View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

Tuesday Volume 496 

21 July 2009 No. 115 

Part1of3 

HOUSE OF COMMONS 

OFFICIAL REPORT 

PARLIAMENTARY 

DEBATES 

(HANSARD) 

Tuesday 21 July 2009 

£5·00

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2009 

This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, 

available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at 

www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ 

Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; 

e-mail: licensing@opsi.gov.uk

731 21 JULY 2009 

732 

House of Commons 


The House met at half-past Two o’clock 

PRAYERS 

[MR.SPEAKER in the Chair] 

BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS 

NEW WRIT 

Stewart Hosie (Dundee, East) (SNP): I beg to move, 

That the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the 

Crown to make out a new Writ— 

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury 

(Mr. Nicholas Brown): Object. 

Mr. Speaker: As the motion is opposed, it will stand 

over until the time for raising matters of privilege after 

Questions. 

Oral Answers to Questions 

JUSTICE 

The Secretary of State was asked— 

Diversity (Judiciary) 

1. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): What steps his 

Department is taking to increase levels of diversity in 

the judiciary. [288136] 

The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor 

(Mr. Jack Straw): Entry to the legal profession is now 

well balanced in terms of women and black and Asian 

people. That makes it all the more frustrating and 

paradoxical that, since the creation of the independent 

Judicial Appointments Commission in 2006, the data 

suggest that the situation for black and Asian people 

has, if anything, gone backwards. To provide more 

robust solutions and process, in April I established an 

advisory panel on judicial diversity and look forward to 

its report later in the year. 

Keith Vaz: May I welcome that rather astonishing 

criticism of the Judicial Appointments Commission by 

the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor? I agree 

with it—we have not made progress on judicial diversity 

and I was pleased that he appointed a panel to consider 

the issue. When does he think that its recommendations 

will be before him? How long will it take him to implement 

them and put right what has not happened with the 

Judicial Appointments Commission in the past few 

years? 

Mr. Straw: I was not seeking to make an astonishing 

criticism of the Judicial Appointments Commission, 

but merely referring to the data, which—although there 

are big problems with some of them—suggest that the 

situation for black and Asian people has gone backwards. 

We want the panel on judicial diversity to consider 

carefully all the processes and bars on people who work 

their way through the profession to a certain point and 

then, whether they are women or black or Asian people, 

are discouraged from applying, or, if they apply, are less 

likely to be successful. That is particularly true of the 

more senior judicial appointments 

Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): May I urge the Secretary 

of State to avoid any form of political correctness in 

appointments to the judiciary? Is not it completely 

wrong to see people in terms of their race, gender or 

religion when judging them and offering them jobs? 

Surely all jobs, including in the judiciary, should be 

given on merit alone? 

Mr. Straw: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I 

am the least politically correct person whom I know. Of 

course appointments should be made on merit, but 

there is something slightly insulting about the implication 

of his question— 

Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): No, no. 

Mr. Straw: Yes, there is. There is something insulting 

about the implication of the question that there will not 

be well-qualified black or Asian people. The problems 

that women and black or Asian people face are similar 

but not the same: they are very well qualified when they 

enter the profession, but for all sorts of reasons they 

may be put off from getting to the starting line for the 

more senior appointments. Of course, when they are on 

the starting line for a circuit or High Court judge 

appointment, their merits should be assessed in the 

same way as anybody else’s, but the problem is getting 

people to that point. 

Mr. Speaker: May I say at the start of questions that 

the Secretary of State’s enthusiasm always to engage 

with the question and respond fully is widely respected 

throughout the House, but comprehensiveness must not 

stray into prolixity? 

Magistrates Courts 

2. Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South) (Lab): 

How many magistrates courts have been in operation in 

each year since 2005. [288137] 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice 

(Bridget Prentice): The number of magistrates courts in 

operation at the start of each calendar year since 2005 

is: 361, 361, 360, 358 and, to date, 356. 

Mr. Cunningham: Given the reorganisation of magistrates 

courts in the past few years, will the Under-Secretary 

tell us what new initiatives have been piloted in them to 

tackle crime and its causes? 

Bridget Prentice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for 

his question because it allows me to highlight three 

areas where we have enjoyed particular success in

733 Oral Answers 

21 JULY 2009 

Oral Answers 

734 

introducing innovative new approaches. The dedicated 

drugs courts have now been extended from the pilots in 

Leeds and west London to elsewhere in the country— 

indeed, I visited one in Salford not very long ago. 

Specialist domestic violence courts are being rolled out 

across the country. We now have 122 such courts, which 

are successfully bringing together different agencies to 

deal with domestic violence. My right hon. Friend the 

Secretary of State recently opened the mental health 

court, which will deal with mental health issues and 

crime. All those courts are part of our determined effort 

not just to bring offenders to justice but to ensure that 

when they have served their time they can be brought 

back into the community in a positive and useful way. 

Probation Service 

3. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): 

What representations he has received on levels of 

probation service funding for the next three years. 

[288140] 


(Mr. Jack Straw): I have received many representations. 

Probation funding has increased since 1997 by 70 per 

cent. in real terms. The budget for probation in this 

financial year is £894 million, compared with an out-turn 

for last year of £897 million. 

David Taylor: All prison officers are civil servants, 

unlike the great bulk of probation employees. As the 

new directors of offender management are drawn almost 

exclusively from the Prison Service, probation boards 

are budgeting for £50 million of cuts next year. Does 

the Secretary of State understand the angst among our 

public sector colleagues in probation and their unions, 

the National Association of Probation Officers and 

Unison, about the consequences for individuals in the 

criminal justice system of a further loss of resources 

and staff? 

Mr. Straw: Of course I understand anxieties in probation 

and prison services, but let me say to my hon. Friend, 

first, that we have not set the budget for the year beyond 

next year. Secondly, over the past 12 years, the real-terms 

increase in the probation service has been twice as fast 

as that in the Prison Service. 

Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove) (Con): Does the 

Secretary of State not recognise that the probation 

service is already overstretched and that the cuts are 

most unwelcome? How does he expect the service to 

ensure the safety of the public and prevent reoffending 

by people who have been in prison if it does not have 

the resources to manage them properly? 

Mr. Straw: The resources are there. The budget for 

probation in the hon. Lady’s area of West Mercia was 

£9.2 million in 2001-02. In the year just finished, it was 

£15.7 million. Even allowing for some inflation, that is a 

big real-terms increase. I am working carefully with the 

unions nationally, including the National Association 

of Probation Officers, to ensure that anxieties are properly 

and better dealt with than they might have been. 

Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow) (Lab): My right 

hon. Friend may know that over the past couple of 

months, probation officers from across the country 

have been coming to meetings in the House to discuss 

what is happening in their areas with hon. Members. 

The consistent picture has been of jobs going, including 

compulsory redundancies in some places, and trainee 

probation officers not getting jobs. Will my right hon. 

Friend agree to meet me and a cross-party delegation 

from the all-party justice unions parliamentary group, 

to see whether we can get to the bottom of what is 

happening in the service? 

Mr. Straw: I would be delighted to meet my hon. 

Friend. I have also set up a process with the major 

probation trade unions, NAPO and Unison, and the 

Probation Association whereby I see them every month 

to work through local anxieties. In most cases—although 

not every case—that process has worked satisfactorily 

to allay concerns. Of course I am worried about the 

number of trainee probation officers for whom there 

currently do not appear to be jobs, but a lot of work is 

being done, including with the Prison Service, to ensure 

that jobs can be provided across the board in the 

National Offender Management Service. 

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): Why does 

the Secretary of State look surprised that he engenders 

so little confidence among the public and probation 

staff when he cannot run his budget? The director of 

probation has said that he wants the maximum level of 

underspending. Hundreds of expensively trained probation 

trainees are going straight on to the scrap heap. Hundreds 

more staff on full pay are in the so-called surplus 

employment pool, yet probation officers often have 

only a few minutes a week to supervise serious offenders. 

The property maintenance system is so bureaucratic 

that changing a light bulb in Birmingham requires a 

repairman to drive from Newmarket. As accountancy is 

not the Secretary of State’s strong point, will he confess 

that public safety is very much in peril under his 

stewardship? 

Mr. Straw: The hon. and learned Gentleman does 

nothing to enhance his case through gross exaggeration 

of the situation. As I have said, the simple fact is that 

probation spending has increased by 70 per cent. since 

1997, compared, in real terms, with 35 per cent. for the 

Prison Service. Probation spending has gone up further 

and faster than the case load. It has gone up much 

faster than it ever would have done under a Conservative 

Government, and much faster that it ever would under 

a Conservative Government. 

Mr. Andy Reed (Loughborough) (Lab/Co-op): My 

right hon. Friend’s Department will know of the case of 

Sarah Moore, a constituent of mine whose husband, a 

police officer, was killed several years ago. The probation 

service and other services have been working with the 

victims of crime. In view of the pressures on their 

budgets, what reassurance can my right hon. Friend 

give that the mistakes that have been made in the past 

will not be made in the future, and that the victims of 

crime—and not just the criminals—will be put at the 

heart of the criminal justice system? 

Mr. Straw: The current, rather tighter, financial situation 

is no excuse whatever for a lack of efficiency or concern, 

particularly in respect of more serious offenders. 

Performance among probation services varies greatly, 

but I am in no doubt that, if we can get the average


21 JULY 2009 

Oral Answers 

736 

performance up to that of the best quarter, we will be 

doing very well in providing the public and, particularly, 

victims with a better service than they have today, 

within available resources. 

Young Offenders 

4. Mr. Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con): 

What recent steps his Department has taken to reduce 

reoffending rates among young offenders. [288141] 

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Maria 

Eagle): The £100 million youth crime action plan, among 

other measures, has led to a 6.6 per cent. decrease in the 

proportion of young offenders who reoffend, and the 

rate at which they reoffended fell by more than 20 per 

cent. By introducing the youth rehabilitation order later 

this year, we plan to focus a more intense effort on 

tackling the young people with the most challenging 

behaviour, to assist them in turning their lives around. 

Mr. Crabb: Studies by the Minister’s own Department 

show that the odds of reoffending increase massively 

when a prisoner has no employment to go to on their 

release. Given that statistics show that youth unemployment 

has increased massively—from 11 to 17 per cent.—in 

the past 12 months, and that employment and training 

opportunities for young people are being decimated 

during this recession, what chance does the Minister 

give her aspiration for further progress on cutting 

reoffending rates of being realised in the current climate? 

Maria Eagle: Of course the climate is a challenging 

one, but that is not a reason to give up. We believe that 

we could do far more to ensure that young people get 

every chance to turn away from the life of crime that 

they might have embarked on at an early age. We are 

providing more assistance, through interventions, to 

help them to do that, and to deal with the real risk 

factors such as a lack of accommodation, a lack of 

employment and a lack of support. The figures to 

which I referred earlier show that we are succeeding, 

and we intend to continue to do so. 

Mr. Brian Jenkins (Tamworth) (Lab): Will my hon. 

Friend tell the House how many reoffenders lack 

educational qualifications? What are we doing to improve 

their chances of gaining such qualifications? 

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend hits on an important 

point. Many young and slightly older people who end 

up in custody have problems with their educational 

attainment. The provisions in the Apprenticeships, Skills, 

Children and Learning Bill, which is going through the 

other place at present, will make local education authorities 

responsible for the educational attainment of people in 

youth custody. That will make a big difference, because 

it will focus the attention of education authorities on 

outcomes for this most disadvantaged group, which 

has, until now, disappeared into the youth criminal 

justice system because local authorities, which are primarily 

responsible for education, have washed their hands of 

the outcomes for that group. 

Mr. David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): The 

Minister will be aware of the commendable plan to 

establish a young offenders’academy in north-east London. 

Why did NOMS last month refuse to release relevant 

financial information that would have helped that plan, 

despite assurances on disclosure from the Justice Secretary 

last November? Are the Government deliberately hiding 

the true cost of youth custody, in order to hide the true 

cost of their failure to reduce reoffending? 

Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is straying into 

conspiracy theories, which are not valid. I know of the 

plan to which he refers and, as far as I am concerned, 

my Department has made every effort to provide proper 

information. However, I will be happy to consider any 

further requests for information that he says have not 

been met. There might be some relevant issues relating 

to material that is commercial-in-confidence in a more 

competitive environment, but I would be happy to talk 

to him further about the matter. 

Julie Morgan (Cardiff, North) (Lab): What evaluation 

has my hon. Friend made of the youth restorative 

disposal, which aims to get young people to apologise 

for their offence and to try to undertake restorative 

behaviour towards their victim, with the victim’s consent? 

I understand that this is now being piloted. Has the 

pilot scheme been evaluated yet? 

Maria Eagle: There is evidence that this type of 

disposal can assist the victim to gain some satisfaction 

by making an impact on the person who perpetrated the 

crime against them. It is also important in assisting the 

young person to realise the full consequences of their 

action. This disposal is available in the youth system 

and can be a useful part of intensive community activity 

to prevent young people from going into the criminal 

justice system in the first place and to ensure that they 

turn away from the temptation to commit crime. At the 

time the crimes are committed, they may seem to be 

victimless and consequence-free, but this type of disposal 

can help young people to understand that they are 

neither. It is thus a valuable part of what we can do to 

turn young people away from crime. 

Licence Breaches 

5. Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): How 

many persons convicted of a criminal offence and 

released on licence are in breach of the conditions of 

their licence. [288142] 


Eagle): In 2008-09, 17 per cent. of offenders on licence 

required breach action as a result of non-compliance 

during the first six months following release. That figure 

is based on a 20 per cent. sample of offenders released 

on licence, and 97 per cent. of the breached licences 

were enforced by the probation service within 10 working 

days of the breach. 

Sir Nicholas Winterton: Is the Minister aware that 

nearly 1,000 criminals, including murderers, rapists and 

paedophiles are on the run after disappearing while 

released on licence. This figures includes 19 murderers, 

15 rapists, five paedophiles and 51 people accused of 

grievous bodily harm. Is that acceptable, and what are 

the Government doing to keep a track on those who are 

released on licence?


21 JULY 2009 

Oral Answers 

738 

Maria Eagle: I am aware of those figures because my 

Department, having compiled them very carefully over 

the last few months, published them. The hon. Gentleman 

is right that there are 954—just short of 1,000—such 

people who have not been successfully returned to 

custody after their licence has been revoked, which is 

0.7 per cent. of the total. He is also right—we do not 

wish to be complacent—that the police and criminal 

justice system is seeking those who have not been returned 

to custody and will do its utmost to get them back into 

prison, which is where they belong. 

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): My hon. Friend 

must be aware that the public and victims of crime quite 

rightly do not like or understand it when people on 

licence go on to commit further crimes. What can we 

do to tighten up the licence system to ensure that 

paedophiles—and certainly rapists—do not commit further 

crimes. In the case of murderers, we know that some 

have gone on to murder again. What can the Minister 

do to tighten the rules, tighten the licences and put the 

credibility back into the system so that the public can 

begin to understand that we are taking it seriously? 

Maria Eagle: I accept that it is nothing to be proud of 

when serious further offences are committed by people 

on licence. However, the figures on serious further 

offences being committed and convicted show only 

0.35 per cent., so while I do not wish to sound complacent 

in any way, we must bear in mind the overall context, 

which I think is important. Much tougher and better 

arrangements for public protection have developed over 

the last 12 years: through multi-agency protection, public 

protection arrangements, and arrangements for IPP 

prisoners—those given an indeterminate sentence for 

public protection—those who were previously released 

without any supervision are now supervised regularly 

and can be recalled to prison if their behaviour gives 

any cause for concern. As I said, we are not complacent 

and we need to do more, but the position now is much 

stronger than it has ever been before. 

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): Just two 

weeks ago, the Justice Secretary told us that 1,000 criminal 

fugitives were in breach of licence conditions, so how 

many have since been caught? 

Maria Eagle: I cannot provide a precise figure because 

the police are out in their different areas trying to find 

the people who have not yet been found. What I can say 

very clearly is that in 1997, when the Government took 

office, under 30 per cent. of those whose licences were 

breached were recalled to prison. The figure is now 

99.3 per cent., which is by all accounts an improvement. 

Mr. Grieve: Is not the truth that the Justice Secretary 

and the Minister have taken their eyes completely off 

the ball? Yesterday, the Parole Board complained that 

compensation claims from prisoners had reached new 

heights. Can the Minister confirm that the Government 

have increased prisoner legal aid by £20 million at the 

same time as they have cut front-line probation services 

by £21 million? Is not the truth that the Government are 

more interested in fuelling the compensation culture 

than in protecting the public? 

Maria Eagle: That is absolutely not the case. As my 

right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear last 

week, we are tightening legal aid in respect of claims of 

that kind. 

The legal profession likes to pursue such claims. 

Conservative Members say that we should not, as they 

put it, cut legal aid, yet they complain when spending 

on legal aid goes up. They cannot have it both ways. We 

are cracking down on legal aid for prisoners with trivial 

and non-serious complaints, and we will continue to do 

so. We spend more on legal aid than any other country 

in the world, but we must ensure that we target our 

expenditure on those who need it most. 

Electoral Reform 

6. Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) 

(LD): What recent assessment he has made of the 

merits of proposals for reform of the electoral system 

for general elections. [288143] 

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Mr. Michael 

Wills): Last year the Government published a review of 

voting systems. The review considered the experience of 

the systems introduced in the United Kingdom since 

1997, and found no definitive evidence that one system 

was better or worse than another. The debate on the 

respective merits of different electoral systems continues, 

and last month the Prime Minister confirmed that the 

Government would set out proposals for taking it further. 

Sir Robert Smith: When there has been such a breakdown 

of trust between the electorate and those elected to 

serve them, it is surely fundamental that the Government 

should consider reform of the system that links the 

electorate to the people elected to serve them. The 

Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill was published 

on Monday. Does the Minister not think it rather 

absurd that a Bill that is intended to reform the constitution 

does not deal with that link between the electorate and 

their elected representatives? 

Mr. Wills: I do not think it will surprise the hon. 

Gentleman to learn that I do not agree with him. The 

Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill tackles a 

range of issues that many Members on both sides of the 

House believe should have been tackled a long time ago. 

It transfers power from the Executive to the legislature, 

and I would expect the hon. Gentleman to welcome 

that. 

The hon. Gentleman will be well aware—particularly 

if he has read the review of voting systems that the 

Department published last year—that all voting systems 

have their proponents and their various merits and 

disadvantages. We need a proper public debate, and we 

are ensuring that one is held. 

Geraldine Smith (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab): 

Of course a proper public debate is important, but does 

my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever system we 

have and whatever reform takes place, it is also important 

that we retain the constituency link and the constituency 

representation? What we do not want are any list systems.


21 JULY 2009 

Oral Answers 

740 

Mr. Wills: I entirely agree. We believe that the link 

between Members of Parliament and their constituents 

is fundamental to the health of our democracy, and we 

certainly propose to retain it. 

David Howarth (Cambridge) (LD): Does the Minister 

not concede that one of the worst aspects of the firstpast-the-post 

system is the fact that it reduces the entire 

general election to a fight for a few swing votes in a few 

marginal constituencies? That in itself alienates a vast 

number of electors. It also leads to a large number of 

safe seats, which has led to a degree of complacency 

that has not exactly helped the House in the last few 

months. 

Mr. Wills: We could have a protracted debate about 

the merits of the different systems, but I think that the 

hon. Gentleman is forgetting something fundamental, 

which relates to what his hon. Friend the. Member for 

West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) 

said a moment ago. What matters in this country is 

what the electorate think. In my experience and, I think, 

that of most Members, the electorate have a habit of 

getting what they want—and anyone who thinks that 

there are any safe seats anywhere in the country nowadays 

is profoundly mistaken. 

David Howarth: But the electorate do not get what 

they want. Will the Minister not at least concede that 

another bad aspect of first past the post is that we 

inevitably elect Governments who are unpopular at the 

moment when they are elected? At the last general 

election, nearly two thirds of the electorate voted for a 

party other than the party that the Minister represents. 

Should there not be at least a consensus between all 

parties that Governments should be more popular at 

least when they are first elected? 

Mr. Wills: I think that the hon. Gentleman is forgetting 

the experience of countries that operate the system of 

proportional representation that he wants. Parties that 

secure no more than 5 per cent. of the vote can determine 

the Government. How can such a Government be popular? 

Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con): There is, 

of course, a far more fundamental problem than that of 

proportional representation: the very integrity of our 

electoral system. While Conservative Members welcome 

the measures that the Government have taken—indeed, 

we have pressed the Government to take such measures 

as individual voter registration to combat electoral fraud— 

the system that we are in discussing is in danger of 

having its integrity questioned. It has already been 

described as being akin to a banana republic. An electoral 

commissioner has said that it is childishly simple to 

commit fraud. Why will not the Government, before the 

next general election, look at the package of measures 

that we propose to tighten postal voting and the production 

of identification at the ballot box to make sure that our 

system’s integrity is protected against fraud? 

Mr. Wills: I have too much respect for the hon. Lady 

to think that she believes the rubbish that she has just 

uttered. If she had read the reports from the Electoral 

Commission, and the most recent one from the commission 

and the Association of Chief Police Officers, she would 

know that their conclusion was that the incidence of 

fraud is declining. She is right on one thing; even a 

single incident of fraud is one too many. But she well 

knows that we are not complacent and she knows all of 

the measures that we have introduced, including postal 

vote identifiers. She knows that we are introducing 

individual voter registration, not because the Conservative 

party is pushing us but because it is the right thing 

to do. 

Youth Justice 

7. Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab): 

what recent steps he has taken to divert children and 

young people from the criminal justice system. [288144] 


(Claire Ward): Our approach is set out in the £100 million 

youth crime action plan. Last year the number of children 

and young people entering the criminal justice system 

for the first time fell by 10 per cent. Since 2000, the 

proportion of young offenders who reoffend has fallen 

by 6.6 per cent. 

Ms Keeble: I welcome those figures, but is my hon. 

Friend aware of the report from the Prison Reform 

Trust that shows that of the young people locked up by 

the criminal justice system, 75 per cent. are either on 

remand or end up with a non-custodial sentence? What 

steps are being taken to reduce these figures? 

Claire Ward: My hon. Friend is quite right to raise 

the issue of custodial sentences for young people. The 

Government believe that diversions are necessary to 

remove as many children and young people as possible 

from custodial sentences, which is why we are looking at 

out-of-court disposals, a proportionate and efficient 

means, in appropriate cases, of dealing with low-level 

offending by mainly first-time offenders. We also know 

that as a result of out-of-court disposals, reoffending is 

much lower among juveniles. 

Mr. Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con): 

Does the Minister agree that young people are far more 

likely to end up in the criminal justice system if they are 

not in employment, education or training and that the 

big increase in NEETs has been a major failure in the 

Government’s pursuit of both social justice and community 

safety? 

Claire Ward: The Government are doing an enormous 

amount for young people right across all Departments. 

We think it is appropriate for children and young people 

not to enter the criminal justice system if it is inappropriate 

for them to do so, which is why we are developing as 

many out-of-court disposals as we can to meet the 

needs and to allow other parts of the system, such as 

health and education, to work with those young people 

outside of custodial sentences. 

Prisons 

8. Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): what 

mechanism exists for the management of contracts 

awarded to public sector bidders for the management 

of market-tested prisons. [288145]


21 JULY 2009 

Oral Answers 

742 

The Minister of State, Government Equalities Office 

(Maria Eagle): Responsibility for the management of 

all prisons rests with the directors of offender management 

and the Ministry of Justice. Each public sector prison, 

including those successful in a market test, is managed 

via a service level agreement between the relevant director 

of offender management and the prison. 

Mr. Bone: HMP Wellingborough is being market-tested 

and a good bid is being put together by the local 

governor and the prison officers, who have ignored their 

national union’s advice on working together. If the bid 

is successful and the prison has its own market plan, 

how does it fit in with the overall system? Is it separate? 

Maria Eagle: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on 

his persistence on this matter. In our Adjournment 

debate, he described himself as an ideological Thatcherite 

but then went on to argue for keeping his prison in the 

public sector, which is an interesting example of the 

Conservative party facing both ways. None the less, I 

wish to assure him that we welcome good public sector 

bids. If HMP Wellingborough produces such a bid and 

wins, I will be very pleased. 

Pleural Plaques 

9. Mr. Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab): When the 

Government plan to publish their decision following 

their consultation on pleural plaques. [288146] 


(Mr. Jack Straw): On 30 June, the Government published 

to the House two reports on the medical aspects of 

pleural plaques, one from the chief medical officer’s 

expert adviser and a second from the Industrial Injuries 

Advisory Council. The Government will give further 

consideration to the issue of compensation for people 

diagnosed with pleural plaques before publishing a final 

response after the recess. 

In addition, we are actively considering measures to 

make the United Kingdom a global leader in research 

on the alleviation, prevention and cure of asbestos-related 

diseases, and to help speed up compensation claims for 

those who develop serious asbestos-related diseases such 

as mesothelioma. The latter includes examination of 

the process for tracking and tracing employment and 

insurance records, as well as looking into the support 

given to individuals who are unable to trace such records. 

Mr. Hepburn: Will the Secretary of State assure us 

today that pleural plaques sufferers will not be tret any 

differently in terms of compensation regardless of whether 

they lodged their claim prior to the 2007 Law Lords 

judgment or after it and of whether live in Scotland, 

England, Wales or Northern Ireland? 

Mr. Straw: As I said, we are giving active consideration 

to that. I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, but we 

have to make our own decisions in this jurisdiction. I 

am sure that, in turn, my hon. Friend will wish to pay 

very careful attention to the conclusions of the expert 

appointed by the chief medical officer and to IIAC; 

they came to unanimous conclusions, including those 

backed by the three trade union representatives. 

Mr. Nigel Dodds (Belfast, North) (DUP): Following 

on from the Scottish Government’s decision to legislate 

in this area, did the Secretary of State note the 

recommendation of the relevant Department in the 

Northern Ireland Assembly that there should be a 

change in legislation to allow those with pleural plaques 

to sue in the courts and get compensation? Also, following 

on from what the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) 

said, whereas the regions of devolved government will 

have taken action to redress this terrible injustice to 

those who suffer from pleural plaques, will it not be 

perverse if the only area where people cannot claim is 

England and Wales? 

Mr. Straw: As I said, or implied, in answer to my hon. 

Friend, it is the essence of devolution that different 

decisions can be made. It would be very curious indeed 

if the result of devolution was that each jurisdiction 

had to follow the decisions of the other. We are seeking 

to consider the evidence very carefully, and I commend 

the evidence of the chief medical officer’s expert’s report 

and IIAC to all hon. Members, whichever constituency 

they represent. 

Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone) 

(Lab): I hear what my right hon. Friend says about the 

medical evidence of IIAC, but will he look further at 

medical evidence during the recess, because I can tell 

him that the consultant who leads the charge for a 

national centre for asbestos-related diseases says that he 

believes that pleural plaques are a disease, and he sees 

people on a daily basis, a proportion of whom are 

affected by pleural plaques to the degree of having 

breathlessness? Will my right hon. Friend look again at 

fresh medical evidence over the recess? 

Mr. Straw: I would be delighted to do so. In particular, 

I would like to facilitate a serious discussion at medical 

level between the medical practitioner expert to whom 

my hon. Friend referred and the expert appointed by 

the chief medical officer, because his conclusion and 

that of IIAC are obviously at variance at present. 

National Security and Intelligence Services 

11. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): What recent 

discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on 

proposals in his Department’s White Paper on constitutional 

renewal on parliamentary oversight of national security 

and the intelligence services. [288148] 


Wills): As part of my duties, I have wide-ranging discussions 

with ministerial colleagues, including on all the proposals 

in the constitutional renewal White Paper. 

Andrew Mackinlay: Have I missed something, because 

it was proposed in the White Paper that there should be 

examination of the parliamentary oversight—of which 

there is none—of the security and intelligence services? 

The Justice Secretary has in his various ministerial 

portfolios always alluded to, and mooted, such oversight, 

and on 22 July 2008 the Prime Minister promised a joint 

parliamentary committee on strategy— 

Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): Is there a 

question?


21 JULY 2009 

Oral Answers 

744 

Andrew Mackinlay: My question is, have I missed 

anything—did the hon. Lady not notice that? What is 

happening—because nothing has happened? We have 

this White Paper, and the new Bill is out, but there is no 

mention at all of national security. 

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the reply will be very 

much more succinct than the question. 

Mr. Wills: I shall do my best, Mr. Speaker. The 

answer, in short, is that for once my hon. Friend has 

missed something. We did call for greater accountability 

for the Intelligence and Security Committee, which 

does provide parliamentary oversight, and we are delivering 

it. We are doing so in terms of nominations and we are 

about to do so in terms of public hearings. We are 

beefing up the Committee—there is now a new general 

investigator post and the number of staff has increased 

by a third. 

Foreign National Prisoners 

12. Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): Which 

three nationalities comprise the largest number of 

foreign national prisoners; and how many prisoners of 

each such nationality there are. [288149] 


Eagle): As at 31 March 2009, the top three foreign 

nationalities held in prisons in England and Wales were 

Jamaica, with 1,099 prisoners; Nigeria, with 855 prisoners; 

and Ireland, with 620 prisoners. 

Mr. Hollobone: Should we not be sending these countries 

a bill for the incarceration of their nationals in our 

prisons? Is not this foreign prisoner scandal an absolute 

national disgrace, given that 13 per cent. of the prison 

population in this country is made up of people from 

other countries, who should be returned to secure detention 

in the countries from which they came? 

Maria Eagle: I shall desist from answering the hon. 

Gentleman’s first question about sending bills. [HON. 

MEMBERS: “Why?”] We do not have a policy to do what 

he suggests. However, we deport foreign national prisoners 

where we have the chance to do so. In 2007-08, we 

deported 4,200 foreign national prisoners, and this year 

we aim to deport 5,800. We do our best to divest 

ourselves of foreign national prisoners, where it is lawful 

and practicable to do so. We are also negotiating prisoner 

transfer agreements with relevant countries. I should 

also point out that we currently have fewer foreign 

national prisoners in our jails than most other European 

countries. 

International Criminal Jurisdiction 

13. Sarah Teather (Brent, East) (LD): What recent 

representations he has received on the jurisdiction of 

UK courts over cases involving crimes under international 

law committed in other countries. [288150] 


(Claire Ward): The Government receive many 

representations from time to time about the jurisdiction 

of the UK courts for particular categories of crimes 

under international law. We have recently received 

representations about genocide, war crimes and crimes 

against humanity, and we have responded positively to 

those issues. 

Sarah Teather: Does the Minister believe that someone 

such as Felicien Kabuga, a major financier of the 

Rwandan genocide, should be brought to justice for his 

crimes? If so, why has she been unwilling to bring 

non-residents into the legislation on genocide and war 

crimes? Surely, if such war criminals are present in the 

UK, they should not be given sanctuary, regardless of 

whether they are resident. 

Claire Ward: It seems that, yet again, the hon. Lady is 

unable to welcome the significant move that the 

Government have made on this issue, which has been 

welcomed by a large number of her colleagues in the 

other House and by outside organisations. We have 

taken considerable steps forward on this issue. We are 

not persuaded that it is necessary to change the relevant 

definition from “residence”to “presence”, as such suspects 

are not using the UK as a safe haven in which to hide. 

The current law on these crimes applies to residents, 

but we have stated that we are willing to examine the 

definition of resident and clarify it to ensure that the 

sort of cases that have been discussed could well be 

captured by “residence” in future. 

Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): May 

I make another representation to my hon. Friend? The 

Israeli settlers in the west bank and Golan Heights are 

committing crimes under international law, so will she 

assure me that such settlers who visit the UK will be 

arrested and charged here? 

Claire Ward: Obviously, any decision to prosecute 

would be a matter for the prosecuting authorities, and it 

would be inappropriate for me to comment on that 

specifically. 

Shoplifting 

14. Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): What 

recent discussions he has had with the Magistrates 

Courts Authority on the implementation of sentencing 

guidelines for shoplifting. [288151] 


(Mr. Jack Straw): The Magistrates Association has 

made clear its preference for charges of shop theft to be 

prosecuted in court. As the hon. Lady is aware, earlier 

this week I published revised operational guidance to 

police forces to restrict the use of fixed penalty notices 

for shop theft to first-time offenders who are not substance 

abusers where the value of the goods is less than £100 

and where the goods have normally been recovered. 

Miss McIntosh: I am most grateful to the Lord 

Chancellor for that reply and for the statement that he 

issued last week. He has said on numerous occasions 

that the sentencing guidelines are about to be amended, 

so when does he expect that the amendments might 

reach the public eye? 

Mr. Straw: I will write to the hon. Lady about that. I 

thought that her question was about the revised guidance 

to the police forces, for which she has been campaigning


21 JULY 2009 

Oral Answers 

746 

for some time. The effect of the restrictions that I 

announced yesterday on penalty notices for disorder 

will be to ensure that a greater number of those prosecuted 

for shop theft end up in court. 

Drugs (Prisons) 

15. Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon) (Con): 

What plans he has to reduce levels of drug taking in 

prisons. [288152] 


Eagle): We have made great progress in reducing drug 

misuse in prisons. Drug misuse, as measured by random 

mandatory drug testing, is down by 63 per cent. since 

the 1996-97 financial year. Record numbers of prisoners 

are engaged in drug treatment. Prison drug treatment 

funding has increased year on year since 1996-97—a 

thirteenfold increase—and record numbers are engaging 

with such treatment. 

Mr. Streeter: Is it really a good idea for the Government 

to spend £4 million on installing automatic vending 

machines in many prisons, including Dartmoor prison 

just outside my constituency, to supply methadone to 

prisoners? Is that really the best way to bear down on 

drug abuse? 

Maria Eagle: The reference to methadone dispensers— 

which are medically arranged treatment programmes 

for prisoners that ensure that each prisoner gets only 

the correct dose of their maintenance treatment—as 

vending machines is a travesty of the truth. Vending 

suggests selling—that is what the word means—and 

there is no question that the Prison Service deals in such 

behaviour in our prisons. 

Topical Questions 

T1. [288126] Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): If 

he will make a statement on his departmental 

responsibilities. 


(Mr. Jack Straw): Yesterday I published the Constitutional 

Reform and Governance Bill, which includes major 

reforms in respect of the civil service and the ratification 

of treaties, ends the curious election of hereditary peers 

to the House of Lords, and provides for peers to resign, 

to be suspended or to be expelled. Further proposals for 

the long-term reform of the Lords will be brought 

forward in the autumn. With yesterday’s announcement, 

nearly all the proposals put to the House on 3 July 2007 

have either been implemented or are well in hand in 

being implemented. 

Andrew Mackinlay: As we will not meet for about 

three months, will the Justice Secretary tell us how the 

promise—that an equivalent to the oath will be administered 

at the Iraq inquiry—from the Prime Minister and 

Sir John Chilcot can be delivered? We need to know 

now, not three months down the road and a long way 

into the Chilcot inquiry. 

Mr. Straw: I assume that the equivalent to an oath is 

that those who are witnesses—I expect to be one myself— 

will be invited to indicate that they are about to tell the 

truth. That is how it will work. If there is any difference, 

I will write to my hon. Friend. 

T2. [288127] Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon) 

(Con): Given the increase in tribunals practising sharia 

law in this country, can the Secretary of State or one of 

his excellent Ministers explain how that dovetails with 

the law of the land? How is it compatible with our 

commitment to human rights and, for example, the 

equality of women under the laws of this country? 

Mr. Straw: Any domestic tribunal, as the so-called 

sharia courts are, has to comply with the law of the land, 

and the statutory basis with which they have to comply 

is an Act passed under the last Conservative Administration 

—the Arbitration Act 1996. This Government have no 

less an interest than any other party in seeing the 

strictest observance of British law by everybody who is 

resident in or subject to this jurisdiction, regardless of 

their confessional faith. 

T7. [288132] John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab): Despite the 

efforts of various bird-brained councillors who have 

not yet got the gist of the Department’s excellent new 

guidelines on the staking of graveyards, does the Minister 

welcome the fact that the Co-operative funeral service 

has now agreed to fix any gravestone wrongly staked 

over the past 10 years and consider any in its jurisdiction 

that have been staked at all? 


(Bridget Prentice): As always, my hon. Friend is assiduous 

in pursuing this issue, and rightly so. I am absolutely 

delighted that the Co-op—of which I give notice I am a 

customer—is taking on board what he raises. I have 

written directly to the chief executives and leaders of 

local authorities, and I hope that they will take the issue 

seriously. I will make sure that they follow the guidance 

properly and do not allow views about health and safety 

that are unhelpfully politically correct to overcome 

what should be a sensible, straightforward and sensitive 

way of dealing with the matter. 

Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): I welcome 

the two written statements about legal aid that were 

made yesterday. One insisted that best-value tendering 

will not go ahead until pilots have been examined, and 

the other was on family law. On the very controversial 

issue of family legal aid, however, what will the reworking 

of assumptions and the further analysis amount to? 

What will the key considerations be? 

Mr. Straw: From work done in the Legal Services 

Commission, it became apparent last Friday that there 

were problems in the analysis—although not in the 

basic data—that required reworking. That was why the 

announcement was deferred, but I say to the right hon. 

Gentleman and the House that there has been an 

extraordinary increase in expenditure on family legal 

aid. It is now up to £582 million—an increase of 25 per 

cent.—even though the case load has declined by 11 per 

cent. This is not a service that has been underfunded, 

but it is an area of legal process that has become 

over-elaborate. All those participating in the system 

have a responsibility to make it less elaborate, in the 

interests of the public and the children concerned. 

Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): In 2006, 

the Information Commissioner’s Operation Motorman 

referred to hundreds of journalists who had got information


21 JULY 2009 

Oral Answers 

748 

on people from private detectives by illegal means. 

Those journalists, and the newspapers that they work 

for, have not been named. Has the Justice Department 

been involved in that cover-up? Can they be named, so 

that the people who were the victims of those illegal 

activities can have some remedy against those newspapers 

and journalists? 

Mr. Straw: To the very best of my knowledge, my 

Department has not been involved in any way in the 

matter. My hon. Friend asks about naming the individuals 

involved, and he may wish to consider making a freedom 

of information request to the Information Commissioner. 

T3. [288128] James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend, 

East) (Con): May I ask the Secretary of State to return 

to the issue of trainee probation officers and to clear up 

a point of confusion? I think that he accused my hon. 

and learned Friend the Member for Harborough 

(Mr. Garnier) of exaggerating the figures, but is it not 

true that around 1,000 trainee probation officers 

qualify each year for about 250 jobs? Does not that 

mean that hundreds of people trained up by the 

Government do not get jobs? 

Mr. Straw: I think that the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion 

of the figures is slightly wide of the mark. I have 

accepted already that some trainee probation officers 

will qualify, for whom positions are unlikely to be 

available this year. That is due to a combination of the 

tighter financial climate and the recession, which means 

that fewer existing probation officers are moving on to 

other jobs. I am on the case and I am discussing the 

matter in detail, with the probation trade unions above 

all. We are anxious to use the full resources of the 

National Offender Management Service to ensure that 

qualified trainees are provided with employment wherever 

possible. 

Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab): The Justice 

Secretary and I have been in correspondence about the 

possibility that a prison will be built in Scarisbrick in 

my constituency. I have received assurances from him 

that there will not be a Titan prison or any other sort of 

prison there, but it would appear that my Tory councillors 

will not accept that until they hear categorically that 

there will not be a prison in Scarisbrick. Will my right 

hon. Friend give me that assurance? 

Mr. Straw: There will not be a prison in Scarisbrick. 

T4. [288129] Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) 

(LD): Twelve days ago, the Government accepted 

amendments in the House of Lords to abolish seditious 

and criminal libel. Those amendments had been sought 

for a long time by bodies such as PEN, Index on 

Censorship and Article 19; I am a trustee of the last of 

those organisations. May I ask the Secretary of State to 

ask his officials to liaise with them all to ensure that 

maximum publicity is given to the fact that we are 

going to change our law, and to set an example to those 

countries that maintain and use such laws? 


(Claire Ward): The Government have accepted in principle 

the amendments tabled to the Coroners and Justice Bill. 

Among other things, the amendments will extend abolitions 

to the offences to Northern Ireland, and pick up some 

of the mixed consequential amendments and repeals to 

various linked statutory provisions. We will also look at 

debating and discussing some of those issues with other 

partners and outside stakeholders. 

Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire, North) (Lab): 

I return to the question of compensation for pleural 

plaques victims. If someone who worked for a UK 

Government Department, such as the Ministry of Defence, 

in Scotland or Northern Ireland, they would get 

compensation, but if they worked in England or Wales, 

they would get nothing. What is the practicality and 

fairness of that? 

Mr. Straw: Even before devolution, there were differences 

in the civil law as well as the criminal law north and 

south of the border. That has just been a fact of life. 

The courts are therefore well used to dealing with some 

differences, which have differences of outcomes for 

individuals. 

T5. [288130] Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): 

HMP Wellingborough is having a methadone dispenser 

put in. Following what my hon. Friend the Member for 

South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said in an earlier 

question, could the Justice Secretary explain why a 

dispenser is better value and better for the prisoner 

than going to see the medical officer? I wonder whether 

the Secretary of State, Lord High Chancellor and 

Deputy Prime Minister could answer that. 

Mr. Straw: This is a most extraordinary confection of 

a story developed by some Opposition Members. I shall 

explain: prisoners can get methadone, whether it is 

dispensed through a machine or manually, only when 

they have been to the medical officer. What happens—I 

have seen this in operation—is that the dispensing machines 

are put in by the health service to control the issue of 

methadone, so that only those prisoners who have been 

prescribed it medically, by a medical officer, can receive 

it. There is an iris scan, and if the machine recognises 

the prisoner, his or her dose is dispensed. They have to 

drink it in sight of a prison officer and a medical 

orderly, so there is no chance—no chance—of deception 

of the kind that, I am afraid, takes place all too frequently 

otherwise in prison, especially with drugs. 

Jessica Morden (Newport, East) (Lab): What discussions 

has the Department had with the Crown Prosecution 

Service over the proposed restructuring of the Forensic 

Science Service? Given that we are looking at hundreds 

of jobs under threat and the closure of excellent laboratories 

such as the one in Chepstow, where many of my constituents 

work, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should 

look at the full repercussions for the CPS before any 

decisions are made by the Home Office? 

Mr. Straw: I am very happy to pass on to my right 

hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General 

the concerns that have been expressed by my hon. 

Friend about the position of the FSS. Those concerns, 

if I may say, have also been expressed to me by my hon. 

Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). My hon. 

Friend the Member for Newport, East (Jessica Morden) 

will understand that decisions on that are matters for 

my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.


21 JULY 2009 

Oral Answers 

750 

T8. [288134] Ann Winterton (Congleton) (Con): What 

action is being taken by the Ministry of Justice to 

address the particular needs of former armed service 

personnel who have been shown to be suffering from 

combat stress and who are caught up in the criminal 

justice system? 

Mr. Straw: We are taking special measures to help 

former service personnel who are caught up in the 

criminal justice system because we recognise—indeed, 

this has emerged this morning—that the results of combat 

stress can often emerge many years later, and in 

unpredictable forms, including in offending behaviour 

that simply was not there before and during an individual’s 

service in the armed forces. I am very happy to write in 

more detail to the hon. Lady to set out what we are 

doing. 


I was alarmed about the case of a constituent of mine 

who was the victim of an assault and robbery at a cash 

machine. The criminal who committed the crime was 

given a suspended sentence. Will my right hon. Friend 

look at the case if I send details to him? 

Mr. Straw: Yes, I will. 

T9. [288135] Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): 

The people outside the House must be involved in 

rebuilding our broken political system. Will the 

Secretary of State support a citizens convention to help 

to map out the path for constitutional renewal, instead 

of leaving it solely in the hands of politicians? 


Wills): The hon. Lady makes a very valuable point and I 

agree with a large part of what she said. It is important 

that we involve the British people in policy making 

between elections as well as at them. That is why we are 

bringing forward proposals for deliberative events that 

involve the British people in precisely the way she 

suggests. I do not agree with her precisely that we need 

to wrap it all up in one grand citizens convention, but 

on the spirit of what she is saying—the need to involve 

people in deliberative events to help formulate public 

policy—I agree. 

Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): Returning to 

electoral reform and the general election, given that our 

brave armed forces are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, 

partly in the name of democracy, will the Minister give 

our armed forces a commitment that they will be able to 

participate in the UK general election? 

Mr. Wills: I am very happy to give that commitment. 

We are well aware that levels of registration among our 

armed services are not all they should be. We are 

making concerted efforts with the MOD to improve 

that, and I have given an open invitation, which I extend 

to the hon. Gentleman, to Members who have large 

garrisons in their constituencies: if there are particular 

measures that they think would improve levels of 

registration, I ask them please to tell us, because we are 

very happy to engage with that process. 

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): Does my right 

hon. Friend hold a view about the proposed closure of 

the Forensic Science Service at Chorley and the effect 

that it will have on the justice system that he represents, 

given the fact that cases may not go ahead? 

Mr. Straw: Of course I am concerned, as the Member 

for the adjacent constituency of Blackburn, about the 

potential effects. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member 

for Newport, East (Jessica Morden), I have already 

made clear my hon. Friends’ concerns about the proposed 

closures in Newport and Chorley. Both facilities serve a 

wide area of population and it is crucial that in any 

organisation of the Forensic Science Service there is no 

dereliction or diminution in the service provided to the 

Crown Prosecution Service and through that, to the 

victims of crime.

751 21 JULY 2009 Equitable Life 

752 

Equitable Life 

3.31 pm 

Susan Kramer (Richmond Park) (LD): (Urgent 

Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if 

he will make a statement on the parliamentary ombudsman’s 

follow-up report on Equitable Life and to clarify the 

work of Sir John Chadwick on a payment scheme. 

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Liam Byrne): 

I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for granting me 

the opportunity to answer questions on Equitable Life 

today. 

A week or two ago, I promised the House a short 

statement, by way of update before the recess, and I laid 

that statement this morning. I do not intend to read it 

out as it is there for hon. and right hon. Members to 

consider. I know that time is short this afternoon, 

Mr. Speaker and that you will want to maximise the 

opportunities for questions, so let me limit my opening 

remarks to these. 

First, the Government are grateful to the ombudsman 

for her report. Secondly, in many areas we agreed with 

her conclusions of maladministration. In four key areas, 

we agreed with her findings that injustice had followed. 

We departed from the ombudsman in her 

recommendation for a compensation scheme across the 

board and we set out cogent reasons for that. They are 

being challenged by judicial review today, so my remarks 

on that question will be rather limited this afternoon; 

but—this is the crucial but—we believe an ex gratia 

scheme must be set up to help those who have suffered 

hardship as a result of the injustice that we believe was 

perpetrated. We have asked Sir John Chadwick to make 

recommendations on that question urgently, but he 

must first pin down who has lost what. He will set out 

his next steps in August and, if you would oblige me 

Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to update the 

House on its return. 

Susan Kramer: The Minister will be very aware that 

Equitable Life policyholders have been quite dismayed, 

having heard the ombudsman’s judgment that the injustice 

will not be remedied whatever the outcome of the work 

yet to be done by Sir John Chadwick—referring to the 

injustice due to maladministration. Will the right hon. 

Gentleman review the remit given to Sir John Chadwick? 

The Minister will also be aware that EMAG—the 

Equitable Life Members Action Group—and many 

other Equitable Life policyholders have not given evidence 

and testimony to Sir John Chadwick, because they have 

lost confidence in his proposals since they saw his 

document on the Equitable Life ex gratia payment 

scheme in June. Again, will the Minister review the 

remit he has given Sir John? 

In his statement today the Minister referred to a 

report by Sir John in August, but the statement included 

no mention of a timetable, which the many elderly 

members of the various Equitable Life organisations 

are desperate to see. He also mentioned that Sir John is 

speaking with interested parties, but is he aware that 

Sir John has refused to meet the all-party parliamentary 

group on justice for Equitable Life shareholders, with a 

membership now of 130? Will he advise Sir John to 

reconsider his decision and find some other venue to 

meet Members of Parliament? Finally, given that more 

than 300 Members have signed the early-day motion 

tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham 

(Dr. Cable) on Equitable Life issues, will the Minister 

consider giving the House the opportunity for a debate 

in Government time and the opportunity to vote? 

Mr. Byrne: Let me deal first with the central question 

about the difference between compensation schemes, as 

proposed by the ombudsman, and our conclusion that 

an ex gratia scheme would be more appropriate. 

The ombudsman made 10 findings and went on to 

say that a number of injustices resulted. When we 

looked through those findings, we came to the conclusion 

that in nine out of the 10 findings, we could accept 

wholly or in part her conclusion that there was 

maladministration. In four of those areas, which I think 

were significant, we accepted that injustice followed. 

Two consequences follow from that position. The 

first is that we departed from the ombudsman in her 

conclusion that a compensation scheme should be put 

in place, because we do not think the taxpayer should 

be the compensator of last resort. We think that would 

have perverse consequences, and it is a principle on 

which the House has voted in the past. Secondly, it 

would be irrational for the Government to propose a 

compensation scheme across the board for charges of 

maladministration or injustice that we did not accept. 

I know that when the ombudsman came before the 

Public Administration Committee on 21 January—my 

hon. Friends will correct me if I have the date slightly 

wrong—she said that she would almost rather the 

Government accepted her recommendations and then 

did nothing to provide compensation. I do not think 

that that is the right approach. There are findings that 

we have accepted. There are charges of maladministration 

that we have accepted. Further, there are charges of 

injustice that we have accepted. We also believe there 

will be people who have suffered and are suffering 

hardship—in some cases extreme hardship—as a result 

of that. That is why it is essential for us to set up an ex 

gratia payment scheme. 

The ombudsman did not have the chance to go into 

the vital question of who lost what. That is the first 

piece of work that we have asked Sir John to consider. I 

do not think it is possible to get an ex gratia scheme in 

place and operating justly until we have understood 

who has lost what. Obviously, there are hundreds of 

thousands of policyholders— 

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I interrupt the Chief Secretary? 

I very much appreciate, as the whole House will, that he 

is attempting to respond comprehensively, but we have 

a time limit for this exchange and I want to get in as 

many Back-Bench Members as possible. 

Mr. Mark Hoban (Fareham) (Con): Is it not clear 

that a year after the ombudsman published her damning 

report on the regulation of Equitable Life, and six months 

after the Government’s response, no real progress has 

been made? Policyholders are no closer today to knowing 

whether they will receive any payments for the losses 

that they incurred as a consequence of the failure to 

regulate Equitable Life properly. 

In the past six months, all we have seen is one paper 

by Sir John Chadwick addressing just one aspect of his 

terms of reference—relative loss. We are promised another 

paper in August that will include a definitive list of

753 Equitable Life 

21 JULY 2009 


754 

[Mr. Mark Hoban] 

issues to be addressed. Will the Minister tell us if this 

will cover all aspects of Sir John’s terms of reference or 

just the issue of relative loss? For example, will it 

include his advice on which groups of policyholders 

have suffered the greatest impact because of the failure 

to regulate Equitable properly? Will it include how he 

will seek to apportion blame between the regulator and 

Equitable Life, or can we expect to see many more 

reports from Sir John delaying justice even longer? 

Although there has been criticism of Sir John, fault 

for any delay rests with the Treasury, which has tried to 

kick the issue into the long grass. Have Ministers set a 

deadline by which Sir John will have completed his 

work? Will the Minister confirm that the Government 

will make a formal response to each of Sir John’s 

recommendations as they are made, or will they seek to 

delay the process even longer by waiting until he has 

completed all his work? Once Sir John publishes his 

final report, how long will it take the Treasury to make 

payments to policyholders? All that we seem to get from 

Sir John is more questions and very few answers, and 

there has been no answer from the Treasury on the most 

important question—when will policyholders receive 

the justice that they have been so long denied? 

Mr. Byrne: It is perfectly appropriate for the hon. 

Gentleman to seek to keep up the pressure and the 

momentum, particularly on the timetable, because that 

is the question that most troubles policyholders. 

I completely reject the argument about an absence of 

progress. Once the ombudsman concluded her investigation, 

and set out where she thought that injustice had been 

perpetrated, it was perfectly proper for us to reflect on 

what she said, then make the decision to put in place an 

ex gratia scheme to correct those injustices. I am sure 

that the hon. Gentleman would agree that to ensure 

that the maximum possible help is delivered to those 

who are in the hardest and most difficult financial 

position, it is vital to understand who has lost what. 

There are hundreds of thousands of policyholders, and 

every single bit of information associated with those 

policyholders has to be gone through first, which is why 

we have given Sir John Chadwick all the resources for 

which he has asked, and it is why we will continue to 

check that he has all the resources that he needs to 

conduct his task. We are absolutely committed to getting 

a scheme up and running as quickly as possible, and I 

hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to make 

representations on behalf of policyholders, as I know 

other hon. Members will, to make sure that that ex 

gratia scheme is designed in the fairest possible way. 

Mr. Jeremy Browne (Taunton) (LD): After the 

ombudsman published the report with the damning 

title, “Equitable Life: a decade of regulatory failure”, 

the Government’s response has been characterised by 

foot dragging. They missed the deadline to respond by 

the end of 2008, as initially promised. Sir John Chadwick 

has been non-communicative with Members and others, 

but meanwhile policyholders are dying every day while 

the Government are still deciding to pick and choose 

the ombudsman’s recommendations. The Minister may 

think that today represents some progress, but does he 

not share my concern that his statement was littered 

with equivocation, and talked of “a further document”, 

an “interim report”, a statement of his approach, and a 

list of “the specific issues”. Will policyholders not be 

worried that that is further delay and prevarication? If 

the Government thought that the situation was as good 

as the Minister claimed, would he not, instead of sneaking 

it out in written form, have come to the House of his 

own volition and made a statement this afternoon? 

Mr. Byrne: There have been three debates on Equitable 

Life and the Government’s response to the ombudsman 

this year, and we had a good debate during oral questions 

a week or two ago. I return to the basic argument that I 

have presented this afternoon: if we think an ex gratia 

scheme should be set up, to ensure that money under 

that scheme goes to the people who have been hardest 

hit, the first piece of work that we must do is to 

understand who has lost what. Until we do so, it is 

difficult to get up and running an ex gratia scheme that 

will operate justly. Surely, that must be the objective of 

right hon. and hon. Members. Sir John has an enormous 

amount of work to do to go through the information 

that has been passed to him by Equitable Life. A 

number of right hon. and hon. Members have made 

representations, and he is moving quickly. He is publishing 

reports in quick succession to make sure that the maximum 

amount of information is available to policyholders and 

so that they can see and comment on the direction in 

which his mind is moving. 

Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): I 

lost a small amount in the Equitable Life fiasco. May I 

urge my right hon. Friend not to be so stubborn and 

slow about this? Responsibility for these losses rests in 

three parts: first, with savers; secondly, with Equitable 

Life itself; and thirdly with the Government for what 

they themselves admit is maladministration. I urge my 

right hon. Friend to revisit the question of compensation: 

it would be much quicker, and they could put a cap on 

it, so that smaller savers would receive proportionately 

more. Will he revisit that issue? 

Mr. Byrne: No, I will not for the simple reason that, 

first, I do not believe that the Government should be 

the compensator of last resort when there has been 

regulatory failure; and secondly, I simply do not think 

that it would be rational or a good use of public money 

to provide compensation when there have been conclusions 

that we simply do not accept. However, I do not subscribe 

to the ombudsman’s view, put forward on 23 January, 

that it would be better to accept all the recommendations 

and then do nothing to provide any compensation at 

all. It is important that an ex gratia scheme be set up, 

because there is injustice that we recognise. We must 

now ensure that public money goes to where it is most 

needed, and that is why we must understand, first, who 

has lost what. 

Mr. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con): Why will the 

Chief Secretary not announce a long-stop date by which 

the Government expect the bulk of those ex gratia 

payments to have been made? Does he expect it to be in 

this financial year? 

Mr. Byrne: That is an extremely reasonable point to 

which I am entirely sympathetic. However, until Sir John 

has done his first run-through of the information from 

literally hundreds of thousands of policyholders, that 

being the exercise on which he is now embarked, it will 

be difficult for us intelligently to present that long-stop 

date to the House. However, it is my ambition to come 

back with that date at the earliest possible opportunity.

755 Equitable Life 

21 JULY 2009 


756 

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): How will Sir John 

Chadwick determine who has been hardest hit? He has 

access to Equitable Life records but not to Customs and 

Revenue records, so how will he square that circle? 

Mr. Byrne: I would not want to steer Sir John in 

respect of the conclusions that he has been asked to 

reach; it is an open question that we have left to him to 

answer, and he has considerable experience in answering 

such difficult questions. I am satisfied that he has at his 

disposal all the information that he needs to come to 

those conclusions, but, if he were to make further 

requests of us for further information, I would consider 

them. 

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): How much 

compensation does the Minister envisage for his ex 

gratia scheme? I do not suppose that he has put a penny 

in his budget for this year or for next, so I do not believe 

that he intends to pay any. 

Mr. Byrne: That is not an estimate that I shall present 

to the House this afternoon; it is something that I shall 

look at when Sir John presents his initial recommendations. 


What is the point of the ombudsman doing her report if 

the Government do not accept the recommendations? 

Is it not time that the policyholders had the justice that 

they deserve? 

Mr. Byrne: I absolutely agree that it is time that the 

policyholders of Equitable Life had the justice that they 

deserve. They are in their current position because of a 

series of regulatory failures that go back many years, 

but sometimes Governments disagree with reports from 

ombudsmen; there have been five such occasions in 

recent years. As I said, I do not accept the ombudsman’s 

conclusion that we should just accept the recommendations 

and then do nothing—she said on 23 January that that 

was her preference. I actually think that an ex gratia 

scheme is sensible, because there has been an injustice 

that we have accepted. 

Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD): Time is 

definitely of the essence when it comes to getting the 

matter resolved. On the Minister’s point about dealing 

with hardship, will he tell us today whether means-testing 

will play any part in the ex gratia payment scheme? 

Mr. Byrne: At this stage I would not prejudge the 

design of the scheme that Sir John has been asked to 

come back with. 

Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): Does the Chief Secretary 

not recognise that for many people Sir John Chadwick’s 

exercise appears to be evasion dressed up as examination? 

Today, the Chief Secretary referred to when Sir John 

does his first run-through. How many run-throughs are 

there going to be? Do they not amount to people in a 

dire predicament being given the run-around? 

Mr. Byrne: If I may, I will just draw the House’s 

attention back to the four areas in which the Government 

said not only that there had been maladministration, 

but that injustice had followed. Those areas are significant, 

and they should not be cast aside lightly, because they 

are the basis of the ex gratia scheme that will be set up. 

When it came to changes to retirement age, reserves for 

guaranteed annuity rates, the financial reinsurance in 

which Equitable Life tried to engage and the information 

that the Financial Services Authority provided in the 

post-closure period, the Government accepted in all 

those cases not only that there was maladministration, 

but that injustice had therefore followed. That will have 

a bearing on the breadth of the ex gratia scheme that is 

eventually recommended, but, as I said, until Sir John 

has studied who has lost what, it will be almost impossible 

to design an ex gratia scheme that operates justly. 

Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con): Is 

there not a clear and irreconcilable difference between, 

on the one hand, the Government, and on the other, the 

ombudsman and the Select Committee to which she 

reports? Is not the right way to resolve that difference 

for the Government to put their own proposals in a 

substantive motion before the House and see whether 

they command majority support? 

Mr. Byrne: That would be a question for the business 

managers of the House. I want to tease out two points. 

Yes, the Government did depart from many of the 

ombudsman’s conclusions about maladministration. We 

set out cogent reasons for doing that, and they are 

subject to judicial review, commencing today. It would 

not be rational to propose a compensation or ex gratia 

scheme based on findings that we simply did not accept; 

that would not be a good use of public money. That 

said, we accept that injustice has resulted from 

maladministration in certain areas and we think that an 

ex gratia scheme is therefore required. We must make 

sure that that is set up so that it operates justly and that 

most help is delivered to those who have lost most. 

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): 

Cannot the Minister realise that those suffering hardship— 

often extreme hardship, to use his own words—are 

desperate to know when they will be put out of their 

misery and when they will know what they are going to 

get? Will he please give the House an assurance this 

afternoon that when we come back on 12 October, 

he will give a definitive report with definitive dates to 

the House? 

Mr. Byrne: As I said in reply to another Conservative 

Member, my ambition is to come back to the House 

with a long-stop date by which we can get the ex gratia 

scheme up and running. I accept entirely the hon. 

Gentleman’s point about the uncertainty and hardship 

that many Equitable Life policyholders are now confronting. 

The hon. Gentleman will accept that, in the world of 

limited resources where all Governments operate, we 

must make sure that the help provided goes to those 

who need it most. That is the question that Sir John is 

now considering. 

Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West) (Con): 

Given the very long delay, what consideration has been 

given to the possibility of interim emergency payments 

in compassionate cases? 

Mr. Byrne: That is a good question, on which I shall 

ask Sir John to reflect.

757 21 JULY 2009 Issue of Writ 

758 

Issue of Writ 

3.52 pm 

Stewart Hosie (Dundee, East) (SNP): I beg to move, 

That the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the 

Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to 

serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of 

Glasgow North East in the room of Michael Martin, who since 

his election for the said Borough Constituency has accepted the 

Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty’s Manor of Northstead 

in the County of York. 

The issue is important. The Government objected to 

the writ earlier, but should we fail to move it today, we 

might well condemn the people of Glasgow, North-East 

to having no Member of Parliament for the next five 

months. When the Government Chief Whip stood up—in 

that magisterial way that he has—and objected to my 

motion earlier, I was not sure whether I was watching a 

tragedy or a comedy. What I saw could have been tragic 

because the Government are treating the people of 

Glasgow, North-East with contempt. It could also have 

been comic; I imagined another Whip phoning the 

busload of Labour MPs who have gone off to campaign 

in the by-election in Norwich and making them come 

straight back to ensure a Government majority against 

democracy and a by-election in Glasgow. That is where 

this Government have got to. 

The issue is extraordinarily serious. Two months have 

passed since Michael Martin announced that he was 

standing down and it is a month today since he demitted 

office, yet Labour has failed to move the writ. As I 

understand it, the earliest possible date on which the 

by-election may now be held is Thursday 5 November, 

by which time the constituency will have been without 

an MP for 136 days. In contrast, Ian Gibson resigned 

his Norwich, North seat on 5 June, and that by-election 

will be held this Thursday, 48 days later. Last year, the 

by-election for the seat of Glasgow, East was held on 

24 July, just 26 days after David Marshall stood down. 

So Labour has had every single opportunity to call this 

by-election, but in objecting to the writ, as it did earlier 

today, it is not only demonstrating contempt but running 

scared of the people of Glasgow, North-East. What 

that objection also did was to demonstrate that it is not 

only by convention that the moving of a writ lies in the 

hands of the governing party Whip, but that it is the 

practice as well. 

We are reaching the end of this Session; we finish it 

today. Labour has had every opportunity to move the 

writ and to avoid people being left unrepresented, but it 

has failed to do so; that is why we felt compelled to 

move. The only practical reason not to move the writ 

would be that the by-election would clash with the 

Glasgow fair and the Glasgow holidays. Fair weekend 

was last weekend. The earliest date that the election 

could be held if the writ were moved today is 20 August, 

after which time the fair and the holidays will be over, 

and the children will be back at school on 17 August. 

There is therefore no practical reason why this cannot 

happen. 

The long and short of it is that Labour has once 

again put party first and people second. The people of 

Glasgow, North-East need a full-time MP now. We have 

had a series of brutal school closures, with little or no 

consultation with parents and pupils, and no MP to 

represent those people. We have workers at the Diageo 

plant at Port Dundas fearing for their jobs and facing 

an uncertain future with no full-time MP to represent 

them. The people of Glasgow, North-East deserve a 

full-time MP, and they deserve one as quickly as is 

humanly possible. 

Labour’s actions have shown contempt, and its campaign 

is in disarray. By its actions, we have seen its fear of the 

people of Glasgow, North-East—[Interruption.] 

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should sit 

down for a moment, as I am trying to help him. I simply 

say to the House that whatever the provocation, right 

hon. and hon. Members must exercise what self-restraint 

they are able to muster in the circumstances. 

Stewart Hosie: I thought that I was being consensual, 

Mr. Speaker. I beg to move the motion. 

3.57 pm 

The Leader of the House of Commons (Ms Harriet 

Harman): I beg to move, To leave out from “That” to 

the end of the Question and add 

“this House do pass to the Orders of the Day.” 

The effect of my amendment is that the House would 

not move the writ today for the Glasgow, North-East 

by-election. Custom and practice is that the party of the 

Member who formerly held the seat moves the writ. In 

the case of a departing Speaker, it is convention for the 

writ to be moved by the party for which the Speaker was 

last elected. Then the election must be held within 15 to 

19 working days of the writ’s being moved. We want to 

make sure that the by-election is at a time that allows 

the greatest number of people to vote. 

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): 

Will the Leader of the House give way? 

Ms Harman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will simply 

allow me to make my argument to the House. 

We did not move the writ at the point at which the 

Speaker left the House on 22 June, as it is preferable not 

to have an election in the Scottish school holidays. 

Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. 

The right hon. and learned Lady has not exactly conveyed 

accurate information to the House. The fact of the 

matter is that the last time Michael Martin was elected a 

Member of Parliament, he was elected as the Speaker 

seeking re-election—therefore as an independent and 

not as a member of the Labour party. I therefore 

suggest to you, Sir, that the Leader of the House is out 

of order on this matter. 

Ms Harman rose— 

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can look after the matter quite 

easily, if the right hon. and learned Lady will let me. 

The short answer is that the content of what the Leader 

of the House says is a matter for the Leader of the 

House. What the hon. Member for South Staffordshire 

(Sir Patrick Cormack) has just said is a contribution 

to the debate, but as a point of fact, it is not a point 

of order.

759 Issue of Writ 

21 JULY 2009 

Issue of Writ 

760 

Ms Harman: You are absolutely right of course, 

Mr. Speaker, that it is not a point of order. However, it 

is also not a point of fact because it is wrong. If you 

become Speaker, the relevant question is for which 

party you last stood for Parliament. 

As I have said, we did not move the writ when the 

Speaker left the House on 22 June, as it is preferable not 

to have an election in the Glasgow school holidays. 

Moving a writ now would mean a by-election in the 

middle of August. If we move the writ now, it would 

have to be held by Thursday 13 August, long after the 

Glasgow schools have broken up for the summer and 

before they return from the summer break. It would 

mean holding the whole campaign before the Glasgow 

schools come back on 17 August, which would disfranchise 

constituents. We do not think that the writ should be 

moved now for a by-election in the middle of August. 

We want to have the by-election when most people have 

the chance to vote, which means not holding it during 

the school holidays, when many families are still away 

on holiday. In any case, a new Member of Parliament, 

even when elected, could not take their seat until the 

House next meets on 12 October. When, as in this case, 

the vacancy arises when the House is sitting, the writ 

cannot be moved when the House is in recess, so we will 

move it as soon is possible after the House returns in 

October. I invite the House to accept the amendment. 

4.1 pm 

Mr. Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre) (Con): The 

Government’s failure to move the writ, thereby denying 

the people of Glasgow, North-East a representative for 

six months, is nothing to do with parliamentary process 

but is all about party politics in Scotland. It is all about 

mitigating a disastrous school closure programme that 

is happening in Glasgow right now. The Labour party 

knows that if it were held to account on that programme, 

it would be more likely to lose the by-election. Why is a 

by-election good enough for the people of Norwich, 

North? Why was it good enough for the people of 

Crewe and Nantwich when the hon. Lady who had 

represented the seat had not even been laid to rest? 

Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): Will the hon. 

Gentleman add to that list, why was it good enough for 

the electors of Glasgow, East to have a by-election 

during the summer last year? The Government are 

arguing differently from the Dispatch Box this year. 

Mr. Wallace: We are considering the ultimate arrogance 

of Scottish Labour. Not only does it believe that the 

electorate do not deserve representation, it is also so 

convinced that they will vote Labour, and that all it has 

to do is follow the party line without a Member of 

Parliament. It is a disgrace to the House and to the 

people of Glasgow, North-East. 

4.2 pm 

Sir Patrick Cormack: You were, Mr. Speaker, kind 

enough a few minutes ago to say that the point that I 

made was a point of fact. It is indeed a point of fact— 

Mr. Speaker: Order. I certainly did not say anything 

about its being a point of fact. I indicated that what the 

hon. Gentleman said was a contribution to the debate 

but that it did not constitute a point of order. Subsequently, 

an argument was advanced about whether the hon. 

Gentleman’s comments represented a point of fact. 

Sir Patrick Cormack: I do not like to disagree with 

Mr. Speaker, but I think that you used those terms—or 

something like them, anyhow. 

I submit to the House that, whatever was said or not 

said, it is a point of fact that Mr. Michael Martin, in his 

last election, did not stand as a Labour candidate. Nor 

did he stand as a Labour candidate in 2001. He stood as 

the Speaker seeking re-election and therefore as an 

independent. This afternoon, we have nothing less than 

a shameless example of a craven Government running 

scared. 

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire) (Con): 

May I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to page 220 of 

“Erskine May”, which categorically states: 

“At a general election he stands as ‘the Speaker seeking re-election’, 

since he belongs to no party”. 

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am most grateful for that 

reinforcement of the point of fact, which I think I have 

now established. When once someone sits in that Chair, 

as you now have the great honour of doing, Mr. Speaker, 

they cease to have any party political allegiance, preference 

or prejudice at all, as you made clear when you made 

your acceptance speech. We are therefore dealing with 

replacing someone who was an independent Member of 

the House. As I said a moment ago, what is happening 

is an example of a Government running scared. 

We all know—I have grandchildren in Scotland who 

go back to school on 17 or 18 August—that the holidays 

will have come to an end in Scotland by the penultimate 

week of August. We also know that that was no 

consideration for the Government when they moved a 

writ last year. We have a responsibility in this House to 

those out in the country who are not represented here. 

If there is a tragedy concerning a Member’s death, there 

is sometimes a point to waiting, although when Gwyneth 

Dunwoody died we did not even wait until the funeral 

had taken place. That is appalling. What we ought to 

have—I hope that you might consider setting up a 

conference to consider this, Mr. Speaker—is a system 

whereby when a Member vacates a seat, for whatever 

reason, the by-election must be held within 28 days or, 

at the most, 40 days. That should be enough for us all 

and for anyone else to run a campaign, select a candidate 

and do all the necessary things. 

Mr. Tom Harris (Glasgow, South) (Lab): The hon. 

Gentleman was perhaps unaware that, contrary to the 

tradition according to which the Speaker stands unopposed 

by other parties, Michael Martin was opposed in 2001 

and 2005 by the Scottish National party. Those were 

contested elections. However, the hon. Gentleman was 

in the House when I was not in 2000 when Betty 

Boothroyd stood down. Did he object to the Government’s 

moving the writ for that by-election, when she was not 

elected as a Labour Member of Parliament? 

Sir Patrick Cormack: It was moved very quickly, but 

let me respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point. Yes, I 

have been here a little longer than he has, and I remember 

the general elections that were fought by Speaker Thomas, 

Speaker Weatherill and Speaker Boothroyd. In every 

case they were opposed. Of course it is a convention 

that the major parties do not oppose, although that 

convention was not adhered to in any of those cases.


21 JULY 2009 

Issue of Writ 

762 

[Sir Patrick Cormack] 

However, the fact that the SNP chose to oppose Mr. Martin 

when he stood as an independent candidate is not 

relevant to this case. What we are talking about this 

afternoon is a deprived constituency that is not represented 

here when there is no reason that it should not be 

represented here. It would be the last shabby and shoddy 

act of a fairly shoddy period in Parliament’s life if we 

were to rise today and refuse to let you move that writ, 

Mr. Speaker. 

4.8 pm 

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): I 

entirely take the point that the Speaker stands as an 

independent. Indeed, there is an argument, notwithstanding 

the convention that the Leader of the House has set 

out, that there is only one party that should move the 

writ for a replacement in the seat of a former Speaker, 

and that is the Speaker’s party, which is therefore you, 

Mr. Speaker. 

However, I also feel that this debate, which has resulted 

in fairly strong feelings expressed in all parts of the 

House, is entirely understandable, and it will be repeated 

time and again in the future, just as it has been repeated 

in the past. Where a Government refuse to issue a writ 

for the replacement of a Member, of course people will 

feel that the constituents of that constituency, wherever 

it is, are not being treated fairly and that matters are 

being manipulated for the benefit of the majority party. 

That encapsulates some of the problems in the House 

with our electoral arrangements, which are exactly 

analogous with the fact that we do not have fixed-term 

Parliaments, which therefore means that the Prime Minister 

of the day can manipulate the timing of a general 

election to the benefit of the majority party in the 

House. The issue also highlights the fact that the 

business is in the control of the Executive rather than 

Parliament. 

I am very much inclined to agree with what the hon. 

Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) 

said. In the same way that there is an automaticity 

about this issue in local government by statute, so there 

should be an automaticity about it in Parliament, either 

by statute or by our Standing Orders. The issuing of a 

writ should lie with the Speaker, and the writ should be 

placed before the House at the earliest opportunity. The 

only determining factor should be the convenience of 

the constituency returning officer, within very narrow 

parameters, as to when the election should be held. I 

hope that this matter will now be looked at, because the 

present arrangements are entirely unsatisfactory. 

Notwithstanding that, we have conventions in this 

House about the way in which these matters are dealt 

with. However, conventions may be examined and, when 

necessary, removed. I believe that this convention is 

now overdue for removal. I entirely appreciate the arguments 

of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie). 

I think it likely that the Government will have their way 

today and that we will move on to the next business, but 

the hon. Gentleman has done a service to the House by 

pointing out the difficulties that this situation poses for 

the good people of Glasgow, who are currently 

unrepresented, and, more importantly, for the House, 

which again does not have the self-confidence to do its 

own work. 

4.11 pm 

Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire, North) (Lab): 

The synthetic tears of the separatists must be exposed. 

First, their party claims that the people of Glasgow, 

North-East will be without an MP for a matter of 

months. This is the same party whose leader, the First 

Minister, has almost the worst voting and attendance 

record in this House—second only to the Sinn Fein 

Members. The SNP has the cheek to complain that the 

people of Glasgow North-East do not have an MP, but 

where is the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan 

(Mr. Salmond)? 

Secondly, the SNP has made a point about school 

closures, but may I remind it that education is a devolved 

issue? The local council will deal with school closures, 

as will the Scottish Parliament. The constituency still 

has an MSP. Thirdly, the last time we went down this 

road, the SNP was the party that complained. It is 

absolute hypocrisy. 

4.11 pm 

Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): May I 

help the House by relating some personal experience? I 

have contested two by-elections. The first was in 1969, 

when I contested Newcastle-under-Lyme. The Labour 

Member, the much-respected Stephen Swingler, had 

died, and I have to say that, on that occasion, the 

Labour party delayed holding the by-election for virtually 

nine months. I believe that that was unacceptable. In my 

constituency of Macclesfield, I had to wait almost 

six months for the by-election after my predecessor, Air 

Commodore Sir Arthur Vere Harvey, was elevated to 

the upper House as Lord Harvey of Prestbury. So, to an 

extent, both major parties use the holding of a by-election 

for political purposes. They make a judgment on how 

well or badly they are likely to do. 

I will support the motion that has been moved by the 

hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie), because 

I believe that holding a seat vacant for virtually six months 

in this day and age is unacceptable. I do not go along 

with my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire 

(Sir Patrick Cormack), who said that a by-election 

should be held within 28, or perhaps 40, days. However, 

I would certainly support another of his proposals: I 

hope that you will convene a conference on this matter, 

Mr. Speaker. I believe that a by-election should be held 

within three months, and I regret that, at this very 

difficult time for the country, the honourable and decent 

people of Glasgow, North-East are going to have to 

wait to have a representative. Even if Parliament is not 

sitting, they should still have a Member of Parliament 

to represent their best interests. 

Several hon. Members rose— 

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that the House was 

deprived of the services of the hon. Member for 

Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) for a period of 

six months, and I think that that sentiment will be 

widely shared. May I also tell him that, on the strength 

of the contributions that have been made to the debate 

thus far, it is clear that there are a number of willing 

applicants for service on any future Speaker’s Conference, 

where there to be such on this matter?


21 JULY 2009 

Issue of Writ 

764 

4.14 pm 

Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): I 

understand that if the writ were to be moved today, the 

by-election would be on 13 August. Will the Leader of 

the House advise me of the last date on which anyone 

resident in Glasgow, North-East who was not on the 

electoral register could apply to be put on to the register, 

were the writ to be moved today? Secondly, what would 

be the last date on which a resident of Glasgow, North-East 

who was on the register could apply for a postal vote, 

were the by-election to be held on 13 August? 

4.14 pm 

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): Speaking as 

someone who has fought two parliamentary by-elections— 

[HON.MEMBERS: “Hear, hear.”] I know I look too young. 

In my experience, irrespective of summer holidays and 

when children go back to school, as soon as candidates 

are chosen for political parties, the campaign begins for 

them. In my estimation, waiting until the House resumes 

in October, then moving a writ and having the parliamentary 

by-election in November as we approach winter is an 

argument for not having it at that time either. As far as 

the interests of the people of the said constituency are 

concerned, the sooner the by-election is brought on, the 

better for everyone. 

Question put, That the amendment be made. 

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 127. 

Division No. 206] 

[4.16 pm 

Ainger, Nick 

Ainsworth, rh Mr. Bob 

Alexander, rh Mr. Douglas 

Austin, John 

Bailey, Mr. Adrian 

Baird, Vera 

Balls, rh Ed 

Banks, Gordon 

Barron, rh Mr. Kevin 

Battle, rh John 

Bayley, Hugh 

Beckett, rh Margaret 

Begg, Miss Anne 

Bell, Sir Stuart 

Benn, rh Hilary 

Benton, Mr. Joe 

Berry, Roger 

Betts, Mr. Clive 

Blackman, Liz 

Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta 

Blears, rh Hazel 

Borrow, Mr. David S. 

Brennan, Kevin 

Brown, Lyn 

Brown, Mr. Russell 

Browne, rh Des 

Bryant, Chris 

Buck, Ms Karen 

Burden, Richard 

Burgon, Colin 

Burnham, rh Andy 

Byers, rh Mr. Stephen 

Byrne, rh Mr. Liam 

Caborn, rh Mr. Richard 

Cairns, David 

Campbell, Mr. Alan 

AYES 

Campbell, Mr. Ronnie 

Caton, Mr. Martin 

Cawsey, Mr. Ian 

Chapman, Ben 

Clapham, Mr. Michael 

Clark, Paul 

Clarke,rhMr.Tom 

Clwyd, rh Ann 

Coaker, Mr. Vernon 

Cohen, Harry 

Cook, Frank 

Cooper, Rosie 

Cooper, rh Yvette 

Crausby, Mr. David 

Creagh, Mary 

Cruddas, Jon 

Cummings, John 

Cunningham, Mr. Jim 

Cunningham, Tony 

David, Mr. Wayne 

Dean, Mrs. Janet 

Denham, rh Mr. John 

Devine, Mr. Jim 

Dhanda, Mr. Parmjit 

Dismore, Mr. Andrew 

Dobbin, Jim 

Dobson, rh Frank 

Donohoe, Mr. Brian H. 

Doran, Mr. Frank 

Drew, Mr. David 

Durkan, Mark 

Eagle, Angela 

Eagle, Maria 

Efford, Clive 

Ellman, Mrs. Louise 

Engel, Natascha 

Ennis, Jeff 

Farrelly, Paul 

Field, rh Mr. Frank 

Fisher, Mark 

Flello, Mr. Robert 

Flint, rh Caroline 

Follett, Barbara 

Foster, Mr. Michael 

(Worcester) 

Foster, Michael Jabez 

(Hastings and Rye) 

Francis, Dr. Hywel 

Gapes, Mike 

Gardiner, Barry 

George, rh Mr. Bruce 

Gerrard, Mr. Neil 

Gilroy, Linda 

Goodman, Helen 

Griffiths, Nigel 

Grogan, Mr. John 

Hain, rh Mr. Peter 

Hall, Mr. Mike 

Hamilton, Mr. David 

Hanson, rh Mr. David 

Harman, rh Ms Harriet 

Harris, Mr. Tom 

Havard, Mr. Dai 

Hendrick, Mr. Mark 

Hepburn, Mr. Stephen 

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia 

Heyes, David 

Hill, rh Keith 

Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon 

Hood, Mr. Jim 

Hope, Phil 

Hopkins, Kelvin 

Howarth, rh Mr. George 

Howells, rh Dr. Kim 

Hoyle, Mr. Lindsay 

Humble, Mrs. Joan 

Hutton, rh Mr. John 

Iddon, Dr. Brian 

Illsley, Mr. Eric 

Irranca-Davies, Huw 

James, Mrs. Siân C. 

Jenkins, Mr. Brian 

Johnson, Ms Diana R. 

Jones, Helen 

Jones, Mr. Kevan 

Jones, Lynne 

Jones, Mr. Martyn 

Jowell, rh Tessa 

Joyce, Mr. Eric 

Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald 

Keeble, Ms Sally 

Keeley, Barbara 

Keen, Alan 

Keen, Ann 

Kidney, Mr. David 

Knight, rh Jim 

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen 

Lammy, rh Mr. David 

Laxton, Mr. Bob 

Lazarowicz, Mark 

Lepper, David 

Levitt, Tom 

Lewis, Mr. Ivan 

Lloyd, Tony 

Love, Mr. Andrew 

Lucas, Ian 

Mackinlay, Andrew 

Malik, Mr. Shahid 

Mallaber, Judy 

Marsden, Mr. Gordon 

Martlew, Mr. Eric 

McCabe, Steve 

McCafferty, Chris 

McCarthy, Kerry 

McCarthy-Fry, Sarah 

McDonagh, Siobhain 

McDonnell, John 

McFadden, rh Mr. Pat 

McFall, rh John 

McGovern, Mr. Jim 

McGuire, rh Mrs. Anne 

McIsaac, Shona 

McKechin, Ann 

McNulty, rh Mr. Tony 

Merron, Gillian 

Michael, rh Alun 

Milburn, rh Mr. Alan 

Miliband, rh Edward 

Miller, Andrew 

Moffatt, Laura 

Mole, Chris 

Moon, Mrs. Madeleine 

Morden, Jessica 

Morgan, Julie 

Mudie, Mr. George 

Munn, Meg 

Murphy, rh Mr. Jim 

Murphy, rh Mr. Paul 

Naysmith, Dr. Doug 

Norris, Dan 

Olner, Mr. Bill 

Osborne, Sandra 

Owen, Albert 

Palmer, Dr. Nick 

Plaskitt, Mr. James 

Pound, Stephen 

Prentice, Bridget 

Prentice, Mr. Gordon 

Primarolo, rh Dawn 

Prosser, Gwyn 

Purnell, rh James 

Rammell, Bill 

Raynsford, rh Mr. Nick 

Reed, Mr. Andy 

Reed, Mr. Jamie 

Reid, rh John 

Robertson, John 

Rooney, Mr. Terry 

Roy, Mr. Frank 

Roy, Lindsay 

Ruane, Chris 

Ruddock, Joan 

Russell, Christine 

Ryan, rh Joan 

Salter, Martin 

Sarwar, Mr. Mohammad 

Seabeck, Alison 

Sharma, Mr. Virendra 

Shaw, Jonathan 

Sheridan, Jim 

Simon, Mr. Siôn 

Skinner, Mr. Dennis 

Slaughter, Mr. Andy 

Smith, rh Angela E. (Basildon) 

Smith, Geraldine 

Smith, rh Jacqui 

Snelgrove, Anne 

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis 

Stewart, Ian 

Straw, rh Mr. Jack


21 JULY 2009 

Issue of Writ 

766 

Sutcliffe, Mr. Gerry 

Tami, Mark 

Timms, rh Mr. Stephen 

Todd, Mr. Mark 

Trickett, Jon 

Turner, Dr. Desmond 

Turner, Mr. Neil 

Twigg, Derek 

Ussher, Kitty 

Vis, Dr. Rudi 

Waltho, Lynda 

Ward, Claire 

Watson, Mr. Tom 

Whitehead, Dr. Alan 

Afriyie, Adam 

Ainsworth, Mr. Peter 

Amess, Mr. David 

Arbuthnot, rh Mr. James 

Atkinson, Mr. Peter 

Baker, Norman 

Baldry, Tony 

Barker, Gregory 

Beith, rh Sir Alan 

Brady, Mr. Graham 

Brazier, Mr. Julian 

Breed, Mr. Colin 

Browne, Mr. Jeremy 

Bruce, rh Malcolm 

Burstow, Mr. Paul 

Butterfill, Sir John 

Cameron, rh Mr. David 

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies 

Cash, Mr. William 

Chope, Mr. Christopher 

Clark, Greg 

Clegg, rh Mr. Nick 

Cormack, Sir Patrick 

Cox, Mr. Geoffrey 

Crabb, Mr. Stephen 

Davies, Mr. Dai 

Davies, David T.C. 

(Monmouth) 

Davies, Philip 

Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan 

Dodds, Mr. Nigel 

Dorrell, rh Mr. Stephen 

Duddridge, James 

Duncan, Alan 

Dunne, Mr. Philip 

Evans, Mr. Nigel 

Evennett, Mr. David 

Fallon, Mr. Michael 

Field, Mr. Mark 

Fraser, Christopher 

Gale, Mr. Roger 

Garnier, Mr. Edward 

Gauke, Mr. David 

George, Andrew 

Goldsworthy, Julia 

Goodwill, Mr. Robert 

Gove, Michael 

Grayling, Chris 

Greening, Justine 

Grieve, Mr. Dominic 

Hague, rh Mr. William 

Hammond, Stephen 

Hands, Mr. Greg 

Harris, Dr. Evan 

Harvey, Nick 

NOES 

Williams, rh Mr. Alan 

Williams, Mrs. Betty 

Wills, rh Mr. Michael 

Winnick, Mr. David 

Winterton, rh Ms Rosie 

Woodward, rh Mr. Shaun 

Wright, Mr. Anthony 

Wright, David 

Wright, Mr. Iain 

Wyatt, Derek 

Tellers for the Ayes: 

Mr. John Heppell and 

Mr. Dave Watts 

Hayes, Mr. John 

Heath, Mr. David 

Heathcoat-Amory, rh 

Mr. David 

Hoban, Mr. Mark 

Hollobone, Mr. Philip 

Hosie, Stewart 

Howarth, David 

Hughes, Simon 

Hunt, Mr. Jeremy 

Jack, rh Mr. Michael 

Jackson, Mr. Stewart 

Jenkin, Mr. Bernard 

Jones, Mr. David 

Kirkbride, Miss Julie 

Knight, rh Mr. Greg 

Kramer, Susan 

Laing, Mrs. Eleanor 

Laws, Mr. David 

Lewis, Dr. Julian 

Lidington, Mr. David 

Lilley, rh Mr. Peter 

Loughton, Tim 

Main, Anne 

Mason, John 

McIntosh, Miss Anne 

McLoughlin, rh Mr. Patrick 

Milton, Anne 

Moore, Mr. Michael 

Mulholland, Greg 

Neill, Robert 

O’Brien, Mr. Stephen 

Oaten, Mr. Mark 

Osborne, Mr. George 

Prisk, Mr. Mark 

Pritchard, Mark 

Randall, Mr. John 

Redwood, rh Mr. John 

Robathan, Mr. Andrew 

Robertson, Angus 

Robertson, Hugh 

Robertson, Mr. Laurence 

Robinson, Mrs. Iris 

Rosindell, Andrew 

Sanders, Mr. Adrian 

Simmonds, Mark 

Smith, Sir Robert 

Soames, Mr. Nicholas 

Spicer, Sir Michael 

Stanley, rh Sir John 

Stuart, Mr. Graham 

Syms, Mr. Robert 

Taylor, Mr. Ian 

Taylor, Matthew 

Taylor, Dr. Richard 

Teather, Sarah 

Thurso, John 

Turner, Mr. Andrew 

Tyrie, Mr. Andrew 

Vaizey, Mr. Edward 

Vara, Mr. Shailesh 

Wallace, Mr. Ben 

Webb, Steve 

Whittingdale, Mr. John 

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann 

Wiggin, Bill 

Willis, Mr. Phil 

Willott, Jenny 

Wilshire, Mr. David 

Wilson, Mr. Rob 

Winterton, Ann 

Winterton, Sir Nicholas 

Young, rh Sir George 

Younger-Ross, Richard 

Tellers for the Noes: 

Mr. Mike Weir and 

Pete Wishart 

Question accordingly agreed to. 

Resolved, 

That this House do pass to the Orders of the Day. 

BILLS PRESENTED 

PUBLIC BUILDINGS (PUBLICATION OF ENERGY 

PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATES) BILL 

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) 

Greg Clark, supported by Charles Hendry, Gregory 

Barker, Mr. Oliver Letwin, Bill Wiggin, Alan Simpson, 

Mr. John Gummer, Justine Greening and Mr. Tim Yeo, 

presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to 

publish lists of energy performance certificates issued 

pursuant to the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive; 

and for connected purposes. 

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on 

Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 147). 

PUBLIC TRANSPORT (REWARD SCHEME AND 

CONCESSIONARY FARES) BILL 

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) 

Mr. Colin Challen presented a Bill to make provision 

for the introduction of a reward scheme for users of bus 

and rail services; and to extend the Bus Concessionary 

Fares Scheme. 

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on 

Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 143). 

PARLIAMENTARY STANDARDS BILL 

(PROGRAMME) (NO. 2) 

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing 

Order No. 83(7)A), 

That the following provisions shall apply to the Parliamentary 

Standards Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 

29 June 2009 (Parliamentary Standards Bill (Programme)): 

Consideration of Lords Amendments 

1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall 

(so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 

one hour after their commencement at this day’s sitting. 

Subsequent stages 

2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered 

forthwith without any Question being put. 

3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords 

shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 

one hour after their commencement.—(Steve McCabe.)


21 JULY 2009 

Issue of Writ 

768 



Ainger, Nick 



Anderson, Janet 

Austin, John 


Baird, Vera 

Balls, rh Ed 

Banks, Gordon 



Bayley, Hugh 






Berry, Roger 


Blackman, Liz 





Brown, Lyn 



Bryant, Chris 



Burgon, Colin 





Cairns, David 




Chapman, Ben 


Clark, Paul 


Clwyd, rh Ann 

Coaker, Mr. Vernon 

Cohen, Harry 

Cook, Frank 

Cooper, Rosie 


Cousins, Jim 


Creagh, Mary 

Cruddas, Jon 








Dismore, Mr. Andrew 

Dobbin, Jim 





Eagle, Angela 

AYES 

Eagle, Maria 

Efford, Clive 



Ennis, Jeff 


Fisher, Mark 





(Worcester) 




Gapes, Mike 




Gilroy, Linda 


Griffiths, Nigel 











Heppell, Mr. John 

Hesford, Stephen 

Heyes, David 



Hood, Mr. Jim 

Hope, Phil 






Hutton, rh Mr. John 







Jones, Lynne 







Keen, Alan 

Keen, Ann 




Lammy, rh Mr. David 



Lepper, David 

[4.29 pm 

Levitt, Tom 


Lloyd, Tony 


Lucas, Ian 




Mann, John 

Marris, Rob 



McCabe, Steve 











McKechin, Ann 




Milburn, rh Mr. Alan 


Miller, Andrew 


Mole, Chris 



Morgan, Julie 

Mudie, Mr. George 

Munn, Meg 




Norris, Dan 



Owen, Albert 







Prosser, Gwyn 




Reid, rh John 

Afriyie, Adam 



Baker, Norman 





Bruce, rh Malcolm 



Campbell, rh Sir Menzies 



NOES 




Roy, Lindsay 

Ruane, Chris 

Ruddock, Joan 







Sheridan, Jim 


Simpson, Alan 








Stewart, Ian 

Straw, rh Mr. Jack 


Tami, Mark 



Trickett, Jon 



Twigg, Derek 

Ussher, Kitty 

Vis, Dr. Rudi 

Walley, Joan 

Waltho, Lynda 

Ward, Claire 

Wareing, Mr. Robert N. 




Williams, Mrs. Betty 






Wright, David 


Wyatt, Derek 


Helen Jones and 


Clark, Greg 




Davies, David T.C. 

(Monmouth) 





Duncan, Alan 


Durkan, Mark 

Evans, Mr. Nigel


21 JULY 2009 

770 





Gale, Mr. Roger 



George, Andrew 

Gidley, Sandra 

Goldsworthy, Julia 


Gove, Michael 

Grayling, Chris 



Hague, rh Mr. William 




Harvey, Nick 




Mr. David 





Hughes, Simon 

Hunt, Mr. Jeremy 


Jackson, Mr. Stewart 





Kramer, Susan 





Loughton, Tim 

Main, Anne 

Mason, John 

McIntosh, Miss Anne 


Milton, Anne 



Question accordingly agreed to. 

Neill, Robert 



Ottaway, Richard 


Pugh, Dr. John 


Redwood, rh Mr. John 









Soames, Mr. Nicholas 

Spring, Mr. Richard 



Swinson, Jo 


Tapsell, Sir Peter 

Taylor, Mr. Ian 




Thurso, John 






Weir, Mr. Mike 



Wiggin, Bill 



Wilson, Mr. Rob 



Wishart, Pete 


Younger-Ross, Richard 


James Duddridge and 

Mr. Stephen Crabb 

Parliamentary Standards Bill 

Consideration of Lords amendments 

Before Clause 1 

BILL OF RIGHTS 

Lords amendment 1 

4.40 pm 

Mr. William Cash (Stone) (Con): I beg to move 

amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1. 

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this 

it will be convenient to discuss the following: Lords 

amendments 2 to 31. 

The Bill has received a great deal of attention for 

many reasons, but unfortunately the amendment that 

was passed in the House of Lords about the protection 

of the Bill of Rights, which goes to the heart of our 

proceedings in Parliament and therefore our sovereignty, 

right to free speech and a raft of other matters, does not 

achieve its objectives—at least, it achieves the wrong 

objectives. I deeply regret the fact that the Attorney-General 

is not a Member of this House, because it is more 

appropriate to deal with the Independent Parliamentary 

Standards Authority in this place so that we can ensure 

that we properly protect the privileges and rights of this 

House and of Members of Parliament, and that proper 

and fair procedures will apply that will not be overridden 

by an attempt to refer an issue to the European Court 

of Human Rights or the European Court of Justice. We 

do not hold those rights for our own benefit: we hold 

them on behalf of the electorate. It is on that point that 

I make my main case. 

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): I 

do not for a minute dissent from what my hon. Friend is 

saying. He is moving an important amendment that 

certainly has my support. Does he agree that it is 

appalling that we have only one hour to consider a 

completely rewritten Bill? I readily acknowledge that it 

was substantially improved in the House of Lords, but 

we have only one hour to consider all the important 

Lords amendments, as well as my hon. Friend’s very 

important amendment. Is this not a terrible way to treat 

the House on the last day before we rise? 

Mr. Cash: I could not agree more with my hon. 

Friend. The entire proceedings on this Bill have been 

conducted in an extremely shabby manner. Indeed, 

some important statements have been made by some of 

the most distinguished officials in the House—and in 

the other place—and the reservations that have been 

expressed, for example by the House of Lords Constitution 

Committee, about the fast-tracking of this Bill are a 

matter of record. 

The problem is that because of the sovereignty of this 

House it is essential that we protect our supremacy with 

regard to the borderline between what we do here and 

what may be referred to the European Court of Justice 

or the European Court at Strasbourg. The wording that 

I originally proposed, and which was adopted by my 

right hon. Friends on the Front Bench a couple of 

weeks ago, contained the words that I now propose to 

reinsert.

771 Parliamentary Standards Bill 21 JULY 2009 Parliamentary Standards Bill 772 

Unfortunately, the Bill was amended in the Lords so 

that the only words left were: 

“Nothing in this Act shall be construed by any court in the 

United Kingdom as affecting Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689.” 

The opening words were knocked out and excluded. I 

regard them as absolutely crucial to preserving the 

sovereignty of this House, and indeed of the electorate. 

They are as follows: 

“Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities 

Act 1972, the European Convention of Human Rights or the 

Human Rights Act 1998”. 

Having made that reservation, I concur with the wording 

of Lords amendment 1, as I have just set out. 

Some distinguished lawyers took part in very learned 

discussions in the House of Lords. Lord Mackay of 

Clashfern and Lord Howe of Aberavon both made a 

number of brief comments but they did not go into the 

merits of the proposals to any extent. They simply 

averred their own opinions in a few sentences, whereas 

the Attorney-General gave a lengthy dissertation on the 

questions of privilege and other matters that relate to 

the Bill. 

The fundamental question is as follows: if a disgruntled 

or aggrieved person raised an issue that ultimately led 

to judicial review, would a reference to the ECJ—or, to 

a slightly lesser extent, the European Court of Human 

Rights—override the jurisdiction of this House? The 

Attorney-General ruled out that possibility. In contrast, 

Lord Mackay, a former Lord Chancellor, said that 

although he did not think such a situation likely to 

arise, he could not rule it out. I have conferred on this 

matter with a number of eminent constitutional 

authorities—of such distinction that they are called on 

to give advice on matters in all the courts of law and in 

Parliament—and they agree with me that it is important 

that we retain in the Bill the words that my amendment 

proposes to reinsert. They accept that it would not be 

possible to assume that neither the ECJ nor the ECHR 

would not get their hands on a particular matter. 

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): I shall 

cheerfully support my hon. Friend’s amendment if it is 

put to the vote, but I have one question for him. He 

mentioned the ECHR, but it does not have—and never 

has had—any jurisdiction over this or any other court 

in the land. It is the embodiment of a treaty obligation. 

It can rule that the proceedings of this House, for 

example, might be in breach of the European convention 

on human rights—although it might be foolish of it to 

do so—but that ruling cannot be binding. For that 

reason, the part of the amendment that he is presenting 

would not have any impact one way or another. The rest 

of it is of greater importance. 

4.45 pm 

Mr. Cash: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned 

Friend. I am not going to disagree with him on that 

point, but I am concerned to remove uncertainty in a 

matter of such importance as this. In passing, I want to 

pay tribute to Lord Jenkin of Roding for the extremely 

efficient way that he dealt with this matter in the House 

of Lords. 

I shall begin by setting out the problems posed by the 

European convention on human rights. There has been 

a great deal of comment, in the House of Lords and 

elsewhere, about a case in 2003 known as A. v. the 

United Kingdom. It is a lengthy judgment, and I do not 

have the slightest intention of going through all the 

detail, but it did not apply only to the UK. Other 

nations were concerned about possible intrusion into 

their privileges—Italy, France, Ireland, Finland, the 

Netherlands, Belgium and Austria played an active part 

in the case. It can fairly be said that the case did not 

settle the question of the application of article 6 of the 

European convention on human rights. I would go 

further and say the court concluded that 

“the parliamentary immunity enjoyed by the Member of Parliament 

in the present case”— 

A. v. the United Kingdom— 

“pursued the legitimate aims…of protecting free speech in Parliament 

and maintaining the separation of power between the legislature 

and the judiciary.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 July 

2009; Vol. 712, c. 1420.] 

However, that was only with reference to that case, and 

there is no doubt whatever that the European Court did 

not exclude the possibility of difficulties in maintaining 

parliamentary privilege and that the court might in 

future need to take steps to override, effectively, what is 

done in this House. 

The Court continued: 

“The absolute immunity enjoyed by MPs is moreover designed 

to protect the interests of Parliament as a whole as opposed to 

those of individual MPs.” 

That is part of the Court’s reasoning. The Bill would 

affect individual MPs, so it follows that the Court’s 

nostrum would not be applicable if an MP was concerned 

whether he had had a fair trial or whether he was 

affected by the question of free speech or other matters 

that are included in the convention. 

The question of the European charter of fundamental 

rights was not examined in the deliberations in the 

Lords to any significant or useful extent. The reality is 

that the charter, which was attached to the Lisbon 

treaty and which is binding, contains a lot of overlaps 

with the European convention on human rights. They 

run parallel, but of course the protocol that incorporates 

the charter invokes the ECJ. I should like to comment 

on the problems that I believe would arise in that 

context. We should also bear it in mind that under the 

well-established cases of Costa v. ENEL 1964 and cases 

such as Handelsgesellschaft and Van Gend en Loos, the 

Court in Luxembourg has made it absolutely explicit 

that 

“the laws stemming from the Treaty, an independent source of 

law…cannot” 

because of its special and original 

“nature be overridden by” 

domestic legal provisions, 

“however framed, without being deprived of its character as 

Community law and without the legal basis of the Community 

itself being called into question.” 

The bottom line is this: 

“This case…unequivocally declares the supremacy of Community 

law over inconsistent domestic law, including in particular domestic 

law introduced after accession. Community law also takes priority 

over inconsistent provisions of national constitutional law.”


[Mr. Cash] 

It is clear from article 53 of the charter of fundamental 

rights, which refers to the level of protection, that 

national constitutions are themselves involved. It states: 

“Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as restricting or 

adversely affecting human rights and fundamental freedoms as 

recognised…by Union law and international law and by international 

agreements to which the Union, the Community or all the Member 

States are party, including the European Convention for the 

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and by 

the Member States’ constitutions.” 

If questions of privilege in relation to article 9 of the 

Bill of Rights, which includes references to proceedings 

in Parliament from which all other things flow, such as 

freedom of speech and so on, as well as the fairness of 

trials, are to be properly implemented, it is essential that 

we do not find ourselves in a position where there is any 

uncertainty about whether European law, and in particular 

the charter in regard to the ECJ, would override the 

proceedings of the House. 

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con): Has my 

hon. Friend taken note of the fact that the treaty of 

Lisbon, if ratified, will extend the competence of the 

EU into matters of law and the rights of the accused? If 

someone claimed to have been libelled or if a trial was 

prejudiced by proceedings in the House and what is said 

here, they could go to the European Court of Justice 

under the charter of fundamental rights to obtain redress. 

That, unlike the convention, is binding on us and is 

superior to English law because it is embedded in a 

superior treaty. 

Mr. Cash: I absolutely agree. It was extremely 

disappointing to read both the Attorney-General’s letter 

and her speech and find that she was so categoric about 

something that one simply cannot be categoric about. 

Because the question involves matters of such supreme 

importance, it is absolutely essential that we put it 

beyond any doubt. The Justice Secretary may say, “Oh, 

we don’t need to do this,” but my response would be 

that in the course of the proceedings on clauses 9 and 10 

I put it to him that the Clerk of the House and the 

Speaker’s counsel had come up with certain issues and 

when I asked whether he thought they were wrong, he 

said, “Oh no, they’re not wrong”, and then he just 

ploughed on. As it happens, the Government eventually 

had to give way, but in these circumstances it is essential 

that we act not merely with an abundance of caution 

but with prudence. It is precisely the judicial activism of 

the European Court of Justice and the Court at Strasbourg 

that continuously creates an extension of judicial activity 

and supremacy over our laws. 

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex) (Con): Although 

the Attorney-General was pretty categoric, she was not 

absolutely categoric. She said that 

“it is very unlikely that anything in the Bill would give rise to 

subject matter that could be interpreted by the European Court 

of Justice.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 July 2009; 

Vol. 712, c. 1423.] 

The Attorney-General has not said “Never”. If there 

was ever a case for belt and braces, it would seem to be 

this. If she had said that it could never possibly happen, 

the Government could legitimately oppose the amendment, 

but the fact that she said merely that it was “very 

unlikely” suggests that she holds out the possibility that 

it could happen. 

Mr. Cash: Indeed, and I am grateful to my hon. 

Friend for making that important point. 

If the Justice Secretary raises a question about whether 

the provisions of the charter are indeed addressed only 

to the institutions and bodies of the Union—as I anticipate 

he may—he ought to bear in mind the fact that the 

matter arises under article 51, whereas the reference I 

gave just now to the level of protection arises under 

article 53, which contains the phrase: 

“Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as restricting”. 

That includes member states’ constitutions. That provision 

has to override article 51, so in that, even if in no other 

manner, it clearly creates a conflict between the two 

provisions, which is a good reason why we need to make 

sure the measure is completely right. 

Mr. Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) 

(Con): The uncertainty that my hon. Friend has expressed 

in great detail should worry all of us. Does he agree that 

realistically the Government must understand that there 

are constitutional issues up in the air? Do they not 

simply desire for public relations purposes to get a 

Bill—any Bill—on the statute book before the House 

rises? That is an appalling abuse of the parliamentary 

system and does us collectively no great favours. It may 

give the Government a few good headlines tomorrow 

morning about how they got the Bill through, but the 

Bill has already been emasculated and would be further 

emasculated if we take my hon. Friend’s proposals on 

board. 

Mr. Cash: Indeed. In conclusion, this is a very important 

matter. It affects the sovereignty of the House, and 

therefore it directly affects the interests of our electorate. 

It is essential that the words that I have proposed should 

be inserted before the wording in the Lords amendment. 

I hope we will be able to vote on the matter later this 

evening. 

5pm 


(Mr. Jack Straw): I hope it will be for the convenience 

of the House, particularly in view of the shortage of 

time—[HON. MEMBERS: “Whose fault is that?”] I knew 

that would be said—but as the time is indeed short, for 

the convenience of the House I shall deal with the 

recommendation to the House that we accept all the 

Lords amendments, and why, and also respond as quickly 

as I can to the points made by the hon. Member for 

Stone (Mr. Cash). 

Reference has been made to the improvements to the 

Bill. All three party leaders agreed—I say to the hon. 

Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) 

—that we should make proposals for a parliamentary 

standards authority. We had to do so from a standing 

start— 

Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): There were more 

than three parties. 

Mr. Straw: I commend the spokesman for the Scottish 

National party, who, if I may say so at the risk of 

damaging his political career, played a very constructive 

part indeed. I am extremely grateful to him, along with 

his colleagues from Plaid Cymru and the parties in 

Northern Ireland.


If I may correct myself, the leaders of the three 

largest parties in the House explicitly committed themselves 

to establishing a parliamentary standards authority. So, 

I believe, did the leaders of the other parties. Certainly, 

all parties co-operated actively in all-party talks, which 

I chaired with my right hon. and learned Friend the 

Leader of the House. We had to do that from a standing 

start. It has been quite the most difficult piece of 

emergency legislation that I have ever had to deal with 

over many years, because we started from a blank sheet. 

I am not apologetic about the fact that the Bill has 

been changed on its way through the House. That has 

been the essence of the parliamentary process both here 

and in the other place. I would rightly have stood 

condemned had I sought to resist a series of changes 

that were urged on us as we pooled our collective 

wisdom from all sides of the House, at both ends of the 

building, to achieve a better Bill. We have achieved a 

very much better measure as a result, and I will take the 

House briefly through the principal changes. 

Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) 

(LD): Reverting to the right hon. Gentleman’s opening 

remarks about the time allowed for this debate, it seems 

rather sad that yet again, a Bill aimed at the House of 

Commons had the fundamental work on it done in the 

House of Lords. We must get the systems in this place 

right so that we deal effectively with legislation here, 

rather than relying on the House of Lords. 

Mr. Straw: I agree, as it happens. I hope that the 

Committee that we agreed last night to set up under the 

chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock 

Chase (Dr. Wright) will pin that down and ensure that 

more active time on the Floor of this House is used for 

legislation. 

Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con): 

Whose idea was it to restrict this debate to 60 minutes? 

Mr. Straw: The usual channels. The right hon. Gentleman 

knows that answer. 

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman 

give way? 

Mr. Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? 

Mr. Straw: No, I shall proceed. Everyone knows how 

the arrangements are made. 

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy 

Speaker. My understanding is that “Erskine May” refers 

to a programming Committee that should sit and decide, 

on each Bill, the allocation of time. It seems from what 

the Justice Secretary has just said that the programme 

was agreed in some cross-party Front-Bench deal, to 

the disadvantage of the wider rights of the House. 

Could you advise the House whether any Committee 

did sit, whether it should have sat, and what its conclusions 

were before we were restricted to one hour’s debate on a 

very complex Bill with over 30 amendments from another 

place? 

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not aware whether any 

Committee has sat, but I rather doubt it. The plain fact 

of the matter is that it is entirely open to the Government 

to table a motion. That was done, that motion has been 

decided, and we are now living with the consequences. 

Whatever strong feelings there are in the House, we 

have limited time, and I should try to ensure that such 

time is used to debate what is on the Order Paper. 

Mr. Straw: The amendments that were made in the 

other place are a reflection of the effectiveness of a 

bicameral system. I wish that there had been more time, 

but we shall leave it at that, because many of the Lords 

amendments were made in response to commitments 

given in the Commons. That is part of the purpose of a 

bicameral system. 

The principal changes—I do not wish to entertain the 

House by running through all of them—change the way 

in which the enforcement powers in the Bill would 

operate. Members will recall that initially the Commissioner 

responsible for parliamentary investigations would have 

submitted reports to the Independent Parliamentary 

Standards Authority, which would have considered them 

and effectively given directions and recommendations 

to Members, and made recommendations to the Standards 

and Privileges Committee. In shorthand, IPSA has now 

been cut out of that arrangement, so the Commissioner 

will now report directly to the Standards and Privileges 

Committee—a much simpler process—except where either 

the Commissioner judges that a complaint is ill-founded 

or he or she has reached an accommodation with the 

Member concerned. 

There are new safeguards in the Bill that pick up the 

recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human 

Rights. As for the offences, Members will recall that 

when the Bill left the House, there were three offences: 

paid advocacy; failure to register an interest; and making 

a false declaration. As a result of concerns about 

parliamentary privilege, I agreed that we would drop 

the provision on paid advocacy, which is covered by the 

proposed new offence of bribery in the draft Bribery Bill. 

There were considerable concerns about the provision 

on the failure to register an interest. My noble Friend 

Baroness Scotland spelt out the fact that there is a 

difference—as indeed there is—between the offence of 

making a false declaration and the more severe offence 

in section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. She pointed out that 

there are plenty of parallels for the offence, including 

offences in social security legislation under the European 

Communities Act 1972 and offences under the Scotland 

Act and the Government of Wales Act. That provision 

therefore remains in the Bill. Some other amendments 

have been made, including one in response to a 

recommendation from my hon. Friend the Member for 

Foyle (Mark Durkan), to ensure that IPSA provides 

MPs with general guidance about taxation issues. 

Angus Robertson: When the Justice Secretary began 

the process of discussions with all the parties, which I 

very much welcomed, he argued that it was important 

to have four offences in the Bill, but in the final stage we 

are left with one. What kind of message does he think 

that sends the public? At the start he thought that it was 

important to have tough sanctions against parliamentarians 

who broke the rules, but we are now left with just one 

offence. 

Mr. Straw: I do not accept that the sanctions are not 

tough—but there is the issue of how that is achieved. As 

for the paid advocacy, or “cash for questions”, offence, 

the Bribery Bill proposals, which I commend, and which


[Mr. Straw] 

include a carve-out on article 9 of the Bill of Rights— 

proposals that have yet to go through the House formally, 

but which have received approbation from Members on 

both sides of the House—will do that job. 

There was controversy about the other two offences. 

Speaking for Members on both sides of the House—and 

it was I who urged one of the offences on the House—this 

was not a question of people going soft. It was about 

deciding what was the appropriate mechanism. The 

provision on making a false declaration remains in 

the Bill. 

The final Lords amendment to which I wish to draw 

attention is the so-called sunset clause, which provides 

not that the Bill would automatically cease to have 

effect after two years, but that after two years, if clauses 5 

to 9 of the Bill that left the Commons were to continue, 

they would have to be extended by an affirmative order, 

which would give the House a chance to draw breath 

and review the operation of the authority after, in 

practice, it has been in force for at least a year. 

Now let me deal briefly with the proposal by the hon. 

Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), which would add at 

line 3: 

“Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities 

Act 1972, the European Convention of Human Rights or the 

Human Rights Act 1998”. 

I urge Members who support that amendment to reflect 

on the matter and not to put it to a vote. If they do, I 

urge the House to vote against it. The arguments against 

the suggestion in the amendment were well spelt out by 

Members from all parts of the House of Lords yesterday. 

There are two aspects to this: whether it is necessary, 

and if it is, whether it is possible to exclude the operation 

of, first, the European Court of Justice in respect of the 

European Union, and secondly, the European convention 

on human rights, as regards this authority and this 

House. 

On the EU and its institutions, my noble Friend the 

Attorney-General said that she did not believe that the 

Bill had any effect on matters within the jurisdiction of 

the European Court of Justice, and she spelt out why. I 

think that it was the right hon. Member for Wells 

(Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) who said that the Attorney- 

General also used the words, “it is very unlikely,” but as 

we are talking about the future, I must say that very few 

things are absolutely certain. I would, however, make a 

very large wager, which I am very happy to take in 

public as well as in private, that the prospect, first, of 

British judges in a British court deciding to refer to the 

ECJ is— 

Mr. Grieve: Remote. 

Mr. Straw: Remote, says the hon. and learned Member 

for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). If they did, the prospect 

of the ECJ taking on that jurisdiction is doubly remote. 

I hope that that provides some reassurance. 

Mr. Jenkin: There is no doubt that the charter of 

fundamental rights, if incorporated into the treaties, 

would create all kinds of legal apparatus in the European 

Union which would overlap with the matters in the 

Bill—and, indeed, with parliamentary privilege. Article 234 

of the charter states unequivocally: 

“Where any such question is raised in a case pending before a 

court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions 

there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or 

tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court of Justice.” 

There is no question of there being a choice for the 

national court; there is an obligation on it to refer the 

case to the European Court of Justice. And, it is no 

good pretending that those matters in the charter of 

fundamental rights have nothing to do with free speech, 

because that is there, in the charter. 

Mr. Straw: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would not 

appreciate a discussion on the finer points of the Lisbon 

treaty just now, but I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s 

analysis, not least because of the horizontal clauses in 

the Lisbon treaty. 

Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): Will the right hon. 

Gentleman give way? 

Mr. Straw: No. I am sorry, but I need to make 

progress. 

On the second point, about the jurisdiction of the 

European Court of Human Rights, Lord Jenkin of 

Roding said: 

“As these”— 

ECHR matters— 

“concern the international obligations of the UK…we could not 

simply assert our own constitutional arrangements as a conclusive 

answer.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 July 2009; Vol. 712, 

c. 1419.] 

That is absolutely right. Indeed, the hon. and learned 

Member for Beaconsfield made exactly the same point 

on an intervention, when he said that such an amendment, 

even if it were introduced into law, could not be binding 

or have any impact. That is because both obligations 

arise in international law, under treaties that we have 

signed up to. 

Mr. Cash rose— 

Philip Davies rose— 

Mr. Straw: No, I am going to stop there. 

It is open to us as a sovereign Parliament to denounce 

our subscription to both treaties or to either treaty, in 

which case we would no longer have the burdens and 

obligations of either the European Union or the European 

convention on human rights. If we wanted to do that, 

that would be the appropriate thing to do—but in the 

absence of that, certain consequences follow from 

international treaty obligations, and, no matter what is 

in the amendment, those obligations would operate. In 

any event, however, I warrant that the European Court 

of Justice would not take up any jurisdiction. 

On the European Court of Human Rights, although 

there is no way in which one can stop an individual 

petitioner petitioning the ECHR in Strasbourg, there 

would not be an issue. The hon. Member for Stone is 

wrong to say that the matter is about a reference being 

made by a court. Our courts do not make references to 

Strasbourg; individuals put forward petitions against 

the UK Government. As we know from the 2003 case of 

A v. United Kingdom, the prospects of such a reference 

then being entertained are limited to the point of zero.


I urge the hon. Member for Stone to withdraw the 

amendment. If he does not, I urge the House to vote 

against it. 

5.15 pm 

Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con): We are 

asked to consider the amendments made in another 

place. May I say at the outset, before I go through some 

of the detail, that we on the Conservative Benches 

broadly support the amendments that the Lords have 

made to the Bill? Most have been the subject of vigorous 

debate and negotiation. 

Just over a week ago, the Bill arrived in the House in 

a state of some confusion. It was immediately clear that 

the Government were trying to do too much in too 

short a space of time. As I explained in my Second 

Reading speech, which I will not rehearse again now, it 

was obvious that Ministers had been required, at very 

short notice, to create a Bill that had—initially, at 

least—to match the Prime Minister’s press release, no 

matter what the consequences. It quickly became apparent 

that those consequences would have had a devastating 

impact on the House and the ability of its Members to 

go about their business freely and without being trammelled 

by the judgment of the courts. That was not just our 

opinion, but that of the Justice Committee, the Joint 

Committee on Human Rights and the Clerk of the 

House. 

