did not require ministerial approval. Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the roles of Interim Chief Operating
The NHS TDA has confirmed that no NHS trust mergers have taken place since the organisation became fully operational on 1 April 2013. Monitor has advised me that it is aware of four foundation trusts (FTs) that are formally engaged with regulatory authorities on a merger or have made a submission to Monitor.
547W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
548W
Officer and Deputy Chief Executive of NHS England were subject to the required processes in respect of (a) [162847] advertising and (b) interviewing. Dr Poulter: Appointments to the roles of chief operating officer and deputy chief executive are the responsibility of NHS England. NHS England advise that the interim appointment in March 2013 of Barbara Hakin to the post of chief operating officer and deputy chief executive was in line with its policy on making interim appointments. This does not require external advertising or interview where a suitable internal candidate has been identified. NHS: Managers Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department issues to the NHS on avoiding conflicts of interest in making [162788] managerial appointments. Dr Poulter: National health service organisations have robust arrangements for addressing possible conflicts of interest in making managerial appointments based on long standing guidance issued by the Department. In 1994, revised in 2002 and 2004, the Code of Conduct for NHS Boards required that board directors declare any
personal or business interest which may influence, or may be perceived to influence, their judgement
thresholds for those indicators should be. NHS Employers negotiate on behalf of NHS England and the devolved Administrations. Sir Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has (a) carried out and (b) commissioned studies on a link between school sports participation and lowered obesity levels and physical inactivity. [162153] Anna Soubry: The Department funds the Change4Life Sports Club Programme in schools. The programme is independently evaluated by Canterbury and Christchurch UniversitySport, Physical Education and Activity Research Centre. The evaluation reported that the Change4Life clubs effectively target and engage the least active children (those not achieving the UK Chief Medical Officers Physical Activity Guidelines). The programme impacts on physical activity levels of young people. In the first year of the programme the numbers of non-sporty young people now choosing to take part in sport each week increased by 166%. The Department has not carried out or commissioned any studies specifically looking at a link between school sports participation and obesity. Patients Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent steps have been taken to deliver the NHS mandate objective of making rapid progress in the measuring of, and action upon, the patient experience.
[162319]
and that
when a conflict of interest is established, the board director should...play no part in the relevant discussion or decision.
In 2002, the Code of Conduct for NHS managers for inclusion in employment contracts included the principle that NHS managers
be honest and act with integrity
and that they uphold the best interests of the public and patients/clients in decision making and that decisions are not improperly influenced by gifts or inducements. In 2003, Governing the NHS: A guide for NHS Boards required that board members register personal financial interests. Obesity Andy Sawford: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with (a) the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, (b) the British Medical Association and (c) NHS trusts on the quality and outcome framework indicators on [162145] obesity. Anna Soubry: The Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), has not discussed the introduction of new obesity indicators into the Quality and Outcomes Framework with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the British Medical Association or NHS trusts. This is because NICE is responsible for managing the independent process for developing and reviewing the evidence base for the Quality and Outcomes Framework clinical and public health related indicators. NICES independent advisory committee recommends new indicators or changes to existing indicators. NHS Employers then negotiate with the General Practitioners Committee of the British Medical Association on which of the published indicators should be applied nationally and what the financial value and payment
Dr Poulter: I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave him on 25 June 2013, Official Report, columns 212-13W. Tobacco: Packaging Jim Shannon: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to announce the outcome of his consultation on plain packaging for tobacco products.
[162764]
Anna Soubry: I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on 10 June 2013, Official Report, column 181W.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL MITIE Group Mr Sheerman: To ask the Attorney-General how much the Law Officers Departments spend on contracts with MITIE; and how much was spent on contracts with MITIE in each year since 2008. [162457] The Solicitor-General: The information requested is contained in the following table.
TSol 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 AGO 18,583 HMCPSI 5,225 CPS 74,736 77,778 32,721
549W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
550W
TSol 2011-12 2012-13 70,791 AGO HMCPSI 5,280 CPS 1,102 53,571
security passes allowing entry to the parliamentary estate are in existence (a) in total, (b) for hon. Members staff, (c) for House of Commons staff and (d) of other types. [161954] John Thurso: The following security passes allowing entry to the parliamentary estate were on issue on 25 June 2013:
(a) Total: 14,655 (b) For hon. Members staff: 1,789 (c) For House of Commons staff: See below (d) Other types: 10,873.
The Serious Fraud Office have not incurred any expenditure with the MITIE group during this period. Private Prosecutions Simon Hart: To ask the Attorney-General (1) how many private prosecutions were brought in England and Wales in each of the last five years for which [157869] figures are available; (2) how many private prosecutions were brought in England and Wales by the RSPCA in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and how many such prosecutions (a) led to guilty pleas or convictions after trial, (b) resulted in an absolute discharge and (c) resulted in a conditional discharge.
[157870]
The number of passes on issue to House of Commons staff cannot easily be identified from pass office records as they cannot necessarily be readily distinguished from other parliamentary staff and contractors with the same category of pass. However at 30 April the headcount of House of Commons staff was 2,017. TREASURY Air Passenger Duty Jeremy Lefroy: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount was collected in (a) class A, (b) class B, (c) class C and (d) class D air passenger duty in (i) 2010-11, (ii) 2011-12 and (iii) 2012-13.
[162498]
Jeremy Wright: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Ministry of Justice. Further to my hon. Friends letter of 23 May officials in the Ministry of Justice are currently establishing what, if any, information is held centrally which identifies the prosecuting authority in each case. I will write to my hon. Friend when this work is complete. Serco Mr Sheerman: To ask the Attorney-General how much the Law Officers Departments currently spends on contracts with Serco; and how much was spent in [162928] each year since 2008. The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has spent 4,703 with Serco group companies since 2008-09. During this time Serco have supplied facilities management services including waste removal and minor works. Current expenditure is approximately 1,000 per annum. The following table summarises total expenditure with Serco group companies for each financial year since 2008-09.
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 478 1,000 1,067 979 878
Sajid Javid: The published statistics on air passenger duty (APD), including the total amount of tax collected by year, are available online here:
https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/Pages/ TaxAndDutyBulletins.aspx
A breakdown of total receipts by APD distance band is not available. Billing Mike Freer: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average cost to his Department was of processing the payment of an invoice in the latest period for which figures are available; and what proportion of invoices settled in that period his Department paid (a) electronically and (b) by cheque.
[162641]
Sajid Javid: The average cost of processing an invoice for Treasury Group in 2011-12 was 6.28. Of the 8,595 invoices processed in this period 98.8% were paid electronically with the remaining 1.2% paid by cheque. These are the latest figures available. Charities: Investment Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the accounts of common [162065] investment funds are publicly available. Sajid Javid: The accounts of a Common Investment Fund are made available by the appointed investment fund manager of the fund. Employee Ownership Mr Umunna: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the speech by the Deputy Prime Minister on 27 March 2013, when a consultation will begin on incentives to support employee ownership.
[162245]
The Treasury Solicitors Department records show only one payment made to Serco Ltd during this period, which was for 50 in 2008-09. The remaining Law Officers Departments have hot incurred any expenditure with Serco Ltd since 2008. HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION Security Mr Hollobone: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many
551W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
552W
Mr Gauke: A consultation on the Governments proposals for supporting the indirectly employee-owned sector will be published before summer recess. Financial Services Guto Bebb: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what recent discussions he has had with the Financial Conduct Authority on progress on the redress scheme for businesses that were mis-sold interest rate swaps and other similar products; [163041] (2) what discussions he has had with senior management at (a) Barclays Bank, (b) HSBC Bank, (c) RBS Group and (d) Lloyds Banking Group on their progress in providing offers of redress to businesses that were mis-sold interest rate hedging products within the redress scheme announced by the [163015] Financial Conduct Authority. Greg Clark: Treasury Ministers and officials meet regularly with the Financial Conduct Authority and all the major banks to discuss the redress scheme for businesses that were mis-sold interest rate hedging products. As was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Treasurys practice to provide details of all such discussions. Ministerial Duties Mr Watson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes have been made to the responsibilities of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury since 4 [162846] September 2012. Sajid Javid: The responsibilities of HM Treasury Ministers are available on the Departments website:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-treasury
Where projects also involve spending beyond 2015-16, the Northern Ireland Executive will benefit from Barnett Consequentials as part of their capital settlement at future spending reviews. Public Finance George Galloway: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects his policies will begin to reduce Government debt and see a resumption of average growth in the economy. [162229] Sajid Javid: As set out in OBRs March 2013 forecast, GDP is expected to grow by 0.6% in 2013, 1.8% in 2014, 2.3% in 2015, 2.7% in 2016, and 2.8% in 2017. Public sector net debt as a percentage of GDP is forecast to fall in 2017-18. The Government continues to meet the fiscal mandate to achieve cyclically adjusted current balance by the end of five-year rolling horizon. Public Sector Debt Sir Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost of servicing public sector net [162793] debt was in each of the last 10 years. Sajid Javid: Historical data on public sector debt interest and central Government debt interest is set out on the supplementary table of the latest public sector finances statistical bulletin, available on the Office for National Statistics website at:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/psa/public-sector-finances--supplementary-table/may-2013/index.html
Figures can be found on variable JW2R and NMFX in the following table:
billion Public sector debt interest JW2R 2003-04 22.7 24.9 26.4 28.6 31.4 31.7 30.9 45.7 48.3 47.4 Central Government debt interest NMFX 22.0 24.0 25.5 27.7 30.2 30.9 30.5 45.2 47.7 47.0
Overseas Aid Mr Ivan Lewis: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the UKs official development assistance (ODA) budget in 2015-16 is new previously [162561] non-ODA attributable spending. Danny Alexander [holding answer 1 July 2013]: UK ODA will rise from 11,727 million in 2014-15 to 12,220 million in 2015-16. New ODA spending in 2015-16 is therefore 493 million. Public Expenditure: Northern Ireland Ms Ritchie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the Statement of 27 June 2013 on Investing in Britains Future, what total Barnett Consequentials will be awarded to Northern Ireland as [162915] a result. Danny Alexander: The Northern Ireland Executive capital settlement for 2015-16 was set out in the Chancellors spending round statement on 26 June 2013, Official Report, columns 303-15. Where projects announced in Investing in Britains Future involve spending commitments in 2015-16, the Northern Ireland Executive will have received the Barnett Consequential as part of this settlement in the normal way.
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Revenue and Customs: Correspondence Dr Huppert: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent estimate he has made of the number of items of unopened post at HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC); and what recent assessment he has made of the ability of HMRC to deal with queries and [162903] correspondence in a timely manner. Mr Gauke: HMRC performance targets for handling correspondence are published in HMRCs Business Plan. They are: Answering 80% of all correspondence in 15 working days and 95% in 40 working days. In 2012-13, HMRC answered 85% of all correspondence in 15 working days and 97.1% in 40 working days.
553W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
554W
HMRC periodically publishes performance statistics, including: the number and proportion of post items (including letters) to HMRC from customers which remained unanswered at the end of each quarter at:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/about/bus-plan-qds.htm
and legal arrangements The Government will continue to pursue greater transparency in taxation in all relevant international fora. Welfare State: Wales Mrs Sin C. James: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a cumulative impact assessment of the effect on welfare changes since 2010 in Wales. [162260] Sajid Javid: This Government has taken unprecedented steps to increase transparency and enable effective scrutiny of its policy-making. It has gone further in this regard than previous governments by publishing regular distributional analysis of the impact of its reforms. This Government do not publish cumulative analysis of welfare changes split by region. The latest estimates of the distributional impact of tax credit and benefits changes since 2010 were published at Spending Round 2013 and can be found on HM Treasurys website. HOME DEPARTMENT Animal Experiments Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding her Department has provided for the development of reduction, refinement and replacement alternatives to the use of animals in scientific procedures in each year between 2009 and 2012; how much of that funding has been provided to the National Centre for Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research; and if she will [162216] make a statement. James Brokenshire: The Home Office make payments of 250,000 per annum to the National Centre for Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research. A significant part of the resource in the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit is working towards the development of reduction, refinement and replacement alternatives (the 3Rs) to the use of animals in scientific procedures. Home Office Inspectors do this as part of their inspection role and when assessing applications for project licences. Policy staff, in association with colleagues in other Government Departments, are actively taking forward the coalition commitment published in 2010 to work towards reducing the use of animals in research which involves promoting all 3Rs. It is not possible to quantify the value of this resource but we believe it is significant. Bullying Tracey Crouch: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will publish draft guidance on bullying for the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill by [162206] 31 August 2013. Mr Jeremy Browne [holding answer 1 July 2013]: We will be publishing guidance on all the new powers set out in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. The guidance on the new Injunction to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance will include how it could be used to deal with bullying. We expect to publish draft guidance before the Bill reaches report stage in the House of Commons.
And now at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/business-planindicators
HMRC plans to publish quarter 1 results for 2013-14 in August 2013. HMRCs target is to open post received within 24 hours, currently opening 96% on the day of receipt with the remaining 4% opened the next day. HMRC is meeting that target and there are no backlogs in post rooms. Revenue and Customs: Rhyl Chris Ruane: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on the closure of Rhyl [162905] tax office. Mr Gauke: No decision has been made regarding the closure of the Rhyl office. The future of HM Revenue and Customs inquiry centres will be decided after the pilot in the north-east concludes. HMRC will evaluate all of the information gathered from the pilot together with the feedback from the public consultation and plans to announce its decision on the way forward in January 2014. Shares Paul Flynn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he plans to bring forward proposals to make [161514] bearer shares illegal. Jo Swinson: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. This Department will publish a discussion paper on corporate transparency before September 2013. This will review the use of bearer shares by UK companies. This will help the UK meet the collective G8 commitment to prevent the misuse of certain shareholding structures which may obstruct transparency, such as bearer shares. Tax Avoidance Naomi Long: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government plans to take to bring about increased transparency in taxation, particularly in Crown Dependencies, during the UKs [162713] G8 presidency. Mr Gauke: The Government works very closely with the Crown Dependencies and the Overseas Territories on an ongoing basis including as part of the G8 process over recent months. They have all agreed to automatically exchange information with the UK and others and therefore play an active role in the emerging new global standard for the automatic exchange of tax information. They have also committed to join the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters as rapidly as possible. Finally, on 18 June the Crown Dependencies all published Action Plans setting out concrete steps to tackle misuse of companies
555W
Written Answers Common Travel Area
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
556W
Mr Dodds: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions she has had with (a) the government of the Irish Republic and (b) the Northern Ireland Executive on the Common Travel [162552] Area. Mr Harper: Home Office officials are in regular contact with Irish Government officials taking forward joint work on the Common Travel Area, which is underpinned and driven by the programme of work in the joint ministerial statement signed by the then UK Minister for Immigration Damian Green MP and the Irish Justice Minister Alan Shatter TD, in Dublin on 20 December 2011. The Northern Ireland Executive has been briefed on this. Conditions of Employment Mr Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were retained on zero-hour contracts by (a) her Department and (b) the Executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible in (i) 2010-11, (ii) 2011-12 and (iii) 2012-13; and if she will make a [160771] statement. James Brokenshire: The Home Office, its agencies and non-departmental bodies do not retain any staff on zero-hour contracts. Andy Sawford: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are employed by [161407] her Department on zero hours contracts. James Brokenshire [holding answer 24 June 2013]: The Home Office does not retain any staff on zero-hour contracts. Counter-terrorism Diana Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support her Department has given to universities to help implement the Prevent strategy; and what steps she has taken to monitor [161592] implementation. Mr Willetts: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. As set out in the Prevent Strategy (2011), BIS leads in the delivery of Prevent in higher education and further education. We support universities and colleges to implement and embed the strategy in a number of ways. We have appointed 10 regional coordinators to provide guidance and support to institutions for all issues relating to Prevent. This includes managing the risks associated with external speakers and room booking procedures. They offer training for all staff to raise awareness of Prevent and promote engagement by working up light touch action plans with institutions. Co-ordinators provide regular reports on how implementation of the strategy is progressing in the sector. A BIS-funded Safe Campus Communities website was produced by Universities UK (UUK) as a resource for the sector to bring together available guidance and offer case studies of best practice. It includes a forum
encouraging knowledge sharing. In addition, UUK will be publishing guidance for universities on external speakers this summer. BIS funds the National Union of Students (NUS) to support students unions in understanding their responsibilities in relation to Prevent and charities legislation. This includes guidance on speaker and room bookings, training for incoming sabbatical officers and staff, issuing information and advice to students unions, and running or contributing to a number of trainings and events for students unions and the wider sector. Universities and student unions are also given advice and support by the Charities commission on meeting their responsibilities as charities in relation to ensuring that their activities and funds are not for the purposes of furthering terrorism or extremism. Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press Inquiry Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Serious Organised Crime Agency has (a) compiled a report and (b) given a report to the Leveson Inquiry concerning illegal information gathering by private detectives at the behest of a range of clients. [162230] James Brokenshire: The Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) produced a confidential report in 2008 entitled Private Investigators: The Rogue Element of the Private Investigation Industry and Others Unlawfully Trading in Personal Data. The report was made available, in confidence, to the Leveson Inquiry in March 2012 by SOCA. A redacted version of that report was produced for public information in July 2012 and is available on the SOCA website. Cybercrime Chris Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of the cost to the economy of cybercrime in 2011-12. [161872] James Brokenshire: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 10 January 2013, Official Report, column 418W. Drugs: Crime Robert Halfon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug offences relating to Class A substances have been reported in (a) Harlow and (b) Essex since 2001; and what proportion of national offences relating to Class A substances such [162891] figures represent. Mr Jeremy Browne: The information requested is not available centrally. The police recorded crime data collected by the Home Office contains the number of drug offences recorded but it is not possible to identify the class of the drug involved. Entry Clearances Mr Burley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she made of the effectiveness of the visa system in helping to increase tourism and business from (a) China, (b) India and [161924] (c) other priority markets.
557W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers Entry Clearances: Overseas Students
558W
Mr Harper: We operate a highly effective visa system for all categories, including in China, India and our priority marketsfor example, in 2012 we processed 95% of tourist visit visa and 96% of business visit visa applications within 15 days, and visa applicants can apply for our Priority Visa Service (three to five days) in over 50 countries. We continue to review and develop the products available. In April 2013 in China we launched a new VIP Mobile Biometric Enrolment and Passport Pass Back service for Premium Customers; in May 2013 we launched a new same day Super Priority Visa service in Delhi, which we have subsequently expanded to Mumbai and Chennai. We will assess the impact of these new Premium Products during 2013.
Eric Ollerenshaw: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of applications for student visas were dismissed in each of the last five [162218] years.
Mr Harper: The latest published figures for outcomes of visa applications (including refusals) for study (excluding Student visitors), in each of the last five years appear in the following table:
Visa applications and resolution, for study (excluding student visitors1), main applicants and dependants, 2008-12 Applications 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1
Resolved 332,872 414,335 391,602 318,360 235,652
Issued 231,975 303,361 285,544 261,870 209,804
Percentage 70 73 73 82 89
Refused 98,646 103,259 90,451 51,017 24,013
Percentage 30 25 23 16 10
Withdrawn/ lapsed 2,257 7,715 15,607 5,473 1,835
343,273 428,819 367,187 310,958 234,684
Student visitors are allowed to come to the UK for six months (or 11 months if they will be studying an English Language course) and cannot extend their stay. Source: Table be_01_q. Immigration Statistics, January to March 2013
The latest Home Office immigration statistics, including those for entry clearance visas, are published in the release Immigration Statistics January to March 2013, which is available from the Library of the House and on the Departments website at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office/ series/immigration-statistics-quarterly-release
Eurojust Mr Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information her Department holds on when the European Commission first published a draft regulation on reforming the structure of Eurojust; what progress has been made with negotiations on the draft regulation; and if she will place in the Library a copy of the draft regulation.
[162300]
Mr Harper: In 2012 four people were extradited from the US to the UK. None of these people were US nationals. In 2013 (up to 26 June) four people were extradited from the US to the UK. One person was a US national. For the purposes of this question, the extradition figures apply to England and Wales and Northern Ireland only. Scotland deals with its own extradition cases. In 2012 20 people were extradited from the UK to the US, 12 of these people were UK nationals. In 2013 (up to 26 June) seven people were extradited from the UK to the US. Three of these people were UK nationals. For the purposes of this question, the extradition figures apply to England and Wales and Northern Ireland only. Scotland deals with its own extradition cases. Fraud John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of fraud are reported to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau [160919] annually. James Brokenshire: The numbers of cases of fraud reported to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau are published by the Office for National Statistics. The reports are available at:
www.ons.gov.uk
James Brokenshire [holding answer 1 July 2013]: The Commission has yet to publish its new proposal to reform Eurojust. It is expected to be published soon, after which negotiations will commence. Upon publication it will be deposited with the Scrutiny Committees under cover of an explanatory memorandum in the usual way. The proposal will trigger an opt in decision, on which it is anticipated that debates will take place in both Houses. Extradition: USA Mr Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people were extradited from the US to the UK in (a) 2012 and (b) 2013 to date; and how many such people were US nationals; [162740] (2) how many people were extradited from the UK to the US in (a) 2012 and (b) 2013 to date; and how [162741] many such people were UK nationals.
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many confirmed cases of fraud have been reported to Action Fraud in the last [160921] 12 months. James Brokenshire: In the last 12 months, 148,150 reports of fraud have been made to Action Fraud. This figure includes confirmed and attempted frauds and cannot be broken down further.
559W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers Illegal Immigrants: Employment
560W
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many scam emails have been reported to Action Fraud in the last 12 months.
[160922]
James Brokenshire: In the last 12 months, 41,875 scam emails have been reported to Action Fraud. John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of fraud reported to Action Fraud have led to successful prosecutions to [160924] date. James Brokenshire: Information on prosecutions which have resulted from reports made to Action Fraud cannot be extracted from the total number of reported fraud cases. Greenwich University Diana Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Greenwich University had a Prevent strategy agreed with her Department; and whether it had a dedicated police liaison officer to [161587] assist with its implementation. Mr Willetts: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Greenwich university have, like other institutions, been in close contact over the past few years with their local police Prevent engagement officer and are working with the BIS higher education co-ordinator for London to look at their policies and procedures and to mitigate and manage the risks of extremism on their campus. Hezbollah Bob Blackman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether her Department has considered proscribing Hezbollah in its entirety as a terrorist organisation. [161875] James Brokenshire: The UK proscribed Hezbollahs External Security Organisation in 2001. In 2008 the proscription Was extended to include the whole of Hezbollahs military apparatus, namely the Jihad Council and all the units reporting to it. It is Government policy not to comment on whether or not a group is under consideration for proscription. Human Trafficking Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she has made of the number of victims of trafficking who have been compelled to take part in criminal activities in each [162140] year since 2010. Mr Harper: 74 individuals referred to the National Referral Mechanism between 2010 and 2012 have received a Positive Conclusive Grounds Decision where criminality is listed as the exploitation sub type. The figures broken down by year are:
2010: five; 2011: 33; 2012: 36.
David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many businesses in Northern Ireland have received fines or other penalties for employing illegal labour in each of the last three years [161921] for which figures are available. Mr Harper: The information requested is in the following table. The figures are based on the number of civil penalties served following visits to business addresses in Northern Ireland. The Civil Penalty Compliance Team has issued 41 civil penalties from 1 June 2010 to 31 May 2013, totalling 335,000.
As at 1 June to 31 May each year 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Total Penalties issued in Northern Ireland 9 11 21 41
Note: The figures provided are sourced from a Home Office management information system which is not quality assured under National Statistics protocols and is subject to change due to internal data quality checking. Figures provided from this source do not constitute part of National Statistics and should be treated as provisional.
Please note the figures are for penalties issued at the initial decision stage which may be reduced, cancelled, increased or reissued at the objection or appeal stage. Immigrants: English Language Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 20 June 2013, Official Report, column 804W, on conditions of employment: English language, if she will make it her policy to require all immigrants to the UK to speak [162795] English in the workplace. Mr Harper: The Immigration Rules contain provisions which require migrants applying to come to the UK to work under the points-based system to have an appropriate level of English, generally at B1 level of the Common European Framework of Reference for languages which is a level at which individuals can be expected to deal with daily routine matters within the workplace. Pre-entry English requirements also apply to certain other immigration categories which confer permission to work, for example those coming as partners and spouses of British citizens and people settled here. These measures aim to ensure that migrants with a route to permanent residence in the UK are able to speak English and integrate into UK society but behaviour within the workplace is a matter for individual employers. Immigration Mr Dodds: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of co-operation between authorities in the Irish Republic and the UK to counter illegal [162549] immigration. Mr Harper: The UK and Irelands relationship is unique and long-standing; there is excellent government and operational level co-operation to prevent those
561W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
562W
seeking to abuse the Common Travel Area (CTA) arrangement from doing so by strengthening the external CTA border, while preserving the right of free movement within it for those who are lawfully present. Immigration Controls Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what border checks are conducted [162422] for those who leave the UK. Mr Harper: Home Office Immigration Enforcement regularly conducts manual embarkation checks on passengers on an intelligence-led basis, targeting routes that are known to be used by immigration offenders. This ensures that immigration offenders are prevented from returning to the UK for a defined period. More generally, the use of advance passenger information supports our ability to undertake effective exit checks as passengers leave the UK. Immigration: Married People Richard Fuller: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures the Government is taking to reduce the arrangement of marriages [162070] primarily for immigration purposes. Mr Harper: The Government recognises the risk that sham marriages, arranged primarily for immigration purposes, pose to our immigration system and their links to wider criminality, such as fraud and benefit abuse. We are working closely with our partners across government and with local registration services and the Anglican Church, to identify and tackle sham marriages at the earliest point. Richard Fuller: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence the Government has collected on the number of marriages arranged [162071] primarily for immigration purposes. Mr Harper: Under section 24 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 registrars are required to report to the Home Office any persons they have reasonable grounds to suspect are entering into a marriage arranged primarily for immigration purposes. Section 24 reports are investigated and, where appropriate, action is taken. We received 384 section 24 reports in 2007; 344 in 2008; 561 in 2009; 934 in 2010; 1,741 in 2011; and 1,891 in 2012. Richard Fuller: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refusals of (a) entry to and (b) residence in the UK were made in each of the last five years on the basis of a sham marriage. [162072] Mr Harper: Information regarding the number of foreign nationals refused entry to and residence in the UK on the basis of sham marriage is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people with a spousal visa have not been given leave to remain at the end of their probationary period in each year since 2008.
[162743]
Mr Harper [holding answer 1 July 2013]: Information on how many individuals with a spousal visa were refused leave to remain at the end of their probationary period is not aggregated in national reporting systems. This information could only be obtained by a disproportionately expensive manual case by case search to collate the data. Immigration: Northern Ireland Mr Dodds: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are employed by her Department in Northern Ireland to counter illegal [162550] immigration and enforce immigration law. Mr Harper: The Home Office had 131.4 full-time equivalent (FTE) paid staff working in Northern Ireland as of 25 June 2013. The following table is broken down by directorate level.
Directorate Border Force Immigration Enforcement UK Visas and Immigration Total FTE 76.4 49.0 6 131.4
Full-time equivalent means that part-timers are counted by the proportion of full-time hours they work, so that a part-timer working half the time of an equivalent full-timer would count as 0.5 FTE. Independent Police Complaints Commission Mr Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the oral statement and contributions of 24 June 2013, Official Report, columns 25-37, on undercover policing, by what date she expects to have finalised the resource implications for the IPCC in relation to the duties outlined in the [162238] statement; and what those duties will be. Damian Green: The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has received a referral from the Metropolitan police of the allegations made of the deployment of undercover officers against the Lawrence family and of the withholding of that deployment from the Macpherson inquiry. It is for the IPCC to decide the appropriate mode of investigation for that complaint and, if they decide to investigate themselves, the appropriate resource necessary to carry out an investigation. Members: Correspondence Mr Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Warley can expect to receive a reply from her Department to his letter of 18 February 2013 regarding the case of [161816] Mr Eugene Komeny. Mr Harper: The Home Office wrote to the right hon. Member on 25 June 2013. Mr Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Warley can expect to receive a reply from her Department to his letter of 13 March 2013 to the UK Border Agency regarding the case of Mrs Sukhvinder Kaun. [161817] Mr Harper: The Home Office wrote to the right hon. Member on 26 June 2013.
563W
Written Answers Misuse of Drugs Ministerial Group
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
564W
Richard Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 13 June 2013, Official Report, columns 384-5W, on mis-use of drugs ministerial group, if she will publish the (a) attendees, (b) minutes of the previous meetings and (c) schedule for any future meetings of the inter[162349] ministerial group on drugs. Mr Jeremy Browne [holding answer 1 July 2013]: As was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Governments practice to publish details of such meetings. MITIE Group Mr Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much her Department spends on contracts with MITIE; and how much was spent on contracts with MITIE in each year since 2008. [162467] James Brokenshire: The Home Departments expenditure on contracts with MITIE since financial year 2008-09 is detailed in the following table:
Financial year 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Spend with MITIE () 5,452,000 210,000 365,000 5,890,000 7,530,000 1,208,000
UK and with EU partners and other international colleagues through the International Civil Aviation Organisation to ensure that the highest standards of security are applied to the British passport and UK citizens are able to travel overseas without undue hindrance. Passport holders benefit from a high quality of service. This is subject to public reporting of key performance indicators and supported by customer service intelligence carried out to monitor and improve delivery of passport services. The performance of HM Passport Office is set out in its Annual Report and Accounts which will be submitted to Parliament in accordance with section 7 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. Diana Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appointment slots are available each week at Hull passport office; and what the average waiting time for an appointment is (a) at Hull passport office and (b) nationally. [162258] Mr Harper: In the financial year 2013-14 to date, the average number of interview appointments available in the Hull Interview Office has been 23 per week. Following a review of our service provision we have recently increased the number of appointments to 39 per week. Her Majestys Passport Office has two larger offices in Leeds and Sheffield where appointments are available within the average waiting time nationally which is 8.5 days. The Hull office is a smaller local facility open part-time for those who do not need an appointment within this timescale. The average waiting time in the Hull office to date in 2013-14 has been 24 days. Pay Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what bonuses are being proposed [162420] for senior officials in her Department. James Brokenshire: In line with Cabinet Office guidance, up to 25% of senior officials are eligible to be considered for a bonus for their performance in the 2012-13 performance year. As in previous years, the Department intends to exercise restraint in the awarding of bonus payments to these staff. Personation Eric Ollerenshaw: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of identity theft occurred in each of the last three years. [162150] Mr Jeremy Browne: Information on the number of identity theft cases occurring each year is not held centrally. Identity theft is not a specific criminal offence. It is an enabler of other crimes, such as fraud, and the criminal law contains a range of provisions to tackle this type of crime, such as the offences in the Fraud Act 2006. Police and Crime Commissioners Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps her Department takes to ensure that Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) comply with their legal responsibilities to publish financial information and disclose details of their own interests and allowances; and whether her Department has any plans to publish a list of non-compliant PCCs.
[161688]
Mobile Phones Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which companies supply (a) mobile telephones and (b) mobile data services to her [162689] Department. James Brokenshire: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 29 October 2012, Official Report, column 73W. National Retail Crime Steering Group Mr Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Retail Crime Strategy Group (a) has met since May 2010, (b) last met and [161356] (c) next plans to meet. Mr Jeremy Browne: Home Office Ministers and officials have meetings with a wide variety of international partners, as well as organisations and individuals in the public and private sectors, as part of the process of policy development and delivery. Details of these meetings are passed to the Cabinet Office on a quarterly basis and are subsequently published on the Cabinet Office website. Passports Jim Shannon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions she has had to ensure that the passport system is robustly enforced.
[161906]
Mr Harper: Her Majestys Passport Office is responsible for the UK passport application and issuing process and provides a gold standard approach recognised nationally and internationally for its security and robustness. HM Passport Office works closely with departmental colleagues and with law enforcement agencies in the
565W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
566W
Damian Green [holding answer 25 June 2013]: The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and the Elected Local Policing Bodies (Specified Information) Order 2011 require Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) to publish information specified by the Home Secretary, including a register of interests, budgets and decisions of significant public interest. This is a legal obligation which is ultimately enforceable by the courts. The Act also introduced a Police and Crime Panel in every police area to scrutinise the actions and decisions of the PCC. The panel has the power to question the commissioner and report publicly on the commissioners performance of his or her statutory duties. This ensures that the local electorate is able to hold the commissioner to account at the ballot box. Police: Intelligence Services Mark Hendrick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many different police intelligence services are currently in operation in England and Wales; and how many such forces automatically share intelligence with other police forces [162537] via a central computer system. Damian Green: In England and Wales each of the 43 geographic police forces, plus the British Transport police, the Ministry of Defence police and the Serious Organised Crime Agency including the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre operate police intelligence services. All such forces and law enforcement agencies manage and share intelligence on national databases, having regard to the Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information, as appropriate. Police: Recruitment Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what data is collected on recruitment of police (a) from ethnic minorities and (b) based on (i) gender and (ii) ability to speak the [162831] Welsh language. Damian Green: The Home Office collects figures for the number of police officers (full-time equivalent) recruited as a police standard direct recruit, those previously a special constable, by police force area, and all minority ethnic and gender groups. These data appear in the attached table for the latest available financial year, 2011-12. Data on police recruitment based on the ability to speak the Welsh language are not collected by the Home Office.
Number of police officers recruited as a police standard direct recruit and policepreviously special constable, by police force area, all minority ethnic and gender, 2011-121, 2, 3,4, 5 All minority ethnic Avon and Somerset Bedfordshire Cambridgeshire Cheshire Cleveland Cumbria Derbyshire Devon and Cornwall Dorset 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 Male 15 0 36 20 0 0 0 0 0 Female 9 0 11 9 0 0 0 0 0
Number of police officers recruited as a police standard direct recruit and policepreviously special constable, by police force area, all minority ethnic and gender, 2011-121, 2, 3,4, 5 All minority ethnic Durham Dyfed-Powys Essex Gloucestershire Greater Manchester Gwent Hampshire Hertfordshire Humberside Kent Lancashire Leicestershire Lincolnshire London, City of Merseyside Metropolitan Police Norfolk Northamptonshire Northumbria North Wales North Yorkshire Nottinghamshire South Wales South Yorkshire Staffordshire Suffolk Surrey Sussex Thames Valley Warwickshire West Mercia West Midlands West Yorkshire Wiltshire
1
Male 5 12 12 0 0 0 10 16 0 14 31 19 0 0 0 990 16 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 92 0 10 0 0 15
Female 5 6 6 0 0 0 10 5 0 6 19 21 0 0 0 400 7 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 58 0 2 0 0 9
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 233 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0
This table contains full-time equivalent (FTE) figures that have been rounded to the nearest whole number. 2 Police standard direct recruit includes special constables joining as a police officer and are recorded under this category if they have not been a special constable for a year or more. 3 Policepreviously special constables includes special constables joining as a police officer if they have been a special constable within the last year. Includes special constables joining from another force as a police officer. This only applies to new officers, not to officers rejoining or transferring. 4 SourceHome Office via Annual Data Requirement (ADR 521). These figures are not regularly published and should be treated as provisional. 5 Figures for police officer joiners, for 2011-12, by police force area, rank and gender (including transfers) are published each year in Table 5 of Police Service Strength, England and Wales (to be retitled Police Workforce, England and Wales).
Press: Subscriptions Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much her Department spent on newspapers, periodicals and trade publications in the last 12 months. [162653] James Brokenshire: For the most recently available 12 month period (July 2012 to June 2013), the Home Department spent 66,057 on newspapers, periodicals and trade magazines. Prostitution: Greater London Mark Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many brothels were identified by the Metropolitan Police in each London borough in [161747] each of the last three years.
567W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
568W
Mr Jeremy Browne: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 13 February 2013, Official Report column 760W. Security Guards: Licensing Mr Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether she plans to introduce legislation in this session to reform regulation of the [162237] private security industry; (2) when she plans to publish the response to the consultation on proposals to reform regulation of the [162244] private security industry. James Brokenshire: Legislation designed for the regulation of businesses in the private security industry will be introduced this session. A response to the Home Office consultation on a future regulatory regime for the private security industry will be published later in the summer. Serious Organised Crime Agency Jonathan Reynolds: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made to date on moving the Serious and Organised Crime [162768] Agency to the National Crime Agency.
Mr Jeremy Browne: The Government is committed to establishing the National Crime Agency (NCA) by the end of 2013 and is well on track to do sothe NCA will be delivered in October this year. Following Royal Assent of the Crime and Courts Bill on 25 April 2013, the NCA became a legal entity on 27 May 2013. The NCA top team is almost complete and the four new Commands have all been established and are leading shadow operations. Staff and property transfer schemes which will enable (SOCA) staff and assets to be transferred to the NCA will be laid before Parliament shortly. Sick Leave Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many days on average staff of her Department in each pay grade were absent from work as a result of ill health in each of the last [162585] 12 months. James Brokenshire: Table 1 includes the average working days lost to sickness absence in each pay grade in the Home Department for each of the last 12 months (June 2012 to May 2013). Figures include both the parent Home Department as well as any executive agencies at the end of each month but exclude non-departmental public bodies.
Table 1: Rolling year average days lost (RYAWDL) to sick absence in each of the last 12 months 2012 Grade equivalency 1. AA 2. AO 3. EO 4. HEO 5. SEO 6. G7 7. G6 8. SCS Grand total Jun 9.80 9.92 8.11 5.97 4.80 3.80 2.88 2.82 7.77 Jul 10.01 10.00 8.15 5.91 4.91 3.94 3.00 2.96 7.81 Aug 10.06 9.93 8.13 5.86 4.89 3.91 2.90 2.73 7.77 Sep 10.35 9.76 8.04 5.67 4.93 3.91 3.01 2.84 7.68 Oct 10.51 9.65 7.96 5.88 5.12 3.92 3.20 2.04 7.63 Nov 10.59 9.73 7.95 5.97 4.74 3.87 2.88 3.05 7.62 Dec 10.99 9.62 7.97 6.22 4.90 3.86 3.12 3.36 7.66 Jan 10.74 9.50 7.91 6.14 4.81 3.78 3.03 3.33 7.58 Feb 10.42 9.42 7.85 6.29 4.76 4.04 3.06 4.03 7.54 2013 Mar 10.26 9.50 7.72 6.37 4.89 3.96 3.35 4.08 7.52 Apr 10.47 9.61 7.77 6.39 4.95 3.88 3.49 3.65 7.58 May 10.57 9.57 7.77 6.35 4.92 3.91 3.60 3.86 7.57
Notes: 1 .Organisational Coverage: Figures up to and including 30 November 2012: Comprise Home Office headquarters and its executive agencies (United Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA), Identity and Passport Service (IPS), National Fraud Authority (NFA) and Criminal Records Bureau (CRB)). Figures from 31 December 2012 to 31 March 2013: On 3 December 2012 CRB left the Home Office and, together with the Independent Safeguarding Authority, formed a new non-departmental public body, the Disclosure and Barring Service. Sick absences attributed to CRB employees have, therefore, been excluded from the figures from this date. Figures from 30 April 2013: On 1 April 2013 the Home Office underwent a significant restructure; UKBA was abolished and its teams were incorporated into the former Home Office headquarters area of the Department. At the same time, IPS was renamed Her Majestys Passport Office (HMPO). Figures therefore include Home Office (including former headquarters areas as well as the former UKBA areas) and its executive agencies (NFA and HMPO). 2. Calculation and Employee Coverage: Rolling Year Average Working Days Lost (RYAWDL) to sick absence is reported in line with Cabinet Office standards, definitions and reporting guidelines, using Office for National Statistics methodology: figures include all working days lost to sick absence as well as working days available for all current paid civil servants and any leavers who were paid at the time of their departure during the preceding 12 months. In March 2013 the Home Office introduced a new Oracle-based corporate HR MI system called Galena; RYAWDL figures from 31 March 2013 have been calculated using this system. Prior to this, legacy systems were used to calculate RYAWDL. The table includes calculations based on both systems in line with the time period covered by the question. Source: Data Viewthe Home Offices single source of Office for National Statistics compliant monthly snapshot corporate Human Resources data. Extract date: Data View is extracted on the first day of the following month. Period covered: 1 June 2012 to 31 May 2013
Staff Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much her Department spent on (a) recruitment agency fees, (b) outplacement agency fees for displaced or redundant staff and (c) [162617] staff training in each of the last 12 months.
James Brokenshire: The information is as follows: (a) The Home Department spent 3,398,825 on recruitment agency fees (including the provision of agency staff) in the 2012-13 financial year. (b) The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.
569W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
570W
(c) We are unable to break this down monthly, but able to provide the quarterly figures as follows:
Quarter 1 (April to June) Quarter 2 (July to September) Quarter 3 (October to December) Quarter 4 (January to March) 1,022,166 3,288,000 2,868,000 7,571,817
A compromise agreement and confidentiality clause has been used on the following number of occasions: Home Office
2010-11: 3 2011-12: 3 2012-13: 6
Stephen Lawrence Mr Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the statement of 24 June 2013, Official Report, columns 25-37, on undercover policing, when she expects the Ellison [161998] Report to report. Damian Green: It is critically important that the Ellison review is thorough and comprehensive in identifying and assessing any evidence of wrongdoing to inform decisions on next steps. The Secretary of State for the Home Departments written ministerial statement of 11 July 2012, Official Report, columns 30-31WS, estimated that the review would report in July 2013. As the Secretary of State said in her statement of 24 June 2013, Official Report, columns 25-27, given the need to consider the latest allegations, the review will now be reporting later than intended. Steroid Drugs Ms Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of the [163019] number of men taking steroids. Mr Jeremy Browne: Findings from the 2011-12 Crime Survey for England and Wales show that around 0.4% of men aged 16 to 59 had used anabolic steroids in the last year, equating to around 69,000 men. Termination of Employment Mr Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions (a) a compromise agreement, (b) a confidentiality clause and (c) judicial mediation was used when an employee of (i) her Department and (ii) the public bodies for which she is responsible left their employment in (A) 2010-11, (B) 2011-12 and (C) 2012-13; and if she will [160909] make a statement. James Brokenshire: The Home Office has taken this to mean:
in cases where there was no litigation and where the confidentiality clause prevents the individual from disclosing or discussing the existence, negotiation and terms of settlement.
The NDPBs position on record keeping for such matters is as follows, but none have reported judicial mediations, and where numbers are reported they are for compromise agreements and include a confidentiality clause: National Policing Improvement Agency
2010-11: 0 2011-12: 0 2012-13: 1
Serious Organised Crime Agency

2010-11: 3 2011-12: 4 2012-13: 4
Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS)Existed since 1 December 2012

Therefore the DBS can only report on a four month period0.
Independent Safeguarding Authority

Nil return
Criminal Records Bureau

2010-11: 59 2011-12: 0 2013-13: 0
Security Industry Authority

2010-11: Nil return 2011-12: Nil return 2012-13: 1
Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner

No data held
Independent Police Complaints Commission

The information is held but could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Vacancies Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what her Departments vacancy rate was in 2012-13; and what vacancy rate has been [162671] assumed for 2013-14. James Brokenshire: Estimates of vacancy rates are not calculated centrally. The Departments vacancy rate in 2012-13 and an estimate for 2013-14 could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Billing Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the average cost to her Department was of processing the payment of an invoice in the latest period for which figures are available; and what proportion of invoices settled in that period her Department paid (a) electronically and [162636] (b) by cheque.
We are unable to provide information on litigation matters in relation to judicial mediation, as this data is not held centrally. When using such clauses, the Home Office and non departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are mindful of business needs and the requirements of law, including accountability to Parliament.
571W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
572W
Mr Duncan: The average cost to DFID of processing the payment of an invoice from the UK during 2012-13 is 7.25. All payments made from the United Kingdom are paid electronically. Developing Countries: Nutrition Mark Lazarowicz: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has to invest in better data collection for information [162325] on chronic malnutrition and stunting. Justine Greening: DFID (alongside other signatories) committed in the Nutrition for Growth compact to ensure strengthened data systems, common definitions and progress indicators are in place, supported by real-time monitoring tools to measure and report progress on chronic malnutrition (stunting). Mark Lazarowicz: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to involve civil society in developing the Nutrition for [162326] Growth accountability framework. Justine Greening: In developing the accountability framework for Nutrition for Growth, we intend to engage with civil society organisations, which we expect will play a key role in advocacy for accountability. Mark Lazarowicz: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had about the accountability framework for Nutrition for Growth; and which institution will be responsible [162327] for housing it. Justine Greening: Discussions are under way with partners to develop the accountability mechanism and institutional home for the commitments made at the Nutrition for Growth event. Further details will be set out at the UN General Assembly in September 2013. Mark Lazarowicz: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether the accountability framework for Nutrition for Growth will cover the UN system and private sector institutions in addition to donors and governments; and if she will make a [162328] statement. Justine Greening: All of the commitments made at the Nutrition for Growth event, including those from governments, UN agencies and businesses, are captured in a document published on the government website
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-host-high-levelmeeting-on-global-nutrition-and-growth
Justine Greening: On June 8, DFID announced that it will increase its spend on direct nutrition programmes to up to 375 million (a tripling of 2010 levels) from 2013 to 2020. This means a significant scale up of nutrition programmes. We will work closely with DFID country offices, partner governments, donors and the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) movement as part of the decision making process on the allocation of investment. Mark Lazarowicz: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether her Department plans to prioritise any (a) countries and (b) regions to receive the UK funding committed at the recent [162330] Nutrition for Growth Summit. Justine Greening: DFID will continue to prioritise nutrition interventions in countries with a high burden of undernutrition and where we have bilateral programmes. DFID will work closely with its country offices, partner governments, donors and the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) movement as part of the decision making process. Mark Lazarowicz: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to ensure that other G8 nations and donors make funding commitments to tackle malnutrition.
[162331]
Justine Greening: Nutrition for Growth: beating hunger through business and science, held as a pre-G8 event on 8 June, was part of DFIDs efforts to ensure that other G8 nations and donors make funding commitments to tackle malnutrition. International financial commitments made by G8 nations, donors, partner governments and civil society organisations amounted to an additional 2.7 billion for programmes to directly tackle malnutrition. In addition, 12.5 billion was committed for programmes in agriculture, sanitation and hygiene and social safety nets, which will also reduce malnutrition. Mark Lazarowicz: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to tackle malnutrition in (a) India, (b) [162332] Nigeria, (c) Pakistan and (d) Indonesia. Justine Greening: DFID supports programmes in India, Nigeria and Pakistan which reach close to 8 million people with a range of essential nutrition services and technical advice. DFID does not have a bilateral nutrition programme in Indonesia. India Lindsay Roy: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much overseas aid is allocated to India from the UKs international [162902] development budget. Mr Duncan: Information on how much overseas aid is allocated to India can be found on the gov.uk website:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dfid-annualreport-and-accounts-2012-13
This is a tool which stakeholders can use to hold each other to account and is one aspect of the accountability framework. Discussions are under way with partners to develop the wider accountability mechanism and institutional home for the commitments made at the event. Further details will be set out at the UN General Assembly in September 2013. Mark Lazarowicz: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has to open new bilateral nutrition programmes as part of the UK funding commitment made at the recent [162329] Nutrition for Growth Summit.
In a written ministerial statement last November, the Secretary of State announced that the UKs programme of financial grant aid to India will end. All new development co-operation programmes will be either technical assistance programmes, or private sector investments. DFID will finish existing financial grant projects, so that they all complete as planned by 2015.
573W
Written Answers Legal Costs
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER Local Growth Committee
574W
Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department spent on external lawyers fees in the last year for which [162519] figures are available. Mr Duncan: The central finance records of DFID show expenditure, categorised as external legal costs, totalling 404,849.79 for the year ended 31 March 2013. This excludes amounts paid to internal legal services within government, including fees paid to the Treasury Solicitors department. Palestinians Robert Halfon: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what recent discussions she has had with her Norwegian counterpart on Palestinian Authority payments to Palestinian [162369] prisoners in Israeli jails; (2) what assessment her Department has made of the decision in Norway to establish a parliamentary committee inquiring into Palestinian Authority payments to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.
[162370]
Mr Umunna: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which Ministers will be members of the Governments Local Growth Committee; and what terms of reference that committee will have. [162158] The Deputy Prime Minister: The membership of the Local Growth Committee is listed as follows: Local Growth Committee
Deputy Prime Minister, Lord President of the Council (Chair) (The Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP) Chancellor of the Exchequer (Deputy Chair) (The Rt Hon George Osborne MP) Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (The Rt Hon Dr Vincent Cable MP) Secretary of State for Education (The Rt Hon Michael Gove MP) Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP) Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (The Rt Hon Edward Davey MP) Secretary of State for Transport (The Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP) Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (The Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP) Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Minister for Women and Equalities (The Rt Hon Maria Miller MP) Minister without Portfolio (The Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP) Chief Secretary to the Treasury (The Rt Hon Danny Alexander MP) Minister of StateCabinet Office (The Rt Hon Oliver Letwin MP) Minister of StateBusiness, Innovation and Skills (The Rt Hon David Willets MP) Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (The Rt Hon Lord Deighton KBE) Financial Secretary to the Treasury (The Rt Hon Greg Clark MP).
Lynne Featherstone: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 18 March 2013, Official Report, column 428-30W. Sick Leave Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many days on average staff of her Department in each pay grade were absent from work as a result of ill health in each of the last [162586] 12 months. Mr Duncan: The average number of days absence per grade for home civil servants is shown in the following table
DFID Grade SCS A1 A2 A2(L) B1D B1 B2 C1 C2 Civil service equivalent SCS G6 G7 SEO SEO KEO EO AO AA Average days absence April 2012 to March 2013 2.26 0.38 0.29 0.17 0.45 0.16 0.17 0.09 0.07
Its terms of reference are:

