parliamentary debates - parliament publications

Thursday Volume 51117 June 2010 No. 17

HOUSE OF COMMONSOFFICIAL REPORT

PARLIAMENTARYDEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday 17 June 2010

£5·00

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2010This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence,

available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website atwww.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/

Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU;e-mail: [email protected]

House of Commons


The House met at half-past Ten o’clock

PRAYERS

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]

BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

CANTERBURY CITY COUNCIL BILL

Motion made,That so much of the Lords Message [10 June] as relates to the

Canterbury City Council Bill be now considered. ––(The Chairmanof Ways and Means.)

Hon. Members: Object.To be considered on Thursday 24 June.

LEEDS CITY COUNCIL BILL

Ordered,That so much of the Lords Message [10 June] as relates to the

Leeds City Council Bill be now considered.That the promoters of the Leeds City Council Bill, which was

originally introduced in this House in Session 2008–09 on 22 January2008, may have leave to proceed with the Bill in the currentSession according to the provisions of Standing Order 188B(Revival of bills).––(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL

Motion made,That so much of the Lords Message [10 June] as relates to the

Nottingham City Council Bill be now considered. ––(The Chairmanof Ways and Means.)

Hon. Members: Object.To be considered on Thursday 24 June.

READING BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL

Ordered,That so much of the Lords Message [10 June] as relates to the

Reading Borough Council Bill be now considered.That the promoters of the Reading Borough Council Bill,

which was originally introduced in this House in Session 2008–09on 22 January 2008, may have leave to proceed with the Bill in thecurrent Session according to the provisions of Standing Order188B (Revival of bills).––(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Oral Answers to Questions

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Heathrow Airport

1. Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab): What recentdiscussions he has had with business representatives onthe expansion of Heathrow airport. [2710]

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr PhilipHammond): I have not discussed the expansion of Heathrowwith business representatives since my appointment, aswe have made it clear that we will not support a thirdrunway at Heathrow. This Government’s focus is onmaking Heathrow better not bigger.

Mr Hanson: I welcome the Secretary of State to hisposition. I do not always agree with the CBI, but it hasjoined the Trades Union Congress and unions acrossLondon to say that the expansion of Heathrow is goodfor business and for London. Will the right hon. Gentlemantherefore be careful that, in taking his stance—I recognisethat it is one of integrity—he does not end up exportingjobs and business from London to Munich, Frankfurtand Paris?

Mr Hammond: As the right hon. Gentleman knows,both parties in the coalition campaigned before thegeneral election on a clear commitment to scrap thethird runway at Heathrow. However, we are not anti-aviationand, earlier this week, I set up a working group toconsider aviation in the south-east and to work with allthe stakeholders, including representatives of business,the airlines and people who work at the airport toascertain how we can make aviation in the south-eastwork better within the constraints of existing runwaycapacity.

Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con): Thepeople of Ealing Central and Acton were delighted bythe decision to scrap the third runway. Does my righthon. Friend agree that if the third runway had goneahead, it would have imposed intolerable extra blighton those who live in west London?

Mr Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.When considering airport expansion, we must look atnot only the economic benefits but the local environmentalburdens and the impact on this Government’s and theprevious Government’s commitments to CO2 reduction.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab): I,too, welcome the Secretary of State to his new position.I also welcome his comments about undertaking areview of aviation policy in the south-east because thatsuggests that the economic case has not been forgotten.Does he agree that, as my right hon. Friend the Memberfor Delyn (Mr Hanson) said, when there is spare capacityin Paris, Schiphol and Frankfurt, and Dubai has builtsix runways, we run the risk of being disadvantaged notonly by the rest of Europe, but by being bypassed byplanes flying straight to the Americas from Asia throughDubai?

Mr Hammond: Heathrow is Britain’s premier hubairport and we intend to ensure that it remains a majorhub airport. We want to work with business and otherstakeholders to ensure that Heathrow becomes better,not bigger and that we protect its status.

Dartford Crossing

2. Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con): If he willtake steps to reduce congestion at the Dartfordcrossing. [2711]

1001 100217 JUNE 2010

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport(Mike Penning): The Department and the HighwaysAgency are committed to improving the levels of serviceexperienced by users of the Dartford crossing. TheHighways Agency and I will consider a package ofmeasures, including better information and trafficmanagement to help reduce the congestion at the Dartfordcrossing.

Mr Whittingdale: I thank my hon. Friend for thatanswer, but is he aware that, since the tolls increased,the delays when approaching the tolling booths areanything up to 45 minutes and more? That causesenormous frustration to those who use the crossing,which is increased by the fact that the original intentionwas to scrap the tolls once the bridge was paid for ratherthan to put them up.

Mike Penning: My hon. Friend knows that I ampersonally aware of the problems at the Dartford crossing,having used it for many years. The £40 million net thatwe recover from the crossing is a significant income, butwe need to consider technology that is being used inother parts of the world, particularly in Australia, sothat we can remove the barriers and increase the speedat which traffic comes through while also picking up therevenue that the country desperately needs.

Airlines (Industrial Action)

3. Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): Whatinformation his Department holds on the effect ofindustrial action involving airlines on the number ofpassengers on flights operated by those airlines. [2712]

The Minister of State, Department for Transport(Mrs Theresa Villiers): The Department does not routinelymonitor or hold information on airline passenger loads.However, most publicly listed UK airlines, includingBritish Airways, regularly publish traffic and capacitystatistics.

Caroline Lucas: Is the right hon. Lady aware oftestimony from British Airways staff that British Airwayshas run commercially unviable flights in periods ofindustrial action, with low to zero numbers of passengers,to give the impression that it is unaffected by industrialaction? Will you condemn any carrier for suchenvironmentally unsustainable behaviour and investigateany report from BA staff ?

Mr Speaker: I will neither condemn nor investigate,but the Minister might.

Mrs Villiers: It is clear that this Government aredetermined to provide encouragement to airlines to flygreener planes and to switch to flying fuller planes. Thatis what is behind the proposals we will make on reformingair passenger duty, and it will help to address theconcerns around so-called ghost flights.

Turning to the hon. Lady’s specific example, that isprimarily a matter for British Airways. I understandfrom the airline that some planes flew with low passengerloads, some were freight-only, and some had only crewon board, to ensure that the aeroplanes were in the rightplace to resume passenger operations once the disputeended. That is a concern to us because of the environmental

impact of empty flights. Unfortunately, that is anothernegative consequence of the industrial dispute and anotherreason why I urge the parties to get back round the tableto ensure that it is resolved as soon as possible toprevent a recurrence.

Concessionary Bus Fares

4. Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab): What plans he has forthe future of the national concessionary bus farescheme. [2713]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport(Norman Baker): The Government’s commitment toprotect free bus travel for older people is set out in thecoalition agreement. The right to free bus travel forboth older and disabled people is enshrined in primarylegislation.

Clive Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman be theGovernment’s conscience on the freedom pass, becausewhen one looks at all the people who have tried toundermine it in the past, one realises that they have allbeen Conservatives. They have described the pass as astealth tax, or said that it goes to the wrong people.Would it be a resigning issue for him if the scheme wereto be watered down in any way, and will he keep aweather eye out for those nasty colleagues of his whoalways try to undermine the freedom pass?

Norman Baker: It is something of a record to ask aMinister whether he might consider resigning when heis answering his first departmental question. I am happyto assure the hon. Gentleman that the coalition—bothparties—are committed to free bus travel for olderpeople, as I set out. Indeed, that is enshrined in primarylegislation, so I think that his fears are groundless.

Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con): The previousLabour Government reduced the grant for the busconcessionary scheme in London by some £25 millionquite late on in the process. Will the Minister confirmthat the coalition will not do anything similar to thecouncil tax payers of London?

Norman Baker: We have no plans to revisit the settlementfor this year.

Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): Iwelcome the Minister and his colleagues to theirappointments, and we wish them well in theirresponsibilities. It is hard not to notice that the Departmentis led by two former shadow Chief Secretaries to theTreasury, at least one of whom would rather like to beChief Secretary to the Treasury, so the Opposition willbe keeping a very careful eye on them to ensure thatthey are genuine advocates for modern transportinfrastructure, and not holding office simply to wieldthe Chancellor’s axe.

Will the Minister give the House a clear guarantee ontwo points on the concessionary travel scheme? Can hereassure the 11 million people who were given free bustravel under Labour that this Government will notintroduce any new restrictions on when and how theirpasses can be used, and can he guarantee that there willbe no means-testing for new recipients of free bus travelduring the lifetime of this Parliament?

1003 100417 JUNE 2010Oral Answers Oral Answers

Norman Baker: The Opposition spokesman perhapsdid not hear my original answer, which was that theGovernment are committed to protecting free bus travelfor older people. That is set out very clearly in thecoalition agreement and will be our policy.

5. Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD): What recentrepresentations he has received on the system ofreimbursement to local authorities for theirexpenditure on the national concessionary bus farescheme; and if he will make a statement. [2714]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport(Norman Baker): Department for Transport Ministershave recently received general representations aboutconcessionary travel, including from local authorityand bus operator representatives. Some of thoserepresentations have included funding issues.

Mr Sanders: I welcome my hon. Friend to his position.He will be aware that many councils have found itdifficult to meet the full costs of the scheme. I successfullylobbied for extra money for my authority, but it is stillout of pocket. While lobbying, I uncovered a reportthat suggested that significant savings could be made ifthe scheme were administered nationally, with theGovernment rather than lots of local authorities negotiatingwith the bus companies. Will he look at that idea to seewhether savings can be made?