So we are pleased that the Government have made 

some significant concessions, both in this House and 

another place, that have ensured that we have, in large 

part at least, avoided a full-on constitutional collision 

with the judiciary. We have now achieved most of what 

it was ever necessary to achieve in the interim, before Sir 

Christopher Kelly’s committee reports in October—that 

is, the establishment of an independent fees office that 

will set and administer our allowances and expenses 

and provide an independent mechanism to investigate 

any alleged misuse of those allowances and expenses. 

I now turn to the amendment to Lords amendment 1 

tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). 

We appreciate what my hon. Friend is trying to do. The 

House will note that a stipulation is already laid down 

in Lords amendment 1, which explicitly states that the 

issue of parliamentary privilege will remain unchanged 

by the Bill. The House will also note the powerful 

points made by the Attorney-General in her letter to 

their lordships and her speech to the upper House on 

Report. 

It would be impossible to exclude the European Court 

of Human Rights from the Bill, because we have an 

international treaty obligation not to do so. However, 

an ECHR judgment has no real power in this country 

because, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for 

Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has consistently pointed out, 

it is not enforceable as such in our courts. If the Government 

felt obliged to adhere to whatever judgment the ECHR 

had made, they would have to go through the painful 

route of introducing primary legislation. I should register 

my doubt that amending the Bill to exclude the Human 

Rights Act would have any effect at all, given Lords 

amendment 1. 

However, despite all that, the intention behind the 

amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for 

Stone is completely clear. It is reasonable, given the 

concern registered and the number of colleagues who 

signed up to the amendment, that Conservative Front 

Benchers should support it. As this final concession will 

not have any negative impact on the Bill, I urge the 

Government to give it to us and join us in the Lobby. 

Mr. Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend recall the words of 

the Justice Secretary? He said that he was prepared to 

wager that nothing arising from the Bill would go in 

front of the European Court of Justice. Are we to make 

the foundations of our constitution depend on a wager 

made by the Justice Secretary? Why do we not just put 

in place the belt and braces that we need? 

Alan Duncan: At the risk of annoying the House, I 

shall put ¤10 on it now. 

I am pleased that the Government accepted Lords 

amendment 1, a Conservative amendment that categorically 

states that the issue of parliamentary privilege will 

remain unchanged in the Bill. The original Bill would 

have succeeded in unravelling, in just a few days, 

fundamental rights that have been at the foundation of 

our democracy for centuries. Although the Justice Secretary 

held to a remarkably calm and sanguine view of the 

impact that the Bill would have had on the proceedings 

of Parliament, great anxiety—even alarm—was expressed 

by the Clerk of the House, by two Select Committees of 

this House and by many hon. Members on the Floor of 

this House, as well as by a great number of Lords and 

Ladies, and their Committee in another place, who 

thought it best, given the nature of this concern, to 

ensure that there was an explicit warning to the courts 

that there was nothing here for them. We agree, and we 

are glad that the Government have acquiesced. 

On Lords amendment 2, we are pleased that the 

Government have agreed that nothing in the Bill should 

affect the House of Lords. We entirely support the 

intention behind the amendment to ensure that if the 

House of Lords wishes to establish a similar body it can 

do so, perhaps with the wisdom of our experience 

behind it. 

As regards IPSA and the commissioner, I will not go 

through every amendment in detail, but I will touch on 

each clause to see exactly where we have ended up. 

There have been very few changes to the fundamental 

restructuring established by the Bill, for under clauses 1 

to 4 IPSA will essentially set the allowances regime, pay 

salaries and allowances, design our code of conduct on 

financial interests, administer the register of financial 

interests and establish procedures for investigations. 

The Lords have also untangled the dual roles of the 

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the 

Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations. The 

Government have made the commitment that the existing 

non-statutory role currently undertaken by John Lyon 

will remain, responsible to the Committee on Standards 

and Privileges, in addition to the new statutory 

Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations. 

However, the commissioner’s role will be separate 

from IPSA, so nothing the Bill suggests that the new 

body functions both as judge and jury, and that is surely 

a sensible approach. The commissioner will investigate 

complaints of any breaches or misuse of the expenses 

and allowances regime or the rules on the registration of 

interests. He will then refer his findings, as appropriate, 

to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, if the


[Alan Duncan] 

matter has not already been settled by repayment. He 

will receive any relevant information from Members 

and report any non-co-operation to the Committee. He 

will also give Members the right to make representations, 

to be heard in person, and to call and examine witnesses. 

In addition, the Government have removed two offences: 

first, on the registration of financial interests; and secondly, 

on paid advocacy. Those are covered elsewhere in law. 

We are very pleased to have a sunset clause. Any 

legislation that is put through so quickly, and from a 

standing start, will benefit well from revision and 

reassessment at a set date in the future. On clauses 5 to 

9, the Government have accepted our argument on the 

need for such a two-year sunset. We understood the 

argument that the Justice Secretary made to this House 

on the potential damage that an overall sunset clause 

would have had on IPSA’s ability to get itself up and 

running and to recruit and retain staff. 

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Leader of the Opposition 

has announced a quango hunt. Has my hon. Friend 

noticed that the sections of the Bill that are largely 

untouched are the schedules setting out Crown 

appointments, pensions and pay with regard to the 

new quango? Has he any idea of the additional costs 

to the public purse? If it turns out that the new 

commissioner’s duties can be adequately undertaken by 

the existing Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, 

will he keep the new body on the quango-hunt list, at 

least provisionally? 

Alan Duncan: Thanks to our hard work, my right 

hon. Friend will be able to advance all those arguments 

when the sunset clause is triggered in about two years’ 

time. He may well find that he has some very good 

arguments. 

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend referred to what I was 

trying to do. I simply make the point that the 

“notwithstanding” provision is in line with the metric 

martyrs’ case and Lord Denning’s judgments, both of 

which raise the question of whether, under our laws, we 

preserve our parliamentary system. It is vital for us to 

understand that. 

Alan Duncan: I understand my hon. Friend’s point, 

which he has made strongly. I sense that he wishes to 

push his amendment to a Division shortly. 

We should all face up to the fact that the Bill is 

essentially a panic measure. The Government have been 

forced to make it up as they go along. Even before the 

ink is dry it is not perceived, in the eyes of many, as a 

permanent solution. One of the great remaining problems 

is that the various elements that make up a Member’s 

remuneration are assessed in an utterly fragmented way. 

The authority will consider only expenses and allowances. 

There is a pressing need for some structure or system 

that can examine pay, pensions, allowances and expenses 

as one, so that the House does not have to suffer being 

chewed in different places at different times, as we have 

been in the past few weeks. 

However, a greater problem is already on the radar. It 

appears as though a collision is looming between the 

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and 

the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Sir Christopher 

Kelly would appear to have been angered by the origin 

and the passage of the Bill. The battle lines already 

seem to be drawn between the Bill and the Kelly Committee, 

which is studying so much of what we do. 

Sir Christopher Kelly has said that he views IPSA as 

a transitional arrangement, against which he may come 

out strongly in his report in October. Far from being a 

great, lasting solution to a deep problem that has hit us 

all in the past few months, it now appears that we 

should be prepared for a substantial showdown between 

the new body that we are establishing to set and administer 

our expenses, and the old body that we set up to advise 

on them. 

Mr. Straw: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge 

the point, which I made to Sir Christopher and his 

colleagues when I gave evidence to his Committee last 

week, that his Committee called for entirely independent 

setting and administration of allowances—and pay—and 

for having those arrangements well established before 

the election? As I explained to Sir Christopher and his 

colleagues, unless we put the legislation through now, 

there is no way we could have the arrangements in place 

and settled before the next election. 

Alan Duncan: In the Secretary of State’s intervention 

we see the seeds of the very confrontation that 

Sir Christopher Kelly has—if not predicted—at least 

suggested that he would have a view on. We would all 

like a solution to the way in which we are paid and the 

way in which our expenses are administered, so that all 

of us, with our honourable differences, can get on with 

our job of being politicians. In a few months’ time, this 

Bill may or may not turn out to be a good start to that 

end. We must wait and see. In the meantime, we accept 

the amendments that were made in another place, and 

we want to press on. 

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): May I 

first concur with the views of my hon. Friend the 

Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine 

(Sir Robert Smith)? It is ridiculous that so few Members 

will have the opportunity to speak about the Bill, which 

was so markedly changed in another place and affects 

every Member. It is simply not right. 

Sir Patrick Cormack: Twelve minutes left. 

Mr. Heath: It is not my fault that there are 12 minutes 

left—I wish it were otherwise. 

The Bill initially had clear and admirable intentions. 

It was supported by the leaders of all the parties represented 

in the House as an urgent and necessary measure. It was 

then inflated to an unsustainable extent, and we went 

from a proposed Parliamentary Standards Act to an 

amazing vanishing act as provisions disappeared in the 

face of strong arguments adduced by the Joint Committee 

on Human Rights, the Procedure Committee and many 

others, which looked at the matter and perceived the 

many difficulties. Essentially, we now have a Bill to set 

up the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority— 

IPSA is “facta” as a result of the Bill, but very little 

else is.


5.30 pm 

The Bill is emergency legislation. It does a key thing 

that Parliament has willed shall happen. In doing so, 

the Bill has stepped on the toes of parliamentary privilege 

to an unacceptable degree. That aspect has been improved 

by amendment in another place, but I very much regret 

the fact that we do not have a proper sunset clause, 

because it is right that Parliament should re-examine 

the legislation in the near future, for all the reasons that 

have been set out previously. That should be done on 

the Floor of the House, not in a Statutory Instrument 

Committee. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton 

(Alan Duncan) said that his right hon. Friend the 

Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) could say 

something about the deficiencies of the legislation when 

the sunset clause came up, but unless he is selected to 

appear on the Statutory Instrument Committee, he will 

have no such opportunity. That is regrettable. A proper 

sunset clause should have been included in the Bill. 

Let me deal with the three offences that were originally 

intended under the legislation. I have a difficulty with 

what is proposed, because—[Interruption.] The hon. 

Member for Rutland and Melton is saying something 

from a sedentary position that I must allow him to say 

in public. 

Alan Duncan: Is it not the case that the hon. Gentleman’s 

party voted against a full sunset clause—or at least 

argued against one—in another place? 

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman needs to look at 

Lords Hansard from yesterday, where he will find the 

amendment from my noble Friend Lord Tyler that 

precisely said that a sunset clause should come into 

effect after two years to deal with the clauses in question. 

The hon. Gentleman will find that my party supported 

that, while his did not. If he wishes to argue that case, I 

hope that he will read Lords Hansard. [Interruption.] 

He had better have a look before making another 

intervention. 

Let me deal with the specific offences dealt with by 

the Bill. I am in some difficultly, because there are 

already clear offences on the statute book covered by 

the Theft Act 1968, the Fraud Act 2006 and the commonlaw 

offence of misconduct in public office. I accept that 

they are all English laws and do not apply in Scotland, 

but they are the laws that should be applied. The 

difficulty with creating laws that are specific to Members 

of Parliament is that it reduces the scope of those 

offences and provides a lower tariff than would otherwise 

be the case. The one offence that is left in the Bill as a 

result of the amendments in another place provides for 

a much lower tariff than the cognate offences in the 

Theft Act and Fraud Act. The other difficulty is that 

the offence in question does not require proof of either 

dishonesty or material gain, so it is almost an arbitrary 

offence. 

There was a case for having a range of offences—the 

range of offences that we discussed earlier in connection 

with paid advocacy, which I accept may be covered by 

the draft bribery Bill or the offence of false registration. 

To reduce that range of offences to a single offence that 

is clearly covered by other offences that carry a higher 

tariff poses some questions. However, that is something 

that we can re-examine when the provisions come back. 

Let me finish by addressing the issue raised by the 

hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). I always listen with 

enormous care to what he says on such matters, because 

I know how well he researches his facts and I know the 

care with which he presents his case. I am pleased that 

we now have a clear declaratory statement about article IX 

of the Bill of Rights 1689. I have looked carefully at his 

arguments for extending it in words to the European 

Court of Justice and the European Court of Human 

Rights, but I am afraid that I simply cannot see doing 

that anything other than otiose, nor can I find the 

circumstances in which it will make a difference. 

As has been said, the European Court of Human 

Rights is a matter of international treaty. It is the right 

of any individual to make an application to the Strasbourg 

court, and nothing that we write into our statutes will 

prevent that from happening, unless we decide to withdraw 

from our treaty obligations. Therefore, the proposal will 

not affect that right. Indeed, in the case to which 

attention has already been drawn—A. v. United Kingdom 

of 2003—it is clear that the Strasbourg Court very 

much had regard for article IX of the Bill of Rights, 

despite the fact that the Court is not bound by it, in the 

strong majority decision that was made. I cannot envisage 

any circumstances in which a British court would refer a 

matter to the European Court of Justice in this regard. 

If anyone could provide a clear case in which the 

measure might be appropriate, I would support the hon. 

Member for Stone’s amendment. 

Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? 

Mr. Heath: I am sorry, but I do not have time to take 

an intervention. Other people still wish to speak, and 

we simply do not have enough time. 

Mr. Jenkin: There are circumstances. 

Mr. Heath: I cannot see any such circumstances; nor 

could the Attorney-General, according to her very full 

statement in the other place, and nor could other noble 

and learned Members of the other place whose opinions 

I trust. I therefore conclude that I cannot envisage 

circumstances in which the extra wording would be 

operative, and if it cannot be operative, it is not appropriate 

to insert it into the Bill. I support the Lords amendments 

in their generality, and I hope that the Bill will now 

make progress this afternoon. 

Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab): I will be brief, 

Mr. Deputy Speaker. First, I would like to render the 

House’s significant approbation for the work of the 

Clerk of the House, Dr. Malcolm Jack, and of Mr. Robert 

Rogers in dealing with the privilege question. They were 

aided and abetted by the right hon. Member for North-West 

Hampshire (Sir George Young) and others. The Bill, 

with the amendments before us, will end the cosy 

relationship between the Fees Office and the Members 

of Parliament—notwithstanding the sterling work that 

the staff of the Fees Office have done over the years. It 

should be placed on record that the Justice Secretary 

and the Deputy Leader of the House, my hon. Friend 

the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley), have shown 

extraordinary patience and forbearance in this matter, 

and started from scratch, as my right hon. Friend said. 

As we are celebrating the first landing on the moon 

40 years ago, it seems appropriate to say that this might


[Sir Stuart Bell] 

be one small step for Parliament, but it should be a 

more important step towards restoring public confidence 

in the institution of Parliament. 

Sir George Young: In the very short time left, I want 

to have a final go at amending the Bill. I invite the 

Government not to press Lords amendment 12 to a 

vote. The amendment is a big mistake. It would remove 

the right of IPSA to refer a matter to the commissioner. 

The notes that the Government have circulated on the 

amendments state: 

“This is consequential on the IPSA ceasing to have a role in 

considering whether to give a direction or make a recommendation 

in consequence of an investigation by the Commissioner.” 

It is no such thing; this is an entirely free-standing 

proposal. The amendment represents a backward step. 

If we pass it, IPSA will be unable to pass any evidence 

of wrongdoing to the commissioner for investigation. It 

cannot be right for the House to proceed with Lords 

amendment 12. 

There are other issues that I would have liked to 

explore, had more time been available. I want to protest 

that this is simply no way in which to handle constitutional 

legislation. When we debated the Bill before it went to 

the other place, we did not complete our consideration 

of all the clauses. It then had three days in the other 

place, but at least there were gaps between those three 

days, in which Members of the other place could reflect 

on the proposals and Ministers could make helpful 

suggestions. The Bill has now come back to us. The 

Lords did not mean us simply to take it or leave it, yet 

all these disparate amendments have been lumped together. 

Anyone who wants to vote against Lords amendment 

12, as I do, will have no opportunity to do so, because 

of the way in which the motion has been framed. 

Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): Does not the right 

hon. Gentleman’s point about Lords amendment 12 

also apply to a number of the other amendments? Their 

net effect will be that we shall end up with an IPSA with 

less independence and less authority, and which will be 

concerned with fewer and lower standards. 

Sir George Young: If there were more time, the hon. 

Gentleman would have an opportunity to make his 

case— 

Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy 

Speaker. I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member 

for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) for 

interrupting him. This is such a parliamentary farce. We 

have had just one hour in which to discuss all these 

important issues, and my right hon. Friend has just 

touched on a very important one. Would you be kind 

enough, Sir, to discuss with Mr. Speaker the way in 

which this Bill has gone through the House? He told us 

all that he was anxious for Parliament to regain its 

sovereignty, so would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, be kind 

enough to ask him to look at the statements that he 

made just four weeks ago and compare and contrast 

them with the way in which the Government have 

treated this House over this supremely important Bill? 

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that Mr. Speaker will 

take account of what has been said in this debate. 

Sir George Young: Whatever peroration I may have 

been preparing— 

5.40 pm 

Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day) 

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already 

proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), 

That amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1 be made. 



[5.40 pm 

Afriyie, Adam 



Atkinson, Mr. Peter 

Baldry, Tony 


Binley, Mr. Brian 

Bottomley, Peter 


Brazier, Mr. Julian 




Clark, Greg 



Crabb, Mr. Stephen 





Duncan, Alan 


Evans, Mr. Nigel 



Field, rh Mr. Frank 








Hammond, Mr. Philip 





Mr. David 


Hogg, rh Mr. Douglas 



Ainger, Nick 



Armstrong, rh Hilary 

Austin, John 


Baird, Vera 

Baker, Norman 

Balls, rh Ed 

Banks, Gordon 


AYES 

NOES 









Loughton, Tim 

Maude, rh Mr. Francis 


Neill, Robert 


Ottaway, Richard 

Price, Adam 




















Wiggin, Bill 






James Duddridge and 

Mr. Rob Wilson 


Bayley, Hugh 







Berry, Roger 


Blackman, Liz





Bradshaw, rh Mr. Ben 

Brake, Tom 



Brown, Lyn 



Browne, Mr. Jeremy 

Bryant, Chris 



Burgon, Colin 



Butler, Ms Dawn 




Cairns, David 


Campbell, Mr. Ronnie 



Chapman, Ben 


Clark, Paul 

Clarke, rh Mr. Charles 


Cohen, Harry 

Cooper, Rosie 


Corbyn, Jeremy 

Cousins, Jim 


Creagh, Mary 

Cruddas, Jon 









Dobbin, Jim 




Dowd, Jim 


Durkan, Mark 

Eagle, Angela 

Eagle, Maria 

Efford, Clive 



Ennis, Jeff 


Fisher, Mark 

Fitzpatrick, Jim 





(Worcester) 




Gapes, Mike 




Gilroy, Linda 










Harvey, Nick 





Hesford, Stephen 

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia 

Heyes, David 



Hood, Mr. Jim 

Hope, Phil 







Hughes, Simon 





Jackson, Glenda 



Johnson, rh Alan 


Jones, Helen 

Jones, Mr. Kevan 

Jones, Lynne 







Keen, Alan 

Keen, Ann 

Kennedy, rh Mr. Charles 



Kramer, Susan 


Laws, Mr. David 



Lepper, David 

Levitt, Tom 


Linton, Martin 

Lloyd, Tony 


Lucas, Ian 




Mann, John 

Marris, Rob 


Marshall-Andrews, Mr. Robert 


Mason, John 

McCabe, Steve 











McKechin, Ann 






Mole, Chris 




Morgan, Julie 


Munn, Meg 




Norris, Dan 




Owen, Albert 


Pearson, Ian 






Prosser, Gwyn 

Pugh, Dr. John 


Rammell, Bill 


Reed, Mr. Andy 


Robertson, Angus 


Robinson, Mr. Geoffrey 



Roy, Lindsay 

Ruddock, Joan 


Ryan, rh Joan 







Sheridan, Jim 


Simpson, Alan 









Stewart, Ian 

Stoate, Dr. Howard 

Straw, rh Mr. Jack 

Stuart, Ms Gisela 


Swinson, Jo 

Tami, Mark 



Thurso, John 



Trickett, Jon 



Twigg, Derek 

Ussher, Kitty 

Vis, Dr. Rudi 

Walley, Joan 

Waltho, Lynda 

Ward, Claire 

Wareing, Mr. Robert N. 


Webb, Steve 

Weir, Mr. Mike 







Wishart, Pete 



Wright, David 


Wyatt, Derek 


Mr. John Heppell and 


Question accordingly negatived. 

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary 

for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that 

time (Standing Order 83F). 

Motion made, and Question put, That this House 

agrees with Lords amendment 1.—(Mr. Straw). 

Question agreed to. 

Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

789 21 JULY 2009 Summer Recess Adjournment 790 

Summer Recess Adjournment 

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House 

do now adjourn.—(Mr. Roy). 

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am 

looking for the hon. Member I was going to call, but 

that may be more difficult than I thought. [Interruption.] 

The hon. Gentleman almost begs too much. I call 

Mr. Hoyle. 

5.54 pm 

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab) rose— 

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Overcome by the excitement 

of the moment, I should have reminded the House that 

it is reasonable to lift the limit on Back-Bench speeches 

from five to seven minutes. 

Mr. Hoyle: Excellent! 

Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you for giving me the 

chance to raise some important issues affecting my 

constituency and others. 

A review of the Forensic Science Service is taking 

place and I would be failing if I did not mention that. 

We are talking about 200 scientists, and the scientific 

base within the north-west, who are solving the most 

hideous crimes. There is a proposal to close the service 

within the north-west, meaning that we will be reliant 

on Birmingham or Yorkshire to sort out the problems. 

If we were talking about London—the No. 1 crime 

hotspot—we would not think of closing such a service. 

However, we are talking about closing a service in what 

is—because of the great cities of Liverpool and 

Manchester—the No. 2 crime hotspot. The proposal 

makes absolutely no sense. We have some of the leading 

forensic scientists. The university of Central Lancashire 

is second to none and has world-class status in forensic 

science degrees. We should be looking at the service 

being brought together between the university and the 

Forensic Science Service in the north-west. It should be 

the last facility that we should consider closing. 

It is a rather strange situation and I believe that 

common sense will prevail and that a review will show 

that it would be silly to close the facility. I have had an 

Adjournment debate on the subject and have made 

these points clearly. I met the Prime Minister to make 

sure that he was aware of the sensitivities of the matter 

and how crass that decision would be. We have quality 

people, solving crimes and working for many police 

forces, including Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Liverpool, 

Lancashire, Cumbria, North Wales and even Staffordshire. 

A huge service is being provided at Chorley and we 

cannot allow it to close, as that would be a further 

attack on our science base within the north-west. We 

have already seen the synchrotron go from Daresbury 

and we do not want to see any more closures or attacks 

on our scientific base. 

The other big issue facing the north-west is jobs and 

there is great concern about Jaguar Land Rover, which 

has announced over 300 redundancies at its plant at 

Liverpool. That is bad news. I want manufacturing to 

be put on the front foot and for it to receive more 

support from the Government. Manufacturing has had 

support but I would like to see even more. That could be 

done through the short time working subsidy. We have 

seen that operating in France, Germany and even Wales. 

I would have thought it was time for the Government to 

bite the bullet. I do not believe that we should be 

subsidising people through the jobcentre to be unemployed 

when, for the same amount of money, we can support 

them within their job. That is why the subsidy would 

make a real difference to people within manufacturing 

and would keep those companies ticking over. 

When we come out of the recession, we want to be 

best placed to ensure that the skills are there. We want 

to train people when they are in employment and make 

sure that they have a future. I cannot see a better way of 

doing that and we ought to back it up with a national 

jobs summit, at which we could bring together the 

employers, trade unions and bodies such as Federation 

of Small Businesses to make sure we deliver on the 

future of jobs. Following that, we could have regional 

jobs summits to bring people together. Manufacturing 

is the future of the country and should be its backbone. 

We should learn from previous Governments, and from 

this Government, who have wanted to believe in the 

service industry and the banking industry. We have 

learned a costly lesson that manufacturing is important 

and it ought to be No. 1 again. 

In my constituency, there is a good charity called 

Derian House that was about to lose £350,000 to Customs 

and Excise. I believe that there is good news today and 

that Derian House will get that money back from 

Customs and Excise. Common sense has prevailed. We 

won the moral argument and we have now won the 

argument completely. That is good news in which all 

constituents throughout the north-west can share. 

It is right that we are under attack at present. We had 

an Equitable Life statement earlier today, and a lot of 

my constituents are affected by that. We were disappointed 

in the question and the answers. What we want from the 

Government is action, not words, so that our constituents 

get the compensation they deserve. We must ensure that 

that is done sooner rather than later. 

I have touched on the Forensic Science Service in 

Chorley and the attack on jobs, but I also want to 

mention the tax office in Chorley. There is an award-winning 

tax office there, and another in Hyndburn. The office in 

Chorley is in a purpose-built building. It was never 

down for closure. In fact, it was held to be an example 

of the best way to run a tax office: the staff were second 

to none, and, as I have said, the office was award 

winning and purpose built. Although it was not down 

for closure, guess what happened? The tax office in 

Blackburn was down for closure and so was the one in 

St. Helens. Suddenly, however, although we were not 

down for closure because we had an award-winning 

office, there appears to have been some interference. 

The office in Blackburn is no longer going to close and 

neither is the one in St. Helens, but those in Hyndburn 

and Chorley are going to close. How can that be right? 

Has there been political interference? If there has, that 

is unacceptable. I hope that the Treasury is listening, 

and that it will reopen this tax office and let common 

sense prevail, because although it is down for closure, it 

is not closed yet. We could bring in other work. As we 

know, increasingly people are applying for tax credits. 

We want to be able to ensure that they get their credits 

right. Why do we not bring that work into Chorley, and 

into the office in the constituency of my hon. Friend the

791 Summer Recess Adjournment 21 JULY 2009 Summer Recess Adjournment 792 

Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) as well? We can 

deliver on these things, and it is important that we 

do so. 

Fuel duty is a big issue for constituents such as mine, 

who live in an urban-rural area. The constituency covers 

80 square miles and it has many parishes. People are 

reliant on their cars. They also expect items to be 

delivered, because we live in a rural community. We are 

a farming area as well. We need the 2 per cent. escalator 

to be scrapped. All it will do is add to inflation and stop 

us coming out of recession early. I plead with the 

Government to listen to what we are saying about the 

fuel escalator. It must not go ahead in October. That 

would help to ensure that the recession ends sooner. 

6.2 pm 

Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) 

(LD): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for 

Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). He raised a range of issues. The 

last of them was the fuel duty, which is extremely 

important in rural areas, and I echo his message to the 

Government to listen on that. 

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Equitable Life. 

We have had an oral statement from a Minister in 

response to an urgent question. The hon. Member for 

Chorley said he did not like the question. I thought the 

question was very good, but the answers were somewhat 

lacking. If we are going to have an ombudsman service 

and if we want to encourage people to save, when the 

ombudsman highlights maladministration and a remedy 

is identified, the Government should look very carefully 

at that remedy, because if people are going to invest in 

future, they will need to have confidence that there will 

be proper regulation. The Government want to encourage 

greater saving, but that will not happen if regulators fail 

and then there is no compensation. People are not 

going to be encouraged to save if we do not have a 

system that gives them confidence that when things go 

wrong there will be compensation. 

Mr. Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? 

Sir Robert Smith: As I am a Front-Bench spokesperson, 

I am fortunate in not having a time limit on my speech, 

so I shall give way. 

Mr. Hoyle: I would like to put it on record that there 

was nothing wrong with the question on Equitable Life; 

it was the answer that I was disappointed with. I thank 

the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clarify that. 

Sir Robert Smith: I am pleased to have done that. 

Although I am aware that I am not subject to a time 

limit, I am also conscious that many Members wish to 

speak and it would be unfair of me not to take time into 

account. I therefore want to concentrate on a key 

constituency issue by highlighting the first report of 

the Energy and Climate Change Committee, which, 

appropriately, was on the UK offshore oil and gas 

industry. 

I must at this point declare an interest that appears in 

the Register of Members’ Interests: I have a shareholding 

in Shell. I am also vice-chair of the all-party group on 

the offshore oil and gas industry, which paid a visit to 

the Offshore Northern Seas conference in Stavanger, 

which was funded by various oil companies. A more 

recent entry that is about to go in the register is a visit to 

the carbon capture and storage pilot project in south-west 

France that was funded by Total. 

My real interest, however, is that of a constituency 

MP representing the concerns of many constituents 

whose livelihoods depend on the health of the oil and 

gas industry. That is an interest I have not just as a 

constituency MP; I am an MP for the north-east of 

Scotland, which has been fundamentally tied up with 

this industry for many decades. Moreover, this interest 

involves the whole country; it may be unheard of in 

the rest of the country, but what has been achieved in 

the North sea has involved a golden opportunity for the 

whole country. It has delivered many jobs—between 

350,000 and 400,000 at present. It has contributed 

massive revenues to the Chancellor—a third of his 

corporation tax last year came from the North sea. It 

also made it possible for this country to meet its Kyoto 

commitments by the use of gas as a more environmentally 

friendly fuel than coal. The North sea has therefore 

delivered a lot for this country, including a period of 

great energy security when we were an exporter of 

energy. However, that is now changing. 

There are challenges facing the North sea now, which 

the Select Committee highlighted. The specific challenge 

is that facing any province reaching greater maturity: 

the big finds have long ago been identified, and now we 

have moved on to the smaller fields, but they have to 

compete for investment in a global financial market. 

They need to be competitive in that global financial 

market and they need the Government to recognise the 

challenges they face. 

As the Committee made clear, the industry is looking 

not for a subsidy, but for a fairer and more effective tax 

regime that takes less tax up front and thereby offers 

more incentives to invest, and in the long run brings in 

more tax to the Chancellor, because with that investment 

more oil and gas will be produced, which will earn more 

revenue for the Chancellor. Any oil and gas left in the 

ground produces no tax revenues. It belongs to the 

country, but we only get it out of the ground by engaging 

with the private sector. It is that sector’s skills and 

expertise that get it out of the ground. We need a regime 

that encourages that future bold move to get more out 

of the ground. 

There is another North sea challenge in the current 

period. Many of the platforms are reaching an age 

when they might usually have been decommissioned: 

their maintenance is getting more expensive as they 

were not designed to last this long, but—fortunately—they 

were over-engineered so they are still in active use. The 

current pipelines and platforms are, however, crucial 

hubs to future exploration. The finds that are now being 

made are too small to justify stand-alone production. 

They need to be linked back to the existing platforms 

and pipelines in the North sea. Once those platforms 

and pipelines have gone, whole areas of the North sea 

will be sterilised from future investment and production. 

Timing is vital to maintain them, and to encourage 

those hubs to be there. The Select Committee felt the 

Government should go further in their tax incentives to 

bring in more activity on the existing platforms so that 

they continue to be economic and to be invested in and 

so that future developments can be tied back to them. 

In a mature province such as the North sea, such 

smaller future developments are not attractive to the 

big global companies that have their own cash reserves


[Sir Robert Smith] 

to invest. The tradition is that smaller and more nimble 

companies move in to take over that investment and 

that exciting exploration. However, those smaller and 

more nimble companies rely on the financial markets to 

unlock the investment, and the credit crunch and the 

recession have hit them as much as they have hit the rest 

of the economy. The Select Committee has therefore 

proposed to the Government that the tax relief that will 

come to these smaller companies when they get into 

production should be paid up front and then taken 

back later when the production comes in. That would 

assist their cash flow. 

Another exciting prospect highlighted by the Committee 

is the future gas finds west of Shetland. There are still 

large fields there, but it is a very challenging environment 

in which to operate: it is very stormy and there are very 

deep waters. Again, we think the Government should 

incentivise activity in that whole west of Shetland province, 

because if some of those major fields west of Shetland 

are developed, that will provide a great psychological 

boost to the oil and gas community and will produce 

more excitement in the markets about the potential of 

the North sea. All this is about security of supply for 

our energy needs, future tax revenues from those fields 

and—above all from a constituency point of view—the 

jobs that come from that work. 

The jewel in the crown of maintaining an efficient 

and vibrant home market is the growing export market 

that the UK has built up around the world. We are now 

world leaders in the frontiers of deep sea oil and gas 

exploration and production—subsea engineering—and 

we export our skills around the world. The fact that we 

still have a base in the UK means that that big 

manufacturing and industrial sector remains in the UK, 

bringing money back to the UK economy. For all those 

reasons, I urge the Government to respond boldly to the 

Select Committee’s recommendations and create a brighter 

future for the North sea and for the security of this 

country’s energy supplies. 

As we enter the recess— 

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): Long recess. 

Sir Robert Smith: It is a long recess, which our leaders 

say we should not be having. As we enter it, I should 

make the point from this Front Bench that the House 

carries on, and many functions will take place here and 

much work will be done by many staff of the House. I 

wish, again, to place on the record a thank you, through 

you, Madam Deputy Speaker, from Liberal Democrat 

Members to the staff of the House for all they do to 

support our work throughout the year and to make it 

possible for Parliament to function so efficiently and 

effectively. 


Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. May I 

remind right hon. and hon. Members that the seven-minute 

time limit on Back-Bench contributions now applies? 

6.11 pm 

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): I do not need 

seven minutes to say what I have to say, which is about 

delays in investigating freedom of information complaints. 

Maurice Frankel, the director of the Campaign for 

Freedom of Information, had an interesting piece in 

The Guardian exactly two weeks ago entitled “A slow 

and sluggish trudge to transparency—A backlog of 

cases and a budget shortfall is making the Freedom of 

Information Act toothless”. That is what he believes, 

and he tells us that the backlog in the Information 

Commissioner’s Office is such that 

“on average it takes eight months before an investigation into a 

complaint even begins. More than a quarter of cases wait for over 

a year” 

to get started. That is just unacceptable. 

At the beginning of this month, on 3 July, the campaign 

published a report entitled “Delays in Investigating 

Freedom of Information Complaints”. It states that 

“46 per cent. of cases took between 1 and 2 years from complaint 

to decision notice” 

and that 

“25 per cent. of cases took between 2 and 3 years to a decision”. 

In the long run, we are all dead and a Parliament runs 

for a maximum of only five years, yet people are waiting 

for years for the Information Commissioner to come 

forward with a decision—I am one of those people. 

In November 2007, in the Public Administration 

Committee, I raised the case of Michael Ashcroft with 

the Cabinet Secretary. I did so because in March 2000, 

No. 10 issued a press release that said that Michael 

Ashcroft had given—I paused for effect there— 

“a clear and unequivocal assurance” 

that he would take up permanent residence in the UK 

by the end of the year—by the end of 2000. To this day, 

he refuses to answer the question on that. I, therefore, 

raised it with the Cabinet Secretary in the Select Committee 

in November 2007. Sir Gus O’Donnell got back to me, 

saying that the Cabinet Office has no jurisdiction over 

either House of Parliament and he did not see a role for 

him on the issue of the undertaking, as it was really not 

a matter for him. On the other question of residency, he 

said that it was exempt information because it involved 

a conferring by the Crown of an honour or dignity—that 

refers to Michael Ashcroft’s peerage. The second reason 

the information was exempt was that it related to personal 

information provided, by Michael Ashcroft, in confidence. 

Those reasons were bogus and spurious, so I appealed. 

My appeal was considered by the permanent secretary 

at the Cabinet Office and it was turned down in March 

2008. At the end of that month, I wrote to the Information 

Commissioner and the matter has been with the 

Information Commissioner ever since. To this day, I do 

not know why there has been a huge delay of 16 months. 

I am asking only for two simple pieces of information. I 

do not want to know how much tax Lord Ashcroft is 

paying, but I want to know the answer to the following 

questions: to whom did Michael Ashcroft give that 

assurance and what form did that assurance take—was 

it oral, in a letter or in an e-mail? I have been denied 

those two straightforward pieces of information for 

16 months. 

I have also tabled a question to the Cabinet Office. As 

I had this vision of the Information Commissioner’s 

office being submerged in a tidal wave of information 

from the Cabinet Office relating to those two simple 

requests, I asked the Cabinet Office how many documents 

the Department had supplied to the Information 

Commissioner about my request. The Cabinet Office


refused to say. I did not want it to specify the nature of 

the documents; I asked how many documents the Cabinet 

Office had passed over to the ICO, but the shutters 

came down. This makes a mockery of the Freedom of 

Information Act 2000. This issue involves someone who 

was given an honour, but he is in our legislature, down 

there— 

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): Up there. 

Mr. Prentice: He is up there voting on, formulating 

and participating in the laws of the land. I am talking 

not about the laws of Belize, but about the laws of the 

United Kingdom, so I want the new Information 

Commissioner to listen to what I am saying today and 

ensure that I have this information within the next four 

weeks. If I do not have it by then, I will raise this matter 

again when we return in October. 

6.17 pm 

Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con): The House 

should not rise for the summer recess without addressing 

and resolving a situation facing a small but significant 

number of citizens of the United Kingdom who are 

being denied their right to “exportable benefits” . In 

October 2007, the European Court of Justice determined 

that aspects of disability living allowance, attendance 

allowance and carer’s allowance were sickness benefits, 

rather than “special non-contributory benefits” and 

were therefore exportable and payable to United Kingdom 

claimants living in other EU states and Switzerland. 

That decision has, potentially, a profound effect on the 

incomes and well-being of those who, having left the 

United Kingdom to take up residence in other EU 

states, had benefits to which they had previously been 

told they had an entitlement for life, summarily withdrawn 

in 1992. 

Let us be clear: these are not rich people who have 

chosen to leave the United Kingdom to take their 

money with them and live in large villas with swimming 

pools; they are, by implication, all suffering from advancing 

disability, and most are elderly and drawing United 

Kingdom pensions. They have, throughout their working 

lives, paid UK taxes and national insurance contributions 

and have earned the right to those continuing benefits 

to which the ECJ says they are entitled. It would appear 

that there are about 2,000 to 3,000 such people and 

their moving abroad has probably saved the UK taxpayer 

significant sums in continuing health care costs. 

Although the ECJ ruling was issued in October 2007, 

it was not until 24 February 2009 that the Department 

for Work and Pensions finally issued its eligibility criteria 

for the payment of exportable benefits. First, the 

Department has imposed a condition that claimants 

must have resided in the United Kingdom for 26 out of 

the previous 52 weeks before claiming—inevitably, many 

people who moved abroad before the ECJ ruling have 

found their claims rejected on those grounds. Secondly, 

claimants are told that their applications for reinstatement 

fall because they did not appeal within the time limits 

set following the original decision to terminate benefits. 

Given that the ECJ ruling was not announced until 

October 2007, that is clearly a condition designed to 

facilitate the rejection of claims for reinstatement, rather 

than to facilitate them. Indeed, in a letter to me dated 

14 April 2009 the relevant Work and Pensions Minister 

said: 

“Where no appeal was made, decisions made before the ECJ 

ruling on 18th October 2007 cannot now be revised because it was 

not until that court ruling that these decisions were shown to be 

errors in law”. 

In other words, the Government were saying, “We acted 

erroneously in law but you should have known that 

before the ECJ ruling and lodged an appeal. Because 

you did not do that your claim is now out of time and 

we don’t have to pay you the money that the ECJ says is 

lawfully yours.”What an honourable Government should 

have done, as swiftly as practicably possible following 

the ECJ ruling in October of 2007, is to have written to 

every known claimant whose payments had been terminated 

by the Department and advised them that, following the 

ECJ decision, their claims were being reinstated and 

backdated. There should have been no requirement on 

the claimants to instigate action to regain that to which 

they were and are entitled. 

One claimant, who has had his application rejected, 

is my own constituent John Hamilton, now resident in 

France. Mr. Hamilton has 44 years of United Kingdom 

national insurance contributions behind him, paid during 

a long career in teaching and civil engineering. He had 

his eligibility to receive disability living allowance confirmed 

for life on 17 June 2002 while still resident in the UK. 

His last full payment of DLA was made, after he 

advised the DWP of an impending move to France, on 

23 May 2006. Mr. Hamilton and his wife left to live in 

France on 9 June of that year. 

On 13 March 2008 my constituent found on the 

internet a reference to the October 2007 ECJ ruling and 

wrote to the Department requesting reinstatement of 

his benefits. He was told that the exportability team 

were 

“awaiting confirmation of the eligibility criteria”. 

Following the publication of the long-awaited criteria 

in February of 2009, Mr. Hamilton received a letter 

telling him that a decision maker had rejected his claim. 

My constituent then submitted a request for an appeal 

hearing before an independent tribunal. To date he has 

received no date for a tribunal hearing and no satisfaction. 

What Mr. Hamilton—and many others in a similar 

situation—should have received is an apology from the 

Department for the chaotic mismanagement and delay 

following the ECJ ruling, immediate reinstatement of 

his benefits and, in his case, backdated payments from 

the date of termination in May 2006. John Hamilton 

was claiming DLA before he left the UK. He was 

awarded it for life. The ECJ has ruled that he is entitled 

to this benefit, and he and others like him want and 

deserve their money without further delay. 

If this Government and this Minister seek to prevaricate 

further at the expense of a few elderly and infirm UK 

citizens and their carers who have paid their dues to the 

United Kingdom, it will be to their eternal shame. I 

hope that when she comes to respond, the Minister will 

feel able to announce that all of those who have had 

their benefits terminated will now, and without further 

argument or appeal, have them reinstated along with 

reparation in the form of back payments. Nothing less 

will suffice. 

6.23 pm 

Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Devonport) (Lab): There 

are several issues of importance to Plymouth that I 

could mention today, including how we could speed up


[Alison Seabeck] 

the connectivity of broadband; how we respond to the 

Walker review of water supplies, in view of the high 

water costs in the south-west region, and how some 

fairness could be brought into the charging system; or 

the need for further investment in transport, given our 

peripherality. However, in the past few weeks, one issue 

has been raised with me frequently by telephone and 

letter, and that is the problems with leasehold managing 

agents. 

In 2006-07, according to the English housing survey, 

more than 1.5 million households were owned leasehold, 

so about 11 per cent. of the total owner-occupied sector 

could be subject to management by a managing agent. 

Most leaseholders lead a problem-free existence and are 

happy with the way in which their properties are managed 

and their relationship with their freeholder. However, 

for a significant minority, this is not the case and most 

MPs will know from their casework in both the private 

rented and residential leasehold sector that people’s 

lives can be made a misery. 

Typically, where a block of properties is owned leasehold, 

the freeholder appoints a managing agent to maintain 

the property, arrange building insurance and look after 

any communal areas. These managing agents will levy 

fees on the leaseholders for the provision of these 

services and should explain these charges—but that 

does not always happen, as I will explain later. 

The managing agent sector is a multi-million pound 

industry, and one which is at the moment entirely 

without objective and independent scrutiny and regulation. 

In the last two months alone, I have had complaints 

about four separate managing agents. Many of the 

concerns raised have a common theme, and interestingly 

many of the properties affected in Plymouth are part 

of the portfolio that was sold off by the Ministry of 

Defence. The complex web of sales has been part of 

the problem for residential leaseholders, who have had 

difficulty tracking down their landlord and then the 

managing agent responsible for ensuring that works are 

carried out. 

For example, a company called Novograde bought a 

tranche of ex-MOD properties from Annington Homes 

in Barne Barton. Novograde employed a company called 

Labyrinth Properties Ltd to manage that property. The 

Shorepoint residents came to me because they were 

receiving bills from Labyrinth for work which they 

claimed had never been carried out, and when they tried 

to contact the managing agent seeking the details of the 

maintenance being done, nothing was forthcoming. I 

tried to make contact with Novograde to see if it would 

put pressure on its agents. I also contacted a company 

called Galliard Homes whose name cropped up, but 

whose role was unclear. I contacted Labyrinth, to try to 

get them to talk to the residents. Sadly, none had the 

decency to respond to my request for a meeting. 

Some progress now appears to have been made. Labyrinth 

has lost its contract to a company called TMS, and 

TMS has already been in touch with me and seems to be 

moving in a more positive direction. It has acknowledged 

that the area has been poorly managed and that the 

residents have not had the information to which they 

were entitled. Clearly the jury is still out, but I have 

encouraged TMS to engage with the residents and vice 

versa. 

In the case of the Shorepoint properties, one issue of 

concern was the common areas, including play areas, 

which were neglected and potentially a health hazard. 

The problem was that no one was taking responsibility 

for those areas. Residents are often, and understandably, 

concerned with their own individual properties and 

simply expect the private landlord to ensure that the 

grounds are maintained, as their contracts provide. 

Common area maintenance is not initially residents’ 

first priority. However, when the exterior becomes overgrown 

and when residents are being charged for maintenance 

and nothing is being done, they get more than a little 

irritated. Some managing agents and freeholders will 

try to delay action and dispute land ownership to avoid 

paying out for remedial action. This of course often 

then puts pressure on the local authority—and the 

council tax payer—when it has to be called in to inspect 

areas and serve notices, if appropriate, on the landlord. 

Leaseholders are often invoiced for works outside the 

legal timeframe, and invoices are sent out incorrectly—either 

too soon or with the urgency of a final demand without 

prior warning. In Vicarage gardens, St. Budeaux, there 

is now an active group of residents—lovely people—who 

are in some cases very frightened because they have 

received court summons and final demands for sums 

that they believe they have been incorrectly charged. 

Pier Management, which oversees these properties, again 

proved elusive until very recently. It has at last responded 

to letters I sent on behalf of a resident—an elderly 

woman—who had been sent a court summons for moneys 

which, when broken down, she had either paid or were 

in fact not due for some time. The lady in question has 

at least been reimbursed and I now understand that 

progress is being made with other residents. 

However, some questions remain unanswered. The 

residents have not been allowed to see the insurance 

cover which exists for their buildings. These are a series 

of mainly maisonettes which have four properties in 

them and which are wholly free-standing. The residents 

want to know why they cannot organise their own 

buildings insurance. The managing agents simply say 

that all the properties should be insured as a single 

portfolio. I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation 

that that is in fact the case, and if it is, the issue should 

be revisited. 

In another part of my patch, a company called Solitaire 

is the managing agent; again, until very recently and 

following my involvement, its unwillingness to speak to 

or meet residents has led to a serious breakdown in 

relations. It has now met residents, and its regional 

director has taken away their concerns. The residents 

produced figures showing that the percentage increase 

in charges was astronomical with no obvious improvement 

in the service offered. They quite rightly felt that this 

was unacceptable. I am pleased to say that yet again 

there has been some progress. Errors have been found in 

the company’s budget figures that make a considerable 

improvement in the charges levied. 

Why is it acceptable for these companies not to 

provide the service for which leaseholders pay not 

inconsiderable sums annually? They should not have to 

engage the support of the local MP. Leaseholders should 

be able to access their landlord and know where to 

contact them. The same applies to private tenants, and I 

am pleased that the Government appear to be making 

progress towards changes in this regard.


I am not condemning all leasehold managing agents. 

The professional association is keen to see the sector 

cleaned up. Finally, I ask Ministers to give serious 

consideration to any legislative change to the practices 

of letting and managing agents of residential leasehold 

properties, because many companies offer both services 

and the abuses are the same. 

6.30 pm 

James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): 

I want to speak about aeroplanes, tax and flowers—a 

combination that probably has not been addressed by 

the House so far. 

I shall speak first about planes. There has been much 

debate recently about Heathrow. I opposed the third 

runway there and I also oppose the development of the 

Thames estuary airport that is sometimes known as 

“Heathrow-on-Sea” or “Boris Island”. Whatever it is 

called, it is a rehash of the Maplin Sands proposal of 

the 1970s and it is wholly and totally inappropriate. 

However, I fully support the expansion of Southend 

airport. 

That may appear contradictory, but the expansion of 

the current facilities at Southend airport would be very 

positive for the town and the surrounding area. The 

main expansion would involve lengthening the runway 

from 1,605 to 1,799 metres. That would make Southend 

a successful regional airport with the capacity to serve 

1 million to 2 million passengers, and so similar to the 

very successful airport at Southampton. 

Southend’s economy is heavily interwoven with tourism, 

and a fully functioning passenger airport would provide 

a major boost to the town. However, Southend cannot 

rely on tourism alone, as it also needs to rely heavily on 

the business sector. The airport plays an important part 

in that respect as well. 

Hi-Tec is a big company with its headquarters in 

Southend, to which it relocated mainly because of the 

existence of the airport and the capacity that it offered 

for staff to get around Europe. A larger airport would 

offer more passenger flights, and both Southend and 

Rochford councils have made a strong commitment to 

develop a business park. The airport already employs 

1,300 people: its expansion would create at least another 

1,000 jobs, but my gut feeling is that there would be a 

great many more. 

There are always different views on airport expansion. 

I have received many letters and e-mails both supporting 

and opposing expansion. I conducted my own survey of 

local business people and 62 per cent. said that they 

supported expansion of the airport, with only 13 per 

cent. saying that they opposed it. 

Politicians can disagree with each other as well. In our 

last recess Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend the 

Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) set out some 

of his legitimate concerns about expansion, but the final 

decision rests with councillors in Southend and Rochford. 

I urge them to have some backbone: they should do 

what is right for the town and not worry about political 

point scoring. Some politicians in both towns have 

stepped up to the challenge, but not all. We should set 

aside party politics and do the right thing for Southend. 

The consultation on the joint area action plan closed 

on 15 May. It was a mistake for the councils in Southend 

and Rochford to request the airport not to get involved 

and to stay silent. It was also a mistake by the Stobart 

Group to acquiesce in that and not to get out and sell 

the benefits of the airport. Now that the consultation is 

closed, there should be much more aggressive selling of 

the benefits that an expansion of Southend airport 

could bring, especially as we approach 2012. Southend 

is closer to London than Stansted, with faster journey 

times to the capital. 

I turn now to the question of tax credits. I know that 

Mr. Speaker is keen to speed up responses to parliamentary 

questions, and I hope he will consider extending that to 

parliamentary correspondence as well. I have written to 

the Financial Secretary to the Treasury about my concerns 

about queries to the tax credits office and, given that 

over the next 10 days some of my constituents will fill in 

their tax credits renewal forms, that is a very appropriate 

matter to raise today. 

Some families in my area have children leaving full-time 

education. If they do not notify the tax credits office of 

that, they could end up in receipt of an overpayment of 

tax credits and thus being fined more than £300. The 

system is a mess, and the responses from the tax credits 

office are poor, untimely and sometimes not especially 

comprehensive. The result is that several clarifications 

have to be issued, and the extended correspondence can 

cause confusion. It is a great disincentive to people 

taking on the extra work and promotions that would be 

notifiable to the tax credits office. 

I turn now to flowers. I have noticed that Members of 

Parliament sometimes get the bit between their teeth 

about really small issues. Given the bigger issues such as 

the recession and the economy, it may seem odd to 

speak about Southend hospital’s decision to ban flowers, 

but things are sometimes symbolic. The ban on flowers 

is symbolic of a public institution that has lost touch 

with reality—one that has lost the common touch. 

Ministers have said that the flower ban is a matter for 

the local hospital trust, but I am sure that if they 

seriously thought that flowers were a risk to health they 

would issue national guidance on the matter. An article 

entitled “The Evidence Base and Infection Risks from 

Flowers in a Clinical Setting” was published in the 

British Journal of Infection Control in 2005, and I am 

sure that hon. Members of all parties will have read it in 

great detail. It states that there is no “robust evidence” 

that flowers cause a problem, and it goes on: 

“Occasionally, new practices become part of clinical routines 

despite the lack of supporting evidence. Banning flowers from 

general hospital wards falls into this category.” 

Another survey that I held found that more than 

70 per cent. of people wanted to keep the display of 

flowers in hospital. The journalist Matthew Stanton 

spearheaded a campaign in the popular local newspaper 

the Yellow Advertiser, to which the majority of respondents 

also said that they wanted the hospital to allow flowers 

in the wards. 

Last week, I went to the hospital at quite short notice 

to see a friend, and I found it to be dirty, depressing and 

disorganised. The visit confirmed some of my worst 

fears, and the hospital’s failure to see common sense on 

flowers is on the same level as the failures that have 

caused it to become dirty and have poor patient flows. 

Despite its multi-million pound budget, the chairs are 

crumbling and there is not a decent one to sit on. The 

ragged signs on the walls telling one where to go suggest 

that the operation there is not run in a professional way.


[James Duddridge] 

The symbolism of the ban on flowers represents a much 

greater problem at Southend hospital, and it is a problem 

that I hope the hospital addresses. 

ROYAL ASSENT 

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, 

in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her 

Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following 

Acts: 

Appropriation (No. 2) Act 2009 

Finance Act 2009 

Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 

Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 

Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. 

6.37 pm 

Colin Burgon (Elmet) (Lab): Neville Chamberlain 

once talked about 

“a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we 

know nothing.” 

That could apply to the subject that I want to raise 

today—the recent military coup in Honduras. 

People probably do not know much about Honduras, 

but the journal Business Week tells us: 

“Honduras is one of the poorest countries in the Western 

Hemisphere. Two-thirds of its 7.8 million citizens live below the 

poverty line…The country has one of Latin America’s most 

unequal distributions of wealth: the poorest 10 per cent. of the 

population receives just 1.2 per cent. of the country’s wealth, 

while the richest 10 per cent. collect 42 per cent.” 

President Zelaya was elected to lead the country in 

2005. A member of the Honduras Liberal party, he was 

a wealthy rancher and a man of the centre or centre 

right. Under pressure of events, however, he began to 

change his politics and he implemented several progressive 

measures during his time in office. He raised the minimum 

wage by 60 per cent.—something that new Labour 

might note. He also gave out free school lunches and 

provided milk for babies and pensions for the elderly. 

He cut the cost of public transport, made scholarships 

available for students and forged alliances with the 

progressive Governments in the continent of Latin America 

such as those of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. 

President Zelaya also sought to institutionalise many 

of his progressive developments with constitutional change. 

The non-binding poll of the public that he proposed for 

28 June was aimed at gauging support for a proposed 

constituent assembly to redraft the constitution ahead 

of a ballot in November. This is the translation of the 

question: 

“Do you agree that, during the general elections of November 

2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a 

Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political 

constitution?” 

That step was too much for the military, and as a result, 

on 28 June—the day the ballot was supposed to take 

place—the President was kidnapped, bundled on to a 

plane and flown out of the country, and the military 

junta and the leading oligarchs in the country came 

together to form what is effectively an illegal Government. 

The Honduran junta has rightly been almost totally 

isolated. It has been rejected by the General Assembly 

of the United Nations, the Organisation of American 

States and the European Union, among others. It is rare 

that I pay tribute to Ministers, but I pay tribute to the 

newly installed Under-Secretary of State for Foreign 

and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member 

for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has responsibility for 

Latin America. He responded very quickly and efficiently 

and made a statement to put on record Britain’s opposition 

to the coup. It is also important that the EU yesterday 

suspended more than $90 million in aid to Honduras in 

the wake of the coup. 

However, such opposition has so far been ineffectual 

in restoring Zelaya to government and stronger action 

is need. Obviously, that stronger action should come 

from America, because at the end of the day, it calls the 

shots in what is historically its back yard. There were 

hopes of real change with the election of President 

Obama, but we can see that there are tensions within 

the American Government. Clinton, the Secretary of 

State, is possibly somewhat enamoured of the new 

regime and does not want to take the action that others 

in America would like. If the US is to break with the 

past and work with people rather than against them, as 

President Obama told the conference of Latin American 

leaders it wants to, the steps that he must take are clear. 

The Honduran Government—or rather, the supposed 

Government—must be replaced and a democratically 

elected President must be installed. 

We hear lots about human rights in the media, but 

since the coup on 28 June that installed Roberto Micheletti, 

the regime has unleashed a wave of repression of human 

rights. Protesters and political activists have been killed, 

1,300 people have been arrested, and there have been 

curfews, widespread media censorship and the violation 

of other civil liberties. 

That is important, because although we have joked in 

the past about banana republics and Governments being 

changed on a monthly or daily basis, most of Latin 

America has emerged from that darkness and the people 

have begun to take charge of their destiny. We have seen 

that throughout the Latin American continent, including 

central America. The military junta represents an attempt 

to turn the clock back to those dark, dark days. If those 

dark days return, it will mean real hardship for the 

millions of people in central and Latin America. 

I hope that the deputy Leader of the House will 

re-confirm that the UK is absolutely and implacably 

opposed to the Honduran military regime, and that the 

UK will do all it can to restore the democratically 

elected regime. 

6.43 pm 

Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): The Isle of 

Wight shares many problems with the mainland, and 

has a few of its own. My time as the island’s MP is often 

taken up addressing those matters and explaining their 

importance to the House and to Ministers. With that in 

mind, I should like to extend my thanks to certain 

Ministers for their help this year with issues that have 

affected my constituents. 

Three months ago the right hon. and learned Member 

for North Warwickshire (Mr. O’Brien), then a Minister 

in the Department of Energy and Climate change,


contacted me with news that Vestas was planning to 

close its operation on the Isle of Wight. Later I wrote to 

the First Secretary of State, Lord Mandelson, to ask for 

his support and advice. Vestas is a hugely profitable 

Danish company and has operations across the world. 

Until recently, it operated England’s only wind turbine 

manufacturing facility, in my constituency. It was one 

of only two in Britain—the other was a small Scottish 

Government-funded operation. 

Following announcements that Vestas was to shut its 

Newport operation, several meetings were held. The 

Minister for the South East, the hon. Member for 

Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), visited my 

constituency when he was looking into the matter and 

ensured that help was given to people seeking new 

employment. I thank him for his time. 

I attended a private meeting with a delegation from 

the Isle of Wight TUC and others from the island, 

including the Labour prospective parliamentary candidate, 

Mark Chiverton. A public meeting was held and it 

attracted a wide audience from across the island and 

several people from the mainland. Needless to say, 

Vestas employees and my constituents generally were 

dismayed at the company’s decision. Vestas announced 

record profits on the same day that it broke the news 

that it was closing its facility with the loss of 600 jobs. 

Vestas is not cutting jobs because of the recession or 

because of a need to downsize; it has decided that it will 

be more profitable to manufacture wind turbines in the 

United States and China, without a thought for the 

highly skilled workers that it leaves behind. 

When it originally came to the island nine years ago it 

received a £3.5 million Government subsidy, which 

contributed to the costs it incurred moving from the 

mainland. Less than a decade later it is leaving, despite 

that sizable taxpayer-funded financial support. That is 

why, when public money supports private companies, it 

is important for it to be directed to companies and 

businesses that are firmly rooted in the local economy. 

Since writing to Lord Mandelson on the matter, I 

have received no reply. I find it disappointing that he 

could not find time to speak to me about this important 

issue, especially when I see him on television daily. 

However, I believe in giving credit where it is due. I 

thank the Ministers whom I mentioned for their efforts 

to convince Vestas to remain open on the island. I 

understand that all avenues were investigated—even 

subsidies were offered—but with no success. Subsidies, 

it seems, were not what Vestas was after. 

Only last week Lord Mandelson was congratulating 

himself on the launch of the new low carbon industrial 

strategy. I hope that he considers Vestas to be a serious 

loss to the future of our low-carbon economy. Government 

plans state that around 7,000 wind turbines are to be 

installed across Britain in the coming years. It seems 

unfortunate that such green technology will have to be 

manufactured overseas and shipped here. 

The loss of those 600 jobs has been a body blow to 

the island’s economy, especially during the recession. 

Since Monday evening, protesters against the closure of 

Vestas have been occupying the site. I understand their 

frustration and I am sympathetic to their concerns. Not 

only is Vestas leaving the workers high and dry, it is 

doing so with very poor redundancy packages. Those 

who have worked at the site for two years or more are 

entitled to only twice the statutory pay. Those who have 

worked for less time will receive less still. As I understand 

it, there were no negotiations with workers on the 

redundancy packages. I find that totally unacceptable, 

and it reflects very poorly on a company as profitable as 

Vestas. 

The South East England Development Agency has 

arranged a series of open days for Vestas staff to help 

them to find suitable jobs. They are a highly skilled and 

capable work force and I am confident that they will 

find work in the near future. 

On another matter, I must ask why the Minister for 

Higher Education and Intellectual Property has failed 

to produce a full response to a letter from a constituent 

of mine concerning the Student Loans Company dated 

22 April. In late June, via a parliamentary question, I 

asked when the Department for Business, Innovation 

and Skills planned to provide a substantive reply to my 

constituent’s letters. Here we are in late July, and I still 

await a proper response to my letter. I received a brief 

reply on 5 July but it was in no way satisfactory. The 

matter is particularly pressing for the constituents concerned, 

and they cannot afford to wait any longer. I hope for a 

full response from the Minister as quickly as possible. 

The delay is unacceptable. 

Finally—although I had planned to speak for much 

longer—I can tell the House that we are getting on with 

the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 

and its Ministers, and we hope that we will be able to 

deal with the problem of fallen stock on the island fairly 

shortly. 

I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all right 

hon. and hon. Members a happy and productive holiday— 

although in my opinion it is too long. 

6.50 pm 

Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab): I shall touch on 

a topic mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for 

Pendle (Mr. Prentice). He said that he would not speak 

for seven minutes, and I promise the House that I shall 

not speak for as long as that. 

I want to lay before the House the difficulties I have 

experienced in pursuing an alleged case of fraud against 

the NHS. In September 2007 allegations were made 

to me that a local doctor was passing off his private 

patients as NHS patients in one of our local hospitals— 

Arrowe Park, part of Wirral hospital trust. I wrote 

to the trust to ask for a meeting, which was held in 

November 2007, when I requested the information held 

by the trust about its investigation of the fraud. I 

suggested simple steps that the trust might take to find 

out whether the fraud was more widespread and involved 

other doctors. Both my request and my suggestion were 

refused. 

In January 2008, under the Freedom of Information 

of Act 2000, I asked the trust for information about the 

inquiries that it said it had undertaken. After some 

delay, the trust refused to give the information. In July 

2008 I applied to the Information Commissioner for a 

ruling that I should have access to the trust’s surveys of 

that case of alleged fraud. Almost a year later—to 

reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member 

for Pendle—the commissioner turned down my request, 

so I wrote to the Information Tribunal disputing that 

decision. The tribunal replied that it would of course 

receive my application, and that of course there could 

be a hearing, but if I lost the case, all the costs of the 

inquiry and the tribunal costs would land on my doorstep.


[Mr. Frank Field] 

I do not expect the Minister to reply tonight, but I 

would be grateful if one of her colleagues could look 

into that matter. Is there not a difference between us as 

private citizens wanting information under the Freedom 

of Information Act, and Members of Parliament wanting 

to pursue—as I am in this instance—an alleged case of 

fraud in which a national health service doctor is passing 

off his private patients as NHS patients? In terms of the 

costs, I think there is a real distinction to be made. 

I shall pursue the case, although I have no idea what 

the costs will be. However, I hope that before then the 

Government will take the decision that people in public 

positions, such as MPs, who take cases on behalf of the 

public good, to protect public funds, should be treated 

differently in terms of costs from the litigious constituents 

who are to some extent clogging up the freedom of 

information process. 

6.54 pm 

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire) (Con): I 

start by reflecting on the fact that in the county council 

elections this year, the Conservatives took control of 

Derbyshire county council for the first time in 28 years. 

I congratulate Andrew Lewer, the county councillor for 

Ashbourne, on becoming leader of the council. The last 

time we took control of Derbyshire county council was 

in 1977, which was followed by the famous election 

victory of my noble Friend the former Prime Minister, 

Lady Thatcher. I hope that what we have achieved in 

Derbyshire is the precursor of an event that may take 

place in the not too distant future—whenever the next 

general election is held. 

A few moments ago, Madam Deputy Speaker, you 

read out the names of a number of Bills that had 

received Royal Assent and had become Acts of Parliament. 

I want to talk about a Bill that was taken through the 

House some years ago: the Safeguarding Vulnerable 

Groups Act 2006. 

I have received a letter from the headmaster of Queen 

Elizabeth’s grammar school in Ashbourne—before people 

draw the conclusion that that is a grammar school, I 

point out that it is, in fact, an 11-to-18 comprehensive 

school. The headmaster is concerned about the implications 

of the Act for hosting foreign students. He wrote a letter 

to the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and 

Families, from which I shall quote: 

“From November 2010 any family hosting a child under the 

age of 18 must have one adult, considered to be primarily responsible, 

registered with the Independent Safeguarding Authority, i.e. a 

CRB check must be made. Aside from the cost, and we do not 

know who will pay, I wonder how many people will be willing to 

undergo this imposition. It is intended to ensure child safety yet 

there will be adults in every household who will not need to be 

checked.” 

Only one adult needs to be checked. The letter continues: 

“However the questionable effectiveness of such a scheme is 

totally undermined by the fact that no similar checks, beyond the 

informal ones we currently do…have to be undertaken by the 

host schools with whom we exchange students in France, Germany 

or the USA. Every Derbyshire Head to whom I have spoken 

assumes it will be the end of school exchanges.” 

Surely the Government cannot have intended that to be 

the case. The Act, like so many others, has unintended 

consequences. 

Much can be gained from foreign exchanges for 

schools, and I am concerned that the regulations being 

applied to local authorities and schools will rule out 

such things. We have several times heard the Secretary 

of State say that he wants to encourage such exchanges, 

because he believes they are good for the development 

of individuals. I believe that too, but unless the Government 

take some action to change the regulations, they will 

lead to the ending of all those foreign exchanges. As 

with so much of the legislation we pass, good arguments 

were made about the measure, but when we see the 

reality of its coming into effect we wonder how we ever 

allowed it. 

The Government have treated the victims of Equitable 

Life disgracefully. The simple fact is that the Government 

have had the report for some time. Last November, the 

Prime Minister told us that we would have a statement 

on Equitable Life before Christmas. The statement came 

after Christmas and, as ever with the Government, time 

after time there have been delays. A lot of people are 

suffering great hardship because the Government did 

not move faster to deal with the problems. People who 

have done the right thing and invested for their future 

have been let down by the failure of the regulator. The 

victims of Equitable Life deserved to be looked after 

more quickly than the Government have pursued the 

matter. 

My constituency has a huge rural area and we are 

suffering badly from bovine TB. The Government should 

pay much more attention to the subject. They have hung 

on for far too long; as the disease has spread through 

cattle it has cost the state more than £600 million. In 

West Derbyshire we have a specific problem with bovine 

TB. We have waited for reports, but the Government 

now have a huge number of them, and they need to take 

action urgently. 

Time is short, so I have raised just three issues that 

are very important in my constituency. There are many 

other such issues, but I know that other colleagues want 

to speak. 

6.59 pm 

Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): I wish to 

raise the case of the prisoner, Ronnie Biggs. A fortnight 

ago the Secretary of State for Justice made a decision 

on his case. His son, Michael Biggs, invited me to visit 

him in prison, HMP Norwich. I applied to the governor 

to visit. I wanted to see if this 80-year-old was a threat 

to society. His son said that his health was frail, so I 

wanted to see what sort of condition he was in, and how 

that related to the Secretary of State’s decision. My 

application to visit was turned down by the governor, 

which I think is quite exceptional. 

I wrote to Ministers and I received a reply from the 

Justice Secretary, who wrote that the governor, Mr. Paul 

Baker, thought that 

“such a visit would cause significant disruption to the hospital on 

top of the disruption which the hospital has already experienced.” 

I was surprised at that. I still think it was the wrong 

decision, but the Secretary of State went on to say: 

“That said, I also think it is reasonable to ask him to facilitate 

such a visit in the future”. 

I hope that that will take place, but it was wrong, in my 

opinion, to deny me a visit in such circumstances.


The real issue is the Secretary of State’s decision to 

overturn the Parole Board’s recommendation that Mr. Biggs 

be released. That was an unreasonable and cruel decision, 

and there is some evidence that has been put forward by 

some lawyers that it was a misuse of power and, indeed, 

ultra vires. Clearly, Mr. Biggs had to spend his time in 

prison, but his 30-year sentence was excessive. I looked 

up the Dome diamond robbers, who I think are pretty 

comparable to those who took part in the great train 

robbery. Two of them got 18 years, two got 15 years and 

one got five years. Mr. Biggs would have been released if 

he had received such a sentence. His sentence was 

excessive in the first place. It is more comparable to the 

sentences passed on serious sex offenders and mass 

murderers, and was inappropriate. 

Mr. Biggs has now served 10 years after surrendering 

in 2001. He was eligible for parole and was recommended 

for parole. The reason given for not granting him that 

was that he was not repentant. I have a letter from 

Mr. Chris Pickard, who was the ghost writer behind 

Ron’s autobiography, “Odd Man Out”. He states: 

“I do, therefore, have to question who is advising and briefing 

Mr. Straw as most of what he has said about Ron in his ruling is 

simply factually wrong.” 

Mr. Pickard continues: 

“To say Ron is unrepentant goes against all the interviews Ron 

has given on the subject over the years and what he wrote in his 

autobiography in 1994. Ron has always abhorred violence and 

has not committed a crime since escaping from HMP Wandsworth 

back in 1965, other than entering a number of countries on a false 

passport. Why after over 44 years would Ron, who may never 

now walk again, return to a life of crime and how would he pull it 

off in his current state of health?” 

To say that Mr. Biggs is unrepentant is plain wrong, 

and to say that he could benefit from crime is ludicrous. 

This is an ill man, who can hardly walk; I shall say a 

little about his ill health. He is not going on a speaking 

tour. He cannot earn from his crime—that would be 

against the law. It is the media who are imposing 

themselves on him, not Ron imposing himself on them, 

and that will happen anyway when he is released, unless 

he dies in prison, as some officials in the Home Office 

seem to want. That is unreasonable. 

There is some dubiety—I think some craziness—about 

the legal powers being exercised by the Justice Secretary, 

using a law that has been repealed and another that was 

overruled by the Law Lords in 2002. There is massive 

inconsistency. The Secretary of State will not intervene 

in cases of murderers who have received life sentences, 

but he says that he can in cases involving lower offences, 

such as that of Mr. Biggs. He says that he cannot 

intervene on future cases, because the law has been 

changed, but he can on past cases. That is wholly 

inconsistent. 

A case is being made by Mr. Biggs’s son, Michael, 

that there was some political element to the decision. 

The day before, the Secretary of State made a decision 

in relation to Michael Shields, the Liverpool man who is 

in prison in Bulgaria. He decided not to let him go, 

which I think was the wrong decision, but once he had 

made that decision, he had to make a similar decision in 

respect of Ronnie Biggs. Both were unreasonable decisions, 

and the motivation in the Ronnie Biggs case was 

unreasonable. 

In reply to a point made by my hon. Friend the 

Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on the matter, the 

Leader of the House said that the Justice Secretary had 

made his decision to keep Ronnie Biggs in prison in the 

public interest. What public interest is there in keeping a 

frail 80-year-old man, who has served 10 years, in 

prison? It is a cruel penal policy, which many organisations 

for the elderly and the Prison Reform Trust say it is 

wrong to inflict on the increasing number of people in 

their 70s and 80s in prison, despite the fact that the 

severity of the crimes involved has not increased. Why 

do we have such elderly people in prison, when they 

should be outside? 

My last point concerns Mr. Biggs’ ill health. He has 

suffered three strokes, cannot walk, cannot talk, cannot 

go to the toilet without a bag, has a nasal gastric feed, 

has broken his hip and his pelvis, has injured his spine, 

has acute pneumonia and is currently in Norwich general 

hospital. This is a man who is a threat to society, 

according to the Secretary of State for Justice. That is 

ridiculous. The decision should be reconsidered. It is 

not in the public interest to have an inhumane penal 

policy. We should have a humane policy, so I ask that it 

be reconsidered. 

7.6 pm 

Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): It is a 

pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leyton and 

Wanstead (Harry Cohen). I hope he will forgive me for 

not following his line, as I intend to begin by speaking 

about a group of people whom I regard as more deserving 

of our sympathy and support—the victims of the Equitable 

Life debacle. Today’s statement by the Chief Secretary 

was extremely disappointing. It continues a saga that 

has gone on for almost 10 years, whereby the Government 

have delayed and ducked and weaved in order to try and 

avoid their responsibilities in relation to the victims of 

Equitable Life. 

Today, in response to the challenge from my right 

hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire 

(Sir George Young), who asked why the Government 

did not table a substantive motion on the subject in 

order to see whether that gets the support of Parliament, 

the answer from the Chief Secretary was that that was a 

matter for the business managers. Will the Deputy 

Leader of the House, as a business manager on duty 

tonight, tell the House tonight that as soon as Parliament 

returns in the autumn, the Government will table a 

substantive motion on Equitable Life? If she cannot 

give such an undertaking, will she explain why? 

The issue should be one for Parliament, rather than 

for the Government. After all, we talk about the 

parliamentary ombudsman. The cynical way in which 

the Government are responding to the crisis, which 

seriously affects groups of elderly people in all our 

constituencies, is contributing to bringing the House 

into disrepute and making it appear as though we are 

some way removed from the interests of our constituents. 

I hope the Minister will address that challenge when she 

responds. 

Another matter which I hope the hon. Lady will 

address is what is happening to the regional spatial 

strategy for the south-west. My constituents and others 

elsewhere in the south-west have been waiting for years 

for a final determination of the regional spatial strategy. 

They were told by the Government that that information 

would be made available at the end of June. I tabled a 

question to obtain that information which was answered


[Mr. Christopher Chope] 

on 16 June. The then Under-Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member 

for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry), stated: 

“We intended to issue the final Regional Spatial Strategy for 

the South West at the end of June. However, on 20 May, the High 

Court issued a judgment that the previously issued Regional 

Spatial Strategy for the East of England had failed to meet 

certain requirements”. 

The Minister went on to say that it was impossible for 

the Government to 

“reach a clear view until the written judgment is issued…It is not 

possible to set a new timetable, until the implications of the 

judgment have been clarified.”—[Official Report, 16 June 2009; 

Vol. 496, c. 208W.] 

The latest information was given to my hon. Friend the 

Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) in a 

parliamentary answer on 9 July, in which the Under- 

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, 

the hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Austin) said: 

“On 20 May, the High Court gave an oral judgment about the 

published Regional Strategy for the East of England…The 

Department and the Government Office for the south-west are 

currently considering the potential implications for the Regional 

Spatial Strategy for the south-west, and an announcement is 

expected shortly.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2009; Vol. 495, 

c. 960W.] 

Given its meaning in common parlance, I would expect 

“shortly” to refer to a date before 21 July. 

I should like to ask the Deputy Leader of the House 

two questions. First, when will we get the Government’s 

response to the regional spatial strategy for the south-west? 

Secondly, will she guarantee that that response will not 

be issued during the parliamentary recess, making it 

impossible to hold the Government to account? I am 

sure that she can make a statement to confirm that, 

because the Government have not been able to do 

anything about this during the parliamentary Session 

until this stage in July, so they should not make an 

announcement when the House is not sitting. It is 

relevant that the South-West Regional Grand Committee 

is meeting in Exeter in 3 September, and it would be a 

pity if information on that regional spatial strategy was 

bounced on the Committee just before that date. I hope 

that the Deputy Leader of the House can give me a 

specific response. 

Finally, I want to flag up the important inquiry that 

the Procedure Committee has launched into the way in 

which we appoint the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers. 

I hope that the news that we are undertaking such an 

inquiry will ensure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, 

and your fellow Deputies have a more enjoyable vacation 

than might otherwise be possible, as I think that the air 

has been cleared, and it is obvious that your future is 

assured for much longer than might have been thought 

likely after the Speaker’s statement on 2 July. I hope that 

the Speaker himself will give evidence to the Procedure 

Committee and can comment on the Procedure Committee 

report from the 2001-02 Session. The Committee 

determined that 

“it is entirely possible that the House might in future choose a 

Speaker from one party at a time when two of the three sitting 

Deputy Speakers were also members of that party. In such 

circumstances it would be unfair to expect a sitting Deputy 

Speaker to resign merely to re-balance the team.” 

I think that when Mr. Speaker made his statement on 

2 July, he overlooked that point. He overlooked, too, 

the statement in the Procedure Committee report that 

the present system is— 

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is perhaps not 

appropriate to continue involving the Speaker in that 

discussion. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made 

the point that he wished to make. 

Mr. Chope: I have made the point as I wished to, 

Madam Deputy Speaker, and I hope that as a result of 

doing so, the air is cleared and that Members will be 

encouraged to give evidence to the Select Committee. 

7.13 pm 

Barry Gardiner (Brent, North) (Lab): Year 5 at 

St. Christopher’s school in my constituency of Brent, 

North is not usually the final year for pupils. However, 

on 18 May 2009, parents were notified that St. Christopher’s 

would not run a year 6 class from this September. 

Parents were given two months to plan their children’s 

future before the end of the school year, which is in 

breach of the contract between parents and Happy 

Child Ltd, which runs St. Christopher’s school—some 

people may think that is a misnomer in the circumstances. 

I wrote at that point to Ms Tracey Storey, the managing 

director of Happy Child, asking her to clarify precisely 

when Happy Child began to consider that alternative 

provision for those children might be required, and to 

explain why absolutely no consultation with parents 

had taken place before 18 May to discuss their 

understandable concerns. 

I was extremely concerned—and still am—about the 

impact of Happy Child’s decision on other parents and 

children in the school. Such a decision undermines the 

confidence of parents whose children are in year 4 and 

below and who expect their children to continue to be 

taught at the school until the end of year 6. I asked 

Ms Tracey Storey to clarify Happy Child’s plans for 

year 6 teaching for the children currently in year 4 and 

below. 

Changing school is a stressful experience at any time, 

and it is normal for children to take time to settle in and 

make new friends. Year 6 is a critical year for many of 

those children, as they sit SATs and other examinations 

in preparation for their secondary school education. 

Such a change in the lives of those children can only be 

detrimental to their educational attainment and their 

future success. The parents tell me that their children 

were looking forward to being in the top year of the 

school and having the chance to be elected to positions 

of responsibility—being prefects and so on—and they 

are concerned that their children will miss out on those 

opportunities if they are removed from St. Christopher’s. 

There are other issues about which the parents are 

concerned, including the additional cost of having to 

purchase a new school uniform, which raises the wider 

issue of compensation. 

I therefore asked Ms Tracey Storey to confirm what 

she and Happy Child would do about issues such as 

compensation, as well as the fact that the school had 

failed to give the required notice, as set out in the 

contractual provisions between it and the parents. She 

replied that she was not prepared to discuss 

“Happy Child’s decision to ensure the viability of our business”.


There was not one mention of regret or the effect on the 

children and their lives, or of the breach of contract 

with the parents. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the 

Deputy Leader of the House to speak with the appropriate 

Minister in the Department for Children, Schools and 

Families. At a time when children are going off on their 

summer holidays, can we ensure that those children in 

particular become happy children, not Happy Child’s 

victims? 

I want briefly to raise another issue that affects my 

constituency. Bailiffs are out of control in Brent, and 

the council is instructing them, even in cases in which it 

had entered into agreements with my constituents that 

they could pay their debts by instalment. We are all 

aware of the effects of the recession, and debt is likely to 

be on the rise. It is important that public institutions 

and bodies act appropriately. It is absolutely right that 

they should agree to make payment by instalment available 

to debtors who wish to enter into such agreements. 

Unfortunately, Brent council has not seen fit to do so 

in the case of Mr. and Mrs. J who, on 29 July 2008, 

received a council tax vetting form that stated: 

“The customer is agreeing to pay for himself and his wife’s 

share, equal to £245.60 of £739.06. The Council will have to make 

a decision if this is acceptable. The customer is able to pay by 

direct debit in 5 payments.” 

Despite the fact that Brent council failed to write to 

Mr. and Mrs. J, it instructed bailiffs, who arrived at their 

house on 9 December, asking for £1,142.91. My constituents 

had to pawn some jewellery to pay that amount. The 

bailiffs then contacted them again, stating that they owed 

a further £764.06, and Mr. J sent a letter to the council 

offering to pay the amount in five instalments. The 

council agreed to accept payment by instalments and, I 

am pleased to say, has now, after investigating the matter, 

agreed that it was mistaken to instruct the bailiffs. 

Unfortunately, the council has not agreed as much in 

the case of Mr. F, regarding a council tax debt. On 

1 July 2009, Equita Bailiffs visited his property to 

collect a debt of £2,300. The bailiffs did not see Mr. F, 

but they pressurised his aged and sick mother, who was 

not the debtor, to go to the bank and withdraw the full 

amount to pay off her son’s debts. 

Finally, there is the case of Mrs. T— 

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the 

hon. Member’s time is up. 

7.20 pm 

Mr. Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and 

Selkirk) (LD): The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) 

opened the debate this afternoon at breathtaking speed. 

He did not quite leave himself breathless, but I was 

impressed by the number of different subjects that he 

was able to cover in the relatively short time that is 

available to us today. I have common cause with him 

about the Government’s incredible approach to the 

future of tax offices, which, in Galashiels and Hawick 

in my constituency, have been left in complete limbo. 

Highly skilled and professional staff are unsure about 

their future. I echo also some of the hon. Gentleman’s 

comments on fuel duty and Equitable Life, which others 

have repeated in the debate. 

I shall return in a minute to manufacturing, one of 

the hon. Gentleman’s main themes, but, first, I should 

like to pick up on the comments from the hon. Member 

for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge), 

who made some criticisms of local hospitals in his 

constituency. I appreciate that his comments were very 

specific and about circumstances that are unknown to 

me, but for my part I put on the record a great tribute to 

the consultants, midwives, nurses and others in the 

Borders general hospital, where—I hope the House will 

allow me the indulgence—my daughter, Ella, was 

born eight weeks ago. [HON. MEMBERS: “Hear, hear!”] I 

thank hon. Ladies and Gentlemen for their reaction 

to that fact. 

I was really taken by the professionalism and dedication 

of the hospital’s staff. I was obviously focused on my 

experience and the health of my wife, Alison, and 

daughter, Ella, but I also saw at close hand over many 

days the dedication of those staff and their need and 

ability to switch between so many different, pressing 

cases all the time. It was the best insight that I have had 

into the national health service in all the years that I 

have been a Member. We can never praise sufficiently 

those who serve in the health service. 

The personal is important to us in our work as 

Members, and I should like to turn to another encounter. 

In Hawick in my constituency on Saturday, I joined 

many others from the town to celebrate the gathering 

there of the clan Turnbull, a very proud and historic 

family in the area. While I stood waiting for the pipe 

band as it marched along to the unveiling of a new 

sculpture, however, a lady appeared out of the crowd 

beside me. She was very angry, perturbed and keen to 

impress upon me the scale of the problems for members 

of her family who have lost their jobs in the past year. 

My constituency is the centre of the UK’s cashmere 

knitting industry. The people of Hawick, Galashiels, 

Selkirk, Innerleithen, which I used to represent, and 

other areas all contribute to a world-class industry, but 

in the past year the unemployment statistics, which have 

doubled in my part of the world, have been largely 

changed by the terrible experience of many in that sector. 

They have been losing those jobs, and that lady was very 

intent—I assure the House that she made her point—on 

getting across to me the human suffering of her children, 

her grandchildren, their friends and others in the town 

who have lost their jobs in recent months, and of those 

who fear greatly for the future of their jobs. 

Indeed, I fear that unless we see urgent action from 

the Government now to tackle not only the general 

problems of manufacturing but the specifics of textiles, 

we will see many more job losses. Last week, I met the 

Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and 

Skills, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who 

has responsibility for manufacturing. Alongside me was 

Mr. Ken Pasternak, a gentleman from Denmark who, 

with some supporters, has invested a considerable portion 

of his wealth in Peter Scott and Co. in the town. 

Mr. Pasternak went along not just as a senior industrialist 

in his own right, but as the leader of the Scottish 

Cashmere Club, and he therefore spoke on behalf of 

the whole industry. I have met him and many others 

countless times, and with his colleagues he has been 

battering to get attention from the Scottish Government. 

So far, however, he has been very disappointed at the 

lack of practical measures offered by the powers that be 

in Edinburgh. 

The items on the agenda for the meeting with the 

Minister last week were very focused. Mr. Pasternak is 

concerned, and I share his worries, about the export


[Mr. Michael Moore] 

credit insurance support arrangements, which have been 

put before the House and are now being implemented, 

because they are largely focused on the domestic trading 

of UK manufacturing. The cashmere sector is a huge 

export earner and needs support for its exports, but it 

has not been given any, so I hope that the Minister will 

re-think that policy. 

Mr. Pasternak re-emphasised the point that many 

right hon. and hon. Members have made in the House 

countless times—the need for companies to access good 

banking facilities. Many have growing order books but 

see their credit shrink before their eyes, and many do 

not get credit because they cannot get trade export 

insurance. We now own those banks, which are on the 

front line when it comes to lending decisions, so I urge 

the Minister and those in the Treasury to go into those 

banks, examine the decisions and understand why worldclass 

businesses with good order books may be throttled 

because of the lack of available cash. 

Mr. Pasternak also highlighted the need for product 

development support, along the lines that the Italians 

and others on the continent of Europe have offered to 

their local businesses. He echoed a point that many 

business men and women in the borders and elsewhere 

have put to me—the need to focus on skills and skills 

retention. Many in short-time working could be put 

into good, productive training if there were the support 

for it, so I hope that the Government will finally— 

belatedly—see sense. 

Mr. Pasternak said that his industry was in a crisis 

moment, and I echo that point. I do not want to meet 

that constituent again and have her tell me that more 

job losses have affected her family. I want us to put a 

stop to that, and I urge the Government to take urgent 

action before it is too late. 

7.27 pm 

Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes) (Lab): Thank you very 

much for calling me to speak in this debate, Madam 

Deputy Speaker. It is always a delight to take part in 

such Adjournment debates, and it is excellent to see so 

many people here tonight joining the regulars. 

I wish to raise several constituency issues before the 

House adjourns. The first is about compensation for 

former Icelandic water trawlermen. In Hansard today, it 

was announced that an estimated £10 million is being 

made available further to compensate 1,000 men, or 

their families, who lost their livelihoods as a direct 

result of Government action following the cod wars. 

The scheme will open on 31 July and the first payments 

should be with people before Christmas. I raised the 

issue in previous Adjournment debates, and it only goes 

to show that if we are persistent in raising such subjects, 

we do get through to the right people eventually. 

The second issue—this is the one where I want Ministers 

to listen—is about business rates in ports. Port-based 

businesses in my constituency are being asked to pay 

business rates backdated as far as 2005, following the 

Valuation Office Agency’s revaluation of their businesses. 

However, the firms say that they have already paid 

business rates, via a cumulo system, to Associated British 

Ports. Some companies are being asked to pay literally 

millions of pounds in backdated rates, and it is threatening 

jobs in my constituency. Thankfully, the Secretary of 

State for Communities and Local Government has met 

MPs who represent port areas and finally his officials 

are speaking on behalf of port businesses to legal 

representatives. I hope that at last we will be able to 

reach a solution to the problem before too many jobs 

are lost. 

My third issue is the east coast main line. As everybody 

will appreciate, following all the shenanigans that have 

gone on, the line is likely to be taken into public 

ownership later this year. That gives me cause for concern 

because National Express had promised to run a direct 

rail service between Grimsby and Cleethorpes and London 

King’s Cross. We do not know now whether that will go 

ahead. It is important for there to be such improved 

transport links, to maintain the economy and encourage 

investment in the Grimsby and Cleethorpes area. During 

a Westminster Hall debate on the matter, a Minister 

confirmed that services from London King’s Cross would 

be extended to Lincoln. But I want them to go the extra 

50 miles or so to the coast, to Grimsby and Cleethorpes, 

so that our economy can benefit from those direct links. 

I turn to the Humber bridge tolls. There was an inquiry 

into them in March this year. The bridge board wanted 

to put up the tolls, but local MPs are saying that we do 

not want that to happen and that the tolls are already 

far too high. The Minister has received the report from 

the inquiry. I want to say on behalf of all the business 

representatives, councils, other MPs and residents that 

we do not want the tolls to go up. We want Ministers to 

agree to have a year-long trial of reduced tolls, involving 

a token charge of about £1 to cross the Humber bridge. 

That is the decision that we want from Ministers when 

we come back after the recess. 

People would think that free school meals for all 

primary-aged children in North East Lincolnshire was 

a good-news story—but, oh no, it is not. Our area was 

among those selected to bid to be a pilot project for free 

school meals for all primary-age children. However, the 

local authority said that it could not find enough match 

funding to put in a bid to go ahead with the policy. Yet 

that same local authority—North East Lincolnshire 

council—invested £7 million of public money in Icelandic 

banks days before they collapsed. Every inquiry into 

the council’s activities has criticised it, and there has 

been a vote of no confidence in its Liberal Democrat 

leader. Yet he continues to wend his merry way, saying 

that he is not resigning, that it had nothing to do with 

him anyway and that it was all the officers’ fault. 

What strikes me as odd about the situation is that a 

Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition used to run 

the council. But the Conservatives are doing what I call 

“a bit of a Dallas”—they have forgotten the past five 

years, when they were in coalition with the Lib Dems 

and all these things were going on, and they are saying, 

“That’s nothing to do with us either, guv.” Frankly, they 

were all in the cabinet together and lost £7 million of 

public money. That has affected investment projects in 

our area, and it is shocking. 

Finally, I turn to early-day motion 1829. It was tabled 

by my hon. Friend the Members for Bolton, North-East 

(Mr. Crausby), and my hon. Friend for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) 

was one of those who supported it. I encourage people 

to look at the early-day motion, which is about protecting 

our war memorial heritage and making sure that the


architecture and memorials are not threatened by 

development and that we preserve them for the future 

of this country. 

I wish everybody a most wonderful break. If people 

want to visit the British seaside, they should know that 

Cleethorpes has the most wonderful beach and the best 

fish and chips in Britain. Please come to Cleethorpes, 

which is wonderful. I hope that everyone enjoys their 

holidays. 

7.34 pm 

Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): I commence by 

paying tribute to our brave armed forces, who, while we 

sit in comfort, safety and security, are in the fields of 

Afghanistan defending our freedoms and ensuring that 

that nation does not return to being a failed state in 

which the Taliban can regroup and from which they 

could re-emerge on the streets of Europe, including this 

country. It is sad that today we have again lost one of 

our servicemen, from the joint service explosive ordnance 

disposal units. Our thoughts and prayers go to that 

man’s family, and we salute his courage. 

When we send our forces into harm’s way, it is incumbent 

on us all to think carefully about whether we should do 

so in a way that raises questions about the kit and 

equipment with which they are sent into battle. In the 

past few weeks, there has been a debate about helicopters; 

it may now have moved off the immediate front pages, 

but it is a fact that our armed forces need more helicopters. 

It is also a fact that our NATO allies are not providing 

the support that they could. I hope that more nations 

will look at their own helicopter support for allies on 

the ground, and for British troops in particular. 

However, the issue is about not only helicopters, but 

armoured vehicles. Although some of our armed forces 

prefer to use Snatch Land Rovers, weapons-mounted 

installation kit Land Rovers or other forms of lightly 

armoured vehicle, there is no doubt that there is a call 

for more heavily armoured, albeit mobile, vehicles as 

well. I hope that the Minister will give some assurance 

this evening that those issues are being taken seriously. 

Of course, there is also a need for more troops on the 

ground. If we win the space, we need to hold the space; 

if we do not hold the space, those who have lost their 

lives in winning the space might have died in vain. None 

of us would want that. The families of those who have 

died would certainly want the victories won on the 

ground to be sustained. They would want the space in 

which we have won victories to be enlarged. 

I also hope that the nations surrounding Afghanistan 

will do all they can to ensure that there is no increased 

threat to our personnel. For example, there have been 

reports that Chinese nationals have been found in 

Afghanistan. The Chinese Government need to ensure 

that the border with Afghanistan is secure and that any 

fundamentalist seeking to cross it is intercepted and 

dealt with appropriately. 

Furthermore, this Government have the responsibility 

to ensure that any British nationals found to be shooting 

and targeting our armed forces personnel in Afghanistan 

are dealt with appropriately. If, for example, DNA 

profiles from improvised explosive devices or bomb 

fragments match known DNA profiles on the British 

database, it is only right that the Government should 

give an account of what action, if any, is taken to bring 

the relevant British subjects before the courts. 

In the brief time that I have, I should also like to pay 

tribute to General Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of 

the General Staff. He has dedicated most of his adult 

life to serving this country and Her Majesty’s armed 

forces. It is regrettable that some Ministers have been 

briefing against him; that does not assist our armed 

forces on the ground and it does nothing to help morale. 

The Prime Minister promised that such briefings from 

other people should be dealt with severely. I hope that if 

Ministers are caught briefing against any senior members 

of the military, they will be disciplined accordingly. Our 

armed forces on the ground want a Government and a 

senior military, yes, to engage in discussion, and yes, 

perhaps occasionally to disagree, but they certainly do 

not want Ministers briefing against the head of the 

Army while we are at war. 

Finally, I should like to touch on the defence training 

review—the largest private finance initiative in British 

history. It was originally costed at £12 billion; within 

the past 12 months, the cost has risen to £13 billion. As 

I have said previously in the House, this is a privatisation 

too far. I am not against privatisation of some elements 

of support services for the military, but it needs to be 

judged on a case-by-case basis. It is clear that RAF 

St. Athan in Wales is not in a position to deliver the 

type of training that is currently delivered on other 

sites—for example, at RAF Cosford in my constituency. 

It is no good the Government driving ahead with this 

project, the cost of which is increasing week by week, 

with £100 million in direct and indirect subsidy even 

within the past nine months. Ministers need to look 

again at this project to ensure that they do not endanger 

Her Majesty’s armed forces’ training for the future, 

particularly given that we are in a time of war. 

I should like to thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, 

for your patience with me and support for me over the 

past few months. I wish you a happy recess. 

7.41 pm 

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab): May I 

associate myself with the tribute that the hon. Member 

for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) paid to our armed 

forces? Having spent a year with the armed forces 

parliamentary scheme, including a trip to Afghanistan, 

I was massively impressed by our young people in the 

armed forces here, and that was exceeded only by seeing 

them in action in Afghanistan, where the work that they 

are doing is in our national interest. All the lives that 

have sadly been lost there will have served to make the 

world a freer and a better place. I agree with the hon. 

Gentleman that we must ensure that those enormously 

brave young people are properly equipped and that 

there are enough of them to do the very important job 

that they have been given. 

I wish to talk about a planning issue that particularly 

affects my constituency. By the time we come back after 

the recess, the consultation will have been completed 

and decisions will have been taken, and plans that will 

shape my constituency, and those of my neighbours, for 

many years to come will practically be at the point of 

going off to the regional office. West Northamptonshire 

joint planning unit is drawing up proposals for many 

thousands of new houses and industrial units for 

Northampton, and it proposes to turn the town into a 

city. I have spoken to my neighbour, the hon. Member 

for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) about this, because


[Ms Sally Keeble] 

a number of the plans affect his constituency as much 

as, if not more than mine. We are both extremely 

concerned not only about the proposals but about how 

they are being dealt with. 

I want to raise three concerns and ask three questions 

of my hon. Friend the Minister. First, the number of 

proposed units should be reviewed. The requirements 

need to be reviewed in the light of the recession and the 

fact that several sites already zoned for development 

have not been developed, while a large number of 

industrial and commercial sites in the town are empty. 

Secondly, infrastructure should be provided before new 

units are put in place, particularly schools, hospitals—we 

very much need a new hospital—and transport services. 

That subject was raised at a packed and lively meeting 

in my constituency. 

Thirdly, and most importantly, there should be proper 

consultation about the proposals. Usually, when a policy 

proposal is discussed, we are used to having three 

months’ consultation. Arguably, a major emerging plan 

will affect individual people much more than a general 

policy proposal, and yet there is to be only six weeks’ 

consultation. That would be bad enough, but the six-week 

period starts on 28 July. Most people would understand 

that residents’ associations, parish councils and all the 

other local groups that need to have meetings to consider 

these plans do not meet during August, and one cannot 

rely on their meeting in the first week of September. If 

the planning unit holds local meetings and asks people 

to go to them, many will be unable to do so because 

they are on holiday or tied up with children on school 

holidays. 

Although it is said that this an emerging plan that 

sets out only broad principles, many of the broad-brush 

proposals for where the developments should be sited 

are based on actual plans that property owners have put 

forward, and are therefore about more than broad 

principles. If the land allocations are agreed, fairly 

well-worked-up plans could come forward fairly quickly 

and people could see things change equally quickly. We 

are being told that the time limit for the consultation— 

apparently six weeks is okay legally—has been set on 

the basis that the plans have to get to the regional office 

by November. Unfortunately the planning unit, which 

has not been particularly competent in going about its 

work, has missed a number of deadlines and is now up 

against the buffers. It is completely wrong that people 

who will have to live with the consequences of this 

development should pay the price for the fact that the 

organisation producing the plans has not been able to 

get itself organised to produce them in time to have 

proper consultations. 

Will my hon. Friend the Minister relay to her colleagues 

in the Department for Communities and Local Government 

queries about revisiting some of the development proposals, 

numbers, and regional and local strategies in the light of 

the impact of the recession? Can we have some genuine 

assurances about the provision of infrastructure before 

any development takes place? Most importantly, will 

serious attention be given to the consultation so that 

local people have a chance to put their views, well 

before the decisions are taken, on developments that 

will affect them? The Liberal Democrats are driving the 

timetable on this, which is shocking. We should not 

come back from our holidays to find that my constituents, 

and those of my neighbours, have lost their right to 

control or have a say in the use of the land around 

them, and that the plans are on the brink of going off to 

the regional office for final approval. 

I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and everybody 

else in the House a very happy holiday. 

7.48 pm 

Mr. David Amess (Southend, West) (Con): I wish to 

raise several points before the House adjourns for the 

summer recess. 

Nicky Avery, 27, became the youngest man ever to be 

diagnosed with breast cancer in 2006. His mother is a 

constituent of mine, and I very much hope that the 

Government will raise awareness of this disease among 

young men. 

The Proprietary Association of Great Britain has 

advised me that the top 10 minor ailments account for 

75 per cent. of consultations. I agree with that organisation’s 

view that we need to have increasing responsibility for 

taking care of our own health by treating minor ailments 

in the knowledge that the NHS is really there for more 

life-threatening and serious conditions. 

I have in my constituency the greatest number of 

centenarians in the country. I hope that this autumn we 

will again be successful with the “Guinness Book of 

Records” attempt at the greatest gathering. Many of 

these elderly people are in care homes, which are dependent 

on residential fees. Have the Government taken into 

account the fact that many elderly widows, for instance, 

are unable to sell their homes because of the recession? 

Last week, I was privileged to attend Belfairs high 

school’s prize giving. There was a young lady there 

called Jo-Jo Cranfield. She was born with her left lower 

arm missing and she is a remarkable athlete. She missed 

out on going to Beijing by 0.06 seconds and she is the 

second fastest swimmer in her discipline in the country. 

She has a place at Millfield school, but she desperately 

needs funding, so I greatly hope that someone, somewhere 

will come up with assistance for her—not least the 

Government, who say that they will do everything they 

can to support gifted and talented athletes. 

An organisation called PERA has advised me that 

numerous companies in south Essex, including Ford in 

Dagenham, have been preparing to deliver training to 

1,700 people—more than 100 are in Southend, West—only 

for the Learning and Skills Council’s financial collapse 

to bring a halt to the programme. I hope that the 

Government will intervene on the matter. 

I draw the House’s attention to an article, which 

appeared in The Times on 6 July, about chief constables’ 

salaries. Senior police officers apparently receive off-book 

payments and secret perks, which total hundreds of 

thousands of pounds. The House has come under great 

scrutiny, and I welcome the fact that all sorts of other 

publicly funded bodies are coming under scrutiny. Our 

local chief constable in Essex was paid slightly more 

than the Prime Minister. Yet again, we have a chief 

constable taking early retirement in Essex. We have had 

several senior officers; it is like a merry-go-round—one 

minute, one person is in place, the next, someone else is 

there. If police authorities are to be worth their salt,


there should be much greater scrutiny. The Independent 

Police Complaints Commission should also be given 

more teeth. 

It is a shocking state of affairs when police constables 

come to MPs’ surgeries, complaining about their treatment 

by the police authorities. That illustrates their powerlessness. 

Mrs. Katie Greatorex—she said I could name her—has 

suffered the most appalling harassment, including death 

threats. She has been arrested and bailed without evidence 

and she came to my surgery with a long-serving police 

officer. Her ex-husband is a serving police constable. A 

proper investigation has not taken place, despite forensic 

evidence, so I hope that the Deputy Leader of the 

House will pass that on to the Home Secretary. 

Seat belts were once debated at great length in the 

House, and many hon. Members were against their 

being compulsory—they were mistaken. The fine for 

non-compliance used to be £30. I have tabled several 

questions about that and I shall take credit for the fine’s 

increase to £60. I also support the fitting of seat belt 

reminders on all new cars. 

A disgraceful incident took place recently, whereby a 

community nurse parked her vehicle in a development 

at the end of Hamlet Court road because she was 

treating a terminally patient—incidentally, the patient 

died—and was charged £483 by LBS Enforcement Ltd 

for her car’s release. I am currently achieving nothing 

with that. 

I heard the comments of my hon. Friend the Member 

for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) 

about Southend airport. It is a difficult issue and I am 

glad that the owners of the new airport are meeting 

local community representatives. They must convince 

them that any increase in flights must mean quieter 

flights than at present and that the road changes will 

take place without disruption. 

I was recently made chairman of the all-party group 

on the Maldives. The high commissioner said that no 

funding has been received from the Department for 

International Development and that she cannot get a 

meeting with the relevant Minister. I hope that the 

Deputy Leader of the House can pass on the message. 

There has been controversy about slow answers to 

questions. I received an answer from a Treasury Minister, 

dated 1 July 2009, responding to a constituent’s inquiry 

on 30 September 2008. An apology is not sufficient. 

The House is in a state of drift, there is confusion 

about swine flu and we have heard about difficulties in 

Afghanistan. The sooner we have a general election, the 

better. Before then, I wish all my colleagues and all 

those who serve the House a very happy summer. 

7.54 pm 

Mr. Andy Slaughter (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s 

Bush) (Lab): I wish to speak about a despicable act of 

vandalism perpetrated on the homes and lives of thousands 

of my constituents. Some 3,500 families, the majority in 

Shepherd’s Bush and some in Hammersmith and West 

Kensington, face demolition of their homes and uncertain 

futures. 

Let me be clear from the outset: we are talking about 

good quality homes, built to a high standard, modernised 

at the cost of tens of millions of pounds in the past few 

years, thanks to the Decent Homes programmes, in 

neighbourhoods in which people are proud to live. They 

are on the White City, Batman close and Wood Lane 

estates in Shepherd’s Bush; on Ashcroft square and 

Queen Caroline estate in Hammersmith, and on the 

West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates in west 

Kensington. The last two are outside my current 

constituency, though in my prospective constituency. I 

have had the honour of representing the area for 

20 years on the council and they are all areas that I 

know well. The homes are designated “not decent” by 

Hammersmith and Fulham council, which has, in the 

most disparaging terms, condemned not only the buildings 

and the areas but the residents. It is the nastiest piece of 

social apartheid in this country for many years. 

A year or so ago, rumours, which were hard to credit 

at the time, began to circulate that the relatively newly 

elected Tory council in Hammersmith and Fulham 

planned to pull down the seven estates. Freedom of 

information requests were dodged and answers to questions 

were evaded—there was nothing in writing at the time. 

Plans were held up because of the continued presence of 

Ken Livingstone as Mayor of London, but when Boris 

Johnson was elected last year, the council moved swiftly 

ahead, first by dropping all plans for new affordable 

housing, by accelerating small-scale demolitions, by 

designated sales and by handing back hundreds of 

affordable homes to developers, saying that they were 

unwanted. 

However, last month, as a consequence of a document 

called the local development framework core options 

strategy, the seven estates were named as requiring 

complete redevelopment and demolition, even though 

some will have Decent Homes work done, at a cost of 

millions of pounds, next year. The plans are to replace 

them with luxury housing and commercial developments 

such as conference centres. That has already been extensively 

reported in the Evening Standard and I am grateful to it 

for featuring the story as a double-page spread the week 

before last, to the Daily Mirror, which did an excellent 

editorial on the subject, and to The Guardian and other 

newspapers. 

The leaseholders and freeholders will get a price, which 

will not enable them to buy equivalent accommodation 

in the area, and they will have to move considerably 

further out. The tenants have an uncertain future. At 

least a third fewer units of housing will replace existing 

affordable housing. The replacement affordable housing 

will be registered social landlord housing: typically, it 

will be half the size, more expensive to run, and the 

rents will be 50 per cent. more. For many tenants, the 

only option will be to move out of the borough—Barking, 

Dagenham and Thamesmead have been mentioned as 

destinations for them. Many are elderly people, who 

have lived on the estates since the 1950s, 1960s and 

1970s when they were built. The greatest irony is that 

those estates are already mixed communities. Half the 

flats on many estates are leasehold—they contain many 

professional people and many people in employment on 

average wages or above. 

The side effects will be on the local waiting lists. For 

20 years of the redevelopment strategy, nobody will 

move on any other estate or RSL property in the 

borough. In the meantime, as the estates are developed—it 

has happened elsewhere—there will be complete neglect. 

Flats will be boarded up, there will be temporary housing 

and infestations, and only health and safety repairs will


[Mr. Andy Slaughter] 

be done. All that was confirmed to me by not only the 

published document but the assistant director, Lyn 

Garner, whom I saw for an hour and a half the week 

before last. She admitted to me for the first time face to 

face that all those things would happen. 

I have given notice to the hon. Member for Hammersmith 

and Fulham (Mr. Hands) that I would refer to him. He 

represents four of the estates. He needs at some point to 

correct the record because earlier this month, he said 

that the plans 

“‘to demolish the estates and force everyone to move’” 

are 

“wholly untrue.”—[Official Report, 29 June 2009; Vol. 495, c. 42.] 

His own council—his colleagues—has published the 

fact that that is true, so it is wrong that those remarks 

should remain on the record in that form. 

However, that is not the end of the matter; it is the 

beginning. We are not talking about just an attack or 

gerrymandering that goes far beyond anything that 

Shirley Porter tried in her time. We are talking about 

something that was designed by the leader of Hammersmith 

council, who is the head of the Tories’ local government 

innovation unit, as a blueprint for the rest of the country. 

How do we know that? We know it because he published 

a document earlier this year called “Principles for Social 

Housing Reform”. We also know it because, at the 

council’s expense, he held a round-table discussion with 

Tory Front Benchers, other senior Tory politicians and, 

shamefully, local government officers on 3 March that 

agreed to the most extraordinary blueprint for the future. 

Market rents for all housing; no security of tenure; no 

right to buy; no duty to house the homeless; no capital 

investment at all in social housing—is this really the 

future for housing under a Tory Government? 

I believe that what happened was unlawful—the 

involvement of local government officers, the employment 

of Tory activists to carry out the work and the funding 

of Tory think-tanks by a local authority—and a complaint 

is being made to the district auditor. More importantly 

in the long run, however, we are talking about the 

destruction of communities for political advantage and 

in the interests of warped social engineering of a kind I 

had hoped I would never see a mainstream party in this 

country support. It is now up to the Tory Front Benchers 

to dissociate themselves entirely from what is being 

done in Hammersmith and Fulham. If it really is a 

right-wing fringe taking such action, let them say so; 

but if they wish to endorse such appalling attacks on 

the lives and livelihoods of my constituents, let them 

say that also. 

8.1 pm 

Mr. Mark Oaten (Winchester) (LD): I want to raise 

three issues and will do so as quickly as I can. 

The first concerns a children’s hospice in my constituency 

called Naomi House. It does amazing work for children, 

as I am sure hon. Members know all hospices do, and 

not just in Hampshire but in a much wider area. 

Unfortunately, Naomi House was involved in the Icelandic 

bank affair and has consequently lost £6 million of its 

funds. As one can imagine, that had a devastating 

impact on the organisation, particularly as it was just 

about to build a new wing—Jack’s place—that had been 

designed specifically for teenagers. 

My concern is that the Government have not been as 

supportive as they should have to a children’s hospice. I 

totally understand their argument that it would have 

been impossible for them to help all the charities and 

organisations that have lost money in Icelandic banks. I 

also understand that the Government have, quite rightly, 

been supporting compensation schemes for charities 

that have lost money. Bluntly, however, Naomi House 

has not been allowed to apply to those compensation 

schemes because it is regarded as having far too much 

money—it has lost too much money and cannot make a 

claim under those schemes. 

The Government have also said that they would not 

bail out charities. In one debate, the Minister concerned 

said, “Look, how do we decide which charities to support?” 

For example, a lot of people say that the Government 

should support the Cats Protection league, given the 

money that it has lost. In my judgment, a children’s 

hospice should be regarded as being in a different 

category from a cat lovers’ charity. The argument is 

compelling, and it is this. Charities that do the work of 

the Government should be seen in a different light. By 

many people’s benchmark, hospices provide the kind of 

service that should be funded by Government money in 

the first place. In fact, Naomi House takes £300,000 of 

Government money, so the Government recognise that 

they should be supporting it. 

I would ask the Minister to take the issue back to the 

Department of Health and to think carefully about the 

consequences of not supporting the hospice. Taking 

£6 million out of that service will mean an enormous 

demand from sick children that will have to be met in 

the NHS, because Naomi House may not be able to 

fulfil its responsibilities. Surely it makes sense to support 

a children’s hospice in some way. After all, it was not 

Naomi House’s fault that it lost that money in the 

Icelandic bank concerned. 

The second issue that I want briefly to raise is the 

problem of so-called bogus universities. I understand 

that there have been grave concerns about the number 

of false universities being set up and the difficulties that 

they have caused with individuals coming to this country. 

However, one of the consequences of the Government’s 

new scheme to crack down on bogus universities has 

been the number of student visas that can be issued 

under the new tier 4 proposals. I declare an interest: I 

lecture at Wroxton college, which has a number of 

American students. 

Students who come to this country are worth around 

£6 billion a year to the economy. We do education well 

in this country, and many people want to come over to 

participate in it. However, the consequence of the new 

changes to try to crack down on the number of bogus 

university places has been to hit that industry to such an 

extent that applications from individuals who want to 

study in our universities and colleges are falling dramatically. 

Students are having their applications for places turned 

down because of the new regime. Indeed, I tabled a 

parliamentary question about that and discovered that 

of the applications from students received so far this 

year from India, 49 per cent. have been rejected. We are 

not seriously saying that almost half the applications 

from students from India are connected with terrorism, 

are we? The figure for American students is 21.3 per 

cent. Just over one fifth of American students who want 

to come to this country have had their visas refused 

under the new scheme.


I understand the need to address bogus universities 

and tighten up the system. There have been problems, 

but those that we have created by putting in place the 

new scheme are having a very detrimental effect on an 

important industry in this country. The figures speak 

volumes. Under the new regime, we are in danger of 

turning away a lot of good students whom we would 

want to come here and study. 

The final issue that I wish to raise concerns the new 

guidelines on helping individuals with mild or moderate 

depression. Depression affects many people in this country, 

and it is welcome that we have at last recognised that 

we need to tackle it. However, to date, doctors have 

had little power to refer individuals to counselling, 

psychotherapy or cognitive behavioural therapy, all of 

which are now recognised by the Government as useful 

tools. 

As we face the economic downturn, there is strong 

evidence that more people will suffer from mental health 

problems and depression as a result of what is taking 

place in the economy. The problem is that the National 

Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines 

have made a judgment about which kind of support 

should be available for mental health problems. Again, 

I declare an interest, in that I am on the board of a 

mental health provider, Mental Health Matters. My 

concern is that the Government have narrowly said that 

the only form of support that should be available under 

the guidelines is cognitive behavioural therapy. Superb 

and excellent as such treatment is—I declare an interest: 

I have seen a counsellor at times in my life and have 

received enormous support by undergoing that process—the 

professionals argue that making CBT alone available is 

not good enough. 

Individual cases are very different, particularly those 

involving child abuse which need a much longer form 

of therapy. CBT teaches individuals how to deal with 

day-to-day pressure and how to cope with their depression, 

but it does not necessarily provide the kind of course 

and time needed to get to the underlying reasons. That 

needs to be done through professional psychotherapy, 

but at the moment the NICE guidelines do not allow 

that to be included. That is a great shame, so I would 

like to ask the Minister to report back to the Department 

of Health. If we are serious about tackling mental 

health issues, we need to allow the professionals the 

right form of support and not narrow it down to the 

one that is currently in the NICE guidelines. 

8.8 pm 

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): In the seven 

minutes allotted to me, I shall briefly raise three issues. 

The first concerns further and higher education and 

the Government’s stated wish to have more university 

places and more young people going to college when 

they leave school or sixth-form college. I strongly support 

that, and would like this country to get somewhere up 

to the European level. I would also like to see much 

wider access to universities, so that children whose 

parents did not have the opportunity to go to university, 

and who perhaps did not do so well in school themselves, 

have the chance to go into higher education. 

My local university is London Metropolitan university, 

which has a good record on widening access to higher 

education, a wide variety of courses and high levels of 

student participation. However, it has got into enormous 

funding problems because of a disagreement about the 

method of counting student numbers. As a consequence, 

the Higher Education Funding Council for England 

has ordered the university to repay £39.5 million, which 

will obviously have a seriously devastating effect on its 

finances. 

In addition, the HEFCE has also told the university 

that its annual funding will to be cut, resulting in a loss 

of about 5,000 student places. As a result of all this, 

550 jobs at the university are to go, through redundancy. 

The voluntary redundancy figures have not been met, 

so it is not clear what the university will do now. The 

situation is therefore grim. The university faces the 

possibility of the loss of more than 500 jobs, the closure 

of a number of courses and a reduction in student 

numbers in the long term. It cannot be the Government’s 

intention that so many people should lose the opportunity 

of going to university or that so many experienced, 

effective teachers should lose their jobs. 

I have raised this matter in an Adjournment debate, 

in parliamentary questions, in early-day motions and in 

correspondence with the Secretary of State for Business, 

Innovation and Skills and with the relevant Ministers of 

State. They have all referred me back to the Higher 

Education Funding Council for England. How very 

convenient! Well, I am sorry, but that is just not acceptable. 

This House decides the annual Budget. It also holds 

Ministers to account, and we expect Ministers to intervene 

in a situation such as this to prevent jobs from being 

lost and to protect courses and student numbers. I 

would be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House 

could assure me that she will quickly and firmly pass 

this matter on to the Secretary of State and ask him to 

look into the situation during the recess and intervene 

to protect those jobs, courses and student numbers. The 

future of higher education demands that that be done. 

There are two other items that I wish to raise. As the 

House knows, I represent Islington, North. That includes 

Finsbury Park station, which is one of the busiest 

underground stations outside central London. It is a 

transfer point between Network Rail, the Victoria line 

and the Piccadilly line. It is a very old and crowded 

station, and, crucially, it has no disability access whatever. 

After many years of argument and campaigning, moneys 

were found by the previous Mayor, Ken Livingstone, for 

the complete refurbishment of the station, including 

step-free access throughout. That was welcomed, and 

we looked forward to the rebuilding of the station so 

that we could, at last, get ourselves into the 21st century 

and people who use wheelchairs, people with pushchairs 

and those who have difficulty in walking could actually 

get on and off the trains, rather than having to descend 

a lengthy spiral staircase from the mainline platforms to 

the underground, which was obviously unsatisfactory 

and dangerous. 

Then the new Mayor came along, re-examined all the 

funding priorities of the previous Mayor and decided 

that the step-free access at the station would be 

postponed—until, I think, 2016. Network Rail, which is 

responsible for the mainline platforms and the mainline 

services running above the underground station, has 

decided that it will go ahead with its bit of step-free 

access, however. So we now have the ludicrous position 

in which a lift is being installed to connect the mainline 

platforms to the street, but not to the underground 

station underneath it, because that is someone else’s 

responsibility. That is absurd beyond belief.


[Jeremy Corbyn] 

I was at a demonstration outside the station last 

Saturday, at which we were saying, “Boris, give us a 

lift.” That is the very least that he could do in the 

circumstances. It is unfortunate that the Government’s 

stated aim of having step-free access to public transport 

so that it can be really and truly accessible for everybody 

is being frustrated by this ridiculous funding row. Again, 

I would be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House 

could assure me that she will convey to the Secretary of 

State for Transport my extreme displeasure, as well as 

that of my constituents and—more importantly—that 

of the tens of thousands of people who use Finsbury 

Park station every day. They want an accessible, usable, 

efficient station; they do not want a lift that goes 

halfway. That is simply ridiculous. It is up to the political 

structures to ensure the right outcome. 

My final point also concerns transport and the railways. 