To consider issues relating to local growth.
WORK AND PENSIONS Bereavement Benefits
Vacancies Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Departments vacancy rate was in 2012-13; and what vacancy rate has [162672] been assumed for 2013-14. Mr Duncan: We have applied an 8% vacancy rate across the organisation for budget purposes in 2013-14. In previous years vacancy rates were monitored and managed at a local business unit level. Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason people over the age of eligibility to receive a state pension are ineligible to [162904] receive a bereavement payment. Steve Webb: Bereavement payment is payable to a surviving spouse or civil partner over state pension age if their late husband wife or civil partner was not entitled to Category A state pension when they died, and they satisfied the other conditions of entitlement.
575W
Written Answers Carers Allowance
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
576W
Karen Lumley: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether his Department has any [162081] plans to review the carers allowance. Esther McVey: The Government has announced that carers allowance will continue to exist as a separate benefit outside of universal credit. It was thought important that carers should continue to enjoy the recognition and support of a dedicated benefit, but we will be reviewing carers allowance in the context of the introduction of universal credit. Construction: Industrial Health and Safety Huw Irranca-Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will bring forward legislative proposals to reintroduce the provisions contained in the Construction (Head Protection) [162310] Regulations. Mr Hoban: The Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 were amended when the Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989 were revoked. The amendments extend the Personal Protective Regulations 1992 to cover the provision and use of head protection on construction sites, providing the same level of legal protection as previously existed. Employment and Support Allowance: Appeals Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 20 May 2013, Official Report, column 882, on work capability assessment, if he will publish a table of the main reasons why appellants are successful on appeal against Employment and Support Allowance appeals. [162318] Mr Hoban: The provision of feedback on reasons for tribunals decisions is a matter for the judiciary. Last year the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the President of the Social Entitlement Chambers His Honour Judge Robert Martin agreed to pilot a scheme to provide feedback from tribunals to help inform DWP decision makers about why decisions were being overturned. A report focusing on high level explanations from tribunal judges of why decisions by DWP decision makers had been overturned was published by the DWP on 19 November 2012 and can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/196742/sscs_appeals.pdf.pdf
also continues to fund an action team within the Chartered Institute of Housing to work with all social landlords to help them promote moves. Members: Correspondence Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will reply to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Maltons letter of 21 May 2013 from a constituent concerning the loss of disability living allowance and a mobility vehicle for her daughter. [163022] Esther McVey: John Oliver, the Departments Director for Operational Excellence replied to my hon. Friend on behalf of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), on 26 June 2013. Social Security Benefits Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions with reference to the Statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 26 June 2013, Official Report, columns 303-334, on the Spending Review, (1) what additional costs will be incurred as a result of (a) Upfront Work Search, (b) jobcentre attendance by lone parents of three and four year olds and (c) weekly signing for half of all jobseekers to be [162833] implemented in 2015-16; (2) what estimate he has made of the reduction in benefit spending in 2015-16 as a result of (a) Upfront Work Search, (b) weekly signing by jobseekers and (c) new conditionality for lone parents with a youngest [162837] child aged three and four years old. Mr Hoban: The reforms we have announced will deliver over 350 million in annual savings. All these savings will be re-invested in more help for claimants to get back into work, including the cost of the new conditions Jobcentres will be asked to enforce. There will be a phased introduction of these policies from early 2014, with full implementation by April 2015. Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions with reference to the Statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 26 June 2013, Official Report, columns 303-334, on the Spending Review, what saving he anticipates will accrue to his Department in 2015-16 as a result of the (a) application of the welfare cap, (b) introduction of a temperature test for the winter fuel payment and (c) new seven day wait before people can claim benefits.
[162834]
Housing Benefit: Social Rented Housing Mrs Lewell-Buck: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps his Department in taking to assist those affected by the social sector size [162888] criteria to move to smaller homes. Steve Webb: The changes taken forward in the Localism Act 2011 make it easier for councils and housing associations to move under-occupying tenants, and free up family-sized housing for other households in need. The Government has also provided councils with 7.8 million between 2011 and 2013 to help support social tenants who wish to downsize. The Government
Mr Hoban: The welfare cap will improve spending control, support fiscal consolidation and ensure the welfare system remains affordable. If the Office for Budget Responsibility projects that spending will breach the cap in any year of the forecast horizon, the Government will need to bring forward a responsechanging policy or explaining publicly why it judges that action is not appropriate. The Government will announce the level of the cap at Budget 2014. The Department estimates that the introduction of a temperature link for the winter fuel payment, will produce savings in the region of 30 million in 2015/16. The level
577W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
578W
of savings will be assessed and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility at the autumn statement. As published in the OBR policy costing notes, costings for the new seven day waiting period before people receive benefits have been estimated on the basis that from April 2015 new awards of universal credit for claimants that have not had a universal credit claim in the past six months and at least one person in the household is subject to conditionality are reduced by the average amount of universal credit claimed per claimant per week. This would save 245 million in 2015-16. Unemployment and Early Retirement John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent assessment he has
made of trends in the number of (a) jobseekers and (b) people taking early retirement in (i) Glasgow North West constituency, (ii) Glasgow, (iii) Scotland and (iv) the UK; what projections he has made of trends in each category for each of the next five years; and what assessment he has made of the economic [162313] factors underlying those trends.
Mr Hoban: The following table shows jobseekers allowance claimants in the Glasgow North West parliamentary constituency, Glasgow City local authority district, Scotland and the UK. The number of people claiming JSA has fallen in all these areas, both in the last year and since May 2010.
May 2010 Glasgow North West Glasgow City Scotland UK 3,502 24,529 135,541 1,502,155
May 2011 3,595 25,029 140,107 1,504,913
May 2012 3,353 24,385 141,827 1,590,708
May 2013 3,136 22,828 134,410 1,495,758
Change on year 2012-13 -217 -1,557 -7,417 -94,950
Change since May 2010 -366 -1,701 -1,131 -6,397
Note: For consistency, figures above are not seasonally adjusted (seasonally adjusted data are only available at a national and regional level, not sub-regional). As such, the UK and Scotland figures will differ from the normally quoted headline numbers. Source: nomisweb.co.uk
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) produces an independent forecast of the claimant count. The latest forecast is published at:
http://cdn.budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/March2013-EFO-44734674673453.pdf
Review, what criteria he will use to identify the under-performing programmes in his Department mentioned in that Statement; and if he will make a statement. [162835] Mr Hoban: The Department continually assesses the value for money and performance of programmes to ensure that they meet the standards required. Where formal evaluations are undertaken, these are, and will continue to be published. Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on under-performing programmes in his Department.
[162836]
OBR forecasts are only available at national level. There is no officially recognised definition of early retirement. The default retirement age has been abolished. Receiving a state pension at state pension age is not synonymous with retirement from work. The following table shows the number of people self-reporting as retired before state pension age. People leave the labour market for a variety of reasons. Some who report other reasons for inactivity may in effect be retired, so the figures are likely to be an underestimate. There are no projections for the number of people who will retire early.
Retired before State Pension Age (assumed 65 for men, 60 for women) UK Scotland Q2 2010 579,000 53,000 Q2 2011 603,000 57,000 Q2 2012 604,000 53,000 Change since 2010 +25,000 +1,000
Mr Hoban: The Department continuously receives and seeks feedback and views on all aspects of its delivery, which are used to inform future policy development and ensure that the best possible value for money is received from all programmes and activity. Winter Fuel Payments Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what consideration he has given to paying the winter fuel allowance early to allow the early purchase of fuel stocks when prices are lower. [162429] Steve Webb: We have considered this, and concluded that it would not be feasible to identify subgroups within a flat rate universal benefit. However, we are working with DECC, consumer groups and the industry on initiatives such as encouraging off-grid consumers to pool resources and purchase fuel in bulk to attract lower delivery costs, as discussed at the roundtable chaired by DECC and DEFRA ministers in May.
Notes: 1. These data are subject to sampling variation. Sample sizes were too small to produce figures for Glasgow City or the Glasgow North West parliamentary constituency. 2. State pension age for women is currently increasing from 60 in 2010 to 65 in 2018. For the purposes of showing a consistent comparison over time the figures in the table assume SPA for women remained at 60. Source: Labour Force Survey April-June 2010, 2011, 2012
Welfare State: Reform Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions with reference to the Statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 26 June 2013, Official Report, columns 303-334, on the Spending
579W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
580W
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS Adult Education Damian Hinds: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what information his Department (a) collects and (b) holds on participation rates in adult education in each [163066] Government office region. Matthew Hancock: The Individualised Learner Record (ILR) is a collection of data about learners and their learning that is requested from providers in the Further Education (FE) and Skills sector:
http://www.theia.org.uk/ilr/
have agreed to provide an further 1 million per year for three years for industry co-sponsored projects through the CRACK IT initiative from FY 2013/14, and BBSRC are providing an extra 300,000 per year for three years from FY 2012/13 for project and pilot grants under the animal welfare call. Also, in early 2013 BIS provided the NC3Rs with an additional 250,000 for two years from FY 2013/14 for the development of shared research infrastructure. Business: Loans Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to his answer of 11 June 2013, Official Report, column 249W, how many (a) of his Departments officials and (b) Capital For Enterprise Limited employees are part of his Departments interim business bank team. [162783] Michael Fallon: There are currently 31.3 full-time equivalent staff working in the Department on the business bank initiative, either on the establishment of the business bank or on the programmes which are expected to form part of it. There are currently a total of 33.6 full-time equivalents working at Capital for Enterprise Ltd, all of whom are contributing to the business bank project. Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to his answer of 11 June 2013, Official Report, column 249W, within which directorate the interim business bank team is [162784] located in his Department. Michael Fallon: The Departments interim business bank team is predominantly located in the Shareholder Executive and Enterprise Directorate directorates. Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills whether he has made an application for approval under EU state aid rules of [162785] the Governments business bank proposal. Michael Fallon: Officials in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are in continuing dialogue with the Commission regarding the business bank and its activities, in preparation for submitting a formal notification to the Commission later this year. Electronic Equipment: Waste Disposal Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (1) what steps he plans to take to ensure that implementation of the WEEE Recast Directive 2012/19/EU and changes to the waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) system in the UK leads to all hazardous WEEE being obligated [162277] and funded post-recast; (2) what steps he plans to take to ensure that implementation of the WEEE Recast Directive 2012/ 19/EU and changes to the UK waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) system will minimise adverse environmental effects of WEEE disposal;
[162278]
Information on all Government-funded adult (19+) learner participation by Region is published in supplementary tables to a quarterly Statistical First Release (SFR):
http://www.thedataservice.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C74D91A34CEE-4FD2-9A22-4307920D11A8/0/ January2013_OverallFEandSkillsParticipation.xls
Animal Experiments Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what funding his Department has provided for the development of reduction, refinement and replacement alternatives to the use of animals in scientific procedures in each year between 2009 and 2012; how much of that funding has been provided to the National Centre for Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research; [162212] and if he will make a statement. Mr Willetts: The Government established The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) in May 2004 to advance and promote the 3Rs in research and testing that uses animals. The NC3Rs primarily receives Government funding through BIS via the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). MRC and BBSRC funding for the NC3Rs between 2009 and 2012 is shown in the following table. Alongside funding directed through the NC3Rs, the BBSRC provides funding for research on the replacement, refinement and reduction of animals in research and spend on this is indicated in the table. The MRC also supports research projects which contribute to the development of new knowledge and new methods that help replace or refine animal use.
NC3Rs BBSRC Programmes and Responsive Mode funding 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 3.900.000 3.867.000 3.000.000 2.200.000
MRC 2.640.000 3.240.000 3.840.000 3.950.000
BBSRC 828.000 1.028.000 1.228.000 1.265.000
Total BIS funding 7.368.000 8.135.000 8.068.000 7.415.000
MRC and BBSRC have agreed to maintain funding for the NC3Rs in real terms for the current spending review period. In addition to this funding the MRC
(3) what meetings officials of his Department have had with representatives of producers and waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) treatment facilities to discuss the WEEE Recast Directive 2012/19/EU consultation; and if he will make a [162280] statement;
581W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
582W
(4) what assessment he has made of the likely effects of using percentage targets as maximums on the overall level of waste electrical and electronic equipment [162281] collected. Michael Fallon: The Government consultation, Implementation of the WEEE Recast Directive 2012/19/EU and Changes to the UK WEEE System (BIS/13/762), closed on 21 June 2013. BIS officials are currently evaluating the responses. The Government response to the consultation will be published shortly. It will set out how the Government intends to transpose the recast WEEE Directive in a way that ensures the environmental objectives agreed at the EU level are met whilst minimising the burdens on business. BIS officials have had extensive and regular discussions directly with key stakeholders over the 18 months leading up to the publication of the consultation paper in April this year. The consultation document lists key stakeholders that were consulted before publication. Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps he will take to prevent producer compliance schemes allowing companies to obtain or abuse a dominant market position in the disposal of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) as a result of the WEEE Recast Directive 2012/19/EU and changes to the UK [162279] WEEE system. Michael Fallon: Protection against anti-competitive behaviour and abuse by a company of a dominant position in the market in particular is prohibited under the Competition Act 1998. Responsibility for enforcing competition law falls to the Office of Fair Trading as the competent authority in the UK. It has significant powers to investigate and act if it finds firms are abusing a dominant position or behaving anti-competitively. Engineering Mr Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills if he will consider establishing a new post of Government Chief [162066] Engineering Officer. Mr Willetts: The remit of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser covers all areas of science and engineering. In addition, the network of Chief Scientific Advisers (CSAs) across Government includes those with expertise in all areas of science. Three of the current CSAs are engineers, including the CSA in BIS. They, like all CSAs, contribute their expertise across Government. The Government therefore does not consider it necessary to create a specific post of Government Chief Engineering Officer. Departments which have a strong need for additional engineering expertise can recruit such. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), for example, have recently appointed a Chief Engineer within the DECC CSAs team. Green Investment Bank Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what target he has set for the (a) number and (b) value of investments made under the Green Investment Bank in each of the next
two years; and what assessment he has made of progress against such targets to date. [162239] Michael Fallon: There is no specific target as to the total value or number of commitments the Green Investment Bank should make in any given year. To date the Bank has committed 635 million and its senior management is confident of committing the full 3.8 billion that has now been allocated to the Bank for the period to April 2016. The Bank has full flexibility to carry over funds between years within the current spending review period to April 2015. It also has scope to make commitments during this spending review period which only crystallise as spending after April 2015. This flexibility is limited to a maximum of 500 million per annum. Local Enterprise Partnerships Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what assessment he has (a) made and (b) commissioned of the effectiveness of local enterprise partnerships and their operation.
[162782]
Michael Fallon: The Government do not carry out formal assessments of the effectiveness of local enterprise partnerships. As partnerships of business and civic leaders, local enterprise partnerships are first and foremost accountable to their local community and local businesses. Post Offices Mike Crockart: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what progress the Government has made in achieving its aim of making the Post Office a front office for local and national [162333] government. Jo Swinson: Under EU procurement rules Government Departments, their agencies and local authorities must procure services in a competitive tendering process. The Post Office, with its network of over 11,500 branches, is well placed to become a provider of front office services, helping citizens interact with Government either face-to-face or online. Post Office Ltd has shown that it can competitively tender for new work, and since March 2011 has won the following contracts:
DVLA Front Office Counter Services (identity verification and enrolment, also a framework contract that can be used by other Government Departments and agencies) UK Borders Agency (biometric residency permits) Taxi and Private Hire (previously Public Carriage Office) (identity verification for CRB checks) Care Quality Commission (identity verification for CRB checks) Driver Standards Agency (identity Verification for CRB checks) Skills Funding Agency (identity verification for the Learner Passport scheme) DWP ID Framework (ensures a customer has a trusted identity before accessing online services. This framework contract has been transferred to GPS in the Cabinet Office) London Public Service Network (identity enrolment for local authority employees) Westminster city council (contract to provide a number of face to face council services) London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (contract to provide a number of face to face council services)
583W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
584W
I am hopeful that the Post Office will be able to build on this success to bid competitively for, and win, further front office for Government work. Post Offices: Rhyl
May 2013. To obtain this information for previous months, from May 2010 would result in disproportionate costs.
BIS headcount (including UKTI) 2010
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what progress has been made on the closure of Rhyl Crown post office.
[162908]
May June July August September October November December 2011 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2013 January February March April May BIS location London
3,607 3,679 3,653 3,517 3,597 3,577 3,256 3,249
Jo Swinson: The Government is fully committed to modernising the post office network and to safeguarding its future. This is why we are investing 1.34 billion over the next two years to modernise the network, helping the post office to compete in a changing retail market with no programme of closures. Ensuring that the heavy losses of the Crown post office segment of the network are eliminated to reach break-even by 2015 is a key element of the strategy to make the network sustainable. The Government does not have any role in the franchising proposals for Crown post office branches such as Rhyl. The development and implementation, following local public consultation, of such proposals is an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. Prisons: Education Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how many educational qualifications were awarded to prisoners in (a) 2010, (b) 2011 and (c) 2012 by (i) type of qualification and [163029] (ii) prison. Matthew Hancock: Information on the number of Offenders Learning and Skills Service (OLASS) courses enrolled on and achieved by sector subject area, is available at the following link:
http://www.thedataservice.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FA56D899CCCA-4D1A-A9DB-8B2A78DF4AC2/0/ January2013_OLASS_Aims_SSA.xls
3,236 3,275 3,297 3,291 3,286 3,212 2,993 2,994 2,999 3,008 3,014 3,009
3,068 3,003 3,029 3,083 3,115 3,121 3,116 3,108 3,110 3,142 3,105 3,109
Information on OLASS learner participation and achievement by level is available at the following link:
http://www.thedataservice.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/11E30F3FC15D-4C8B-9064-710454EEC3F5/0/ January2013_OLASS_Participation Achievement.xls
3,129 3,142 3,149 3,080 3,080 Headcount May 2013 2,589 252 15 28 42 2 9 10 54 28 1 17 11
Final data are shown for the 2010/11 and 2011/12 academic years. Information on the number of OLASS achievement by prison name will be placed in the Libraries of the House as soon as it is received. Staff Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what the headcount of (a) his Department and (b) its Executive agencies and public bodies was in each month since May 2010, [162781] broken down by office location. Jo Swinson: The following table shows the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) headcount by each month since May 2010. We can only provide a breakdown by office location for the current month,
Sheffield Leeds Nottingham Manchester Birmingham Guildford Runcorn Cardiff Glasgow Wiltshire Gateshead Darlington
585W
BIS location Billingham Dorset Newcastle Bristol Warrington
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
586W
Headcount May 2013 2 1 4 11 4
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/newsarchive/2013/ name,76313,en.html
The figures for 2010-11 and 2011-12 are estimated using data from the HE Finance Plus report, published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), which can be found here:
http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_ pubs&task=show_pub_detail&pubid=1710&Itemid=276
All BIS core (including UKTI) headcount data is published on a monthly basis and can be found at the following link:
http://www.bis.gov.uk/transparency/staff
TRANSPORT Cycling: Accidents Lindsay Roy: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cyclists have been (a) killed and (b) seriously injured on the UKs roads for each of the last 3 years; and what steps the Government has taken [162901] to improve cycling safety. Stephen Hammond: The number of reported pedal cyclists that have been (a) killed and (b) seriously injured in Great Britain in each of last three years are given in the following table.
Number of reported pedal cycle casualties in Great Britain: 2010-12 Number of casualties Pedal cyclists 2010 111 2,660 2011 107 3,085 2012 118 3,222
BIS reports annually to the Office of National Statistics on headcount data by location and information for 2010/11 and 2011/12 can be found at the following link:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-referencetables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-279335
I have asked chief executives of the Executive agencies to respond directly to the hon. Member. This information is not held by BIS in respect of non-departmental public bodies. Copies of the chief executives letters will be placed in the Library of the House. Students: Fees and Charges Kevin Brennan: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what the anticipated revenue from tuition fees charged in higher education institutions in England in each year since 2010 will be; [162987] and if he will make a statement. Mr Willetts: Estimates of future income from tuition fees were published in the January 2013 grant letter to the Higher Education Funding Council for England. These are shown as follows, alongside estimates of income for 2010-11 and 2011-12.
Fee income from students subject to regulated fees1 Financial year 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
1
Killed Seriously injured
million 3,000 3,200 4,200 5,800 7,100
Estimated income for 2010-11 and 2011-12. Forecasts for 2012-13 onwards
These figures cover full-time and part-time, home and EU domiciled students at institutions in England. They exclude those whose fees are paid by the Department of Health. The grant letter to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) for 2013-14 can be found here:
Together with local contributions, earlier this year we announced 40 million of funding for cycle safety schemes in England outside London. The funding will improve the design and layout of roads at 78 locations across the country, with all schemes due for completion within the next 12 months. Also, 94 out of the 96 schemes in the 600 million Local Sustainable Transport Fund include a cycling element. We have given local authorities flexibility to introduce 20 mph speed limits in residential areas and a process for applications for further rural 40 mph zones. We have also made it easier for authorities to install Trixi mirrors to improve the visibility of cyclists at junctions. Furthermore, our THINK! campaign, THINK CYCLIST, highlights the importance of drivers and cyclists looking out for each other. Driving: Licensing Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much the application fee for a new driving licence was in each of the last 10 years. [157470] Stephen Hammond: The following table shows the fees for all driving licences since 2001:
Licence type First provisional Car Bus or lorry First full Car or motorcycle Bus or lorry After revocation
From 15 November 2001
From 1 March 2004
From 1 May 2007
From 1 April 2008
From 6 April 2009
29.00 29.00
38.00 Free
45.00 Free
50.00 Free
50.00 Free
12.00 12.00
9.00
Free Free Free
Free Free Free
Free Free Free
Free Free
587W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
588W
Licence type After disqualification till test pass Renewal From age 70 For medical reasons Bus or lorry After disqualification After drink drive disqualification (HRO) Duplicate Lost or stolen After revocation Exchange Add or remove entitlement Remove expired endorsements Remove expired 25KW motorcycle restriction Paper licence for Photocard Full Northern Ireland licence First full EC/EEA or other foreign licence Full valid EC/EEA or other non-GB licence(including Channel Islands and Isle of Man) if previous full GB licence held Replacement Change of name/address (existing licence surrendered) Change of name/address (existing licence lost/stolen) Vanity/renewal of photo on licence
1 2 3
From 15 November 2001
From 1 March 2004 Free
From 1 May 2007 Free
From 1 April 2008 Free
From 6 April 2009 Free
6.00 Free 29.00 35.00 50.00 17.00
Free Free Free 50.00 75.00 19.00 38.00
Free Free Free 60.00 85.00 22.00 45.00
Free Free Free 65.00 90.00 17.50 50.00
Free Free Free 65.00 90.00 20.00 50.00
18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 29.00 Free 17.00

2
Free 19.00 19.00 19.00 Free 38.00 Free 19.00
Free 22.00 22.00 10.00 Free 45.00 Free Free 22.00 Free
3
Free 17.50 17.50 17.50 Free 50.00 Free Free 17.50 17.50
Free 20.00 20.00 20.00 Free 50.00 Free Free 20.00 20.00
If first provisional before 1 March 20049.00; if after, Free. Since February 2006 From 16 May 2008
East Coast Railway Line Ian Mearns: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what precautions are in place to avoid cartel collusion by potential bidders for the ECML franchise.
[162075]
Railways: Finance George Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much each train operator had to pay in rail access charges in each year between 2004 and 2012.
[162235]
Mr Simon Burns: All bidders for the East Coast Mainline (ECML) franchise will be required to enter into a franchise letting process agreement in which they sign up to anti-collusion provisions. The ECML franchise competition is subject to UK competition law as enforced by the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission. High Speed 2 Railway Line Alec Shelbrooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what comparative studies his Department has conducted of the qualifying distance for compensation paid to land and property owners under (a) High Speed 2 and (b) comparable schemes in other [162351] EU member states. Mr Simon Burns: Legal and administrative frameworks relating to land tenure, infrastructure development, compulsory purchase and compensation vary substantially across EU member states, so we have no reason to believe a comparative study of that kind would produce relevant or useful information. The Department, therefore, has not conducted this sort of comparative study.
Mr Simon Burns: The data requested refers to transactions between private train operating companies and Network Rail which is not held by the Department. However, information for recent years is contained within Network Rails Regulatory Financial Statements which are available on their website at:
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browsedirectory .aspx?dir=%5Crequlatory%20documents %5Cregulatory %20compliance%20and%20reporting%5Cregulatory%2 0accounts&root
George Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he plans to increase rail access charges. [162236] Mr Simon Burns: The Office of Rail Regulation determines the appropriate level of track access charges through its periodic reviews of Network Rails costs and charges. The periodic review for the next five-year control period is in progress and ORR published its draft conclusions on 12 June, which are open to consultation until 4 September:
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/pr13/consultations/draftdetermination.php
589W
Written Answers Railways: Industrial Disputes
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
590W
Andy McDonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been paid in each year since 1996 by his Department to reimburse or ameliorate net losses of a franchised operator arising from industrial [162794] action. Norman Baker: The total amounts paid to train operators, in each year when any such payments were made, were as follows:
2003 2004 2006 1 Less than. 15,650,000 7,630,567 1 250,000
Mr Simon Burns: There are currently no plans to remove or amend the provision for train operating companies to seek the agreement of the Secretary of State before altering the class designations of rolling stock. Speed Limits: Cameras Michael Dugher: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Departments latest guidelines for the placement of speed cameras specifies that speed [162142] camera housings must be coloured yellow. Stephen Hammond: It is for local authorities and police to decide whether or not to use speed cameras and how they wish to operate them. The Departments latest guidance on the placement, visibility and signing of speed cameras was contained in DFT Circular 01/2007. Transport: Rural Areas Eric Ollerenshaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to improve transport links in rural areas (a) nationally and (b) in the North [162181] West. Norman Baker: The Government has made investment in transport a top priority since 2010. Our investment will support jobs and growth and give confidence to industry, attracting inward investment. The Government will make sure all parts of the country benefit from this investment. In looking at rural areas we will continue to work closely with ministers and officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Governments Rural Statement was published in September 2012 and this links fair access to services in rural areas, including transport, with the need for rural businesses to make a sustainable contribution to national growth. At a local level the Local Transport Bodies and the in future Local Enterprise Partnerships will have an increasingly important role to play in deciding transport investment priorities for their areas with the creation of the Single Local Growth Fund. Importantly they can now do this with the benefit of the longer term commitment to funding infrastructure announced in the Spending Review. The Government has already committed funding to support the provision of significant transport links in the North West. These include for instance road schemes that will assist rural areas such as the Heynsham to M6 link. At a more local level the Governments Local Sustainable Transport Fund is supporting innovative schemes in rural part of the NW, such as the Lake District Sustainable Visitor Transport Beacon project. The Government also recognises and supports the role that Community Travel plays in providing transport links in rural areas. We have provided 20m specifically to help local authorities in rural areas foster community travel initiatives in their areas. Furthermore, we will soon be announcing successful bidders for the Cycling National Parks Grant, which as well as targeting improving cycle infrastructure is aimed at linking rural communities. We have also continued to encourage the creation of Community Rail Partnerships, examples of existing partnerships include a number in the NW, such as the Cumbria Coastal Line and Community Rail Lancashire
The payments in 2003 and 2004 were made by the Strategic Rail Authority rather than the Department for Transport. Railways: Overcrowding Richard Fuller: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the frequency with which railway passengers are required to stand for more than 20 minutes as a result of train [162355] overcrowding. Norman Baker: The Department for Transport publishes an annual statistical release on Rail passenger numbers and crowding on weekdays in major cities in England and Wales. The latest publication based on 2011 data can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/49880/rail-passengers-crowding-2011revised.pdf
The statistics show rail passenger numbers on trains throughout the day in several major cities, as well as the levels of peak crowding. Tables Rai0212 and Rai0213 show the total number of passengers standing in the peaks on arrival into and on departure from major stations on a typical day:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/49881/rail-passenger-xls-tablesrevised.zip
Roads: Repairs and Maintenance Graham Stringer: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what meetings have been held and with whom to review the road maintenance block grant since 1 January 2010; and what the outcome was of [162256] those meetings. Norman Baker: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 June 2013, Official Report, column 678W. Rolling Stock: Procurement Richard Fuller: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will remove the requirement in the National Rail franchise terms for train operating companies to seek his agreement before altering the [162350] class designations of rolling stock.
591W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
592W
which includes 5 related partnerships: - Clitheroe Line; East Lancashire; Leeds, Lancaster and Morecambe; South Fylde and West of Lanes. Additionally the Green Bus Fund has helped to support 4 new low carbon buses in Cumbria. Finally the Government has confirmed in the Spending Review that spending on buses will be protected for 2015/16, in recognition of the important role buses play as the backbone of the public transport system and key to a healthy, growing economy. Spending on buses plays an important role in providing transport in rural areas. The Government has also previously announced its intention to devolve around half of the existing Bus Service Operators Grant budget to local authorities to give them greater say over how that money should be spent. An announcement will be made very shortly on the final arrangements for implementing these changes.
Mr Lidington: The UK action plan on business and human rights has been developed across Whitehall and in consultation with businesses, industry-led associations and civil society. We hope to launch it soon but do not yet have a confirmed date. Human Trafficking Jim Shannon: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with which countries the UK operates a joint investigation team [161905] into human trafficking. Mr Harper: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Home Department. The UK is currently operating five joint investigation teams with: Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Sweden. Russia
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE Billing Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the average cost to his Department was of processing the payment of an invoice in the latest period for which figures are available; and what proportion of invoices settled in that period his Department paid (a) electronically and [162633] (b) by cheque. Mr Lidington: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) paid 61.5% of global invoices electronically and 29.2% of global invoices by cheque in May 2013. The residual balance is made up of small cash payments made by its overseas offices. The FCOs global operation means that payment of invoices is devolved to its overseas offices and therefore the average cost of processing the payment of an invoice on a global basis is not held centrally, and could be supplied only at disproportionate cost. In the UK, the FCO settles all invoices electronically. The average cost of processing an invoice for payment at the FCOs UK Corporate Service Centre in Milton Keynes is 2.53 for the month of May 2013. British Overseas Territories Dr Offord: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which British Overseas Territories have ratified the Aarhus Convention to Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in [162338] Environmental Matters. Mark Simmonds: The UKs ratification of the Convention, which was deposited with the UN on 23 February 2005, does not currently extend to any of the UK Overseas Territories. Human Rights: Business Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there is a confirmed date for the launch of the National Action [162224] Plan on business and human rights.
Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has had discussions with the Olympic Association on the implications for holding the Winter Olympics at Sochi of the tightening of anti-gay laws in Russia. [162375] Mr Lidington: I am deeply concerned by the recent decision of the Russian Federation Council to approve a Bill which bans the distribution of gay propaganda. This decision will further marginalise the LGBT community in Russia. I am also concerned by the draft law banning foreign adoptions by same-sex couples and by single people in countries where same-sex marriage is legal. The Prime Minister raised concerns on a wide range of human rights issues, including the rights of all people to freedom of expression, in his meeting with President Putin in London on 16 June. I have not had any discussions with the Olympic Association on this topic.
EDUCATION Children: Human Trafficking Nicola Blackwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to prevent the re-trafficking of child victims of trafficking placed in [162548] local authority care. Mr Timpson: Local authorities have well-established child support arrangements in place to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in need of protection, including trafficked children. The arrangements also include preventing and mitigating the risk of them going missing from care. Local authorities work in close co-operation with the police and, where appropriate, the immigration service to support and provide protection for potentially trafficked children. To improve the care of looked-after children, the Government has embarked on a major programme of reform and as a result of this work, the following consultations have just been launched:
593W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
594W
1. A consultation to strengthen safeguarding in childrens homes. 2. A consultation to strengthen safeguards for looked-after children placed out of authority. This consultation also contains proposals to strengthen scrutiny of decisions to cease looking after 16 and 17-year-olds. 3. A consultation on revised statutory guidance on children who run away and go missing from home or care. This final consultation includes specific advice on how to support and safeguard children who may have been trafficked, and to minimise the risk of these children potentially being re-trafficked.
first release National curriculum assessments at key stage 2 in England: academic year 2011 to-20122, National tables: SFR33/2012 link, tables 1 and 3. Table 1 provides an overall English level that pupils achieve at the end of key stage 2. Table 3 gives Reading and Writing test and teacher assessment results of pupils at the end of key stage 2. The drop-down function at the top of the page allows you to view numbers and percentages.
2
Further information can be found-on. the Departments website1. The Government has also asked the Refugee Council and The Childrens Society to carry out a review of the practical care arrangements for children in care who may have been trafficked, and we expect this to report shortly.
1
Note: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nationalcurriculum-assessments-at-key-stage-2-in-england-academicyear-2011-to-2012
https://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/
The information on the number of pupils at the end of key stage 3 (aged 14) attaining different levels in teacher assessments is available from our statistical first release Provisional GCSE and equivalent results and national curriculum teacher assessments at key stage 3 in England: academic year 2011 to 20123, Additional tables 1: SFR25/2012 link, table 1.
3
Children: Literacy Kevin Brennan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many school children in each age cohort in England are judged to be illiterate; and if he [163021] will make a statement. Mr Laws: The requested information is not held by the Department. The Department collects attainment information at the end of each key stage. The information on the number of pupils at the end of key stage 1 (aged 7) achieving each level in teacher assessments is available from our statistical first release Phonics screening check and national curriculum assessments at key stage 1 in England: 20121, KS1, national tables: SFR21/2012link, table 13. The drop-down function at the top of the page allows you to view numbers and percentages.
1
Note: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/provisionalgcse-and-equivalent-results-and-national-curriculum-teacherassessments-at-key-stage-3-in-england-academic-year-2011to-2012
The number of pupils at the end of key stage 4 (aged 16) achieving A*-G grades in English GCSE, or another functional skills, key skills or basic skills qualification in English at Level 1 or above, was 591,768 (95.2% of the cohort). GCSE: Disadvantaged Kevin Brennan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the proportion of children who attained five or more GCSEs at A* to C grade at schools where (a) more than 50 per cent, (b) between 35 and 50 per cent, (c) between 21 and 35 per cent, (d) between 13 and 21 per cent, (e) between nine and 13 per cent, (f) between five and nine per cent and (g) fewer than five per cent of children were receiving free school meals in each year since 2010; and if he will make a statement.
[162767]
Note: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/phonicsscreening-check-and-national-curriculum-assessments-at-keystage-1-in-england-2012
The information on the number of pupils at the end of key stage 2 (aged 11) attaining different levels in tests and teacher assessments is available from our statistical
Mr Laws: The information requested is provided in the following table.
Percentage of pupils at the end of key stage 4 achieving 5 or more GCSEs at grade A*-C or equivalent1 by percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM). Years: 2009/10 to 2011/122. Coverage: England, state-funded schools (including Academies and CTCs)3 Percentage of all pupils achieving 5+ GCSEs at grade A*-C or equivalent at schools where percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals was Less than 5%4 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
1
Greater than or equal to 5% but less than 9%4 78.6 82 84.3
Greater than or equal to 9% but less than 13%4 73.8 80.4 83.1
Greater than or equal to 50%4 62.4 66.1 65.5
83.7 86.9 88.8
From 2009/10 iGCSEs, accredited at time of publication, have been counted as GCSE equivalents. 2 All figures are based on final data. 3 Includes pupils who have recently arrived from overseas. 4 Percentage of FSM pupils has been calculated from the number of eligible pupils at the end of key stage 4 attending schools who are eligible for FSM. Source: National Pupil Database
Languages: GCE A-level Eric Ollerenshaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps his Department is taking to encourage students to take a modern language subject [162324] through to A Level.
Elizabeth Truss: The introduction of the English Baccalaureate performance measure in 2010 was intended to encourage students to study a strong academic core, including a modern language, at GCSE. A survey conducted for the Department for Education by Ipsos Mori in
595W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
596W
2012 estimates that 54% of all key stage 4 pupils are studying towards a language GCSE in 2014up from 43% in 2010. This will provide a strong foundation for progression to study of modern languages through to A level and beyond. We are taking further steps to improve the teaching of modern foreign languages. From 2014, the teaching of languages at key stage 2 will be statutory, so that all pupils will have had a solid grounding in languages before they start secondary school. The new national curriculum programmes of study and GCSE subject content requirements will make sure that study of modern foreign languages, and of ancient languages, is appropriately challenging and fulfilling. Languages: Teachers Kevin Brennan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many primary school language teachers were recruited in each year since 2010; how many (a) primary teachers and (b) primary teaching assistants have been given training to teach foreign languages to their pupils since 2010; and if he will make a statement.
[162756]
The relevant information is contained within the link National tables: SFR33/2012. Table 1 provides the overall level that pupils achieved in English at the end of key stage 2 in 2010 and 2012. Table 3 gives the reading and writing test and teacher assessment results of pupils at the end of key stage 2 in 2012. This information for 2010 is available in our statistical first release National curriculum assessments at key stage 2: Englandacademic year 2009 to 2010 (revised), which can be found at the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nationalcurriculum-assessments-at-key-stage-2-england-academicyear-2009-to-2010-revised
The relevant information is contained in table 3 within the link National and local authority tables: SFR36/2010. Ministers Private Offices Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will reduce the number of staff [162845] employed in his private ministerial office. Elizabeth Truss: We have taken significant steps to reduce the cost of staffing the ministerial private office of the Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). As shown in the following table, the annual cost of staffing the Secretary of States ministerial private office has been reduced by more than 120,000 under this Government.
Financial year 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 Staff cost () 499,976 586,539 531,491 623,966
Mr Laws: The Department for Education does not collect information on teacher recruitment by schools for subject specialisms, or on how many teachers have received language training on the job or have language degrees or A-levels. The Department does not hold data on the employment, deployment or training of teaching assistants. Training for teaching assistants is determined locally and data on training will also be held locally. Legal Costs Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much his Department spent on external lawyers fees in the last year for which figures are [162513] available. Elizabeth Truss: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) on 10 June 2013, Official Report 130W. Literacy: Primary Education Kevin Brennan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of pupils aged 11 met the standard of literacy for that age (a) in May 2010 and (b) on the latest date for which information is [162975] available. Mr Laws: In 2012, the overall English level was calculated from reading test results and writing teacher assessment rather than from reading and writing tests as in previous years. The overall English level in 2012 is therefore not directly comparable to previous years. Information for 2012 on the levels achieved by pupils at the end of key stage 2 (aged 11) in tests and teacher assessments is published in our statistical first release, National curriculum assessments at key stage 2 in England: academic year 2011 to 2012, which can be found at the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nationalcurriculum-assessments-at-key-stage-2-in-england-academicyear-2011-to-2012
MITIE Group Mr Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much his Department spends on contracts with MITIE; and how much was spent on contracts with MITIE in each year since 2008. [162462] Elizabeth Truss: The following table provides the total spend that has been made by the Department in each of the last five years:
million 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 3.542 1.864 4.485 2.894 0.704
There has been no spend on contracts with MITIE in the first two months of the 2013-14 financial year. Since January 2011, central Government Departments have been required to publish on Contracts Finder1 information on the contracts they award. In addition, Departments publish details of spend in excess of 25,000.
1
www.contractsfinder.businesslink.gov.uk/
597W
Written Answers Politics: Education
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
598W
Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether his Department plans to make [162865] political education compulsory. Elizabeth Truss: We have confirmed that citizenship will remain a compulsory subject within the national curriculum at key stages 3 and 4. The draft programmes of study which we published in February 2013 propose that pupils should be taught about politics, including voting, elections and the role of political parties. We are
currently considering responses to the public consultation on those programmes of study, and will make a further announcement shortly. Pupils Kevin Brennan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many maintained schools have fewer than (a) 40, (b) 50, (c) 60, (d) 70, (e) 80, (f) 90 and (g) 100 pupils; and if he will make a statement. [162753] Mr Laws: The number of schools broken down by pupil numbers is given in the following table:
Number of schools in England by pupil numbers (headcount)1 Number of schools 21,844 17,835 899 394 (a) Fewer than 40 pupils 697 296 75 293 (b) Fewer than 50 pupils 1,036 546 133 313 (c) Fewer than 60 pupils 1,409 824 205 328 (d) Fewer than 70 pupils 1,881 1,168 295 341 (e) Fewer than 80 pupils 2,370 1,545 382 347 (f) Fewer than 90 pupils 2,906 1,968 464 360 (g) Fewer than 100 pupils 3,454 2,423 539 365
School type State-funded schools2 of which: Local authority maintained mainstream schools3 Local authority maintained special school Local authority maintained pupil referral unit
1 As at January 2013, pupils with sole or dual main registrations (also includes other and FE college registrations for pupils in pupil referral units and alternative provision academies/free schools). 2 Includes local authority maintained schools, nurseries and pupil referral units. Also includes direct grant nurseries, city technology colleges, academies, free schools, university technical colleges and studio schools. 3 Includes local authority maintained nursery schools. Source: School Census
Pupils: Disadvantaged Kevin Brennan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information his Department possesses on the proportion of students (a) on free school meals, (b) in families dependent on benefits, (c) considered to be from more deprived backgrounds as available indicators in (i) academies, (ii) free schools and (iii) comprehensive schools; and if he will make a [162986] statement. Mr Laws: The School Census collects data for individual pupils in state-funded schools where they are known to be eligible for and claiming free school meals. To be entitled to free school meals pupils must be within a family in receipt of benefits, but the Department does not hold other data on the benefits that families receive or on other indicators of deprivation at student level. Information on the percentage of pupils known to be eligible for and claiming free school meals was published in the publication Schools, pupils and their characteristics, January 20131. Table 3a in that publication shows the percentage of pupils in state-funded primary and secondary schools known to be eligible for and claiming free school meals. Table 3c shows the percentage of pupils known to be eligible for and claiming free school meals in academies and free schools. Information on the number and percentage of pupils known to be eligible for and claiming free school meals for each school is provided in that publications underlying data. This includes school type and admissions policy.
1
Pupils: Per Capita Costs Kevin Brennan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what the average annual standard spending assessment is for each (a) primary school and (b) secondary school pupil in England; and if he will make a statement. [162988] Mr Laws: The Department does not make an average annual standard spending assessment for school pupils. Local authorities receive a fixed amount of funding per pupil and use a local formula to decide funding allocations for the schools in their area. The fixed amount of per pupil funding currently differs for each local authority. We will consult on the introduction of a national funding formula for 2015-16 so that all pupils are funded on a comparable basis. Kevin Brennan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what the total (a) local and (b) national government expenditure on each pupil in state secondary schools was in 2012-13 ; and if he will make [162989] a statement. Mr Laws: Local authorities receive a fixed amount of revenue funding per pupil and use a local formula to decide funding allocations for the schools in their area. The average amount allocated at a national level in 2012-13 to local authorities for pupils aged three to 15 was 5,083. The average amount allocated by local authorities to each pupil in maintained secondary schools in 2012-13 was 5,344. Kevin Brennan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what his estimate is of the average expenditure on (a) secondary school places per pupil
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/schools-pupilsand-their-characteristics-january-2013
599W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
600W
in the state sector and (b) secondary school places per day pupil in the independent sector; and if he will make [163031] a statement. Mr Laws: The average amount allocated by local authorities to each pupil in maintained secondary schools in 2012-13 was 5,344. This excludes capital spending and the pupil premium. The Independent Schools Council 2013 census1 provides information on the fees of its members on page 16. A copy will be placed in the House Library.
1 http://www.isc.co.uk/Resources/ Independent%20Schools%20Council/Research%20Archive/ Annual%20Census/2013_annualcensus_isc.pdf
the provision of PE and sport in primary schools, including improving access to competitive team sports.
1 http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/beyond-2012outstanding-physical-education-for-all
Sir Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what regulations are in place regarding compulsory sport and physical education in schools; and what initiatives his Department has in place to encourage (a) more girls to participate in school sports, (b) more sport to be played outdoors and (c) [162317] sports for school-leavers. Mr Timpson: Section 78 of the Education Act 2002 requires all maintained schools to provide a broad and balanced curriculum. Similarly section 1(6) of the Academies Act 2010 requires academies to provide a broad and balanced curriculum. Under these regulations all maintained schools are required to follow the national curriculum in which physical education (PE) is, and will remain, compulsory at all four stages. This applies equally for boys and girls. We trust teachers to know what best suits the particular needs of their pupils, and do not prescribe whether physical activity should take place inside or outside. The Government has announced additional ring-fenced funding of 150 million per annum to improve provision of PE and sport in primary schools. The Department of Health is also funding the Womens Sport and Fitness Foundation to build on the Changing the Game for Girls programme. The Department for Culture Media and Sports Youth and Community Sport Strategy is delivering significant results, including better facilities and more opportunities for young people to play sport regularly beyond school. For example, Sportivate is a 56 million legacy programme that gives 14 to 25-year-olds access to coaching and encourages them to participate in sport beyond school and at local community sports clubs. Serco Mr Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much his Department currently spends on contracts with Serco; and how much was spent in [162933] each year since 2008. Elizabeth Truss: The following table provides the total spend that has been made by the Department in each of the last five financial years.
Financial year 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Total spend (million) 11.88 14.62 22.70 1.55 3.94
Schools: Sports Sir Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps his Department is taking to encourage team sports in lower-performing schools and deprived areas; and what research his Department has carried out on a link between increased participation in sport at school and reduced crime [162151] rates. Mr Timpson: The draft national curriculum programmes of study for physical education (PE) place a far greater emphasis on team and competitive sport in schools in all areas of the country. We have also introduced the School Games, which are encouraging greater participation in competitive sport across the country, both within and between schools. In March 2013 the Prime Minister announced additional ring-fenced funding of 150 million per annum to support provision of PE and sport in primary schools, including improving access to competitive team sports. The Department has not conducted any research into a link between increased participation in sport at school and reduced crime rates. Sir Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the effect of the removal of ring-fenced funding for school sports on the quality and quantity of sport provision [162152] and participation in school sports. Mr Timpson: While the School Sports Partnerships were successful in helping some schools to raise participation levels in areas targeted by the previous Government, the proportion of pupils playing competitive sport regularly remained disappointingly low. Schools remain free to work in partnership to deliver physical education (PE) and sport for their pupils if they wish; they are merely no longer required to do so. The Department no longer collects data on the quality and quantity of sport provision and participation in school sports, as it placed a burden on schools that distracted them from the provision of PE and school sport. The recent Ofsted report, Beyond 2012outstanding physical education for all, published in February 2013, recognised that there was more good and outstanding PE in schools than when their previous survey was published in 20081. In March 2013 the Prime Minister announced additional ring-fenced funding of 150 million per annum to support
Total spend in the first two months of the 2013-14 financial year made by the Department is 215,711.90. Since January 2011, central Government Departments have been required to publish on Contracts Finder1 information on the contracts they award. In addition, Departments publish details of spend in excess of 25,000.
www.contractsfinder.businesslink.gov.uk/
601W
Written Answers Standards and Testing Agency
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
602W
Eric Ollerenshaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much the Chief Executive of the [162082] Standards and Testing Agency is paid. Elizabeth Truss: The salary of the chief executive of the Standards and Testing Agency is published on the GOV.UK website as part of the Governments Transparency Agenda. This information has been placed in the House Library.
http://reference.data.gov.uk/gov-structure/organogram/ ?dept=dfe&post=DFE-1003
To preserve the individual confidentiality of the Deputy Directors, a band rather than salary amount is provided as follows:
Deputy DirectorPay band 1 Ceiling Cabinet Office Referral Point Minimum 117,800 90,000 58,200
Eric Ollerenshaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Education for what reason three deputy directors are employed by the Standards and Testing Agency; and [162146] what their annual salaries are. Elizabeth Truss: The responsibilities of the three Deputy Directors are as follows: The Deputy Director for Test Development is responsible for developing statutory tests. This division comprises three units:
psychometrics and assessment; test development research; and test development support and delivery.
Eric Ollerenshaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many staff are employed at the Standards and Testing Agency; and what the annual [162184] staffing cost is of this body. Elizabeth Truss: In 2012-13, the staffing costs for the Standards and Testing Agency were 5.1 million with 89 full-time equivalent staff employed. This is inclusive of wages, social security and pension costs. CABINET OFFICE Childbirth Damian Hinds: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what information his Department (a) collects and (b) holds on the average age of mothers at the birth of their first child in each government office [163064] region. Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply. Letter from Glen Watson, dated July 2013:
As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your recent questions on what information is (a) collected and (b) held on the average age of mothers at the birth of their first child in each Government office region [163064]. Birth registration is a legal requirement under the Births and Deaths Registration Act (1836). The registration of births occurring in England and Wales is a service carried out by the Local Registration Service in partnership with the General Register Office (GRO), part of Her Majestys Passport Office. Information collected at birth registration is recorded on a Registration Online (RON) system by Registrars. Most of the information is normally supplied by the parent(s). Birth registration data are supplied by GRO to the Office for National Statistics for statistical purposes. At birth registration in England and Wales, information is collected on the mothers age at the time of birth. However until late May 2012, information on previous children was only collected from mothers giving birth within marriage, so for births outside marriage (47% of alt births in 2011) it was not possible to identify whether a birth was a first or later birth to that mother. In order to estimate birth order for all births, ONS combines the data from birth registrations with survey data, enabling estimation of mean age at first birth at the national level. However it is not possible to produce robust estimates at regional level using this method, so the information requested does not exist. In 2011, the standardised mean age at first childbirth in England and Wales as a whole was 27.9 years. Since late May 2012, information on previous children has been collected from all mothers at birth registration, but this new information has not yet been published. The new data may enable a wider range of information on this topic at subnational level to be published in future but there are no plans for regional estimates at present.
The division is accountable for producing valid and reliable tests that meet the purposes set out by Ministers. They are also responsible for setting standards on the tests, working closely with curriculum and assessment policy teams within the Department, and maintaining those standards in a rigorous and transparent way. The Deputy Director for Test Operations is responsible for delivering statutory tests, including the operational aspects of the test development process. This division is accountable for ensuring that test papers are printed and delivered into schools in sufficient time to administer the tests, marking processes are valid and produce reliable outcomes for pupils, and results are returned to schools by the deadline. The Deputy Director for Test Support is responsible for supporting stakeholders to deliver the tests and providing support services to other divisions within Standards and Testing Agency (STA). This division is made up of three units:
test administration; moderation; and commercial.
The test administration unit is responsible for developing guidance, ensuring that tests are administered appropriately in schools and managing relationships with external stakeholders, including Ofqual. The moderation unit supports moderation arrangements at Early Years Foundation Stage and key stage 1 to ensure the consistency and accuracy of teacher assessment data, and is responsible for supporting and implementing new arrangements for moderation at key stage 2. The commercial unit provides specialist servicessuch as security, procurement and contracts managementto support other units/divisions in the STA. In light of the DFE review and the challenging spending review process across central Government the STA will be consolidating to two divisions on 1 August 2013, reducing the number of Deputy Directors at the STA from three to two.
Damian Hinds: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what information his Department (a) collects and (b) holds on the average birth weight of babies in [163065] each government office region.
603W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
604W
Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply. Letter from Glen Watson, dated July 2013:
As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your recent questions on what information is (a) collected and (b) held on the average birthweight of babies in each Government office region [163065]. Birth registration is a legal requirement under the Births and Deaths Registration Act (1836). The registration of births occurring in England and Wales is a service carried out by the Local Registration Service in partnership with the General Register Office (GRO), part of Her Majestys Passport Office. Information collected at birth registration is recorded on a Registration Online (RON) system by Registrars. Most of the information is normally supplied by the parent(s). Birth registration data are supplied by GRO to the Office for National Statistics for statistical purposes. For live births, details of the birthweight are obtained from the birth notification (completed by the midwife or doctor in attendance at the birth). This information is then linked to the birth registration. For stillbirths, details of weight are taken from the medical certificate issued by a doctor or midwife. The certificate is supplied to the registrar by the informant and the weight is recorded electronically when the stillbirth is registered. If the birthweight is missing, but the registration is linked to the birth notification then the birthweight from the notification is taken. ONS publishes annual birth statistics showing the number and percentage of live births and stillbirths by birthweight and mothers region of usual residence in the Characteristics of Births 1 Package. Figures for 2011, the latest year, are available in tables 5 and 6 at: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-referencetables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-272512 ONS does not calculate average birthweight, however the tables included above provide an indication of the distribution of birthweight across the regions.
Mr Hurd: We do not hold volunteering rates for the specified areas. However the Community Life Survey, which covers England, shows that the proportion of people volunteering at least once a year has now increased from 65% in 2010-11 to 72% in August 2012 to January 2013, with an even bigger increase in the proportion of people volunteering regularly. This shows a change in the culture of volunteering that is not limited to those who volunteered to make the Olympic and Paralympic games a success. Significantly, this survey data reverses the steady decline in volunteering seen since 2005. We are committed to promoting volunteering opportunities in sport as part of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games legacy. Join In, the Olympic and Paralympic legacy charity are also meeting with organisations in Scotland, including Glasgow 2014 to ensure the lessons of the volunteering legacy are embedded in Glasgow 2014. Join In will be hosting the Go Local event at the Queen Elizabeth Olympic park on 19 July which will bring together 2012 volunteers and ask them to inspire others to get involved in their community.
DEFENCE Armed Forces David Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers in HM Armed Forces have [162188] access to a staff car. Mr Francois: Full information on the access of military officers to staff cars is not yet available as we are in the process of implementing significant reforms in the use of Ministry of Defence provided cars and drivers to reduce costs. In the future, most eligible officers will share pool cars as, under the car reforms, only officers of 4-star rank are entitled to an allocated car and driver. Armed Forces: Officers
Freedom of Information Anas Sarwar: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he plans to publish the draft open government [162916] partnership national action plan. Mr Hurd: The second iteration of the open government partnership (OGP) UK 2013 draft national action plan was published for consultation on 27 June 2013 at:
http://data.gov.uk/library/national-action-plan
The final OGPUK 2013 national action plan will be published by the end of October 2013. Our first national action plan was published on 20 September 2011 and is available at:
http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/ www.opengovpartnership.org/files/country_action_plans/ UnitedKingdom_actionPlan.doc
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the (a) Army, (b) Royal Navy and (c) Royal Air Force were at (i) one star, (ii) two star, (iii) three star and (iv) four star rank; and what proportion of such posts formed the total strength of each service in each of the last 10 years.
[159205]
Voluntary Work John Robertson: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what assessment he has made of the effect of the London Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012 on the rate of volunteering in (a) Glasgow North West constituency, (b) Glasgow, (c) Scotland and (d) the [162312] UK; (2) what estimate he has made of the number of people who volunteered in each month since September 2012; and what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in Scotland on plans to share best practice following the Commonwealth Games in [162316] 2014.
Mr Francois [holding answer 11 June 2013]: Reductions are being made in the number of stars and the number of starred posts. A positive reduction has already been achieved and we are currently ahead of this years target, and only seven off the required reduction for 2015. It is important to note that senior officers work not only in Command positions, but Staff posts in organisations such as PJHQ, Defence Equipment and Support, the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency, Finance, Capability, and a whole range of posts where they are not commanding a unit, but carrying out a senior post within the Department. The following figures set out the trajectory of reduction planned in the number of one to four star officers. One to Four Star Officers 1 April 2010:
500 (rounded figure)
605W 1 April 2013:

Projected level: 453 Actual: 436
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
606W
1 April 2020:
Projected level: 405
1 April 2015:
Projected level: 429
The following tables show the number of armed forces personnel by one, two, three and four star rank, by service, and the proportion of such posts compared to total strength in each year between 2004 and 2013:
Strength of naval service (comprising the Royal Navy, the Queens Alexandras Royal Naval Nursing Service and the Royal Marines) by rankone star and above At April each year: 2004 One star Two star Three star Four star Total strength 100 29 7 4 40,880 % of total strength 0.24 0.07 0.02 2005 80 36 7 3 39,940 % of total strength 0.21 0.09 0.02 2006 80 33 9 4 39,390 % of total strength 0.20 0.08 0.02 2007 80 33 8 3 38,850 % of total strength 0.19 0.08 0.02 2008 80 32 6 3 38,560 % of total strength 0.20 0.08 0.02
At April each year: 2009 One star Two star Three star Four Star Total strength 80 34 6 2 38,340 % of total strength 0.22 0.09 0.02 2010 80 29 9 2 38,730 % of total strength 0.22 0.07 0.02 2011 80 33 7 2 37,660 % of total strength 0.21 0.09 0.02 2012 80 31 8 2 35,540 % of total strength 0.23 0.09 0.02 2013 80 30 9 2 33,960 % of total strength 0.22 0.09 0.03
Strength of Army by rankone star and above At April each year: 2004 One star Two star Three star Four star Total strength 180 42 10 6 112,750 % of total strength 0.16 0.04 0.01 0.01 2005 180 46 11 7 109,290 % of total strength 0.16 0.04 0.01 0.01 2006 180 43 9 8 107,730 % of total strength 0.17 0.04 0.01 0.01 2007 180 42 12 6 106,340 % of total strength 0.17 0.04 0.01 0.01 2008 180 44 16 6 104,980 % of total strength 0.17 0.04 0.02 0.01
At April each year: 2009 One star Two star Three star Four star Total strength 190 43 17 5 106,700 % of total strength 0.18 0.04 0.02 2010 180 40 14 5 108,920 % of total strength 0.17 0.04 0.01 2011 170 43 9 6 106,240 % of total strength 0.16 0.04 0.01 0.01 2012 170 42 9 5 104,250 % of total strength 0.16 0.04 0.01 2013 150 44 10 5 99,730 % of total strength 0.15 0.04 0.01 0.01
Strength of Air Force by rankone star and above At April each year: 2004 One star Two star Three star Four star Total strength 90 34 4 4 53,390 % of total strength 0.17 0.06 2005 90 27 8 4 51,870 % of total strength 0.18 0.05 0.02 2006 90 27 8 2 48,730 % of total strength 0.19 0.06 0.02 2007 100 30 6 4 45,480 % of total strength 0.21 0.07 0.01 2008 100 25 6 3 43,370 % of total strength 0.22 0.06 0.01
At April each year: 2009 One star Two star Three star Four star 90 24 9 3 % of total strength 0.21 0.06 0.02 2010 90 26 8 3 % of total strength 0.21 0.06 0.02 2011 90 26 8 3 % of total strength 0.21 0.06 0.02 2012 80 28 8 3 % of total strength 0.20 0.07 0.02 2013 80 23 9 2 % of total strength 0.20 0.06 0.02
607W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
608W
At April each year: 2009 Total strength 43,560 % of total strength 2010 44,050 % of total strength 2011 42,460 % of total strength 2012 40,000 % of total strength 2013 37,030 % of total strength
Notes: 1. Total strength comprises trained and untrained UK Regular Forces and excludes Gurkhas, Full Time Reserve Service personnel and mobilised reservists. 2. Percentages are percentage of total strength per service. 3. Percentages are not calculated where strength numbers are lower than five. 4. Figures for total strength and one star personnel are rounded to the nearest 10. 5. Strengths for senior officers at two, three and four star level have been left unrounded so as not to obscure the data. 6. When rounding to the nearest 10, numbers ending in 5 have been rounded to the nearest multiple of 20 to prevent systematic bias. 7. Percentages are calculated from unrounded data.
Armed Forces: Railways Steve Rotheram: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information his Department holds on how many service personnel in Liverpool are currently entitled to an HM Forces Railcard. [162301] Mr Francois: All members of the regular armed forces and reservists undertaking full-time or permanent service are entitled to an HM Forces Railcard. As at 1 April 2013 there were 110 Regular and full-time reserve service personnel serving in the Liverpool area.
Notes: 1. This figure represents the number of personnel stationed in the Liverpool area, and may differ from the actual number of personnel working at that location e.g. due to deployment. 2. The number has been rounded to prevent systematic bias.
that payments to the contractor were made which went beyond those mandated in the written contract.
As a strong proponent of accountable and effective governance, best practice in budgetary control and financial management in NATO, the UK is extremely concerned at the serious nature of the audit findings. NATO has established a formal Board of Inquiry to investigate further the reasons behind the failings in governance and control, and to recommend improvements to working practices and procedures to prevent a recurrence. The Board of Inquiry report is awaited and the UK will judge our next steps in the light of its findings. We expect those responsible to be held fully to account, and action taken to prevent similar problems arising in the future. Nuclear Submarines Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 19 June 2013, Official Report, column 719W on HMS Tireless, on how many occasions radioactive emissions were vented to the atmosphere from nuclear powered submarines at Devonport Dockyard in each of the last five years; what quantity of radioactivity and which radionuclides were emitted in such fashion in each of the last three years; what the permitted levels of discharge are under such circumstances; and which regulatory agency sets [162431] such limits. Mr Dunne: I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested. Official Cars David Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many lease cars his Department has in service; and what the annual cost is of each such car.
[162323]
Army: Recruitment Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the closure of Rhyl Army Recruitment Centre. [162906] Mr Francois: The Rhyl Recruiting Clinic closed on 14 March 2013, as part of the wider reduction in the number of army recruiting offices across the UK. The hall where the office was collocated was formerly used by the Territorial Army and will continue to be used by cadets. The senior careers advisor in Wrexham is retaining a point of presence in Rhyl in order to make it easier for potential recruits to gain information and attend interviews. This service operates from a civilian employment agency on a Tuesday morning. The nearest permanent Army Recruiting Centres to Rhyl are located at Bangor and Wrexham. NATO Hugh Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 13 June 2013, Official Report, columns 31-49, on NATO, when the performance report on the supply of fuels to NATO forces in Afghanistan was published; what its key findings were; and what actions have since been taken by (a) the UK and (b) the NATO Secretariat to ensure [162247] that the findings are implemented. Mr Robathan: The report was issued by the International Board of Auditors on 24 September 2012 and its key findings were:
that a high-risk cost-plus arrangement was established without the management and control mechanism necessary to police it; that there was a failure to both validate charges raised by the contractor and to verify that invoices were in line with the contract conditions; and
Mr Dunne: The cost to the Ministry of Defence of providing the total number of individual lease cars in service globally and the annual cost of each such car is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Procurement Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many location of work codes on DEFFORM 57 indicate that contracts were located in (a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland; and if he will estimate the value of each such contract in each of the last five years; [154698]
609W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
Mine Countermeasure Vessels In service date
610W
(2) since what date the location of work codes have [154699] been collected on the DEFFORM 57; (3) whether his Department collects information on where the work of signed contracts and sub-contracts on DEFFORM 57 take place and on the value of each [154700] such contract. Mr Dunne [holding answer 13 May 2013]: As part of this Governments commitment to increase transparency, details of Ministry of Defence procurements valued at over 10,000 are published on Contracts Finder:
www.contractsfinder.businesslink.gov.uk
Build cost ( million)1 48 48 47 44 44 45
HMS Pembroke HMS Grimsby HMS Bangor HMS Ramsey HMS Blyth HMS Shoreham
1
September 1998 May 1999 December 1999 July 2000 February 2001 November 2001
The figures quoted above do not represent the total cost of the vessels. Some figures, such as those for Government Furnished Equipment, are no longer held centrally for each ship and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Type 45 Destroyers In service date
Science and Technology