Norman Baker: The previous Government consultedon that very option, and only 23% of respondents werein favour of it, compared with a majority in favour ofadministration at county council level—the scheme thathas now been adopted. The concern is that if thescheme were administered centrally, it might have animpact on the discretionary concessions offered by districtcouncils. We could end up with a national system andlocal negotiations, thereby increasing administrationcosts.

Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab):The Minister will be aware that the decision to have aconcessionary scheme in England had consequentialeffects on funding in Scotland through the Barnettformula. The scheme is already underfunded by theScottish Government, so may I have an assurance thatthere will be no further cuts in funding in Scotlandthrough the effect on the Barnett formula?

Norman Baker: I am happy to say that I am not anexpert on the Barnett formula, and I advise the hon.Gentleman to await the outcome of the spending review.

Transport Services (Expenditure Reductions)

6. Andrew George (St Ives) (LD): What assessmenthas been made of the effects on front-line transportservices of the announced expenditure reductions forhis Department in 2010-11. [2715]

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr PhilipHammond): I can reassure my hon. Friend that thisGovernment take protecting front-line services veryseriously. However, we also take very seriously the needto deal with the unsustainable structural deficit weinherited. The Department for Transport is focusing onmaking its contribution to deficit reduction while supportingeconomic recovery and protecting priority areas.

Andrew George: Notwithstanding that answer, is theSecretary of State aware that the suspension of majorschemes has meant that the Maritime and CoastguardAgency may not provide the Isles of Scilly ferry servicewith the necessary authority to continue? As the servicehas been 10 years in preparation, is 99% ready to go andis a lifeline for the Isles of Scilly will he reconsider thisissue?

Mr Hammond: Perhaps I can clarify what I havedone. This scheme has conditional approval, and wehave said that schemes with conditional approval orprogramme entry will have to await the outcome of thespending review before we can confirm them. Myunderstanding is that Cornwall county council is stillawaiting listed building consent, without which thescheme could not proceed anyway, but we are aware ofthe vital nature of the link to the Isles of Scilly and wewill review the scheme as soon as the spending reviewhas been completed.

Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op):I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment.

Two days ago in the other place, Lord Attlee statedthat rail electrification could not be afforded. Doesthat mean that the Government reject the notion thatinvestment in transport is essential to support economicrecovery?

Mr Hammond: The Government are committed torail electrification because of its carbon impact. However,as the hon. Lady will be aware, we have inherited amassive black hole in the public finances—[Interruption.]Labour Members can laugh, but the previous Governmentannounced a halving of the public capital investmentprogramme without giving any indication of where thatcut would come. After the spending review, we will haveto look at all these programmes in the light of theiraffordability and the urgent need to reduce the fiscaldeficit.

Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con): Will my righthon. Friend meet me and a delegation from Readingborough council to discuss the continued funding ofproposed transport changes that his announcement lastweek suggested might be suspended?

Mr Hammond: The only announcement that I madelast week that affects the Reading scheme was about alocal authority scheme for highway improvements aroundReading station. That scheme will be reviewed followingthe outcome of the spending review, and my hon.Friend will learn the outcome in due course.

Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab): May I genuinely welcomeand congratulate the Secretary of State and the ministerialteam on their new jobs? Good transport can be a driverof economic growth and I ask the Secretary of State tobe a champion for transport, rather than treat hisposition as an application for his next job.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the railnetwork is carrying more passengers and more freightthan at any time since the 1940s, and projectionspredict further growth. That is why we promised anadditional 1,300 carriages by 2014 and we were wellahead of schedule in providing those. In fact, at the last


Transport questions, both Liberal Democrats andConservatives asked us to provide more carriages evenmore quickly. Now that they are in government together,can the Secretary of State tell us how many morecarriages than 1,300 they will provide and how muchsooner than 2014?

Mr Hammond: I am genuinely grateful to the righthon. Gentleman for his congratulations.

The Department’s principal task is to support economicgrowth and the Government’s 2020 carbon reductiontargets, and we have to demonstrate that we can deliverthem in tandem. Approximately half the HLOS––high-leveloutput specification––rolling stock has already beencontracted and will proceed, but no further contractswill be signed during this financial year owing to thedisastrous public finances. When the spending review iscompleted, we will review where we are with the programmeand make a further announcement in due course.

Sadiq Khan: One would have thought that if theSecretary of State was serious about moving peoplefrom road to rail, he would encourage more carriages,so that people would be encouraged in turn to use therail system. He will be aware that the Under-Secretaryof State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes(Norman Baker) is a passionate advocate of reform ofrail fares; in fact, in his last question at a Prime Minister’squestions, he challenged the then Prime Minister tochange the rail fares formula to 1% below inflation. Iam sure that he remains a passionate advocate and isnot simply window dressing, so now that they are hon.Friends, will the Secretary of State confirm how soonhe will announce a change in the rail fare regime andhow much below inflation it will be?

Mr Hammond: It is amazing that the right hon.Gentleman, who was a member of the last Government,appears to come to the Dispatch Box with no recognitionof the deficit we are facing and the financial challengesthat the Government have to deal with in order to clearup the mess that he and his hon. Friends left behind. Weare committed to fair rail fares, but we have to doeverything within the context of the fiscal inheritancethat we have received.

Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con): I urgemy right hon. Friend, when considering how best toexpand rail, to consider branch lines off high-speed raillinks to service some of the commuter towns disfranchisedunder the Beeching review.

Mr Hammond: Although we want to continue toincrease passenger usage of the railways, we have tooperate within a tightly constrained public spendingenvironment. Our first priority must be to maintain andimprove the trunk railway network that we have already.I will consider any proposals for reopening branch lines,but I have grave doubts about whether it is likely to beaffordable in the foreseeable future.

Mr Speaker: Order. I gently point out that we need tomake better progress, so short questions and shortanswers would be appreciated.

Mainline Electrification

7. Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): What plans hehas for the electrification of the mainline railwaybetween Wales and London. [2716]

The Minister of State, Department for Transport(Mrs Theresa Villiers): We support rail electrificationbecause it helps to reduce carbon emissions and cutrunning costs. However, we are in the early stages of thenew Government and Ministers are considering the fullrange of transport policy to ascertain what is affordable.

Kevin Brennan: I welcome the Minister to her postand thank her for her answer. In considering thosematters, does she understand the importance ofelectrification on the line between Wales and London? Iam glad that she did not simply repeat the mantra ofher right hon. Friend, which is becoming as boring as avuvuzela at the World cup—the one-note symphony weare getting from the Government. However, does sheunderstand the importance of this kind of infrastructure?It is not just about the budget deficit, but about thefuture growth of the economy.

Mrs Villiers: I understand the importance of thisissue, including in Wales, but the previous Government,of which he was a member, had 13 years to do this andfailed. Just a few short years ago, the 30-year strategythey published for the railways had virtually no placefor electrification. Then we had a last-minute change ofmind, made at a point in the cycle when, as Labour’soutgoing Chief Secretary made clear, there was verylittle money left. We support electrification—it was inour manifesto and the coalition agreement—and wewill take forward those projects that are affordable inthe light of the deficit left to us by the Government ofwhich the hon. Gentleman was a member.

Roads

8. Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): What priorities hehas set for departmental expenditure on the roadnetwork. [2717]

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr PhilipHammond): I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. Heworked long and hard to win his seat and he thoroughlydeserves the success that he has now enjoyed.

The first priority of this Government must be tacklingthe country’s unsustainable level of debt. Once thespending review is complete and the Department hassettled its budget, we will review all existing schemes,whether road or otherwise, on the basis of the economicbenefits that they deliver.

Robert Halfon: Is the Secretary of State aware thatHarlow has just one entrance to a motorway, whereassimilar towns, such as Welwyn Garden City, have two orthree and Basildon has four? Is he aware that traffic inHarlow is gridlocked and that residents in my constituencyare crying out for an extra junction on the M11? Withthe road review under way, and when finances allow,will he give strong consideration to providing the roadinfrastructure that Harlow so desperately needs?


Mr Speaker: Order. I do apologise, but the questionsare still too long. We are getting mini-essays. I wantshort questions.

Mr Hammond: I can tell my hon. Friend that we willbe happy to consider proposals from local authoritiesand the Highways Agency for improvements, but he willunderstand that they will be affordable only once thedeficit has been eliminated.

Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab): A few moments ago, theSecretary of State said that one of the key priorities wassupporting economic growth. How does suspending thedecision on the Mersey Gateway project help economicgrowth in Merseyside and Cheshire, particularly giventhe support from the Conservative councils in Cheshire?And he should not give us that nonsense about a blackhole in the finances.

Mr Hammond: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that theblack hole in the finances is nonsense, he needs to goback and do a little more homework. It is the mostserious problem facing our country today and the mosturgent challenge for this Government. However, let usbe clear about the Mersey Gateway project. All we havedone is suspend the progress of the scheme until afterthe current spending review is completed. We believethat it would be wrong to encourage or allow localauthorities to incur significant additional expenditureon a large number of projects when some of themclearly may not be able to proceed on the originaltimetable.

Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): Is myright hon. Friend going to treat the A1 as a nationalstrategic road, rather than a regional road, and developplans for full dualling of it when resources allow?