I am pleased that my Friend the Member for Leyton 

and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) is present today, because 

we both have the great privilege and honour of representing 

two of the constituencies through which the famous 

Barking to Gospel Oak railway line runs. The line 

was earmarked for closure during the dark days of 

Mrs. Thatcher. Since then it has been reprieved, but 

some of us are determined that it should be electrified, 

so that freight transport running between the east and 

west coasts could use it, and so that it and the rest of the 

North London line could operate as one system using 

the same trains, all powered by electricity. If we electrify 

the Barking to Gospel Oak line, improve public transport 

and cut pollution, London will be an even better place 

than it already is. 

8.15 pm 

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): I begin by 

congratulating the hon. Member for Islington, North 

(Jeremy Corbyn). For the first time in living memory, he 

has made an entire speech without calling for the abolition 

of the British strategic nuclear deterrent. I shall try to 

follow his example and refrain from discussing defence 

issues in the course of my short contribution. I also pay 

tribute to the particularly impressive speech made by 

the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). Naomi 

House, the children’s hospice to which he gave great 

credit, provides a wonderful service to my constituents 

as well as to his, and I warmly endorse the plea that he 

made on its behalf. 

In the time available to me tonight, I want to touch 

on a principle, a policy and a tribute. The principle is 

that the fluoridation of water should not be carried out 

without the general consent of the people affected by it. 

In an unusual, and quite positive, cross-party alliance, 

the Liberal Democrat councillor, Councillor David 

Harrison, who represents Totton in my constituency, 

and I, as the Conservative MP, have been working 

together to try to involve the ombudsman in exposing 

the corruption of a flawed consultation process that 

completely ignored the fact that 72 per cent. of the 

people who responded to it were against that kind of 

mass medication. 

I will say no more about the specifics of that case, 

however, because the matter is now subject to judicial 

review and I do not wish to trespass on that territory. 

That is why I shall talk only about the principle. The 

problem was first highlighted in March 2005, when the 

Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (England) Regulations 

2005 were being debated in the upper House. Earl 

Howe, the shadow Health Minister, drew the House’s 

attention to regulation 5, which was passed into law. It 

states: 

“A Strategic Health Authority shall not proceed with any step 

regarding fluoridation arrangements that falls within section 89(2) 

of the Act unless, having regard to the extent of support for the 

proposal and the cogency of the arguments advanced, the Authority 

are satisfied that the health arguments in favour of proceeding 

with the proposal outweigh all arguments against proceeding.” 

The noble Earl Howe asked what this was supposed to 

mean, and pointed out: 

“When we debated Section 58 of the 2003 Act, the Minster 

emphasised that: 

‘no new fluoridation scheme would go ahead without the 

support of the majority of the local population determined by 

local consultations conducted by strategic health authorities in 

England and the National Assembly in Wales’.” 

Earl Howe emphasised the words “majority of the local 

population” and went on to observe: 

“I see nothing in the order which fulfils that undertaking.”— 

[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 March 0005; Vol. 670, c. 709.] 

Neither do I. However, even if 72 per cent.—or 100 per 

cent.—of the people oppose mass fluoridation of a 

water supply, as long as the strategic health authority 

can satisfy itself that the health arguments outweigh the 

opinions of the people affected, their opinions can be 

ignored. Only the courts and the ombudsman can do 

something about this; MPs evidently have no influence, 

and we must await the results of the case to which I have 

alluded. 

I now move on to my policy issue, which is the policy 

of Associated British Ports. Having been massively 

defeated after a year-long inquiry in its wish to build a 

giant container port on Dibden bay in my constituency, 

it is beginning to return to the subject again. Let me 

quote what Mr. Doug Morrison, the port director, had 

to say to my constituents: 

“How do we leave a legacy for future generations? The answer 

has to be Dibden Bay. Just as you thought you were safe to put 

your toe back in the water, we are back again. And we are never 

going to go away.” 

That seems rather reminiscent of the film “Jaws”: at the 

outset people are being gobbled up by a great white 

shark, but we should remember what happens to the 

shark at the end of the process. 

Finally, I come to my tribute. This is very sad indeed. 

On 11 September 2001, a brilliant and beautiful young 

woman, a fashion designer, was due to be at the twin 

towers. Fortunately, she overslept and missed the catastrophe 

by minutes. She was in London on 7 July 2007, and 

although she often used the bus service that was bombed, 

she did not use it on that day, fortunately. Last November 

she was working in her boutique in Notting Hill when a 

psychotic serial robber confronted her with a knife, but 

she still managed to outwit him. But on 3 July this year, 

she was in her flat in Camberwell and was one of the six 

people killed by the fire there. 

Her name was Catherine Hickman, and she was 

known as Cat. Her parents, and her sisters Elizabeth 

and Sophie, are my constituents. Her parents, Pip and 

Flo, are putting up with their terrible loss with amazing 

dignity, as is Mark, her partner of four years. I would 

like to ask everyone here—those representing all religions


and none—to bear in their thoughts and hold in their 

prayers the Hickman family, as we remember a talented 

young lady who, like her family, was and is a credit to 

our community. 

8.22 pm 

John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): It is 

an honour to follow the hon. Member for New Forest, 

East (Dr. Lewis), and the whole House will of course 

send its condolences to the Hickman family. 

I want to raise two issues of concern within my 

constituency that are linked to large-scale planning 

developments. One is, of course, Heathrow expansion—the 

threat of the third runway and the sixth terminal, 

which, as Members will know, threaten the demolition 

of Sipson village, with 2,000 residents losing their homes, 

their school, their community centre and the entire 

village. The third runway also threatens Harmondsworth, 

Harlington, Cranford Cross and Longford villages, so 

people living there, too, will lose their homes, either 

through demolition or because they will have been 

rendered uninhabitable by air pollution and noise pollution. 

Those homes are already blighted. The families are 

unable to sell their properties if they wish to move, and 

mortgage companies will not lend to any purchasers. As 

a result, my constituency includes families with children 

who are trapped—in some instances, in one-bedroom 

or studio properties—and older people who are unable 

to sell their properties if they want to retire and live 

nearer to their families. 

BAA introduced a bond scheme, which effectively 

means that BAA promises to buy the properties affected 

by Heathrow expansion, but the problems with the 

bond scheme are the cause of real anxiety. The scheme 

does not cover all the properties affected by the expansion, 

and the payment levels, based on valuations of the 

properties, do not reflect their true value. When people 

lose their home, there is no compensation within the 

scheme for the costs of moving or losing their whole 

community. The bond scheme, furthermore, does not 

commence until the planning application for Heathrow 

expansion is actually submitted. That could be years, 

given the current economic climate and the chaos within 

BAA and its owner, Grupo Ferrovial. As a result, 

people are trapped in blight, often in overcrowded and 

inappropriate accommodation, and unable to plan their 

lives while this uncertainty hangs over their heads. 

BAA promised to bring forward the implementation 

of the bond scheme within weeks—but that was six months 

ago. I met its representatives, who argued that the 

problem lay with the individual airline companies, which 

had to guarantee the liabilities of the bond scheme. A 

number of them have refused to sign up, and BAA says 

it cannot secure their agreement. I asked those 

representatives whether they wanted the Government 

to intervene, and they said no. We cannot go on like 

this. It is damaging the lives of my constituents, so I 

urge the Government to set a deadline of no more than, 

say, two months, and if BAA does not adhere to its 

commitments and promises to my constituents to bring 

forward the start of the bond scheme, the Government 

must intervene to force them to do so. 

The real solution is, of course, to scrap the third 

runway proposal once and for all. I do not believe that I 

know anyone—other than the Prime Minister and the 

chief executive of BAA—who believes that the third 

runway proposal will go ahead. It is dead in the water, 

but what my constituents want are absolute commitments 

not only that the proposal is dead, but that it will never 

be revisited. My constituents want some safety and 

security for their homes, and they want the end of the 

threat to their communities. 

The second largest development in my area is the 

Southall gasworks site, which involves the largest planning 

application for housing development in west London—on 

the site of a large gasworks. There will be 4,000 new 

properties, shops and a school. It is located in the 

constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, 

Southall (Mr. Sharma), but it abuts my own constituency. 

The major road accessing the site will run through my 

constituency from the Hayes bypass. 

The development poses the threat of immense growth 

in traffic and associated air pollution in an area already 

designated as an air pollution management reserve. I 

have become increasingly aware of the potential dangers 

to my constituents from pollutants on this highly 

contaminated site. The developer’s own report now 

confirms that the contamination includes oil and tar 

waste, which forms carcinogenic hydrocarbons, and heavy 

metals, including lead, arsenic, cyanide and asbestos. 

The developers intend to excavate and treat those dangerous 

materials on site, but I am meeting members of the 

community who are extremely concerned about the risk 

that those materials will pollute the nearby Yeading 

brook and enter local water supplies. 

I am also extremely anxious about any attempts to 

transport those highly toxic materials through my 

constituency. The local Hillingdon council, I have to 

say, has done virtually nothing to explain the risks from 

the site development to the local community. The only 

public meetings on this planning application have been 

convened either by myself or by Friends of Minet 

country park, of which I am vice-chair. Not a single 

meeting open to the general public has been convened 

by the council to explain the potential risks of the 

development. 

I want to raise my concerns in the House, to draw 

attention to the risks and to urge the Government to 

maintain a close watch on that large-scale development 

and its environmental impact. I ask the Deputy Leader 

of the House to take the matter back to the relevant 

Ministers. We in the community are launching a campaign 

to ensure that my constituents are fully aware of the 

risks and are fully protected. We will submit our views 

to Hillingdon and Ealing councils to ensure that the 

proper inspections take place. Yes, we will urge those 

local authorities to ensure that conditions are attached 

to the application that protect my constituents from 

the increase in traffic and, more importantly, from the 

threat of pollutants from this contaminated site. If the 

application is to go ahead, I believe that every condition 

that could be applied should be applied, to protect the 

local community and the local environment. 

This site is also close to Guru Nanak school, one of 

the most successful schools in the country, where the 

Government have invested large sums in the expansion 

of both the primary and secondary school. I want to 

ensure that that school and its pupils are fully protected 

and fully safe. I also want to ensure that Minet country 

park is protected from the damage that could be incurred 

as a result of the development. On that basis, I give 

notice to Hillingdon council and others that my community


[John McDonnell] 

will not stand by and allow our environment to be 

polluted by the development—even if the council is 

standing by and doing nothing. 

8.29 pm 

Mr. Colin Breed (South-East Cornwall) (LD): I am 

pleased to have an opportunity to raise what is an 

important and urgent issue in my constituency. 

The House has often debated, and dealt with questions 

about, Zimbabwe and the difficulties experienced in 

that country. Some 12 years ago my local church, Saltash 

Wesley Methodist church, established a twinning 

arrangement with a church in Mbare, a suburb of 

Harare. During the first few years of that arrangement, 

we enjoyed four annual reciprocal visits. One involved 

young people from Cornwall going to Zimbabwe to 

help build water tanks. 

That was a long time ago, and over the intervening 

nine years there have been no opportunities for the 

visits to continue. However, despite the great difficulty 

that arose, connections have continued through e-mail 

and letters between families, and support has been 

given to the people who are living in such desperate 

circumstances. In more recent times a number of members 

of the church have supplied funds for the education of 

Zimbabwean children, and nearly 100 have benefited. A 

great deal of moral support has also been provided. 

Earlier this year, when there were signs that Zimbabwe 

might have a real opportunity to emerge from its darker 

times, the churches decided to try to re-establish the 

original relationship—or friendship—through reciprocal 

visits. It was decided that it might be possible to bring a 

number of leaders from the church in Mbare to Cornwall 

this year. That involved great difficulties relating not 

only to the funds that would have to be arranged, but to 

choosing the people and ensuring that the visit would 

be successful. It involved planning for the future, and 

re-establishing relationships that had been somewhat 

curtailed over the intervening period. However, as a 

result of all the planning over six or seven months, the 

money was raised, it wad decided who would come, 

and everyone was looking forward to a visit between 

24 September and 7 October this year. The air tickets 

had to be purchased before the application for visas, but 

they were subsequently bought. The visas for the eight 

people who were to come here were applied for in 

Pretoria, which is now in charge of visa applications for 

Zimbabwe. 

It was a cause of huge disappointment and great 

regret that only a couple of weeks ago, with only a few 

weeks left before the visit, all the entry clearance visa 

applications were refused. We are talking about people 

who have provided leadership in Zimbabwe: ministers 

of the church, youth leaders and people who had worked 

on environmental projects. We are talking about people 

who had given dedicated service over a long period. 

They had met all the necessary requirements, and they 

were, of course, hoping to come to this country to 

re-establish a relationship that went back more than 

12 years. 

It seems to me that the entry clearance officer examined 

all the available information and decided that perhaps 

these people of honesty and integrity, who had clearly 

served their communities in an excellent way, were not 

the sort of people who would come to this country and 

then willingly leave. He, or she, believed that those 

people intended to come here, stay here and not return 

to their home country. That was despite the fact that 

they would be leaving families and friends, and despite 

clear evidence from people in this country, including me 

and, indeed the superintendent minister of the church. 

We had given details of the programme in which they 

would be involved and the issues that they would discuss 

with us. We had also given an absolute assurance that 

they would not reside here or impose a burden, but 

would come to re-establish friendships and then return 

to the country with which we have maintained a twinning 

arrangement. 

I plead with the Deputy Leader of the House to 

consult the Minister for Borders and Immigration. They 

must recognise that these issues will continue. If we are 

to support people in Zimbabwe, we must recognise the 

opportunities to re-establish relationships and friendships 

between organisations, churches, families and people. 

This is a great opportunity to bring eight very good 

people back into this country so that a relationship 

between two churches that has lasted for more than 

12 years can be re-established, and so that—hopefully—a 

group of people from my church in Saltash will be able 

to visit them in Zimbabwe next year. 

The twinning arrangement has been mutually beneficial. 

It is not a one-way exercise: great benefit has been 

gained from an arrangement that has been undergone 

through such difficult circumstances. However, after 

those people had done all that they could, after all their 

funding had been arranged, their tickets purchased and 

their accommodation fixed, they were told “You cannot 

come here, because we think that you are coming purely 

in order to stay here.” That is an insult to them, and it is 

a disaster in terms of this country’s relationship with 

Zimbabwe. 

I very much hope that the Government will intervene. 

I hope that they will recognise that visits and relationships 

of this kind are worthy of support, and that those 

people will be able to come to Cornwall, enjoy their 

stay, and return to their country reinvigorated. 

8.36 pm 

Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I am delighted 

to be able to contribute to the debate. I wish to raise 

three substantive issues, but I shall begin by displaying 

the same level of indignation as my hon. Friend the 

Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). 

I was promised a Jobcentre Plus facility in Dursley, in 

the south of my constituency, some six months ago. The 

jobcentre there had closed a couple of years ago. I had 

no angle on that, because there were reasons for the 

closure, but there was a need to open another centre, 

and the fact that that failed to happen is an indication 

of the Government’s failure to address rural issues. I 

hope that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the 

House will convey my indignation to the Department 

for Work and Pensions, because there is an urgent need 

for the Department to act. 

The first substantive issue that I shall raise relates to 

something very sad that happened last week. A certain 

Mr. Nick Griffin arrived in my constituency. That may 

or may not be something that Mr. Nick Griffin does 

regularly, but I should like to think that Members of the


European Parliament must give the same notice as 

Members of Parliament when they intend to visit 

constituents. I do not know why Mr. Griffin was wined 

and dined in Painswick, in my constituency, but he was. 

It just so happens that one of my constituents took 

offence, and happened to spill some beer over Mr. Griffin. 

I know the young man concerned, and he is totally 

upstanding. Indeed, he is an outstanding individual, the 

sort of person with whom I am proud to be associated. 

As a result of that incident, he was taken outside and 

given one hell of a hiding. I am not prepared to accept 

that any politician should have a private army. I am not 

prepared to have the BNP anywhere near my constituency. 

In previous times we would have chased these individuals 

around but I hope that we will take action and look at 

the actions of the BNP. I do not know whether a court 

case is proceeding because the young man is too shocked, 

but it is indicative of what the BNP is like. 

My second issue is one that I raised in a previous 

debate before Easter and concerns school staff. I can 

now use their names; Roger Lock, the former head of 

Marling school in my constituency, and Mick Madden 

who was the head of care at Cam house, also in my 

constituency. I use the past tense because they have now 

been summarily dismissed and have lost their appeals. 

Roger served for 30 years at the school, as well as being 

the head for a period. Mick served for 27 years at Cam 

house. Both have lost their jobs. There is an employment 

tribunal pending in both cases so I shall be circumspect 

in what I say, but their cases are mentioned in the 

excellent report from the Children, Schools and Families 

Committee. 

A real issue arises in terms of how staff are removed. 

Most of the Select Committee report refers to pupil 

allegations; the cases in question did not involve pupil 

allegations, but did involve unfair practices. In the case 

of the second school’s head, it is very unfair that allegations 

of bullying and harassment came suddenly to the surface 

after a new chairman of the governing body arrived. He 

became the presenting—or dare I say the prosecuting— 

officer. He chose the hearing committee. He chose the 

appeal committee, which involved a parent—the school’s 

internal arrangements make it clear that a parent is not 

the preferred person to be on such a body—and two 

external representatives, which again was most peculiar. 

That case is deserving of proper investigation. A support 

group, the Friends of Marling School, is fighting on 

behalf of that head teacher. I wish the group well and 

will continue to raise the issue because wrong things 

have been done. 

Mick Madden, too, has lost his job. He was seen a 

something of a sacrificial lamb, given that the deputy 

head of that school resigned and the head teacher, after 

18 months of being suspended, was then reinstated. It 

just so happens that in the last couple of weeks the head 

teacher has been dismissed. The three senior members 

of the school’s staff have now lost their jobs. Mick is by 

the far the most innocent of those individuals and is 

fighting his corner. He subsequently got another job 

but, to put it mildly, powers were brought against him 

and that job was also taken away. There has been a 

degree of vindictiveness, which is more than unfair and 

is deserving of proper investigation. 

I finish by mentioning three Bills, two of which I have 

presented to the House and one of which, the Permissible 

Donors Bill, has been somewhat overtaken by events, I 

am pleased to say. I am glad that the Government have 

now come to their senses in terms of the Political 

Parties and Elections Bill and have seen that there is a 

need to restrict donor activity from outside. The first of 

my other two Bills was the Parliament (Disclosure of 

Information) Bill, which I hope in due course we will 

get a chance to talk about properly. The Bill demands 

financial disclosure, as in the United States where all 

representatives have to disclose three years’ of tax returns 

in advance of taking office. That is a perfectly reasonable 

thing to do and I hope that arrangement can come 

in here. 

Finally, the Media Owners (Residency Requirement) 

Bill would restrict ownership of media outlets to British 

individuals and British firms who pay full tax in this 

country. I could go on at length about what I have 

learned from others about those who have attacked us 

in this House. It would only be just and proper to look 

at the tax that they pay. Horrifyingly, many of those 

media outlets pay no tax at all. They are the key to tax 

avoidance and I hope that, in due course, we will get a 

chance to investigate those individuals, who they are 

and what they do. 

8.45 pm 

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): I was very 

disturbed to hear the story about the constituent of the 

hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) who spilled some 

beer over Nick Griffin. I am vice-chairman of the 

all-party beer group. The hon. Member for Leeds, North- 

West (Greg Mulholland) is the chairman of the Save the 

Pub group. All I can say is, “What a dreadful waste of 

beer.” I take on board the serious point made by the 

hon. Gentleman. If people were beaten up every time 

beer was spilled, there would be hardly any room in the 

accident and emergency department of any hospital in 

this country. I hope that the person concerned is able to 

pursue the matter. 

I hope that the House will not adjourn until we have 

had the opportunity to discuss the issue of Mr. John 

Siddall and his deceased wife who, in September 2004, 

went to Menorca. What happened to Mrs. Siddall there, 

and the repercussions since on Mr. Siddall, are of 

relevance to each and every Member of Parliament, 

particularly as we are now in the summer season and 

people are looking forward to their package holidays 

and generally to going abroad. 

Mr. and Mrs. Siddall were an ageing couple, and we 

should bear in mind that we now have an ageing population 

in this country. They went to Menorca to enjoy a 

holiday. Sadly, Mrs. Siddall was taken ill. Mr. Siddall 

did not know what to do about that in Menorca, so he 

contacted the hotel front desk and the hotel doctor was 

called. He had a look at Mrs. Siddall and decided she 

should be admitted to hospital. Instead of admitting 

her to the appropriate hospital, however, she was taken 

past the state hospital to a private hospital. Mr. Siddall 

was concerned about his wife and does not speak Spanish, 

and he did not know exactly what was happening in 

terms of the diagnosis of Mrs. Siddall during this 

period. Later, it became obvious to him that Mrs. Siddall 

was not getting any better in this private hospital. She 

was then finally moved to the state hospital, which had 

the right people with the right equipment. Sadly however, 

it was all too late and three days later she died.


[Mr. Nigel Evans] 

On further investigation, we found that this problem 

affects a growing number of people in this country who 

holiday abroad. The last thing people think about doing 

when they are planning to go abroad is check out the 

local hospitals and the facilities available. They are 

going abroad to enjoy themselves. 

There are suspicions about what has happened in this 

case. I have spoken to a number of people about it and I 

have visited the British medical emergency service forum, 

which deals with such situations on a daily basis, and I 

have learned that there is often a web of money involved 

in the choice of hospitals in certain countries. Spain is 

mentioned time and again, but so are Bulgaria, Greece 

and a few other countries. In terms of this web of 

money, I am not making accusations against the tour 

operator, but there are suspicions about some individuals. 

There might be suspicions that there is money in it for 

the doctor to send the patient to the private hospital. 

There might also be money in it for the receptionist and 

for a taxi driver. Many different people might be on the 

take to ensure that the person is put into the private 

hospital where the money is paid. 

Last year in Spain, consular staff were involved in 

dealing with the deaths of 1,500 people. To put that in 

context, the figure for Germany was 75, in France it was 

170, and in the United States of America it was just 

121. Therefore, 1,500 is a huge number. We know that a 

lot of British people visit Spain and others live there, 

and people might go and stay with those ex-pats as well. 

I have talked to some emergency service experts, and 

they believe that in many cases people should be going 

to the state hospital, irrespective of the fact that they 

might have fantastic private health care cover. They are 

not going to know that the private hospital might not 

have the right facilities. They are not going to know that 

the medical staff in the private hospital might not be 

trained to the same level as those in the state hospital. 

They might also think that the private hospitals are jolly 

good, and they might have always dreamed of going to 

such a hospital and believe that that is the right place to 

go; but the fact is that it is not. The emergency service 

forum has speculated that perhaps as many as 400 people 

a year die because they get sent to the wrong place 

where they are misdiagnosed or are just dealt with 

inappropriately. 

We need action; I know that the emergency service 

forum wants action. It wants the tour operators to 

speak to the Government and the insurance companies 

to ensure that when people go abroad and something 

goes wrong, the tour operators follow a set procedure in 

order that people get to the right hospital. I am sure 

that the local tour operator will know the best restaurants, 

tourist activities and car rental companies. They should 

also know the right hospital to go to, so that if someone 

who is booked on a holiday with the company falls ill, 

they get taken to the right hospital. They must not get 

shipped off to a place where people are coining it at the 

expense of others. People must not become victims, 

becoming too ill and then sadly dying as a result of not 

being dealt with properly. Mr. Siddall has to carry this 

with him for the rest of his life, and he is doing so. We 

clearly want justice for him, but what he wants is to 

ensure that a procedure is put in place so that this never 

again happens to anybody going abroad on holiday. I 

hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will refer to 

this in her winding-up speech and will ensure that the 

message gets out to the Foreign Office, the Department 

of Health and the Department for Culture, Media and 

Sport that there is clearly a serious problem that needs 

to be addressed and that, at this holiday time, action is 

urgently needed and should be happening now. 

8.50 pm 

Greg Mulholland (Leeds, North-West) (LD): I am 

pleased to take part in this debate. I wish to start by 

picking up on something said by the hon. Member for 

Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). He wished us all well on our 

holidays, but I should make the point on behalf of all 

hon. Members that the recess is not a holiday and we 

shoot ourselves in the foot if ever we give the impression 

that it is. I will be working for a great proportion of that 

time, as I am sure most right hon. and hon. Members 

will be. I find that I am busier in September with 

constituency visits to schools, hospitals, homes and so 

on than I am when I am in this place. We must debunk 

the damaging myth that the recess is a holiday, because 

enough damage has been done already. 

Mr. Drew: Would the hon. Gentleman like to say 

what he thinks about the 38 Degrees campaign? To my 

mind, it is the most simplistic campaign; the survey that 

I have been asked to fill in is highly dubious, because 

it assumes that I am on holiday. It is quite a wrong 

campaign, and I hope that he will be able to say a little 

on that. 

Greg Mulholland: I absolutely agree with the hon. 

Gentleman. All hon. Members have a responsibility to 

be prepared to share broadly what they are doing. I will 

be spending some time in my constituency and some 

time here, and of course I will rightly be spending some 

time on holiday. It is important to get that balance 

across. 

I wish to raise, yet again, the problems of public 

transport in Leeds. People in the Yorkshire and the 

Humber region are sick of being bottom of the Government 

transport spending league table, and we are simply not 

prepared to be at the bottom of it year on year. We have 

just received another couple of blows, the first of which 

was the decision by First to scrap a number of bus 

routes in the Leeds area. Again, the decision was taken 

entirely in that company’s own commercial interest and 

with little regard for the people who want to use those 

services. Metro, the passenger transport authority, has 

estimated that the decision will lead to approximately 

14 per cent. of those people not bothering to use the bus 

network at all. 

Even worse than that decision is the as yet unconfirmed 

report—it is a disgrace that there has been no 

confirmation—that the Department for Transport is 

going to reduce from 182 to 106 the number of additional 

carriages for the Northern Rail franchise. The figure of 

106 is a little more than half the original commitment 

set out clearly in the rail White Paper, which was published 

in just 2007. The simple reality is that since the late 

1990s the number of peak rail passengers in West 

Yorkshire has almost doubled, and is continuing to 

grow, yet Northern Rail has had no new carriages in the 

past five years—during that period, commuter services 

in London and the south-east have had 580. That


discrepancy is simply not acceptable. We have not even 

been given confirmation of this reduction in the number 

of carriages—it has simply been reported. Department 

for Transport Ministers have not come to this place to 

give us that announcement. I wrote to the Secretary of 

State today demanding that we find out as soon as 

possible whether this decision has been taken. I shall be 

critical of the Department if it makes a negative 

announcement during the recess, because that is not 

acceptable. 

I am also keen to lead on the campaign for high-speed 

rail to Yorkshire and the Humber. Many of us who 

represent Yorkshire constituencies are very pleased to 

support the excellent fast track to Yorkshire campaign, 

which is running in the Yorkshire Post. A number of us 

from a cross-party group of MPs have this week written 

to councils up and down the Yorkshire and the Humber 

region asking them to support that excellent initiative. 

If we are serious about getting through this recession 

and kick-starting the economy again, we need foresighted 

investment; many regions in this country have been held 

back in that regard. It would be a welcome addition to 

the rather facile debate about cuts, if we were to talk 

about the real, long-term investment that this country 

so patently needs. 

I also wish to touch on the issue of the Leeds arena 

and the “Leeds needs an arena” campaign running in 

the Yorkshire Evening Post. I am delighted that Yorkshire 

Forward has come forward with £18 million of funding 

for this excellent initiative. As all who visit Leeds know, 

it is a cultural hub. We are proud of that and the city 

needs a first-class concert arena. It is frustrating that 

the Government have to rubberstamp this money, and it 

is disappointing that some Sheffield MPs are seeking to 

interfere in what we are doing in Leeds. I ask them to 

keep their noses out. The Government should allow 

these decisions to be taken in Leeds by Leeds city 

council and Yorkshire Forward. 

I have also to bring to the attention of the House 

once again the appalling case of Dr. John Hubley, my 

constituent who died following complications at the 

Eccleshill independent sector treatment centre in Bradford. 

The first question is why Dr. Hubley was sent there 

when he wanted to have his procedure at the excellent 

Wharfedale hospital in my constituency. It was, of 

course, because Leeds PCT has a contract with the 

independent sector treatment centre that it has to fulfil. 

Dr. Hubley’s death was described as unnecessary and 

the verdict was death by misadventure. The coroner 

said that the safety procedures at the facility were a 

“recipe for disaster” and “Mickey Mouse”. That is 

appalling, but the situation was made worse when Leeds 

NHS decided to put the matter in the hands of its 

solicitors, who gave Dr. Hubley’s fiancée—also my 

constituent—10 days to respond to what was essentially 

a threat. She was told that she had to accept a frankly 

derisory offer of compensation to her and Dr. Hubley’s 

two children and if the family did not accept, they 

would become liable for legal costs running into hundreds 

of thousands of pounds. This behaviour by Leeds NHS 

is despicable, considering what the family has already 

gone through. It was bullying and blackmail, and to do 

that to a family who had already suffered the loss of a 

loved one is scandalous and flies in the face of everything 

that the NHS is supposed to stand for. It is cowardly to 

have put the matter in the hands of solicitors, and Leeds 

NHS’s apology rings hollow. 

I am also disappointed that the solicitors, Brown 

Jacobson, claim to have been following legal procedures 

and principles, but it is extraordinary that the coroner 

has not had the chance to respond. The offer is on the 

table and has to be accepted or the family will lose all 

their money. Frankly, whoever made the decision to act 

in this way at Leeds NHS should resign, but it is 

difficult to discover the identity of that person, although 

I have requested it under the freedom of information 

legislation. 

The case shows the problem with independent sector 

treatment centres. The National Patient Safety Agency 

has warned that no surgery should be commissioned or 

delivered in facilities that lack systems or equipment to 

deal with emergencies, but the simple fact is that we do 

not know whether that is the case in independent sector 

treatment centres. Nor do we know exactly how many 

operations are being performed under the £2.7 billion 

contract, because the Government will not tell us for 

reasons of commercial confidentiality. I have asked 

several times for a proper debate on this issue, because 

at the moment the Government are allowing the PCTs 

to play fast and loose with the NHS’s guiding principles. 

On a lighter note, I wish to thank all my colleagues in 

the “Save the Pub”parliamentary group. We have achieved 

an enormous amount in a short time. I hope that all 

hon. Members will support the pub and enjoy a pint or 

two in pub gardens this summer. I hope that you, 

Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be one of them. 

8.59 pm 

Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD): I wish 

to take part in this debate to raise several issues that 

have come out of my constituency mailbag and surgeries. 

The first of those issues came to my attention at my 

surgery last Saturday at Worcester Park library, when a 

couple of my constituents came to tell me about their 

niece who, at the age of 22, had been diagnosed with 

cervical cancer. She was given the necessary treatment: 

she had operations, and she also received chemotherapy 

and radiotherapy. Before the treatments proceeded, she 

was offered the opportunity of a cycle of ovary stimulation 

and egg harvesting, which meant that her fertilised eggs 

could be safeguarded by being frozen and stored so that 

they could be used in the future. The treatment made 

her infertile but the storage of those harvested embryos 

meant that she had the chance to have children. Thanks 

to a surrogacy arrangement, she now has a child. So far, 

so good—but, as was noted earlier in the debate, the law 

of unintended consequences sometimes operates when 

we in this place legislate. 

Back in 1990, this House passed an Act of Parliament 

dealing with the regulation and control of embryos that 

provided that embryos could be stored for up to five 

years. Just last year, in 2008, another Act was passed to 

change the framework and extend the storage period to 

up to 10 years. It also provided that new regulations 

could be made to allow for further extensions thereafter. 

The problem is that the five-year period under the old 

Act expires for my constituents’ niece before the new 

Act comes into force. Her embryos are therefore in 

limbo, between one Act of Parliament and another. As 

a result, even though the embryos were stored well 

within the 10-year period specified by the new legislation, 

they will have to be destroyed in September of this year. 

With them will go the hopes of there being any further 

children for that family.


[Mr. Paul Burstow] 

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority 

was consulted by the Government about this very issue. 

Its response was very clear, as the consultation documents 

show. It said: 

“An unfortunate matter of timing ought not to be grounds 

enough to deny access to extension for those who actively desire it”. 

I can tell the House that the people in this case do 

actively desire just that. 

There is a statutory instrument on this matter currently 

before the House. It has not been debated yet, although 

there has been a formal request that it should be. It is 

really important that people who find themselves in the 

limbo between the old Act and the new one should not 

be confronted with having their embryos destroyed 

before this House has had the opportunity to debate the 

matter. We need to persuade Ministers to change their 

minds and accept that, in this case, it is inappropriate 

for them to cite the wrongness of retrospection. This 

retrospection is about life and the opportunity for someone 

to have children. 

Mr. Gale: I know that if my parliamentary friend and 

neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury 

(Robert Key), were here he would be four-square behind 

the hon. Gentleman. We have a local case that is almost 

identical to the one that he has described. There are 

very few such cases, but it is a very tragic circumstance. 

Mr. Burstow: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman 

for that intervention. Indeed, the hon. Member for 

Salisbury (Robert Key) is one of the hon. Members 

from all parties who have signed my early-day motion 

1929 on this very issue. I fear and suspect that there are 

a number of tragic cases such as this, but some very 

active families are making sure that we in this place are 

doing our job of representing their concerns. 

The second issue that I wish to raise has to do with 

housing. Last night, I received an e-mail from Jean 

Crossby, who chairs the federation of tenants and residents 

associations in the London borough of Sutton. She told 

me that the long-awaited funding to pay for renovating 

and updating Sutton’s council housing to the Decent 

Homes standard is to be delayed for several years. The 

Government aspire to raise homes to that standard, as I 

am sure do all hon. Members, but the decision means 

that the 800 box bathrooms installed in the constituency 

of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and 

Wallington (Tom Brake) 40 years ago will not be replaced 

for years to come, even though they were fit for only 

15 years in the first place. The problem is that those box 

bathrooms are coming away from the properties to 

which they were attached. They have asbestos in them, 

and they are a nightmare that needs to be brought to 

an end. 

Chaucer house is a tower block in my constituency. It 

has leaks, poor plumbing and poor electricity supplies, 

as well as many other problems that need to be dealt 

with. Again, its residents face the prospect of more 

delays. 

On 4 June last year, the chief executive of the London 

borough of Sutton was told in a letter that the Department 

for Communities and Local Government was expecting 

to make “substantial funding allocations” for the start 

of the Decent Homes investment programme in 2009-10. 

In a written statement, the Housing Minister restated 

that commitment to that funding. He stated: 

“We remain committed to completing our comprehensive decent 

homes programme and to maintaining this standard. The reforms 

I propose will safeguard this commitment. Capital funding will be 

provided to support this.”—[Official Report, 30 June 2009; 

Vol. 496, c. 9WS.] 

So much for that support and so much for that capital 

funding, because just 17 days later, on 17 July—last 

Friday—in a press release rather than a written statement 

or any other form of statement to the House, the 

Minister announced that to fund the Prime Minister’s 

promise of 20,000 new homes, the Decent Homes 

programme must be put on ice. It will have raided to 

provide the extra money to pay for those new homes. 

That will affect the arm’s length management 

organisations in the constituencies of hon. Members 

across the House. In my constituency, it will mean that 

the promise of £112 million will not be delivered. Work 

had been going on well with the tenants organisations 

and staff. The announcement will damage their morale 

and the relationships between the local housing partnerships 

and tenants, who see it as another sign of the total 

disregard of their poor living conditions. 

For all those reasons, I hope the deputy Leader of the 

House will give us some indication that the Government 

will look at the matter again, and that they will deliver 

the Decent Homes standards to which they have attached 

so much importance. Given the overwhelming evidence 

that substandard and poor housing conditions are the 

breeding ground of despair and often the place where 

the British National party thrives, it cannot make sense 

not to invest in decent homes or to ensure that those 

resources are available. 

My final point is on Sri Lanka. I have many Tamil 

constituents and although the war may have come to an 

end, there are many humanitarian issues in the country, 

not least rape, torture and child recruitment. Three 

hundred thousand Tamils are still detained in camps. 

They are not allowed free movement, and food, water 

and other supplies are limited. Half the children in the 

camps are under-nourished. There are outbreaks of 

disease—chicken pox, hepatitis A and many others. 

That is not peace; it is war by another means. It is terror 

inflicted upon an innocent group of people who deserve 

better. It is time the Government did even more to 

ensure that as the gaze of the world has moved away 

from Sri Lanka since the firing ended, we focus very 

clearly on the Sri Lankan Government to ensure that 

they deliver a just peace and human rights for the 

country’s Tamil population. 

9.7 pm 

Mr. Shailesh Vara (North-West Cambridgeshire) (Con): 

I thank all who have spoken in this debate. Many 

Members on both sides of the House have done so, and 

I say a big thank you to all of them for staying right till 

the end on this last day before recess. 

It was with typical passion that the hon. Member for 

Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) made the first speech. He is the 

same whether it is the last or the first day of term. I 

thank him for having the courage to be critical of the 

Government, and particularly of the earlier statement. 

The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) is smiling, but 

he should perhaps let me finish what I am saying, 

particularly given that many people are affected by the 

Equitable Life issue and that it is important for many of


us in all parts of the House. I praise the hon. Member 

for Chorley for having the guts to criticise the Government 

for their lousy statement and their even lousier answers 

when hon. Members spoke up passionately for their 

constituents’ interests. The issue was subsequently taken 

up by my right hon. Friend the Member for West 

Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and my hon. Friend the 

Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). 

The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and 

Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), gave us a bit of good 

news when he spoke of the possibility of jobs in the 

supply of oil and gas in the west of Shetland. Clearly, 

that would happen in the medium to long term, but at a 

time of such economic crisis it is good that we can 

occasionally talk about the creation of jobs rather than 

their loss. 

My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet 

(Mr. Gale) raised a very serious issue and I hope the 

Deputy Leader of the House passes it on to the relevant 

Ministers. It is unacceptable that some 2,000 to 3,000 

people who have paid their taxes and lived most of their 

lives in Britain find that the benefits that they have been 

promised have been terminated. That is despite that fact 

that all the evidence says they should be in receipt of 

those benefits. Those elderly disabled people have given 

our country its due, but the country is denying them 

what is theirs by right. I very much hope that the 

Deputy Leader of the House will deal with the matter 

expeditiously. I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising 

it in the House today. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, 

East (James Duddridge) clearly showed in the number 

of issues he raised, and in the way he raised them, what 

a conscientious and diligent Member of Parliament he 

is. How proud his constituents must be to have him as 

their Member of Parliament. 

Dr. Julian Lewis: And lucky. 

Mr. Vara: Indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for 

Rochford and Southend, East mentioned his local airport 

and spoke about his constituents’ problems with the tax 

authorities—something that affects all of us. However, 

most of us will have been particularly struck by the fact 

that hospitals, including his local hospital in Southend, 

are stopping people bringing flowers to patients. That is 

distressing news, both for patients and the friends and 

relatives who want to bring them a little lightness at a 

time of serious ill health. I wish my hon. Friend well in 

trying to overcome that ban at Southend hospital. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight 

(Mr. Turner) spoke about an issue that he has raised 

before concerning Vestas, a successful Danish company, 

which less than a decade ago received £3.5 million of 

British taxpayers’ funds to help it start in the UK. On 

the day the company announced record profits, it also 

announced that 600 jobs would go in my hon. Friend’s 

constituency. I was sorry to hear that he had been 

unable to speak to Lord Mandelson and had not even 

received the courtesy of a reply to his letter, but I have 

to say that I am not surprised. It is clear evidence that 

Lord Mandelson’s attention is on anything but his 

various responsibilities; his only concern is trying to 

prop up a failing and discredited Prime Minister. 

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) 

raised a disturbing case of alleged fraud concerning a 

doctor. He also raised a broader issue—that we should 

ensure that public servants who are trying to act in 

defence of public funds are not themselves penalised. I 

hope that his criticism of the Government will be taken 

on board, and that the Deputy Leader of the House 

conveys the proper message to the relevant Ministers. 

My right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire 

mentioned that Derbyshire county council has become 

Conservative after a number of years. That was one of 

the highlights on the day of the local and European 

elections and I join him in congratulating his local 

county councillors, and I wish them well in trying to 

undo the mess they inherited from their predecessors. 

My right hon. Friend also raised the important point 

that schools are burdened with so much regulation that 

many of them are considering no longer having exchange 

trips. I for one found such trips useful when I was at 

school, and few people would argue that they are not 

good for the development of the individual. My right 

hon. Friend is right to press ahead with the issue and I 

very much hope that his concerns will be heard by the 

Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, 

although he is another Secretary of State whose eye is 

anywhere but on his brief. 

I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House has 

taken on board the concerns about bovine TB expressed 

by my right hon. Friend. The issue concerns many of us 

who have rural constituencies. 

The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and 

Selkirk (Mr. Moore) deserves congratulations from all 

of us on the fact that he has a new addition to his 

family. I congratulate him and his wife Alison on the 

birth of their daughter, Ella, eight weeks ago. The hon. 

Gentleman paid tribute to his local hospital. The health 

services generally deserve a big thank you for doing so 

well in difficult circumstances. We have a Government 

who are burdening them with excessive bureaucracy 

and who put targets above health priorities. Working 

under such conditions, the health services deserve credit. 

We often express our thanks to the doctors and nurses, 

but let us take this opportunity to thank the cleaners, 

the porters, the caterers, the receptionists and all the 

volunteers who also do such sterling work in the health 

services. 

My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark 

Pritchard) displayed his expertise and knowledge of 

matters foreign. He delivered a passionate and welcome 

speech on Afghanistan. I was privileged to visit Afghanistan 

last November and to meet some of our brave men and 

women, many of them very young. It is a matter of 

concern that they are not getting the full backing and 

resources they deserve when they are fighting for the 

interests of Afghanistan and the broader freedom of 

the rest of the world. 

It is a disgrace that although we have some 500 

helicopters, there are only 30 in Helmand province. 

Moreover, it is regrettable that the Prime Minister does 

not have the courage to admit his contribution to the 

lack of helicopters through his failure to allow the 

proper budget for them when he was Chancellor. May I 

say how disingenuous it is that he speaks of a 60 per 

cent. increase in the number of helicopters in the past 

two years? When he talks about the increase in troops, 

he mentions specific numbers, yet on the subject of 

helicopters he has to resort to playing with words and 

speaking of 60 per cent. By doing so, he demeans 

himself and the office that he holds.


Sir Robert Smith: It is telling that although the 

Government say they have enough helicopters, they are 

trying to get more. Why are they trying to get more if 

they think they have enough? 

Mr. Vara: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. 

By contrast, the Americans have a similar number of 

troops to the number that we have, yet they have 100 or 

so helicopters in the same region. 

As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, 

West (Mr. Amess) made a number of constituency 

points. When he spoke of breast cancer in men, it 

reminded me of the occasion I tried to introduce a 

private Member’s Bill to increase the breast cancer 

screening period for women. The Bill was talked out by 

the Government but, as is frequently the case, they were 

happy to take on board a good policy and rehash it as if 

it were their own. In his first conference speech to the 

Labour party, the Prime Minister said he thought it was 

a good idea to increase the screening period for breast 

cancer for women. I was pleased that he took on board 

my suggestion. Again, it is typical of the Prime Minister 

and the Government that they fail to give credit to the 

Opposition when they take our policies. Nevertheless, I 

am pleased that people will benefit from it. 

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his chairmanship 

of the Maldives all-party group. With reference to his 

concern about the slowness of answers to his questions, 

a question tabled in 30 September 2008 and only now 

receiving an answer is pretty deplorable. I take this 

opportunity to mention the fact that the Government 

often do not supply attachments with answers. They 

make reference to the House of Commons Library, but 

members of the public who take an interest in parliamentary 

answers do not have access to the Library. The Government 

ought to bear that in mind. 

My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East 

(Dr. Lewis) paid rightful tribute to Catherine Hickman, 

a beautiful young lady who, sadly, lost her life at a very 

early age in the recent tragedy in Camberwell. Our 

thoughts and prayers are very much with Catherine 

Hickman, her family and her partner, Mark, and with 

the friends and relatives of all the others who so sadly 

lost their lives on that day. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley 

(Mr. Evans) raised the sad case of Mr. and Mrs. Siddall. 

I entirely agree that priority should be given to ensuring 

that there is a procedure in place for people who go 

abroad and find themselves unwell. We need joined-up 

thinking when it comes to working with the Foreign 

Office, the Department of Health and the Department 

for Culture, Media and Sport. We are talking of lives 

being at stake, nothing less. 

We have heard many speeches, a number of them 

critical of the state of affairs in Members’ constituencies. 

The Conservatives certainly know who, after 12 years of 

Labour Government, is responsible for causing all that 

criticism, and we have no hesitation in laying the blame 

where it belongs—with the Prime Minister and his 

Government. I am only sorry that, with the exception of 

the hon. Member for Chorley, no Government Member 

had the courage to blame those who deserve it, including 

the Prime Minister himself. 

The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg 

Mulholland) rightly spoke of the recess as an occasion 

for us to take our holidays, as well as an occasion to 

spend more time on constituency activities. The hundreds 

of e-mails and letters that we receive will not stop 

because of the recess. They will continue to come to us, 

and our constituents will expect replies, which they will 

receive from us, despite the fact that it is the recess. 

May I simply take this opportunity to wish all Members, 

their staff and all the House staff a happy recess, and 

may I also wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a happy 

recess? I very much hope that the Prime Minister will 

take the opportunity for reflection and come to the 

right conclusion that everyone else in the country has 

reached—it is high time to hold a general election. 

9.21 pm 

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of 

the House of Commons (Barbara Keeley): It is a pleasure 

to follow the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire 

(Mr. Vara), even though I do not necessarily agree with 

his final comments. 

Barry Gardiner: Does my hon. Friend not agree that 

an Adjournment debate in which many Members—and 

I count myself privileged to be able to participate this 

afternoon—have taken part demonstrates a spirit of 

comradeship across the House, as we have raised issues 

that we all accept are appropriate to our constituencies? 

Is it not a shame that that note of party political temper 

had to come in at this late stage, when we are all looking 

forward to the recess? 

Barbara Keeley: Those are very much my sentiments. 

When my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member 

for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), first responded to a recess 

Adjournment debate, he said that these were slightly 

odd events. Most hon. Members would accept, given 

the variety of topics and issues that have been raised 

tonight, that that is certainly the case. 

Jeremy Corbyn: I look forward to my hon. Friend’s 

reply, and I hope that she will follow the convention of 

the House and make mention of all the contributions 

that have been made. I was astonished that the hon. 

Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara)— 

[Interruption.] I was hurt, too, that he did not even 

attempt to reply to any of the important issues raised by 

Labour Members, including the obvious, legitimate and 

quite correct concerns about Heathrow airport expressed 

my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington 

(John McDonnell). My hon. Friend the Member for 

Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush (Mr. Slaughter) 

was concerned about housing, but there was no attempt 

by the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire at 

a reply, even though my hon. Friend specifically complained 

about the Conservative-controlled Hammersmith council, 

which has apparently disregarded the social needs of 

the people of Hammersmith. 

Barbara Keeley: I thank my hon. Friend. It is useful 

to have a reminder of those issues, and I shall try to 

come on to deal with them. 

Mr. Vara: I hope that when the hon. Member for 

Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) reads Hansard, he 

will appreciate that I made collective mention of all 

those on the other side. I hope he accepts that that 

means I gave everyone a mention. [Interruption.] If he


has difficulty understanding standard English, I suggest 

that he take that up, as I said earlier, with the Secretary 

of State for Children, Schools and Families. 

Barbara Keeley: To begin— 

John McDonnell: Perhaps my hon. Friend could enlighten 

us on the concept of collective reference. To a number 

of us, it looks like a collective ignoring of key issues, 

including avoidance of any response to the political 

gerrymandering by the Tory administration that has 

gone on in Hammersmith. 

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. There 

is a danger of hon. Members doing the work of the 

Deputy Leader of the House for her. 

Barbara Keeley: Thank you for that intervention, 

Mr. Deputy Speaker. 

We can draw a parallel between the contributions of 

Members who have stayed to the end—we hope to stay 

to the bitter end, 10 o’clock—of this debate, the last 

debate of the summer, and the dogged determination of 

our valiant cricket teams in the current Ashes test series. 

Members will note that I use the word “teams”, in the 

plural, because I mean the women’s cricket team as well 

as the men’s team. Of course, the women have already 

retained the Ashes, so congratulations to them. 

The fine stand of Anderson and Panesar, hanging on 

until the finish to take a draw from the first ever test 

match in Cardiff, was equal to the determination of 

right hon. and hon. Members here to raise their constituency 

issues and other issues in this penultimate debate before 

the recess. 

Mr. Hoyle: Would my hon. Friend like to comment of 

the role of the Lancastrians, Freddie Flintoff and Anderson, 

who performed without exception and ensured both 

victories? 

Barbara Keeley: I was referring to the first test match— 

but definitely, with regard to the second test. 

Mr. Hoyle: Anderson won the first; Flintoff won the 

second. 

Barbara Keeley: Yes, indeed. I was very definitely 

going to mention the role of Freddie Flintoff, who took 

a very fine five wickets. 

Mr. Hoyle: Both Lancastrians. 

Barbara Keeley: Yes, and it is a great pity that there 

will not be a test match at our Old Trafford, where we 

could have celebrated their achievements locally. 

John McDonnell: Now that my hon. Friend has used 

that analogy, who would she designate as the Flintoff of 

this debate? 

Barbara Keeley: I shall leave Members to work that 

out for themselves. 

We had many excellent contributions. It had seemed 

as if it might not be possible to get through the great 

number of issues that were raised, but I shall certainly 

try to. Following the cricket analogy, I should note that 

my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) 

was our opening batsman and did a great job. He raised 

the issues of manufacturing jobs, the Forensic Science 

Service, his local hospice, Equitable Life, the HM Revenue 

and Customs office in Chorley, which we learned was 

an award-winning tax office, and fuel duty in rural 

areas. His speech was a model of how to get as many 

topics into a recess Adjournment debate as possible— 

particularly as he had only seven minutes. 

Mr. Hoyle: Six and a half. 

Barbara Keeley: Yes, but we noticed that he did use 

some of another Member’s time by intervening. 

Other hon. Members also managed to fit in many 

subjects. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) 

included at least nine or 10. 

Mr. Amess: Twelve. 

Barbara Keeley: Twelve, was it? I lost track. They 

came thick and fast. 

The hon. Gentleman talked about the funding of a 

young athlete, and I know that the publicity that he has 

given to that young athlete can really help. I have in my 

constituency a promising young triathlete called Aimee 

Backhouse, so I have managed to give her a mention, as 

the hon. Gentleman gave one to his constituent, and 

that is a great thing to do. 

Mr. Hoyle: As my hon. Friend has mentioned the tax 

office and the importance of Chorley, will she arrange 

another meeting about the future of the tax office 

closure programme? 

Barbara Keeley: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend raised 

many subjects, but, where appropriate, we will try to get 

him meetings, and answers, on the topics that he raised, 

as we will do with all hon. Members who are here 

tonight. 

Some hon. Members’ speeches had a different format 

and focused on a single issue. My hon. Friend the 

Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who is not in his 

place, talked about delays in investigating freedom of 

information requests, and we will try to get him the 

answer that he wants. 

Mr. Hoyle: He’s on his way to Pendle. 

Barbara Keeley: Yes. [Interruption.] He’s moved. 

The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) also 

made a case for claimants of exportable benefits such as 

disability living allowance, following the European Court 

of Justice ruling, and he commented on some other 

issues, too. 

Let me turn to the couple of issues to which a number 

of Members referred. On Equitable Life, the hon. Member 

for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert 

Smith) said that if regulators fail, that causes problems. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley was concerned 

about the answers that he had heard today, and the 

right hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) 

was concerned about hardship. The hon. Members for 

Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh 

and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) also commented on the issue.


Mr. Drew: I have been sympathetic, although not 

entirely sympathetic, to the ombudsman’s case. It would 

be useful if she came to this place and talked directly to 

Members about her case; there is now some confusion 

and a degree of interpretation about that. I have offered 

to go and see the ombudsman—I should say that I went 

to school with her, although she does not realise that. 

[Interruption.] I did not sit next to her. She should 

come here and explain her case. Will my hon. Friend set 

that in motion? 

Barbara Keeley: It is not my role to set that in motion, 

but I can refer it on. 

I return to Members’ comments on Equitable Life. 

Earlier, we had an urgent question on the matter, and 

the Chief Secretary to the Treasury raised some key 

points. The point at issue relates to the failure of regulators, 

but my right hon. Friend feels strongly that the Government 

are not the compensator of last resort. He made that 

key point today. 

A number of hon. Members asked whether we could 

lay out the timetable. They need to know when action 

will be taken, and I shall take that message away and 

communicate it again. I say to any hon. Member who 

was not here earlier that the Chief Secretary to the 

Treasury accepted the need for a timetable and said that 

he would try to provide a “long-stop date”, as he called 

it, for resolution. He has already agreed to come back to 

the House to try to provide that. 

Barry Gardiner: I understand what my hon. Friend 

has said about the Government not being the compensator 

of last resort in these matters. However, does she not 

agree that the most important point, made repeatedly in 

the House and in Westminster Hall debates on this 

matter, is that members of the Equitable Life scheme 

are now dying? It is unjust for people to be left in a state 

of limbo. The issue must be addressed with extreme 

urgency, because we cannot let it linger and fester as it 

has done. 

Barbara Keeley: My hon. Friend has made his point 

very well, as have other hon. Members. We will 

communicate them all. However, it is worth reflecting 

that the Chief Secretary has said that he will come back 

with “a long-stop date” and try to give us a timetable. 

Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend is generous with her time. 

[Interruption.] She has a bit of it to kill. 

Is there an estimate of how many people will have 

died before any compensation is paid in respect of 

Equitable Life? What time scale is involved? There is a 

“long-stop date”, but what does that mean? The truth is 

that the people have waited for long enough. The time is 

now ripe to pay them; they should not have to wait any 

longer. What pressure can my hon. Friend put on the 

Treasury so that it comes back with the answers that all 

our constituents want to hear? 

Barbara Keeley: I can put the pressure of all the 

comments made by hon. Members this evening. I think 

that that is sufficient. The issue has been raised and 

some good points have been made. I will make sure that 

they get through. 

Mr. Chope: One issue that is four-square within the 

hon. Lady’s responsibility as a business manager is 

whether we can have a substantive motion and debate 

on Equitable Life. Earlier today, the Chief Secretary to 

the Treasury said that such a debate was a matter for the 

business managers. I asked her specifically whether she 

could give us an undertaking tonight that the Government 

would bring forward a substantive motion when we 

return in the autumn. In that way, we can test the will of 

the House in relation to the Government’s policies on 

Equitable Life. Will she agree to do that? 

Barbara Keeley: The hon. Gentleman will understand 

that I cannot agree to do that at this moment. However, 

I reiterate the point that there will be a report from 

Sir John in August. After it comes out, we will see what 

the situation is and what is the appropriate thing to do. 

We have had debates and oral questions on the matter 

and we will continue to treat it with the importance that 

Members have highlighted. 

Mr. Moore: Can the Minister explain why it would 

not be in order to have a debate on a substantive motion 

in this place? 

Barbara Keeley: I am not saying that it will not be; I 

am just saying that it is something that we can come 

back to. If hon. Members want to raise it again as soon 

as we get back, we should have Sir John Chadwick’s 

report, and probably a much better idea of the timetable. 

John McDonnell: Could my hon. Friend at least 

report the sense in the House that the debate needs to be 

time-limited—in my view it needs to be before the 

Queen’s Speech, so some time in October, or at least no 

later than November—and that it should be on a substantive 

motion so that the House can express its will? 

Barbara Keeley: I will certainly express the strong 

opinions and feelings that Members have raised. 

Several Members addressed similar issues, but sometimes 

in different ways. My hon. Friend the Member for 

Chorley appealed for a national jobs summit and a 

short-time working subsidy. He particularly talked about 

supporting people staying in jobs—an important sentiment 

that fits in well with the policy theme of the Government. 

The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and 

Kincardine appealed for tax incentives for the future. 

He wants to incentivise companies in west Aberdeenshire, 

focusing on smaller and more nimble ones that he 

thinks are particularly important in that context. I 

noted his comments about supporting and maintaining 

platforms and pipelines. 

Sir Robert Smith: May I emphasise that those were 

not just my wishes, as there was also a Select Committee 

report on the matter? 

Barbara Keeley: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight 

(Mr. Turner) raised an issue of concern that has been 

discussed in this Chamber recently—the loss of jobs 

and poor redundancy payments at Vestas. There are 

several issues to be taken on board, and I am encouraged 

by his positive comments on work with Ministers. 

John McDonnell: Vestas workers are occupying their 

factory, and it behoves this House to send our support 

to them. They are not only fighting for their jobs but are 

at the forefront of the campaign against climate change, 

and they deserve our support.


Barbara Keeley: Yes, indeed. I understand that there 

are some differences, because Vestas made wind turbines 

for the American market, but points have been well 

made in the House. 

Mr. Hoyle: I recognise that the products were for the 

American market. However, given that the Government 

are, rightly, expanding the UK market, with more wind 

farms offshore and onshore, what can we do to ensure 

that some of that work is put into the Vestas factory on 

the Isle of Wight to keep this country’s manufacturing 

base going? 

Barbara Keeley: That is a very good point. 

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight talked about the 

importance of the South East England Development 

Agency. The Government have worked closely with 

SEEDA, which set up a taskforce as soon as the consultation 

was announced. However, it seems as though decisions 

are being taken very quickly, which is a pity. 

We should not forget the textile industry, which was 

mentioned by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh 

and Selkirk, particularly the important issues concerning 

the cashmere knitting industry. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport 

(Alison Seabeck) outlined the variety of problems created 

for her constituents by leasehold management agents. 

There have been similar instances in my own constituency, 

particularly in connection with insurance cover. I will 

ensure that she gets the answers she wants on the two 

matters that she raised. 

Alison Seabeck: Will my hon. Friend take back to 

Ministers the need to look at what they are doing in the 

private rented sector and link it across not only to 

letting agents but to managing agents? That is extremely 

important. There is a lot of common ground that we 

could legislate on, and over which the profession itself 

would like to see some controls. 

Barbara Keeley: A constituent of mine who was also 

a councillor had great success in representing residents 

in tackling the insurance problem, which applies in 

other parts of the country. 

The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) 

raised the tricky question of fluoridation, which also 

arises for us in the north-west. He covered the issues 

well, noting that it is difficult for MPs to influence the 

situation because the decisions are taken out of our 

hands. 

Mr. Drew: There is an active all-party group on 

fluoridation, which has exposed some practices and the 

way in which area health authorities have tried to drive 

fluoridation forward. Should not the House have a 

further opportunity to review the use of fluoridation as 

an alternative to good dental practice? It is not acceptable, 

and that should be said loud and clear. 

Barbara Keeley: That is an interesting thought. I have 

a dental surgeon friend, who probably would not agree, 

but the point is worth making. 

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead 

(Mr. Field) raised alleged fraud in the NHS; he is not in 

his place, so I simply say that I shall try to get him an 

answer. 

The right hon. Member for West Derbyshire made 

strong representations about the new protections under 

the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 and the 

Criminal Records Bureau checks for those hosting foreign 

students. I will pass on his representations, but I disagree 

with him. I believe—and I think that my view is shared 

by the Department for Children, Schools and Families— 

that we must be careful to take enough steps to safeguard 

children. Some vulnerabilities attach to young people 

who go into people’s homes when they are on exchange 

or foreign trips, and the protection may prove important. 

Mr. McLoughlin: Does the Deputy Leader of the 

House believe that foreign exchange visits are important, 

or is she willing for them to end if they entail such a 

bureaucratic system that schools will no longer engage 

in them? 

Barbara Keeley: That must be kept under review, but 

I have been responsible in local government for schools 

services, and it is difficult when one believes that there 

are child protection issues. Protection must be across 

the board, and those who want to host visits should be 

ready to be checked—just as all those who visit schools, 

including Members of Parliament and authors, should 

be willing to be checked, as councillors have to be. 

[Interruption.] We must agree to differ, and I will pass 

on the right hon. Gentleman’s representations. 

Mr. Roger Gale: The hon. Lady skirts around an 

issue that raised its head in the past week. Some prominent 

authors have already said that they will not visit schools. 

Many Members of Parliament have work experience 

students, who are under the age of majority, working 

with them. There is a danger that we will find ourselves 

in the same position as the authors, and that such 

citizenship work will come to an end because people are 

unwilling to go through the process. 

Barbara Keeley: I do not believe that authors should 

stop visiting schools or that people should have a problem 

with certification for visits. However, if it is a problem, 

we must keep it under review. 

Several hon. Members have praised Ministers for 

their work; that is rare in such a debate. 

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) (Con): Not from this 

side. 

Barbara Keeley: Yes, they have. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) 

praised a Foreign Office Minister—I think he meant my 

hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda—for his quick 

response concerning the military junta that has taken 

over the Government in Honduras. I will pass on his 

comments, but also his concern that the Government 

should take up the implacable position that he would 

like. 

Colin Burgon: I understand that the Under-Secretary 

of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my 

hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is 

currently visiting a couple of countries in Latin America. 

Will my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House 

use her powers to direct him to visit Honduras to 

lecture the military junta on the bad steps that they 

have taken?


Barbara Keeley: I do not know whether my powers 

extend to directing my hon. Friend in such a way, but I 

will pass on that representation to him. 

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight wanted to thank 

Ministers for their actions on Vestas, but I will follow 

up the response for which he is waiting from the Secretary 

of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. I note that 

the hon. Gentleman is also getting on with Department 

for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers 

about fallen livestock—a subject that he has raised 

previously in such debates. 

As is always the case in such debates, I do not agree 

with everything that everyone has said, but this is an 

useful opportunity for hon. Members to express what 

they feel. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and 

Wanstead (Harry Cohen) made representations on behalf 

of Ronnie Biggs. I fear that I do not agree with him. 

Harry Cohen: My hon. Friend started with a cricket 

metaphor, so will she recognise that the friends and 

family of Mr. Biggs are sad that he is not out? Will she 

also confirm that the parole board recommended that 

he be released—that he be out—and that the decision 

by the Secretary of State for Justice against that is not a 

judicial one, but a political one? 

Barbara Keeley: One could take view, but Mr. Biggs 

served only one year of a 30-year sentence for a crime 

that involved violence, even if it was not violence that he 

instigated. The Justice Secretary has to take into account 

the feelings of all the families involved, including the 

family of the person who was lost. 

I have already touched on one of the things that the 

hon. Member for Christchurch raised, but he also talked 

about the regional spatial strategy. It seems a shame 

that it has taken longer than expected to settle the 

timetable for those arrangements. I will pass on his 

comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of 

State for Communities and Local Government. However, 

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will attend the South 

West Regional Grand Committee on 3 September. In 

fact, I hope that all hon. Members will attend their 

Regional Grand Committees in September and October. 

Mr. Chope: Will the hon. Lady give way? 

Barbara Keeley: I really need to make some progress 

now. 

Let me deal with the contribution from my hon. 

Friend the Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner). 

It is difficult to comment on some issues that hon. 

Members have raised, because they have done that vital 

thing that a constituency MP does, namely raise various 

local issues. We heard that he wants happy children in 

his constituency, not victims of Happy Child Ltd. He 

also raised a serious concern about bailiffs being out of 

control. If anything can be done in legislative or other 

terms, that would be helpful. 

Barry Gardiner: Would my hon. Friend accept that it 

is not simply a matter of bailiffs being out of control, 

but a matter of councils—in this case Brent council—not 

communicating effectively when they have come to an 

agreement with the debtor on how to pay over a period 

of time, and then allowing the bailiffs to continue with 

the process of distraint, which causes enormous distress 

to constituents? 

Barbara Keeley: Yes, indeed. I know from my own 

experience when I was a local government councillor 

the great distress that bailiffs can cause. It behoves the 

council to take my hon. Friend’s points on board. 

Let me add my congratulations to the hon. Member 

for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) 

and his wife Alison on the birth of their daughter Ella. I 

thank him for his praise of nurses and midwives. I will 

also take up the issues that he raised about the textile 

industry. 

The contribution from my hon. Friend the Member 

for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) highlighted the benefit 

of these Adjournment debates. I commend her on the 

persistence that she has shown in raising the issues 

concerning trawlermen, who will now receive the 

compensation that they deserve. She has fought for 

that. She also mentioned her campaign, which she is 

persisting with, to reduce the tolls on the Humber 

bridge, with which most of us would agree. It is vital to 

make crossing backwards and forwards affordable. 

Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): The Deputy 

Leader of the House has just said that most of us would 

agree with the campaign of her hon. Friend the Member 

for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) to reduce the tolls on 

the Humber bridge—certainly I agree with her—so is 

this a Government commitment? 

Barbara Keeley: No, it is an expression of the solidarity 

of the pre-recess Adjournment debate more than anything 

else. 

Let me deal with the serious comments made by the 

hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard)— 

[Interruption.] He is over there. People have moved 

around; it is very confusing. I join him in paying tribute 

to all the men and women in our armed forces serving in 

Afghanistan and Iraq, and I pass on our condolences to 

the families of those who have been lost—another 

serviceman has been lost today. I am sure that other 

hon. Members know that this is also a question of 

providing support and solidarity for the families of 

those who have been injured. I have a constituent whose 

son was terribly injured by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan, 

and that is a loss for the family, too. 

Alison Seabeck: Would my hon. Friend be willing to 

commend the rehabilitation work that is carried out in a 

range of places around the country, including the naval 

base in Plymouth, particularly for people who have lost 

limbs? 

Barbara Keeley: Yes, indeed. My constituent and his 

son had a very useful meeting with me and the Minister 

responsible for veterans, and the support that the young 

man is now getting in the rehabilitation phase is very 

important to him. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North 

(Ms Keeble) joined in the tribute to the armed forces. 

She is a member of the armed forces scheme, which is 

another useful parliamentary scheme. She said that she 

supported the armed forces and their mission. She also 

raised a number of quite serious-sounding issues about


planning policy. Several Members have mentioned planning 

policy issues related to their local council. Such issues 

can be difficult. The plan that my hon. Friend mentioned— 

the major emerging plan to turn Northampton from a 

town into a city—is a plan of a different order, so I will 

pass her comments on. 

Ms Keeble: Does my hon. Friend really think that six 

weeks, starting on 28 July, is sufficient time for the local 

community to be consulted on those major plans? 

Barbara Keeley: No, I do not. If my hon. Friend 

looks at the Cabinet Office policy on consultation, she 

will see that a six-week period that takes no account of 

a holiday season would in no sense be regarded as 

acceptable. She could remind her local council of the 

Cabinet Office’s good practice guidance on consultation, 

and suggest that it starts to stick to it. She also mentioned 

the scale of the planning developments in her constituency. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and 

Shepherd’s Bush (Mr. Slaughter) is not in his place—[HON. 

MEMBERS: “Yes, he is! He’s behind you!”] I should say 

that it is very confusing when Members move around 

the Chamber, because I tend to fix them in my mind. 

My hon. Friend highlighted what seemed to be a really 

disgraceful example of a council—Hammersmith and 

Fulham council—carrying out a very difficult-sounding 

scheme that is putting people out of the estates where 

they have lived since the 1950s and 1960s and moving a 

different type of person in. We have come across this 

before in this country, and it is a serious matter. My 

hon. Friend has invited other Members to dissociate 

themselves from such actions, and it is open to them 

to do so. 

Mr. Slaughter: I apologise to my hon. Friend for 

confusing her, and for being slightly late for her speech. 

I blame the dodgy telly in the Adjournment restaurant, 

rather than not wanting to hear the Opposition Front-Bench 

spokesman. However, I understand that the hon. Member 

for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) did not 

mention several of the contributions to the debate. I 

wonder whether his failure to mention my speech illustrates 

his embarrassment that senior politicians in the Conservative 

party are describing council estates in my constituency 

as “ghettoes”, and that, over wine and canapés, they 

are— 

Mr. Speaker: Order. The enthusiasm of the hon. 

Gentleman’s intervention is equalled only by its length. 

Barbara Keeley: My hon. Friend the Member for 

Islington, North raised a serious issue about the funding 

for further and higher education. He asked me to pass 

his comments on to the Secretary of State for Business, 

Innovation and Skills, and I am happy to do that. 

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Minister for mentioning 

that, and for giving way. This is a very serious issue. Will 

she impress on the Secretary of State that he needs to 

intervene personally to save those jobs and student 

places? In no way should the people who are responsible 

for this mess get off scot-free, yet it is the staff and 

students who are losing their jobs and courses because 

of those people’s incompetence in the past. 

Barbara Keeley: Yes, indeed. 

My hon. Friend also raised the issue of step-free 

access at stations like Finsbury Park. Transport is also a 

serious issue in my constituency. I have two very useful 

friends of station groups—one is Friends of Walkden 

Station—and I have to say that the notion of moving to 

step-free access at our station is a dream. I can understand 

why, if the dream was promised and then taken away, 

many people would be disappointed. My hon. Friend 

also raised spoke about the electrification of the Barking- 

Gospel Oak railway line. 

Harry Cohen rose— 

Mr. Slaughter rose— 

Barbara Keeley: I want to make progress and see if I 

can finish, as it is right for me to try to refer to all the 

contributions. 

The next contribution came from the hon. Member 

for New Forest, East, who referred to the death of Cat 

Hickman; she was killed in the Camberwell fire and our 

thoughts and prayers are with her family on their terrible 

loss. The constituency of my right hon. and learned 

Friend the Leader of the House is, of course, Camberwell 

and Peckham, and I know how much she has done—even 

bearing in mind the pressure at the end of this parliamentary 

Session—to support her constituents over that incident. 

I will pass on the hon. Gentleman’s comments to her. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington 

(John McDonnell) spoke about Heathrow expansion 

and particularly the bond scheme. He talked about 

people and families being trapped in blighted properties. 

We will try to take that issue forward for him. 

John McDonnell: I say this more in sadness than in 

anger—although my Mace days may not be completely 

over—that, despite my raising the issue for three or four 

years, neither the Secretary of State nor any other 

Transport Minister has visited my constituency to meet 

the people who will lose their homes. Will my hon. 

Friend yet again take back to the Transport Department 

the request for a Minister to visit the people whose 

homes are under threat? 

Barbara Keeley: I certainly will. 


Barbara Keeley: I need to move on. 

The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) 

raised the importance of twinning for church groups 

and others who want to entertain visitors from such 

twinned area. I will make the necessary representations 

to the Minister for Borders and Immigration on the 

hon. Gentleman’s behalf. In common with him, I know 

how much churches and communities gain from those 

visits. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) 

raised a number of different issues, including rural 

communities. He also spoke about violence in a constituency 

pub that involved the British National party member, 

Nick Griffin. That is a serious matter. The north-west, 

particularly in Wigan, which adjoins my constituency, 

has also seen violence around BNP meetings. When it 

happens, it reveals a very reprehensible aspect of BNP 

politics; we just cannot have that at all. My hon. Friend

853 21 JULY 2009 Business without Debate 

854 

[Barbara Keeley] 

also made representations on behalf of a head teacher 

and other senior school staff against whom allegations 

have been made. We are keenly aware of the effect that 

such allegations can have on a person’s health, family 

and career. I think it is a matter of working to ensure 

that the systems for dealing with such allegations are 

fair and capable of resolving the issues quickly. I know 

that my hon. Friend has made the same representations 

on previous occasions, and I am sure that it has been 

helpful for him to have made them again tonight. He 

also referred to two Bills that he had introduced. 

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) gave 

another plug to the all-party beer group, which I suppose 

we can expect at this time of year. I will refer on his key 

point about representatives of the emergency services 

forum wanting to speak to people in government. It is 

concerning when so many people lose their lives on 

holiday. It should be a happy time of year and people 

should not come back from holidays, particularly in 

Spain, having lost loved ones. 

The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg 

Mulholland)—[Interruption.] He is not in his place; he 

has obviously decided to go and sample the beer. Perhaps 

colleagues could pass on to him my response to the 

issues he raised about the north and the north-west. 

Leeds was the town I grew up in. The hon. Gentleman 

said that Leeds needs an arena, but wants Sheffield 

MPs to keep out of the debate. I should perhaps remind 

him about a casino in Manchester, in respect of which 

Leeds got heavily involved. It seems that, over there in 

Leeds, they need to take their own advice. 

I believe that I have touched on most of the issues 

raised in the debate. If I have missed any out, I will 

make the necessary representations on behalf of hon. 

Members. 

As we reflect on spending some 68 days working in 

our constituencies, as well as having the odd fortnight 

for a summer holiday, I would like to end by thanking 

all House staff, particularly the Hansard writers who 

make sense of our contributions. If they can make some 

sense of the debate that we have had tonight, that 

clearly shows their talent. I also thank the staff of the 

Tea Room, who keep us all going— 

10 pm 

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No 9(3). 

Business without Debate 

ACCESS TO PARLIAMENT (UNITED KINGDOM 

MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT) 

Motion made, 

That the Resolutions of the House of 30 January 1989 relating 

to House of Commons Services and 6 December 1991 relating to 

Access (Former members and United Kingdom Members of the 

European Parliament) shall cease to have effect insofar as they 

relate to United Kingdom members of the European Parliament.— 

(Kerry McCarthy.) 

Hon. Members: Object. 

REGIONAL SELECT COMMITTEE 

(WEST MIDLANDS) 

Motion made, 

That Dr Richard Taylor be a member of the West Midlands 

Regional Select Committee.—(Kerry McCarthy.) 



(YORKSHIRE AND THE HUMBER) 

Motion made, 

That Mary Creagh be discharged from the Yorkshire and the 

Humber Regional Select Committee and Mr Austin Mitchell be 

added.—(Kerry McCarthy.) 



(SOUTH WEST) 

Motion made, 

That Linda Gilroy be discharged from the South West Regional 

Select Committee and Roger Berry be added.—( Kerry McCarthy.) 


PETITIONS 

Surface Mining (Shropshire) 

10.1 pm 

Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): I wish to raise 

an important issue in my constituency— 

Mr. Speaker: Order. While I realise that there is a 

certain joie de vivre among Members—which is much 

to be appreciated—may I gently ask them to leave 

quietly? May I also say, by way of a gentle request to the 

Deputy Chief Whip, that it is a little unkind to intervene 

from a sedentary position, wittering to a colleague, 

when the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) 

is addressing the House? 

Mark Pritchard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

I wish to raise a matter that is of great importance to 

my constituents in The Wrekin in Shropshire. I am 

presenting this petition now because this is my last 

opportunity to do so before the Secretary of State is 

likely to make a decision. The petition, signed by 500 people, 

reads as follows: 

The Petition of those opposed to UK Coal’s proposals for 

surface mining in Huntingdon Lane and New Works, 

Declares that the Petitioners oppose plans by UK Coal to 

re-open historic and new surface mining areas in and around New 

Works and Huntingdon Lane, believing that the proposals are 

contrary to current energy policies that are attempting to reduce 

climate change by moving towards more sustainable forms of 

energy and which reduce CO 2 and carbon emissions; and further 

declares that the local environment, ecology, highway network, 

and the quality of life of local residents will be severely undermined 

should the proposal go ahead. 

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons 

urge the Government to put a stop to proposals for surface 

mining in Huntingdon Lane and New Works. 

And the Petitioners remain, etc. 

[P000400]

855 Business without Debate 

21 JULY 2009 Business without Debate 

856 

Decent Homes Programme (Funding) 

10.2 pm 

Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD): Before 

we break for the summer, I want to raise a matter that 

requires action by the Government before the end of 

the recess. 

I wish to present a petition on behalf of thousands of 

tenants in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend 

the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), 

and, indeed, thousands of tenants well beyond the 

confines of the London borough of Sutton. It relates to 

the shocking news that decent housing funding, which 

is there to pay for major renovation and other works, is 

to be redirected to the construction of new buildings, 

including new homes. 

There should not be a choice between renovation and 

new build. In the case of Sutton, where £112 million 

was expected to be available to pay for the replacement 

of more than 800 antiquated box bathrooms, insulation 

and other energy efficiency work, and much-needed 

improvements to plumbing and electricity in many 

developments, it is really disturbing to learn that the 

money is to be siphoned off. It comes as a blow to the 

morale of staff in Sutton Housing Partnership who have 

been working hard to draw up the plans and prepare for 

the Audit Commission’s inspection this autumn, and 

has caused a sense of betrayal among the tenants. 

The petition reads as follows: 

To the House of Commons, 

The Petition of the tenants of Sutton Housing Partnership and 

others, 

Declares that the decision to postpone and cut back funding to 

support home improvement works to meet the Government’s 

decent homes standard will condemn thousands of tenants to a 

future in poor and inadequate housing while continuing to pay 

millions of pounds in rent as a negative subsidy to the Treasury. 

Further declares that the decision to switch funds from improvement 

to new build is misjudged and was made without consultation 

with local authorities, Arms Length Management Organisations 

or tenants. 

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons 

calls upon Her Majesty’s Government not to renege on its promises 

and stand by their pledge to tenants by fully funding the decent 

home programme. 


[P000401] 

Storage of Embryos 

10.4 pm 

Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD): My 

second petition relates to an issue of human rights in 

respect of people who have had life-saving medical 

treatment but, as a result, become infertile. However, 

they have made provision to store embryos prior to the 

treatment so that they are able to have biological children 

of their own. It cannot be right to force those in such 

circumstances—those who have embryos stored under 

the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990—to 

destroy those embryos because there is a gap between 

that Act and the 2008 Act. A statutory instrument 

before the House at the moment will, I hope, be debated 

in October. It would be tragic if embryos were destroyed 

in September and therefore the House did not have a 

chance to bring its judgment to bear on the matter. I 

hope therefore that, at the very least, Ministers will act 

to prevent that destruction prior to the House returning 

in October. I believe that there should be no destruction 

at all. 

The petition states: 

The Petition of people who have embryos stored 

under the terms of the 1990 Human Fertilisation and 

Embryology Act and the regulations made there under 

and others, 

Declares that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology 

(Statutory Storage Period for Embryos and Gametes) 

Regulations 2009 (S.I., 2009, No. 1582), dated 25 July 

2009, a copy of which was laid before this House on 

1 July, does not provide for the preservation of embryos 

whose statutory storage period has expired; is concerned 

that in circumstances where people have stored embryos 

under 1991 regulations ahead of medical treatment that 

renders one or the other of them infertile that the lack 

of transitional regulations in S.I., 2009, No. 1582 will 

result in embryos being destroyed against the express 

wishes of the donor. 

Further declares that the Human Fertilisation and 

Embryology Authority supported the case for allowing 

people in such cases to have access to further extensions 

to the storage period. 

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of 

Commons calls upon Her Majesty’s Government to 

bring forward further regulations to allow for the continued 

storage of embryos for those who actively desire it in 

order that they might use them to have a family by 

means of surrogacy and act immediately to suspend the 

destruction of such embryos where the donors so wish. 


[P000402]

857 21 JULY 2009 Gurkha Pensions 

858 

Gurkha Pensions 

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House 

do now adjourn.—(Kerry McCarthy.) 

10.7 pm 

Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I am delighted 

to have this debate, the last act of the Session. I welcome 

you to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and wish you and your 

family a happy recess. I also welcome the Minister, the 

Whip and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and 

Harlington (John McDonnell). 

This is an important debate and one that has reverberated 

for some months since the settlement issue was resolved. 

I have taken an active part in the matter, as the Minister 

will know. I have asked a number of parliamentary 

questions and I feature in the accompanying paper from 

the Library, which is a good backcloth to the issue. 

Surprisingly, in some respects, I supported the 

Government over the settlement issue. I did so because I 

felt that the motion moved by the Liberal Democrats 

was opportunistic and did not take account of the full 

consequences of settlement, principally Gurkha pensions. 

I did not go gooey-eyed at the thought of having my 

photo taken with Joanna Lumley, but I took some stick 

in my local press from people who thought I was 

unwilling to take the side of the Gurkhas. I am trying to 

reverse that now by taking forward the argument on 

Gurkha pensions. 

This is an issue that leads to considerable emotion as 

I found when I met the Gurkha Welfare Society. I 

thought it was a useful meeting. I also went to see the 

Nepalese chargé d’affaires in London. There is another 

reason why I voted as I did. It involves a Member whom 

I shall not name as he is a good friend of mine who sits 

on the Opposition Benches. He is a former Gurkha 

officer and some years ago he expressed the concern to 

me that if we got this wrong by arbitrarily changing the 

conditions of service and Gurkha pensions, we could 

end up doing the very thing we did not want to do: 

undermine, and possibly destroy, the Gurkha relationship 

with the British armed forces, rather than sustain it. It 

was therefore important to find out whether that was 

likely, and what the repercussions were of the settlement 

vote. 

Things have moved on and some sores have healed, 

but there is an ongoing worry and growing anger. It is 

felt that the pay and conditions, and principally the 

pensions, have to be resolved as a matter of urgency. 

That was the sentiment of the Nepalese Government 

representatives and the Gurkha Welfare Society. 

I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister 

has, in a sense, got his retaliation in first as a letter has 

been sent to the Members who signed early-day motion 

1726, which basically sets out the Government’s position—I 

am not going to pursue that argument now because I 

am sure the Minister will use his own opportunity to 

respond to my points. The Government position, if I 

have got this right, is that the arrangement whereby, 

pre-1997, the Gurkha pension scheme is the extant 

method by which people are paid, and post-1997, people 

move on to the regular armed forces pension scheme, 

should not be subject to retrospection. The Government 

feel that legal judgments support their view. They also 

feel that the pre-1997 rewards to those 36,000 Gurkha 

pensioners are sufficient because many of them are 

living in Nepal, and that the process of moving from the 

old to the new scheme has been relatively painless. They 

believe that it is only right and proper that the differential 

is upheld. 

I met the Gurkha Welfare Society, and Major 

Tikendradal Dewan in particular said to me that although 

they do not want any particular special favours, they 

want justice, and they feel that the pensions are not 

right. They refer back to the tripartite agreement between 

Britain, India and Nepal and the fact that Gurkhas who 

retired before 1997 are considerably worse off. The crux 

of the questions I have put to the Government are 

about the £1.5 billion cost of not only the pensions but 

of the settlement, and its repercussions for pensions. 

That figure has been questioned. It is not a cheap 

option, and now we have gone along the settlement 

route, we must get the pensions right. I welcome this 

opportunity to debate the issue. The Gurkha Welfare 

Society asked me to put in some questions, which I have 

done, and to seek an Adjournment debate, which I have 

also now achieved. 

The notion is that there is still unfairness because of 

the 1997 break. Those Gurkhas who received a pension 

before 1997 receive a much lower pension than those 

awarded one post 1997, and they feel that that has got 

to be put right. At present, these 36,000 Gurkhas receive 

a monthly pension supplement of as little as a sixth, or 

even as low as an eighth, of that of a UK soldier whom 

they serve alongside. A Gurkha pension received today 

by those who retired prior 1997 is about £172 per 

month for a rank below corporal, and £351 for a 

lieutenant, which is way below the figures for someone 

on the armed forces pension scheme. 

I know that the argument that the Government advance 

is that, in the main, Gurkhas have served for less time 

and have retired earlier, even though these are very 

brave people who have served this country immeasurably 

in so many different ways. However, this sore has to be 

recognised and remedied. Gurkhas feel that it is a form 

of discrimination and make the point that one of the 

reasons why they retired earlier and served less time was 

because that was the expectation. The 15-year limitation 

was not of their making; it was what the scheme demanded. 

Many Gurkhas would have liked to have served for 

longer, but the scheme did not allow them to do so. In 

addition, many served much shorter times than that 

and so are particularly disadvantaged. 

Contrary to what the Minister has said—I know that 

he has been to Nepal and I am sure that he will talk 

about that—former Gurkhas who have retired to Nepal 

do not have a life of luxury and many face deprivations. 

As they say—this point has been made clearly to me—one 

strong reason why so many have to seek alternative 

employment and take on dangerous jobs in Iraq and 

Afghanistan is that they do not see themselves having a 

well paid future in Nepal. They have, thus, sought to use 

their military expertise in some of the most dangerous 

parts of the world. 

My final point on this element of my submission is 

that a penalty is implicitly involved for those who have 

converted from the Gurkha pension scheme to the 

armed forces pension scheme: a transfer rate of three to 

one; for every 15 years on the GPS someone gets only 

five years on the AFPS. That penalty is discriminatory 

and is where much of the hurt comes from.

859 Gurkha Pensions 

21 JULY 2009 


860 

I know that complex arguments are involved here, 

including those about where the Gurkhas were based. 

The Gurkha regiment was not necessarily based in this 

country, although at times in the 1960s there was a 

regiment here. There was a regiment in Hong Kong 

until July 1997, and so making comparisons is difficult. 

However, if we believe in justice and fairness—we have 

now accepted the settlement issue—we must move on 

the pension issue. If we do not, we will be penalising the 

very people who may wish to come to this country and 

who we are now encouraging to come to this country. 

They will be coming here on a pension that will not 

allow them to live in this country on anything other 

than poverty wages. 

John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): My 

constituency contains a large Gurkha community; the 

Hayes Nepalese association has now been formed and it 

contains at least 500 people. The old patterns of pension 

payment no longer reflect the pattern of settlement of 

Gurkhas, as families now want to reunite, even in this 

country. As a result, some are living on very low incomes. 

Mr. Drew: That is the case, which is why I am pleased 

to have secured this debate, even if it is at this late hour, 

at the very last moment of this Session. We have examined 

the settlements issue in terms of the closeness of ties, 

and we have now identified that that closeness is a 

strong reason why the settlement is allowed, but we 

must move further on the equality of treatment, particularly 

pension treatment. The comparison with India and 

those troops from the Indian part of the tripartite 

agreement is also worth dwelling on for a moment. The 

Gorkhas—the Indian equivalent of the Gurkhas—were 

similarly disadvantaged because there was, again, a 

break pre-1997. Interestingly, India has recognised that 

that break is wrong and I understand that it now treats 

those who retired before that date in the same way as it 

treats those who retired thereafter. That makes a significant 

difference, and there has always been an understanding 

that that is right in that case, so I ask the Minister why 

that does not apply to the Gurkhas. It is causing hurt 

among those who have retired as well as later generations, 

because Gurkha servicemen do not think, “Oh, we’re all 

right and our predecessors do not matter.” This matters 

to one and all in the Gurkha community and to many 

others in Nepal. 

I ask the Minister to look again at this issue. I am 

sure that he will say that the law is clear, and there have 

been judgments that would allow the Government to 

feel that the 1997 break is the right place for the 

differential to be imposed. But that is not the view of 

the Gurkha community, and it is certainly not the view 

of the Gurkha Welfare Society, which has raised this 

with me and other hon. Members. 

It is not only a question of money. There is an 

argument about what this would cost. If many Gurkhas 

came to settle in this country, fewer resources would be 

available for Nepal. The Nepalese Government 

representatives have made it clear that it is up to the 

individuals to make their minds up where they wish to 

reside. As long as they receive support when they are 

living in Nepal, the Nepalese Government will be 

satisfied, but if people choose to resettle in this country, 

they have to be compensated for the higher cost of 

living, and that can only be done if they have a decent 

pension. 

The Gurkhas are a key part of the British armed 

forces, and we wish that to remain the case. But there is 

an ongoing feeling of unfairness. This will not go away 

even if the settlement issue has been resolved. I ask my 

hon. Friend to look carefully at what is being said, how 

this can be funded, to talk directly both to the Gurkha 

Welfare Society, which is the advocate for the Gurkhas, 

and to the Nepalese Government—who support Gurkhas 

who choose to live in this country and those who 

choose to live in Nepal—and to provide the wherewithal 

so that we can resolve this situation once and for all. 

10.22 pm 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence 

(Mr. Kevan Jones): I congratulate my hon. Friend the 

Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on securing tonight’s 

Adjournment debate on Gurkha pensions, which gives 

me an opportunity to explain what the Government are 

doing for Gurkha pension arrangements and explode 

some of the myths that surround them. Unfortunately, 

my hon. Friend has repeated some of those myths 

tonight. 

The Government recognise the debt of honour that 

we owe the Gurkhas, their bravery and the contribution 

that they have made not only in current operations but 

in the first and second world wars, as well as their proud 

tradition of contributing to the security and safety of 

our country. We need to recognise that the issue of 

Gurkha pensions cannot be taken in isolation from 

other pension arrangements for either the British armed 

forces or other public servants. Gurkha pensions are 

part of a wider package of terms and conditions of 

service that were designed to recognise and reward the 

dedication to which I have just referred. Many high-quality 

recruits come forward every year to enter the Gurkha 

regiment—typically 17,000 for 2,000 places. A place in 

the Gurkha regiment is highly prized by families in 

Nepal. 

In general, pension schemes need to recognise the 

service given by individuals in their occupations, and 

that is what the Gurkha pension scheme has done for 

successive generations of Gurkhas. I want to dispel one 

myth. I was in Nepal earlier this year, and I know that 

the pension provides a comfortable retirement income. 

To describe Gurkha pensioners as living in poverty or 

deprivation could not be further from the truth. I met 

many of them when I was in the country, and I can tell 

my hon. Friend that their standard of living is very high 

compared with that of many of their fellow citizens. I 

shall say more about that later. 

Before I explain the position of Gurkha veterans, it is 

important to dispel some myths surrounding the GPS. 

It cannot be separated from other pension schemes, 

including the current and previous schemes for our 

armed forces. It has been the policy of this and previous 

Governments that the terms and conditions of pension 

arrangements cannot be changed retrospectively after 

people leave public service. That is true for the GPS and 

for the pension schemes covering the armed forces and 

the public sector as a whole. The GPS cannot be treated 

separately so I shall deal with it in detail because, when 

we talk about “equalisation”, we must understand what 

that means in practice. 

Let us be clear—under the GPS, all Gurkhas with 

service after 1997 now enjoy the same terms and conditions 

as their British equivalents. We are therefore talking


21 JULY 2009 


862 

[Mr. Kevan Jones] 

about veterans who retired before 1997 and comparing 

their scheme with that of their contemporaries with the 

same period of service. 

The GPS pays a pension after a rifleman has completed 

15 years’ service, so a man who joins at the age of 18 can 

retire at 33. In contrast, the armed forces pension 

scheme 1975 does not pay a pension until age 60 for 

other ranks with fewer than 22 years’ service. That 

covers the majority of British veterans, and means that 

most Gurkhas receive a significant pension value before 

equivalent British soldiers receive anything at all. 

My hon. Friend was right to say that, by the time 

they reach 60, Gurkhas receive lower monthly pension 

payments than their British counterparts. However, Gurkhas 

soldiers will have received some 27 years’ of annual 

payments by that point, whereas their British equivalents 

will have received none. 

In any scheme, the earlier pensions are drawn, the 

lower the annual payments will be. Nevertheless, the 

reality is that a Gurkha who reaches 60 will generally 

have received at least as much pension value as a British 

soldier with an identical period of service, if not more. 

For example, a Gurkha rifleman who retired in 1994 

at age 33 will have received some £61,000 in pension 

payments so far, at 2009 prices. In comparison, a member 

of the armed forces pension scheme 1975 who is the 

same age will not have received any pension yet. When 

both turn 60 in 2021, the Gurkha will receive an annual 

payment of £2,900, whereas his British equivalent will 

start getting £5,700 a year. That is assuming that the 

retail prices index in both countries is the same, although 

in fact the rate in Nepal is, at 14 per cent., much higher 

than here. As I announced earlier this year, we have 

increased Gurkha pensions in line with that rate so, 

based on those figures, the British soldier would never 

catch up with his Gurkha equivalent. 

The crossover point, when a British veteran’s pension 

is significantly better than that of a Gurkha, is generally 

at senior NCO level. If we agreed to equalisation, the 

only significant improvement would be for a relatively 

small group—about 10 per cent.—of officers. It is not 

the case that equalisation of the pension would benefit 

the majority of Gurkhas. 

The Gurkha pension provides a good standard of 

living in Nepal. The figures look low in comparison 

with Britain, but £172 a month is equivalent to the 

salary of a doctor or chief of police in Nepal, and more 

than is paid to a Member of Parliament there. A British 

soldier who served less than 22 years before 1975 receives 

no pension at all. Many Members have championed the 

cause of people who served 21 years before 1975 and 

received no pension. 

On my hon. Friend’s point about a special case for 

the Gurkhas, yes, we are making a special case, in terms 

of the UK equivalent: whereas a Gurkha on the GPS is 

eligible for an immediate pension after only 15 years, his 

UK equivalent is not. When we talk of equalisation, we 

need to be very clear about the fact that in most 

circumstances a Gurkha veteran’s pension is at least as 

good, if not better, over the whole life of the pension, 

than his British counterpart’s. If we transferred the 

Gurkhas to the equivalent of the 1975 or the 2005 

scheme, they would not be significantly better off, as I 

explained last week when I met the British Gurkha 

Welfare Society. The society has put out some 

misinformation about costs and I asked for clarification. 

Mr. Drew: That argument presupposes that most 

Gurkhas want to stay in Nepal. The settlement issue 

now implies that many Gurkhas will want to relocate to 

the UK, which is where the problems start. 

Mr. Jones: I shall return to that point, as I want to 

talk about equalisation. 

Our estimates are that it would cost about £1.5 billion 

over 20 years to equalise pensions, yet only 10 per cent. 

of Gurkhas would be beneficiaries. The British Gurkha 

Welfare Society says that we have been scaremongering 

and that our figures are wrong, but its figures are 

higher. I pointed out that its briefing notes for Members 

of Parliament showed that the figure would be £126 million, 

but failed to indicate that that was per year. Actually, 

the figure would be considerably higher than the 

£1.5 billion that we estimate and, as I said, only 10 per 

cent.—mainly in the officer class—would benefit. 

It has been said that we are not talking about 

retrospection, but we are. We are being asked to change 

the agreements and conditions under which individuals 

joined the scheme. We have never operated pension 

schemes in that way in this country and it could open up 

other schemes to such an approach. 

To return to my hon. Friend’s point about settlement, 

I was concerned about the suggestion that we were 

changing the pension arrangements to stop people coming 

to the UK. In the debate, I made the argument from the 

Dispatch Box that when I visited Nepal earlier this year, 

it was apparent that most Gurkhas did not want to 

come to the UK. What they wanted was pensions. I am 

sorry, but people cannot have it both ways. They cannot 

argue that they want to settle in this country and then 

argue that if increased pensions were paid, they would 

stay in Nepal. 

I know that my hon. Friend has had talks with the 

Nepalese Government, as I have. My concern is that we 

would be taking about £56 million out of the Nepalese 

economy if we changed the arrangements in any way. I 

still think that that would be a consequence of large 

numbers of Gurkhas settling in this country. It is not 

consistent to argue that we should introduce changes to 

stop people coming to the UK, when only a few weeks 

ago it was argued that we should give them rights of 

settlement in this country. We are working with welfare 

organisations to make sure that the settlement process 

is put in place. I am pleased that that work is being 

carried out with the Gurkha Welfare Society and others. 

If there is a message that should go from the Dispatch 

Box tonight to Nepal, it is that I want people who 

decide to come and settle in the UK to make that 

decision on the basis of the full facts. They should not 

come here thinking that the existing pension that they 

have secured will buy a good standard of living here. 

What appals me is that certain organisations—not 

the Gurkha Welfare Society, which is a responsible 

organisation—are taking money and encouraging people 

to come to this country on the basis of false information. 

That is very worrying. 

In conclusion, the issue has been before the High 

Court on a number of occasions and has been legally 

challenged. In the debate a few weeks ago, the previous 

Home Secretary, the Home Affairs Committee and the


21 JULY 2009 


864 

chair of the all-party Gurkha group all made it clear 

that immigration rights and pensions are two separate 

issues. We continue to argue that the arrangements that 

we have put in place for Gurkhas are fair and give a 

good standard of living to Gurkhas in Nepal. When I 

was there— 

10.37 pm 

House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order 

No. 9(7)).

193WH 

21 JULY 2009 Israeli Settlements 

194WH 

Westminster Hall 

Tuesday 21 July 

[MR. DAVID AMESS in the Chair] 

Israeli Settlements 

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting 

be now adjourned.—[Mr. Watts.] 

9.30 am 

Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): It 

is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess. 

I want to put on the record my thanks to the Palestine 

Solidarity Campaign for its briefing, to the Library for 

its excellent debate pack, to Oxfam, with which I had a 

brief telephone conversation, and to the excellent Chris 

Doyle from the Council for Arab-British Understanding. 

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for 

Battersea (Martin Linton) who had the previous 

Westminster Hall debate on this subject on 17 December 

last year, and has been a tireless advocate for the rights 

of Palestinians in the middle east. 

When the United Kingdom was an imperial power, 

we went to places such as Canada, Australia and Rhodesia, 

and occupied them militarily. We stole the land, and 

people went to live there. Those countries, under UK 

control, were called colonies. “Settlement” is a cosy 

word, and I will use it because it is the common word, 

but the west bank, the Golan heights, Gaza and East 

Jerusalem are colonies, and we should not lose sight of 

that. 

I have no quarrel with the people of Israel, but I do 

have a quarrel with the successive Israeli Governments 

whom some Israeli people chose to elect, and it is sad 

that the bright ambition for a better future of many 

Jews who move to Palestine has been tarnished by a 

state that is, although in many ways successful, in some 

ways a failed state. It has fallen out with most of its 

neighbours, so it cannot guarantee the security of its 

citizens, which is sad. I emphasise that I support the 

right of Israel to exist, and I also support a two-state 

solution, but how is that to be achieved, given the 

fragmentation of land, particularly in the west bank? 

What would be the size and shape of a Palestinian 

state? Gaza, East Jerusalem and the west bank extend 

to about 5,600 sq km, which is much smaller than 

historically was the case. When the mandate expired in 

1948, 54 per cent. of historic Palestine was ceded to the 

Israelis and 48 per cent. to the Palestinians. After the 

six-day war in 1967, which I am old enough to remember 

vividly, the figures were 78 per cent. for the Israelis and 

22 per cent. for the Palestinians. Let us consider what 

that 22 per cent. constitutes. It includes 48 closed military 

areas in the west bank. It includes nature reserves, 

which too often become settlements years later. It includes 

roads for the use only of settlers, and they are not just 

little roads, but are 125 m wide. There are many of 

them, and they take up a lot of land. There are innumerable 

closures in the west bank—my latest count is 614, 

including checkpoints, partial checkpoints, road gates, 

roadblocks, earth mounds, trenches, road barriers and 

earth walls. 

The Israeli wall, which is illegal according to the 

International Court of Justice, will extend to 725 km. 

About 60 per cent. of it has been built and—surprise, 

surprise— parts of it are not along historic boundaries, 

but nick more Palestinian land. The west bank has 

about 121 settlements and dozens of outposts, which 

could be described as nascent settlements. The World 

Bank estimates that about one third of settlement land 

is on private Palestinian land, the remainder being on 

communal land under Ottoman law. It is agreed by the 

Palestinians that built-up settlements constitute 1.7 per 

cent. of the west bank, but the municipal boundaries 

into which those settlements have expanded historically 

constitute 9 per cent. of the west bank. As we all know, 

we have ended up with fragmentation of Palestinian 

towns and villages in the west bank with around 227 

separate Palestinian areas, which the Israeli Government 

are connecting with tunnels, which—surprise, surprise—are 

also subject to closures and checkpoints. 

All those factors—the military areas, the nature 

reserves and so on—have resulted in about 12 per cent. 

of historic Palestine being left with the Palestinians and 

88 per cent., one way or another, with the Israelis. That 

is down from 1948 when the Israelis had 54 per cent. 

and the Palestinians had 48 per cent., and that makes it 

is extremely difficult to have peace in the middle east. 

Successive Israeli Governments promised seriatim to 

free settlements and to remove outposts, including, in 

March 2001, in phase 1 of the road map, in April 

2001 following the Mitchell report, in November 2007 

following the Annapolis conference, and recently in 

discussions between Prime Minister Netanyahu and 

President Barack Obama of the USA. 

We must examine the situation on the ground. In 

1972, there were about 10,500 settlers in the west bank, 

Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan heights. The latest 

figures that I have, for 2007, show that there are about 

474,000 settlers in the west bank, East Jerusalem and 

the Golan heights. They are no longer in Gaza because 

in 2005 the settlements there were evacuated. The Golan 

heights are often overlooked, but in 1972 there were 

77 settlers, and in 2006 there were more than 18,000 in 

32 settlements, so in the west bank and the Golan 

heights in the past six years the number of settlers has 

risen from 211,500 to 289,500—a 37 per cent. increase 

in six years. That trend is deeply disturbing and continues 

apace. 

In 2008, the population of the state of Israel increased 

by 1.8 per cent., but the population of the settlements 

increased by 5.6 per cent., a threefold greater increase in 

the settler population than in the overall population of 

the state of Israel. Successive Israeli Governments have 

been totally complicit in encouraging settlements. Pinchas 

Wallerstein, Director-General of the Yesha Council of 

Settlements, a leading figure in the settlement movement, 

said: 

“I’m not familiar with any” 

building 

“plans that were not the initiative of the Israeli government.” 

Successive Israeli Governments have provided settlers 

with grants and tax breaks, although they have now 

been stopped, but preferential loan arrangements are 

still available. 

It is clear that settlements are not simply about 

population or military security. Uzi Arad, national

195WH 


21 JULY 2009 


196WH 

[Rob Marris] 

security adviser to Benjamin Netanyahu, was reported 

in the Financial Times on 11 July to have said: 

“Damacus should know that neither this government nor the 

majority of Israelis would agree a complete withdrawal” 

from the Golan heights 

“since that would compromise national security, water and settlement 

needs.” 

Part of the problem concerns water. 

I will discuss the legal position, but I will not discuss 

the many attacks by settlers on Palestinians, most of 

which, as far as one can tell, are not punished. I will not 

talk about the intricacies of labelling goods and products 

from the settlements, but I will talk about the legality of 

some of those issues. I will not talk about the labour 

standards suffered by the estimated 20,000 to 30,000 

Palestinians who work on settlement land now controlled 

by Israelis, and who do not often get minimum labour 

standards such as the minimum wage. 

The legal position is clear. There have been successive 

UN Security Council resolutions—for example, resolution 

465 from 1980, which stated that 

“all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, 

demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the 

Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including 

Jerusalem, or any part thereof have no legal validity and…Israel’s 

policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new 

immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of 

the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian 

Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction 

to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the 

Middle East”. 

That is one of several Security Council resolutions on 

the issue. 

In the advisory opinion by the International Court of 

Justice in 2004 on the legal consequences of the construction 

of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, it 

unanimously ruled that settlements were illegal. It stated 

that 

“since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices 

involving the establishment of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian 

Territory, contrary to the terms of article 49, paragraph 6, of the 

Fourth Geneva Convention which provides: ‘The Occupying Power 

shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population 

into the territory it occupies.’” 

The opinion continued: 

“The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied 

Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established 

in breach of international law.” 

There are important legal issues for our Governments. 

There is a strong argument that Israeli settlements are 

explicitly a war crime, because when one occupies territory, 

there is, under international law, a limit to what one can 

do there. The allegation that the settlements are a war 

crime was re-emphasised in the Rome statute, and it was 

incorporated in English law in the International Criminal 

Court Act 2001—section 55 in particular. The UK’s 

Geneva Conventions Act 1957 criminalises those who 

aid and abet violations. 

The UK Government position has been very clear. 

For example, the then Foreign Office Minister, who is 

now the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, my 

hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell), 

wrote to me on 12 March 2009, saying: 

“We have made very clear that we oppose the expansion of 

settlements. Settlements are illegal and their expansion is an 

obstacle to the peace process.” 

I wrote back about the E1 area, which is a large area 

just east of East Jerusalem, which is where, arguably, 

the Government of Israel are trying to create what they 

are pleased to call “facts on the ground”. The same 

Minister wrote to me on 20 May, saying: 

“We agree that activity in the E1 area is of great 

concern...Continued settlement activity is contrary to Israel’s 

commitments under the Road Map...We, and our EU partners, 

continue to condemn illegal Israeli settlements...On 20 February 

the EU issued a statement condemning Israeli settlement activity”. 

That condemnation is fine. It should be there. Let us 

consider what the Harvard programme on humanitarian 

policy and conflict research said in January 2004 about 

the status of occupied land and what an occupying 

power could use it for: 

“The Hague regulations…require that the Occupying Power 

administer public lands, but only under the rules of usufruct, i.e. 

title to the public land is not transferred to the Occupying Power. 

The Occupying Power only acquires control over the ‘fruits’ of 

the land, and may engage in profitable use of public lands only for 

the benefit of the local population, as well as to cover the cost of 

the occupation itself…Further, an Occupying Power cannot requisition 

or seize private property on grounds other than security, unless 

such action is undertaken in accordance with local legislation in 

the occupied territory”. 

There have been clear cases of seizures of private property 

in the occupied territories leading to settlements on that 

seized land. As I said, the World Bank estimates that 

one third of settlement land is on private land. 

We therefore have the background legal position. For 

those who are not lawyers—I am fortunate enough to 

be a lawyer by training, although I do not moonlight, so 

I have not practised in the eight years for which I have 

been a Member of Parliament—let me say that under 

that legal doctrine, public authorities are under an 

obligation not to take any action that would imply 

recognition for the consequences of an internationally 

criminal act. For example, collecting customs duties for 

goods from settlements could imply recognition. There 

is a strong argument that the United Kingdom Government 

are in breach of that and have, de facto, recognised 

those settlements and the produce that comes from 

them. 

On 22 July 2008, my hon. Friend the Member for 

High Peak (Tom Levitt) asked the Government about 

customs duties. He asked, 

“how much in duties has been collected from companies importing 

produce into the UK from Israeli settlements in the occupied 

Palestinian territory”. 

The then Treasury Minister, my right hon. Friend the 

Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), replied: 

“Between 1 February 2005 and 31 January 2008, HM Revenue 

and Customs have issued demands for approximately £338,000 

customs duty on products imported into the UK from Israeli 

settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory under the provisions 

of the EC-Israel Association agreement.”—[Official Report, 22 

July 2008; Vol. 479, c. 1393W.] 

When my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, 

South-West (Dr. Starkey) asked a similar question less 

than a week ago, on 16 July 2009, the successor Treasury 

Minister, my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary 

to the Treasury, replied: 

“In the 12 months ending 31 March 2009, HM Revenue and 

Customs have issued demands for £21,494 customs duty on

197WH 


21 JULY 2009 


198WH 

products imported into the UK from Israeli settlements in the 

occupied Palestinian territory under the provisions of the EC-Israel 

Association Agreement.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2009; Vol. 

496, c. 689W.] 

Products are coming into the United Kingdom from 

what many of us believe to be illegal settlements—there 

are strong legal arguments at international level that 

they are illegal settlements—yet we are accepting them 

into our country quite openly, to the point at which we 

are collecting customs duties on them. There may be 

other products being sneaked in, but we are collecting 

customs duties on them. 

Understandably, therefore, my hon. Friend the Member 

for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) asked: 

“for what reasons the Government is not seeking a prohibition on 

the importation of goods from illegal Israeli settlements other 

than under the Preferential Trade Agreement.” 

The Minister who is with us today replied: 

“The Government believe that the best way forward is to seek 

ways to offer consumers better advice on whether goods have 

been produced in illegal Israeli settlements.”—[Official Report, 8 

July 2009; Vol. 495, c. 856W.] 

We certainly need much more consumer information. 

There will be several hon. Members present who, like 

me, search on supermarket shelves to try to find the 

origin of this stuff, to ensure that we are not buying 

stuff that would make us complicit in what is going on 

in the occupied territories in terms of production and 

export from settlements. 

The then Foreign Office Minister, now the Minister 

of State, Ministry of Defence, wrote to me on 12 

March, saying: 

“We are…looking at what practical steps we can take to 

discourage settlement expansion, such as ensuring that goods 

produced in illegal settlements do not benefit from EU trading 

agreements with Israel.” 

I have to say, however, that I am deeply disturbed about 

the position on such products. 

Commendably, the Government agree that there should 

be a freeze on settlements, and that is to be encouraged, 

but I would like it to go further. I therefore have some 

questions for the Minister. First, do the Government 

agree that there should not only be a freeze, but that all 

existing settlements should be evacuated? If not, why 

not? Secondly, will the Minister confirm that UK-based 

charities should not donate money to settlements? That 

is certainly the pattern in the USA, and I would appreciate 

some clarity about the legal position of charities in the 

UK. 

Thirdly, will the Minister confirm that the EU-Israel 

association agreement, which gives tariff breaks, does 

not apply to goods exported from settlements to the 

EU, including the UK? Fourthly, why do the Government 

allow any products from Israeli settlements in the occupied 

Palestinian territories to be imported into the UK? 

Fifthly, why do they condone such imports by allowing 

them in and then levying customs duties on them? Have 

they obtained a legal opinion on the legality or otherwise 

of such imports? If not, why not? If they have, when did 

they obtain it? Will the Minister or one of his ministerial 

colleagues release the conclusions—not the entirety—of 

that legal advice? 

The position in international law is clear: the settlements 

and the wall are illegal, but the settlements continue to 

expand. Every now and then, there is the fig leaf of a 

freeze on settlement building, but the freeze is lifted 

when nobody is looking, and the settlements continue 

to expand, even though they breach several UN Security 

Council resolutions and international conventions. 

The Government have raised the issue of settlements 

with successive Israeli Governments, but to no avail, 

and the settlements continue to expand. Having repeatedly 

tried diplomatic pressure on successive Israeli Governments, 

they should now ban not only imports from settlements, 

but all imports from Israel, as well as introducing a 

defence embargo, until Israel abides by its international 

legal obligations. If, surprisingly, the Minister does not 

agree with a total ban on imports, I would be grateful if 

he could explain why. 


Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): Order. The winding-up 

speeches will start at 10.30 am, and eight hon. Members 

wish to speak. I certainly want to call everyone, but that 

means, mathematically, that hon. Members should take 

no more than five minutes. 

9.53 am 

Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): 

I will certainly keep within that time limit, Mr. Amess. I 

apologise in advance for the fact that I must shortly 

attend a Select Committee that the House eventually set 

up last night, so I will not be able to stay for some of the 

winding-up speeches. 

I want to make two brief observations as someone 

who recognises Israel’s security needs. One, which the 

hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob 

Marris) clearly and expertly made early on, is that 

although Israel has security issues, the settlements make 

them worse. Not only are the settlements unlawful by 

any judgment of international law, and not only are 

they unacceptable, a provocation and a barrier to the 

peace process, but they make the task of providing 

security for Israel—I recognise the need to do that—more 

difficult. Not only can the settlements not be justified, 

therefore, but they are totally counter-productive in 

terms of Israeli security. That leads many of those, such 

as myself, who are more receptive to Israel’s security 

needs to question whether Israel’s settlements policy is 

an adequate motive for many of the other things that 

Israel does. 

The same applies to the Golan heights. The military 

occupation, which is argued for on the basis of security 

needs in the absence of a long-term peace with Syria, is 

something we can debate—whether or not we agree 

with it or understand it, we can at least see the basis on 

which Israel takes its view. However, placing civilians 

somewhere where they are essentially in harm’s way and 

putting extra burdens on the Israeli security services 

that must protect those civilians is entirely unfathomable 

from a logical or rational point of view, and it cannot be 

defended. 

The same goes for the west bank, where the civilian 

occupation of another people’s land makes peace more 

difficult to obtain in the long run. It also engenders 

extremism among the Israeli population, because settlers 

are likely to be extremely defensive and perhaps more 

zealous in their opinions about the historical boundaries 

of the biblical country, which is not a good basis on 

which to move forward to peace. The occupation also

199WH 


21 JULY 2009 


200WH 

[Dr. Evan Harris] 

places extra burdens on the security services and raises 

the security stakes. Whatever one believes, therefore, 

about Israel’s right to exist, which I support, and however 

sympathetic one is, as I am, to some of the measures 

that it takes to protect itself, one simply cannot defend 

the settlement policy, which, in terms of Israel, is the 

single biggest barrier to progress in the middle east. 

The other point that I want to make is that it is 

unacceptable for British consumers not to know which 

products come from illegal Israeli settlements in the 

west bank. We have all sorts of labelling requirements 

that are not justified scientifically—on genetic modification, 

for example—but there is no provision to introduce 

labelling on a human rights issue that it is critical for 

people to understand if they are to make an informed 

choice and show where their support lies. I therefore 

urge the Minister rapidly to give further thought to how 

labelling can be introduced. 

From a human rights, an international law and a 

security point of view, the settlements are unacceptable, 

and I strongly support the approach taken by the hon. 

Gentleman, who has done us the favour of bringing this 

issue before us. 

9.58 am 

Mr. Andy Slaughter (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s 

Bush) (Lab): I, too, will try to keep within my time, 

Mr. Amess. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member 

for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) on securing 

the debate and on his excellent contribution. I hope that 

the Minister will be able to answer his many pertinent 

questions. 

There can be no doubt that settlements are the test 

issue in the middle east peace process, and the new US 

Administration have rightly made them so. President 

Obama famously said: 

“The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued 

Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements 

and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these 

settlements to stop.” 

More recently, the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, 

said of President Obama: 

“He wants to see a stop to settlements—not some settlements, 

not outposts, not ‘natural growth’ exceptions.” 

It is obvious why settlements are the issue. My hon. 

Friend mentioned international law, and settlements are 

clear breaches of it. They are also an easy issue for the 

general public to understand. They are, quite literally, 

concrete proposals and they are an act of occupation. 

For most people who look at the issue in a fair and 

objective manner, that is clearly an injustice that cries 

out to be corrected. 

There is inequity in a situation in which the demolition 

of Palestinian homes goes side by side with massive 

settlement-building. I was on the west bank in 2007 and 

I spent a harrowing morning with parliamentary colleagues 

watching the Israeli security services knocking down 

the upper floor of a Palestinian home, with bulldozers 

and cranes that had been brought to the village. Less 

than a kilometre away, across the valley, construction 

could be seen going on apace on a large Israeli settlement. 

If that seemed to us, as parliamentarians, an injustice 

crying out for vengeance, what did it seem to be to the 

Palestinian citizens of that village? The home in question 

was owned by a black family—I think the only black 

family in the village—who had left their original home 

and fled from Israeli violence in 1948, and had built the 

home that was now being destroyed by an occupying 

power. 

Many other consequences flow from the settlements, 

such as the settler roads, checkpoints and other security 

measures, and the barrier that has been extensively 

documented by B’Tselem and other organisations. That 

is primarily there to protect settlements, and not to 

protect Israel’s security; it can, clearly, be accessed, but 

it is built into Palestinian territory to achieve that aim. 

As I think has been established, the consequence and 

the actuality is that 227 separate Palestinian enclaves—one 

cannot call them more than that—now make up the 

west bank. They make up no more than 12 per cent. of 

the territory of historic Palestine. That “Bantustanisation” 

is increasingly making a two-state solution impossible. 

Ms Karen Buck (Regent’s Park and Kensington, North) 

(Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that the access roads 

issue is a concern not just because of the impact on 

Palestinian lives, and the day-to-day humiliations that 

so many people must undergo, but because the economic 

recovery of the west bank is made almost impossible by 

the way Palestinian land is subdivided and people are 

prevented from going about their business? 

Mr. Slaughter: Yes, that is true. Reports to this House 

have shown that, and if I had more time I would go into 

more detail about the overall crippling effects on Palestinian 

civil society and life that arise from the settlements, 

which go way beyond that. 

We can see the intention that was set out by the 

Israeli Government. There are famous quotations, mainly 

from Ariel Sharon, because he had perhaps a nicer turn 

of phrase. Back in 1973 he said: 

“We’ll make a pastrami sandwich of them, we’ll insert a strip 

of Jewish settlements in between the Palestinians, and then another 

strip of Jewish settlements right across the west Bank, so that in 

25 years, neither the United Nations, nor the USA, nobody, will 

be able to tear it apart.” 

A prescient comment, perhaps, but of course he was the 

architect of much of that carving up. In 1998 he went 

on to say, addressing a meeting of right-wing militants: 

“Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they 

can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now 

will stay ours...Everything we don’t grab will go to them.” 

I am afraid that that is not history or extremism: it is 

what we now see with the current extremist Israeli 

Government. 

At the beginning of this month the Housing Minister 

Ariel Atias, according to Haaretz, 

“warned against the spread of Arab population into various parts 

of Israel, saying that preventing this phenomenon was no less 

than a national responsibility.” 

To the credit of the Israeli population—and I am a 

supporter of the state of Israel—most of the 150 comments 

on the article described that as exactly what it was: 

apartheid and racism, which should have no place in the 

state of Israel. However, that is what is seen as possible 

in the west bank. 