HMS Daring July 2010 November 2010 August 2011 April 2012 March 2013
Peter Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of his Departments budget will be spent on science and technology in (a) 2013-14, (b) [162175] 2014-15 and (c) 2015-16. Mr Dunne: The Departments plans for funding the centralised Ministry of Defence Science and Technology Programme, under the Departments chief scientific adviser, as a proportion of the Departments budget, equate to 1.2%, 1.3% and 1.3% in financial years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively, meeting our intention to sustain science and technology investment at a minimum of 1.2% of the Defence budget. Warships Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is of building and equipping for sea a (a) minesweeper, (b) destroyer, (c) frigate, (d) nuclear submarine and (e) Trident-equipped submarine; how many such vessels are in active service; and when each such vessel was commissioned. [160693] Mr Dunne: The information requested is provided in the following table. The costs provided are based on actual costs at the time they were incurred and therefore do not reflect current build costs. They cover those vessels that have achieved their In Service Date (ISD). Total costs of equipping the platforms (which is an ongoing process through life), including those associated with Government Furnished Equipment, are not held centrally and could be provided at only disproportionate cost, ISDs have been provided as they more accurately reflect a ships availability for active service than commissioning dates.
Mine Countermeasure Vessels In service date Hunt Class HMS Ledbury HMS Cattistock HMS Brocklesby HMS Middleton HMS Chiddingfold HMS Hurworth HMS Atherstone HMS Quorn Sandown Class HMS Penzance January 1998 49 May 1981 May 1982 October 1982 July 1984 July 1984 June 1985 December 1986 January 1989 31 32 34 36 37 39 42 46 Build cost ( million)1
HMS Dauntless HMS Diamond HMS Dragon HMS Defender
HMS Duncan, the final ship in class, is expected to achieve her ISD in March 2014. The unit production cost for a T45 is 633 million. This figure includes the cost of the T45 platform and the Sea Viper missile system, but does not include the development costs of the T45 programme.
Type 23 Frigates In service date HMS Argyll HMS Lancaster HMS Iron Duke HMS Monmouth HMS Westminster HMS Montrose HMS Northumberland HMS Richmond HMS Somerset HMS Sutherland HMS Kent HMS Portland HMS St Albans November 1992 February 1993 November 1993 March 1994 March 1995 September 1995 October 1995 July 1996 February 1997 December 1997 December 2000 September 2001 September 2002 Build cost ( million)1 119 120 110 112 113 117 115 116 114 144 108 92 107
1 The figures quoted above do not represent the total cost of the vessels. Some figures, such as those for Government Furnished Equipment, are no longer held centrally for each ship and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Trafalgar Class submarines In service date HMS Tireless HMS Torbay HMS Trenchant HMS Talent HMS Triumph October 1985 March 1987 February 1989 May 1990 November 1991
The build costs of these vessels are no longer held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Astute Class submarines The first two (of seven) Astute Class submarines have achieved their ISD.
In service date HMS Astute HMS Ambush April 2010 November 2012
HMS Artful, the third boat in class, is currently in build.
611W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
612W
There is no unit cost for an Astute Class submarine as Boats one to three (Astute, Ambush, and Artful) were contracted as a batch with a total forecast cost of 3.4 billion, which includes cost of building the boats, the onboard communications system, and the tactical weapons system.
Vanguard Class submarines In service date HMS Vanguard HMS Victorious HMS Vigilant HMS Vengeance August 1992 March 1994 February 1996 March 1999
Mr Vaizey [holding answer 1 July 2013]: Broadband Delivery UK already has industry specialists within its ranks. These are additional to the civil servants working on the project. In the spending review the Government has announced that Broadband Delivery UK will be given greater operational freedom and an enhanced delivery focus, and will be equipped with the commercial skills it needs to deliver a broadband programme that will now extend to at least 2017. Lord Deighton will work with DCMS to determine how the new delivery model should be implemented. Broadband Delivery UK Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the funding required by Broadband Delivery UK.
[162203]
The total procurement cost for the four submarines was 3,587 million, which equates to approximately 897 million per submarine. This figure excludes the costs of the tactical and strategic weapons systems.
CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT Alcoholic Drinks: Marketing Seema Malhotra: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the amount spent by the alcohol industry on the [162751] promotion of alcohol. Mr Vaizey [holding answer 1 July 2013]: Ofcom recently published data on alcohol advertising spend, as part of its May 2013 report, Childrens and young peoples exposure to alcohol advertising, 2007-11. The total amount spent on alcohol advertising across all media was 179.4 million in 2011, representing 1.9% of total UK advertising expenditure. The full report is available at:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/tvresearch/1100204/Alcohol_Report_2013.pdf
Mr Vaizey [holding answer 1 July 2013]: The question does not make clear whether the hon. Member is referring to the funding required by Broadband Delivery UK in order for it to carry out its responsibilities or the funding being channelled through Broadband Delivery UK to help deliver a transformation in broadband provision in the UK. If the hon. Member wishes to clarify her question, I would be very happy to provide her with an answer. Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press Inquiry Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which of the recommendations of the Leveson report have been [162049] fully implemented by the Government. Mr Vaizey [holding answer 27 June 2013]: Lord Justice Levesons report (HC779) made findings and recommendations in three areas: on the relationship between the press and the police; on the relationship between the press and politicians; and on the relationship between the press and the public. On the relationship between the press and the police, the Secretary of State for the Home Department made clear in her statement to the House in respect of police integrity on 12 February 2013, Official Report, columns 713-15, the Government accepts Lord Justice Levesons recommendations and will be working closely with the College of Policing, Chiefs Council, Her Majestys Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Independent Police Complaints Commission on implementation. On the relationship between the press and politicians, as recommended by Lord Justice Leveson, the Government publishes details of meetings held by Ministers and/or special advisers with editors, proprietors and senior media executives. On the relationship between the press and the public, a cross-party Royal Charter was agreed on 18 March. Exercise: Young Offender Institutions Sir Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding her Department provides and for which programmes to facilitate sports and physical activities in young [162154] offenders institutions in the UK.
Apprentices Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport with reference to the answer of 22 April 2013, Official Report, column 668W, on apprentices, how many apprentices her Department [162866] plans to employ. Hugh Robertson: DCMS will take part in the Civil Service Apprenticeship scheme, from September 2013. As the scheme is managed centrally and the matching process has yet to take place, we do not have confirmation of how many apprentices will join DCMS, at the current time. DCMS is committed to supporting social mobility and has also employed three interns this year, as part of the Summer Diversity Internship programme. Broadband Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans her Department has to hire industry experts to complete the rollout of broadband; what estimate she has made of the cost of hiring such experts; and whether such experts would be additional to the civil servants in her Department [162522] already working on the project.
613W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
614W
Hugh Robertson: Sport England is investing 62.9 million in two projects, which work directly with young offenders and young offenders institutions between 2011 and 2017. Through Sportivate, 56 million of lottery funding is being invested over the period 2011-17. As part of this investment, Sportivate has delivered around 20 projects for young offenders, working with both probation services and directly with young offenders institutions. Through Get on Track, Sport England is investing 6.9 million of lottery funding over the period 2012-17. Around 10% of the young people engaged in Get On Track have had criminal convictions. Youth offending teams are key local partners in all areas where Get On Track projects are delivered. Press: Regulation Mr Buckland: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will reopen negotiations on the cross-party Royal Charter agreed [162059] on 18 March 2013. Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer of 13 June 2013, Official Report, column 434W, whose agreement is needed for the reopening of cross-party discussions on the Royal Charter; and whether she received any indications from any such people that such [162051] a reopening is sought. Mr Vaizey [holding answer 27 June 2013]: Cross-party discussions on the Royal Charter concluded on 18 March. The Government has no plans to reopen these discussions. Press: Subscriptions Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much her Department spent on newspapers, periodicals and trade publications in the [162647] last 12 months. Hugh Robertson: The Departmental for Culture, Media and Sport has spent 9,244.49 on newspapers, periodicals and trade publications in the last twelve months (July 2012 to the end of June 2013). Tourism: Inverclyde Mr McKenzie: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will support the [162069] emerging tourist industry in Inverclyde. Hugh Robertson: Tourism is a devolved matter, but places like Inverclyde, which is already benefitting from the expanding cruise ship industry, benefit greatly from VisitBritains international campaigns, including GREAT, and from VisitEnglands Holidays at Home are GREAT campaign. Additional information on the initiatives led by VisitScotland can be found on their website:
www.visitscotland.co.uk
Hugh Robertson: Tourism is one of the most important sectors of the rural economy, worth over 33 billion in turnover a year and accounting for around 13% of rural employment. The Rural Economy Growth Review launched a 25 million package, aimed at growing the visitor economy in rural areas. As part of this package, Visit England estimate their promotional activity will create over 6000 extra jobs and 260 million in additional visitor spend and will provide an initial assessment in the autumn.
JUSTICE Criminal Justice 17. Mr Burrowes: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what plans he has to modernise the criminal [162400] justice system. 18. Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what plans he has to modernise the criminal [162401] justice system. Damian Green: On 28 June I published Transforming the CJS, a strategy and action plan to reform the Criminal Justice System. It sets out a number of steps to digitise the CJS, tackle the root causes of waste and delay in the system, and offer better support for victims and witnesses as their case progresses through the system. Prison Privileges and Incentives 20. Gavin Barwell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what progress he has made on rolling out his proposed changes to the privileges and incentive [162406] scheme in prisons. Jeremy Wright: The overhaul of the incentives and earned privileges scheme will come into effect on 1 November. The processes that will underpin the changes are currently being developed. We have, however, already removed 18 rated DVDs and informed contracted out prisons that subscription television services must be withdrawn by 31 July. In addition, we have begun work to consider a revised system of incentives and privileges for young people in custody. Pleural Plaques: Compensation 21. Mr Hepburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent representations he has received on compensation for people with pleural plaques. [162407] Mrs Grant: We have received a small number of recent representations on pleural plaques from Members of Parliament sent on behalf of their constituents. Cautions 22. Sir Andrew Stunell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what progress he has made on his review of the use of cautions; and when he plans to publish the [162408] results of that review. Damian Green: We are clear there must be no soft alternative for serious offenders who should be brought before the courts. That is why the Government launched its review into how simple cautions are used by the
Tourism: Rural Areas Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent assessment she has made of the contribution of tourism to the rural [162871] economy; and if she will make a statement.
615W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
616W
police on 3 April. The review has completed its work and reported to Ministers. Proposals will be brought forward in due course. Human Trafficking Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what guidance he has given to law enforcement and prosecuting authorities on not proceeding with a prosecution or imposing a penalty in cases where victims of trafficking have been compelled to take part [162138] in criminal activities. The Solicitor-General: I have been asked to reply. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has issued comprehensive legal guidance to advise prosecutors of the steps they should take in cases where the police have arrested potential victims of trafficking who have committed criminal offences and referred them for charge. If information suggests that they have been trafficked, prosecutors are advised to make full enquiries and consider whether the case against them should be discontinued. However, a prosecutor can only take these steps if they have information from the police or other sources that a suspect might be a victim of trafficking. Following recent cases in the Court of Appeal in which victims of trafficking were prosecuted and convicted, having been advised to plead guilty by their legal representative, the CPS is considering new guidelines for prosecutors, which are to be shared with the police and other law enforcement agencies and the Law Society to ensure a more joined-up approach in these cases. Guidance, published in 2011 by the Child Exploitation On-line Protection Centre (CEOP), advises that police should be alert to the possibility that any person, adult or child, identified in a cannabis farm could be a victim of trafficking and the steps that they should take. Prisoners Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) for how long each person held in a segregation unit in each prison on 1 June 2013 had been held in [163030] segregation; (2) how many prisoners were held in segregation units in each prison on the first day of each month in each of the last three years. [163036] Jeremy Wright: The information requested is not recorded centrally. It could be provided only at disproportionate cost by collating the relevant information from segregation records held by individual prison establishments. Prisoners may be held in segregation for reasons of good order and discipline or for their own protection. They may also be segregated to await adjudication or as a punishment of cellular confinement for offences against prison discipline. Segregation is used only in circumstances which are lawful, safe and decent. Woodhill Prison Mrs Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what arrangements are in place for expert witnesses to conduct interviews with prisoners in private at Close Supervision Centre, HM Prison Woodhill; and if he [161992] will make a statement.
Jeremy Wright: Prisons will always try and accommodate the requirements of expert witnesses. Operational constraints, including the limited availability of the expert witnesses or requests for interviews made at short notice may mean this is not always possible. ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE Billing Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what the average cost to his Department was of processing the payment of an invoice in the latest period for which figures are available; and what proportion of invoices settled in that period his Department paid (a) electronically and [162631] (b) by cheque. Gregory Barker: The average cost of processing an invoice is calculated to be 2.60. In the 12 month period to the end of May 2013: (a) 6,900 electronic payments (99.77%) were made and (b) 16 cheque payments (0.23%). Fuel Poverty Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change pursuant to the answer of 18 June 2013, Official Report, columns 622-3W, on fuel poverty, what estimate his Department has made of the number of households in receipt of assistance under (a) Warm Front, (b) the super priority group of the carbon emissions reduction target, (c) the Community Energy Saving programme and (d) the voluntary agreement to support vulnerable and fuel poor households in (i) 2008-09, (ii) 2009-10, (iii) 2010-11, (iv) [162001] 2011-12 and (v) 2012-13. Gregory Barker: Under the Warm Front scheme, the number of households assisted with thermal efficiency measures or energy saving advice was (i) 233,594 in 2008-09 from a budget of 395 million; (ii) 212,963 in 2009-10 from a budget of 369 million; (iii) 127,930 in 2010-11 from a budget of 366 million; (iv) 33,058 in 2011-12 from a budget of 145 million; while it is expected that around 35,000 households will be assisted from applications received in 2012-13, from a budget of 100 million. Estimates of the number of households receiving assistance under the Super Priority Group (SPG) of the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) are not readily available, however the final Ofgem report on CERT1 showed that over the lifetime of the scheme from 2008-12, SPG eligible households received a significant number of major energy efficiency measures, including: the insulation of 237,692 cavity walled properties; the professional insulation of 531,932 lofts; the insulation of 8,229 solid walled properties; and. the replacement of 6,506 inefficient boilers with more efficient models. Ofgem are currently reviewing additional information from obligated energy companies which may identify that a greater number of measures delivered under CERT were in SPG eligible households.
1
Note: http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/ EnergyEff/Documents1/CERT_FinalReport2013_300413.pdf
Estimates of the number of households assisted with energy efficiency measures under the Community Energy
617W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
618W
Saving Programme (CESP) are not readily available by year, but the final Ofgem report on CESP2 showed that over the lifetime of the scheme from 2009-12 a total of 293,922 measures were installed in 154,364 dwellings in low income areas.
2
Note: http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/ EnergyEff/cesp/Documents1/ CESP%20Final%20Report%202013_FINAL%20300413.pdf
Cashback applicants are required to carry out a Green Deal Assessment before applying for a voucher. The Department collects data on the Cashback scheme and 968 cashback vouchers had been paid, following the installation of measures, to individual households up to 16 June with them choosing an alternative funding option to a Green Deal Plan. Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many households have claimed Green Deal cashback benefits without signing up for a Green Deal finance package to date.
[162912]
Under the Voluntary Agreement, the number of customer accountswhere some households may hold more than one accountbenefiting from social tariffs, discounts and rebates was: (i) around 1.3 million at the end of March 20093; (ii) around 1.6 million at the end of March 20104; and (iii) around 1.9 million at the end of March 20115. The Voluntary Agreement ended in March 2011 and was replaced by the Warm Home Discount scheme which supports around 2 million low income and vulnerable households per year.
3
Gregory Barker: 968 cashback vouchers (with a total value of 263,452) had been paid, following the installation of measures, to individual households up to 16 June with them choosing an alternative funding option to a Green Deal Plan. Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many households have installed energy efficiency measures recommended by a Green Deal assessment with assistance under the Energy Company Obligation but without taking out a [162913] Green Deal finance package. Gregory Barker: Under the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) framework, it is not a requirement for energy suppliers to lodge a Green Deal assessment for measures installed under ECO. Provisional figures published on 27 June showed that there were 81,798 measures installed in 72,525 households under ECO up to the end of April. Legal Costs Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how much his Department spent on external lawyers fees in the last [162514] year for which figures are available. Gregory Barker: In 2011-12, the Department paid 7.7 million to firms of solicitors external to government. Further information covering sums paid above 500 is available on the DECC website at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-ofenergy-climate-change/series/departmental-spend-over-500
Note: http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/SocAction/Suppliers/ CSR/Documents1/ Monitoring%20Suppliers%20Social%20Spend%20200910.pdf 4 Note: http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/SocAction/Suppliers/ CSR/Documents1/ Monitoring%20Suppliers%20Social%20Spend%20200910.pdf 5 Note: http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/SocAction/Suppliers/ CSR/Documents1/ Suppliers%20Social%20Spend%20report%202010-2011.pdf
Green Deal Scheme Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many Green Deal assessments have been carried out (a) free of charge [162909] and (b) at a subsidised cost to date. Gregory Barker: DECC does not hold information on the cost of individual Green Deal assessments. The costs charged for assessments are a matter for the companies or individuals providing them. Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many of the 245 Green Deal plans currently active were taken out [162910] following free Green Deal assessments. Gregory Barker: DECC does not hold information on the cost of individual Green Deal assessments. The costs charged for assessments are a matter for the companies or individuals providing them. Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many households have installed energy efficiency measures recommended by a Green Deal Assessment without taking out a [162911] Green Deal finance package to date. Gregory Barker: Households are not required to inform Government of energy efficiency measures installed following a Green Deal Assessment which the householder has funded through options other than a Green Deal Plan.
MITIE Group Mr Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how much his Department spends on contracts with MITIE; and how much was spent on contracts with MITIE in each year [162463] since 2008. Gregory Barker: The Department of Energy and Climate Change does not have a contract with MITIE and has not incurred any expenditure with this organisation. Press: Subscriptions Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how much his Department spent on newspapers, periodicals and trade publications in [162649] the last 12 months.
619W
Written Answers
2 JULY 2013
Written Answers
620W
Gregory Barker: The Department of Energy and Climate Change spent 25,000 on its electronic press cuttings service during the 12 months period ending March 2013. The equivalent expenditure in the 12 months April 2010 to March 2011 was 80,000. The Department does not record expenditure on newspapers, periodicals and trade profession magazines separately from overall expenditure on publications which includes the cost of the Departments own publications as well as purchased publications of all types. It would incur disproportionate costs to scrutinise all publication transactions to identify relevant amounts. Sick Leave Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many days on average staff of his Department in each pay grade were absent from work as a result of ill health in each of the last [162581] 12 months. Gregory Barker: The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) records the ill health absence for its staff on a quarterly basis. The average working days lost per pay grade, for each of the past four quarters for which data is available, is shown in the following table.
Pay Grade AO EO HEO SEO Grade 7 Grade 6 SCS June 2012 8.2 8.3 3.8 4.2 2.2 2.2 1.7 September 2012 6.3 5.2 3.2 3.5 2.1 2.4 0.8 December 2012 1 5.1 3 2.9 1.7 2.1 0.1 March 2013 8.7 5.9 3.5 8.7 3.2 0.7 0.1
The Department made no fees to outplacement agencies and we use the Civil Service Transition Service to provide our redeployment support. 1.3 million was spent on staff training and development in the 12 months period ending March 2013. Vacancies Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what his Departments vacancy rate was in 2012-13; and what vacancy rate has been assumed for 2013-14. [162667] Gregory Barker: The vacancy rate for the Department of Energy and Climate Change in 2012-13 was 14.03% and the assumed rate for 2013-14 is 5%.
CHURCH COMMISSIONERS World War I: Anniversaries Mr Keith Simpson: To ask the honourable Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners what plans the Church of England has to commemorate the First World War and the role of [162917] military chaplains. Sir Tony Baldry: The Church of England is represented on the Governments First World War Commemorations Advisory Group by the Dean of Salisbury. The Dean and the Church of England have been in contact with the Assistant Chaplain-General and Archdeacon for the army to discuss commemorations. It is our understanding that specific commemorations relating to the role of military chaplains will be managed by regiments and corps rather than centrally by the Church of England. Military Chaplains will of course be remembered and commemorated alongside all those who gave their lives and service during the great war. The Church of England and Westminster Abbey are planning alongside the Government and other partners a number of commemorations the first of which will be a number of candlelit vigils across the country with the participation of the other faith communities, ending at 11.00 pm on 4 August 2014100 years after war was declared and reflecting Sir Edward Greys famous remark that the lamps are going out all over Europe. The Liturgical Commission of the Church of England has assembled resources to assist parish churches both in sharing in the planned vigil and also for use throughout the several years of commemoration. The Church Buildings Council of the Church of England is working with the Imperial War Museum on a number of initiatives to help congregations and the wider community engage with war memorial heritage in churches.
Staff Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how much his Department spent on (a) recruitment agency fees, (b) outplacement agency fees for displaced or redundant staff and (c) [162613] staff training in each of the last 12 months. Gregory Barker: The Department of Energy and Climate Change spent 553,000 in the 12 months period ending March 2013 with recruitment agencies. The majority of this expenditure represents payment to the individuals employed. We are unable to separately identify the element retained by the recruitment agency as fees. This varies from case to case and the Department contracts on the basis of a total hourly or daily fee.
ORAL ANSWERS
Tuesday 2 July 2013
Col. No. Col. No.
JUSTICE ................................................................... Criminal Legal Aid ................................................ Drug Testing (Prisoners) ........................................ European Convention on Human Rights............... Judicial Review ...................................................... Legal Aid ............................................................... Legal Aid (Barristers) ............................................ Presumption of Death ........................................... Prisoner Literacy....................................................
729 737 732 741 744 743 735 740 742
JUSTICEcontinued Probation System ................................................... Reoffending ........................................................... Reoffending ........................................................... Restorative Justice.................................................. Small Claims Procedure ......................................... Topical Questions .................................................. Whiplash Injuries...................................................
733 731 739 730 738 745 729
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
Tuesday 2 July 2013
Col. No. Col. No.
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS ............. 39WS Industrial Strategy for Construction ...................... 39WS Scotland Analysis Programme ............................... 40WS EDUCATION............................................................ 43WS Academies and Local Government Pension Scheme............................................................... 43WS ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS............................................................... 43WS Executive Agencies................................................. 43WS
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE ..... 43WS International Justice (UK Support and Funding) .. 43WS SCOTLAND.............................................................. 45WS Parliamentary Questions (Employment) ................ 45WS TREASURY .............................................................. 41WS ECOFIN................................................................ 41WS WORK AND PENSIONS ......................................... 46WS Fulfilling Potential ................................................. 46WS
WRITTEN ANSWERS
Tuesday 2 July 2013
Col. No. Col. No.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL .......................................... MITIE Group ........................................................ Private Prosecutions............................................... Serco ...................................................................... BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS ............. Adult Education .................................................... Animal Experiments .............................................. Business: Loans...................................................... Electronic Equipment: Waste Disposal .................. Engineering............................................................ Green Investment Bank ......................................... Local Enterprise Partnerships ................................ Post Offices ............................................................ Post Offices: Rhyl................................................... Prisons: Education ................................................. Staff ....................................................................... Students: Fees and Charges.................................... CABINET OFFICE ................................................... Childbirth .............................................................. Freedom of Information ........................................ Voluntary Work .....................................................
548W 548W 549W 549W 579W 579W 579W 580W 580W 581W 581W 582W 582W 583W 583W 583W 585W 602W 602W 603W 603W
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT continued Out of Town Shopping Centres: Planning Permission ......................................................... Retail Trade: Debts ................................................ Urban Areas: Regeneration.................................... Wind Power: Planning Permission ......................... CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT .......................... Alcoholic Drinks: Marketing ................................. Apprentices ............................................................ Broadband ............................................................. Broadband Delivery UK........................................ Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press Inquiry . Exercise: Young Offender Institutions.................... Press: Regulation ................................................... Press: Subscriptions ............................................... Tourism: Inverclyde................................................ Tourism: Rural Areas............................................. DEFENCE ................................................................. Armed Forces ........................................................ Armed Forces: Officers .......................................... Armed Forces: Railways......................................... Army: Recruitment ................................................ NATO.................................................................... Nuclear Submarines............................................... Official Cars........................................................... Procurement........................................................... Science and Technology ......................................... Warships ................................................................
536W 537W 537W 538W 611W 611W 611W 611W 612W 612W 612W 613W 613W 613W 613W 604W 604W 604W 607W 607W 607W 608W 608W 608W 609W 609W
CHURCH COMMISSIONERS ............................... 620W World War I: Anniversaries.................................... 620W COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT . Conditions of Employment ................................... Electronic Commerce............................................. Housing Act 2004 .................................................. 535W 535W 535W 536W
Col. No.
Col. No.
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER ................................. 574W Local Growth Committee ...................................... 574W EDUCATION............................................................ Children: Human Trafficking................................. Children: Literacy .................................................. GCSE: Disadvantaged ........................................... Languages: GCE A-level........................................ Languages: Teachers .............................................. Legal Costs ............................................................ Literacy: Primary Education.................................. Ministers Private Offices ....................................... MITIE Group ........................................................ Politics: Education ................................................. Pupils ..................................................................... Pupils: Disadvantaged............................................ Pupils: Per Capita Costs......................................... Schools: Sports ...................................................... Serco ...................................................................... Standards and Testing Agency ............................... ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ..................... Billing .................................................................... Fuel Poverty........................................................... Green Deal Scheme................................................ Legal Costs ............................................................ MITIE Group ........................................................ Press: Subscriptions ............................................... Sick Leave .............................................................. Staff ....................................................................... Vacancies ............................................................... ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS............................................................... Common Fisheries Policy ...................................... MITIE Group ........................................................ Mobile Phones ....................................................... Sea Level: Poole ..................................................... Water Supply ......................................................... FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE ..... Billing .................................................................... British Overseas Territories .................................... Human Rights: Business ........................................ Human Trafficking ................................................ Russia .................................................................... HEALTH ................................................................... Alcoholic Drinks: Rehabilitation ........................... Billing .................................................................... Cancer ................................................................... Cancer: Drugs........................................................ Childbirth .............................................................. David Nicholson .................................................... Death: Social Class ................................................ Epilepsy: Pregnant Women .................................... General Practitioners ............................................. Health .................................................................... Hospitals: Mergers................................................. Human Tissue Act 2004......................................... Legal Costs ............................................................ Medical Detection Dogs ........................................ Mobile Phones ....................................................... NHS England ........................................................ NHS: Managers ..................................................... Obesity................................................................... Patients .................................................................. Tobacco: Packaging ............................................... 592W 592W 593W 594W 593W 595W 595W 595W 596W 596W 597W 598W 597W 598W 599W 600W 601W 616W 616W 616W 617W 618W 618W 618W 619W 619W 620W
539W 539W 539W 539W 540W 540W 591W 591W 591W 591W 592W 592W 541W 541W 541W 541W 542W 542W 542W 542W 543W 544W 544W 545W 546W 546W 546W 546W 546W 547W 547W 548W 548W
HOME DEPARTMENTcontinued Bullying.................................................................. Common Travel Area............................................. Conditions of Employment.................................... Counter-terrorism .................................................. Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press Inquiry . Cybercrime ............................................................ Drugs: Crime ......................................................... Entry Clearances.................................................... Entry Clearances: Overseas Students ..................... Eurojust ................................................................. Extradition: USA................................................... Fraud ..................................................................... Greenwich University ............................................ Hezbollah .............................................................. Human Trafficking ................................................ Illegal Immigrants: Employment............................ Immigrants: English Language .............................. Immigration ........................................................... Immigration Controls ............................................ Immigration: Married People................................. Immigration: Northern Ireland.............................. Independent Police Complaints Commission......... Members: Correspondence .................................... Misuse of Drugs Ministerial Group....................... MITIE Group........................................................ Mobile Phones ....................................................... National Retail Crime Steering Group................... Passports................................................................ Pay ......................................................................... Personation ............................................................ Police and Crime Commissioners........................... Police: Intelligence Services .................................... Police: Recruitment ................................................ Press: Subscriptions ............................................... Prostitution: Greater London ................................ Security Guards: Licensing .................................... Serious Organised Crime Agency........................... Sick Leave .............................................................. Staff ....................................................................... Stephen Lawrence .................................................. Steroid Drugs......................................................... Termination of Employment.................................. Vacancies ...............................................................
554W 555W 555W 555W 556W 556W 556W 556W 558W 557W 557W 558W 559W 559W 559W 560W 560W 560W 561W 561W 562W 562W 562W 563W 563W 563W 563W 563W 564W 564W 564W 565W 565W 566W 566W 567W 567W 568W 567W 569W 569W 569W 570W
HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION.............. 549W Security.................................................................. 549W INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT .................... Billing .................................................................... Developing Countries: Nutrition ........................... India ...................................................................... Legal Costs ............................................................ Palestinians ............................................................ Sick Leave .............................................................. Vacancies ............................................................... JUSTICE ................................................................... Cautions ................................................................ Criminal Justice ..................................................... Human Trafficking ................................................ Pleural Plaques: Compensation.............................. Prison Privileges and Incentives ............................. Prisoners ................................................................ Woodhill Prison ..................................................... TRANSPORT ........................................................... Cycling: Accidents ................................................. Driving: Licensing.................................................. East Coast Railway Line ........................................ High Speed 2 Railway Line .................................... 570W 570W 571W 572W 573W 573W 573W 573W 614W 614W 614W 615W 614W 614W 615W 615W 586W 586W 586W 587W 587W
HOME DEPARTMENT ........................................... 554W Animal Experiments .............................................. 554W
Col. No.
Col. No.
TRANSPORTcontinued Railways: Finance .................................................. Railways: Industrial Disputes................................. Railways: Overcrowding......................................... Roads: Repairs and Maintenance........................... Rolling Stock: Procurement ................................... Speed Limits: Cameras........................................... Transport: Rural Areas .......................................... TREASURY .............................................................. Air Passenger Duty ................................................ Billing .................................................................... Charities: Investment ............................................. Employee Ownership ............................................. Financial Services .................................................. Ministerial Duties .................................................. Overseas Aid .......................................................... Public Expenditure: Northern Ireland.................... Public Finance .......................................................
588W 589W 589W 589W 589W 590W 590W 550W 550W 550W 550W 550W 551W 551W 551W 551W 552W
TREASURYcontinued Public Sector Debt ................................................. Revenue and Customs: Correspondence ................ Revenue and Customs: Rhyl .................................. Shares .................................................................... Tax Avoidance ....................................................... Welfare State: Wales............................................... WORK AND PENSIONS ......................................... Bereavement Benefits ............................................. Carers Allowance .................................................. Construction: Industrial Health and Safety ........... Employment and Support Allowance: Appeals...... Housing Benefit: Social Rented Housing ............... Members: Correspondence .................................... Social Security Benefits.......................................... Unemployment and Early Retirement.................... Welfare State: Reform ............................................ Winter Fuel Payments............................................
552W 552W 553W 553W 553W 554W 574W 574W 575W 575W 575W 575W 576W 576W 577W 577W 578W
Members who wish to have the Daily Report of the Debates forwarded to them should give notice at the Vote Office. The Bound Volumes will also be sent to Members who similarly express their desire to have them. No proofs of the Daily Reports can be supplied. Corrections which Members suggest for the Bound Volume should be clearly marked in the Daily Report, but not telephoned, and the copy containing the Corrections must be received at the Editors Room, House of Commons, not later than Tuesday 9 July 2013
STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT GREATLY FACILITATES THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE VOLUMES
Members may obtain excerpts of their Speeches from the Official Report (within one month from the date of publication), on application to the Stationery Office, c/o the Editor of the Official Report, House of Commons, from whom the terms and conditions of reprinting may be ascertained. Application forms are available at the Vote Office.
PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES DAILY PARTS Single copies: Commons, 5; Lords, 4. Annual subscriptions: Commons, 865; Lords, 600. LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session. Single copies: Commons, 105; Lords, 60 (100 for a two-volume edition). Standing orders will be accepted. THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is published separately at 900 and can be supplied to standing order. All prices are inclusive of postage
Volume 565 No. 27
Tuesday 2 July 2013
CONTENTS
Tuesday 2 July 2013
Oral Answers to Questions [Col. 729] [see index inside back page] Secretary of State for Justice Afghanistan and EU Council [Col. 751] Statement(Prime Minister) Stop and Search [Col. 773] Statement(Mrs May) Letting Agents (Competition, Choice and Standards) [Col. 783] Motion for leave to bring in Bill(John Healey)agreed to Bill presented, and read the First time Finance Bill [Col. 786] As amended, further considered; read the Third time and passed HPV Vaccine [Col. 893] Debate on motion for Adjournment Westminster Hall Wright Committee [Col. 169WH] Saville Products Ltd and HMRC [Col. 193WH] Local Government and Faith Communities [Col. 201WH] Digital Exclusion (Glasgow) [Col. 224WH] Recession (Standards of Living) [Col. 231WH] Debates on motion for Adjournment Written Statements [Col. 39WS] Written Answers to Questions [Col. 535W] [see index inside back page]
Friday 5 July 2013
Volume 565 No. 30
HOUSE OF COMMONS
OFFICIAL REPORT
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Friday 5 July 2013
500
Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2013 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/.
1169
5 JULY 2013
European Union (Referendum) Bill
1170
House of Commons
Friday 5 July 2013 The House met at half-past Nine oclock PRAYERS [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] 9.30 am Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): I beg to move, That the House sit in private. Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163), and negatived.
that we set a time frame within which that must be done. That is what the Bill does, and that is why I have introduced it. Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Secondly, I totally agree thatand I think he will probably explore thisit is important that this will reinforce the hand of our marvellous Prime Minister in negotiations with Europe, and then give the public a say. The public deserve a say. James Wharton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about giving the public a real saya real choice between the best possible deal that we can get from the European Union and, if the public so choose, leaving it, if that is what they want to do. That is what we on this side are offering the British public: I think that Members on the other side should consider their position very carefully indeed, because at the next election the public will not forgive Members who do not trust them. Several hon. Members rose James Wharton: I want to make a little progress, then I will give way. There isand we can see it alreadya debate to be had about whether our national interest is best served by being inside the European Union or by coming out. That debate, however, is not for today. Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman give way? James Wharton: This is a debate about the Bill that is before[Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way at the moment. I think that that is clear. James Wharton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a debate about the Bill that I am bringing forward and which I am proud to bring forward. The Community that we joined all those years ago was primarily one of free trade, though aspects of it even then Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con): The first time I voted was in 1974. My son and daughter have never had the opportunity to make that democratic decision. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is what we should be doing today? That is why I sponsored my hon. Friends Bill. James Wharton: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. She was lucky if she had the opportunity to vote. I was, as one hon. Member whispered in my ear as she made her contribution, but a twinkle in an eye at that time. I did not have the opportunity to vote. Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that any party that does not trust the British people does not deserve the trust of the British people?

Second Reading 9.35 am James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. It is an honour to introduce a Bill that has at its heart the heart of our democracy. Power should reside with the people. In introducing the Bill, I speak for many in the House, but I speak for millions more outside the House. Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con): It is regrettable that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) is not in the Chamber. Has my hon. Friend received representations from the leader of the Labour party, Len McCluskey on what he thinks the position of the Labour party should be on this important issue? James Wharton: I thank my hon. Friend for that ingenious intervention. I have not yet heard from Mr McCluskey, but I am sure that when the Labour party has decided what its position is on giving the British people a say on our relationship with the European Union it will let us know. In introducing the Bill, as I said, I speak for many in the Chamber and for many millions outside. It was in 1975 that a Labour Government gave the British people a say on our membership of the then European Community. How things have changed: politics has moved on, and the European Union has moved on. Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): In 1971, I voted against the then Common Market, and I voted for a referendum in 1975. Sadly, the country did not follow my advice, or we would not be doing what we are doing today. However, the Bill is deficient in one respect: it does not ask for a referendum until 2017. What we need is a referendum before the next election. Will the hon. Gentleman give that guarantee? James Wharton: For the first time, I find myself agreeing with at least part of the hon. Gentlemans comments. I wish more people had listened to him in 1975, and I am sorry that they are not going to do so now. As I shall come on to explore, it is important that we secure the best possible deal from the European Union and put a real choice to the British people. It is sensible
1171
5 JULY 2013
1172
James Wharton: My hon. Friend will be staggered, I am sure, to find that of course I agree with him. But what matters is not that I agree with him; it is that the people who are watching this debate, who care about the issue, who want to have their saythe great British peopleagree with him. They will make their views very clear, come the next election. Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important reasons for the Bill has already been mentionedthat a whole generation has not had a chance to have a say? But there is a second reason, which is that the EU is a fundamentally different creature from the one on which we voted in 1975, and it is on that issue that the country must have a say. James Wharton: My hon. Friend is right. That is a fundamental point. The European Community that the British people voted to be a part of in 1975 is not the same as the European Union of today. Mr Marsden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? James Wharton: I will give way, then I want to make some progress. Mr Marsden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is making his points more usefully than some of his Whips have done so far[Interruption.] but is he aware of the fact[Interruption.] Tory Members should calm down. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 40% of UK exports go to the EU tariff free, and that business leaders in this country have said that it would be dangerously destabilising if a referendum were to go ahead. Does he think[Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. There needs to be rather more calm in the Chamber. Interventions need to be shorter. I should point out that well over 40 colleagues want to speak. I want all of them to do so. They have an interest in minimising the noise level and maximising the progress. I call Mr Gordon Marsdenbriefly. Mr Marsden: Does the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) think it is in the interests of this country that we should have four years of uncertainty for business from his Bill? James Wharton: The hon. Gentleman read his intervention very well, but the British people deserve a say and they deserve to be given a real choice. They should be given a choice between the best possible relationship with the European Union that we can offer, and leaving. Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman has done a great job in coming up with this idea for a Bill, but has he had an opportunity to talk to representatives from our territory of Gibraltar about the impact on them and whether he plans to give them a say in the referendum? James Wharton: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. Despite being a young and new MP, as I am, he knows very well that parliamentary procedure is one of the greatest challenges that the Bill will face. Were it a
large and complex Bill, it would be easier for him and his colleagues to slow its progress and wreck the chances of it getting through and delivering what the British people want. So although I hear what he says and I know he is deeply concerned about anything that will allow him at a later stage, should the Bill go forward today, to slow it down and bog it down in parliamentary procedure, I hope he will resist the temptation and allow us to get it through so that his constituents and mine can vote whichever way they want and have their choice and their say on such a fundamental issue. We have already discussed the fact that the European Community is not the same as the European Union. What we joined has changed. Those who voted yes in 1975 believed that they had bought a ticket to a clear and certain destinationto a free trade area that would benefit Britains economy without undermining our sovereignty. They did not buy a ticket for a never-ending journey to ever-closer union, destination unknown. Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on this excellent Bill. Does he agree that we have heard from many businesses in the form of Business for Britain, who have said that businesses in this country also want to see the terms of our membership of the EU renegotiated? They also believe that finally giving the public a vote on this massive issue will create more stability than there is at present. James Wharton: My hon. Friend is right. There are hundreds of businesses that support the campaign for a say on our membership of the European Union. An important point about the Bill, which I should make clear to Members on all sides, is that I am not arguing today that we should be in or that we should be out. I am putting forward an argument that we should trust the British people to make that decision and have a say. Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con): I regret that I disagree with my hon. Friend. He is wrong to say that the Opposition have not made up their mind. They are quite clear: they do not believe in a referendum, they do not believe in renegotiating in Europe to get a better deal for this country, and most of allthey have made this absolutely clearthey do not believe in giving the British people a say. James Wharton: I am the eternal optimist. It may appear that the Opposition are united against the British people in refusing them a chance to have their say, but I do not believe that is true. I believe that at least a substantial number of them are split. They know that the people need to have a say on this important issue and even though their leader has chosen not to be here and lead them today, I hope he will summon up the strength in the future to take a firm position and will back the Bill. Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab): When we joined the European communion[Laughter.]the European Community, it certainly was that. We thought we were joining a union that would increase economic prosperity and give even greater political stability. We cannot now say that to new members, given the economic problems within the European Community. As things are going on in not far distant countries, after their next elections there will probably be serious fascist representation in
1173
5 JULY 2013
1174
France, in Spain and in Italy. Is it not just in the interests just of this country for the Prime Minister seriously to renegotiate, but in the interests of the whole of Europe? James Wharton: The right hon. Gentleman is right. We are talking about a European Union that is changing before our eyes. No one knows where it will be in a few years. It is the right approach that rather than rush headlong now to make a decision, we should negotiate to get the right deal and to understand what future membership of the European Union would mean. Whatever the result of that process and whatever our understanding might be, ultimately it must be put to the British people so that they can choose whether to renew their consent to membership or to withdraw it. That is what we must do and why we are here today. Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate today. Neither he nor I was alive at the time of the last referendum on the EU, and we are now sitting here in the House as MPs. Does he agree that it is high time that our generation had a say on our membership of the European Union? James Wharton: My hon. Friend is right. We have generations of people who have not had a say and we have generations of people who, when they had their say, voted for something which is not what exists today. Taken together, the changes that we have seen to the European Union and the length of time since the British people gave their consent in that original vote are significant. They make the case for a fresh referendum an obvious one and one that should be supported. The times have changed, the European Union has changed, and public sentiment has changed. It is time we had a referendum, it is time we gave people a choice, and that is why we are here. Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD): I voted enthusiastically yes in the 70s and I cannot imagine any circumstance in which I would not vote yes in any future referendum. Why do we need this Bill when we have already legislated for a referendum anyway, and when I hope his constituents, like mine, believe that the priorities are jobs and growth and investment, not putting the whole of the European investment links at risk for the next few years? James Wharton: It never ceases to amaze meI hope my colleagues on the Government Benches will allow me this indulgencehow the Liberal Democrats change their position as the wind blows. On this important matter Liberal Democrat MPs campaigned at the last election to offer the British people a referendum. They have now changed their mind because it looks a real prospect. I hope that they may change their mind again and agree with what some of us are trying to achieve. Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Following on from the comments of the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), it must be made clear that the Bill is not put forward just by those who are inherently Eurosceptic, there are many of us who campaigned vigorously in the 1975 referendum for our entry into the European
Mr Speaker: Order. Appealing though it is to look at the back of the hon. Gentlemans suit, it would be quite nice to see his face. Sir Tony Baldry: I apologise, Mr Speaker. There are many of us who campaigned for yes to Britain in the 1975 referendum campaign, but to paraphrase Goethe, that which thy forefathers bequeath thee, one must earn anew if one wants to possess it. There comes a point where one has to demonstrate the wholehearted consent of the British people to our membership of the European Union if it is to be valid for us and for them and, importantly, for the whole of the European Community. James Wharton: We perhaps come at this from a different angle, but I think we reach the same conclusion, and it is welcome that we do so. Several hon. Members rose James Wharton: I want to make a little more progress if I may. We know that the European Union has changed from the European Community that was voted on in 1975. We know that generations did not get a choice. But what of the question of having a referendum itself ? This was once seen to be alien to the British political system. It was not what we did. Well, I would contend that we live in the age of the referendum. We have had referendums on whether Scotland should have its Parliament and whether Wales should have its Assembly, and on the alternative vote. We had a referendum on whether we should have a regional assembly for the north-east of England, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) came up to the north-east and campaigned in that referendum. He campaigned against and he was remarkably successful. I would like to give him the chance to campaign in a referendum again, not on an issue of regional government, but on one of national Government that affects us all. Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): On the subject of consistency within the coalition that the hon. Gentleman just mentioned, we both voted for the European Union Act 2011 only two years ago. I am still happy with it. Is he? James Wharton: Yes, I am. It is important when we look at referendums to understand what they mean. They go to the heart of what democracy is about. They go to the heart of giving the British people their say on fundamental matters of importance. Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for his excellent Bill. Which does he think the British public will trustthe last Government who refused to give us a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, or this Government who have vetoed an EU treaty, cut the EU budget, passed legislation on EU sovereignty and given us an in/out referendum? James Wharton: My hon. Friend makes an important and valid observation. It appears that the Leader of the Opposition does not even trust his own party, because
1175
5 JULY 2013
1176
[James Wharton] he cannot lead them one way or the other on this important matter, but he has ordered them to run away from the debate. Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab): I want to point out that it is important to recognise that the majority of Labour voters in the country want to see a referendum. James Wharton: The hon. Lady is of course right. We know that the majority of people in this country want a referendum. I would extend to her on this issue the hand of cross-party co-operation and friendship, and to any of her colleagues who would like to join in what we are trying to do to deliver that, not just for Labour voters, not just for Conservative voters, but for everyone, whether they believe that we should be in European Union or should leave it. Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab): On the subject of cross-party activities, I was keen to follow the example of Margaret Thatcher in 1975 and vote enthusiastically for Europe, and I would do so again. However, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the late Baroness Thatcher happily quoted Clement Attlees comment that referendums are devices of demagogues and dictators. James Wharton: I had forgotten the hon. Gentlemans record of having voted against every referendum brought forward by the previous Government. It had slipped my mind that he had such a distinguished and principled position on this matter. However, we must also recognise that things change, which is why in my earlier comments, not long into my speech today, I said that we are in the age of the referendum. We have had so many referendums on so many things. It would seem farcical then to try to deny the referendum on such an important thing that matters to so many people. Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con): Thanks to that well known source of information Guido Fawkes we have here the Labour party briefing, which says:
Labour does not support this Bill...This is a Conservative Party Bill that sets out the Tory Partys positionwhich we are opposed to.
those who would want to fight to come out. I do wonder, though, at a democratically elected Member of Parliament who would seek to deny the British people that choice. That is the fundamental area of disagreement, and beyond that I am sure we can reach across parties to find agreement and deliver a Bill that is so important and long overdue. Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on this excellent Bill. I have just learned that the leader of the Labour party has apparently cancelled an engagement today and he is not in the House. Does my hon. Friend think that he is sitting at home Buddha-like, contemplating whether to give the British people a say? James Wharton: The Buddha-like qualities of the Leader of the Opposition are well-known of late. However, I would not choose to speculate on what he is doing. It may be something to do with the unions, it may be something to do with the television; it certainly is not something to do with leading his party in the right direction. John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab): A majority of my constituents appear to agree with me rather than with the Prime Minister that the problem with Europe is that there is too much labour market flexibility, and that people are coming in and taking jobs here. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me and my constituents that in the renegotiations we need to remove this labour market flexibility in Europe, or does he agree with the Prime Minister that what is needed in renegotiation is more free flow of labour? James Wharton: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman sees the value in a renegotiation and in getting a new deal. We may disagree on what that deal should look like, but his support is much appreciated, and I hope that he will back the Bill so that he can campaign for it when we get it. Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward the Bill. Does he agree that at its heart lies the issue of trust? That is what this is about. The parties that trust the British people will support this, and the parties that do not trust the British people will not support it. James Wharton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have said, I do not mind whether people want to campaign to be in or out. I do not seek to influence in this debate or in this Bill how the British people might vote. I believe that we must give them a say. Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that Europe is in a very volatile state at the moment? The eurozone is in an even more volatile state. Between now and 2017 there will be vigorous negotiations to try to repatriate powers that are best used in our own country. By 2017 the public will be able to see whether those negotiations have been successful and to make an informed decision. James Wharton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That takes us to one of the key points about the Bill: it makes provision for a referendum by the end of 2017.
James Wharton: I thank my hon. Friend. He has made clearer the position of the Labour party than the Leader of the Opposition has yet managed to do. There may be a vacancy there for him soon if he were to choose to apply for it. Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con): It may help my hon. Friend, who is doing a wonderful job here, if I could just refer to something that was put out by the Liberal Democrats at the last election, which said that the reason for giving a real referendum was that it was over 30 years since the British people last voted, and although they wanted to campaign to stay in, they firmly believed that length of time justified having the referendum. James Wharton: I thank my hon. Friend. That leads me neatly on to my next point, which is that I have no objection in a referendum to those who would want to campaign to stay in, just as I could have no objection to
1177
5 JULY 2013
1178
I believe that it is right that we should look to secure that better deal, that we should go to Europe and negotiate a better settlement that is more suited to the British interest. I believe that is possible. There are those who say that it cannot be done, but I believe that in reality the Germans will want to continue selling us cars and the French will want to continue selling us wine, just as much as we will want to continue trading with them. I think that a deal can be achieved and that it could be a great improvement. Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab): I note that the hon. Gentleman did not answer my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). Why can we not have a referendum next year, and why is the Prime Minister not leading this debate? James Wharton: As I was explaining, I believe that we need to put a real choice before the British people: either the best possible Europe we can get or coming out, if that is what they choose. I believe that that can be delivered, that we can return powers, renegotiate and get a better deal, but I also think that it would be to cheat the British people to deprive them of the opportunity to benefit from that better deal. This is about serious politics and delivering a real choice, not just playing party political games, as some Members seem keen to do. Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward the Bill. He talks about serious politics. Does he agree that Members on the Opposition Benches, and indeed some sitting just below us, say one thing in this Chamber and another in their constituencies, demonstrating that they are not serious politicians, that they are not serious about a Bill, and that it is only us who will ensure that this happens? James Wharton: Again, I will endeavour to be generous in my interpretation, excluding our Liberal Democrat colleagues, who often say one thing in one place and another somewhere else. Opposition Members are not consistent within their party, but I am sure that they are consistent as individuals. The truth is that the Labour party is split down the middle on this issue, because it knows that the British people want and deserve a say, but its leader is too weak to lead and refuses to offer it direction. Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): Does my hon. Friend share my shock at the way the Bill has been mocked by Opposition Membersthere are one or two honourable exceptionsthe people who are supposed to represent the very communities, such as mine in Goole, that have been most affected by uncontrolled EU immigration and by our membership of the EU? It is those people who want a say, and it is those people whom Opposition Members are mocking today. James Wharton: My hon. Friend makes the important pointthe hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) alluded to this earlierthat as many Labour voters want the Bill to succeed as do Conservative voters. This matters across the political divide, which is why I welcome those hon. Members, from whatever party, who have said that they support what we are trying to do, and I
am grateful to the Prime Minister and the Conservative party leadership for getting full square behind what we are trying to do. I think that this is something that unites the nation in agreement: we trust the British people and want to give them a voice. Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is being very generous in giving way. On the matters of substance referred to by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), will he make clear his position on whether the EU has gone too far in protecting the employment rights of workers in his constituency and mine? James Wharton: I believe that more of what is done by the EU should be done by this Parliament and by the British people. It should be for the British people to decide what they want to be legislated on, who they want to support and who they want their Government to be. For many years, and under different parties, our leaders have disappeared into Europe, only to return to this House to present their failures or successes, and whatever happens is invariably presented as a success. This House has had its say on those measures, but the British people have not been given a say in over a generation. I think that it is time they were given a say. I want a British Prime Minister who goes to Europe to negotiate not simply in order to come back to this House and present what they have done, but to present what they have done for the British people so that they can finally decide. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and support his Bill[HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] Would he like to explain to the workers of Greece and Spain about workers rights in those countries? James Wharton: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that the workers of Greece and Spain would welcome a referendum, just as the workers in the UK would, and I hope that they might get one. Several hon. Members rose James Wharton: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), but then I must make some progress, as I want to draw to a conclusion. Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): I absolutely support my hon. Friend, who is doing a massive service not only to Parliament, but to the country as a whole. May I suggest one improvement to the Bill that I think would find favour with the Prime Minister? It relates to a question I asked him recently. If the British people voted in a referendum to come out of the European Union, is it my hon. Friends intention that that should be that, so we would not have the usual European Union tactic of having yet more referendums until they get the result they want? Perhaps it would be better to make it clear in the Bill that if the British people voted to come out of the European Union, that would be that. James Wharton: I welcome my hon. Friends intervention and have no doubt at all that whoever is Prime Minister at the timeI am confident that it will be the current Prime Ministerwould be unable to defy a vote of the
1179
5 JULY 2013
1180
[James Wharton] British people in a free and fair election with a proper debate. If the British people voted to come out, I am sure that that would happen. I am conscious, howeverthis point was made earlierthat this is a private Members Bill and so has limited time. Any amendments or changes, or anything that lengthens our considerations, will give the minority of Members who wish to wreck it, not by force of democratic argument, but by misuse of parliamentary procedure, too much opportunity to do so. I would therefore resist further amendments, but I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friends important comment. Several hon. Members rose James Wharton: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), but then I really must make progress. Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that what irks the people of this nation more than anything else is the democratic deficit that exists in the EU, and that deficit has grown time after time as a result of the treaties that Labour Members signed up to? His Bill will remedy that democratic deficit by giving the British people trust? James Wharton: My hon. Friend makes an important point. All of us in this place know that the great British publics level of trust in politicians of all parties is not at its highest level. We need to restore that trust by engaging with them and giving them that choice Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order, rather than a point of frustration. Mike Gapes: It is. In answer to an earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) said that Members of this House who propose amendments to the Bill would be misusing parliamentary procedure; he said that to do so would be a misuse. I seek clarification, Mr Speaker: would it not be perfectly in order for any Member of this House to propose many amendments to the Bill if it gets a Second Reading? Mr Speaker: The situation the hon. Gentleman describes in his point of order will arise if the Bill gets a Second Reading. I heard what the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) said and think, if I may say soand I maythat it is a point of debate. The hon. Gentleman was making a point of debate to which others can respond if they wish. James Wharton: Many hon. Members in this place have made the case and raised their concerns about our relationship with the European Union over many years. I am pleased to stand here today and speak for them, for those who have dedicated countless hours to pursuing the cause of democracy in holding the European Union and our relationship with it to account. However, I am bringing forward this private Members Bill not just for me, the Conservative party and my colleagues: I am bringing it forward for the people as a whole. I therefore hope that we can drive it forward and make it a success.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): There seems to be a tendency for trust in the people to wane when a party gets into government. Given that a private Members Bill is a rather precocious creature that could easily be killed, if this is so important and if the Conservative party trusts the people, why can we not have that trust expressed before 2015, rather than waiting until 2017? James Wharton: Of course, one of the challenges the Bill facesand it is the reason it is a private Members Billand the reality of the parliamentary dynamic that the hon. Lady observes exists, is that the Government include not just Conservative Members, but Liberal Democrats, who have gone back on their manifesto pledge, do not want to support it and, sadly, despite my best efforts to persuade them, will not yet give it Government time. Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con): I commend my hon. Friend for putting this Bill forward; he is doing our nation a great service. Does he agree that we should have listened to Mrs Thatcher on this subject years ago and rejected political union? James Wharton: My hon. Friend has a consistent and principled track record on this matter that I am sure this House recognises and appreciates. He makes a helpful contribution that reminds us of the historical reality within which we are operating. Over the years, many Members have warned us about what was happening in the European Union, yet those warnings have not always been heeded. This Bill is about making good the central promise of our democracy: that we are the servants of the people and not their masters. We want to give the people a voice. I was born in Stockton-on-Tees, a town that I am now proud to represent in this place. I am also proud to be presenting this Bill, which will give not just the people of Stockton but the people of the United Kingdom[Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Wharton is developing his argument, and I think it is very clear to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) that he is not currently giving way. James Wharton: I am proud to represent the people of Stockton in this matter, but also the people of this country as a whole. It is about time we gave those millions of British people who want a say the chance to do sofrom Stockton and beyond. This Bill would legislate for that and give them confidence that they will get their say and that it will be at the right time and in the right way. We have a chance to give the British people a voice through this Bill, and I commend it to the House. 10.11 am Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab): Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on achieving first place in the ballot and on introducing this Bill. Any judgment about an in-out referendum on the UKs membership of the European Union has to be based on what is in the national interest. We do not
1181
5 JULY 2013
1182
believe that an in-out referendum in 2017, as anticipated in the hon. Gentlemans Bill, is in the national interest. The Bill reflects an arbitrary date unrelated to the likely timetable of major treaty change, it represents an unrealistic and uncertain negotiating strategy, and it is brought forward by a party divided between those seeking consent and those seeking exit. Andrew Percy rose Mr Alexander: I will give way in a moment or two, but let me make a little progress. Only this week, the hon. Gentleman faced criticism from none other than one of his own Conservative councillors, who called it
a cynical, pointless stunt, nothing more.
what is proposed in this Bill. There is a fundamental difference because a majority was secured in the Scottish Parliament. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con): Will the right hon. Gentleman give this House an absolute assurance on behalf of the Labour party that it will not change its mind about opposing a referendum for the British people before the next election? Mr Alexander: We have maintained our position that any judgment in relation to an in-out referendum has to be based on the national interest. Our judgment is that the national interest is not served by this Bill, and that is why we do not support it. If there is a leader of a political party who has changed his position on a referendum, I think I am looking at him right now. Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) rose Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con) rose Mr Alexander: I am keen to make a little progress, and then I will happily take further interventions. I just mentioned the Prime Minister, so let us remember how far he has travelled. This is what he said at the Conservative party conference when he became leader:
For too long, we were having a different conversation. Instead of talking about the things that most people care about, we talked about what we cared about most. While parents worried about childcare, getting the kids to school, balancing work and family lifewe were banging on about Europe.
The Conservative councillor for Yarm and Kirklevington went on to say:

I think it should have been something to get the economy moving or to speed up help to get women into work.
I could not have put it better myself. Mrs Main: Surely the right hon. Gentleman and his party must accept some responsibility for this uncertainty. In 2012 they cheated the British public with a tidying-up exercise on the Lisbon treaty, and now, again, there has been a broken contract with the British public. This Bill is a full contract with the British public that they have confidence in. I hope that he would at least go back and establish a bit of trust with the public on this matter. Mr Alexander: I sense that the hon. Lady is so used to attacking the Government of 2012 that she has forgotten it was a Conservative Government. Several hon. Members rose Mr Alexander: Let me keep going and make a little progress. Let us get to the nub of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Stockton South about why this Bill is before the House today. The Bill is not being debated because Conservative Back Benchers trust the public; it is being debated because Conservative Back Benchers do not trust the Prime Minister. That is the reality. Andrew Percy: Can the shadow Foreign Secretary explain why he believes that a Scottish independence referendum is not in the national interest but voted for the Bill to allow it to happen, yet believes that this Bill is not in the national interest and will not vote for it to become law? Where is the consistency there? He is saying that it is good enough for the people of Scotland to have a referendum but not good enough for the rest of the country. Mr Alexander: Let me try to help the hon. Gentleman with his understanding of devolution and, indeed, democracy. The last time I checked, there was an election in Scotland in 2010 that resulted in the Scottish National party, which had committed to a referendum in its manifesto, securing a majority in the Scottish Parliament. By contrast, not one of the principal political parties that stood at the last general election in the United Kingdom and secured representation in this House advanced
Three years into government, this is a Conservative party still banging on about Europea party talking to itself and not to the country. Sir Gerald Howarth: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an indication of what a Labour Government would do, were this country to have the misfortune of him and his colleagues assuming power in 2015, if this Bill becomes law, which the British people want, and many of his hon. Friends want, as well as us? Will he undertake that they will not seek to repeal legislation passed today? Mr Alexander: Many people who have advocated the position taken in this Bill have argued in the past that, given the sovereignty of Westminster, no Parliament can bind its successor. There are a number of stages of scrutiny that the Bill needs to go through, so it is a little presumptuous to presume that it will reach the statute book today. Several hon. Members rose Mr Alexander: Let me try to make a little progress. For many years, Conservatives have argued for national Parliaments to have a greater say in European affairs, yet since 1997 all previous Bills that legislated for referendums that actually took place have had their stages debated on the Floor of the House, including a Committee of the whole House. Instead of that, with this private Members Bill the Conservatives are apparently planning to try to cut short the time that we have to debate it. It seems that the Government are willing to let it progress without going through these vital stages.
1183
5 JULY 2013
1184
[Mr Douglas Alexander] That should be a matter of regret for all Members who continually assert the importance and sovereignty of Westminster. Robert Halfon: The right hon. Gentleman says that he does not want a referendum in 2017. When does he want a referendum? Why did his party support a referendum on a monkey in Hartlepool but will not support a referendum for the British people on the European Union? Mr Alexander: If there is a significant transfer of sovereignty from Britain to Brussels, there will be a referendum; that is the law of the land. It is not a matter of opposition to referendums in principle. Several hon. Members rose Mr Alexander: I had better try to make a little progress. No doubt when the Foreign Secretary gets to his feet in a few moments time he will make a characteristically witty and engaging speech; there is certainly material available to him. However, we all know that he has been drawn into supporting this Bill out of weakness, not strength. In November 2011, he argued that committing then to an in-out referendum would put the economy at risk, undermine jobs and growth, and compromise vital British interests. This is what he said on that occasion Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) rose Nadhim Zahawi rose Mr Alexander: I think it is important that hon. Gentlemen listen so that they understand where their Front Benchers were then and so that we might understand where they have ended up. In November 2011, the Foreign Secretary said:
a referendum on Britains membership of the EU, especially at this time of profound economic uncertainty, is not the answer.
and understands that the gap between what his Back Benchers want and what Europe could possibly countenance remains achingly wide. Let me return to the Foreign Secretary, who back in November went on to say about a referendum:
It would not help anyone looking for a job. It would not help any business trying to expand. It would mean that for a time, we, the leading advocates of removing barriers to trade in Europe and the rest of the world, would lack the authority to do so.
That last point seemed to pass the Prime Minister by when he made his point in County Fermanagh 10 days ago. The Foreign Secretary went on to say:
It would mean that as we advocate closer trading links between the EU and the countries of north Africa as they emerge from their revolutions, helping to solidify tremendous potential advances in human freedom and prosperity, we would stand back from that. That is not the right way to respond to this dramatic year of uncertainty and change.[Official Report, 24 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 55.]
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), he actually clarified Labours position a little. If I heard him correctly, he said that his view was that if there was a substantial change in the relationship, the law provided for a referendum. Will he therefore confirm that if there were a Labour Government and there were no substantial change to the relationship, there would not be a referendum on our membership of the European Union? Mr Alexander: I was simply making the straightforward point that, given the terms of the sovereignty clause, there is no objection in principle to referendums, because we are mandatedindeed, it is the law of the landin such a way that if there is a transfer of sovereignty a referendum will take place. When the Foreign Secretary makes his speech, will he provide a view on the following quotation? We heard from his Department back in November 2011, in answer to a parliamentary question I posed him:
European markets account for half of the UKs overall trade and foreign investments and as a result, around 3.5 million jobs in the UK are linked to the export of goods and services to the EU.[Official Report, 12 July 2011; Vol. 531, c. 256W.]
At that time, he also said at the Dispatch Box:

The deficits of recent years, and the slowness of growth in all western economies, make this a difficult and uncertain time for many individuals and firms. The eurozone is clearly in crisis, and to pile on that uncertainty the further uncertainty of a referendum on leaving the European Union, when half the foreign direct investment into Britain comes from the rest of the European Union, and half our exports go out to the rest of the European Union, would not be a responsible action for Her Majestys Government to take.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): Further to that, does my right hon. Friend agree that, although many Conservative Back Benchers say they support the Prime Minister, in reality they do not want renegotiation; they want us to get out? Mr Alexander: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The difficulty for the Prime Minister was that his attempt to secure brittle unity in his January speech was achieved only through the device of obscurity. We have heard it again today in relation to employment and social rights. We have all read the Beecroft report and know that the real agenda is to bring powers home to take rights away, but the Prime Minister could not even find it in himself to talk about unemployment and social rights in his speech at the end of January. The fact is that he knows
When I asked the Foreign Office the same question last week, it decided to pass it to the TreasuryI see that the Chancellor has left his place on the Front Benchwhich came back with the intriguing reply that the Government have made no estimate. Well, there we arethats leadership for you. What is to be made of that answer? The Government have gone from such a positive estimate just 11 months ago to being unable to give any estimate of the economic benefits of Europe today. One would almost think that they are frightened of facts, because facts are intolerable to their own Back Benchers. Incidentally, I have a further point for the Foreign Secretary to consider when he makes his speech. Do he and the Prime Minister agree with their Cabinet colleague the Secretary of State for Education, who is also not in his place on the Front Bench but who said the following this is a direct quoteabout our membership of the European Union:
Life outside would be perfectly tolerable, we could contemplate it, there would be certain advantages.
1185
5 JULY 2013
1186
Is that the view of the Government? Perhaps that is the answer being passed to the Foreign Secretary. Then, as now, our judgment is that the priority must be to deliver stability, jobs and growth for the British economy. In fact, the irony is that even the Bills proposer has himself acknowledged that Parliament should be focusing on more important things. In a press conference on 15 May in Westminster, he said:
I think the reality is that we need to be seen to be talking about the things that matter to people in places like Stockton South that I represent on Teesside, which is the cost of living, immigration, jobs, the economy, things that we need to get right to improve peoples lives.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary seem to be prepared to put at risk the jobs and investment that Europe brings just to satisfy the obsessions of their Back Benchers? Mr Alexander: None of us doubts that Europe needs substantive change or that there needs to be reform; the tragedy for the United Kingdom is that the intransigence of the Conservative Back Benchers behind the Prime Minister means that he cannot address those needs in a sensible, straightforward manner. He did not wake up in January with a sudden democratic impulse that had somehow eluded him in the preceding years. He is being driven by weakness, not strength. This is about external electoral threats and internal leadership threats. This is not about trusting the people; it is about these Back Benchers not trusting the Prime Minister. Sir Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Alexander: I will not give way, because I want to make progress. The Conservative approach to Europe undermines the prospects for growth, because, as my hon. Friend has just made clear, it creates unnecessary uncertainty that could undermine investment, because it risks Britain sleepwalking to the exit of the European Union precisely when the economic benefits of membership are most needed, given the stagnating economy. At least we have the courage to acknowledge that membership of the European Union is vital to the economy of the United Kingdom, not least because of the benefits of free trade and integration in the worlds largest trading bloc. Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is a reasonable fellow, but what he does not seem to grasp is the fact that this debatethis issueis about the principle of a referendum, not the relative merits of in or out. He also seems to fail to understand that this is about trust between politicians in general and the British electorate, given that too many promises have been broken in the past, including Labours promise of a referendum when it came to the EU constitution and Lisbon. Why will the Labour party not trust the people on this issue? Mr Alexander: Why does the Conservative party not trust the Conservative Prime Minister? When will it release the Downing Street One? That is the question. He is sitting on the Front Bench like a hostage, not a leader. Let me address the hon. Gentlemans point. He was generous enough to describe me as a reasonable fellow and I return the compliment. As a reasonable fellow, he will be keen to defend and protect the jobs of his many constituents who work at places like Fords Dunton technical centre. I am sure that he is concerned for those jobs. Perhaps when he has the opportunity to speak he will explain to them why the European chief executive of Ford has said:
All countries should have their sovereignty, but dont discuss leaving a trading partner where 50pc of your exports go That would be devastating for the UK economy.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op): I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. There has been a lot of talk this morning about the national interest. I have been listening to the director general of the CBI, who has said that the most important thing in the British national interest is to bang the drum for Britains interests in Europe. Does my right hon. Friend think it would be easier to hear that drum if we were in the room fighting for British interests or if we ran away after shutting the door, as some in the Government seem to want to do? Mr Alexander: I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend. It is not simply the head of the CBI who is saying that. Some of the most distinguished leaders of British business, including Richard Branson, WPP and a range of others, wrote to the Financial Times in January in response to the Prime Ministers speech. They made very clear their deep concern about the reality of the negotiating strategy, which the Prime Minister cannot even be explicit about with his own Back Benchers, because if he is explicit on this side of the channel it is deemed unacceptable on the other side of the channel. Huw Irranca-Davies: My right hon. Friend has paid tribute to the impeccable oratorical skills of the Foreign Secretary and I agree with him on that, but is he looking forward, as I am, to hearing him argue his way out of the impeccable logic he has displayed in the pasthis quotations apply as much today as they did back thennot least when 3.5 million jobs in the UK are dependent on our membership of the EU? I look forward to hearing the Foreign Secretary deploy his impeccable rhetorical skills to explain how black is now white. Mr Alexander: I think we are all looking forward to that, but let us stick to the theme of the economy. Since November 2011, when the Foreign Office was at least willing to answer my question about the economic benefitsit now seems to have lost its nerve in the face of Tory intransigencethe number of people claiming jobseekers allowance for two years has increased by a staggering 173%. In the past six months alone, there has been zero growth in the economy. Since the Chancellors first spending review of 2010, the UK economy has grown by just 1%, compared with the 6% forecast at the time and the growth of nearly 3% in Germany and nearly 5% in the United States. Today almost 1 million young people are unable to find work and long-term unemployment is up by more than 100,000 since the last general election. This is the slowest economic recovery in the United Kingdom for more than 100 years. That is the reality of what people are talking about in constituencies the length and breadth of the country.
I am sure that the hon. Gentlemans constituents will be very interested in that.
1187
5 JULY 2013
1188
Several hon. Members rose Mr Alexander: I am keen to make a little progress. I believe that the case for membership of the European Union is clear and, as I have acknowledged, that the case for change is clear. That is why reform and not exit is the right road for the UK. Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Alexander: I am keen to make a little progress. I have been generous in taking interventions. In the face of such a severe economic crisis, Europe needs to be better focused on promoting growth across the continent. That is the priority for national Governments and that should be reflected at a European level. There is of course pressing work to be done, on which I hope there is cross-party agreement, such as the completion of the single market and its extension into digital, energy and finance. The rescue of the currency, protections for the single market and the revival of the prospects for growth should be Europes priorities for change. On so many issues that matterjobs, growth, trade and security in central Europe and the middle eastthe EU remains an indispensable force multiplier for all its members. That includes the United Kingdom. Our membership gives us access to the single market, a stronger voice on international trade and amplified influence on international diplomacy. That is why, when todays spectacle of a Tory party talking to itself is long forgotten, we will continue to make the case for Britains place in Europe and for change in Europe. 10.31 am The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague): It is kind of Opposition Members to look forward to my speech. After the speech of the shadow Foreign Secretary, that is not altogether surprising. Rarely in this House[HON. MEMBERS: More!] Rarely in this House has a speech accusing others of causing uncertainty been so totally shrouded in uncertainty itself. After the right hon. Gentlemans speech, he has still not said whether the Opposition will vote for or against or abstain on Second Reading. He has managed to speak for half an hour without even saying what their position is on the Second Reading of the Billa feat almost unknown in this House and in all the Second Reading debates that I have attended in the past 24 years. The parliamentary Labour party briefing, of which I have helpfully obtained a copythey are left all over the building in surprising placesstates:
This is a Conservative Party Billwhich we are opposed to.
call from Unite or from divine inspiration through the ether. There is no other way in which he is able to decide on the Bill. Mr Steve Reed: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Hague: I will make a bit of progress before giving way. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) is to be applauded for introducing the Bill and for his excellent speech. Huge numbers of people across the country, as well as in this House, will thank him for it. The matter before us is about Europes future, our countrys place in it and, above all, democracy. It is about giving the people of this country the decisive say that is their right. Mr Steve Reed rose Mr Hague: I will give way in a moment. At a time of profound change in Europe, this Bill would give the British people the power to decide one of the greatest questions facing Britain: whether we should be in the EU or out of it. In deference to my hon. Friends in the Liberal Democrat party, I must say that I am not speaking for the whole coalition. As will be obvious to the House, I am speaking on behalf of the Conservative party. Two years ago, we passed the European Union Act 2011 to ensure that no Government could agree to transfer areas of power from Britain to the EU without a referendum. It met complete indecision from the Opposition, who resolutely and bravely abstained. However, support for it is now their official policy. Two years later, they have adopted our policy and we are pleased that they have done so. Today, with this Bill, we discover a similar wave of indecision on the Opposition Benches and we look forward to their adopting this policy in due course. Perhaps the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) will clarify that point. Mr Steve Reed: The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he is against uncertainty and indecision. Perhaps he will tell us how he would vote in an in/out referendum. Mr Hague: Opposition Members will have to do better than that. The policy of the Government, which was set out in detail in the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, is to achieve a reformed European Union and a better settlement with it. We do not agree with the status quo and we want to be able to campaign for Britain to stay in a reformed European Union. Philip Davies: For the avoidance of doubt, I would vote to leave the European Union. The Foreign Secretary said that he was not speaking for both parts of the coalition. Is he sure about that? Surely he recalls how, in the last Parliament, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Deputy Prime Minister, marched his MPs out of this Chamber when they were denied the opportunity to move an amendment to have an in/out referendum. My right hon. Friend cannot be telling us the exact truth when he says that he is not speaking for both parts of
If the Opposition are opposed to it, presumably they are going to vote against it. The shadow Foreign Secretary is not able to answer that question. Not only does he not know what his policy is; he does not even know whether he is going to vote against something that he is opposed to. Opposition Members are asking when the Prime Minister will leave, but the Leader of the Opposition is not even here. He is presumably sitting somewhere, wondering whether his instructions will come in a phone
1189
5 JULY 2013
1190
the coalition. Perhaps he will clarify that, because I thought he was speaking very much for the Liberal Democrats as well. Mr Hague: When my hon. Friend said that he would vote to withdraw from the European Union, he was not avoiding doubtI do not think we were in any doubt about that at the beginning. He makes a fair point about our hon. Friends the Liberal Democrats. I will helpfully explain my view on their position during my remarks. Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con): On the subject of democracy, despite the resolute irresolution of Her Majestys official Opposition, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important for democracy that Members have a chance to record their support for the Bill in a Division? If a Division is not called, there are strong supporters of the Billmyself and my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) who stand ready to enable such a Division, to ensure that right hon. and hon. Members may show their support for the Bill. Mr Hague: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That may well be necessary given that Opposition Members, despite being opposed to the Bill, have not decided how they will vote. They have a few hours to decide. Dame Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) rose Mr Hague: I will get through a few more paragraphs, but then I will give way to the right hon. Lady. I do not need to remind the House that it is almost 40 years since the British people last had a vote on what was then the European Economic Community. Since then, there have been major treatiesfour in the last quarter of a centuryall of which would have required a referendum had the 2011 Act been in force at the time. Through those treaties, the EEC has become the European Community and now the European Union, and not once has there been a referendum on any of it. Some of us campaigned for referendums on the treaties of Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon. Everyone can concede of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice that the party in government had said that it would ratify them in the general election campaign. The Lisbon treaty is in a special category, in that there was no mandate in a general election or a referendum from the people of this country. Persisting with the Lisbon treaty with no mandate from either a general election or a referendum[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) asks where I was when Maastricht took place. Is he not aware that there was a general election in 1992? There was no mandate for the Lisbon treaty from a general election or a referendum, and the Labour party deeply undermined the democratic legitimacy of the European Union when it took that decision. Dame Tessa Jowell: May I press the Foreign Secretary on the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed)? In the forthcoming referendum that the Foreign Secretary is advocating, which way will he vote? The Prime Minister has indicated that he will vote to stay in the EU. How will the Foreign Secretary vote?
Mr Hague: The Prime Minister and I are in exactly the same position. Of course we will vote to stay in a successfully reformed European Union. Now perhaps the right hon. Lady will tell us how she will vote on this Bill[Interruption.] No, Opposition Members still do not know how they will vote on this Bill. When Ministers from other countries ask me why public opinion here is disillusioned with the European Union, I point out that there have been referendums on the EU in France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Luxembourg, Sweden and Irelandoften twice, of course, in Irelandyet there has been no referendum for more than a generation in the United Kingdom. The efforts of those who wanted to build European integration without bringing the people with them have been utterly self-defeating. The EU now lacks democratic legitimacy because so many of those most enthusiastic about ever-closer union have been afraid of asking what the British people might think of it. Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con): My right hon. Friend is completely right in what he just said. Furthermore, with respect to Maastricht, how far the Conservative party has come! The other day my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister actually stated that he believed there should have been a referendum on Maastrichtand he was right. Mr Hague: As always we enjoy my hon. Friends robust support on these issues, and I am grateful for that. Several hon. Members rose Mr Hague: I will not give way for a moment, but I will later on. No institution can survive without the peoples support, and the EU that will emerge from the eurozone crisis may look very different from the EU before the crisis. Every country in the EU will have to make potentially fundamental choices about their place in Europe as a result, and the future shape of Europe for decades will be determined by those choices. But whatever the outcome of the crisis, the EU needs reform if it is to be democratically sustainable for all its members, which it will not be if ever-greater centralisation sucks ever more powers from its member states. As the Dutch Governments recent report stated,
the time of ever closer union in every possiblearea is behind us.
They are right. Our policy is therefore to seek reform so that the EU can be more competitive and flexible for the modern age, so that powers can come back to the countries of the European Union, and so that national Parliamentsthe indispensible vessels of democracycan have a more powerful role and then put the decision in the hands of the British people, as this Bill would do. Michael Ellis: We hear a lot nowadays about the surveillance powers of the state. Could my right hon. Friend use the powers open to him to establish where the Leader of the Opposition is? Mr Hague: I think I would get into trouble if I used our powers for that particular purpose, but we will no doubt discover in due course where the Leader of the Opposition is today. We hope he is thinking hard about what Labours policy will be.
1191
5 JULY 2013
1192
Mr Marsden rose Mr Hague: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then make a bit more progress. Mr Marsden: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who, as Foreign Secretary and previously, has played a distinguished part in supporting EU expansion in eastern and central Europe. Given his reference to national Parliaments, will he tell the House what sort of message he thinks it sends to countries that have recently acceded to the EU that he is orchestrating a cynical attempt to bring us out? Mr Hague: I think the Bill sends the message that we are a robust democracy too. We welcomed Croatia into the European Union, and it had a referendum about whether to join. Therefore, it does not find discussion about referendums in other parts of the European Union surprising. That is why every Member of the House who is a true democrat can and should unite behind the Bill. It is about letting the people decide. Those who like the EU just as it isnot me, but evidently some Labour Memberscan campaign to see the EU regain its democratic legitimacy in this country. Those, like me, who want to see Britain succeed in reforming the EU can see what success we have in changing it, and then put the choice to the people. Those who want Britain to leave the EU come what may will also have the chance to persuade the British people. Ultimately, it would be up to the voters to decide, and that is the essence of democracy. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that
in 2015
a referendum. We have heard from some of them already, and this Bill is their chance; it is the best chance currently available to make it happen. Not only would it be a badge of honour for them, but it would help show their weak leadership some real leadership that is sorely needed. This is not the first time that the question of whether to consult the people has caused unmitigated dither, muddle and confusion in the Labour leadership. When the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), was trying to decide whether to call a general election in 2007, he asked the current Leader of the Opposition, the current shadow Foreign Secretary and the current shadow Chancellor, resulting in the decision taking so long that they never made a decision at all and never held a general election. The impulse to trust the people is not exactly their hallmark. Now we wonder: what is Labours policy? The shadow Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), who is not here, said in October:
I think at some point there will have to be a referendum on the EU. I dont think its for today or for the next year, but I think it should happenMy preference would be an in-or-out referendum when the time comes.
In January, the Leader of the Opposition told the House,

we do not want an in/out referendum[Official Report, 23 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 305.]
The shadow Foreign Secretary said that Labour will not commit to an in/out referendum now, but might do laterapparently that is the way to avoid uncertainty. The shadow Chancellor said:
I dont think we should set our face against a referendum and I certainly dont think we can ever afford to give the impression that we know better than the voting public
we
will ask for a mandate from the British peopleto negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next Parliament.
The Conservative party is ready to trust the voters with this Bill, and we are happy that the Democratic Unionist party is of the same mind. The Scottish National party is not here but it is content with a referendum next year, which means that the people of Scotland will vote twice on whether to leave the European Union. It is completely open to Members of other parties to support this Bill. Liberal Democrats can support this Bill. They are democrats and I remind my hon. Friends in the other part of the coalition of their last election manifesto, which stated:
The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over thirty years ago. Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum the next time a British Government signs up for a fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU.
although that was never a problem for him when squandering tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers money. Will Labour make up its mind or not? Its chief strategist, the noble Lord Wood, said the week before last on whether Labour would offer a referendum:
Its conceivable because we are going to make up our minds before the next election.
Martin Horwood: The right hon. Gentleman is a fine Foreign Secretary and he bangs on about Europe very eloquently indeed. He will recall that at the time of the Lisbon treaty, the Liberal Democrats voted for an in/out referendum, not in four years time, the next Parliament or at some point in the future, but then and there. Will the right hon. Gentleman remind me whether we were supported by a single Conservative MP at that time? Mr Hague: My hon. Friend must remember that had our Liberal Democrat colleagues voted with us for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, there would have been a referendum in 2008. Some Labour Members support
Last week, the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, No, no, no. Theres no change of policy and theres no prospect of a change of policy. With some in favour, some against, some adamantly in favour of not having a referendum, some adamantly for deciding later, at some point, perhaps before the general election but who knows?with such a shambles of confusion and weak leadership, no wonder Labour Members are wondering what they are here for and where their leader is today. One day Unite will give them their orders on how to vote on these matters. The Leader of the Opposition and his closest friends are being asked to make a decisionto vote one way or another and be held accountable for it. The position of the Labour party on this vital national and international issue is that Labour Members would rather not be asked and they would rather not be here. Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): As the Foreign Secretary knows, I am with him on the idea of a referendum, but would he help me with this? As someone who has attended many, many summits over the 24 years
1193
5 JULY 2013
1194
that he has been in Parliamentas a Minister, of course, he has attended many summitsdoes he think the Prime Minister will have the time and space between 2015, if he is re-elected as Prime Minister, and 2017 to go around the whole of Europe to get the concessions he needs in order to secure reform of the EU? Mr Hague: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is tirelesslynow, in this Parliament, never mind in the next Parliamentgoing around Europe making sure this country gets what it needs. The Opposition do not have a policy to reform the EU, but we do and he is pursuing it. Labour never cut the EU budget, but he already has. Labour signed Britain up to eurozone bailouts and he has got us out of them. Labour surrendered part of the rebate and he has never surrendered part of the rebate, so the right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that my right hon. Friend will be well equipped to go round Europe preserving our national interest. David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con): Looking at the maths in the House of Commons today, we have 30 Labour MPs and I have lost count of how many Conservatives there are. Is that not testament in itself to the fact that we trust the people of this country? Mr Hague: I agree with my hon. Friend. The note circulated by Labour Whipswhich has also come into my possessionsaid:
We will be looking for suitable speakers so that the chamber is not completely empty.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con): The right hon. Gentleman may have observed that the Conservative Back Benches are full of volunteers supporting their leader. Has he noticed that there are fewer than 25 Labour MPs here and no leader? Mr Denham: As I will explain to the hon. Gentleman and the House, the reason for that is that this is a Bill about the private problems and the private political difficulties of the Conservative party, so it is not surprising that so many Conservative Members are here today. These matters do not really affect the rest of us very much, except forI will come to thisthe damage that is being done by the antics within the Conservative party to the interests of this country. Philip Davies: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the oddities of todays Bill, and there are certainly some oddities in todays proceedings. The greatest one I have heard so far is the shadow Foreign Secretary asking the Foreign Secretary how he will vote in a referendum in four years time, when the shadow Foreign Secretary cannot answer how he will vote on this Bill in less than four hours time. Mr Denham: For my part, I very much doubt that I will be here in four hours time to vote at all on this Bill. Let me explain why. Heather Wheeler rose Dr Offord rose Mr Denham: No, I will make a little progress. Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will not be here. I wonder whether you could give some guidance on how long Members should remain in their places at the conclusion of a debate to hear the winding-up speeches. Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Mr ReesMogg, I think you know the answer to that. Members are required to hear the speech before them and two after. We are on a private Members Bill today, not a Government Bill, and the Front Benchers have already spoken. Mr Denham: I am not one of those who have been accused of abusing the courtesies of this House, but there is no requirement in the courtesies of this House to vote on a motion that is ridiculous, so I will not be voting on it. There was a time, not so long ago, when private Members Bills were used for matters of great social reform, such as homosexual law reform and gay marriage. Issues of great constitutional importance were seen as the responsibilities of the Government. That may have changed. Gay marriage is an important social reform, so perhaps making it a Government proposal is progress the Governments gay marriage proposals certainly had many Government Members beside themselves. However, constitutional reforms, such as the Great Reform Act, the devolution referendum and the initial referendum on the European Union, which were the responsibilities
They need not have worried that the Chamber would be empty, because there are hundreds of us here, determined that the people will have their say. I believe it would be right for the House to support this Bill today. It is the right Bill, at the right time, to give the British people their democratic right to have their say on this countrys future. We will do everything we can to make sure it becomes the law of the land, so that the people can decide, and in the next Parliament, the Prime Minister is determined that we will deliver on this commitmenta democratic commitment in a robustly democratic country. 10.52 am Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab): I trust I will be judged a suitable speaker to make sure the Chamber is not completely empty. I am delighted to speak in this debate, which has so far lived up to expectations. I would not have missed it for the world, because it must be one of the oddest debates ever held in this Chamber on a private Members Bill Friday. It is odd because of the politics of the occasion. I do not think there has been a private Members Bill Friday in the time that I have been in this House when the Prime Minister has been forced by his Back Benchers to come here to jump to their tune. Normally, Prime Ministers hold a sort of lofty disdain for private Members Bills, but our Prime Minister, in the eyes of Europe, has been humiliated here today by his own Back Benchers. That is one oddity about today. The second oddity is the reason the Bill is here at all, which I shall come to, and the third oddity is what is in it.
1195
5 JULY 2013
1196
[Mr Denham] of Government, have now been devolved by this weak and hopeless Prime Minister to private Members business. That is one great oddity. Mrs Main: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Denham: No, I will make a little more progress. Why has this situation come about? Why has supposedly the most powerful politician in the land come begging his MPs to support a private Members Bill? The Prime Ministers position on the issue seems clear enough. He made a speech in January in which he said that after the next election, if there is a Conservative Government, he would aim to renegotiate our relationship with the EU, with an in/out referendum by 2017, come what may in those negotiations. That might not be wisethere is absolutely no guarantee of any negotiations being clear by 2017but it is certainly a clear position, and it came from the Prime Minister. Why was that not good enough for the Conservative Members who have turned up today? Of course, many of them just want to leave the EU. They do not care when, as long as it is as soon as possible, and they do not trust their own Prime Minister. As soon as the Queens Speech was published, they were after him. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) was first off the mark, moving an amendment regretting the failure to mention a referendum Bill in the Queens Speech. He was very clear why one was needed. He wrote in The Daily Telegraph:
The Prime Minister made a historic pledge to the British people during his January speech,
what Conservative MPs say. That is what we do here in this House. It probably does not do us much good with the general public, but that is what we dowe throw these things about. What I do not expect is a Conservative MP to say, You cant believe a Conservative Prime Minister, and that is what the hon. Gentleman did. The Bill has arisen from the decision of Conservative Back Benchers Mr Baron: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. It had better be a point of order, Mr Baron. Mr Baron: It is a point of order Madam Deputy Speakeror I hope it is. I seek your guidance. I have been misquoted by the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I promise the House that I have been directly misquoted. [Interruption.] I wrote the piece, so I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how one can correct the misquoting by the right hon. Gentleman. Madam Deputy Speaker: The issue is a matter for debate, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I believe his name is down to be called in this debate and he will have ample opportunity at that point if he feels that the record needs to be corrected. I think he is experienced enough to know that these matters tend to be a point of debate rather than a point of order. Mr Denham: The first point is that this is really a private matter for the Conservative party. Whether they believe that their Prime Minister is trustworthy or believable is primarily a matter for them, not for the rest of us. If they wish to humiliate their party leader, that is up to them. I do not intend to participate in the vote later today. We know what happened. The humiliated Prime Minister was forced to let the Tory party publish a referendum Bill, and the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) was unfortunate enough, from his point of view, to come top of the ballot. He might have made his name by trying to improve the lot of carers, improve animal welfare or tighten gas safety, or by engaging with the traditional territories of private Members Bills, but instead he has introduced this Bill. I do not blame him for it, but the Bill is about the Tory party and not the national interest. Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Denham: No, I am going to make a little more progress and then I will take another intervention. The aim seemed clear enough: to put the Prime Ministers promise on to a statutory basis. We know what the promise was: after the next election to have a renegotiation and then to have a referendum by 2017. So imagine my surprise when I read the Bill, because it does not commit to a referendum after the next election. The Bill is very clear: the referendum could happen as soon as the Bill has been passed. It is not about after the next election or after renegotiationit is any time now. That is very odd, because the Prime Minister is on the record as opposing a referendum Bill now. Why, then,
but
where the Prime Ministers pledge falls down is its believability.
Let me repeat that:

where the Prime Ministers pledge falls down
this historic pledge, let us remember

is its believability.
What an extraordinary statement! The reason we are here today is because the majority of Tory MPs do not believe that a historic pledge made by their own leader is believed by the British people. That is the only reason we are here, and that is why the Prime Minister is humiliated by these proceedings today. Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con): I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman quotes very selectively from that piece. Having written it, I will correct him for the record. What I went on to say was that the issue was believability, not because there is an issue between the Prime Minister and his Back Benchers, but because the issue has been between politicians in general and the electorate, because far too many promises in the past have been broken, particularly by the Labour party and the Liberals, at every single general election. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to quote me, he should please do it correctly. Mr Denham: I quoted absolutely verbatim from the hon. Gentlemans article. Let me respond to his further point. I would expect a Conservative MP to say, You cant really believe what Labour MPs say and I would expect Labour MPs to say, You cant really believe
1197
5 JULY 2013
1198
does the Bill, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Stockton South and drafted in Tory party central office, provide for the possibility of a referendum now? The hon. Gentleman gave the game away in an interview, again I am afraid, in The Daily Telegraph. Discussing possible amendments to the Bill, he said that the most difficult amendment to deal with would be one calling for a referendum before the next election, because
many MPs would be sympathetic
to such a move. There we have it: the Bill has been drafted as broadly as it has, because if it accurately reflected the Prime Ministers January speech and excluded a referendum before the next election, too many Tory MPs would have turned up demanding to amend it for an early vote. Far from showing the unity of the Conservative party, all the Bill has done is show how thin is the veneer of unity that they are trying to present. Again, this is private grief and is no business for the rest of us. Of course, it is entirely pointless, because no Bill of this sort can bind the next Parliament. Either the Conservatives win the next election or they do notthis is a pointless exercise. Steve Brine: I thank the right hon. Gentleman and near parliamentary neighbour for giving way. I think that the people of Winchester and Chandlers Ford, which are both near to his constituency, are clear that they want a choice on our relationship with Europe. He has called the Bill ridiculous. Will he explain why he is so sure that the people of Southampton, Itchen do not want a say on our future relationship with the EU? Mr Denham: Let me turn to the point I was about to address on how the national interest is served by this discussion. The national interest is the one thing that has been entirely missing from the debate so far. It is a debate about the Conservatives, and that is not the national interest. It is not a debate about the future of our country, our influence in the world or what is best for our children, but what is best for the Conservatives as they run away from the UK Independence party. The debate is not doing the Tories much good. The January speech intended to lance the boil of UKIP, and some may have noticed that it led immediately to the Conservatives coming third in Eastleigh and losing seats all over the country to UKIP in the council elections. Again, that is private grief and I want to talk about the national interest. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): It struck me as a little odd that both the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) and the Foreign Secretary missed out UKIP in their speeches. Does my right hon. Friend think that they are totally scared of mentioning UKIP? Mr Denham: There is no doubt that this whole exercise is driven by the Conservative partys terror of UKIP. In answer to the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine)I will come on to the specific point on a referendum in a momentI want our future to be as a confident part of a reformed European Union. There are people who say that we could be like Switzerland or Norway. They are fine countries, but I do not want to be like them. Clearly, the days of empire and global military
might are long gone and rightly so, but I am still sufficiently confident in this country and sufficiently patriotic to believe that we can be a country of influence and leadership in the world. I am not going to join those who just want to scuttle away from the challenges of the world, as Eurosceptics do. Yes, there is a case for a referendum in principle, and I see that. It is a long time since we had one, and to an extent the demand for it has taken on a life of its own beyond the issue of Europe. However, those of us who can see that case also have a responsibility to be clear about the conditions in which a referendum would serve the national interest. If we are to ask people to vote, the choice has to be clear. We need to know what the effect of saying yes will be, and we need to know what the effect of saying no will be. The hon. Member for Stockton South and the Foreign Secretary both let the cat out of the bag. The hon. Member for Stockton South said that no one knows what the European Union will be like in 10 years time, and the Foreign Secretary said that it may be very different from the way it is today. Both those judgments are true, so how can we have a referendum when the consequences of leaving might be clear enough, but it is not clear what the consequences of staying will be. Clearly, we need to pursue reform and to reshape the EU so there can be a clear and settled choice. I am not one of thosenot all of those in my party agree with this, but I do not mind there being a discussion in our partywho rule out a referendum on Europe. However, a referendum should only happen if it is in the national interest and if we can put to the people a clear and settled choice. That has not yet been delivered. Keith Vaz: My right hon. Friend is making an important and thoughtful speech, and he is right to embrace the reform agenda. Does he agree that that reform agenda can start now, and that we can only conduct the reform agenda if we are at the top table of Europe? There is nothing to stop Ministers beginning that process immediately. Mr Denham: My right hon. Friend is right. What worries me is that the Prime Minister represents a party in which that generation of confident patriots, who believed that this country could shape Europe to the benefit of Europe and in the interests of our country, has gone. The Conservative party is split. There are those who simply want to leave come what may. They are the people Lewis Carroll satirised 150 years ago when he had the Queen of Hearts say, Sentence first, evidence later. They have made up their minds. The other faction of the Conservative party simply believes in repatriation and repeal: returning to the country those rights that give working people decent protections maternity pay, the right not to be maimed and killed at work, and paid holidaysin order to repeal them. Those are the only two positions that exist in todays Conservative party. So when my right hon. Friend says that these negotiations should start now, the problem is this: yes, but you must have people who are going to be credible in those negotiations. We send a Prime Minister who has been forced. He goes to meetings and everyone is laughing behind their hands, because they know that he does not control his own party, and that his strength to negotiate on our
1199
5 JULY 2013
1200
[Mr Denham] behalf is being shot away by the antics of the people behind him, who know that 2017 is an arbitrary date that bears no relationship to any decision-making processes in the EU, but is entirely about trying to head off unsuccessfully, it has to be saidthe threat from UKIP. That is not a way to approach the national interest. I am not one of those who says, These are only matters for general elections and that there must never be a point where people have a choice. But to return to what the hon. Member for Winchester said, if I say, Lets have a choice, my constituents have a right for the choice to be clearclear about the nature of the European Union they could vote for or the nature of the European Union that they would leave. There is no clarity to that choice today. There is no reason to believe that there will be clarity to that choice on the arbitrary date of 2017. Several hon. Members rose Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. Before I call the next speaker, it might be helpful if I inform the House that more than 43 Members wish to participate in todays debate. There will not be a time limit, because there is not in private Members business, but it would help if all Members could bear in mind that many of their colleagues wish to speak and, therefore, perhaps, make their speeches just a little shorter, if possible. 11.11 pm Sir Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con): I just reflect that, after the last three contributions by Labour Members, I genuinely think that their policy is unsustainable; this will, I am sure, be changed before we get to a general election. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on moving a Bill to give the British people a referendum, and wish him well in this. It is a curious Bill for a private Members day, but I give a cheer for that as well, because, on 21 February 1992, I also introduced a private Members BillI was number one in the ballotto have a referendum on Maastricht. Unfortunately, in those days Mr John MajorSir John Major as he becamewas against the matter, so perhaps I was a Prime Minister or two short. I mention that because I also moved a referendum Bill during the Maastricht treaty considerations in 1993, one year exactly after the private Members Bill. I also notice that there is a three-line Whip on this Bill; I think it diminishes it. I say that straight away, because I remember that when I tried to reform or failed to reformI am sorry that this is a catalogue of failed private Members Billssection 2 of the Official Secrets Act in 1988, so aggrieved were the Government, with movements on the Back Benches, upstairs, outrage and all the rest, that this was clearly not a matter for a Back-Bench Member of Parliament, that the then Conservative Government, under someone I respected greatly, put on a three-line Whip, again, against me. There is no paranoia in what I say, just realism. I will say that, on the private Members Bill on the Official Secrets Act, there was a queue in Central Lobby of Conservative Members who had served in the second
world war and were what used to be called, unlike me, knights of the shires, going into the Whips Office to tell them that this was a constitutional outrage, that their Fridays were being interrupted and that this was exclusively a space of time left for the consideration of Bills by private Members, and to bring forward Bills of great importance, as we all think of our own initiatives. I wish my hon. Friend well and I shall most certainly vote for this Bill, because there would be a slight inconsistency if I did notalthough that has never been a difficulty for most politicians in the past. Kelvin Hopkins: I am most interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He is right about three-line Whips. We Labour Members have not been three-line whipped. I have come here of my own volition. Are his colleagues being three-line whipped to attend or to vote for the Bill? Sir Richard Shepherd: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not the progenitor of the Whip, but I respect my wonderful party, which at last has found a voice to express those they represent. I think that the Labour Front Bench is in genuine difficulties over this matter, because it is a rejection of a movement and feeling that is now effective in the country. This has been too long coming: an unconscionable period of time. I made a famous prediction, which I regret to say did not come about, with the experience and arrogance of youth, and in a television studio in Birmingham announced that this common market racket would be over in 10 years. That is, of course, now 32 years ago. I learned from that the tenacity with which a particular class of those who lead us have sought to control this issue. There is no defence of conversation within a nation, or anything. All the way through this, an elite in our political parties, which rises to the top, forms judgments and changes its judgments. Peter Shore wrote perhaps the most balanced speech, titled A thousand years of British history, when we knew nothing, rather like the other day in the Commons, about what the Governments intentions were in joining. That speech asks a series of questions. We know nothing about this. We wonder. We have to wait. The Conservatives also knew nothing about it and did not have to wait. So in the end they were great supporters of our joining what was called the common market. The Library Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a huge paradox in hon. and right hon. Members arguing against this Bill on the basis of the national interest, because the national interest cannot be determined by the nation while we are in the European Union under its current constitution? Sir Richard Shepherd: I love the question. Years ago, when I was a very young Member, the BBC kindly asked meI had been disobliging over official secrets, or whatever it waswhether I would do an essay and a short broadcast for it on the national interest. University being not so far away, I filled rooms with books. What came out on the national interest was that whoever has a majority in this Chamber is the national interest. We will debate it until the end of time, but in the end it is resolved by a vote here, ultimately.
1201
5 JULY 2013
1202
I am more cautious about this grand expression of the national interest. I have the clearest view of what the national interest is: we should have immediately, as soon as possible, a vote on continued membership of the European Union. I would affirm that that is in the national interest. When I hear people casually throwing around questions about what is the national interest, my own truthful observation is that it is, as Madam Deputy Speaker would say, debatable. That is what I see as the national interest. I want to say of my gyrations through my private Members Bills, and this matter, that this is about the most profound question that this House faces. It is not a narrow question of whether the country is interested in dogs, or this and that; the country is indeed interested in all those things. This touches on a living democracy. The opponents of these measures never understand that this is an ancient collection of islands, an archipelago, in whose history, and in the lines of whose history, lies the very story of liberty and freedom, whether in Scotland or England, with our own Magna Carta. We forget that. This was the integrity. During my unsuccessful speech in the past, there was a magnificent contribution by a Labour MP; it was Peter Shore. Some will remember him; he was a considerable figure in his own right. He made a contribution to the debate on my Bill, saying that I had
managed, in a few words, to address two major points, the first of which is the role of the referendum, which offers one of the few possibilities to remedy a fundamental weakness in our constitution. We have no written constitution and no procedures to protect and entrench features of our national and constitutional life. Everything can be changed by a simple majority. Many other countries, as we know, have quite elaborate procedures requiring a majority of two thirds for changes in constitutional matters and arrangements, often backed up with public referendums.
national constitutional history, which is being threatened. Why should we defer in such an adventure, when this is the most remarkable and ancient of all the democratic communities within western Europe? Why? We have had a generation of politicians who have acceded and conceded. As we know, nothing was yielded over Maastricht. I therefore wish the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary wellGod knows where they are in their travelsas they look at competences and all the rest of it. I believe that a referendum is inevitable for the British people, and I believe that what the Labour party decides on this matter is also important to the British people. Labour Members, like Conservative Members, have changed their mind a number of times on this issue. I profoundly believe, as I think all Members do if they reflect on our purpose here, that there should be a change in the law. When change come from Europe, it comes from an authority greater than that of this Chamber because of the cravenness of a generation of British politicians who did not think that they could govern their own land or believe in their own country. The people must be able to make a judgment. Let the people speak. 11.23 am Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op): I find myself agreeing completely with what I believe to be the three motivating thrusts of those who have brought forward the proposal we are discussing today. The first is the clear need for renegotiation of the terms of Britains relationship with the European Union; the second is the need for a referendum on Britains membership of the EU on renegotiated terms; and the third is the question of whether we trust the British Government. I find myself agreeing with Conservative Back Benchers that the Government cannot be trusted, so it is necessary to put things down in legislation in order to allow them no wriggle-room whatever. I remember being one of those Members who voted with the Foreign Secretary on the question of a referendum at the time of Lisbon. I remember the Conservatives saying that when they got to power, they would have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, yet no referendum on Lisbon did they hold. I think that in those circumstances words are not sufficient so legislation is necessary. Sir Gerald Howarth: I was not quite sure whether the Foreign Secretary was going to seek to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. May I remind him that what the Conservative Front-Bench team said in opposition was that they would hold a referendum in the event that the Lisbon treaty had not been ratified by the time we came into office? That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary went round a number of European capitals, urging them Please, do not ratifyunlike what the United Kingdom had doneso that when we came to power we would be able to veto it and have a referendum for the British people. It is that misunderstanding that is so important. This was not a categorical undertaking for a referendum; it would happen only in certain defined circumstances. Mr Davidson: It sounds like a get-out to me. The clear impression created was that the Conservatives were against the Lisbon treaty and that a referendum would be held. When they got into power, was a referendum held? No,
He continued:
We have no such defence. Indeed, previously we did not need them, because only this generation of British parliamentary representatives has contemplated handing to others the great prizes of national independence, self-government and the rule of law under our own elected representatives. It would not have occurred to a previous generation to hand to others that which we prize most greatly and have given to other countries throughout the world in the past 50 years. That is the novelty of the proposition, against which, because we did not think it conceivable, we have no defences. A referendum is a major constitutional device for defending the rights of the British people and our constitution.[Official Report, 21 February 1992; Vol. 579, c. 590.]
That is what is at the heart of this matter; that is the question we always have to answer; that is what it is about. Why should we hand over our self-government, which we prize, to others? This is not a criticism of other nations wishes to do what they want; it is about our ability to judge for ourselves what is most appropriate. This is not a repudiation of our friendships and our commitments to our allies. Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Sir Richard Shepherd: Not at the moment, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. This is about not consigning to others the making of laws and treaties for ourselves; this is about ourselves. This vote, what we decide and what people in the future decide will determine the character and strength of our
1203
5 JULY 2013
1204
[Mr Davidson] it was not. That is what people will remember. That is what the people out there remember; they remember that the Conservative party could not be trusted to abide by its promise to have a referendum on Lisbon. That is why I support the proposals before us today. Ms Gisela Stuart: A small group of us here have shared these debates. For the benefit of those who did not, Governments have found ways to get out of having to comply with their promises once they are in government and with the Tories it was about when to ratify. With the Lib Dems, they got out of having a referendum on the Lisbon treaty by suddenly wanting an in/out referendum and now that they can have that, they want something else. The real lesson is: once in government, people do not allow referendums; in opposition, they are much more likely to promise them. Mr Davidson: Absolutely. I was rebuking the Conservatives, but dont start me on the snivelling Liberals. Those points have already been made far better than I could make them. Shooting the Liberals in a barrel is just too easy and too self-indulgent. Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab): It is good fun, though! Mr Davidson: Yes, shooting the Liberals is good fun, but it is too easy. Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman like to expand in his short and pithy speech on how he is going to vote today? Otherwise, he is not trusting the people. Mr Davidson: Well, the Whips have been to see me and they deployed the ultimate threat. They said, If you think of voting for this, we will send round Len McClusky. I said, I know Len McClusky. Len McClusky is a friend of mine. I had Len McCluskys support in the last general election. I had the support not only of Len McClusky but of the GMB, Unison, UCATT and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, while opposing me were only Conservatives, nationalists and snivelling Liberals. And I got 60% of the vote. Now, in those circumstances, Len McClusky does not frighten me. I am drawing to peoples attentionthis is only fairthe fact that, as I understand it, Len McClusky and Unite are in favour of Britain remaining in the European Union. They find themselves in these circumstances in agreement with the snivellers opposite. It is not necessarily the case that Len McClusky and Unite are right on all questions, as Members will be aware. Before I move on, I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on introducing this measure. He was obviously enjoying himself, and if he carries on like that he will undoubtedly be punished by being promoted to the Front Benchsooner rather than later. I also congratulate those who are really behind this proposaland that is UKIP. [Interruption.] I am sorry, a sniveller. I give way to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood).
Martin Horwood: Given the hon. Gentlemans childish remarks about the Liberal Democrats, I can tell him that he has lost one member of Unite today. I am holding up my trade union membership card, which I have stuck to religiously since my days in the charity sector, but I can give it to him after the debate and he can do what he likes with it. Mr Davidson: Well, I suggest the hon. Gentleman does not tempt me to do what I like with it, because what I might like to do with it is not necessarily what he would enjoy, unless he is not the man I think he is. Stephen Pound rose Mr Davidson: No, no; if you offer it to one, then you have toAnyway, I will be having consultations in Room 220 in Portcullis house for those who wish to see me privately. As we all know, it is really UKIP that has to be congratulated on this Bill. This would not be coming forward in this way if the Conservatives were not under pressure from UKIP. My side should not be unduly enjoying what is happening with the Conservatives and UKIP, because UKIP is also entirely capable of eating into our vote, as voting for UKIP is a vote against leadership and government by an elite that is seen to be out of touch. It is a revolt, in a sense, by those who see themselves as little people ignored by the existing system. While Europe has been the particular issue around which it has coagulated, that is not necessarily the only issue on which it sees itself as divorced from politics. However, the Conservatives have reacted to UKIP almost solely on this issue. The Governments position is much weaker than it appears. I was appalled to hear the Prime Minister say before the negotiations had started that he was going to be voting for Britain to stay in. That grossly undermines the Governments negotiating position. Who goes into negotiations and says, We will vote to accept the terms we are offered before the negotiations have started? That seems to me to be an incredibly weak position. After todays votes and discussions, we ought to enter into a period of seriously discussion of the terms on which we wish to seek renegotiation. What is it that we want to see? I want to spell out a number of points I think we ought to discuss, because, knockabout apartand snivellers apartthese are serious issues that we have got to debate. Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): Clearly that discussion is going to start now and go on for four years until 2017. If there was a vote now, I would vote to come out, but now we are going to have this alternative plan. It is good that we have four years to try and get it right, so the British people can then say, Actually we like the end result that the Prime Minister has negotiatedor they say that they do not. and we leave. In my view, this makes a pretty good fist of dealing with this problem. Mr Davidson: I have considerable sympathy with that point of view, but it is grossly undermined by the fact that the Prime Minister has already indicated he intends to vote for the terms that are offered after renegotiation, irrespective of what those terms are. That is an absurd
1205
5 JULY 2013
1206
negotiating position, and the silence now among Members on the Government Benches speaks eloquently to their support for my position. What points for renegotiation should we be focusing on? The first is the question of ever closer union. It is clear to me that we have to make it clearabsolutely clear, crystal clearthat we reject totally the concept of ever closer union and the idea that the EU is a ratchet which only ever turns in one direction. I support devolution for Scotland on the principle that I believe powers should be moved downwards. I support the concept of subsidiarity, too, as I believe that in principle we ought to say that all powers held at any given level should be moved to the level below, unless a very strong case can be made for retaining them where they are. The onus ought to be on those who wish to hold them centrally to justify that position, rather than the converse. That has not been the position of successive British Governments up until now, and it should be, and I think we ought to make it absolutely clear that that is our position going forward, so that the inexorable expansion of the EUs powerslike the Blob in the science fiction films that used to replicate itself every 24 hours and expand into new areasis halted and constrained. David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con): The hon. Gentleman has a reputation for being a straight-talking politician and he is making a powerful case, but the suspense is too much. Will he tell the House which way he is going to vote? Mr Davidson: I will leave the hon. Gentleman in suspense for a little longer, if he does not mind, as I am worried that if Members know how I am going to vote, they will leave the Chamber with the question resolved. Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con): If the hon. Gentleman tells us, it will put us out of our misery. Mr Davidson: I am glad to hear that. The second issue is control of our borders. I do not believe that it is appropriate to have enormously tight restrictions on immigration from outwith the EU and have unlimited immigration from within the EU. That leads to a situation in which some of the restrictions on migration from outside the EU are, in my view, too tight, driven by a desire to keep down the numbers. It is meaningless to have restrictions on the outside and allow anybody who is given leave to remain in Spain, France, Greece, Bulgaria or Romania to come into the United Kingdom simply because those countries have given them citizenship rights. We have to have control over our borders, which means saying to our European colleagues that we do not accept unfettered free movement of people if it is not in the United Kingdoms interest at any particular given time. Graham Stringer: I agree with my hon. Friends general views on the EU, and I agree with him about the Lib Dems, and I agree with the points he is making about what renegotiation should consist of. In that, however, he is asking for fundamental changes to the treaty of Rome and many of the treaties that follow it. Does he really believe that the other 27 countries of the EU are going to vote to change those treaties?
Mr Davidson: I possibly have more faith in the Prime Minister than my hon. Friend does. Had the Prime Minister not to some extent sold the jerseys, I think all these issues could very well be negotiated with our colleagues, because we are not alone. I do not believe that Britain is the only country that wants to retain control over its immigration policy. I think many colleagues support the position we are taking on this question, and I will come on to the question of dates in a moment. The next point we ought to be dealing with is the question of the common agricultural policy. That has been covered in this House on a number of occasions, so I will not delay us by discussing it, as has the question of the cost of the European Union, and the waste and extravagance. The final point I want to make is that the Conservative drive for renegotiation seems to be driven by the sort of impulse that means every time Conservatives walk by a house and see a chimney, they regret that a small boy is not climbing up it. I think the Conservative partys wish to repatriate powers over labour relations and working conditions is driven by a desire to drive down terms and conditions to the level of the 18th or 17th or 16th century, if they think they can get away with it. There is no future for Britain in the long term if we go back to having small boys climb chimneys. It is rules and regulationsand, indeed, red tapethat stop us having small boys climbing chimneys. Those Conservatives who say that the main drive behind renegotiating the EU treaties is to have a freer labour market have got to come clean and say whether they believe a search to the bottom is the way forward for Britain. I do not believe we should be seeking to compete by lowering working standards, and that is one of the points on which Len McCluskey and I would be as one. If we accept the points that most of the Government Members, and many on our side, have been making, we would want to see three stages, and that is where I do agree with the Government. The first stage would be renegotiation and the second would be a referendum. I have an open mind on how I will vote at that time, because I recognise that the European Union has done many excellent things that I support, but, similarly, it has done many things that I do not support. How I vote in the referendum will depend on the balance reached in negotiations. Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con): I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind me referring to an earlier point he made, because I was checking something online while he was giving his brilliant speech. It is worth pointing out that a number of trade unions are actively campaigning for a referendum. Indeed, the advisory board of The Peoples Pledge, one of the great organisations calling for a referendum and which is running a successful campaign, was made up of at least three senior union representatives, including Bob Crow and Bill Greenshields, as well as a number of othersthe list goes on. So to suggest that the trade unions are opposed to a referendum or in favour of continued membership or continued escalation of our union within the EU is not strictly true. Mr Davidson: Sorry, I did not think I was actually saying that all unions were taking a particular position. I think that, most of the unions will take the view that they either want or do not want a referendum. I know
1207
5 JULY 2013
1208
[Mr Davidson] that many of them do want a referendum, and they will decide on the basis of what they believe is offered to their members once the renegotiations are complete. I support renegotiations, and I have always been clear about that. I am glad to hear that Bob Crow appears to have greater support from those on the Government Benches than he has from those on the Opposition Benches in some cases. Ever since he declared that he would be biting the heads off only three babies a day his popularity has increased among many Government Members. [Interruption.] It was four babies a day, then. Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): This debate is not about what kind of trade union laws we should have; it is about who makes those laws. The hon. Gentleman referred to young boys going up chimneys, but that practice was ended not by the European Union but by this Parliament, just as slavery was abolished by this Parliament and as women were given the vote by this Parliament. Mr Davidson: So now we have it: the hon. Gentleman wants this Parliament to have the power to put small boys up chimneys. I think he will find that there are rules in the European Union that prevent us from putting small boys up chimneys. I think that is a very valuable clarification, and members of Unite and elsewhere will take it into account. The Labour partys view on these matters is best described as being in a state of flux. It is a caterpillar, which, in a short time, will emerge as a butterfly. I believe that we will change our position in a relatively short time, as events change, because we are clearly heading for a crisis in the European Union. I do not believe that the euro is sustainable in its current form for much longer. As the euro degenerates, and as unemployment risesit already affects 50% of young people in Spainwe will see more social unrest in Europe and there will be an inexorable drive among the members of the euro to change the relationship within that bloc and, in turn, within the European Union. The Labour partys policy will change with that. I am confident that in the years to come I will find myself capable of supporting Labour party policy with a greater degree of enthusiasm than I do at the moment. I remember opposing the euro before it was fashionable to do so. I can also remember when the policy changed and it was impossible to find any Labour Member in favour of the euroindeed, it was almost impossible to find any Labour Member who had ever been in favour of joining the euro. So things will change, as they should. George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con): The hon. Gentleman and several other Labour Members, including the hon. Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), were instrumental 10 years ago in launching Labour Against the Euro. They led a group of about 40 Labour MPs which finally finished off former Prime Minister Blairs attempts to join the euro. We used to call that group LATE, for short, and some of us used to say, Better late than never, because it was an eleventh-hour arrival on the battlefield. I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) wants to keep us in suspense, but will he
tell us how late he intends to leave it before we get this large group of Labour MPs once again calling for a referendum? Mr Davidson: There is no difficulty in identifying a substantial group of Labour MPs who are in favour of a referendumthe issue is about the timing and the terms of the referendum, and I want to discuss that point now. A strong case has been advanced for a referendum now, before the election, but I wish to make it clear that I am completely opposed to that. An in/out referendum now would give us two choices, neither of which I find acceptable. Staying in on the existing terms would give the green light to those who wish to continue their spendthrift ways and want to continue the process towards ever-closer union. Getting out is simply a retreat and a surrender to separatism. I am opposed to that in Scotland, so I am also opposed to it in the United Kingdom. There is, however, a case for a referendum now on giving the Government the power to renegotiate the terms of membership. A referendum now on allowing the Government to renegotiateor on demanding that they start renegotiatingwould send a signal to our European colleagues that we are serious about this. They, like us, must be doubting how serious the Government are about driving this forward, given that the Prime Minister has already said that he intends to accept whatever terms are on offer. Mike Gapes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government do not need a referendum decision by this House, because they can go ahead and start renegotiating tomorrow if they wished to do so, and come up with proposals? The problem is that the Government do not have a negotiating position and, as the Foreign Secretary made clear to the Foreign Affairs Committee when we asked him about this, they do not intend to do this until after the next general election. Mr Davidson: To be fair, I covered some of those points earlier. I am conscious that others wish to speak, so may I just say that we do need to have an agenda for change, and I think we need to wait for a crisis? I do not understandthis is why I am not supportive of the proposed wordingthe point of saying that this has to be done by 31 December 2017. No rationale has been advanced as to why the chosen date should be 2017 rather than 2016 or 2018or even why it should be 31 December. If we commit ourselves to having a renegotiation, the best way of achieving success is to act when the EU has its next crisis, which cannot be all that far off. Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): Next week. Mr Davidson: It may very well be next week. If it is next week, I would hope that the Government would seize on that opportunityif only they had an agenda of items that they wanted to renegotiateto seek allies in the European Union in order to renegotiate our terms of entry. I see no reason in those circumstances, if we renegotiate terms before the next election, why we should have to wait until after the election. The issue, for me, is a question of agreeing that we want renegotiation and agreeing that we want a referendum, but not binding ourselves to any particular time. That is why, on the advice of the Whips, I shall not vote for the motion.
1209 11.48 am
5 JULY 2013
1210
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con): First, I want to put on record my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on a brilliant, deft and extremely well-conducted speech in which he dealt with complex interventions in a very, very mature fashion. I congratulate him not only on his speech but on its content. I am extremely glad that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, despite the fact that referendums were completely off the agenda for some time before the announcement was made in the Bloomberg speech, or in relation to the Bill, has said in the past, as I said in a short intervention, that he thought there should have been a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. Of course he was right, and I shall explain why in a moment. In 1996 I introduced a Bill, for which I was given what could be considered a bit of a going-over by the then Chief Whip and the Whips, one of whom is now a Minister. It was an entertaining experience, and all I can say is that it made no difference whatsoever to my attitude to the need for a referendum, as I shall explain. My right hon. Friend was right: the most important principle of the Bloomberg speech is the fourth principle, which overrides all the others, as they all depend on it. He said that the root of our national democracy is our national Parliament, but the essence of that democracy is when it is decided by Parliament that we shall give the people the right to make the decision, which is the ultimate test of trust in the electorate. Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Cash: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. It is estimated that 35 million people35 million votershave effectively been disfranchised by the continuous evolution, since 1975, of giving away more and more powers as well as the right to determine the kind of policies and government that they want. That is completely unacceptable. I voted yes in 1975, because I believed then that there was a case for allowing a common market and that we should test whether or not it would work. I also voted for the Single European Act, but I tabled an amendment that nothing in that measure should derogate from the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. That is why, when it came to Maastricht, I was absolutely determined to fight it at all costs, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd). Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): My hon. Friend mentioned an important word: sovereignty. Is it not right that sovereignty belongs to the people? Even the greatest and wisest Members in the Chamber are merely here-today-and-gone-tomorrow politicians. Sovereignty belongs to the people and their heirs and successors. It is not ours to take away: we must have a referendum. Mr Cash: I could not agree more. People have fought and died. The only reason we live in the United Kingdom in peace and prosperity is because, in the second and first world wars, we stood up for that freedom and democracy. Churchill galvanised the British people to stand up for the very principles that are now at stake.
Sir Gerald Howarth: I know that the whole House is delighted that my hon. Friend saw the light. Some of us not only campaigned in the referendum in 1975 but voted against the Single European Actonly three colleagues who did so remain in the House and, unfortunately, they are all Opposition Members. This is terribly important. My hon. Friend voted for the measure at the time because he thought that he was voting for a common market in goods and services. That is what the British people thought, and we tried to persuade them that it was going to be more than that: it was going to be a united states of Europe. That is the direction of travel, and there is no indication that the direction of travel has changed, which is why we need a referendum. Mr Cash: Indeed; I note what my right hon. Friend has said. This issue is about political union. If we strip away all the arguments about repatriation and renegotiation, there is no doubt whatsoever for anyoneI go to COSAC, which is the meeting of the chairmen of national scrutiny committees on European affairs throughout Europe; 27, now 28, chairmen joined togetherthat this is about political union. We should be under no illusion about that. It is not about anything else now. We had Mr Barroso telling us recently in the blueprint paper that the European Parliament is the only Parliament for the European Union. It is categorical, and I will challenge any Member of Parliament to get up and suggest that this is not embedded in the Maastricht treaty. That is what it was all aboutcreating a new European Government, and it has grown exponentially ever since. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is right. We said that we wanted to have a referendum on several of those treaties. Indeed, the Conservative party was united in voting for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. However, we have now reached a different situation. That is why it is important for the House to bear in mind that it is not a question of what may happen between now and 2017; it is happening already. There is clear evidence of the development, endorsed by the other member states, of a two-tier Europe between the eurozone and the European Union itself. That is the fundamental change that is already taking place, without a treaty. We know from the discussions that are going on in Europe that there is much talk of moving forward without another treaty. That is why we need to have a referendum. That is why the Government are right to promote the circumstances in which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South, who came first in the ballot, has the opportunity to introduce his Bill. That is why the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have taken part in the debate, and that is why it is so essential that we get it right. This is about political and economic freedom. David Rutley: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. I think he is coming on to the point that there are not just political reasons, but clear-cut economic reasons why we need to have a referendum, not least of which are the fact that 70% of the regulations that are an unacceptable burden on our businesses and their employees emanate from Europe, and the fact that there is 55% youth unemployment in Spain and in Greece, which is blighting a generation. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are economic reasons for a referendum?
1211
5 JULY 2013
1212
Mr Cash: I totally agree. My hon. Friend and I, with other Members, have debated this in complete unity, for the same reason: freedom is about freedom of choice. In parliamentary and constitutional terms, freedom of choice depends upon freedom of choice at the ballot box and in the marketplace. If we get the first, the political choice, wrong, as has been going on with this European Government, we will end up with austerity, small and medium-sized businesses not being able to work properly, and massive unemployment among young people, which I know Opposition Members are worried about, as are we on the Government Benches. When 65% of the young people in several countries in EuropeSpain, Greece and so onare unemployed, that is unacceptable and it is a direct result of the way in which the European Union has been centralised. Opposition Members have been saying recently, We do not like the centralisationpeople who are completely in favour of the European Union, until they suddenly realise that the centralisation is creating austerity, unemployment and misery for those young people. It is unacceptable. Mr Binley: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who perpetuate the myth of the single market, arguing that the UK will lose 3 million jobs if we come out, fail to take account of the fact that there is a 70 billion surplus, and no business in Europe will cease to trade with this country whether we are in the single market or not? Mr Cash: Furthermore, with respect to our trade deficit, as I have said on a number of occasions, in 2012, according to the Office for National Statistics, had a trade deficit of 70 billion with the other 27 member states. To give the point some substance, Germany, on the other handno wonder there are two Europes, which are increasingly becoming German-orientedhad a trade surplus with the other 27 member states in 2011 that has now gone up to 72 billion. It is not really a European Union any more. It is so heavily dominated, wilfully or otherwise, by the circumstances that have created that imbalance, and that of course has its effect on the qualified majority voting. That is why we have to have a referendum, and we need to have it sooner rather than later, because the fundamental renegotiation itself is dependent on the fact that the circumstances have already arisen, and as I said just now, not necessarily with a new treaty. Wayne David: So that we can be clear about the hon. Gentlemans position, does he favour the United Kingdom having a relationship with the European Union similar to that of Norway and Switzerland, or does he think we should be entirely separate and have no relationship with the single market? Mr Cash: I have made my position entirely clear on a number of occasions. We need to have something in the nature of a European Free Trade Association arrangement. We need an association of nation states. I am off to Lithuania the day after tomorrow to discuss these matters with the other 27 chairmen. The main topic of conversation now is democratic legitimacy, and it is not just in this country, it is not just in this Chamber, it is not just in the opinion polls, it is not just in the Eurobarometer, which has shown that trust in Europe has completely evaporated all over Europe. Wake up, I say. This is the fact, and it is
happening. That is why we need to have a renegotiation. This is about trust. It is about allowing people to have government of a kind that responds to their own wishes, as expressed in general elections. That is why we cannot have two Governments and two Parliaments covering the same subject matter. It is complete, incoherent, absurd nonsense. Mrs Main: My hon. Friend has been tempted on numerous occasions by Opposition Members to debate the merits of in and out, but that is not what today is about. They will not say whether or not they will have a referendum. Today is about whether we will debate that with the publicnot in here among ourselves, but take it out to the public. The Opposition want to turn todays debate into a debate about the merits. I caution my hon. Friend about being seduced by Opposition Members. Make them answer whether they will vote for a referendum. Mr Cash: I think my hon. Friend can be certain that I am not likely to be seduced, either by the Opposition or anybody else, for that matter. I simply say this: this is about the principle of a referendum. I conclude with a simple statement: this is about trust. It is about trust in people. Because we are doing it through a Bill, as is required, we will give authority through Parliament to have a referendum. That is what this is all about. It is to give the British people their right to have their say. There is no question but that the Bill must pass, but it needs to be secured by a vote on both sides of the House. I am afraid that Opposition Members are neglecting their duty to their constituents if they continue to refuse to support the Bill. 12.2 pm Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): Many hon. Members wish to speak so I will keep my remarks as brief as possible. I am delighted and honoured to be a supporter of the Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on taking this subject for his private Members Bill and on bringing it before the House in the way that he did. I well remember that when I had a relatively high place in the ballot a number of years ago, I introduced a private Members Bill for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. I had half an hour to deliver a speech in the House, thanks in no small way to the kind co-operation of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who often attends on Fridays on private Members Bills, but unfortunately there was not as much interest in it as there is on this occasion, and there certainly were not as many Members present to ensure that it got any further. However, I am proud of having introduced that private Members Bill, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South on this measure. I also congratulate the Prime Minister on his support for the initiative. As has been said, it is 38 years since we have had a referendum on the UKs relationship with Europe, and it is now time to give people their say. Therefore, representing as I do a party that believes in consulting the people, and has advocated referendums on a number of occasions in Northern Ireland on a range of constitutional issues, and has supported that consistently, particularly on Europe, we will be voting in favour of the Bill
1213
5 JULY 2013
1214
enthusiastically and without equivocation. I know that in so doing we will be representing the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland, even those who support parties that are in favour of being part of the European Union. Whether they are for or against the United Kingdoms continued membership of the European Union, on whatever terms, they believe that it is high time they had a say in this debate and that it should not longer be confined to this Chamber and the television studies. If we can have referendums on regional assemblies, devolved government, police commissioners, local mayors and the alternative vote, how on earth can it be logical, sensible or defensible for any Member of this House or any party to take the position that on this issue of such fundamental importance to the United Kingdoms democracy, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) so eloquently said, and as others have said, the British people will uniquely be denied their say? I think that we have now reached a point in our political debate and in the nations history where that position is simply untenable. I have no doubt that, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) said, we will soon see a change in the stated positions of the other parties in this House. We now know where the Conservatives stand. The leader of the Liberal Democrats has now conceded that this is inevitable. Having been in favour of an in/out referendum, their current position is simply untenable. The Labour party is already debating how to get itself off the hook it is now on. I believe that it, too, will come to support a referendum, because the vast majority of its supporters want one. Andrew Bridgen: I thank the right hon. Gentleman and his party for their support for this important Bill. We have heard about the rising dissatisfaction with the European Union across Europe, so does he agree that if this House was to vote wholeheartedly for a referendum, we could lead the way in Europe, because many other countries also want to renegotiate their relationship with the European Union? Mr Dodds: It is important to make the point that this is not only a vote on something that is important to the people in all regions and parts of the United Kingdom and will be welcomed by them; it is also something that other countries are looking to us to give a lead on. The Foreign Secretary pointed out that there have been a number of national plebiscites and votes on European issues in many countries, sometimes two or three times on the same issue, but the fact is that people are crying out for a say. As the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) said, this is the big issue of the day in Europe: political legitimacy, democracy and accountability. Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): Before my right hon. Friend moves on from his point about the Labour partys approach to the issue, will he agree that the defence that we cannot have a referendum until there has been substantial constitutional change is really very thin, given that we have had Maastricht, the Single European Act and the Lisbon treaty? Surely there has been enough substantial change in our relationship with Europe to give people a say now.
Mr Dodds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have talked on more than one occasion in this House about the disconnect that now exists between the people and the political class in Parliament. People feel that their concerns are not being given high enough priority and that, with regard to the EU, promises have been broken. On the Lisbon treaty, for example, they believe that the Labour party promised a referendum on the European constitution. I remember before a previous election Tony Blair, with the encouragement of Lord Mandelson, bringing the referendum rabbit out of the hat, but he reneged on that pledge when he got into office, claiming then that there were red lines that they would negotiate and that it was therefore no longer a constitution. The people simply do not believe that. We have talked about the Lib Dems going back on their promise of an in/out referendum. Reference has been made to the cast-iron guarantee the Prime Minister gave on the Lisbon treaty. I understand the reasons that have been advanced on why that did not happenfor example, the fact that it had already been implemented. Nevertheless, I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow South West that very many people believe that if we had wanted to have a referendum on Lisbon, even after it had been introduced, we could have done if the political will had existed. However, it did not exist, and that was the problem. Mr Cash: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in fact fundamental change is going on already, and that that, even without a treaty, is the real reason for having a referendum? Mr Dodds: Yes, I agree. That is why it is not enough merely to have it enshrined in law that there will be a referendum at some future point if there is some new treaty or whatever. There is a continuing erosion of sovereignty and it is therefore important that the matter is brought to a head sooner rather than later. Mrs Main: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Dodds: Yes, and then I will make more progress. Mrs Main: Is it not a fact that any referendum that was held would be on the treaty change, not on in or out? We have never had a promise of an in/out referendum, only a no more change to a particular treaty referendum. We need to make that point very clear. This is our one opportunity to do this. Mr Dodds: The hon. Lady makes a very important and fundamental point. That is why this Bill is so significant and deserves the widespread support of Members of this House. Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): Will my right hon. Friend give way? Mr Dodds: I will not give way any more because I want to make progress. I am conscious that others still wish to speak. We are here on a Friday having to go through this process for all the reasons that we understand. One of the reasons is that the promises and pledges that have been made in the past by Front Benchers of the main
1215
5 JULY 2013
1216
[Mr Dodds] parties have not been followed through on. Therefore, people are looking not just for a promise or a pledge but for some kind of guarantee enshrined in legislation. Of course we know that this Parliament cannot bind a successor Parliament, but that applies to every aspect of legislationto every Act that is ever passed. However, a guarantee enshrined in legislation will make it a lot harder for any incoming Prime Minister of whatever party to haveI was going to say the couragethe audacity to come before the House and say, Were going to repeal the right of the people to have a referendum under the Act that was passed, as I hope that it will be as a result of this initiative. In 1975, 67% of voters in this country chose to remain within the Common Marketa union which we were told at that time was more about co-operation between European nations on trade. However, today we view an EU landscape that is vastly changedso much so that, as a senior Labour peer recently noted, the mandate secured by the Government in 1975
belongs to another time and another generation.
Over the past three decades, there has been a steady transfer of powers from our sovereign Parliament here at Westminster to the corridors and back alleys of Brusselsa process that still continues on a weekly and monthly basis, inexorably and inevitably, in the pursuit of the goal of ever-closer political union. This change has not been abstract. It is not detached from the day-to-day realities of everyday life; it has been hard felt by people living in every region of the United Kingdom. How often do business people come to us complaining about the red tape and regulations that emanate from the EU? How many times do we hear complaints about untrammelled immigration from EU countries as we no longer have the power effectively to control our own borders? I could mention a number of other policy areas. Mr Laurence Robertson: As Chairman of the Northern Ireland Committee, I congratulate the Democratic Unionist party on taking a very clear stance on this issue. The right hon. Gentleman refers to the 1975 referendum. Does he remember that the brochure put out by the then Labour Government, Britains New Deal in Europe, contained a guarantee that a British Minister could veto anything that came from Europe at that time? What this is really all about is the erosion of that guarantee through qualified majority voting. Mr Dodds: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. He reminds the House and the public of the pledges and guarantees that have been given in the past. We need this Bill to enshrine in law a commitment to giving people their say, because they are fed up with broken promises. They have found that they cannot trust the political class generally on pledges on Europe, because whichever party is in power becomes sucked into the ever-increasing desire to have ever-closer union. That is simply unacceptable. Mr Binley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Dodds: No. Having said that I would be brief, I want to conclude my remarks and not get sidetracked any further.
On the issue of austerity, at a time when this country is facing major cuts and when personal and household incomes are affected, it is absolutely scandalous that between 2007 and 2013 the UK will have contributed 29 billion on EU structural funds and received back only 8.7 billion to spend in this country,. That is simply unacceptable and it is damaging to communities and households right across this United Kingdom. There was some hope that the negotiations for the 2014-20 multi-annual framework would lead to a sea change in EU spending, and I congratulate the Prime Minister on what he has managed to do. However, despite a Council agreement to reduce the budget, the trend of waste and inefficiency will continue. Spending on the unaccountable EU civil service will rise by 2%. The organisation already employs 3,000 unelected officials on salaries of more than 150,000 and gold-plated pensions. The European External Action Service, which a Minister told us a year or two ago would not cost us any more and would be neutral in terms of expenditure, is in line to receive a spending increase of more than 3% for its role in undermining the foreign policy of countries across Europe. The EUs 56 quangos will receive an increase of 4% under the new budget. That is not to mention specific examples, such as the House of European History, which, for those Members who have not heard about it, will costbelieve it or not136 million. British taxpayers are contributing 18 million to that project. The European Parliament continues to split its activities over three locationssomething that my party in the European Parliament is deeply opposed to and fighting to changeand it will cost 1 billion to have two places, Brussels and Strasbourg, as the seat of the European Parliament over the next seven years. That is why it is essential that the people have their say on these issues. They are examples of why the waste and inefficiency need to be exposed. The fundamental point is that on these issues, whether they be expenditure or setting policy with regard to agriculture or foreign affairs, it should be for the British people, through their elected representatives in this House, to decide the policy of the United Kingdom. It is not for unelected people in Brussels to forge for the people of the United Kingdom an ever-closer political union that they do not want. This House will fail in its duty if we do not respond to supporters of all of our parties who want a say, a voice and a vote. I commend the hon. Member for Stockton South for proposing this Bill and urge all hon. and right hon. Members to support it in the Division later. Several hon. Members rose Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. May I again say to hon. Members that they just need to look around the Chamber to see how many of their colleagues want to speak in this debate? If we are to accommodate as many speakers as possible, Members must speak for less time than is currently the case. I cannot put a time limit on speeches, but I plead with Members to show each other mutual respect and do their best to leave enough time to get as many speakers in as possible.
1217 12.18 pm
5 JULY 2013
1218
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): I hope I will set an appropriate example, Madam Deputy Speaker, in my brief speech. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). I agree with what he said and it is worth noting that he leads at Westminster a completely united party on matters relating to the European Union. I also commend and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on coming first in the ballot and proposing this excellent Bill. It is surprising how quickly things change in politics. Members will recall that less than two years ago, I moved a motion on holding a referendum on our membership of the European Union. On that day, all parties had a three-line Whip against my motion. Today, my party has a three-line Whip to support a referendum on the European Union and the official Opposition are so weak and divided that they cannot even make their minds up what to do. The Bill will be welcomed warmly by my constituents in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington. It is nearly four decades since they have had a say on this countrys relationship with the European Union. That means that many of them have never had a say at all. Since that time, the nature of what was then the European Economic Community, which was widely called the Common Market, has changed out of all recognition. As the stated aim of the treaty of Rome of ever-closer union has gradually been achieved, the tentacles of what is now the European Union have been felt in a growing number of areas of life, in a way that was never envisaged by the British people when they voted to stay in the Common Market in 1975. Martin Horwood: On a point of information, the question in 1975 was not about the European Economic Community, but the European Community. The words Common Market were inserted by Eurosceptics in Harold Wilsons Government. A lot of that historical debate, which I have been looking at over the past couple of days, was about the political, social and international aspects of the European Community. Those aspects were in Harold Wilsons official leaflet that went out. Mr Nuttall: I did say that it was widely referred to as the Common Market. It was called the European Economic Community, then the word Economic was dropped and it became the European Community, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says. It then changed from the European Community to the European Union as ever-closer union began to take effect. Mr Binley: I had the good fortune a long time ago of working as a bag carrier for Edward Heath in his private office. At that time, we talked about political union being the very essence of what this adventure was about. Does my hon. Friend agree with that? Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. My point is simply that we have seen a gradual extension of the powers of the European Union. That is just one of the many reasons why an increasing number
of people are reaching the conclusion that I have reached: our country would be better off out of the European Union. I want us to trade with our European neighbours, but I do not see why we should have to pay billions of pounds every year for the privilege of doing so, particularly when we buy more goods from them than they buy from us. Mike Gapes: The hon. Gentleman says that he wants out. Does he accept that Norway, which has not joined the European Union, has to pay billions of pounds to get access to the European Unions single market? Mr Nuttall: That is an interesting point, but I do not want to get drawn down the road of talking about the merits of our membership of the European Union. The Bill is not about the merits of our membership of the European Union, but about whether our constituents should have a say. It is because the Bill will give the people of Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington in my constituency the historic opportunity to vote for their freedom from the European Union that it has my wholehearted support. I wish it a speedy passage through this House. Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Thank you for your brevity, Mr Nuttall. 12.24 pm Dame Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab): It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on procuring his place in the ballot for private Members Bills. To save time and divert interventions, let me say that I am a lifelong European. I campaigned for and voted yes in the referendum 30 years ago, and I will abstain in the vote on this Bill because it is much more about party management than the essential higher purpose of our national interest. Those who claim that people are being denied a choice on Europe should listen to the wisdom on the doorstep. We must, of course, take seriously the rise of UKIP, and understand why millions of people including former supporters of my party as well as of the Governmentare voting against the major parties. This initiative is being driven by UKIP. It is opening up old divisions and fails to recognise that even for UKIP supporters, Europe is not the greatest concern. We should attend to that if we are serious about hearing the voice of the British people. Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) rose Dame Tessa Jowell: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak; I will not take an intervention because I want to make my speech as quickly as I can. We must understand that the momentum behind this debate comes principally from a sense of suffering felt by families up and down the countryanxiety about whether their children will get jobs; fears about long-term security and the sustainability of their pensions. Under such circumstances, the EU has become a proxy for the publics wider anger about good services and housing, and in doing so it has provided fertile territory for a lot of myths about the EU. I do not for one moment doubt
1219
5 JULY 2013
1220
[Dame Tessa Jowell] the angerindeed, I have confronted itin some parts of our country about the impact of too much migration too quickly, and the sense of broader insecurity. People feel that their living standards are falling. They are falling, but that is a result of decisions by this UK Government, not decisions by Europe. The Bill is principally about managing the Conservative party, and evidence suggests that for the majority of right hon. and hon. Members in that party it is about exit, not renegotiation in Europe. The real tragedy is that renegotiation is possible, is needed, and is always to be achieved, but that is not done by saying one thing at home and a different thing in the Council of Ministers. If the Prime Minister is serious about renegotiation, he must spend time going round the capitals of Europe and visiting his counterparts, building trust and securing the support of other European leaders for his case for change. That is what will achieve change in Europe. There is, of course, an agenda for reform, which Labour would support wholeheartedly andI hopeon a cross-party basis, if only the Conservative party would demonstrate that it is serious about reform rather than exit. Reform of the EU budget, the appointment of an EU commissioner for growth, reforming transitional arrangements to address issues such as too much migration too quickly, more powers delegated to national Parliamentsthose are all parts of an agenda for reform that I am sure we could share. For those of us among my right hon. and hon. colleagues who represent constituencies in London, there is also particular concern about the impact on London of the growing uncertainty, which risks unseating us as the economy that is top of the league among beneficiaries of foreign direct investment. Underpinning and essential to that continued primacy is stability and certainty. The way in which this debate is being conducted, in the interests of the Conservative party, is putting that at risk. In conclusion, I think this captures very well the position on the Opposition Benches:
the problem with an in/out referendum is it actually only gives people those two choices: you can either stay in with all the status quo, or youget out. Most people in Britain, I think, want a government that stands up and fights for them in Europe, and gets the things we want in Europe, that changes some of the relationship.
Neil Parish: Does my hon. Friend agree that when we had the referendum in 1975, it was about a common market? Now we have a European political union. Brussels has seized power. The last Labour Government gave away our rebate and got nothing for it, so the people should have a say. Fiona Bruce: Absolutely right. There is a growing frustration on the part of the people, which is borne out of years of them not being adequately communicated with or informed about the implications of what was happening in the EU institutions. That has resulted in our public wanting this say. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South was quite right that the British people want a say, but I believe that they also want an informed say. Many of them feel they have a gut instinct of how they would vote, but they know that this is such a serious issue and such a major constitutional decision that they must have an opportunity to deliberate, debate and discuss the complex issues around it. Those of us who are today putting forward this proposal for a referendum are saying that we trust the British people to discuss such complex issues and then come to the right decision. Anyone who opposes this referendum is saying, We dont trust the British public to discuss issues of this complexity and detail. Jim Dowd: If letting the people have their say is so important, why is it that of all the Conservative Governments who have ever existed, only onethis one, forced by the Liberals to offer a referendum on the alternative votehave ever given the people of Britain a referendum on anything? Devolution, regional government, the Mayor of Londonall were from a Labour Government. The Tories have never given anybody a referendum on anything; now they are suddenly enthusiasts. Fiona Bruce: The previous Labour Government had plenty of opportunities to grant a referendum on this issue, but they did not do so. Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP): Does the hon. Lady not find it strange that the last Labour Government had 13 years to renegotiate, if they believed in that renegotiation, and present it to the British people, yet did not do so? Labour has constantly, and to this day, denied, the British people a say in their future in Europe. Fiona Bruce: The hon. Gentleman is right. If passed, the Bill will trigger a debate throughout the nation and give the British public an opportunity to make that informed decision. The debate has already started in this Chamber today. Millions of people across the country will be watching and listening, and will have heard valuable and critical contributions, such as the speech from the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). Jim Shannon: On the subject of giving people choice, the fishing industry has felt the brunt of EU legislation and red tapemore so than other sectors. As European bureaucracy continues to strangle and choke the fishing industry, my constituents in Strangford, particularly in the fishing port of Portavogie, will want the chance to say no in a referendumthis is what we want to see.
Those, Madam Deputy Speaker, are the words of the Prime Minister, less than a year ago. Look how he has flip-flopped and been bullied by his party, letting down the British people. 12.31 pm Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will be brief. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) for proposing this Bill and I strongly support him. I was interested when he said that he was barely a twinkle in his mothers eye when the original votes were cast on our relationship with the EU, because I am probably about his mothers age. We therefore have two generations of voters represented in this House who have never had a say on our relationship with the EU, and it is about time the British people had one.
1221
5 JULY 2013
1222
Fiona Bruce: As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes a valuable contribution. It is under this Government that we have seen fish discards eliminated. Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party, which continually complains about uncertainty, should support a referendum, and should be asking for it to be brought even further forward so that that uncertainty can be removed quickly? Fiona Bruce: Another valid point, but I can also see the merit of the British people having the time, up to 2017, to digest and discuss these issues. Other hon. Members want to speak, so I will close my remarks. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who is chair of the all-party group for a European referendum. I am a long-standing member, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay has done tremendous and sterling work in this House and beyond in pressing and making the case for an EU referendum, which the British people deserve. 12.36 pm Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): May I begin by joining other right hon. and hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on the terrific achievement of being first in the ballot to propose a private Members Bill on the Floor of the House and on filling the Chamber? This has been a remarkable week for him. Not only has he introduced the Bill, but his local restaurant, Raj Bari, came third in the Tiffin cup final. That is a terrific achievement, one that I am sure he will celebrate with them tonight when he gets back to Stockton. This has been a remarkable debate in which we have heard some interesting facts. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) was outed as a member of Unite by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), and then managed to resign within moments of being outed. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) told us that she is old enough to be the mother of the hon. Member for Stockton South. I am surprised that she did not offer to be his mother, bearing in mind his current popularity. I hope to make a short contribution. Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak, and some of us would like to get back to our constituencies some time today. Friday mornings will never be the same again for me. I want to say how much I support the idea, and have supported the idea for some time, of the British people being allowed to have their say on membership of the European Union. I agree with the many hon. Members who have said that this is an issue of trust. I do not think that political parties should feel they cannot trust the British people on this important issue, which has been the dominant issue of the past 30 to 40 years. The constant debates in the House and in the country, and the fact that the issue has seized the consciousness of the British people, mean that at some stage we have to put it to the British people. I believe that this should be done sooner rather than later. We should do it now, if we can; if not now, then certainly at the time of the next general election.
Neil Parish: Is the right hon. Gentleman convinced that he will be able to persuade his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, and the Leader of the Opposition, to support a referendum? Keith Vaz: Absolutely not. I am merely a humble Back Bencher. We need to do our best to persuade those on the Front Bench that this is in the interests not only of the Labour party but, primarily, of the country. The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), spoke very well this morning, but we still need to convince him that we need to go one step further. After all, progress has been made. Labour voted for a reduction in the EU budget and against the amendment to the Queens Speech, and we are going to abstain today, so we are on the way; we are moving in the direction that the hon. Gentleman wants us to move in, and I hope that we will get there in the end. Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con): Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this goes to the heart of democracy, when so many people are crying out for a referendum and there is a great disconnect between politics and the electorate that needs healing? Giving the electorate a referendum, as we want to do, will help that process. Keith Vaz: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that we need to reconnect by allowing people to have their say. I am very surprised that the Liberal Democrats have changed their view[HON. MEMBERS: Why?] Well, I am. I learned most of my community politics from the Liberal Democrats when I stood in Richmond many years ago, and I know that they are committed to allowing people to have their say in places like Richmond and Kingston. I am therefore surprised that they have changed their mind on this matter. Zac Goldsmith: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. We have a great deal in common, as he has just said. Does he agree that this is not just a matter of this House trusting the people with a decision on this issue, and that it is even more a case of providing the people with a reason to trust the House? It works both ways, and there could not be a more important time to demonstrate both aspects of that than now. Keith Vaz: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We must give the whole debate over from this House. We all have an important role to play in discussing and scrutinising the European Union, but at the end of the day, the matter must go to the British people. My second point is on the need for reform. I hope that the hon. Member for Stockton South will be willing to consider any amendments that I hope Labour will table in Committee, and that he will look at the whole issue of reform. I do not believe that the timetable the Prime Minister has set out is achievable. I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) said about this. The reform process will take a long time. Should the Prime Minister get re-elected and become Prime Minister again, his timetable of two years between 2015 and 2017 will, frankly, not be long enough.
1223
5 JULY 2013
1224
[Keith Vaz] The issues in the European Union exist at the moment, and there is a need for reform of a whole range of policies. We could start that process now. There is no reason why British Ministers going to summit meetings and having discussions with their European Union counterpartsthe Minister for Europe goes to General Affairs Council meetings every month to discuss these matters with his counterpart Ministers for Europe, for exampleshould not start the reform agenda immediately, rather than waiting until after the next general election. Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con): The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. I knew that those were his opinions because I have read them on many occasions. Does he agree that, if we have a referendum and if we are going to engage properly with the people, we must know what the position is? There must be a reformed European Union, or we withdraw. If we had the referendum much earlier, people would simply be in the dark. Keith Vaz: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Actually, I think the British people know the issues now. They understand the issues that confront Europe, and I am not sure that a public education campaign is what they need, as long as we are committed to reform, and to changing the way in which the European Union operates. There is much that we need to change on the justice and home affairs agenda, for example, including measures on the European arrest warrant and on the way in which countries such as Greece have to deal with illegal migration. There are so many other areas that we need to look at. We can be part of that process as we go along within the European Union; we do not need to have a separate set of negotiations. The only way, in my view, that we can do this is to put the matter to the EU now. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Keith Vaz: Yes, but many Members want to speak, so I give way for the last time. Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I praise him for the candour of his approach to this debate. We all agree that reform is needed, but the British public need to be sure that sufficient reform is going to take place if we are to stay within the EU. Does he agree that having a referendum after the renegotiation has happened will absolutely crystallise in the minds of the rest of the EU member states the fact that we are absolutely serious that the current position is just unsustainable? Keith Vaz: I think the member states know that the current situation is unsustainable and that they understand that we want change. The Prime Minister has made that clear every time he goes to a summit meeting of the European Union. I do not know whether the Minister for Europe has a row with his colleagues every time he goes to the General Affairs meetings, but the fact is that the Prime Minister always comes back to this House to make his statement after a European summit and says that he has confronted colleagues so that they know where Britain stands.
I think that the major political parties should be publishing their manifestos for reform. Frankly, we do not know what they are. I think we should be very clear about what we want to change about the European Unionand we can put that into operation now rather than having to wait. My final point is that I hope nobody votes against this private Members Bill. I hope that it will go through unanimously and that nobody will seek to divide the House. That would send a powerful message that all parties believe that there is a case for the British people to make a decision. If we do that, it will mean that people will trust us even more than they do at the moment. 12.46 pm Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): This has been a thought-provoking debateand, in some places, just provoking! I would say to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) that I am afraid my Unite membership card has suffered irreparable damage during the course of this debate, but I thank him for his graphic advice on what I should now do with it. After recent events in Falkirk, I suspect there might be a few other people taking very similar advice. It is good to see the House so full on a Friday. I gather that it has something to do with the provision of hog roast by the Prime Minister last night. One participant told me that burgers were being served by him, but they were a little bit rare. Perhaps that explains why so many left the Chamber so fast after the Foreign Secretarys speech! As a Liberal Democrat, I like referendumsand we have been consistent supporters of them. We supported all the referendums on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We were quite happy with the referendum on the European Community in 1975, and we even went along with the referendum on AVthe alternative vote systemalthough we obviously cannot win them all. At the time of the Lisbon treaty, we alone supported an in/out referendum for this countrynot at four years remove, not for some future Parliament, but at that time. We got absolutely no support from the Conservative party at that stage. I am afraid that that was the completely consistent position through to the general election of 2010, and it is more or less our position now. The Deputy Prime Minister has set out our position, the only difference being that in the meantime we have passed the European Union Act 2011, which rather watered down the Liberal Democrat commitment to an in/out referendum and adopted[Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but they have obviously not read their own manifesto of 2010. What is in the European Union Act 2011 is precisely the basis on which Conservative Members fought the last general election, which was the idea that there should be a trigger relating to the transfer of power. The Conservative manifesto stated that in the event of a transfer of power from the British level to the European level, a referendum on that transfer would be held. That is exactly what went into the European Union Act in 2011. We will quite happily use that to triggerthat is finebut we are still committed to an in/out referendum, and I am still going to argue for one.
1225
5 JULY 2013
1226
Neil Parish: If the hon. Gentleman is so keen on talking about Liberal Democrat policy on a former referendum, why is he not supporting us today? I also congratulate him on being the only one of an endangered species here in the Chamber today. Martin Horwood: I was not, in fact, the only Liberal Democrat Member here, and my colleagues are probably focused on jobs, A and E departments, the good deal we are delivering for pensioners and promoting employment and economic prosperity in their constituencies, rather than spending an entire day banging on about Europe. I am reassured that so many Conservative Members are so confident that all the jobs are provided and all the A and E departments are safe and no green spaces need protecting that they are willing to spend an entire day here talking about the minutiae of European referendums. I am equally confident that at one stage we had the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary and, I think, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions all in the Chamber for this debate, so I assume the Deputy Prime Minister must have been busy running the country at that point. The consistent position the Liberal Democrats have taken is to be in favour of an in/out referendum either at a time of major, fundamental treaty change or at a time of a transfer of power, which also has to happen under treaty provisions. That is the consistent position we have taken, and that is the position we still take today. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) want to point out when we have said anything different? She does not; I thought as much. The Conservative party, by contrast, has taken a bewildering variety of positions on referendums. I think it was the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who is no longer in his place, who pointed out that Margaret Thatcher opposed the original European referendum and she quoted Clement Attlee saying referendums were a device of demagogues and dictators. At that point she was a supporter of European Union membership, which at that stage was already identified as a discussion about social and political union as well as about access to an economic common market. That is clear from the literature produced in that referendum campaign. It talks about the new regional fund, the social fund, bringing the peoples of Europe closer together and promoting peace and freedomso even the defence and security aspects of the EUs work were already being debated. Margaret Thatcher said that for the Labour party the proposal of a referendum was
a tactical device to get over a split in their own party.[Official Report, 11 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 306.]
carefully, we can see that Liberal Democrats would disagree with very little of what he actually wanted to change in Europe. Indeed, we would enthusiastically support much of the reform agenda. We have gone along with Conservative colleagues in supporting the Governments review of the balance of competences. I think that is a very important process, and I think it is an absolutely correct one to carry out, but I also think it was ill-judged to attach a time bomb to all this and say that unless we get what we want we will do this or that, and to try to negotiate on a unilateral basis. It is important now to try to achieve these reforms on a multilateral basis by co-operation with other European partners. I was explaining some of the political background of the Conservative partys position. In the 1990s John Major was in favour of a referendum, but only on membership of the euro. By 2001, that had changed and then we had an evolution of a policy that was really about Tim Loughton rose Martin Horwood: I had better not give way repeatedly, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman for one final time. Tim Loughton: I am sorry that the leader of the hon. Gentlemans party was not able to flip a few lentil burgers last night to entice more of his colleagues to take part in this important debate. Will he just clarify his position? In the highly unlikely event that we have a Liberal Democrat Government after the next election, and this Bill, as is most likely, has been passed in this Parliament, would they abolish the undertakings that this Bill would give to tie us to a referendum, and thus give the British people a say at last? Martin Horwood: I have already spelled out very clearly our position, which is exactly the same one as we took at the time of the Lisbon treaty and of the last election: at a time of treaty change, fundamental change or a transfer of power from the British to the European level, we would want an in/out referendum, and we would legislate to make that possible in the event of our having a majority in Parliament. The Conservative position has flip-flopped dramatically. The position in the Conservative manifesto was enacted in the European Union Act 2011, yet within a year and a few months the Prime Minister was expounding a completely different position. Even that has changed between his speech and this Bill, because the question has changed from whether to remain in the European Union to whether to be in the European Union. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. Many conversations are going on. I know that not many people may be agreeing with Mr Horwood, but I would certainly like to hear what he has to say. Martin Horwood: I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. The chances of the Conservative party getting as far as 2017 without changing its policy again are pretty slim. Let me reinforce that point. Only 19 months ago, the Prime Minister said:
That, for me, in a parliamentary democracy, is the right use of a referendum. However, as we are not signing a treaty, I think that the whole issue of a referendum does not arise.
I think history might be repeating itself now. Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is my neighbour, for giving way. He talks about history repeating itself. Some of us remember very clearly that when the Prime Minister stood up and announced he was going to renegotiate the EU budget so that it was cut, one of my hon. Friends distinguished colleagues described that as being an inconceivable act. Does he believe it would be inconceivable to renegotiate anything with Europe? Martin Horwood: The point is that we can be in favour of reform, but not necessarily make that conditional on referendums. If we read the Prime Ministers speech
1227
5 JULY 2013
1228
[Martin Horwood] He continued by saying that