Mr Hammond: Yes.

Mr Speaker: We are grateful to the Secretary of State.

East London Line (Extension)

9. Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab):Whether his Department’s value for money evaluationof the proposed Surrey Canal Road station on the EastLondon line extension has been completed. [2718]

The Minister of State, Department for Transport(Mrs Theresa Villiers): We recognise the importance ofHeathrow as the country’s international hub airport—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has thewrong brief. I may be mistaken—if I am wrong, Iapologise to her—but she is answering a question aboutthe Surrey Canal Road station on the East London line.That is what is of interest to the right hon. Member forLewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock).

Mrs Villiers: I apologise, Mr Speaker.A value for money assessment of the proposed Surrey

Canal Road station was carried out by Transport forLondon and Lewisham council last year. The Departmentfor Transport has some concerns regarding the businesscase. I have asked officials to provide full advice on thematter and expect to make a decision in the near future.

Joan Ruddock: I welcome the right hon. Lady to herposition, and I am grateful for that reply. However, sheneeds to remember that Transport for London hasfound that the proposal more than meets the businesscase that was applicable to all other stations in London,and that it is pivotal to the development of 2,500 newhomes and to the job prospects of the 2.9 millionpeople expected to use the station. Will she meet withme to see how to get the station built now, alongside theconstruction of the railway?

Mrs Villiers: I am happy to meet the right hon. Ladyas soon as possible to discuss this important issue. Shehas fought hard on the campaign, and I am looking intothe proposal with great care. I am discussing it withofficials and, as I have said, I have asked them for extrabriefing. It is important to take into account localviews, TfL’s views and the views of other stakeholders.However, I must also make it clear that we need toassess such programmes carefully for affordability, giventhe state of the public finances and the deficit that wehave inherited from Labour.

Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark)(LD): Does the Minister accept that this issue has across-borough and cross-constituency resonance, andthat there is widespread support for the proposal acrossthe parties? Will she meet all of us who have an interestin it? I hope that we shall be able to persuade her of itsmerits, because we have a very good case.

Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): Just sayyes!

Mrs Villiers: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Excellent! Things are getting better.

Subsidised Bus Services

10. Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central)(Lab): What guidance his Department issues to localauthorities on the provision of subsidised bus services.

[2719]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport(Norman Baker): In 2005, the Department published adocument on its website detailing best practice in theprocess of tendering for subsidised bus services, alongwith examples of specimen conditions for contracts, aspart of its wider guidance to local authorities. Theguidance remains available, and there are currently noplans to update it. The Department’s website also providesguidance on the de minimis rules for tendering.

Chi Onwurah: It was Baroness Thatcher who saidthat if a man finds himself on a bus at the age of 26, heis a failure. I assure the Minister that that is not the casein Newcastle, where the buses are an essential part ofour economy. They are how we get to work. Will heassure us that, under the coalition Government, localauthorities will have the powers to ensure that we haveexcellent bus services.

Norman Baker: We recognise that bus travel is thepredominant form of public transport, and we want toencourage that. We also want to get better value for the


taxpayer and the fare payer from the bus services thatare provided. We also recognise the good work thatmany local authorities do in dealing with bus services,and I particularly want to pay tribute to the Tyne andWear integrated transport authority, which is designinga comprehensive bus network to improve standards ofaccessibility for local residents.

Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab): I welcome the Ministerto his new role; I am sure that he will do an excellentjob. We heard earlier that he had been unsuccessful inpersuading his colleagues to change their views oncarriages and rail fares. Has he had any more luck inchanging their views on quality bus contracts? He willbe aware that local authorities outside London want thesame powers as those in London to choose to enter intoquality bus contracts with bus operators. Local authoritiesaround the country, led by all parties, are in favour ofthat, and so was the Minister before the election. Is hestill in favour of it, and, if so, has he persuaded hiscolleagues to change their minds?

Norman Baker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman forhis kind welcome. He was always considerate and helpfulto me when I was in opposition, and I shall try to beequally helpful to him, now that the position has changed.

The legislation on quality contracts is as it is; it wasset out and passed under the previous Government, andit remains in place. The Competition Commission isundertaking an investigation into the bus market, and itwould be premature for me to make any further commentsuntil it is completed.

Manchester Metrolink (Extensions)

11. Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab):What assessment he has made of the merits of the 3aand 3b extensions to the Manchester Metrolink; and ifhe will make a statement. [2720]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport(Norman Baker): Phases 3a and 3b of the ManchesterMetrolink were approved for funding by the previousGovernment. Construction of phase 3a is under way.Phase 3b has been re-examined following the announcementby the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 May of areview of spending approval granted since 1 Januarythis year.

Andrew Gwynne: In regard to the phase 3b contractfor the Ashton-under-Lyne extension, it is important tonote that substantial amounts of public funding havealready been spent on the route, and significant advanceworks to provide dedicated strengthened central reservesand bridges have now been completed. Studies showthat the East Manchester line will be commerciallyviable only if it goes all the way through to Ashton. Willthe Minister confirm that all those issues will be factoredinto the review and that they will be carefully consideredbefore a decision is made?

Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman makes a numberof pertinent points, and I understand the thrust of hisargument and the strength of his case. I cannot give hima specific assurance at this precise moment, but I suggestthat he will be interested to hear the statement that isshortly to be made from the Treasury Bench.

Speed Cameras

12. Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con): What his plansare for the future funding of new fixed speed cameras;and if he will make a statement. [2721]

15. Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con): What hisDepartment’s plans are for the future funding of fixedspeed cameras; and if he will make a statement. [2724]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport(Mike Penning): With permission, Mr Speaker, I willanswer questions 12 and 15 together. The Governmentwill not provide—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am happy to allow the questionsto be taken together, but this is the first that I haveheard of it. The normal courtesy is that the Governmentnotify me of this in advance. I shall let the Minister offon this occasion, but I do not want to see a repeatperformance.

Mike Penning: I had been informed that these questionshad been grouped, and I apologise to you if I wasimpertinent, Mr Speaker.

The Government will not provide any more money tolocal authorities for new fixed speed cameras. If authoritieswant to put up new fixed cameras, they are free to do sousing their own resources, but we strongly encouragethem to use other methods and effective safety measures.

Gareth Johnson: I am grateful for that reassurance.Does the Minister agree that when speed cameras areused more as a money-raising mechanism than as aroad-safety measure, confidence in them will continueto fall?

Mike Penning: There are now three times as manyspeed cameras in this country as there were in 2000, andthe public must be confident that speed cameras arethere for road safety, not as a cash cow. Under thisGovernment, they will be.

Mr Speaker: I call Richard Harrington. It appearsthat not only was I unaware of the grouping of questions12 and 15, but the hon. Member for Watford (RichardHarrington), whom the grouping directly affects, wasalso unaware of it, as he is not present.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab): Doesthe Minister not accept that the very good progressmade in recent years in reducing the number of deathsand injuries on our roads is partly due to speed cameras,and that the income generated has been less than themoney spent by the Government on speed cameras?Will he consider the introduction of more average-timedistance speed cameras and making the existing speedcameras less conspicuous?

Mike Penning: The hon. Gentleman, a Minister in theprevious Government and a former firefighter, is wellaware of how speed cameras can protect the public. Asa former firefighter myself, I know that speed has beenpart of the reason for many road traffic accidents, butnot the sole reason for them. The growth of speedcameras has been so great that the public are concerned


about whether they are there for safety or to raisemoney for the Treasury. The Government will not putany more money in; if local authorities want to do so,that is okay. Intermittent and average speed cameras arein use, particularly on motorways, and are an excellentway of easing congestion on our motorways.

Topical Questions

T1. [2731] Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): If he willmake a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr PhilipHammond): The Government’s first priority is reducingthe budget deficit left us by the previous Administration,and I am determined that the Department for Transportshould play its full part in that process. Against thatbackdrop, my Department is focused on building amodern and sustainable transport system that willcontribute both to future economic growth and to theachievement of the Government’s climate change targets.

Fiona Mactaggart: When does the Secretary of Stateexpect to receive Lord Mawhinney’s report on Heathrowhigh-speed rail access? When he receives it, will heconsult Slough, whose prosperity depends completelyon its proximity to Heathrow?

Mr Hammond: I have asked Lord Mawhinney to letus have his preliminary conclusions by the end of July,and I will be happy to consult the hon. Lady’s localauthority once I have received that report from him.

T3. [2733] Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and OldSouthwark) (LD): As Ministers work out how best totransfer travel from plane to train, where that ispossible, will they prioritise talks with Europeancolleagues to make sure that the European rail networkworks and with colleagues in this country to make surethat high-speed rail will allow people to go through thecapital without having to change trains?

Mr Hammond: I thank my hon. Friend, who makes avery important point. Now that we have made it clearthat there will be no third runway at Heathrow airport,modal shift from air to rail becomes crucially important,including for journeys through to Europe. I have askedHS2 Ltd to look at the options and the costs of providinga direct link from the proposed HS2 to the existinghigh-speed rail network to the Channel tunnel.

T2. [2732] Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab): Icannot stress enough the importance of the Tyne andWear metro to the people of the north-east—in respectof the economy, the environment and the generalquality of life. The previous Government pledged£350 million to upgrade the scheme, so will theMinister acknowledge the importance of the Tyne andWear metro and tell us whether he is going to honourthat pledge?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport(Norman Baker): I do acknowledge the importance ofthe Tyne and Wear metro, just as I acknowledge thedifficult financial position the Government are in. Isuggest that the hon. Gentleman wait for the Treasurystatement later this morning.

Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con): My constituentsdo not want the pollution that additional runways atHeathrow, Stansted and Gatwick would entail, but theydo want shorter queues, fewer delays and better service.Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are plenty ofways of achieving that through improving operations atthose airports?

The Minister of State, Department for Transport(Mrs Theresa Villiers): I very much agree with my hon.Friend. That is why the Secretary of State has establisheda taskforce to look into the ways we can make good onour promise to make Heathrow better. We have rejecteda third runway because of the huge environmentaldamage it would cause, but there is more we can do toimprove the regulatory structure and we are bringingforward legislation on that to incentivise the airports tofocus on the quality of service for passengers. We needto keep security measures under review so that passengersare kept safe and we can mitigate the hassle that thosemeasures cause. We need to work with the stakeholdersand the airlines to get the right solution to integratehigh-speed rail with Heathrow, to provide a viable alternativeto having many short-haul flights and to relieveovercrowding problems at the airport.

T5. [2737] John Robertson (Glasgow North West)(Lab): What is happening about the sell-off of BAA, itsmonopoly—particularly north of the border—and theimposition on passengers, especially in Glasgow, ofcharges for being picked up after their holiday flightsand the requirement to walk for an exorbitant distance?It is an absolute disgrace, and it is time that suchcompanies were brought to book and made tocompete.

Mrs Villiers: The hon. Gentleman is right to drawattention to a consumer issue which, I know, greatlyconcerns his constituents and many other users of thatairport. It is just the type of issue that we hope our newairport regulation Bill will address. We intend to giveairports stronger incentives to look after and respondto their customers.

The proceedings of the Competition Commission inrelation to the ownership of various airports around thecountry are a matter for the commission, but we haveoften highlighted the benefits that diversity of ownershipin the United Kingdom airport sector can yield tocustomers.

Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con): Is theMinister aware that Arriva buses recently introduced acompletely new network and timetable in Milton Keynes?At a public meeting last Friday many of my constituents,especially pensioners, told me that they had been greatlyinconvenienced by the changes, and that they had notbeen properly consulted. Will the Minister do all that hecan to ensure that operators consult their passengersproperly before introducing such radical changes?

Norman Baker: My hon. Friend makes a good point.We ought to ensure that bus companies work with thegrain of local people’s interests. We are considering theperiod within which bus companies must give notificationof new timetables.


Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North)(Lab): Will the Minister reassure us that in consideringany spending review relating to funds for the Tyne andWear metro, he will take account of the need to preservean existing structure which—unlike many other capitalprojects—is more than 30 years old, desperately requiresreinvigoration, and is vital to the community in Newcastleand throughout the north-east?

Norman Baker: As I said a moment ago to the hon.Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn), we understand theimportance of the Tyne and Wear metro to the area. Isuggest that the hon. Lady wait for the statement thatthe Chief Secretary to the Treasury will make later thismorning.

Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): MayI urge the Secretary of State to accept the recommendationsof the North review and, as a matter of urgency, presentproposals for a reduction in the drink-drive limit from80 to 50 mg?

Mr Philip Hammond: Sir Peter North has delivered acomprehensive report, containing 51 recommendations,on issues relating to driving under the influence ofdrink or drugs. The Government will consult otherDepartments on the implications of the recommendations,and we will announce our position in due course.

Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab): In April, whenJarvis was placed in administration, Network Rail cancelledmillions of pounds of track renewal contracts on theeast coast main line. We have recently been reminded ofthe Potters Bar rail accident. That track renewal workmust go ahead. Will the Minister arrange for me tomeet Iain Coucher—along with Members representingother constituencies where many workers have beenmade redundant as a result of the cuts—so that we candiscuss with him the timetable for reinstating the trackrenewal contracts with other companies?

Mr Hammond: The Office of Rail Regulation isresponsible for ensuring that the railway is managedsafely, and that works that are required for its safety goahead. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware thatshortly before Question Time, Network Rail announcedthat Iain Coucher would be stepping down from hisrole. For that reason it would not be practical for me toarrange a meeting with him, but I should be happy totry to facilitate a meeting with another appropriaterepresentative of Network Rail.

Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con): Will theSecretary of State confirm that he will protect runwayalternation at Heathrow?

Mrs Villiers: I can give that confirmation. We supportthe current protections of runway alternation. We defeatedLabour’s proposals for mixed mode when we were inopposition, and we will not revive them now that we arein government.

Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab): Doesthe new, post-bureaucratic age of transparency extendto a commitment to publish bus and rail timetables indigital format for open public reuse?

Mrs Villiers: We are looking at that issue at themoment. I think there are considerable benefits to begained from a more open approach to timetabling, andI would be delighted to have a discussion with the hon.Gentleman if he wants to give me further indications ofhis ideas on this, so that we can ensure we get themaximum benefits for passengers.

Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): Vehicle exciseduty remains unpaid on 2 million vehicles, 80% ofwhich are uninsured and 70% of which are owned bypeople with criminal convictions. Given that these vehicleskill 160 people a year and injure 23,000, may we have acrackdown?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport(Mike Penning): My hon. Friend raises a very importantpoint, but vehicle recognition technology is now movingforward. I have recently been in police vehicles where wehave been able to pick up where other vehicles have nothad MOTs and insurance, and I am asking the Associationof Chief Police Officers lead on this, whom I metyesterday, to clamp down as hard as possible.

Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab): Brake, the road safetycharity, has said that cutting Government funding forspeed cameras will lead to blood on our roads. Why isthe Minister cutting the funding for them, given thatthey would raise revenue during the forthcoming age ofausterity, and how is Wakefield council supposed to putnew ones in when it has just had a £1 million cut to itsroad safety grant?

Mike Penning: Local authorities have the powers tospend the money as they wish, and if they wish to spendit on more speed cameras that is entirely within theirremit. There are other ways in which lives can be saved.I have looked at what Brake says, but I disagree. Suchcameras should not be a cash cow. This should not bedetermined by issues to do with raising tax. It should beabout safety; that is the important thing.

Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con):May I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary ofState to his new position? Does he agree with me inprinciple that those people whose homes have beenblighted by Labour’s preferred route for high-speed railshould be fully compensated, rather than at the 85% ofvalue as proposed by Labour?

Mr Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friendfor her question. One of the first decisions I took in mynew post was to extend the consultation on the exceptionalhardship scheme. That consultation closes today andwe will publish our conclusions in due course.

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—Parliamentary Representation

1. Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab):What discussions she has had with the Deputy PrimeMinister on constitutional reforms to increase therepresentation of women and ethnic minorities inParliament. [2700]


The Secretary of State for the Home Department andMinister for Women and Equalities (Mrs Theresa May):With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to notify theHouse that, given the cross-cutting nature of the womenand equalities agenda, I may be joined on the FrontBench in future questions not only by the Minister forEqualities, but also by the Minister with responsibilityfor race equality, the Under-Secretary of State forCommunities and Local Government, the hon. Memberfor Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), who is present in theChamber today, and by the Minister with responsibilityfor disabled people, the Under-Secretary of State forWork and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member forBasingstoke (Maria Miller) and the Minister withresponsibility for pensions, the Minister of State,Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Memberfor Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), in order to allowMembers to receive answers from the Minister withresponsibility for the issue under discussion so that wecan look at the wider equalities agenda.

On the question, I welcome the hon. Member forWolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) to theHouse, and I am pleased to say that following the recentgeneral election there are now more women and blackand minority ethnic Members of Parliament in theHouse. I am particularly delighted that across the governingparties there are now 56 women MPs and 11 MPs froman ethnic minority background, but we do need to domore, and I will be talking to the Deputy Prime Ministerto ensure that this issue is a matter of concern when welook at our constitutional reform agenda.

Emma Reynolds: I am proud to be one of the 81 Labourwomen MPs in the House, and it is clear that my partyhas done more than any other to increase the representationof women and ethnic minorities in this House, butprogress is far too slow still. As part of the apparentlyfar-reaching constitutional reform package, what willthe Government do to make sure this House reflects thepeople we serve?

Mrs May: As my right hon. Friend the Deputy PrimeMinister made clear in his speech of 19 May, ouragenda for constitutional and political reform will be apower revolution because it will be a fundamentalresettlement of the relationship between the state andthe citizen, but it would be a mistake for anybody toassume that constitutional reform in itself can bringabout an increased diversity of representation in thisHouse. The first responsibility for ensuring diversity ofrepresentation rests with political parties, and with politicalparties taking action to ensure we have a greater diversityof candidates, and I am very proud to have been involvedin the action that the Conservative party took to ensurewe have a much greater diversity of Members of Parliamenton our Benches.

Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): The Ministeris absolutely right to say that constitutional reform isnot the only way to improve representation within thisHouse. Many suggestions were put forward in the excellentSpeaker’s Conference report, which this House consideredin the last Parliament, such as a democracy diversityfund to help candidates to stand for election wherethere might otherwise be barriers, and reforms to thisHouse. Will she be taking forward some of therecommendations in the Speaker’s Conference report?