The sad thing, on which I shall end, is the fact that at 

present the response of the Israelis is not to engage with 

the Obama Administration, but to throw into action

201WH 


21 JULY 2009 


202WH 

the formidable propaganda machine that we last saw 

during the invasion of Gaza, with reports in the past 

few days to show that the US condones the continued 

development of settlements and that private US money 

is going into settlements. That, and Olmert writing in 

the Washington Post last Friday that settlements were 

not the issue—which is, ironically, exactly what he told 

the Prime Minister a year ago today when he visited 

Israel—are attempts to deflect the issue and make it go 

away. Often, the Israeli response is, as now, to continue 

and accelerate building, and accelerate the recognition 

of settlements. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, 

South-West has raised some very pertinent points and 

questions. The central question for the Minister is this: 

yes, we would like a reaffirmation of the promise of a 

total freeze on settlement development, but despite 

strong statements from the Government in the past, 

that has not worked; so what steps—I do not ask for a 

specific step—will be taken now to ensure that, in 

relation to trade, construction and dismantling, the 

British Government, through the EU or other partners, 

or directly, can deal with the issue of settlements, without 

which there will be no peace in the middle east? 

10.6 am 

Mr. Colin Breed (South-East Cornwall) (LD): I, too, 

will observe the time. I am grateful to the hon. Member 

for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) for securing 

the debate. 

No one can go to the occupied territories for long 

without history rearing its head in some way. Of course, 

we get different versions and views of history. A quotation 

in a letter of February 1914, from Israel’s first Foreign 

Minister—and its second Prime Minister—is instructive: 

“We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to 

inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from a people 

inhabiting it, that governs it by virtue of its language and savage 

culture…If we cease to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as 

ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate—all content 

and meaning will be lost to our enterprise.” 

Those are words to cause a shudder, when we think 

where we are nearly 100 years later. The gradual erosion 

of Palestinian residence rights was designed to pass by 

stealth, unnoticed by the international community. 

In the early days of occupation the civil Administration 

could simply have taken possession by force of the land 

in the west bank and Gaza that it wanted for colonisation, 

but it preferred to devise “legal” manoeuvres to justify 

its actions and avoid the obvious bad publicity. It is 

worth examining—we could if we had time—the careful 

manipulation of the legal framework relating to land 

ownership in the west bank, to understand how that 

large-scale theft of Palestinian land was hidden behind 

a façade of legality. We all encounter that in our own 

way when we visit. 

In 2004 Israel tried to resurrect the 1950 law on 

absentees’ property for use against west bank Palestinians 

who owned land in East Jerusalem. Even today we see 

the attempt to continue that process by taking advantage 

of the building of the 800 km separation wall, which is 

justified on the ground that it will prevent suicide attacks. 

The steel and concrete wall dividing the sections of East 

Jerusalem has sealed a large area of the city off from the 

west bank. Landowners in the west bank, cut off from 

their lands by the wall, were informed that they had 

now been classed as absentees, and their land was being 

confiscated. That is just one example of the way in 

which the legal framework can be manipulated to achieve 

certain ends. 

More successful have been the confiscations on so-called 

administrative grounds. As we have heard, under the 

fourth Geneva convention an occupying power is entitled 

to make changes only if those are necessary for its 

security, or if they benefit the local occupied population. 

That provision should have forestalled any plans on 

Israel’s part to confiscate land for settlement. Shortly 

after the 1967 war, however, Israel’s chief adviser on 

international law advised that confiscations could occur 

on one condition, saying: 

“it is vital that it”— 

that is, the expropriation of land— 

“be done by military bodies and not civilian ones...in the framework 

of bases”— 

that is, in the framework of establishing bases. The chief 

adviser went on to warn that those bases should be 

temporary in nature. In the first years of the occupation, 

therefore, Israel was careful to cite security as the reason 

for taking Palestinian land, to establish what it claimed 

were military camps or outposts. Those people who 

have visited the occupied territories have seen those 

outposts, which were ostensibly set up for security purposes. 

We know that in the early 1970s the number of those 

bases grew dramatically, with additional land confiscated 

to provide them with the services they required, such as 

roads, electricity and water. Other land was requisitioned 

for firing ranges and training grounds, as the occupation 

was entrenched in that land. 

We have seen a complete misuse of legal frameworks 

to justify the actions by the Israeli Administrations. The 

Likud Government who promised they would no longer 

colonise Palestinian private land faced the ruin of a 

greater Israel project, unless new grounds for confiscating 

Palestinian land could be found. Up popped a senior 

legal official in the Justice Ministry to come to the 

rescue. That official was entrusted with surveying the 

west bank to find out how much of it could be classified 

as “state land”, so that it could be claimed as Israeli 

territory that was ripe for settlement. 

According to international law, Israel had to abide by 

the laws that were already in force when the territories 

were occupied. In the case of the west bank, that meant 

Ottoman laws, along with the minor modifications made 

by the British and Jordanians to those laws. However, 

Israel hijacked those existing laws, mischievously 

reinterpreting them so as to define much of the occupied 

territories as so-called “state land”, a category all but 

unheard of in Palestine. 

In a way, in the last few decades we have seen a 

gradual confiscation, theft and misuse of legal framework 

to carry out those original objectives outlined in the 

letter from nearly 100 years ago that I quoted from at 

the start of my contribution to this debate. The international 

community has, in many respects, stood by and allowed 

that to happen. There is an opportunity now in this 

moment of time—I am grateful for the opportunity 

that this debate presents—for the international community 

to put something of that right, after all these years. 

Anyone going to the occupied territories or to Israel 

cannot fail to identify what would be seen as injustice in 

the way that people have lost their homes, their livelihoods

203WH 


21 JULY 2009 


204WH 

[Mr. Colin Breed] 

and indeed almost any hope. And yet, we stand by and 

we almost allow that process to continue. As we have 

heard, the Israelis continue to exploit that opportunity 

and that space, to continue the building of settlements. 

I want to finish with another quote, this time from a 

Palestinian lawyer in Ramallah, and I hope that it will 

run counter to the first quote that I read out at the start 

of my contribution to this debate: 

“We now moved in our own country surreptitiously, like unwanted 

strangers, constantly harassed, never feeling safe. We had become 

temporary residents of Greater Israel, living on Israel’s sufferance, 

subject to the most abusive treatment at the hands of young male 

and female soldiers controlling the checkpoints, deciding on a 

whim whether to keep us waiting for hours or allowing us 

passage. But worse than that was the nagging feeling that our 

days in Palestine were numbered and one day we were going to be 

victims of another mass expulsion.” 

That mass expulsion must never be allowed to happen 

and it is up to us and the rest of the western world, who 

have stood by for far too long, to ensure that it does not 

happen. 

10.13 am 

Martin Linton (Battersea) (Lab): Like my hon. Friend 

the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), 

I respect the desire of Israelis and Palestinians to have a 

state of their own and I support the two-state solution. 

However, let us dispose of illusions from the start. The 

Israelis took 78 per cent. of historic Palestine by military 

force, leaving the Palestinians with 22 per cent. After 

the 1967 war, some Israeli politicians adopted a strategy 

aimed at taking as much of the remaining 22 per cent. 

of historic Palestine as they could. They did not admit 

so publicly and, fortunately for them, many western 

politicians were either complicit with them or were 

hoodwinked by their denials. However, they did admit 

privately that they were doing it. My hon. Friend the 

Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush 

(Mr. Slaughter) has already quoted the letter written by 

Ariel Sharon in 1973—the “pastrami sandwich”letter—in 

which Sharon described precisely what had happened in 

the previous 25 years. Then, 25 years later in 1998, there 

was another quote from Ariel Sharon, after all the 

settlement had happened, when he encouraged militants 

in an extreme right-wing party, by saying: 

“Everybody has to grab as many hilltops as they can”. 

In those intervening 25 years—between 1973 and 

1998—growth of the settlements was continuous and 

relentless, despite Oslo, the road map and Annapolis. 

The settler population has doubled since Oslo. Some 

settlements have quintupled in size. For example, the 

population of Betar Illit rose from 5,000 in 1994 to 

25,000 in 2004. As my hon. Friend the Member for 

Wolverhampton, South-West said, population growth 

in the settlements has been three times as fast as population 

growth in Israel. Two thirds of that growth in the 

settlements has been the result of “natural growth”, 

which of course is very high among settlers, and the 

other third has been the result of Israelis and people 

from outside Israel moving in. 

The settler population has grown every year. Even in 

the year that the Gaza settlements were given up, growth 

in the west bank settlements more than made up for it. 

Indeed, that is what Sharon told his friends—that he 

was giving up Gaza so that he could get a better grip on 

the west bank. Now we have nearly 500,000—my figure 

is 482,000—settlers in the west bank. 

Two years ago, Ehud Olmert promised that he would 

not expand the settlement boundaries. I was taken in; I 

thought that sounded good. However, I was hoodwinked. 

That is because for every acre of built-up land in a 

settlement, that settlement has four acres earmarked for 

expansion within its municipal boundaries. A promise 

not to expand the boundaries was totally meaningless. 

The Israelis do not seem to care that it is illegal, 

under the fourth Geneva convention, to transfer a civilian 

population to an occupied territory; that it is illegal to 

expropriate land from the occupied population; that it 

is illegal to destroy their property; that it is illegal to 

discriminate against them by building settler-only roads; 

that it is illegal to fail to ensure public order— 

Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): Would my 

hon. Friend like to pay due regard to those people, 

many of whom are from this country, who go on behalf 

of the Quaker peace and justice movement to report on 

the issues that he has referred to, before coming back to 

this country and other countries to tell us what is really 

happening? Those are very brave people, are they not? 

Martin Linton: Indeed. I join my hon. Friend in his 

tribute to the many people who take great risks to bring 

to the world’s attention what is going on in Israel and 

the occupied territories. 

As I was saying, it is illegal to fail to ensure public 

order, for instance by allowing settler violence. However, 

even the author of the official report of the Israeli 

Government on settlement outposts said: 

“The attitude towards law breaking settlers is mostly forgiving. 

The result is a large increase in law violations.” 

It is also illegal to build the wall inside the west bank. It 

is okay to do so on the green line, but 87 per cent. of the 

wall will be in the west bank and it will not be there to 

enhance Israel’s security but to enhance the security of 

the settlements themselves. 

If it is legal for the Israeli courts to transfer ownership 

of Palestinian homes in Sheikh Jarrah to Israelis who 

owned them in the 1920s or 1930s, as the Israeli courts 

did yesterday, most of the Israelis in Israel should be 

forced to hand their homes back to the original Palestinian 

owners. 

The wall is strangling the Palestinian economy and 

imprisoning many Palestinians in their own villages. 

Already, 10,000 people live in areas enclosed by walls on 

all sides; 125,000 people will be surrounded by walls on 

three sides. In total, 70 gates, 43 tunnels and underpasses, 

and 614 checkpoints have been constructed, as my hon. 

Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West 

pointed out. 

Our Government’s response has been to protest to 

the Israeli ambassador, but protesting to the Israeli 

ambassador is a pointless exercise; it is like shouting at 

a fish. All the evidence is that, when we protest, the 

Israelis build the settlements even faster. Even since 

Obama’s speech, they have approved 300 new homes 

north of Ramallah and a new settlement in the Jordan 

valley. The only thing that will have any effect is international 

action to impose an economic penalty on Israel.

205WH 


21 JULY 2009 


206WH 

I thank the Minister for rejecting the upgrade of the 

EU-Israel trade agreement, but I ask him to go further 

and suspend it, because the Israelis are in breach of its 

human rights clauses. I am glad that he has taken a firm 

line on settlements and encouraged President Obama to 

do the same, but what action will be taken against Israel 

if it refuses to stop building illegal settlements? Given 

that it is illegal under the Geneva convention to build 

settlements on occupied land, what action will be taken 

against the Israeli Government? 

I have many other questions, but my time is up. 

10.20 am 

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): I congratulate 

my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South- 

West (Rob Marris) on securing this debate. 

I shall be brief. Like many in the Chamber, I have had 

the good fortune to visit Israel, the west bank and Gaza 

and see for myself the effects of the settlements. It is 

humbling to stand on the Mount of Olives and look 

down at what ought to be the famous, historic road to 

Jericho, with the hills and the descending road all the 

way to the Dead sea. Now all that can be seen are 

settlements—massive settlements with all the arrogance 

of an occupying power—of huge, red-roofed, red buildings 

and special settler roads leading from one to the other. 

As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin 

Linton) pointed out, around each settlement are preserved 

areas of land for them to expand further into. 

Then one looks across to the Palestinian towns and 

villages. Many of the buildings have been destroyed by 

Israeli military action or physically depopulated, the 

people having been moved away. Unemployment and 

poverty are rife—and anger very rife—in those remaining 

Palestinian villages. An apartheid state is developing on 

the west bank with the settlements, specialist roads 

between them and checkpoints for Palestinians travelling 

around—to the extent that a journey that I made from 

Jericho to Jerusalem took six hours, by a series of buses 

and taxis, because of the number of roadblocks, closed 

crossings and all the rest of it. And I am relatively well 

treated, because I am not a Palestinian. Then one 

observes the daily abuse and humiliation of ordinary 

Palestinian people—workers tired after a whole day’s 

work in the field or somewhere else being made to wait 

for hours at checkpoints, because a settlement has been 

built alongside and Israel claims that its “security” is at 

risk without this process. 

The world cannot stand by and treat Israel as a 

normal state and say that it is a normal participant in 

international affairs. It is not! It illegally occupies a 

large amount of Palestinian land, holds nuclear weapons 

but has not signed up to any relevant convention, and is 

flouting the 2004 International Court of Justice judgment 

concerning the legality of those settlements. Goods are 

produced on those settlements that masquerade as Israeli 

goods and are sold on the international market. Water 

is taken from Palestinian farmers by the presence of 

those Israeli settlements, which obviously creates poverty 

and problems for Palestinian farmers and causes massive 

ecological damage. The beautiful plain area outside 

Jericho, just north of the Dead sea, is now covered in 

glasshouses built by Israeli settlers to produce goods, 

such as tomatoes and other fruits and vegetables, which 

are then sold on the international market. The water 

abstraction from the River Jordan, mostly by Israel—and 

to some extent by Jordan—means that the Dead sea is 

disappearing at a rate of between 1mand3mevery 

year. In our lifetime, the Dead sea will be gone—it will 

be finished. 

What do we do about this? Do we stand back and 

treat Israel as a normal country, or do we take sanctions 

against it? If any other country in the world behaved 

like Israel—in a wholly illegal and abusive manner 

towards the people whom it occupies—it would face 

international sanction. I support the point made by my 

hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, therefore, that 

we should not be buying goods produced in the settlements. 

We should be imposing economic and military sanctions 

against Israel. I am not arguing for military action, but 

for military sanctions, such as the non-supply of weapons 

and parts for those weapons, a boycott of Israeli trade 

and, in the European setting, a suspension of the EU-Israel 

trade agreement—not just the non-extension to elevated 

status, but suspension of the existing agreement, because 

Israeli is clearly in breach of the human rights clauses in 

that agreement. 

It is up to us, as a Security Council member, a very 

important member of the United Nations and a very 

significant past trading partner of Israel, to say, “Enough 

is enough. We are not prepared to tolerate this. You 

behave illegally. You illegally occupy land and flout 

international law—consequences follow!” I would love 

to hear a British Minister send the message, once and 

for all and loud and clear, that that is this country’s 

position on this illegal activity. 

10.25 am 

Mr. Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab): I congratulate my 

hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West 

(Rob Marris) on securing this debate. The debate is 

timely in the light of President Obama’s intention to 

achieve a freeze on settlement development, which has 

been referred to already, and Netanyahu’s recent comments, 

which have been heavily caveated, but which are a 

general step in the right direction. 

It is clear that settlement construction is not supported 

by anyone here—I concur—but I want to make a few 

remarks about some details that perhaps we have not 

heard about today. More often than not, we talk about 

settlements and settlement growth in terms of the number 

of people living in them. For instance, the Israeli 

Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied 

Territories points to the fact that 2008 saw the settler 

population, excluding East Jerusalem, grow by 4.7 per 

cent. We all hope to see the west bank form the basis of 

a Palestinian state, and we all accept that many of 

Israel’s settlements sit on land that will be within that 

Palestinian state, but it is also important to discuss the 

location and geographical size of settlements. 

In an interview with the Jordanian newspaper Al-Dustour 

on 25 June, senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat 

discussed the two-state deal that former Israeli Prime 

Minister Ehud Olmert had offered Palestinian President 

Mahmoud Abbas last September. Their lengthy discussions 

focused unsurprisingly on the issue of land and the 

proportion of the west bank taken up by Israel’s settlements. 

According to Erekat, Abbas calculated this to be 1.2 per 

cent. Others put the figure, when one includes empty 

land around the settlements where Palestinian construction

207WH 


21 JULY 2009 


208WH 

[Mr. Eric Joyce] 

10.30 am 

is restricted, at about 3 per cent. Either way, although 

we all accept that the current system of settler-only 

roads that surround the settlements unjustly restricts 

the movement of Palestinians, and so increases the 

effective size of the settlements, if we are talking about 

drawing the borders of a two-state solution, 3 per cent. 

is a relatively small number that can be compensated for 

in land-swap deals. 

It has been widely accepted, since the Oslo accords 

were signed in 1993, that some settlements will remain 

in Israel in exchange for ceding Israeli land to the 

Palestinians. Although we know that Olmert and Abbas 

failed to come to a final agreement over a two-state 

solution, it is useful to see how the issue of land swaps 

was dealt with. Olmert reportedly offered Abbas territory 

equal in size to 100 per cent. of the land occupied in 

1967 by means of a land swap. Olmert proposed that 

the Palestinians establish their state on 93.5 per cent. of 

the west bank, receiving another 5.8 per cent. through a 

land-exchange deal with Israel. The rest was offered in 

the form of a safe-passage corridor from the west bank 

to the Gaza strip. Olmert’s plan left the major settlement 

blocs of Ma’ale Adumim, Ariel and Gush Etzion in 

Israel’s control, in exchange for the southern Hebron 

hills—colleagues will be aware of this—the Judean hills 

and the Beit She’an valley. I understand that that was 

turned down—Saeb Erekat appears to confirm this—on 

the basis that previous offers, made at Camp David for 

example, had been much better. They thought, “Why 

take this deal now?” I am not here to pass judgment on 

what is essentially history, but I think that that is 

significant. 

The Annapolis process was certainly not perfect, but 

through it, as it turns out, Olmert and Abbas made a lot 

of progress, although they did, of course, fail to sign a 

deal. Israel and the Palestinians cannot be allowed to 

come this close and fail again. The international community 

therefore needs to be much clearer about what it expects 

to see from negotiations. In my view, a deal that allows 

Israel to keep major settlement blocs, situated just beyond 

the 1967 green line and that compensates the Palestinians 

with land swaps is a good deal. It would reduce the 

disruption to normal life that any major settlement 

evacuation would cause and give the Palestinians the 

quantity of land that they deserve. 

Accepting that position, however, calls into question 

some of the more rigid approaches to Israeli settlements. 

A freeze in settlement construction, which we and the 

US Government want, is a good way of engendering 

trust. At the moment, Netanyahu is offering a freeze on 

all settlement activity, bar that in Jerusalem and that 

which is based on natural growth—by that I mean 

activity which occurs within the natural parameters of 

existing settlements. No one here doubts that Netanyahu 

has to go a great deal further. If he does not, the 

international community will continue to believe that 

the expansion of Jewish communities in East Jerusalem 

counts as settlement construction. This is an issue on 

which we must continue to press him. 

In conclusion, I agree with the Government’s position 

on pushing for a freeze on settlement activity. However, 

we should also call for a temporary freeze on natural 

growth, because that would go some way towards enabling 

the peace talks to restart. 

Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): I congratulate 

the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob 

Marris) on securing this interesting debate. It is always 

pleasing when there is a good turnout of hon. Members 

because we get a wide range of contributions, even if 

that means that those contributions are fairly brief. No 

doubt we could have debated this issue for many hours 

and still found interesting points of discussion. 

I should like to preface my remarks by putting it on 

the record that I support the two-state solution in Israel 

and Palestine. I should also like to remind hon. Members 

that over the many years of this conflict there have been 

crimes, abuses and breaches of trust on both sides. 

There are other debates, motions and opportunities in 

this House for us to discuss the rocket attacks and the 

suicide bombings against Israel or the continuing detention 

of the hostage Gilad Shalit. Today, however, we are 

debating settlements, which is a central aspect of the 

conflict and could be the key to unlocking a peace deal. 

We have heard about the massive growth in the 

numbers of settlers. In 1972 there were 10,500 settlers 

and now there are some 480,000. The hon. Member for 

Battersea (Martin Linton) said that since the Oslo 

accords in 1993, the number has more than doubled. 

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West 

interestingly pointed out that we use the pleasant and 

homely word “settlements”, but that the word “colonies” 

is perhaps a more accurate description of the dwellings 

and towns. 

The whole House will have welcomed the movement 

in the US position towards engaging with the middle 

east and putting the region at the heart of its foreign 

policy. I welcome the robust line on the settlement 

freeze that we have been hearing from President Obama 

and Hillary Clinton. However, a freeze on settlements 

has to be the absolute minimum for starting the negotiations. 

Let us be clear: the settlements are illegal, and if we are 

to have any prospect of peace in the middle east, they 

have to go. A freeze is just the starting point; ultimately, 

the settlements will have to be dismantled. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and 

Abingdon (Dr. Harris) was very prescient when he said 

that the settlements are not in Israel’s interests. He said 

that they were counter-productive and made security 

more difficult, which is an important point for us to 

remember in this debate. 

Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent speech was disappointing. 

Although he spoke through gritted teeth about the need 

for a two-state solution, he also talked about the natural 

growth in settlements. Last month, we heard that Israel 

plans to build dozens of new homes in Adam, which is 

deeply worrying. In recognising the importance of Israel 

and Palestine living side by side in peace, security and, 

in his words, prosperity, Netanyahu totally fails to see 

the huge negative impact on economic development 

and prosperity that such settlements have on the west 

bank. In fact, they threaten the very viability of a 

Palestinian state. 

Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East) (Lab): Does the 

hon. Lady not think that the Prime Minister of Israel is 

in a very difficult position when his own Foreign Minister 

is an illegal settler on the west bank?

209WH 


21 JULY 2009 


210WH 

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good 

point. Of course, he is in a difficult position because 

there are many differing views and constituencies of 

opinion that he has to balance. However, dealing with 

the settlements has to be in Israel’s self-interest, and 

that political reality cannot be lost on the Prime Minister. 

The west bank has been sliced, diced and carved up 

as part of a deliberate strategy, and the settlements have 

been part of the tactic. We have heard about the numbers 

of settlements, the roads, the checkpoints, the roadblocks 

and the security wall. When they are overlaid on the 

land, we can see how impossible it is for ordinary 

Palestinians to go about their everyday lives in this 

Swiss-cheese patchwork. Settlements impact on the fabric 

of civil society, making trade, education and visiting 

family and friends incredibly difficult, and that is why 

they are so damaging to future peace in the region. 

Natural resources are also key. The hon. Member for 

Wolverhampton, South-West was right to talk about 

the issue of water in relation to the Golan heights. 

When I visited Israel, I thought that the problem was all 

about land and ideology, but practicalities are also key. 

I come from the west of Scotland where access to water 

is not quite the same issue. However, in an arid climate 

such as that in the middle east, water is a key issue, and 

with rapidly increasing climate change, the problem will 

only become worse. Water is also a problem on the west 

bank. As the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy 

Corbyn) pointed out, most of the water is going to the 

Israeli settlers’ farms, which makes that land very fertile 

but causes havoc elsewhere in the region. 

Let me turn to the products that come from the 

settlements. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, 

South-West raised an interesting issue about the legality 

of collecting customs duties on the products from the 

illegal settlements. Unlike him, I am not a lawyer, so I 

await the Minister’s reply to those remarks. Before the 

election, I was a marketing manager, so perhaps I am 

better placed to comment on the marketing of such 

products. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for 

Oxford, West and Abingdon that we should have consumer 

information clearly marked on the products so that 

people know what they are buying. I know that the 

Government, through the EU, have made some efforts 

on that issue, which I support. It is very important that 

consumers know what they are buying and whether it 

has been produced by the Palestinians or produced 

illegally on the settlements. 

We have debated whether there should be preferential 

trade tariffs for such products. The settlements are 

illegal so there should not be any preferential trade 

agreements. The debate must now move on to considering 

whether we should allow the sale of any products from 

the illegal settlements. There is a case for looking at 

whether a ban on those particular products might be 

considered. I am interested to hear whether the Minister 

has considered such a ban. I do not agree with the hon. 

Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that we should 

boycott all Israeli goods. To say the least, that would be 

an overreaction at this point. 

In conclusion, we have debated settlements many 

times in the House. It is right that we should do so, but 

it is very sad that we have to continue to do so. I hope 

that the new US President’s push for peace will persuade 

Israel to freeze and then dismantle the settlements, so 

that we can move towards a viable two-state solution. I 

urge the Minister and the Government to use all the 

tools at their disposal—not just words with the 

ambassador—to help Israel recognise that removing 

the settlements is in its own self-interest. 

10.39 am 

Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con): Let me 

congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, 

South-West (Rob Marris) on securing this debate; it is 

one of those topics on which there will be a large degree 

of bipartisan agreement between members of different 

political parties. The Opposition support the Government’s 

approach, and endorse the view of successive British 

Governments that the Israeli settlements are illegal. As 

the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West 

reminded us, that verdict applies whether we are talking 

about settlements in what is commonly referred to as 

the west bank, or those on the Golan heights or in those 

areas of East Jerusalem that have been annexed by 

Israel, which the Israeli Government regard as part of 

the Israeli state. 

Let us look at the history. The settlements have been 

declared illegal by successive resolutions of the UN 

Security Council, by the International Court of Justice 

and by contracting states to the Geneva convention. It 

is worth noting that when one gets into a debate with 

Israeli officials about the legal position, they assert that 

the settlements are not illegal in the absence of a treaty 

to govern arrangements for the administration of those 

territories, following the end of the British mandate. 

The Israelis with whom I have discussed the matter 

would argue that there was no definitive peace treaty in 

1948, and that therefore they are not acting illegally. 

Against that, as long ago as 1967, the legal counsel to 

the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs advised that 

civilian settlements in the administered territories 

contravened the explicit provisions of the fourth Geneva 

convention. 

When one looks at how Israeli Governments have 

operated in practice, one can see that they have regarded 

the settlements as a political, rather than a legal, issue at 

root. After Oslo, the then Israeli Government agreed to 

a United States request to limit expansion to the so-called 

natural growth of existing settlements. In April 2003, 

they agreed to freeze settlements, including natural 

growth, as part of the road map. In recent months, the 

current Israeli Foreign Minister—who, as the hon. Member 

for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) reminded us, is a 

settler—has talked about the political conditions under 

which he would be willing to give up his home and 

recommend to his neighbours that they do the same. 

The argument that we have heard recently from some 

Israeli spokesmen, which is that the settlements are 

needed to cope with population expansion, simply does 

not wash if one looks at the demographic reality. Israel’s 

central bureau of statistics states that the population of 

settlements grew by 4.7 per cent. in 2008, compared 

with 1.6 per cent. in Israel. Forty per cent. of settlement 

growth was from new immigration—certainly assisted 

by the sort of incentives described by the hon. Member 

for Wolverhampton, South-West—rather than through 

the birth of children to families already living there. 

The key to this lies in the politics rather than the law. 

I think everyone has recognised that no peace agreement 

will be possible if it fails to include Israeli withdrawal

211WH 


21 JULY 2009 


212WH 

[Mr. David Lidington] 

from the settlements. In my view, it is almost certain 

that if an agreement can be reached, it will allow some 

settlements to remain under Israeli sovereignty as part 

of an overall package that also involves land swaps. 

That was an element of the draft agreement being 

negotiated between the Olmert Government and the 

Palestinian Authority. 

In debates such as this, we must recognise that there 

are genuine political problems for any Israeli Government 

handling this issue. First, there is the sheer number of 

people that we are talking about, and if we recall how 

traumatic and demanding of the Israel Defence Forces 

it was to insist on the removal of settlements from 

Gaza, that should remind us of the scale of the challenge 

involved in requiring the evacuation of many thousands 

of people from settlements in the west bank. 

Secondly, there is the Israeli experience of Gaza. The 

fact that withdrawal from the settlements led not to an 

enduring peace in the south but to rocket attacks from 

the Gaza strip, has led not only traditional hawks, but 

many people in the Knesset and among the Israeli 

electorate who still think of themselves as advocates for 

peace, to be sceptical about the value of early withdrawal 

from existing Israeli settlements. United Nations resolutions 

and the various peace agreements that have been reached 

in the past, insist on Israeli withdrawal from settlements. 

However, that is seen as one element in a broader 

package including, most obviously, the cessation of all 

violent attacks on Israel, and the recognition of Israel 

by its neighbours. 

The key message from any British Government to 

Israeli leaders should be that they should not underestimate 

the damage—the severe damage—that their settlement 

policy is doing to the standing of those Palestinian 

leaders who genuinely want a negotiated peace. I was 

struck by one passage in President Obama’s Cairo speech, 

where he drew an analogy between the Palestinian 

experience and that of African Americans during the 

era of segregation. As several hon. Members have pointed 

out, the experience not only of settlements, but of the 

expropriation of property, segregated roadways, checkpoints 

and security arrangements that are in place to protect 

Israeli settlements, can only add to a sense of grievance 

and alienation among ordinary Palestinians and, above 

all, among young Palestinians who make up 60 per cent. 

or more of the population of the occupied territories. 

Unless the Israeli Government face up to that reality, 

they will find that more and more young Palestinians 

give up on the idea of a two-state solution. I speak from 

anecdotal evidence, but I have been alarmed by the 

number of Palestinians who say openly that they will 

give up on a two-state solution and wait, as they believe, 

for demographic trends to do the work until the day 

when there is an Arab majority in the territories now 

occupied by Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. 

Mr. Slaughter: The subject of the debate is Government 

policy. No doubt the hon. Gentleman aspires to be in 

the Government. Given the failure of Government policy, 

and that of previous Governments, which has seen an 

almost 40 per cent. expansion in the number of settlers 

in the west bank over the last six years, what would he 

like to see the Government do in order to address the 

problem? 

Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman anticipates what 

I was coming on to. The policy of the British Government 

has to be set in the context of overall international 

efforts to bring about an enduring peace in the middle 

east. We must start by asking ourselves what is going to 

work. For example, I do not believe that a general 

boycott of Israeli goods and services will somehow lead 

to an Israeli Government who are more amenable to 

peace initiatives, and I ask the Minister to state clearly 

the Government’s position on the question of food 

labelling, and whether that needs to be addressed at EU 

or national level. Will further development of the EU-Israel 

association agreement, and trade agreements between 

the EU and Israel, be related to progress on the issue of 

self-government for the Palestinians, in particular progress 

on the issue of settlements? 

Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): Will 

the hon. Gentleman give way? 

Mr. Lidington: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, 

I will not. I want to give the Minister time to respond to 

the debate. 

The key starting point now would be to persuade the 

Israeli Government to initiate another freeze on further 

expansion of existing settlements. That would give the 

Palestinians a reason to return to serious talks, no 

matter how difficult it might be given the state of play 

among the Israeli and Palestinian authorities at the 

moment. It is very much in our national interest for 

those talks to resume. 

10.50 am 

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth 

Office (Mr. Ivan Lewis): I congratulate my hon. Friend 

the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) 

on securing this important debate. As he and other hon. 

Members are perfectly well aware, the middle east peace 

process remains a top priority for this Government. We 

remain committed to a comprehensive peace in the 

middle east, based on a two-state solution and a secure 

Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state. 

Hon. Members will also be aware that the central 

tenet of the UK Government’s policy towards settlement 

building in the occupied Palestinian territories has long 

been clear. Settlements are illegal and construction should 

be frozen as a matter of urgency, in line with Israel’s 

commitments to do so in the 2003 road map. That is 

why we strongly welcomed President Obama’s Cairo 

speech and strongly support the new, clear US policy on 

freezing all settlement activity. 

I welcome this opportunity to expand on the 

Government’s policy. It is important to set out why I 

believe that continued settlement construction remains 

an impediment to peace. By changing the physical facts 

on the ground, Israeli settlement construction unilaterally 

prejudices the outcome of any final peace solution. 

Moreover, continued construction threatens the geographic 

possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state. The UK 

Government remain firmly of the view that a two-state 

solution provides the greatest prospect of peace and 

security for Israelis and Palestinians, so the damage 

done to that prospect by settlements causes us grave 

concern. 

As hon. Members have said, the day-to-day physical 

impact of settlement building has a heavy cost on the 

Palestinian people. Elements of the Israeli settler movement

213WH 


21 JULY 2009 


214WH 

exacerbate tension. Road and security infrastructure to 

protect settlements carves through the west bank and 

severely restricts Palestinians’ movement and access. 

Although we welcome recent positive Israeli steps to 

alleviate some of the restrictions, much further progress 

is required. The symbolic impact of settlements is arguably 

as damaging as the physical impact. Continued settlement 

expansion sends an extremely negative message to the 

Palestinians that resonates around the wider Arab world. 

It continues to raise question marks about the feasibility 

of a successful and lasting peace. 

The UK has long made our opposition to settlements 

clear. We have pressed the Israeli Government continually 

at the highest level on the importance of fulfilling road 

map commitments: Israel should freeze all settlement 

activity, including the natural growth of existing settlements, 

and dismantle all outposts erected since March 2001. 

Our Prime Minister made the UK policy on settlement 

activity clear in his historic speech to the Knesset in July 

2008, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary 

has reiterated that position frequently. 

A number of questions have been asked during this 

debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, 

South-West raised the question of the barrier. The first 

point to make about the barrier is that we recognise 

Israel’s right to self-defence and to protect its citizens by 

constructing the barrier. However, the barrier must be 

built exclusively on Israeli territory. As Israeli courts 

have ruled frequently, any part of the barrier that is not 

on Israeli territory is simply illegal. 

My hon. Friend not only discussed advocating a 

freeze on settlements but believes that our policy should 

be to evacuate all settlements. We feel that that pre-judges 

what we believe will be at the heart of final status 

negotiations: an agreement on the respective borders of 

both states. That is why we confine our policy at the 

moment to the freezing of all settlement activities. He 

also asked about the lower tariffs under the EU-Israel 

Association agreement and wants to ensure that they do 

not apply to goods exported from the settlements. I 

assure him that they most definitely do not. Moreover, 

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is proactive in 

ensuring that tariffs are applied correctly in accordance 

with the agreement. 

My hon. Friend asked why this country does not ban 

all goods from the settlements. We believe that that 

would raise a number of significant legal issues in 

relation to our European Community and international 

law obligations. Therefore, we do not believe that that is 

viable at the present time. 

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way? 

Mr. Lewis: No, I do not have enough time. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, 

South-West also asked whether the UK has obtained a 

legal position on the legality or otherwise of such 

imports. Although we cannot disclose legal advice, Her 

Majesty’s Government believe, based on the legal 

assessment, that such imports are not actually prohibited 

in UK law. He and other hon. Members suggested that 

there should be a ban on all Israeli imports, and he 

suggested in addition that this country should embark 

on an arms embargo. We disagree strongly with those 

two positions. The Government’s position is to oppose 

a trade boycott or any other form of boycott against the 

state of Israel, and we are opposed to an arms embargo. 

We do not believe that either of those measures would 

progress the course of peace in any way at this stage. 

I believe that I have dealt comprehensively with the 

crucial questions raised during this debate, but it is only 

right that we place this debate about settlements in the 

context of the overall situation. Other issues must be 

dealt with. It is essential that the Palestinian Authority 

develop their capacity to govern, with institutions that 

serve the needs of their people. Hamas must put an end 

to violence, recognise past agreements and recognise 

Israel. Its behaviour—firing rockets at Israel, attacking 

rival political parties, smuggling arms, holding Gilad 

Shalit in captivity—demonstrates, sadly, that it is neither 

a partner in peace nor a constructive force in building a 

Palestinian state. At the same time, we make it clear that 

the Israeli Government must ease restrictions on the 

Gaza border and allow an immediate increase in the 

flow of essential aid and reconstruction materials into 

Gaza, as well as the legitimate flow of trade, goods and 

people. 

We encourage partners from the Arab world to 

demonstrate readiness to increase recognition of Israel 

and move towards a normalisation of relations as envisaged 

in the very welcome Arab peace initiative. On that basis, 

I welcome the views of His Highness the Crown Prince 

of Bahrain on taking the Arab peace initiative forward, 

which he articulated in the Washington Post on 16 July. 

That is exactly the sort of positive engagement that we 

believe will help lead to peace in the middle east. It is 

vital that all Arab states demonstrate both their commitment 

to dialogue and peaceful relations and their willingness 

to respond positively to significant Israeli action to 

freeze settlement activity. 

As His Highness noted, now is the time to take 

“simultaneous, good-faith action”. The point will come 

when the Israeli Government respond positively to the 

clear statement of policy articulated by this Government 

and, for the first time, by the US in President Obama’s 

speech in Cairo. It is our intention to continue to work 

with regional partners and with the US and EU to make 

progress and move from rhetoric to reality. 

I will be visiting the occupied Palestinian territories 

and Israel during the parliamentary recess. I want to 

learn at first hand about the realities facing the Israeli 

Government, the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli 

and Palestinian people, and I want to ensure that the 

United Kingdom plays a crucial role in pushing forward 

the peace process that is so crucial to peace and stability 

throughout the world.

215WH 

21 JULY 2009 European Union 

216WH 

European Union 

10.59 am 

Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con): 

I was deeply concerned when Baroness Kinnock was 

appointed Minister for Europe, because I feel passionately 

about our relationship with the European Union. It is 

pivotal to that relationship that there is more accountability 

to parliamentarians in the House of Commons on this 

issue. It is deeply regrettable that Baroness Kinnock was 

made a peer and that she sits in the other House. 

One of Baroness Kinnock’s first acts on being appointed 

was to state that the Government would support Mr. Blair’s 

candidature for the European Union presidency, should 

the new constitution and that position come into being. 

Mr. Blair’s father lives in my constituency, so I had a 

good relationship with Mr. Blair and gained a certain 

amount of access to him, which cannot be said of the 

current Prime Minister. However, he is the wrong man 

for the job. 

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): 

I know the hon. Gentleman well from our days on the 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and 

respect him greatly. He criticises our promotion of 

matters European in the Houses of Parliament, but 

does he not think that the group that his party has 

joined in Europe is the most extraordinary mix of 

oddballs, malcontents, misfits, flat-earthers and unregenerate 

nationalist bigots? Is that not a fair and even-tempered 

description? Perhaps he should justify what his party 

has been doing in Europe since 4 June. 

Daniel Kawczynski: I wondered when that matter 

would be raised. That comment crystallises for me the 

sheer arrogance of this new Labour Government and 

the Prime Minister; it is the arrogance of power. The 

hon. Gentleman must not forget that the oddballs to 

whom he refers are people who represent parties that 

have been elected democratically by the people of sovereign 

nation states. If any political party dares to have even a 

scintilla of thought or opinion that differs from the 

great Labour policies, it is described as containing 

oddballs and nutters. That is bad for the democratic 

process. 

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has talked about 

democracy and accountability, but is not Labour the 

only party that has ever provided such things on European 

matters? At about the time of the hon. Gentleman’s 

third birthday on 24 June 1975, Harold Wilson gave us 

a referendum on how Ted Heath had bulldozed us into 

Europe. I voted against at that time and have remained 

sceptical ever since. Is it not the Labour party to which 

people should look if they wish to embrace accountability 

and democracy? 

Daniel Kawczynski: It was good of the hon. Gentleman 

to try to find out when my birthday is. I was actually 

born on 24 January. 

David Taylor: I said the 24th. 

Daniel Kawczynski: The hon. Gentleman said June, 

but let us not get into a debate about when my birthday 

is. I was born on 24 January 1972, which is the day on 

which Ted Heath signed the document to take us into 

Europe. I will come on to that later. 

Let me finish my important point about Mr. Blair. 

We must only look at what he did in this Parliament to 

see why he is the wrong choice for that position. He 

neutered this place by using the Whips to railroad 

through huge, poorly thought out constitutional legislation, 

and he used his position to go to war against the express 

wish of millions of British citizens. In my view, he is 

quite simply the wrong person to bring greater transparency 

and accountability to Europe. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) 

is a brilliant negotiator, whom I have seen in action in 

Europe. I hope that he will guarantee that when he 

becomes a Foreign Office Minister—that will be sooner 

than the Minister thinks—the Conservative Government 

will veto Mr. Blair’s candidature to be President of the 

European Union. 

Mr.EdwardDavey(Kingston and Surbiton) (LD): I 

have a question to make the hon. Gentleman feel relaxed, 

comfortable and content. Does he think that any other 

member states would support the candidature of Tony 

Blair and, if so, will he name them? 

Daniel Kawczynski: The honest answer is that I do 

not know. As somebody who feels passionately about 

this country and its position in Europe, it pains me 

greatly that I would prefer somebody from another 

country to be President than a former British Prime 

Minister. However, I believe that Mr. Blair’s outrageous 

conduct in Parliament and his lack of regard for democracy 

should prevent him from becoming President. 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign 

and Commonwealth Affairs (Chris Bryant): Who is the 

hon. Gentleman’s preferred candidate? 

Daniel Kawczynski: We do not yet know who the 

candidates will be. 

Our relationship with the European Union is under 

threat from the Prime Minister’s conduct towards other 

Heads of State. I hope that the Foreign Office officials 

are listening carefully. I have spoken to many foreign 

officials who say that he looks bored at European 

Union meetings, treats Heads of State with disdain and 

does not follow basic diplomatic protocol. 

I will take as an example Iceland, which is not yet a 

member of the European Union, but which has expressed 

a desire to join in its Parliament. During the Icelandic 

banking crisis, the Prime Minister and the Government 

used counter-terrorism legislation to seize the assets of 

Icelandic banks. I will never forget his language during 

an interview on Sky News because it was the most 

undiplomatic that I have ever heard. The rudeness, 

disdain and contempt with which he treated Iceland 

and the Icelandic people were disgraceful. I will not go 

into detail, but I have a copy of that interview if hon. 

Members wish to see it. I hope that people will look at it 

again, because it was unacceptable. 

Following the interview, I had discussions with the 

Icelandic ambassador and friends of mine who are 

Icelandic politicians and leading members of Icelandic 

society. They were traumatised by our Prime Minister’s 

conduct towards them. Nothing has done more damage 

to our relationship with Iceland. I hope that the Minister 

will apologise for the Prime Minister’s behaviour and 

that he will do everything possible to support Iceland as

217WH 


21 JULY 2009 


218WH 

it tries to enter the European Union. We must show 

support to this vital NATO ally and neighbour and be 

its champion, so that we can repair that relationship. 

From the perspective of the British people and my 

constituents in Shrewsbury, the Labour Government 

have put our relationship with the European Union into 

the deep freeze by refusing to give the British people a 

referendum on the constitution. In this Chamber, we 

have debated many times the necessity for our citizens 

to be granted an opportunity to cast their vote on this 

vital issue. The French and the Dutch people have had 

their opportunity to reject the treaty. The treaty of 

Lisbon, which has come into being as a result of that 

rejection, is, by the way, a carbon copy of the original 

constitution, according to Monsieur Valéry Giscard 

d’Estaing and many other prominent European politicians 

and former politicians. It is interesting that every time 

the people of any European country have been given an 

opportunity to have their say on the constitution in a 

referendum they have rejected it—for example, the French, 

the Dutch and the Irish. 

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. 

The Spaniards were the first to have a referendum and 

there was an overwhelming majority in favour. He 

should get his facts right. 

Daniel Kawczynski rose— 

Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh) (Con): What about the 

other three? 

Daniel Kawczynski: Yes, what about the other three? 

The Minister is saying that only one country out of 27 

has had a referendum in which the people have been in 

favour. 

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): My hon. 

Friend clearly does not get it. The Spanish got it right; 

the other three countries got it wrong. When is he going 

to understand that? 

Daniel Kawczynski: A point very well made—I thank 

my hon. Friend. 

Mr. Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con): 

Surely the central point is that the promise of a referendum 

that was given to the British people was a Labour party 

manifesto commitment. What does that say about the 

Government’s attitude to their manifesto commitments, 

and how should the British people respond to their 

manifesto at the next general election? 

Daniel Kawczynski: I totally agree with my hon. 

Friend: what has happened is a huge snub to the British 

people and is a trashing of the Government’s policy 

statements that were made in the run-up to the last 

election. That is part of the reason why there is so much 

cynicism towards politicians in this country. 

Getting back to my date of birth, I do not know how 

old the Minister is, but I am 37, so, as the hon. Member 

for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) has rightly 

identified, I was three years old when we had the 

referendum in 1975. This issue is extremely important 

to me, because millions of people in the United Kingdom 

who are in their 20s, 30s and 40s have, like me, never 

been consulted on not just the relationship, but the 

ever-changing relationship that this country has been 

through with the European Community, the then European 

Economic Community and now the European Union. 

There has been no consultation at all for the British 

people. 

Mr. Davey: I am following the hon. Gentleman’s 

comments with great interest. If there were a referendum 

on whether Britain should be a member of the European 

Union, how would he vote? 

Daniel Kawczynski: I personally would vote for continued 

membership of the European Union, which I will come 

on to later in my speech. It is very important that we 

have a referendum to give the British people their say 

and to give me the opportunity to campaign in favour 

of our continued membership of the EU. As my hon. 

Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) 

has said, however, the Government’s broken promises 

and the lack of a referendum mean it is very difficult to 

sell European Union membership to our constituents. 

I find it staggering that the Home Secretary, who is 

obviously a very busy man at the moment, has time to 

write articles in newspapers demanding that a referendum 

on a new voting system is held at the same time as the 

next general election. He wants a form of proportional 

representation and is demanding a referendum on that 

at the next election. However, he refuses to allow the 

British people a referendum on this vital issue. What is 

more—the Minister may contradict me on this point—the 

Home Secretary said in his article in The Independent 

that the Prime Minister has given him an assurance that 

he has not discounted such a referendum on a change to 

the voting system being held on the same day as the next 

general election. When I think of all the problems 

facing this country at the moment, I find that absolutely 

scandalous. I must declare an interest because I am 

chairman of the all-party group on the continuation of 

first past the post, about which I feel passionately. I find 

it absolutely staggering that the Government are talking 

about a change to the voting system and yet refusing to 

allow the British people to have a referendum on this 

constitution. 

In the recent EU elections, we have seen the challenges 

that we face in our relationship with the EU. As we in 

this Chamber all know, across the whole of the country, 

the UK Independence party did much better than the 

Labour party and, in my own neck of woods in Shropshire, 

UKIP outstripped the Labour vote by even more. UKIP 

is a party that wants to pull out of the European Union, 

which I am passionately against. It worries me greatly 

that so many British people want to vote for a party that 

will pull us out of the entire thing. I am making the 

point that it is so important to have a referendum on the 

constitution, because it adds a huge amount of power 

and succour to UKIP if the British people are refused 

that referendum. 

Mr. Nigel Dodds (Belfast, North) (DUP): I congratulate 

the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. 

He makes a good point about the necessity of having a 

referendum; I totally agree with him on that. Will he go 

further and say that if second time around, in October, 

the Irish vote in favour of the Lisbon treaty, this country 

should still have a referendum on whether it should 

subscribe to the treaty?

219WH 


21 JULY 2009 


220WH 

Daniel Kawczynski: There are hypothetical— 

[Interruption.] Let me answer the question. There are 

hypothetical things that we could consider—[Interruption.] 

They are hypothetical, because they have not occurred 

yet. As I will discuss in a second, the Polish President 

has not ratified the treaty and neither has the Czech 

President. Of course, if all those ratifications take place, 

there will be people like me in the Conservative party 

who will try to encourage my party to have a referendum. 

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee that that 

will happen because I am a Back Bencher and do not 

make such decisions. However, I feel passionately about 

the matter, and others and I will, of course, try to lobby 

the Conservative Government on that point. 

I will just talk a little bit about the Members of the 

European Parliament, because they are a very important 

direct link with British citizens and our relationship 

with the European Union. Over the past four years, I 

have repeatedly spoken to organisations throughout my 

constituency. I have addressed rooms of 300, 400 or 

500 people and said, “I will give anyone here £100 if you 

can name me two of our Members of the European 

Parliament.” I have not lost a penny to date. Why? 

Because no one knows who the Members of the European 

Parliament are in Shropshire. Why is that? Because 

none of them live, work or have offices in Shropshire. 

There is no accountability. I consider it to be very 

important that I live in the county that I represent, that 

my office is in Shrewsbury, that my child goes to the 

local school, that I am part of the community and that 

people can stop me in the street or the supermarket and 

talk to me. It is so important for there to be that 

accountability. 

If we are going to have a better relationship with 

the European Union, we have to make Members of the 

European Parliament more directly accountable to the 

people whom they represent. However, that should not 

be done through a proportional representation system 

whereby Members of the European Parliament represent 

a vast area. From an economic perspective, the west 

midlands is larger than the whole of Wales. That is a 

huge area. How on earth can someone represent an area 

of that size and yet still be accountable to the people of 

Shropshire? 

I want to mention my hon. Friend the Member for 

Ribble Valley, who I think will also make speech, because 

he is an assiduous member of the Council of Europe. 

On the record, I thank him for the tremendous work 

that he does for that organisation. He has asked me—he 

is pushing against an open door on this, because I 

totally agree with him—to formally thank the Czech 

President for not signing the treaty into existence. I have 

written an open letter in Polish to the Polish President 

asking him not to sign the document. For the record, I 

wish to state that those two politicians are being put 

under a huge amount of pressure by the Germans and 

the French to ratify the constitution, because they are 

desperate for that to be done before a Conservative 

Government come into office and give a referendum to 

the British people. So, on the record, and with all the 

sincerity that I can muster, I thank the Presidents of 

the Czech Republic and the Republic of Poland for the 

courage and integrity that they have shown under intense 

pressure—almost blackmail—to ratify the treaty. I thank 

them very much, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the 

Member for Rayleigh will also discuss this issue. We 

need them to hold out until we get into office and can 

hold a referendum. 

Returning to the point that the hon. Member for 

Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) made, the reason 

why UKIP is wrong is because we have a golden opportunity 

to change the European Union, whereas it simply wants 

to pull us out of the entire thing. What a squandered 

opportunity that would be. I do not want to pull out of 

the European Union; I want to change it and to challenge 

the Franco-German hegemony that has been prevalent 

in the past 40 years. The Franco-German axis has come 

up with all the strategies and direction of the European 

Union, but that will be challenged for the first time in 

our lifetimes, because so many central and eastern 

European countries are looking to the United Kingdom 

for leadership. If I were to take you to Warsaw, Mr. Amess, 

or to Prague, Bucharest or downtown Vilnius, you 

would see that they look not to Germany for leadership 

but to the United Kingdom. The British nature is to 

hide our strength under a bushel, because we are modest 

people, but the people of eastern and central Europe 

feel passionately about Britain and the role that it 

should play in the EU. They want us to form a coalition 

of support and they want a new European Union that is 

not federalist, that works closely on counter-terrorism, 

tackling poverty abroad and illegal immigration, but 

that nevertheless focuses on ensuring that each country 

has its own sovereignty. 

We must make countries adhere to the rules of the 

EU. That is another bone of contention for our constituents, 

as we gold-plate everything that comes out of Brussels. 

As chairman of the all-party group on dairy farmers, 

which is one of the largest all-party groups in the House 

of Commons—I am getting through all my all-party 

groups today—I must say that the rules on nitrates and 

other things that are being brought to bear are destroying 

our dairy sector in the UK. We are gold-plating those 

rules, whereas some other countries simply ignore them. 

A specific case in point is the Italian Government’s 

announcement that they will give $250 million per 

annum in aid to Libya for the next 20 years. That 

aid is for road, railway and other major infrastructure 

construction projects in Libya. 

David Taylor: It seems that some of the flaws that the 

hon. Gentleman is discussing can be addressed only by 

renegotiating our membership of the European Union. 

On 2 June, the fabled Jeremy Paxman asked the right 

hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who 

was in the studio with him, “Would you renegotiate our 

membership of the European Union?” to which he 

replied, “No.” Is the hon. Gentleman encouraged by 

that comment from someone whom he hopes will be the 

future Foreign Secretary? 

Daniel Kawczynski: The whole nature of governance 

is through in-depth negotiations of the sort that take 

place all the time at regional conferences. I am sure that 

when my right hon. Friend becomes Foreign Secretary, 

he will want to negotiate with his counterparts in his 

own brilliant way to get a European Union that is more 

akin to the thinking of the British people. I do not 

understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because 

I know how passionately my right hon. Friend wants a 

change to the current situation in the European Union.

221WH 


21 JULY 2009 


222WH 

To get back to my point, why can the Italians give 

$250 million a year to Libya in tied aid? That cannot be 

right. I do not believe that European Union countries 

should do or are allowed to do that; it certainly goes 

against the spirit of the EU rules. I hope that the 

Minister will write to me on that, and that he will 

challenge the Italian authorities about giving that money 

to Libya in tied aid. As chairman of the all-party group 

on Libya, and as someone who is passionate about 

helping British companies to secure infrastructure 

construction projects, I strongly hope that the Minister 

will address that issue, because British companies are 

losing out on vital construction projects. 

Mr. Crabb: My hon. Friend makes a good point 

about Italian practices on overseas aid. Does he share 

my concern about the Labour party’s great friend and 

ally in Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, reneging on his commitment 

to give 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product in 

overseas development assistance by 2013? 

Daniel Kawczynski: I do, very much. We are all under 

huge pressure because of the current economic crisis, 

but this country and all political parties have adhered to 

the targets, so I strongly regret that Signor Berlusconi 

finds it impossible to match such targets. 

The EU relationship can be strengthened only if it 

tackles issues of concern, one of which is illegal immigration 

from Africa. I recently secured a debate in this Chamber 

on the Department for International Development’s 

support for north African countries. It transpired that 

DFID gives not a penny piece to vitally strategic countries 

in north Africa, who are neighbours of huge importance. 

Conversely, the Americans, who realise the importance 

of Egypt, give them $1.5 billion a year in aid, but we 

give them nothing. Those countries are grappling with 

counter-terrorism issues—a British citizen was recently 

shot dead by al-Qaeda in Mali—and they are dealing 

with illegal immigration and the tremendous suffering 

that happens as a result. We see many times on our 

televisions and in our newspapers the tremendous human 

suffering of people who cross the Mediterranean in 

boats to the Canary Islands, Italy, Lampedusa and 

Malta. The European Union needs to do more to help 

north African countries deal with the human tragedy 

that is illegal immigration from north Africa. I hope to 

hear more from the Minister about what is happening 

on that issue. 

The right to self-determination is something that I 

feel passionately about as someone who has Polish 

ancestry. My grandfather’s country did not have selfdetermination 

for the whole of his life. Self-determination 

is one of the issues that drives me more than any other 

in politics, which is why I want to speak briefly about 

Gibraltar. We want no more talk of Anglo-Spanish 

co-operation over any changes to the status of Gibraltar. 

I hope that when my hon. Friend the Member for 

Rayleigh becomes a Minister, we can give Gibraltar an 

assurance that it will always be British and that we are 

proud to have it as part of our family. I hope also that 

the next Conservative Government will encourage more 

visits and more royal visits to Gibraltar. I know that my 

hon. Friend campaigned in Gibraltar during the European 

Union elections; from what I hear, he went down extremely 

well there and they were grateful that he went. I wanted 

to get on the record my thanks to him for that, as well as 

my great love for the people of Gibraltar. 

Finally—because I vowed that I would not speak for 

more than 30 minutes—let me discuss Turkey. It has 

been in a crazy situation for decades regarding whether 

it will join the EU. I want to ask the Minister about the 

current status of its application to be a member of the 

EU. What is his understanding of the time frames 

involved, and what is he doing specifically to support its 

joining the EU? Turkey is an important NATO ally, and 

I, for one, feel uncomfortable about the lack of clarity 

about its membership of the EU. 

I have friends in Ankara who say, “Frankly, we are 

not actually interested any more. We’ve had enough. 

We’re going to pull the plug on this and go our own 

way.”One can say what they like about Turkey’s membership 

of the EU, but I worry about a situation in which 

Turkey is pulled closer to Syria and Iran. I very much 

hope that it will remain within the European sphere of 

influence, and that the Minister will give me an update 

on what is happening with its membership of the EU. 

I thank you, Mr. Amess, for this opportunity, and I 

look forward to hearing what the Minister will say. 

11.31 am 

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): This is a great 

opportunity for me to contribute to this important 

debate on the last day before the recess, when—to get 

the record straight—we go into 82 days of working in 

our constituencies. 

I had rather hoped that, following my hon. Friend the 

Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), 

I would be able to tell him that I could name two of his 

MEPs and claim the £100. However, even by cheating 

and using the Blackberry to ask my researchers to come 

up with the names, I cannot do so. Even using the 

internet, we are hard pushed to name the MEPs from 

his area. I find it much the same when I ask people in 

the north-west of England to name their MEPs. Many 

can name their MPs, but, going down a list of seven or 

eight MEPs, they find it difficult to name just one of 

them. I appreciated his comments. 

Mr. Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op): Will the 

hon. Gentleman give way? 

Mr. Evans: I give way to my honourable neighbour. 

Mr. Hendrick: Can the hon. Gentleman name one of 

his former MEPs? 

Mr. Evans: That is the kind of question that could, 

perhaps, rebound on the hon. Gentleman after the 

general election. If I were to ask him to name some 

former MPs, the list would be somewhat longer than the 

list he is asking me to choose from at this moment. 

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury 

and Atcham, I am a democrat, and I am concerned that 

the turnout for the European elections we have just 

gone through was lower than the turnout for the previous 

elections and the time before that. In 1979, the turnout 

was 63 per cent. for the whole of Europe; in 2009, it was 

43 per cent. People say that it is just Britain that is 

Eurosceptic and therefore not interested in what happens 

in the European Union, but those figures prove that the 

whole of Europe feels somewhat remote from the 

institutions that act on its behalf.

223WH 


21 JULY 2009 


224WH 

[Mr. Evans] 

In the United Kingdom, the turnout was even more 

worrying, at 34.3 per cent. Two thirds of the country 

had something more important to do on the day of the 

European elections, even though we have made it far 

easier for them to vote. In the UK, 11 million people 

voted in the European elections. In 2002, 23 million 

voted in “Big Brother”. More people in Britain are 

more interested in what happens on “Big Brother” than 

in the Big Brother state in Brussels, which actually has 

more say on how they lead their lives. 

I am a democrat; therefore, I am concerned about 

what is happening in the EU and, indeed, in the UK. 

My hon. Friend mentioned the referendum on the 

Lisbon treaty. Tony Blair said that we would have one, 

but, in his dying days as Prime Minister, he said, “By 

the way, there will not be a referendum.” That is one of 

the greatest denials of democracy that I have seen in 

this country in the 51 years I have been alive. Everyone 

knows that the Lisbon treaty is exactly the same as the 

constitution, apart from one or two words. The French, 

the Dutch and the Irish said no to it. I am staggered that 

the French were told that they could not have another 

vote, and the Dutch “no” was also ignored. 

Ireland keeps getting it wrong. I do not know what is 

wrong with it. It did the same in respect of the Nice 

treaty, but, fortunately, had another go and got it right 

that time—as far as Brussels was concerned. If I were 

Irish, I would feel somewhat aggrieved that my voice in 

a referendum is being ignored. We hear the great democrats 

of Europe ask, “Why should one country be able to 

block this treaty when the other 26 wish it to go ahead?” 

That is the system. They need unanimity of the 27 

countries. They should not try to change the rules 

simply because one country is deemed to have got it 

wrong. 

I must point out that I used a bit of irony when I 

intervened on my hon. Friend earlier, just in case someone 

thinks that I actually believed what I said about three 

countries getting it wrong and one country getting it 

right. I actually think that the referendum in Ireland 

was poignant. I hope that when the Irish are forced to 

have another referendum—I believe that it will be on 

2 October—they will stand firm and vote as they did 

last time. They will be doing not only themselves but 

democracy a favour if they say “no” again. My great 

suspicion is that, if they do, the wonderful, nameless 

bureaucrats will take the Lisbon treaty to one side, 

salami-slice it and then introduce it bit by bit through 

the back door, as if the vote had never mattered. It is 

appalling that parts of the Lisbon treaty are already 

being introduced, even though it does not have the 

unanimous vote that it requires. 

As my hon. Friend said, the Czech President, the 

Poles and, indeed, even the Germans—the treaty is 

going through their constitutional courts—are clearly 

showing greater care for democracy than has been 

shown by several other countries, and certainly by Europe 

generally. 

I feel uneasy, to say the least, that we have an unelected 

Prime Minister who is trying to push a general election 

in this country into the long grass so that the Lisbon 

treaty can be ratified by the 27 countries before Britain 

has a general election. That is because the Conservative 

party is committed to having a referendum on it if it has 

not been ratified by then. And then, to have another 

unelected person—Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead, who 

was recently appointed to the House of Lords—say on 

behalf of the British people that we will support Tony 

Blair as president of the EU when the position has not 

yet been created is quite stunning. The lack of democracy 

in every stage of this is amazing. 

As a member of the Council of Europe, I spend some 

of my time visiting some of the 47 member states to talk 

about democracy and observe their elections. I tell them 

how important the rule of law is, yet it seems that it 

does not really matter for us. I feel incredibly uneasy 

about that. 

We all believed, when the French, the Dutch and the 

Irish said “no”, that the treaty was dead, but the walking 

corpse has had some life breathed into it, and we may 

well see it become a reality for the whole of Europe—for 

all 27 countries. I hope that that will not happen. 

The EU is an important institution, but many of my 

constituents say that it has been transformed into a 

creature that they did not wish to see. The hon. Member 

for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) said that 

in the 1975 referendum he voted against, as many did. 

The vast majority of people whom I speak to did not 

have an opportunity to vote in that referendum because 

they had not reached voting age. They have never had a 

referendum on Europe, yet over the years they have seen 

it transformed into something akin to a united states of 

Europe, which is what some, including Hans-Gert Pöttering, 

wish to see. 

Many of those who voted yes in 1975 voted for a 

Europe of independent sovereign nation states trading 

together, but with their own sovereign Governments 

who would conduct the laws that pertained mostly to 

them from their own countries. However, year by year, 

treaty by treaty, we have seen this ebb away and we now 

have a creature that few people, including Ted Heath, 

would ever have recognised as the organisation that 

existed when he took us into Europe in 1973. Ted Heath 

fought the ’75 referendum by saying that it was a 

Europe of trading states, and that that was all it was. 

Clearly, it has turned into something far more than 

that. 

We have learned the word “subsidiarity”, which has 

come into our parlance, but we are not acting on it. I 

hope that a future Conservative Government will take 

subsidiarity to heart and ensure that, in the ongoing set 

of negotiations that is the European Union, we return 

vital powers back to the nation states and closer to the 

people—that is the sort of devolution I believe in—instead 

of more power being attracted to the centre, which we 

have already proven is fairly remote from the vast 

majority of people in the country. 

I shall end by talking, as my hon. Friend did, about 

EU enlargement. The Council of Europe comprises 

47 countries, many of which have had problems, such as 

Georgia, which has faced hostilities on its borders from 

another Council of Europe country—Russia. Many of 

those countries would dearly love to join the EU. 

Fortunately, two of the more recent entrants to the EU, 

the Czech Republic and Poland, have shown that they 

are no pushover when it comes to the rights of their 

countries and their peoples. I, too, want to see Europe 

expanding. I want a wider Europe, not a deeper one. I 

want many of the Balkan states neighbouring us to join 

the EU as soon as possible, including Croatia, which

225WH 


21 JULY 2009 


226WH 

will hopefully be the next country to join, Montenegro, 

Serbia, Macedonia, Albania and Kosovo. I look forward 

to countries such as Turkey being able to join at the 

appropriate time. 

It will not be the same Europe. It is almost impossible 

for us to talk about all the countries that will have 

joined Europe having the same access to labour markets 

as is currently the case. When Romania and Bulgaria 

joined we learned the lesson that we failed to learn when 

the other 10 countries joined. Whereas France and 

Germany protected their countries with derogations on 

people being able to settle and work there, we did not, 

and—surprise, surprise—several hundred thousand people 

from those 10 countries settled in the United Kingdom. 

Many of those people did so positively and have contributed 

to our economy. 

Daniel Kawczynski: Roughly 500,000 Poles are living 

in the United Kingdom as a result of Poland’s membership 

of the EU. I welcome their contribution, but I have 

repeatedly asked the Polish Government to invest more 

in consular and embassy staff to help those citizens, 

because a lot of them have to ask for support from 

British Members of Parliament, whereas the responsibility 

for helping them really should still lie with Poland. The 

Polish authorities should do more to support them here. 

Mr. Evans: That is spoken from the heart by a man 

who probably gets a disproportionate amount of 

correspondence from Polish citizens in the UK—they 

know he is fluent in the Polish language—and who, I 

suspect, has become a sort of icon for the 500,000 Poles 

who live in the UK and are looking for help. I appreciate 

my hon. Friend’s point. Poland has to recognise the 

extra work load created when so many people from 

their country come to the UK. 

More importantly, we welcomed Poland and a number 

of other countries into the EU to assist them to grow 

and prosper and to lessen the magnet effect of other EU 

countries on their people, leading them to leave their 

own. The French and the Germans got it right, because 

they ensured that there was a 10-year period during 

which the cohesion funds going into Poland, for example, 

would at least have a chance to work. We just said, 

“Open the doors”, and coaches full of young Poles 

come to Victoria station, up the road, looking for 

opportunities in the UK. Yes, many of them have now 

returned to Poland, because they do not regard Britain 

as the golden place, as in the picture that was painted 

for them. Still, a considerable number of people have 

come here. At least we put the derogations in place in 

respect of Bulgaria and Romania. If we went down the 

road of accepting the Balkan states and then included 

Turkey, we would need to have safeguards to ensure 

that a fair chunk of people from Turkey, for instance, 

did not uproot themselves and plant themselves in the 

rest of the EU. That is the great fear in Germany and 

France, which is why Sarkozy has been making some of 

his pronouncements. 

The next general election will soon be upon us and, if 

the Lisbon treaty has not been ratified, that will give an 

enormous opportunity for the British people to have 

their first say since 1975 on how they wish their country 

to develop. When the Minister responds to the debate, 

he has an opportunity to reinforce my suspicion, which 

is that the real and only reason why the British people 

are not having the referendum on the Lisbon treaty is 

that the Government have done their private polling 

and know what the result would be. Polls on the Lisbon 

treaty referendum have said that up to 70 per cent. of 

the British people would have voted no. Rather than the 

British people having their democratic say and rejecting 

the Lisbon treaty, as has happened in three other countries, 

they have been denied the vote. That is an absolute 

disgrace. 

If the Lisbon treaty is ratified, I will, like my hon. 

Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, press 

my party to consider giving a post-ratification referendum 

so that the British people will have their final say on 

whether they wished to have the Lisbon treaty foisted 

on them in this undemocratic fashion. If the British 

people say no, as I suspect they will, that gives us a 

wonderful bargaining chip with the rest of the EU in 

future negotiations to get the sort of Europe that is for 

the benefit of the British people and for generations to 

come in the United Kingdom. 

The future is exciting for Europe if we get it right. At 

the moment, we are getting it wrong. 

11.48 am 

Mr.EdwardDavey(Kingston and Surbiton) (LD): I 

congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and 

Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing this debate. 

Although at times the debate so far suggests that hon. 

Members may be a little bit demob happy, he made 

some interesting points that I agree with. I strongly 

agree that Britain should be in the EU. He may be 

surprised to know that, as Liberal Democrat spokesman 

on foreign affairs, I believe that the EU should be 

reformed. I would enjoy a debate with the hon. Gentleman 

on all the different reforms that we might have. He may 

be interested to know that I believe that some powers 

could potentially return, but that would have to be done 

in renegotiations with our partners. I will come back to 

that point in a second. I also agree that one problem is 

that we in this country have gold-plated EU legislation 

when directives come down to Whitehall. We are our 

own worst enemy when it comes to many aspects of 

how European Union law works. 

It is incumbent on all Members of Parliament to try 

to explain why there is so much European law. Parties 

such as UKIP—I know that the hon. Gentleman opposes 

its position—try to suggest that Europe is taking over 

law-making. That is simply not true when one analyses 

not the numbers but the type of law. One reason why 

Europe has passed so many directives recently is that it 

deals with trade issues in the internal market—the 

single market. Anyone who is familiar with the history 

of law development, whether in the European Union, 

Britain, the United States or any other developed market 

economy knows that there are more laws, particularly 

detailed regulations, covering trade and economic issues 

than almost any other area. It is not surprising in a 

single market that more laws have been passed at European 

Union level. That does not mean that Europe is highly 

regulated—on the contrary. 

An example that I often use is the directive on 

strawberries. Anti-Europeans say that it shows how 

mad the European Union is to pass a law on strawberries, 

but before that there was a British law on strawberries, 

a Danish law on strawberries and a French law on

227WH 


21 JULY 2009 


228WH 

[Mr. Edward Davey] 

strawberries. There were 15 or 27 laws on strawberries—on 

what constitutes a strawberry, and what can be sold by 

strawberry growers or retailers. Those laws have been 

stripped away, and there is one law, so that strawberry 

growers of Kent and elsewhere do not have to have 

different punnets of strawberries going to Belgium, 

Holland and France. They can have the same punnets, 

which is helpful to trade. 

European laws have inevitably been numerous because 

they have dealt with trade, but they have also been 

deregulatory because there has been a bonfire of member 

states’ laws. That vital fact is rarely stated, and I am 

grateful to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) 

for providing the opportunity for me to air that argument. 

[MR. ERIC MARTLEW in the Chair] 

In raising the matter today, the hon. Member for 

Shrewsbury and Atcham inevitably focused our attention 

on the Conservative party’s policy on the European 

Union and what it might be if the Conservatives ever 

came to power. He and the hon. Member for Ribble 

Valley talked about their support for a post-ratification 

referendum if the Lisbon treaty is ratified before that 

event, and I look forward to the comments of the hon. 

Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). I am sure that he 

will make clear the Conservative party’s position, so I 

will not put words into his mouth. I am interested to 

know whether he will talk about its strategy to renegotiate 

Britain’s relationship with the European Union, and 

how it has been building influence in Europe in recent 

weeks to make that more possible. 

When framing foreign policy, a Government must 

consider their relationship with Europe’s capitals—Berlin, 

Rome, Madrid—and particularly with Washington. If 

the Conservative party believes that it will have more 

influence in the White House because it has less influence 

in Berlin, Paris, Madrid and Rome, it must be stark, 

staring bonkers. The major stake to the heart of the 

Conservatives’ attitude to their whole foreign policy is 

their inability to put forward a coherent, consistent and 

credible policy with key Conservative European 

Governments and parties. 

Mr. Francois: How would the hon. Gentleman 

characterise the Liberal Democrats’ relationship with 

Washington? 

Mr. Davey: It is extremely good. If the hon. Gentleman 

had joined me at the Democratic convention in Denver 

he would have seen that there were more Liberal Democrat 

MPs there than Conservative and Labour MPs put 

together. 

I turn to business’s view of the Conservative party’s 

position on leaving the European People’s party. 

Daniel Kawczynski: Will the hon. Gentleman give 

way? 

Mr. Davey: In a moment. 

British Chambers of Commerce is alarmed and said 

in the Financial Times on 24 June that 

“having so many UK MEPs outside the mainstream groupings is 

a worry for business.” 

Its head of European representation said that time will 

tell whether the new alliance will prove successful, but 

at the moment it looks somewhat fragile. I shall talk 

about fragility in a moment. 

Daniel Kawczynski: During my speech, I tried not to 

say anything derogatory about the Liberal Democrats, 

but the hon. Gentleman has started to criticise the 

Conservative party. I want to raise two issues. First, why 

did his party vote against giving the British people a 

referendum? His party’s support for the Government 

prevented the British people from having that referendum. 

Not many people realise that. Secondly, why did so few 

people—only 15 per cent.—vote for his party in the 

European Union elections? 

Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman should be careful 

about the latter point. He knows that all the major 

parties saw their vote fall from what was predicted in 

the polls. On the referendum, he should know—I believe 

that he attended many of the debates on the Lisbon 

treaty—that the Liberal Democrats supported a referendum 

on whether we should be in or out of the European 

Union, and we had an exchange on that. Our reason 

was that that was closest to our 2005 manifesto 

commitment. The constitutional treaty, unlike what 

members of the Conservative party often say, is not the 

same as the Lisbon treaty on key constitutional issues. 

The constitutional treaty contained the Maastricht 

treaty, the treaty of Amsterdam, the treaty of Nice, the 

treaty of Rome and the Single European Act in one 

document. To vote on that is to vote on the whole 

European Union. The Lisbon treaty is minor. It is an 

amending treaty, not a constitutional treaty. It is not 

about whether one agrees with the whole of the European 

Union’s rules as built up over decades; the constitutional 

treaty, however, was. A referendum on being in or out of 

the EU was far closer to our pledge. 

Goebbels was right in saying that propaganda is 

repeating the same lie—[Interruption.] Misrepresentation 

—I was talking about the Conservative party, not 

individuals. 

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman will know that when 

the former President of the European Parliament, Hans- 

Gert Pöttering, gave a speech to the Council of Europe 

he said that the document was virtually the same as the 

one the French, Dutch and Irish rejected. Indeed, the 

vast majority of European politicians rather like the 

Lisbon treaty, and when they talk about it in their own 

countries they reassure people that it is virtually the 

same document. Only in the United Kingdom do we 

carry on with the pretence that somehow the document 

before us is different. 

Mr. Eric Martlew (in the Chair): Order. Interventions 

should be short. 

Mr. Davey: Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to our 

debates on the Lisbon treaty, because many people had 

a completely different view. 

Daniel Kawczynski: The realpolitik at the time was 

that the Labour Government would never allow a 

referendum on whether we should be members of the 

European Union. By not voting with us, the hon.

229WH 


21 JULY 2009 


230WH 

Gentleman’s party lost a golden opportunity to give the 

British people a referendum on the constitution. Surely 

he knew at the time that the Government would never 

allow such a referendum. 

Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman should have backed 

our call. We would then have had a much stronger case, 

and the Government would have been on a much weaker 

wicket. 

The key issue—I am sure the hon. Member for Rayleigh 

will address it—is the Conservative party’s decision to 

leave the European People’s party in the European 

Parliament. Elected Conservative Members of Parliament 

and those in Brussels have described that as “stupid”, 

moving the Conservatives to the “wild fringes”, “crazy” 

and “head-banging”, the final description being that of 

the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe 

(Mr. Clarke). 

Let us be clear. A vast majority of respected 

Conservatives believe that the party’s current position is 

crazy. Why did it occur in the first place? The European 

Parliament does not have the power to change EU 

treaties, nor can it or MEPs make the EU more federalist. 

That can be done only by negotiation, subject to the 

unanimity laws, between member states. Why it was so 

difficult for British Conservatives to sit on the same 

benches as the MEPs of Chancellor Merkel and President 

Sarkozy is beyond me, particularly as Chancellor Merkel’s 

views are probably the closest of any German leader 

since the second world war to those of the modern 

British Conservative party. 

The situation is even more bizarre because the European 

People’s party, after quite a big victory for centre-right 

parties across the European Union, is at its strongest in 

the European Parliament, and it is at this moment that 

the British Conservatives decided to leave, so they have 

chosen isolationism over influence. That will hobble a 

future Conservative Government. 

Any grouping in the European Parliament must have 

25 MEPs from seven member states. Following the 

decision of the Finnish MEP who had been recruited to 

leave the new grouping after a few days, having met his 

erstwhile colleagues, the new grouping has only seven 

member states represented and four of those seven have 

only one MEP. 

Mr. Francois: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect: there 

are eight. 

Mr. Davey: Oh, there are eight—it changes day by 

day. We can never quite tell. One day, we have former 

leaders of the Conservative group, people such as Edward 

McMillan-Scott, who are members of the Tory party, 

and then we do not. We have to keep track of it, and I 

apologise for not being quite as up to date as I needed to 

be, but the key point remains that four members of the 

new group have a single MEP. It only needs two of them 

to leave and then the group folds, so the instability—the 

fragility that the member of the British Chambers of 

Commerce referred to in the Financial Times last month—is 

still there. That cannot be a sensible way of going on. 

The Conservatives told us that the new grouping 

would mean a big voice for the British Conservatives, so 

what have they gained since the elections? They still 

have only one chair of a committee. That is all that they 

had in the past. They have not gained any new chairs; 

their voice has not got any bigger. However, they have 

reduced voting strength on all the committees, so their 

voice cannot be heard when they are voting on legislation. 

Even the leader of their group, who was to be a Conservative 

MEP, has had to become a Polish MEP. The influence 

of the Conservative MEPs has been reduced. 

I would have liked to go on about all the different 

members of the new grouping and their particular 

policy preferences, but I will not, because of time. They 

have already been rehearsed and I would like to give the 

Minister a chance to rehearse them, as I am sure he 

would like to do. I shall therefore end on an issue of 

policy that is relevant to how Britain is involved with 

the European Union, and to future issues that will 

challenge the next Government on both foreign policy 

and expenditure; we all know the expenditure problems. 

The issue relates to defence. 

I refer hon. Members not to Liberal Democrat policy, 

but to an article by the right hon. and learned Member 

for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) in 

the Financial Times last week entitled “Britain must 

work with Europeans on defence.” In the article, the 

former Conservative Foreign Secretary talks about the 

importance of European colleagues working together 

far more effectively on issues such as defence procurement, 

and in terms of ensuring that commonality is achieved 

in equipment, weaponry, armour and so on. He talks 

about the huge savings that could be reaped. He also 

talks about making our own Army far more effective. 

He talks about it being able to work more closely with 

other armies, particularly that of France, which does 

take its defence policy seriously, but also with others as, 

it is hoped, they begin to do so as well. 

That ought to go to the heart of political debate—the 

security and the finance of our nation. We have to work 

with our European colleagues, and with rather more 

enthusiasm and with some semblance of influence. I 

think that the British Conservatives are about to sell 

our country down the river. 

12.3 pm 

Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh) (Con): It is a pleasure 

to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Martlew. I begin 

by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for 

Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing 

this important debate. He criticised the possible appointment 

of Tony Blair as President of the EU, and I will certainly 

want to return to that theme. I commend my hon. 

Friend for his assiduous membership of a number of 

all-party groups; he is clearly a very hard-working Member 

of Parliament. 

My hon. Friend raised, among other things, Gibraltar. 

I can tell him that one of the first all-party groups that I 

joined when I came to this place in 2001 was the 

all-party group on Gibraltar. Gibraltar and the desire 

of the Gibraltarians to remain British will always be 

something that is close to my heart. I intend to fight 

very hard for that should I ever have the honour of 

becoming a Minister in the Foreign Office. I hope that 

my hon. Friend takes some reassurance from that. 

I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for 

Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who made a typically passionate 

contribution. He raised several issues, including 

enlargement. He made the point that a number of 

countries look forward to the possibility of joining the 

European Union—of having an EU prospective, as it is

231WH 


21 JULY 2009 


232WH 

[Mr. Mark Francois] 

often put. He also raised what happened in Bulgaria 

and Romania. People in all parties in this country and 

in many other countries in the EU have learned lessons 

from that. In essence, the lesson is that if we attempt to 

bring in countries to meet an arbitrary timetable, the 

risk is that we bring those countries in before the 

process of reform has been fully completed. That lesson 

has been learned across the EU, and we now talk about 

conditionality rather than arbitrary timetables. In simple 

terms, if further reform has to take place, it is better 

that it takes place before a country is admitted to the 

EU rather than afterwards, because there is still a 

degree of leverage to argue for reform before it comes in 

and it is difficult to get that reform once it has been 

admitted. It is fair to say that that lesson has been 

learned by many countries of the EU. It is hoped that a 

number of the countries mentioned by my hon. Friend 

can undertake the reform that might be necessary to 

allow them one day to join the EU. 

Mr. Evans: Will my hon. Friend give way? 

Mr. Francois: I have a lot to say, but I will give way. 

Mr. Evans: Will my hon. Friend also accept that it is 

important to take the peoples of those countries with us 

as well? If it is ever gleaned by the people that they are 

being dragged by the nose in a certain direction but the 

chances of them ever joining are remote—Turkey is a 

perfect example of that—we run the risk of those 

peoples turning against the European Union and against 

the whole concept of what we are trying to create. 

Mr. Francois: My hon. Friend’s point is well made. It 

remains the Conservative party’s position that we support, 

in principle, Turkish membership of the European Union. 

He is right to raise the prospect of some frustration in 

Turkey about what I think people there perceive as 

problems being put in their way by certain other countries 

in the European Union. We run the risk that if those 

problems pertain for any length of time, people in 

Turkey will begin to lose faith in the possibility of 

membership. My hon. Friend therefore sounds an important 

warning in the debate, and I hope that the Minister will 

take that warning on board. 

I want to follow the remarks by my hon. Friend the 

Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham about the possibility 

of the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, becoming the 

President of the European Union. That really came to 

light last Thursday following an extraordinarily candid 

admission by Lady Kinnock, the new Minister for 

Europe: 

“The UK government is supporting Tony Blair’s candidature 

for president of the Council.” 

The post of EU President does not exist at present, but 

the creation of the post by the Lisbon treaty and now 

the former Prime Minister’s candidature have huge 

potential consequences for the way in which the EU is 

run, for our relationship with the EU and, given Tony 

Blair’s relationship with the present Prime Minister, for 

British domestic politics as well. Of course, we are 

opposed to the Lisbon treaty, so we do not want the 

post to be created at all. It is particularly presumptuous 

of the Labour party to raise the prospect of his having 

the job before the treaty is even ratified. 

The post of EU President, were it ever to come 

about, would, particularly in the hands of a well known 

and ambitious politician such as Mr. Blair, have the 

potential to become a very powerful yet, importantly, 

unelected office. That raises real concerns. I would 

therefore like, as part of this debate on how we might 

interrelate with the rest of the EU, to consider his 

record and what he might do were he ever able to 

assume that office. 

The former Prime Minister will be remembered for 

many things. One thing that he will be remembered for 

is the surrender of £7.2 billion of the British rebate—that 

was British taxpayers’ money—for very little in return. 

That surrender followed a now familiar pattern from 

Labour of initially defiant rhetoric for media consumption, 

followed by surrender and subsequent spin to try to 

make up for it. To summarise, Downing street assured 

us in 2005 that the rebate was not up for negotiation. 

The former Prime Minister promised Parliament: 

“The UK rebate will remain and we will not negotiate it away. 

Period.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 1234.] 

When asked whether the rebate was justified and nonnegotiable, 

the current Prime Minister replied, “Yes”. 

He went on to say: 

“there will have to be the rebate and the reason is that even if you 

decided to negotiate down the Common Agricultural Policy...there 

would still be that period where we were paying far more because 

other people were getting the benefit—not just of the Common 

Agricultural Policy but of Structural and Cohesion Funds.” 

However, that rhetoric soon turned into the reality of 

a Labour EU climbdown. On 21 June 2005, the former 

Prime Minister said: 

“we have made it clear all the way through that we are prepared, 

not just to discuss and negotiate upon, but to recognise that the 

rebate is an anomaly that has to go, but it has got to go in the 

context of the other anomaly being changed as well.” 

However, that did not happen. In his statement attempting 

to justify the new deal, the former Prime Minister 

claimed success, saying: 

“we also agreed on a fundamental review of all aspects of the EU 

budget, including the common agricultural policy…it is then 

possible for changes to be made to this budget structure in the 

course of this financing period.”—[Official Report, 19 December 

2005; Vol. 440, c. 1564.] 

In practice, however, that so-called fundamental review 

of the CAP, which was promised to Parliament, was 

downgraded to a non-binding health check, which has 

not led to genuine reform. We were sorely let down, and 

£7.2 billion of our money was given away with virtually 

nothing in return. If the former Prime Minister became 

the EU President, therefore, Britain would be left facing 

a powerful President with a track record of failing to 

stand up for Britain’s interests in Europe. 

The former Prime Minister’s record should also be 

examined with regard to his role in forcing the Lisbon 

treaty on the British people without the referendum 

that he had promised them. As we know, the treaty 

represents a significant transfer of power from member 

states to the EU’s central institutions. That includes the 

loss of 60 vetoes and the creation of a European diplomatic 

service, a Foreign Minister in all but name, a charter of 

fundamental rights and an EU President. The treaty is 

nearly identical to the EU constitution that Blair promised 

would be put to the British people in a referendum.

233WH 


21 JULY 2009 


234WH 

Let me pick up the point that the Liberal Democrat 

spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton 

(Mr. Davey), made about the Lisbon treaty. He attempted 

to argue that the treaty and the constitution are markedly 

different, but they are not, and he does not need to take 

that from me. He can take it from the former Irish 

Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, who said that they are 90 per 

cent. the same. He can take it from the Spanish Foreign 

Minister, who said that they are 98 per cent. the same. 

He can take it from the Spanish Prime Minister, who 

literally went one better, saying that they are 99 per 

cent. the same. He can take it from Chancellor Merkel, 

who has been mentioned several times today. She said: 

“The substance of the Constitution has been maintained.” 

He can even take it from the Prime Minister. Shortly 

after taking up his new post, the Prime Minister had a 

meeting with the Taoiseach. At the subsequent press 

conference, he was asked what they had been talking 

about. He replied: 

“the European constitution and how that can move forward over 

the next few months.” 

Even the Prime Minister therefore knows that the treaty 

and the constitution are essentially the same. It is—I 

choose my words carefully—disingenuous of the Liberal 

Democrats to pretend that they are materially different, 

so that they can get out of the referendum that they 

solemnly promised the British people in their 2005 

general election manifesto. 

Hon. Members: Hear, hear. 

Mr. Eric Martlew (in the Chair): Order. Hon. Members 

need to be quiet. 

Mr. Francois: I am sorry, Mr. Martlew, I appear to be 

enthusing my hon. Friends that bit too much. Nevertheless, 

the Liberal Democrats have tried to wriggle out of their 

promise. They tried to make the same case on the 

Lisbon treaty in the European elections, and they were 

ritually slaughtered for their trouble, so we will take no 

lectures from them about the treaty. 

Tony Blair’s possible candidature was not really an 

issue in the European elections, and I do not remember 

it cropping up very much. However, the elections were 

one example of the British people having at least some 

say over the European policies of this country’s different 

parties. Although the elections saw socialist party policies 

across Europe being rejected, the people’s rejection of 

the Labour party in Britain was particularly decisive. 

The Labour party did worse than its socialist brethren 

in France or Spain; it got just over half the MEPs that 

the Italian socialists did; and it achieved a similar result 

to that of the German Social Democrats, the SPD, 

despite the fact that the SPD had its worst election 

result since the second world war. In the new European 

Parliament, the British Labour delegation will rank as 

only the sixth-largest party in the Socialist group, only 

just ahead of the Romanian Socialists, who have 10 seats. 

As I understand it, although the Minister may correct 

me, the Labour party will have no committee chairmanships 

in the European Parliament. Given that my party has at 

least one, therefore, it is rich for the Government to 

criticise us. 

On our relationship with the EU, we would like to 

hear from the Minister what the position of Labour 

MEPs will be on the working time directive in the new 

Parliament and perhaps under a new Commission— 

whatever happens to the Lisbon treaty, there will have 

to be a new Commission. As the Minister knows, I have 

raised this issue with him before. The UK’s opt-out 

from the working time directive—the opt-out is now 

used by 15 different EU countries—affects the jobs of 3 

million people in this country. This is not, therefore, 

some esoteric debate, because the issue matters to the 

employment of millions of people in the UK. In the 

crunch vote a year ago, most Labour MEPs, including 

the woman who now leads them in the European 

Parliament, voted to get rid of the opt-out, although a 

few voted to retain it. It is likely that we will return to 

the issue, so it is important to press the Minister on 

exactly where Labour MEPs stand. 

When my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney 

(Mr. Cameron) became the leader of the Conservative 

party, he said that we would form a new grouping in the 

European Parliament. In effect, he gave three years’ 

notice that we would do that, so it is not something that 

we decided to do overnight. Many people, including 

several Ministers, the Liberal Democrats and several 

commentators in the media, said that we would never 

do that, but we have. We have established a new grouping, 

which has 54 Members of the European Parliament 

representing eight EU countries. If we look at the 

balance of power in the Parliament—I know that the 

Minister studies these things—we can see that that 

grouping will have quite significant influence and could 

be a swing voting grouping on particularly important 

votes. 

I will conclude now, so the Minister has a chance to 

make a contribution—[Interruption.] Well, I want to 

give him at least 13 minutes. I leave him with this 

thought. A GfK NOP poll at the weekend asked people 

whether they wanted Tony Blair to be the EU President. 

Some 25 per cent. said yes, but 54 per cent. said no. If 

the Government intend to take any notice of the slaughter 

inflicted on them in the European elections by the 

people of this country, they should pay some heed to 

those figures and change course. 

12.17 pm 


and Commonwealth Affairs (Chris Bryant): It is a delight 

to sit under your chairmanship, Mr. Martlew. I am 

afraid that I will have to rather rush through things 

because so many different matters have been raised. 

I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and 

Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing the debate. I 

should tell him that I do know who the Welsh MEPs 

are; indeed, I know two of them—Derek Vaughan and 

Jill Evans—personally, although I do not know John 

Bufton and Kay Swinburne. I also happen to know who 

the hon. Gentleman’s MEPs are: Mike Nattrass, Malcolm 

Harbour, Philip Bradbourn, Nikki Sinclaire, Liz Lynne 

and Michael Cashman. 

Mr. Evans: The Minister asked a friend. 

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman suggests that I 

have a better researcher than he does, and he is quite 

right. 

It is good formally to confirm on behalf of those of 

us in the Chamber that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury 

and Atcham is a Polish icon. He is much respected in

235WH 


21 JULY 2009 


236WH 

[Chris Bryant] 

the House—I mean this seriously—for many of the 

issues that he raises and for his relationship with Poland. 

There are not many fluent Polish speakers in the House, 

and I know that the hon. Gentleman also speaks Swedish. 

Hon. Members who come here from many different 

parts of the world with their own family history often 

add something to the way in which we do our business. 

The hon. Gentleman will know that our relationship 

with Poland is a strong and historic one. That is particularly 

true as regards the second world war, but it was also the 

case before. As he will know, we have just opened a new 

embassy in Warsaw at a cost of £35 million, and we are 

very much committed to our strong relationship with 

Poland. Polish and British troops often fight together, 

in places around the world, and there is a strong link. It 

is a delight to see that shopping habits in Britain have 

changed—that there are Polish sausages on our supermarket 

shelves. In 2007, Poland imported £47 million of British 

food—an increase of 54 per cent. I am told that a large 

amount of that is Marmite. 

One thing rather let down the hon. Gentleman’s 

speech. He accused the Labour Government of arrogance, 

but he presumed on the British public on about five 

occasions, talking about when someone would be the 

Minister, and when there would be a Conservative 

Government. That shows the arrogance lying beneath. 

He may not want to own up, but it is a matter of motes 

and beams. 

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of Department 

for International Development aid to north Africa, and 

said that it is wrong that we do not provide aid in the 

way that Italy is providing it to Libya. We do not agree 

with tied aid of that kind. It is inappropriate, and we 

shall lobby throughout the European Union to ensure 

that that does not happen. Likewise, one of the things 

of which I am most proud is that when Labour came to 

power we said we would not tie the aid that we provided 

to other countries to contracts secured by British companies. 

Instead we would tie it to two things, and the first of 

those was good governance; we would not simply put 

money into the pockets of corrupt Governments, even 

though they might represent very poor areas. Secondly, 

we said that we would target our aid at the poorest 

countries in the world. If anything, one of our criticisms 

of other European countries has been that they have 

tended merely to provide aid to countries with which 

they have a historic link. That is inappropriate because 

if we are to meet the millennium development goals we 

must target our money at the poorest countries. 

The hon. Gentleman referred to Iceland and its 

continuing process of trying to join the European Union. 

Obviously, we are delighted that Iceland will submit an 

application for membership. We do not think that it 

should be linked, directly or indirectly, to banking and 

the crisis earlier in the year. The Government are working 

to try to overcome the difficulties that charities and 

individuals have had because of the collapse of Icelandic 

banks. 

Daniel Kawczynski: Will the Minister give way? 

Chris Bryant: I am very hesitant to, because I have a 

very short time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can 

raise things with me after the debate; I have to deal 

with about 20 other things that he has already raised 

with me. 

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of ratification, 

and so did other hon. Members. That is, of course, an 

issue in Germany: in the Bundestag on 26 August there 

will be the First Reading of the changes to the law that 

it believes it needs to proceed with ratification. The 

Second and Third Readings will be on 8 September in 

the Bundestag and on 18 September in the Bundesrat. 

We hope that the Czech Republic and Poland will 

proceed to ratification, notwithstanding the charming 

letter that the hon. Gentleman sent to the Polish President. 

The hon. Gentleman raised the matter of Gibraltar, 

as did the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). I 

do not know whether he is aware that there are trilateral 

meetings today between the Spanish Government, the 

UK Foreign Ministers and Peter Caruana, on behalf of 

Gibraltar. There are several issues, and the process is a 

serious one, which can only redound to the benefit of 

the people of Gibraltar. We are engaging on issues to do 

with financial services and taxation, customs, police 

co-operation, education and so on. The self-determination 

of the people in Gibraltar must obviously be at the 

heart of the trilateral relationship. The British Government 

have no intention of changing that. 

Mr. Francois: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that 

in those meetings Her Majesty’s Government will raise 

the important issue of Spanish vessels making incursions 

into Gibraltar’s territorial waters? 

Chris Bryant: Those issues have already been raised, 

and we shall continue to raise them, as well as environmental 

issues that have come up in the past few months, on 

which we believe the Spanish Government have not 

acted appropriately, and on which we disagree with 

them. We can have disagreements with strong allies. 

The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham raised 

the issue of renegotiation of Britain’s membership of 

the European Union. I want to say to him and the hon. 

Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who is immensely 

charming but always wrong—on these issues anyway—that 

renegotiation can happen only if we persuade all the 

other members of the European Union that they want 

to renegotiate. Talks of bargaining chips, referendums, 

post-ratification referendums and the rest of it are 

cloud cuckoo land unless another single country, to 

start with, and, in the end, all the other countries in the 

EU, can be persuaded that they want to go through the 

process of treaty renegotiation. In my view, the European 

Union has been too obsessed in the past five or 10 years 

with treaties and institutional arrangements and it would 

be better if it were more focused on the real needs of the 

peoples of our countries. That means an appropriate 

level of subsidiarity so that member states can make the 

decisions that are important for them. However, it also 

means that on key areas of co-operation we must all 

bind together. 

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton 

(Mr. Davey) referred to work that was done by the 

former Conservative Foreign Secretary, the right 

hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea 

(Sir Malcolm Rifkind), and he is right that there are 

major areas in which we still have to develop further 

levels of co-operation. In defence areas the basis of that 

would always be unanimity—it would have to mean 

member states taking clear decisions about whether

237WH 


21 JULY 2009 


238WH 

they wanted to take part in military intervention. However, 

there must surely be a greater opportunity for us in 

greater, enhanced co-operation. 

The hon. Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham and 

for Rayleigh raised the issue of Turkey. We are fully 

committed to Turkey’s membership of the European 

Union; it is important. Of course, many issues must be 

resolved. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley referred 

to migration. He is right that one of the focuses of the 

concept of the European Union was the freedom for 

people to live and work where they chose within it. That 

is essential to a free, open and single market. However, 

we must ensure that migration patterns across the European 

Union are not so intense that any one country feels 

overburdened, or, for that matter, over-denuded, with 

respect to the working population. Of course that is 

right. One of the many reasons for our support for a 

very important round of talks in Copenhagen, at which 

we must get a clear resolution on climate change issues, 

is that the danger of climate change, in particular if sea 

levels rise because of the increased temperature of the 

globe, is that because some of the poorest people in the 

world live in the lowest-lying areas, they may be pushed 

into patterns of significant migration. We do not believe 

that that would be sustainable, and that is why we want 

to fight climate change. 

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley raised issues 

about enlargement and Croatia, Serbia, Kosovo and 

Bosnia, and I do not know that I can cover all of those 

now, but I want to return, as the Liberal Democrat 

spokesman thought I might, to the question of the 

Conservative grouping in the European Parliament. Is 

it not fascinating that the Conservatives decided to 

eschew the most important and significant Members of 

the European Parliament, with whom they might have 

had historic associations, in France, Germany, Italy and 

Spain, and decided instead, out of an ideological obsession, 

to work not in the British interest but in that of their 

ideology, and to stitch up a new grouping on the sidelines 

of the European Parliament? Fascinatingly, of course, 

we now know that part of that stitch-up was making 

sure that Mr. Kaminski would be one of the vice-presidents 

of the European Parliament. Unfortunately, so incompetent 

was the negotiation waged by the hon. Member for 

Rayleigh that those involved knew Mr. Kaminski would 

not get anywhere near the vice-presidency; consequently, 

Mr. Edward McMillan-Scott, one of the wisest members 

of the Conservative party, decided he had to stand. He 

secured the vice-presidency, in the British interest, I 

would suggest. That meant greater influence, because 

the vice-presidents play an important role in the way the 

European Parliament does its business. 

There are major issues about Mr. Kaminski. Only 

this weekend, Rabbi Barry Marcus, of the Central 

synagogue in London, condemned the Conservatives’ 

association with Mr. Kaminski, who is now, of course, 

their leader in the European Parliament. They organise 

a new group and cannot even sort out making sure that 

one of their own Members is the leader. What does that 

suggest about what a future Conservative Government 

might get up to? 

Mr. Francois: Will the Minister give way? 

Chris Bryant: No; there are barely seconds left. Rabbi 

Barry Marcus of the Central synagogue— 

Mr. Eric Martlew (in the Chair): Order.

239WH 

21 JULY 2009 Gloucester (Regeneration Funding) 

240WH 

12.30 pm 

Gloucester (Regeneration Funding) 

Mr. Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester) (Lab): Thank you 

for calling me to speak, Mr. Martlew; I was just beginning 

to enjoy the exchanges at the end of the previous 

debate. It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship 

for the last time in this Session, before we all retreat to 

what the newspapers say will be an 82-day holiday. I 

know that it will not be an 82-day holiday for you, 

Mr. Martlew, nor will it be for the Minister or myself. In 

my case, that will be not least because of some of the 

issues that I will outline in the coming minutes. I am 

pleased to say, though, that I will not have to go at this 

debate with as much gusto as I thought I might have to 

a few weeks ago, when I requested it, because some 

good progress has been made since then. I am very 

pleased about that progress and I will talk about it in a 

moment. 

In the past eight years, since I have been the Member 

of Parliament for Gloucester, there has been a very 

good story to tell about regeneration in the city of 

Gloucester. Since I was elected as the MP for Gloucester 

in 2001, we have seen £35 million spent on a new 

Gloucester Royal hospital and about £20 million spent 

on a university campus at Oxstalls in my constituency, 

with the university of Gloucestershire being given university 

status for the first time. In addition, we have seen about 

£20 million spent on creating a state-of-the-art new 

police headquarters in Quedgeley in my constituency. 

As part of the urban regeneration in Gloucester, we 

have seen a £35 million further education college— 

Gloucestershire college—built on the shores of the 

Sharpness canal, which was a project that I was intimately 

involved in. I think that that project has been one of the 

catalysts for the wider regeneration of the Gloucester 

docks. 

Since 2001, we have also had a very good relationship 

with the regional development agency. In the past 

10 years, we have had about £35 million in capital and 

revenue expenditure, which certainly would not have 

happened if we had had a Conservative Government. 

The Conservatives do not believe in RDAs. That sum of 

£35 million has made a huge difference, not only because 

of what one can do with £35 million but because it has 

acted as a stimulus, working alongside an urban 

regeneration company that has been set up in recent 

years to lever in other moneys, not least private sector 

finance, of which we have had about £300 million. In 

total, as a consequence of all that investment, we are 

looking towards a £1 billion regeneration of Gloucester. 

We have had our ups and downs in recent years. At a 

time when the Government are talking about a fiscal 

stimulus, I would urge my right hon. Friend the Minister 

to see what we have done in Gloucester. That is one of 

the biggest ups. The Minister may bring the Secretary 

of State for Communities and Local Government with 

her, by all means. I think he would be delighted to see 

the work that has gone on in Gloucester, in terms of 

keeping jobs in the construction industry, by building a 

£140 million designer outlet centre, with 100 new designer 

outlet shops, in the Gloucester docks. The jobs in that 

centre and those associated with it probably equate to 

about 1,000 jobs in total. 

In May this year, unemployment actually went down 

in the city of Gloucester. It was up again slightly in 

June, but the work that has taken place in and around 

the regeneration area, including a new Sainsbury’s store 

that has opened on the other side of the Sharpness 

canal, has created, as I said, a very significant number 

of jobs. The designer outlet centre was opened, as I am 

sure my right hon. Friend the Minister will know, by 

Gok Wan. She will be very aware of his talents, as I am 

sure you are, Mr. Martlew; I can see that you are 

wearing one of your finer suits today, which I am sure 

that Gok Wan would approve of. 

On the downside, however, we know that RDA budgets 

have been raided by the Government. I understand why 

that has happened. At a time of recession, it is only 

right and proper that Governments want to keep people 

in their homes and want to keep people in work. So we 

have seen tens of millions of pounds taken from RDA 

budgets and used in projects based around housing and 

employment. We in Gloucester have benefited from 

some of those projects too, so I entirely understand why 

that has happened. 

We have been through a process with the South West 

of England Regional Development Agency in which it 

wanted us, with our urban regeneration company, to 

make a pitch for the key projects that we need to keep 

money coming into. Today’s debate is actually the second 

part of a debate that I initiated in Westminster Hall on 

13 May, which was with the Under-Secretary of State 

for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford 

(Claire Ward), who was acting as the Minister then. I 

offer my congratulations to her; she did so well that she 

is now a Minister in her own right. I am sure that the 

Minister for Regional Economic Development and 

Co-ordination, my right hon. Friend the Member for 

Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), who is here today, 

and I will work so well together, not least with officials 

at the central project review group within the Department 

for Business, Innovation and Skills, that it will only 

mean good news for her, and she will be in the Cabinet 

in no time at all after this debate, if the precedent of my 

hon. Friend the Member for Watford is anything to go 

by. 

We made the case in that debate on 13 May and to the 

RDA a few months ago for keeping four key projects 

going, because we know that, especially in the midst of 

a recession, they will make a huge difference. One of 

them, which I will come back to and speak about in 

some detail, is the linkages project, which deals with 

linkages between the Gloucester docks and the conventional 

and well-known town centre of Gloucester, which includes 

the cathedral and the shopping centres. It is also where 

the Four Gates meet; it is the actual town centre. It is 

important to have a strong linkage between those two 

areas—the docks and the town centre—because there 

has always been a fear factor in the town centre, 

understandably, among small and medium-sized businesses 

that we would lose jobs and businesses if we regenerate 

the docks and leave the town centre as it is. Those 

linkages are absolutely crucial and we made a case for 

them. I am pleased to say that the RDA board liked the 

case that we made and approved the linkages project. 

We also made a case for Kings square, a 1960s 

monolith or “carbuncle”, as I think I described it in the 

debate on 13 May. That project was approved and I am 

glad that the Department for Communities and Local

241WH 


21 JULY 2009 


242WH 

Government approved of that too. The same was true 

of a heritage quarter in the town centre, known as 

Blackfriars. It houses the Dominican priory, which I am 

told is the most historic Dominican priory anywhere in 

the country. 

I also made a case for the Four Gates centre in the 

deprived Westgate ward, but I was less successful in that 

respect. The Four Gates centre was important to me 

and to many of my constituents, because I think that 

regeneration should not only be about steel and glass 

but about social regeneration; it needs to be about child 

care, community facilities and health provision. 

Unfortunately, the RDA board did not approve the sum 

that we were looking for—I think it was a sum of about 

£2 million—in that particular case. I am still hopeful 

that that project can go ahead with the support of the 

primary care trust and I will be working with local 

community groups to try to ensure that it does happen. 

So we heard good news from the RDA board. We 

had not thought that we would get absolutely everything 

that we hoped for; we accepted that. We also accept the 

issue around the Four Gates centre and we will try to 

find other ways of funding that project. However, we 

had some bad news when the central policy review 

group of the DCLG did not approve the linkages scheme. 

That scheme was No. 1 on my priority list, as it was on 

the priority list of the urban regeneration company and 

the city council. 

I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister and 

the Secretary of State are concerned about this process, 

because we have talked about it, and I know that other 

Ministers in the DCLG are interested in it, but I am 

really pleased, especially at a time of recession, that my 

right hon. Friend the Minister has got hands-on involved 

with it and engaged her officials with the RDA to take a 

closer look at these linkages. I hope that we are now 

making some good progress. From what I have heard, 

there is a much better level of dialogue between the 

local urban regeneration company, the RDA and the 

Department on getting this money in and doing the 

work. Especially during a recession, we need those 

linkages and to complete the public realm work done 

between the Gloucester docks and the town centre. 

Many businesses—not to mention shopping centres 

such as the Eastgate and Kings Walk shopping centres—and 

the Federation of Small Businesses are lobbying very 

hard for this money, because they think that we will lose 

a lot of jobs. We already have an issue, as do many town 

centres, with boarded-up shops, but that will get much 

worse if we cannot find the resource to do the public 

realm work. 

I understand that part of that work has involved an 

evaluation by the Department of what can be achieved 

over three years. I say to my right hon. Friend and 

departmental officials that, especially during a recession, 

we need to be more flexible and sometimes look at a 

longer period. The public realm work will make a 

difference over a much longer period than three years. 

During a recession, the RDA, which feels very strongly 

about this, thinks that we have to be more flexible. A 

decision approved by its board has never been overturned 

before, and it has made it clear to all of us locally that 

this is an important scheme for it and one that it wishes 

to continue to support. 

I am very confident that, within six weeks, we can 

clear up the detail between the CPRG and the RDA so 

that the former can formulate the detailed criteria and 

tell the latter what else needs to be done locally to secure 

the money. We then need a quick decision. Ministers are 

right when they talk about fiscal stimuli and bringing 

forward funding and projects, and I do not believe for a 

second that they want to be held back by officials. We 

understand the need to go through due process, but if 

we can get through this in six weeks, we can ensure that 

the money is spent, that the work on the ground is done, 

that the construction jobs are in place and that the town 

centre remains confident that the project will make a 

difference, not in isolation in the docks area, but in 

perpetuity in the rest of the town centre. 

This is a very important project for us, and I am 

pleased with the way in which my right hon. Friend has 

engaged her Department since my initial concerns were 

raised. I know that she will not be having an 82-day 

break or anything like that, although I hope that she 

gets away and recharges her batteries over the summer—we 

all need to do that. However, it is really important that 

her officials, the RDA, the urban regeneration company, 

myself and her Department continue to engage on this 

matter. I hope that we can secure a positive solution and 

return, certainly before October but hopefully quite a 

bit earlier, so that we can get on with delivering the 

project and returns and with demonstrating not only 

that we have started a decade-long regeneration project, 

but that we are here for the long term, and that we will 

complete what was started in my constituency by this 

Labour Government, the RDA and the urban regeneration 

company. 

12.43 pm 

The Minister for Regional Economic Development and 

Co-ordination (Ms Rosie Winterton): It is a pleasure to 

serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Martlew. I congratulate 

my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) 

on securing this debate. He has raised this issue before 

in Westminster Hall, and Parliament more widely, and 

has made a number of representations to Ministers in 

the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in 

recent weeks. He has also worked very hard to secure 

regeneration projects in his constituency. 

My hon. Friend set out very clearly some of the 

investment made over the past 12 years to regenerate his 

area. I would certainly like to take up his offer of a visit 

to his constituency. I shall be touring the regions in my 

new role, and it would be a pleasure to return to 

Gloucester. I think that I am looking to visit at the 

beginning of September, so if he is around then, which I 

am sure he will be, perhaps we can find a suitable date. 

I well remember his area, because of the floods. I was a 

Transport Minister at the time of those severe problems 

in his area, and I know that a lot of work was done to 

try to ensure that the Government could provide assistance. 

Gloucester has had more than its fair share of challenges 

over the years, some of which have their root cause in 

the current recession. However, it is also true, in terms 

of regeneration over the past 12 years, that the Government 

have made a deliberate effort to address some of those 

problems. There are prosperous areas in my hon. Friend’s 

constituency, but also areas of quite severe deprivation 

problems. That is why the Government have tried to use 

public investment to ensure that so many of the projects

243WH 


21 JULY 2009 


244WH 

[Ms Rosie Winterton] 

to which he referred lead to increased employment and 

improved services and are effective in regenerating the 

area. 

The current recession has had a major impact on 

Gloucester’s strong economic base, especially in advanced 

engineering and manufacturing. I pay tribute to much 

of the work done—my hon. Friend has been involved in 

it too—in bringing together local partners in the city, to 

develop plans to combat the recession and to look at 

some of the longer-term problems. One of the issues 

that comes to mind is around skills and how, over the 

years, there has been a loss of skilled work in the area. 

Local partners have been considering how to build up 

that skills base, so that when the upturn comes, 

manufacturing and engineering can take advantage of 

the opportunities that come with it. 

Some of the decisions made—for example, on the 

completion of the Gloucester south-west bypass—have 

not only opened up an opportunity for economic 

development and growth but, as my hon. Friend said, 

created a very different environment for the renewal of 

the city centre. I am glad that he paid tribute to the 

work of the RDA, especially its championing of the 

Gloucester Heritage Urban Regeneration Company, 

which has pioneered regeneration investment in the city 

area and the area around the Gloucester docks. About 

£17.7 million has already been invested in bringing 

parts of the area back into productive use. 

My hon. Friend was right to draw our attention to 

the work of the RDAs, and point out that the Conservative 

party would do away with them. Both before and during 

the recession, the RDAs have been one of the delivery 

agents that have made a real difference to people on the 

ground. To imagine that Whitehall and Westminster 

could deliver the type of changes that we have seen 

without organisations such as the RDAs is living in 

fantasy land, so it is important that we invest in them. 

My hon. Friend was right to say that as part of the 

fiscal stimulus in which the Government have been 

involved, we asked the RDAs to accelerate projects that 

could deliver a short-term boost to the economy. Gloucester 

docks was one such project that the South West of 

England Regional Development Agency put forward as 

part of that stimulus. 

In the current economic climate, it is right to ask 

RDAs to use their funds to maximum effect to help 

regional economies. My hon. Friend referred to the 

CPRG, which examines the economic robustness of 

RDA project proposals. If there are questions over 

value for money or any other aspect, it is right that 

officials within my Department work closely with the 

RDAs to examine the issues that have been raised to 

ensure that where a case can be taken forward, we work 

closely together to do so. 

My hon. Friend also referred to a number of issues 

that are perhaps seen as blockages to taking a project 

forward and ensuring that a case is robust. After 

representations from my hon. Friend, I have been making 

inquiries to see that everything possible is being done to 

ensure that officials work closely with the RDA to iron 

out some of the concerns about value for money and 

the robustness of a case. We must do that to ensure that 

public funds are being well targeted. We are always 

anxious to ensure that projects offer value for money so 

that local people can benefit from the best case to secure 

regeneration. 

The South West of England Regional Development 

Agency made an initial submission to the CPRG in 

November 2008. A number of key issues were identified 

as areas that needed further work. A revised business 

case was submitted in June 2009 following interactions 

between my Department’s economists and policy officials 

with the South West of England Regional Development 

Agency. I understand that a site visit also took place to 

understand fully the context and project objectives. 

Currently, the business case is much improved. There 

are still some concerns that more work needs to be 

done, particularly where there are uncertainties about 

costs and benefits. We want to ensure that the appraisal 

fully reflects some of the uncertainties and risks inherent 

in the current property market. 

Mr. Dhanda: If the Minister is to pay a visit in the 

first week of September, it would be terrific to resolve 

the issues before then. If the issues are not resolved and 

a decision still has to be made, may I suggest that she 

brings with her an official or two from the CPRG? In 

that way RDA representatives and urban regeneration 

company representatives can show them the need for 

the work. It is all very well listening to me, but if the 

Minister can see the issues physically it may help to 

make the difference on the day. 

Ms Winterton: That is an extremely good idea, which 

I will take forward. In the meantime, I will make some 

inquiries about the point that my hon. Friend raised on 

the three-year evaluation. Again, that is something that 

we will want to discuss at any future meeting. 

I want to assure my hon. Friend that officials in the 

Department are continuing to liaise with the RDA. We 

hope to be able to take a decision on the matter as 

quickly as we can. I understand that the RDA is itself 

reviewing the appraisal, taking into account some of 

the points that have been raised by the CPRG. I am 

anxious that any appraisals or reviews of projects take 

account of the changed economic circumstances. I need 

to be certain that we are getting good value for money 

and that we have asked RDAs to bring forward projects 

that will provide the fiscal stimulus that we need at the 

moment. Therefore, it is a question of ensuring that 

those two matters are brought together so that we can 

be clear—and I know that my hon. Friend will want to 

see this as the local Member of Parliament—that any 

project in which we invest will provide maximum value 

for local people. This project has been identified as a 

fiscal stimulus project, but before we can take a final 

decision on it, we need to identify and consider carefully 

information on the short-term boost to the economy. 

As I have said, we must get the balance right and ensure 

that we get good value for money and that we achieve 

the fiscal stimulus to the economy that I have talked 

about. 

Once again, I want to congratulate my hon. Friend 

on the way in which he has ensured that the voices of his 

local constituents, the RDA and the urban regeneration 

company are heard in this House. I can assure him that 

Ministers take very seriously the points that he has 

raised, and that I look forward to visiting Gloucester.

245WH 

21 JULY 2009 School Buildings (Alnwick) 

246WH 

School Buildings (Alnwick) 

1pm 

Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): In March 

2004, when he was Chancellor, the Prime Minister 

made an important promise. I heard him say: 

“Our capital investment allocations will ensure for every 

constituency in the country that by 2015 every secondary school 

can be refurbished or rebuilt with world class technology in every 

school and the best state of the art learning support in every 

classroom.” 

He has not forgotten that promise. Indeed, he repeated 

it at the Labour party conference last year when he said 

that 

“over the next decade” 

—that sounds as if the timetable was slipping— 

“we will rebuild or refurbish not some but all secondary schools”. 

I have raised this issue previously in Adjournment 

debates and questions, but today I want to draw the 

Minister’s attention again to the fact that there is no 

sign whatsoever that that rebuilding is happening, or 

will happen, in my constituency. In particular, there is 

no sign that it will happen in Alnwick, where the 

buildings of the Duchess’s community high school are 

in a deplorable state, despite the school’s great achievements 

in the standard of education that it provides. Of the 

other schools in Alnwick, some have serious problems 

with their buildings—Alnwick South first school, in 

particular. I understand that the lease for the Dukes 

middle school has expired, and it is operating on a 

year-to-year basis. 

Let me provide some background. Northumberland 

is the sixth largest county in England, but with 310,000 

people it has one of the smallest populations. Nearly 

half the population live in 3 per cent. of the land area, 

in the urban corner. That distribution of population 

and those small numbers make it a difficult authority in 

which to provide a full range of schools for every part 

of the county. 

For some time, the education authority has been 

seeking to change the basic structure, which is a three-tier 

system with transfer at ages nine and 13. That system 

was originally devised to suit the buildings of the time 

and the post-war secondary modern schools, which in 

most cases formed the middle schools within that system. 

There are sharply divided views about whether that is a 

good or bad system. My experience is that although the 

middle schools worked well, 13 is not a good age for 

transfer to high school, and a number of problems tend 

to flow from that. The county has been looking to 

restructure the system, but that is not really the reason 

why we have problems in replacing the Duchess’s school 

in Alnwick, and the other schools in the town. 

Let me explain the problems in more detail. The main 

site of the Duchess’s high school—which incidentally 

is one of only three secondary schools in my constituency— 

is made up of buildings from the 1950s and 1960s. It is 

on a split site, which I will talk about in more detail in a 

moment. The school was built for 900 pupils but now 

has 1,131. The dining hall seats 200 people, but over 

1,000 have to use it in the space of a lunchtime. The fire 

certificate for the hall gives 300 as the maximum number, 

but that will not even accommodate the entire sixth 

form for an assembly. There are 13 mobile classrooms; 

13 science teachers share eight science labs. The heating 

system is old and inefficient, which adds massively to 

school running costs, particularly when fuel prices go 

up. It would be an expensive system to replace, and that 

might not be a sensible use of money when we are all 

hoping to see the school housed in completely new 

buildings. 