there is a role for referendums in a parliamentary democracy, but that comes at the moment when a Government or a Parliament proposes to give up power, rather than at other times.[Official Report, 12 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 535-549.]
however, as most of my time has been taken up responding to interventions from his colleagues, so perhaps he should encourage them to be a little quieter. The problems continue. The uncertainty that the Bill creates for business is clear, even if we make a number of big assumptions about the referendum process: first, that the Conservative Front Bench will not change its position between now and 2017, but having changed it three times in two years, that is a big assumption; secondly, that the timetable for the referendum does not have to be changed in any case, although we may find in 2017 that we are in the middle of a renegotiation or treaty change process resulting from changes in the eurozone, and at such a juncture, it would be nonsense to hold a referendum, as another referendum might be provoked in only a matter of months or years, so we would not really know what we were voting for in those circumstances; and finally, if the political landscape had not completely changed in any case we might have a different Government with different priorities and there might be a recovery in the European economy, and we may find votes for the UK Independence party subsiding and that Europe is not quite such a big priorityit is not a terribly big priority for most voters according to existing pollsso the idea of spending yet more hundreds of hours of parliamentary time banging on about Europe might not seem quite as appealing. Even if all of that is true, and we move towards a referendum by 2017, that still condemns British business and British jobs to four years of uncertaintywhat a message to send to investors. The CBI is quoted in the Independent newspaper, i, this morning, and raises the problem of the uncertainty caused for British business:
British businesses dont want to find themselves at the margins of the worlds largest trading bloc operating under market rules over which they have no influence.
That is precisely the Liberal Democrat position and has been for some time. We are not going to oppose this Bill, but we are not content to support it because there is a long list of problems with it. Legislation already in forcethe Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000is supposed to lay down the procedure under which we hold referendums and, for example, the role of the Electoral Commission in helping to determine the question. This Bill is pre-empting any decision by the Electoral Commission and it does not even appear to comply or be consistent with the 2000 Act. I do not know whether the draftsmen had forgotten that that Act existed. Then there is the question of the franchise, which has also been referred to Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Martin Horwood: I do not think I had better. I am really looking forward to seeing the variety of different Conservative positions being expounded in the remainder of the debate, and if I give way to everybody [Interruption.] Somebody is telling me to keep it short, and I think that the best way to do that is not to give way on every point. The Bill also needs to deal with a problem relating to the franchise. Some 1.4 million British citizens reside elsewhere than in the UK, but according to the terms of the Bill the referendum will be based on the Westminster franchise. As far as I can tell, that has only about 19,000 registered overseas voters, so more than 1 million Britons, whose lives will be fundamentally affected by this change they are British passport holders resident in other parts of the EUwill be disfranchised in this referendum. By this formula, the Bill will give votes to Cypriot and Maltese citizens living in this country, because under the Westminster franchise Commonwealth citizens have the vote, but it will not give the vote to French, Italian or German citizens. So there are a lot of inconsistencies, and this issue has not been debated at all so far. The House of Commons Library briefing also raised the question of whether or not the Bill is even legally binding. Even the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) has conceded that this parliamentary vote would not bind its successor Parliament and further parliamentary votes, probably on secondary legislation, would be required to give effect to the referendum in any case. Mr Baron: The hon. Gentleman has now made one of the longest speeches. May I ask him, with all due respect: could he please cut it short, if only because a long list of Members also wish to speak? Martin Horwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his advice, which should probably have come from the Chair rather than him. There is a slight problem,
That is the prospect that we are going to live with, unresolved, apparently for up to four years. That is one of the problems with the Bill. This morning, The Daily Telegraph, I think, quoted the leader of the Norwegian Conservative party, who pointed out that the supposed solution of the UK trying to have a status more or less equivalent to Norways was worse than being in the EU. Norway pays hundreds of billions of euros to the European Union for access to the single European market, and finds out about the rules through so-called fax democracy. There are many, many problems with the Bill, which does not really resolve the main question. It is, as we all really knowrather like Harold Wilsons Bill in the 1970sabout papering over the cracks in the Conservative party itself. It will not really work. The Prime Minister has spelled out a reasonably modest set of ambitions for renegotiation that will never satisfy many of his Back Benchers, who clearly want to use a much more ambitious and unilateral agenda for negotiation as something that will provide them with an excuse to campaign for exit. UK businesses have access to free trade in the worlds largest single market, worth nearly 11 trillion in gross domestic product, with over 500 million consumers. One in 10 British jobs are linked to the single market. Some 495 billion-worth of British trade is with other EU member states. To put that in jeopardy
1229
5 JULY 2013
1230
Mr Baron: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. With the greatest respect, would you remind Members that this is a debate about the principle of a referendum, not the relative merits of being in or out of the EU? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): I can see frustrations building up in the Chamber. I think that Mr Horwood is trying to give us an encompassing view of why the referendum may be good or bad. I am sure that even he recognises that a lot of people wish to speak, and hopefully we can move on. In the meantime, it is Martin Horwood. Martin Horwood: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall draw my remarks to a close. Even if hon. Members do not listen to me, and even if they do not listen to the leader of the Norwegian Conservative party, or even the CBI, perhaps they should just listen to what the Prime Minister himself said in that speech. In the end he moved on to the main question, which is whether in an in/out referendum we would be campaigning to stay in or out. The Prime Minister said:
Of course Britain could make her own way in the world, outside the EU, if we chose to do so. So could any other Member State. But the question we will have to ask ourselves is this: is that the very best future for our country?
In the argument against those who say we do not need a referendum, three or four reasons have been given for why we need a referendum. One is uncertainty. That is the most perverse reason. There is uncertainty because 80% of the British people want a referendum and they are surprised that we cannot come to a conclusion about when that referendum should be and what the question should be. The debate would not go away and the uncertainty would not decrease if we opposed the Bill today. The second reason given, which is related to the uncertainty argument, is that British business is opposed to a referendum and jobs would go. That would be a more compelling case if I had not heard exactly those arguments about joining the euroall the car factories would go if we did not join the euro. Kelvin Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend give way? Graham Stringer: I will give way briefly and only this time. Kelvin Hopkins: I thank my hon. Friend. The economic arguments that I have heard today are nonsense. We have a gigantic trade deficit with the rest of the European Union, equivalent to a million jobs. We must do something about it and we will not do that simply by giving in to the European Union. Graham Stringer: I agree. The arguments lack quantificationthat would be one way of putting it. On the notion that the European Union is an unalloyed good idea for jobs, have people not been watching what the euro is doing not just to those countries that are in the euro, which are getting into a competitive deflationary situation, but to countries such as ours which trade with Europe? Hundreds of thousands and millions of jobs are being destroyed by the European Union. It is not helpful to our economy. A referendum would be the start of saying to the European Union, This cannot carry on. You are damaging the whole of the European Unions economy. Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend give way? Graham Stringer: No. A lot of people want to speak. I will vote for the Bill today. It is not a perfect Bill. I hope that it can be amended to bring the date forward, which would help with uncertainty. One reason for that is that whatever good motives people might have to renegotiate our position within the European Union, that is not possible. Most of the problems that we have with the European Union are enshrined in the treaties. Do hon. Members really think that Ireland, Germany, Italy and the newer members of the EU, many of whom have to have referendums before they can take a decision on the constitution, will vote to change the treaty of Rome, or of Lisbon, Nice, Amsterdam, Maastricht, or any of the others? Many of the powers that have gone from this Chamber have gone through those treaties. I do not believe that renegotiation is possible. Some hon. Members have said that the electorates and leadership of other European countries want changes similar to those that we want. I simply do not believe that. Many European Union countries are happy with
He went on:
Continued access to the Single Market is vital for British businesses and British jobs...being part of the Single Market has been key to that success...There are some who suggest we could turn ourselves into Norway or Switzerlandwith access to the single market but outside the EU. But would that really be in our best interests? I admire those countries and they are friends of oursbut they are very different from us. Norway sits on the biggest energy reserves in Europe, and has a sovereign wealth fund of over 500 billion euros. And while Norway is part of the single marketand pays for the principleit has no say at all in setting its rules: it just has to implement its directives.
The Prime Minister obviously is not really willing to risk millions of British jobs by voting no. This is a delaying tactic to get us past the next election. The Liberal Democrats are not willing to risk millions of British jobs by voting no. Europe means jobs, and we should not put those jobs in jeopardy. 1.5 pm Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab): There have been many articulate and clever speeches during this debate. I exclude the last speech from that. It seems to me a straightforward matter. This House, by signing various treaties, has taken away from the British people the right to throw out the rascals who are making their laws. It is time, after those treaties, that the people were given a chance to have that say in a referendum. My partys position on a referendum can, I hope, be improved. We can have no principled objections to a referendum: it was the Labour party that first gave the people the chance to vote on the then EEC. We said in our 2005 manifesto that people would have a vote on the European constitution. Unfortunately, when the name of that constitution was changed to the Lisbon treaty, the vote was denied them. That was a huge mistake and is one of the reasons why the people of this country have lost trust.
1231
5 JULY 2013
1232
[Graham Stringer] ever-closer union, for quite valid reasons. Many of them have been through a period of fascism or communism, or some lack of democracy, and, rightly or wrongly, they see the European Union as protecting them against that. They do not see their future in the way that we do as a trading nation. The trade of 90% of EU countries is within the EU. Only 50% of this countrys trade, a declining amount, is with the European Union. A great deal more could be said on this issue, but it is fundamental to the relationship between this House and the people of this country that they are given a chance to vote. The Bill can be improved. They will eventually get a vote, one way or the other, during the next four or five years. We might as well do it willingly and thoughtfully. Several hon. Members rose Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. If we have very short speeches, most hon. Members will be able to speak. 1.12 pm Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con): There are a number of good reasons why we should remain members of the European Union, and there are more reasons why we should not. But as a number of hon. Members have said, we are not here to discuss those; we are here to discuss the referendum. This debate is about whether we should allow the British public to decide once and for all whether we should remain members. In many ways it saddens me that the Bill has been introduced. Under normal circumstances, political parties set out their policies at election time, and if elected are expected to deliver those policies. But with Europe it is different, because the British public simply no longer trust politicians to deliver on their promises. The public are cynical, and rightly so. The Bill is designed to show that on this occasion the Conservative party really does mean business and will deliver on its promise to hold an in/out referendum in 2017 if it is elected. But why are the British public so cynical? It is because they have been denied a say for so long. It is worth remembering that when Britain joined the European Economic Community in 1972, the British people were not consulted. In 1993, the Maastricht treaty changed the name of the EEC to the European Union. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) reminded us earlier, that represented not just a superficial name change, but a fundamental change in the whole entity of the European beast. The British people were not asked their opinion in a referendum. During the Labour partys 13 years in government, the treaties of Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon were all ratified. The British people were not asked their opinion in a referendum, despite each of those treaties seeing more powers transferred to the EU. It is true that in 1975 there was a referendum to determine whether Britain should remain in the EEC. Like many other people I voted yes, believing that Britain had joined an intergovernmental, free-market trading bloc. But then I was young and naive in 1975. David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Gordon Henderson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I do not want to take any interventions. Since 1975, Britains relationship with Europe has changed beyond all recognition, and in a way that no one in this country could have envisaged. Had I known then that Britain was embarking on a 38-year journey of political integration, I would sooner have cut off my right arm than vote yes. I am sure that many other people of my generation feel the same way. It is inconceivable that only 30 years after the end of the second world war, the British people would have willingly embarked on a programme to hand over swathes of their hard-won sovereignty to another state, and let us be clear: that is what the European Union aspires to be. Mr Redwood: Will my hon. Friend give way? Gordon Henderson: I am sorry, but I am not going to give way at all. We have not had a referendum on our relationship with the EU since 1975, which is why, sadly, many people feel betrayed. In turn, that is why anger at, resentment towards and distrust of politicians is growing. People in my constituency feel ignored by, and disengaged from, those they consider to be the political elite in this country. People in Sittingbourne and Sheppey are frustrated that even though all three major parties have promised referendums at one time or another, they have been denied another referendum for over 30 years. They have heard enough promises; what they want is action. They want an in/out referendum, and they want it as soon as possible. If this House delivers that referendum, we will have gone some way towards winning back the publics trust and engagement. I support a referendum not because I believe that it is a hobby-horse of those of us on the centre-right in this House, but because I believe that it is in tune with the views of the majority of the British people. It is certainly the view of the majority in Sittingbourne and Sheppey. Support for a referendum is based not on right-wing ideology, but on common ideology. It is the ideology of the great British public. It is the ideology of the majority of my constituents and those of many other right hon. and hon. Members. Let me be truthful: in an ideal world, I would like a referendum as soon as possible, preferably at the time of the next general election, but I am realistic enough to know that is unlikely to happen, so a guaranteed referendum in 2017 is the next best thing, which is why I will be supporting the Bill. 1.17 pm Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): Napoleon said, When you see your enemy tearing himself apart, dont interrupt him. Therefore, it is with some reluctance that I am here today, given that one of the most powerful points that has been made is that the whole reason we need this Bill is because the Conservative party does not trust its own Prime Minister to implement legislation after the next general election. Let us be clear about that. Also, if anyone doubts my credentials on demanding a referendum, I should explain that I think I was almost threatened with being thrown out of the Labour party in 2003-04 when I campaigned for one, so I will take no lessons from anyone on that.
1233
5 JULY 2013
1234
I think that a referendum is necessary, and with regard to the timing, we will give people a meaningful choice. That takes me to one subject that has not been mentioned so far: the existence of the euro and the euro crisis. There are developments taking place in the European Union at the moment that to all intents and purposes already leave Britain out, because if we have no intention of joining the single currency, the greater and deeper integration that will be required by those member states that are part of it will marginalise Britain and push us to a level where we will have to renegotiate our relationship with the new European framework. That takes me to another very important point. I think that this is a wretched little Billit is pathetic that the Prime Minister could not introduce his own Bill notwithstanding the absolutely brilliant speech from the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton). It is a private Members Bill that packed the House, and the way he responded was brilliant. It puts me in mind of Graham Greenes The Power and the Glory, with the whisky priest and the question of whether an impure messenger can deliver a pure message. Mr Frank Field: Or the opposite. Ms Stuart: In this case it is the opposite. On this occasion, I think that the pure messenger should be allowed to go in peace on his battle and to take his message forward. I will not vote against the Bill. In a sense, I wish him well. As for the House, I wish to make one observation. Mr Redwood: Will the hon. Lady give way? Ms Stuart: Yes. Mr Redwood: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who has great credentials. Does she agree that any future Government will have to negotiate a new relationship because of the power of the euro and its impulsion towards federalism? Ms Stuart: Yes, they will. That takes me on to the one thought that I want people to take away with them, which seems to have been forgotten. We have slipped into basing this on whether we are going to vote for or against, but we will have plenty of time to make our decision on that. In debating the arguments for and against a referendum, what if we were to substitute the words general election? Who in this place would stand here and say, We cant possibly have a general electionit would be really bad for the economy, it would be really costly, it would affect business. Every so often in the democratic process we have general elections, and we must apply the same principle to something as significant as this. We have reached the point when people will have to be asked, and we cannot duck it. 1.20 pm Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con): I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on securing this Bill. He has consulted widely on the Bills make-up, which has done him and it credit. I am sure that he will prove that we can address the issue of Europe and still do
well, even when representing a marginal seat. Many commentators do not realise that although Europe, as a subject on its own, may rank only 10th or 12th in peoples order of preferences, it is very much entwined with our conversations about the economy or immigration. That is a fact, as we know when we knock on the doors in our constituencies. The Bill is absolutely right and long overdue. As many hon. Members have said, the public have been waiting for too long to express their view on whether the UK should remain a member of the EU, because the EU has fundamentally changed since we first joined it in 1973. We were told then that the emphasis was on free trade, but it has since morphed, bit by bit, into one of ever-closer political uniona process that has resulted, over a period of time, in the salami-slicing of our sovereignty. David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP): Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Baron: I am going to crack on and be quick. I want to speak for just a couple of minutes because I am conscious that other Members want to speak as well. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. The EU is now seen as too meddlesome in our everyday lives, too burdensome for our businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, and too costly for our taxpayers. Yet the political establishment in this country has, in essence, closed ranks over the past 30 years and denied the people their say. That is fundamentally wrong. They have not had a genuine choice about this at any of the general elections of the past 30 years or so. This arrogant and somewhat condescending approach by the political elite has not gone unnoticed by the electorate. I therefore congratulate the Prime Minister on being the first political leader to offer an in/out referendum; I am convinced that other leaders will follow suit. I also thank him for listening to his Back Benchers, the party faithful, and, most importantly, the country as a whole in embracing the idea of a referendum in the next Parliament and legislation in this one. This party has moved closer to the electorate, and it is now up to the other parties to decide whether they are going to step up to the plate. Legislation is terribly important because it is more believable than election manifesto promises. There is a deep public scepticism when people hear promises being made by politicians about the EU, because too many have been broken in the past. They remember Blairs promises on the EU constitution and Lisbon, when a referendum never materialised. They rememberor are constantly reminded, I should sayof Liberal Democrat promises at every general election on the need for a real referendum, which, strangely, never materialise even when they share power. Martin Horwood rose Mr Baron: No, I have spoken for too long already. In conclusion, I take issue with the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), who is no longer in his place. He claimed that, because I had suggested that this historic pledge by the Prime Minister was unbelievableI have great respect for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), but I
1235
5 JULY 2013
1236
[Mr Baron] am afraid she was absolutely wrong about thisI was somehow criticising the Prime Minister. Let me make it absolutely clear for the record that, having congratulated the Prime Minister on his January speech, I then went on to say:
However, where the Prime Ministers pledge falls down is its believability. British voters are deeply sceptical of politicians making promises on Europe: too many have been broken in the past. People bitterly recall Labours broken promiseon the EU Constitutionand they also rememberthe Liberal Democrats 2010 Election manifesto. Passing paving legislation in this parliament for a referendum in the next would be a concrete way of demonstrating serious intent.
whether we should have a referendum or not. We clearly are going to have one, so we now have some very serious work to do. I end by echoing what the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) saidI hope he has a large majority; otherwise I will be accused of helping him, toonamely that this is a matter not just of us trusting the British voters, but of the possibility of them trusting us a little bit more in return, and my God, we are in need of that. 1.28 pm Priti Patel (Witham) (Con): It is an honour to follow the distinguished right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), with whom I agree. I also add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on proposing the Bill and on his box-office performance in his opening speech. If anyone in the Chamber has any doubt, he has my full support and I will back the Bill from beginning to end. My constituents have been waiting for a referendum on this issue for far too long. The Bill gives the British public an important opportunity to have their say on how this country has been treated by Europe and by British Governments over the past 40 years. During that time, it is clear that more powers and far too much public money have been surrendered to Brussels. This Parliaments sovereignty has been eroded decade after decade just to satisfy the demands of Europes political elite, who follow their dogmatic desire for ever-closer union, rather than putting the interests of our country and hard-pressed taxpayers first. Money has been squandered on wasteful and expensive initiatives and billions have been ploughed into the organisation year on year. Let us be clear that the Bill is about giving a referendum and a say to the British public. For far too long, our taxpayers have been pillaged and hard-pressed families and businesses across the country have been subjected to far too much regulation and red tape by the European Union. It is not just costs, but laws that have been imposed on us. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) spoke about the immigration rules that have been imposed on us. We have not had a say. It is about time that we trusted the British public. As well as enabling us to debate the future of our relationship with the EU, the Bill serves as a test of how the political parties in this country treat the public. On the one hand, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats have conspired to cheat the British public out of the referendum that was promised on the Lisbon treaty. Those parties would surrender more powers to Brussels and adopt the euro. However, they prefer to abstain on the Bill and call it a stunt than to engage the public in a true democratic process by giving them a say. We live in an era when the public are given referendums on local neighbourhood plans, whether to adopt elected mayors and whether the parliamentary voting system should be changed, so frankly it is a scandal that the Labour party and the Lib Dems are living in the past and showing nothing but contempt for the public. Yet again, they are unable to trust the British public. By contrast, it is this partya united Conservative partythat is giving the public the chance to have a referendum. We want to empower the public to decide
That was what I said in the article that the right hon. Gentleman took out of all context. This is an issue not of trust between the Prime Minister and his Back BenchersI have no doubt we will get an in/out referendum in 2017but of trust between politicians in general and the electorate, for understandable reasons given our lamentable record in keeping good our promises. This brings us to the nub of the issue. What will Labour and the Liberals do? Will they support this Bill? Will they honour past promises to the electorate? Will they allow the electorate their say, or are they still stuck in the mindset of the previous political establishment, which could not trust the electorate with this issue? Time will tell, but I say this to them: ignore the electorate at your peril. I suggest that they do what is best for the country and I predict that the Labour party in particular will change its position on this issue before the next general election.
1.26 pm Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab): I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on proposing the Bill. I have been in the House for a number of decades and if I could give a speech as good as he gave today I would be pleased. To do it in almost his maiden speech was simply stunning, and to have had the Prime Minister sitting on the Front Bench listening to his gifts of delivery cannot have done his future career any harm whatsoever. Karl Turner: Three and a half million jobs, Frank. Mr Field: That sort of intervention is pathetic. I think it is quite reasonable to congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South. If we think that we can win elections by not recognising the truth and paying tribute to people, our time in politics is wasted. I have one point to make, which is to echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said. We are going to have a referendum and the question for Labour is whether we reach that point gracefully or reluctantly. We now need to move beyond this debate and set out the terms of how sovereignty can be redrawn between us and Europe. That is my single plea. This is the easy part of the debate where we ask
1237
5 JULY 2013
1238
how they should be governed and who should govern them. In doing so, we are continuing our proud tradition of putting the British interest first in Europe. One lady who did that was, of course, Margaret Thatcher. She won the rebate for this country. Shamefully, it was abandoned by the Labour party. The current Prime Minister has vetoed a treaty and secured a reduction in the EU budget, unlike the Labour party. On this historic day, Conservative MPs can take Britain one step closer to holding a referendum and trusting the people to decide their destiny when it comes to Britain and the European Union. 1.32 pm Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): This morning, I was in the Tea Room. It was packed with salivating Tories. The atmosphere was that of a students refectory before a students union debate: full of impotent expectation. I say impotent because the Bill is a constitutional nonsense, as we all surely realise. The Prime Minister has made it clear that if we have a Conservative Government after the next electionGod forbidhe will renegotiate Britains membership of the EU and then hold a referendum. He is supporting the Bill because it is about a referendum in the next Parliament. However, as we all know, it is constitutionally impossible for this Parliament to make a decision that binds a future Parliament. What we are engaged in today is a pantomime. The Bill is not about the countrys needs. It is another bone for Eurosceptics to gnaw away at until they eventually go blue in the face. I am sad because this pantomime is also a tragedy. The Bill poses a grave risk to the economic interests of this country. I very much regret that the Prime Minister and Conservative party are more concerned about that partys internal politics than about the best interests of the people of this country. In seeking to place a question mark over Britains membership of the European Union, the Bill creates enormous strategic uncertainty for Britains place in the single market. As Sir Martin Sorrell, chief executive of the advertising group WPP, said in response to the Prime Ministers Bloomberg speech, it is
another reason why people will postpone investment decisions
As the Financial Times stated in January, many entrepreneurs strongly support Britain remaining part of the European Union. We would be profoundly mistaken to put at risk this countrys economic wellbeing for the interests of the Conservative party. 1.36 pm Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con): It is not surprising that most people want this referendum. Seven out of 10 people have never had a say on our relationship with Europe, and nobody has had a say on our relationship with the European Unionit did not exist in 1975. It is striking that people generally want a referendum sooner rather than later, and the beauty of the Bill is that it sets a longstop date but does not close down the possibility of holding a referendum sooner than 2017. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) for ensuring that that was the case. Right now our Government should be preparing the ground and putting our best and most urgent efforts into renegotiation. Businesses across the country want us to fight their corner; people want to know that their Government are already fighting to get control of our borders. Business needs certainty, people need certaintyas a minimum, they must be certain of when the uncertainty will end. People also need to know that Britain is ready for the results of a referendum, so let us do the work now. There is nothing to stop the Government and the civil service doing the ground work. Tell us what leaving or staying in the EU might mean. Tell us that leaving is a possibility. Alongside the Bill, why not publish an audit of the costs and benefits of EU membership, sooner rather than later? Those are all activities we can undertake now. In conclusion, Conservatives led the way forward in the past by securing a rebate from the EU budget, and we led the way in securing a cut in the EU budget. Let us lead the way again today, but this time not only the Conservatives. Let the whole Parliament lead the way in giving the British people a say on a future relationship with the European Union. 1.38 pm Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab): May I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on winning the ballot and promoting this Bill? I know that many of his colleagues would have loved to be No. 1indeed, a few Labour Members would have liked to come first and promote the very same Bill. We might have elicited more support from the Labour Benches if one of us had done that, but I am not sure. I have heard a lot today about how one party or another is playing politics, but as far as I am concerned, those who suffer when party politics are played on any side are the public. The only people who will suffer if this Bill is not supported will be the public who have wanted a referendum for many years. David Simpson: On that point, does the hon. Lady agree that the general public want a level playing field in Europe? They have not seen that for many years, and this referendum will give them their say.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Wayne David: Time is short so I will not. The Bill seeks to create four long years of damaging uncertainty about Britains future relationship with the single market. In so doing, it maximises the possibility of the UK no longer being seen as a sound location for inward investment. Let me be clear: the single market is of central economic importance to this country and 3.5 million jobs depend on that market150,000 in my country of Wales. Some companies say that leaving the European Union will make no difference, but many others hold a profoundly different view. The Smiths Group of advanced technologies, the Weir Group of leading engineering businesses, easyJet, Ford and Toyota have all expressed concerns at the idea of the United Kingdom not having access to the single European market.
1239
5 JULY 2013
1240
Kate Hoey: To me, this referendum is not just about politicians trusting the people, but about people beginning to trust us again, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) said. Looking at the records of all the political parties on Europe over the last 20 years, the public find there is not much that they can trust in what any of the political parties have said. That is precisely why we need this legislation. Of course, the Bill will not bind the next Government. If my party is in power after the next election, I will continue to campaign for a referendum. I hope it will be recognised that any party that goes into the next election without offering the people the chance of a referendum will not be looked on very well. I am therefore confident, as some of my colleagues are, that our party will change its mind on this, just as it changed its mind on the euro and a number of other issues relating to legislation that has been introduced. It is common sense that we need a referendum. Europe has changed so muchI will not go through all the different treaties. No one under the age of 55 has had a say on this. It is just scandalous to think that any party can sit around and abstain on an issue like this. What is the point? I genuinely cannot understand why we want to abstain, other than to say that we are playing into the hands of the Conservatives. I do not think I am playing into the hands of the Conservatives by voting for this Bill today; I am playing into the hands of my constituents and the British public, who want a referendum. I appeal to Members from my party not to abstain. This is not necessarily the Bill that will finally get consent in this House; there will be amendmentsI personally would like a referendum sooner rather than later. I want to read out two simple letters from the many that I have received over the last week or two since the Bill was published:
As one of your constituents I am asking you to listen to my voice, and the voice of millions of others, who believe its time that the British people were given a say on Britains membership of the European Union. This is not about party politics or the next general election. Its about democracy, and giving people a chance to decide whether the EU is right or wrong for Britain.
1.43 pm Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): This is an historic day. For the first time in nearly 40 years, a major political party of Government is united in its commitment to give the British people a choice as to whether they stay in the EU. That is the important part of this debate. The Prime Minister and the Government have been criticised for not introducing a Government Bill. Let us be absolutely clear: there is only one party that is stopping this Bill being a Government Bill or having time, and that is the Liberal party. Let us be clear also that the Liberals gave a solemn promise at the last election to have an in/out referendum. They gave that promise only because they thought then that they would win it. They are now reneging on that promise, so this is down to them. This is only a private Members Bill. Despite the fact that we all salute our hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) for the way he has introduced it, its likely progress reminds me of the games of Cluedo I used to play as a boy. In about nine or 10 months time, the body of my hon. Friend with his Bill will be found dead in the morning room with daggers in his back, but nobody will claim responsibility for killing his Bill. It will not be the Rev. Yellow Cleggo or Comrade Scarlet, but my hon. Friends Bill will be dead. The responsibility for the British people being denied a referendum will not lie with us. Sooner or later, the Liberal party and the Labour party will have to come clean with the British people and offer a referendum, as we are offering a referendum. When the Bill is finally talked out on some dark rainy night or morning, probably in the other place, and when we have ensured that all the other private Members Bills are slaughtered to make way for it, we will have to go back to the Government and say to our partners in coalition, Give us a Government Bill. If our partners refuse to give us that Bill, that will be an excellent platform on which to fight the next general election. We will remind the people again and again who killed the Bill by talking it out. We must start negotiating now. There are so many fundamental issueson our fisheries, on our farming and on our tradethat need to be worked out. I am confident that there will be a referendum. I fear that our partners in Europe will make very few concessions. I fear that the French will not be prepared to give us more freedom on agriculture, and I fear that the Spanish will not be prepared to give us more freedom on fishing. I fear that we will make very little progress, but we will try our best and the decision will then go to the British people. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way? Sir Edward Leigh: No, I am going to finish now. When we get to that point, unless major concessions are made I, like many other Conservatives, will campaign for this country once more to be free. Why should this country not once again be in charge of its own destiny? Why should we not be part of a genuine free trade area? That is our vision of a free and prosperous nation, and that is what we will put to the British people.
The next letter says:

Thanks for your stance on a referendum, we do appreciate being treated like adults, despite what
some other Members of Parliament are saying. I feel strongly that this Bill sends a message today, 40 years after we originally joined the Common Market, that we are in a new century and a new era. Europe has changed. Our country now needs to make that final decision about whether our future will be in Europe or whether we can see a better future outside Europe. We will be vilified by the establishmentanyone who has tried to speak out on Europe over the years has been vilified. The mantra of the European Union elite has always been Ever closer union. They will not allow such minor concerns as the opinion of the public to interfere in referendum decisions. Over and over again, decisions are quietly pushed through in Europe. We have to speak out. Now is the time for this Parliament to say, We want to govern our own country; we want to have a referendum, and let the public decide.
1241
5 JULY 2013
1242
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): As much brevity as possible. Andrew Miller. 1.46 pm Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): The national interest is now measured by the interests of the Conservative party. I find that extraordinary, but not surprising. I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) pointing out that there was no reference to UKIP in the speeches of either the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) or the Foreign Secretary. I was surprised earlier when I had a conversation in the Tea Room with the Minister for Europe. I asked him whether he was leading on the Bill. He said, No, William is, and I made the wrong assumption that he meant the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). He corrected me. I want to make one serious point. I am not opposed to a referendum. I have sat through the debate and listened carefully to all the contributions. At the beginning, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) asked what about next year? My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) pointed out that the Bill will mean four years of uncertainty, and it is that uncertainty that causes me serious concern. Andrew Bridgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Andrew Miller: No, I am not going to give way. My constituency is dominated by manufacturing companies that have a strong presence in Europe: 88% of vehicles produced in the Vauxhall factory end up in mainland Europe. We are trying to incentivise the supply chain in the automotive sector, and in a range of other industries, to come to the UK. During the four-year period, there will be key investment decisions. My worry, when we talk to people in China and the far east about bringing supply chain back to Europe, is that if there is uncertainty about Britains place in Europe, they will be more likely to place their investments in mainland Europe. That needs to be considered during the passage of the Bill. If we are to have a referendum, I plead with the House to do it quickly and get it over with, so that the manufacturing sector does not face uncertainty. If we go on in the way we are, with this vague date in the futureat least four yearsI worry intensely about the impact on manufacturing. I started my political life way back in the 60s, and in the 70s I found myself on the opposite side to the hon. Member for Stone. I campaigned vigorously about not joining the EU. I realised by the 1980s that our economy had become inextricably linked with the EU. That remains my view. We should be working out a way that carries on building our relationships with Europe, but, yes, there have to be some strong negotiations about the issues that hon. Members have legitimately raised today. I urge the House to think about these points as the Bill goes through. 1.50 pm Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con): I will endeavour to be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on his articulate,
professional introduction of this excellent Bill. I hope that I am able to support him all the way to Royal Assent. I want to remark on the timetable for this referendum. We have heard a lot of talk about those who want a vote now. That is fine, for those who are of the view that our current relationship with Europe is satisfactory or for those just want to leave the EU, but the reality is that most of the British people, and most of the Conservative party, are in the same space as me, thinking that there can be a role and a constructive relationship with Europe, but that at the moment it is not right. Europe simply has too much power. We need the opportunity to seek a renegotiation and put that to the British people. It is important that we give the British people their say. As has been said, there has been one referendum, seeking consent for membership of a common market. That was all the British people signed up to, but we now find that we are part of a political union that interferes in all aspects of our lives. The British people do not like it. It will be bad for the body politic if we do not get behind my hon. Friends Bill and endorse the concept of a referendum, but that referendum must follow a debate about what we think our relationship with Europe should look like. It is time that this country took charge of its relationship with Europe and made it work in our best interests. This Bill, if it receives a Second Reading today, will strengthen the Prime Ministers hand in any negotiations. It will tell Europe that we mean business and that we are determined to get our powers back. The Prime Minister can then say, quite categorically, We dont want any more interference in our employment laws. We dont want any more benefit tourists. We dont want any more messing around in our criminal justice system. We want our sovereignty back. The British people simply will not support a relationship with Europe until it gets back to what it was set up for: trade and trade only. This relationship is far too important to be decided purely by Members of this House. This is about Britain and its place in the world and we must let the people of Britain decide. 1.52 pm Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): I have not got much time. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on his Bill and his excellent speech promoting it. I will certainly be voting for it later. However, I want the Bill to propose a referendum in this Parliament, and as soon as possible, because that is what my voters want and what the country wants. Four years is too long. I also want to ensure that the wording of the question is carefully phrased, so that it is not a leading question. It should give a genuine choice to voters, so that they will not be misled by the wording. Millions of Labour voters want a referendum as well. Thousands of my constituents want a vote, too. I have evidence of that. We are speaking for millions of Labour votersperhaps not every Labour voter, but certainly millions of themwho equally, like many Government Members, want a referendum. I have some backing, in a sense, because four years ago I had a mini-pilot referendum in my constituency of Luton North. I publicly supported that and supported
1243
5 JULY 2013
1244
[Kelvin Hopkins] a yes vote. We got a 2:1 majority in favour of a referendum. Subsequent to that, I won my seat in 2010interestingly, with a swing to Labour. I am not suggesting that my support of the referendum was the cause of that, but it certainly did not do me any harm. I feel that I have personal backing from my constituency for a referendum. I have a long track record. In 1975, I not only voted against the Common Market as it was then, but I was the agent for the no vote in Bedfordshire and campaigned hard in that referendum. At the special Labour party conference that took place before the referendum, there was a massive Labour majority in favour of getting out of the European Union. The greatest speech I have ever heard, before or since, was delivered by Michael Foot, urging us to remove ourselves from the Common Market. At that time, there was massive support among Tory MPs for staying in. If Labour has switched sides, so too have the Tories. After the 1975 referendum we had the Single European Act, which I thought was a mistake. We had the ERM exchange rate mechanismdisaster, which certainly was a mistake, and I predicted it beforehand. Maastricht was another mistake, as was the strangely named growth and stability pactwhat growth and what stability? Then we had the euro disaster, followed by Lisbon. We have thus seen a massive shift of power from national Parliaments to Brussels, which has obviously been the design from the beginning. It is something that we have to stop and reverse. Unemployment stands at over 12% in the eurozoneand in the European Union, I believeand is rising. Whatever our problems, they are a lot worse for those inside the eurozone, which is proving to be a disaster. If we stay in the EU, I want to see a renegotiation that would cover getting us out of the common fisheries policy, removing ourselves from the common agricultural policy and getting rid of free movement provisionsall the things that have been mentioned today. If we do not succeed on those issues, I can tell hon. Members that I shall vote no in the referendum and vote for our exiting from the EU. I could say much more, but I have probably said enough. 1.56 pm Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): I rise to support the Bill and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on his excellent speech. The Bill is very much in the national interest, and I regret that party political interests are being put first by the Labour party. I could raise many issues, but they have already been raised, so I shall raise something completely differentabout our best ally, the United States of America. Recent comments have come out of the White House and the State Department that express concerns about this countrys debate about Europe. I am pro-America; I love America; and America is our closest allybut it is for the British people to decide our destiny, not for the United States, this current President or any future President. It is very much as a pro-American that I have risen to say that it is in the American national security interests to have a strong Britain, a sovereign Britain, an independent Britain and a Britain that is self-governed.
1.57 pm Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab): I shall try to be as brief as possible. It is traditional to congratulate the winner of the private Members ballot, and I am happy to do that, although speaking as a Member who has been here for 21 years, I have never even come in the top 20. I say that with no rancour and no bitterness. I am certain that the Bill will obtain its Second Reading today, and will sail through Committeealthough after that, who knows? The Bill will do so without my support, so let me briefly say why. The fact that the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) has chosen a controversial subject should not be made into an issue for consideration. Sometimes MPs bring in private Members Bills and try to build a good deal of consensus behind them, so that their proposers can get them through. There are plenty of other issues, however. Provisions on capital punishment and abortion, for example, started off as private Members Bills, and the Hunting Act 2004 started off as a private Members Bill. Whether the hon. Member for Stockton South will have such a smooth ride with his Bill, I do not know. I will not support the Bill, although together with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) I do support a referendum. I hope to persuade our Front-Bench team I am perhaps a bit more optimistic on this than my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester Eastto adopt a rational position on the reform of the EU, eventually resulting in a referendum for the British people to decide. After all, we have only ever had one referendum on this subject, and it was provided by a Labour Government. I will not support the Bill, first, because it is defective and incompatible with the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. I do not support it, secondly, because it will never be implemented. If, after 2015, there is a majority Tory Government, they are certain to change course and bring forward a different proposalas would any other majority Government. If there is a coalition Government, we will be back exactly where we are today. Another reason is that the heart of this Bill is fruit-cake therapy for Tories, in an attempt to provide a talisman against UKIP. That is what drives this issue. A more rational, reasonable and durable approach is required. This is an attempt to replicate Harold Wilsons ultimately successful strategy of the early 70s, but Harold Wilson was a far wilier operator than this Prime Minister. He devised the dissenting Ministers campaign and the referendum campaign principally to reconcile the deep divisions within the Labour party at the time and to avert a destructive split, and that was successful for nearly 10 years, but it did not prevent it. As much as anything, it was the split on the left in British politics that resulted in the hegemony of the Conservative party throughout the 80s. The split did take place, and it took another 15 years to recover from it. We are dealing here with fundamental political forces. The difference now is that the split is on the right of British politics. I fully expect this Bill to come back on Report in November, and I will be fascinated to see how it plays out after that.
1245 2 pm
5 JULY 2013
1246
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con): May I first join Members on both sides in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on a magnificent speech introducing his Bill? My first act of political campaigning was to take part in the 1979 referendum campaign. I was not old enough to vote, I hasten to add. However, I did go around putting leaflets through doors. I did so, first, because as a Conservative I strongly believed in the free trade opportunities that the European Economic Community represented. I thought it would be good for our economy and for business. I was also in favour because of the statements in the leaflets I was putting through the doors, such as The case for staying in the EEC, which said that we would gain, not lose, effective sovereignty over our destiny, and that in the last resort we would be able to veto any proposal put forward in Brussels if we considered it to be against our vital national interests. There was also the leaflet paid for by the taxpayer that went through every single door in the country which stated:
No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British government and British Parliament.
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put. The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 30. Division No. 44]
AYES
Adams, Nigel Afriyie, Adam Aldous, Peter Amess, Mr David Andrew, Stuart Arbuthnot, rh Mr James Bacon, Mr Richard Baker, Steve Baldry, Sir Tony Baldwin, Harriett Barclay, Stephen Barker, rh Gregory Baron, Mr John Barwell, Gavin Bebb, Guto Bellingham, Mr Henry Benyon, Richard Beresford, Sir Paul Berry, Jake Bingham, Andrew Binley, Mr Brian Blackman, Bob Blackwood, Nicola Blunt, Mr Crispin Boles, Nick Bone, Mr Peter Bottomley, Sir Peter Bradley, Karen Brady, Mr Graham Bray, Angie Brazier, Mr Julian Bridgen, Andrew Brine, Steve Brokenshire, James Bruce, Fiona Buckland, Mr Robert Burley, Mr Aidan Burns, Conor Burns, rh Mr Simon Burrowes, Mr David Burt, Alistair Byles, Dan Cairns, Alun Cameron, rh Mr David Carmichael, Neil Carswell, Mr Douglas Cash, Mr William Chishti, Rehman Chope, Mr Christopher Clappison, Mr James Clark, rh Greg Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Coffey, Dr Thrse Collins, Damian Colvile, Oliver Cox, Mr Geoffrey Crabb, Stephen Crouch, Tracey Davidson, Mr Ian Davies, David T. C. (Monmouth) Davies, Glyn Davies, Philip Davis, rh Mr David de Bois, Nick Dinenage, Caroline Djanogly, Mr Jonathan Dodds, rh Mr Nigel Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen Dorries, Nadine Doyle-Price, Jackie Drax, Richard Duddridge, James Duncan, rh Mr Alan Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain Dunne, Mr Philip Ellis, Michael Ellison, Jane Ellwood, Mr Tobias Elphicke, Charlie Eustice, George Evans, Graham Evans, Jonathan Evennett, Mr David Fabricant, Michael Fallon, rh Michael Field, Mark Fox, rh Dr Liam Francois, rh Mr Mark Freeman, George Freer, Mike Fuller, Richard Gale, Sir Roger Garnier, Sir Edward Garnier, Mark Gauke, Mr David Gibb, Mr Nick Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl Glen, John Godsiff, Mr Roger Goldsmith, Zac Goodwill, Mr Robert Gove, rh Michael Graham, Richard Grant, Mrs Helen Gray, Mr James Grayling, rh Chris Green, rh Damian Greening, rh Justine Grieve, rh Mr Dominic Griffiths, Andrew Gummer, Ben Gyimah, Mr Sam Hague, rh Mr William Halfon, Robert Hammond, rh Mr Philip Hammond, Stephen Hancock, Matthew Harper, Mr Mark Harrington, Richard Harris, Rebecca Hart, Simon Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan Hayes, rh Mr John Heald, Oliver Heaton-Harris, Chris Henderson, Gordon Hendry, Charles Herbert, rh Nick Hinds, Damian
[2.4 pm
Since that time, we have seen those assurances undermined time and again. I supported the single European Act because I thought, again, that it would represent an extension of the opportunities available for British business, and I remember that from the time when I worked with Margaret Thatcher, who has been quoted several times. She was the person who signed the single European Act, and she told us she did so because of the advice given to her by the lawyers, that it was designed to achieve the single market, and once that was done it was no longer necessary and it would, essentially, come off the statute book. Unfortunately the legal advice was wrong. It was not just confined to single market measures. That phrase was interpreted to push through measures that had nothing to do with the single market. It was for that reason that she started to become opposed to the direction of the European Union, and I did, too. Since joining this House I have voted against the Maastricht treaty, the Nice treaty, the Amsterdam treaty and the Lisbon treaty, and I have seen successive Prime Ministers from both sides come back to this House and claim triumph either because they made what was on the table slightly less damaging than it would have been or because they had managed to negotiate an opt-out for this country. It is clear that the people in the other countries of the EU have a different visionor at least their Governments doas to the direction we should be moving in. It is time the British people are able to express a view on the truth, not as set out in 1975, and about the direction we know the EU wants to go in. I hope the Prime Minister is successful in negotiating a new relationship. If he succeeds in doing so, I will be cheering him and I will campaign for a yes vote, but unless we have a different type of relationship, my next campaign in a referendum will be for a no vote. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Sir George Young) claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
1247

Murrison, Dr Andrew Neill, Robert Newmark, Mr Brooks Newton, Sarah Nokes, Caroline Norman, Jesse Nuttall, Mr David OBrien, rh Mr Stephen Offord, Dr Matthew Ollerenshaw, Eric Opperman, Guy Osborne, rh Mr George Ottaway, Richard Paice, rh Sir James Parish, Neil Patel, Priti Paterson, rh Mr Owen Pawsey, Mark Penning, Mike Penrose, John Percy, Andrew Perry, Claire Phillips, Stephen Pickles, rh Mr Eric Pincher, Christopher Poulter, Dr Daniel Prisk, Mr Mark Pritchard, Mark Raab, Mr Dominic Randall, rh Mr John Reckless, Mark Redwood, rh Mr John Rees-Mogg, Jacob Reevell, Simon Robathan, rh Mr Andrew Robertson, rh Hugh Robertson, Mr Laurence Rosindell, Andrew Rudd, Amber Ruffley, Mr David Rutley, David Sandys, Laura Scott, Mr Lee Selous, Andrew Shannon, Jim Sharma, Alok Shelbrooke, Alec Simmonds, Mark Simpson, David Simpson, Mr Keith Skidmore, Chris Skinner, Mr Dennis Smith, Miss Chloe Smith, Henry Smith, Julian Soames, rh Nicholas Soubry, Anna Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline Spencer, Mr Mark Stanley, rh Sir John Stephenson, Andrew Stevenson, John Stewart, Bob Stewart, Iain Stewart, Rory Stride, Mel Stringer, Graham Stuart, Ms Gisela Stuart, Mr Graham Sturdy, Julian Swayne, rh Mr Desmond Swire, rh Mr Hugo
5 JULY 2013

Wharton, James Wheeler, Heather White, Chris Whittaker, Craig Whittingdale, Mr John Wiggin, Bill Willetts, rh Mr David Williamson, Gavin Wilson, Mr Rob Wilson, Sammy Wollaston, Dr Sarah Wright, Jeremy Yeo, Mr Tim Young, rh Sir George Zahawi, Nadhim
1248
Hoban, Mr Mark Hoey, Kate Hollingbery, George Hollobone, Mr Philip Holloway, Mr Adam Hopkins, Kelvin Hopkins, Kris Howarth, Sir Gerald Howell, John Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy Hurd, Mr Nick Jackson, Mr Stewart James, Margot Javid, Sajid Jenkin, Mr Bernard Johnson, Gareth Johnson, Joseph Jones, Andrew Jones, rh Mr David Jones, Mr Marcus Kawczynski, Daniel Kelly, Chris Kirby, Simon Knight, rh Mr Greg Kwarteng, Kwasi Laing, Mrs Eleanor Lansley, rh Mr Andrew Latham, Pauline Leadsom, Andrea Lee, Jessica Lee, Dr Phillip Lefroy, Jeremy Leigh, Sir Edward Leslie, Charlotte Lewis, Brandon Lewis, Dr Julian Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian Lidington, rh Mr David Lilley, rh Mr Peter Lopresti, Jack Lord, Jonathan Loughton, Tim Luff, Peter Lumley, Karen Macleod, Mary Main, Mrs Anne Maude, rh Mr Francis May, rh Mrs Theresa Maynard, Paul McCartney, Karl McCrea, Dr William McIntosh, Miss Anne McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick McPartland, Stephen McVey, Esther Menzies, Mark Metcalfe, Stephen Miller, rh Maria Mills, Nigel Milton, Anne Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew Mordaunt, Penny Morgan, Nicky Morris, Anne Marie Morris, David Morris, James Mosley, Stephen Mowat, David Mundell, rh David Murray, Sheryll
Syms, Mr Robert Tapsell, rh Sir Peter Timpson, Mr Edward Tomlinson, Justin Tredinnick, David Truss, Elizabeth Turner, Mr Andrew Tyrie, Mr Andrew Uppal, Paul Vaizey, Mr Edward Vara, Mr Shailesh Vickers, Martin Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa Walker, Mr Charles Walker, Mr Robin Wallace, Mr Ben Walter, Mr Robert Watkinson, Dame Angela Weatherley, Mike

Mark Lancaster and Greg Hands
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane Alexander, rh Mr Douglas Ashworth, Jonathan Bain, Mr William Berger, Luciana Brown, Lyn Campbell, Mr Alan David, Wayne Docherty, Thomas Dowd, Jim Dugher, Michael Fitzpatrick, Jim Gapes, Mike Hillier, Meg Hilling, Julie Irranca-Davies, Huw Jones, Graham Jones, Susan Elan Lammy, rh Mr David Lucas, Ian McCarthy, Kerry Miller, Andrew Pound, Stephen Reynolds, Emma Smith, Nick Tami, Mark Timms, rh Stephen Turner, Karl Williamson, Chris Winterton, rh Ms Rosie

Heidi Alexander and Phil Wilson
Question accordingly agreed to. Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time. The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 0. Division No. 45]
AYES
Adams, Nigel Afriyie, Adam Aldous, Peter Amess, Mr David Andrew, Stuart Arbuthnot, rh Mr James Bacon, Mr Richard Baker, Steve Baldry, Sir Tony Baldwin, Harriett Barclay, Stephen Barker, rh Gregory Baron, Mr John Barwell, Gavin Bebb, Guto Bellingham, Mr Henry Benyon, Richard Beresford, Sir Paul Berry, Jake Bingham, Andrew Binley, Mr Brian Blackman, Bob Blackwood, Nicola Blunt, Mr Crispin Boles, Nick Bone, Mr Peter Bottomley, Sir Peter Bradley, Karen Brady, Mr Graham Bray, Angie Brazier, Mr Julian Bridgen, Andrew Brine, Steve Brokenshire, James Bruce, Fiona Buckland, Mr Robert Burley, Mr Aidan Burns, Conor Burns, rh Mr Simon Burrowes, Mr David Burt, Alistair Byles, Dan Cairns, Alun Cameron, rh Mr David Carmichael, Neil Carswell, Mr Douglas
[2.15 pm
1249

Harrington, Richard Harris, Rebecca Hart, Simon Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan Hayes, rh Mr John Heald, Oliver Heaton-Harris, Chris Henderson, Gordon Hendry, Charles Herbert, rh Nick Hinds, Damian Hoban, Mr Mark Hoey, Kate Hollingbery, George Hollobone, Mr Philip Holloway, Mr Adam Hopkins, Kelvin Hopkins, Kris Howarth, Sir Gerald Howell, John Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy Hurd, Mr Nick Jackson, Mr Stewart James, Margot Javid, Sajid Jenkin, Mr Bernard Johnson, Gareth Johnson, Joseph Jones, Andrew Jones, rh Mr David Jones, Mr Marcus Kawczynski, Daniel Kelly, Chris Kirby, Simon Knight, rh Mr Greg Kwarteng, Kwasi Laing, Mrs Eleanor Lansley, rh Mr Andrew Latham, Pauline Leadsom, Andrea Lee, Jessica Lee, Dr Phillip Lefroy, Jeremy Leigh, Sir Edward Leslie, Charlotte Letwin, rh Mr Oliver Lewis, Brandon Lewis, Dr Julian Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian Lidington, rh Mr David Lilley, rh Mr Peter Lopresti, Jack Lord, Jonathan Loughton, Tim Lumley, Karen Macleod, Mary Main, Mrs Anne Maude, rh Mr Francis May, rh Mrs Theresa Maynard, Paul McCartney, Karl McCrea, Dr William McIntosh, Miss Anne McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick McPartland, Stephen McVey, Esther Menzies, Mark Metcalfe, Stephen Miller, rh Maria Mills, Nigel
5 JULY 2013

Skidmore, Chris Skinner, Mr Dennis Smith, Miss Chloe Smith, Henry Smith, Julian Soames, rh Nicholas Soubry, Anna Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline Spencer, Mr Mark Stanley, rh Sir John Stephenson, Andrew Stevenson, John Stewart, Bob Stewart, Iain Stewart, Rory Stride, Mel Stringer, Graham Stuart, Ms Gisela Stuart, Mr Graham Sturdy, Julian Swayne, rh Mr Desmond Swire, rh Mr Hugo Syms, Mr Robert Tapsell, rh Sir Peter Timpson, Mr Edward Tomlinson, Justin Tredinnick, David Truss, Elizabeth Turner, Mr Andrew Tyrie, Mr Andrew Uppal, Paul Vaizey, Mr Edward Vara, Mr Shailesh Vickers, Martin Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa Walker, Mr Charles Walker, Mr Robin Wallace, Mr Ben Walter, Mr Robert Watkinson, Dame Angela Weatherley, Mike Wharton, James Wheeler, Heather White, Chris Whittaker, Craig Whittingdale, Mr John Wiggin, Bill Willetts, rh Mr David Williamson, Gavin Wilson, Mr Rob Wilson, Sammy Wollaston, Dr Sarah Wright, Jeremy Yeo, Mr Tim Young, rh Sir George Zahawi, Nadhim
1250
Cash, Mr William Chishti, Rehman Chope, Mr Christopher Clappison, Mr James Clark, rh Greg Coffey, Dr Thrse Collins, Damian Colvile, Oliver Cox, Mr Geoffrey Crabb, Stephen Crouch, Tracey Davies, David T. C. (Monmouth) Davies, Glyn Davies, Philip Davis, rh Mr David de Bois, Nick Dinenage, Caroline Djanogly, Mr Jonathan Dodds, rh Mr Nigel Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen Dorries, Nadine Doyle-Price, Jackie Drax, Richard Duddridge, James Duncan, rh Mr Alan Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain Dunne, Mr Philip Ellis, Michael Ellison, Jane Ellwood, Mr Tobias Elphicke, Charlie Eustice, George Evans, Graham Evans, Jonathan Evennett, Mr David Fabricant, Michael Fallon, rh Michael Field, Mark Fox, rh Dr Liam Francois, rh Mr Mark Freeman, George Freer, Mike Fuller, Richard Gale, Sir Roger Garnier, Sir Edward Garnier, Mark Gauke, Mr David Gibb, Mr Nick Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl Glen, John Godsiff, Mr Roger Goldsmith, Zac Goodwill, Mr Robert Gove, rh Michael Graham, Richard Grant, Mrs Helen Gray, Mr James Grayling, rh Chris Green, rh Damian Greening, rh Justine Grieve, rh Mr Dominic Griffiths, Andrew Gummer, Ben Gyimah, Mr Sam Hague, rh Mr William Halfon, Robert Hammond, rh Mr Philip Hammond, Stephen Hancock, Matthew Harper, Mr Mark
Milton, Anne Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew Mordaunt, Penny Morgan, Nicky Morris, Anne Marie Morris, David Morris, James Mosley, Stephen Mowat, David Mundell, rh David Murray, Sheryll Murrison, Dr Andrew Neill, Robert Newmark, Mr Brooks Newton, Sarah Nokes, Caroline Norman, Jesse Nuttall, Mr David OBrien, rh Mr Stephen Offord, Dr Matthew Ollerenshaw, Eric Opperman, Guy Osborne, rh Mr George Ottaway, Richard Paice, rh Sir James Parish, Neil Patel, Priti Paterson, rh Mr Owen Pawsey, Mark Penning, Mike Penrose, John Percy, Andrew Perry, Claire Phillips, Stephen Pickles, rh Mr Eric Pincher, Christopher Poulter, Dr Daniel Prisk, Mr Mark Pritchard, Mark Raab, Mr Dominic Randall, rh Mr John Reckless, Mark Redwood, rh Mr John Rees-Mogg, Jacob Reevell, Simon Robathan, rh Mr Andrew Robertson, rh Hugh Robertson, Mr Laurence Rosindell, Andrew Rudd, Amber Ruffley, Mr David Rutley, David Sandys, Laura Scott, Mr Lee Selous, Andrew Shannon, Jim Shapps, rh Grant Sharma, Alok Shelbrooke, Alec Simmonds, Mark Simpson, David Simpson, Mr Keith

Mark Lancaster and Greg Hands
NOES

Peter Luff and
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Question accordingly agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
1251
5 JULY 2013
1252
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you know, a large number of colleagues on both sides of the House were unable to make a speech on Second Reading. I understand that the Bill is going to be considered in a Public Bill Committee, where it will have full scrutiny. Can you advise me on how we can draw attention to the fact that many Members were unable to contribute to todays debate? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): First, I congratulate all right hon. and hon. Members who did speak, because 29 managed to get in, but unfortunately 18 did not, and I feel disappointed for them. In fairness, that is pretty unique for a Friday. Perhaps that has set the tone for future Fridays.
Margaret Thatcher Day Bill

Second Reading 2.28 pm Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): Now. Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): Object. Mr Bone: You cannot object; I am within the time. Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the support of my Whips in this Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it would be helpful to the Government Whips if they were to read Erskine May to see how the process works. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): That is not a point of order, but it might have been helpful if they had struggled a little longer to get through the Lobby. Mr Bone: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. The Bill would amend the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 so that the last Monday in August is known as Margaret Thatcher day. Baroness Thatcher was without doubt one of the greatest Prime Ministers in living memory[Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Would Members please be quiet, because I am trying to hear Mr Bone. It would be helpful if those leaving the Chamber would do so quietly. Mr Bone: Mrs Thatcher was a great stateswoman, a true patriot, and an inspiration to the masses. She not only did our country a great service but gave Britain back its pride and returned it to prosperity after some of the darkest economic days in recent decades. She gave us a legacy to be proud of. It is rare to find Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thomas Docherty: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Deputy Speaker: This had better be a serious point of order, Mr Docherty, because we are interrupting the hon. Gentlemans speech for the third time. Are you serious or are you not? Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend can go first. Mr Bone: This was a politician with such courage and conviction Huw Irranca-Davies: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am seeking clarification. Having been 2.30 pm The Deputy Speaker interrupted the business (Standing Order No. 11(2)). Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 8 November.
1253
5 JULY 2013
1254
Business without Debate

EU MEMBERSHIP (AUDIT OF COSTS AND BENEFITS) 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 July. SPECIALIST PRINTING EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS (OFFENCES) BILL Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time. Hon. Members: Object. Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 September. COMMITTEES Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): With the leave of the House, we will take motions 5 and 6 together. EUROPEAN SCRUTINY Ordered,
That Mr Joe Benton be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Geraint Davies be added.(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Young Fathers
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.(Mr Syms.)
2.31 pm Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this Adjournment debate. I want to talk about a particularly important subjectyoung fathers, a group that is often overlooked, frequently marginalised, and rarely supported in our society. Over the past few years, there has rightly been a lot of concentration on young mothers, with particular public policy concentration on teenage pregnancy. However, there is so little provision for young fathers that we do not even know how many there are in Britain, because there are no accurate figures. However, those of us representing constituencies like Tottenham know that they exist and that they are frequently crying out for help and support. Modern society is changing more quickly than ever before. The traditional society of the 1950s was opened up with the social liberal revolution of the 1960s and the economic liberal revolution of the 1980s. Both have brought more women into the workplace, raising their skill levels and aspirations, with society increasingly seeing them not just as mothers but as workers in the workplace. That is incontestably a good thing. At the same time, the British family has changed. Between 1975 and 1997, the time British fathers spent with their children on an average working day increased from just 15 minutes to two hours. Again, that is incontestably a good thing. However, policy has often not caught up with the way that families want to live their lives. Too often, it rests on outdated assumptions of one carer, usually the mum, and one breadwinner, usually the dad. That does not reflect the reality of very many families out there in our country. Therefore, in 2010, I set up the all-party group on fatherhood to place the importance of fathers on to policy makers desks and into their in-boxes, and to bring our 19th-century social policy up to date with our 21st-century economy and family life. Many others have been instrumental in raising these issues over many years, often against a backdrop of official indifference or, sometimes, hostility. Adrienne Burgess and her colleagues at the Fatherhood Institute have shifted the terms of the debate, as has Professor Tina Miller at Oxford Brookes university, both of whom well understand that active, engaged fathers are good for families, good for children, and, importantly in these straitened times, good for the economy. I salute their work. I also salute the work of many organisationstoo numerous to mentionthat work with not only fathers, but young fathers in places such as my constituency. They often do so out of the limelight and often try to convince local public services of the value that dads can offer families. I am thinking in particular of Shane Ryan and his group Working with Men, which works extensively in south London. Such vital work is too often under-appreciated.
TRANSPORT Ordered,
That Kwasi Kwarteng be discharged from the Transport Committee and Martin Vickers be added.(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
1255 [Mr David Lammy]
Young Fathers
5 JULY 2013
Young Fathers
1256
Encouraging active fatherhood has been a subject close to my heart since my own father left my mother and our family when I was 12 and I grew up without a father in my life. I have in the past discussed general policies in relation to fathers, such as paternity leave, but today I want to address issues specific to young fathers. Although teenage pregnancy remains an issue in our society, at least it is accepted that young mums have problems that are specific to them and that need help and support. That rarely happens with the young dads who have fathered those children. Too often we treat young fathers as problems to be solved and not people to be supported or helped. Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con): I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Is not the problem he is outlining exacerbated by the benefit system? Sometimes young fathers are discouraged by the woman and her family themselves, because she might be less well-off with a man. Would it not be betteremotionally and for our society and the future of the childrenfor those fathers to be given a chance? Mr Lammy: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point to which I will return. We as policy makers need to think about and understand families. There may not be a relationship between mum and dad, but more often than not the father needs to remain engaged. In the case of young fathers, they need a lot of support to remain engaged, or they might walk away and never return. Our media talk so often about feckless fathers and deadbeat dads and assume that all young fathers fit the same, sometimes inaccurate stereotype. That has to stop. It is time for young dads not just to be listened to, but to be heard, because they are all too often unwilling to disappear from their childrens lives. They are often disfranchised by neglect and by lack of support from the system, not by design. Mums, dads, childrenthe whole familylose out if young fathers find themselves in that position. Let us be clear: as President Obama has said, what makes a man is not conceiving a child, but having the courage to raise one. Fathers of whatever age have to live up to their responsibilities and to the high expectations that we should all as a society have of them. That does not mean that society should not help them live up to those expectations, particularly when they are young people. Young fathers present specific issues. It is often the case that they were looked-after children, excluded from schools or raised in poverty. Teenage fathers are three times more likely to have failed to have completed secondary education and much more likely than their peers to not be in education, employment or training. Unfortunately, many are young offenders: 12 % of 15 to 17-year-old offenders have children of their own, and nearly half of those aged 22 and under are or are about to become fathers. Many of them have never seen what good parenting looks like so, without support, how do we expect them to raise their own children properly? Too often, we condemn young fathers for their background. They are failed in their schools and failed in their families, and we fail them again when they
become fathers. That feeds feelings of deep inadequacy and shame. They know that they are unprepared for fatherhood, but do not know where to turn to for support. They have much higher rates of anxiety and depression than their peers without children. Most of all, they are often very angry, and often with good reason. However much teenage dads want to play a role in their childs upbringing, life seems to conspire against them. A job will be hard to come by for this cohort of fathers, given the state of our economy. Their partners may get a home, as has been indicated by the hon. Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord), but if they are not together, it is highly unlikely that the father will get one. The public services to help them with their role as a dad will be patchy or non-existent. Jobcentre Plus will be more interested in processing their benefits than in working with them to obtain the skills for work while bringing up their children. Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): This is a brilliant speech. A debate on this matter in Parliament is long overdue. On housing, the single room rate for people up to the age of 35 means that increasingly, young men live in bedsits in houses with lots of other young men. That is not a suitable place to take a child if the father has occasional custody. Mr Lammy: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. If we believe, as I suspect Members across the House do, that we must keep fathers engaged with their children, assuming that there is no issue such as violence, the contact that they have with their children is fundamental. Policies such as the room rate cut across that. The costs that society has to pick up when a father becomes disengaged from his son, and the costs of the repetition when that son becomes a young man, are considerable. I am pleased that she has raised that issue. The Work programme is limping along and the Youth Contract is not doing its job for this cohort of young men. We need tailored programmes for young men, and for young dads in particular, because we understand the cost to society if they do not get it right at this stage. Things do not look good, which can make these young men very angry. When I hosted a recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on fatherhood in which we spoke to young fathers, I saw just how angry these young men can be because of their frustration at wanting to be good fathers, but not being supported by the system. Not only are young fathers not supported or helped; they are demonised by journalists and politicians. Myths solidify into facts. The isolated but deeply regrettable incidents of men who father children with different mothers become the rule, not the exception. Figures from the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission show that fewer than 5,000 men are paying maintenance for children they have had with three partners and that fewer than 500 men are paying maintenance for children they have had with four partners. Although those men may not have lived up to the high expectations that we should have of them, they do not represent the vast majority of young fathers. We must bust some other myths too. The majority of young fathers are in relationships with the mothers of their children. The millennium cohort study found that
1257
Young Fathers
5 JULY 2013
Young Fathers
1258
half the partners of teenage mothers were living with them during the pregnancy. The vast majority of young fathers intend to play a full role in their childrens lives, and that intention does not disappear with the first sleepless night or the first nappyin fact, it often grows. The same study found that one in five non-resident fathers who had low contact with their 10-month-old infants were in more frequent and often daily contact when the child was three. Young dads want to be there for their children just as much as all dads; they just need support to do it, as one would expect of young people. Many young dads live chaotic lives. Many hon. Members will be familiar with young people who live chaotic lives, perhaps even in their own homes. For many young men, becoming a dad is the wake-up call that pushes them to take control of their lives and to take better care of themselves, as well as their families. That is exactly what I saw when I visited St Michaels Fellowship in Brixtona wonderful organisation that works with young dads in some of the most testing circumstances in Britain. I wish to place on record my thanks to Seany OKane, who runs the scheme, and to Kim Normanton, a BBC producer who allowed me to spend time at St Michaels recording Dads Who Do, a documentary for Radio 4. Even among fathers facing multiple pressures, the vast majority try to stay involved in their childrens lives and to be good role models. They each told me that they feel they are on their own and expected to get by without help, support or even recognition of their needs. Too often, they come up against maternity services at childrens centres or schools that place no expectation on them as young fathers, and all the expectation on the young mother. I have said that young dads often have greater needs than other fathers, and in other parts of our public services that would mean more provision for them, not less. In too many parts of our public services, however, young fathers are practically invisibleat best ignored, and seen by some workers as a risk or a danger to be avoided. Too many are denied access to their children and have to fight their way through the courts. Without legal aid many men are now presenting to MPs in a breakdown situation with their partners, and they have to supervise themselves through the court system. Expecting an 18, 19 or 20-year-old to supervise themselves through a legal process is expecting too much and nothing short of a national disgrace. The Government should think carefully about their provisions for legal aid in such family cases. There is no statutory requirement to provide services to young fathers. Support is piecemeal, patchy and at heart a postcode lottery. Too often, young fathers say they are ignored by public service professionals, who assume that the father is not really interested in their child. Where support is provided to fathers, it is often generic and tailored to older fathers who may need less help. A recent survey found that in half of cases involving a young family, the health visitor did not even know the fathers name. Young fathers often have little contact with midwives, health visitors and social workers. Childrens centres often have targets for engaging with dads, but there are no data on how many children actually come into contact with their dad. Good childrens centres,
like Earlsmead and Noel Park in my constituency in Haringey do encourage such contact, but many will not. This is a problem, and not just for the dads themselves. Research suggests that the mothers perspective on her care will be determined to a large extent by her partners views. A young father who is engaged with public services is more likely to remain supportive of their childrens care as they grow up. That is good for children and the partner. Young mothers who believe that their partner is supportive have higher self-esteem, lower depression, and are more likely to be positively attached to their child. However, what should be a win-win situation is too often a lose-lose onepublic services push away a young dad, which leads to a young mum bringing up her child on her own. Such reluctance to engage with young fathers might also spring from a reluctance to engage young people at all when it comes to sex education. Young dads know less about sex and relationships than young mums, although most are happy to learn. A reluctance to engage young dads before the birth feeds into a lack of provision for couples to raise their child together after the birth. Most residential homes are for mothers and babies onlyagain, treating fathers as though they are a danger, irrelevant, or both. Too many young couples are forced apart because of local authority housing decisions that do not take a whole-family approach that would enable young parents to establish their own households. Pressure on young fathers and families builds up, making it even more difficult for them to look after their children. We need an entire shift in attitude on behalf of public services from focusing exclusively on the mother and child to thinking about the family, including the father, however young he might be. That must begin from the high expectations that we should have of all fathers. Significant numbers of the birth certificates of children born to teenage mothers do not identify the father at all. How can we show fathers our expectations of them if we do not even require their names to be on their childrens birth certificates? Will the Minister explainI have raised this issue in many forumswhy his Government have not enacted the provisions in the Welfare Reform Act 2009 that would provide for joint birth registration? Young dads often experience significant financial hardship. We know that the best way for them to provide for themselves and their families is through skilled, decent, well-paid work. The problems that young fathers face because of the Work Programmes one-sizefits-all approach are too numerous to mention. Will the Minister raise that issue with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions? It is not acceptable that public services should fail to engage with young fathers at all. Young dads should be engaged from antenatal services onwards, improving outcomes for their children and breaking down poverty and social exclusion. To achieve that, maternity services, health visitors, social workers and childrens centres should, at the very least, always record the fathers details, regardless of his age, and work with the voluntary sector and childrens centres to provide the best possible targeted support for the family as a whole, including young dads. Will the Minister work with his colleagues to ensure that public services support young fathers to live up to the high expectations we should have of them? Will he
1259 [Mr Lammy]
Young Fathers
5 JULY 2013
Young Fathers
1260
think again with the Secretary of State for Education about what more the Government can do to raise the profile of the expectations that we should have of young fathers and the services that local authorities and local institutions need to deliver if we are to see fewer break-ups and less poverty as a result? Will the Minister also work to introduce parenting education for all secondary school pupils? Most of all, if we are to support young dads properly, we need the data to understand how many are out there. How many are being helped by our public services, as well as by local authorities and the voluntary sector? Will the Minister ensure that those data are collected in a standardised form, where safe to do so, and made open to public services and other organisations that want to do more for fathers? Finally, will the Minister and his colleagues commit to improving the services offered by young offender institutions for young fathers? Given that so many young fathers come through young offender institutions, we need a better focus from the Department on young fathers while they are in them and can be supportedwhen they come outto be better fathers than they might otherwise have been. Will the Minister commit to reinstating the teenage pregnancy strategy, which provided so much support for young parents? There has been a substantial cut. Local authorities are moving away from their budgets. In 2009, teenage pregnancy figures were going in the right directionwe saw a 6% dropbut sadly they are now going back up. Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Lammy: The hon. Gentleman has a long track record of taking up these issues in childrens services, and I am grateful to him for that, but I probably ought not to give way, so that the Minister has time to respond to the questions I have asked. 2.53 pm The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson): In the time I have left, I will do my utmost to address the issues that the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) has raised, but if I am unable to do so, I will endeavour in the usual way to write to him and explain in as much detail as I can what the Government are doing to address the important issues he has raised. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. The House knows well the great importance that he places on supporting fathers, which is built not just on his huge insight, but on his personal experiences, which he has eloquently communicated in books, articles and papers that he has written on the subject. Only a few weeks ago, as I was driving to a primary school in Staffordshire Moorlands, I was listening to him on the radio giving a powerful demonstration of why it is important to keep our eye on the ball, not just for fathers generally but for young fathers specifically. Like the right hon. Gentleman, the Government recognise that a fathers role in his childs life is important. Children benefit greatly from a continuing relationship with both fathers and mothers. The evidence is clear that the
positive involvement of fathers can lead to enhanced educational attainment, improved behaviour, better wellbeing and better relationships with their children. As he said, the foundations of so many social problemsand success storiesare laid in the early years. The evidence shows that what parents do in their childs early years is a critical factor in that childs future attainment and behaviour. Childrens centres have the capacity to be life changing, ensuring that the families who need the services the most get the support they need. By identifying, reaching and helping the families in greatest need, they help to improve parenting capacity and health and well-being, and support the development of children so that they are well prepared to start school. Childrens centres offer different approaches to provide an environment in which fathers feel comfortable. For example, many offer stay and play sessions for fathers and children or networks to enable fathers to meet up and feel confident to use their local centres. I remember a few years ago, as part of an inquiry by the Children, Schools and Families Committee, visiting a childrens centre in Westminster North where it was doing exactly that: trying to work out how better to engage with young dads. Some centres work closely with teenage fathers, supporting them in their parenting role and encouraging them to develop their skills for work. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Earlsmead childrens centre in his constituency, which supported a young father who was the main carer for a child under the age of two. Through the stay and play sessions, and through interacting with the staff to enable him to be better around his child and to access other services, he went from being unemployed to being referred to the centre through a back-to-work programme, resulting in him successfully getting a job. That is a fantastic example of how childrens centres can make a huge difference. The right hon. Gentleman highlighted his concern that the needs of young fathers were not being addressed through the Work programme. I can assure him that one-size-fits-all employment programmes no longer exist. The current programmes recognise that young people need more tailored support to find work. Childrens centres such as Earlsmead play their part by working closely with local employment services to help ensure that that is delivered. I will, however, speak to my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to see if there is anything more we can do to learn from recent experiences since the changes were brought in. Some local authorities make childrens centres one of the places where parents can register births; for example, in Manchester, Bury and York. They have found that the opportunity to register births in childrens centres is potentially a very effective means of exposing parents to the support available through centres. They have reported improved engagement with hard-to-reach families. For example, the Benchill childrens centre in Manchester reported that 100% of young parents who registered their baby at Benchill have re-engaged with the services offered by the centre. I share the right hon. Gentlemans preference for joint birth registration, because it promotes the involvement of both parents in the upbringing of their children. He will know that the Governments position, rather than having catch-all legislation, is to pursue ways to strengthen the existing guidance to registrars to make clearer to
1261
Young Fathers
5 JULY 2013
Young Fathers
1262
mothers the expectation that the fathers name should always be recorded on the register unless there are very good reasons why that should not happen. I am happy to take up his case with other Departments to see if that approach has the effect we all want to see. The voluntary sector has a strong track record of supporting families. Charities such as 4Children, Barnardos and Action for Children, as well as the many mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, run many childrens centres on behalf of local authorities. In my constituency and elsewhere, many parents who have children under the age of five benefit from the valued support of Home-Start UK. We are also funding the Fatherhood Institute to work in four local authorities to improve educational outcomes for children from deprived communities. The focus is on helping early years services to engage fathers, including non-resident fathers, in their childrens learning. It is vital that very young people who are about to become parents get the support they need too. Pregnancy and birth present the first opportunity to engage fathers in the care and upbringing of their children. It is important that both the mother and father feel involved in the pregnancy from an early stage. In 2011, the Royal College of Midwives published Top Tips for Involving Fathers in Maternity Care. It cites the teenage pregnancy support unit in Hull, which assesses the needs of young fathers as well as young mothers, and provides support to develop parenting skills. On a recent visit to Eagle Bridge health centre in Crewe, I met a teenage couple who were first-time parents. They spoke about how they were benefiting from the personalised support they were receiving from the family nurse partnership programme. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about a wake-up call, and that was very much that couples experience of the programme, which supports children in some of the most disadvantaged circumstances. By 2015, some 16,000 families in need will be benefiting from the service.
I have only a short time left but I echo the right hon. Gentlemans comments about young offenders who are also fathers. He also mentioned that many of them have spent time in the care system. Some 50% of those in young offender institutions have spent some time in care. There was a strong correlation between the two. Having accepted that those who have done wrong need to be punished, I want to do more, through my Department and working with the Ministry of Justice, to understand how to use that time to give them the resilience, support and education they need to better their lives when they are, we hope, rehabilitated back into the community. The Government are undertaking a number of other initiatives, including relationship support, the CANparent trials and the online and telephone helpline services for families, to name but a few, as well as the proposed changes to paternity leave and the measures in the Children and Families Bill. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Like him, I firmly believe that children need their fathers as much as they need their mothers, and we must do all we can to ensure, wherever possible, that both parents are fully involved in their childs upbringing. The measures that the Government are taking will help ensure that we support parents, and parents to be, who need it most. Be that as it may, I am always more than happy to discuss with the right hon. Gentleman what more we can do to ensure that young fathers play as full and active a role as possible in their childrens lives and, in doing that, we have the opportunity 3.1 pm House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).
71WS
Written Statements
5 JULY 2013
Written Statements
72WS
Written Statements
Friday 5 July 2013
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS Business Bank The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable): I would like to update the House on progress made to set up a new British business bank to support the provision of finance to small and mediumsized firms in the UK. Inadequate access to finance remains one of the biggest risks to the UKs economic recovery. The business bank will manage 3.9 billion of Government resources and bring together management, budgets, spending authorities and the power to alter or create new schemes into one place. I announced in December the formation of an advisory group, led by Sir Peter Burt, former chief executive of the Bank of Scotland, which would advise Government in the design phase of establishing the business bank. Under Sir Peters leadership, the group has made rapid progress. Their recommendations cover the following issues:
Coverage of the business banks activities; Role of wider business advice and the links to the business bank; Corporate form of the business bank; Performance measures; Building on the existing capacities in Government and its agency; Resource allocation; Risk management systems; Use of evidence; Leadership including the recruitment of the chair.
ahead of the transition to individual electoral registration in 2014. Organisations, neighbourhoods and communities have been asked to come up with ideas to get people involved in the democratic process locally and nationally, with the best ideas being awarded funding from the new innovation fund. I welcome Parliaments scrutiny and encouragement of such ideas, and urge parliamentarians to consider what could be done in their areas and constituencies. Funding is also being made available to local authorities who have solid and creative ideas to get as many people on to the electoral register as possible in their area. The introduction of individual electoral registration (IER) in 2014 will modernise our electoral registration system, removing the notion of the head of the household being responsible for the registration of others. IER will also introduce online registration making it more convenient for people to register to vote while also delivering a register that is more secure and engenders greater trust in politics. A major benefit of IER is that electors will be individually contacted and encouraged to register. This will enable local authorities to aim to get the maximum number of people on the register, including hard to reach and under-registered groups. Currently some people, such as those in shared housing and frequent home movers are some of the most underrepresented on the register. The funding will be used to support a range of initiatives to be carried out by local authorities and other organisations, such as the voluntary, charity and social enterprise sector, which will work together with the aim of increasing levels of voter registration among under-registered groups. These include:
The Targeted Canvassing FundA fund which will enable electoral registration officers (EROs) to carry out intensified canvassing activity in areas with a high proportion of underregistration. The ERO Registration FundA fund which will support proposals for activities from electoral registration officers who will use their knowledge of the needs of their local populations to customise their measures. Innovation FundWe will be looking to fund innovative bottom-up approaches to increase representation of under-registered groups (URGs) on the electoral register. We are particularly interested in new innovative approaches to engage communities and increase voter registration. Schools OutreachWe will be looking for organisations to deliver a set lesson framework, Rock Enrol, which has been developed and piloted with Bite the Ballot, to a number of schools across England and Wales. This is also available to organisations in Scotland, although we will be looking to ensure that proposals take account of planned activity in schools ahead of the independence referendum.
I warmly welcome the groups advice and have today begun the recruitment of the chair and senior independent director for the British business bank. They will have the unique opportunity to bring together the wide range of finance interventions that will help support the UKs businesses and economic recovery. I would also note that the business bank investment programme launched on 10 April has received a number of applications for funding. I hope to be able to announce the first investments in the autumn. The advisorys group signed recommendations letter and overview paper will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER Maximising Voter Registration Measures The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith): I am pleased to announce that the Government are making available up to 4.2 million this year to maximise the rate of voter registration
HEALTH NHS England (Mandate) The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt): Today the Government are launching the consultation on the refresh of the mandate to NHS England for 2014-15. The consultation will close on 27 September in readiness for the publication of the refreshed mandate in the autumn to fit with the NHS planning round for 2014-15.
73WS
Written Statements
5 JULY 2013
Written Statements
74WS
The mandate sets the Governments ambitions for the NHS as well as the funding available to achieve and deliver the kind of care people need and expect. The first mandate set an ambitious agenda and was published in November 2012. It covered the period April 2013 to March 2015. The Government expect NHS England to demonstrate significant progress against all 24 objectives by March 2015 and will hold them to account for doing so. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 requires the mandate to be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that it remains up to date. It is important to provide the NHS with stability and continuity of purpose and we therefore propose to carry forward all the existing 24 objectives. At the same time, the scale of the challenge facing the NHS and wider health and care system is becoming increasingly clear. There have been crucial developments and new evidence that has emerged since the publication of the first mandate, which calls on Government and NHS England to act. The key proposed changes reflect these core priorities:
the actions being taken forward by NHS England in response to the Francis report to transform the care people receive; working with NHS England to develop a vulnerable older people plan, which will improve support for older people and those with long-term conditions, particularly through reform of primary care given their pivotal role within communities; and the need for the NHS to contribute to securing the recovery of the economy and make better use of resources in the light of the challenging fiscal climate.
The Metropolitan Police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission will consider the inquirys findings and recommendations carefully and will respond appropriately. I would like to take this opportunity to record my appreciation of Sir Christopher and his team for all the work they have done over the last three years in conducting the inquiry.
TRANSPORT Bus Subsidy The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker): I am pleased to announce today our plans to reform the bus subsidy system. We intend to implement a package of measures designed to improve services by making the subsidy provided to bus companiesbus service operators grant (BSOG)more targeted and accountable. In 2012 there were 4.7 billion bus passenger boardings made in England and over 60% of all public transport trips were made on local buses. Given the crucial role the bus network plays in supporting social inclusion, linking people to places of commerce and providing employers with access to labour markets, buses deserve to be recognised as the backbone of our public transport system and key to a healthy, growing economy. However, despite pockets of strong growth, overall bus patronage has been in long-term decline. Added to this, the way in which subsidy is used to support the bus market has become increasingly poorly targeted. This economic context, however, makes it imperative to push for improved bus services that are more locally accountable and provide better value for passenger and taxpayer. This is why we intend to reform bus subsidy by making the following changes:
creation of a new local government fundbetter bus areas; devolution to Transport for London/the Greater London Authority of the BSOG paid to London bus operators who operate services under contract to TfL; tightening the existing rules defining which bus services can claim BSOG, so that the available funding is put to the best possible use; paying BSOG to local authorities, rather than operators, where funding relates to services they support.
On the second of these priorities, the Government are also launching today dedicated engagement on the vulnerable older people plan, working jointly with NHS England. The engagement will seek views from staff, patients and the public on how to achieve the ambition of how more integrated out-of-hospital care, building on the strong tradition and values of the family doctor. In addition to the three priorities, the Government are also proposing to make a number of targeted changes to the current objectives which are thought to be essential to deliver the improvements in peoples care. The consultation document sets out where the Government are proposing to make these changes for the period April 2014 to March 2015. The Government welcome views on the proposals and invites comments through the consultation process. Refreshing the Mandate to NHS England: 2014-15 Consultation has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
JUSTICE Azelle Rodney Inquiry The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling): Sir Christopher Holland has today published the report of the inquiry which he has conducted under the Inquiries Act 2005 into the death of Azelle Rodney. The inquirys terms of reference were:
To ascertain by inquiring how, where and in what circumstances Azelle Rodney came by his death on 30 April 2005 and then to make any such recommendations as may seem appropriate.
The first three of these changes will take effect from 1 October this year. However, I have decided to allow more time for local authorities and operators to prepare for the paying of BSOG for supported services to authorities outside London. Therefore this change will not come into force until 1 January 2014. We consulted widely on these proposals in late 2012, and our consultation response which we are publishing todaycopies of which are being placed in the Library of the Housesets out the Governments commitment to each of the above measures. Devolving funding for supported services to local authorities will give communities more control over how money is spent. At the same time, I am keen this change should not cause temporary instability to local services. The majority of both bus operators and local
75WS
Written Statements
5 JULY 2013
Written Statements
76WS
authorities have asked for an extended period of ring fencing, and I believe that the case is a strong one. The funds which we devolve will, therefore, be ring fenced until the end of 2016-17. In turn, we expect local authorities to take due account of the tendered BSOG foregone by bus companies operating non-commercial services in managing existing contractual arrangements with them for these services and when agreeing new contracts. A further key reform is the introduction of better bus areas. I was delighted to designate Sheffield as the first BBA in February. Other local authorities had until today to bid to become BBAs with announcements on further designations to be made this autumn. BBAs offer an opportunity to explore how bus subsidy can be better used by local authorities, working with local operators, to attract more people onto buses and ensure better value for the taxpayer. Management of bus services in London is the responsibility of Transport for London and most of the substantial funding from central Government to support transport in London is currently paid to TfL in a single
grant. In line with this, from October a sum broadly equivalent to the BSOG for London services will be paid directly to TfL and the Greater London Authority. Finally, BSOG was designed to support local bus services, but over time a wider range of services than was intended laid claim to some of the subsidy. So, we have tightened the rules so that certain services are no longer eligible for BSOG. In particular, the removal of eligibility from rail replacement buses will also serve as a message to the rail industry that we expect them to use trains rather than buses wherever possible. The Government recognises that this package of reforms represents significant change for the industry. Local authority and bus industry views have therefore been vital to the development of our proposals and I am grateful for the input we have received. The reforms announced today mark an opportunity to reshape the support we provide for the bus industry for the better, using a long-standing subsidy in a targeted manner in order to improve services, encourage partnership working and deliver better value for money. I look forward to the improvements that these reforms will bring.
809W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
810W
Written Answers to Questions