Mrs May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for herquestion and I pay tribute to her for the role that sheplayed in the Speaker’s Conference and to the workthat was done by the Speaker’s Conference. As she willbe aware, the last Government responded to the reportand we responded to it when we were in opposition. Wewill now consider how to take forward some of theproposals made by the Speaker’s Conference—[Interruption.] Opposition Members should have a littlepatience. They are shouting “What?” and I am justabout to tell them, if they wait. We have made an earlycommitment as part of our coalition agreement tointroduce extra support, particularly for disabled peoplewho want to become MPs, councillors or other electedrepresentatives.

Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): The Home Secretaryis absolutely right that there are now more Membersfrom ethnic minorities in the House of Commons—26—than at any time in the history of this country. Sadly, theonly party that does not have any ethnic minority MPsis, of course, the Liberal Democrats. The leader of theLiberal Democrats supported my private Member’s Billto allow all-ethnic minority shortlists. Would the HomeSecretary support that Bill if I was to introduce it to theHouse? She is right—it is up to the political parties tomake the changes.

Mrs May: In a sense, I think that the right hon.Gentleman has slightly contradicted himself by suggestingthat legislation is the way forward rather than theencouragement of political parties. I am pleased that aspart of the 26, we have 11 Conservative Members ofParliament from black and minority ethnic backgrounds,which is a significant increase at the last election. It isright that all political parties need to do more on thisissue and that all political parties need to consider theprocesses that they are using to select their candidates.There is a role for us all in trying to go out there toensure that people in black and minority ethnic communitiessee this place as somewhere that is for them, so that theywant to come and represent constituencies in this House.That is a job that we can all do.

Parental Leave

2. Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): Whatrecent discussions she has had on plans to reformarrangements for parental leave; and if she will make astatement. [2701]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department andMinister for Women and Equalities (Mrs Theresa May):I have had several discussions with Cabinet colleaguesand these will continue. We are committed to encouragingthe involvement of both parents from the earliest stagesof pregnancy, including the promotion of a system offlexible parental leave. Indeed, as we speak my righthon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is making aspeech on families and family policy in which he willconfirm this commitment.

Julian Smith: May I urge my right hon. Friend toconsider the needs of and challenges faced by smallbusiness employers as well as employees as she developsthis legislation?

Mrs May: I can confirm that we will do that. I amconscious that it is important that we ensure that businessis consulted when we are introducing such changes to


ensure that we can introduce them in as bureaucraticallyand administratively light a way as possible so that theimpact on small businesses is not too great. My righthon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will announcethis morning that the childhood and families taskforcethat he is setting up will consider this matter andconsult on how to put it into place.

Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): Has theHome Secretary had a chance to read the Prime Minister’sexcellent article in the Financial Times in which he saysthat the priority for Europe must be full equality in theworkplace. I welcome that. Is the Cabinet a workplaceand when will half of it consist of women?

Mrs May: That was a somewhat disappointing questionfrom the right hon. Gentleman. As he will know, theproportion of women who are full members of the Cabinetunder the coalition Government is exactly the same asthe proportion of women who were full members of theCabinet under the Labour Government.

Violence Against Women

3. Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con): What stepsthe Government are taking to tackle violence againstwomen. [2702]

6. Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con): What steps theGovernment are taking to tackle violence againstwomen. [2705]

The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone): Iwelcome the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) tohis place. Violence against women and girls remainsprevalent in our society. This is unacceptable and across-Government strategy is the best way to addressthis. I look forward to discussing with colleagues acrossGovernment how we will take forward our approach inthis area.

Mr Jones: I thank the Minister for that answer.During the previous football World cup in 2006, therewas a 30% rise in domestic violence on the days thatEngland played. What assurances can my hon. Friendprovide the House that women will be protected, especiallyduring the current tournament?

Lynne Featherstone: The Home Secretary recentlystated that such violence is not acceptable under anycircumstances, and even the World cup does not giveperpetrators the slightest excuse to be violent. TheAssociation of Chief Police Officers wrote to all policeforces in May to advise them that they should be awareof that and of the possibility of violence during theWorld cup. Forces were asked to consider what measuresthey could implement, and a range of recommendationswere taken forward, including visiting the 10 most likelyoffenders from previous experience.

Andrew Stephenson: Does my hon. Friend recognisethe advantages of taking a coherent, cross-departmentalapproach to tackling violence against women, particularlyin relation to forced marriages?

Lynne Featherstone: Yes, we do recognise that. Violenceagainst women cannot be dealt with by one Departmentalone, as it cuts across the whole of government. Onforced marriage, we all supported the original ForcedMarriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007, which was brought

forward by my noble Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill.We will do all we can to work cross-departmentally tomake sure that we attack forced marriage, which isunacceptable.

Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab): Rape is an act ofviolence against both women and men, and for bothwomen and men who are victims of rape, it is often theirlack of confidence in coming forward that preventspeople being brought to justice. What are the implicationsof the proposals to extend anonymity to defendants inrape trials on the confidence of male and female victimsin coming forward?

Lynne Featherstone: Obviously, the conviction rate inthis country is not good enough and needs to be improved,and the last thing that we want is for fewer victims tocome forward, but we have not yet seen compellingevidence that offering anonymity to defendants wouldreduce those reporting rates. The attitude that the victimis somehow responsible is prevalent in this country, andthat is something that we will be looking at. I assure theright hon. Lady that we will be looking at all theoptions in terms of addressing this issue and debating itin the House.

Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford)(Lab): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hornsey andWood Green (Lynne Featherstone) on her appointmentas the Minister for Equalities, and I congratulate theHome Secretary on hers as the Minister for Women andEqualities. The Opposition will be very keen to workwith them on areas in which we can help to supportwomen and to promote equalities.

I am sorry that the Home Secretary did not answerthis question, as she will be aware of the extent ofconcern about the Government’s proposals on rape.Will she therefore write to me in reply, in addition to herhon. Friend’s response? I wrote to the Home Secretaryon 27 May, in her capacity as the Minister for Womenand Equalities, about the Government’s proposal tointroduce anonymity for rape defendants. I received areply from her officials making it clear that this was notseen as her responsibility and that it was being sentinstead to the Ministry of Justice. I urge her to rethinkthat approach because she will know, as the Minister forWomen and Equalities and as Home Secretary, thataccording to the British crime survey, 93% of rapevictims are women. Singling out rape uniquely as acrime for which defendants need greater protectionagainst false allegations sends strong and troublingsignals about the way that women should be treated inthe justice system. I urge her to reconsider this issue andto say whether she thinks it is right for defendants inrape trials to be treated uniquely differently from defendantsin other serious crimes.

Lynne Featherstone: I assure the right hon. Lady thatwe definitely see this as an issue for women and equalities,albeit that it resides ultimately in the Ministry of Justicelegislatively, and that the Home Secretary will contacther directly regarding her questions.

Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): Does the Ministeraccept that a large number of victims of domesticviolence are men? Given that she is a Minister in theGovernment Equalities Office, will she confirm that theGovernment treat domestic violence against men just asseriously as domestic violence against women?


Lynne Featherstone: I thank my hon. Friend for hishelpful contribution. I am, indeed, the Minister forEqualities, and both men and women are included inthat. Some 4% of men are victims of domestic violence,and given that the figure for women is 6%, those figuresare not so disparate.

Science and Technology

4. Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab):If she will take steps to increase the proportion ofpeople entering careers in science and technology whoare women. [2703]

The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone): Weare absolutely committed to working with teachers andcareers advisers to encourage more young women toenter careers in science, engineering and technology,and to supporting British business to increase opportunitiesfor professional women in this sector. The science andtechnology sector is critical to the UK economy, andwomen have an enormous contribution to make.

Chi Onwurah: I thank the Minister for her reply.When I entered Imperial college to study engineering,the proportion of women in engineering was about12%. More than 25 years later, that proportion is almostexactly the same. Does the Minister agree that thatrepresents a huge failure in the science and engineeringestablishment of this country and that now, when weneed to rebalance our economy towards engineeringand science, urgent measures are required?

Lynne Featherstone: Yes, I agree with the hon. Lady,who is an excellent role model in her field, and I shouldbe happy to talk with her if she has ideas to share withme. It is important that we take this forward. Manycompanies have already taken action to increase thenumbers of women in their work force, but we areclearly not moving fast enough. British Gas has beenquite good. It has doubled its work force of womenengineers by recruiting women and retraining them. Wehave to move further and we have to move faster.

Flexible Working

5. Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con): What recentassessment she has made of the effects of flexibleworking arrangements on gender equality in theworkplace. [2704]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department andMinister for Women and Equalities (Mrs Theresa May):I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Flexibleworking is positive for businesses because it helps themkeep valued members of staff. The evidence is clear thatflexible working arrangements benefit women, by helpingthem to balance their caring responsibilities. The coalitionGovernment are united on extending the right to requestflexible working; indeed, we have a commitment to doso in the coalition agreement. We will launch a consultationwith business at the earliest opportunity.

Karen Lumley: Will my right hon. Friend commenton what wider social benefits the Government believewill result from the extension of flexible working rights?

Mrs May: I am happy to do so, although we shouldmake more of the fact that there are considerable benefitsto businesses in providing flexible working, includingkeeping valued members of staff, attracting members ofstaff and being able to dip into the widest possible poolof talent. There are enormous social benefits for familieswhen both women and men can better balance theirhome and work responsibilities through flexible workingarrangements. We have seen that already. There areenormous benefits for children when parents are able tospend more time with them.

Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab): Will the Ministerconsider looking at the experience of countries such asNorway and Sweden where, as part of promoting greaterflexibility and general equality, the Governments haveintroduced a whole month of parental leave that fathershave to take. This has increased the number of mentaking parental leave and helped promote greater equalityin the workplace. Will she consider that as the Governmentlook at their reform of parental leave?

Mrs May: I welcome the hon. Lady to the House.The proposals that we put forward in Opposition onflexible parental leave—we are now looking at how wetake those forward and improve the arrangements forparents and maternity leave—gave a better offer to menthan the one month’s paternity leave that she quotesfrom Norway. It enabled couples to decide who wouldtake the leave that was available and stay at home withthe baby after it was born. So I think we can offerfathers and mothers a better opportunity than the hon.Lady suggests.


Legal Aid Payments

11.33 am

Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark)(LD) (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of Statefor Justice if he will make a statement on the consequencesof the timing of legal aid payments to the charityRefugee and Migrant Justice.

The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice(Mr Kenneth Clarke): Refugee and Migrant Justice enteredinto administration earlier this week. It wrote to me amonth ago warning me of the risk, and has since maderequests for substantial assistance from public funds.The organisation was one of many that provide legaladvice and representation to individuals on asylum andimmigration matters funded by legal aid. The LegalServices Commission is confident that there is widespreadprovision of legal advice in this area and that overallcapacity will not be affected by the closure of Refugeeand Migrant Justice. More than 250 offices nationallyare currently providing this type of service.

It may help if I explain the background to thisunfortunate situation. The Legal Services Commissionhas worked closely with Refugee and Migrant Justicefor the last few years to help the organisation to makethe change to a system of payment based on units ofwork, the graduated fees scheme. As a result, Refugeeand Migrant Justice has received substantial support—overand above the support given to not-for-profit and otherorganisations—to help it transfer to the current paymentsystem.

However, it is crucial that the Government achievevalue for public money. The fixed fee system introducedthree years ago by the last Government is already beingsuccessfully used by the vast majority of not-for-profitorganisations in this area of law. As other organisationshave successfully made the transition, it is only reasonableto expect Refugee and Migrant Justice to do the same.

It has been suggested, and is implied in the hon.Gentleman’s question, that under this system paymentsto Refugee and Migrant Justice have been delayed. It isnot a question of any late payments. Refugee andMigrant Justice was paid what was due. However, it didnot make the efficiency savings that other providersmade.

There is significant long-term interest in the workfrom other providers, both not-for-profit organisationsand private solicitor firms. The Legal Services Commissionis currently running a tender round for new contractsfor immigration and asylum services from October 2010.There has been an increase in the number of officesapplying to do the work. Providers have also bid tohandle more than double the amount of cases currentlyavailable. It would be wrong to divert legal aid funds toone of the bidders in the middle of the bidding process.

In my opinion, given this unfortunate situation, thehighest priority must be the vulnerable clients of Refugeeand Migrant Justice. Now that the organisation has leftthe market, the Legal Services Commission will workwith it and other providers to seek to minimise disruptionand ensure that clients continue to receive a service. Ihave checked this morning and I can assure the Housethat the LSC is working closely with the administratorsto ensure that any disruption to clients is minimised.

Even today, LSC staff have prioritised the approximately20 clients of Refugee and Migrant Justice who havecourt appearances.

The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon.Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly),will ensure that LSC staff continue to prioritise thatarea. He and I agree that the main task now is to ensurethat the interests of that vulnerable group are properlyprotected and that no one is left without the legalassistance they require.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Secretary of Statefor his full and careful response. On behalf of colleagueswho have huge numbers of asylum and immigrationcases involving people who use those services, may I saythat I hope he appreciates the importance of the subjectto them and to our constituents?

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman acceptthat currently—so I am advised—13,000 clients arebeing looked after by Refugee and Migrant Justice,including nearly 1,000 children, who are of course veryvulnerable? Does he accept, too, that the reason for thefinancial problem is the change in the payment system?Although there has been a reduction in income becausethe payment system has changed, Refugee and MigrantJustice has also reduced its costs by the same amount—Iam advised that it is by 40%—and is now being paid inarrears rather than up front, a system that the LawSociety and immigration law practitioners have said isunsustainable. I should be grateful if, in time, the Secretaryof State would discuss with those organisations how wemight improve the system.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give anassurance that he or his hon. Friend will make sure thatall clients who have been the responsibility of theorganisation are given the assurance that their cases willbe fully looked after in the immediate days ahead? Arethere any other charities in the field with the same sortof problem? If so, there needs to be some continuingand widened support. Will he or our hon. Friend bewilling to meet those of us with a direct interest, and theorganisations where appropriate, to make sure thatthere is a stable and secure footing in the years andmonths ahead for this most important legally aidedwork?

Mr Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Member. Certainlythe problem arose as a result of the change to thegraduated fees scheme in 2007, but I do not accept thatthe failure was necessarily caused by that. Every otherorganisation, including the other not-for-profitorganisations, has coped with this. I do not criticise the2007 decision, but it was designed to improve the efficiencyof the use of public funds in providing large amounts ofmoney to give legal aid to those making asylum claimsor facing threats of deportation, or whatever. As far as Iam aware, this is the only organisation that proved inthe end unable to manage its affairs and its finances toavoid the demise that has occurred.

I know that the system is not popular; I know that theLaw Society does not like it, but in these difficult times Iam not going to go back on it, because it does providevalue for money. We have just invited tenders under thesystem, and the number of people who want to provideservices in this area has actually gone up.

1023 102417 JUNE 2010 Legal Aid Payments

Mr Speaker: Order. May I ask the Secretary of Stateto turn to address the House? I want to hear hismellifluous tones.

Mr Clarke: Amongst many others, Mr. Speaker, so Iwill certainly address the House.

I agree with the hon. Member that the main problemnow is the vulnerable clients up and down the country.We think that there is a wind-off process going on;Refugee and Migrant Justice is still, of course, entitledto be paid for the work going on, but I have asked theLegal Services Commission to pay very strong attentionto that. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will begiving more attention to that today, to make sure thatthere is no problem occurring. Certainly one of us willmeet the hon. Member and other interested Members,although we may have to take advice on whether we canproperly meet them in the middle of the bidding process.This is complicated by the fact that we were in themiddle of a bidding contest, which means that onecannot suddenly divert lots of money to one of thebidders.

Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab): May I first apologiseon behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member forBlackburn (Mr Straw), who is out of London today butwho takes an interest in these matters generally?

This is a major first: we have the deputy leader of oneof the governing parties challenging his own Governmenton the Floor of the House. I look forward to more ofthat in the future from the Liberal Democrats.

The policy of returning people under 18 years old tosafe places in countries such as Afghanistan wasintroduced by my right hon. Friend the Member forKingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson)when he was Home Secretary, and we support it, but itwas introduced on the basis of ensuring that there wasfair legal representation, of quality, for those who werepotentially being deported. Will the Lord Chancellortake steps today to assess, as I think he has already, theviability of Refugee and Migrant Justice, and ensurethat this is not just a cash-flow problem? If it is acash-flow problem, will he ensure that he examines it asa matter of urgency?

Will the Lord Chancellor also meet his right hon.Friend the Home Secretary to look at the issues of jointtendering? I understand that there is tendering for thistype of service from both Departments, and I thinkthere needs to be some consideration of that. Will heparticularly look at the points made by the hon. Memberfor Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) inrelation to the client group who are now potentially leftwithout legal representation, so that we ensure that theyreceive proper representation of quality and are notforced to undertake representation with, potentially,providers who are not giving the level of service that wewould expect?

Finally, in the longer term, will the Lord Chancellorlook at the Legal Services Commission as a whole? Onething that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburnwished to do was to look at providing for that organisationto become an Executive agency as a matter of urgency.We noticed that that was not included in the GraciousSpeech; had our party secured government, it wouldhave been. I should be grateful if, in the longer term, theLord Chancellor looked at those issues for the House.

Mr Clarke: First, I doubt that my hon. Friend theMember for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (SimonHughes) was asking a particularly aggressive question;he was rightly seeking some more information about aworrying situation, and I do not think the two of usactually disagreed. In any event, coalition governmentshould give us—certainly those of us in the House notbound by collective responsibility—the opportunity togive up the fatuous media convention that every memberof every party automatically agrees with every othermember of the same party on each and every issue,which the public have never believed anyway.

To return to the more serious question, the organisationis now in administration, so whether it is even remotelypossible to rescue its finances is properly a question forthe administrators, not for us. It appears to have gotinto very serious trouble because, over the past month, itasked for large sums to be paid from the legal aid fundfor things such as rent. I have already stressed—I acceptthat the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) wasmaking the same point as my hon. Friend the Memberfor Bermondsey and Old Southwark—that we mustlook at the client group and ensure that there is nohiatus in the representation of children and others whowere looking to the body, but I think that that can bedone.

We rather supported the previous Government’sindications that the LSC should be examined and thatconsideration should be given to making it an agency,because we must be clear about where policy making isproceeding in the area. I assure the right hon. Gentlemanthat that is actively in hand because we have to facedifficult issues under the legal aid heading. The matterdid not make the Queen’s Speech because importantthough it is to him, me and many others who look forproper representation in our courts, it was a bit toodetailed.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I appeal to Members forshort questions and short answers? I remind the Housethat we have business questions to follow, as well as twofurther statements and a heavily subscribed debate.

Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): I was extremelydisappointed by the statement. Complacency seemed tobe there; the good samaritan was certainly not. Onbehalf of those who worked out of the Ipswich office,and in the absence of any other east of England Memberwishing to speak, may I ask the Secretary of State toconfirm that Members of Parliament who representpredominantly urban seats will find that their workload increases as a consequence of the situation?

Mr Clarke: With the greatest respect, we face a lot ofdemands on legal aid. Public money should be used toprovide individuals with the legal representation theyrequire, but we cannot suddenly start diverting hugesums out of the legal aid budget to bail out a voluntarybody that got itself into a financial mess because it didnot make the adjustments for the 2007 system thateveryone else succeeded in making. I underline thepoint that plenty of people—both not-for-profit bodiesand professionals—want to provide such services andthat an increasing number are trying to get into themarket. We are ensuring that no one is left without therepresentation they require.

1025 102617 JUNE 2010Legal Aid Payments Legal Aid Payments

Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): Some of us on theLabour Benches did not support the previous Government’scuts to legal aid in this area because, as representativesof inner-city areas, we realised that there were fewspecialist immigration solicitors. Will the Lord Chancellorask the LSC to consider an emergency franchising ofthose firms that have expertise so that the casework maybe dealt with? The problem is the casework that is notbeing done by RMJ, so how do we help people now?

Mr Clarke: We will not go back on the graduated feesscheme. It might well be that the previous Governmentwill not have been the only one who had to examinewhat could be done to improve the efficiency of thelegal aid scheme and to address its costs, although Irealise that that will not be all together popular.

There are a lot of specialist firms, although therecould no doubt be more. The number of firms biddinghas gone up in the present contract round, with330 organisations bidding for twice the amount of workavailable. However, I will ask the LSC to considerwhether something like the right hon. Gentleman’s proposalmight be required in particular cities or areas.

Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con): I think thatpart of the problem is that this is not an isolatedsituation. One of my constituents is owed £11,000 fromthe past financial year by the LSC. Yesterday, I receivedan e-mail from the policy consultant of NAGALRO,the professional association for family court advisersand independent social work practitioners, to say thatsome of its workers are owed more than £15,000 fromthe previous year—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I gently say to the hon.Gentleman—he is a new Member and these things taketime—that an urgent question of this kind is narrowlyfocused on a particular organisation operating in agiven area and that questions and answers must beconfined to that? We have heard the hon. Gentleman,and I call the Secretary of State to make a brief reply.

Mr Clarke: We have inherited a few problems in thisarea, and we are reviewing policy, so I will take onboard the very helpful comments of my hon. Friend theMember for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley).

Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): I think theright hon. and learned Gentleman is confusing quantitywith quality when it comes to legal advice on asylumand immigration. Just because there are lots of peoplecoming forward to provide it, it does not mean to saythat they are providing good services. Every day in myconstituency work I see people who are not gettinggood advice. Does he agree that it is a false economy forpeople to go to firms that will not provide them with theservice they need? It just means that they then gothrough the appeals process and make furtherrepresentations, and that clogs up the system. We shouldfocus on getting reputable organisations, such as theone in question, up and running and providing theservices that people need.

Mr Clarke: The contract operation is based on bothquality and quantity. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretaryand I will certainly ensure that the Legal ServicesCommission follows through on the fact that there are

meant to be quality standards; it is not just a matter ofmaking bids for the work. However, we cannot interveneand take money out of the legal aid fund to rescue onevoluntary body. That body is briefing everybody throughvery extensive public relations activity: archbishops arewriting to me, and everybody seems to be informed thatthe body has gone broke, but someone is still producinga great deal of campaigning material on its behalf. Itdoes very valuable work, but it is no good divertingmoney from the fund to it because it is the only one thathas gone bust.

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): What this high-qualitybody has done is highlight a problem that is not restrictedto it. In my constituency, which has high immigrationadvice need, there is no LSC-funded adviser. Will theSecretary of State bring together those Members whohave a large number of such cases to discuss with himwhether there are better ways of funding immigrationadvice in our constituencies?

Mr Clarke: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I will be only too happy to meet theMembers of Parliament particularly affected by theissue. We will have to take advice on whether we will besubject to any kind of legal review if we do that in themiddle of the bidding process but, subject to that, wewould welcome advice from Members who have particularlylarge numbers of such cases to deal with, because wewill have to look at the whole provision of legal aid inthis and other areas.

Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): The right hon.and learned Gentleman has made much of the fact thatthis is the only voluntary body that has found itself insuch difficulties. Does he recognise the volume ofimmigration and asylum work that has been done andthat has to be done? He suggests that other comparablebodies have not found themselves in such a situation;can he name some of those that particularly relate toimmigration and asylum?

Mr Clarke: The trust that folded had a 7% marketshare. It was, of course, part of the old advisory service,which was split up some time ago. The other half of theold advisory service is to get a much bigger marketshare—over 20%. We are talking about a policy of thelast Government, and one with which I do not disagree.The graduated fee scheme was introduced in order toget better value for money out of the legal aid scheme,and everybody had to adjust to it. So far as I am aware,the body is the only one that is in great financialdifficulties. In a way, it would have been very awkwardfor us if it folded after we had awarded the contracts.We would have been in a mess if we had discovered thatwe had awarded a contract to a financially insecureorganisation that went down once we were relying on itto do the work. As far as I am aware, everyone else whois bidding is, I hope, in a sound financial state.

Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab): I accept theSecretary of State’s calm approach, and his objective oflooking after customers, but I wonder about the accuracyof that. In Leeds, vulnerable people have great difficultygetting representation. We are talking about matters oflife and death to those individuals. Will he spell out howhe will assure them and this Chamber that no one will

1027 102817 JUNE 2010Legal Aid Payments Legal Aid Payments

go forward without proper representation? In Leedsthere is real difficulty, even with the organisation working,to meet the need in the market. How will pulling thisfirm out of the market help those people to getrepresentation?

Mr Clarke: The LSC tells us that it has full cover forthe work. It made a special intervention in 22 cases inwhich there were court appearances today to make surethat there was representation. I have no reason to doubtthat the LSC is on top of the problem, but my hon.Friend the Under-Secretary will spend the rest of theday reassuring us that the LSC and our Department aredoing everything they reasonably can to make sure thatthere is no difficult transition for any of the vulnerablepeople concerned.


Mr Speaker: Very briefly from now on.

Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab): Will the Secretaryof State provide me and other Members who have a realinterest in this issue with regular updates on what ishappening? I appreciate his offer to meet us, and thefact that he says he is working to make sure that peoplehave the representation they need in the meanwhile, butwe need that information, too, so that we can share itwith our constituents and the organisations involved inproviding help and support to asylum seekers and peoplewith immigration cases.

Mr Clarke: We will certainly consider that requestcarefully. Of course, if the hon. Lady or any otherMember asks for specific information, or says that theydo not have enough information, we will certainly doour best to respond and give the information required.

Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab): Willthe Secretary of State quantify the additional tax-fundedresources that have been allocated to support asylumseekers who are affected by the problem?

Mr Clarke: I have to say that I do not yet have at myfingertips the precise increase in recent years in legal aiddependent on immigration cases, or the additional amountsthat may have been provided in recent years, but initialamounts of funding were provided for a very largenumber of purposes by the last Government, and mostof those cases are now having to be looked at again.

Business of the House

11.56 am

Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab): Willthe Leader of the House give us the business for nextweek?

The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir GeorgeYoung): The business for the week commencing 21 Junewill include:

MONDAY 21 JUNE—General debate on the strategicdefence and security review.

TUESDAY 22 JUNE—My right hon. Friend the Chancellorof the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.

WEDNESDAY 23 JUNE AND THURSDAY 24 JUNE—Continuation of the Budget debate.

The provisional business for the week commencing28 June will include:

MONDAY 28 JUNE—Conclusion of the Budget debate.TUESDAY 29 JUNE— Opposition day (2nd allotted

day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion,subject to be announced.

WEDNESDAY 30 JUNE— General debate on the progressand prospects in energy efficiency.

THURSDAY 1 JULY—General debate on global poverty.Hon. Members will wish to be reminded that the

House will meet at 11.30 am on Tuesday 22 June.I should also like to inform the House of business in

Westminster Hall:THURSDAY 1 JULY—A debate entitled “Supporting

carers to have a life outside caring”.

Ms Winterton: I thank the Leader of the House forsetting out the forthcoming business.

If there are any statements to be made next week, canwe make sure that we do not have a repeat of last week’sdiscourtesy to the House, when General Sir Jock Stirrup’sdeparture was announced in the Sunday papers, and bythe Secretary of State for Defence on television, but wasnot even mentioned in the Prime Minister’s statementto the House on Monday? That is hardly the way totreat the Chief of the Defence Staff.

If there are not any planned statements, could theLeader of the House check with the Cabinet whetherthere ought to be, given that this week the Chancellor ofthe Exchequer, who is becoming something of a serialoffender in this respect, again had to be summoned tothe House because once again he wanted to make a keyannouncement ,but not to Members of Parliament? Weunderstand that the Chancellor had suggested that thenew Chief Secretary to the Treasury might have anairing, but thought better of it on account of the ChiefSecretary being a bit nervy under fire. We are quitepleased that the Chief Secretary is to turn out today.