As I said, the school is on a split site, which creates 

enormous problems. Many things, such as caretaking 

and cleaning provision, have to be duplicated. There are 

two boilers, both of which are ancient and in need of 

replacement. Much time is lost by staff and students in 

moving between buildings; pupils lose about an hour a 

week of teaching time in transferring between the two 

sites. There are great difficulties in timetabling across 

the two sites. There are safety problems because students 

have to cross two streets when going between the two 

sites. In bad weather, students who change sites twice a 

day might spend a large part of the day in wet clothing, 

which is not conducive to learning or to maintaining a 

good environment in the school. The Bailiffgate building 

is a four-storey Georgian building built as a domestic 

residence, which is in poor condition. The music rooms, 

one of which is a cupboard, are not soundproofed or 

suitable for teaching. The building is not compliant 

with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—it is a 

profoundly unsatisfactory location in which to be carrying 

out education. 

Land has been identified for a replacement school. 

Within the local community, there is a clear understanding 

that that is where the school needs to be—not just the 

Duchess’s high school, but an education campus that 

accommodates a number of the other schools on the 

same site. There have been discussions with the biggest 

landowner in the town, the Duke’s estate—Northumberland 

Estates—but those have not reached a conclusion or 

brought about an alternative solution to the normal 

ways of solving the problem of replacing a school. 

Ironically, the school’s academic success is a handicap 

to getting its buildings replaced. Teachers and pupils 

achieve remarkable results in an unconducive environment, 

but that success tends to mean that the school does not 

appear in the right column in the figures that are 

necessary to get on the various schemes. 

Ofsted describes the Duchess’s high school and specialist 

college as a 

“good and improving school with outstanding features. Students 

make good progress in their studies, and the care, guidance and 

support they receive is excellent…Personal development is excellent 

and the school has other strengths such as the partnerships with 

parents and links with other schools. There are many examples of 

students making very strong contributions to the community, for 

example through music, drama, and vocational course activities. 

Leadership and management are good. Senior managers are 

steering the school well and capacity to improve is very good. The 

governing body monitors the school’s performance and makes 

sure it continues to move forward. Resources are effectively 

deployed to achieve good value for money. Parents, staff, and 

students are highly concerned about the accommodation and say 

many aspects are no longer fit for purpose.”. 

In the last month or two, the school has been badly 

affected by the loss of teachers who died suddenly—one 

used to teach with my wife and it was a sudden and 

unexpected death. Two former students, both teenagers 

who had recently left school, were killed in separate 

road accidents. That has been a very sad experience for 

the school, and the school’s management team have 

been praised for the way that they have handled that 

difficult situation.

247WH 


21 JULY 2009 


248WH 

[Sir Alan Beith] 

There is enormous community concern about the 

state of the school, and support for new buildings at the 

Greensfield site, which adjoins excellent sports facilities 

alongside the cricket, football and rugby clubs. There is 

a recognised way forward with a site that has been 

identified, and community support. 

So what do we do? There are a number of possible 

schemes through which the school could be taken forward. 

Building Schools for the Future is the centrepiece of the 

Government’s programme for replacing schools. However, 

the Duchess’s high school tends to do badly in that 

programme, as it is predicated on results and the school 

receives good results. That scheme is also predicated on 

deprivation, and although the school sits alongside the 

most deprived area in the Alnwick district, the overall 

catchment area is not deprived enough to rate highly on 

the scales that are used. 

What is the situation with Building Schools for the 

Future? Northumberland county council submitted an 

expression of interest to Partnerships for Schools in 

November 2008. Since then, it has been told that it 

comes 31st in the ranking order for future waves, but 

apparently it has not heard anything further about how 

it should start to engage with the BSF programme. We 

are not even at stage zero of the BSF process, and 

stages zero and one take between two and three years to 

carry out. 

The Duchess’s high school is part of what is 

called a hard federation. The Duchess’s high school, 

Lindisfarne middle school, the Dukes middle school 

and Alnwick South first school have one governing 

body. Theoretically, that should make it easier to move 

to one site, and whether that happens in the existing 

three-tier structure or a reorganised structure, such a 

decision is not an impediment to going ahead. Building 

can proceed on the site whether or not reorganisation 

has been agreed on. 

If we cannot act through Building Schools for the 

Future, what are the alternatives? The national challenge 

programme is similarly restricted, and once again, the 

Alnwick schools do too well academically to qualify. 

What about the academy system? Again, that possibility 

has been explored locally, but when a possible academy 

solution was explored, it turned out that the locality 

was not deprived enough. Although academy schools 

went ahead in the south-east of the county—where they 

were quite controversial, and there was considerable 

opposition to the scheme—that route was also closed 

to us. 

The education authority then considered alternative 

ways to find the capital necessary to carry out the 

rebuilding. Its medium-term capital programme for 2008-09 

to 2011-12 included £33 million for investment in schools 

in Alnwick town. The inclusion of the scheme in the 

capital programme was based on the assumption that it 

could be financed through a combination of land sales 

and county council borrowing, but the current financial 

and economic situation has had a significant impact on 

the scheme. The downturn in the housing and land 

markets means that developers are not acquiring sites, 

which has had a serious effect on the value of the 

county’s asset portfolio. It would not be sensible for the 

county to dispose of land assets when prices are at an 

historic low. At the same time, the council is facing the 

need to make significant revenue savings in the medium 

term, so it is less able to provide revenue funding to 

support significant borrowing in its capital programme. 

That has affected any financing of Alnwick schools 

directly from the county’s programme and land sales. 

The authority has taken no decisions about the future 

structure of Alnwick schools. It has said that it will 

reconsider its reorganisation programme, Putting the 

Learner First, for the Alnwick pyramid, but it will not 

spend money on doing so or raise expectations of 

progress unless it can identify the money for building 

the new school on which any reorganisation would 

depend. Again, however, I insist that that need not be a 

barrier to progress on the building of a new school. 

That can go ahead regardless of the future structure, 

because the age range would be on the same site in 

either form of solution. 

The previous Schools Minister promised that he would 

visit the Duchess’s school, but was unable to meet that 

promise before completing his period in office. He has 

now been moved to other duties. We need a ministerial 

visit, and I am hopeful that the Minister will agree to 

one, so that Ministers can see for themselves how difficult 

the situation is. I am glad that the Minister of State is 

here to reply to this debate. Will she identify how we can 

make progress in securing the implementation of the 

Prime Minister’s promise? The Prime Minister clearly 

believes that every secondary school in the country 

should be rebuilt or refurbished within a period that 

requires a decision to be made now if Alnwick is to fall 

within it. Unless we make a decision soon, we shall 

reach the end of the period that he identified only last 

year without doing so. 

Can either Building Schools for the Future or the 

academy scheme be interpreted so as to accommodate a 

situation that clearly requires action? A school in as 

poor a physical condition as the Duchess’s high school 

cannot be expected to continue in that way, and it 

would be negligent in the extreme if clear plans were 

not made to replace it with a school that serves its 

purpose, is efficient to run and does not involve unnecessary 

maintenance costs, which will mount greatly the longer 

the school stays on its present site. How will that be 

achieved? That is the question that the Minister must 

answer for us. We are running out of time to get an 

answer. 

1.13 pm 

The Minister for Children, Young People and Families 

(Dawn Primarolo): It gives me pleasure to reply to this 

debate on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for 

Schools and Learners. 

I will return to the point about a visit to the constituency 

of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed 

(Sir Alan Beith). I congratulate him on securing this 

debate and on raising this important topic again. I have 

no quibble with him. As he has rightly said, and as I 

know from his speeches in the House, he is absolutely 

committed to ensuring the highest standards for the 

schools in his constituency. The Government share that 

ambition. Like him, we believe that all pupils should 

have access to a truly world-class education in truly 

world-class schools, and I shall return to the points that 

he has raised. As he acknowledged, that is why the 

Government have undertaken an unprecedented

249WH 


21 JULY 2009 


250WH 

programme of investment in our schools through, for 

example, Building Schools for the Future, the biggest 

Government investment in school buildings for five 

decades. As he has said, one of the schools in his 

constituency was built during the previous period. We 

are now trying to catch up after that time of no action. 

Last year, tens of thousands of pupils started term in 

new buildings or new schools. The number of new or 

refurbished schools is at its highest in at least 30 years. 

More than 20 of those schools came through Building 

Schools for the Future. In total, 78 BSF schools are 

now open. Local authorities have reached a financial 

close on a further 35 deals covering BSF projects, and 

contracts have been signed to a value of more than 

£3.5 billion. 

In addition, almost 1,000 secondary schools are 

developing plans for modernisation, with around 115 new 

or remodelled schools anticipated to open in 2009-10 

and 200 in 2011-12. After decades of under-investment 

in school buildings, we are saying to children that their 

learning environment matters and that their future is 

worth investing in. Over the next 15 to 20 years, BSF 

will help to improve the life chances of more than 

3 million young people. I know that the right hon. 

Gentleman recognises that it is not just important to 

make finance available, because it takes time to move 

through every single school and piece of estate in this 

country. 

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Duchess’s 

community high school. It has some temporary classrooms, 

and many of its buildings date back to the ’60s or even 

before. Suitability data for the school show some 

shortcomings, to which he has referred, but they also 

suggest that the classrooms are in fair condition. Maybe 

they are not in the condition to which all of us would 

aspire, but they are certainly in fair condition. Likewise, 

Berwick high school’s buildings are generally in fair to 

good condition, and no significant shortcomings were 

identified in that school through the suitability study. 

Most of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments concerned 

the Duchess’s school, which remains strong, has good 

GCSE results and has successfully introduced post-16 

provision. The school was also a pilot for the extended 

schools programme, which helps place schools at the 

heart of their communities. Again, as he has said, that is 

supported by the local community. 

Although the previous Minister for Schools and Learners 

hoped to visit the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, 

he moved to another post in government before that 

was possible. However, the new Minister for Schools 

and Learners is enthusiastically planning a visit as soon 

as his diary allows. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman 

will want to accompany him, so it will be necessary to 

bring the diaries together. As he has said, the school has 

enormous strengths. Sadly, it will have to draw on those 

over the coming months, because it has recently been 

struck by tragic events. 

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is for the local 

authority to set the priorities for BSF funding in 

Northumberland. The Government cannot and should 

not dictate those priorities from Whitehall. I know that 

he is a passionate supporter of such devolved responsibility. 

Northumberland has revised its expression of interest 

in BSF funding. Bedlingtonshire community high school, 

Ashington high school and St. Benet Biscop Roman 

Catholic high school were prioritised by the local authority 

on the basis of local deprivation and educational 

achievement. 

As with all BSF projects, Northumberland’s first 

priority project has been assessed against social and 

educational need. That is done to prevent the most 

vulnerable children from falling behind their peers, and 

I know that the right hon. Gentleman supports that 

aspiration. Unfortunately, not all schools can benefit at 

the same time. However, I am pleased to say that three 

schools in his constituency—Berwick high school, Coquet 

high school and the Duchess’s school—have been chosen 

to form Northumberland’s next BSF project. He will be 

able to discuss that with those who are responsible 

locally and with the Minister for Schools and Learners 

during his visit. 

There has already been significant capital investment 

in Northumberland’s schools that is not linked to BSF, 

and more is being provided. The county will receive 

more than £65 million in capital grants and supported 

borrowing between the past financial year and 2010-11. 

More than £16 million of that money is being invested 

in the modernisation of school buildings and the primary 

capital programme. A further £23 million will be invested 

in the devolved capital formula, which is allocated to 

schools for investment in their own capital priorities. As 

an unmodernised secondary school, the Duchess’s school 

will receive £18,500 plus £94 per pupil per year. 

The level of per pupil funding in the right hon. 

Gentleman’s constituency should be compared with the 

national average. The latest figures for this year show 

that Northumberland receives £3,850 per pupil, which 

is a significant increase in real terms compared with 

1997, although it is slightly below the national average 

of £4,218. As he has suggested, the main reason for that 

difference is that finance is targeted at areas with more 

disadvantaged pupils or a more sparsely distributed 

population. We must ensure that smaller rural primary 

schools, which are more expensive to run, are supported. 

Northumberland receives £3.3 million through that grant 

allocation. 

Sir Alan Beith: Northumberland has both those problems. 

It has high levels of deprivation, particularly in the 

south-eastern corner, and as sparse a rural distribution 

as is possible over the rest of the county. The funding 

system seems to work in such a way that the county 

qualifies as neither one nor the other. It does not get the 

maximum benefit from the funding formula that it 

would get if it consisted of entirely the one problem or 

the other. I hope that the Minister will address that 

point. 

Dawn Primarolo: I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s 

point. In Northumberland, 9.6 per cent. of the dedicated 

schools grant is for disadvantaged pupils, compared 

with a national average of 12.1 per cent. He has 

acknowledged that the pockets of deprivation in 

Northumberland are fairly small compared with the 

rest of the country. The Government must decide how 

to weight such funding. He may wish to discuss that 

matter with the Minister for Schools and Learners. As 

the Minister with responsibility for children’s centres, I 

find that deprivation is often felt more strongly within 

communities than is demonstrated when compared with

251WH 


21 JULY 2009 

252WH 

[Dawn Primarolo] 

deprivation across the country. Such pressure points 

inevitably emerge when weighted formulas are used. 

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the programme 

date for the next phase of Building Schools for the 

Future. I cannot give the assurances that he seeks this 

afternoon, but the Minister for Schools and Learners 

will discuss those matters with him. I have mentioned 

the capital moneys that are available to the local community, 

and I am sure that he is pressing the local authority on 

further investment in the schools that he has identified. 

The right hon. Gentleman went on to discuss the 

desire for the development of an academy in his 

constituency and said that strong partners are waiting 

in the wings until consideration of such a project comes 

forward. As he knows, the criteria that usually trigger 

academies are the national challenge and being near the 

threshold for poor performance, neither of which exist 

in the schools that he has identified. In one sense, that is 

a matter for celebration, because the schools have good 

achievement. However, I understand his frustration, 

because of the enthusiasm of local parents and partners 

for an academy programme. He will be able to discuss 

that matter in detail with the Minister for Schools and 

Learners during his visit. 

Sir Alan Beith: The Minister has mentioned the decisions 

that the local authority can take. However, the local 

education authority finds that it has to tick the boxes to 

qualify for such programmes. In making decisions about 

the limited capital available to it, it must take account of 

how a viable project can be unlocked. Such projects 

depend on precisely the factors that she has described. 

How can the Prime Minister’s pledge be met in areas 

that do not tick the boxes for academies or Building 

Schools for the Future? 

Dawn Primarolo: The Prime Minister’s pledge is being 

met because the Government are investing. We are 

starting with the schools that need to make the greatest 

progress. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, all decisions 

are accountable locally or nationally and are made 

against clear, transparent criteria. We must all accept 

that we should start with the schools that need the 

greatest investment. None the less, we must not leave 

other schools behind. 

European Court of Justice Judgments 

1.30 pm 

Colin Burgon (Elmet) (Lab): It is good to see you in 

the Chair, Mr. Martlew, and to see that the Minister is 

present. I would like to use our last day before the recess 

to discuss an issue I have raised in the past: the free 

movement of labour and the impact of that policy on 

working people in this country as enshrined in the EU, 

which, as we all know, is dominated by neo-liberal 

ideas. More specifically, I want to look at the economic 

and political infrastructures and the political attitudes 

that allow and promote the free movement of labour 

without proper safeguards for working people in their 

respective countries. 

In particular, I would like to talk about the posted 

workers directive and four European Court of Justice 

rulings that give clear precedence to freedom for big 

business in the EU over fundamental collective and 

trade union rights. I shall discuss the wider impact that 

those rulings can have on ordinary working people and 

will, in effect, argue that the four rulings construct 

serious obstacles to trade unions in exercising their 

right to freedom of association, collective bargaining 

and collective action. 

As a quick preface, before I talk in some depth about 

the ECJ cases, I would like to make it crystal clear that 

my concerns are both for our own workers, who as we 

have seen are having their already low wages held down 

by the status quo, and for migrant workers, whose work 

in this country is often very low paid and is undertaken 

in what can only be described as disgusting conditions. 

In short, I do not want any group of workers to be 

exploited, and I am sure the Minister would agree with 

me on that. 

Everyone talks about the posted workers directive, 

but no one seems to be analysing it. The directive’s 

preamble makes it clear that it was introduced in 

contemplation of 

“the transnational provision of services, prompting a growing 

number of undertakings to post employees abroad temporarily to 

perform work in the territory of a Member State other than the 

State in which they are habitually employed”. 

Effectively, that relates to employers moving workers 

into other countries. In those circumstances, it recognises 

that 

“any such promotion of the transnational provision of services 

requires a climate of fair competition and measures guaranteeing 

respect for the rights of workers”. 

On reading further through the posted workers directive, 

the tone becomes even more positive. The directive’s net 

effect is to protect workers against what we call social 

dumping and a race to the bottom, and the requirement 

that standards should be levelled up rather than levelled 

down. Unfortunately, the unelected, unaccountable, 

unreformable European Court of Justice chose to interpret 

the directive in a different way and, in its view, the PWD 

provisions had a maximum rather than a minimum 

standard. So, once again, neo-liberal ideas have permeated 

the very institutions of the EU. 

The posted workers directive has become a politically 

volatile issue following the well-publicised disputes at 

the Lindsey oil refinery and other such sites. The directive 

does not necessarily apply to all terms of employment, 

but it does apply to the area of pay. Any employer

253WH 


21 JULY 2009 

European Court of Justice Judgments 254WH 

posting or, let us get the language straight, sending—as 

someone would post a letter, they would post a worker— 

workers to the UK must observe at the very least the 

national minimum wage, although many of us argue 

that that falls some way short of a living wage, let alone 

the established collectively bargained wage that might 

be applicable in any particular sector of the labour 

market. 

It is worth looking at the Lindsey dispute for two 

reasons: first, we will see more actions of that kind in 

the future and, secondly, much nonsense was talked 

about the dispute by many in my own party, who could 

not face up to the real issues involved and who retreated 

behind cheap and inaccurate descriptions of the workers 

being motivated solely by xenophobia. In late January/early 

February 2009, construction workers walked out in 

protest at the use of posted workers by the Italian 

company IREM, which was a subcontractor to a UK 

company that, in turn, had a broader subcontract to a 

US company that was the holder of the original primary 

construction contract. 

Workers on that site rightly expected that those working 

there would be paid in accordance with the national 

agreement for the engineering construction industry. 

The unions were concerned that although the posted 

workers were being paid the minimum wage, it was 

below the terms of the national agreement. That is an 

important point, and is absolutely central to this issue. 

Such a situation gave the Italian company an unfair 

advantage and also undermined the national agreements 

in place in that workplace. The concern of the union 

related to hours of work, travel allowances, auditing of 

wages and the wage levels themselves. We all know that 

ACAS was brought in and that a muffled silence ensued. 

There was confusion among all parties. However, it is 

worth noting that ACAS was unable to establish in fact 

what rates were being paid to the posted workers. 

The problem of the PWD arises where there are 

convoluted clauses that allow varying interpretations of 

whether collective agreements are declared universally 

applicable. In the United Kingdom’s case, there is no 

system for declaring that collective agreements are 

universally applicable. That is something we should be 

looking at. However, it is an option for member states, 

such as the United Kingdom, to base themselves either 

on collective agreements that are generally applicable to 

all similar undertakings in a geographical area or an 

industry concerned, or on agreements that have been 

concluded by the most representative employers’ 

organisations and trade unions at national level. It is 

therefore clear that nation states can act to protect their 

work force from that undermining of their terms and 

conditions. However, the UK Government have not 

done so. 

Professor Keith Ewing, an esteemed expert on such 

matters, recently stated: 

“The British government has not taken the power in legislation 

to use collective agreements for this purpose, even where appropriate 

agreements do exist”. 

So in reality, in terms we can all understand, the national 

minimum wage, which, as we know, is itself very difficult 

to enforce and is well below a living wage rate, remains 

the only binding reference point for companies posting— 

sending—workers to Britain. So the protection and 

support that could ultimately be offered to workers is 

not being given by the Government. 

The negative interpretations of the PWD are made 

even worse by the four European Court of Justice 

rulings that I have referred to and will now look at. 

Generally, those rulings sanction social dumping—in 

other words, temporary or transitory movements of 

labour whereby employers use workers from one country 

and send them to another country where labour costs 

are usually more expensive. Doing so undercuts those 

costs, thus saving money and increasing profits, but it 

also undermines collective agreements and prevents 

trade unions from taking industrial action to protect 

their members’ terms and conditions. Any politician 

worth his salt would also recognise that such a situation 

creates a toxic mix of racial tensions, as we have seen in 

this country. 

Although unions are restricted, businesses are free to 

restructure and create a cross-border element, so that 

they can take advantage of freedom for them to move 

goods and services, capital and even workers in the EU. 

I would like to consider the Viking judgment—I am 

sure you will know about that, Mr. Martlew, but I will 

go over the facts again. That Finnish company wanted 

to re-flag its ship and replace its Finnish crew with an 

Estonian crew, which was, surprisingly, on much lower 

wages. The Finnish Seamen’s Union threatened industrial 

action in protest at that, so the company went to the 

European Court of Justice. The court decided that it 

can review whether industrial action is justifiable and, 

in that specific case, it determined that industrial action 

was not proportionate. Of course, that brings serious 

uncertainty into what view a court might take of the 

merits or otherwise of industrial action. 

That ruling is a crushing blow to trade unions, in that 

it holds that the right of business to the freedom of 

establishment and the freedom to operate must take 

priority over the right of trade unions to take industrial 

action to safeguard the interests of their members. It is 

an explosive judgment. It has also raised the prospect of 

employers being able to claim for unlimited damages 

against a union even where industrial action is legal 

under its own domestic law. To those who know labour 

history, that is the European equivalent of the Taff Vale 

judgment. 

One week after the Viking case, we got the Laval 

judgment, which effectively ruled that trade unions 

could not take industrial action to compel a Latvian 

company operating in Sweden to observe the terms and 

conditions of collective agreements in Sweden. Laval 

involved a Latvian company that posted, or sent, workers 

into Sweden on Latvian terms and conditions, seriously 

undercutting Swedish collectively bargained terms and 

conditions. The Swedish unions responded by taking 

industrial action that was lawful under Swedish law. 

Laval claimed, through the ECJ, that the unions’ 

arrangement of a boycott of supplies to the Vaxholm 

school site restricted their freedom of business. The 

Court took the view that where the posted workers 

directive applies, it is unlawful for unions to organise 

industrial action to agitate for terms and conditions 

above the legal minimum available in that country. 

The Ruffert ruling—I hope that I am pronouncing it 

right, Mr. Martlew; I will take your guidance on that— 

concerned a public contract for building a prison, which 

was awarded to a German company and then subcontracted 

to a Polish company. The tender required that the 

relevant companies, including any companies that were

255WH 


21 JULY 2009 


[Colin Burgon] 

subcontracted to do the work, should pay the rates in 

the collective agreements for that region on building 

and public works contracts. The Polish company was 

paying a lower rate and was fined for doing so. The 

posted workers directive states that minimum rates may 

be set by collective agreements that are either universally 

applicable, or that apply to the whole sector or region. 

However, the ECJ found that the collective agreement 

in this case did not meet either of those criteria, and 

that the directive therefore prevents public contracts 

from requiring compliance with collective agreements 

of that kind. In reaching that judgment, the Court 

interpreted the directive extremely narrowly and ignored 

the procurement directive, which allows for social clauses. 

The Luxembourg case demonstrates another measure 

that could have only a negative effect on working people. 

The European Commission took Luxembourg to court 

for making its own domestic legislation applicable to 

workers from other member states who were posted 

there. Nearly 40 per cent. of workers in Luxembourg 

come from outside the country, but the ECJ ruled in 

favour of the Commission, and decided that Luxembourg 

had gone too far in implementing the posted workers 

directive in relation to requirements for maximum work 

periods and minimum rest periods. Luxembourg must 

now change its law to enable the use of foreign workers 

to undermine the conditions of indigenous workers. 

People might be forgiven for thinking that those four 

cases are detached from or peripheral to us in the UK, 

but they are not. Those decisions send a clear, green, 

empowering signal to employers to resist any compulsion 

to comply with any undertakings other than those 

relating to the base minimum wage. However, as a story 

about fruit pickers in last week’s Independent showed, 

even compliance with the minimum wage is undercut by 

large suppliers to the major supermarkets. In essence, 

this discussion is about the direction of travel and what 

our Government are prepared to do to protect some of 

the most vulnerable workers in our labour markets from 

exploitation and from the systematic low pay that the 

machinations I have talked about not only allow but 

positively encourage. It can be only a matter of time 

before large employers that post EU workers in the UK 

attempt to undercut and freeze the lowest possible wage 

it is legal to pay to British and migrant working people. 

Too much of what comes out of such rulings allow that 

to happen. 

The Labour Government, who, to the howls of big 

business and the Conservative party, gave us the national 

minimum wage as a means of protecting low-paid workers, 

must reconsider this issue. The ever-changing, flexible 

labour markets with which some people are so enamoured 

leave working people vulnerable to exploitation and low 

pay, so we have to consider what continuing measures 

we can and must take to offer protection to the people 

who need us most—those whom we used to describe as 

our core vote. We must look at the EU and its myriad 

legislative mechanisms, and check constantly that they 

are consistent with our values of social justice and 

rights for workers—at least, I hope we have those values. 

I know that the Minister wants to spring into the 

debate and answer some of the questions I am throwing 

up, so I shall put some specific questions to him. First, 

will he make the bold and responsible move of considering 

an urgent change in domestic law to guarantee that the 

posted workers directive is implemented to the fullest 

extent possible in order to require the minimum wage 

payable by contractors to be higher than the minimum 

set down under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998? 

I am told that that could be done easily by requiring 

posting employers—to use the correct legislative 

terminology, or bosses who send workers to this country—to 

comply with wage agreements set by appropriate collective 

agreements that apply to particular sectors in given 

geographical areas. The Minister will be aware, because 

he will have done his research, that I asked the Prime 

Minister about precisely this point on 4 February 2009, 

when I asked what measures were being taken to 

improve the posted workers directive. The Prime Minister 

said that some work was being done, but I have not been 

updated about it since; perhaps the Minister can 

update me. 

Secondly, does the Minister agree that in relation to 

the posted workers directive, we should introduce a 

system of declaring collective agreements as universally 

applicable? Thirdly, is he supportive of the European 

TUC’s draft social protocol as a way of moving forward 

on protecting working people? 

Fourthly, the Minister will be aware that the Government 

will submit to the International Labour Organisation, 

by 1 September, their report on ILO conventions 87 and 

98. Will they express concern that the ECJ rulings mean 

that it sees trade unions as regulatory bodies that are 

equivalent to an arm of state, which is in direct contradiction 

to the underlying purposes of the freedom of association? 

Will they also say that the right of trade unions to take 

industrial action is being subordinated to overriding 

commercial interests so that the trade unions will always 

have to be justified as permitted restrictions to those 

freedoms? What will they say in their report to the ILO 

about compliance with ILO conventions 87 and 98 by 

reference to the impact of the four ECJ judgments on 

the UK? If the Minister is not in a position to respond 

to those points today, I am sure he will write to me. 

Let me draw my remarks to a close and allow the 

Minister to respond. The ECJ decisions come at time 

that is crucial to the European unification process. We 

have increased economic integration together with reduced 

social protection; that is a highly explosive combination. 

Radical steps have to be taken by those who support the 

European project. The support of European citizens 

and workers will be secured only if the fundamental 

importance of social progress is at the forefront of all 

policies. Working people want a social Europe, and they 

will reject a market Europe. 

1.48 pm 

The Minister for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr. Pat 

McFadden): It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr. Martlew. 

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin 

Burgon), I, too, welcome you. I should also like to 

express my gratitude to him for securing this debate, 

because the European Court of Justice rulings that he 

has discussed have generated much discussion in recent 

months. I am glad to take the opportunity to set out the 

position and perhaps even to shed a little light on what 

can be a complicated area of legislation. 

As my hon. Friend said, the underlying context for 

the Court’s judgments is the posted workers directive, 

which came into force some 10 years ago. It operates

257WH 


21 JULY 2009 


throughout the EU and allows companies to post their 

workers to another member state on a temporary basis 

in any sector of the economy. Its intention was to 

protect the posted worker and to ensure that he or she 

had access to at least the minimum conditions applying 

in the host country, rather than carrying what may be 

significantly poorer employment rights and standards 

from the country of origin. 

The directive clearly states that companies must abide 

by the minimum worker protections in the host country, 

whether defined by national law or a universally applicable 

collective agreement. In the UK, that means that people 

are entitled to a range of universal protections that this 

Government have worked to develop: the national minimum 

wage, default limits on working hours, annual holidays, 

health and safety legislation and equality legislation. 

My hon. Friend went through the judgments in some 

detail. I hope that I will not be too repetitive if I touch 

on several of them. As he said, the Viking case related 

to a Finnish operator that wanted to register its vessel 

to sail under the Estonian flag. The Finnish unions 

opposed that because the Estonian-Finnish crew would 

not need to be covered by the provisions of the Finnish 

collective agreement, and Viking sought an injunction 

against the unions’ action. The Court ruled that the 

right to strike is a fundamental one, as recognised by the 

charter of fundamental rights, and that exercising the 

right can, as a matter of principle, legitimately interfere 

with single-market principles. But it also concluded 

that, in this instance, the extent of such interference 

went beyond what could be considered appropriate or 

proportionate. 

As my hon. Friend said, the Laval ruling relates to a 

Latvian company that won a contract to refurbish a 

school. The company declined to sign the Swedish 

collective agreement, and the Swedish trade unions 

blockaded the school site. Laval’s application to the 

Swedish court was referred to the ECJ, which reaffirmed 

its conclusion that the right to strike was a fundamental 

one but also concluded that, in this instance, the unions 

could not insist on Laval’s participating in or being 

bound by the Swedish collective agreement because it 

had not been declared as being of universal application. 

My hon. Friend referred to that in his speech. 

The Ruffert case was not so much about the right to 

strike as about the application of collective agreements. 

In that case, the Court found in favour of the company, 

again on the grounds that the collective agreement was 

not of universal application because it applied only to 

public sector contracts and only in one part of Germany. 

All those cases deal with the balance that the directive 

seeks to strike between the freedom to provide services 

and the protection of workers’ rights. The issue then is 

the real interpretation of the judgments, and how we 

should respond. Many trade unions, parts of the European 

Parliament and my hon. Friend have expressed concern 

about the rulings. The contention is that they have 

altered the balance of industrial relations, tipping it 

away from the right to strike and towards the freedom 

to provide services. As a result, some people have called 

for a review of the directive and demanded that the EU 

look again at the balance between workers’ protection 

and the freedom to provide services. 

Demands around the directive have also been fuelled 

by the recession, in which job competition is inevitably 

much tougher than during better times. Such issues of 

course become more urgent when people are losing 

their jobs. We saw some of the effects of that in the 

industrial unrest earlier this year, to which my hon. 

Friend referred, which took place after the loss of 

several thousand jobs in the construction engineering 

sector. 

I do not want to get too side-tracked by those disputes, 

but the contention was that the Italian posted workers 

were being paid less than the UK workers. The Government 

asked ACAS to step in. We wanted to try to get to the 

bottom of the matter, and to use the good offices of 

ACAS to help resolve a situation that involved a heated 

industrial dispute. I quote from ACAS’s conclusions: 

“Acas’ inquiry has found no evidence that Total”— 

the principal employer on the site— 

“Jacobs Engineering”— 

the principal subcontractor— 

“or IREM”— 

the Italian company— 

“have broken the law in relation to the use of posted workers or 

entered into unlawful recruitment practices. We have also received 

assurances from management that they will abide by NAECI 

agreement”— 

which is the collective agreement governing workers in 

the construction engineering industry. What was contested 

was whether the collective agreement had been broken 

in the circumstances, and ACAS found that it had not 

been. 

The judgments have given rise to concerns, as I said, 

particularly among trade unions. Through significant 

improvements to the position of people at work, we 

have over the years enhanced the protection to which 

posted workers in the UK are entitled. They are entitled 

to the protections in legislation on the national minimum 

wage, working hours, health and safety and so on. 

Colin Burgon: I am conscious of the time, and I do 

not want to go over ground that has already been 

covered. I asked the Minister several specific questions 

to which, given the time, he obviously will not be able to 

respond verbally. Could I have his assurance that he will 

come back to me with written replies to the questions 

that I put to him? 

Mr. McFadden: I am, of course, happy to write to my 

hon. Friend. The principal question that he asked, in 

several ways, was whether the Government would declare 

collective agreements universally applicable. The issue is 

important, because the existence of such a system will 

affect whether the rulings have a particular effect in 

individual countries. 

We do not have a tradition of universally applicable 

collective agreements. The tradition supported up until 

now by trade unions has been for a voluntarist approach 

on collective agreements, which means that they are not 

applicable to those who do not sign them. I counsel 

some caution in this debate on posted workers, because 

that would be true of contractors from another country 

and also contractors from within the UK. 

Therefore, I am glad that my hon. Friend said that he 

did not want this to be a debate about migrant workers. 

The interpretation of our collective bargaining law is

259WH 


21 JULY 2009 


[Mr. McFadden] 

not concerned with migrant workers but with the parties 

to individual agreements. I hope that gives him some 

guidance on the issue. 

What else has happened in Europe on this matter? I 

was present at the Employment and Social Affairs 

Council—my hon. Friend referred to his question on 

this to the Prime Minister some months ago—at which 

the UK Government supported the Commission’s proposal 

to establish a high-level expert group to look at the 

operation of the posted workers directive. The group 

has been established and has begun to meet—I believe 

that it has met twice—and research has been commissioned 

into the operation of the directive. At the same meeting, 

we also supported the suggestion that social partners at 

a European level should enter into dialogue on the 

effect of the Court’s judgments that my hon. Friend 

outlined in his speech. Again, I believe that a couple of 

meetings have taken place. We have supported dialogue 

at the European level on both those fronts. 

What we want to see going forward is, of course, 

workers being treated fairly in the workplace, but we 

also want to keep the open, outward-looking trading 

stance that has benefited the UK and workers in the 

UK. There are more British posted workers abroad 

than there are posted workers in Britain, according to 

information from the EU. In conclusion, we absolutely 

want fairness at work, but we also want openness 

in trade and the free movement of people that has 

benefited our economy and many other countries’ 

economies, too. 

2pm 

Sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order 

No. 10(11)).

111WS 

Written Ministerial Statements 

21 JULY 2009 


112WS 

Written Ministerial 

Statements 


BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS 

Learning and Skills Council for England 

The Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships 

and Consumer Affairs (Kevin Brennan): I would inform 

the House that the Learning and Skills Council for 

England has today published its annual report and 

accounts for the period to 31 March 2009. Copies will 

be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. 

TREASURY 

Banking Act 2009 

The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Sarah 

McCarthy-Fry): The Government are today publishing 

two consultation documents on implementation of aspects 

of the Banking Act 2009, as part of their programme to 

protect depositors and maintain financial stability. 

The Banking Act established a permanent special 

resolution regime (SRR) to provide the authorities with 

the tools to deal with banks and building societies that 

fail. Many of the detailed provisions are set out in 

statutory instruments, and the Government have committed 

to consulting on a number of these. The consultation 

documents that have been published today are: 

Consultation on the Building Societies (Insolvency and Special 

Administration) Order 2009 and related insolvency rules, and 

on financial assistance to building societies; and 

Consultation on the FSMA 2000 (Contribution to Costs of 

Special Resolution Regime) Regulations 2009. 

Some of the secondary legislation included in these 

two documents has already been made on an urgent 

basis to enable the effective resolution of the Dunfermline 

Building Society. For these statutory instruments, the 

Government will consider whether to bring forward 

amending instruments in the light of consultation responses. 

The other instruments will be revised as appropriate in 

the light of consultation responses before being made. 

The first document, “Consultation on the Building 

Societies (Insolvency and Special Administration) Order 

2009 and related insolvency rules, and on financial 

assistance to building societies”, sets out detailed proposals 

for supporting building societies and protecting their 

customers in the event of failure. 

The first part of the consultation concerns applying 

the bank insolvency procedure and the bank administration 

procedure to building societies UK-wide. The bank 

insolvency procedure is designed to ensure that in the 

event of a bank failure depositors eligible for compensation 

under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme 

(FSCS) receive their payments quickly, or have their 

accounts transferred to another institution, and that 

the affairs of the failed institution are wound up in the 

interests of creditors as a whole. The bank administration 

procedure is designed to support a partial transfer, 

which is an important tool available to the authorities 

under the SRR to enable them to split up a failing bank 

by transferring part of its property to a commercial 

purchaser or a Bank of England-controlled bridge bank. 

Applying these procedures to building societies will 

ensure that building societies, their members and creditors 

are treated in the appropriate way corresponding to the 

treatment of banks, their depositors and other creditors 

in the event of insolvency or administration. 

The second aspect of the consultation deals with the 

provision of financial assistance to building societies. 

Section 9B of the Building Societies Act prohibits building 

societies from creating floating charges on the whole or 

part of their undertaking or property. This may make it 

difficult for societies to offer appropriate security to the 

Bank of England, or any other provider of necessary 

financial assistance. An interim measure, made under 

the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008, enables societies 

to grant floating charges to the Bank of England in 

connection with the provision of financial assistance. 

The Government are now consulting on legislation to 

replace this interim measure and on a further measure 

that would make it easier for building societies to convert 

financial assistance given in the form of Treasury bills 

or other securities into cash. 

The second document is entitled “Consultation on 

the FSMA 2000 (Contribution to Costs of Special 

Resolution Regime) Regulations 2009”. A principle of 

the SRR is that the FSCS should contribute to the costs 

of the operation of the SRR. This contribution is 

capped at the amount of compensation the FSCS would 

have paid, less the recoveries it would have made if the 

institution were in default and the FSCS were engaged 

in the normal way under FSMA. The regulations were 

made on 29 March 2009 in order to enable the Treasury 

to require the FSCS to make payments in connection 

with the resolution of the Dunfermline Building Society. 

The consultation document seeks views on the regulations. 

Debt Relief for Poor Countries 

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ian Pearson): 

The Government remain determined to lead global 

efforts to tackle poverty in the world’s poorest countries. 

As part of that, they are fully committed to delivering 

on their international debt relief commitments to ensure 

the poorest countries are not faced with an unsustainable 

debt burden. 

To support these efforts, I am today publishing a 

consultation on legislation designed to tackle creditor 

non-participation in the “Heavily Indebted Poor Countries 

Initiative”. By opting out of international debt relief 

efforts, and pursuing the full value of claims through 

the courts, this minority of private creditors can negate 

the benefits of debt relief. This is at the expense of poor 

countries and British taxpayers. The proposed legislation 

would limit the scope for creditors to recover their debts 

above a set level, unless the courts consider it just and 

equitable for them to do otherwise. 

Copies of the consultation have been deposited in the 

Libraries of both Houses.

113WS 


21 JULY 2009 


114WS 

Anti-Avoidance: Capital Allowances 

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen 

Timms): The Government are taking action today to 

counter tax avoidance schemes involving capital allowances 

on plant or machinery. Legislation will be introduced in 

the 2010 Finance Bill, to prevent tax avoidance through 

the transfer of an entitlement to benefit from capital 

allowances on plant or machinery, used for the purpose 

of a trade, where the tax written down value of the 

plant or machinery exceeds its balance sheet value 

(“latent capital allowances”). 

The proposed legislation will apply where there is a 

change of ownership of a company as part of arrangements, 

one of the main purposes of which, is to transfer to the 

purchasing group an entitlement to benefit from the 

latent capital allowances available to the company which 

is purchased. 

The proposed legislation will also apply where there 

is a change in ownership or profit-shares of a consortium 

company, or partnership involving companies, as part 

of arrangements where one of the main purposes is to 

transfer the entitlement to benefit from the latent capital 

allowances. Draft legislation, which will take effect from 

today, 21 July 2009, will be published as soon as practicable. 

A technical note explaining the material that will be 

contained in Finance Bill 2010 will be published on 

HMRC’s website today. 

Copies of today’s HMRC technical note have been 

deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and are accessible 

on the HMRC website at: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk. 


The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Liam Byrne): 

I can today provide an update to the House on the 

continuing progress of Sir John Chadwick’s work in 

relation to Equitable Life. 

On 16 June 2009, Sir John Chadwick issued a document 

that set out his proposed approach and issues to be 

addressed, alongside announcing his formal appointment 

of Towers Perrin as actuarial advisers and establishing a 

website, through which interested parties can keep informed 

of his work as it progresses and make representations 

to his Office. 

The document intended to give interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on Sir John’s proposed approach 

and Sir John requested that comments be returned in 

written form to his Office by 17 July 2009. I am pleased 

therefore to inform the House that Sir John has received 

a range of representations on his proposals, including 

from Equitable Life and an Equitable Life members 

group, a range of policyholders, and the Government. 

Sir John is in talks with these interested parties and he is 

now reviewing all representations with a view to identifying 

the next stages of his work. 

Running concurrently with this work I can also 

inform the House that Towers Perrin, the appointed 

actuaries to Sir John, have already begun to thoroughly 

review and analyse the many hundreds of thousands of 

extensive policyholder records that have been provided 

by Equitable Life. 

Sir John intends to publish a further document in 

August. This interim report will contain a definitive 

statement of his approach for determining relative losses 

and a definitive list of the specific issues he will address. 

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

Local Democratic Renewal 

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local 

Government (Mr. John Denham): I am today announcing 

a consultation on local democratic renewal. This follows 

the commitment set out in “Building Britain’s Future” 

to explore ways of increasing both the powers and the 

accountability of councils and city regions. Local democratic 

renewal forms a major part of the Government’s proposals 

for constitutional reform, alongside other strands for 

debate including reforming the House of Lords; considering 

a written constitution; reviewing the electoral system; 

and increasing public engagement in politics. 

The founding principle of local government is that 

citizens have the right to influence the decisions that 

affect their lives and their communities. A key way in 

which local citizens are able to exercise that right is their 

ability to elect a strong local council which can lead and 

shape their area. That is why the role of councillors and 

councils, with their unique democratic mandate, is critical 

to making sure that local services are responsive to the 

needs of their local communities. Citizens have a right 

to have their voices heard, and to expect those delivering 

services to care what they think. 

Citizens rightly expect that councils should be the 

centre of local decision making, and the one place that 

they can go in order to influence and challenge what 

local services are doing. In order to do this, councils 

must be fully equipped to act on behalf of local residents, 

with the powers to scrutinise and shape local public 

services, and respond to local need. 

There is a large and untapped pool of people who 

would like more say in what happens in their area, and 

it is right that both central and local government do 

more to give them greater direct control over the decisions 

that affect their lives and their community. But we must 

also recognise that in today’s time-poor society, citizens 

have only limited time to give. 

There are other imperatives driving the need for 

stronger local government. First, it is to increase democratic 

accountability, since councils, uniquely among local 

services, have a direct democratic mandate from residents. 

Secondly, it is a way of promoting greater value for 

money. Local government has already saved £4.5 billion 

through efficiency measures since 2004. By giving them 

greater powers to oversee and co-ordinate all the money 

coming into their area, they will better be able to drive 

change and improvement, cutting out duplication and 

waste. Thirdly, councils have a vital role to play in 

promoting economic development. They are best placed 

to bring together partners from across their area to 

support residents and prepare for future prosperity. 

And finally, delivering personalised services. As the 

drive continues to deliver personalised services and 

enforceable entitlements it will become ever more important 

to ensure that local services are delivered flexibly and in 

response to local needs.

115WS 


21 JULY 2009 


116WS 

Recent reform has gone some way to giving councils 

the powers they need to play this stronger role. The 

three year financial settlement means that councils have 

much greater certainty to plan ahead. They have powers 

to promote the economic, social, and environmental 

wellbeing of their area. And they have powers of scrutiny 

to challenge and hold to account some of those who 

provide public services and serve their local communities. 

This consultation sets out proposals to radically reform 

and strengthen local government so that it is even more 

able to take on a new role in serving residents by 

strengthening public service delivery. 

It contains proposals to: 

Put local authorities at the centre of local decision 

making. Our aspiration is that they should be the one 

place where citizens, through their councillors, can hold 

local services to account. This would mean that when 

citizens go to vote, they are electing someone who can 

act on their behalf in relation to every aspect of public 

spending in their area. We propose to achieve this by 

enhancing local authorities’ power to scrutinise other 

bodies, and extending the range of bodies that these 

powers can be applied to. This builds on the concept of 

the total place initiative, which gives councils a unique 

role in scrutinising all the money that comes into their 

area. 

Strengthen local government’s ability to act in the local 

interest. We ask whether councils have the powers that 

they need to respond effectively to local challenges, or 

whether there are barriers which prevent them using the 

powers they already have. This will be essential to 

enable local authorities to deliver the minimum entitlements 

set out in Building Britain’s Future. We also set out our 

response to the recent LAML judgement: proposing to 

introduce a specific power enabling councils to engage 

in mutual insurance and exploring what other arrangements 

councils may want to engage in but which may fall 

beyond the existing power to promote well being. We 

also ask whether more could be done to do further 

reduce the burden of inspection and clarify when and 

where central Government should intervene in local 

government. 

Strengthen local authorities’ ability to tackle climate 

change. We propose to give councils more direct 

responsibility for fighting climate change, perhaps through 

introducing local carbon budgets. 

Support sub-regional working. We set out a range of 

options to make sure that the greater powers being 

devolved to city-regions and other sub-regional partnerships 

are matched by greater transparency and accountability 

for local residents. 

Achieve a clearer relationship between central and 

local government. We set out the principles in which 

central and local government broadly operate and ask 

whether these should be more formally articulated, in 

order to give citizens greater clarity and certainty about 

our respective roles and functions. We also explore 

the possibilities for overseeing these more formal 

arrangements—potentially through an ombudsman or 

a joint select committee, subject to the outcomes of the 

consultation and the views of Parliament. 

The consultation seeks views on these proposals and 

will run from 21 July until 2 October 2009. Copies of 

the consultation document have been placed in the 

Library of both Houses. 

Reform of Council Housing Finance 

The Minister for Housing (John Healey): On 30 June I 

announced my intention to publish a consultation document 

on reform of council housing finance before the summer 

recess. I said that this would contain proposals to 

dismantle the housing revenue account subsidy system 

and replace it with a devolved system of responsibility 

and funding which would devolve control from central 

to local government and increase local responsibility 

and accountability. 

I am publishing the consultation document “Reform 

of Council Housing Finance” today. I am placing copies 

of this in the Library of the House. The document can 

also be downloaded from the consultations section of 

my Department’s website at: www.communities.gov.uk 

and I am seeking responses by 27 October 2009. 

A fully self-financing locally devolved system cannot 

be implemented in a single step, but I want to move as 

rapidly as possible to put these reforms in place. I will 

work with all those with an interest in improving council 

housing to deliver this major devolution of responsibility 

and accountability. 

Business Growth Incentives Scheme 


Co-ordination (Ms Rosie Winterton): I am today announcing 

the publication of the Government’s response to our 

public consultation on “Reforming the Local Authority 

Business Growth Incentives Scheme”, which sets out 

that we will distribute a total of £100 million to local 

authorities in 2009-10 and 2010-11. 

The Government launched the consultation on 

25 August 2008 and invited comments to help refine 

their thinking before a new scheme was introduced 

for 2009-10 and 2010-11. The consultation closed on 

20 November 2008. 

Given the broad support the Government’s proposals 

have received, the revised scheme will largely be as 

proposed in the consultation, although with two significant 

changes made in response to the representations we 

received. 

(a) Instead of the mapping of local authorities into 28 sub-regions 

plus London as originally proposed for the purposes of the 

scheme, we have decided to recognise 55 smaller sub-regions 

including London. We believe this will go a long way towards 

reflecting local views about the economic relationships that 

actually exist; 

(b) Instead of the proposed split of rewards between district 

councils and county councils in two tier areas (which would 

have favoured the upper tier), we have decided to divide 

rewards equally between them. 

The decision on sub-regional mapping follows further 

consultation, in February 2009, further to which we 

invited all local authorities, including those that did not 

respond to the consultation, to enter into discussions 

with nearby authorities in an effort to reach a local 

consensus about the sub-regional mapping they wished 

the Government to consider. 

In the consultation responses, the balance of opinion 

was that we should publish a provisional list of sub-regions 

for comment first rather than proceed directly to publish 

a final list, which we have done at annex A of our 

consultation response.

117WS 


21 JULY 2009 


118WS 

Here we are also setting out the proposed allocation 

of the £50 million available in 2009-10. 

A period of two weeks will now be available to 

authorities to make any final representations on both 

the provisional list of sub-regions and on the provisional 

allocations for 2009-10, before those allocations are 

made. 

The Government’s response to the consultation, along 

with the provisional list of sub-regions and provisional 

allocations for 2009-10, is available on the Communities 

and Local Government website at: http://www.communities. 

gov.uk/localgovernment/localgovernmentfinance/labgi/ 

labgischeme2/ 

Copies of these documents are available in the Libraries 

of both Houses. 

Stoke-on-Trent Council 


Co-ordination (Ms Rosie Winterton): Onthe8Maymy 

right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John 

Healey) (Mr.Phil Woolas), the then Minister for Local 

Government, announced to the House that, as part of a 

programme of action to help the people of Stoke-on-Trent 

restore to the city good city governance, the Government 

were minded to make an Order under section 86 of the 

Local Government Act 2000 specifying a scheme of 

whole council elections from 2011. He also announced 

that to enable the focus of all to be on this 2011 new 

start, and while an electoral review is being undertaken, 

the Government were minded to include in the Order 

provision to cancel the 2010 elections for the city council. 

He explained that before taking final decisions there 

would be a short ‘soundings’ period until the 18 June to 

provide an opportunity for interested parties to make 

representations to us. 

That soundings period is now complete and I am 

today announcing that, having regard to the representations 

we have received, we have decided to go ahead with a 

scheme of whole council elections for Stoke-on-Trent 

city council from 2011. We intend to lay the necessary 

Order before Parliament as soon as practicable. 

We have, however, concluded that there is not a 

sufficiently strong case for cancelling the 2010 elections 

for the city council, and hence the Order will not 

include provision to cancel these elections. 

We reached these conclusions having regard to the 

11 representations we received during the soundings 

period. There was broad support for whole council 

elections, but a number of concerns were raised about 

cancelling the 2010 elections to the city council, including 

from the Electoral Commission which considered that 

on the available evidence, a clear case for cancelling the 

elections had not been made. 

In his 8 May announcement my right hon. Friend 

also indicated that he was asking the Electoral Commission 

to undertake an electoral review of Stoke-on-Trent 

which would consider the size of the council and the 

warding arrangements for the City. The Electoral 

Commission has now directed the Boundary Committee 

to undertake this review, which we understand will 

begin shortly. 

We are confident that these measures to reform the 

electoral arrangements of Stoke-on-Trent will help provide 

for the people of Stoke-on-Trent the opportunity they 

need to achieve that well governed city, with high quality 

public services, successful economic regeneration, and 

improved quality of life, which they deserve. 

Departmental Hospitality 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government (Mr. Shahid Malik): 

I am today publishing a list of receptions hosted by 

Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local 

Government in 2008-09. 

The total cost of these receptions was £23,500. 

Date Host Event Venue 

03-07-08 Secretary of 

State-the 

right hon. 

Hazel Blears 

MP 


State-the 

right hon. 

Hazel Blears 

MP 


State-the 

right hon. 

Hazel Blears 

MP 


State-the 

right hon. 

Hazel Blears 

MP 


State-the 

right hon. 

Hazel Blears 

MP 


State-the 

right hon. 

Hazel Blears 

MP 

04-02-09 Parliamentary 

Under- 

Secretary of 

State-Iain 

Wright MP 

CLG Joint 

Reception for 

Beacon 

Awards 

Winners and 

Empowerment 

White Paper 

at LGA 

Conference 

2008 

CLG Summer 

Press 

Reception 

Local 

Priorities: 

Local Area 

Agreements 

Stakeholder 

Reception 

Thames 

Gateway 

Investor 

Reception 

Eid Ul-Fitr 

Reception 

(co-hosted 

with Foreign 

Secretary and 

Home 

Secretary) 

CLG 

Christmas 

Press 

Reception 

HCA 

Transition 

Reception for 

Chairs and 

Chief Execs of 

housing 

growth areas 

and Local 

Delivery 

Boards 

Windsor 

Hall, 

Bournemouth 

International 

Conference 

Centre 

Number of 

Attendees 

120 

Eland House 50 

Eland House 120 

Marble Hall, 

One Birdcage 

Walk, 

Westminster 

Foreign and 

Commonwealth 

Office 

Jubilee 

Room, House 

of Commons 

Portcullis 

House 

Tackling Race Inequalities Fund 

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local 

Government (Mr. John Denham): In February, the 

Government announced proposals to support third sector 

organisations through the Tackling Race Inequalities 

Fund. Today, I am pleased to announce to the House 

that 27 national and regional organisations will receive 

grants totalling £8.8 million over two years. 

50 

400 

50 

25

119WS 


21 JULY 2009 


120WS 

The third sector organisations are: 

1990 Trust 

Age UK (Age Concern and Help the Aged) 

Association for Real Change (ARC) 

Black Environment Network 

Black Training and Enterprise Group (BTEG) 

Business in the Community (Race for Opportunity) 

Clinks 

Council for Ethnic Minority Communities, Northamptonshire 

(Limited) 

Excell3 Limited 

Friends, Families and Travellers 

Humber All Nations Alliance 

MENTER (Minority Ethnic Network Eastern Region) 

Network for Black Professionals 

North of England Refugee Service 

Olmec 

Operation Black Vote 

PATH Yorkshire 

Race Equality Foundation 

Race on the Agenda (ROTA) 

Runnymede Trust 

Show Racism the Red Card 

Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust 

The Afiya Trust 

The Interlink Foundation 

The Monitoring Group 

The Rural Media Company 

Workers’ Educational Association (WEA) 

Funding is subject to agreeing detailed work programmes 

and monitoring and reporting arrangements. Organisations 

will be expected to show how they make effective use of 

the financial assistance to deliver real impact. 

The fund will support a range of organisations working 

to tackle race inequalities and promote equality of 

opportunity for people of all ethnic groups. It will 

enable organisations to contribute to policy making. 

DEFENCE 

MOD Annual Report and Accounts 

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): 

I am pleased to announce that I am today publishing 

the Ministry of Defence’s annual report and accounts 

2008-09. It combines the Department’s annual performance 

report and departmental resource accounts in a single 

document that provides a comprehensive overview of 

the MOD’s financial and non-financial performance for 

the year, including the Departments contribution towards 

public service agreements and departmental strategic 

objective targets. Copies have been placed in the Library 

of the House. It is also available online from the 

Department’s website at: www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/ 

DefenceFor/Researchers/. 

This last year has been a challenging one for defence. 

Operational tempos remained high, with operations in 

Afghanistan and Iraq continuing, although now in Iraq 

we have seen the end of our combat role and the return 

of the majority of our personnel. 

In those theatres and others, British forces have made, 

and continue to make, an enormous contribution to 

international security. Recent sad events have highlighted 

the commitment of all those involved, not just the men 

and women of the armed forces and the civilians 

who support them, but also those family members who 

remain at home and provide vital support to those who 

serve their country. The success of defence is dependent 

on them—they continue to do an exceptional job—and 

the Government remain committed to providing the 

support that they need and rightly deserve. 

Armed Forces Pay Review Body 


I am pleased to announce that I have appointed Ms Judy 

McKnight as a member of the Armed Forces Pay 

Review Body, for a three year term of office commencing 

on 1 September 2009. This appointment has been conducted 

in accordance with the guidance of the Office of the 

Commissioner for Public Appointments. 

BVT (Terms of Business Agreement) 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence 

(Mr. Quentin Davies): The Defence Industrial Strategy 

(DIS) highlighted the need for restructuring in the 

maritime industry to reduce overcapacity in the UK 

warship build and support industry after the Queen 

Elizabeth class aircraft carriers (QE Class) have been 

built, and to ensure in the future a sustainable world-class 

industrial base. It is paramount that we balance supply 

and demand in the future, primarily to sustain key 

maritime skills and jobs that will, in turn, ensure our 

key industrial capabilities (KICs) are preserved. 

As part of the response to the DIS, the shipbuilding 

and support activities of BAE Systems and VT Shipbuilding 

came together last year to form a new single company— 

BVT Surface Fleet Limited (BVT). The company, which 

is integral to the QE Class and Type 45 programmes, 

was established as MOD’s strategic complex warship 

design and build partner, and to work collaboratively 

with Babcock on surface warship support. 

Our joint aim is to deliver, in time, a world-class 

capability for the UK and global markets. In order to 

achieve this, we have been negotiating a long-term 

business agreement with BVT. Known as the terms of 

business agreement (TOBA), I am pleased to announce 

to the House today that we have now concluded these 

discussions and signed a 15 year commercial deal with 

the company. Worth around £230 million per year to 

BVT to sustain KICs required for essential operational 

sovereignty, the TOBA gives an unambiguous commitment 

to the company for a certain minimum level of workload 

in the areas of warship design and build work, and 

elements of warship support covering all surface warships. 

In return, BVT has committed to the transformation of 

the sector into a sustainable entity for the future. This 

will generate major financial benefits to the Ministry of 

Defence (MOD) and the Royal Navy worth a minimum 

of £350 million over the duration of the contract, with 

an aim to double this figure over the duration of the 

contract.

121WS 


21 JULY 2009 


122WS 

The MOD expects this new commercial agreement, 

which is being progressed within the strategic framework 

of the maritime change programme (MCP), to provide 

a strong foundation for BVT to compete for non-MOD 

work, both in the UK and throughout the world. It will 

be for BVT to retain the capacity it deems necessary to 

meet the demands made of it and to transform the 

sector. 

This new arrangement is also intended to provide 

MOD with the confidence that BVT can deliver significant 

improvements in efficiency and performance needed to 

underpin the future naval shipbuilding programme, while 

providing the company with the certainty to enable 

investment and long term planning. Finally, it demonstrates 

that we continue to make best use of UK taxpayers’ 

money in seeking opportunities for transformation and 

the delivery of efficiencies. 

Defence Advisory Forum 


In my written statement to the House on 7 July I 

announced plans for a Defence Green Paper to be 

published early in 2010, as part of a process that will 

enable a strategic defence review early in the next Parliament. 

I intend to appoint a defence advisory forum of 

independent experts to support the preparation of the 

Green Paper. The forum will be established for a limited 

period, covering the preparation and publication of the 

Green Paper. 

The defence advisory forum will be affiliated to the 

Prime Minister’s national security forum and will work 

in concert with it. 

I will inform the House of the membership of the 

forum once this has been confirmed. 

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE 

British Council 


and Commonwealth Affairs (Chris Bryant): Copies of 

the British Council’s annual report and accounts for the 

2008-2009 financial year have been placed in the Library 

of the House. 

During the period the British Council received 

£200,963,000 grant-in-aid from the Foreign and 

Commonwealth Office. 

HEALTH 

Correction to Written Answers 

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Phil 

Hope): I regret that the following written answers contained 

information which was incorrect: 

the written answer given to Ann Coffey on 23 June 2009; 

the written answer given to Mr. Stephen O’Brien on 21 April 

2009, Official Report, column 587W; 

the written answer given to Mr. Don Foster on 5 November 


the written answer given to Sir Nicholas Winterton on 4 November 


the written answer given to Mr. Mike Penning in 22 October 


the written answer given to Sir Peter Soulsby on 15 July 2008, 

Official Report, column 359W; 

the written answer given to Mr. Mark Hoban on 3 April 2008, 

Official Report, column 288 W; 

the written answer given to Mr. David Simpson on 25 February 

2008, Official, Report column 1196W; 

the written answer given to Mr. Norman Lamb on 5 February 


the written answer given to Sandra Gidley on 25 January 2008, 

Official Report, column 17MC; 

the written answer given to Mr. Mark Simmonds on 3 December 


the written answer given to Sandra Gidley on 19 July 2007, 


the written answer given to Mrs. Theresa May on 25 June 2007, 

Official Report, column 23 8W; 

the written answer given to Mr. Lansley on 4 June 2007, 


the written answer given to Mr. Mike Penning on 17 April 


the written answer given to Mr. Lansley on 15 January 2007, 


the written answer given to Mr. Swire on 6 December 2006, 


the written answer given to Mr. Lansley on 8 November 2006, 


the written answer given to Mr. Hayes on 19 July 2006, Official 

Report, column 507W; 

the written answer given to Justine Greening on 5 June 2006, 


the written answer given to Mr. David T.C. Davies on 28 March 


the written answer given to Mr. Weir on 28 March 2006, 


the written answer given to Anne Milton on 20 March 2006, 


the written answer given to Mr. Andrew Turner on 7 July 2005, 


the written answer given to Mr. Burstow on 7 July 2005, 


These answers all related to Department of Health 

advertising spend between 2004-05 and 2008-09. The 

incorrect information was a result of some non-advertising 

expenditure being included within the figures. There 

was also evidence that provisional figures rather than 

the final discounted totals had been used. In order to 

prevent this issue from recurring, improvements have 

been made in record keeping and processes in answering 

PQs on advertising spend. 

The following table shows the correct departmental 

advertising expenditure over the last five completed 

financial years. A further breakdown of these figures 

has been placed in the Library. 

Department of Health Advertising Spend in £ millions 1 

(2004-05 – 2008-09) 

Campaign 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2 

Alcohol (from 06/07 

DH contribution to 

campaign run jointly 

with HO) 

0.00 0.00 0.56 0.61 4.77 

Antibiotics 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.39 1.15 

Change4Life 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.69

123WS 


21 JULY 2009 


124WS 

Department of Health Advertising Spend in £ millions 1 

(2004-05 – 2008-09) 

Campaign 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2 

Drugs (DH 

contribution to 

campaign run jointly 

with HO) 

0.91 0.18 1.34 0.67 1.45 

Flu (Immunisation) 1.45 1.83 1.11 0.98 1.42 

Hepatitis C 0.00 0.00 0.52 1.34 1.30 

HPV Vaccination 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.80 

Immunisation 0.00 0.00 1.66 0.00 0.32 

National Health 

Service including 

nurse recruitment 

5.96 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 

NHS Injury Benefits 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 

Scheme 

NHS Choices 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.55 

Patient Choice 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 

Respiratory & Hand 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 1.53 

Hygiene 

Sexual health/teenage 1.40 0.00 2.88 3.11 2.83 

pregnancy 

Social care/worker 1.80 2.42 2.31 2.22 2.03 

recruitment 

Smoking - Tobacco 20.05 20.80 13.17 10.79 23.38 

Control 

Stroke 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.52 

Tobacco Legislation 0.00 0.00 0.32 5.38 0.00 

Winter (Get the right 

treatment/ ask about 

medicines day 

0.54 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 

5 a Day 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 

Elll/EHIC 0.24 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 

DH outdoor 

0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

campaign 

TOTALS (£ millions) 32.73 27.47 23.92 26.24 56.43 

1 

Advertising spend is defined as covering only media spend (inclusive of 

agency commissions but excluding production costs, COI commission and 

VAT). All figures are rounded to the nearest £10,000. These figures do not 

include DH recruitment/classified advertising costs and ad hoc spend under 

£10,000. These figures may include occasional minor spend through COI by 

NHS organisations, to supplement national campaigns in their area. While 

this expenditure has been excluded as far as possible so that this chart reflects 

central DH spend, it would incur disproportionate cost to validate that every 

item of NHS expenditure has been removed. 

2 

Provisional figures 

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust 

The Secretary of State for Health (Andy Burnham): 

On 17 March 2009, the Healthcare Commission, the 

independent health regulator, published a damning report 

into the failings of emergency care provided by 

MidStaffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. Since then, 

the Government and the local NHS have had two 

priorities: first to ensure services at the trust improve as 

soon as possible to the level that patients and the public 

have a right to expect; and second to ensure the right 

lessons are learned both locally and nationally, so the 

events of Mid Staffordshire cannot be repeated. 

The previous Secretary of State commissioned two rapid 

reviews from Professor Sir George Alberti the National 

Clinical Director for Emergency Care, on the present 

state of emergency services at the trust and Dr. David 

Colin-Thomé on how the broader system was not able 

to detect the failings sooner. All their recommendations 

were accepted and the reports were published, alongside 

the Government’s response on 30 April 2009. 

The new independent regulator for health and social 

care, the Care Quality Commission, has today published 

their three month stock-take report. In short, it concludes 

there has been some progress, but there is much more to 

do. Its analysis echoes the concerns that Ministers have 

heard from members of the local community. 

Having listened carefully to these concerns, I have 

resolved that further action is necessary. Today I am 

announcing a package of measures to lead to a step 

change in improving local services and to help heal the 

wounds of the past, so the trust and their local community 

can face the future together with renewed confidence 

and optimism. 

I have worked closely with Monitor, the Foundation 

Trust regulator, to ensure a new leadership team with 

the skills and experience to transform services at the 

hospital is appointed as a matter of urgency. I am 

pleased to welcome Sir Stephen Moss, the new Chair, 

and Antony Sumara, the new chief executive, to their 

roles. Monitor and the Care Quality Commission will 

continue to oversee their progress, with a further review 

due in October. 

Fundamental to the trust’s success will be listening to 

patients, to ensure their voice counts and that they are 

an integral part of shaping and influencing the future of 

the hospital. That is why I have asked Dr. David Colin- 

Thomé to support and advise South Staffordshire Primary 

Care Trust to play their full part alongside the trust in 

reaching out and involving people locally. 

It is clear from listening to those affected that rebuilding 

local confidence and restoring trust will take time. The 

full impact of what happened at Mid Staffordshire is 

revealed through the personal stories of those affected 

and it is clear to me that these experiences need to be 

properly aired if the local NHS is to learn and, in time, 

move on. 

I have therefore decided, following detailed discussions 

between my Department and the new management of 

the trust, that it would be appropriate to set up a further 

independent inquiry. I do not believe it is necessary for 

this to be a full public inquiry, given the thoroughness 

of the reports already produced by the Healthcare 

Commission, Professor Sir George Alberti and David 

Colin-Thomé, as well as the availability of an independent 

clinical review to those who have concerns about the 

care they or a loved one received at the hospital. 

This inquiry’s focus will be on ensuring that patients 

or their families have an opportunity to raise their 

concerns. It is important, given the events of the past, 

for those who depend upon the care provided by the 

trust to be confident that they have been listened to and 

that any further lessons not already identified by the 

thorough inquiries that have already occurred be learned. 

Robert Francis QC has agreed to chair the inquiry. 

The terms of reference (a full copy has been placed in 

the Library) will be: 

to investigate any individual case relating to the care provided 

by Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust between 2005 

and 2008 that, in its opinion, causes concern and to the extent 

that it considers appropriate; 

in the light of such investigation, to consider whether any 

additional lessons are to be learned beyond those identified by 

the inquiries conducted by the Healthcare Commission, Professor 

Alberti and Dr Colin-Thomé; and, if so, 

to consider what additional action is necessary for the new 

hospital management to ensure the Trust is delivering a sustainably 

good service to its local population; and

125WS 


21 JULY 2009 


126WS 

to prepare and deliver to the Secretary of State a report of its 

findings. 

It is important that this is swift so as not to unduly 

distract the new management and staff at the hospital 

from improving services for patients today. The inquiry 

is therefore planned to report to me by the end of 2009. 

Should the chair of the inquiry consider that it is 

necessary to have the power to require witnesses to 

attend, as Secretary of State I have the power to 

convert the inquiry into an inquiry under the Inquiries 

Act 2005. 

There are also national lessons to learn from the 

investigation at Mid Staffordshire. Dr. David Colin-Thomé’s 

report contained some important recommendations 

on this. 

Many of these are already being addressed, for example 

through the implementation of Lord Darzi’s vision 

High Quality Care for All and our World Class 

Commissioning programme. In addition, the new National 

Quality Board will report to me by the end of the year 

with recommendations on how best to ensure any early 

signs that something is going wrong in the NHS are 

picked up immediately, that the right organisations are 

alerted, and action is taken quickly. 

The Mid Staffordshire case has also illustrated that 

the current regulatory framework for foundation trusts 

(FTs) needs updating. The FT model is a key plank of 

reform in the NHS, successfully rewarding high performance 

with greater freedom and autonomy. The policy is based 

on the premise that FT status is a privilege to be earned 

and valued—an incentive to drive up quality, innovation, 

productivity and local accountability. However, it is 

clear that in some exceptional circumstances, where an 

FT has failed to live up to this standard and public 

confidence has been damaged, it may be right for the 

privileges of FT status to be withdrawn. 

This is why I intend to consult on legislative proposals 

to enable Monitor to “de-authorise” a foundation trust, 

subject to agreement by the Secretary of State, where it 

is clear an organisation has forfeited its right to the 

freedoms and flexibilities afforded by FT status. It is 

also important that where there is public concern, the 

Secretary of State is able to express his views and 

request that Monitor considers intervention in a particular 

way. I will also consult on legislative proposals so that, 

in these circumstances, if Monitor disagrees with the 

approach suggested by Ministers, they should be obliged 

to justify this position publicly. The Government will 

issue a consultation on both these issues in the next 

few days. 

By focusing on the powers and actions of Monitor to 

intervene, I believe we achieve the appropriate balance 

between ensuring fundamental failure is addressed and 

maintaining the significant benefits of the FT model, 

which gives FTs greater freedom in return for high 

quality. 

All of us who care passionately about the health 

service were appalled by the events at Mid Staffordshire, 

which are in stark contrast to the dedication and 

professionalism shown by NHS staff every day up and 

down the country. The measures I have announced 

today, building on those already taken, demonstrate the 

collective commitment in all parts of the system, to 

ensure there will be no repeat. 

HOME DEPARTMENT 

Olympics (Safety and Security) 

The Secretary of State for the Home Department 

(Alan Johnson): I would like to inform the House that 

on the 20 July 2009 Ministers agreed that material on 

our planning for the safety and security of the London 

2012 Olympic and Paralympic games should be made 

available to the public. In doing so we have to ensure 

that the public are kept fully informed of progress and 

of practical impacts, but also that sensitive material is 

not inappropriately placed in the public domain. In my 

statement to the House on 26 February I announced 

that the Government had agreed a strategy and developing 

concept of operations (CONOPS) for Olympic security 

planning, and promised that appropriate material would 

be put before Parliament and the public as soon as 

practical. 

This follows a period of hard work by all stakeholders, 

including the police and emergency services, to ensure 

that a comprehensive and effective programme can be 

delivered on time and within appropriate boundaries 

for additional spending. 

The Home Office, in consultation with the main 

stakeholders in Olympic security planning, is publishing 

two documents today: 

An unclassified version of our safety and security strategy. 

This sets out our planning work in detail and in the context of 

our wider counter-terrorism strategy; and 

A shorter leaflet setting out the main points of our security 

planning of wider interest to the public. 

Copies of these publications are being placed in the 

Vote Office and the Libraries of both Houses. 

Newspapers (Surveillance Methods/Update) 

The Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism 

(Mr. David Hanson): In my written statement on 14 July 

2009 I gave an undertaking that the House would be 

updated on any substantive development. 

On 16 July 2009, the Director of Public Prosecutions 

made a statement following the conclusion of the review 

he announced on 9 July 2009. He had concluded that in 

the light of the findings, set out in the statement, it 

would not be appropriate to re-open the cases against 

Goodman and Mulcaire, or to re-visit the decisions 

taken in the course of investigating and prosecuting 

them. A copy of the full statement by the Director of 

Public Prosecutions will be made available in the Library 

of the House. 

The Metropolitan Police Service has also written in 

response to detailed questions about the police investigation 

to both the Home Affairs and Culture, Media and 

Sport Select Committees. 

In my statement on 14 July, I also reported that the 

Independent Police Complaints Commission had received 

a complaint from the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris 

Huhne) about police action in this case and was considering 

whether there were any issues raised that might fall 

within its remit. That complaint has been passed to the 

Metropolitan Police Service for their consideration with 

the hon. Member’s consent.

127WS 


21 JULY 2009 


128WS 

The MPS will now make a decision as to whether the 

complaint is recordable under the Police Reform Act 

2002 and whether they should refer any matter to the 

IPCC. The MPS will update the hon. Member for 

Eastleigh directly. 

Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report: 10 Years On 


(Alan Johnson): On 24 February the Home Office and 

Ministry of Justice, supported by the National Policing 

Improvement Agency (NPIA), held a conference to 

mark the 10th anniversary of the publication of the 

Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report. The conference, with 

an opening speech by Doreen Lawrence, OBE, reviewed 

the progress that has been made over the last 10 years, 

shared good practice, and helped to set out a focus for 

future work. 

On or around this anniversary three reports were 

published: “Stephen Lawrence Review” an independent 

commentary by Dr. Richard Stone; “Police and racism: 

what has been achieved 10 years after the Stephen 

Lawrence Inquiry report” by the EHRC and “The 

Stephen Lawrence Inquiry 10 Years On” an analysis of 

the literature by the Runnymede Trust. 

I am today publishing a report of the 10 anniversary 

conference and a Government response to Dr. Stone’s, 

the EHRC and Runnymede Trust reports. 

The conference and the reports acknowledge that the 

police service and other criminal justice agencies have 

made progress since the publication of the Stephen 

Lawrence Inquiry Report, in 1999. There have been 

many positive changes in relation to race equality and 

the fact that the overwhelming majority of the 

recommendations of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry 

Report have been addressed is a measure of this. However, 

we must, as the conference proceedings and the reports 

also demonstrate, not become complacent. Much has 

been achieved, but there is still considerably more to do. 

That is why we have published an action plan with the 

conference report, setting out areas for particular focus, 

building on existing work, as we move forward from 

the anniversary. This work includes: increasing the 

recruitment, retention and progression of minority ethnic 

police officers and police staff; reducing unjustified 

disproportionality in the use of stop and search powers; 

and continuing to improve the reporting and recording 

of racist incidents. 

Copies of the conference report and the government 

response to Dr. Stone’s, the EHRC and the Runnymede 

Trust reports will be placed in the Library of the House 

later today. 

Kingsnorth Report 

The Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism 

(Mr. David Hanson): There has been considerable 

parliamentary and public interest in the policing of the 

Kingsnorth Climate Camp which took place between 

3 and 9 August 2008. The Government have given 

repeated assurances that the lessons from the policing 

of Kingsnorth Climate Camp would be identified and 

shared across the police service and more widely with 

Parliament. 

The National Policing Improvement Agency and the 

Association of Chief Police Officers have overseen a 

review that has been commissioned by the Chief Constable 

of Kent into the policing of the “Climate Camp for 

Change”at Kingsnorth. Given my previous commitments 

on Kingsnorth, I am accordingly notifying the House 

that the report will be published on the Kent Police 

website on Wednesday 22 July, and that I will place a 

copy of the report in the House Library on that date. 

The Government are committed to working with the 

police and public to ensure the report’s recommendations 

are acted upon in order to facilitate peaceful protest 

whilst upholding and protecting the rights of wider 

communities and other individuals. The findings from 

the report will be picked up by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate 

of Constabulary in its wider review of policing and 

protest which is due to report in the autumn. 

Alcohol Disorder Zones 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the 

Home Department (Mr. Alan Campbell): This statement 

follows the undertaking by the Government on 13 May 

2008 to report back to Parliament one year after the 

commencement of the Alcohol Disorder Zone (ADZ) 

legislation. 

ADZs came into force on 5 June 2008 and are designed 

to help local authorities and the police tackle high levels 

of alcohol related nuisance, crime and disorder that 

cannot be directly attributable to individual licensed 

premises. Guidance published by the Home Office both 

at the time of commencement and in December 2008 

emphasised the point that ADZs should be used only in 

tightly defined areas and as a last resort, when all other 

tools and measures have failed to solve the problem. 

Our discussions with local authorities have confirmed 

that no local authority has as yet implemented an ADZ. 

The principal reason highlighted as to why this is was 

that local authorities and enforcement agencies already 

have a wide range of powers and tools to tackle many of 

the problems that they encounter and no local authority 

felt that it had as yet reached the point of “last resort”. 

However, the Government remain concerned about 

the effect that a number of licensed premises acting 

irresponsibly together may have on an area. For that 

reason, in addition to this legislation we have introduced 

new provisions in the Policing and Crime Bill, currently 

before Parliament, that will allow a licensing authority 

to take action against two or more premises if they are 

contributing to alcohol related crime or disorder. 

Animal Procedures 


Home Department (Mr. Alan Campbell): I wish to respond 

to the publication entitled: “Statistics of Scientific 

Procedures on Living Animals—Great Britain—2008”, 

which was laid before Parliament today.

129WS 


21 JULY 2009 


130WS 

This annual statistical report meets the requirement 

in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to 

inform Parliament about the licensed use of animals for 

experimental or other scientific purposes. It also forms 

the basis for meeting periodic reporting requirements at 

EU level. A hard copy is available and supplementary 

information with additional tables is also available on 

the Home Office website. 

The statistical report shows an overall increase over 

the previous year of 14 per cent. in the number of 

procedures undertaken. The total number of procedures 

was just under 3.7 million, an increase of 454,000 over 

the previous year. There has now been an increase for 

the seventh year running and is the highest total since 

1992. A number of factors, such as investment in research 

and development and strategic funding priorities, determine 

the overall level of scientific procedures. 

Non-toxicological procedures accounted for about 

87 per cent. of the procedures carried out. These included 

fundamental research in human and veterinary medicine 

to improve understanding of disease mechanisms and 

possible therapeutic options, and development of vaccines. 

Most toxicological studies (79 per cent.) were for the 

safety and efficacy testing of new drugs and medicines 

and the majority of all toxicological procedures (71 per 

cent.) were performed in order to carry out legal or 

statutory requirements. 

In line with previous years, those procedures that 

used mice or rats (or other rodents) were the great 

majority at 77 per cent. Those using fish amounted to 

17 per cent. and those using birds, 3 per cent. The total 

of all procedures using dogs, cats, horses and non-human 

primates, that is those species offered special protection 

by the Act, was less than 1 per cent. of the total. 

Genetically normal animals were used in about 1.9 million 

regulated procedures, (up 160,000 (9 per cent.) on 2007 

figures, largely as a result of the use offish and mice in 

fundamental biological research and applied studies. 

Genetically modified animals and those with a harmful 

genetic mutation (nearly all were rodents, fish or 

amphibians) were used in 1.76 million regulated procedures 

representing, 48 per cent. of all procedures for 2008 

(compared with 46 per cent in 2007 and 16 per cent. 

in 1995). 

Advances in the opportunities to use genetically altered 

animals for new areas of biomedical research means 

that the trend of increased production and use of genetically 

altered animals has continued. It allows a more precise 

and often less invasive study of physiological studies 

and disease mechanisms that was previously possible. 

Most of the animals concerned are mice, which appear 

and live as normal. Many are only used in breeding 

programmes. In fact nearly two fifths of all procedures 

in 2008 were accounted for by breeding procedures 

(38 per cent.) for the production of harmful mutant and 

genetically modified animals. Mice (89 per cent.) and 

fish (9 per cent.) were used in most of these procedures. 

I should point out in relation to the statistics, that the 

Home Office, as regulatory authority under the 1986 

Act, does have an effect on the overall amount of 

animal research and testing that takes place. This is 

done by ensuring, as part of our licensing function, that 

the provisions of the Act are rigorously applied in each 

programme of work and that only work that is scientifically 

justified, minimises the numbers of animals used and 

animal suffering that may be caused, is authorised. 

The statistical report and supplementary information 

can be found at: 

http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/animalresearch/publications-and-reference/statistics/ 

Animal Procedures (Annual Report 2008) 


Home Department (Mr. Alan Campbell): I am pleased 

to inform the House that I have today placed in the 

Library the annual report of the Home Office Animals 

Scientific Procedures Division and Inspectorate for the 

year 2008. 

Publication of the report honours a commitment 

given by the Government in response to a recommendation 

of the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in 

Scientific Procedures in July 2002 that more information 

should be made available about the implementation of 

the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. 

Earlier annual reports have focused on the work of 

the Animals Scientific Procedures Inspectorate. The 

report for 2008 has been expanded to include the work 

of the Animals Scientific Procedures Division licensing 

and policy teams. 

As in previous years, the report explains what Home 

Office Inspectors do and how they do it and the 

inspectorate’s role in assessing and advising on applications 

for personal and project licences and certificates of 

designation under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) 

Act 1986. 

The report also explains the work we have been doing 

to deliver our better regulation programme and new 

IT systems to improve our regulation of animal 

experimentation and provides background to the 

publication by the European Commission of a proposal 

for a new European Directive to replace Directive 86/609/ 

EEC on which the 1986 Act is based. 

I commend the report to the House. 

Citizenship Consultation 

The Minister for Borders and Immigration (Mr. Phil 

Woolas): Following the successful passage of the Borders, 

Citizenship and Immigration Bill through both Houses 

of Parliament, Royal Assent is expected to be granted 

today. The Bill includes changes to the routes used to 

achieve citizenship. In consideration of this the UK 

Border Agency will be publishing, during the summer 

recess, a consultation paper entitled “Earning the right 

to stay: A new points test for citizenship”. This document 

will seek views on proposals to build on the system of 

earned citizenship set out in the Bill and fulfils one of 

the commitments made by the Prime Minister in the 

document “Building Britain’s Future”. 

Copies will be made available in the Libraries of both 

Houses, as well as on the UKBA website. 

Youth Crime Action Plan - One Year On 


(Alan Johnson): In conjunction with the Secretary of 

State for Justice and Secretary of State for Children, 

Schools and Families, I will tomorrow publish the “Youth 

Crime Action Plan - One Year On”.

131WS 


21 JULY 2009 


132WS 

This document sets out progress made since we published 

the “Youth Crime Action Plan” in 2008, and describes 

the action we will take over the next year. 

Copies of the document will be placed in the Library 

of the House. 

JUSTICE 

England and Wales Prison Service Pay Review Body 

Report 


(Mr. Jack Straw): The eighth report of the Prison 

Service Pay Review Body (PSPRB) (Cm 7678) has been 

laid before Parliament today. The report makes 

recommendations on the pay of governing governors 

and other operational managers, prison officers and 

related support grades in public sector prisons in England 

and Wales in 2009. Copies of the report are available at: 

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm76/ 

7678/7678.pdf 

I am grateful to the Chairman and members of the 

Review Body for their hard work in producing these 

recommendations. 

The recommendations include: 

A 1.8 per cent. consolidated increase to the maximum of the 

OSG, Prison Officer and Principal Officer pay scales and the 

Senior Officer single pay point; and 

A 1.5 per cent. consolidated increase to the maximum of 

Manager and Senior Manager pay ranges and compression of 

pay ranges. 

This award is consistent with the Government’s policy 

on public sector pay that awards should 

reflect the individual labour market position of work forces, 

particularly their recruitment and retention position; 

be consistent with the Bank of England inflation target; 

be affordable for Departments; and 

represent value for money for taxpayers. 

I am pleased to confirm that the PSPRB’s 

recommendations will be implemented in full, effective 

from 1 April 2009. The cost of the award will be met 

from within the delegated budget allocation for the 

National Offender Management Service. 

ATTORNEY-GENERAL 

Reform of the Role of the Attorney-General 

The Solicitor-General (Vera Baird): My noble Friend 

the Attorney-General has made the following written 

ministerial statement: 

Following a thorough review of the role of the Attorney-General, 

the Government have reached the settled conclusion that the 

Attorney should retain the roles of chief legal adviser to the 

Government, Criminal Justice Minister with responsibility for 

superintending the main prosecuting authorities (the Crown 

Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office and the Revenue 

and Customs Prosecutions Office), and independent guardian of 

the public interest. 

However, significant reforms to the role have been, and are 

being, implemented. In particular, measures have been taken to 

clarify the Attorney-General’s role of superintending the prosecuting 

authorities and the nature of the Attorney’s involvement in 

prosecution decisions. A new protocol published today has been 

agreed with the three prosecuting departments which sets out how 

the relationship is to work in practice, to safeguard the independence 

of the prosecutors while enabling the Attorney to be properly 

accountable to Parliament and the public. Copies of the protocol 

have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. 

In addition a strategic board has been set up, chaired by the 

Attorney and including the prosecuting departments, to provide 

strategic direction to the Law Officers’ Departments and secure 

greater efficiency and effectiveness. The strategic board agreed at 

the beginning of April 2009 that the Crown Prosecution Service 

should be merged with the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions 

Office to create a strengthened prosecution service. 

It is intended to amend the Attorney-General’s oath of office 

to include a specific reference to respect for the rule of law. 

Furthermore, the Attorney-General now only attends Cabinet 

when matters affecting her responsibilities are on the agenda. 

These significant reforms, which have not required legislation, 

give effect to the aims of the review of the role, which were to 

enhance public confidence and respect for the rule of law and to 

provide greater clarity and transparency. 

Attorney-General’s Office Annual Review 

The Solicitor-General (Vera Baird): My noble Friend 

the Attorney-General has made the following written 

ministerial statement: 

I am today publishing an Annual Review of the Attorney-General’s 

Office, to help improve understanding of the role of the Attorney- 

General and the collective workings of the Law Officers’Departments, 

to increase public confidence in the criminal justice system, 

protect the public interest and uphold the rule of law. 

As in past years, the Law Officers’ Departments have also each 

separately produced their individual Annual Reports and Accounts. 

Copies of the Annual Review have been placed in the Libraries 

of both Houses. 

PRIME MINISTER 

Cabinet Committees 

The Prime Minister (Mr. Gordon Brown): Today I am 

publishing an updated Cabinet Committee list. This 

provides details of new Cabinet Committees which have 

been created since the last publication. I have placed a 

copy of the new list in the Libraries of both Houses. 

The details are also available on the Cabinet Office 

website. 

TRANSPORT 

UK Domestic Drivers Hours Rules 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport 

(Paul Clark): I am today publishing a consultation 

document seeking views on the current UK domestic 

drivers’ hours rules. These rules prescribe driving and 

duty limits along with some break and rest requirements 

for drivers of goods and passenger vehicles that are not 

covered by the EU drivers’ hours rules. This includes 

most drivers of vans, and bus drivers on routes no more 

than 50 kilometre in length. 

The domestic rules were introduced to support road 

safety by ensuring that drivers of commercial vehicles 

had sufficient breaks and rest.

133WS 


21 JULY 2009 


134WS 

The Department is now reviewing these rules and as 

part of this process needs to better understand the 

views and experiences of those that are affected by them 

in their working lives. Although the consultation document 

proposes no legislative changes at this stage, the responses 

received during the consultation will inform the initial 

consideration of potential policy options, which will 

then be the subject of further consultation. 

Copies of the consultation will be made available in 

the Libraries of both Houses. 

WORK AND PENSIONS 

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with 

Disabilities (Optional Protocol) 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions (Jonathan Shaw): The period during which 

the explanatory memorandum and Command Paper 

for ratification of the optional protocol to the UN 

convention on the rights of persons with disabilities 

were laid before Parliament has now ended. I am therefore 

pleased to announce that the Government will now be 

taking the final steps to formally ratify the optional 

protocol as soon as we are able. 

As my previous statements of 3 and 27 February, and 

22 June, indicated, the optional protocol builds on the 

convention by establishing two additional procedures in 

respect of implementation and monitoring of the 

convention itself. 

The first is a procedural avenue that, subject to meeting 

conditions set out in the optional protocol, will enable 

individuals or groups of individuals to bring petitions 

to the UN Committee that has been established to 

monitor implementation of the disability convention if 

they believe that their rights under that convention have 

been breached. The second is an inquiry procedure 

giving the Committee authority to undertake inquiries 

when reliable information is received into allegations of 

grave or systematic violations of convention rights. 

Having ratified the convention itself on 8 June, and in 

now moving to the final step in ratifying the optional 

protocol, the Government have demonstrated the 

importance that it places on respect for the human 

rights of disabled people.

15P 

Petitions 

21 JULY 2009 

Petitions 

16P 

Petition 


OBSERVATIONS 

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS 

Flooding (Cotswolds) 

The Petition of Moreton in Marsh Resilience Group, 

and others, 

Declares that Moreton in Marsh is at risk from 

further serious flooding; further declares that following 

severe flooding in July 2007 when 260 homes and premises 

were flooded, minimal action has been taken to repair 

flood relief channels and also gullies, drains and culverts 

remain blocked after almost two years; considers that 

another flood in December 2008, although not so severe, 

illustrated the threat of more floods into the homes of 

people in the town; and believes that urgent action must 

be taken, and quickly, to prevent the town becoming 

flooded again. 

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of 

Commons urges the Secretary of State for Environment, 

Food and Rural Affairs to do all in his power to 

persuade Cotswold District Council, Gloucester County 

Council, the Environment Agency, and Thames Water 

to fulfil their responsibilities to the town and people of 

Moreton in Marsh and to act swiftly to avoid further 

flooding. 

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by 

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Official Report, 9 June 

2009; Vol. 493, c. 764 .] 

[P000379] 

Observations from the Secretary of State for Environment, 

Food and Rural Affairs: 

The Government takes flooding in residential areas 

very seriously and regrets the flooding incidents to the 

town and people of Moreton in Marsh in summer 2007. 

The Environment Agency advise that these events were 

caused by a combination of high levels of surface water 

run-off, overflowing drains and the River Evenlode 

overtopping its banks. Since the floods the Agency have 

been working closely with Gloucestershire County Council, 

Cotswold District Council and Thames Water to reduce 

flood risk for the town. This has included for example 

work on new trash screens at the upstream end of the 

River Evenlode, culvert clearance and maintenance, 

and improvements to the flood warning service. 

The Government accepts that it has not always been 

clear who had responsibility for responding to flood 

events in urban areas. That is why we announced, in our 

response to Sir Michael Pitt’s report into the major 

flooding events in summer 2007, that the Environment 

Agency will have a new national strategic overview role 

for all forms of flood risk. Local authorities (identified 

as County Councils or Unitary authorities) will be 

taking responsibility for local groundwater and surface 

water management for which nobody has previously 

been clearly responsible. The Agency will work closely 

with local authorities on their on-the ground management 

of surface water flooding so that comprehensive assessments 

of local flood risk will be possible for the first time.

965W 

Written Answers 

20 JULY 2009 


966W 

Written Answers to 

Questions 

Monday 20 July 2009 

[Continued from Column 964W] 

HEALTH 

Accident and Emergency Departments: Young People 

Anne Milton: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health how many stomach pumps were administered 

in accident and emergency departments (a) to under 

16 year-olds, (b) to under 25 year olds and (c) in total 

in each of the last five years. [287369] 

Mr. Mike O’Brien: Data on the administration of 

stomach pumps in accident and emergency departments 

is not collected centrally. 

Allergies: Consultants 

Jo Swinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

pursuant to the answer of 7 July 2009, Official Report, 

column 685W, on allergies, (1) if he will make it 

his policy to increase the number of (a) adult and 

(b) paediatric allergy consultants; [288306] 

(2) if he will make it his policy to increase the 

number of specialist allergy training posts available. 

[288307] 

Ann Keen: In 2007 the House of Lords Science and 

Technology Committee published a report on allergy. 

The Government published a response to that report in 

November 2007. An update on the current situation 

regarding allergy services has recently been placed in 

the Library. 

As part of implementing the House of Lords 

recommendations, in June 2007 the Department created 

five additional allergy and immunology training posts. 

Workforce planning in the national health service is 

managed locally and led by the strategic health authorities 

(SHAs) taking into account the national policy direction. 

SHAs assess with local services and clinicians the need 

for posts for allergists. 

The National Occupational Standards developed by 

Skills for Health, together with the development of care 

pathways and clinical guidance, will help enhance the 

knowledge and expertise of primary care staff caring 

for patients with allergies 

Childbirth: Shropshire 

Mr. Dunne: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what the percentage change in rates of birth to 

(a) UK-born mothers and (b) foreign-born mothers 

has been in the Shropshire County Primary Care Trust 

area since 2001. [288431] 

Angela E. Smith: I have been asked to reply. 

The information requested falls within the responsibility 

of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority 

to reply. 

Letter from Karen Dunnell, dated July 2009: 

As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your 

question about what the percentage change in rates of birth to 

(a) UK born mothers and (b) foreign born mothers has been in 

the Shropshire County Primary Care Trust area since 2001. 

(288431) 

In order to calculate the requested birth rates, population 

estimates for UK born and foreign born females by five-year age 

group for Shropshire County PCT are required. These estimates 

are only available at the national level. 

Estimated birth rates for UK born and foreign born women in 

England and Wales have been published for 2004-2007 (Table 1). 

These rates show that fertility among UK born women has risen 

since 2004 while fertility among foreign born women, although 

higher, has remained relatively unchanged. 

Table 1: Estimated total fertility rates for UK born and foreign born 

women, England and Wales, 2004-07 

Total fertility rate 

2004 2005 2006 2007 

UK born women 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 

Foreign born women 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.5 

Source: 

Birth registrations and Annual Population Survey. 

The number of live births to UK born and foreign born 

mothers are available from birth registration. Table 2 below shows 

the number of live births to UK born and foreign born mothers 

usually resident in Shropshire County PCT in 2001 and 2007 

(latest year available). The final two columns show the percentage 

change in live births to UK born and foreign born mothers 

between 2001 and 2007 in Shropshire County PCT and England 

and Wales. The percentage change in the number of births to UK 

born and foreign born women will reflect both changes in the size 

and age structure of the UK born and foreign born populations 

and any changes in birth rates. 

Table 2: Live births to UK and foreign born mothers and percentage 

change, Shropshire county PCT, 2001-07 

County of birth of mother 

Shropshire county PCT England and 

Wales 

Live 

births 

2001 

Live 

births 

2007 

Percentage 

change 

2001-07 

Percentage 

change 

2001-07 

UK born 2,510 2,676 7 7 

Foreign 118 188 59 64 

born 

All 2,628 2,864 9 16 

Source: 

Birth registrations. 

Compulsorily Detained Mental Patients: Children 

Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

how many children were detained under the Mental 

Health Act 1983 in each of the last 12 months. [287531] 

Phil Hope: This information is not centrally collected. 

Dental Services: Morecambe 

Geraldine Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health (1) what the average waiting time for access to 

NHS dental services was in Morecambe and Lunesdale 

constituency in the latest period for which figures are 

available; [287978]

967W 


20 JULY 2009 


968W 

(2) how many people were waiting for access to NHS 

dental services in Morecambe and Lunesdale 

constituency on the latest date for which figures are 

available. [287980] 

Ann Keen: The information requested is not collected 

centrally. 

Departmental Accountancy 

Steve Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

when he expects to publish his Department’s resource 

accounts for 2008-09. [287333] 

Mr. Mike O’Brien: The Department’s 2008-09 Resource 

Accounts were laid before the House of Commons on 

the 14 July (HC456), and copies are available in the Vote 

Office. The Resource Accounts will be published by The 

Stationery Office by the end of July. 

Departmental Consultants 

Frank Dobson: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health how much his Department has spent on 

management consultants in each year since 1996-97. 

[287692] 

Phil Hope: Specific information detailing spend on 

consultancy has been routinely collected by the Department 

since April 2005. Information on consultancy spend 

before April 2005 is not held by the Department. 

The figures from April 2005 until March 2008 are 

shown as follows: 

£ million 

2005-06 133 

2006-07 205 

2007-08 132 

In July 2008, the Department implemented a new 

business management system which has given the 

Department the scope to be more specific about the 

nature of each of the consultancy commissions. 

Work is ongoing to verify and validate the complete 

breakdown 2008-09 consultancy spend information with 

this new level of detail. We will endeavour to place the 

results in the Library shortly. 


Health how much his Department has spent on 

non-medical consultants in each year since 2005. 

[288451] 

Phil Hope: The figures from April 2005 until March 

2008 are as follows: 

£ million 

2005-06 133 

2006-07 205 

2007-08 132 

In July 2008, the Department implemented a new 

business management system which has given the 

Department the scope to be more specific about the 

nature of each of the management consultancy 

commissions. 

Work is ongoing to verify and validate the complete 

breakdown 2008-09 management consultancy spend 

information with this new level of detail. We will endeavour 

to place the results in the Library shortly. 

Departmental Contracts 

Lorely Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

how many contracts let by his Department were 

awarded to businesses with fewer than 50 employees in 

each of the last five years; and what the monetary value 

of such contracts was in each such year. [287801] 

Mr. Mike O’Brien: The requested information is not 

collected centrally by the Department. 

Departmental Databases 

Jenny Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health (1) which databases managed by his 

Department and its agencies hold personal information 

on members of the public; on what date each such 

database become operational; and if he will make a 

statement; [284905] 

(2) what categories of personal information about 

members of the public are contained on each relevant 

database managed by his Department and its agencies; 

on what date each category of information began to be 

collected; and if he will make a statement; [285981] 

(3) what categories of personal information on 

members of the public will be held on each database 

expected to become operational in the next five years 

and which will be managed by his Department or one 

of its agencies; what estimate he has made of the likely 

number of individuals details each such database will 

hold when fully operational; and if he will make a 

statement. [286153] 

Phil Hope: A list of the databases managed by the 

Department and its agencies that hold personal information 

on members of the public has been placed in the Library. 

All such databases are managed in compliance with the 

Department’s responsibilities under the Data Protection 

Act 1998. Since the publication of the cross government 

data handling review in June 2008, new projects and 

programmes that hold significant amounts of personal 

data are obliged to conduct privacy impact assessments. 

The categories of personal information contained in 

Department of Health databases are set out in the 

Department’s entry in the Register of Data Controllers, 

the Information Commissioner’s record of the annual 

notifications of processing that all data controllers are 

obliged to provide. A copy of the Department’s current 

entry has been placed in the Library. The categories 

listed in the Department’s entry are: personal details; 

family, lifestyle and social circumstances; education and 

training details; employment details; financial details; 

good or services provided; racial or ethnic origin; religious 

or other beliefs; physical or mental health or condition; 

sexual life. To provide a more detailed analysis linking 

categories of personal data to each database and stating 

when information in each category began to be collected 

would incur disproportionate cost. 

A table which lists databases expected to go live in the 

next five years with brief descriptions of the categories

969W 


20 JULY 2009 


970W 

of information they will contain and estimates of number 

of individuals whose details they will hold, has been 

placed in the Library. 

Departmental Hospitality 

Norman Lamb: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what guidance his Department has issued on 

the declaration of gifts and hospitality by (a) its staff, 

(b) staff of non-departmental public bodies which his 

Department sponsors and (c) NHS employees. 

[286637] 

Phil Hope: All staff in the Department are required 

to comply with the Civil Management Service Code 

guidance on gifts and hospitality. The Department also 

expects its non-departmental public bodies to abide by 

the same principles. National health service staff are 

required to comply with the guidance Standards of 

Business Conduct for NHS Staff, issued in 1993. Foundation 

trusts are free to develop their own guidance for staff. 

Departmental Procurement 

Lorely Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what progress his Department has made in 

implementing the recommendations of the Glover 

Report in its procurement processes. [287140] 

Mr. Mike O’Brien: Following the publication of the 

Glover report in November 2008 the Office of Government 

Commerce established its Access4All programme in 

April 2009. This was developed to co-ordinate the 

implementation of the Glover Committee recommendations 

across Government and the public sector. The Department 

is represented in this initiative and will continue to 

participate fully as it develops. 

Departmental Work Experience 

Mr. Willis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

how many interns work in his Department; what terms 

of reference apply to their appointment; what 

remuneration they receive; and how long on average an 

intern appointment lasts. [286824] 

Phil Hope: The Department has committed to five 

places on the New Graduate Internships Programme 

announced by the Department for Business, Innovation 

and Skills earlier this year. 

The detailed arrangements for these graduate internships, 

including specific terms of reference and remuneration 

are yet to be agreed. The placements will last a minimum 

of 12 weeks and aim to offer new graduates project 

focused work that will build their employability, and 

help them make informed choices about future career 

paths. 

The Department has also placed nine students on the 

Cabinet Office’s Ethnic Minority Summer Development 

Programme this summer. This offers training placements 

in Government Departments to high calibre candidates 

from black and ethnic minority backgrounds or those 

with disabilities, with the aim of increasing representation 

from those groups in the Fast Stream and Senior Civil 

Service. Placements last eight weeks and those taking 

part receive £350 per week in London and £300 per 

week outside London. 

The Department also regularly takes on one year 

placement students and summer students within the 

analytical community. In 2008-09 there were eight students 

on one year placements and four summer students. 

They are paid a maximum of £19,662 per annum on a 

pro rata basis in London and £16,462 outside London. 

Dermatology: Pharmacy 

Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health when he expects work to start on developing a 

future curriculum for pharmacists so that an 

improvement in the level of dermatology education can 

be included; and if he will make a statement. [287877] 

Mr. Mike O’Brien: In the White Paper, “Pharmacy in 

England: Building on strengths—delivering the future” 

(Cm7341), we set out plans to ensure that the pharmacy 

undergraduate degree course and pre-registration training 

provides pharmacists with clinical competencies to deliver 

the services of the future. Since February 2009, we have 

been working with the Modernising Pharmacy Careers 

Programme Board to develop a new model for 

undergraduate and pre-registration training and proposals 

for improving pharmacist postgraduate training, including 

where this supports better patient access to more specialist 

services. The Board, led by the Chief Pharmaceutical 

Officer, brings together wide-ranging pharmacy expertise 

and experience from schools of pharmacy, professional 

regulation, hospital and community pharmacy, research 

and the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry. 

Dermatology: Training 


Health if he require dermatology to be a mandatory 

part of medical student and GP training. [287876] 

Ann Keen: The content of curriculum and quality 

and standard of training for medical students and general 

practitioners is not the responsibility of the Department 

but the responsibility of the appropriate professional 

regulatory body. 

However, the Department is committed to working 

with the professional regulatory bodies, Royal colleges 

and others to promote high standards of education and 

training to ensure that students and doctors are equipped 

with the up-to-date knowledge, skills and attitudes essential 

for professional practice. 

Diabetes: Health Services 


Health how many people were treated for a diabetic 

ulcer in each of the last five years. [287376] 


in the requested format. Preventing the long-term 

complications of diabetes, including diabetic foot ulcers, 

is a key part of the Diabetes National Service Framework. 

This is supplemented by guidance from the National 

Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence on the prevention 

and management of foot problems in people with diabetes. 

This recommends that people with diabetes should have 

their feet examined by trained personnel as part of the 

annual review process. We continue to work with NHS 

Diabetes to support the national health service in the

971W 


20 JULY 2009 


972W 

provision and delivery of diabetes services. In June 

2009, Diabetes UK in partnership with NHS Diabetes 

published Putting Feet First, which is guidance to support 

the management and prevention of diabetic foot disease 

in hospitals. A copy has already been placed in the 

Library. 

Diamorphine 

Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what his most recent assessment is of the adequacy 

of the stock of diamorphine for the treatment of patients 

with serious or terminal conditions. [287775] 

Mr. Mike O’Brien: I refer the hon. Member to the 

written answer I gave the hon. Member for Torbay 

(Mr. Sanders) on 16 June 2009, Official Report, 

column 225W. 

Drugs: Counterfeit Manufacturing 

Mark Simmonds: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what assessment he has made of the merits of 

the European Commission’s proposals on an amendment 

to Council Directive 2001/83/EC in relation to the 

prevention of the counterfeiting of medicinal products. 

[287812] 

Mr. Mike O’Brien: The Government strongly support 

the overall aims of these proposals to strengthen the 

medicines supply chain from the growing threat from 

counterfeit medicines. In drawing up their position for 

the European Union negotiations, the Government have 

consulted widely on the European Commission’s proposals 

and continue to discuss the implications of the detailed 

provisions with the relevant sectors of the pharmaceutical 

industry and other stakeholders. 

Epilepsy: Medical Treatments 

Sir Paul Beresford: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health how many NHS trusts have implemented the 

clinical guidelines for the treatment of epilepsy set out 

by the National Institute for Health and Clinical 

Excellence in 2004. [288309] 

Ann Keen: Information on the number of national 

health service trusts acting on the National Institute for 

Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance for the 

treatment of epilepsy is not collected. 

I will shortly be writing to all the strategic health 

authority long-term condition leads drawing their attention 

to the importance of implementing the NICE guidance 

on epilepsy. 

Fujitsu 

Mr. Stephen O’Brien: To ask the Secretary of State 

for Health (1) with reference to the answer of 5 

November 2008, Official Report, columns 1199-1200W, 

for what reason each breach of contract notice to 

Fujitsu under the Local Service Provider contract was 

issued; [286966] 

(2) with reference to the answer of 5 November 2008, 

Official Report, columns 1199-1200W, on NHS: information 

and communication technology, what definition of the 

term contractor event of default he uses; to which 

suppliers and on what dates, each contractor event of 

default was issued; and for what reason each such notice 

was issued. [286967] 

Mr. Mike O’Brien: I refer the hon. Member to the 

answers given on 12 January 2009, Official Report, 

columns 171-73W. 

“Contractor event of default” is defined in Local 

Service Provider contracts, and covers a wide range of 

possible circumstances in which the supplier may fail or 

cease to be compliant with the supplier’s obligations or 

duties as described in the contract. These include failure 

to achieve key milestones, level or quality of service 

failures, breach of confidentiality, loss of patient data, 

or insolvency. 

Health Professions: Training 


Health (1) how many (a) nurse return to practice 

course places and (b) health visitor return to practice 

course places were available in each of the last 10 years; 

[287890] 

(2) how many applications for places on (a) nurse 

return to practice courses and (b) health visitor return 

to practice courses were received in each of the last 

10 years. [287891] 

Ann Keen: This information is not collected centrally. 

Health Services: Buildings 

Mark Pritchard: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what his policy is on the use of portable 

buildings for provision of medical and clinical services 

in acute hospitals. [287027] 

Mr. Mike O’Brien: The Department does not produce 

policies on the use of portable buildings. 

National health service organisations are locally 

responsible for the provision of facilities including 

temporary buildings. All clinical, cleanliness, safety and 

quality, requirements that apply to permanent buildings 

will also apply to temporary ones. 

Health Services: Oxfordshire 

Tony Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

pursuant to the Draft Legislative Programme 2009, 

Cm 7654, page 70, who in Oxfordshire will have 

responsibility for ensuring (a) that patients receive 

(i) hospital treatment within 18 months and (ii) access 

to a cancer specialist within two weeks and (b) that 

people between the ages of 40 and 74 years of age 

receive free NHS health checks. [284937] 

Mr. Mike O’Brien: Proposals will be brought forward 

in the autumn. 

Health Services: Prisoners 


Health how many prisoners received treatment for selfharm 

in each of the last five years. [287373]

973W 


20 JULY 2009 


974W 

Phil Hope: The number of prisoners who have received 

treatment for self harm in each of the last five years is 

not collected centrally by the Department. 


Health how many prisoners received treatment for 

(a) drug misuse and (b) alcohol misuse in each of the 

last five years. [287374] 

Phil Hope: The Department does not centrally collect 

the information on the number of prisoners who have 

received treatment for alcohol and drug misuse requested 

for each of the last five years. 

However, mechanisms have been put in place as of 

1 April 2009 and prisons are now collecting baseline 

data on the number of drug users in effective treatment. 

This will enable the Department to collect comparable 

data for the treatment of drug misuse from April 2010. 

Health Visitors: Manpower 

Ms Buck: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

how many full-time equivalent health visitors were 

employed per 1,000 of the population in each primary 

care trust area in England in each year since 2002. 

[286612] 

Ann Keen: Figures are not collected per 1,000 population. 

However, the following table outlines the number per 

10,000. 

It is for individual primary care trusts (PCTs) to 

determine how to use its funding to commission services 

to meet the health needs of their local populations. 

However, to support the Child Health Strategy and the 

Lord Laming recommendations on safeguarding, an 

‘Action on Health Visiting’ programme was agreed at a 

joint Department of Health/Community Practitioners’ 

and Health Visitors’ Association (CPHVA) summit on 

5 May 2009. 

This will be taken forward in partnership with the 

CPHVA and other stakeholders. Action will be prioritised 

to increase workforce capacity and capability and to 

clarify the contribution of health visitors to the Healthy 

Child Programme, to working with vulnerable children 

and families and to safeguarding. 