Friday 5 July 2013
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS Apprentices Hugh Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how many young people (a) started and (b) completed apprenticeships in (i) York central constituency, (ii) York local education authority, (iii) Yorkshire and the Humber and (iv) England in each [163908] year since 1995-96. Matthew Hancock: Information on the number of apprenticeship starts and achievements by geography and age are published in Supplementary Tables to a quarterly Statistical First Release (SFR). Final data are available back to 2003-04, the earliest year for which geographical data are available:
http://www.thedataservice.org.uk/Statistics/fe_data_library/ Apprenticeships/ http://thedataservice.org.uk/statistics/statisticalfirstrelease/ sfr_archive/march2010supplementarydata.htm
Written comments on the draft regulations for Data Analysis for Non-Commercial Research, Education, and Research, Libraries and Archives should be submitted by 2 August. Part of this technical review process will involve ensuring compliance with all relevant legal obligations, including ECJ case law. The Government has been following closely the case of Wort and is examining the judgment. It would welcome any views on this specific issue from those who plan to participate in the technical review. EU Internal Trade Mike Thornton: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what estimate he has made of the number of jobs in each NUTS 1 region which are dependent on trade with the European [163616] Union. Michael Fallon: The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has not made an estimate of the number of jobs in each NUTS 1 region dependent on trade with the European Union. Mike Thornton: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how many businesses in (a) total and (b) each NUTS 1 region conducted trade in (i) services and (ii) goods with other EU countries in [163617] the last 12 months. Michael Fallon: Data on the number of businesses in the UK conducting trade in services with other EU countries is not available. Data on the number of businesses in the UK (and in each NUTS 1 region) conducting trade in goods with other EU countries is available from the HMRC Regional Trade Statistics. Data for each year and quarter (up to Q1 2013) is published at:
www.uktradeinfo.com
Business: Interest Rate Swap Transactions Guto Bebb: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what recent discussions he has had with the Financial Conduct Authority on the number of businesses offered redress as part of their redress scheme for businesses mis-sold interest rate hedging [163537] products; and if he will make a statement. Michael Fallon: The Government wants the Financial Conduct Authoritys review process to be concluded as quickly and as fairly as possible, and the Department continues to engage with the Financial Conduct Authority on this issue, including at ministerial level. Copyright Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what assessment his Department has made of the effect of the judgement by the Court of Justice of the European Union, in the case VG Wort v Kyocera on 27 June 2013, on his proposal for an exception to copyright for private copying that allows for appropriate compensation to be paid at the [163399] point of sale. Jo Swinson: The Government is currently inviting comment on its draft regulations for changes to copyright exceptions. Written comments on the draft regulations for Private Copying, Parody, Quotation, and Public Administration should be submitted by 17 July either in writing to the IPO or emailed to
Copyrightconsultation@ipo.gov.uk
Foreign Investment in UK Mike Thornton: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what estimate he has made of the number of jobs which have been created or safeguarded by foreign direct investment from other EU countries in (a) total and (b) each NUTS 1 region [163615] in each year since 2003. Michael Fallon: The following table shows figures recorded by UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) of total jobs created and safeguarded by foreign direct investment originating in the European Union since 2003. The figures are further broken down by the 12 NUTS 1 regions.
UKTI recorded jobs new and safeguarded by FDI from EU countries 2003/04 to 2011/12 Number of Number of safeguarded Region new jobs jobs 2003/04 East of England East Midlands London North East 71 462 244 685 85 90 40 1,521
811W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
812W
UKTI recorded jobs new and safeguarded by FDI from EU countries 2003/04 to 2011/12 Number of Number of safeguarded Region new jobs jobs North West South East South West West Midlands Yorkshire and the Humber Scotland Wales Northern Ireland Total 2004/05 East of England East Midlands London North East North West South East South West West Midlands Yorkshire and the Humber Scotland Wales Northern Ireland Total 2005/06 East of England East Midlands London North East North West South East South West West Midlands Yorkshire and the Humber Scotland Wales Northern Ireland Total 2006/07 East of England East Midlands London North East North West South East South West West Midlands Yorkshire and the Humber Scotland Wales 1,470 625 570 971 413 666 1,675 376 8,228 516 463 728 171 2,995 2,372 372 729 1,631 418 1,037 663 12,095 478 484 478 1,088 507 1,012 586 1,416 880 290 1,419 154 8,792 243 982 560 558 1,132 629 974 1,040 1,220 782 490 3,931 589 586 3,175 194 534 1,335 518 12,598 1,023 27 140 95 1,072 4,695 1,152 448 222 53 225 2,603 11,755 257 1,437 915 231 560 53 1,338 3,192 896 328 575 299 10,081 851 1,120 0 1,247 594 1,053 2,646 2,149 227 1,672 372
UKTI recorded jobs new and safeguarded by FDI from EU countries 2003/04 to 2011/12 Number of Number of safeguarded Region new jobs jobs Northern Ireland Total 2007/08 East of England East Midlands London North East North West South East South West West Midlands Yorkshire and the Humber Scotland Wales Northern Ireland Total 2008/09 East of England East Midlands London North East North West South East South West West Midlands Yorkshire and the Humber Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All Regions Total 2009/10 East of England East Midlands London North East North West South East South West West Midlands Yorkshire and the Humber Scotland Wales Northern Ireland Total 2010/11 East of England East Midlands London North East 1,435 10,045 782 662 1,185 865 1,054 1,818 230 2,258 1,168 595 1,680 1,989 14,286 341 280 1,531 889 111 961 61 874 79 426 1,488 2,764 12 9,817 591 847 2,800 557 2,242 346 452 846 729 1,820 1,370 460 13,060 1,002 1,148 2,355 118 428 12,359 2,711 2,069 437 500 2,000 1,823 440 7,058 921 581 1,260 280 20,080 974 385 1,240 856 2,003 1,099 1,973 620 1,074 100 67 196 6,000 16,587 810 205 114 735 1,331 2,522 691 507 1,925 863 2,142 42 11,887 1,410 1,596 1,213 174
813W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
814W
UKTI recorded jobs new and safeguarded by FDI from EU countries 2003/04 to 2011/12 Number of Number of safeguarded Region new jobs jobs North West South East South West West Midlands Yorkshire and the Humber Scotland Wales Northern Ireland Total 2011/12 East of England East Midlands London North East North West South East South West West Midlands Yorkshire and the Humber Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All Regions Total 1,667 832 516 789 470 1,331 1,044 749 12,021 822 691 3,075 1,486 5,774 1,577 371 1,299 1,116 960 672 558 2,715 21,116 1,756 1,738 3,117 1,494 399 1,321 284 55 14,557 67 30 1,682 289 3,315 573 447 735 1,432 6,016 302 0 1,914 16,802
(a) efficacy and (c) value for moneythe feasibility study stage of the competition provided all 29 successful bid cities with the opportunity to develop their demonstrator project proposals. The independent assessment process that followed ranked all the proposals and the final step of shortlisting and presentation to an independent panel ensured that the best proposal in terms of vision, scope, impact and value for money was selected. (b) accuracyconfidence in the feasibility of the proposals was provided by the detailed developed submissions and their independent assessment by external experts. The cost breakdown for the proposed projects was evaluated internally by the Technology Strategy Board in terms of eligible costs under the rules of the competition, and tested for reasonableness, based on evidence from the large number of projects that the Technology Strategy Board has successfully funded. Since third party contracts would be subject to public procurement rules, it was not possible for applicants to specify which third parties would be undertaking specific project activities in detail. The Technology Strategy Board relies on the public procurement process and the independent auditing of the local authority accounts to ensure that the appropriate processes were followed and value for money secured.
Royal Mail Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what the profit margins were of [163685] the Royal Mail in each of the last 10 years. Michael Fallon: The table sets out the profit margins for Royal Mail Group (including GLS (General Logistics Systems) but excluding POL). Royal Mails preliminary results for 2012/13 published on 23 May indicated that the profit margin for the UK mails (excluding GLS which operates in Europe) was 3.9%up from 0.5% the previous year. In the 12 years since 2002, Royal Mails core UK letters and parcels business suffered losses in five of those years.
Margin (percentage) 2003 0.3 2004 3.3 2005 2.3 2006 3.8 2007 2,1 2008 -2.0 2009 1.2 2010 1.7 2011 0.2 2012 1.7 2013 4.4 Notes: 1. For 2005-07, Op profit calculated as Op profit before exceptional items minus Op Exceptional Items. 2. For 2003 and 2004, profit from operations used. Sources: 1. 2003-07 annual accounts 2. 2009-12 annual report 3. 2013 preliminary results
Industrial Training Boards Mr Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills when the triennial review of the Industry Training Boards for Construction, Engineering Construction and Film Industry Training Boards is [163708] expected to be completed. Matthew Hancock: The Triennial Review of the Industry Training Boards is expected to be completed by the end of March 2014. Innovation: Urban Areas Mr Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what processes are in place to scrutinise the (a) efficacy, (b) accuracy and (c) value for money of bids for the Future Cities Project under the auspices of the Technology Strategy [163475] Board; and if he will make a statement. Mr Willetts: The Future Cities demonstrator funding competition, managed by the Technology Strategy Board, aims to deliver a demonstration of the benefits that could be delivered by integration of city systems at scale and in use. Glasgow was announced as the winning city in January 2013. The Technology Strategy Board managed the competition application and assessment process involving independent external assessors. It did this in terms of:
CABINET OFFICE Unemployment: Young People Mr Winnick: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many and what proportion of 18 to 24 year olds have been unemployed for two years or more.
[163711]
815W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
816W
Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply. Letter from Glen Watson:
As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking how many and what proportion of 18 to 24 year olds have been unemployed for two years or more. 163711. Estimates of unemployment are derived from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). For the period February to April 2013 it was estimated that there were 95,000 people aged 18-24 inclusive who have been unemployed for two years or more. This is 1.6 per cent of the population in this age group. Estimates are seasonally adjusted. Estimates of unemployment by age and duration are published monthly in Table UNEMP01 of the Labour Market Statistical Bulletin, found via the following link: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/ june-2013/table-unem01.xls
to the 2010-11 budget of 169 million. The allocation for the grant will increase further to 185 million by the end of the spending review (2014-15). Over the last two years, the Government has invested an additional 60 million bringing the total grant in 2011-12 to 200 million and in 2012-13 to 220 million. The Department for Communities and Local Government is working in partnership with the Department of Health regarding the future provision of specialised housing specifically for older and disabled people. The Care and Support Specialised Housing Fund is making up to 300 million available over five years to stimulate the market for specialised housing. The Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003 gives entailments to six weeks of intermediate care, which can include reablement, as well as aids and minor adaptations up to the value of 1,000. Both of these strands help individuals, including those with spinal injuries, to return to their own home. MITIE Group Mr Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much his Department spends on contracts with MITIE; and how much was spent on contracts with MITIE in each year since 2008. [162459] Brandon Lewis: The Department no longer contracts with MITIE. The last contract with MITIE ended on 31 March 2012. The amounts spent with MITIE since 2008 are set out in the table:
Financial year 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Amount () 7,148,618 7,992,470 4,847,386 5,353,495 368,913
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT Housing: Disability Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether he plans to issue best practice guidance on the use of the disabled facilities [161879] grants to local authorities. Mr Prisk: The Department for Communities and Local Government has no plans to publish best practice guidance on the use of the Disabled Facilities Grant to local authorities, as it was always intended the sector would publish the guidance and not this Department. Officials in my Department are working with the Homes Adaptations Consortium on the drafting of the guidance. The Department for Communities and Local Government funds Foundations to be the National Body for Home Improvement Agencies. As part of its role, Foundations provides training, advice and support to home improvement agencies, which are responsible for delivering around half of the adaptations funded by grant. Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) what steps he is taking to provide housing to ensure that people with spinal cord injuries are not unsuitably discharged from [161884] hospital into a nursing home; (2) what steps he is taking to provide housing for people with spinal cord injuries who are living in nursing homes because they are unable to find suitable [161934] housing. Mr Prisk: The Government is working to actively promote specialised housing and the adaption of existing housing to help disabled, older and vulnerable people to live independently in their own homes. My Department provides Disabled Facilities Grant funding to local housing authorities in England for the provision of adaptations to the homes of disabled people. The Government secured 725 million for the grant in the 2010 spending review for the period 2011-12 to 2014-15. In 2011-12 the annual allocation for the grant rose to 180 million, an increase of 11 million compared
The spend figure in 2012-13 relates to payments of fixed costs and final settlement for pass through costs for March 2012 which were paid in April of the following financial year in line with current payment plan and policy. In 2010 under the new coalition Government, an Estates rationalisation project was incepted to reduce property related costs. These were achieved through the reduction of services (notably the lease expiry of Riverwalk House) and renegotiation at a contract extension point. Planning Permission Roberta Blackman-Woods: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what recent assessment he has made of the number of local authorities who have determined 30 per cent or fewer of major planning applications within 13 weeks in the [162166] last three years. Nick Boles: A table showing the performance of local authorities in deciding major applications within 13 weeks, in each of the past three years, has been placed in the Library of the House.
817W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers DEFENCE Firing Ranges: Shoeburyness
818W
The Governments response to the consultation on tackling poor performance in the planning system, including its proposals for implementing Section 1 of the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013, was published on 4 June alongside the criteria proposed for designating authorities on the basis of under-performance against statutory deadlines. The final release of data on processing speeds, before any initial designations are made, will be in September this year (showing performance up to the end of June 2013). Roberta Blackman-Woods: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) how many Article 4 directions were put in place by local [162352] authorities in 2012; (2) what estimate he has made of the cost to a local authority of putting in place an Article 4 direction;
[162353]
James Duddridge: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the viability of developing housing on his Departments land in Shoeburyness; [163532] (2) what proposals his Department has received to develop housing on its land in Shoeburyness. [163533] Mr Francois: The Ministry of Defence has not made any assessments or received any proposals on the viability of developing housing on land at Shoeburyness. Iran Mr Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 1 July 2013, Official Report, column 400W, on Iran, what the assessed and agreed potential liability is to international military services of [163684] funds owed to Iran. Mr Robathan: The matter is the subject of ongoing commercial negotiations between International Military Services (IMS), a private limited company, and the Iranian authorities. Procurement Mr Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 1 July 2013, Official Report, column 401W, on procurement, what the total sum saved through his Departments re-negotiation of [163709] contracts is since May 2010. Dr Murrison: I can confirm that significant savings made through contract re-negotiations from May 2010 positively contributed to balancing the Ministry of Defence budget during Planning Round 12. I am withholding the information as its disclosure would prejudice commercial interests. Vending Machines Debbie Abrahams: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many vending machines in his Departments premises contain snack foods that are high in calories [163525] and low in nutritional value. Dr Murrison: The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
(3) whether his Department offers assistance to local authorities who wish to put in place an Article 4 [162354] direction. Nick Boles: The Departments records indicate that 99 article 4 directions were put in place by local authorities during 2012. The Department has issued guidance to local authorities on how to put in place an article 4 direction, including a one-page template for draft directions. Following discussion with the Local Government Association, this guidance is being updated as part of the Governments review of planning guidance. Article 4 directions vary significantly in scope, and can apply for example to a single property or a wider area. It is for local authorities to ensure that costs associated with putting a direction in place, if they decide to do so, are proportionate in the context of local circumstances. Urban Areas Roberta Blackman-Woods: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what discussion the Future High Streets Commission has had about the introduction of a two year flexible use [162442] class. Mr Prisk: The Portas Review noted that the use class system imposed unnecessary restrictions on business, and made it too difficult for buildings to have different uses and to change uses. The Governments response to the Portas Review in March 2012 noted that the Government was undertaking a wider review of how change of use is handled in the planning system, with a view to reducing the burden of regulation. The Future High Streets Forum was set up in March 2013. It is considering a wide range of issues, including planning, that impact on the high street. The proposal for a temporary two-year flexible use was set out in the July 2012 consultation New opportunities for sustainable development and growth through the reuse of existing buildings. The summary of responses was published in May 2013, and the amended rules came into force on 30 May 2013. As announced in the Budget, we are considering what further steps can be taken to support vibrant town centres and help get empty and redundant buildings back into productive use.
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER Domestic Visits Mr Dodds: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many visits he has made to (a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) Northern Ireland in an official capacity in each [163747] year since 2010. The Deputy Prime Minister: Since 2010, I have made four visits to Scotland, three visits to Wales and two visits to Northern Ireland in an official capacity.
819W
Written Answers EDUCATION Vending Machines
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
820W
Debbie Abrahams: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many vending machines in his Departments premises contain snack foods that are high in calories [163527] and low in nutritional value. Elizabeth Truss: The Department for Education has 11 vending machines located across five premises. These offer a range of snack foods, including healthy snacks such as multigrain cereal bars and yoghurts. The Departments catering supplier is also required to provide nutritionally balanced meals and snacks that promote healthier eating using fresh and seasonal produce, with low fat, salt and sugar content. Youth Services Tristram Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what meetings (a) he and (b) officials in his Department have had to discuss the youth-proofing [163195] of policy in the last 12 months; (2) how many times his Departments Youth Action Group has met since publication of the Governments Positive for Youth initiative in December 2011; [163233] (3) how many times he attended a Youth Action Group meeting since publication of the Governments Positive for Youth initiative in December 2011; [163234] (4) what organisations he has met to discuss youth services policy since publication of the Governments Positive for Youth initiative in December 2011; and what the date and duration was of each such meeting;
[163235]
Ministers from other Departments also attended. The group is meeting on 9 July 2013 when Nick Hurd will assume my role as co-chair. In addition, Ministers and officials have had numerous other meetings with organisations representing the youth sector since we published Positive for Youth. Compiling a list of the date and duration of these meetings and discussions would be possible only at disproportionate cost. Tristram Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many myplace youth centres have been completed. [163196] Mr Timpson: As of June 2013, 59 out of the 63 Myplace projects funded were completed. A total of 235 million of capital grant from the Department for Education and former Department for Children Schools and Families was allocated to the Myplace projects. In respect of the incomplete projects, Bexley and Calderdale are already partially open and will be completed imminently. Tower Hamlets and Suffolk are due to complete later in the year. Tristram Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when his Department plans to publish its audit of progress on cross-governmental policies for young people aged 13 to 19, as outlined in the Governments [163238] report, Positive for Youth. Mr Timpson: The Prime Minister announced on 3 July 2013 that the Cabinet Office is assuming lead responsibility for Youth Services. Alongside this announcement, the Cabinet Office and the Department for Education published jointly a report on the progress of Positive for Youth1.
1 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/210383/Positive-for-Youth-progressupdate.pdf
(5) what organisations officials in his Department have met to discuss youth services policy since the publication of the Governments Positive for Youth initiative in December 2011; and what the date and [163236] duration was of each such meeting. Mr Timpson: The Youth Voice programme, which is delivered by the British Youth Council with grant funding from the Department for Education, includes provision for the National Scrutiny Group and the Youth Select Committee. These groups scrutinise the work of all Government Departments and both have looked at the Department for Educations work on Curriculum and Qualifications. In February 2012, the National Scrutiny Group discussed youth policy with the Secretary of State for Education and on 2 July they discussed the Prime Ministers decision to transfer youth policy to the Cabinet Office with me and the Minister for Civil Society my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd). The Cabinet Office is assuming responsibility for the Youth Voice programme and grant as part of the Machinery of Government change announced on 3 July. The minutes of the Youth Action Group are published on the internet at:
http://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/ youngpeople/a00192405/youth-action-group
Tristram Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what guidance he has provided to local authorities on the delivery of youth services; [163344] (2) what steps he is taking to promote (a) local accountability and (b) collaboration in the delivery of [163198] youth services; (3) how he monitors progress on the provision of [163256] youth services nationally; (4) how many interventions his Department made to address problems in youth service delivery since publication of the Governments Positive for Youth initiative in December 2011, by geographical location;
[163237]
(5) what minimum expectations of delivery he has issued to local authorities on the delivery of youth services; [163577] (6) what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of funding of and level of spend for youth services.
[163578]
These show that the group met on 7 June 2011, 25 October 2011, 12 January 2012, 27 June 2012, 30 October 2012, 20 March 2013 and that I co-chaired the most recent meetings with Martina Milburn of the Princes Trust.
Mr Timpson: The Department for Education published, on 12 August 2012, revised statutory guidance to local authorities on their duty to secure, as far as is reasonably practicable, youth services and to involve young people in local decision making and scrutiny.
821W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
2008 2009 2010
822W
2011
We provide funding for youth services through the Business Rates Retention Scheme. As our statutory guidance makes clear, local authorities are best placed to decide what services will meet local needs and priorities and how to meet these needs within available resources. We expect local authorities to work with other agencies and organisations to deliver youth services, and encourage local people to challenge decision makers so that services continually improve. We have supported the British Youth Councils (BYC) work to produce specific guidance for young people on holding their local authority to account. We also fund the BYCs Youth Voice Programme which supports young peoples involvement in local and national accountability. The progress report on Positive for Youth, which we published jointly with the Cabinet Office on 3 July, encourages all sectors at both national and local level to collaborate effectively for young peoples benefit, and includes examples of good practice. We collect annual data on local authorities planned and actual expenditure on youth services. To date we have received no formal complaints that local authorities are not delivering their responsibilities and we have not needed to use the statutory interventions.
Cumulative 1.2 2.6 8.5 9.7 additions (GW) Cumulative 0.3 0.4 0.8 3.3 reductions (GW) Note: Wind/small hydro/PV capacity under this measure is de-rated; reductions are not available for non-major power producers (they are netted off the additional capacity).
Net capacity increase figures can be found in table DUKES 5.7:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electricitychapter-5-digest-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes
DECCs last published estimates for new capacity and retirements were in autumn 2012 as part of the annual updated energy projections. The data can be found here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2012-energyand-emissions-projections
Annex I suggests the following for the total cumulative new build over the next 10 years starting from 2013:
Cumulative additions (GW) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 11.2 16.5 20.6 24.1 30.2 34.6 38.3 44.1 46.9 48.1 49.9
ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE Electricity Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what estimate his Department has made of maximum electricity demand as a percentage [163250] of capacity in the UK. Michael Fallon: In winter 2011-12 (the latest year for which data are available), maximum electricity demand was 69.8% of UK capacity1. Data for.2012-13 will be published on 25 July 2013.
1
Although reductions of capacity are not explicitly set out, they can be inferred from 2014 onwards using data from annex I and annex J.
Cumulative reductions (GW) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 n/a 6.9 11.2 13.4 16.7 17.3 17.3 17.3 19.6 22.7 25.0
Capacity for wind, small hydro and solar PV are de-rated for intermittency. Source: Digest of UK Energy Statistics, 2012, table 5.10, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electricitychapter-5-digest-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes
Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what reductions (a) have occurred over the last five years and (b) are anticipated in the next 10 years in the total electricity generating capacity of the United Kingdom; and to what extent these will be offset by new generating capacity in each [163515] period. Gregory Barker: The reductions, and additions, in total generating capacity in the United Kingdom over the last four years is shown in the following table. Data for 2012 will be available on 25 July 2013. A split between additions and reductions for 2007 is not currently available. However, in 2012, three large coal/oilfired stations (totalling 5.2 GW) closed under the large combustion plant directive, while two CCGT stations (totalling 3.5 GW) opened.
These will be updated later this year to reflect the latest developments in policy as well as the wider economy. Energy Companies Obligation Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many companies who secured a contract through eco-brokerage have defaulted on their contractual obligations since July 2012. [163395]
823W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
824W
Gregory Barker: When trading on brokerage, participants enter contracts, the contents of which are confidential. The Government Procurement Service (GPS) runs the brokerage platform. When damages become payable for default on contractual obligations, the parties can request information from GPS to enable them to calculate the amount of damages payable. Since brokerage started in January 2013, GPS has received requests for such information in relation to one company. Green Deal Scheme Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many cashback vouchers have been (a) issued and (b) paid in each (i) parliamentary constituency and (ii) local authority area by 16 June [163397] 2013. Gregory Barker: 5,118 cashback vouchers had been issued by 16 June. 968 cashback vouchers (with a total value of 263,452) had been paid, following the installation of measures, to individual households up to 16 June. The Department will provide geographical breakdowns of cashbacks paid in future quarterly Green Deal and ECO statistic reports. Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many (a) Green Deal assessments and (b) Green Deal plans were completed in each (i) parliamentary constituency and (ii) local [163398] authority area by 16 June 2013. Gregory Barker: The number of Green Deal assessments by local authority, up to 31 March 2013, is available in Table 1 of the first Green Deal and ECO quarterly Official Statistics release:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/208912/GD_Statistics_-_Ql_2013.xlsx
The following coal-fired and oil-fired power stations will cease operation by no later than 31 December 2015:
Ferrybridge C (coal) (two of four units to close) Ironbridge (coal/biomass) Tilbury B (coal/biomass) Littlebrook (oil).
It is a commercial decision for the plants operators when to close. The power stations listed above chose to opt out of the large combustion plant directive (2001/80/ EC), which placed limits on their operation, including a back-stop closures date of 31 December 2015. However, this may not be the sole reason for closure. The industrial emissions directive (2010/75/EU) places further restrictions on the emissions of oxides of sulphur and nitrogen from coal plants. It is not possible, though, to confirm which coal-fired power stations other than those listed above are due to be closed during the next 10 years as such decisions are a commercial matter for individual operators. Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (1) if he will make it his policy to mothball sufficient power stations (a) already and (b) scheduled to be taken out of service to ensure a strategic reserve generating capacity to (i) prevent power cuts and (ii) meet emergency demands in times [163516] of conflict or other crises; (2) whether he has identified any power stations, either closed or scheduled for closure, which could be mothballed economically; and if he will make a [163517] statement. Michael Fallon: Decisions on whether to mothball power stations are taken by individual plant owners, not Government. Government considered as part of its Electricity Market Reform Programme a number of options to ensure future security of electricity supply, including a Strategic Reserve. A Capacity Market, rather than a Strategic Reserve, was chosen as the preferred means as it offers the surest way to ensure security of supply against a range of scenarios. In June 2013 Government confirmed that the first capacity auction would be held in late 2014 for delivery in 2018-19, subject to state aid approval. In addition, Ofgem and National Grid have undertaken a consultation on the need for and design of new balancing services to ensure security of supply in the period before the Capacity Market is in operation. This could include National Grid contracting generation plant that would otherwise be retired as uneconomic, which is likely to include plant that is currently mothballed. Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change whether (a) EU and (b) other restrictions on emissions by power stations can be set aside in circumstances of national emergency; [163518] and if he will make a statement. Gregory Barker: Regulation of emissions from existing power stations currently derives from EU directives on large combustion plants (2001/80/EC) and integrated pollution prevention and control (2008/1/EC). The former allows limited derogation from its requirements if there is an overriding need to maintain energy supplies, but only in the event of (i) malfunction or breakdown of
I will place in the Libraries of the House a table showing the number of Green Deal assessments by parliamentary constituency up to 31 March 2013. Assessments by local authority and by parliamentary constituency, up to 30 June 2013, will be included in the next quarterly release published on 19 September. The Department will provide geographic breakdowns of Green Deal Plans in future quarterly Official Statistics releases. Power Stations Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will list those (a) oil-fired and (b) coal-fired power stations which (i) have been closed during the last five years and (ii) are due to be closed during the next 10 years, together with [163514] the reasons for closure in each case. Gregory Barker: The following coal-fired and oil-fired power stations have closed over the period commencing in May 2008 to date:
Didcot A (coal) Kingsnorth (coal) Cockenzie (coal) Grain (oil) Fawley (oil).
825W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers Vending Machines
826W
abatement equipment, or (ii) for power stations normally fuelled by gas, sudden interruption in the supply of gas. Neither directive, nor the national legislation through which they are transposed, makes other provision for circumstances of national emergency. Renewable Energy Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how much generation capacity from non-renewable energy sources was installed in (a) [163231] 2011 and (b) 2012. Michael Fallon: Major Power Producers (generators with a portfolio of above 90 MW of capacity) (MPPs) represent around 95% of the UKs non-renewable electricity generation capacity. In 2011, no capacity was installed from non-renewable electricity sources by MPPs. In 2012, 3.5 GW (Pembroke and West Burton CCGT power stations) was installed.
Sources: 1. Table DUKES 5.11 (capacity as at the end of May 2012): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electricity-chapter5-digest-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes 2. EDF Energy website: http://www.edfenergy.com/about-us/energy-generation/thermalpower-generation/west-burton-combined-cycle-gasturbine.shtml#
Debbie Abrahams: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many vending machines in his Departments premises contain snack foods that are high in calories and low in nutritional value. [163526] Gregory Barker: The Department of Energy and Climate Change has one vending machine that meets the criteria of the question.
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS Buildings Sir Paul Beresford: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether his Department owns Rectory Farm adjacent to Wisley Airfield, Surrey; and if he will make a statement.
[163523]
Richard Benyon: The Department owns the freehold interest in 49.7 hectares of land contiguous with Wisley airfield. Part of this landholding is known as Old Rectory Farm, Ockham. The Department has ownership of the farm but not the farmhouse. Fisheries Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what his policy is on the inclusion of goals on sustainable ocean fishery practices in any successor to the millennium development [163159] goals. Richard Benyon: At the request of the UN SecretaryGeneral, the Prime Minister, together with the Presidents of Indonesia and Liberia, co-chaired the UN High-Level Panel on the post-2015 development framework. The panel submitted its report to the Secretary-General at the end of May. It proposed inter alia a Sustainable Development Goal on food security and nutrition, which includes a target to adopt sustainable ocean fishery practices and rebuild designated fish stocks to sustainable levels. Floods: Dorset Mr Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much will be spent on improving sea defences in Dorset as a result of [163020] the 2013 spending review. Richard Benyon: The impact of the 2013 spending review on future spending on sea defences in Dorset has not yet been determined. Prioritisation of funding is carried out against a consistent set of criteria applied to all risk management authorities as appropriate. This ensures a fair distribution of funding based on agreed priorities, principles and needs. Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCCs) are kept informed during the development of the allocation and agree their final allocations during the January round of meetings.
Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how much generation capacity from renewable energy sources was installed in [163232] (a) 2011 and (b) 2012. Michael Fallon: DECC produces statistics on cumulative renewable electricity capacity installed. This is net of reductions, closures and conversions, as well as new capacity. During 2011, 3.0 GW of capacity was installed (including 0.8 GW from the conversion of Tilbury power station from coal to biomass). During 2012, 3.3 GW of capacity was installed.
Source: Energy Trends table ET 6.1, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-ofenergy-climate-change/series/renewables-statistics
Solar Power: China Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what consideration his Department made of the potential effect on sales of solar photovoltaic (PV) manufacturers in the UK of the decision to oppose European Union anti-dumping prohibitions against solar [163189] PV imports from China. Gregory Barker: The Department is working closely with the Department for Business Innovation and Skills, which leads on all Trade Defence issues, on this matter. As with all trade defence cases, the Government based its position on an economic evaluation of the European Commissions proposals. Our consideration included assessment of the impact of these proposals on the solar PV supply chain. The Government also took account of information and views received from interested parties, including UK manufacturers, installers, developers, importers and users of solar PV products.
827W
Written Answers Floods: Insurance
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers Nature Conservation
828W
Jonathan Reynolds: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions he has had on the provision of affordable [163121] flood insurance. Richard Benyon: On 27 June 2013 the Government announced a headline agreement with industry to guarantee affordable flood insurance for people in high-risk areas. The Association of British Insurers has assured Ministers that implementing Flood Re will have minimal impacts on customers bills. We will be seeking the necessary powers in the Water Bill. Tackling flood risk will help keep insurance terms affordable in the long-term. We announced record levels of capital investment of more than 2.3 billion between 2015-16 to 2020-21. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-gases) in the UK are used in the retail sector; which UK retailers were directly invited to attend his Departments Stationary Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps focus group meeting of 21 December 2012 on the EC proposal for a revised F-gas regulation; which UK retailers have been formally consulted on the review of EC Regulation No 842/2006 in the last 12 months; with which companies and individuals his Department has met in the last 12 months to discuss the review of that Regulation; and if he will make a statement. [161997] Richard Benyon: While data is available for the total sales of F-gases in the UK, this does not provide information about which market sectors and sub-sectors subsequently use these F-gases. No UK retailers were directly invited to attend the stationary refrigeration, air conditioning and heat pumps focus group meeting held on 21 December 2012. However, representatives were invited from the Food and Drink Federation, British Retail Consortium (BRC) and British Frozen Food Federation. All UK supermarkets were invited, either directly or through invitations to industry representative bodies, to attend an open stakeholder meeting that was held in London on 4 March to discuss the European Commissions proposal for a new Regulation on fluorinated greenhouse gases. Officials continue to have regular dialogue with UK food retailers and the BRC to discuss steps they are taking to address their use of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants. Furthermore, as part of the implementation of the fluorinated greenhouse gases regulatory framework there have been concentrated efforts to work with the large food retailers, who are major users of HFCs, to address their HFC emissions and reduce their leakage rates. I have placed a copy of the list of companies and individuals that DEFRA has met in the last 12 months to discuss the review of EC Regulation No. 842/2006 on fluorinated greenhouse gases in the Library of the House.
Mary Creagh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) which programmes and projects were undertaken by his Department under its priority, a healthy natural environment programme in each of the last three financial years; what the spending was on each in each such year; and what estimate he has made of likely spend on each such programme and project for each of the next three years; [163394] (2) which programmes and projects were undertaken by his Department under its priority to, help to enhance the environment and biodiversity in each of the last three financial years; what the spending was on each in each such year; and what estimate he has made of likely spend on each such programme and project for each of [163381] the next three years; (3) which programmes and projects were undertaken by his Department under its priority to, support a strong and sustainable green economy in each of the last three financial years; what the spending was on each in each such year; and what estimate he has made of likely spend on each such programme and project [163382] for each of the next three years; (4) what programmes and projects were undertaken by his Department under its priority to, prepare and manage risk from animal and plant diseases in each of the last three financial years; what the spending was on each in each such year; and what estimate he has made of likely spend on each such programme and project [163383] for each of the next three years; (5) what programmes and projects were undertaken by his Department under its priority to, prepare and manage risk from environmental emergencies in each of the last three financial years; what the spending was on each in each such year; and what estimate he has made of likely spend on each such programme and [163384] project for each of the next three years; (6) what programmes and projects were undertaken by his Department under its priority, adapting to climate change programme in each of the last three financial years; what the spending was on each in each such year; and what estimate he has made of likely spend on each such programme and project for each of [163385] the next three years. Richard Benyon [holding answer 4 July 2013]: Details of DEFRAs performance against its priorities can be found within the Annual Report and Accounts (ARA) for the relevant years. The ARA is presented to the House of Commons each year; details are available on the DEFRA pages of the www.gov.uk website. The ARA for 2012-13 is due to be published prior to summer recess. Budget information for 2013-14 can be found in the parliamentary estimates that were published by Her Majestys Treasury on the gov.uk website. DEFRAs Business Plan sets out our current priorities along with details of planned departmental expenditure. Budgets for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16 are still being finalised. Once this has been done, details will be available in the parliamentary estimate documents for the respective year. The Business Plan is published on the Number 10 pages of the gov.uk site.
829W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
830W
A table detailing the breakdown of the priorities by programme has been placed in the House Library. Plants: Falkland Islands Jim Shannon: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what help he has given to the Falkland Islands Government to tackle the plant calafate originally from Argentina; and when this invasion of plant calafate is expected to be eradicated.
[161892]
group which, despite reminders from officials, was not forthcoming. As a result, no further progress has been made with this application. The PGI scheme is a voluntary one and so it is for the producers to decide whether they wish to pursue the application. Should they wish to do this then officials would be happy to meet with them to discuss the outstanding points which need to be resolved. This should then enable the application to be completed and a decision to be taken on its eligibility. Tyres: Waste Disposal
Richard Benyon: Responsibility for environmental management in the UK Overseas Territories (UKOTs) has been devolved to the Territories own governments. However, the UK Government recognises that many UKOTs lack sufficient funding and/or personnel to ensure the protection of the local environment and therefore they require additional support. In 2011, DEFRA initiated a series of research projects to address threats to biodiversity in the South Atlantic Overseas Territories. These projects were designed to bring UK and overseas expertise together to address issues specifically identified by the Overseas Territories Governments. The funding for these was separate from Darwin Initiative funding. Two of these projects addressed threats from invasive plants in the Falklands:
1. A review of the potential for bio-control of invasive species in the Falklands and South Georgia, a 58,000 project undertaken by CABI UK. This identified one potential bio-control agent for calafate (Berberis microphylla). The research was published on the DEFRA science website in 2012. 2. A review of the rate and extent of spread and risks posed by invasive species, a 74,000 project undertaken by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and Falklands Conservation. This research looked at a range of invasive plants in the Falklands, including calafate and has supported the production of a draft strategy for invasive species control in the Falklands. The final report will be published on the DEFRA science website in 2013. The draft invasive plant strategy is currently being reviewed by Falklands Government experts.
Mr Ward: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many licences are currently approved for the recycling of waste tyres. [160585] Richard Benyon [holding answer 19 June 2013]: As of April 2013 there were 59 facilities permitted specifically for the treatment of waste tyres. This does not include civic amenity sites or facilities that may transfer and treat a whole range of wastes, of which tyres may be one of many permitted waste streams. It does not include incineration facilities either, although some of these may also burn waste tyres. In addition to permitted sites, a number of sites are registered with the Environment Agency as exempt from the need for an environmental permit. These are detailed in the following table:
Exemption Mechanical treatment of end of life tyres (T8) Preparatory treatment of end of life tyres (baling, sorting, etc.) (T4) Use of end of life tyres in construction (U2) Total 395 3,517
539
In October 2012, UK Government also launched a new Overseas Territories Environment and Climate Fund, also known as Darwin Plus. This provides funding of around 2 million per year for projects in our UK Overseas Territories; the call for applications is currently open. Shellfish: Colchester Sir Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made on issuing a Protected Geographical Indication for the Colchester Oyster; and if he will [164037] make a statement. Richard Benyon: The application to register the Colchester Native Oyster as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) was received in 2005. It was then the subject of a consultation in order to allow interested parties the opportunity to object to the application. A number of objections were received during the consultation process. Since then, officials have met with representatives of the applicant group to discuss the objections and outstanding points relating to the product specification for the application. Following on from this further information relating to the geographical area and other aspects of the application was sought from the applicant
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE African Union Alex Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to co-operate with member states of the African Union which supported its recent resolution calling for payments of ransom to terrorists to be made illegal, in [163084] working towards that goal. Alistair Burt: The British Government and the African Union share the same policy against the payment of ransoms to terrorist groups. The Government used its G8 Presidency to secure a G8 commitment to unequivocally reject the payment of ransoms to terrorists. We will work closely with the African Union and other multilateral fora to amplify the strong message made by the G8 in order to suffocate kidnap for ransom as a source of terrorist funding. We hope African countries will support our work in the UN to establish new mechanisms to raise awareness of the threat of kidnap for ransom, including any further resolutions to address and mitigate the threat. It is already illegal to pay ransoms to terrorists under international and UK law.
831W
Written Answers Dominican Republic
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
832W
Stephen Doughty: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when HM Ambassador to the Dominican Republic last discussed the case of Ms Nicole Reyes, a constituent of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, with the [163667] Government of the Dominican Republic. Mr Swire: HM Ambassador to the Dominican Republic discussed the case with the Dominican ambassador to the UK in February. Consular officials at the British embassy have raised welfare concerns on a regular basis and urged the relevant authorities to address these issues where appropriate. We are monitoring Ms Reyes case very closely and stand ready to make further representations as necessary. Stephen Doughty: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he or one of his Ministers last met the (a) Justice Minister and (b) Attorney-General of the Dominican Republic. [163669] Mr Swire: The position of Justice Minister does not exist in the Dominican Republic. The responsibility for the justice system is shared between the Attorney-General and the President of the Supreme Court. Neither the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) nor any members of his ministerial team have met the President of the Supreme Court or the Attorney-General of the Dominican Republic. Stephen Doughty: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when HM Ambassador to the Dominican Republic last met the (a) Justice Minister and (b) Attorney-General of the [163670] Dominican Republic. Mr Swire: The position of Justice Minister does not exist in the Dominican Republic. The responsibility for the justice system is shared between the Attorney-General and the President of the Supreme Court. Her Majestys Ambassador to the Dominican Republic last met the President of the Supreme Court on 24 January 2013 and last met the Attorney-General on 11 September 2012. Dominican Republic Stephen Doughty: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when HM Ambassador to the Dominican Republic last met the Dominican Republics Ambassador to the Court of St. [163671] James. Mr Swire: Her Majestys Ambassador to the Dominican Republic last met the Dominican Republics ambassador to the United Kingdom on 10 June 2013 in Santo Domingo. Kidnapping Alex Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department is considering taking steps to prevent (a) insurance companies, (b) businesses and (c) other [163085] bodies from paying ransoms to terrorists.
Alistair Burt: It is already illegal to pay ransoms to terrorists under international and UK law. The British Government is committed to ensuring that UK insurance companies, businesses and other bodies abide by these legal obligations. The Government is also pressing international partners to do the same and used the UK Presidency of the G8 to secure a G8 commitment to unequivocally reject the payment of ransoms to terrorists. We hope that other countries, and businesses and the non-governmental sector in those countries, will follow the G8s lead. We will work closely with them in order to suffocate kidnap for ransom as a source of terrorist funding. Alex Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions his Department has held with interested parties about the practice of freeing convicted terrorists as part of hostage-release packages; and what steps he plans to take to bring that practice to an end. [163086] Alistair Burt: The British Government has a longstanding policy of not making or facilitating substantive concessions to hostage-takers. This means the Government will not pay ransoms, exchange prisoners or change government policy. We continue to press the international community to follow the UKs lead in not making any concessions to terrorists at the UN and elsewhere. The Government recently used its G8 Presidency to prioritise this issue and secured a significant G8 commitment unequivocally to reject the payment of ransoms to terrorists. We hope other countries will follow the G8s lead. At the same time the Government will continue to discuss the issue at the UN and in other multilateral fora to amplify the strong message made by the G8 to suffocate kidnap for ransom as a source of terrorist funding. Alex Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department plans to take to ensure that an effective mechanism is put in place to regulate and police [163087] ransom payments to terrorists. Alistair Burt: It is already illegal to pay ransoms to terrorists under international and UK law. The UN sanctions regime established by UN Resolution 1267 (1999) states that the payment of ransoms to designated terrorists contravenes international law. The UKs obligations under international law are also mirrored in UK domestic legislation through the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT). The UK is taking the lead in encouraging other states, businesses and the non-governmental sector not to make concessions to terrorists. The Government recently used its G8 Presidency to prioritise this issue and secured a significant G8 commitment to unequivocally reject the payment of ransoms to terrorists. Alex Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of international measures in place to prevent countries rejecting financial ransom demands [163088] in public while paying them in private.
833W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
834W
Alistair Burt: International legal obligations under the UN Sanctions regime established by UN Resolution 1267 (1999) explicitly state that the payment of ransoms to designated terrorists contravenes international law. The Government has taken the lead pressing the international community to abide by its international legal obligations. The UK used its presidency of the G8 to secure an unequivocal commitment to reject ransom payments to terrorists in accordance with the UN sanctions regime. At the G8 leaders recognised that ransom payments only fuel the problem of terror, strengthening and sustaining terrorist groups and encouraging them to carry out future kidnaps. We hope that other countries will follow the G8s lead and ensure that all states uphold the sanctions regime. Palestinians Gordon Henderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of reports that the UN Development Programme has sponsored the annual Palestinian Prince of Martyrs Abu Jihad Football Tournament; [163257] (2) what representations he has made to the Palestinian Authority about UN Development Programme sponsorship of a recent football tournament in memory of terrorist [163258] Abu Jihad. Alistair Burt: As the Prime Minister made clear in his speech to the United Jewish Israel Appeal on 15 October 2012, the UK will not tolerate incitement to terrorism and cannot support those who name sporting events after suicide bombers. The UN Development Programme made clear in a statement on 2 May 2013 that they have had no role in the tournament, its naming or any other activity related to it. The statement is available here:
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/presscenter/ articles/2013/05/02/undp-response-to-soccer-tournamenthosted-by-ansal-al-quds-club-in-jerusalem/
opposition activists to ensure their words and actions do not incite violence. We regularly raise our concerns about freedom of expression with the Saudi Government, and will continue to do so.
HEALTH Blood: Contamination Diana Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on awarding ongoing payments to victims of contaminated blood who are infected with either HIV or hepatitis C stage two; for what reasons such payments are awarded; and if he will make a statement. [163531] Anna Soubry: The Government makes annual nondiscretionary payments, currently 14,191, uprated each year in line with the consumer prices index, to all individuals infected with HIV or with the most serious hepatitis C-related disease, in recognition of the special circumstances of these individuals as a result of their infection. Fertility Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the differences in the availability of (a) intrauterine insemination and (b) in vitro fertilisation across NHS trusts in England.
[164070]
Anna Soubry: The Department does not collect this information. Health Services: Foreign Nationals Frank Dobson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Departments latest estimate is of that sum owed to the NHS by foreign patients; and how much of that sum is made up of debts owed by foreign patients treated in private beds in NHS hospitals.
[163714]
We have a regular dialogue with the Palestinian Authority and Israeli Government in which we reiterate the need for both sides to prepare their populations for peaceful coexistence and to avoid anything which stirs up hatred and prejudice. Our consul-general to Jerusalem reiterated this position in a speech on 19 June 2013, in which he called on Prime Minister Hamdallah to continue to avoid violence and incitement. We have also raised the issue of incitement with the then Prime Minister Fayyads office in January 2013. Saudi Arabia Katy Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will issue a public condemnation of the recent convictions of and prison sentences awarded to seven activists in Saudi Arabia for [163247] inciting protests on Facebook. Alistair Burt: We are aware of reports that seven men have been found guilty of incitement to protest in Saudi Arabia. We understand that some of the men had also been charged withand may have been found guilty ofinciting violence, including calling for attacks on Government targets. The case remains subject to appeal. We are clear that the rights to legitimate and peaceful demonstrations are guaranteed by international law and should be welcomed in any society. We also expect
Anna Soubry: The Department holds data centrally from national health service trusts and primary care trusts (PCTs) on income relating to chargeable overseas visitors, which is the amount they have charged them for NHS treatment, and the amount of debt relating to them that they have written off in their accounts. The following table shows this data for 2011-12, which is the latest year for which figures are available. The chairman of Monitor has provided similar data for NHS foundation trusts, which are also in the table.
Overseas patients losses, bad debts and claims abandoned
Overseas patients (nonreciprocal) income
NHS trusts/ 19,538,000 8,882,969 PCTs NHS 13,200,000 2,676,000 foundation trusts Total 32,738,000 11,558,969 Source: NHS trust audited summarisation schedules and NHS foundation trust consolidated accounts.
835W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
836W
However, this does not reveal the amount that is owed to the NHS by foreign patients. The written-off debt data may relate to treatment provided to overseas visitors in earlier financial years. Furthermore, since overseas visitors can include United Kingdom nationals visiting the UK, the data will not relate exclusively to foreign patients. The Department does not hold information centrally about how much of the sum shown in the table is made up of debts owed by foreign patients treated in private beds in NHS hospitals. NHS: Standards Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what involvement Sir David Nicholson had in (a) commissioning and (b) producing the NHS [163510] Next Stage Review; (2) with reference to the answer of 10 October 2007, Official Report, column 672W, on NHS Next Stage Review, what the final cost of the NHS Next Stage Review was and the costs of the review under each [163511] major cost area were; (3) with reference to the answer of 10 October 2007, Official Report, column 672W, on NHS Next Stage Review, how many (a) clinicians, (b) managers and (c) other staff made formal contributions to the NHS Next [163512] Stage Review. Anna Soubry: The NHS Next Stage Review was commissioned by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), the then Prime Minister, and reported in 2008. The report was based on the contributions of a wide variety of organisations and individuals, primarily under the auspices of the strategic health authorities, who themselves published their own strategic vision documents, upon which the final report drew considerably. The national review team was led by Professor the Lord Darzi of Denham, the then
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department, with contributions from many other Ministers. Sir David Nicholson, as chief executive of the national health service at the time, played a substantial role in the review, alongside other leaders in the health and social care system. Papers relating to the review are available on the national archives website at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/ en/healthcare/highqualitycareforall/index.htm
Available information about the costs of the review were set out by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Ann Keen) on 10 October 2007, Official Report, columns 672-73W. She said that the total departmental spend so far on staff, patients and public engagement in direct connection with the review was 1.2 million. Further breakdowns are not available, since the process of developing the local strategic vision documents, which involved many thousands of staff, included activities such as strategic planning, public consultation and service quality improvement that are an integral part of core, mainstream business. Nurses: Greater London Mr Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered nurses there were at each acute hospital trust in London in (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12 and (c) 2012-13; and if he will make a statement.
[163535]
Dr Poulter: As a consequence of Transforming Community Services, the provider arm of some former primary care trusts may have transferred into local acute trusts. For that reason, the following table shows the numbers of qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff employed by each national health service organisation, including acute trusts, in the former London strategic health authority area as at 30 September in each of the specified years.
NHS hospital and community health services: qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff in the London strategic health authority area by organisation as at 30 September each specified year Full time equivalent 2010 2011 2012 London Strategic Health Authority area NHS Trusts Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust Barts and the London NHS Trust Barts Health NHS Trust . Bromley Healthcare Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Croydon Health Services NHS Trust Ealing Hospital NHS Trust East London NHS Foundation Trust Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust Great Ormond Street Hospital For Children NHS Foundation Trust Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 51,839 46,017 1,638 1,301 652 2,435 n/a n/a 542 1,286 n/a 1,050 941 524 888 1,268 1,092 3,026 746 51,785 49,545 1,866 1,313 824 2,531 n/a n/a 492 1,189 687 1,040 920 1,059 1,147 1,322 1,061 3,543 753 51,886 51,343 1,870 1,357 798 n/a 4,488 197 415 1,591 957 1,076 884 1,071 1,040 1,317 1,137 3,663 720
837W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
838W
NHS hospital and community health services: qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff in the London strategic health authority area by organisation as at 30 September each specified year Full time equivalent 2010 2011 2012 Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Kingston Hospital NHS Trust Lewisham Healthcare NHS Trust Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Newham University Hospital NHS Trust North East London NHS Foundation Trust North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust North West London Hospitals NHS Trust Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust South London Healthcare NHS Trust South West London and St Georges Mental Health NHS Trust St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust West London Mental Health NHS Trust West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust Whittington Hospital NHS Trust Your Healthcare Primary Care Trusts Barking and Dagenham PCT Barnet PCT Bexley Care Trust Brent Teaching PCT Bromley PCT Camden PCT City and Hackney Teaching PCT Croydon PCT Ealing PCT Enfield PCT Greenwich Teaching PCT Hammersmith and Fulham PCT Haringey Teaching PCT Harrow PCT Havering PCT Hillingdon PCT Hounslow PCT Islington PCT Kensington and Chelsea PCT . Kingston PCT Lambeth PCT Lewisham PCT Newham PCT Redbridge PCT Richmond and Twickenham PCT Southwark PCT Sutton and Merton PCT Tower Hamlets PCT Waltham Forest PCT Wandsworth PCT Westminster PCT 746 3,206 2,154 764 802 320 750 711 720 1,501 794 1,027 1,547 735 338 1,530 1,809 693 2,287 14 2,123 1,290 698 1,141 783 141 5,820 18 278 7 211 236 211 261 30 242 196 221 37 144 146 528 231 2 222 700 2 250 184 281 84 292 210 258 304 10 15 8 1,012 3,229 2,263 729 955 350 753 714 730 1,489 1,009 1,079 1,560 743 351 1,472 1,809 671 2,319 14 2,202 1,199 638 1,162 1,199 148 2,240 15 279 7 9 212 228 26 n/a 10 1 5 15 10 n/a 449 233 2 5 3 n/a 4 94 n/a 85 269 n/a 239 n/a 4 33 3 1,018 3,165 2,410 754 950 348 n/a 1,617 694 1,556 1,016 1,079 1,416 994 350 1,472 1,745 599 2,329 15 2,231 1,080 612 n/a 1,154 156 541 3 n/a 7 10 12 n/a 16 n/a 11 n/a 5 12 n/a n/a 2 7 2 25 3 n/a 5 86 n/a 15 283 n/a n/a n/a 3 28 6
839W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
840W
NHS hospital and community health services: qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff in the London strategic health authority area by organisation as at 30 September each specified year Full time equivalent 2010 2011 2012 London Strategic Health Authority 2 1 2 n/a = Not applicable. Notes: 1. Full-time equivalent figures are rounded to the nearest whole number. 2. As a consequence of TCS (Transforming Community Services) the former provider arm of some PCTs may have transferred into local acute trusts, this can be seen in the large increase in staff numbers at Ealing Hospital NHS Trust for example. For this reason we have supplied figures for all NHS organisations. Data Quality: The Health and Social Care Information Centre seeks to minimise inaccuracies and the effect of missing and invalid data but responsibility for data accuracy lies with the organisations providing the data. Methods are continually being updated to improve data quality where changes impact on figures already published. This is assessed but unless it is significant at national level figures are not changed. Impact at detailed or local level is footnoted in relevant analyses. Source: Health and Social Care Information Centre Non-Medical Workforce Census
School Milk Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he is considering adopting a cap-based [163674] solution to the nursery milk scheme. Dr Poulter: The Department is analysing evidence and responses received to the Next Steps for Nursery Milk consultation. A decision about the future operation of the Nursery Milk Scheme will be made after full consideration is given to the evidence, responses and other relevant information.
HOME DEPARTMENT Glastonbury Festival Dr Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new psychoactive substances were identified by her Departments forensic early warning system at the Glastonbury Festival in (a) 2013, (b) [163612] 2012 and (c) 2011. Mr Jeremy Browne: The Home Office Forensic Early Warning System (FEWS) identified 13 different new psychoactive substances, most in more than one sample, at the Glastonbury festival in 2011. Of these, nine are currently controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Together with the Advisory Council we continue to develop the evidence on these, and other so called legal highs, as they are identified by FEWS, taking legislative action when the evidence base supports it. There was no Glastonbury festival in 2012. FEWS attended the 2013 Glastonbury festival which ended last week. The results from the samples analysed at the 2013 festival are not yet available. Human Trafficking Michael Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding her Department allocated in 2012-13 and has allocated in 2014-15 for (a) research into the prevention of human trafficking and (b) rehabilitation of victims of human [160493] trafficking.
Mr Harper: No Home Office funding, for research into the prevention of human trafficking in 2012-13, was allocated. Funding for research projects is considered as required. The Home Office has granted 44,266, in total, to the Refugee Council and The Childrens Society for a joint bid to undertake a scoping review of the practical care arrangements for trafficked children. This will add value to our understanding of the issues affecting the lives of this vulnerable group of young people and will be useful in shaping future policy and enhancing practice in this area. In 2012-13, the Home Office paid 1.5 million to the Ministry of Justice, to fund the victim care contract for adult victims of trafficking in England and Wales. The victim care contract will be retendered for 2014-15 and the funding position will be kept under review. Budgets for research and rehabilitation in 2014-15 have not yet been agreed. Property Margaret Curran: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the (a) location and (b) value is of any property her Department owns in [160282] Scotland. Mr Harper: The Home Department owns one property in Scotland; Dungavel House Immigration Removal Centre, Strathaven, Lanarkshire ML10 6RF. This property was valued in March 2011 at 4.6 million.
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Devolution Margaret Curran: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will place in the Library any concordats which her Department or the public body for which she is responsible have with the devolved [163154] administrations. Mr Duncan: DFID does not have any concordats with counterparts in the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
841W
Written Answers Dominican Republic
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers JUSTICE Burglary
842W
Stephen Doughty: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid the Government provided (a) directly and (b) via multilateral agencies to support judicial and penal reform in the Dominican [163668] Republic in each of the last five years.
Mr Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what proportion of people convicted of burglary offences were given custodial sentences in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [161484] Jeremy Wright: The number of offenders found guilty, sentenced and sentenced to immediate custody at all courts for burglary offences, with immediate custody rate (the proportion of offenders sentenced who are sentenced to immediate custody), in England and Wales, from 2008 to 2012, can be viewed in the table.
Mr Duncan: There has been no bilateral funding provided to multilateral agencies supporting judicial and penal reform in the Dominican Republic in the last five years. The FCO has provided some support to the judicial and penal systems from their own budget.
Offenders found guilty, sentenced and sentenced to immediate custody at all courts for burglary offences, with immediate custody rate, England and Wales, 2008-121,2 Outcome 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Found guilty Sentenced Of which: 23,882 23,651 22,983 22,765 23,909 23,599 25,446 25,189 22,427 22,083
Suspended sentence 2,432 2,374 2,600 2,769 2,600 Immediate custody 9,960 10,028 10,447 12,181 11,422 42.1 44.1 44.3 48.4 51.7 Immediate custody rate3 (%) 1 The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. 2 Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. 3 The proportion of offenders sentenced who are sentenced to immediate custody. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical ServicesMinistry of Justice.
Legal Aid Scheme David Mowat: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much was paid in legal aid fees to (a) Mr Mohammed Tayyab Khan and (b) Mr Dean Kershaw; and what the total amount paid in legal aid fees was arising from the case of Crown v Ali and Others held at Stafford Crown Court between May and September [158565] 2011. Jeremy Wright: The information is not readily available. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as the information has been collated by the Legal Aid Agency. Steve McCabe: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what (a) proportion and (b) amount of his Departments criminal legal aid budget was allocated to high value cases in each of the last three years;
[161085]
Very High Cost Cases are defined by the Legal Aid Agency as those cases in which a legal aid representation order has been granted on or after 3 October 2011 and, if the case were to proceed to trial, would likely last more than 60 days. There is no separate budget within the overall legal aid forecast for such cases, and as such the information requested is not held. A breakdown of spending on both civil and criminal legal aid is contained in the Legal Services Commission (now Legal Aid Agency) Annual Report. Each year the Ministry of Justice lays this Annual Report in Parliament ahead of publication, meaning it is available to all members. The 2012-13 Legal Services Commission Annual Report was laid in Parliament on 25 June. Information on the amount of legal aid spending in cases involving bank fraud is not available. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) funds legal services within broad categories of law, such as public law and immigration and asylum. Legal aid spending on bank fraud cannot be disaggregated from other spending on fraud matters. The amount spent on fraud matters in each of the last three years was:
Fraud matters costs ( million)
(2) if he will place in the Library a breakdown of how his Departments criminal legal aid budget has [161124] been spent in each of the last three years; (3) what amount his Department spent in each of the last three years on legal cases involving bank fraud.
[161086]
Jeremy Wright: At 2 billion a year we have one of the most expensive legal aid systems in the world and must ensure we get best value for every penny of taxpayers money spent. We have recently finished consulting on a number of proposals to reform legal aid and are now carefully examining all the responses.
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
224.84 213.82 224.22
843W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
844W
Notes: 1. The above costs include VAT and disbursements. 2. These include crime lower claims, crime higherLitigator Graduated Fee Scheme, Advocate Graduated Fee Scheme and Very High Cost Case bills paid, as well as the costs paid by Her Majestys Courts and Tribunals Services on Crown Court cases. 3. They exclude costs paid by the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, House of Lords and Senior Courts Costs Office.
Jeremy Wright: The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) holds information in relation to the total cost of legal and number of acts of assistance provided in North Wales (as defined by LAA procurement area boundaries) and the number of legal aid offices in England and Wales for each of the past five financial years. The information requested is detailed in the tables:
Legal aid in North Wales 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Costs paid in million Number of acts of assistance 5.95 22,197 6.67 24,383 6.04 25,352 2010-11 6.86 23,435 2011-12 6.83 22,538
Legal Aid Scheme: Travellers Robert Neill: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how much funding the Legal Services Commission has provided for Travellers to provide representation at (a) planning inquiries and (b) court cases on planning [160151] in each of the last five years; (2) how much funding has been provided to Travellers under the exceptional funding scheme relating to planning [160149] issues in each of the last five years; (3) how much funding has been provided through the Legal Services Commission to the Community Law Partnership for the provision of legal advice for Travellers on planning in each of the last five years.
[160153]
Number of offices in England and Wales 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Civil contracts Crime contracts 3,627 2,230 3,585 2,245 3,206 2,137 3,394 2,418
2011-12 2,988 2,309
Please note:
The costs include VAT and disbursements such as expenses, third party costs, and costs paid by Her Majestys Courts and Tribunals Services (HMCTS) on crown court cases. The information does not include costs paid by the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, House of Lords, and Senior Court Costs Office. Solicitor advocates are treated as Barristers and costs paid to them are not included as part of the firm. The LAA does not record the number of people who qualified for legal aid. Instead it records the number of acts of assistance. One individual may receive a number of separate acts of assistance, and one act of assistance can help more than one person. A solicitor office may hold both a civil and a criminal contract and the aggregate of civil and criminal offices does not reflect the total number of providers.
Jeremy Wright: The Legal Aid Agency (former Legal Services Commission) is unable to say how much funding has been provided for Travellers under the exceptional funding scheme or for representation at planning inquiries and court cases on planning, because it does not hold information to indicate whether clients in such cases belong to particular ethnic groups. The Community Law Partnership is contracted with the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) to provide face-to-face and telephone advice. In face-to-face advice, the LAA does not record travellers separately. In telephone advice, it is not possible to distinguish the costs relating to planning from other costs associated with housing matters. Robert Neill: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether Travellers (a) facing planning enforcement cases and (b) applying for retrospective planning permission, are eligible for legal aid; and what his policy is on using money from the public purse to assist Travellers in challenging planning enforcement decisions of the Secretary of State for Communities [160152] and Local Government. Jeremy Wright: Under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, civil legal aid is not generally available for planning mattersincluding retrospective planning permission. Where an individual faces eviction from their home (including the land on which the home is located) legal aid is generally available (subject to means and merits) in relation to that matter. However, where the individual is a trespasser, legal aid is not available in relation to eviction. Legal Aid Scheme: Wales Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what the cost was of legal aid in North Wales in [156694] each of the last five years; (2) how many legal firms have participated in the legal aid system in each of the last five years; [156696] (3) how many people qualified for legal aid in North Wales in each of the last five years. [156697]
Legal Costs Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how much his Department spent on (a) external legal advice from Queens Counsel and (b) other external legal advice (i) between 7 May 2010 and 4 September 2012 and (ii) since 4 September 2012;
[154137]
(2) what the 20 highest amounts paid for external legal advice by his Department were in (a) 2010, (b) 2011 and (c) 2012; to whom such payments were made; and for what reasons such legal advice was sought;
[154138]
(3) how much his Department spent on external legal advice (a) between 7 May 2010 and 4 September 2012 [154139] and (b) since 4 September 2012; (4) what the highest day rate paid for external legal advice by his Department was since 7 May 2010;
[154140]
(5) what the 20 highest amounts paid for external legal advice by his Department were in (a) 2010, (b) 2011 and (c) 2012; to whom such sums were paid; and for what reasons the legal advice was sought. [158633] Jeremy Wright: The information I am providing covers external legal spend by the Ministry of Justice and its Executive Agencies (Her Majestys Courts and Tribunals
845W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
846W
Service, and the National Offender Management Service). It does not cover spend on external legal advice by the Departments arms length bodies. In answering the questions I have assumed that external legal spend in this context means spend on legal advice given to the Department other than by the Ministry of Justice Legal Directorate or the Treasury Solicitors Department. The Treasury Solicitors Department conducts the majority of the litigation for the Department and therefore the majority of spend on litigation is not reflected in the following figures. The information I can provide is: a. Ql. 154137 Breakdown of external legal spend by counsel and other suppliers for 2012-13 FY:
Supplier Counsel Other external supplier Spend () 109,804.72 3,693,175.21
d. Q.4 154140 As with Q.2 above, the accounts systems and the manner in which the Department is invoiced for external legal advice means that it is not possible to identify the highest day rate paid between 7 May 2010 and 4 September 2012, and from 4 September 2012 onward. The only way this information might be available would be to examine a substantial number of individual invoices spanning several years. This would incur disproportionate cost for the Department and I am therefore unable to answer this question. Prison Service Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many prison staff were dismissed for conducting inappropriate relationships with prisoners in (a) 2010, [159428] (b) 2011 and (c) 2012. Jeremy Wright: The definition of an inappropriate relationship is any relationship with prisoners, ex prisoners, partners, immediate family or close associates involved in criminal activities if not formally declared to the governor or head of NOMS unit as a potential Conflict of Interest. The information setting out how many prison staff were dismissed solely for having an inappropriate relationship with a Prisoner(s)1 is set out in the table:
Number 2010 2011 2012 10 9 9
Counsel here means all counsel and not just Queens Counsel. This is because the supplier information on our accounts systems does not always specify if a particular barrister is a Queens Counsel or not, and because in some cases the Chambers rather than the individual barrister is recorded. The figure only includes Counsel instructed directly by the Department rather than through the Treasury Solicitors Department. Please refer to the information supplied in relation to Q.3 for the total external spend for the 2012-13 FY. It is not possible to provide this information for other financial years because the way in which the Department recorded legal spend in previous years did not breakdown the data in this manner. To ascertain the breakdown for previous financial years would incur disproportionate cost as it would require examining a substantial number of financial records spanning several years. b. Q.2 154138/158633 The accounts systems and the manner in which the Department is invoiced for external legal advice means that it is not possible to identify the 20 highest amounts paid for advice, by whom, and for what reason the advice was sought in each of the years requested. Additionally, the information is recorded by supplier and not by matter. The only way to identify some of this information would be to examine and cross-reference a substantial number of individual invoices spanning several years. This would incur disproportionate cost for the Department and I am therefore unable to answer this question. Furthermore, to provide details on why advice was sought from external legal suppliers could raise issues of legal privilege. c. Q.3 154139 Total external legal spend by the Ministry of Justice, HMCTS and NOMS by financial year:
Financial year 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Total external legal spend () 4,501,861.00 3,260,958.00 3,802,979.93
It should be noted that all corrupt activity contains an element of inappropriate relationships with prisoners, and is usually a precursor to such activity and so numbers will be greater for those who were dismissed for having been involved in an inappropriate relationship and which also contained another element of corruption, such as the conveying of mobile phones which would be an offence under the Offender Management Act. Corruption in the Prison Service is not acceptable and will be sought out and prevented. This Government is committed to ensuring that the agencies remain free from corruption and that those who do commit illegal acts are dealt with swiftly and reported to the prosecuting authorities.
1 The information provided has been drawn from live administrative data systems which may be amended at any time. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system.
Prisoner Escapes Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many prisoners who escaped during transit in the last five years are still to be recaptured; and of what [154387] offence each escapee had been convicted; (2) how many escapes there were during prisoner [154388] transit in each of the last five years. Jeremy Wright: The following table shows the number of escapes that have occurred while prisoners are in transit between 2007-08 and 2011-12, the most recent
847W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
848W
period for which data is available. The table includes escorts conducted by contractors under the Prison Escort and Custody Services contract and HM Prison Service staff. All prisoners who escaped in transit between 2007-08 and 2011-12 have subsequently been recaptured. The total number of escapes from custody has been falling since 1995 when central records began, despite an increasing prison population. The majority of escorts take place without incident; escapes involving outside assistance, particularly armed assistance are extremely rare.
Table 1: Number of prisoners escaping while in transit, by financial year, between 1 April 2007 and 31 March 2012 Number of escapes 2007-08 1 2008-09 3 2009-10 2 2010-11 1 2011-12 7 Note: These figures have been drawn from live administrative data systems which may be amended at any time. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system.
proportion of prisoners who have participated in the One3One programme have entered into (a) full-time and (b) part-time employment upon release from prison in the last 12 months. [162357] Jeremy Wright: This information is not held by the Department. The work in prison policy ensures that prisoners are employed purposefully when in prison and we believe there are advantages in work in prison in preparing prisoners for employment following release. The Governments plans for new resettlement prisons will help ex-offenders back into employment after release by providing rehabilitative services in prison and a tailored package of supervision and support in the community. Figures for 2011-12 show that 26.6 % of prisoners were released from prison into employment, as published in the National Offender Management Service Annual Report 2011/12: Management Information Addendum1. The figures for 2012-13 are scheduled for publication on 25 July. In addition, from March 2012 all prisoners eligible for jobseekers allowance and who have claimed in advance of, or in the 13 weeks following release, have been mandated onto the DWP work programme.
1
The Ministry of Justice is currently taking action to reduce the risk of escape further, particularly the risk of escape from escort. However, this risk remains low with only one escape from escort contractors for every 72,510 prisoners passing through Prisoner Escort Custody Services custody. Prisons: Corruption Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what training is expected of employees in HM Prison Service in dealing with corruption (a) on commencing their employment and (b) on an ongoing basis as part [159443] of continuing professional development. Jeremy Wright: Corruption in the Prison Service is not acceptable and will be sought out and prevented. This Government is committed to ensuring that the agencies remain free from corruption and that those who do commit illegal acts are dealt with swiftly and reported to the prosecuting authorities. Corruption prevention activity and the raising of awareness amongst staff remains at the heart of the NOMS corruption prevention strategy. (a) All new officers and operational support grades receive training in (1) Expected Standards of Behaviour and (2) Conditioning, Manipulation and Corruption Prevention awareness. (b) For all new and current staff within an establishment training is conducted on an ongoing basis and is promoted at a local, regional and national level. During 2011 a new DVD/training package covering conditioning and manipulation and the risks of engaging inappropriate relationships was rolled out to all public sector prisons. In April 2012 it was rolled out to contracted prisons. Prisons: Employment Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 17 May 2013, Official Report, column 22W, on prisons: employment, what
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment _data/file/163292/noms-annual-report-2011-12addendum.pdf.pdf
RSPCA Karl McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much legal aid the RSPCA claimed in (a) the five years prior to 2010 and (b) in each year since.
[161614]
Jeremy Wright: The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) has not provided any legal aid funding to the RSPCA in the period in question.
PRIME MINISTER Ian Livingston Ann McKechin: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what (a) assessment and (b) recommendations the Adviser on Ministers Interests has made on the scale of shareholdings in British Telecom held by Ian Livingston;
[163414]
(2) what (a) oral and (b) written discussions he has had with the Independent Adviser on Ministers Interests on the appointment of Ian Livingston as Minister for [163401] Trade. The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) on 4 July 2013, Official Report, column 733W. Kazakhstan Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what human rights issues were raised during his visit to Kazakhstan; [163520] and if he will make a statement.
849W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
850W
The Prime Minister: The UK has a range of interests in Kazakhstan covering prosperity, security and values, and is looking to secure a step-change in its bilateral relations. The Strategic Partnership that I signed during my visit sets out important areas of mutual interest, including the promotion of democracy and human rights, and provides a structure to make progress. We have a strong record of funding human rights projects and raising issues of concern with the Kazakh Government, and I discussed these issues with the President. Pakistan Paul Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister what matters in respect of Pakistans continued possession of nuclear weapons he discussed with his Pakistani counterpart [163634] during his recent visit to Pakistan. The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made in the House on Afghanistan and EU Council on 2 July 2013, Official Report, columns 751-53, where I set out my discussions with Prime Minister Sharif of Pakistan.
The APF states that regional bodies (e.g. devolved Administrations, local authorities and local enterprise partnerships (LEPs)) will continue to be responsible for developing the business, financial and legal cases required bythe regulation on PSOs, and for demonstrating the importance of particular air services to the economic development of areas of the UK. Where the case for a PSO has been made the Government will agree, subject to periodic review, the appropriate level of support it will provide alongside regional support. Cycling: Training Dr Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funding has been allocated to Bikeability cycle training as a result of decisions announced in spending round 2013, Cm 8639. [163536] Norman Baker: The Department needs time to determine the implications of the recent Spending Round and will set out more details in due course. However we are working to ensure the best result possible. Driving Offences: Speed Limits Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many speeding offences have been committed in (a) Barnsley Central constituency and (b) South Yorkshire [163673] in each year since 2010. Stephen Hammond: The Department does not hold this information. South Yorkshire Road Safety Partnership, which includes the police, are responsible for the collection of this data. Driving: Licensing Jim Fitzpatrick: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the Green Paper on graduated licensing for young drivers as announced [163193] in March 2013. Stephen Hammond: We intend to publish the Green Paper later in the year. Freight Kelvin Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent research he has conducted into the volumes of freight moved (a) to and (b) from container ports in the UK by (i) road and (ii) rail in [163703] each of the last 10 years. Stephen Hammond: We have not undertaken such research and the information requested is not held centrally. However, as part of its long-term planning process, Network Rail recently published a draft Freight Market Study for consultation. This is available at
www.networkrail.co.uk/improvements/planning-policies-andplans/long-term-planning-process/market-studies/freight/
SCOTLAND Public Expenditure Margaret Curran: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he received from the Scottish Government on the Spending Review. [163067] Michael Moore: Scotland Office Ministers have received no representations from the Scottish Government on the spending review.
TRANSPORT Aviation: Greater London Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether the funding announced in the 2013 Spending Round to improve air links to London [163345] will be available to all regional airports; (2) whether the funding announced in the 2013 Spending Round to improve air links to London will be [163347] used to restore links that no longer operate; (3) what proportion of matched funding must be provided as a condition of accessing the funding [163348] announced to improve air links to London; (4) what criteria he will use to assess bids by regional airports for funding announced in the 2013 Spending [163349] Round to improve air links to London. Mr Simon Burns: The importance of regional air connectivity to London airports is recognised in the Aviation Policy Framework (APF), which confirms that the Government would be inclined to support proposals by devolved and regional bodies to establish Public Service Obligations (PSOs) that comply with the specific conditions within EU law (Regulation 1008/2008), where necessary to protect services between other UK airports and London.
It gives an indication of the growth in ports and domestic intermodal container traffic carried by rail from 1998-2011. Kelvin Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to increase multimodal freight capacity in the UK port sector. [163704]
851W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
852W
Stephen Hammond: The ports sector has, through commercial investment in co-operation with Network Rail and other transport providers, ensured that major ports are generally well equipped to make good use of rail and coastal shipping where these are viable alternatives to road transport. The Government continues to encourage rail freight at ports, and coastal shipping, through appropriate incentives. Kelvin Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions his Department has had with Network Rail regarding freight capacity at [163705] UK ports. Mr Simon Burns: This is an operational matter for Network Rail in collaboration with the port authorities and the freight train operating companies. Network Rail and the freight operators work closely with the ports to provide appropriate and adequate rail connectivity. Kelvin Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of (a) passenger and (b) freight services shifted from road to rail in each year [163706] since 1993-94. Mr Simon Burns: The Department does not have information on modal shifts. However, the statistics published in table TSGB0101 at the following link show the proportion of passenger kilometres by mode of transport since 1952:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/tsgb01modal-comparisons
(2) when he became aware that High Speed 2 Ltd has not carried out a feasibility study of Option 8 at [163713] Euston station. Mr Simon Burns: The Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Mr McLoughlin), was advised in December 2012 that a revised design, originally termed Option 8, was being progressed by HS2 Ltd for Euston station that would deliver the required functionality with less disruption and at a lower cost. The Department for Transport is currently consulting on a range of design refinements for Phase 1 of HS2, including the design of Euston station. Once the consultation closes on 11 July, the Government will then fully consider the responses before deciding on whether to proceed with the proposed revision to the design of Euston station. Network Rail Mark Pritchard: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will bring forward legislative proposals to enable Network Rail to be considered a public body for the purposes of auditing by the National Audit [163618] Office; (2) if he will bring forward legislative proposals to ensure that Network Rail is audited by the National Audit Office; and if he will make a statement; [163619] (3) what plans his Department has to make Network Rail subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office; [163620] and if he will make a statement. Mr Simon Burns: Network Rail is a private sector company limited by guarantee, as determined by the Office for National Statistics in line with internationally accepted standards. The companys activities are governed by the regulatory regime provided by the Railways Act 1993 as amended. It is right that the National Audit Office and Parliament should hold the Department for Transport to account for the way that public money is used to secure public services. However, we see no benefit in duplicating, through the National Audit Office, the Network Rail scrutiny and oversight responsibilities that Parliament has vested in the independent Office of Rail Regulation through legislation. Mark Pritchard: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to improve the level of public scrutiny on the performance of [163621] Network Rail. Mr Simon Burns: The independent Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) has a wide range of powers for scrutinising and enforcing Network Rails performance of its obligations. The Department for Transport is working closely with ORR to improve the quality, transparency and availability of information about both Network Rail and train operators performance and efficiency, so as to bear down on industry performance and costs and give rail users the tools to hold the industry to account.
Table TSGB0401 at the following link shows domestic freight transport by mode since 1953:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/tsgb04freight
High Speed 2 Railway Line Andrew Bridgen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what amount HS2 Ltd and his Department have spent on outside bodies promoting High Speed 2, [163083] by contractor company. [R] Mr Simon Burns: HS2 Ltd and the Department have used two contractors in promoting HS2: By HS2 Ltd
Westbourne Communications Ltd80,304.00 Tomboy Films UK Ltd86,043.60
By DFT
Westbourne Communications Ltd23,952.00
In addition to the figures above, HS2 Ltd currently have two staff from Westbourne on secondment, specifically working on the promotion of HS2. Costs for these secondments paid to Westbourne to end June are 84,480 and fall to HS2 Ltds communications professional services budget. Frank Dobson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will instruct High Speed 2 Ltd to carry out a feasibility study of Option 8 at Euston [163712] station;
853W
Written Answers Railways: Freight
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
854W
Kelvin Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the effect that the introduction of Network Rails new track access charges for freight operating companies will have on annual rail freight volumes from and to [163701] UK ports; (2) what assessment he has made of the effect that Network Rails introduction of track access charges for freight operating companies will have on annual volumes of freight carried by (a) rail and (b) road.
[163702]
they were in the tonnage tax. The cumulative training commitment for 2012-13 is therefore around 1,800 officer trainees. The tonnage tax scheme imposes no numeric requirement in relation to UK ratings training, but training has so far been provided for around 20 ratings to officer conversion trainees in 2012-13. Karl Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has conducted into tonnage tax levels that currently apply in other EU countries.
[163987]
Mr Simon Burns: The framework for Network Rails track access charges is established by the independent rail regulator, the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR), having regard to the Governments objectives for the continuing development of a competitive, efficient and dynamic private sector rail freight industry. Within that framework, the level of the charges is a matter for Network Rail. It is for both bodies to assess the impact of their proposals, on the basis of consultation with the industry and wider interests. Shipping Karl Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has conducted into (a) training and (b) employment incentives for domestic seafarers that currently apply in other EU countries.
[163986]
Stephen Hammond: No specific research has been carried out. However, the Government is aware of the tax rates which operate in comparable tonnage tax schemes in other EU countries. Travel Yvonne Fovargue: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many officials in his Department (a) are working on cycling and active travel issues and (b) are projected to be so working in (i) 2014-15 and [163069] (ii) 2015-16. Norman Baker: Currently, 9.9 full-time equivalent officials are allocated to roles directly related to cycling and active travel. However, many other officials are involved in cycling and active travel in the Department in related policy areas and in specialist disciplines. No changes in staff levels are currently planned in 2014-15 and 2015-16. However, the Department regularly reviews its resource allocation through corporate planning to align resources with our business plan objectives.
Stephen Hammond: No specific research was carried out. However, in 2011 the Department commissioned an independent review of the economic requirement for trained seafarers in the UK. Its final report is on the Government website at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/3540/economic-requirement-report.pdf
TREASURY Banks: Foreign Workers Philip Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many jobs in banks with a full or majority stake held by the Government have been outsourced overseas [163288] since 2008; (2) what the policy of UK Financial Investments Ltd (UKFI) is on the practice of overseas outsourcing of jobs by those financial institutions in which UKFI has [163310] a stake. Sajid Javid: The Governments shareholdings in Lloyds Banking Group (LBG) and the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) are managed on a commercial and arms length basis by UK Financial Investments Ltd (UKFI). UKFIs role is to manage the stakes and not to manage the banks. Decisions on staffing are operational decisions and are for the banks themselves. The Government is therefore unable to comment on this matter. Excise Duties: Alcoholic Drinks Dan Rogerson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when the Government plans to publish the response to the consultation on Alcohol Fraud: legislative measures to tackle existing and emerging threats to the UK [163337] alcohol duty regime;
and includes comparisons of the training regimes in the United Kingdom, Holland and Denmark. Tonnage Tax Karl Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the core training commitment is for each company group elected to the Tonnage Tax scheme in 2013-14 to date; how many officer training places this converts to; and whether any company groups intend to observe the schemes voluntary link to provide training for UK [163984] ratings. Stephen Hammond: The tonnage tax training requirement is monitored on the basis of training commitment years, which run from October to September, rather than on a financial year basis. Figures for the 2013-14 training commitment year are not yet available. The identity of tonnage tax companies and groups is tax confidential, and I am therefore unable to provide information in respect of individual companies and groups. Approved core training commitments for the 2012-13 training commitment year are for around 600 new first year officer trainees. Additionally, company groups are required to provide second and third year training for trainees taken on during the previous two years when
855W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
856W
(2) what legislative proposals the Government plans to bring forward to tackle alcohol duty fraud; [163338] (3) if he will publish each response received to the consultation on Alcohol Fraud: legislative measures to tackle existing and emerging threats to the UK alcohol [163339] duty regime. Sajid Javid: The Government intends to publish a summary of the responses received to the 2012 consultation on alcohol fraud, and announce what action it intends to take to address fraud, in the near future. Fracking Mark Menzies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure that any community benefit revenue that is derived from shale gas is apportioned to people living in the immediate vicinity of well sites.
[162967]
(2) how many notices of minimum wage underpayments were issued by HM Revenue and Customs to companies located in (a) Newcastle Upon Tyne North constituency, (b) the North East and (c) England in each of the last five years; and how many such companies (i) paid within 14 days, (ii) paid within 28 days and (iii) took [163199] their case to appeal; (3) how many complaints regarding minimum wage non-compliance were received by HM Revenue and Customs regarding companies located in (a) Newcastle Upon Tyne North constituency, (b) the North East and (c) England in each of the last five years; and what proportion of these complaints resulted in prosecutions.
[163200]
Michael Fallon: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The industry trade body UK Onshore Operators Group (UKOOG) published a Community Engagement Charter on 27 June setting out their commitments on engagement with communities that host shale gas developments. This also sets their proposals on how communities will benefit directly from developments in their areas and commits to provide a share of proceeds at production stage of 1% of revenues. Further, as part of this commitment they have stated that approximately two thirds of this benefit will be allocated to the local community; the rest will be allocated at county level. UKOOG will provide further detail on fund allocation later in the year and will be working with interested parties and councils over the course of the next few months to finalise plans. Mark Menzies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his policy to provide a gold standard of regulation on shale gas operations before any potential [162968] move to the extraction phase. Michael Fallon: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The UK has a strong regulatory system which provides a comprehensive and fit for purpose regime for shale gas exploration, but we want continuously to improve it. The Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil works closely with the regulators and industry to ensure that the regulatory system applied to potential shale gas production is as streamlined as possible, while remaining robust enough to safeguard public safety and protect the environment. Minimum Wage Catherine McKinnell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many unannounced minimum wage inspections were carried out by HM Revenue and Customs on companies located in (a) Newcastle Upon Tyne North constituency, (b) the North East and (c) [163197] England in each of the last five years;
Mr Gauke: HMRC does not keep statistics related to the number of unannounced inspections carried out. HMRC does not keep statistics at constituency level and, since April 2011, no longer captures complaints or the outcomes of its investigations by reference to government regions or country. As a consequence of the way in which contact information for employers is recorded, HMRC is not able to produce exact statistics relating to companies located in England. The data in the table relates to notice of underpayments by compliance teams based in England. Please note that Notices of Underpayment were not introduced until April 2009.
Notice of Underpayment issued 352 877 705 540 Paid within 14 days 175 494 426 340 Appeals received 6 32 24 13
Financial year 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
HMRC does not record the timescale in which the employer pays arrears to workers. HMRC does, however, record where an employer is entitled to pay a reduced penalty charge by paying arrears to workers and the reduced penalty charge to HMRC within 14 days. The data in the following table relates to complaint cases allocated to compliance teams based in England for the period requested.
Financial year 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Complaint cases 1,922 2,264 1,734 1,345 1,114 Prosecutions 4 0 1 0 1
Mr Thomas: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many allegations of non-compliance with national minimum wage legislation in (a) total, (b) each region of the UK and (c) the London borough of Harrow were received by HM Revenue and Customs in (i) 2010-11, (ii) 2011-12 and (iii) 2012-13; and if he will [163390] make a statement. Mr Gauke: HMRC does not keep statistics at constituency level and since April 2011 does not collate information relating to complaints about non-payment of the minimum wage by government region. I refer the
857W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
858W
hon. Member to my answer of 4 February 2013, Official Report, column 18W, for the total number of complaints received in 2010-11 and 2011-12. The total number of complaints received in 2012-13 was 1,408. The table provides a breakdown by region for 2010-11.
Government region Scotland Wales London North East Northern Ireland West Midlands Merseyside Yorks/Humberside North West East Midlands East South East South West Number of complaints 128 86 334 92 32 167 22 186 231 103 218 250 132
Sajid Javid [holding answer 1 July 2013]: The Governments shareholdings are managed on an arms length, commercial basis by UK Financial Investments. It would not be appropriate for the Treasury staff to be involved in RBS or Ulster Banks operational issues. Ulster Bank remains an important part of core RBS and a major lender in Northern Ireland. It is in the UKs interest that Ireland has a successful economy and a stable banking system.
WORK AND PENSIONS Atos Healthcare Stephen Gilbert: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Atos assessment centres there are in the UK; and how many have disabled [163682] parking facilities. Esther McVey: Atos undertakes work capability assessments (WCAs) and, in some parts of the UK, personal independence payment (PIP) assessments on behalf of the Department. For WCAs, there are 123 permanent Atos assessment centre locations and 68 have disabled parking facilities. Atos delivery model for PIP assessments is different to that for WCAs as it utilises the premises of supply chain partners already established in the health care sector such as private physiotherapy practices and hospitals. Atos are contractually required to provide accommodation for face-to-face consultations which meets the Departments standards including access to suitable parking. Atos has up to 189 sites which it can currently use and will make more sites available as volumes of PIP assessments rise. Children: Poverty Mr Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent estimate he has made of the number of children in the UK living in poverty; and what steps the Government is taking to substantially [163710] reduce child poverty in the near future. Esther McVey: The Child Poverty Act 2010 sets four income-based UK-wide targets to be met by 2020. The targets are based on the proportion of children living in households with relative low income, combined low income and material deprivation, absolute low income and persistent poverty (all before housing costs have been taken into account). Estimates of these are published in the National Statistics Households Below Average Income (HBAI) series. HBAI uses household income adjusted (or equivalised) for household size and composition, to provide a proxy for standard of living. UK figures for relative and absolute low income and combined low income and material deprivation for 2011/12 and persistent poverty for 2005-08 can be found in the latest HBAI publication, available at the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/householdsbelow-average-income-hbai-199495-to-201112
New Enterprise Allowance: Barnsley Dan Jarvis: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of businesses in Barnsley Central constituency who will receive the [163675] 2,000 enterprise allowance. Mr Gauke: Constituency level estimates of those likely to benefit from the employment allowance are not available. In total, up to 1.25 million employers will benefit from the allowance, with over 90% of this benefit going to small businesses with fewer than 50 employees. Stamp Duty Land Tax Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward a stamp duty rebate for homes [163185] participating in the Green Deal. Sajid Javid: Following the Chancellors announcement of 200 million additional capital to encourage uptake of Green Deal in 2011 autumn statement, the Government is using 125 million of this to fund a generous Cashback scheme to be claimed by those who take up Green Deal from January 2013. Other uses of the additional capital include 12 million of funding that has been allocated to seven cities across England to help pilot Green Deal in their regions. The Government does not have any plans to introduce a SDLT relief for homes participating in the Green Deal. However stamp duty land tax policy, like that of all taxes, is kept under review through the normal Budget process. Ulster Bank Ms Ritchie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of his Departments staff at each level have been transferred to Belfast to work on issues related to [162560] the operation of Ulster Bank.
Relevant figures can be found in Table 4.1tr (on page 102) for the latest relative low income figures, table 4.2tr (on page 103) for the latest absolute low income figures and table 4.5tr (on page 106) for the latest combined
859W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
860W
low income and material deprivation figures. The latest persistent poverty estimates can be found in table 7.1 tr (on page 248). The evidence consistently shows that the best routes out of poverty are through parents being in work and through a childs educational achievement which can stop a poor child becoming a poor adult. We are introducing the universal credit which will reduce child poverty through making work pay and providing an effective route out of poverty. Universal credit will improve work incentives by allowing individuals to keep more of their income as they move into work, and by introducing a smoother and more transparent reduction of benefits when they increase their earnings. Universal credit will also reduce child poverty by re-focusing of entitlements on lower income in-work households and having a simpler system that should lead to a considerable increase in the take-up compared to the current complex system of benefits and tax credits. We are also firmly committed to giving poor children the best opportunities in life to help break the poverty cycle so they do not go on to become poor adults. Targeting education as a route out of poverty, we are investing 2.5 billion in the pupil premium to raise educational attainment of poor children, as well as 260,000 disadvantaged two-year-olds receiving 15 hours a week of free early years education. We want to develop better measures of child poverty which include, but go beyond income to provide a more accurate picture of the reality of child poverty and drive the right action. Our consultation on how best to measure child poverty closed on 15 February. The complexity of the issue means that we need to take time to ensure we have the best option for measuring child poverty, so that we can ensure we properly tackle the causes. We will publish our response as soon as we can. Employment and Support Allowance Jessica Morden: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how often people with (a) rheumatoid arthritis, (b) cystic fibrosis and (c) multiple sclerosis were reassessed for employment and support allowance.
[163611]
The WCA is an assessment of someones functional capability, not just their condition. A disability or health condition will affect different people in different ways therefore it is important to treat people as individuals and assess their capability for work, rather than labelling them because of their condition. Jessica Morden: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people assessed by ESA50 without a face-to-face interview were placed into the (a) support group and (b) work-related activity group in each month from 1 July 2012. [163613] Mr Hoban: This information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost. Mr Byrne: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many and what proportion of employment and support allowance claimants in the work-related activity group are in employment 12 to [163677] 18 months after their claim; (2) how many and what proportion of employment and support allowance claimants found fit for work are in employment 12 to 18 months after their claim;
[163678]
(3) how many and what proportion of jobseekers allowance claimants are in employment 12 to 18 months [163680] after their claim. Mr Hoban: Detailed information on the long term destinations of employment and support allowance (ESA) and jobseekers allowance (JSA) claimants is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Mr Byrne: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of employment and support allowance claimants found fit for work [163679] flow on to jobseekers allowance. Mr Hoban: It is not currently possible to provide information on the number of people found fit for work moving from employment support allowance (ESA) to jobseekers allowance (JSA) and to do so would incur disproportionate cost. Industrial Health and Safety Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent representations he has made to the European Union Employment Commissioner on the Commissions current review of health and safety policy; and if he will make a statement. [163405] Mr Hoban: The Commission plans to review the entire suite of occupational health and safety Directives by 2015. Member states must submit by December 2013 reports on how they have practically implemented these directives. HSE is currently preparing the UKs report. The Government will continue to argue through the review that EU legislation should be risk based and proportionate, and that burdens on business should be reduced where possible, without reducing necessary protections.
Mr Hoban: Claimants with these health conditions do not have pre-determined intervals for reassessment. Everyone who claims employment and support allowance (ESA) will undergo periodic work capability assessments (WCAs) to ascertain whether they still meet the conditions for the benefit. This is because entitlement to ESA is based on an individuals functional ability rather than the condition itself. Individuals with lifetime impairments may be able to adapt to those conditions and take up some work. So it is important we can provide them with the right support to get back to work when it is appropriate. A claimant for whom a return to work is considered unlikely within two years will be reassessed after two years. This is because, even for claimants who are unlikely to see an improvement in their health and who are unlikely to sufficiently adapt to their condition, it is important that we do not write them off completely. However, this reassessment will not necessarily involve a face-to-face assessmentwhere possible, the Department may make a decision using paper-based evidence.
861W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
862W
Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research his Department has commissioned since May 2010 on making workplaces [163407] safer; and if he will make a statement. Mr Hoban: HSE has a statutory duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to conduct research and publish the results. Since 2010 the focus of current research is devoted to occupational health, mainly in the area of long latency health risks. Other research covers major hazard and specialised industries and economic and statistical research. Further details can be found on the HSE website at:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/content/science-plan-201215.pdf
Mr Hoban: Detailed policies on this measure are yet to be decided. However current rules exempt claimants from serving waiting days where they have returned to jobseekers allowance within 12 weeks of the end of a previous claim to jobseekers allowance or a previous claim to another benefit, for example employment and support allowance. Young people who receive Jobseekers allowance under severe hardship provisions are also exempt. It is likely that these exemptions will be carried forward to the new, extended seven-day waiting rule. Mr Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidance his Department plans to issue to staff in Jobcentre Plus on advice they can give to unemployed people who are in financial difficulties and are in the seven-day waiting period for jobseekers [163715] allowance on assistance they can access. Mr Hoban: Subject to parliamentary approval, any changes to the waiting day period will be supported through appropriate guidance being issued to Department for Work and Pensions staff. Occupational Health
The annual science report to the HSE Board examines how HSE uses, publishes and evaluates its commissioned research. Further details can be found on the HSE website at:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/meetings/hseboard/2013/ 300113/pjanb1308.pdf
Industrial Health and Safety: Construction Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many fatal accidents occurred in the construction sector in the last year for which figures are available; and how many of the people who were killed were (a) self-employed, (b) employed by firms with fewer than 10 employees and (c) employed [163614] by firms with fewer than 50 employees. Mr Hoban: The figures for fatal accidents within the construction sector are provided in Table 1, by employment status, including (a) the self-employed. These represent the latest annual figures as published by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on 3 July 2013. The figures are not available broken down by (b) employed by firms with fewer than 10 employees and (c) employed by firms with fewer than 50 employees as, due to the often complex employment structures and the transient nature of construction work, HSE is not able to routinely record information on the precise size of these firms.
Table 1: Fatal injuries to workers in the construction industry1 as reported to all enforcing authorities 2012-132 Great Britain Number Employees 27 Self-employed 12 Total workers3 39 Members of the public 5 Total 44 1 Statistics are identified by Standard Industrial Classification 2007 (SIC2007) Section FConstruction. 2 Provisional. 3 The term worker covers employees and self-employed combined.
Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to reduce [163406] occupational ill-health. Esther McVey: Fitness for work: the Government response to Health at workan independent review of sickness absence was published in January 2013. It outlined a range of measures to support people with ill-health to remain in and return to work including a new health and work assessment and advisory service which will make occupational health expertise more widely available to GPs, and those employees and employers who need it most. Social Security Benefits Richard Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent assessment he has made of the effect of changes to working-age benefits on [163170] household income. Mr Hoban: The Department regularly produces assessments and analysis of the impacts of new policies, which can be found at the Departments website, and keeps these up to date if impacts change. The Government regularly produces analysis of the cumulative impact of all coalition changes, including working-age benefits, on households across the income distribution. This information is published at every Budget and other major fiscal events, in the interests of transparency. The most recent update was published with the spending round 2013 on 26 June. The publication of cumulative impacts is a coalition initiative and was not produced by the previous Administration. Vacancies: Internet Mr Byrne: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many vacancies have been posted in Universal Jobmatch since its inception, by occupation.
[155472]
Jobseekers Allowance Jonathan Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his policy is on exemptions to the new jobseekers allowance seven-day waiting rule; [163291] and if he will make a statement.
863W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
864W
Job vacancies 977 8,828 4,096 1,866 4,894
Mr Hoban: The number of new job vacancies, by occupation, posted in Universal Jobmatch between its inception on 19 November 2012 and 30 April 2013 is detailed in the following table.
Employer sector Accounting and auditing services Advertising and PR services Aerospace and defence Agriculture/forestry/fishing All Architectural and design services Automotive and parts manufacturing Automotive sales and repair services Banking Biotechnology/pharmaceuticals Broadcasting, music and film Business servicesOther Chemicals/petro-chemicals Computer hardware Computer software Computer/IT services ConstructionIndustrial facilities and infrastructure ConstructionResidential and commercial/office Education Electronics, components, and semiconductor manufacturing Energy and utilities Engineering services Entertainment venues and theatres Financial services Food and beverage production Government and military Health care services Hotels and lodging Insurance Internet services Legal services Management consulting services ManufacturingOther Marine manufacturing and services Medical devices and supplies Metals and minerals Non-profit charitable organisations Other/not classified Performing and fine arts Personal and household services Personal care and cosmetics Printing and publishing Real estate and property management Rental services Restaurant/food services Retail Security and surveillance Sports and physical recreation Staffing/employment agencies Telecommunications services Job vacancies 5,814 11,473 2,155 1,739 5,410 523 682 10,882 2,280 528 749 60,121 563 241 916 3,262 8,783 19,756 34,023 687 5,171 4,917 1,064 30,081 17,654 17,670 77,811 14,658 898 1,288 2,816 3,504 10,487 123 3,849 210 8,409 49,210 322 18,962 2,629 1,438 7,560 2,305 16,546 66,501 10,185 8,567 1,089,023 3,639
Employer sector Textile and clothing manufacturing Transport and storageMaterials Travel, transportation and tourism Waste management Wholesale trade/import-export
Work Capability Assessment Jessica Morden: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people with (a) rheumatoid arthritis, (b) cystic fibrosis and (c) multiple sclerosis have undergone multiple work capability assessments [163676] since its introduction. Mr Hoban: The Department regularly publishes official statistics on employment and support allowance (ESA) and the work capability assessment (WCA). The latest publication was released in April 2013 and can be found here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/employmentand-support-allowance-work-capability-assessment-april2013
Table 6 in the spreadsheet accompanying the publication breaks down how claimants are allocated to the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG). This shows that 54% of claimants entering the WRAG after the initial WCA on their claim, did so based on the points awarded at the WCA. The remainder entered the WRAG for reasons other than points awarded at the WCA, these reasons are explained in the publication. In response to the first question above, table 1 provides information on the number of claimants who were awarded the WRAG based on points scored at the initial WCA and who were subsequently awarded fewer points at the second WCA on the same claim. Claimants who were awarded the WRAG at the second WCA based on a reason other than points scored have been excluded.
Table 1: Number of claimants in the WRAG at the initial WCA who were awarded the WRAG at the second WCA but received points. All new ESA claims starting between October 2008 and August 2012 Claimants awarded fewer points Health condition at second WCA Cystic Fibrosis Multiple Sclerosis Rheumatoid arthritis Denotes nil or negligible 60 90
Table 2 provides the requested data for the remaining questions above.
Table 2: Comparison of outcomes of the initial and second WCA on the same claim. All new ESA claims starting between October 2008 and August 2012 Claimants in Claimants in Support Group WRAG after after initial initial WCA WCA who then who were then entered the found Fit for WRAG at Claimants Work at second second WCA having two or Health WCA on the on the same more WCAs on condition same claim claim the same claim Cystic Fibrosis 10 10 220
865W
Written Answers
5 JULY 2013
Written Answers
866W
Table 2: Comparison of outcomes of the initial and second WCA on the same claim. All new ESA claims starting between October 2008 and August 2012 Claimants in Claimants in Support Group WRAG after after initial initial WCA WCA who then who were then entered the found Fit for WRAG at Claimants Work at second second WCA having two or Health WCA on the on the same more WCAs on condition same claim claim the same claim Multiple 100 100 3,560 Sclerosis Rheumatoid 270 90 2,820 arthritis Source: The data presented above comes from benefit claims data held by the Department for Work and Pensions, functional assessment data from Atos Healthcare.
may change the decision. We hope this process will reduce the number of appeals and, as a result, the cost of such appeals to the Department. Work Programme Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how the market shift mechanism will operate in Work programme contract package areas where all prime providers have fallen short of the minimum performance standard; and if he will make a statement;
[163273]
(2) in which Work programme contract package areas market shift will be taking place as a result of [163278] providers underperformance. Mr Hoban [holding answer 4 July 2013]: The market share shift mechanism will operate in all contract package areas where there is a gap of three percentage points or more between the higher and lower performing prime providers, provided the higher performer has achieved the required standards in assurance reviews and has achieved accreditation in the Merlin Standard for supply chain management. The mechanism will apply whether or not minimum performance levels have been achieved. This will ensure that there is continued competition to drive up overall performance. Mr Byrne: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the criteria are for a work programme provider to be eligible for market share shift. [163681] Mr Hoban: To be eligible to receive additional referrals the better performing prime provider in a contract package area must have achieved a job outcome rate three percentage points or more higher than the lower performing prime provider in year 2 of the programme, ending March 2013. They must also have achieved a satisfactory rating in their most recent assurance review and in the most recent Merlin Standard assessment of their supply chain management. Assessments of performance and decisions on market share shifts will be applied separately (and only) to the three main payment groupsJSA claimants aged 18-24 , JSA claimants aged 25 and over, and new ESA claimants.
All figures relate to claims starting between October 2008 and August 2012, who have completed at least two WCAs on the same claim. All figures have been rounded to the nearest 10. Work Capability Assessment: Appeals Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the cost to his Department of appeals against the work capability [153945] assessment in 2012-13. Mr Hoban [holding answer 13 May 2013]: For the financial year 2012-13, the costs of appeals related to work capability assessment are as follows:
ESA appealsWCA IB (IS) reassessment appeals 15,865,218 12,276,418
The unit cost for an ESA appeal is 61.53 and for an IB appeal is 83.77. The overall unit cost is 69.59. We are introducing a new mandatory reconsideration process to ensure that claimants receive an explanation of a disputed decision and complete a full re-examination of the decision, while allowing claimants to provide additional evidence and information that they think
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
Friday 5 July 2013
Col. No. Col. No.
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS ............. 71WS Business Bank........................................................ 71WS DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER ................................. 71WS Maximising Voter Registration Measures .............. 71WS HEALTH ................................................................... 72WS NHS England (Mandate)....................................... 72WS
JUSTICE ................................................................... 73WS Azelle Rodney Inquiry ........................................... 73WS
TRANSPORT ........................................................... 74WS Bus Subsidy............................................................ 74WS
WRITTEN ANSWERS
Friday 5 July 2013
Col. No. Col. No.
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS ............. Apprentices ............................................................ Business: Interest Rate Swap Transactions ............. Copyright............................................................... EU Internal Trade.................................................. Foreign Investment in UK ..................................... Industrial Training Boards ..................................... Innovation: Urban Areas ....................................... Royal Mail .............................................................
809W 809W 809W 809W 810W 810W 813W 813W 814W
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS continued Tyres: Waste Disposal ............................................ 830W FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE ..... African Union........................................................ Dominican Republic .............................................. Dominican Republic .............................................. Kidnapping............................................................ Palestinians ............................................................ Saudi Arabia .......................................................... HEALTH ................................................................... Blood: Contamination ........................................... Fertility .................................................................. Health Services: Foreign Nationals ........................ NHS: Standards..................................................... Nurses: Greater London ........................................ School Milk ........................................................... HOME DEPARTMENT ........................................... Glastonbury Festival.............................................. Human Trafficking ................................................ Property ................................................................. 830W 830W 831W 831W 831W 833W 833W 834W 834W 834W 834W 835W 836W 839W 839W 839W 839W 840W
CABINET OFFICE ................................................... 814W Unemployment: Young People............................... 814W COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT .. Housing: Disability ................................................ MITIE Group ........................................................ Planning Permission .............................................. Urban Areas .......................................................... DEFENCE ................................................................. Firing Ranges: Shoeburyness ................................. Iran ........................................................................ Procurement........................................................... Vending Machines.................................................. 815W 815W 816W 816W 817W 818W 818W 818W 818W 818W
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER ................................. 818W Domestic Visits ...................................................... 818W EDUCATION............................................................ 819W Vending Machines.................................................. 819W Youth Services........................................................ 819W ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ..................... Electricity............................................................... Energy Companies Obligation ............................... Green Deal Scheme................................................ Power Stations ....................................................... Renewable Energy.................................................. Solar Power: China ................................................ Vending Machines.................................................. ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS............................................................... Buildings................................................................ Fisheries................................................................. Floods: Dorset ....................................................... Floods: Insurance .................................................. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................... Nature Conservation.............................................. Plants: Falkland Islands......................................... Shellfish: Colchester............................................... 821W 821W 822W 823W 823W 825W 825W 826W
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT .................... 840W Devolution ............................................................. 840W Dominican Republic .............................................. 841W JUSTICE ................................................................... Burglary ................................................................. Legal Aid Scheme .................................................. Legal Aid Scheme: Travellers ................................. Legal Aid Scheme: Wales ....................................... Legal Costs ............................................................ Prison Service ........................................................ Prisoner Escapes .................................................... Prisons: Corruption ............................................... Prisons: Employment ............................................. RSPCA .................................................................. PRIME MINISTER .................................................. Ian Livingston........................................................ Kazakhstan............................................................ Pakistan ................................................................. 842W 842W 841W 843W 843W 844W 846W 846W 847W 847W 848W 848W 848W 848W 849W
826W 826W 826W 826W 827W 827W 828W 829W 829W
SCOTLAND.............................................................. 849W Public Expenditure................................................. 849W TRANSPORT ........................................................... 849W Aviation: Greater London...................................... 849W
Col. No.
Col. No.
TRANSPORTcontinued Cycling: Training ................................................... Driving: Licensing.................................................. Driving Offences: Speed Limits.............................. Freight ................................................................... High Speed 2 Railway Line .................................... Network Rail ......................................................... Railways: Freight ................................................... Shipping................................................................. Tonnage Tax .......................................................... Travel ..................................................................... TREASURY .............................................................. Banks: Foreign Workers ......................................... Excise Duties: Alcoholic Drinks............................. Fracking................................................................. Minimum Wage .....................................................
850W 850W 850W 850W 851W 852W 853W 853W 853W 854W 854W 854W 854W 855W 855W
TREASURYcontinued New Enterprise Allowance: Barnsley ..................... 857W Stamp Duty Land Tax ........................................... 857W Ulster Bank............................................................ 857W WORK AND PENSIONS ......................................... Atos Healthcare ..................................................... Children: Poverty ................................................... Employment and Support Allowance .................... Industrial Health and Safety .................................. Industrial Health and Safety: Construction ........... Jobseekers Allowance ............................................ Occupational Health .............................................. Social Security Benefits.......................................... Vacancies: Internet................................................. Work Capability Assessment.................................. Work Capability Assessment: Appeals ................... Work Programme................................................... 858W 858W 858W 859W 860W 861W 861W 862W 862W 862W 864W 865W 866W
Members who wish to have the Daily Report of the Debates forwarded to them should give notice at the Vote Office. The Bound Volumes will also be sent to Members who similarly express their desire to have them. No proofs of the Daily Reports can be supplied. Corrections which Members suggest for the Bound Volume should be clearly marked in the Daily Report, but not telephoned, and the copy containing the Corrections must be received at the Editors Room, House of Commons, not later than Friday 12 July 2013
STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT GREATLY FACILITATES THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE VOLUMES
Members may obtain excerpts of their Speeches from the Official Report (within one month from the date of publication), on application to the Stationery Office, c/o the Editor of the Official Report, House of Commons, from whom the terms and conditions of reprinting may be ascertained. Application forms are available at the Vote Office.
PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES DAILY PARTS Single copies: Commons, 5; Lords, 4. Annual subscriptions: Commons, 865; Lords, 600. LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session. Single copies: Commons, 105; Lords, 60 (100 for a two-volume edition). Standing orders will be accepted. THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is published separately at 900 and can be supplied to standing order. All prices are inclusive of postage
Volume 565 No. 30
Friday 5 July 2013
CONTENTS
Friday 5 July 2013
European Union (Referendum) Bill [Col. 1169] Motion for Second Reading(James Wharton)on a Division agreed to Margaret Thatcher Day Bill [Col. 1252] Motion for Second Reading(Mr Bone) Young Fathers [Col. 1254] Debate on motion for Adjournment Written Statements [Col. 71WS] Written Answers to Questions [Col. 809W] [see index inside back page]
UNITED " STATES
.PATENT OFFICE.
NIKOLA TELA, 0F NEW YORK, N. Y.
COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS.