NHS hospital and community health services: Health visitors in 

England per 10,000 population by strategic health authority (SHA) 

area and by primary care trust (PCT) area as at 30 September each 

specified year 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

England 2.01 2.03 1.96 1.86 1.78 1.72 

North East 

strategic 

health 

authority area 

County 

Durham PCT 

Darlington 

PCT 

Gateshead 

PCT 

Hartlepool 

PCT 

Middlesbrough 

PCT 

2.50 2.50 2.43 2.28 2.25 2.03 

5ND 2.38 2.69 2.37 2.23 2.17 0.18 

5J9 2.29 2.32 2.03 2.02 2.13 13.94 

5KF 2.11 2.06 2.11 2.23 2.07 1.91 

5D9 2.81 3.15 3.44 1.62 1.43 1.28 

5KM 3.77 4.11 3.63 3.36 1.28 0.00 





2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Newcastle 

PCT 

North Tees 

PCT 

North 

Tyneside PCT 

Northumberland 

Care Trust 

Redcar and 

Cleveland 

PCT 

South 

Tyneside PCT 

Sunderland 

Teaching PCT 

5D7 2.46 2.47 2.47 2.25 2.56 2.37 

5E1 2.27 2.22 2.07 2.10 1.96 1.75 

5D8 2.36 2.14 1.87 1.70 2.59 2.29 

TAC 2.60 2.69 2.56 2.54 2.67 1.22 

5QR 1.63 1.74 1.94 1.92 1.95 3.27 

5KG 2.49 2.29 2.57 2.42 2.57 2.65 

5KL 2.57 2.19 2.50 2.45 2.41 2.04 

North West 

2.33 2.43 2.40 2.36 2.20 2.15 

strategic 

health 


Ashton, Leigh 5HG 2.67 2.46 2.65 2.79 2.69 2.73 

and Wigan 

PCT 

Blackburn 5CC 3.90 3.71 3.35 3.13 3.11 3.43 

with Darwen 

PCT 

Blackpool 5HP 2.88 3.03 3.20 3.14 3.37 3.81 

PCT 

Bolton PCT 5HQ 2.41 2.42 2.38 2.38 2.56 2.44 

Bury PCT 5JX 1.98 2.01 2.04 2.34 2.19 2.47 

Central and 5NP 1.91 1.86 1.78 1.70 1.51 1.51 

Eastern 

Cheshire PCT 

Central 5NG 2.44 2.61 2.56 2.55 2.12 1.88 

Lancashire 

PCT 

Cumbria PCT 5NE 2.05 2.59 2.35 2.29 1.76 1.75 

East 

Lancashire 

PCT 

5NH 2.75 2.74 2.65 2.47 2.30 2.12 

Halton and 

St. Helens 

PCT 

Heywood, 

Middleton 

and Rochdale 

PCT 

Knowsley 

PCT 

Liverpool 

PCT 

Manchester 

PCT 

North 

Lancashire 

PCT 

5NM 1.87 1.96 1.96 1.71 1.66 1.92 

5NQ 2.71 2.49 2.51 2.50 2.63 3.09 

5J4 3.26 3.23 3.65 3.78 3.87 3.04 

5NL 2.36 2.28 2.31 1.96 2.14 2.02 

5NT 2.23 2.16 2.40 2.55 2.56 2.23 

5NF 1.51 1.53 1.41 1.47 1.50 2.19 

Oldham PCT 5J5 1.51 2.74 2.62 2.36 2.27 1.87 

Salford PCT 5F5 2.75 2.60 2.63 2.45 2.12 1.49 

Sefton PCT 5NJ 1.82 1.92 2.04 1.94 1.91 1.66 

Stockport 5F7 3.35 3.96 3.72 4.04 2.17 1.95 

PCT 

Tameside and 5LH 2.45 2.35 2.08 2.49 2.35 2.13 

Glossop PCT 

Trafford PCT 5NR 2.37 2.61 2.27 2.20 2.08 1.86 

Warrington 

PCT 

5J2 2.06 1.80 1.87 1.84 1.75 1.96

975W 


20 JULY 2009 


976W 





2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

West Cheshire 5NN 1.87 1.98 1.90 1.74 2.00 2.09 

PCT 

Wirral PCT 5NK 1.80 2.10 2.21 2.05 2.15 2.11 

Yorkshire and 

the Humber 

strategic 

health 

authority 

areas 

5JE 2.26 2.25 2.19 2.10 1.99 1.90 

Barnsley PCT 5NY 2.43 2.44 2.36 2.19 1.97 2.17 

Bradford and 

Airedale 

Teaching PCT 

2.71 2.55 2.43 2.61 2.48 2.39 

Calderdale 

PCT 

Doncaster 

PCT 

East Riding of 

Yorkshire 

PCT 

5J6 2.36 2.41 2.63 2.73 2.43 2.41 

5N5 2.42 2.54 2.65 2.44 2.54 2.58 

5NW 1.84 1.82 1.75 1.73 1.68 1.57 

Hull Teaching 5NX 2.53 2.75 2.71 2.63 2.55 2.34 

PCT 

Kirklees PCT 5N2 2.33 2.10 1.98 1.93 1.61 1.63 

Leeds PCT 5N1 1.95 2.09 2.07 1.82 1.74 1.67 

North East 

Lincolnshire 

Care Trust 

TAN 2.37 2.34 2.13 2.23 2.23 2.21 

North 

Lincolnshire 

PCT 

North 

Yorkshire and 

York PCT 

5EF 1.96 2.26 2.04 2.32 2.36 1.91 

5NV 2.16 2.06 1.99 1.71 1.57 1.32 

Rotherham 5H8 2.40 2.24 2.34 2.16 2.14 1.98 

PCT 

Sheffield PCT 5N4 2.13 2.01 1.95 1.87 1.75 1.70 

Wakefield 

District PCT 

5N3 2.39 2.30 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.24 

East Midlands 

strategic 

health 


Bassetlaw 

PCT 

Derby City 

PCT 

Derbyshire 

County PCT 

Leicester City 

Teaching PCT 

Leicestershire 

County and 

Rutland PCT 

1.78 1.80 1.75 1.75 1.65 1.58 

5ET 1.38 1.20 1.04 1.17 1.46 1.38 

5N7 2.54 2.31 1.95 1.84 1.92 1.97 

5N6 1.87 1.93 1.98 1.89 1.93 1.86 

5PC 1.89 2.28 2.64 2.34 2.38 1.94 

5PA 1.21 1.30 1.21 1.20 1.13 1.09 

Lincolnshire 5N9 1.71 1.69 1.60 1.57 1.55 1.62 

Teaching PCT 

Northamptonshire5PD 1.75 1.69 1.69 1.65 1.61 1.41 

Teaching PCT 

Nottingham 5EM 2.62 2.53 2.36 2.34 2.19 2.38 

City PCT 

Nottinghamshire 5N8 1.69 1.73 1.57 1.91 1.38 1.25 

County 

Teaching PCT 





2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

West 

2.05 2.05 1.83 1.73 1.85 1.82 

Midlands 

strategic 

health 


Birmingham 5PG 1.95 1.73 1.58 1.48 1.92 1.70 

East and 

North PCT 

Coventry 5MD 1.72 1.57 1.51 1.41 1.22 1.15 

Teaching PCT 

Dudley PCT 5PE 1.68 1.76 1.76 1.54 1.64 1.91 

Heart of 5MX 1.46 1.28 1.26 1.34 2.66 2.46 

Birmingham 

Teaching PCT 

Herefordshire 5CN 1.94 1.91 1.23 1.27 1.42 1.09 

PCT 

North 

5PH 2.25 2.26 1.88 1.95 1.84 1.78 

Staffordshire 

PCT 

Sandwell PCT 5PF 2.13 2.47 2.46 2.15 2.24 2.22 

Shropshire 5M2 2.06 2.10 2.02 1.79 1.61 1.47 

County PCT 

Solihull Care TAM 2.10 2.44 2.21 2.32 2.43 2.12 

Trust 

South 

5M1 1.73 1.63 1.60 1.80 1.58 1.75 

Birmingham 

PCT 

South 

5PK 1.98 2.11 1.99 1.96 1.76 1.73 

Staffordshire 

PCT 

Stoke on 5PJ 3.77 3.06 2.65 2.40 2.31 2.69 

Trent 

Teaching PCT 

Telford and 5MK 2.70 2.63 2.43 2.26 1.94 2.09 

Wrekin PCT 

Walsall 5M3 1.74 1.90 1.83 1.66 1.85 1.88 

Teaching PCT 

Warwickshire 5PM 1.63 1.64 1.56 1.51 1.50 1.44 

PCT 

Wolverhampton 5MV 2.10 2.34 0.60 0.30 2.03 2.04 

City PCT 

Worcestershire 

PCT 

5PL 2.12 2.07 2.13 2.04 1.96 1.87 

East of 

England 

strategic 

health 


Bedfordshire 

PCT 

Cambridgeshire 

PCT 

East and 

North 

Hertfordshire 

PCT 

Great 

Yarmouth 

and Waveny 

Teaching PCT 

1.64 1.75 1.73 1.64 1.51 1.47 

5P2 1.78 1.87 1.85 1.74 1.63 1.67 

5PP 1.12 1.41 1.28 1.14 1.03 0.75 

5P3 1.55 1.60 1.78 1.63 1.42 1.52 

5PR 1.79 2.18 1.98 2.14 1.83 1.65 

Luton PCT 5GC 2.67 2.75 2.56 2.28 1.54 1.89 

Mid Essex 5PX 1.29 1.41 1.43 1.36 1.26 1.18 

PCT5PX 

Norfolk PCT 5PQ 1.39 1.52 1.76 1.53 1.44 1.41 

North East 

Essex PCT 

5PW 1.32 1.27 1.36 1.41 1.22 1.14

977W 


20 JULY 2009 


978W 





2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Peterborough 5PN 2.26 2.69 2.17 2.49 2.50 2.17 

PCT 

South East 5P1 1.85 1.89 1.97 1.97 1.91 1.65 

Essex PCT 

South West 5PY 1.77 1.86 1.75 1.87 1.88 1.92 

Essex 

Teaching PCT 

Suffolk PCT 5PT 1.62 1.69 1.49 1.48 1.21 1.44 

West Essex 5PV 1.51 1.59 1.65 1.60 1.38 1.44 

PCT 

West 

Hertfordshire 

PCT 

5P4 1.84 1.84 1.79 1.47 1.67 1.50 

London 

2.01 1.99 1.93 1.88 1.78 1.73 

strategic 

health 


Barking and 5C2 2.20 2.17 2.04 1.99 1.82 1.26 

Dagenham 

PCT 

Barnet PCT 5A9 1.66 1.47 1.43 0.96 0.69 0.75 

Bexley Care TAK 1.93 1.85 1.84 1.87 1.78 1.96 

Trust 

Brent 

5K5 0.07 2.14 2.30 1.94 1.60 1.36 

Teaching PCT 

Bromley PCT 5A7 2.03 2.21 2.14 2.09 1.97 1.91 

Camden PCT 5K7 1.16 1.48 1.17 1.22 0.97 1.19 

City and 5C3 1.87 1.62 1.56 1.90 1.86 2.17 

Hackney PCT 

Croydon PCT 5K9 1.71 1.72 1.76 1.74 1.69 1.63 

Ealing PCT 5HX 2.11 1.90 1.99 1.94 1.86 1.82 

Enfield PCT 5C1 1.67 1.57 1.56 1.48 1.45 1.36 

Greenwich 5A8 2.70 2.40 2.15 2.79 2.22 2.03 

Teaching PCT 

Hammersmith 5H1 2.94 3.04 3.13 3.09 2.82 3.21 

and Fulham 

PCT 

Haringey 5C9 2.25 1.88 1.88 1.46 1.70 0.21 

Teaching PCT 

Harrow PCT 5K6 1.73 1.69 1.68 1.14 1.47 1.43 

Havering PCT 5A4 3.20 1.54 1.65 1.54 1.45 1.31 

Hillingdon 5AT 1.59 1.74 1.98 1.70 1.59 1.59 

PCT 

Hounslow 5HY 1.69 1.63 1.28 1.24 1.25 1.45 

PCT 

Islington PCT 5K8 2.13 1.59 1.37 1.67 1.73 1.48 

Kensington 

and Chelsea 

PCT 

5LA 1.50 1.59 1.18 1.45 1.56 1.47 

Kingston PCT 5A5 1.69 1.87 1.70 1.62 1.48 1.26 

Lambeth PCT 5LD 2.35 2.27 2.07 1.90 1.43 1.43 

Lewisham 5LF 3.77 3.78 2.78 3.06 2.65 2.64 

PCT 

Newham PCT 5C5 1.88 1.46 1.61 1.63 1.68 1.36 

Redbridge 5NA 1.29 1.04 0.92 1.23 1.28 1.48 

PCT 

Richmond 

and 

Twickenham 

PCT 

5M6 1.90 1.97 1.92 1.85 1.93 1.64 

Southwark 

PCT 

Sutton and 

Merton PCT 

5LE 3.07 2.94 2.76 2.96 2.71 3.20 

5M7 2.00 2.22 2.13 2.09 2.12 1.92 





2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Tower 

Hamlets PCT 

Waltham 

Forest PCT 

Wandsworth 

PCT 

Westminster 

PCT 

5C4 1.61 1.48 1.83 1.89 2.30 2.19 

5NC 1.83 2.05 1.97 1.87 1.65 1.89 

5LG 2.41 2.32 2.59 2.11 1.87 1.68 

5LC 2.03 2.60 2.52 2.47 2.48 1.97 

South East 

1.78 1.82 1.68 1.39 1.38 1.35 

Coast 

strategic 

health 


East Sussex 5P7 2.02 1.71 1.86 0.95 1.59 1.52 

Downs and 

Weald PCT 

Eastern and 5QA 1.61 1.55 1.61 1.61 1.55 1.62 

Coastal Kent 

Teaching PCT 

Hastings and 5P8 1.76 1.76 1.82 1.79 1.85 1.85 

Rother PCT 

Medway PCT 5L3 2.08 2.43 2.29 2.15 2.10 1.84 

Surrey PCT 5P5 1.57 1.59 1.48 1.31 1.22 1.11 

West Kent 5P9 1.81 1.76 1.56 0.54 0.59 1.06 

PCT 

West Sussex 

Teaching PCT 

5P6 1.50 1.89 1.47 1.58 1.37 1.08 

South Central 

strategic 

health 


2.05 1.86 1.82 1.67 1.57 1.40 

Berkshire East 5QG 1.92 1.76 1.77 1.73 1.72 1.44 

Teaching PCT 

Berkshire 5QF 1.83 1.84 1.84 1.79 1.70 1.48 

West PCT 

Buckinghamshire 5QD 2.60 2.36 2.07 1.54 1.64 1.59 

PCT 

Hampshire 5QC 1.86 1.56 1.49 1.32 1.25 1.03 

PCT 

Isle of Wight 

Healthcare 

PCT 

5QT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.93 1.12 

Milton 

Keynes PCT 

Oxfordshire 

PCT 

Portsmouth 

City Teaching 

PCT 

Southampton 

City PCT 

South West 

strategic 

health 


Bath and 

North East 

Somerset PCT 

Bournemouth 

and Poole 

PCT 

Bristol 

Teaching PCT 

5CQ 2.63 2.07 2.34 2.43 2.32 2.14 

5QE 2.21 2.15 2.13 1.94 1.79 1.79 

5FE 1.79 1.91 1.76 1.88 1.81 1.57 

5L1 2.08 2.61 2.27 2.36 1.47 1.10 

1.81 1.89 1.84 1.69 1.64 1.61 

5FL 2.00 2.15 1.97 1.89 1.87 1.71 

5QN 1.27 1.77 2.05 2.00 1.77 1.90 

5QJ 1.76 2.81 2.53 2.45 2.16 2.22

979W 


20 JULY 2009 


980W 





2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Cornwall and 5QP 1.78 1.72 1.77 1.76 1.66 1.67 

Isles of Scilly 

PCT 

Devon PCT 5QQ 1.51 1.45 1.42 1.49 1.30 1.19 

Dorset PCT 5QM 2.47 1.75 1.91 1.68 1.59 1.57 

Gloucestershire 5QH 2.07 2.12 1.93 1.09 1.70 1.73 

PCT 

North 

5M8 1.34 1.48 1.62 1.49 1.40 1.51 

Somerset PCT 

Plymouth 5F1 2.65 2.45 2.31 2.08 1.91 1.85 

Teaching PCT 

Somerset PCT 5QL 0.87 1.55 1.84 1.81 1.60 1.41 

South 

5A3 2.46 2.32 1.42 1.29 1.48 1.49 

Gloucestershire 

PCT 

Swindon PCT 5K3 2.17 1.95 1.66 1.90 1.87 1.48 

Torbay Care TAL 1.80 0.00 1.76 1.69 1.50 1.60 

Trust 

Wiltshire PCT 5QK 1.78 1.62 1.63 1.48 1.44 1.45 

Notes: 

1. Figures are based on full-time equivalent health visitor figures. 

2. PCT figures have been mapped to the current organisational 

structure. 

3. 2008 population figures are not yet available. Figures have been 

calculated using workforce figures and population estimates from 

the previous year, so 2008 figures are calculated using 2008 census 

figures and 2007 population estimates. 

4. A small number of health visitors are employed by NHS trusts for 

which population figures are not available. These staff are included 

in SHA area and England totals. 

5. Figures are at one decimal place per 1,000 and two decimal places 

per 10,000. 

Sources: 

The NHS Information Centre for health and social care Non- 

Medical Workforce census. PCO Mid-Year Final Population 

Estimates, 2001 Population Census Based. ONS Population 

Estimates. 

Health: Children 

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health (1) what representations he has received on the 

usefulness of his Department’s guidance on the 

maximum recommended amount of time infants aged 

up to six months should spend in (a) pushchairs and 

(b) car seats of categories 0 and 0+; [281704] 

(2) what guidance (a) his Department, (b) its 

agencies and (c) the NHS issue on the maximum safe 

length of time for an infant aged up to six months to 

spend in a car seat. [285820] 

Ann Keen: No guidance has been issued by this 

Department on the length of time an infant aged up to 

six months should spend in either a pushchair or car 

seat. 

Our publication the “Pregnancy Book”provides general 

advice on the use of pushchairs and car seats. We advise 

that pushchairs are only suitable for babies if they have 

fully reclining seats which allow the baby to lie flat. In a 

car, a safety restraint must be used. It is dangerous and 

illegal for a baby to be carried in their parents’ arms in a 

car. Similar advice is given in “Birth to Five”; guidance 

on parenthood and the first five years of life. 

Copies of the relevant chapters have been placed in 

the Library. 

Heart Diseases 

Mr. David Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State 

for Health how many people each primary care trust 

had registered as having (a) chronic obstructive 

pulmonary disease, (b) asthma, (c) tuberculosis and 

(d) lung cancer on the latest date for which figures are 

available. [286913] 

Ann Keen: Figures for the number of people, in 

England, registered with chronic obstructive pulmonary 

disease or asthma can be found in the 2007-08 Quality 

and Outcomes Framework (QOF), a copy has already 

been placed in the Library. 

The table in question, PCT level QOF tables 2007-08— 

prevalence.xls, can be viewed on the following link: 

www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-and-data-collections/supportinginformation/audits-and-performance/the-quality-andoutcomes-framework/qof-2007/08/data-tables 

A copy of the table has been placed in the Library. 

We do not hold figures for the number of people 

registered with tuberculosis or lung cancer. 

Hospital Wards: Gender 

Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

pursuant to the answer of 11 March 2009, Official 

Report, column 511WA, on hospital wards, what local 

improvements and changes (a) were planned to be 

implemented and (b) were implemented by the end of 

June 2009; and how much was spent on each 

improvement and change which has been implemented. 

[288570] 

Ann Keen: Strategic health authority (SHA) plans for 

the £100 million Privacy and Dignity Fund have already 

been placed in the Library, detailing the planned 

improvements and changes. 

The latest information from the SHAs confirms almost 

50 per cent. of the schemes were completed by the end 

of June. Examples of the work undertaken include new 

and refurbished bathrooms and toilets, curtains and 

partitions to improve the privacy of patients and a 

number of communication initiatives to raise awareness 

with staff, the patients and the public. Regular monitoring 

of progress against SHA plans continues. 

Information is not available to confirm the funding 

for each individual project. 

Hospitals: Admissions 


Health how many prisoners were admitted to hospital 

due to (a) drug misuse, (b) alcohol misuse and 

(c) self-harm in each of the last five years. [287372] 

Phil Hope: The Department does not centrally collect 

data on the number of prisoners admitted to hospital 

due to alcohol or drug misuse. 

The number of prisoners (both male and female) 

admitted to hospital due to self harm in each of the last 

five years is as follows.

981W 


20 JULY 2009 


982W 

Self harm incidents—England and Wales (male and female) admitted 

as in-patient to hospital 

Number 

2004 134 

2005 153 

2006 159 

2007 122 

2008 135 

Incontinence 


for Health what provision is made for (a) pre- and (b) 

post-registration education and training for nurses on 

the provision of continence services. [288028] 

Ann Keen: This information is not collected centrally. 

Work force planning, including training, in the national 

health service is managed and led at a local level by the 

strategic health authorities taking into account the national 

policy direction. 

Local NHS organisations are best placed determine 

the levels of service and resource required to meet the 

health needs of the local population. 

Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

whether the Government intends continence care to be 

part of its Carers Dignity and Respect agenda. [285586] 

Phil Hope: Incontinence is a challenge to dignity and 

through the Dignity in Care campaign we are equipping 

local people with the information, advice and support 

necessary to drive up standards of care with respect to 

dignity for the individual. 

Insect Bites 

Norman Lamb: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health how many (a) hospital admissions and (b) bed 

days with a primary or secondary cause of insect bites 

were recorded in each of the last five years. [286983] 

Gillian Merron: The data requested are not available 

in precisely the form requested. 

From 2003-04 to 2007-08 the activity in English 

national health service hospitals, and English NHS 

commissioned activity in the independent sector, for the 

number of admissions and bed days in hospital due to 

the patient being bitten or stung by a non-venomous 

insect or other non-venomous arthropod (e.g. spider or 

tick), recorded in Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) as 

cause code W57, is shown in the following table: 

Finished admission 

episodes 

Total bed days 

during the year 

2003-04 1,719 3,790 

2004-05 1,988 3,929 

2005-06 2,161 4,179 

2006-07 2,738 4,655 

2007-08 2,614 4,548 

Notes: 

1. Finished admission episodes—A finished admission episode is the 

first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare 

provider. Finished admission episodes are counted against the year in 

which the admission episode finishes. Admissions do not represent 

the number of inpatients, as a person may have more than one 

admission within the year. 

2. Total bed days during the year—Bed days of finished episodes only 

include days of bed occupancy from episode start date or 1 April 

(whichever is later) to episode end date or 31 March (whichever is 

earlier). These do not include unfinished episodes which end in the 

subsequent year. 

3. Cause code W57—Bitten or stung by non-venomous insect and 

other non-venomous arthropods. The cause code is a supplementary 

code that indicates the nature of any external cause of injury, poisoning 

or other adverse effects. The field within HES counts only the first 

external cause code which is coded within the episode. 

4. Ungrossed data—Figures have not been adjusted for shortfalls in 

data (i.e. the data are ungrossed). 

Source: 

Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), The NHS Information Centre for 

health and social care 

Kidneys: Health Education 

Mrs. Dean: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 


column 868W, on kidneys: health education, (1) what 

plans he has to consult (a) patients and (b) clinicians 

prior to the publication of his Department’s information 

leaflet on identifying unhealthy kidneys; and what plans 

he has to ensure the wide availability and distribution of 

the leaflet; [288462] 

(2) when he plans to publish the patient information 

leaflet on identifying unhealthy kidneys; and what 

plans he has to publicise its launch. [288463] 

Ann Keen: The patient information leaflet on proteinuria 

is being developed in partnership with clinicians and 

patients. This is to be part of a pack of information on 

proteinuria testing already published on the Department’s 

website for general practitioners and laboratories. 

This can be found at: 

www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Secondarycare/Pathology/ 

DH_096049 

We are in the process of determining how best to 

promote the leaflet widely before publication by early 

autumn. 

Medic Alert: Organs 

Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

(1) if he will take steps to promote MedicAlert as a sole 

central register for those with organ donation wishes 

and advanced decision wishes; and if he will make a 


(2) if he will take steps to ensure that, on 

commencement of their roles, all emergency services 

personnel receive training in the life-saving services 

provided by the MedicAlert Foundation. [287429] 

Ann Keen: It is important that people wishing to be 

organ donors have flexibility in making that wish known, 

for example they can carry a donor card, register on the 

national organ donor register, make their wishes known 

to another organisation or simply tell family and friends. 

The important thing is that the information is readily 

available at the appropriate time. 

The Government do not see a single national database 

or central register for advance decisions as the best way 

forward. The intention has always been to allow as 

much flexibility as possible for those making advance 

decisions.

983W 


20 JULY 2009 


984W 

Ambulance trusts are responsible for providing 

appropriate training for staff, and information on whether 

this includes training on MedicAlert is not available 

centrally. 

Mental Health Services 

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what steps his Department is taking to provide 

treatment for (a) psychotic and (b) bipolar depressive 

conditions. [287499] 

Phil Hope: We have made very substantial resources 

available to the national health service from which to 

provide mental health care treatments and services. 

However, the responsibility for providing all NHS services, 

including provision of treatments for bi-polar depressive 

conditions and psychosis, now rests with primary care 

trusts. 

Since 2001-02, real terms investment in adult mental 

health services increased by 44 per cent. (or £1.7 billion) 

putting in place the services and staff needed to transform 

mental health services. The NHS spent £5.53 billion on 

these services in 2007-08 (£3.844 billion in 2001-02). 

There are 67 per cent. more consultant psychiatrists, 

79 per cent. more clinical psychologists and at least 

23 per cent. more mental health nurses than we had in 

1997, providing better care and support for people with 

mental health problems. 

More than 740 new community mental health teams 

offer home treatment, early intervention, or intensive 

support for people who might otherwise have been 

admitted to hospital. 

Mental Health Services: Morecambe 


Health what steps he is taking to improve mental 

health provision for young people in Morecambe and 

Lunesdale constituency. [287838] 

Ann Keen: The information requested is not held 

centrally. It is the responsibility of local national health 

service organisations to plan, develop and improve local 

health services according to the needs of the local 

population. My hon. Friend may wish to approach the 

North Lancashire primary care trust and the Lancashire 

Care NHS Foundation Trust for information relevant 

to the Morecambe and Lunesdale area. 

Mentally Incapacitated: Children 

Mr. Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

at what locations in Bournemouth severely mentally 

impaired children may be treated; and what choice 

parents have about the location at which treatment is 

provided. [287885] 

Phil Hope: The South West strategic health authority 

has advised that there is a range of outreach support 

and choice to young people who have a mental illness, 

learning disabilities and challenging behaviour, and their 

families, in a variety of local settings including the 

individuals’ own home, schools and general practitioner 

surgeries. These services are backed up by specialist 

intensive outreach and in-patient provision, and provide 

support for young people across Bournemouth, Poole 

and Dorset. 

The service is aimed at being sensitive to the rights 

and needs of parents and carers, and involves them in 

the intervention process where appropriate. It also adheres 

to the Heath Advisory Service requirements, the Children 

Acts 1989 and 2004 and the National Service Frameworks 

for mental health and children and young people, and 

offers confidentiality in the context of safeguarding 

children. 

Midwives: Recruitment 

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if 

he will take steps to increase the numbers of midwives 

employed by the NHS. [288013] 

Ann Keen: The Secretary of State announced a package 

of measures in February 2008 to recruit an extra 1,000 

midwives by 2009, rising to around 4,000 by 2012, 

dependent on the birth rate continuing to rise. 

Mid-Yorkshire NHS Trust: Doctors 

Jon Trickett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

how many doctors were employed by the Mid- 

Yorkshire NHS Trust (a) in 1997 and (b) at the latest 

date for which figures are available. [289118] 

Ann Keen: The information is not available in the 

format requested. The information as is available is 

shown in the following table. 

Number of doctors employed by the Mid-Yorkshire Hospitals NHS 

Trust, 2002-08 

Number 

(headcount) Full-time equivalent 

2002 580 544 

2003 572 543 

2004 626 597 

2005 665 641 

2006 678 654 

2007 705 686 

2008 705 686 

Notes: 

1. The structure of national health service trusts in the Wakefield area 

has changed over the period the data is requested for. In April 2002, 

the Mid-Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust was formed from the partialmerger 

of the Pinderfields and Pontefract Hospitals NHS Trust and 

the Dewsbury Health Care NHS Trust. Data is shown for the Mid- 

Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, from 2002 onwards. 

2. Work force statistics are compiled from data sent by more than 300 

NHS trusts and primary care trusts (PCTs) in England. The NHS 

Information Centre for health and social care liaises closely with these 

organisations to encourage submission of complete and valid data 

and seeks to minimise inaccuracies and the effect of missing and 

invalid data. Processing methods and procedures are continually 

being updated to improve data quality. Where this happens, any 

impact on figures already published will be assessed but unless this is 

significant at national level they will not be changed. Where there is 

impact only at detailed or local level this will be footnoted in relevant 

analyses. 

Source: 

NHS Information Centre for health and social care. 

National Joint Registry Steering Committee 

Mike Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health (1) what the annual salary was of each member 

of the board of the National Joint Registry Steering 

Committee in each of the last five years; [288839]

985W 


20 JULY 2009 


986W 

(2) how much the National Joint Registry Steering 

Committee spent on staffing in each of the last five 

years; [288840] 

(3) how many (a) full-time equivalent and (b) parttime 

staff are employed by the National Joint Registry 

Steering Committee; [288841] 

(4) how much was spent on external consultancy by 

the National Joint Registry Steering Committee in each 

of the last five years; [288842] 

(5) what the cost of the office premises occupied by 

the National Joint Registry Steering Committee was in 

each of the last five years; [288965] 

(6) what the budget for the National Joint Registry 

Steering Committee was in each of the last five years; 

[288966] 

(7) on what dates Ministers in his Department last 

met staff of the National Joint Registry Steering 

Committee. [288967] 

Ann Keen: The National Joint Registry Steering Group 

is an advisory non-departmental public body. Members 

are unpaid but reimbursed for their travel and subsistence. 

The steering group does not employ staff and does not 

occupy any office premises. It does not have an annual 

budget, as it receives its funding through a levy on hip 

and knee joint replacements supplied to the national 

health service and independent health care providers, 

and it has not spent any money on external consultancy. 

Neurology 

Sir Paul Beresford: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what assessment he has made of the progress by 

local NHS trusts in implementing the National Service 

Framework for long-term neurological conditions since 

the end of the framework planning period in 2008. 

[288308] 

Ann Keen: We have made no assessment of the progress 

being made by primary care trusts in implementing the 

long-term conditions National Service Framework (NSF) 

since the end of the framework planning period. 

I will shortly be writing to all strategic health authority 

long-term conditions leads outlining the importance of 

the recommendations made in the NSF for long-term 

conditions. 

Mark Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of 

the implementation of the National Service Framework 

for long-term neurological conditions (a) before and 

(b) after the devolution of responsibility for the framework 

to the regional Long Term Conditions Delivery Support 

Team. [288365] 

Ann Keen: We have made no recent assessment of the 

effectiveness of the implementation of the National 

Service Framework (NSF) for long-term neurological 

conditions. 

I will shortly be writing to all strategic health authority 

long-term conditions leads outlining the importance of 

the recommendations made in the NSF for long-term 

conditions. 

Mark Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what recent assessment he has made of the 

merits of appointing a full-time national lead officer 

for neurological conditions. [288455] 

Ann Keen: We have made no recent assessment of the 

merits of appointing a national lead officer for neurological 

conditions. 

NHS: Finance 


for Health pursuant to the Answer of 1 July 2009, 

Official Report, columns 346-48W, on NHS: finance, 

when each loan was made; for what purpose each loan 

was made; what the reasons are for differences in the 

interest rates charged; and which of the trusts listed in 

the Answer are in the financially challenged trusts 

regime. [286926] 

Mr. Mike O’Brien: The information requested is provided 

in the table. The interest rate paid on loans is the 

National Loan Fund (NLF) Equal Instalment of Principle 

rate. The interest rate is updated daily and the actual 

rate charged relates to the term of loan. The rate is 

published daily by the Debt Management Office. Current 

and historic rates are available at: 

www.dmo.gov.uk/index.aspx?page=PWLB/ 

PWLB_Interest_Rates 

Of the organisations who have outstanding loans, 

Whipps Cross University Hospitals NHS trust is the 

only organisation currently designated as a financially 

challenged trust. 

NHS trust name 

Original loan value 

£000 Date loan made Loan purpose 

Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust 3,000 12 November 2007 Capital investment 

Queen Elizabeth Hospital Kings Lynn NHS Trust 3,480 12 November 2007 Capital investment 

Rob Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic NHS Trust 500 12 November 2007 Capital investment 

North East Ambulance Service NHS Trust 700 17 December 2007 Capital investment 

Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust 7,500 17 March 2008 Capital investment 

Oxford Radcliffe Hospital NHS Trust 6,141 17 March 2008 Capital investment 

West Hertfordshire NHS Trust 13,500 15 July 2008 Capital investment 

West Hertfordshire NHS Trust 13,500 15 September 2008 Capital investment 

Buckinghamshire Hospitals NHS Trust 7,000 15 September 2008 Capital investment 

South Central Ambulance Service NHS Trust 3,454 15 September 2008 Capital investment 

Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust 8,000 15 September 2008 Capital investment

987W 


20 JULY 2009 


988W 




Great Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust 2,460 17 December 2008 Capital investment 

East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust 1,500 17 December 2008 Capital investment 

South Central Ambulance Service NHS Trust 3,551 17 December 2008 Capital investment 

Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust 12,300 16 March 2009 Capital investment 

Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust 800 16 March 2009 Capital investment 

Oxford Radcliffe Hospital NHS Trust 7,900 16 March 2009 Capital investment 

Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust 7,000 16 March 2009 Capital investment 

North Cumbria Acute Hospital NHS Trust 400 15 September 2007 Working capital 

Scarborough And North East Yorks NHS Trust 765 15 September 2007 Working capital 

St. George’s Healthcare NHS Trust 250 15 September 2007 Working capital 

West Sussex NHS Trust 1,063 17 March 2008 Working capital 

North Cumbria Acute Hospital NHS Trust 400 17 March 2008 Working capital 

Scarborough And North East Yorks NHS Trust 764 17 March 2008 Working capital 

St. George’s Healthcare NHS Trust 4,550 17 March 2008 Working capital 

Barnet and Chase Farm NHS Trust 1,782 17 March 2008 Working capital 


Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust 4,888 17 March 2008 Working capital 

Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust 2,597 16 March 2009 Working capital 

Western Area NHS Trust 800 16 March 2009 Working capital 

East Cheshire NHS Trust 7,000 22 March 2007 Working capital 

Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust 1,700 22 March 2007 Working capital 

North Cumbria Acute Hospitals NHS Trust 12,000 22 March 2007 Working capital 

University Hospitals Of Morecambe Bay NHS Trust 6,500 22 March 2007 Working capital 

Scarborough And North East Yorks NHS Trust 7,646 22 March 2007 Working capital 

Hull And East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust 10,896 22 March 2007 Working capital 

South Warwickshire Gen Hospitals NHS Trust 18,500 22 March 2007 Working capital 

Rob Jones And A Hunt Orthopaedic NHS Trust 3,400 22 March 2007 Working capital 

Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust 3,279 22 March 2007 Working capital 

George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust 6,800 22 March 2007 Working capital 

Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust 25,000 22 March 2007 Working capital 

Shrewsbury And Telford Hospital NHS Trust 12,299 22 March 2007 Working capital 

Queen Elizabeth Hospital Kings Lynn NHS Trust 6,300 22 March 2007 Working capital 

Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust 23,400 22 March 2007 Working capital 

West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust 1,950 22 March 2007 Working capital 

Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust 23,400 22 March 2007 Working capital 

Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust 13,650 22 March 2007 Working capital 

West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust 11,200 22 March 2007 Working capital 

East And North Hertfordshire NHS Trust 7,800 22 March 2007 Working capital 

North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust 15,000 22 March 2007 Working capital 

Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust 26,294 22 March 2007 Working capital 

Mayday Healthcare NHS Trust 11,000 22 March 2007 Working capital 

St. George’s Healthcare NHS Trust 34,000 22 March 2007 Working capital 

North West London Hospitals NHS Trust 23,830 22 March 2007 Working capital 

Barnet And Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust 17,500 22 March 2007 Working capital 

Epsom And St. Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust 14,000 22 March 2007 Working capital 



Ashford And St. Peter’s Hospitals NHS Trust 14,700 22 March 2007 Working capital 

Surrey And Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust 56,000 22 March 2007 Working capital 

East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust 4,000 22 March 2007 Working capital 

Brighton And Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust 29,322 22 March 2007 Working capital 

Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust 25,000 22 March 2007 Working capital 

Winchester And Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust 5,000 22 March 2007 Working capital 

Oxford Radcliffe Hospital NHS Trust 19,986 22 March 2007 Working capital 

Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust 38,000 22 March 2007 Working capital 

North Bristol NHS Trust 52,000 22 March 2007 Working capital 

Avon And Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust 5,000 22 March 2007 Working capital 

Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust 3,000 17 March 2008 Working capital 

Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust 31,400 15 July 2008 Working capital 

University Hospitals Of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS 

Trust 

16,000 15 July 2008 Working capital

989W 


20 JULY 2009 


990W 




Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust 5,500 15 July 2008 Working capital 

Weston Area Health Authority 14,300 15 July 2008 Working capital 

Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust 46,125 15 July 2008 Working capital 

West Middlesex University NHS Trust 17,000 15 July 2008 Working capital 

West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust 5,000 15 September 2008 Working capital 

Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust 2,000 16 March 2009 Working capital 

East Cheshire NHS Trust 2,533 16 March 2009 Working capital 

NHS: Management Consultants 

Frank Dobson: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health how much the NHS has spent on management 

consultants in each year since 1996-97. [287693] 

Mr. Mike O’Brien: The Department does not collect 

the specific information requested centrally. 

NHS: Manpower 

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

how many public health workers have been employed 

in the NHS in the East of England region in each year 

since 1997. [286273] 

Ann Keen: Information is not available in the format 

requested. The following table, however, shows the number 

of medical and dental staff within the public health 

medicine (PHM) and community health services (CHS) 

group of specialists in the East of England strategic 

health authority (SHA) area since 1997. 

It is worth noting, that there are increasing numbers 

of non-medical public health workers, following the 

introduction of an MSc in public health for non-medical 

staff, which would not be picked up in the medical and 

dental workforce census. There have also been a number 

of reorganisations within the national health service 

since 1997, which may account for fluctuation in figures. 

NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): Medical and 

dental staff within the PHM and CHS group of specialties in East of 

England SHA, England, at 30 September each year 

Headcount 

1997 394 

1998 326 

1999 331 

2000 296 

2001 271 

2002 293 

2003 275 

2004 291 

2005 294 

2006 280 

2007 310 

2008 276 

Notes: 

The data in the table shows only medical and dental staff specifically 

working within the PHM and CHS specialty group. The public health 

medicine area is a large, somewhat complex area and it is not possible 

to separately identify staff in this area using the available census data 

breakdowns. Data has therefore been provided for those staff we can 

identify as working in this area. Figures exclude all non-medical staff, 

such as nursing and allied health professionals. 

Data quality: 

Workforce statistics are compiled from data sent by more than 300 

NHS trusts and primary care trusts in England. The NHS Information 

Centre for health and social care liaises closely with these organisations 

to encourage submission of complete and valid data and seeks to 

minimise inaccuracies and the effect of missing and invalid data. 

Processing methods and procedures are continually being updated to 

improve data quality. Where this happens any impact on figures 

already published will be assessed but unless this is significant at 

national level they will not be changed. Where there is impact only at 

detailed or local level this will be footnoted in relevant analyses. 

Source: 

The NHS Information Centre for health and social care Medical and 

Dental Workforce Census. 

Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 


columns 348-49W, on NHS: manpower, if he will place 

in the Library a copy of each of the National 

Framework Agreements; what pay rates are used 

under each agreement; and what estimate he has made 

of the proportion of such pay that (a) agencies and 

(b) employees receive under each such contract. 

[286311] 

Ann Keen: The national framework agreements for 

these contracts and the rates of pay included in them 

are confidential and commercially sensitive. The framework 

agreement has only recently been awarded and to release 

its full provisions would not be in the commercial 

interests of the companies concerned nor of the national 

health service as a whole. 

Although there is an interest in releasing this data to 

ensure that the public sector’s procurement practices 

are as transparent as possible, we must set this against 

the risk that the release of the information would prejudice 

fair competition between the current suppliers of temporary 

staff and their competitors both in this framework 

agreement and in future tenders. 

It would be extremely difficult to estimate the proportion 

of pay that agencies and employees receive and present 

it in a meaningful form. This is because every supplier 

tenders a unique pay and charge rate for each type of 

temporary worker supplied. For doctors alone there are 

140 different grades and specialties each with an individual 

pay and charge rate. On top of that there are 19 different 

discount options and both a long and a short-term 

booking version from each of the 53 agencies giving 

nearly 300,000 prices on this contract alone. 

NHS: Meat 

David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what guidance his Department provides to the 

NHS on the procurement of halal meat; and whether 

that guidance differentiates between stunned and 

pre-stunned meat. [287720]

991W 


20 JULY 2009 


992W 

Mr. Mike O’Brien: The Department does not provide 

advice to national health service trusts on the purchase 

of halal meat. 

NHS: Public Consultation 

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State 

for Health what host has been appointed to each local 

involvement network; and how much funding his 

Department provided to each such network in 2008-09. 

[287997] 

Ann Keen: Local authorities with social services 

responsibilities are under a statutory duty to make 

arrangements for local involvement network (LINk) 

activities to be carried on in their area. They do this by 

contracting with what is known as a host organisation. 

Neither local authorities nor hosts are required to inform 

the Department of which host has been contracted for 

which LINk. 

However, the National Centre for Involvement maintains 

a contact list of host organisations on an informal basis 

which is available as a .pdf document. The latest version 


The Department provides funds to local authorities 

to support LINk activities as part of the annual area-based 

grant. The grant is not ring-fenced. The allocations to 

each local authority for 2008-09 to 2010-11 are given in 

the following table. 

£ million 

Local authority 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Principal 

metropolitan cities 

Birmingham 0.558 0.556 0.554 

Leeds 0.308 0.307 0.306 

Liverpool 0.291 0.288 0.286 

Manchester 0.288 0.287 0.287 

Newcastle upon 

0.171 0.17 0.168 

Tyne 

Sheffield 0.263 0.263 0.262 

Sub-total 1.879 1.871 1.863 

Other metropolitan 

districts 

Barnsley 0.152 0.152 0.152 

Bolton 0.166 0.166 0.165 

Bradford 0.259 0.259 0.26 

Bury 0.122 0.122 0.122 

Calderdale 0.13 0.13 0.13 

Coventry 0.178 0.177 0.177 

Doncaster 0.172 0.172 0.172 

Dudley 0.173 0.173 0.172 

Gateshead 0.14 0.139 0.138 

Kirklees 0.202 0.202 0.202 

Knowsley 0.14 0.139 0.139 

North Tyneside 0.134 0.134 0.134 

Oldham 0.151 0.151 0.151 

Rochdale 0.147 0.146 0.146 

Rotherham 0.16 0.16 0.16 

Salford 0.159 0.158 0.157 

Sandwell 0.202 0.202 0.201 

Sefton 0.172 0.171 0.17 

Solihull 0.119 0.119 0.119 

£ million 


South Tyneside 0.127 0.126 0.126 

St. Helens 0.132 0.132 0.132 

Stockport 0.149 0.149 0.148 

Sunderland 0.176 0.175 0.174 

Tameside 0.146 0.146 0.146 

Trafford 0.13 0.13 0.129 

Wakefield 0.182 0.182 0.182 

Walsall 0.17 0.169 0.169 

Wigan 0.175 0.175 0.175 

Wirral 0.2 0.199 0.199 

Wolverhampton 0.169 0.168 0.167 

Sub-total 4.833 4.824 4.814 

Inner London 

City of London 0.063 0.063 0.064 

Camden 0.176 0.177 0.179 

Greenwich 0.188 0.188 0.188 

Hackney 0.207 0.207 0.206 

Hammersmith and 0.143 0.143 0.143 

Fulham 

Islington 0.17 0.17 0.169 

Kensington and 

0.14 0.142 0.143 

Chelsea 

Lambeth 0.207 0.206 0.205 

Lewisham 0.197 0.195 0.194 

Southwark 0.211 0.21 0.209 

Tower Hamlets 0.208 0.208 0.208 

Wandsworth 0.169 0.169 0.168 

Westminster 0.174 0.176 0.178 

Sub-total 2.254 2.254 2.253 

Outer London 

Barking and 

0.147 0.146 0.146 

Dagenham 

Barnet 0.182 0.182 0.182 

Bexley 0.131 0.131 0.131 

Brent 0.185 0.185 0.184 

Bromley 0.151 0.151 0.15 

Croydon 0.188 0.188 0.187 

Ealing 0.183 0.182 0.182 

Enfield 0.179 0.179 0.178 

Haringey 0.172 0.171 0.171 

Harrow 0.138 0.138 0.138 

Havering 0.133 0.132 0.132 

Hillingdon 0.147 0.147 0.146 

Hounslow 0.142 0.141 0.141 

Kingston upon 

0.102 0.102 0.102 

Thames 

Merton 0.123 0.123 0.123 

Newham 0.214 0.213 0.212 

Redbridge 0.156 0.156 0.156 

Richmond upon 

0.107 0.107 0.107 

Thames 

Sutton 0.118 0.117 0.117 

Waltham Forest 0.164 0.163 0.162 

Sub-total 3.062 3.054 3.047 

Shire counties 

Bedfordshire 0.171 0.172 0.172 

Buckinghamshire 0.182 0.182 0.182 

Cambridgeshire 0.219 0.22 0.222

993W 


20 JULY 2009 


994W 

£ million 


Cheshire 0.257 0.257 0.258 

Cornwall 0.252 0.253 0.255 

Cumbria 0.232 0.232 0.232 

Derbyshire 0.314 0.315 0.316 

Devon 0.298 0.299 0.301 

Dorset 0.183 0.184 0.184 

Durham 0.256 0.255 0.255 

East Sussex 0.236 0.237 0.237 

Essex 0.48 0.482 0.484 

Gloucestershire 0.231 0.231 0.231 

Hampshire 0.378 0.379 0.381 

Hertfordshire 0.361 0.361 0.361 

Kent 0.492 0.493 0.495 

Lancashire 0.454 0.455 0.456 

Leicestershire 0.219 0.22 0.221 

Lincolnshire 0.285 0.287 0.29 

Norfolk 0.342 0.344 0.345 

North Yorkshire 0.222 0.222 0.223 

Northamptonshire 0.253 0.254 0.256 

Northumberland 0.165 0.165 0.165 

Nottinghamshire 0.304 0.305 0.306 

Oxfordshire 0.222 0.223 0.223 

Shropshire 0.15 0.15 0.151 

Somerset 0.226 0.227 0.228 

Staffordshire 0.301 0.302 0.303 

Suffolk 0.28 0.281 0.283 

Surrey 0.333 0.333 0.333 

Warwickshire 0.212 0.213 0.214 

West Sussex 0.281 0.281 0.282 

Wiltshire 0.181 0.182 0.183 

Worcestershire 0.222 0.223 0.223 

Sub-total 9.194 9.224 9.252 

Shire unitary 

authorities 

Bath and North 

0.109 0.109 0.109 

East Somerset 

Blackburn with 

0.123 0.123 0.123 

Darwen 

Blackpool 0.126 0.126 0.126 

Bournemouth 0.119 0.118 0.118 

Bracknell Forest 0.086 0.086 0.086 

Brighton and Hove 0.148 0.147 0.147 

Bristol 0.21 0.209 0.208 

Darlington 0.096 0.096 0.096 

Derby 0.15 0.149 0.149 

East Riding of 

0.158 0.159 0.159 

Yorkshire 

Halton 0.111 0.11 0.11 

Hartlepool 0.099 0.099 0.099 

Herefordshire 0.119 0.119 0.119 

Isle of Wight 

0.115 0.115 0.116 

Council 

Isles of Scilly 0.061 0.061 0.061 

Kingston upon 

0.173 0.172 0.171 

Hull 

Leicester 0.186 0.185 0.184 

Luton 0.131 0.131 0.131 

Medway 0.136 0.136 0.136 

Middlesbrough 0.122 0.121 0.121 

Milton Keynes 0.129 0.13 0.131 

£ million 


North East 

0.12 0.12 0.12 

Lincolnshire 

North Lincolnshire 0.114 0.114 0.114 

North Somerset 0.121 0.122 0.123 

Nottingham 0.184 0.183 0.182 

Peterborough 0.122 0.122 0.123 

Plymouth 0.151 0.151 0.151 

Poole 0.103 0.102 0.102 

Portsmouth 0.125 0.125 0.125 

Reading 0.104 0.104 0.103 

Redcar and 

0.116 0.116 0.116 

Cleveland 

Rutland 0.069 0.069 0.069 

Slough 0.104 0.103 0.103 

South 

0.124 0.124 0.125 

Gloucestershire 

Southampton 0.141 0.141 0.141 

Southend-on-Sea 0.123 0.123 0.123 

Stockton-on-Tees 0.126 0.126 0.126 

Stoke-on-Trent 0.163 0.162 0.161 

Swindon 0.112 0.112 0.112 

Telford and The 

0.119 0.12 0.12 

Wrekin 

Thurrock 0.111 0.112 0.112 

Torbay 0.119 0.12 0.12 

Warrington 0.117 0.117 0.117 

West Berkshire 0.095 0.095 0.095 

Windsor and 

0.093 0.093 0.093 

Maidenhead 

Wokingham 0.087 0.088 0.088 

York 0.108 0.108 0.108 

Sub-total 5.778 5.774 5.771 


for Health what recent assessment he has made of the 

effectiveness of (a) local involvement networks and 

(b) the hosts contracted to set up and run those 

networks. [288019] 

Ann Keen: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given 

to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) 

on 11 June 2009, Official Report, column 964W. 

Local authorities hold the contracts with host 

organisations and are responsible for the management 

of those contracts. 


for Health whether all host organisations contracted to 

set up and run local involvement networks have taken 

out indemnity cover for members of those networks; 

and if he will make a statement. [288020] 


centrally. 

Nurses: Training 


for Health whether continence education and training 

is included in the national curriculum for pre- and 

post-registration training for nurses. [286925]

995W 


20 JULY 2009 


996W 

Ann Keen: The responsibility for setting standards 

required for professional registration sits with the 

professional regulators, and the training curricula is 

designed to meet these standards by the higher education 

institutes in partnership with national health service 

providers and the regulators. The Department, along 

with local NHS bodies that commission professional 

training, continues to work with the regulators and 

higher education institutes to ensure that their standards 

and curricula reflect the changing needs of patients and 

service delivery. 

Organs: Research 

Jo Swinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what assessment his Department has made of the 

merits of including in its National Organ Recovery 

scheme provisions for making organs which are not 

suitable for transplant available for research purposes. 

[288302] 

Ann Keen: The Human Tissue Act 2004 allows organs 

donated for transplant but not used for transplant to be 

used for research where appropriate consent is in place. 

It is routine practice when seeking consent to donation 

for transplantation for donor transplant coordinators 

to also seek consent for research should the organs not 

be suitable for transplant. 

Pain: Health Services 

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

how many NHS specialist pain management services 

there were in (a) Essex and (b) Castle Point in the 

latest period for which figures are available. [287497] 

Ann Keen: This information is not held centrally. 

Palliative Care 

Laura Moffatt: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what progress has been made on the 

preparation of the interim reports on the 

implementation of the National Institute for Health 

and Clinical Excellence Supportive and Palliative Care 

Guidance. [288210] 

Ann Keen: The National Institute for Health and 

Clinical Excellence published guidance on supportive 

and palliative care for adults with cancer in March 

2004. The National Cancer Action Team is working 

closely with cancer networks to monitor and support 

the implementation of this guidance by the end of 

December 2009. Plans for the implementation of this 

guidance are now in place in every cancer network, and 

it is expected to be fully implemented by the December 

2009 deadline. 

Patients: Travel 

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health how many patients in each primary care trust 

area have accessed funding through the Healthcare 

Travel Costs Scheme in each of the last five years. 

[287852] 

Mr. Mike O’Brien: The Department does not collect 

information on the number of patients who have accessed 

funding through the Healthcare Travel Costs Scheme. 

Our policy is to empower the local national health 

service to manage services in a way which best meets the 

needs of their local population. The Department’s role 

is to set national strategic direction, as it has done by 

providing guidance on eligibility and administration of 

the scheme. 


Health what steps his Department takes to monitor the 

effectiveness of the Healthcare Travel Costs Scheme. 

[287854] 

Mr. Mike O’Brien: The Department does not routinely 

monitor the operation of the Healthcare Travel Costs 

Scheme. An evaluation will begin in autumn 2009, to 

assess the impact of revisions made in April 2008 which 

extended the scope of the scheme to include patients 

travelling to treatment following direct referral by a 

doctor or dentist, as well as those people under the care 

of a hospital consultant. 

Prescriptions: Fees and Charges 

Mark Simmonds: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health pursuant to the answer of 25 June 2009, Official 

Report, columns 1121-22W, on prescriptions: fees and 

charges, which organisations responded to the written 

consultation; which stakeholders contributed to the 

oral evidence sessions; which GPs attended the 

workshops; and at what locations the workshops were 

held. [286912] 

Mr. Mike O’Brien: A list of respondents to oral and 

written evidence is provided in the following list. For 

confidentiality reasons the names of individuals submitting 

evidence is withheld and we have included instead the 

organisations that they work for. For written submissions, 

in most cases but not all, the responses were on behalf 

of the listed organisation rather than the individual. We 

are unable to provide details of the general practitioners 

who participated in the workshops, because they did so 

on an anonymised basis. Workshops were held in London, 

Newton Abbot, Northampton, Manchester, Newcastle 

and Croydon. 

The following organisations or individuals provided 

written evidence: 

Academy of Medical Royal Colleges 

Addison’s Disease Self Help Group 

All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sickle Cell and Thalassaemia 

The Association of Cancer Physicians 

Asthma UK 

British Heart Foundation 

British Medical Association 

British Society for Rheumatology 

British Thoracic Society 

Coeliac UK 

Cystic Fibrosis Trust 

Diabetes UK 

East Birmingham and Solihull GP Vocational training scheme— 

West Midlands Deanery 

Epilepsy Action 

Gorlin Syndrome Group 

HEART UK 

Highcliffe Medical Centre Patient Participation Group 

Jubilee Medical Centre

997W 


20 JULY 2009 


998W 

MRC Environmental Epidemiology Unit, Southampton General 

Hospital 

MIND 

Motor Neurone Disease 

Parkinson’s Disease Society 

Prescriptions Coalition 

Royal College of General Practitioners 

Royal College of Ophthalmologists 

Royal College of Physicians, Diabetes and Endocrinology, 

Joint Specialty Committee 

Royal College of Physicians, Ethical Issues in Medicine Committee 

Royal College of Physicians GP Network 

Royal College of Physicians, Palliative Medicine Joint Specialty 

Committee 

Royal Hospital for Neuro-disability 

Sickle Cell Society 

Socialist Health Association 

Society for Endocrinology 

South Bank University 

Spinal Injuries Association 

Submissions from individuals (three) 

UK Thalassaemia Society. 

Oral evidence was given by the following organisations: 

Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances 

British Medical Association 

Citizen’s Advice Bureaux 

Dispensing Doctors’ Association 

Kings Fund 

MIND 

National Pharmacy Association 

National Association of Primary Care 

National Voices 

Patients’ Association 

Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee 

Prescriptions Pricing Division of the NHS Business Services 

Authority 

Prescriptions Coalition of charities (including Asthma UK; 

Diabetes UK; Behcet’s Syndrome Society; Parkinson’s Disease 

Society) 

Royal College of General Practitioners 

Royal College of Nursing 

Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain 

A Strategic Health Authority prescribing adviser 

University of Manchester. 

Pressure Sores: Compensation 


Health how many cases were dealt with by the NHS 

Litigation Authority in 2008-09 in which pressure 

ulcers were the ground for the claim; how many of 

them were settled in the claimant’s favour; what the 

administrative cost was of dealing with such cases; and 

how much was paid in settlements and compensation in 

such cases. [287684] 

Ann Keen: The data requested was provided by the 

NHS Litigation Authority in the following table. 

Number of clinical negligence claims closed 2008-09 where pressure 

sore was one of the injury codes 

Closed—nil 

damages 

Settled— 

damages paid 

Total 

Number of 

15 49 64 

claims 

Damages 

0 1,197,324 1,197,324 

paid (£) 

Defence costs 

10,918 296,134 307,052 

paid (£) 

Claimant 

0 896,561 896,561 

costs paid (£) 

Total paid (£) 10,918 2,390,020 2,400,938 

Damages also cover other injuries that formed part 

of the claim. 

Number of clinical negligence claims closed in 2008-09 

where damages were paid 

Number/£ million 

Number of claims closed with 

3,113 

damages 

Damages paid (£ million) 312.4 

Defence costs paid (£ million) 103.6 

Claimant costs paid (£ million) 39.6 

Total paid (£ million) 455.6 

Preventive Technology Grant 


for Health whether he plans to extend the provisions of 

the Preventative Technology Grant to apply in respect 

of the 2008-09 financial year. [288029] 

Phil Hope: The Preventative Technology Grant funding 

ended in March 2008, although any remaining monies 

were allowed to be carried over into 2008-09 to sustain 

the momentum. It is now the responsibility of local 

authorities to ensure that they are able to provide 

mainstreamed telecare services. 

Primary Care Trusts: Dorset 

Mr. Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what changes to the funding allocations to primary 

care trusts in Dorset there have been in financial year 

2009-10; and what such changes he anticipates in 

financial year 2010-11. [287553] 

Mr. Mike O’Brien: The Department announced the 

primary care trust (PCT) revenue allocations for 2009-10 

and 2010-11 on 8 December 2008. The allocations 

represent an investment of £164 billion in the national 

health service: £80 billion in 2009-10 and £84 billion in 

2010-11. 

The revenue allocations made to the two PCTs serving 

communities in the Dorset area are provided in the 

following table: 

2009-10 2009-10 increase 2010-11 allocation 2010-11 increase 

allocation 

£000 £000 Percentage £000 £000 Percentage 

Dorset PCT 580,964 30,287 5.5 613,261 32,296 5.6 

Bournemouth and 

509,400 29,100 5.5 535,600 26,200 5.1 

Poole PCT 

Source: Department of Health Resource Allocation, Efficiency and Income Generation.

999W 


20 JULY 2009 


1000W 

Primary Care Trusts: Greater Manchester 

Queen Mary’s Hospital Sidcup 

Graham Stringer: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health which primary care trusts in the Greater 

Manchester area have a financial deficit against their 

budget for 2009-10; and how much the deficit is in each 

such case. [287730] 

Ann Keen: There are no primary care trusts within the 

Greater Manchester area that are forecasting a deficit in 

the 2009-10 financial year. 

Primary Care Trusts: Wakefield 


what revenue allocations were made to each primary 

care trust in Wakefield in each year since 2003-04. 

[288665] 

Ann Keen: The revenue allocations made to primary 

care trusts (PCTs) in Wakefield for the period 2003-04 

to 2010-11 are shown in the following tables. 

Table 1: 2003-04 to 2005-06 primary care trust revenue allocations 

Allocation (£000) Three-year increase 

Primary 

care trust 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 £000 Percentage 

Eastern 

Wakefield 

PCT 

Wakefield 

West PCT 

171,930 189,117 208,492 51,104 32.5 

131,156 143,375 156,303 35,519 29.4 


Allocation (£000) Two-year increase 

Primary 

care trust 2006-07 2007-08 £000 Percentage 

Eastern 

Wakefield 

PCT 

Wakefield 

West PCT 

255,393 283,337 53,962 23.5 

189,155 205,849 32,182 18.5 

Table 3: 2008-09 primary care trust revenue allocations 

Allocation 

Cash increase 

Primary care 

trust £000 £000 Percentage 

Wakefield 

District PCT 

515,905 26,719 5.5 


Allocation (£000) Two-year increase 

Primary 

care trust 2009-10 2010-11 £000 Percentage 

Wakefield 564,093 595,118 66,463 12.6 

District 

PCT 

Notes: 

1. On 1 October 2006, the number of PCTs reduced from 303 to 152. 

The Eastern Wakefield PCT and the Wakefield West PCT merged to 

become the Wakefield District PCT. Allocations were made to the 

Wakefield District PCT from 2008-09. 

2. Comparisons between allocations should be made with caution 

because of changes to PCT baseline funding between rounds. 

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what recent representations his Department has 

received on the future of Queen Mary’s Hospital, 

Sidcup. [282753] 

Mr. Mike O’Brien: In relation to the future of Queen 

Mary’s hospital Sidcup between 1 September 2008 

and 29 June 2009, the Department’s correspondence 

and parliamentary questions database shows approximately 

400 letters, of which, approximately 150 are about the 

future of services. There were 22 parliamentary questions 

found but there were no ministerial meetings or debates. 

Sexual Offences: Health Professionals 

Mr. Willis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what funding his Department has allocated for 

specialist support and remedial treatment services for 

patients who have been sexually abused by health 

workers for the period 2007-2012. [286730] 

Ann Keen: No specific allocation is made for this 

purpose. 

Smoking 


Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of 

(1) deaths which were attributable to smoking in each 

of the last 10 years; [284737] 

(2) adults who were smokers in each of the last five 

years. [284748] 

Gillian Merron: The prevalence of smoking and the 

numbers of deaths from smoking have both significantly 

reduced over the past 10 years (from the latest data 

available). In England there are around 2.5 million 

fewer smokers since 1998 and the number of deaths 

from smoking has been reduced to around 82,000 per 

year. 

The information requested is available at: 

www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/GHS07/ 

GHSSmokingandDrinkingAmongAdults2007.pdf 

Social Services 


Health how many people have received care packages 

following an assessment by social services in each local 

authority in each of the last five years; and if he will 

make a statement. [286988] 

Phil Hope: The NHS Health and Social Care Information 

Centre has provided data on all adults aged 18 and over 

who received social care services as a result of a community 

care assessment by councils with adult social services 

responsibilities in each of the last five years. The information 



Health what the cost of (a) continuing care assessments 

and (b) core assessments by social services in each local 

authority was in each of the last five years; and if he 

will make a statement. [286990]

1001W 


20 JULY 2009 


1002W 

Phil Hope: The costs of continuing care assessments 

are not collected centrally. 

The following table shows the total gross current 

expenditure by each local authority in England on 

assessment and care management for adults aged 18 

and over. 

This is information is derived from data collected 

annually on social services expenditure from councils 

with social services responsibilities. 

Data on local authority expenditure on state funded 

adult social care are collected and published by the 

NHS Information Centre for health and social care. 

Gross current expenditure on assessment and care management by local authority, 2003-04 to 2007-08, England 

£000 

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 1 

England total 1,433,031 1,633,962 1,746,677 1,806,207 1,791,712 

Metropolitan districts 

204 Barnsley 6,033 6,449 7,553 9,088 7,653 

406 Birmingham 17,654 31,740 31,644 38,924 34,977 

304 Bolton 5,597 6,095 7,535 8,217 8,903 

209 Bradford 11,486 13,085 13,499 12,879 13,365 

305 Bury 6,338 6,702 6,886 6,852 6,367 

210 Calderdale 4,053 4,379 4,670 4,955 4,943 

407 Coventry 7,729 8,554 10,571 10,005 8,382 

205 Doncaster 7,612 10,878 8,278 10,191 8,764 

408 Dudley 10,349 10,690 11,808 12,340 12,707 

106 Gateshead 5,101 5,482 5,624 5,098 2,115 

211 Kirklees 13,949 15,431 15,936 17,403 18,854 

315 Knowsley 4,155 4,182 4,290 3,691 3,747 

212 Leeds 15,456 15,321 16,416 19,978 20,659 

316 Liverpool 8,167 9,615 8,874 9,700 10,468 

306 Manchester 34,423 37,925 40,701 27,989 28,900 

107 Newcastle upon Tyne 6,123 6,597 8,453 8,341 8,666 

108 North Tyneside 6,405 4,461 8,263 9,278 8,319 

307 Oldham 5,185 5,480 6,547 6,285 8,458 

308 Rochdale 5,607 5,799 6,920 8,226 6,956 

206 Rotherham 7,748 9,237 9,991 10,493 9,336 

309 Salford 5,449 6,640 5,748 6,247 6,482 

409 Sandwell 10,698 10,194 12,715 13,636 13,816 

317 Sefton 6,241 6,934 7,625 7,679 7,656 

207 Sheffield 12,151 12,926 14,800 15,872 15,660 

410 Solihull 3,442 3,997 4,511 4,102 4,357 

109 South Tyneside 2,489 7,308 6,965 6,223 5,962 

318 St. Helens 3,752 3,590 4,904 4,762 4,772 

310 Stockport 8,290 9,117 9,564 14,129 13,885 

110 Sunderland 9,500 12,063 11,128 8,202 10,003 

311 Tameside 7,748 9,072 9,991 11,271 11,449 

312 Trafford 4,487 4,979 7,117 6,569 7,168 

213 Wakefield 7,592 11,773 11,174 10,544 10,683 

411 Walsall 6,565 11,641 13,745 11,805 12,010 

313 Wigan 7,446 6,596 6,851 8,384 7,997 

319 Wirral 8,638 8,962 9,791 7,485 5,658 

412 Wolverhampton 8,157 9,819 10,076 9,974 10,776 

Shire counties 

610 Bedfordshire 10,513 9,124 9,484 15,321 14,946 

612 Buckinghamshire 15,123 14,922 15,816 16,365 14,401 

623 Cambridgeshire 8,565 20,516 24,427 20,737 22,266 

320 Cheshire 13,403 15,264 16,823 20,504 21,375 

902 Cornwall 15,667 21,229 16,871 21,887 15,133 

102 Cumbria 9,959 13,014 23,494 24,814 23,250 

506 Derbyshire 5,531 11,291 11,979 12,392 13,541 

912 Devon 15,885 20,115 19,831 20,207 22,927 

809 Dorset 9,683 10,416 11,123 12,911 12,320 

116 Durham 11,716 14,075 14,374 14,510 19,434 

815 East Sussex 15,771 16,957 17,613 19,493 20,377 

620 Essex 33,541 38,201 35,503 32,898 29,670

1003W 


20 JULY 2009 


1004W 


£000 

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 1 

904 Gloucestershire 13,798 14,679 13,624 15,054 16,385 

812 Hampshire 20,893 28,906 30,136 30,744 33,477 

606 Hertfordshire 24,412 25,472 25,845 27,275 23,717 

906 Isles of Scilly 86 25 30 48 92 

820 Kent 34,135 30,217 34,661 37,001 43,816 

323 Lancashire 25,062 28,558 31,626 31,630 31,653 

508 Leicestershire 9,978 10,522 12,339 12,701 13,659 

503 Lincolnshire 15,104 15,945 11,559 15,386 13,608 

607 Norfolk 14,706 15,308 28,800 1,913 - 833 

218 North Yorkshire 10,276 11,573 13,167 15,314 15,962 

504 Northamptonshire 9,917 9,655 9,200 8,986 9,185 

104 Northumberland 10,660 11,794 13,805 14,086 13,092 

511 Nottinghamshire 26,875 28,569 30,578 32,847 30,605 

608 Oxfordshire 19,414 21,850 23,250 29,656 29,165 

417 Shropshire 9,032 8,967 7,732 9,874 11,955 

905 Somerset 18,130 18,592 21,709 18,755 21,448 

413 Staffordshire 17,797 25,109 37,063 29,079 29,694 

609 Suffolk 12,957 14,908 16,282 17,079 21,059 

805 Surrey 33,954 35,957 38,478 45,269 45,674 

404 Warwickshire 14,109 14,020 12,628 14,017 13,662 

807 West Sussex 27,162 28,780 27,772 29,777 26,104 

817 Wiltshire 17,632 17,206 16,988 18,298 20,097 

416 Worcestershire 10,579 11,076 12,609 13,760 13,787 

Unitary authorities 

908 Bath and North East Somerset 4,696 6,188 5,138 8,055 8,636 

324 Blackburn with Darwen 3,582 3,339 4,108 5,117 4,275 

325 Blackpool 3,509 3,908 4,318 4,561 4,391 

810 Bournemouth 8,319 9,708 10,358 10,376 10,505 

614 Bracknell Forest 2,503 3,113 2,868 3,428 4,388 

816 Brighton and Hove 12,751 13,654 10,214 12,180 11,327 

909 Bristol 10,246 11,089 11,170 12,900 11,100 

117 Darlington 3,997 5,263 6,439 5,281 5,958 

507 Derby 7,060 7,832 8,749 9,246 9,066 

214 East Riding of Yorkshire 4,393 4,828 4,412 4,360 5,513 

321 Halton 3,539 3,571 4,803 6,580 7,051 

111 Hartlepool 3,384 3,908 4,354 4,649 5,277 

415 Herefordshire 3,009 4,088 4,525 4,529 4,780 

803 Isle of Wight 3,483 5,391 5,554 5,470 6,005 

215 Kingston upon Hull 5,743 5,903 6,070 5,467 4,229 

509 Leicester 8,405 10,768 9,838 9,790 10,805 

611 Luton 6,388 7,321 8,023 8,496 7,933 

821 Medway Towns 5,285 5,756 4,947 9,462 6,032 

112 Middlesbrough 4,147 4,038 4,592 5,200 5,457 

613 Milton Keynes 9,029 13,947 10,074 14,006 12,362 

216 North East Lincolnshire 2,963 3,167 4,161 4,709 5,279 

217 North Lincolnshire 3,564 3,712 4,012 4,670 4,346 

910 North Somerset 3,134 3,746 4,120 4,335 4,378 

512 Nottingham 10,408 10,104 9,922 9,750 11,406 

624 Peterborough 6,994 7,646 6,940 7,422 7,403 

913 Plymouth 7,463 7,886 8,497 9,718 10,663 

811 Poole 3,115 3,757 4,267 4,372 4,363 

813 Portsmouth 6,409 8,059 8,421 8,466 10,327 

616 Reading 4,476 5,430 5,758 5,997 5,807 

113 Redcar and Cleveland 2,076 2,998 2,420 2,883 2,943 

510 Rutland 724 824 1,366 1,694 2,339 

617 Slough 9,424 7,238 7,921 9,078 8,590 

911 South Gloucestershire 4,315 5,437 6,742 6,214 6,443 

814 Southampton 6,885 7,387 7,888 8,776 9,911 

621 Southend-on-Sea 4,413 4,663 4,989 4,191 4,821

1005W 


20 JULY 2009 


1006W 


£000 

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 1 

114 Stockton-on-Tees 3,698 3,916 4,550 4,770 5,101 

414 Stoke-on-Trent 5,172 4,872 5,399 5,137 5,902 

819 Swindon 4,668 4,917 6,042 6,582 5,526 

418 Telford and the Wrekin 4,101 5,220 6,096 6,713 6,649 

622 Thurrock 4,896 5,261 283 5,115 4,397 

914 Torbay 4,612 6,696 7,804 6,951 7,599 

322 Warrington 5,876 6,227 7,543 9,419 9,209 

615 West Berkshire 5,089 5,700 5,653 6,073 6,120 

618 Windsor and Maidenhead 3,612 3,537 4,275 4,656 5,606 

619 Wokingham 3,411 3,759 4,509 6,015 5,507 

219 York 2,920 3,497 4,246 4,604 5,324 

Inner London 

702 Camden 14,289 16,610 18,780 19,989 18,877 

714 City of London 1,129 1,399 1,448 1,659 1,072 

703 Greenwich 8,845 9,390 11,350 10,087 10,750 

704 Hackney 14,782 10,306 10,834 11,772 11,058 

705 Hammersmith and Fulham 7,271 7,953 10,590 10,311 8,329 

706 Islington 9,619 11,540 15,241 14,373 13,426 

707 Kensington and Chelsea 11,447 11,590 12,152 11,126 9,818 

708 Lambeth 16,273 18,235 23,606 13,743 15,011 

709 Lewisham 9,081 11,988 10,355 12,524 13,047 

710 Southwark 8,927 12,401 15,565 16,908 15,173 

711 Tower Hamlets 13,821 15,503 19,702 19,765 18,545 

712 Wandsworth 12,691 14,193 14,889 16,463 9,967 

713 Westminster 15,238 17,840 17,391 14,383 14,966 

Outer London 

716 Barking and Dagenham 8,389 9,426 9,419 8,586 8,203 

717 Barnet 9,821 14,090 13,656 11,818 10,525 

718 Bexley 7,885 6,653 6,998 6,990 6,529 

719 Brent 14,580 15,965 14,817 16,243 17,605 

720 Bromley 9,975 11,256 11,270 12,889 10,181 

721 Croydon 15,547 15,092 15,849 23,962 21,755 

722 Ealing 13,105 13,432 11,508 8,102 17,484 

723 Enfield 8,086 9,213 10,286 8,530 9,346 

724 Haringey 12,324 11,477 10,841 16,324 12,199 

725 Harrow 6,652 9,861 12,001 10,503 9,780 

726 Havering 5,115 9,359 7,777 9,214 10,306 

727 Hillingdon 11,411 14,380 15,778 15,217 11,673 

728 Hounslow 8,012 9,955 10,449 12,349 10,623 

729 Kingston upon Thames 6,591 8,547 8,969 9,220 8,585 

730 Merton 7,794 7,996 7,916 8,564 10,403 

731 Newham 10,843 16,481 16,204 19,806 18,972 

732 Redbridge 6,870 8,193 8,621 8,895 8,734 

733 Richmond upon Thames 9,115 10,161 10,834 11,126 9,070 

734 Sutton 4,818 5,598 5,977 6,682 7,284 

735 Waltham Forest 10,958 12,088 12,841 13,218 13,792 

1 

2003-04 to 2006-07 figures include assessment and care management for all asylum seekers including children and families. In 2007-08 this 

information was collected separately and only adults’ expenditure has been included. 

Stepping Hill Hospital: Parking 

Mark Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what the (a) revenue income and (b) estimated 

overhead cost of the parking charges scheme at 

Stepping Hill Hospital has been in each year since the 

introduction of such charges. [288454] 

Ann Keen: Hospital car parking charges are decided 

locally by individual trusts to help cover the cost of 

running and maintaining a car park. All trusts should 

have exemption and concessionary schemes in place to 

ensure that patients and carers who visit hospital regularly 

are not disadvantaged. They should also have sustainable 

public transport plans in place for staff and visitors. 

Data on the gross income that national health service 

trusts receive from car parking charges paid by staff 

and visitors have been collected since 2000. These data 

are provided by the NHS on a voluntary basis and have

1007W 


20 JULY 2009 


1008W 

not been amended following their collection, nor have 

they been actively checked by the Department and 

therefore cannot be confirmed to be accurate or complete. 

According to data collected through the Estates Related 

Information Collection (ERIC) system, Stepping Hill 

hospital 1 , Stockport NHS foundation trust, have received 

the following income: 

1 

The site data also list a hospital with the same name at the 

Pennine Care NHS trust, but this does not have any car parking 

income and is therefore not the one under consideration. 

Income from 

staff 

Income from 

visitors 

£ 

Total income 

2001-02 98,693 197,261 295,954 

2002-03 88,939 192,509 281,448 

2003-04 80,929 164,338 245,267 

2004-05 144,983 301,849 446,832 

2005-06 218,899 489,518 708,417 

2006-07 223,533 467,105 690,638 

2007-08 238,408 499,185 737,593 

Note: 

Prior to 2001-02, car parking data were collected at trust level only 

and therefore Stepping Hill hospital’s specific income could not be 

identified. 

Source: 

Estates Related Information Collection System, Department of Health. 

Surgery: Greater Manchester 

Graham Stringer: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health how many operations were performed at the 

Greater Manchester Surgical Centre in (a) the 

12 month period from 18 May 2005 and (b) each 

subsequent 12 month period starting 18 May. [287731] 

Mr. Mike O’Brien: The Department does not hold 

information about the number of operations performed 

at the Greater Manchester Surgical Centre but does 

hold data for finished consultant episodes. 

The following table shows finished consultant episodes 

performed at the Greater Manchester Surgical Centre 

where there was a procedure or intervention. There is 

no clear definition of the term ’operation’ used in 

hospital episode statistics (HES). HES have provided 

data for financial years (1 April to 31 March) 2005-06, 

2006-07 and 2007-08 (the most recent year for which 

data is available). 

Finished consultant episodes 

Number 

2007-08 4,770 

2006-07 5,574 

2005-06 3,649 

Swine Flu 

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if 

he will direct each (a) primary care trust and (b) 

hospital trust to publish its contingency plan to deal 

with swine flu. [284944] 

Gillian Merron: Primary care trusts (PCTs) and national 

health service trusts flu pandemic plans are already in 

action and are working well. It would not be the best 

use of NHS resources at this time to direct PCTs and 

NHS trusts to publish these plans. In addition, these 

plans are being continuously reviewed and, where necessary, 

updated informed by the latest expert scientific and 

medical advice of the current swine flu pandemic. 

Publication of contingency plans by PCTs and hospital 

trusts will, therefore, not be requested. 

Local NHS communications efforts are now directed 

to providing local staff and communities with the latest 

information about the current pandemic, how it is 

developing and what they can do to prepare and manage 

it. The Department has written to all NHS chief executives 

to make clear that this is core responsibility of all 

organisations. 

Teenage Pregnancy: Hampshire 

Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health how many pregnancies in girls under 16 years 

old were recorded in (a) Test Valley Borough and 

(b) Southampton in each of the last five years. 

[287768] 




to reply. 


As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your 

recent question asking how many pregnancies of girls under 16 

years old were recorded in (a) Test Valley Borough and 

(b) Southampton in each of the last five years. (287768) 

Figures on conceptions are estimates based on the number of 

live births, stillbirths or legal abortions. They do not include 

miscarriages and illegal abortions. 

The table below provides the number of conceptions among 

girls under 16, for (a) Test Valley local authority district and 

(b) Southampton unitary authority for 2003 to 2007 (the most 

recent year for which figures are available). 

Table 1: Number of conceptions among girls aged under 16 l , for (a) 

Test Valley local authority district and (b) Southampton unitary 

authority 2003 to 2007 

Numbers 

Conceptions 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2 

Test Valley LAD 7 11 19 10 17 

Southampton UA 39 36 35 43 37 

1 

Under 16 years at estimated date of conception. 

2 

Figures for 2007 are provisional. 

Tranquillisers 

Jim Dobbin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

which (a) policy advisers, (b) special advisers, 

(c) other individuals and (d) other groups have 

provided advice to his Department on the subject of 

tranquillisers in the last two years; and what expertise 

each has to advise on that subject. [264896] 

Gillian Merron: The Department is not aware of any 

advice given by policy advisers, special advisers, other 

individuals or advisory groups specifically in relation to 

tranquilisers. The Commission on Human Medicines, 

the UK Health Ministers’ independent safety experts 

and advisers, provides scientific advice on all medicines 

for human use before a product is given a marketing 

authorisation or if any post marketing safety issue arise. 

Over the coming months the Department will be 

reviewing its policy on addiction to prescriptions and 

over the counter (OTC) drugs, including tranquilisers.

1009W 


20 JULY 2009 


1010W 

This review will identify where and how policy should 

be advanced, so that those addicted to prescription or 

OTC drugs receive high quality, effective services. 

Wakefield NHS Trust: Expenditure 


what the capital expenditure of Wakefield NHS Trust 

was in each year since 1996-97. [288658] 

Ann Keen: The information is not available in the 

format requested. 

The following table shows data for 2001-02 for the 

Pinderfields and Pontefract Hospitals NHS Trust and 

for 2002-03 to 2007-08 for the Mid-Yorkshire Hospitals 

NHS Trust, which are the only years for which information 

is available for these organisations. 

Charge against the capital resource limit (CRL) 

£000 

2007-08 10,647 

2006-07 20,876 

2005-06 12,936 

2004-05 15,222 

2003-04 12,300 

2002-03 10,031 

2001-02 10,687 

Notes: 

1. The data provided in 2001-02 is for the Pinderfields and Pontefract 

Hospitals NHS Trust which merged with the Dewsbury Health Care 

NHS Trust in 2002-03 to form the Mid-Yorkshire Hospitals NHS 

Trust. 

2. The term ‘capital expenditure’ has been interpreted to mean the 

charge against the CRL for the year. This charge is calculated as 

follows: 

a. Gross capital expenditure in accruals terms for the period 

b. Less the net book value of assets disposed of 

c. Plus any loss on disposal of donated assets 

d. Less capital grants received 

e. Less donations 

Source: 

NHS audited summarisation schedules. 

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE 

Carbon Emissions: Business 

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State 

for Energy and Climate Change what assistance his 

Department provides to small and medium-sized 

businesses to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. 

[288073] 

Joan Ruddock: KBCC provides funding for the provision 

of support, advice and information on reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions to small and medium-sized businesses, in 

particular through the Carbon Trust. Advice and 

information is provided through a dedicated phone line 

and website. Financial support is provided through 

interest-free loans to small and medium-sized businesses 

for energy saving investments. Up to £83.9 million of 

additional funding for this scheme is being provided for 

firms in England over the next two years. 

The Carbon Trust also administers the Enhanced 

Capital Allowance scheme for energy-saving technologies, 

which provides businesses that invest in designated energy 

efficient equipment with enhanced tax relief. DECC has 

also established voluntary agreements with the major 

energy suppliers to promote energy efficiency and energy 

services to small and medium-sized businesses. 

Carbon Emissions: Housing 

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy 

and Climate Change how many grants have been made 

through the Low Carbon Buildings programme to 

(a) schools, (b) hospitals and (c) other public 

buildings in (i) West Chelmsford constituency, 

(ii) Essex and (iii) England in each year since the 

inception of the programme. [278397] 

Mr. Kidney: The following number of grants have 

been made through the Low Carbon Buildings programme 

to (a) schools, (b) hospitals and (c) other public 

buildings in (i) West Chelmsford constituency, (ii) Essex 

and (iii) England in each year since the inception of the 

programme. 

Low carbon buildings programme Phase 1—grants awarded 

West 

England Essex Chelmsford 

Communities stream 

2006-07 

Schools 14 0 0 

Other public 

buildings 

6 1 0 

2007-08 

Schools 1 0 0 

Other public 

buildings 

5 0 0 

Stream 2A (below 

£100,00) 

2006-07 

Schools 4 0 0 

Hospitals 0 0 0 

Other public 

buildings 

1 0 0 

2007-08 

Schools 10 1 0 


Other public 

buildings 

14 1 0 

Stream 2B (above 

£100,000) 

2006-07 

Schools 1 0 0 


Other public 

buildings 

0 0 0 

2007-08 

Schools 1 0 0 


Other public 

buildings 

5 0 0

1011W 


20 JULY 2009 


1012W 

Low carbon buildings programme Phase 2—grants awarded 

Type of 

organisation 

Financial 

year England Essex 

West 

Chelmsford 

Schools 2006-07 1 0 0 

2007-08 162 2 0 

2008-09 333 4 0 

2009-10 85 1 0 

Hospitals 2006-07 0 Q 0 

2007-08 0 0 0 

2008-09 2 0 0 

2009-10 1 0 0 

Other 

public 

buildings 

2006-07 0 1 0 

2007-08 95 2 1 

2008-09 144 2 0 

2009-10 57 1 0 

Joan Ruddock: The Department and its agencies hold 

a large number of databases ranging in size. These 

range from corporate databases to small local databases 

with just a few users held by units within the Department 

and its agencies, in addition to a large number of 

spreadsheets containing data, of which, the larger and 

more sophisticated could be described as fulfilling a 

database function. Some of these databases and systems 

can be expected to hold information on members of the 

public gathered in support of a wide range of departmental 

initiatives and activities. It is not possible due to 

disproportionate costs to identify which of the many 

databases contain personal data on members of the 

public and the date each one became operational. 

All databases containing personal data maintained 

by DECC are managed in accordance with the Data 

Protection Act and following the publication of the 

cross government data handling review in June 2008, 

new projects and programmes that hold significant 

amounts of personal data are obliged to conduct privacy 

impact assessments. 

Total 

(Phase 2) 

— 879 13 1 

Departmental Internet 

Departmental Advertising 

Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Energy and Climate Change what his Department’s 

advertising budget is for 2009-10. [284847] 

Joan Ruddock: Between April 2009 and July 2009, 

DECC is expected to spend approximately £370,000 on 

Act on CO 2 campaign advertising media and production. 

We are considering our advertising plans for the rest of 

2009-10. 

Departmental Data Protection 


Energy and Climate Change how many (a) attempts 

and (b) successful attempts were made to gain 

unauthorised access to each (i) database and (ii) ICT 

system run by his Department; and if he will make a 

statement. [286547] 

Joan Ruddock: It is not in the interests of the UK’s 

national security for Departments to confirm information 

on the number of attempts, successful or otherwise, to 

gain unauthorised access to departmental systems or 

databases. Such disclosure could undermine the integrity 

and security of departmental systems and thereby expose 

them to potential threats. 

DECC complies with the mandatory requirements of 

the Security Policy Framework in relation to information 

security including managing the risk of unauthorised 

access to ICT systems. 



Energy and Climate Change which databases managed 

by his Department and its agencies hold personal 

information on members of the public; on what date 

each such database become operational; and if he will 


Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy 

and Climate Change when his Department plans to 

update its web browsers from Internet Explorer 6. 

[285017] 

Joan Ruddock: The Department is currently reviewing 

its options for the technology refresh of software such 

as Internet Explorer 6, as part of a PFI Agreement for 

the provision of IT Services. 

Energy Saving Trust: Finance 

Charles Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Energy and Climate Change (1) what the Energy Saving 

Trust’s budget is for (a) advertising, (b) consultancy 

fees and (c) administration in (i) 2009-10, (ii) 2010-11, 

(iii) 2011-12 and (iv) 2012-13; [286859] 

(2) what expenditure the Energy Saving Trust 

incurred on (a) advertising, (b) consultancy fees and 

(c) administration in (i) 2007-08 and (ii) 2008-09. 

[286860] 

Joan Ruddock: The Energy Saving Trust is a not-for-profit 

private company limited by guarantee. As part of the 

terms and conditions of the grant funding DECC provides 

to the Energy Saving Trust, the trust is required to 

provide DECC with audited annual accounts within 

five months of the end of the financial year. 

The Energy Saving Trust statutory accounts for the 

financial years ending 2008 and 2009 are deposited with 

Companies House and are in the public domain. 

Environmental Transformation Fund: Finance 

Charles Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Energy and Climate Change (1) how much in public 

funding for the Environmental Transformation Fund 

(a) was provided in (i) 2007-08 and (ii) 2008-09 

and (b) is planned to be provided in (i) 2009-10, 

(ii) 2010-11, (iii) 2011-12 and (iv) 2012-13; [285079]

1013W 


20 JULY 2009 


1014W 

(2) what proportion of expenditure under the 

Environmental Transformation Fund was spent on 

UK-based projects in (a) 2007-08 and (b) 2008-09; 

[285084] 

(3) what proportion of expenditure under the 

Environmental Transformation Fund he expects to be 

spent on UK-based projects in (a) 2009-10, (b) 2010-11, 

(c) 2011-12 and (d) 2012-13. [285085] 

Joan Ruddock: The Environmental Transformation 

Fund (ETF) began operation in April 2008—therefore 

there was no ETF expenditure in the financial year 

2007-08. The ETF budgets are for the current CSR 

period, so no budgets have yet been agreed for financial 

year 2011-12 or beyond. 

The ETF has international and national components, 

which are managed separately. The International ETF 

is jointly controlled by my Department and by the 

Department for International Development; its total 

budget for the CSR period was £800 million with £100 

million available in financial year 2008-09, £200 million 

in financial year 2009-10 and £500 million in financial 

year 2010-11. None of the international component is 

spent in the UK, whereas the national component is 

spent exclusively in the UK. 

The National ETF total budget for the CSR period 

was £400 million with up to £133 million available in 

financial year 2008-09, up to £118 million in financial 

year 2009-10 and up to £149 million in financial year 

2010-11. In its first year of operation National ETF 

spent £91m 1 on UK-based projects. 

1 

Figure is provisional and subject to finalisation of accounts for 

the year. It also includes up to £7 million which has been, or will 

be, handed back by recipients of Offshore Wind Grants who 

would prefer to claim Renewables Obligation Certificates instead, 

now that the regime has changed. In addition, the figure includes 

£24,000 which has been received back from a hydrogen and fuel 

cell company that went into receivership. 

Industrial Diseases: Compensation 

John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy 

and Climate Change to which 100 firms of solicitors 

his Department and its predecessors has paid the most 

in costs in respect of the coal health compensation 

scheme. [286399] 

Mr. Kidney: The top 100 claimants’ representatives 

who the Department has paid the most in fees broken 

down by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), 

vibration white finger (VWF) and miscellaneous claims 

is shown in the following table. 

Claimants’ representatives COPD costs VWF costs 

Misc. claims 

costs 1 

£ 

Total costs 

Thompsons Solicitors 121,758,445 31,518,213 3,084,589 156,361,247 

Beresfords Solicitors 133,359,135 7,924,924 3,054,869 144,338,929 

Hugh James 102,057,162 12,326,792 964,859 115,348,813 

Raleys Solicitors 80,412,876 14,907,685 1,607,660 96,928,221 

Browell Smith and Co. 56,340,495 14,385,298 1,980,467 72,706,260 

Mark Gilbert Morse 58,622,804 45,800 0 58,668,604 

Avalon Solicitors 40,794,782 117,574 419,161 41,331,518 

Graysons Solicitors 25,536,505 12,455,640 2,794,482 40,786,626 

Union of Democratic Mineworkers 23,241,215 10,611,889 6,373,980 40,227,084 

Watson Burton LLP 26,656,881 8,652,776 1,436,195 36,745,853 

Barber and Co. 24,176,610 0 0 24,176,610 

Randell Lloyd Jenkins and Martin 18,374,906 1,408,675 109,690 19,893,271 

Moss Solicitors 12,669,621 5,656,411 1,457,882 19,783,914 

Towells Solicitors 12,721,460 6,043,282 689,742 19,454,485 

TLW Solicitors 16,049,983 1,010,621 293,075 17,353,679 

Ashton Morton Slack LLP 13,496,315 2,938,629 621,810 17,056,753 

Irwin Mitchell Solicitors 11,968,470 3,668,584 878,263 16,515,317 

Kidd and Spoor Harper Solicitors 10,200,466 3,793,094 520,617 14,514,177 

Ingrams Solicitors 13,944,643 206,197 60,567 14,211,408 

Corries Solicitors 11,067,799 2,401,321 434,963 13,904,083 

Delta Legal 13,161,798 0 2,250 13,164,048 

Atteys 7,853,621 4,705,066 102,189 12,660,876 

Gorman Hamilton Solicitors 9,229,890 1,364,849 85,498 10,680,238 

BRM Solicitors 9,670,748 28,101 406,055 10,104,904 

O. H. Parsons and Partners Solicitors 6,720,948 2,442,110 735,079 9,898,138 

Birchall Blackburn 9,337,769 0 31,850 9,369,619 

Wake Smith and Tofields Solicitors 8,619,831 328,134 413,793 9,361,757 

Shaw and Co. Solicitors 5,342,004 3,689,957 85,831 9,117,793 

Corries York 8,193,817 726,550 108,690 9,029,056 

Latham and Co. Solicitors 3,032,594 2,732,151 333,047 6,097,791 

Thompson and Co. Solicitors 3,668,998 2,261,047 98,718 6,028,763 

Hopkins 2,991,668 1,537,681 1,339,464 5,868,813 

Hilary Meredith Solicitors 5,684,279 0 4,500 5,688,779 

Mortons Solicitors 3,741,391 1,332,065 253,916 5,327,372

1015W 


20 JULY 2009 


1016W 


Misc. claims 

costs 1 

£ 

Total costs 

Furley Page 4,468,987 764,177 5,500 5,238,664 

Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers 5,080,886 1,471 0 5,082,357 

Morisons Solicitors 3,424,732 1,304,639 265,941 4,995,313 

T. S. Edwards and Son Solicitors 3,477,301 1,359,833 49,241 4,886,375 

Marrons Solicitors 3,683,066 897,278 165,504 4,745,848 

Saffmans Solicitors 2,126,217 2,362,908 131,201 4,620,326 

Kingslegal 2,787,644 1,747,752 81,556 4,616,952 

Simpson Millar Solicitors 4,249,960 178,857 75,514 4,504,332 

Oxley and Coward Solicitors 2,157,868 2,058,286 159,232 4,375,386 

Meloy Whittle Robinson 3,089,796 692,109 241,309 4,023,214 

Hickmotts Solicitors 2,521,283 968,109 359,335 3,848,727 

Onyems and Partners 3,514,197 0 47,550 3,561,747 

1 Legal Solicitors 3,399,776 0 0 3,399,776 

Keeble Hawson Moorhouse 2,158,034 935,501 121,125 3,214,659 

Proddow and Mackay Solicitors 3,024,181 0 24,450 3,048,631 

Bailey Bravo Jobling 2,833,561 0 0 2,833,561 

BHP Law 2,099,365 519,348 18,513 2,637,225 

McLeish Carswell 1,202,557 1,322,450 37,954 2,562,961 

McConville O’Neill Solicitors 2,276,802 200,294 61,773 2,538,869 

Cordner Lewis Solicitors 2,420,770 870 0 2,421,640 

Gorvin Smith Fort Solicitors 1,918,814 353,339 122,178 2,394,330 

Recompense Limited 2,305,351 0 8,050 2,313,401 

Gabb and Co. 1,409,116 739,254 84,378 2,232,748 

Pannone and Partners Solicitors 1,880,922 194,200 80,097 2,155,220 

Hindle Campbell Solicitors 2,083,824 0 0 2,083,824 

Morgan Cole 1,838,925 0 169,880 2,008,805 

Heptonstalls Solicitors LLP 0 0 1,920,153 1,920,153 

J. M. Skinner Solicitors 1,708,177 43,995 0 1,752,172 

Pinto Potts Solicitors 613,819 46,782 1,040,575 1,701,176 

Keeble Hawson 885,661 680,137 68,827 1,634,625 

DMH Stallard 1,125,517 108,796 299,172 1,533,485 

Wheelers Solicitors 1,477,049 0 0 1,477,049 

Farleys Solicitors 1,149,479 276,673. 2,643 1,428,794 

Emsleys Solicitors 1,306,846 49,932 69,153 1,425,931 

Canter Levin and Berg Solicitors 1,151,162 227,178 0 1,378,341 

J. Keith Park and Co. Solicitors 1,162,414 196,862 18,414 1,377,690 

MLM Solicitors 1,223,487 17,828 4,000 1,245,315 

Endlars Solicitors 447,524 602,611 152,222 1,202,357 

Colemans Solicitors 903,171 139,433 150,043 1,192,646 

Campbell Smith W.S. 917,934 181,637 37,637 1,137,208 

Mincoffs Solicitors 550,842 474,583 49,535 1,074,960 

Ben Hoare Bell and Co. Solicitors 791,353 196,986 40,967 1,029,305 

Lopian Wagner Solicitors 865,973 76,478 27,188 969,638 

Elliot Mather Solicitors 800,607 10,701 157,324 968,631 

SIS Law 923,635 0 0 923,635 

Branton Bridge 480,827 319,241 66,698 866,765 

Holmes and Hills Solicitors 469,093 160,905 225,827 855,825 

Morrish and Co. Solicitors 531,487 162,256 101,942 795,685 

Browns 13,603 928 724,566 739,098 

Russell Jones and Walker Solicitors 529,492 138,382 41,688 709,562 

Stripes Solicitors 632,696 49,160 12,800 694,656 

Foys Solicitors 542,389 120,205 5,995 668,588 

Treanors Solicitors 250,370 398,860 5,763 654,993 

BBH Solicitors 389,115 233,510 4,011 626,636 

Robinson King Solicitors—ceased trading 301,962 293,028 26,261 621,250 

Mills Donkin and Co. 535,417 30,280 10,481 576,177 

Housemans Solicitors 458,578 73,997 18,769 551,344 

Stuart Bell and Associates 392,553 139,043 18,333 549,930 

Peace Revitt Solicitors 331,468 187,850 10,552 529,870 

Robinson and Murphy Solicitors 237,069 229,729 56,640 523,437

1017W 


20 JULY 2009 


1018W 


Misc. claims 

costs 1 

£ 

Total costs 

MK Legal LLP Solicitors 508,244 0 0 508,244 

Oakley and Davies 506,434 0 0 506,434 

Richard J. Knaggs and Co. 275,658 181,445 21,168 478,271 

Adam F. Greenhalgh and Co. Solicitors 61,268 44,616 356,000 461,884 

Lloyd Green Solicitors 391,165 10,044 4,000 405,210 

St. Davids Solicitors 382,117 0 0 382,117 

1 

Includes costs for Noise Induced Hearing Loss and other Miscellaneous Diseases. 


and Climate Change which 100 firms of solicitors have 

submitted the most claims under the coal health 

compensation scheme; and how many claims each such 

firm has submitted. [286400] 

Mr. Kidney: The top 100 claimants’ representatives 

who have submitted the most claims under the coal 

health compensation schemes is broken down by chronic 

obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), vibration white 

finger (VWF) and other miscellaneous claims shown in 

the following table. 

£ 

Claimants’ representatives COPD costs VWF costs Misc. claims 1 costs Total costs 

Thompsons Solicitors 121,758,445 31,518,213 3,084,589 156.361,247 

Beresfords Solicitors 133,359,135 7,924,924 3,054,869 144.338,929 

Hugh James 102,057,162 12,326,792 964,859 116,348,813 

Raleys Solicitors 80,412,876 14,907,685 1,607,660 96,928.221 

Browell Smith and Co 56,340,495 14,385,298 1,980,467 72,706,260 

Mark Gilbert Morse 58,622,804 45,800 0 58,668,604 

Avalon Solicitors 40,794,782 117,574 419,161 41,331,518 

Graysons Solicitors 25,536,505 12,455,640 2,794,482 40,786,626 

Union of Democratic Mineworkers 23,241,215 10,611,889 6,373,980 40,227,084 

Watson Burton LLP 26,656,881 8,652,776 1,436,195 36,745,853 

Barber and Co 24,176,610 0 0 24,176,610 

Randell Lloyd Jenkins and Martin 18,374,906 1,408,675 109,690 19,893,271 

Moss Solicitors 12,669,621 5,656,411 1,457,882 19,783,914 

Towells Solicitors 12,721,460 6,043,282 689,742 19,454,485 

TLW Solicitors 16,049,983 1,010,621 293,075 17,353,679 

Ashton Morton Slack LLP 13,496,315 2,938,629 621,810 17,056,753 

Irwin Mitchell Solicitors 11,968,470 3,668,584 878,263 16,515,317 

Kidd and Spoor Harper Solicitors 10,200,466 3,793,094 520,617 14,514,177 

Ingrams Solicitors 13,944,643 206,197 60,567 14,211,408 

Corries Solicitors 11,067,799 2,401,321 434,963 13,904,083 

Delta Legal 13,161,798 0 2,250 13,164,048 

Atteys 7,853,621 4,705,066 102,189 12,660,876 

Gorman Hamilton Solicitors 9,229,890 1,364,849 85,498 10,680,238 

BRM Solicitors 9,670,748 28,101 406,055 10,104,904 

0 H Parsons and Partners Solicitors 6,720,948 2,442,110 735,079 9,898,138 

Birchall Blackburn 9,337,769 0 31,850 9,369,619 

Wake Smith and Tofields Solicitors 8,619,831 328,134 413,793 9,361,757 

Shaw and Co Solicitors 5,342,004 3,689,957 85,831 9,117,793 

Corries York 8,193,817 726,550 208,690 9,029,056 

Latham and Co Solicitors 3,032,594 2,732,151 333,047 6,097,791 

Thompson and Co Solicitors 3,668,998 2,261,047 98,718 6,028,763 

Hopkins 2,991,668 1,537,681 1,339,464 5,868,813 

Hilary Meredith Solicitors 5,684,279 0 4,500 5,688,779 

Mortons Solicitors 3,741,391 1,332,065 253.916 5,327,372 

Furley Page 4,468,987 764,177 5,500 5,238,664 

Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers 5,080,886 1,471 0 5,082,357 

Morisons Solicitors 3,424,732 1,304,639 265,941 4,995,313 

T S Edwards and Son Solicitors 3,477,301 1,359,833 49,241 4,886,375 

Marrons Solicitors 3,683,066 897,278 165,504 4,745,848 

Saffmans Solicitors 2,126,217 2,362,908 131,201 4,620,326 

Kingslegal 2,787,644 1,747,752 81,556 4,616,952 

Simpson Millar Solicitors 4,249,960 178,857 75,514 4,504,332

1019W 


20 JULY 2009 


1020W 

£ 

Claimants’ representatives COPD costs VWF costs Misc. claims 1 costs Total costs 

Oxley and Coward Solicitors 2,157,868 2,058,286 159,232 4,375,386 

Meloy Whittle Robinson 3,089,796 692,109 241,309 4,023,214 

Hickmotts Solicitors 2,521,283 968,109 359,335 3,848,727 

Onyems and Partners 3,514,197 0 47,550 3,561,747 

1 Legal Solicitors 3,399,776 0 0 3,399,776 

Keeble Hawson Moorhouse 2,158,034 935,501 121,125 3,214,659 

Proddow and Mackay Solicitors 3,024,181 0 24,450 3,048,631 

Bailey Bravo Jobling 2,833,561 0 0 2,833,561 

BHPLAW 2,099,365 519,348 18,513 2,637,225 

McLeish Carswell 1,202,557 1,322,450 37,954 2,562,961 

McConville O’Neill Solicitors 2,276,802 200,294 61,773 2,538,869 

Cordner Lewis Solicitors 2,420,770 870 0 2,421,640 

Gorvin Smith Fort Solicitors 1,918,814 353,339 122,178 2,394,330 

Recompense Limited 2,305,351 0 8,050 2,313,401 

Gabb and Co 1,409,116 739,254 84,378 2,232,748 

Pannone and Partners Solicitors 1,880,922 194,200 80,097 2,155,220 

Hindle Campbell Solicitors 2,083,824 0 0 2,083,824 

Morgan Cole 1,838,925 0 169,880 2,008,805 

Heptonstalls Solicitors LLP 0 0 1,920,153 1,920,153 

J M Skinner Solicitors 1,708,177 43,995 0 1,752,172 

Pinto Potts Solicitors 613,819 46,782 1,040,575 1,701.176 

Keeble Hawson 885,661 680,137 68,827 1,634,625 

DMH Stallard 1,125,517 108,796 299,172 1,533,485 

Wheelers Solicitors 1,477,049 0 0 1,477,049 

Farleys Solicitors 1,149,479 276,673 2,643 1,428,794 

Emsleys Solicitors 1,306,846 49,932 69,153 1,425,931 

Canter Levin and Berg Solicitors 1,151,162 227,178 0 1,378,341 

J Keith Park and Co Solicitors 1,162,414 196,862 18,414 1,377,690 

MLM Solicitors 1,223,487 17,828 4,000 1,245,315 

Endlars Solicitors 447,524 602,611 152,222 1,202,357 

Colemans Solicitors 903,171 139,433 150,043 1,192,646 

Campbell Smith W.S. 917,934 181,637 37,637 1,137,208 

Mincoffs Solicitors 550,842 474,583 49,535 1,074,960 

Ben Hoare Bell and Co Solicitors 791,353 196,986 40,967 1,029,305 

Lopian Wagner Solicitors 865,973 76,478 27,188 969,638 

Elliot Mather Solicitors 800,607 10,701 157,324 968,631 

SIS Law 923,635 0 0 923,635 

Branton Bridge 480,827 319,241 66,698 866,765 

Holmes and Hills Solicitors 469,093 160,905 225,827 855,825 

Morrish and Co Solicitors 531,487 162,256 101,942 795,685 

Browns 13,603 928 724,566 739,098 

Russell Jones and Walker Solicitors 529,492 138,382 41,688 709,562 

Stripes Solicitors 632,696 49,160 12,800 694,656 

Foys Solicitors 542,389 120,205 5,995 668,588 

Treanors Solicitors 250,370 398,860 5,763 654,993 

BBH Solicitors 389,115 233,510 4,011 626,636 

Robinson King Solicitors—ceased 

301,962 293,028 26,261 621,260 

trading 

Mills Donkin and Co 535,417 30,280 10,481 576,177 

Housemans Solicitors 458,578 73,997 18,769 551,344 

Stuart Bell and Associates 392,553 139,043 18,333 549,930 

Peace Revitt Solicitors 331,468 187,8$0 10,552 529,870 

Robinson and Murphy Solicitors 237,069 229,729 56,640 523,437 

MK Legal LLP Solicitors 508,244 0 0 508,244 

Oakley and Davies 506,434 0 0 506,434 

Richard J. Knaggs and Co 275,658 181,445 21,168 478,271 

Adam F Greenhaigh and Co Solicitors 61,268 44,616 356,000 461,884 

Lloyd Green Solicitors 391,165 10,044 4,000 405,210 

St. Davids Solicitors 382,117 0 0 382,117 

1 

Includes costs for noise induced hearing loss and other miscellaneous diseases.

1021W 


20 JULY 2009 


1022W 


and Climate Change how many persons with active 

claims under the Coal Health Compensation Scheme 

his Department has informed of the findings of 

solicitors’ disciplinary tribunals in respect of the 

solicitors (a) Beresfords, (b) Avalon and (c) Raleys. 

[287017] 

Mr. Kidney: The Department has not taken any such 

steps. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) findings 

on Beresfords have been published but Beresfords have 

lodged an appeal against the SDT’s findings and it 

would be inappropriate to comment before the appeal 

process has been completed. The formal SDT findings 

on Raleys and Avalon have not yet been published. 

The Department has written to the Claimants Group 

(CG) who represent claimants’ solicitors asking them 

what steps they are taking to make their clients aware of 

the SDT findings. To date, the CG have confirmed that 

they have not received any request from Beresfords 

clients on this matter. 

Lighting: Government Departments 

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State 

for Energy and Climate Change what his most recent 

estimate is of the number of light bulbs used by (a) his 

Department and (b) other Government departments 

which are energy efficient. [285386] 

Joan Ruddock [holding answer 9 July 2009]: As at 

Friday 17 July 2009, there are 2,643 energy efficient 

light bulbs in use in DECC’s estate. The Department 

does not hold records on light bulbs used in other 

Government Departments. 

Low Carbon Buildings Programme 


Energy and Climate Change what the estimated total 

capacity is of microgeneration units of each type of 

technology installed under the household stream of the 

Low Carbon Building Programme in each year since it 

began operating; and if he will make a statement. 

[286483] 

Mr. Kidney: The estimated total capacity of 

microgeneration units of each type of technology installed 

under the household stream of the Low Carbon Building 

Programme in each year since the commencement of 

the Low Carbon Buildings Programme is as shown in 

the table. 

LCBP Householder Stream—Installed Capacity 

Statistics reflect paid grants as these are the only ones 

that The Energy Saving Trust has data for and have 

confirmation that technologies have been installed. 

LCBP Householder Stream: Installed Capacity 

Technology 

Number 

of 

paid 

grants 

Power 

output 

kW or 

kWp 

Thermal 

output 

kW 

Collector 

area 

M2 

2006-07 

Biomass Room Heater/ 

5 — 33.2 — 

Stove (Automated Wood 

Pellet Feed) 

Ground Source Heat Pump 200 — 2,392.5 — 

Technology 

LCBP Householder Stream: Installed Capacity 

Number 

of 

paid 

grants 

Power 

output 

kW or 

kWp 

Thermal 

output 

kW 

Collector 

area 

M2 

Small Scale Hydro 3 22.0 — — 

Solar Photovoltaic 488 1,267.6 — — 

Solar Thermal Hot Water 1,855 — — 6,826.5 

Wind Turbine 431 1,484.9 — — 

Wood Fuelled Boiler 

88 — 2,278.0 — 

System 

Total 3,070 2,774.5 4,703.7 6,826.5 

2007-08 


4 — 36.0 — 


Pellet Feed) 



Solar Photovoltaic 314 644.2 — — 


Wind Turbine 100 455.9 — — 


118 — 3,213.4 — 

System 

Total 1,808 1,103.1 5,178.1 8,890.7 

2008-09 

Air Source Heat Pump 42 — 474.9 — 


2 — 16.0 — 


Pellet Feed) 



Solar Photovoltaic 701 1,346.8 — — 




170 — 5,631.8 — 

System 

Total 3,154 1,944.1 7,800.0 14,261.9 

2009-10 1 

Air Source Heat Pump 6 — 57.5 — 

Solar Photovoltaic 52 100.0 — — 

Solar Thermal Hot Water 99 — — 341.3 


Total 162 130.0 57.5 341.3 

1 

There are currently no installed/paid Biomass technologies. 

Low Carbon Technologies 

Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Energy and Climate Change what assessment he has 

made of the implications for his Department’s policies 

of the recent report of the Carbon Trust on 

commercialising low carbon technologies. [286771] 

Joan Ruddock: The Carbon Trust report ‘Focus for 

success—A new approach to commercialising tow carbon 

technologies’ is an important contribution to the debate 

on how to ensure the UK maximises the economic 

benefit of the move to a low carbon economy. DECC 

worked closely with the Carbon Trust as it developed 

the report. We welcome its publication and broadly 

support its conclusions. The report is part of the evidence 

base and wider considerations that have informed the

1023W 


20 JULY 2009 


1024W 

prioritisation decisions being made on the allocation of 

the low carbon investment funding announced in Budget 

2009, as set out in the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan 

and UK Low Carbon Industrial Strategy published on 

15 July. 

Members: Correspondence 

Sir Michael Spicer: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Energy and Climate Change when the Minister of State 

plans to reply to the email from the hon. Member for 

West Worcestershire, dated 1 May 2009, on Vesta’s Isle 

of Wight plant. [279387] 

Mr. Kidney: My noble colleague, Lord Hunt, responded 

to the hon. Member on 30 June 2009. 

Nuclear Power Stations: Accidents 

Mr. Weir: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy 

and Climate Change what (a) coolant leaks and 

(b) fires have been recorded at each UK nuclear 

installation in each of the last 10 years. [280802] 

Mr. Kidney: ND screens incident reports made by 

licensees to identify those which have had the potential 

to challenge a nuclear safety system. A search of the 

raw input data for such screening from January 2001 to 

June 2009 has been undertaken for details of leaks and 

fires at nuclear installations. This identifies the relevant 

information in the tables. Such data are not available for 

the period before January 2001. 

Notes: 

1. A ‘coolant leak’ has been interpreted as being a loss of coolant, 

including clean coolant, from an item of plant into the working 

environment of the licensed site. Coolant itself has been interpreted 

as being water, carbon dioxide or hydrogen on a power station, 

and water elsewhere. 

2. A ‘fire’ has been interpreted as being a situation where ignition 

of material has taken place on the licensed site or instances of 

smouldering there where such ignition could not reasonably be 

ruled out given the information in the record. 

Coolant leaks to environment 

Site 

Incident 

2001 

14 March Dungeness A Carbon dioxide leak from 

high pressure pump on 

carbon dioxide plant 

26 October Hinkley Point B Cooling water leak from 

turbine alternator 7 excitor 

3 November Heysham 1 Cooling water leak to 

turbine generator 

3 December Rosyth Loss of coolant from 

primary circuit clean-up 

resin column 

2002 

6 February Oldbury Reactor 2 cooling water pipe 

failure 

27 February Hinkley point B Leak of tritiated water from 

reactor bypass gas plant 

31 March Torness Carbon dioxide leak from 

refuelling machine 

14 May Sizewell B Indication of historic leak of 

primary coolant from 

control rod drive mechanism 

housing 


Site 

Incident 

26 June Hunterston B Leak of carbon dioxide from 

gas bypass plant 

26 November Hunterston B Condenser leak on turbo 

generator 7 

18 December Hinkley point B Leak of tritiated water from 

break tank 

25 December Dungeness B Steam leak on reactor 

2003 

31 January Heysham 2 Steam leak on boiler half 

unit valve 

19 February Heysham 1 Release of cooling water 

from buffer store tube vent 

valve 

1 March Dungeness B Carbon dioxide leak from 

flange on clean side of 

reactor gas pressurising unit 

16 March Hunterston B Steam leak in the supply 

pipe work to Unit 7 main 

boiler feed pump 

3 April Hunterston B Clean carbon dioxide leak 

from failed bursting disc on 

gas bypass plant on Reactor 

3 

13 May Dungeness A Leak from LP feed water 

pipe to R1 boilers 

15 July Heysham 1 Carbon dioxide leak from 

pressure transducer on 

refuelling machine 

27 July Dungeness B Leak of water from base of 

flask E97 

14 August Wylfa Leak from a Boiler 1 feed 

water line flange 

29 September Dungeness A Clean carbon dioxide leak 

from pipe work in R1 ponds 

area 

7 December Heysham 1 Leak of water from two 

failed joints in fuel route 

emergency cooling water ‘A’ 

main 

2004 

2 February Oldbury Leak from LF feed main 

stub pipe 

30 March Sizewell A Carbon dioxide release 

through failed vacuum 

pump oil separator 

31 March Hunterston B Leak from auxiliary cooling 

water pipe flange 

7 April Hunterston B Carbon dioxide release from 

the gas bypass plant 

autoclave room vacuum 

pump 

14 April Hartlepool Leak through crack in heat 

exchanger flange 

19 April Heysham 1 Carbon dioxide leak from 

west storage plant 

5 May Hunterston B Cooling water leak from 

generator yellow phase 

enclosure 

11 May Hinkley Point B Carbon dioxide leak from 

storage tank 

16 May Hinkley Point B Leak from Reactor 4 

condensate system 

9 June Hartlepool Leak of tritiated water from 

radioactive effluent 

treatment plant

1025W 


20 JULY 2009 


1026W 



Site 

Incident 

Site 

Incident 

13 June Torness Carbon dioxide leak from 

storage tank 

14 July Sellafield Leaking water from flask 

nappy in B205 

14 July Hunterston B Carbon dioxide leak from 

storage tank bursting disc 

21 July Hinkley Point B Carbon Dioxide leak from 

blowdown route 

25 July Heysham 1 Carbon Dioxide found in 

pressure vessel tendon box 

3 August Heysham 2 Carbon Dioxide leak from 

ring main 

9 September Hartlepool Leak in low pressure back 

up cooling system pipe work 

18 November Heysham 1 Alternator hydrogen coolant 

leak 

26 November Heysham 2 Oil leak from transformer 

2005 

1 January Heysham 2 Steam leak on Turbine 

Generator 7 

5 February Hinkley Point B Carbon dioxide leak from 

tank 

19 February Hinkley Point B Carbon dioxide leak from 

tank 

25 February Torness Carbon dioxide leak through 

in-service inspection 

penetration 

15 March Torness Carbon dioxide leak from 

ring main 

25 June Dungeness A Carbon dioxide leak from 

main CO 2 plant 

4 July Sellafield Damp patch discovered 

adjacent to B30 pond wall 

25 July Oldbury Steam leak through 

thermocouple pocket of 

Boiler 4 on Reactor 1 

4 August Hinkley Point B Carbon dioxide leak from 

vaporiser valve 

30 October Dungeness A Carbon dioxide leak through 

failed isolation valve to 

pressure gauge 

2007 

7 January Sizewell A Fracture of pond 

recirculating water system 

pipe work 

18 January Sellafield Waste Vitrification Plant 

electrical inductor cooling 

water leak 

1 March Hinkley Point B Carbon dioxide leak outside 

plant room 

26 March Dungeness B Carbon dioxide leak in 

reactor basement 

1 June Hunterston B Leak from condensate 

booster pump 

2 June Heysham 2 Leak in low pressure feed 

heater pipe work 

18 July Dungeness B Leak of tritiated water 

Identified 

19 September Hartlepool Leak of pressure vessel 

cooling water identified on 

boiler closure unit 

28 September Hunterston B Steam leaks in high pressure 

gland pipe work 

26 September Dungeness B Carbon dioxide leak from 

storage tank 

27 October Oldbury Carbon dioxide leak from 

fuelling machine 

2008 

19 February Oldbury Carbon dioxide leak from 

storage tank 

20 February Torness Carbon dioxide leak from 

gas bypass plant 

26 June Heysham 2 Steam leak in gland steam 

drain line 

26 July Heysham 1 Carbon dioxide leak from 

storage tank 

7 October Wylfa Carbon dioxide leak from 

storage tank 

23 December Torness Carbon dioxide leak from 

valve in the fuel machine 

standby CO 2 coolant 

supplys 

2006 

30 January Sellafield Leak of dosed cooling water 

from B832 cooling tower 

18 February Sellafield Leak of pond water through 

expansion joint above the 

stainless steel seal in B310 

AGR storage pond 

24 March Hunterston B Carbon dioxide leak in pipe 

trench 

11 September Hinkley point B Carbon dioxide leak from 

supply pump 

23 September Hartlepool Alternator hydrogen coolant 

leak 

26 September Hartlepool Fracture of emergency 

cooling water main 

2 October Dungeness B Auxiliary cooling water pipe 

work leak 

15 October Sizewell A Steam leak from Turbine 

Alternator 1 

18 November Heysham 2 Steam leak from Reactor 7 

2009 

24 April Hartlepool Hydrogen leak from Unit 2 

alternator frame 

26 May Heysham 1 Turbine cooling water leak 

28 May Hinkley Point B Pressure vessel cooling water 

leak from Reactor 4 sump 

Site 

Fire 

Incident 

2001 

18 January Hunterston B Control transformer fire 

in gas circulator 

workshop 

14 February Hunterston A Fire in pit in charge 

machine maintenance 

building 

18 February Dungeness A Fire near No. 1 bearing 

14 March Sellafield Fire during sawing of 

camera frame

1027W 


20 JULY 2009 


1028W 

Site 

Fire 

Incident 

Site 

Fire 

Incident 

19 May Dungeness A Fire in region of slip ring 

and alternator on turboalternator 

2 

14 June Hunterston B Fire in lagging below 

pump main bearing 

16 June Harwell Fire in fan assembly in 

electrical trunking on 

Helios 1 linear 

accelerator facility 

20 June Dounreay Sodium/potassium fire in 

Dounreay Fast Reactor 

sphere 

4 July Sellafield Fire in portable beta-inair 

activity monitor 

11 July Amersham Fire in administration 

building 

18 July Dounreay Fire in sodium/potassium 

heating loop on 

Dounreay Fast Reactor 

27 July Berkeley Centre Sodium and natural 

uranium fire in fume 

cupboard 

30 August Harwell Fire in building 424 

27 September Hunterston B Air circulation fan motor 

fire in electrical switch 

room 

23 October Dungeness B Fire in canteen deep fat 

fryer 

24 October Heysham 2 Fire in incinerator fire 

box 

30 October Dounreay Uranium residue fire in a 

D1202 glovebox 

14 November Wylfa Fire in services 

switchboard transformer 

1 December Heysham 1 Fire on scaffolding in 

turbine hall basement 

3 December Hunterston B Light fitting fire in outage 

planning building 

2002 

9 March Hinkley Point B Lagging fire on Turbine 8 

steam drain lines 

11 April Dungeness B Smouldering lagging on 

turbine (1) 

11 April Dungeness B Smouldering lagging on 

turbine (2) 

29 May Dounreay Fire in D1207 roof void 

12 July Oldbury Circulator lagging fire 

13 August Berkeley Centre Fire in multiplexor unit 

27 November Hunterston B Fire in light fitting 

21 December Heysham 1 Fire in turbine electrical 

terminal box 

2003 

10 January Hunterston B Bearing fire in Main 

Control Building air 

conditioning compressor 

27 January Heysham 1 Ignition of expansion 

joint on pile cap 

15 February Dounreay Waste drum fire in 

DN026 waste store 

25 April Heysham 2 Bearing fire in Turbine 8 

8 June Hunterston B Fire in 415 V electrical 

supply board 

8 July Heysham 2 Lagging fire on main 

boiler feed pump 

11 July Dungeness B Boiler feed pump primary 

oil pump fire 

15 July Harwell Fire in B220 Laboratory 

GB38 fume cupboard 

17 July Wylfa Light fitting fire above 

TA1 

30 July Rolls Royce 

Manufacturing 

Swarf fire during 

machining in Clean Shop 

28 August Barrow Smouldering plastic 

during burning-off 

operation 

2 October Hinkley Point B Debris fire in R3 

Circulator Hall 

4 October Heysham 2 Lagging fire between 

bearings 4 and 5 of 

turbine 8 

24 October Devonport Welding fire in sonar 

transducer space 

16 December BNFL 

Capenhurst 

Fire in pit beneath 

smelter 

2004 

13 January Sellafield Two Magnox fuel 

decanning fires in Fuel 

Handling Plant 

22 January Hunterston B Fire in reactor building 

lift motor room 

5 February Bradwell Fire in portable water 

pump to showers in 

turbine hall 

7 March Hunterston A Vacuum cleaner motor 

fire 

27 May Hunterston B Electric motor fire in low 

level waste building annex 

13 June Heysham 2 Power supply cubicle fire 

17 June Hinkley Point B Smouldering wash water 

pump drive belt 

20 July Berkeley Fire in building C24 

4 October Hunterston B Main boiler feed pump 

lagging fire 

13 October Sizewell A Inboard pump bearing 

fire 

28 October Drigg Combustion of loose 

waste material 

17 November Bradwell Fire in reactor building 

electrical socket 

2005 

4 February Heysham 1 Smouldering lagging on 

turbine 

8 March Heysham 2 Fire on reactor basement 

sump pump 

22 April Harwell Capacitor fire in building 

459 

22 June Torness Variable frequency 

output transformer fire 

30 June Barrow Portacabin fire 

14 July Heysham 2 Fire in bearing of fuel 

handling plant extract fan 

16 September Torness Fire in purge air 

compressor No. 2

1029W 


20 JULY 2009 


1030W 

Site 

Fire 

Incident 

31 October Dungeness A Fire in bulk group 4 LF 

power supply 

2006 

23 January Sellafield Smoking bitumen seal 

around pipe on 

Combined Heat and 

Power Plant turbine 

24 March Dounreay Hydrogen ignition during 

waste cutting operation in 

Prototype Fast Reactor 

21 April Springfields Uranium shredder fire in 

building 338 

23 October Heysham 2 Smouldering leak 

management tray beside 

hot turbine reheat 

pipework 

23 December Burghfieid Smouldering cable in 

plant room 

2007 

1 February Hinkley Point B Fire in bund of gas 

circulator lube system 

2 June Hunterston B Bearing fire on 

turbogenerator 7 

12 August Heysham 2 Bearing fire in cooling 

water pump 

2008 

7 January Dounreay Fire in office suite of 

D1208 

13 March GE Healthcare Fire in inactive recycling 

plant 

15 June Rolls Royce Fire in glove box 

Manufacturing 

2 December Hartlepool Aerosol can fire 

3 December Trawsfynydd Convector heater fire in 

ponds office 

2009 

12 March Heysham 1 Lagging smoke/fire 

15 March GE Healthcare Fire in services spine duct 

31 March Barrow Fire on the casing of 

Astute Boat 2 during 

welding/grinding 

operations 

18 April Barrow Fire on the bridge fin of 

Astute Boat 1 

29 April Oldbury Smoking air circuit 

breaker 

18 May Wylfa Fire in Turbine alternator 

Renewable Energy 


Energy and Climate Change what meetings have been 

held between officials of his Department and the hon. 

Member for Nottingham South in his capacity as 

adviser on the implementation of the feed-in tariff 

programme. [287541] 

Mr. Kidney: No meetings have been held between 

DECC officials and the hon. Member for Nottingham, 

South (Alan Simpson) on feed-in tariffs. 

UDM-Vendside 


and Climate Change on how many occasions 

(a) officials and (b) lawyers from his Department have 

visited UDM-Vendside headquarters in Mansfield 

since 1997. [286708] 

Mr. Kidney: Officials and Department’s legal advisers 

have had formal business meetings with UDM/Vendside 

on a number of occasions but we don’t have comprehensive 

records of these, and an accurate number is not, therefore, 

available. I should also add that similar business meetings 

have also taken place with the Claimants’ Solicitors 

Group. 


and Climate Change how many meetings (a) his 

Department and (b) solicitors acting on his 

Department’s behalf have had with UDM-Vendside in 


Mr. Kidney: Officials have had formal business meetings 

with UDM-Vendside but we do not have comprehensive 

records of these, and an accurate number is not, therefore, 

available. I should also add that similar business meetings 

have also taken place with the Claimants’ Solicitors 

Group. 

Warm Front Scheme 

Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Energy and Climate Change how many complaints 

were (a) received and (b) upheld about the 10 Warm 

Front contractors who received the most work under 

the scheme (i) in the UK and (ii) in Wandsworth in 

(A) 2006, (B) 2007, (C) 2008 and (D) 2009. [285191] 

Mr. Kidney: The following table details the number of 

complaints (a) received and (b) upheld about 10 Warm 

Front contractors who received the most work under 

the scheme (i) in England and (ii) in Wandsworth in 

years 2006-07 to 2008-09 and from 1 March to 19 May 

in 2009-10 (the latest period for which figures are available). 

Complaints 

received 

England 

Upheld 

complaints 

Complaints 

received 

Wandsworth 

Upheld 

complaints 

2006-07 532 276 7 3 

2007-08 813 261 3 1 

2008-09 435 190 4 2 

2009-10 1 198 87 3 2 

Total 1,978 814 17 8 

1 

Up to 19 May 2009 

Wind Power 

Mr. Cash: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy 

and Climate Change what criteria are used in the 

selection of sites for the construction of wind 

turbines; what assessment is made of the potential 

environmental effects on the local area of the siting of 

such turbines; and if he will make a statement. [287702] 

Mr. Kidney: It is for the market to bring forward 

proposals for sites for onshore or offshore wind farms 

and these are then considered through the planning

1031W 


20 JULY 2009 


1032W 

system by the relevant planning authority as to whether 

it is appropriate to grant development consent. 

Environmental licences may also be required, for example, 

under the Food and Environmental Protection Act 

(FEPA). 

Offshore, following a Strategic Environmental Assessment 

by DECC or the relevant Devolved Administration in 

Scotland and Northern Ireland, The Crown Estate is 

responsible for awarding site leases for offshore wind 

development to the market through a competitive process. 

Any subsequent proposals are considered through the 

planning process. 

The Government have made clear that wind farms 

should be located in appropriate places and that local 

concerns should be listened to in this process. Planning 

Policy Statement (PPS) 22 on renewable energy 1 makes 

clear the need to ensure that all renewable energy 

developments take place within the formal planning 

procedure, which allows all relevant stakeholders, including 

members of the public, to put forward their views on 

the likely impact of any proposal on the environment 

and the local community. Similar policies are in place in 

Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. 

We set out in the Renewable Energy Strategy published 

this week 2 steps to improve the planning process for 

renewable and low carbon energy while protecting legitimate 

environmental and local concerns. 

Planning applications should be accompanied by an 

environmental statement based on an Environmental 

Impact Assessment (EIA). This includes details of the 

likely impact of the project in question on the environment 

and wildlife, among other things. In considering an 

application, the planning authority will consult with a 

range of stakeholders, including the statutory advisers 

on nature conservation as well as others with an interest 

in the project. This ensures that decisions on whether to 

grant consent for a wind farm are considered in the 

light of the best available information about its likely 

environmental impacts. Any development of renewable 

energy must also be seen within the wider context of 

reducing carbon emissions and improving security of 

the energy supply. 

Where relevant, an Appropriate Assessment will be 

undertaken to meet the requirements of the Birds 3 and 

Habitats Directives 4 . 

1 

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/ 

planmngandbuilding/pps22 

2 

http://decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/ 

energy_mix/renewable/res/res.aspx 

3 

Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild 

birds: 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/ 

birdsdirective/index_en.htm 

4 

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation 

of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora: 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/ 

habitatsdirective/index_en.htm 

Written Questions: Government Responses 

Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy 

and Climate Change when he plans to answer 

questions (a) 285519 and (b) 285520, tabled on 6 July 

2009 on the proposed national deep-level geographical 

repository for radioactive waste. [287738] 

Mr. Kidney: I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I 

gave on 15 July 2009, Official Report, columns 420-21W. 

CABINET OFFICE 

Alcoholic Drinks: Death 

Sandra Gidley: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office how many deaths in which alcohol was an 

underlying cause were recorded in each health trust 

area within the ceremonial county of Hampshire in 

each of the last five years. [287764] 

Angela E. Smith: The information requested falls 

within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. 

I have asked the authority to reply. 

Letter from Karen Dunnell, July 2009: 


recent question asking how many deaths in which alcohol was an 

underlying cause were recorded in each health trust within the 

Ceremonial County of Hampshire in each of the last five years. 

(287764) 

The table attached provides the number of deaths with an 

alcohol-related underlying cause in Hampshire, Portsmouth City 

Teaching and Southampton City primary care organisations, 

from 2004 to 2008 (the latest year available). These primary care 

organisations are located within the area covered by Hampshire 

county, Portsmouth unitary authority and Southampton unitary 

authority, which together comprised the County of Hampshire 

prior to local government reorganisation. 

Table 1: Number of deaths with an alcohol-related underlying cause 1 

in primary care organisations in Hampshire county, Portsmouth 

unitary authority and Southampton unitary authority 2 , 2004-08 3, 4 

Primary care 

organisation 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Hampshire 118 128 142 100 120 

Portsmouth 23 31 26 27 32 

City Teaching 

Southampton 25 35 32 32 27 

City 

1 

Cause of death was defined using the International Classification of 

Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10). The specific causes of death 

categorised as alcohol-related, and their corresponding ICD-10 codes, 

are shown in box 1. 

2 

Based on boundaries as of 2009. 

3 

Figures are for deaths registered in each calendar year. 

4 

Figures for 2008 are provisional. 

Box 1. Alcohol-related causes of death—International Classification 

of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) 

Cause of death 

ICD-10 code(s) 

Mental and behavioural 

F10 

disorders due to use of alcohol 

Degeneration of nervous 

G31.2 

system due to alcohol 

Alcoholic polyneuropathy G62.1 

Alcoholic cardiomyopathy 142.6 

Alcoholic gastritis K29.2 

Alcoholic liver disease 

K70 

Chronic hepatitis, not elsewhere 

K73 

classified 

Fibrosis and cirrhosis of liver 

K74 (excl. K74.3-K74.5) 

(excl. Biliary cirrhosis) 

Alcohol induced chronic 

K86.0 

pancreatitis 

Accidental poisoning by and 

X45 

exposure to alcohol

1033W 


20 JULY 2009 


1034W 

Box 1. Alcohol-related causes of death—International Classification 

of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) 


ICD-10 code(s) 

Intentional self-poisoning by 

and exposure to alcohol 

Poisoning by and exposure to 

alcohol, undetermined intent 

Census: Fines 

X65 

YI5 

Robert Neill: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office how many people were fined for not supplying 

information in their 2001 Census return. [288260] 






recent question asking how many people were fined for not 

supplying information in their 2001 Census return. (288260) 

Of the 38 people that were successfully prosecuted for noncompletion 

of 2001 Census returns, fines were imposed in 32 cases. 

Prosecutions were carried out in a Magistrate’s Court and 

the imposition and amount of the fine was at the discretion of the 

Magistrate within the limits of the standard scale under the 

Criminal Justice Act. 

Census: Travelling People 

Robert Neill: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office what steps are planned to collect information 

from Travellers in the 2011 Census. [288261] 






recent question asking what steps are planned to collect information 

from Travellers in the 2011 Census. (288261) 

We are making special preparations to enumerate the Gypsy 

and Traveller community and these will be trialled in the Census 

Rehearsal which takes place on 11 October 2009 in areas within 

Newham, Lancaster and Isle of Anglesey. In developing the plans 

we are working closely with local authorities’ Gypsy and Traveller 

Liaison Officers, and are liaising with Gypsy and Traveller community 

groups. 

Advance information about traveller sites will be gathered 

including any requirements for help with literacy or sight or 

hearing impairment issues. Authorised sites will be visited as 

pre-arranged with the site manager to hand deliver questionnaires. 

Transit sites and any temporary roving caravans, travelling fairs 

and circuses will also be visited on Rehearsal day to complete 

both delivery and collection of questionnaires. 

Following face-to-face meetings with a number of Roma and 

Romani community leaders and support organisations, plus direct 

meetings with representations of Travellers and Gypsy communities, 

we are planning to recruit directly from those communities to 

help overcome issues of literacy, language and concerns about 

confidentiality. The community leaders themselves have also offered 

to support our Census awareness campaign. 

Following the Rehearsal the procedures will be evaluated and 

adapted as necessary prior to the 2011 Census. We are continuing 

to improve contact with Gypsy and Traveller groups through the 

community liaison programme. 

The proposed 2011 Census ethnic group question includes for 

the first time a specific category for ’Gypsy or Irish Traveller’. A 

write-in option is also available for those Travellers who may wish 

to identify themselves in any other way. 

Civil Servants: Manpower 

Graham Stringer: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office with reference to box 2.6 of the White Paper, 

Your region your choice, Cm 5511, how many civil 

servants were employed in each region in each year 

from 2003. [287729] 






recent Parliamentary Question, with reference to box 2.6 of the 

White Paper, Your region your choice, Cm 5511, how many civil 

servants were employed in each region in each year from 2003. 

(287729) 

The requested statistics are attached at Annex A. 

Annex A: Regional distribution of Civil Service employment 2003– 

2008 1 —Permanent employees 

Full-time equivalents 

2003 2 2004 2 2005 2 2006 3,4 2007 3 2008 5 

London and 

South East 

London 90,730 86,840 89,550 64,340 81,840 80,410 

South East 58,300 57,360 57,630 47,200 48,990 49,840 

South 48,810 52,630 52,360 48,230 50,760 49,990 

West 

West 33,620 34,800 34,550 29,130 31,540 31,580 

Midlands 

North 60,530 61,580 59,720 52,400 58,600 58,560 

West 

North 33,250 35,710 34,460 30,870 32.640 31,670 

East 

Yorkshire 35,570 39,140 38,670 34,500 36,330 36,370 

and the 

Humber 

East 22,110 23,180 22,870 20,100 23,310 23,080 

Midlands 

East of 31,490 31,100 30,600 23,790 27,900 27,820 

England 

Wales 31,520 33,540 32,680 29,250 31,290 32,140 

Scotland 46,580 48,670 48,130 39,600 45,620 45,090 

Northern 5,940 6,210 6,250 4,910 5,140 4,720 

Ireland 

Not 

reported 

and 

elsewhere 

13,960 12,810 10,960 9,880 14,980 11,630 

All 

permanent 

employees 

512,400 523,580 518,430 434,210 488,930 482,920 

1 

Numbers are rounded to the nearest ten, and numbers less than 

five are represented by ‘*’. 

2 

Survey reference date 1 April. 

3 

Survey reference date 30 September. 

4 

Data available from Mandate collection only, providing around 

85% coverage of Government departments. A comparable total for 

2006, compiled by using a combination of the Mandate Collection 

and Departmental Returns is 508,570. Further details can be found 

at 

http://www.ons.gov.uk/about-statistics/methodology-and-quality/ 

quality/qual-info-economic-social-and-bus-stats/quality-reports-forbusiness-statistics/annual-civil-service-employment-survey.pdf 

5 

Survey reference date 31 March. 

Source: 

Mandate Collection (Cabinet Office 2003-2005; ONS 2006) and 

Annual Civil Service Employment Survey (ONS 2007-2008)

1035W 


20 JULY 2009 


1036W 

Civil Servants: Pay 

Mr. Maude: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office what information the Office for National 

Statistics holds on the (a) non-ministerial departments, 

(b) non-departmental public bodies and (c) public 

corporations which pay a salary of more than (i) £100,000, 

(ii) £150,000 and (iii) £200,000 to one or more individual 

civil servants. [287242] 






recent Parliamentary Question, concerning what information the 

Office for National Statistics holds on the (a) non-ministerial 

departments, (b) non-departmental public bodies and (c) public 

corporations which pay a salary of more than (i) £100,000, (ii) 

£150,000 and (iii) £200,000 to one or more individual civil servants. 

(287242) 

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) collects a range of 

information, including the annual salaries of civil servants, as 

part of the Annual Civil Service Employment Survey (ACSES). 

The ACSES provides regional analyses, diversity and earnings 

statistics for the Civil Service population. The survey’s content is 

outlined in the table at Annex A. The ACSES is a complete census 

of the Civil Service and includes all non-ministerial departments 

and a number of non-departmental public bodies and public 

corporations that are staffed by civil servants. 

Further detail on the content of the ACSES is available from 

the ONS website at: 

http://www.ons.gov.uk/about-statistics/methodology-andquality/quality/qual-info-economic-social-and-bus-stats/ 

quality-reports-for-business-statistics/annual-civil-serviceemployment-survey.pdf 

Annex A 

Required Fields for the Annual Civil Service Employment Survey 

2009 

Variable Name 

Date of birth 

Gender 

Part-time hours 

Full-time equivalent (FTE) 

Civil service—date of entry 

Civil service—grade on entry 

Department 

Current grade 

Current grade—date of entry 

Location 

National identity 

Ethnic background 

Date of leaving 

Cause of leaving 

Record key 

Profession of post 

Disability indicator 

Appointment status 

Gross salary 

Department—date of entry 

Post code 


Office how many civil servants in (a) departments, 

(b) executive agencies and (c) non-departmental 

public bodies receive an annual salary of over 

£150,000. [287257] 






recent Parliamentary Question, concerning how many civil servants 

in (a) departments, (b) executive agencies and (c) non-departmental 

public bodies receive an annual salary of over £150,000. (287257) 

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) collects the annual 

salaries of civil servants, as part of the Annual Civil Service 

Employment Survey (ACSES). 

The requested data are attached at Annex A. 

Annex A: Number of individual civil servants paid more than £150,000 

in departments, executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies 

(NDPB) 1 permanent employees 

Headcount 

31 March 2008 Greater than £150,000 

Departments 2 80 

Executive agencies 10 

Non-departmental public bodies — 

1 

Numbers are rounded to the nearest ten and numbers less than five 

are represented by “—”. 

2 

Includes ministerial and non-ministerial Departments. 

Source: 

Annual Civil Service Employment Survey (ACSES). 

Civil Service 


Office whether employees in public corporations are 

reckoned to be Civil Service employees for headcount 

purposes. [287347] 


within the responsibility of the UK statistics Authority. 




recent Parliamentary Question concerning whether the number of 

employees in public corporations are reckoned to be Civil Service 

employees for headcount purposes. (287347) 

If the employees of public corporations have civil service 

status they will be included in the civil service headcount statistics. 

At Quarter 1 2009, there were 525,000 Civil Service employees 

and 568,000 employees of public corporations. Of those employed 

by public corporations, 31,493 were included in Civil Service 

headcount estimates (all not seasonally adjusted). 

Civil Service: Languages 

Mr. Boswell: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office what information the Cabinet Office collates on 

the competences of domestic civil servants in modern 

foreign languages; and what steps she is taking to 

improve such competence levels. [278929] 

Kevin Brennan: I have been asked to reply. 

Information on the competencies of domestic civil 

servants in modern foreign languages is not held centrally. 

Departments may hold this information where it is 

relevant to the post. 

The UK Inter-Departmental Standing Committee 

on Languages (UKIDSCOL), a cross-governmental 

languages group has identified a lack of higher education 

provision in certain languages operationally important 

(notably Pashtu, Farsi, Dari, Kurdish and Somali). In 

response, UKIDSCOL recently began working with

1037W 


20 JULY 2009 


1038W 

Government Skills (the skills council for central government) 

to encourage the higher education sector to provide 

teaching in these languages. Progress on this work is 

expected by the end of the year. 

Civil Service: Pensions 

Mr. Philip Hammond: To ask the Minister for the 

Cabinet Office what the cost was of administering 

the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme in each of 

the last five years. [289128] 

Angela E. Smith: I refer the hon. Member to the reply 

given to the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) 

on 15 May 2009, Official Report, column 1048W. 

Death: Cannabis 

Bob Spink: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office 

how many cannabis-related deaths there were in (a) 

Essex and (b) Castle Point in each of the last five 

years. [288112] 






recent question asking how many cannabis-related deaths there 

were in (a) Essex and (b) Castle Point in each of the last five years. 

(288112) 

There were no deaths where the underlying cause was drug 

poisoning 1 and cannabis was mentioned alone or with other 

substances on the death certificate, in (a) Essex county, 2 including 

Castle Point local authority, 3 from 2003 to 2007 4 (the latest year 

available). 

1 

Cause of death was defined using the International Classification 

of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10). Deaths were included 

where the underlying cause was due to drug poisoning (shown in 

the box below), and where cannabis was mentioned on the death 

certificate. 

2 

In addition, there were no deaths from this cause in Southend-on-Sea 

and Thurrock unitary authorities, which were part of the former 

County of Essex, in any of these years. 

3 


4 



Mental and behavioural disorders due to drug use 

(excluding alcohol and tobacco) 

Accidental poisoning by drugs, medicaments and 

biological substances 

Intentional self-poisoning by drugs, medicaments 

and biological substances 

Assault by drugs, medicaments and biological substances 

Poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biological 

substances, undetermined intent 

Death: Heart Diseases 

ICD-10 

code(s) 

F11-F16, 

F18-F19 

X40-X44 

X60-X64 

X85 

Y10-Y14 

Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office how many people under the age of 18 years have 

died of cardiovascular failure in each of the last 

10 years. [288388] 






recent question asking how many people under the age of 

18 years have died of cardiovascular failure in each of the last 

10 years. (288388) 

The table attached provides the number of deaths of persons 

aged under 18 years, where cardiovascular disease was the underlying 

cause of death in England and Wales, from 1999 to 2008 (the 

latest year available). 

Table 1. Number of deaths where cardiovascular disease was the 

underlying cause of death 1 ,’ persons aged under 18 years, England and 

Wales 2 , 1999 to 2008 3, 4 ’ 

Number 

1999 173 

2000 172 

2001 159 

2002 139 

2003 163 

2004 143 

2005 145 

2006 177 

2007 171 

2008 155 

1 

Cause of death was defined using the International Classification of 

Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes 390-459 for the years 1999 

and 2000, and Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes 100-199 from 2001 

onwards. 

2 

Figures for England and Wales include deaths of non-residents. 

3 


4 

Figures for deaths registered in 2008 are provisional. 

Death: Seas and Oceans 

Mr. Brazier: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office how many people died in marine accidents in 

British territorial waters in each year from 2002 to 

2008; and how many of those deaths in each such year 

were suicides. [286617] 

Paul Clark: I have been asked to reply. 

The number of people that have died in maritime 

related accidents or committed suicide in the maritime 

environment in each year from 2002 to 2008 in the 

United Kingdom Search and Rescue Region is given in 

the following table: 

Maritime related 

accidents 

Suicides in the 

maritime 

environment 

2002 110 71 

2003 105 55 

2004 100 115 

2005 101 113 

2006 124 105 

2007 127 71 

2008 93 92 

Departmental Accountancy 

Steve Webb: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office when she expects to publish her Department’s 

resource accounts for 2008-09. [287323]

1039W 


20 JULY 2009 


1040W 

Angela E. Smith: The Cabinet Office’s Annual Report 

and Accounts 2008-09 were published on 16 July and 

are available in the Libraries of the House for the 

reference of Members. 


Jenny Willott: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office (1) what categories of personal information on 

members of the public are contained on each database 

which contains such data managed by her Department 

and its agencies; when each category of information 

was first collected; and if she will make a statement; 

[284893] 

(2) what databases managed by her Department and 

its agencies hold personal information on members of 

the public; on what date each such database became 

operational; and if she will make a statement; [285982] 

(3) which of the planned databases that will be 

managed by her Department or its agency and which 

will hold personal information on members of the 

public are expected to become operational in each of 

the next five years; and if she will make a statement; 

[286142] 


members of the public will be held on each of her 

Department’s and its agency’s databases expected to 

become operational in the next five years; what 

estimate she has made of the likely number of 

individuals’ details each such database will hold when 

fully operational; and if she will make a statement. 

[286493] 

Angela E. Smith: Of the databases owned by the 

Cabinet Office, there are six that contain information 

about members of the public. The personal information 

held is name and contact details, unless otherwise stated. 

(1) The Office of the Third Sector (OTS) stakeholder database 

has been operational since 2006, when OTS was established in the 

Cabinet Office. There are some members of the public on this 

database. 

(2) The Queen’s Award nominations database has been operational 

since 2002. Most of the nominees are members of the public. 

Additional category of information held is the reason for the 

award nomination. 

(3) The Departmental Correspondence database has been 

operational since 1997. It includes members of the public who 

have corresponded with the department. 

(4) The Prime Minister’s Office stakeholder database has existed 

in electronic form since 1999. There are some members of the 

public on this database. 

(5) The Emergency Planning College database has been operational 

since 2006. It includes information on members of the public who 

attend the college. Additional categories of information held are: 

vehicle registration and dietary preference for students; and research 

interests of visiting lecturers and researchers. 

(6) The Fast Stream Recruitment database has been operational 

since 2004. It includes information on members of the public who 

have applied to the Fast Stream graduate recruitment scheme. 

Additional categories of information held are: employment and 

education history; equality and diversity information; disclosure 

certificates and references. 

There are no current plans to store any new data or 

categories of personal information on members of the 

public within the Cabinet Office as a whole. 

All databases which we hold which contain personal 

data adhere to the provisions of the Data Protection 

Act. In addition, following the publication of the cross 

government data handling review, new projects and 


data will be obliged to conduct privacy impact assessments. 

All of our databases containing personal information 

are stored on secure networks and have limited access. 

Cabinet Office policy does not permit uncontrolled 

transfer of these data to unsecured media. 

Departmental Expenditure 


Office what the planned real terms change in (a) cash 

and (b) percentage terms in her Department’s 

expenditure is in each of the next three years. [287249] 

Angela E. Smith: Details of the Cabinet Office’s 

planned expenditure to the end of the current 

comprehensive spending review period are available in 

the Department’s Annual Report and Accounts 2008-09 

which were published on 16 July and are available in the 

Libraries of the House for the reference of Members. 

Departmental Personnel 


Office with reference to the answer of 4 November 

2008, Official Report, column 335W, on departmental 

personnel, how many staff in the Cabinet Office have 

no post; how many such staff without posts were 

classified as being without post upon return from 

maternity leave; and how many of the staff without 

posts have been classified as such for at least (a) six 

months and (b) 12 months. [249947] 

Angela E. Smith: As at 30 June 2009 there were 32 

Cabinet Office employees without a permanent role. All 

staff are allocated short-term critical projects to allow 

flexibility and effective use of Cabinet Office resources. 

None of these staff are returnees from maternity leave. 

Departmental Publications 


Office (1) with reference to the answer to the right hon. 

Member for Tatton of 22 February 2005, Official 

Report, column 525W, on departmental publications, 

what the title is of the Cabinet Office’s current staff 

newsletter; how much it costs to produce; and with 

what frequency is it published; [241640] 

(2) if she will place in the Library a copy of each 

edition of the Cabinet Office’s staff magazine from the 

last three months redacting (a) personally identifiable 

names and photographs of junior civil servants and 

(b) information necessary to safeguard national 

security. [287262] 

Mr. Hurd: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office 

if she will place in the Library a copy of each edition of 

her Department’s internal staff journal, with sensitive 

personal information redacted. [250299] 

Tessa Jowell: The Cabinet Office no longer has a 

weekly staff publication. Instead, it runs an online news 

service for its staff on its departmental intranet, which 

is updated daily. Costs for maintaining the news service 

are covered by the Department’s existing staff budget.

1041W 


20 JULY 2009 


1042W 

Employment: Hemsworth 

Employment: Hertfordshire 

Jon Trickett: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office how many (a) men and (b) women were in 

employment in the Hemsworth constituency in May in 







Parliamentary Question asking how many (a) men and (b) women 

were in employment in the Hemsworth constituency in (i) May 

1997 and (ii) May of each year since 1997. (288662) 

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles employment 

statistics for local areas from the Annual Population Survey and 

its predecessor the annual Labour Force Survey (LFS) following 

International Labour Organisation (ILO) definitions. Estimates 

for local areas are only available on an annual basis. 

Table 1, attached, shows the number of people in employment 

aged 16 and over by gender, resident in the Hemsworth constituency. 

Estimates are provided for the 12 months ending in February 

from 1998 to 2004 from the annual LFS, and for the 12 months 

ending in December from 2004 to 2008, from the APS. 

As these estimates are for a subset of the population in small 

geographical areas, they are based on small sample sizes, and are 

therefore subject to large margins of uncertainty. 

Table 1: Men and women in employment 1 in Hemsworth parliamentary 

constituency 

Thousand 

12 months ending Men Women 

February 1998 18 15 







December 2004 22 18 




December 2008 2 ***22 ***17 

1 

Levels of employment are provided for persons aged 16 and over. 

2 

Coefficients of Variation have been calculated for the latest period as 

an indication of the quality of the estimates. See Guide to Quality 

below. 

Guide to Quality: 

The Coefficient of Variation (CV) indicates the quality of an estimate, 

the smaller the CV value the higher the quality. The true value is likely 

to lie within +/- twice the CV—for example, for an estimate of 200 

with a CV of 5 per cent. we would expect the population total to be 

within the range 180-220 

Key Coefficient of Variation (CV) (%) Statistical 

Robustness 

* 0≤ CV

1043W 


20 JULY 2009 


1044W 


The Coefficient of Variation (CV) indicates the quality of an 

estimate, the smaller the CV value the higher the quality. The true 

value is likely to lie within +/- twice the CV—for example, for an 

estimate of 200 with a CV of 5 per cent. we would expect the 

population total to be within the range 180-220 

Key Coefficient of Variation (CV) (%) Statistical Robustness 

*0≤ CV

1045W 


20 JULY 2009 


1046W 

Table 1: number of persons aged 18-24 resident in Chelmsford claiming 

Jobseeker’s Allowance 

Chelmsford 

Date Number 1 Percentage 2 

January 2006 400 3.0 

February 2006 430 3.2 

March 2006 410 3.0 

April 2006 435 3.2 

May 2006 380 2.8 

June 2006 340 2.5 

July 2006 400 3.0 

August 2006 400 3.0 

September 2006 405 3.0 

October 2006 375 2.8 

November 2006 385 2.8 

December 2006 365 2.7 

January 2007 395 2.9 

February 2007 425 3.1 

March 2007 425 3.1 

April 2007 430 3.1 

May 2007 400 2.9 

June 2007 375 2.7 

July 2007 380 2.8 

August 2007 380 2.8 

September 2007 370 2.7 

October 2007 350 2.6 

November 2007 335 2.4 

December 2007 325 2.4 

January 2008 345 2.5 

February 2008 350 2.6 

March 2008 325 2.4 

April 2008 300 2.2 

May 2008 305 2.2 

June 2008 295 2.2 

July 2008 340 2.5 

August 2008 385 2.8 

September 2008 415 3.0 

October 2008 430 3.2 

November 2008 515 3.8 

December 2008 530 3.9 

January 2009 625 4.6 

Table 1: number of persons aged 18-24 resident in Chelmsford claiming 

Jobseeker’s Allowance 

Chelmsford 

Date Number 1 Percentage 2 

February 2009 770 5.6 

March 2009 785 5.7 

April 2009 825 6.0 

May 2009 835 6.1 

June 2009 785 5.7 

1 

Data rounded to nearest 5 

2 

Percentage of 18-24 years olds claiming jobseeker’s allowance 

Source: 

Jobcentre Plus administrative system 

Jobseeker’s Allowance: Ethnic Groups 

Steve Webb: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office how many and what proportion of jobseeker’s 

allowance claimants were from each ethnic minority in 

each of the last 24 months. [287340] 






Parliamentary Question asking how many and what proportion 

of jobseeker’s allowance claimants were from each ethnic minority 

in each of the last 24 months.(287340) 

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles the number 

of claimants of Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) from the Jobcentre 

Plus administrative system. The ethnicity of claimants is not 

available for the United Kingdom and has been provided for 

Great Britain. Ethnicity is also not available for non-computerised 

claims. 

Tables la-c show the number of computerised claims of Jobseeker’s 

Allowance for each recorded ethnic group for each of the last 24 

months. Tables 2a-c show the proportion of all computerised 

claims by each ethnic group for the same time periods. 

National and local area estimates for many labour market 

statistics, including employment, unemployment and claimant 

count are available on the NOMIS website at: 

http://www.nomisweb.co.uk 

Table 1a: Number of persons claiming jobseeker’s allowance by ethnicity 

Total 

White - 

British White - Irish White - Other 

Mixed - 

White and 

Black 

Caribbean 

Great Britain 

Mixed - 

White and 

Black African 

2007 May 861,240 610,545 6,355 16,705 6,215 1,975 

June 828,550 584,555 6,110 15,720 6,015 1,875 

July 826,415 582,550 5,945 15,390 6,030 1,885 

August 828,875 583,900 5,865 15,135 6,080 1,860 

September 801,970 561,740 5,745 14,980 6,045 1,825 

October 775,735 544,890 5,540 14,835 5,775 1,730 

November 760,560 537,015 5,370 14,615 5,590 1,655 

December 764,890 545,335 5,490 14,775 5,735 1,650 

2008 January 803,845 578,760 5,625 14,910 5,890 1,725 

February 821,360 592,190 5,705 15,770 6,155 1,785 

March 815,345 586,930 5,620 15,980 6,240 1,810 

April 807,850 582,525 5,475 15,800 6,230 1,820 

May 804,350 579,525 5,445 15,940 6,230 1,845

1047W 


20 JULY 2009 


1048W 

Table 1a: Number of persons claiming jobseeker’s allowance by ethnicity 

Total 

White - 

British White - Irish White - Other 

Mixed - 

White and 

Black 

Caribbean 

Great Britain 

Mixed - 

White and 

Black African 

June 805,680 581,085 5,485 15,905 6,390 1,830 

July 840,595 610,000 5,615 16,325 6,590 1,880 

August 891,830 653,375 5,925 16,840 6,955 1,995 

September 911,965 669,270 6,035 17,545 7,090 2,000 

October 936,940 694,600 6,240 18,620 7,160 2,040 

November 1,019,540 765,160 6,865 20,890 7,500 2,080 

December 1,114,135 846,670 7,575 23,035 8,085 2,230 

2009 January 1,239,610 951,995 8,175 25,075 8,515 2,320 

February 1,412,355 1,087,495 9,235 32,270 9,570 2,600 

March 1,473,655 1,133,345 9,590 35,390 10,130 2,735 

April 1,506,420 1,157,055 9,865 35,830 10,495 2,810 

May 1,512,440 1,158,350 10,025 35,425 10,745 2,855 

Note: 


Source: 


Table 1b: Number of persons claiming jobseeker’s allowance by ethnicity 

Mixed - 

White and 

Asian 

Mixed - Other 

Mixed 

Asian or 

Asian British - 

Indian 

Asian or 


Pakistani 

Asian or 


Bangladeshi 

Great Britain 

Asian or 


Other Asian 

2007 May 1,540 3,730 15,675 20,060 9,560 6,370 

June 1,530 3,590 15,250 19,910 9,440 6,205 

July 1,505 3,510 15,225 20,025 9,350 6,115 

August 1,550 3,455 15,695 20,115 9,320 6,085 

September 1,540 3,490 14,955 19,880 9,465 6,045 

October 1,455 3,320 14,115 19,035 9,200 5,810 

November 1,385 3,255 13,430 18,330 9,030 5,735 

December 1,415 3,235 13,005 17,950 8,525 5,530 

2008 January 1,435 3,285 13,345 18,255 8,540 5,605 

February 1,455 3,360 13,160 18,440 8,650 5,750 

March 1,490 3,420 13,315 18,320 8,620 5,710 

April 1,495 3,435 13,380 18,200 8,480 5,630 

May 1,525 3,450 13,755 18,740 8,510 5,725 

June 1,530 3,410 14,000 19,150 8,610 5,800 

July 1,615 3,600 14,945 19,675 8,725 5,930 

August 1,700 3,730 15,710 20,425 9,025 6,265 

September 1,750 3,810 15,985 21,035 9,280 6,370 

October 1,720 3,880 15,825 20,615 9,290 6,365 

November 1,780 4,140 16,200 21,015 9,395 6,530 

December 1,870 4,425 17,385 21,625 9,255 6,800 

2009 January 2,025 4,735 19,350 23,100 9,640 7,265 

February 2,265 5,420 21,800 24,985 10,290 8,110 

March 2,475 5,785 23,115 25,720 10,780 8,610 

April 2,560 6,045 24,335 26,365 10,910 8,865 

May 2,540 6,180 25,460 27,230 11,395 9,125 

Note: 


Source: 

Jobcentre Plus administrative system

1049W 


20 JULY 2009 


1050W 

Table 1c: Number of persons claiming jobseeker’s allowance by ethnicity 

Black or 

Black 

British - 

Caribbean 

Black or 

Black 

British - 

African 

Black or 

Black 

British - 

Other Black 

Chinese or 

Other 

Ethnic 

Group - 

Chinese 

Chinese or 

Other 

Ethnic 

Group - 

Other 

Ethnic 

Group 

Prefer Not 

To Say 

Great Britain 

Unknown 

2007 May 26,550 23,790 6,250 2,070 19,610 71,410 12,835 

June 25,785 23,300 6,060 1,975 18,840 70,005 12,385 

July 25,555 23,195 6,060 2,015 18,315 71,520 12,230 

August 25,620 23,240 6,045 2,045 17,950 73,045 11,870 

September 25,255 22,960 5,950 2,025 17,750 70,685 11,630 

October 24,340 22,015 5,765 1,915 17,235 67,630 11,125 

November 23,710 21,280 5,555 1,860 16,750 65,410 10,590 

December 23,600 20,845 5,500 1,755 16,515 63,290 10,740 

2008 January 23,750 20,950 5,530 1,735 16,610 66,600 11,295 

February 23,990 21,485 5,715 1,695 16,800 67,520 11,730 

March 24,145 21,650 5,755 1,680 16,710 66,000 11,950 

April 23,940 21,415 5,735 1,655 16,525 64,025 12,085 

May 24,125 21,840 5,780 1,685 16,455 62,075 11,705 

June 24,475 22,255 5,845 1,680 16,215 59,970 12,050 

July 25,080 22,770 5,970 1,745 16,230 61,495 12,395 

August 26,005 23,475 6,185 1,835 16,335 63,310 12,745 

September 26,450 23,965 6,320 1,895 16,770 63,505 12,900 

October 26,385 23,660 6,240 1,920 16,935 63,205 12,245 

November 27,205 24,015 6,415 1,915 17,525 66,845 14,065 

December 28,570 24,695 6,775 2,025 18,320 70,460 14,345 

2009 January 29,570 25,675 7,040 2,170 19,200 78,535 15,225 

February 32,260 27,845 7,730 2,295 21,055 88,960 18,165 

March 33,840 29,525 8,285 2,500 21,965 91,175 18,685 

April 34,995 30,570 8,630 2,645 22,285 92,575 19,580 

May 35,880 31,755 8,880 2,775 22,460 91,575 19,775 

Note: 


Source: 


Table 2a: Percentage of jobseeker’s allowance claimants by ethnicity 

White - British White - Irish White - Other 

Mixed - White and 

Black Caribbean 

Great Britain 


Black African 

2007 May 70.9 0.7 1.9 0.7 0.2 

June 70.6 0.7 1.9 0.7 0.2 

July 70.5 0.7 1.9 0.7 0.2 

August 70.4 0.7 1.8 0.7 0.2 

September 70.0 0.7 1.9 0.8 0.2 

October 70.2 0.7 1.9 0.7 0.2 

November 70.6 0.7 1.9 0.7 0.2 

December 71.3 0.7 1.9 0.7 0.2 

2008 January 72.0 0.7 1.9 0.7 0.2 

February 72.1 0.7 1.9 0.7 0.2 

March 72.0 0.7 2.0 0.8 0.2 

April 72.1 0.7 2.0 0.8 0.2 

May 72.0 0.7 2.0 0.8 0.2 

June 72.1 0.7 2.0 0.8 0.2

1051W 


20 JULY 2009 


1052W 

Table 2a: Percentage of jobseeker’s allowance claimants by ethnicity 

White - British White - Irish White - Other 


Black Caribbean 

Great Britain 


Black African 

July 72.6 0.7 1.9 0.8 0.2 

August 73.3 0.7 1.9 0.8 0.2 

September 73.4 0.7 1.9 0.8 0.2 

October 74.1 0.7 2.0 0.8 0.2 

November 75.0 0.7 2.0 0.7 0.2 

December 76.0 0.7 2.1 0.7 0.2 

2009 January 76.8 0.7 2.0 0.7 0.2 

February 77.0 0.7 2.3 0.7 0.2 

March 76.9 0.7 2.4 0.7 0.2 

April 76.8 0.7 2.4 0.7 0.2 

May 76.6 0.7 2.3 0.7 0.2 

Note: 

Data rounded to nearest 5. 

Source: 


Table 2b: Percentage of jobseeker’s allowance claimants by ethnicity 

Mixed - White 

and Asian 

Mixed - Other 

Mixed 

Asian or Asian 

British - Indian 


British - 

Pakistani 


British - 

Bangladeshi 

Great Britain 


British - Other 

Asian 

2007 May 0.2 0.4 1.8 2.3 1.1 0.7 

June 0.2 0.4 1.8 2.4 1.1 0.7 

July 0.2 0.4 1.8 2.4 1.1 0.7 

August 0.2 0.4 1.9 2.4 1.1 0.7 

September 0.2 0.4 1.9 2.5 1.2 0.8 

October 0.2 0.4 1.8 2.5 1.2 0.7 

November 0.2 0.4 1.8 2.4 1.2 0.8 

December 0.2 0.4 1.7 2.3 1.1 0.7 

2008 January 0.2 0.4 1.7 2.3 1.1 0.7 

February 0.2 0.4 1.6 2.2 1.1 0.7 

March 0.2 0.4 1.6 2.2 1.1 0.7 

April 0.2 0.4 1.7 2.3 1.0 0.7 

May 0.2 0.4 1.7 2.3 1.1 0.7 

June 0.2 0.4 1.7 2.4 1.1 0.7 

July 0.2 0.4 1.8 2.3 1.0 0.7 

August 0.2 0.4 1.8 2.3 1.0 0.7 

September 0.2 0.4 1.8 2.3 1.0 0.7 

October 0.2 0.4 1.7 2.2 1.0 0.7 

November 0.2 0.4 1.6 2.1 0.9 0.6 

December 0.2 0.4 1.6 1.9 0.8 0.6 

2009 January 0.2 0.4 1.6 1.9 0.8 0.6 

February 0.2 0.4 1.5 1.8 0.7 0.6 

March 0.2 0.4 1.6 1.7 0.7 0.6 

April 0.2 0.4 1.6 1.8 0.7 0.6 

May 0.2 0.4 1.7 1.8 0.8 0.6 

Note: 


Source: 

Jobcentre Plus administrative system

1053W 


20 JULY 2009 


1054W 

Table 2c: Percentage of jobseeker’s allowance claimants by ethnicity 

Black or 

Black 

British - 

Caribbean 

Black or 

Black 

British - 

African 

Black or 

Black 

British - 

Other Black 

Chinese or 

Other 

Ethnic 

Group - 

Chinese 

Chinese or 

Other 

Ethnic 

Group - 

Other 

Ethnic 

Group 

Prefer Not 

To Say 

Great Britain 

Unknown 

2007 May 3.1 2.8 0.7 0.2 2.3 8.3 1.5 

June 3.1 2.8 0.7 0.2 2.3 8.4 1.5 

July 3.1 2.8 0.7 0.2 2.2 8.7 1.5 

August 3.1 2.8 0.7 0.2 2.2 8.8 1.4 

September 3.1 2.9 0.7 0.3 2.2 8.8 1.5 

October 3.1 2.8 0.7 0.2 2.2 8.7 1.4 

November 3.1 2.8 0.7 0.2 2.2 8.6 1.4 

December 3.1 2.7 0.7 0.2 2.2 8.3 1.4 

2008 January 3.0 2.6 0.7 0.2 2.1 8.3 1.4 

February 2.9 2.6 0.7 0.2 2.0 8.2 1.4 

March 3.0 2.7 0.7 0.2 2.0 8.1 1.5 

April 3.0 2.7 0.7 0.2 2.0 7.9 1.5 

May 3.0 2.7 0.7 0.2 2.0 7.7 1.5 

June 3.0 2.8 0.7 0.2 2.0 7.4 1.5 

July 3.0 2.7 0.7 0.2 1.9 7.3 1.5 

August 2.9 2.6 0.7 0.2 1.8 7.1 1.4 

September 2.9 2.6 0.7 0.2 1.8 7.0 1.4 

October 2.8 2.5 0.7 0.2 1.8 6.7 1.3 

November 2.7 2.4 0.6 0.2 1.7 6.6 1.4 

December 2.6 2.2 0.6 0.2 1.6 6.3 1.3 

2009 January 2.4 2.1 0.6 0.2 1.5 6.3 1.2 

February 2.3 2.0 0.5 0.2 1.5 6.3 1.3 

March 2.3 2.0 0.6 0.2 1.5 6.2 1.3 

April 2.3 2.0 0.6 0.2 1.5 6.1 1.3 

May 2.4 2.1 0.6 0.2 1.5 6.1 1.3 

Note: 


Source: 


Jobseeker’s Allowance: Lancashire 

Geraldine Smith: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office how many people have been claiming jobseeker’s 

allowance in Morecambe and Lunesdale for over two 

years. [288360] 






Parliamentary Question asking how many people have been 

claiming jobseekers allowance in Morecambe and Lunesdale for 

over two years. (288360) 

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles the number 

of claimants of Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) from the Jobcentre 

Plus administrative system. There were 10 people in Morecambe 

and Lunesdale claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance for two years or 

more in June 2009. 

National and local area estimates for many labour market 

statistics, including employment, unemployment and the claimant 

count, are available on the NOMIS website at: 

http://www.nomisweb.co.uk 

Lobbying: Charities 

Norman Lamb: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office how many investigations by the Charity 

Commission for breaches of rules relating to political 

lobbying by registered charities (a) were initiated, 

(b) were completed and (c) resulted in the application 

of sanctions in each of the last three years. [286675] 


within the responsibility of the Charity Commission. I 

have asked the Commission to reply. 

Letter from Andrew Hind, dated July 2009: 

As the Chief Executive of the Charity Commission, I have 

been asked to respond to your written Parliamentary Question on 

how many investigations by the Charity Commission for breaches

1055W 


20 JULY 2009 


1056W 

of rules relating to political lobbying by registered charities 

(a) were initiated, (b) were completed and (c) resulted in the 

application of sanctions in each of the last three years. 

It may be useful if I start by explaining the framework which 

the Charity Commission applies to charities and campaigning 

and political activity. Charity law on campaigning and political 

activity is set out in our published guidance “Speaking Out—Guidance 

on Campaigning and Political Activity by Charities (CC9)” which 

is available on our website at www.charitycommission.gov.uk. All 

charities must be established for exclusively charitable purposes 

and, as a general principle, charities may undertake campaigning 

and political activity, subject to the law and the terms of their 

governing document, in as much as it is a positive way of 

furthering or supporting their purposes. However, in doing so, 

charities must be mindful of their independence and must not 

engage in any form of party political activity. 

Your question is in three parts and I will deal with each part 

separately. 

Turning to part (a) of your question, the Charity Commission’s 

Assessment Unit considers those complaints where it is evident 

that they cannot be dealt with by advice and support and which 

appear serious enough for us to look at more closely. The Assessment 

Unit determines the appropriate way to deal with complaints 

based on issues of risk and proportionality, and whether the issue 

raised falls within our regulatory remit. The following table shows 

how many of the cases we assessed in each of the last three 

financial years included issues that we categorised as “political 

activities” (issues of “political lobbying” would be categorised in 

this way): 

Political activity cases identified 

at compliance assessment stage 

2006-07 22 

2007-08 30 

2008-09 8 

Turning to part (b) of your question regarding completed 

investigations the Commission undertakes two types of investigations 

into concerns of non-compliance including breaches of rules 

around charities and campaigning and political activity. Firstly 

we undertake non-statutory “regulatory compliance cases”. These 

are cases where risk to the charity is limited and where it is likely 

that issues can be resolved through providing supervision, regulatory 

advice and guidance to trustees, and without the need to intervene 

by using our statutory powers. Secondly, in the few cases of 

significant risk and more serious regulatory concern, we may 

open a statutory inquiry under section 8 of the Charities Act 

1993. 

The following table sets out the number of regulatory compliance 

cases and statutory inquiries that the Commission completed 

during that year which involved concerns about “political activities”. 

Investigations—Regulatory 

Compliance Cases 

completed which included 

concerns about “political 

activity” 

Investigations—Statutory 

Inquiries completed which 

included concerns about 

“political activity” 

2006-07 10 0 

2007-08 5 0 

2008-09 11 1 

Finally, turning to part (c) of your question regarding sanctions, 

it is important to explain that our objective in such cases is to 

protect charitable assets and our actions are designed to protect 

these assets rather than as punitive measures. 

When we close a statutory inquiry we publish a “statement of 

results of inquiry” (SORI) on our website. We also publish 

reports for those regulatory compliance case investigations which 

meet certain criteria relating to the public interest—the criteria 

are published on our website at: 

www.charitycommission.gov.uk/investigations/inquiryreports/ 

ingreps.asp 

The publication of these reports can, in itself, be a form of 

sanction as the findings of the investigations are put into the 

public domain. Nonetheless the main aim of publication is to 

enable other charities to better understand the work we do and to 

learn general lessons from the way we have dealt with particular 

cases. Copies of both these types of reports, if they are less than 

six months old, are available on the Commission’s website. Older 

reports are available by request. If you would like a copy of any of 

the reports which contain issues relating to political activity we 

are happy to provide these to you. 

In terms of more formal sanctions, in most cases issues have 

been resolved through providing supervision, regulatory advice 

and guidance to trustees without the need to intervene by using 

our statutory powers. However, there has been one occasion in 

the last three years when we have used our statutory powers to 

ensure compliance in this area. We used section 19A of the 

Charities Act 1993 (introduced by section 20 of the Charities Act 

2006) to direct the charity to carry out a governance review. 

In general, it would be unusual in this type of case for the 

Commission to need to use the interventionist and remedial 

measures which are available only in statutory inquiries, such as 

the freezing of bank accounts, the suspension and removal of 

trustees, or the appointment of interim managers. 

I hope this is helpful. If you have any further questions please 

do not hesitate to get in touch. 

Pay: Hertfordshire 

Mike Penning: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office (1) what the average annual earnings of people 

of working age was in (a) Hemel Hempstead 

constituency, (b) Dacorum and (c) Hertfordshire in 

each year since 1997; [287858] 

(2) what the rate of average earnings growth was in 

(a) Hemel Hempstead constituency, (b) Dacorum and 

(c) Hertfordshire in each year since 1997. [287859] 






recent Parliamentary Questions asking what the average earnings 

of people of working age was in (a) Hemel Hempstead constituency, 

(b) Dacorum and (c) Hertfordshire in each year since 1997 

(287858) and what the rate of average earnings growth was in 

(a) Hemel Hempstead constituency, (b) Dacorum and (c) Hertfordshire 

in each year since 1997. (287859) 

Average levels of earnings are estimated from the Annual 

Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), and are provided for all 

employees on adult rates of pay whose pay for the survey period 

was not affected by absence. 

ONS’s primary indicator of average earnings growth is the 

Average Earnings Index. As this does not produce regional estimates, 

the ASHE has been used. The ASHE, carried out in April each 

year, is the most comprehensive source of earnings information in 

the United Kingdom. It is a sample of all employees who are 

members of pay-as-you-earn (PA YE) schemes. 

The sample sizes for more detailed geographies can be small 

and this affects the quality of the resulting estimates, which are 

subject to a margin of uncertainty. 

Estimates for people of working age would only be available at 

disproportionate cost, but we have provided median gross weekly 

earnings estimates and annual percentage changes for the specified 

geographies for full-time and part-time employees.

1057W 


20 JULY 2009 


1058W 

Median gross weekly pay (£) for full-time employee jobs a 

Hemel Hempstead 

parliamentary 

constituency 

Median 

Annual 

percentage 

change 

Dacorum local 

authority 

Median 

Annual 

percentage 

change 

Hertfordshire 

Median 

Annual 

percentage 

change 

1997 *364.0 n/a *358.1 n/a 352.7 n/a 

1998 *385.5 5.9 *377.6 5.4 374.3 6.1 

1999 *384.3 -0.3 *377.8 0.0 385.8 3.0 

2000 *438,7 14.2 *399.3 5.7 395.5 2.5 

2001 *457.2 4.2 *448.1 12.2 429.1 8.5 

2002 *475.6 4.0 *471.7 5.3 445.5 3.8 

2003 *492.1 3.5 *479.9 1.7 457.9 2.8 

2004 b *499.5 1.5 *479.4 -0.1 478.2 8.3 

2004 c *487.4 n/a *475.2 n/a 469.1 n/a 

2005 *478.4 -1.8 *479.0 0.8 483.3 3.0 

2006 d *516.3 7.9 *502.5 4.9 490.6 1.5 

2008 e *512.0 n/a *499.3 n/a 486.6 n/a 

2007 *543.9 6.2 *535.6 7.3 488.7 0.4 

2008 *553.9 1.8 *524.1 -2.1 514.7 5.3 

Median gross weekly pay (£) for part-time employee jobs a 


parliamentary 

constituency 

Median 

Annual 

percentage 

change 

Dacorum local 

authority 

Median 

Annual 

percentage 

change 

Hertfordshire 

Median 

Annual 

percentage 

change 

1997 **101.3 n/a **92.9 n/a *96.9 n/a 

1998 **117.8 16.3 **114.9 23.7 *107.8 11.2 

1999 **125.0 6.1 **114.0 -0.9 *115.4 7.1 

2000 **126.1 0.9 *126.2 10.7 117.2 1.6 

2001 **123.4 -2.2 **128.8 2.1 *116.6 -0.6 

2002 **135.0 9.4 *137.7 6.9 128.4 10.2 

2003 **139.5 3.3 **146.0 6.1 124.3 -3.2 

2004 b **148.8 6.7 **148.1 1.4 134.7 11.2 

2004 c **151.7 n/a *149.6 n/a *133.5 n/a 

2005 **129.3 -14.8 **130.8 -12.6 130.3 -2.4 

2006 d **146.9 13.7 **154.3 18.0 148.3 13.8 

2006 e **147.7 n/a **154.6 n/a 148.5 n/a 

2007 **160.0 8.3 155.8 0.8 145.5 -2.0 

2008 **144.8 -9.5 **143.9 -7.7 143.7 -1.2 

Notes: 

a 

Employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey pay-period was not affected 

by absence. 

b 

2004 results excluding supplementary survey for comparison with 2003 

c 

2004 results including supplementary surveys designed to improve coverage of 

the survey (for more information see National Statistics website www.statistics.gov.uk). 

d 

2006 results with methodology consistent with 2005 

e 

2006 results with methodology consistent with 2007 

Guide to quality: 

The Coefficient of Variation (CV) indicates the quality of a figure, the smaller 

the CV value the higher the quality. The true value is likely to lie within +/- twice 

the CV - for example, for an average of 200 with a CV of 5%, we would expect 

the population average to be within the range 180 to 220. 

Key 

CV 5% and 10% and 20% 

Source: 

Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), Office for National Statistics. 

1997 - 2008 

Personal Income: Wakefield 

Jon Trickett: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office what the average wage for (a) full-time and 

(b) part-time (i) male and (ii) female employees is; and 

what the average household income of working age 

households was in the Wakefield local authority area in 

(A) 1997 and (B) 2008. [288664] 






recent Parliamentary Question asking what the average wage for 

(a) full-time and (b) part-time (i) male and (ii) female employees 

is; and what the average household income of working age 

households was in the Wakefield local authority area in (A) cash 

and (B) real terms in (1) 1997 and (2) 2008. (288664) 

Average levels of earnings are estimated from the Annual 

Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), and are provided for all 

employees on adult rates of pay whose pay for the survey period 

was not affected by absence. I attach a table showing the median 

gross weekly earnings for full-time, male full-time, female full-time, 

part-time, male part-time and female part-time employees for the 

Wakefield local authority area in years 1997 and 2008. 

Information regarding the average household income of working 

age households is not available for the Wakefield local authority 

area. 

Median gross weekly pay—for employee jobs a : Wakefield local 

authority, 1997 and 2008 

£ 

1997 2008 

Full-time 317 *450 

Male full-time 342 501 

Female full-time *248 *334 

Part-time **72 *143 

Male part-time **50 x 

Female part-time **72 *144 

a 

Employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey pay-period was 

not affected by absence. 

Guide to quality 

The Coefficient of Variation (CV) indicates the quality of a figure, the 

smaller the CV value the higher the quality. The true value is likely to 

lie within +/- twice the CV—for example, for an average of 200 with a 

CV of 5% we would expect the population average to be within the 

range 180 to 220. 

Key CV 5% and 10% and 20% 

Source: 

Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), Office for National 

Statistics. 1997and 2008 

Population 

Mr. Clappison: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office what the most recent projections made by the 

Office for National Statistics are of population 

densities in (a) the UK, (b) England, (c) Scotland, 

(d) Wales and (e) Northern Ireland for (i) the earliest 

date for which such projections have been made 

(ii) 2031, (iii) 2056 and (iv) the most distant date for 

which such projections have been made; what estimate 

has been made of the population density of each such 

area in 2009; and what information the Office for 

National Statistics holds on the population density of 

other EU member states for the purposes of 

comparison with its projections for the UK. [288409] 






question asking what most recent projections made by the Office 

for National Statistics are of population densities in (a) the UK, 

(b) England, (c) Scotland, (d) Wales and (e) Northern Ireland for 

(i) the earliest date for which such projections have been made

1059W 


20 JULY 2009 


1060W 

(ii) 2031, (iii) 2056 and (iv) the latest date for which such projections 

have been made; what estimate has been made of the population 

density of each such area in 2009; what information the Office for 

National Statistics holds on the population density of other EU 

Member States for the purposes of comparison with its projections 

for the UK. (288409) 

Projected population densities can be calculated for any year 

from the published projected total population for that year and 

the relevant land area. The estimated population density for 

mid-2006 and projected population densities derived from the 

2006 population base are given in the table below for the years 

2009, 2031, 2056, 2081 and 2106. 

The next set of national population projections, based on the 

mid-2008 population estimates, are due for publication by the 

Office for National Statistics on 21 October 2009. 

Projected population density of UK and constituent countries for 

selected years 2006 to 2106 

Persons/sq km 

2006 2009 2031 2056 2081 2106 

United 250 255 293 324 352 379 

Kingdom 

England 390 398 464 521 574 626 

Wales 143 145 159 165 168 171 

Scotland 66 66 69 67 64 61 

Northern 128 132 147 153 152 150 

Ireland 

Note: 

Population densities for 2006 are derived from mid-year population 

estimates, whilst those for 2009 onwards are derived from the 2006-based 

population projections. All densities have been calculated assuming 

constant land area for the UK and its constituent countries into the 

future. 

Source: 

Office for National Statistics, General Register Office for Scotland 

and Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency 

National population projections are produced for up to 100 

years ahead, but only published for up to 75 years ahead, and are 

available from the National Statistics website at: 

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=8519 

However, long-term projections should be treated with great 

caution. Population projections become increasingly uncertain 

the further they are carried forward, particularly for smaller 

geographic areas. 

Eurostat publishes estimates of population densities for all EU 

countries up to 2007—see table tps0003 under main demographic 

indicators at: 

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/ 

population/data/main_tables 

Public Bodies 


Office pursuant to the answer of 5 May 2009, Official 

Report, columns 93-99W, on public bodies, which of 

the bodies classified as public corporations in (a) 1996 

and (b) 2008 were deemed to be part of the Civil 

Service. [287279] 






recent Parliamentary Question pursuant to the Answer of 5 May 

2009, Official Report, columns 93-99W, on public bodies, which 

of the bodies classified as public corporations in (a) 1996 and 

(b) 2008 were deemed to be part of the Civil Service. (287279) 

The requested information is attached at Annex A. The list for 

1996 comprises public corporations not included in the Answer of 

5 May 2009, as further information has recently become available. 

Annex A 

Public Corporations deemed to be part of the Civil Service in 1996 

1. Central Office of Information; 

2. Companies House; 

3. Driving Standards Agency; 

4. Fire Service College; 

5. Land Registry; 

6. Meteorological Office; 

7. Patent Office; 

8. Registers of Scotland; 

9. Royal Mint; 

10. UK Hydrographic Office. 

Public Corporations deemed to be part of the Civil Service in 2008 

1. Central Office of Information; 

2. Companies House; 

3. Defence, Science and Technology Laboratory; 

4. Defence Support Group; 

5. Driving Standards Agency; 

6. Export Credit Guarantee Department; 

7. Fire Service College; 

8. Land Registry; 

9. Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency; 

10. Meteorological Office; 

11. OGC Buying Solutions; 

12. Ordnance Survey; 

13. Registers of Scotland; 

14. Royal Mint; 

15. The Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre; 

16. UK Hydrographic Office; 

17. UK Intellectual Property Office; previously the Patent 

Office; 

18. Vehicle and Operator Services Agency. 

Trade Unions 


Office pursuant to the answer of 20 May 2009, Official 

Report, column 1479W, on trades union, what checks 

are undertaken by the Cabinet Office on whether office 

working space provided to trade union representatives 

is used for political activities. [287281] 

Angela E. Smith: I refer the right hon. Member to the 

answer given on 20 May 2009, Official Report, column 

1479W. 

Ulcers: Death 

Mr. Burstow: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office how many deaths there were in respect of which 

pressure ulcers were listed on the death certificate as a 

contributory cause of death in each region in each of 







recent question asking how many deaths there were where pressure 

ulcers were listed on the death certificate as a contributory cause 

of death in each region in each of the last five years. (287683)

1061W 


20 JULY 2009 


1062W 

The attached table provides the number of deaths where pressure 

ulcer was mentioned anywhere on the death certificate, for government 

office regions in England, for 2004 to 2008 (the latest year 

available). 

Table 1: Number of deaths with any mention of pressure ulcer on the 

death certificate 1 , Government office regions 2 , England, 2004-08 3,4 

Deaths (persons) 

Region 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

NorthEast 50 68 51 71 44 

North West 138 160 139 143 160 

Yorkshire 

69 79 78 69 64 

and the 

Humber 

East 

75 85 74 95 86 

Midlands 

West 

127 141 122 125 107 

Midlands 

East of 

122 122 128 136 102 

England 

London 103 114 142 140 126 

South East 132 137 133 148 155 

South West 59 75 68 69 73 

England 875 981 935 996 917 

1 

Cause of death was defined using the International Classification 

of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code L89 (Decubitus ulcer, 

bedsore, plaster ulcer or pressure ulcer) where it appeared anywhere 

on the death certificate. 

2 


3 


4 

Figures for deaths registered in 2008 are provisional. 

Unemployment 

The figures in the table are derived from the LFS microdata 

which are weighted using the official population estimates published 

in autumn 2007. They are not entirely consistent with the figures 

published in the monthly Labour Market Statistics Statistical 

Bulletin, which are weighted using more up-to-date population 

estimates. 

Unemployed people aged 16 and over by occupation in last job and 

duration of unemployment, three month periods ending September, 

1992-95, Great Britain, 1992-94; United Kingdom, 1995, not 

seasonally adjusted 

Thousand 

Long-term 

Occupation in last job 1 Unemployed 2 unemployed 3 

1992 Managers and senior 

195 63 

officials 

Professional 

79 18 

occupations 

Associate professional 

123 37 

and technical 

Administrative and 

288 91 

technical 

Skilled trades 

491 194 

occupations 

Personal service 

204 65 

occupations 

Sales and customer 

185 54 

service occupations 

Process, plant and 

328 129 

machine operatives 

Elementary 

358 166 

occupations 

Total 4 2,808 1,039 

Mrs. May: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office 

(1) what information her Department holds on the 

number of people who were (a) unemployed and (b) 

long-term unemployed between (i) 1980 and 1985 and 

(ii) 1990 and 1995, by (A) qualification and (B) 

previous occupation; [286748] 

(2) how many people were (a) unemployed and (b) 

long-term unemployed in each year between (i) 1980 

and 1985 and (ii) 1990 and 1995, by (A) qualification 

and (B) previous occupation. [286749] 






Parliamentary Questions asking: 

what information her Department hold on the number of 

people who were (a) unemployed and (b) long-term unemployed 

between (i) 1980-1985 and (ii) 1990-1995, by (A) qualification and 

(B) occupation. (286747) 

what information her Department holds on the number of 

people who were (a) unemployed and (b) long-term unemployed 

between (i) 1980-1985 and (ii) 1990-1995, by (A) qualification and 

(B) previous occupation. (286748) 

how many people were (a) unemployed and (b) long-term 

unemployed in each year between (i) 1980-85 and (ii) 1990-95, by 

(A) qualification and (B) occupation. (286749) 

Estimates on the number of people who were unemployed by 

qualification are not available for 1980 to 1985 and 1990 to 1995. 

Estimates for unemployed people by occupation in last job are 

available for 1992 to 1995 and are provided in the attached table. 

The estimates are derived from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). 

As with any sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to 

a margin of uncertainty. This is assessed in a footnote to the table. 


204 84 

officials 

Professional 

93 28 

occupations 


132 37 

and technical 


297 101 

technical 


497 239 

occupations 


213 79 

occupations 


196 68 



350 160 


Elementary 

339 159 

occupations 

Total 4 2,887 1,205 


officials 

Professional 

occupations 


and technical 


technical 


occupations 


occupations 





182 75 

87 25 

121 41 

249 93 

386 192 

207 78 

171 58 

305 146

1063W 


20 JULY 2009 


1064W 

Unemployed people aged 16 and over by occupation in last job and 

duration of unemployment, three month periods ending September, 

1992-95, Great Britain, 1992-94; United Kingdom, 1995, not 

seasonally adjusted 

Thousand 

Long-term 

Occupation in last job 1 Unemployed 2 unemployed 3 

Elementary 

341 170 

occupations 

Total 4 2,644 1,123 

1995 5 Managers and senior 

165 68 

officials 

Professional 

86 28 

occupations 


109 37 

and technical 


251 79 

technical 


332 171 

occupations 


197 72 

occupations 


183 56 



310 151 


Elementary 

303 132 

occupations 

Total 4 2,535 1,028 

1 

Standard Occupational Classification 1990. 

2 

Includes those whose duration of unemployment was not known. 

3 

Includes those unemployed for 12 months or more. 

4 

Includes those whose occupation was not known. 

5 

Coefficients of Variation have been calculated for the latest period as 

an indication of the quality of the estimates, as described below: 


The Coefficient of Variation (CV) indicates the quality of an estimate, 

the smaller the CV value the higher the quality. The true value is likely 

to lie within +/- twice the CV - for example, for an estimate of 200 

with a CV of 5% we would expect the population total to be within 

the range 180-220. 


*0≤ CV

1065W 


20 JULY 2009 


1066W 

(b) Bail accommodation and support service properties closed since 12 

January 2009 

Constituency Date opened Date closed 

Lewisham East 20 September 2007 28 February 2009 

Reading East 31 August 2007 12 March 2009 

Portsmouth South 27 June 2007 15 March 2009 

Luton North 28 September 2007 19 March 2009 

Cardiff West 2 February 2007 24 April 2009 

Lewisham East 30 March 2009 13 May 2009 

Newport West 29 August 2007 20 May 2009 

Swansea East 8 July 2008 7 June 2009 

Northampton North 25 October 2007 12 June 2009 

Nottingham East 11 October 2007 13 June 2009 

Damian McBride 

Mr. Maude: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

on what date he last met Mr. Damian McBride in the 

course of his official duties. [287398] 

Mr. Straw: We can find no record of any meeting 

with Mr. McBride connected with my official duties. 

Departmental Data Protection 


Justice how many (a) attempts and (b) successful 

attempts were made to gain unauthorised access to 

each (i) database and (ii) ICT system run by his 

Department in each of the last five years; and if he will 


Mr. Straw: The Ministry of Justice was established in 

May 2007. The Ministry has robust security measures 

in place to protect the information held on its computer 

systems. One unsuccessful attempt was made to gain 

unauthorised access to the Money Claim On Line System 

in 2008. The integrity of the system and information 

held on it was not compromised. 


Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

what information databases his Department (a) 

maintain and (b) uses which do not contain personal 

information. [284389] 


Justice which databases managed by his Department 

and its agencies hold personal information on members 

of the public; on what date each such database become 

operational; and if he will make a statement. [284903] 

Mr. Straw: The Ministry of Justice maintains a large 

number of major databases covering different aspects 

of the justice system, as well as smaller database systems 

which support local business areas. 

The main databases, which are maintained centrally, 

are as follows: 

CaseMan 

FamilyMan 

e-Diary 

Money Claim On Line 

Crest 

Juror 

Juror Summoning Bureau 

eXchanging Hearing Information By Internet Technology 

ProbateMan 

ARIA (Asylum and Immigration system) 

Service Upgrade Project (pilot) 

Funds Accounting System 

Receivership Accounting System 

Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal system 

Generic Appeals Processing System 2 

Mental Health Tribunal 

ETHOS (Employment Tribunal system) 

CLAIMS (Criminal Injuries and Compensation Panel system) 

MERIS (Office of the Public Guardian system) 

ORACLE financials (General Ledger, Supplier database, Accounts 

Payable, Accounts Receivable, Fixed Assets) 

Local Fees database 

CHRIMSON (HR system) 

Occupational Health, Counselling and Screening Services 

Business Management System 

Magistrates Courts databases 

Libra application 

Trust Accounting and Banking System 

BACCHUS (Bankruptcy case management system) 

Centralised Attachment of Earnings 

County Court Bulk Centre 

Commercial Court 

Electronic Records Management 

Judicial Database 

Management Information System 

Tax Tribunal Remuneration 

Decree Absolute System 

Parental Responsibility 

Supreme Court Costs Office System 

Wardship System 

Crown Office Information Network System 

Life Imprisonment Minimum Term 

Payment of Legal Aid Remuneration 

Case Recording System 

RECAP (Civil Appeals Case Management) 

CASREC (Public Guardian Office Case Recording) 

CACTUS (Criminal Appeals Case Recording) 

LIDS (Local Inmate Database System) 

IIS (Inmate Information System) 

P-NOMIS 

OASYS 

SIS (Security Intelligence System) 

Phoenix 

National Intelligence Unit 

APVU (Assisted Prison Visitors Unit) 

Prisoner Location Service 

Pin Phone 

PSIMON 

Lifers Service 

Branston Staff Files 

Branston IRMS Service 

ROWD MIS 

Construction Unit Service 

E&SS Textile Service 

DGCU Service

1067W 


20 JULY 2009 


1068W 

Accommodation and Occupancy 

Registered Intermediaries database 

Court Appearance Database 

PROGRESS 

XHIBIT Portal 

CJS Exchange Links 

CJ MIS 

FOI database 

Sharepoint 

Mandatory Drugs Testing Database 

Accommodation and Occupancy Database 

4Projects Database 

Delius 

ICMS Case Management System 

CRAM Case Management System 

IAPS 

HR Data warehouse 

Most of the databases contain some personal 

information. 

The Ministry is committed to ensuring the confidentiality, 

integrity and security (in accordance with HMG policy) 

of personal information held within the Department’s 

systems. Because of the potential security threat, it 

would not be appropriate to disclose the detailed 

information requested. 


Justice (1) what categories of personal information 

about members of the public are contained on each 

relevant database managed by his Department and its 

agencies; on what date each category of information 

was first collected; and if he will make a statement; 

[285974] 


members of the public will be held on each database 

expected to become operational in the next five years 

and which will be managed by his Department or one 

of its agencies; what estimate he has made of the likely 

number of individuals’ details each such database will 

hold when fully operational; and if he will make a 


(3) what databases which will be managed by his 

Department or one of its agencies and which will 

contain personal information are (a) under 

construction and (b) expected to go live in each of the 

next five years; and if he will make a statement. 

[286506] 

Mr. Straw: Ministry of Justice maintains 82 major 

databases which support different aspects of the justice 

system. These databases are of varying size and complexity 

and cover a wide range of activities, for example, enabling 

processing and tracking of cases through the court 

system, scheduling appointments, and tracking systems 

for monitoring departmental correspondence. Any personal 

data stored on databases are subject to the Data Protection 

Act. 

Following publication of the cross Government Data 

Handling Review in June 2008, new projects and 


data are obliged to conduct privacy impact assessments. 

Detailed information relating to individual databases 

is held within individual projects and business areas and 

not available centrally. This information could be compiled 

only at disproportionate cost. 

Drugs 

Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

how much (a) his Department and (b) its agencies 

spent on the implementation of drugs policies in each 

category in each of the last 10 years. [286734] 

Maria Eagle: The Ministry of Justice delivers a broad 

range of work in relation to drugs, primarily through 

the National Offender Management Service (NOMS). 

Most of the expenditure for this work is part of 

prison and probation services general funding and therefore, 

it is not possible to accurately disaggregate the costs. 

NOMS is currently undertaking a specification, 

benchmarking and costing exercise which will provide 

more accurate costing of the interventions delivered. 

Elections Bill 


what assessment has been made of whether the new 

provisions in the Political Parties and Elections Bill on 

non-resident donors are compatible with (a) European 

Union law and (b) the European Convention on 

Human Rights. [288090] 

Mr. Straw: When legislating, the Government are 

always mindful of the requirements of EU law and the 

rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human 

Rights. Having considered those requirements, as we 

are obliged to do, the Government are satisfied that the 

provisions of the Political Parties and Elections Bill are 

compatible with all relevant rights and freedoms. 

Elections: Campaigns 


whether candidate freepost election mailings in 

European and Parliamentary elections are delivered to 

households who have registered with the Mailing 

Preference Service a desire not to receive unsolicited 

mailings. [287349] 

Mr. Wills: Candidate freepost election mailings can 

be delivered to all households for European and 

Parliamentary elections. Registering with the Mailing 

Preference Service does not apply to election mailings. 

This provides for a level playing field for all candidates 

and ensures that those standing for election have an 

opportunity to make their policies known to the electorate. 

Electorate 


what estimate he has made of the proportion of 

(a) armed forces personnel and (b) members of the 

public who are registered to vote. [287358] 

Mr. Wills: No assessment has been made of the 

proportion of (a) armed forces personnel and (b) members 

of the public who are registered to vote. This is because 

the Office for National Statistics (ONS) does not have 

information on the proportion of the public who are 

registered to vote, as not everyone who is usually resident 

is entitled to vote. The total number of full-time armed 

forces personnel at 1 May 2009 was 194,280.

1069W 


20 JULY 2009 


1070W 

ONS figures reveal that as of 1 December 2008 the 

number of armed forces personnel who registered by 

way of a service declaration was 21,928. Not all armed 

forces electors, however, register as service voters. They 

may either register as an ordinary elector, an overseas 

elector or a service elector. The Ministry of Defence 

Service Voting Survey 2008 indicates that 75 per cent. of 

respondents were registered as ordinary voters. 

The Government are keen to support armed forces 

personnel in registering to vote. In order to increase 

service registration rates, the Government have recently 

announced that we will increase the service voter declaration 

period from three years to five years, which we hope will 

encourage more service personnel to register. We aim to 

bring forward this change in secondary legislation as 

soon as possible. 

The statistics for the proportion of members of the 

public registered are similarly difficult to calculate because 

ONS figures on total population do not show whether 

those people are eligible electors. ONS reports that the 

total number of local government electors registered in 

the UK on 1 December 2008 stood at 46,147,877. 

Firearms: Sentencing 


how many and what percentage of people in each age 

group who were convicted of carrying an illegal 

firearm under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 received 

the mandatory sentence provided for by that Act in 

each of the last five years; and what the average length 

of sentence was of those convicted of carrying an 

illegal firearm under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in 

each of the last four years. [285759] 

Mr. Straw: The requested information is found in the 

following table. 

Persons sentenced for firearms offences liable for mandatory minimum custodial sentence as prescribed by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 1 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

Juveniles 5 Total sentenced 69 60 36 17 16 

Immediatecustody 10 12 9 8 7 

Received mandatory minimum 3 at least three years n/a 2 n/a 2 4 5 2 

Percentage of offenders sentenced receiving mandatory n/a n/a 11.1 29.4 12.5 

minimum 

ACSL 4 11.2 22.7 26.0 29.8 30.6 

Young adults Total sentenced 121 122 59 46 40 

Immediate custody 23 35 34 31 32 

Received mandatory minimum—at least three years 6 n/a 2 n/a 2 7 14 15 

Received mandatory minimum—at least five years 6 n/a 2 n/a 2 18 10 9 


minimum 

ACSL 4 18.6 39.5 45.5 43.6 42.1 

Adults Total sentenced 713 565 294 220 208 

Immediate custody 183 206 199 173 171 

Received mandatory minimum 7 —at least five years n/a 2 n/a 2 124 126 132 


minimum 

ACSL 4 29.3 35.3 48.6 54.0 56.3 

1 

Offences under Firearms Act 1968 of: Possessing or distributing prohibited weapons or ammunition, or Possessing or distributing firearm 

disguised as other object. 

2 

The mandatory is only applicable for offences that occurred on or after 26 January 2004. 

3 

Mandatory minimum for persons aged under 18 at time of offence and for offences taking place after 26 January 2004 is three years. 

4 

Average custodial sentence length (months) excludes life and indeterminate sentences. 

5 

Not all of those in this age bracket would have been eligible for the mandatory minimum as they may have been under 16 at the time of the 

offence. 

6 

Mandatory minimum is dependant on age at the time of the offence data held by the Ministry of Justice only shows age at time of sentence so 

offenders in this age group could have been liable for three or five years, offenders have not been double counted. 

7 

Mandatory minimum for persons aged over 18 at time of offence and for offences taking place after 26 January 2004 is five years. 

Notes: 

These figures have been drawn from administrative data systems. 

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. 

Source: 

OMS Analytical Services, Ministry of Justice. 

Ref: PQ(OMSAS) 722 (8/07/2009). 

These figures may also be found in the answer given 

to Dominic Grieve on 18 December 2008, Official Report, 

column 1014W. Data for 2008 will not be available until 

‘Sentencing Statistics 2008’ is published later in the 

year. 

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 prescribed mandatory minimum 

custodial sentences for the offences of: Possessing or distributing 

prohibited firearms or ammunition and Possessing or distributing 

firearm disguised as other object where the offences were committed 

on or after 26 January 2004.

1071W 


20 JULY 2009 


1072W 

The minimum sentence it set was three years where the offender 

was aged between 16 and 18 at the time of the offence and five 

years for offenders aged over 18 at the time of the offence. 

Data held by the Ministry of Justice cannot determine the date 

the offence took place or the age of the offender at the time of the 

offence rather it is the date the sentence was passed and the age of 

the offender at the time of sentencing that is held. 

Data provided in this answer shows all offenders given the 

mandatory minimum from 2005-07, while all offenders sentenced 

in 2005 may not have been eligible for the mandatory minimum it 

is not possible to separately identify those cases that occurred 

prior to 26 January 2004. 

Those offenders in the juvenile (10-17 years old) age band are 

all assumed to be eligible for the three year mandatory minimum, 

similarly those in the adult age band (21+) are all assumed to be 

eligible for the five year mandatory minimum, those offenders in 

the young adult age band (18-20) could potentially have been 

eligible for either minimum sentence so the numbers given between 

three and five years and over five years have been shown separately. 

Freedom of Information 


Justice what representations he has received on the time 

taken by the Information Commissioner’s office to 

investigate complaints relating to refusals by bodies to 

provide information requested by applicants under the 

Freedom of Information Act 2000. [286816] 

Mr. Wills: I have received correspondence from members 

of the public and from hon. and right hon. Members on 

this matter. I have also responded to Parliamentary 

Questions on this subject. In addition, the Justice and 

Constitution Select Committees have commented on 

the timeliness of the Information Commissioner’s Office’s 

handling of freedom of information cases. 

For this financial year, the Government have identified 

additional funding of £500,000 for the Information 

Commissioner’s Office’s freedom of information work, 

over and above the baseline funding of £5 million. We 

are discussing with the Office how it can use this additional 

funding most effectively to reduce the number of 

outstanding cases. In addition, seven secondees from 

central government departments are working for the 

ICO to help clear the freedom of information cases at 

their home departments’ expense. 

Mrs. Laing: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

which organisations have responded to his 

Department’s consultation on extending the Freedom 

of Information Act 2000 to cover additional bodies. 

[287189] 

Mr. Wills: On 16 July, the Government published 

their response to the consultation on extending the 

Freedom of Information Act 2000 to cover additional 

bodies through a section 5 order. Copies have been 

made available in the Libraries of both Houses, the 

Vote Office and Printed Paper Office and on the Ministry 

of Justice website. Annex B of the report lists all of the 

respondents to the consultation. 

HM Courts Service: Pay 

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

how much was paid in bonuses to (a) directors, (b) 

senior managers, (c) specialist and delivery managers 

and (d) executive support and administration staff in 

HM Courts Service in each of the last five years. 

[280673] 

Mr. Straw: Non-consolidated performance payments 

are available for all staff in Her Majesty’s Court Service 

(HMCS), as they are for all staff across the Ministry of 

Justice. 

HMCS was created on the 1 April 2005 and the first 

reporting year ended on 31 March 2006. Non-consolidated 

performance payments are paid following the conclusion 

of the reporting year and the first non-consolidated 

performance payments for staff in HMCS were paid in 

the financial year 2006-07. 

HMCS does not categorise its staff as asked in the 

question and to extract the data from Ministry of 

Justice records in relation to HMCS staff below the 

Senior Civil Service would involve disproportionate 

cost. 

We have included all Senior Civil Servants within 

HMCS in providing the answer for the category ’Directors’. 

The figures for the last three years are as set out in the 

table: 

2006-07 Senior Civil Servants 358,250 



Homicide: Rape 

Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

how many (a) murders and (b) rapes were committed 

by offenders subject to Multi-Agency Public Protection 

Arrangements (MAPPA) in each of the last five years 

for which figures are available, broken down by 

MAPPA level. [287887] 

Mr. Straw: The following table shows the total number 

of offenders living in the community in England and 

Wales who were charged during the period in question 

with a serious further offence (SFO) allegedly committed 

by them at a time when their management was overseen 

via multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) 

meetings. This will include all charges of (a) murder 

and (b) rape but also those for other serious sexual and 

violent offences. The data is aggregated from the MAPPA 

annual reports produced in each of the 42 areas of 

England and Wales and it is not possible, except at 

disproportionate cost, to identify retrospectively which 

relate to murder and rape charges only. 

The table relates to those offenders managed at MAPPA 

levels 2 and 3 at the point of charge. Offenders at level 1 

are those who are eligible for MAPPA meeting oversight 

but whose risk management plan does not currently 

require it; offenders move between levels depending on 

the requirements of the risk management plan. 

Over the years in question, between 0.4 per cent. and 

0.6 per cent. of offenders subject to active multi-agency 

management have been charged with serious further 

offences. 

England and Wales 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 

Total MAPPA managed 

1 

2,152 12,766 13,688 15,291 12,806 

offenders (i.e. level 2 and 3) 

SFOs at level 2 n/a 47 50 69 72 

SFOs at level 3 26 32 12 13 7 

1 

Reflects only level 3 total. Data at level 2 not collected. 

£

1073W 


20 JULY 2009 


1074W 

Judicial Appointments Commission: Newspaper Press 

Mrs. Laing: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

how many newspaper advertisements the Judicial 

Appointments Commission placed in the last 

12 months; and at what cost. [287186] 

Mr. Straw: In the 12 month period from 1 July 2008 

to 30 June 2009, the judicial appointments commission 

placed 35 newspaper advertisements which cost £81,674.57 

excluding VAT. 

Judiciary: Pensions 

Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

what estimate he has made of the cost of the Judicial 

Pensions Scheme in each of the next 10 years. [287129] 

Mr. Straw: No estimate of costs over that period have 

been made. Forecasts of actual costs of pension benefits 

payable and lump sums based on current assumptions 

of inflation and salary costs for the next five years are 

shown in the following table. 

Salary costs (£) 

2009-10 75,685,000 

2010-11 76,028,000 

2011-12 77,928,000 

2012-13 80,829,000 

2013-14 83,445,000 

Forecasts of costings on an accruals basis are only 

available for the next two years and are shown in the 

following table. 

Forecast of costings (£) 

Current service cost 

Interest cost 

2009-10 108,000,000 110,000,000 

2010-11 111,000,000 119,000,000 

To obtain figures for further years would require 

assessments to be made on assumptions and calculations 

made by the scheme actuary and the costs to do so 

would be disproportionate. 

Legal Aid 


how many legal aid awards were made available to 

defendants with incomes of over (a) £50,000 and (b) 

£100,000 per annum in the last year for which figures 

are available. [285300] 

Mr. Straw: In 2008-09, two defendants in the magistrates 

courts with earnings over £50,000 and one defendant 

with earnings over £100,000 were awarded legal aid. All 

three were awarded under hardship review which provides 

a safety net for those with high incomes who are genuinely 

unable to pay their defence costs. In most circumstances 

applicants with an income in excess of £22,325 will not 

be granted legal aid in the magistrates courts. 

The Legal Services Commission is unable to answer 

the question in respect of defendants in the Crown 

court. In the Crown court, provided applicants pass the 

Interests of Justice test, they are currently entitled to 

legal aid regardless of income, and since no income test 

is applied to applicants, it is not known how many 

applicants (defendants) have incomes in excess of £50,000 

or £100,000. However, we will be introducing means 

testing in Crown courts from January 2010 and rolling 

it out across England and Wales by June 2010. 

No awards have been made to applicants in civil 

proceedings as there is a gross income cap of £31,884. 

Legal Services Commission: Finance 


with reference to page 78 of the Legal Services 

Commission’s Annual Report 2008-09, what the 

expenditure was which was reported as miscellaneous; 


Mr. Straw: The Legal Services Commission’s annual 

report for 2008-09 has not yet been laid before Parliament. 

In 2007-08, the miscellaneous expenditure reported 

on page 78 of the annual report was £460,000. The vast 

majority of this (£457,000) related to an exercise carried 

out to catch up on certain payments to solicitors which 

should have been made but had not. These payments 

were against costs orders, awarded by the judge at the 

end of a case, which included costs incurred prior to the 

grant of legal aid. These costs are only payable when 

recovered from the opponent of the legally aided person. 

Offensive Weapons: Convictions 


how many and what percentage of people aged (a) 

under 16, (b) between 16 and 18 and (c) over 18 years 

old who were convicted of possession of a knife in 2007 

received a fine; and what the (i) average, (ii) smallest 

and (iii) largest such fine was in that year. [285760] 

Mr. Straw: The requested information is shown in the 

following tables. 

Table 1: Offences involving the possession of a knife or offensive 

weapon resulting in a fine 1,2 by offender age group, 

England and Wales, 2007 

Age band 

Number of 

offences 

receiving a fine 

Total number of 

offences 

receiving a 

caution or a 

sentence 

Percentage 

offences 

receiving a 

fine 

10 to 15 year 

9 3,128 * 

olds 

16 and 17 56 3,860 1 

18 and over 3 1,187 21,350 6 

1 

As recorded by the police on the police national computer. 

2 

The figures are a count of offences rather than offenders. Where an 

offender has been sentenced for several possession offences each 

sentence has been counted. 

3 

Adults are classed as offenders aged 18 and over, juveniles are those 

aged 10-17. 

* Indicates that one or more of the comparative numbers are less than 

50. For small numbers this could give misleading percentage changes. 

Table 2: Minimum, maximum and average fine amounts 1 for the 

possession of a knife or offensive weapon, England and Wales, 2007 

£ 

Minimum fine amount 10 

Maximum fine amount 2,000 

Average 2 fine amount 156 

1 

As recorded by the police on the police national computer. 

2 

There were six offences that were given a fine but without a recorded 

fine amount, these were removed from the average.

1075W 


20 JULY 2009 


1076W 

These figures have been drawn from the police’s 

administrative IT system, the police national computer 

(PNC), which, as with any large scale recording system, 

is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. 

The figures are provisional and subject to change as 

more information is recorded by the police. 

PNC data have been used here rather than court data, 

which is the usual source of published sentencing statistics. 

The PNC data provide more up to date figures ahead of 

the finalised annual court data and was used for the 

Ministry of Justice’s publication ‘Knife Crime Sentencing: 

Quarterly Brief’ published on 12 March 2009 and available 

from: 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/knife-crimesentencing.htm 

Operation Safeguard: Billing 


Justice how much his Department has been invoiced by 

each police force in respect of costs incurred under 

Operation Safeguard in each month of 2009; and if he 

will make a statement. [286490] 

Mr. Straw: Police cells have not been used since 

22 September 2008 and no police cells have been on 

stand by since the end of October 2008. 

Political Parties 


whether an impact assessment, including a small firms 

impact assessment, will be made in relation to the new 

provisions in the Political Parties and Elections Bill on 

non-resident donors. [288088] 

Mr. Straw: Impact assessments for all substantive 

provisions in the Political Parties and Elections Bill, 

including the new provisions requiring a declaration as 

to taxation status of individual donors, will be published 

at Royal Assent. The new provisions relating to taxation 

status relate only to donations made by individuals and 

do not impose or reduce costs on business. There is thus 

no requirement for a small firms impact assessment to 

be conducted in relation to these provisions. 


what his timetable is for consultation with other 

political parties on the scope for further amendments 

to the provisions in the Political Parties and Elections 

Bill on non-resident donors. [288091] 

Mr. Straw: The Government have circulated revised 

versions of the amendments to the taxation status provisions 

in the Political Parties and Elections Bill to Opposition 

spokespeople and others with an interest ahead of 

further parliamentary consideration. 


whether the provisions of the Political Parties and 

Elections Bill on non-resident donors will place 

restrictions on overseas residents campaigning in UK 

elections. [288092] 

Mr. Straw: The amendments tabled by the Government 

to the Political Parties and Elections Bill on taxation 

status will restrict donations above £7,500 in a calendar 

year from an individual who is not resident, ordinarily 

resident and domiciled in the United Kingdom for 

income tax purposes. 

Section 52(l)(g) of the Political Parties, Elections and 

Referendums Act 2000 states that 

“the provision by any individual of his own services which he 

provides voluntarily in his own time and free of charge” 

should not be regarded as a donation. Therefore a 

non-resident individual who campaigns on behalf of a 

party voluntarily, in his own free time and free of 

charge would not be required to be resident, ordinarily 

resident and domiciled in the United Kingdom for 

income tax purposes. 

Section 50(2)(f) of the 2000 Act states that 

“the provision otherwise than on commercial terms of any 

property, services or facilities for the use or benefit of the party 

(including the services of any person)” 

should be regarded as a donation. 

Political Parties: Finance 


what estimate his Department has made of the cost to 

the public purse of implementing the recommendation 

on introducing tax relief for small donations to 

political parties made in the Sixth Report of the 

Committee for Standards in Public Life. [287353] 

Mr. Wills: The Fifth Report of the Committee on 

Standards in Public Life (CSPL), entitled “The Funding 

of Political Parties in the United Kingdom”, recommended 

that tax relief should be introduced on donations to 

political parties, capped at a level of £500 per donor per 

year. 

The Government’s response to the CSPL’s Fifth Report 

said 

“Tax relief would amount to general state aid by another 

route. A tax-relief scheme would be expensive for the Inland 

Revenue and political parties to administer relative to the likely 

level of take-up. Furthermore, the Government has to balance the 

loss of revenue (likely to be upwards of £4 or £5 million a year 

against other spending priorities.” 

(The funding of political parties in the United Kingdom: 

The Government’s proposals for legislation in response 

to the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards in 

Public Life, page 33, paragraph 6.3). 

The Government have not made any further estimate 

of the likely cost of introducing tax relief for small 

donations to political parties. Under the legislative 

framework set out in the Political Parties, Elections and 

Referendums Act 2000, recipients of donations are not 

required to record details of any donations received 

below the level of £200. It is therefore difficult to know 

with any accuracy how many such donations occur in a 

given year and thus what the cost of providing tax relief 

on such donations would be likely to be. 

Prisoner Escapes 


how many inmates who escaped from prison in each 

year since 1979 remain at large. [285791] 

Mr. Straw: Escapes from prison have been falling for 

over a decade and 2008-09 saw the lowest level of prison 

escapes since centralised recording of these incidents

1077W 


20 JULY 2009 


1078W 

began. The data in the table show the number of prisoners 

who have escaped from prisons in England and Wales in 

each of the last 12 years and those who remain unlawfully 

at large. Figures on prisoners unlawfully at large following 

an escape are not available centrally before this period 

and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. 

Escapes of prisoners by year from prisons in England and Wales 

showing those remaining unlawfully at large 

Number 

Escaped prisoners 

Offender remaining 

at large 

1997-98 23 0 

1998-99 28 2 

1999-2000 30 1 

2000-01 11 0 

2001-02 15 0 

2002-03 5 1 

2003-04 10 1 

2004-05 12 0 

2005-06 3 0 

2006-07 2 0 

2007-08 4 1 

2008-09 1 0 

Notes: 

1. There has not been an escape of a category A prisoner since 1995. 

2. Figures on those unlawfully at large following an escape are not 

available centrally prior to 1997 and could not be provided without 

incurring disproportionate cost. 

3. These figures have been drawn from administrative data systems. 

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. 

Figures on escapes and a range of other prison 

performance statistics are available at: 

http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/assets/documents/ 

10004423prison_escapes_jan09.pdf 

Prisoners 


Justice how many prisoners held in a cell designed for 

two people shared their cell with two or more other 

prisoners in each prison in (a) 2007-08 and (b) 2008-09; 


Maria Eagle: The figures requested are shown in the 

following table. Since 1997, the Government have increased 

prison capacity by over 24,000 places (not all of them 

new build). The Government increased capacity by over 

3,300 places last year, aim to increase it by around 1,750 

this year and are committed to increase net capacity to 

96,000 by 2014. 

Average number of 

prisoners in trebled 

accommodation 

Percentage of prisoners in 

trebled accommodation 



accommodation 



Establishment name 2007-08 2007-08 2008-09 2008-09 

Acklington 0 0 0 0 

Albany 0 0 0 0 

Aldington 1, 2 — — — — 

Altcourse 3 1,717 11.8 1,612.0 10.6 

Ashfield 3 0 0 0 0 

Ashwell 0 0 0 0 

AskhamGrange 0 0 0 0 

Aylesbury 0 0 0 0 

Bedford 117 2.0 210.0 3.8 

Belmarsh 4,467 40.6 4,579.0 42.5 

Birmingham 0 0 0 0 

Blakenhurst 2 0 0 — — 

Blantyre House 0 0 0 0 

Blundeston 0 0 0 0 

Brinsford 0 0 0 0 

Bristol 0 0 0 0 

Brixton 0 0 0 0 

Brockhill 2 0 0 — — 

Bronzefield 3 0.0 0 0 0 

BuckleyHall 0 0 0 0 

Bullingdon 60 0.5 0 0 

BullwoodHall 0 0 0 0 

CampHill 0 0 0 0 

Canterbury 0 0 0 0 

Cardiff 0 0 0 0 

Castington 0 0 0 0 

ChanningsWood 0 0 0 0 

Chelmsford 0 0 0 0 

Colchester 1, 2 — — — — 

Coldingley 0 0 0 0 

Cookham Wood 0 0 0 0 

Dartmoor 0 0 0 0 

Deerbolt 0 0 0 0

1079W 


20 JULY 2009 


1080W 



accommodation 





accommodation 




Doncaster 3 201 1.5 271.0 2.0 

Dorchester 0 0 0 0 

Dovegate 3 0 0 0 0 

Dover 0 0 0 0 

Downview 0 0 0 0 

DrakeHall 0 0 0 0 

Durham 0 0 0 0 

EastSuttonPark 0 0 0 0 

Eastwood Park 0 0 0 0 

Edmunds Hill 0 0 0 0 

Elmley 3,606 30.5 4,051.0 34.7 

Erlestoke 0 0 0 0 

Everthorpe 0 0 0 0 

Exeter 0 0 0 0 

Featherstone 0 0 0 0 

Feltham 0 0 0 0 

Ford 0 0 0 0 

Forest Bank 3 0 0 0 0 

FostonHall 0 0 0 0 

Frankland 0 0 0 0 

FullSutton 0 0 0 0 

Garth 0 0 0 0 

Gartree 0 0 0 0 

GlenParva 0 0 0 0 

Gloucester 0 0 0 0 

Grendon 0 0 0 0 

Guys Marsh 0 0 0 0 

Haslar 0 0 0 0 

Hatfield 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Haverigg 0 0 0 0 

Hewell 1 — — 0 0 

Hewell Grange 2 0 0 — — 

High Down 3,531 36.2 3,123.0 23.9 

Highpoint 0 0 0 0 

Hindley 0 0 0 0 

Hollesley Bay 0 0 0 0 

Holloway 0 0 0 0 

Holme House 0 0 0 0 

Hull 0 0 0 0 

Huntercombe 0 0 0 0 

Kennet 0 0 0 0 

Kingston 0 0 0 0 

Kirkham 0 0 0 0 

Kirklevington 0 0 0 0 

Lancaster 0 0 0 0 

Lancaster Farms 0 0 0 0 

Latchmere House 0 0 0 0 

Leeds 0 0 0 0 

Leicester 0 0 0 0 

Lewes 0 0 0 0 

Leyhill 0 0 0 0 

Lincoln 0 0 0 0 

Lindholme 0 0 0 0 

Littlehey 0 0 0 0 

Liverpool 0 0 0 0 

Long Lartin 0 0 0 0 

LowNewton 0 0 0 0 

Lowdham Grange 3 0 0 0 0 

Maidstone 0 0 0 0 

Manchester 0 0 0 0

1081W 


20 JULY 2009 


1082W 



accommodation 





accommodation 




Moorland 0 0 0 0 

MortonHall 0 0 0 0 

Mount 0 0 0 0 

NewHall 0 0 0 0 

NorthSeaCamp 0 0 0 0 

Northallerton 0 0 0 0 

Norwich 45 0.7 90.0 1.4 

Nottingham 0 0 0 0 

Onley 0 0 0 0 

Parc 3 0 0 0 0 

Parkhurst 0 0 0 0 

Pentonville 0 0 0 0 

Peterborough 3 0.0 0 0 0 

Portland 0 0 0 0 

Preston 0 0 0 0 

Ranby 0 0 0 0 

Reading 0 0 0 0 

Risley 0 0 0 0 

Rochester 0 0 0 0 

Rye Hill 3 0 0 0 0 

Send 0 0 0 0 

Shepton Mallet 0 0 0 0 

Shrewsbury 0 0 0 0 

Stafford 0 0 0 0 

StandfordHill 0 0 0 0 

Stocken 0 0 0 0 

StokeHeath 0 0 0 0 

Styal 0 0 0 0 

Sudbury 0 0 0 0 

Swaleside 0 0 0 0 

Swansea 126 2.5 225.0 4.4 

SwinfenHall 0 0 0 0 

Thorn Cross 0 0 0 0 

Usk\Prescoed 63 1.3 69.0 1.4 

Verne 0 0 0 0 

Wakefield 0 0 0 0 

Wandsworth 0 0 0 0 

WarrenHill 0 0 0 0 

Wayland 0 0 0 0 

Wealstun 0 0 0 0 

Weare — — — — 

Wellingborough 0 0 0 0 

Werrington 0 0 0 0 

Wetherby 0 0 0 0 

Whatton 0 0 0 0 

Whitemoor 0 0 0 0 

Winchester 0 0.0 3.0 0.0 

Wolds 3 0 0 0 0 

Woodhill 0 0 0 0 

WormwoodScrubs 0 0 0 0 

Wymott 0 0 0 0 

Service Total 1,161 1.4 1,186.1 1.4 

Key: 

1 

Not operational in 1007-08 

2 

Not operational in 1008-09 

3 

Contracted out 


Justice how many prisoners held in a cell designed for 

one inmate shared their cell with one or more other 

prisoners in each prison in (a) 2007-08 and (b) 2008-09; 

and if he will make a statement. [286489]

1083W 


20 JULY 2009 


1084W 

Maria Eagle: The figures requested are shown in the 

following table. Since 1997, the Government have increased 

prison capacity by over 24,000 places (not all of them 

new build). The Government increased capacity by over 

3,300 places last year, aim to increase it by around 1,750 

this year and are committed to increase net capacity to 

96,000 by 2014. 


prisoners in doubled 

accommodation 


doubled accommodation 



accommodation 




Acklington 0 0 0 0 

Albany 0 0 0 0 

Aldington 2, 3 — — — — 

Altcourse 825.4 68.2 825.7 65.3 

Ashfield 1 0 0 0 0 

Ashwell 9.7 1.8 24.5 4.2 

Askham Grange 0 0 0 0 

Aylesbury 0 0 0 0 

Bedford 299.3 62.0 257.3 56.2 

Belmarsh 0 0 0 0 

Birmingham 652.8 45.0 640.7 44.8 

Blakenhurst 3 480.0 45.1 — — 

Blantyre House 0 0 0 0 

Blundeston 32.7 7.1 32.7 6.3 

Brinsford 44.3 9.7 30.3 5.7 

Bristol 156.0 25.9 158.3 26.3 

Brixton 249.0 31.0 226.7 29.2 

Brockhill 3 0 0 — — 

Bronzefield 1 0 0 0 0 

Buckley Hall 53.0 13.9 70.0 18.5 

Bullingdon 400.0 41.7 424.3 41.2 

Bullwood Hall 0 0 0 0 

Camp Hill 129.7 22.0 146.3 25.0 

Canterbury 154.2 55.1 203.5 67.2 

Cardiff 478.5 63.7 520.8 66.9 

Castington 7.7 2.0 5.7 1.5 

Channings Wood 46.0 6.6 32.0 4.4 

Chelmsford 303.8 43.5 257.2 37.5 

Colchester 2, 3 — — — — 

Coldingley 38.5 9.9 39.3 9.0 

Cookham Wood 15.5 23.3 0 0.0 

Dartmoor 44.3 7.0 42.2 6.6 

Deerbolt 0 0 0 0 

Doncaster 1 725.9 64.0 704.4 63.3 

Dorchester 171.5 74.1 172.0 75.3 

Dovegate 1 73.8 8.8 120.3 14.3 

Dover 0 0 0 0 

Downview 0 0 0 0 

Drake Hall 0 0 0 0 

Durham 715.0 75.6 676.5 73.4 

East Sutton Park 0 0 0 0 

Eastwood Park 59.2 17.8 51.3 16.2 

Edmunds Hill 0 0 0 0 

Elmley 204.8 20.8 176.5 18.1 

Erlestoke 8.0 1.9 0 0 

Everthorpe 153.2 22.6 152.7 22.6 

Exeter 351.2 73.3 400.2 79.8 

Featherstone 16.5 2.5 25.8 3.8 

Feltham 0 0 0 0 

Ford 0 0 0 0 

Forest Bank 1 593.8 54.3 626.8 56.2 

Foston Hall 0 0 0 0 

Frankland 0 0 0 0 

Full Sutton 0 0 0 0

1085W 


20 JULY 2009 


1086W 



accommodation 





accommodation 




Garth 12.0 1.8 30.7 3.7 

Gartree 0 0 0 0 

Glen Parva 294.8 36.6 286.3 36.5 

Gloucester 151.8 52.7 153.0 50.7 

Grendon 0 0 0 0 

Guys Marsh 85.5 15.1 89.2 15.6 

Haslar 0 0 0 0 

Hatfield 0 0 0 0 

Haverigg 11.2 1.9 21.0 3.4 

Hewell 2 — — 414.2 29.6 

Hewell Grange 3 0 0 — — 

High Down 0 0 19.0 1.7 

Highpoint 38.8 4.8 38.5 4.7 

Hindley 0 0 0 0 

Hollesley Bay 0 0 0 0 

Holloway 0 0 0 0 

Holme House 271.9 27.6 240.7 25.2 

Hull 560.5 54.3 567.3 55.8 

Huntercombe 0 0 0 0 

Kennet 188.3 91.5 326.3 96.7 

Kingston 0 0 0 0 

Kirkham 0 0 0 0 

Kirklevington 0 0 0 0 

Lancaster 143.0 71.0 152.7 65.9 

Lancaster Farms 58.8 11.8 61.8 13.5 

Latchmere House 0 0 0 0 

Leeds 739.5 73.2 601.8 59.5 

Leicester 287.7 82.7 300.2 83.8 

Lewes 148.7 28.3 145.5 21.8 

Leyhill 0 0 0 0 

Lincoln 493.5 73.5 508.3 73.4 

Lindholme 88.5 8.6 106.0 9.6 

Littlehey 89.2 12.8 124.0 17.2 

Liverpool 408.2 30.0 388.0 29.4 

Long Lartin 0 0 0 0 

Low Newton 54.7 19.5 62.5 20.7 

Lowdham Grange 1 64.5 9.7 89.5 13.1 

Maidstone 53.8 10.5 55.3 11.8 

Manchester 629.5 51.2 606.5 50.7 

Moorland 69.0 6.8 73.3 7.2 

Morton Hall 0 0 0 0 

Mount 24.8 3.4 30.5 4.0 

New Hall 49.3 12.4 55.3 13.8 

North Sea Camp 0 0 0 0 

Northallerton 188.8 78.6 179.7 78.4 

Norwich 187.5 33.8 172.5 33.2 

Nottingham 337.8 61.7 329.8 60.9 

Onley 0 0 0 0 

Parc 1 267.3 23.7 315.7 26.5 

Parkhurst 60.0 11.8 58.8 12.1 

Pentonville 733.2 64.1 676.5 60.7 

Peterborough 1 123.7 12.9 246.3 25.5 

Portland 0 0 0 0 

Preston 661.8 90.9 650.2 90.2 

Ranby 234.8 22.8 238.2 22.1 

Reading 157.8 60.9 124.2 51.2 

Risley 82.3 7.6 79.5 7.3 

Rochester 0 0 0 0 

Rye Hill 1 16.8 2.7 0 0 

Send 0 0 0 0

1087W 


20 JULY 2009 


1088W 



accommodation 





accommodation 




Shepton Mallet 43.7 23.4 45.8 24.7 

Shrewsbury 301.8 92.6 241.3 80.1 

Stafford 0 0 0 0 

Standford Hill 0 0 0 0 

Stocken 50.0 7.5 60.0 7.5 

Stoke Heath 184.5 29.3 132.3 22.1 

Styal 18.2 4.1 20.0 4.5 

Sudbury 0.7 0.1 0 0 

Swaleside 30.2 3.9 28.0 3.6 

Swansea 325.3 77.4 333.5 79.0 

Swinfen Hall 7.8 1.3 29.0 4.7 

Thorn Cross 0 0 0 0 

Usk\Prescoed 209.3 52.6 220.8 54.1 

Verne 66.2 11.2 65.2 11.1 

Wakefield 0 0 0 0 

Wandsworth 1168.8 79.2 1141.5 70.4 

Warren Hill 0 0 0 0 

Wayland 79.3 11.2 85.3 8.7 

Wealstun 31.3 4.0 36.2 6.8 

Weare 2, 3 — — — — 

Wellingborough 2.0 0.3 2.5 0.4 

Werrington 0 0 0 0 

Wetherby 20.0 5.7 10.2 3.0 

Whatton 63.7 8.2 56.5 6.8 

Whitemoor 0 0 0 0 

Winchester 333.7 61.1 359.5 59.6 

Wolds 1 84.7 22.8 96.0 25.2 

Woodhill 256.2 31.5 298.0 36.4 

Wormwood Scrubs 124.0 9.8 124.0 9.9 

Wymott 90.0 8.5 104.0 9.5 

Service total 19,054.3 23.6 19,152.6 23.1 

Key: 1 Contracted out. 2 Not operational in 2007-08. 3 Not operational in 2008-09. 


how many people (a) of each sex and (b) in each age 

group have been admitted to prison in each year since 

1997. [286732] 

Maria Eagle: The following table gives the number of 

people received into prison under an immediate custodial 

sentence by age group and sex. This excludes those 

received on remand that did not subsequently enter 

prison under sentence in the same year, fine defaulters 

and non-criminals. 

Receptions into prison establishments 1 under an immediate custodial sentence by age and sex, England and Wales 

Number of persons 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

Male 

All ages 75,985 80,059 83,422 84,189 83,292 85,895 84,252 85,062 82,390 80,436 82,205 

15-17 5,365 5,283 5,523 5,530 5,598 5,392 4,729 4,986 4,971 5,127 5,165 

18-20 12,525 13,245 14,264 14,567 14,101 13,512 12.345 12,252 11,770 11,845 12,778 

21-24 15,794 15,608 15,905 16,621 16,866 17,754 17,147 16,527 15,138 14,520 14,535 

25-29 16,180 17,086 17,133 17,085 16,113 16,642 16,146 16,038 15,105 14,801 15,146 

30-39 17,431 19,365 20,596 20,567 20,525 22,202 22,704 22,612 22,136 20.771 20,346 

40-49 5,935 6,422 6,772 6,726 6,993 7,356 7.985 9,108 9,623 9,647 10,258 

50-59 2,160 2,408 2,505 2,319 2,376 2,347 2.448 2,708 2,791 2,805 2,950 

60 and over 595 642 724 774 720 690 748 831 856 920 1,027 

Female 

All ages 4,847 5,849 6,816 7,006 7,231 7,720 7,993 8,264 8,024 7,698 8,056 

15-17 252 302 354 304 305 346 189 186 204 164 191 

18-20 601 769 879 932 965 986 916 840 874 849 888 

21-24 973 1,113 1,368 1,450 1,520 1,667 1,781 1,674 1,502 1,375 1,326

1089W 


20 JULY 2009 


1090W 

Receptions into prison establishments 1 under an immediate custodial sentence by age and sex, England and Wales 

Number of persons 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

25-29 1,071 1,311 1,516 1,477 1,606 1,694 1,786 1,825 1,695 1,596 1,720 

30-39 1,325 1,618 1,909 2,041 2,042 2,157 2.352 2,519 2,422 2,403 2,485 

40-49 480 582 584 602 605 725 773 986 1,072 1,043 1,135 

50-59 125 135 184 166 162 122 173 200 214 216 258 

60andover 20 19 22 34 26 23 23 34 41 52 53 

1 

Excludes police cells. 

The table is taken from table 6.6 in the Offender 

Management Caseload Statistics 2007, a copy of which 

can be found in the Libraries of the House and which 

can be found at the following website: 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/ 

prisonandprobation.htm 

These figures have been drawn from administrative 

IT systems, which, as with any large scale recording 

system, are subject to possible errors with data entry 

and processing. 

Prisoners: Drugs 


how many people (a) of each sex and (b) in each age 

group admitted to prison have tested positive for illegal 

drugs on arrival in each of the last 10 years; and which 

drug or drugs they tested positive for. [286736] 

Maria Eagle: Prisoners can be subject to mandatory 

and clinical drug tests on reception. Clinical drug test 

results are not held centrally and can be obtained only 

by surveying 138 establishments, which would be at 

disproportionate cost. 

Not all prisons operate reception mandatory testing, 

and of those that do, not all are on new receptions into 

custody. 

However, the number of positive samples by gender 

under the mandatory drug testing (MDT) programme 

on reception is given in the following table. It is not 

possible to provide figures by age group. 

Total 

number 

of 

positive 

samples 

MDT conducted on reception 

Number of positive samples for each drug 

Cannabis Opiates Cocaine Benzodiazepines Methadone Amphetamines Barbiturates LSD Buprenorphine 

Female 

prisoners 

1999- 

3 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

2000 

2000-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2001-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2002-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2003-04 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

2004-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2005-06 3 1 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 

2006-07 41 14 25 27 27 6 0 4 0 0 

2007-08 13 1 10 8 11 1 0 0 0 2 

2008-09 36 15 16 12 17 4 0 0 0 5 

Male 

prisoners 

1999- 776 534 282 72 140 18 19 3 0 2 

2000 

2000-01 1,024 640 476 156 299 30 26 3 0 10 

2001-02 508 313 220 86 140 13 19 2 0 7 

2002-03 485 300 195 90 160 12 9 3 0 8 

2003-04 491 330 154 84 138 12 10 9 0 23 

2004-05 687 488 175 91 164 11 25 8 0 66 

2005-06 860 555 254 91 177 27 19 16 0 82 

2006-07 1,087 643 350 120 263 47 24 9 0 74 

2007-08 1,456 860 489 149 391 109 34 9 0 128 

2008-09 1,302 782 365 142 342 120 15 5 0 183

1091W 


20 JULY 2009 


1092W 

Notes: 

1. MDT results are recorded anonymously. It is possible therefore that some positive samples relate to the same prisoner. 

2. The sum of the number of positive samples for each drug is greater than the total number of positive samples. This is due to some samples 

testing positive for more than one drug. 

3. These figures have been drawn from administrative data systems. 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. The data are not subject to audit. 


how many prisoners (a) of each sex and (b) in each 

age group tested positive for illegal drugs in each of the 

last 10 years; and which drug or drugs they tested 

positive for. [286737] 

Maria Eagle: Prisoners can be subject to mandatory, 

voluntary and clinical drug testing. Voluntary and clinical 

drug test results are not held centrally and can be 

obtained only by surveying 138 establishments, which 

would be at disproportionate cost. 

The number of positive results under all types of 

mandatory drug testing (MDT) is given in the following 

tables. It is not possible to provide figures by age group. 

MDT conducted on female prisoners 


Total 

number 

of 

positive 

samples Cannabis Opiates Cocaine Benzodiazepines Methadone Amphetamines Barbiturates LSD Buprenorphine 

1999- 780 181 441 37 275 16 17 7 0 2 

20000 

2000-01 812 168 504 35 215 14 7 3 0 6 

2001-02 681 126 402 49 194 23 11 2 0 9 

2002-03 578 109 265 32 232 31 7 0 0 22 

2003-04 688 122 240 39 331 89 5 3 0 34 

2004-05 900 147 415 57 306 98 7 3 0 117 

2005-06 1,009 169 480 60 280 104 6 8 0 166 

2006-07 1,054 122 505 79 310 112 7 10 0 164 

2007-08 925 91 338 61 236 112 9 2 0 295 

2008-09 688 116 231 44 178 72 0 1 0 200 

MDT conducted on male prisoners 


Total 

number 

of 

positive 

samples Cannabis Opiates Cocaine Benzodiazepines Methadone Amphetamines Barbiturates LSD Buprenorphine 

1999- 17,098 11,814 6,458 369 1,374 67 103 21 1 74 

2000 

2000-01 15,990 9,284 7,437 437 1,631 60 81 14 0 264 

2001-02 13,689 7,518 6,560 391 1,353 40 72 21 0 346 

2002-03 12,304 8,086 4,439 354 1,212 33 56 17 0 347 

2003-04 14,059 10,035 4,166 343 1,354 49 101 44 0 568 

2004-05 14,903 9,491 5,341 346 1,235 116 129 57 0 1,033 

2005-06 14,714 8,476 5,746 339 1,180 159 108 90 0 1,388 

2006-07 13,123 6,116 6,170 328 1,228 219 125 94 0 1,293 

2007-08 14,243 6,199 6,949 438 1,411 402 121 27 0 1,564 

2008-09 13,212 5,852 5,066 357 1,398 514 55 31 0 2,928 

Notes: 

1. MDT results are recorded anonymously. It is possible therefore that some positive samples relate to the same prisoner. 

2. The sum of the number of positive samples for each drug is greater than the total number of positive samples. This is due to some samples 

testing positive for more than one drug. 

3. These figures have been drawn from administrative data systems. 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. The data are not subject to audit. 

Prisoners: Financial Provision 


what information his Department holds on the 

financial circumstances of adult male and female 

prisoners at the time of imprisonment; what research 

he has commissioned on the subject; and if he will 


Maria Eagle: The only information systematically 

held is from the assessment of offending related factors 

made through the Offender Assessment System (OASys) 

which is only applied to young prisoners and to adult 

prisoners serving sentences of more than 12 months. 

During the period 1 April 2008 until 31 March 2009, 

7,844 adult male offenders and 825 adult female offenders

1093W 


20 JULY 2009 


1094W 

were assessed at the start of a custodial sentence as 

having an offending linked factor related to ‘financial 

management and income’. 

Pilots are under way regarding extending assessment 

to all prisoners and Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction 

(SPCR) is a longitudinal study aiming to provide an 

overview of prisoners’ needs, interventions received and 

related outcomes. 

Prisons 


pursuant to his answer of 1 June 2009, Official Report, 

columns 80-81W, on prison accommodation, (1) what 

proportion of his Department’s expenditure of £60 

million at the former RAF Coltishall he expects to be 

incurred on (a) structural changes, (b) refurbishment, 

(c) construction of new buildings, (d) security 

measures, (e) hygiene and other services and (f) other 

works; [286759] 

(2) what estimate he has made of the lifetime of (a) 

the new prison development at RAF Coltishall and (b) 

the capital construction cost per prison place per year 

of that lifespan. [286761] 

Mr. Straw: It is estimated that approximately £1.8 

million will be spent on structural changes, £31.4 million 

will be spent on refurbishment, £13.6 million will be 

spent on construction of new buildings, £2.8 million 

will be spent on security measures, £7.2 million will be 

spent on hygiene and other services and £3 million will 

be spent on other works. 

The estimated lifespan of the new prison development 

at Coltishall is 60 years. The capital construction cost is 

£60 million or approximately £2,000 per prison place 

per year during this time. 


what the (a) current and (b) certified normal capacity 

of the prison estate in each region is; what estimate he 

has made of the estate’s capacity in 2016; and what 

proportion of the current prison population originated 

in each region is. [286762] 

Maria Eagle: The following table shows the certified 

normal accommodation (CNA) of prisons in each region 

against the corresponding operational capacity as of 

May 2009. 

Capacity by region, May 2009 data 

(a) Operational 

Region 

Capacity (b) In use CNA 

East Midlands 10,373 9,197 

Eastern 8,355 7,486 

London 7,736 6,421 

North East 5,217 4,623 

North West 13,167 10,777 

South East 14,220 12,760 

South West 6,830 5,954 

Wales 2,860 1,936 

West Midlands 8,322 7,307 

Yorkshire and the 

Humber 

9,725 8,223 

Operational capacity in the table does not take into 

account the prison estate’s “operating margin”. This is 

reflected in the useable operational capacity of the 

estate and is the best estimate of the total number of 

prisoners that the estate can readily hold taking into 

account control, security and the proper operation of 

regimes including single cell risk assessments. It allows 

for the fact that prisoners are managed separately by 

sex, risk category and conviction status and that the 

population will not exactly match the distribution of 

places available across the country. Useable operational 

capacity is currently set at 2,000 places (the “operating 

margin”) below the overall capacity of the prison estate. 

Our analysis suggests we need to increase the capacity 

of the prison estate to around 96,000 places by 2014, 

and we are on course to achieve this through the current 

building programme. No decisions have been made on 

the provision of further capacity once the programme 

to increase the estate to 96,000 places is complete. 

The following table shows the prison population 

originating from each region as of September 2008. 

Population by region of origin 1 , September 2008 data 

Region 

Originating population 

East Midlands 5,900 

Eastern 5,700 

London 17,200 

North East 3,900 

North West 13,100 

South East 8,600 

South West 4,700 

Wales 4,200 

West Midlands 8,900 

Yorkshire and the Humber 8,700 

Grand total 2 80,900 

1 

Region of origin is derived from a prisoner’s home address. If this 

home address is not recorded centrally the prisoner’s court of committal 

is used as a proxy for home area. 

2 

This total excludes around 2,400 prisoners who do not have a 

centrally recorded home or court address. 

Note: 

Data are rounded to the nearest 100. 

Prisons: Drugs 

Mr. Pelling: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness 

of the use of (a) random and (b) non-random 

mandatory drugs testing in prisons between 2002-03 

and 2008-09; and what plans he has for the future use 

of mandatory drugs testing in prisons. [285885] 

Maria Eagle: There is no research directly into the 

cost-effectiveness of mandatory drug testing. 

Independent research carried out by the Office for 

National Statistics 

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/rdsolr0305.pdf 

concluded that the mandatory drug testing programme 

met its key objectives. Mandatory drug testing continues 

to be an integral part of the strategy to reduce the 

supply of drugs in prisons. 