SPECIFICATION forming part of Letters Patent No. 512,340, dated January 9, 1894.
Application filed July 7.1893. Serial No. 479.804. (No model.)
nying and forming a part of the same. In electric apparatus or systems in which alternating currents are employed the self induction of the coils or conductors may, and, in fact, in many cases does operate disadvan tageously by giving rise to false currents
which often reduce what is known as the com~
the capacity required to counteract the self Beit known that I, NIKOLA TESLA, a`citizen induction; hence, in any coil, however small of the United States, residing at New York, the capacity', it may be sufficient for the pur in the county and State of New York, have in pose stated if the proper conditions in other vented certain new and usefullmprovements respects be secured. In the ordinary coils the in Coils for Electro-Magnets and other Appa difference of potential between adjacent turns ratus, of which the following is a specification, ror spires is ,very small, so that while they are reference being had to the drawings accompa in a sense condensers, they possess but very
small capacity and the relations between the
To all whom it may concern.
two quantities, self-induction and capacity,

are not such as under any ordinary condi
tions satisfy the requirements herein contem plated, because the capacity relatively to the
self-induction is very small. In order to attain my object and ,to properly
20
of the circuit with relation to the self-induc
proportioning to a proper degree the capacity in the coil-considering the' latter as a con
referred to, are known to be neutralized by or convoiutions, and since the energy stored
mercial eciency of the apparatus'composing increase the capacity of any given coil, I wind the system or operate detrimentally in other it in such way as to secure a greater differ respects. The effects of self-induction, above ence of potential between its adjacent turns
denser, is proportionate to the square of the
condensers constructed and applied as sepa 25 rate instruments. M present invention has for its object to avoi the employment of condensers which are expensive, cumbersome and dithcult to maintain in perfect condition, and to so con 30 struct the coils themselves as to accomplish
the same ultimate object. . .
v tion and frequency of the currents. This has potential difference between its adjacent con been accomplished heretofore bythe use of ' volutions, it is evident that I mayin this way ,
secure by a proper disposition of these con volutions a greatly increased capacity for a
given increase in potential dilerence'between

the turns. V
I have illustrated diagrammatically in the
accompanying drawings the general nature

of the plan which I adopt for carrying out
this invention. '
I would here state that by the terni coils I
desire to include generally helices, solenoids, the ordinary manner. Fig. 2 is a diagram of or, in fact, any conductor the diierent parts a winding designed to secure the objects of 85 35 of which by the requirements of its applica~ my invention. tion or use are brought into such relations Let A, Fig. 1, designate any given coil the with each other- as to materially increase the spires or convolutions of which arewound self-induction. upon and insulated from each other. Let it
l have found that in every coil there exists be assumed that the terminals of this coil a certain relation between its self-induction show a potential difference of one hundred and capacity that permits a current of given volts, and that there are one thousand con
with no other opposition than that of ohmic ous points on adjacent convolutions let it be 95 resistance, or, in other words, as though it- pos assumed that there will exist between them 'a 45 sessed no self-induction. This is due to the p_ptential difference of one-tenth of a volt. If mutual relations existing between the special now, as shown in Fig. 2, a conductor B be character of the current and the self-induc -wound parallel with the conductor A and in tion and capacity of the coil, the latter quan sulated from it, and the end of A be connected IOO
`Figure l is a diagram of a coil wound in
frequency and potential to pass through it volutions; their considering any two contigu
50 self-induction for that frequency. It is well length of the two conductors being such that known that the higher the frequency or po~ the assumed number of convolutions or turns tential diierence of the current the smaller is the same, viz., one thousand, then the po
tity being just capable of neutralizing the with the starting point of B, the aggregate
t 512,340
tential diterencebetween any two adjacent -which I obtain even if an incident to such lpoints in Aand B will be fifty volts, and as forms of winding have not been appreciated ' the capacity effect is proportionate to the or- taken advantage of. In- carrying outmy invention it is to be ob- I square of this difference, the energy stored in the coil asja whole-will now be two hun served that certain__ facts are well under?red and fifty thousand as' 'greatl' Follow stood by those skilled in the art, viz: the re 35 > ing out this principle, I may wind any'given lations ot' capacity, self-induction, and the coil either in Whole or in part, not only in frequency and potential dierence of the cur the specic manner herein` illustrated, but rent.- What capacity, therefore, in any given y in a great variety of ways,well-_known `in the case it is desirable to obtain and what special
art, so as to secure between adjacent convo
winding will secure it, are readily determin
lutions such potential dicrence as .will give able from the other factors which are known. What I claim as my invention isn . the proper capacity to neutralize the self-in l. A coil for electric apparatus the adja duction for any given current that may be
difference sufficient to secure in the coil a ca
IS, employed. Capacity secured in _this particu lar way possesses an additional advantage in that it is evenly distributed, a consideration of the greatest importance in many cases, and the results, both as to-eiiiciency and economy,
are the more readily and easily obtained as
ent convolutions o'f which form parts of the circuit between which there exists a potential 45
pacity capable of neutralizing its self-induc

tion, as hereinbefore described. 2. A coil composed'of contiguous or adja
cent insulated conductors electrically ' con;
the size of the coils, the potential difference,

6r frequency of t'ne currents are increased.
nected in seriesand having a potential dit
59
conductors wound side byside and connected a whole, a capacity sufficient to neutralize its
as set forth. 25' in series' are not in themselves new, and I do self-induction, l NIKOLA
_ not regard a more detailed description ofthe same as necessary. l3nt heretofore, so far as
` Witnesses:
Coils composed of independent strands or l ference of such value as to give to the coil as
TESLA.
-
I am aware, the objects in view have been es
_ ROBT. F. GAYLORD,
sentially diterent from mine, and the results
PARKER W. PAGE.

Slundervats Yontibule

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Slundervats Yontibule

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

17348 The Journal of Neuroscience, November 30, 2011 31(48):17348 17357

Reduced Prefrontal Connectivity in Psychopathy

Motzkin et al. Reduced Prefrontal Connectivity in Psychopathy

J. Neurosci., November 30, 2011 31(48):17348 17357 17349

Materials and Methods

MRI data collection

17350 J. Neurosci., November 30, 2011 31(48):17348 17357

Motzkin et al. Reduced Prefrontal Connectivity in Psychopathy

Motzkin et al. Reduced Prefrontal Connectivity in Psychopathy

J. Neurosci., November 30, 2011 31(48):17348 17357 17351

17352 J. Neurosci., November 30, 2011 31(48):17348 17357

Motzkin et al. Reduced Prefrontal Connectivity in Psychopathy

Motzkin et al. Reduced Prefrontal Connectivity in Psychopathy

J. Neurosci., November 30, 2011 31(48):17348 17357 17353

17354 J. Neurosci., November 30, 2011 31(48):17348 17357

Motzkin et al. Reduced Prefrontal Connectivity in Psychopathy

Motzkin et al. Reduced Prefrontal Connectivity in Psychopathy

J. Neurosci., November 30, 2011 31(48):17348 17357 17355

17356 J. Neurosci., November 30, 2011 31(48):17348 17357

Saved in your Watch list |

eBay Top-rated seller

Buy it now Add to basket

100% Positive Feedback

Save this seller See other items

Postage: Free Standard Delivery |

Registered as a business seller

Returns: Returns accepted |

Sell one like this

Postage and payments

Visit my eBay Shop

Sign up for newsletter

Location Code: SCOFFcab

Required: All items shipped requires a signature on delivery.

Business seller information

Questions and answers about this item

Tuesday 2 July 2013

Volume 565 No. 27

Oral Answers to Questions

Oral Answers European Convention on Human Rights

Afghanistan and EU Council

Afghanistan and EU Council

Afghanistan and EU Council

Afghanistan and EU Council

Afghanistan and EU Council

Afghanistan and EU Council

Afghanistan and EU Council

Afghanistan and EU Council

Afghanistan and EU Council

Afghanistan and EU Council

Afghanistan and EU Council

Afghanistan and EU Council

Afghanistan and EU Council

Afghanistan and EU Council

Afghanistan and EU Council

Afghanistan and EU Council

Afghanistan and EU Council

Afghanistan and EU Council

Afghanistan and EU Council

Afghanistan and EU Council

Afghanistan and EU Council

Afghanistan and EU Council

Stop and Search

Stop and Search

Stop and Search