The success of the strategy overall is reflected in a 

reduction in drug misuse in prisons of 63 per cent. since 

1996-07. 

Probation: Hemel Hempstead 


Justice how many high risk (a) male and (b) female 

offenders in each age group there were in the Hemel 

Hempstead probation area in each of the last five 

years. [284320]

1095W 


20 JULY 2009 


1096W 

Maria Eagle: The total number of male offenders, by 

age group and the total number of female offenders in 

Hertfordshire probation area who were categorised as 

Tier 4 (high risk) as at 31 March in each of the last three 

years is provided in the following table. Information is 

available at probation area level only and has not been 

provided for women by age group because of the small 

numbers of cases involved. 

2006 2007 2008 

Age 

group Males Females Males Females Males Females 

18-20 32 1 

— 58 1 

— 50 1 

— 

21-24 37 1 

— 49 1 

— 46 1 

— 

25-29 53 1 

— 68 1 

— 53 1 

— 

30-39 78 1 

— 104 1 

— 70 1 

— 

40-49 39 1 

— 53 1 

— 54 1 

— 

50 and 20 1 

— 18 1 

— 16 1 

— 

over 

All 259 32 350 24 289 9 

1 

Data not provided because of the small numbers involved. 

Information on tier prior to 1 April 2005 was not 

recorded. 

These figures have been drawn from administrative 

IT systems which, as with any large scale recording 

system, are subject to possible errors with data entry 

and processing. 

Probation Service 

Rob Marris: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

how much the Probation Service spent on (a) consultants, 

(b) monitoring of performance, (c) IT systems which 

were abandoned as unsuccessful, (d) IT systems which 

were retained as successful and (e) management in 

(i) 2003-04, (ii) 2004-05, (iii) 2005-06, (iv) 2006-07 and 

(v) 2007-08. [282472] 

Maria Eagle: It is not possible to answer the questions, 

except for the C-NOMIS project and the Delius case 

management system, without incurring disproportionate 

cost as it would be necessary to request information 

from each of the 42 local area probation boards that 

comprised the National Probation Service (NPS) in 

England and Wales up to 31 March 2008. 

However, some elements of IT provision are managed 

centrally, within which Delius, a case management system 

already in use by some probation areas, has been 

implemented where existing NPS case management systems 

are in urgent need of replacement. This replacement 

began in 2007-08 and for that financial year, expenditure 

was £367,000. 

The National Audit Office (in its report on the National 

Offender Management Information System, HC292, 

2008-09) estimated that the National Offender Management 

Service had spent around £15 million on the probation 

element of C-NOMIS which is no longer required. 

Reoffenders: Crimes of Violence 

Mr. Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Justice how many offenders from Milton Keynes were 

charged with each category of violent offence while 

under supervision by the Probation Service in each of 


Maria Eagle: Local reoffending data was published 

for the first time on 12 February 2009, covering the 

period 1 October 2007 to 30 September 2008. 

The National Offender Management Service holds 

information on the number of offenders charged with 

serious further (violent) offences while under probation 

supervision for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08. However, 

this does not include all types of violent offence and the 

data are collected at probation area level. The information 

in relation solely to Milton Keynes is not held centrally 

and would involve checking the local records for the 

Thames Valley probation area at a disproportionate 

cost. 

Voting Methods 


what progress has been made on his Department’s 

review of weekend voting; and what timetable has been 

set for the Government’s response to the consultation. 

[287356] 

Mr. Wills: The “Election Day: Weekend Voting” 

consultation attracted nearly 1,000 responses. It has 

taken time to analyse, in detail, the views and evidence 

provided. The Government’s response to the consultation 

will be published in due course. 

Young Offender Institutions: Per Capita Costs 


with reference to the answer of 17 November 2008, 

Official Report, column 24W, on young offender 

institutions: per capita costs, what the average cost of 

providing a place in (a) a young offender institution 

for 18 to 21 year olds, (b) a young offender institution 

for 15 to 17 year olds and (c) a secure training centre 

for under 15 year olds was in 2008-09. [285491] 

Mr. Straw: The average cost per year of a place at a 

young offender institution (YOI) for 2008-09 is not yet 

available. The figures will be calculated after completion 

of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) 

Annual Report and Accounts, due to be issued at the 

end of July, and published on the NOMS website. I will 

write to the hon. Member when the figures are available. 

The average cost per year of a place at a secure 

training centre (STC) for 2008-09, as provided by the 

Youth Justice Board, was £179,972. The age range of 

young people held in STCs is 12-17 years. 

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS 

Adult Education 

Mr. Willetts: To ask the Minister of State, Department 

for Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the 

answer of 14 May 2009, Official Report, column 993W, 

onbasicskills,howmanyLearningandSkillsCouncil-funded 

adult learners aged between 16 and 19 years old were 

eligible for inclusion in statistics used to measure progress 

against the Skills for Life Public Service Agreement 

target in (a) 2002-03, (b) 2003-04, (c) 2004-05, 

(d) 2005-06 and (e) 2006-07. [278871]

1097W 


20 JULY 2009 


1098W 

Kevin Brennan: Table 1 shows Skills for Life achievement 

figures for working age 16 to 19 year-olds between 

2002-03 and 2007-08. The table shows only those 

achievements which count towards the 2010 PSA target 

which is to improve the basic skill levels of 2.25 million 

adults between the launch of Skills for Life in 2001 and 

2010. This target was achieved in 2008. 

Table 1: Skills for Life 2010 target-bearing achievements (annual discounted achievements) 

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 

16 year-old 50,100 70,200 86,900 99,000 105,500 111,400 

17 year-old 30,200 43,200 58,200 78,300 81,600 84,300 

18 year-old 13,000 22,900 33,200 47,500 52,200 51,800 

19 year-old 6,400 12,200 19,500 28,000 32,000 32,400 

16 to 19 year-olds 99,600 148,400 197,700 252,900 271,200 279,900 

Notes: 

1. Volumes are rounded to the nearest hundred. 

2. Achievements are “discounted” to take into account learners that may have previously contributed to the target. For example, if a learner had 

previously achieved a level 1 literacy qualification in 2005-06 but subsequently achieved a level 1 numeracy qualification in 2006-07, we 

“discount” the number of learners to ensure we do not double-count learners achieving the target. 

Source: 

Individualised Learner Record Student data. 

Apprentices 

Mr. Willetts: To ask the Minister of State, 

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills how 

many people aged 16 to 24 started an apprenticeship in 

each quarter since August 2007. [283991] 

Kevin Brennan [holding answer 14 July 2009]: Table 1 

shows apprenticeship starts for 16 to 24 year-olds in 

each quarter since August 2007. 

Table 1: Apprenticeship starts by age 

1 August 2007 

to 31 October 

2007 

1 November 

2007 to 

31 January 

2008 

1 February 

2008 to 

30 April 2008 

1 May2008 to 

31 July 2008 

1 August 2008 

to 31 October 

2008 

1 November 

2008 to 

31 January 

2009 

1 February 

2009 to 

30 April 2009 

16-18 year-olds 54,500 17,800 16,800 18,000 52,200 16,100 13,400 

19-24 year-olds 28,700 17,200 23,600 20,600 31,500 18,100 18,300 

Notes: 

1. Volumes are rounded to the nearest hundred. 

2. Age is calculated based on age at the start of the course. 

Source: 

WBL ILR 

The National Apprenticeship Service has developed 

a 16-18 Apprenticeships Action Plan and is taking 

forward a range of actions to increase the number of 

young people starting an apprenticeship. These include: 

an £11 million investment to provide 3,000 additional 

places with large businesses that have a track record in 

offering high-quality apprenticeships, with 1,800 places 

for 16 to 18 year-olds; a £7 million investment in Group 

Training Associations which can help attract new and 

hard to reach employers and new individuals to become 

apprentices; a focus on increasing the number of 

apprenticeship places available in the public sector by 

21,000 this year with a specific focus on health, education, 

central and local government; and the publication of 

OGC guidance to enable Central and Local Government 

to utilise the £175 billion spent each year on procurement 

contracts to increase apprenticeship numbers and investment 

in training. 

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Minister of State, 

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills what 

progress has been made towards provision of the proposed 

1,500 apprenticeships under the New Opportunities, 

New Challenges strategy. [286188] 

Kevin Brennan: In the Manufacturing: New Opportunities, 

New Challenges strategy, the Government committed 

to extend and expand high quality Apprenticeships by 

approximately 1,500 new places, by inviting bids from 

larger manufacturers to train additional apprentices, 

including for their supply chains. 

On 1 December 2008 the Apprenticeship Expansion 

Programme Prospectus was launched, inviting Expressions 

of Interest from employers or groups of employers who 

are already delivering high-quality Apprenticeship 

programmes. 

On 13 May the majority of the successful bids were 

announced. Out of the approximately 3,000 additional 

Apprenticeships created under the Expansion Programme, 

at least 1,400 will be in the Engineering and Manufacturing 

sector. The first additional apprentices will be taken on 

in September 2009. 

Stephen Williams: To ask the Minister of State, 


much his Department has spent on level four 

apprenticeships in each year since 2001. [286798] 

Kevin Brennan: Our records show that in 2006-07, 

£115,000 was spent on funding level four apprenticeship 

places. This rose to £202,000 in 2007-08, as more learners 

started apprenticeships and we continued to fund the 

programmes of those who had started in the previous 

year. In previous academic years, level four apprenticeships 

were not available.

1099W 


20 JULY 2009 


1100W 

Apprentices: Females 

Mr. Laws: To ask the Minister of State, Department 

for Business, Innovation and Skills how many and what 

proportion of apprenticeships were completed by 

women in each of the last 10 years. [284282] 

Kevin Brennan: The table shows the volume and 

proportion of apprenticeships completed by women in 

each year from 2003/04 to 2007/08. 

Apprenticeships completed by women 

Proportion 

Volume (percentage) 

2003/04 25,200 51 

2004/05 32,200 48 

2005/06 45,700 46 

2006/07 50,900 45 

2007/08 50,800 45 

Note: 

Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred, and percentages to 

the nearest per cent. 

Source: 

WBL ILR 

In many areas the take up of apprenticeships reflects 

the gender divide in the workplace. For example 1 per 

cent. of construction apprentices are women but in the 

care sector women comprise 97 per cent. of apprentices. 

We do not accept this and we have asked that the new 

National Apprenticeship Service to take action to address 

inequalities within the Apprenticeship programme. 

Apprentices: Hertfordshire 

Mr. Pelling: To ask the Minister of State, 


estimate he has made of the number of apprenticeships 

to be taken up by those over the age of 24 years in (a) 

Hemel Hempstead constituency, (b) Dacorum and (c) 

Hertfordshire in the next five years. [285889] 

Kevin Brennan: The table shows apprenticeship starts 

in Hemel Hempstead parliamentary constituency and 

Hertfordshire local authority in 2007/08, the latest year 

for which we have full-year information. Information is 

not available at local authority district level and hence 

figures for Dacorum, which is part of Hertfordshire 

local authority, are not shown. 

Apprenticeship starts in 2007/08 

Area 

Age at start of 

programme 


constituency 

Hertfordshire local 

authority 

Under 19 140 1,300 

19-24 160 1,200 

25 plus 50 300 

All starts 350 2,800 

Notes 

1. Area is based on home postcode of learner. 

2. Figures for parliamentary constituency have been rounded to the 

nearest ten and figures for local authority have been rounded to the 

nearest hundred. Therefore figures may not sum to the total due to 

rounding. 

3. Age is calculated based on age at start of programme. 

Source: 

WBL ILR 

Nationally, in 2008/09 we anticipate that more adults 

than ever before will start an apprenticeship. As part of 

our unprecedented investment in apprenticeships we 

have seen tremendous growth in the adult (25 plus) 

Apprenticeship programme from just 300 starts in 2006/07, 

to over 27,000 in 2007/08 in England. We are delighted 

that this trend has continued and demand from employers 

for adult apprenticeships remains very high. This 

demonstrates that apprenticeships provide a high-quality, 

all-age offer for businesses and that employers recognise 

the benefits of continuing to train in the current economic 

climate. The Government’s Skills Investment Strategy 

2010-11 (due in autumn 2009) will set out national 

projections for apprenticeship starts for 2009/10 and 

2010/11 academic years. 

Apprentices: Thames Valley 

Tony Baldry: To ask the Minister of State, 


estimate he has made of the number of apprenticeships 

which will be taken up by those over the age of 24 years 

resident in (a) the Thames Valley and (b) Oxfordshire 

in the next 12 months. [285595] 

Kevin Brennan: The following table shows apprenticeship 

starts in Oxfordshire in 2007-08, the latest year for 

which we have full-year information. Information is 

also provided for all of the local authorities covered by 

the Thames Valley Local Learning and Skills Council. 

Apprenticeship starts in 2007-08 

Age at start of programme All starts 

Local authority Under 19 19-24 25+ 

Bracknell Forest 200 200 100 400 

Buckinghamshire 800 700 100 1,600 

Milton Keynes 400 500 100 1,000 

Oxfordshire 1,000 800 200 2,000 

Reading 200 200 100 500 

Slough 200 200 100 400 

West Berkshire 300 300 100 700 

Windsor and 

200 200 — 400 

Maidenhead 

Wokingham 900 900 300 2,000 

Total 4,100 3,900 1,100 9,100 

Notes: 

1. Area is based on home postcode of learner. 

2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and may not 

sum to the total due to rounding. 

3. ‘—’ indicates a value of less than 50. 

4. Age is calculated based on age at start of programme. 

Source: 

WBL ILR 

Nationally, in 2008-09 we anticipate that more adults 

than ever before will start an Apprenticeship. As part of 

our unprecedented investment in Apprenticeships we 

have seen tremendous growth in the adult (25+) 

Apprenticeship programme from just 300 starts in 2006-07, 

to over 27,000 in 2007/08 in England. We are delighted 

that this trend has continued and demand from employers 

for adult Apprenticeships remains very high. This 

demonstrates that Apprenticeships provide a high-quality, 

all-age offer for businesses and that employers recognise 

the benefits of continuing to train in the current economic 

climate. 

Better Regulation Executive 

Tim Loughton: To ask the Minister of State, 


the projected expenditure by the Better Regulation 

Executive is for each of the next five years. [283431]

1101W 


20 JULY 2009 


1102W 

Ian Lucas: The Better Regulation Executive has a 

formal budget for 2009-10 and an indicative budget for 

2010-11 as set out: 

2009-10 

(formal) 

£ million 

2010-11 

(indicative) 

Programme budget 4.7 4.7 

of which: 

Local Better Regulation 

4.4 4.4 

offices 

Communications 0.3 0.3 

Administration budget 6.4 6.4 

Total budget 11.1 11.1 

These budgets were set out in the comprehensive 

spending review (CSR) 2007, covering the financial 

years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. Budgets for future 

years will be decided as part of the next spending 

round, which has not yet been announced by HM 

Treasury. 

Business: Billing 

Mrs. McGuire: To ask the Minister of State, 


many times cases under (a) the Late Payment of 

Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 2002 and (b) other 

late payment legislation have been brought in UK 

courts in the last four years. [286711] 

Ms Rosie Winterton: The Ministry of Justice does not 

hold any statistical information about court applications 

(including Scotland) relating specifically to (a) the Late 

Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 2002 and 

(b) other late payment legislation. 

This is because the administrative computer systems 

used in the courts do not presently identify these specific 

application types. While the relevant cases will be logged 

on the system, they cannot be distinguished from other 

types of claims issued. Changing the administrative 

systems to create specific case types for these types of 

cases would incur disproportionate cost. 

Mrs. McGuire: To ask the Minister of State, 


research has been carried out into the size of 

companies bringing court cases under late payment 

legislation. [286712] 



(including Scotland) relating specifically to late payment 

legislation. 








Business: Coastal Areas 

Mr. Sanders: To ask the Minister of State, 


steps he is taking to encourage business growth in 

seaside resorts in England. [284759] 

Ms Rosie Winterton: Support is available to established 

businesses, new businesses and those wanting to start a 

business throughout England, including in seaside resorts, 

via Business Link. Business Link is the Government’s 

multi-channel business support service providing access 

to information and advice and directing clients to private 

and public sector support. 

This Department sponsors the nine English RDAs. 

The RDAs are the delivery vehicle for business development 

at a sub-national level and are responsible for the day-to-day 

management of Business Link. The RDAs have an 

important role to play, with other partners, in helping 

coastal areas in their regions to achieve their full economic 

potential, as part of wider regional strategies to deliver 

sustainable growth. 

Business: Empty Property 

Mr. Binley: To ask the Minister of State, Department 

for Business, Innovation and Skills what his most 

recent estimate is of the number of empty business 

properties there are in each constituency in England. 

[286596] 

Ms Rosie Winterton: These data are not available at 

constituency level. 

Business: Government Assistance 

Mr. Newmark: To ask the Minister of State, 


many businesses have received assistance from the 

Working Capital Guarantee Scheme; and how much 

funding has been committed to date. [259010] 

Ms Rosie Winterton [holding answer 26 February 

2009]: The Working Capital Scheme (WCS) is not 

available directly to businesses. The scheme enables 

participating banks to increase the amount of working 

capital they can make available to businesses. 

By guaranteeing portfolios of working capital facilities, 

this will release regulatory capital held by the banks 

against these portfolios. The banks have agreed they 

will make commitments to re-deploy this capital in 

order to increase all types of lending to small and 

medium-sized enterprise (SMEs) and mid-sized corporates 

above their current base line. 

We have signed £1 billion of guarantees with RBS 

and Lloyds for portfolios of £2 billion. The financing 

for businesses it releases has already started from 1 

March as a result of the lending agreements based on 

the Asset Protection Scheme and WCS. We will be 

allocating from the £10 billion WCS, guarantees for 

trade credit insurance in response to the constraint to 

working capital arising from withdrawal of trade credit 

insurance. We will also be consulting on the viability of 

using some of these guarantees for letters of credit and 

other forms of export finance which are also possible 

areas of constraint for working capital. 

Mr. Amess: To ask the Minister of State, Department 

for Business, Innovation and Skills what estimate he 

has made of the number of companies which will apply 

for assistance under the Working Capital Scheme; how 

much has been allocated by his Department to the 

scheme; what criteria are used by his Department on 

deciding suitability under the scheme; under what

1103W 


20 JULY 2009 


1104W 

circumstances assistance would be refused; whether 

interest is charged under the scheme; and if he will 


Anne Main: To ask the Minister of State, 


many businesses have received funding under the 

Working Capital Scheme. [260556] 

Ms Rosie Winterton: The Working Capital Scheme 

(WCS) is not available directly to businesses. The scheme 

enables participating banks to increase the amount of 

working capital they can make available to businesses 

By guaranteeing portfolios of working capital facilities, 

this will release regulatory capital held by the banks 

against these portfolios. The banks have agreed they 

will make commitments to re-deploy this capital in 

order to increase all types of lending to small and 

medium sized enterprise (SMEs) and mid-sized corporates 

above their current base line. 

We have signed £1 billion of guarantees with RBS 

and Lloyds for portfolios of £2 billion. The financing 

for businesses it releases has already started from 

1 March as a result of the lending agreements based on 

the Asset Protection Scheme and WCS. We will be 

allocating from the £10 billion WCS guarantees for 

trade credit insurance in response to the constraint to 

working capital arising from withdrawal of trade credit 

insurance. We will also be consulting on the viability of 

using some of these guarantees for letters of credit and 

other forms of export finance which are also possible 

areas of constraint for working capital. 

Helen Southworth: To ask the Minister of State, 


business support measures from his Department are 

available to small and medium-sized businesses in 

Warrington. [276518] 

Ms Rosie Winterton: The Government fully appreciate 

the challenges faced by small and medium-sized businesses, 

especially during these difficult economic times, and we 

provide real help to businesses in the Warrington area 

through a wide range of business support. Details are 

set out in our ‘Real Help’ publication for the north-west 

which can be found at: 

http://realhelpnow.hmg.gov.uk/pdf/northwest.pdf 

The Northwest Regional Development Agency also 

provide a broad range of business support in areas such 

as small business loans (from £3,000 to £50,000), grants, 

venture capital (ranging from £50,000 to £250,000), 

start-up, innovation and efficiency, high growth, 

international trade, training and development, and specific 

sector-based initiatives in areas such as manufacturing, 

digital and creative, business and professional services—full 

details can be found at: 

http://www.nwda.co.uk/publications/business/support-fornorthwest-business.aspx 

Any business looking for support can access it through 

Business Link Northwest by visiting: 

www.businesslink.gov.uk 

Simon Hughes: To ask the Minister of State, 


many businesses in the London Borough of Southwark 

have (a) applied for and (b) received assistance from 

the (i) Enterprise Finance Guarantee Scheme and 

(ii) Capital for Enterprise Fund in 2009; and how much 

funding has been provided to businesses in Southwark 

under each scheme. [279301] 

Ms Rosie Winterton [holding answer 15 June 2009]: 

The Department records information on the Enterprise 

Finance Guarantee and Capital for Enterprise Fund on 

a regional basis, including London. It does not hold the 

information requested at borough level and it could be 

provided only at disproportionate cost. 

Set out in the following tables is the information for 

London since the launch of the Enterprise Finance 

Guarantee and Capital for Enterprise Fund on 14 January: 

Enterprise Finance Guarantee 

Number 

Number of eligible applications 395 

Number of loans offered 354 

Number of loans drawn 212 

£ million 

Value of eligible applications 43.9 

Value of loans offered 37.2 

Value of loans drawn 22.4 

Capital Enterprise Fund 

Number 

Number of inquiries 91 

Number of inquires under 

11 

consideration 

£ million 

Investment required 108.2 

Value of inquires under 

16.7 

consideration 

The fund managers are continuing due diligence on 

the proposals that have been put forward. 

Simon Hughes: To ask the Minister of State, 


sources of support are available to raise finance for 

small businesses which apply for assistance under the 

Enterprise Finance Guarantee Scheme and meet the 

eligibility criteria but are not accepted on the scheme 

by commercial lenders; and if he will make a statement. 

[279444] 


EFG is only available to viable businesses which are at 

the margins of commercial lending because they have 

insufficient security or their proposal involves a higher 

risk of loss in case of default. 

Businesses that have been unable to secure funding 

from a lender under EFG may be eligible for a loan or 

other assistance from their Regional Development Agency. 

Business Link can advise on what additional finance 

help is available in the English regions on 0845 600 9 

006 or via: 

www.businesslink.gov.uk 

In addition Business Link offers businesses a free 

review of their business by a professional business adviser. 

As at 11 June 2009, over 57,800 businesses have benefited 

from these reviews. An average of 1,865 per week since 

the service began in October 2008.

1105W 


20 JULY 2009 


1106W 

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Minister of State, 


recent steps his Department has taken to assist 

(a) small and (b) medium-sized businesses in the 

London Borough of Bexley. [281657] 

Ms Rosie Winterton: Through Business Link, small 

and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) in Bexley can 

access a wide range of mainstream Government business 

support products and services. Recent additional support 

has been made available to help SMEs during these 

tough economic times, including business health checks 

and a rapid response service to help SMEs hit hardest 

by the recession. 

The Government are further assisting SMEs with 

‘real help now for businesses’ which consists of targeted 

products and initiatives to help SMEs, including those 

in Bexley, during the downturn. 

The full suite of business support services is routinely 

delivered in Bexley, including: advice, guidance and 

practical financial support with business start-ups, support 

for entrepreneurs and innovators with information on 

how to develop and explore their ideas, from inspiration 

to planning, to research, marketing, launch, business 

growth and exporting. Community development finance 

institutions (CDFIs) provide loans and other financial 

services to SMEs experiencing difficulty in accessing 

mainstream finance. This support complements that 

offered to SMEs by other departments: 

Jobcentre Plus assists local businesses with recruitment 

and training and the LSC provides Train to Gain and 

apprenticeship funding. 

Alongside support targeted at specific businesses the 

London Development Agency continues to support 

development of the local business infrastructure in Bexley. 

Examples include: 

Estates Excellence South London/Soloman Ltd. (supporting 

480 SMEs), 

Building Futures/Trust Thamesmead (employment support to 

200 SME employees), 

Community Leaders Development (58 businesses supported, 

11 new businesses created), 

East London Business Place (6 Bexley SMEs supported) 

Business: Insurance 

Peter Luff: To ask the Minister of State, Department 

for Business, Innovation and Skills what recent 

representations he has received from (a) representative 

business organisations and (b) individual businesses 

on the availability of trade credit insurance; and if he 



The Government have had regular discussions with the 

CBI and a range of businesses on the availability of 

trade credit insurance. 

In response, the Government launched a trade credit 

insurance scheme to help those businesses who have 

suffered reductions in their level of cover. This top-up 

scheme will help mitigate disruption to trade and cash 

flows. 

Following further engagement, the Government 

announced on 9 June that eligibility for the scheme will 

be backdated to include suppliers who had their cover 

reduced since 1 October 2008. 

Business: York 

Hugh Bayley: To ask the Minister of State, 


many businesses were registered for value added tax in 

(a) City of York constituency and (b) the York 

unitary authority area in each year since 1992. [285872] 

Ms Rosie Winterton: The total numbers of businesses 

registered for VAT at the start of each year from 1992 to 

2008 for the city of York constituency and York local 

unitary authority are shown as follows: 

Year 1 

City of York 

parliamentary 

constituency 

York local unitary 


1994 2,110 4,070 

1995 2,115 4,075 

1996 2,115 4,100 

1997 2,090 4,130 

1998 2,145 4,235 

1999 2,180 4,335 

2000 2,220 4,425 

2001 2,270 4,560 

2002 2,315 4,665 

2003 2,330 4,790 

2004 2,425 4,965 

2005 2,505 5,105 

2006 2,565 5,200 

2007 2,635 5,270 

2008 2,765 5,435 

1 

Large increases in the compulsory VAT registration threshold in 

1991 and 1993 mean that figures before and after these dates are not 

directly comparable to data from 1994 onwards. The VAT series 

between 1980 and 1993 is available from the following link: 

http://stats.berr.gov.uk/ed/vat/vat8093.xls 

Between 1994 and 2008, the number of VAT registered 

businesses in the city of York constituency and the York 

local authority area increased by 31 and 34 per cent. 

respectively. 

Constructing Excellence: Finance 

Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Minister of State, 


funding (a) his Department and (b) each regional 

development agency has given to (i) the Centre for 

Constructing Excellence and (ii) each regional centre 

for constructing excellence since its inception. [278541] 

Ms Rosie Winterton: The table shows funding provided 

by my Department to Centre for Constructing Excellence. 

BIS funding to Constructing Excellence 

£ million 

2003-04 6 

2004-05 4.6 

2005-06 3.4 

2006-07 1.5 

2007-08 0.1 

2008-09 0.2 

Notes: 

1. These figures include core funding for specific projects 

2. The RDAs did not provide any funding to the Centre for Constructing 

Excellence since its inception. 

3. My Department has not provided any core funding to regional 

Centres for Constructing Excellence. 

The following table shows RDA funding to regional 

Centres for Constructing Excellence.

1107W 


20 JULY 2009 


1108W 

RDA funding to regional Centres for Constructing Excellence 

£000 

RDA 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 

AWM 0 0 0 0 712 1,393 1,420 1,193 

EEDA 0 0 0 0 0 23 5 0 

EMDA 0 0 0 78 402 0 299 304 

LDA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 

ONE 1 

— 1 

— 54 54 54 100 130 2 

— 

SEEDA 0 17 38 44 0 0 15 0 

SWRDA 0 0 0 0 0 47 127 128 

1 

To identify the funding that has been provided would incur disproportionate cost. 

2 

ONE’s funding for 2007/08 was re-profiled to include 2008/09. Currently the regional centre has an application in for further funding. 

Debts 

Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Minister of 

State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 

how many companies with registered addresses in 

(a) England and Wales and (b) Gloucestershire are 

registered to execute debt relief orders; what recent 

assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the debt 

relief scheme; and if he will make a statement. [286013] 

Ian Lucas [holding answer 13 July 2009]: The Secretary 

of State has designated six organisations as competent 

authorities. Those organisations in turn can approve 

individual advisers to act as intermediaries, that is to 

confirm that the entry criteria appear to be met and to 

assist with applications for debt relief orders. On receipt 

of the completed application and payment of the fee, 

the official receiver can make the order. 

None of the registered addresses of those six 

organisations is in Gloucestershire. Anyone in 

Gloucestershire wishing to apply for a debt relief order 

will be able to seek advice from one of the three designated 

organisations that offer telephone advice, or will be able 

to contact the other organisations to inquire about 

Gloucestershire-based advisers. The organisations are 

listed in a leaflet available online at: 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/bankruptcy/DRO/debtors.htm 

or in hard copy from the Insolvency Service. 

It is too early to be able to properly assess the 

effectiveness of the scheme. Formal evaluation will take 

place in approximately three years but as this is a new 

process, the Insolvency Service, which delivers DROs in 

partnership with the advice sector, is actively monitoring 

the effectiveness of the new procedures to ensure they 

are working as envisaged. 

Departmental Manpower 



many members of staff will be employed in his 

Department’s Manufacturing Insight office; and when 

the office will start operations. [285350] 

Ian Lucas: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I 

gave to him on 9 July 2009, Official Report, column 

988W. 

Dietary Supplements: Channel Islands 

Mr. Drew: To ask the Minister of State, Department 

for Business, Innovation and Skills what recent assessment 

he has made of the effect on UK (a) businesses and 

(b) consumers of the import from the Channel Islands 

of health food products which contain illegal ingredients 

or are marketed using illegal claims; and if he will make 

a statement. [288016] 

Kevin Brennan: This Department has made no such 

assessment. The Food Standards Agency is the Government 

organisation responsible for the legislation that governs 

health food products. 


for Business, Innovation and Skills when officials of his 

Department last met representatives of the health food 

industry to discuss the effect of the trade in health food 

products from the Channel Islands on (a) UK 

businesses and (b) UK consumers. [288017] 

Kevin Brennan: My officials have not met with 

representatives of the health food industry to discuss 

the effect of the trade in health food products from the 

Channel Islands although they have been in written 

communication. However, officials from the Food Standards 

Agency (who have responsibility for the legislation in 

this area) are in regular discussion with them. 

East of England Development Agency: Land 

Bob Spink: To ask the Minister of State, Department 

for Business, Innovation and Skills what (a) land and 

(b) buildings owned by the East of England 

Development Agency are unused. [279339] 

Ms Rosie Winterton: All land and property held by 

EEDA has been acquired with the intention of eventual 

disposal for appropriate use in support of regional and 

local economic strategies. 

The process prior to disposal depends on the condition 

and status of the sites on acquisition and the extent of 

planning and or access/services provision required to 

make the sites fit for purpose. 

Sites cannot be developed until these issues have been 

suitably addressed. However, once addressed, these will 

be disposed of for productive use at the earliest opportunity. 

However, some sites are currently vacant due to them 

being at different stages in the remediation and development 

process. 

On this basis, EEDA has provided the following table 

of those sites in its ownership which are neither the 

subject of a binding legal agreement with a developer or 

potential purchaser at the date of the question, nor 

forms part of an approved plan with any other party.

1109W 


20 JULY 2009 


1110W 

Land and buildings currently vacant comprise: 

Land only 

Land and buildings 

Northwick Road 

(Canvey, Essex) 

Wyboston (Wyboston, 

Bedfordshire) 

South Denes (Great 

Yarmouth, Norfolk) 

1 

one short term tenant 

2 

empty buildings pending demolition 

Peterborough (South Bank) North 

(Peterborough, Cambridgeshire) 1 

Saul’s Wharf (Great Yarmouth, Norfolk) 

2 

Education (Student Support) Regulations 2009 



assessment he has made of the likely effects of 

application of the provisions of the Education (Student 

Support) Regulations 2009 on each type of funding 

support his Department provides for students in 

2009-10. [286993] 

Mr. Lammy: None. The Education (Student Support) 

Regulations 2009 set out funding support for students 

studying in the academic year starting 1 September 

2010: they do not affect the student support available in 

the 2009-10 academic year. 

The Government remain committed to investing in 

higher education and are increasing funding for student 

support in 2009-10 financial year by 4 per cent. compared 

with 2008-09. In cash terms, we are planning to spend 

over £5 billion on student support in 2009-10, and even 

more in 2010-11. 

Education: Finance 

Justine Greening: To ask the Minister of State, 


assessment he has made of the effect on accelerated 

support for (a) capital projects to improve further 

education infrastructure and (b) accelerated support 

for projects to improve facilities at higher education 

institutions of bringing forward capital expenditure 

from 2010-11 to 2009-10 and 2008-09; and how much 

of the funding has been spent in each month since it 

was announced. [286656] 

Kevin Brennan: As announced in the pre-Budget report 

2008, the former Department for Innovation Universities 

and Skills accelerated £442 million from 2010-11 budgets 

into 2008-09 and 2009-10. That capital was accelerated 

as set out in the following table: 

£ million 

2008-09 2009-10 Total 

Higher Education Funding 

50 200 250 

Council for England (HEFCE) 

capital funding for higher 

education institutions 

Learning and Skills Council (LSC) 110 — 110 

capital funding for further 

education institutions 

Student Loans infrastructure 2 — 2 

Research Capital Investment Fund — 25 25 

Natural Environment Research 

Council facilities 

5 — 5 

£ million 

2008-09 2009-10 Total 

Large Facilities Capital Fund 

— 50 50 

(projects managed by the research 

councils) 

Total 167 275 442 

The £50 million of capital that was accelerated to 

higher education institutions (HEIs) from 2010-11 into 

2008-09 was spent in full in that financial year, having 

been allocated to institutions in January 2009 under the 

standard Capital Investment Formula. This amount, 

therefore, formed part of larger payments to HEIs and 

is not readily distinguishable from them in each month 

of spend. The £200 million brought forward to 2009-10 

has been committed to specific projects, delivering 

throughout the year. That money will support 144 

different projects, in 107 HEIs, and including additional 

capital leveraged by the initial investment, will deliver 

more than £370 million of capital activity. Payments 

will be made to higher education institutions on a 

quarterly basis, and the first instalment of £25 million 

was paid by HEFCE in May 2009. Examples of the 

projects accepted include: £6.4 million for a new arts 

building at Sussex; £3 million for a new building for the 

Centre for Immunology and Infection at York; £2.7 million 

for new mechanical engineering facilities at Imperial; 

and £2.6 million for chemical engineering and life sciences 

facilities at Sheffield. Over two-thirds of these projects 

are already under way. 

The further education capital programme has seen 

nearly 330 colleges and 700 projects benefit since 2001. 

Only 42 colleges have yet to benefit from investment. In 

2008-09, more than 100 further education building projects 

were completed, as a result of nearly £550 million of 

investment, including the £110 million accelerated from 

future budgets. This money was spent to bring forward 

building work, benefiting learners and regenerating 

communities. Recent National Audit Office and Public 

Accounts Committee reports have acknowledged the 

success of the further education capital programme, 

and its value for money. 

Education: Prisons 



many people in prison received (a) a student 

maintenance loan and (b) a student grant in each of 


Kevin Brennan: In his written statement on 7 February 

2008, Official Report, columns 85-86WS, on the Education 

(Student Support) Regulations the Secretary of State 

announced that he was amending the student support 

regulations to disallow prisoners who were also full-time 

students from receiving financial support for maintenance, 

thereby removing the long-standing provision which 

had allowed prisoners to claim such support. 

In a further written statement on 25 March 2008, 

Official Report, column 6WS, he announced that an 

investigation showed that 154 individual prisoners had 

received some form of maintenance payment whilst a 

full time student since 1998. In total, prisoners received 

£570,000 in maintenance loans and £160,000 in maintenance 

grants over that period. The investigation also showed

1111W 


20 JULY 2009 


1112W 

that assessments for student support were carried out in 

accordance with the rules that applied at the time. There 

was also evidence of some maintenance payments made 

to prisoners between 1990 and 1998. 

According to records held by the Student Loans 

Company no prisoners have applied for or received a 

maintenance loan toward their living costs in the academic 

year 2008/09. 

The following table gives a breakdown of the number 

of prisoners receiving maintenance loans and grants by 

academic year. 

Prisoners receiving maintenance loans and grants 1 

Academic year 

Number 

2003/04 18 

2004/05 21 

2005/06 32 

2006/07 48 

2007/08 44 

1 

The figures reflect the number of prisoners in each year who 

received a payment. In some cases, prisoners will have received 

payments in more than one year. 

Exports: Yorkshire and the Humber 



many companies in Yorkshire and the Humber 

exported goods and services in each year since 1997. 

[285750] 

Ms Rosie Winterton: HM Revenue and Customs 

publishes a regional breakdown for trade in goods. The 

number of companies in Yorkshire and the Humber 

region exporting in each year from 1997 is: 

Exporters to 

EU 

Exporters-non 

EU 

Total exporter 

count 

1997 1,545 4,124 4,359 

1998 1,490 4,447 4,653 

1999 1,395 4,380 4,609 

2000 1,352 4,370 4,581 

2001 1,381 4,599 4,837 

2002 1,497 4,717 4,998 

2003 1,540 5,000 5,273 

2004 1,595 5,132 5,407 

2005 1,726 5,180 5,534 

2006 1,723 5,222 5,591 

2007 1,596 5,133 5,434 

2008 1,655 5,288 5,582 

Foreign Investment in UK: Yorkshire and the Humber 



much foreign investment there has been in (a) 

Yorkshire and the Humber and (b) the City of York in 

each year since 2003; and what estimate he has made of 

the number of jobs generated. [285751] 

Ms Rosie Winterton: A total of 295 foreign direct 

investments have been recorded in the Yorkshire and 

Humber (Y&H) region since 2003, of which 27 were in 

the city of York. These are the foreign direct investments 

that Yorkshire Forward has been directly involved in. 

Breakdown of foreign direct investments since April 2003 

Yorkshire and the 

Humber 

York 

2003-04 24 2 

2004-05 43 3 

2005-06 29 6 

2006-07 41 2 

2007-08 76 3 

2008-09 82 11 

Total 295 27 

Since 2003, the total number of new jobs created in 

the region as a result of the foreign direct investment 

totals 9,766. Of this total, 560.5 were in the city of 

York. The total number of jobs saved in the region as a 

result of foreign direct investment since 2003 totals 

9,967. Of these, 23 were located in York. 

Y&H new 

jobs 

Y&H 

safeguarded 

jobs 

York new 

jobs 

York 

safeguarded 

jobs 

2003-04 2,356 460 53 0 

2004-05 2,596 1,207 10 3 

2005-06 1,700 1,021 21.5 0 

2006-07 699 1,034 85 0 

2007-08 1,141 2,562 87 0 

2008-09 1,274 3,683 304 20 

Total 9,766 9,967 560.5 23 

Further Education: Energy 

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Minister of State, 


support his Department provides to further education 

colleges to improve their energy efficiency. [285528] 

Kevin Brennan: We provide support through the Learning 

and Skills Council (LSC) to enable further education 

colleges to benchmark their performance against the 

most efficient providers. These toolkits enable colleges 

to draw comparisons between their estates running 

costs, including energy costs. In the last spending review, 

colleges realised £48 million of efficiency savings from 

the more effective running and maintenance of its estate— 

which included lowered energy costs. 

The standards of environmental sustainability are 

increasing through a requirement for new college capital 

projects to meet BREEAM (the building research 

establishment environment assessment method) ‘excellent’ 

criteria introduced by the LSC in March 2008. 

The LSC also ran a pilot scheme with SALIX, which 

made available energy efficiency grants for small projects. 

The pilot showed that, in cash terms, colleges would be 

able to recoup their investment within 3.5 years through 

energy savings. We shall be working in partnership with 

colleges to examine the scope for them to make further 

efficiency gains in the future, including improving their 

energy efficiency. 

Further Education: Finance 

Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Minister of State, 


the timetable for the next phase of decisions on 

colleges’ capital programmes is; and if he will make a 

statement. [284022]

1113W 


20 JULY 2009 


1114W 

Kevin Brennan [holding answer 6 July 2009]: After an 

open and transparent prioritisation exercise in consultation 

with the sector the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) 

announced which projects would proceed to the next 

stage of the process—a tough value for money challenge 

to reduce the cost of projects—on 26 June. The LSC 

have subsequently invited the 13 successful colleges to 

submit revised proposals by 22 July. As soon as credible 

cost reductions can be secured, final approvals will be 

accelerated in order for building to begin as soon as 

possible. 

For colleges which have not been selected to proceed 

this year, the next steps start this autumn when the LSC 

will further consult with the sector to agree a robust, 

fair and transparent process for prioritising the capital 

investment programme ready for the next spending 

review period. 

Andrew Selous: To ask the Minister of State, 


theageisof(a) the main site and (b) any rebuilding 

or extension of each of the further education colleges 

(i) which received provision to proceed with their 

capital projects on 26 June 2009 and (ii) whose capital 

building programmes remain frozen. [286091] 

Kevin Brennan [holding answer 13 July 2009]: As 

independent institutions, further education colleges are 

responsible for the upkeep and development of their 

own estates. As such, the Government, via the Learning 

and Skills Council (LSC), makes available capital grant 

support to enable further education colleges to undertake 

such renewal and modernisation. Over this current spending 

review period, we will invest a record £2.6 billion in the 

further education sector. 

While in the provision of such grant, the LSC requires 

the respective college to provide details about its capital 

proposal—it does not require the college to state the age 

of its buildings. I am therefore unable to provide the 

hon. Member with the information requested as we, nor 

the LSC, collect it. 

Mr. Cox: To ask the Minister of State, Department 

for Business, Innovation and Skills whether Ministers 

played a role in decisions on which further education 

college building projects for which funding was frozen 

would be approved; and if he will make a statement. 

[286705] 

Kevin Brennan: Under the Learning and Skills Act 

2000, Ministers may not direct the LSC in its decision 

making regards individual capital approvals. Ministers 

have discussed with the LSC the overall approach, 

consistent with their responsibility for determining the 

strategic direction that the LSC should follow. 

Recent decisions made by the LSC regarding which 

further education college building projects would proceed 

to the next stage of the approvals process followed a 

robust and transparent assessment by independent 

consultants against prioritisation criteria that was agreed 

with the sector and that built upon the recommendations 

made by Sir Andrew Foster. 

Graduates: Employment 

Dr. Kumar: To ask the Minister of State, Department 

for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps his 

Department is taking to improve the employment 

prospects of those graduating in 2009. [285335] 

Mr. Lammy: The Government are committed to helping 

new graduates improve their prospects for work in these 

challenging economic times. The key message is there 

are still jobs out there—but graduates will need to do 

their research thoroughly and take every opportunity to 

gain experience and build their CV. Graduates should 

take advantage of the professional support available 

from university careers services and look at all, job 

opportunities—including non-graduate jobs which can 

provide a route to their chosen careers. 

We are putting in place a range of options for graduates 

to build their employability skills and boost their CV—the 

Graduate Talent Pool which will allow graduates to 

match themselves to thousands of internships from a 

range of employers; more postgraduate study options; 

support through Professional and Career Development 

Loans (PCDLs); volunteering places and help with 

business start up or entrepreneurship training. 

Graduates: Unemployment 



many and what percentage of graduates were 

unemployed three months after obtaining their degree 

in each year since 1997. [287756] 

Mr. Lammy: Information on destinations of graduates 

after three months is not available centrally. However, 

data are collected after six months and these form the 

basis of the response in the following table. 

From 1997 to 2002, leavers were asked to fill out the 

First Destination of Leavers survey. This changed to 

the Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education 

(DLHE) survey in 2003. The wording of the questionnaire 

changed in this year, as did the coverage to include 

part-time graduates as well as full-time. Therefore numbers 

before and after 2003 are not directly comparable. 

UK domiciled first degree graduates assumed to be unemployed six 

months after leaving higher education 1997 no 2008 

Year graduated 

Number 

unemployed 

Total 

respondents 

Percentage 

unemployed 

1997 11,905 171,280 6.9 

1998 9,920 172,660 5.7 

1999 9,715 176,205 5.5 

2000 9,335 170,735 5.5 

2001 11,050 176,405 6.3 

2002 12,110 176,375 6.9 

Change in coverage 

and questionnaire 

2003 13,135 196,155 6.7 

2004 12,450 200,740 6.2 

2005 12,795 202,655 6.3 

2006 12,555 204,105 6.2 

2007 11,450 203,225 5.6 

2008 17,360 213,270 8.1 

Note: 

Numbers are rounded to the nearest five. 

Source: 

Higher Education Statistics Authority (HESA) 

Higher Education: Admissions 



many people (a) applied and (b) were accepted through

1115W 


20 JULY 2009 


1116W 

the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service for a 

place on a higher education institution undergraduate 

course in each year since the service was established. 

[287776] 

Mr. Lammy: The information is in the following 

table: 

Applicants and accepted applicants to full-time undergraduate courses 

via Universities and Colleges Admissions Service 1994 to 2008 

Academic year of 

entry Applicants Accepted applicants 

1994 405,117 270,898 

1995 419,442 290,596 

1996 418,400 295,807 

1997 458,781 336,338 

1998 446,457 329,788 

1999 442,931 334,594 

2000 442,028 339,747 

2001 453,833 358,041 

2002 461,365 368,115 

2003 476,467 374,307 

2004 486,028 377,544 

2005 522,155 405,369 

2006 506,304 390,890 

2007 534,495 413,430 

2008 588,689 456,627 

Source: 

UCAS 

In 2008 the nursing and midwifery admissions system 

(NMAS) was subsumed in to the UCAS application 

system and part of the increase from 2007 to 2008 can 

be attributed this factor. In 2008 there were 13,487 

applicants who applied via UCAS to ex-NMAS courses 

only and 14,184 applicants who were accepted to former 

NMAS courses, the majority of whom were English 

domiciled (and NMAS was only for English institutions). 

Industry: Stress 

Chris Ruane: To ask the Minister of State, 


recent assessment he has made of the effects of levels of 

work-related stress on the profitability of British 

industry; and if he will make a statement. [285817] 

Jonathan Shaw: I have been asked to reply. 

The Health and Safety Executive does not collect 

data on the effects of work-related stress on the profitability 

of British industry. However, HSE estimates the economic 

costs to society of work-related stress in the order of 

£4 billion a year (2009). 

HSE recognise that stress is a major cause of occupational 

ill health, leading to poor productivity and potential 

human error. Given the prevalence of work-related 

stress in Britain, HSE developed the Management 

Standards for Work-related stress in 2004. This approach 

is designed to address the key causes of stress at work 

and help employers, employees and their representatives 

manage the issue sensibly and minimise the impact on 

their business. 

Innovation Fund 

Tony Baldry: To ask the Minister of State, 

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills whether 

funding from the new Innovation Fund will be available 

to (a) public and (b) private sector companies. [284956] 

Mr. Lammy: The UK Innovation Investment Fund 

will invest in a small number of specialist technology 

funds. These funds will invest in strategically-important 

companies in life sciences, clean technologies, digital 

and advanced manufacturing. Investments in individual 

companies will ultimately be a commercial decision for 

the fund manager based on the investment opportunity, 

the potential risk and the current investment portfolio. 

These companies may be publicly or privately owned. 

Insolvency 

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Minister of State, 


many companies were declared insolvent in (a) Vale of 

York constituency and (b) England and Wales in 

(i) 2005, (ii) 2006, (iii) 2007 and (iv) 2008. [285899] 

Ian Lucas: It is not possible to answer part (a) of the 

question asked because statistics covering corporate 

insolvencies are not currently available at sub-national 

level within England and Wales. The following table 

gives the number of corporate insolvencies by insolvency 

procedure type in England and Wales for the period 

requested. 

Compulsory 

liquidations 

Creditors’ voluntary 

liquidations 

(CVLs) 1 

Number 

appointments Administrations 3 (CVAs) 

Company voluntary 

Receivership 

arrangements 

2005 5,233 8,341 590 2,261 604 

2006 5,418 8,633 588 3,560 534 

2007 5,165 8,437 337 2,512 418 

2008 5,494 11,034 867 4,822 587 

1 

Includes CVLs following administration. 

2 

Includes Law of Property Act receiverships. Receivership figures from 2007 are not consistent with those for the earlier period. 

3 

Includes administrator appointments prior to Enterprise Act 2002 and administrations under Enterprise Act 2002. 

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Minister of State, 


many companies went into administration in (a) Vale 

of York constituency and (b) England and Wales in 

(i) 2005, (ii) 2006, (iii) 2007 and (iv) 2008. [285900] 

Ian Lucas: It is not possible to answer part (a) of the 

question asked because statistics covering corporate 

insolvencies are not currently available at sub-national 

level within England and Wales. The following table 

gives the number of administrations in England and 

Wales for the period requested:

1117W 


20 JULY 2009 


1118W 

Administrations 1 

Number 

2005 2,261 

2006 3,560 

2007 2,512 

2008 4,822 

1 

Includes administrator appointments prior to Enterprise Act 2002 

and administrations under Enterprise Act 2002. 

Insolvency Service: Marketing 

John Penrose: To ask the Minister of State, 


much the Insolvency Service spent on advertising and 

marketing in each of the last five years. [285442] 

Ian Lucas: The Insolvency Service on has not spent 

anything on advertising and marketing in the last five 

years, therefore, the answer is nil. 

Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 2002 

Peter Luff: To ask the Minister of State, Department 

for Business, Innovation and Skills (1) whether his 

Department has conducted research on the size of 

companies bringing forward cases under the Late 

Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 2002; and 

if he will make a statement; [286230] 

(2) how many cases brought under the Late Payment 

of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 2002 have been 

heard in court in each of the last five years; and if he 




(including Scotland) relating specifically to the Late 

Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 2002. 








Literacy: Young Offenders 

Mr. Grieve: To ask the Minister of State, Department 

for Business, Innovation and Skills how many young 

offenders in prison have been recorded as improving 

their standard of literacy during their sentence in each 

of the last five years. [285263] 

Kevin Brennan: The data provided is from the Learning 

and Skills Council (LSC) showing the number of literacy 

enrolments and achievements by young offenders aged 

15 to 17 and 18 to 21 for the academic years August 

2006 to July 2007 and August 2007 to July 2008. The 

data collected records the number of literacy enrolments 

in a year rather than individual learners. As learners 

may enrol on more than one literacy course in any year, 

and may achieve at one level and progress to the next 

level, the number of enrolments and achievements does 

not represent individual learners. 

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 

is responsible for the provision of education in prison 

and young offender institutions for learners over the 

age of 18, with the Department for Children, Families 

and Schools having responsibility for 15 to 17-year-olds. 

As both sets of data have been supplied by the LSC, 

they are included for completeness. 

Literacy enrolments for the 

2006-07 academic year 

Literacy achievements for 

the 2006-07 academic year 

Literacy enrolments for the 

2007-08 academic year 

Literacy achievements for 

the 2007-08 academic year 

Age group 

15 to 17 18 to 21 

6,186 8,366 

1,303 2,336 

6,386 10,567 

1,660 3,357 

The information for the 2006/07 academic year may 

include a small number of enrolments by young offenders 

serving community sentences because the LSC started 

recording the custody and community provision separately 

from the 2007/08 academic year onwards. There is no 

comparable data prior to 2006 before the LSC became 

responsible for capturing and recording the information. 

Mail Order Selling 


for Business, Innovation and Skills what 

representations he has received on enforcement action 

by the Office of Fair Trading in circumstances where 

companies repeatedly distribute mail order catalogues 

containing illegal claims about health products. 

[288018] 

Kevin Brennan: This Department has received no 

such representations. 

Members: Correspondence 

Mike Penning: To ask the Minister of State, 

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills when 

he plans to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for 

Hemel Hempstead, on the Enterprise Finance 

Guarantee Scheme, dated 13 April 2009, transferred to 

his Department from HM Treasury. [285826] 

Ms Rosie Winterton: I apologise for the delay in 

responding to the hon. Member. My noble Friend, the 

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Economics 

Competitiveness, Small Business and Enterprise will 

respond shortly. 

Migrant Workers: Burnley 

Kitty Ussher: To ask the Minister of State, 


many employers in Burnley have had enforcement 

action taken against them for employing illegal migrant 

workers in each of the last five years. [286455] 

Mr. Woolas: I have been asked to reply. 

No illegal working enforcement operations were 

conducted in Burnley during the period from 1 April 

2006 to 31 March 2007.

1119W 


20 JULY 2009 


1120W 

Two illegal working enforcement operations were 


2007 to 31 March 2008. 

Four illegal working enforcement operations were 


2008 to 31 March 2009. 

No employers in Burnley have been subject to criminal 

prosecution under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration 

Act 1996 or section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and 

Nationality Act 2006 for employing illegal migrant 

workers in each of the last five years. 

One employer was served with a civil penalty under 

section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality 

Act 2006 in August 2008. 

No information relating to enforcement action taken 

against employers in Burnley for employing illegal migrant 

workers is available for the period prior to 1 April 2006. 

Motor Vehicles: Manufacturing Industries 

Mr. Oaten: To ask the Minister of State, Department 

for Business, Innovation and Skills (1) what the average 

undiscounted retail price has been to date of cars sold 

under the car scrappage scheme; [278769] 

(2) how many sales of cars of each make have 

attracted support from the car scrappage scheme to 

date. [278770] 

Ian Lucas [holding answer 9 June 2009]: 38 

manufacturers including makers of the UK best selling 

cars have signed up to the scheme. Motorists are being 

offered £2,000 towards a new car or van (up to 3.5 tonnes) 

if they trade in vehicles they have owned for 

12 month plus and which are older than 10 years for 

scrappage. The £2,000 grant is made up of £1,000 from 

government with matched funding from industry. 

Figures are not available on how many sales of each 

brand have been supported by the scheme. However, 

The Prime Minister and my noble Friend the Secretary 

of State for Business, Innovation and Skills announced 

on 29 May 2009 that 60,000 scrappage orders had been 

placed since the scheme was announced. Government 

do not routinely collect figures on the average retail 

price of vehicles sold with or without support from the 

scheme. 

National Endowment for Science Technology and the 

Arts 

Mr. Watson: To ask the Minister of State, 


discussions the Secretary of State and his predecessor 

had with representatives from the National 

Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts in 

the last two years; and if he will make a statement. 

[285857] 

Mr. Lammy [holding answer 13 July 2009]: My noble 

Friend the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities 

and Skills met the chair of the National Endowment for 

Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) on 2 June 

2008. 

In addition, the Minister for Science and Innovation 

has met regularly with NESTA representatives in the 

last two years. 


Department for Business, Innovation and Skills who is 

responsible for making appointments to the Board of 

Trustees of the National Endowment for Science, 

Technology and the Arts. [285858] 

Mr. Lammy [holding answer 13 July 2009]: The 

appointment of the chair of the Board of Trustees and 

the Arts Trustee are made jointly by the Secretaries of 

State for the Department for Business Innovation and 

Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and 

Sport. All other appointments are made by my noble 

Friend the Secretary of State for Business Innovation 

and Skills. 



many people are employed by the National Endowment 

for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA); what 

the annual salary cost is of (a) all NESTA employees 

and (b) its senior management team. [285859] 

Mr. Lammy [holding answer 13 July 2009]: At 31 

March 2009, NESTA employed 92 people, covering the 

equivalent of 88 full-time posts. 

In the year to 31 March 2009, salaries for all NESTA 

staff totalled £4,150,960, and salaries for the senior 

management team totalled £584,639. 

National Vocational Qualifications: Construction 

Justine Greening: To ask the Minister of State, 


much his Department spent on Government-funded 

National Vocational Qualification courses in the 

construction industry in each of the last five years. 

[281187] 

Kevin Brennan: Funding for further education and 

skills is administered by the Learning and Skills Council 

(LSC). 

The LSC agrees indicative budgets with colleges and 

providers prior to the start of the academic year based 

on the expected delivery of an overall volume of learning. 

The actual funding paid will depend on the choice of 

learning area made by employers and learners. As funding 

is not allocated at an individual course level, details of 

the amount made available to support specific qualifications 

in this sector are not held centrally in the Department. 

Training in the construction industry is also partfunded 

through a levy raised on employers by the 

Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) to finance 

their activities and share the cost of training more 

evenly between companies. In 2008 the amount of levy 

income was £181 million. 

We have agreed a Train to Gain Sector Compact with 

the construction sector which will make available 

£133 million over three years to meet the identified 

priority skills needs of the industry focused on economic 

renewal and future growth. 

Non-domestic Rates 


for Business, Innovation and Skills what his most 

recent estimate is of the percentage of businesses which 

claim small business rate relief. [286595]

1121W 


20 JULY 2009 


1122W 

Ms Rosie Winterton: I refer the hon. Member to the 

answer I gave to the hon. Member for Peterborough 

(Mr. Jackson) on 8 July 2009, Official Report, columns 

909-10W. 

Non-domestic Rates: Rural Areas 


for Business, Innovation and Skills (1) which local 

authorities in rural areas are providing more than 

50 per cent. rural rate relief to small businesses; 

[286569] 

(2) which local authorities in rural areas are 

providing 100 per cent. rural rate relief to small 

businesses. [286570] 

Ms Rosie Winterton: Following is a list of authorities 

in England that are regarded as being rural under the 

DEFRA “Classification of local authorities in England 

for 2007-08” that reported awarding rural rate relief in 

2007-08. 

Mandatory rural rate relief is awarded at 50 per cent. 

of a property’s non-domestic rates bill. In addition, 

local authorities can awarded discretionary rural rate 

relief that tops up the relief granted to up to 100 per 

cent. of the property’s rates bill. It is not possible to 

award more than 100 per cent. relief. 

List of authorities in England that are regarded as being 

rural under the DEFRA “Classification of local authorities 

in England for 2007-08” that reported awarding rural rate 

relief in 2007-08 

Allerdale 

Alnwick 

Amber Valley 

Ashford 

Aylesbury Vale 

Babergh 

Barnsley 

Basingstoke and Deane 

Bassetlaw 

Bath and North East Somerset 

Bedford 

Berwick-upon-Tweed 

Blyth Valley 

Bolsover 

Boston 

Braintree 

Breckland 

Brentwood 

Bridgnorth 

Broadland 

Bromsgrove 

Calderdale 

Caradon 

Carlisle 

Carrick 

Castle Morpeth 

Charnwood 

Chelmsford 

Cherwell 

Chester 

Chichester 

Chiltern 

Colchester 

Congleton 

Copeland 

Cotswold 

Craven 

Crewe and Nantwich 

Daventry 

Derbyshire Dales 

Derwentside 

Doncaster 

Dover 

Durham 

Easington 

East Cambridgeshire 

East Devon 

East Dorset 

East Hampshire 

East Hertfordshire 

East Lindsey 

East Northamptonshire 

East Riding of Yorkshire 

East Staffordshire 

Eden 

Fenland 

Forest Heath 

Forest of Dean 

Great Yarmouth 

Guildford 

Hambleton 

Harborough 

Harrogate 

Hart 

Herefordshire 

High Peak 

Hinckley and Bosworth 

Horsham 

Huntingdonshire 

Isle of Wight 

Isles of Scilly 

Kennet 

Kerrier 

Kettering 

Kings Lynn and West Norfolk 

Lancaster 

Lewes 

Lichfield 

Macclesfield 

Maidstone 

Maldon 

Malvern Hills 

Melton 

Mendip 

Mid Bedfordshire 

Mid Devon 

Mid Suffolk 

Mid Sussex 

New Forest 

Newark and Sherwood

1123W 


20 JULY 2009 


1124W 

North Cornwall 

North Devon 

North Dorset 

North East Derbyshire 

North Hertfordshire 

North Kesteven 

North Lincolnshire 

North Norfolk 

North Shropshire 

North Somerset 

North Warwickshire 

North West Leicestershire 

North Wiltshire 

Oswestry 

Penwith 

Purbeck 

Restormel 

Ribble Valley 

Richmondshire 

Rother 

Rugby 

Rushcliffe 

Rutland 

Ryedale 

Salisbury 

Scarborough 

Sedgefield 

Sedgemoor 

Selby 

Sevenoaks 

Shepway 

Shrewsbury and Atcham 

South Bucks 

South Cambridgeshire 

South Derbyshire 

South Hams 

South Holland 

South Kesteven 

South Lakeland 

South Norfolk 

South Northamptonshire 

South Oxfordshire 

South Shropshire 

South Somerset 

South Staffordshire 

St. Edmundsbury 

Stafford 

Staffordshire Moorlands 

Stratford-on-Avon 

Stroud 

Suffolk Coastal 

Swale 

Tandridge 

Taunton Deane 

Teesdale 

Teignbridge 

Tendring 

Test Valley 

Tewkesbury 

Tonbridge and Malling 

Torridge 

Tunbridge Wells 

Tynedale 

Uttlesford 

Vale of White Horse 

Vale Royal 

Warwick 

Waveney 

Waverley 

Wealden 

Wear Valley 

Wellingborough 

West Berkshire 

West Devon 

West Dorset 

West Lancashire 

West Lindsey 

West Oxfordshire 

West Somerset 

West Wiltshire 

Winchester 

Wychavon 

Wycombe 

Wyre Forest 

Data are as reported on audited national non-domestic 

rates (NNDR) 3 forms completed by all billing authorities 

in England. 

Rural authorities were defined as those authorities 

that fell into the Significant Rural, Rural-50 or Rural-80 

categories of the DEFRA “Classification of Local 

Authorities in England 2007-08”. 

North West Development Agency: Public Appointments 

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Minister of State, Department 

for Business, Innovation and Skills when the Secretary 

of State expects to appoint a new Chair of the North 

West Development Agency. [280994] 

Ms Rosie Winterton: Before long. 

Office of Fair Trading: Freedom of Information 

Dan Rogerson: To ask the Minister of State, 

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills which 

requests for information received by the Office of Fair 

Trading under the provisions of the Freedom of 

Information Act 2000 in 2008 were (a) classified as not 

resolvable and (b) refused in full. [286133] 

Kevin Brennan: In 2008, of the requests for information 

received by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) under the 

provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, 

(a) three were appealed to the Information Commissioner 

after an Internal Review and (b) 152 were refused in 

full. The OFT receives a significant number of requests 

relating to complaints received by the OFT; the disclosure 

of this information is prohibited under the Enterprise 

Act 2002 and as a consequence is subject to the absolute 

exemption from disclosure under section 44 of the 

Freedom of Information Act. Where the OFT is unable

1125W 


20 JULY 2009 


1126W 

to provide the information requested, it seeks to provide 

any advice or information that would be helpful to the 

requester. 

Prisoners: Higher Education 

Mr. Galloway: To ask the Minister of State, 


many of those who were released from prison in each 

year from 2000 to 2006 (a) did and (b) did not achieve 

a degree while in prison. [282235] 

Kevin Brennan [holding answer 29 June 2009]: The 

National Offender Management Service, or any other 

agency, does not collect educational attainment data of 

prisoners on release. The following table records details 

of those discharged from prison (excluding those deported 

without sentence): 

England and Wales 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Males and Females 

Prisoners discharged from determinate 69,500 71,500 69,800 65,900 

sentences on completion of sentence 

or on licence—adults 

Prisoners discharged from determinate 15,500 14,800 14,500 12,500 

sentences on completion of sentence 

or on licence—young offenders 

First releases from prison on life licence 223 205 200 135 

The following table details the number of OU degrees 

achieved by prisoners while serving their sentence. 

Information on degrees awarded by other higher education 

institutions is not collected centrally. 

Number of prisoners achieving 

OU degrees 

2000 11 

2001 17 

2002 13 

2003 16 

2004 17 

2005 22 

2006 25 

It is not possible to say whether prisoners achieving a 

degree were released in the same year of achieving it. 

Mr. Galloway: To ask the Minister of State, 


many prisoners gained a degree while in prison in (a) 

2000, (b) 2001, (c) 2002, (d) 2003, (e) 2004, (f) 2005, 

(g) 2006 and (h) 2007. [282237] 

Kevin Brennan [holding answer 29 June 2009]: The 

number of offenders gaining Open University degrees 

while in prison, broken down by year, is as follows: 

Number 

2000 11 

2001 17 

2002 13 

2003 16 

2004 17 

2005 22 

2006 25 

Number 

2007 16 

Information on degree qualifications awarded by other 

higher education institutions is not collected centrally. 

Public Houses: Closures 

Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Minister of State, 


many public houses have closed in each region in each 

of the last three years; and how many of these were 

(a) managed houses, (b) tenanted or leased houses 

and (c) freehouses. [288776] 




to reply. 



recent Parliamentary Question concerning what estimate has 

been made of how many public houses have closed in each region 

in each of the last three years; and how many of these were (a) 

managed houses, (b) tenanted or leased houses and (c) freehouses. 

(288776). 

Annual statistics on business births, deaths and survival are 

available from the ONS release on Business Demography. The 

attached table contains the count of enterprise deaths for each of 

these categories, for the latest three years available. 

Count of enterprise deaths by SIC 55402,55403 and 55404 for 

2005-07 

55402— 

Independent 

Public Houses 

and Bars 

55403— 

Tenanted 

Public Houses 

and Bars 

55404— 

Managed 

Public Houses 

and Bars 

2005 

North East 315 85 5 

Northwest 585 565 50 

Yorkshire 

790 175 25 

and the 

Humber 

East 

700 160 25 

Midlands 

West 

445 495 40 

Midlands 

East of 

510 240 30 

England 

London 320 135 40 

South East 695 335 45 

Southwest 670 245 30 

Wales 480 105 15 

Scotland 570 45 10 

Northern 

Ireland 

100 0 0 

2006 


Northwest 525 475 75 

Yorkshire 

675 175 15 

and Humber 

East 

540 155 30 

Midlands 

West 

Midlands 

395 405 45

1127W 


20 JULY 2009 


1128W 

Count of enterprise deaths by SIC 55402,55403 and 55404 for 

2005-07 

55402— 

Independent 

Public Houses 

and Bars 

55403— 

Tenanted 

Public Houses 

and Bars 

55404— 

Managed 

Public Houses 

and Bars 

East 

515 210 35 

Midlands 

London 295 105 30 


South West 565 215 35 

Wales 400 120 10 


Northern 

Ireland 

90 5 5 

2007 


North West 530 490 80 

Yorkshire 

680 150 15 

and Humber 

East 

570 190 25 

Midlands 

West 

370 375 55 

Midlands 

East 

450 210 40 

Midlands 

London 290 110 40 


South West 595 225 30 

Wales 380 110 5 


Northern 

Ireland 

80 5 0 

Redundancy: Females 

Steve Webb: To ask the Minister of State, 


proportion of those made redundant in each of the last 

12 months were women by (a) region and (b) age. 

[287328] 




to reply. 



Parliamentary Question asking what proportion of those made 

redundant in each of the last 12 months were women by (a) 

region and (b) age. (287328) 

The attached tables provide estimates for the information 

requested for the latest four quarters from the Labour Force 

Survey (LFS). Monthly data are not available. 

As with any sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject 

to a margin of uncertainty. 

The figures in the tables are derived from the LFS microdata 

which are weighted using the official population estimates published 

in autumn 2007. They are not entirely consistent with the figures 


Bulletin which are weighted using more up-to-date population 

estimates. 

Proportion of people aged 16 and over made redundant 1 who were women by region, three-month periods ending June, September, December and 

March: 2008 to 2009, United Kingdom, not seasonally adjusted 

Percentage 

Region 

North East 

North West 

Yorkshire and 

Humberside East Midlands West Midlands Eastern London 

2008 Q2 40 37 42 46 50 39 33 

Q3 47 35 36 39 46 43 63 

Q4 25 35 28 32 27 26 55 

2009 Q1 28 36 38 32 37 39 34 

Percentage 

Region 

South East South West Wales Scotland Northern Ireland Total 

2008 Q2 39 30 38 60 53 42 

Q3 33 38 40 60 2 

— 42 

Q4 40 26 2 

— 24 2 

— 31 

2009 Q1 41 36 22 26 27 34 

Proportion of people aged 16 and over made redundant 1 who were women by age, three-month periods ending June, September, December and 


Percentage 

Age 

16-24 25-34 35-49 50-59 60 and over Total 

2008 Q2 50 37 43 41 30 42 

Q3 32 29 52 49 44 42

1129W 


20 JULY 2009 


1130W 

Proportion of people aged 16 and over made redundant 1 who were women by age, three-month periods ending June, September, December and 


Percentage 

Age 

16-24 25-34 35-49 50-59 60 and over Total 

Q4 23 26 39 32 34 31 

2009 Q1 32 34 35 43 25 34 

1 

Includes those who have been made redundant in the three months prior to their LFS interview. 

2 

Sample size too small for reliable estimates. 

Note: 

It should be noted that the above estimates exclude people in most types of communal establishment (e.g. hotels, boarding houses, hostels, mobile 

home sites etc.) 

Source: 

Labour Force Survey. 

Regional Development Agencies: Expenditure 

Mr. Ellwood: To ask the Minister of State, 


recent discussions the Secretary of State has had with 

the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on levels 

of funding allocated by regional development agencies 

for expenditure on support for the tourism industry. 

[287908] 

Ms Rosie Winterton: The Department for Culture, 

Media and Sport (DCMS) contributes towards the 

regional development agencies’ (RDAs) single programme 

budget. The single programme budget, once allocated, 

is available to the RDAs to deliver regional priorities 

identified in their regional economic strategies and the 

challenging targets set by them in the corporate plans. 

RDAs are currently revising their corporate plans and 

DCMS are involved in this process. 

Regional Development Agencies: Finance 

Bill Wiggin: To ask the Minister of State, 


provisional budget his Department has set for regional 

development agencies in each of the next five years; 


Ms Rosie Winterton: The regional development agencies 

have an indicative budget of £1.8 billion for 2010-11, 

and no budgets have been indicated to them beyond 

that period. 

AWM 

CEX 

Chair 

2005/06 29,773 18,911 

2006/07 17,574 19,995 

2007/08 36,676 20,127 

EEDA 

CEX 

Chair 

2005/06 26,000 18,991 

2006/07 28,000 19,881 

2007/08 29,000 20,127 

emda 

CEX 

Chair 

2005/06 27,084 18,991 

2006/07 27,693 18,329 

2007/08 28,764 17,258 

NWDA 

CEX 

Chair 

2005/06 19,245 8,849 

2006/07 27,693 16,615 

2007/08 28,764 28,000 

ONE 

CEX 

Chair 

2005/06 25,250 18,911 

2006/07 32,729 19,881 

2007/08 33,187 20,127 

Regional Development Agencies: Pensions 

SEEDA 

CEX Chair 1 

Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Minister of State, 


much was paid in employer pension contributions to 

(a) the Chief Executive and (b) each board member of 

each regional development agency in each of the last 

three years. [277993] 


The financial value of the employer pension contribution 

made to both RDA chief executives and RDA chairs 

are detailed in the tables. RDA board members do not 

receive a pension from the RDA. The data have been 

rounded up/down, as appropriate and exclude London, 

which is the responsibility of the Mayor. 

2005/06 37,303 0 

2006/07 39,535 0 

2007/08 40,182 0 

1 

The chair has been in post since December 2002 and is the only 

board member eligible to receive pension contributions. Employer 

contributions of £104,344, based on the civil service pension scheme 

rates, were paid to the chair’s personal pension scheme in December 

2008 to cover contributions from December 2002 to December 2008 

when he was due to retire. 

South West RDA 

CEX 

Chair 

2005/06 25,978 18,911 

2006/07 29,666 19,881 

2007/08 28,764 20,127

1131W 


20 JULY 2009 


1132W 

Yorkshire Forward 

CEX 

Chair 

2005/06 32,000 20,739 

2006/07 1 

28,000 19,881 

2007/08 1 

29,000 20,127 

1 

During this period there was a time of overlap where YF had two 

CEOs. In 2005/06 the outgoing CEX claimed £28,000 while the 

incoming CEX claimed £4,000 and in 2006/07 the incoming CEX 

claimed £27,000 while the outgoing claimed £1,000. 

Retail Trade: Kent 

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Minister of State, 

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills when 

his Department intends to consult on the wider 

application of the Kent County Council Act 2001 and 

the Medway Council Act 2001 for the regulation of 

markets and occasional sales. [280890] 

Kevin Brennan: A consultation on measures to tighten 

the regulation of markets and occasional sales was 

recommended in the Gower Review of intellectual property. 

However, the Department’s resources are limited and 

current efforts are focused on providing targeted help 

and protection for consumers struggling to make ends 

meet as a result of the global downturn. It is therefore 

not possible to give a specific timeframe for implementing 

this recommendation. 

Skilled Workers 



steps his Department is taking to increase levels of 

management skills among employers. [284621] 

Kevin Brennan: The Train To Gain Leadership and 

Management programme provides support and funding 

for senior managers of small and medium-sized enterprises 

(SMEs) to access personalised training that meets their 

development needs. Specialist advisers work with individuals 

to understand their needs and recommend suitable 

opportunities. A grant of up to £1,000 can be allocated 

for employers to spend on any leadership and management 

development activity deemed appropriate. As part of 

the Government’s package of support developed for 

SMEs in the economic downturn, the leadership and 

management programme is now available to all employers 

with between five and 249 employees. 

The Government are increasing investment in Train 

to Gain. This will rise to over £1 billion by 2010-11. 

Skilled Workers: Milton Keynes 

Mr. Lancaster: To ask the Minister of State, 


recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the 

skills base in Milton Keynes. [279737] 

Kevin Brennan: The Department utilises data and 

advice from the UKCES and the National Employer 

Skills Survey to provide a national level picture of skills 

needs. Information is also available on a regional basis. 

However, the Department would look to our key partners, 

regional development agencies and local authorities to 

work closely with Sector Skills Councils and employers 

in order to identify skills needs in more defined geographical 

areas. 

South East England Development Agency: Redundancy 

Pay 

Robert Neill: To ask the Minister of State, 


much the South East England Development Agency 

has paid out in redundancy payments in the last 24 

months; and how much each individual payment was. 

[286677] 

Ms Rosie Winterton: SEEDA has made 33 individual 

redundancy payments, totalling £663,659.54, between 

July 2007 and June 2009. These payments have been 

made as a result of the completion of projects and 

programmes and the need to restructure teams to focus 

on new goals requiring different skill sets. Individual 

payments are listed as follows: 

£80,891.90 

£49,897.34 

£46,174.15 

£43,601.33 

£36,038.14 

£34,285.07 

£27,194.50 

£24,787.31 

£24,539.85 

£23,977.98 

£23,545.60 

£23,497.64 

£23,489.37 

£19,481.68 

£17,620.82 

£16,893.12 

£16,023.72 

£12,844.43 

£12,119.94 

£11,180.73 

£10,121.15 

£8,699.71 

£8,638.16 

£8,469.91 

£8,445.29 

£8,132.01 

£7,718.75 

£7,462.54 

£7,318.59 

£7,292.02 

£6,541.63 

£3,968.45 

£2,766.71 

Robert Neill: To ask the Minister of State, 

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 

whether the South East England Development Agency 

takes account of service in previous public sector 

employment when calculating redundancy payments 

for individuals. [286680]

1133W 


20 JULY 2009 


1134W 

Ms Rosie Winterton: SEEDA is bound by the Civil 

Service Compensation Scheme for calculating redundancy 

payments and SEEDA includes service in previous public 

sector employment in calculating redundancy payments 

where such service satisfies the rules of the scheme. 

Students: Fees and Charges 



estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of 

ending tuition fees for first degree (a) full-time and 

(b) part-time undergraduates. [286229] 

Mr. Lammy: There are no plans to end tuition fees for 

either full-time or part-time undergraduate students 

studying at English Higher Education institutions. Such 

fees generate an income of around £3 billion annually 

for Higher Education institutions and it helps them 

to tackle the challenges Government identified when 

introducing the new fee and student support arrangements 

to maintain and improve high standards, to expand and 

widen access to meet rising skills needs, and to compete 

globally. Both the number of overall entrants to higher 

education and those from low participation neighbourhoods 

has increased since the introduction of tuition fees in 

2006. 

Students: Loans 



many live accounts the Student Loans Company holds 

in respect of which no repayment is being received; 

what the reasons are for which no repayments are being 

made; and how many live accounts are not receiving 

repayments for each such reason. [286833] 


information requested is published in table 2(ii) for 

mortgage-style loans and in table 2(iii) for income contingent 

loans of the Statistical First Release entitled Student 

Loans for Higher Education in England, Financial 

Year 2008-09 (provisional) which is available at: 

http://www.slc.co.uk/pdf/slcsfr022009.pdf 

A copy has been placed in the House Library. 



many and what proportion of students enrolled on 

their first degree course have received a tuition fee loan 

in each year since 2006. [286834] 

Mr. Lammy [holding answer 14 July 2009]: The latest 

figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency 

(HESA) show that 981,500 English-domiciled students 

studying in UK and EU students studying in England 

enrolled on their first degree in academic year 2006-07 

and 1,000,000 in 2007-08. Figures for the 2008-09 academic 

year will be available in January 2010. 

The latest figures published by the Student Loans 

Company show that 397,300 of English-domiciled students 

studying in UK and EU students studying in England 

received a tuition fee loan in academic year 2006-07, 

553,600 in 2007-08 and 713,700 in 2008-09 (provisional 

figures). 

The figures are not directly comparable. The HESA 

figures cover students who enrolled in their first degree 

and include part-time students whereas the SLC figures 

cover students who also enrolled in their sub-degree and 

only cover a small proportion of part-time students i.e. 

Initial Teacher Training students. 



many EU-domiciled students have received a tuition 

fee loan in each year since 2006. [286836] 


information requested is published in the Statistical 

First Release entitled Student Support for Higher Education 

in England, Academic Year 2008/09 (provisional) which 

is available at: 


A copy has been placed in the House Library. 

Tuition fee loans were first introduced in academic 

year 2006/07. Each academic year the new cohort of 

students becomes eligible to apply for this loan, thereby 

increasing the total number of EU-domiciled students 

who have a tuition fee loan. 



proportion of eligible students took out (a) a 

maintenance loan only, (b) a tuition fees loan only and 

(c) loans for both for maintenance and tuition from 

the Student Loans Company in the most recent 

academic year for which figures are available. [286985] 

Mr. Lammy: In 2006/07 the estimated proportion of 

eligible English domiciled students studying in the UK 

who took out a maintenance loan is 80 per cent. The 

information is available at table 4A of the Statistical 

First Release by the Student Loans Company entitled 

Student Support for Higher Education in England, 

Academic Year 2008/09 (Provisional) which is available 

at: 


A copy is available in the House Library. 

It is not possible for us to determine the proportions 

for the further two categories because the population 

eligible for tuition fee loans, as opposed to tuition fee 

grants, cannot be estimated in a robust manner. 

As at 31 March 2009, the number of English domiciled 

borrowers studying in the UK and EU domiciled borrowers 

studying in England in 2007/08 who had taken out 

loans is as follows: 

52,100 tuition fee loans only; 

237,000 maintenance loans only 

514,000 tuition and maintenance loans. 

Tuition fee loans were introduced in 2006/07 so these 

figures represent an early stage in the process. 

Train to Gain Programme 

Dr. Kumar: To ask the Minister of State, Department 

for Business, Innovation and Skills what estimate he 

has made of the number of people from the North East 

registered for Train to Gain courses but who have not 

yet commenced their training. [280703]

1135W 


20 JULY 2009 


1136W 

Kevin Brennan: The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) 

delivers the Train to Gain programme on behalf of the 

Department. It counts the number of learners who 

register for Train to Gain at the point where they 

formally start on programmes. However, there is no 

formal registration process before a learner starts and 

therefore no central mechanism is in place to measure 

the number of people registering an interest. 

The LSC is working closely with providers to support 

ongoing new starts for the remainder of the 2008/09 

academic year where providers are within their maximum 

contract value. Maximum contract values for 2009/10 

academic year will be finalised during June. 

Train to Gain Programme: Hertfordshire 

Mike Penning: To ask the Minister of State, 


many people resident in (a) Hemel Hempstead and 

(b) Hertfordshire have successfully completed a Train 

to Gain course in each year of its operation. [284564] 

Kevin Brennan: The table shows the number of Train 

to Gain achievements by people living in Hemel Hempstead 

parliamentary constituency and Hertfordshire local 

authority. 

Train to Gain achievements 

Hertfordshire local 

authority 


parliamentary 

constituency 

2005/06 100 — 

2006/07 800 70 

2007/08 2,800 330 

Notes: 

1. Geographic area is based on learner’s home postcode. 

2. Numbers within a local authority have been rounded to the nearest 

hundred. Numbers within a parliamentary constituency have been 

rounded to the nearest 10. 

Source: 

TtG ILR 

UK Trade and Investment: Manpower 



many UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) staff had at 

least one year’s experience in the commercial sector 

prior to joining UKTI. [281706] 

Ian Lucas: Neither the Department nor UK Trade 

and Investment (UKTI) holds centrally the information 

requested and it could be provided only at disproportionate 

costs. 

However, people working for UK Trade and Investment 

do have considerable commercial and business experience. 

Five out of six members of the UKTI Executive Team 

and all three of its non-executive directors have business 

experience as do most of the local staff based in Foreign 

and Commonwealth Office Posts overseas (some 1,100) 

and nearly all the International Trade Advisors (just 

under 300) based in the nine English Regions. UKTI 

also has a programme of secondments both to and 

from the private sector. 

Unemployment 

Mr. Willetts: To ask the Minister of State, Department 

for Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the 

answer of 17 June 2009, Official Report, column 420W, 

on unemployment, how many and what percentage of 

persons in each category not in education, employment 

or training in the first quarter of 2009 were (a) male 

and (b) female. [283993] 

Kevin Brennan [holding answer 14 July 2009]: The 

following table shows the number and proportion of 

people aged 1 16 to 18 and 19 to 24 not in education, 

employment or training in England, split by male and 

female. These estimates are from the Quarter 1 2009 

Labour Force Survey. 

Numbers not in education, employment or training, Q1 2009 

Male 

Female 

Age group NEET Percentage NEET Percentage 

16-18 123,000 12.3 97,000 10.2 

19-24 314,000 15.3 401,000 20.0 

1 

Age used is academic age, which is the age of the respondent as at 

the preceding 31 August. 

Base: England only 

Source: 

Labour Force Survey Q1 2009 



many and what percentage of people aged between 18 

and 24 years were not in education, employment or 

training in the first quarter of each year since 2000. 

[284312] 


following table shows the number and percentage of 

people aged 1 18 to 24 not in education, employment or 

training (NEET) in England. These estimates are from 

the Quarter 1 Labour Force Survey (LFS). 

NEET estimates are not available from LFS datasets 

prior to Quarter 2 2000 due to incomplete data. 

18 to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training 

Quarter 1 NEET Percentage 

2001 574,000 14.4 

2002 592,000 14.7 

2003 612,000 14.9 

2004 572,000 13.4 

2005 618,000 14.2 

2006 674,000 15.2 

2007 711,000 15.6 

2008 707,000 15.2 

2009 827,000 17.6 

1 

Age used is academic age, which is the respondents’ age at the 

preceding 31 August. 

Base: 

18 to 24-year-olds, England 

Source: 

Q1 Labour Force Survey 



many and what percentage of 16 to 24 year olds were 

not in education, employment or training in the second 

quarter of each year since 1997. [284954] 


following table shows the number and percentage of 

people aged 1 16 to 24 not in education, employment or 

training (NEET) in England. These estimates are from 

the Quarter 2 Labour Force Survey (LFS).

1137W 


20 JULY 2009 


1138W 

NEET estimates are not available from LFS datasets 

prior to Quarter 2 2000 due to incomplete data. Quarter 2 

2009 data are due to be published by DCSF on 18 

August. 

16 to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training 

Quarter 2 NEET Percentage 

2000 655,000 12.8 

2001 644,000 12.4 

2002 703,000 13.3 

2003 708,000 13.1 

2004 697,000 12.6 

2005 771,000 13.5 

2006 851,000 14.8 

2007 833,000 14.2 

2008 840,000 14.0 

1 

Age used is academic age, which is the respondents’ age at the 

preceding 31 August. 

Base: 16 to 24-year-olds, England 

Source: 

Q2 Labour Force Survey 

Vocational Training 



steps his Department is taking to encourage employers 

to increase skills levels among their employees. [284623] 

Kevin Brennan: It is now even more important that we 

give employers the real help they need to invest in 

training for their staff so that they can survive the 

economic downturn and emerge to take advantage of 

new opportunities when the upturn comes. 

Train to Gain is a service for employers which gives 

them access to a wider range of opportunities for 

improving the skills of their employees and the productivity 

of their business. Through Train to Gain employers can 

access: 

A brokerage service to help identify the business’ skills needs at 

all levels and source high quality, vocational skills training, including 

apprenticeships, delivered at a time and place to suit the business. 

Government funding for skills training to sit alongside their 

own financial contribution. This includes a subsidy of up to 100 

per cent. for literacy and numeracy and first full level 2 qualifications, 

and a fully funded offer for 19 to 25-year-olds up to level 3. 

A flexible offer, responsive to and tailored to sector-based 

variations through sector compacts, and with relaxed funding 

rules for small and medium-sized enterprises. 

The Government are increasing investment in Train 

to Gain to over £1 billion by 2010-11. Since its launch in 

2006, Train to Gain has engaged with 143,000 employers 

and helped 1.25 million people to start training. 

Funding for apprenticeships has increased by almost 

a quarter since 2007/08 with just over £1 billion available 

in 2009-10. In January this year, the Prime Minister 

announced a package for an additional 35,000 

apprenticeship places in 2009-10. The number of people 

starting apprenticeships has increased from 65,000 in 

1996/97 to 225,000 in 2007/08. 


Department for Business, Innovation and Skills if he 

will make an estimate of the cost to the public purse of 

providing 40 per cent. of the workforce with the 

opportunity to attain a level 4 qualification by 2020. 

[284625] 

Kevin Brennan: It is not possible to build a meaningful 

estimate of the long-term costs of this goal, given the 

time span in question and the fact that we do not know 

the outcome of the 2009 Fees Commission. 

Latest labour force survey data shows that just over 

31 per cent. of the working age population are qualified 

to level 4 or above—a generally upward trend from 

about 25 per cent. eight years ago. We are on target to 

achieve 40 per cent. by 2020. 

Vocational Training: Finance 

Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Minister of State, 


much his Department plans to spend on skills funding 

in (a) England and (b) Wales in 2009-10. [285561] 

Kevin Brennan: Planned expenditure by the Department 

for Business Innovation and Skills on adult further 

education (FE) and skills for 2009-10 in England is 

£5.2 billion. The Department is not responsible for 

further education and skills in Wales, which is devolved 

to the Welsh Assembly Government. 

Vocational Training: Trade Unions 



steps his Department is taking to involve trade unions 

in initiatives to increase skills levels. [284622] 

Kevin Brennan: Trade unions are making a key 

contribution to our efforts to raise skill levels in the 

workplace. Unions and their union learning representatives 

(ULRs) are uniquely placed to engage with those hard 

to reach workers with few skills or low confidence in 

their own ability who employers find it so difficult to 

reach. To help them do this, we introduced the Union 

Learning Fund (ULF) in 1998 and will be providing 

£21.5 million to support this budget in 2009-10. 

With the help of ULF, unions and their ULRs have 

now helped over 800,000 people into learning through a 

wide range of innovative partnership projects with 

employers to tackle both organisational and individual 

skill needs. In 2006, with the Government’s support, the 

TUC established ‘unionlearn’to provide additional support 

and training for ULRs and to maximise the trade union 

contribution to our efforts to improve work force skills 

at all levels. 

Over 22,000 union learning reps have now been trained 

and are playing a vital role in helping to combat the 

economic downturn by providing workers at risk of or 

facing redundancy with advice and guidance about the 

wide range of support available to help them improve 

their skills and employment prospects. 

Voluntary Work 


Department for Business, Innovation and Skills if he 

will assess (a) the prevalence of unpaid work in the 

public and private sectors and (b) the effect of such 

work on the economy. [285426] 

Angela E. Smith: I have been asked to reply.

1139W 


20 JULY 2009 


1140W 



to reply. 



Parliamentary Question asking (a) the prevalence of unpaid 

work in the public and private sectors and (b) the effect of such 

work on the economy. (285426) 

Estimates of the number of people doing unpaid work and the 

amount of unpaid work they do are available from the Labour 

Force Survey (LFS). They relate to the number of people in paid 

employment whose working week includes unpaid overtime, and 

those people who are unpaid family workers. The attached table 

provides detail on unpaid work in the public and private sector in 

terms of number of people, and hours worked, for the latest data 

available relating to Quarter 1 2009. 

Estimates of the effect of unpaid work on the economy are not 

available. However, the proportion of these unpaid workers and 

the hours worked as a percentage of total employment are included 

to give an indication of the prevalence of this in the labour 

market. 

The estimates are derived from the LFS microdata which are 

weighted using the official population estimates published in 

autumn 2007. They are not entirely consistent with the figures 


Bulletin, which are weighted using more up-to-date population 

estimates. As with any sample survey, estimates from the LFS are 

subject to a margin of uncertainty. 

Unpaid work in the public and private sector 1 , 2 : Quarter 1, 2009 United Kingdom: Not seasonally adjusted 

Private sector Public sector Total 1 

Number 

(thousand) 

Total 

usual 

weekly 

hours 

(million) 

Average 

usual 

weekly 

hours 

(per 

person 

Number 

(thousand) 

Total 

usual 

weekly 

hours 

(million) 

Average 

usual 

weekly 

hours 

(per 

person 

Number 

(thousand) 

Total 

usual 

weekly 

hours 

(million) 

Average 

usual 

weekly 

hours 

(per 

person 

People who 

3,593 26.3 7 1,803 13.0 7 *5,400 39.3 7 

usually work 

unpaid 

overtime 

Unpaid family 

87 1.3 16 n/a n/a n/a *87 1.3 16 

workers 

Total 3,679 27.6 8 1,803 13.0 7 *5,487 40.8 8 

As percentage 

17 4 n/a 25 5 n/a 19 4 n/a 

of the total for 

all in 

employment 

n/a = Not applicable. 

1 

Includes those who did not state whether they worked in the public or private sector. 

2 

Coefficients of Variation have been calculated for the latest period as an indication of the quality of the estimates. See Guide to Quality 

below. 


The Coefficient of Variation (CV) indicates the quality of an estimate, the smaller the CV value the higher the quality. The true value is likely 

to lie within +/- twice the CV—for example, for an estimate of 200 with a CV of 5 per cent. we would expect the population total to be within 

the range 180-220 


*0≤ CV

7MC 

Ministerial Corrections 

21 JULY 2009 


8MC 



HOME DEPARTMENT 

Association of Chief Police Officers 

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the 

Home Department how much her Department has paid 

to the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in 

each year since 2000; for what purpose; what restrictions 

apply to the use of the money; what discussions she has 

had since January 2008 with the President of ACPO; 

and if she will make a statement. [259061 

[Official Report, 20 April 2009, Vol. 491, c. 146-48W.] 

Letter of correction from David Hanson: 

An error has been identified in the table that was 

presented by my predecessor in the written answer given 

to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) 

on 20 April 2009. 

In my predecessor’s response to your question he 

referred to a list of projects as an annex to the answer. 

In the annex Operation Sycamore was listed as being an 

investigation into prostitution project, this was in fact 

incorrect. Operation Sycamore is a project to fund 

clearance of the backlog of 27,000 European Conviction 

notifications. £700,000 was given for this in 2006-07, 

with a further £31,339 given in 2008-09. 

The correct answer should have been: 

Mr. Coaker: The Home Office has provided funding 

for the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) 

since 1997. 

In addition to an annual grant in aid payment, the 

Home Office has made regular payments to ACPO to 

fund a number of specific projects or in support of 

initiatives that are best delivered by those with professional 

police experience. All the grants are prescribed only for 

the project or use specified. From the information currently 

held by the Department, the payments made to ACPO 

since 2006/07 have been listed as an annex to this response. 

The Home Secretary and I meet with the President of 

ACPO, regularly to discuss a range of issues, including 

the projects in which ACPO are involved. This is in 

addition to frequent telephone conversations and joint 

attendance at conferences and events. Formal notes of 

these meetings are not available to place in the House 

Library. 

Home Office payments to ACPO 

Financial year 

Project 2006-07 (£) 2007-08 (£) 2008-09 (£) Detail 1 

Grant Aid 836,232 836,232 836,232 To meet the costs of the ACPO president and part of the ACPO office 

costs 

ACIST 2,988,115 — — To fund the ACPO Change and Implementation Support Team 

Criminal Records project 110,000 110,000 110,000 UK Central Authority for exchange of criminal records 

Operation Sycamore 700,000 — 31,339 To fund clearance of the backlog of 27,000 European Conviction 

notifications 

Community Tensions 

project 

60,000 60,000 82,172 To fund the ACPO National Community Tensions Team 

Domestic Extremism 

project 

2,000,000, 2,000,000, 2,000,000, To fund the ACPO Domestic Extremism Team 

Disaster Victims 

Identification 

253,128 314,296 216,060 To fund the ACPO UK DIVI Management Team 

Stockwell project — 230,000 — Learning lessons of the Stockwell incident 

Drugs Conference — — 10,000 Contribution to ACPO conference 

Cannabis cultivation — — 40,000 Funding part of the costs of a co-ordinator 

Wildlife crime 15,367 15,367 150,000 Funding for the National Wildlife Crime Unit 

Vehicle Intelligence — — 100,000 Funding for ACPO Vehicle Intelligence Service 

Car Parking 200,000 185,000 130,000 Funding for ACPO Safer Car parking Scheme 

Co-ordination of 

Counter-Terrorism 

policing 

— 5,300,664 4,000,000 Funds the national co-ordination functions: the National Coordinator 

of Special Branch, media liaison work, CT training needs analysis and 

the police contribution to the Border Management programme.

9MC 


21 JULY 2009 


10MC 




Prevent — 355,586 1,159,500 Prevent Channel project 

Prevent — — 4,705,810 Prevent policing 

Protective Services — 60,600 189,400 Co-ordination costs 

Level 2 — 2,000,000 — Level 2 project 

Operation Overt — 268,581 — PNICC work on the air terrorist action 

RIUs 8,000,000 8,000,000 — Setting up regional intelligence units 

Policing the Olympics — — 220,000 Co-ordinating work 

Prisoner Intelligence 

Network 

948,665 3,841,899 4,598,961 Support funding for programme 

AVCIS (ACPO vehicle 

crime intelligence service) 

— 420,000 — Organised vehicle crime investigation 

AVCIS—TruckPol — 50,000 — Freight crime intelligence service 

ACPO Drugs CBA 10,000 10,000 — Contribution to ACPO organised drugs conference 

Operation Cube (ACRO) 450,000 0 0 DNA analysis 

Operation Element 

(National Community 

Tension Team) 

— 200,000 170,000 NCTT—Operation Element (2007-08 funding) 

Knife Crime 0 0 81,250 Knife Crime £100,000 funding approximately agreed for 8 months (mid- 

September 2008 to mid-May 2009) 

Domestic violence posters 0 0 4,690 Domestic violence awareness campaign. Grant agreement signed— 

funding awaited 

Total 14,571,507 22,258,225 16,804,075 — 

1 

Funding allocated for these purposes only. 

Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State 

for the Home Department what (a) budgetary support 

and (b) other funding her Department has given to 

the Association of Chief Police Officers in the last 

12 months. [276791 

[Official Report, 3 June 2009, Vol. 493, c. 553W.] 

Letter of correction from David Hanson: 

With reference to the answer given by my predecessor 

to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel 

Kawczynski) on 3 June 2009 in which he refers him to 

the answer given previously to the hon. Member for 

Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on 20 April 2009, Official 

Report, columns 146-48W, unfortunately an error has 

been identified in the table that was presented by my 

predecessor in the written answer of 20 April 2009. 

In my predecessor’s response he referred to a list of 

projects as an annex to the answer. In the annex Operation 

Sycamore was listed as being an investigation into 

prostitution project, this was in fact incorrect. Operation 

Sycamore is a project to fund clearance of the backlog 

of 27,000 European Conviction notifications. £700,000 

was given for this in 2006-07, with a further £31,339 

given in 2008-09. 

The correct answer should have been: 

Mr. Coaker: The Home Office has provided funding 

for the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) 

since 1997. 

In addition to an annual grant in aid payment, the 

Home Office has made regular payments to ACPO to 

fund a number of specific projects or in support of 

initiatives that are best delivered by those with professional 

police experience. All the grants are prescribed only for 

the project or use specified. From the information currently 

held by the Department, the payments made to ACPO 

since 2006/07 have been listed as an annex to this response. 

The Home Secretary and I meet with the President of 

ACPO, regularly to discuss a range of issues, including 

the projects in which ACPO are involved. This is in 

addition to frequent telephone conversations and joint 

attendance at conferences and events. Formal notes of 

these meetings are not available to place in the House 

Library.

11MC 


21 JULY 2009 


12MC 




Grant Aid 836,232 836,232 836,232 To meet the costs of the ACPO president and part of the 

ACPO office costs 

ACIST 2,988,115 — — To fund the ACPO Change and Implementation Support Team 

Criminal Records project 110,000 110,000 110,000 UK Central Authority for exchange of criminal records 

Operation Sycamore 700,000 — 31,339 To fund clearance of the backlog of 27,000 European 

Conviction notifications 

Community Tensions 

project 

60,000 60,000 82,172 To fund the ACPO National Community Tensions Team 

Domestic Extremism 

project 

2,000,000, 2,000,000, 2,000,000, To fund the ACPO Domestic Extremism Team 

Disaster Victims 

Identification 

253,128 314,296 216,060 To fund the ACPO UK DIVI Management Team 

Stockwell project — 230,000 — Learning lessons of the Stockwell incident 

Drugs Conference — — 10,000 Contribution to ACPO conference 

Cannabis cultivation — — 40,000 Funding part of the costs of a co-ordinator 

Wildlife crime 15,367 15,367 150,000 Funding for the National Wildlife Crime Unit 

Vehicle Intelligence — — 100,000 Funding for ACPO Vehicle Intelligence Service 

Car Parking 200,000 185,000 130,000 Funding for ACPO Safer Car parking Scheme 

Co-ordination of 

Counter-Terrorism 

policing 

— 5,300,664 4,000,000 Funds the national co-ordination functions: the National 

Coordinator of Special Branch, media liaison work, CT 

training needs analysis and the police contribution to the 

Border Management programme. 

Prevent — 355,586 1,159,500 Prevent Channel project 

Prevent — — 4,705,810 Prevent policing 

Protective Services — 60,600 189,400 Co-ordination costs 

Level 2 — 2,000,000 — Level 2 project 

Operation Overt — 268,581 — PNICC work on the air terrorist action 

RIUs 8,000,000 8,000,000 — Setting up regional intelligence units 

Policing the Olympics — — 220,000 Co-ordinating work 

Prisoner Intelligence 

Network 

948,665 3,841,899 4,598,961 Support funding for programme 

AVCIS (ACPO vehicle 

crime intelligence service) 

— 420,000 — Organised vehicle crime investigation 

AVCIS—TruckPol — 50,000 — Freight crime intelligence service 

ACPO Drugs CBA 10,000 10,000 — Contribution to ACPO organised drugs conference 

Operation Cube (ACRO) 450,000 0 0 DNA analysis

13MC 


21 JULY 2009 


14MC 




Operation Element 

(National Community 

Tension Team) 

— 200,000 170,000 NCTT—Operation Element (2007-08 funding) 

Knife Crime 0 0 81,250 Knife Crime £100,000 funding approximately agreed for 

8 months (mid-September 2008 to mid-May 2009) 

Domestic violence posters 0 0 4,690 Domestic violence awareness campaign. Grant agreement 

signed—funding awaited 

Total 14,571,507 22,258,225 16,804,075 — 

1 

Funding allocated for these purposes only.

ORAL ANSWERS 


Col. No. 

JUSTICE................................................................... 731 

Diversity (Judiciary)............................................... 731 

Drugs (Prisons)...................................................... 745 

Electoral Reform.................................................... 738 

Foreign National Prisoners .................................... 743 

International Criminal Jurisdiction........................ 743 

Licence Breaches.................................................... 736 

Magistrates Courts................................................. 732 

National Security and Intelligence Services............ 742 

Col. No. 

JUSTICE—continued 

Pleural Plaques ...................................................... 741 

Prisons ................................................................... 740 

Probation Service................................................... 733 

Shoplifting ............................................................. 744 

Topical Questions .................................................. 745 

Young Offenders .................................................... 735 

Youth Justice.......................................................... 740 

WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 


Col. No. 

ATTORNEY-GENERAL .......................................... 131WS 

Attorney-General’s Office Annual Review ............. 132WS 

Reform of the Role of the Attorney-General ......... 131WS 

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS............. 111WS 

Learning and Skills Council for England ............... 111WS 

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.. 114WS 

Business Growth Incentives Scheme....................... 116WS 

Departmental Hospitality ...................................... 118WS 

Local Democratic Renewal .................................... 114WS 

Reform of Council Housing Finance ..................... 116WS 

Stoke-on-Trent Council.......................................... 117WS 

Tackling Race Inequalities Fund............................ 118WS 

DEFENCE................................................................. 119WS 

Armed Forces Pay Review Body ............................ 120WS 

BVT (Terms of Business Agreement)..................... 120WS 

Defence Advisory Forum....................................... 121WS 

MOD Annual Report and Accounts ...................... 119WS 

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE..... 121WS 

British Council....................................................... 121WS 

HEALTH................................................................... 121WS 

Correction to Written Answers .............................. 121WS 

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust ............. 123WS 

HOME DEPARTMENT........................................... 126WS 

Alcohol Disorder Zones......................................... 128WS 

Col. No. 

HOME DEPARTMENT—continued 

Animal Procedures................................................. 128WS 

Animal Procedures (Annual Report 2008) ............. 130WS 

Citizenship Consultation........................................ 130WS 

Kingsnorth Report................................................. 127WS 

Newspapers (Surveillance Methods/Update).......... 126WS 

Olympics (Safety and Security) .............................. 126WS 

Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report: 10 Years On .... 127WS 

Youth Crime Action Plan - One Year On ............... 130WS 

JUSTICE................................................................... 131WS 

England and Wales Prison Service Pay Review 

Body Report ...................................................... 131WS 

PRIME MINISTER .................................................. 132WS 

Cabinet Committees............................................... 132WS 

TRANSPORT ........................................................... 132WS 

UK Domestic Drivers Hours Rules........................ 132WS 

TREASURY .............................................................. 111WS 

Anti-Avoidance: Capital Allowances...................... 113WS 

Banking Act 2009 .................................................. 111WS 

Debt Relief for Poor Countries .............................. 112WS 

Equitable Life ........................................................ 113WS 

WORK AND PENSIONS ......................................... 133WS 

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with 

Disabilities (Optional Protocol) ......................... 133WS 

PETITION 


Col. No. 

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL 

AFFAIRS............................................................... 15P 

Flooding (Cotswolds)............................................. 15P 

Col. No. 

WRITTEN ANSWERS 

Monday 20 July 2009—[Continued.] 

Col. No. 

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS ............. 1096W 

Adult Education .................................................... 1096W 

Col. No. 

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS—continued 

Apprentices............................................................ 1097W

Col. No. 

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS—continued 

Apprentices: Females ............................................. 1099W 

Apprentices: Hertfordshire..................................... 1099W 

Apprentices: Thames Valley................................... 1100W 

Better Regulation Executive................................... 1100W 

Business: Billing ..................................................... 1101W 

Business: Coastal Areas ......................................... 1101W 

Business: Empty Property ...................................... 1102W 

Business: Government Assistance .......................... 1102W 

Business: Insurance................................................ 1105W 

Business: York........................................................ 1106W 

Constructing Excellence: Finance .......................... 1106W 

Debts ..................................................................... 1107W 

Departmental Manpower....................................... 1107W 

Dietary Supplements: Channel Islands .................. 1107W 

East of England Development Agency: Land ........ 1108W 

Education: Finance................................................ 1109W 

Education: Prisons ................................................. 1110W 

Education (Student Support) Regulations 2009 ..... 1109W 

Exports: Yorkshire and the Humber ...................... 1111W 

Foreign Investment in UK: Yorkshire and the 

Humber ............................................................. 1111W 

Further Education: Energy .................................... 1112W 

Further Education: Finance................................... 1112W 

Graduates: Employment ........................................ 1113W 

Graduates: Unemployment.................................... 1114W 

Higher Education: Admissions .............................. 1114W 

Industry: Stress ...................................................... 1115W 

Innovation Fund.................................................... 1116W 

Insolvency.............................................................. 1116W 

Insolvency Service: Marketing ............................... 1117W 

Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 

2002 ................................................................... 1117W 

Literacy: Young Offenders ..................................... 1117W 

Mail Order Selling ................................................. 1118W 

Members: Correspondence .................................... 1118W 

Migrant Workers: Burnley ..................................... 1118W 

Motor Vehicles: Manufacturing Industries............. 1119W 

National Endowment for Science Technology and 

the Arts.............................................................. 1119W 

National Vocational Qualifications: Construction . 1120W 

Non-domestic Rates............................................... 1120W 

Non-domestic Rates: Rural Areas.......................... 1121W 

North West Development Agency: Public 

Appointments .................................................... 1124W 

Office of Fair Trading: Freedom of Information ... 1124W 

Prisoners: Higher Education .................................. 1125W 

Public Houses: Closures......................................... 1126W 

Redundancy: Females ............................................ 1128W 

Regional Development Agencies: Expenditure....... 1129W 

Regional Development Agencies: Finance ............. 1129W 

Regional Development Agencies: Pensions ............ 1129W 

Retail Trade: Kent.................................................. 1131W 

Skilled Workers ...................................................... 1131W 

Skilled Workers: Milton Keynes............................. 1131W 

South East England Development Agency: 

Redundancy Pay ................................................ 1132W 

Students: Fees and Charges.................................... 1133W 

Students: Loans ..................................................... 1133W 

Train to Gain Programme ...................................... 1134W 

Train to Gain Programme: Hertfordshire............... 1135W 

UK Trade and Investment: Manpower .................. 1135W 

Unemployment ...................................................... 1135W 

Vocational Training................................................ 1137W 

Vocational Training: Finance ................................. 1138W 

Vocational Training: Trade Unions ........................ 1138W 

Voluntary Work ..................................................... 1138W 

York College: Finance............................................ 1139W 

CABINET OFFICE................................................... 1032W 

Alcoholic Drinks: Death ........................................ 1032W 

Col. No. 

CABINET OFFICE—continued 

Census: Fines ......................................................... 1033W 

Census: Travelling People....................................... 1033W 

Civil Servants: Manpower...................................... 1034W 

Civil Servants: Pay ................................................. 1035W 

Civil Service ........................................................... 1036W 

Civil Service: Languages ........................................ 1036W 

Civil Service: Pensions ........................................... 1037W 

Death: Cannabis .................................................... 1037W 

Death: Heart Diseases............................................ 1037W 

Death: Seas and Oceans ......................................... 1038W 

Departmental Accountancy ................................... 1038W 

Departmental Databases........................................ 1039W 

Departmental Expenditure .................................... 1040W 

Departmental Personnel ........................................ 1040W 

Departmental Publications .................................... 1040W 

Employment: Hemsworth ...................................... 1041W 

Employment: Hertfordshire ................................... 1042W 

Islamic Bank of Britain.......................................... 1043W 

Jobseeker’s Allowance: Chelmsford........................ 1044W 

Jobseeker’s Allowance: Ethnic Groups................... 1046W 

Jobseeker’s Allowance: Lancashire......................... 1053W 

Lobbying: Charities ............................................... 1054W 

Pay: Hertfordshire.................................................. 1056W 

Personal Income: Wakefield................................... 1057W 

Population ............................................................. 1058W 

Public Bodies ......................................................... 1059W 

Trade Unions ......................................................... 1060W 

Ulcers: Death ......................................................... 1060W 

Unemployment ...................................................... 1061W 

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE..................... 1009W 

Carbon Emissions: Business................................... 1009W 

Carbon Emissions: Housing................................... 1010W 

Departmental Advertising...................................... 1011W 

Departmental Data Protection............................... 1011W 


Departmental Internet ........................................... 1012W 

Energy Saving Trust: Finance................................. 1012W 

Environmental Transformation Fund: Finance...... 1012W 

Industrial Diseases: Compensation ........................ 1014W 

Lighting: Government Departments ...................... 1021W 

Low Carbon Buildings Programme........................ 1021W 

Low Carbon Technologies ..................................... 1022W 

Members: Correspondence .................................... 1023W 

Nuclear Power Stations: Accidents......................... 1023W 

Renewable Energy.................................................. 1029W 

UDM-Vendside...................................................... 1030W 

Warm Front Scheme .............................................. 1030W 

Wind Power ........................................................... 1030W 

Written Questions: Government Responses ........... 1031W 

HEALTH................................................................... 

Accident and Emergency Departments: Young 

People ................................................................ 

Allergies: Consultants ............................................ 

Childbirth: Shropshire ........................................... 

Compulsorily Detained Mental Patients: Children. 

Dental Services: Morecambe.................................. 

Departmental Accountancy ................................... 

Departmental Consultants..................................... 

Departmental Contracts ........................................ 

Departmental Databases........................................ 

Departmental Hospitality ...................................... 

Departmental Procurement.................................... 

Departmental Work Experience............................. 

Dermatology: Pharmacy........................................ 

Dermatology: Training........................................... 

Diabetes: Health Services....................................... 

Diamorphine.......................................................... 

Drugs: Counterfeit Manufacturing ........................ 

965W 

965W 

965W 

965W 

966W 

966W 

967W 

967W 

968W 

968W 

969W 

969W 

969W 

970W 

970W 

970W 

971W 

971W

Col. No. 

HEALTH—continued 

Epilepsy: Medical Treatments ................................ 971W 

Fujitsu ................................................................... 971W 

Health: Children .................................................... 979W 

Health Professions: Training .................................. 972W 

Health Services: Buildings...................................... 972W 

Health Services: Oxfordshire.................................. 972W 

Health Services: Prisoners...................................... 972W 

Health Visitors: Manpower.................................... 973W 

Heart Diseases ....................................................... 980W 

Hospital Wards: Gender ........................................ 980W 

Hospitals: Admissions ........................................... 980W 

Incontinence .......................................................... 981W 

Insect Bites............................................................. 981W 

Kidneys: Health Education.................................... 982W 

Medic Alert: Organs .............................................. 982W 

Mental Health Services .......................................... 983W 

Mental Health Services: Morecambe ..................... 983W 

Mentally Incapacitated: Children........................... 983W 

Midwives: Recruitment .......................................... 984W 

Mid-Yorkshire NHS Trust: Doctors....................... 984W 

National Joint Registry Steering Committee .......... 984W 

Neurology .............................................................. 985W 

NHS: Finance ........................................................ 986W 

NHS: Management Consultants ............................ 989W 

NHS: Manpower ................................................... 989W 

NHS: Meat ............................................................ 990W 

NHS: Public Consultation ..................................... 991W 

Nurses: Training .................................................... 994W 

Organs: Research ................................................... 995W 

Pain: Health Services ............................................. 995W 

Palliative Care........................................................ 995W 

Patients: Travel....................................................... 995W 

Prescriptions: Fees and Charges............................. 996W 

Pressure Sores: Compensation ............................... 997W 

Preventive Technology Grant................................. 998W 

Primary Care Trusts: Dorset .................................. 998W 

Primary Care Trusts: Greater Manchester ............. 999W 

Primary Care Trusts: Wakefield ............................. 999W 

Queen Mary’s Hospital Sidcup .............................. 1000W 

Sexual Offences: Health Professionals.................... 1000W 

Smoking................................................................. 1000W 

Social Services........................................................ 1000W 

Col. No. 

HEALTH—continued 

Stepping Hill Hospital: Parking ............................. 1005W 

Surgery: Greater Manchester ................................. 1007W 

Swine Flu............................................................... 1007W 

Teenage Pregnancy: Hampshire ............................. 1008W 

Tranquillisers ......................................................... 1008W 

Wakefield NHS Trust: Expenditure........................ 1009W 

JUSTICE................................................................... 1063W 

Aylesbury Prison: Injuries ...................................... 1063W 

Bail Accommodation and Support Service ............ 1064W 

Damian McBride ................................................... 1065W 

Departmental Data Protection............................... 1065W 


Drugs..................................................................... 1068W 

Elections Bill.......................................................... 1068W 

Elections: Campaigns............................................. 1068W 

Electorate............................................................... 1068W 

Firearms: Sentencing ............................................. 1070W 

Freedom of Information ........................................ 1071W 

HM Courts Service: Pay......................................... 1071W 

Homicide: Rape ..................................................... 1072W 

Judicial Appointments Commission: Newspaper 

Press .................................................................. 1073W 

Judiciary: Pensions................................................. 1073W 

Legal Aid ............................................................... 1073W 

Legal Services Commission: Finance ..................... 1074W 

Offensive Weapons: Convictions ............................ 1074W 

Operation Safeguard: Billing.................................. 1075W 

Political Parties ...................................................... 1075W 

Political Parties: Finance........................................ 1076W 

Prisoner Escapes .................................................... 1076W 

Prisoners ................................................................ 1078W 

Prisoners: Drugs .................................................... 1089W 

Prisoners: Financial Provision................................ 1091W 

Prisons ................................................................... 1093W 

Prisons: Drugs ....................................................... 1094W 

Probation: Hemel Hempstead ................................ 1094W 

Probation Service................................................... 1095W 

Reoffenders: Crimes of Violence............................ 1095W 

Voting Methods ..................................................... 1096W 

Young Offender Institutions: Per Capita Costs ...... 1096W 

MINISTERIAL CORRECTIONS 


Col. No. 

HOME DEPARTMENT .......................................... 7MC 

Association of Chief Police Officers ...................... 7MC

Members who wish to have the Daily Report of the Debates forwarded to them should give notice at the Vote 

Office. 

The Bound Volumes will also be sent to Members who similarly express their desire to have them. 

No proofs of the Daily Reports can be supplied, nor can corrections be made in the Weekly Edition. Corrections 

which Members suggest for the Bound Volume should be clearly marked in the Daily Report, but not 

telephoned, and the copy containing the Corrections must be received at the Editor’s Room, House of Commons, 

not later than 


STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT GREATLY FACILITATES THE 

PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE VOLUMES 

Members may obtain excerpts of their Speeches from the Official Report (within one month from the date of 

publication), on application to the Stationery Office, c/o the Editor of the Official Report, House of 

Commons, from whom the terms and conditions of reprinting may be ascertained. Application forms are 

available at the Vote Office. 

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES 

DAILY PARTS 

Single copies: 

Commons, £5; Lords, £3·50. 

Annual subscriptions: 

Commons, £865; Lords, £525. 

WEEKLY HANSARD 




Commons, £440. Lords, £225. 

Index—Single copies: 

Commons, £6·80—published every three weeks 



LORDS CUMULATIVE INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. 

BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session. 



Standing orders will be accepted. 

THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is published separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing 

order. 

WEEKLY INFORMATION BULLETIN compiled by the House of Commons, giving details of past and forthcoming business, 

the work of Committees and general information on legislation, etc. The Annual Subscription includes also automatic 

despatch of the Sessional Information Digest. 


£1·50. 


£53·50. 

All prices are inclusive of postage

Volume 496 

Tuesday 

No. 115 21 July 2009 

Part1of3 

CONTENTS 


Oral Answers to Questions [Col. 731] [see index inside back page] 

Secretary of State for Justice 

Equitable Life [Col. 751] 

Answer to urgent question—(Mr. Byrne) 

Issue of Writ [Col. 757] 

Motion—(Stewart Hosie)—negatived 

Public Buildings (Publication of Energy Performance Certificates) 

Public Transport (Reward Scheme and Concessionary Fares) [Col. 766] 

Bills presented, and read the First time 

Parliamentary Standards Bill (Programme) (No. 2) [Col. 766] 

Programme motion—(Steve McCabe)—on a Division, agreed to 

Parliamentary Standards Bill [Col. 770] 

Lords amendments considered 

Summer Recess Adjournment [Col. 789] 

Debate on motion for Adjournment 

Motion lapsed 

Royal Assent to Acts passed [Col. 801] 

Petitions [Col. 854] 

Gurkha Pensions [Col. 857] 

Debate on motion for Adjournment 

Westminster Hall 

Israeli Settlements [Col. 193WH] 

European Union [Col. 215WH] 

Gloucester (Regeneration Funding) [Col. 239WH] 

School Buildings (Alnwick) [Col. 245WH] 

European Court of Justice Judgments [Col. 252WH] 

Debates on motion for Adjournment 

Written Ministerial Statements [Col. 111WS] 

Petition [Col. 15P] 

Observations 

Written Answers to Questions [Col. 965W] 

Ministerial Corrections [Col. 7MC]

View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?