As it turned out, the Chancellor was announcing yetanother commission. Just so that we know whether anydecisions remain that are likely to be made by Ministersas opposed to being outsourced to a commission orreview, will the right hon. Gentleman place details inthe Library of all the commissions that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government have set up, all thereviews that have been announced, the number of peoplewho are involved in the reviews and commissions, their

1029 103017 JUNE 2010Legal Aid Payments

[Ms Winterton]

terms of reference and their cost? Will he give us apointer as to whether the Government need so manyMinisters to carry out the business of government,given that there might not be a lot left for them to doafter all the commissions and reviews have been set up?

I see that the Leader of the House spoke at theHansard Society last night about altering party conferences.Obviously, the Conservative and Liberal Democratconferences could be merged and simply called theConservative party conference.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the shadowLeader of the House. Doubtless the subject is genuinelyscintillating, but it is not a matter of Governmentresponsibility. I hope that the right hon. Lady mightwant to move on to something that is.

Ms Winterton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I simplywanted to ensure that if the Leader of the Houseintends to refer us to the Procedure Committee, as hisspeech suggested, there will be discussions with all theparties before that is done. I certainly have not beenconsulted and, as far as I know, nor have other parties.Will he ensure that consultation happens?

On anonymity for defendants in rape cases, we arenow getting increasingly confusing and contradictorycomments from the Home Secretary, the Justice Secretaryand, indeed, the Prime Minister. Three weeks ago, theGovernment pledged to give defendants anonymity.Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister appeared to changethat position to one whereby the accused would benamed only if prosecutors brought charges, and thisweek the Justice Secretary blamed the Liberal Democrats,saying that they had adopted the policy in opposition.There was further confusion at questions to the Ministerfor Women and Equalities today.

Ministers keep saying that they want a proper, considereddiscussion, but it is extremely difficult for hon. Membersto contribute to any discussion when it is completelyunclear which Minister is speaking for the Government.The policy seems to be the victim of hasty negotiations,but the real victims will be women who have been raped.The need for a proper debate on the subject has nowbecome urgent, and I ask the Leader of the House togive us an assurance that he will allocate one of theGovernment’s general debates—we have a lot of themat the moment—to it.

Sir George Young: I am grateful to the right hon.Lady. On the Ministry of Defence, Sir Bill Jeffrey andAir Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup have announced totheir staff that they will retire in the autumn. Bothstayed on longer than they originally intended to seethings through over the election period and to getthrough the strategic defence and security review.

The Government have made many statements—ninesince the Queen’s Speech. We have been very open withthe House, and about five, perhaps even seven statementshave been made this week. The Speaker has indicatedthat he wants more urgent questions, and that is a usefulway to hold the Government to account and keep theHouse informed.

The Chief Secretary is robust under fire and can giveas good as he can take.

I have answered a written question on reviews, referringto the coalition agreement, which sets out the Government’skey reviews and priorities. It is then up to individualDepartments to provide information about their reviews.

In my compelling speech last night to the HansardSociety, I said that perhaps it was time for an open andserious debate, in which hon. Members of all partiesshould be engaged, about sitting hours and sittings inSeptember to ascertain whether we have the rightconfiguration and whether we are making the best useof our time.

Anonymity for defendants in rape cases is a seriousissue, about which there is a wide range of views. TheGovernment are determined to drive up the convictionrate for rape and ensure that those who are convictedget serious sentences. I agree with the right hon. Ladythat it is right for the House to debate the matterseriously and calmly, and I will do what I can to providefor such a debate.

Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con): Will my righthon. Friend find time for a debate on planning guidancefor local councils now that the regional spatial strategieshave been abolished? In my constituency and manysurrounding rural constituencies, there are many proposalsto erect vast numbers of wind turbines the size of theLondon Eye. I greatly hoped that we could have someguidance about extending what happens in Scotlandand many other European countries so that we have anexclusion zone of 2 km from dwellings.

Sir George Young: I understand that my hon. Friendis not a fan of wind turbines. The Government’s view isthat communities should be protected from the unacceptableimpacts of development. Current planning policy inEngland is that the distance between a wind farm orturbine and a home should be decided on a case-by-casebasis. However, I will bring my hon. Friend’s concernsto the attention of the Secretary of State for Communitiesand Local Government.

Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): Will the Leader of theHouse find time for a debate on competition amongproviders of liquefied petroleum gas to householders inrural areas? My constituents in the village of Llannonfind themselves in an impossible situation because whenone person has a contract with one company, no oneelse can go to another provider. That needs seriousreconsideration.

Sir George Young: Like the hon. Lady, I have a ruralconstituency where many people are dependent on onesupplier of LPG. Speaking from memory, I think thatthe Office of Fair Trading had been invited to conduct areview of the matter. I will draw her concern to theattention of the OFT and see whether the issue mightbe revisited.

Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con): My right hon.Friend will know about the great success of the south ofEngland show at Ardingly recently. Does he also knowthat I am president of the hounds show at Ardingly?Will he see what he can do to lay aside some Governmenttime for a debate on the future of farming, particularlygetting more young people into the industry, the securityof the food supply in this country and essential researchand development for the future of farming in Britain?

1031 103217 JUNE 2010Business of the House Business of the House

Sir George Young: I was not aware that my hon.Friend was president of the hounds show, but I am notsurprised. The Secretary of State for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs has attended several agriculturalshows and I will draw his attention to the success of theone at Ardingly.

My hon. Friend makes a serious point about thefuture of farming and the need to increase young people’sinterest in that career. I will do what I can to seewhether we can provide a forum so that he can sharewith the House his important views on the subject.

Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab): Followingmy right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House’squestion, will the Leader of the House state when hetook over responsibility for setting Labour party conferencedates?

Sir George Young: That is a wilful misrepresentationof what I just said. I said that I think the House shouldhave a serious debate about its sitting hours, when it sitsin the summer and whether the 82-day summer recessthat we have had in the past is the right way forward. Ithink all parties might consider whether party conferencesare immoveable or whether there is a more intelligentway of reorganising the political year. I accept that it isnot a matter for one party, but one for all parties andthe House. I hope that the House will engage in thatdebate in the spirit in which I launched it.

Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con): Will my righthon. Friend find time for a debate on the actions ofbailiffs? The subject was mentioned in the coalitionagreement and I am sure that many hon. Members haveexamples of constituents who have been targeted bybailiffs. As I understand it, that area of law is unclearand it would be helpful to have a debate.

Sir George Young: The coalition agreement is specificon the matter. We will provide more protection againstaggressive bailiffs and unreasonable charging orders,ensuring that courts have the power to insist thatrepossession is always a last resort and to ban orders forsale on unsecured debts of less than £25,000. Betterregulation of bailiffs will be one of the strands of thatpolicy as we develop it.

Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): Last week atbusiness questions, the Leader of the House, in responseto the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart),indicated that allowances issues are no longer a matterfor the House. Of course the administration of allowancesis now a matter for the Independent ParliamentaryStandards Authority, but is the question of who isentitled to allowances still a matter for the House? Willhe therefore correct the record, and in addition confirmthat the administration of Short money is still a matterfor the House, and that it will remain so?

Sir George Young: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutelyright on that last point—the administration of Shortmoney is a matter for the House—and I answeredquestions on that last week. IPSA is responsible notonly for the administration of the allowances but forthe policy on allowances, as a number of hon. Memberssaid in yesterday’s debate in Westminster Hall. IPSA

has simply carried forward the regime that it inheritedfrom the House on questions such as whether Membersare entitled to pay or allowances. Under the currentlegislation, it remains a matter for IPSA to make anychanges in the allowance regime.

Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con): MayI add to the calls for a debate on regional spatialstrategies? The Government’s decision to scrap housingtargets was most welcome, but it poses questions for thefuture of Milton Keynes Partnership—the unelectedquango in my constituency—its role as a planningauthority, the ownership of the land bank and thefuture of the local plan. A debate would help to clarifythose points.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend makes a forcefulcase for a debate in Westminster Hall, so that Communitiesand Local Government Ministers can address the issueshe has outlined, and see whether responsibility can bepassed down to the locally elected local authorities inhis constituency.

Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): There isgrowing concern that further increasing student feeswill deter students from poorer backgrounds. I ammeeting Luke Young, the president of the Swanseastudents’ union, next week. When will the right hon.Gentleman timetable a debate on student fees, particularlywhen we should be tooling-up all our young people, butparticularly those from poorer backgrounds, for therecovery that we all hope is ahead?

Sir George Young: That is a devolved matter in Wales.So far as England is concerned, we are awaiting theoutcome of inquiry by Lord Browne of Madingley. Oneof the key things that the Government will be looking atis exactly what the hon. Gentleman mentioned—namely,whether any changes would impede or promote accessto higher education by students from low-income families.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): Will theLeader of the House arrange an early debate on Memberswho refuse to take their seats and fail to give properrepresentation to their constituents?

Sir George Young: That is a candidate for debate, anda sensitive issue. I can give no guarantee that theGovernment will find time for such a debate, but it is aperfectly legitimate candidate for a debate in WestminsterHall.

Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op): Yesterday the North report, which recommendsreductions in drink-driving limits, was published. Anhour or so ago, the Secretary of State for Transport saidthat there would be consultation in GovernmentDepartments on the proposals, yet newspapers havebeen full of reports—inspired, it would appear, byministerial briefings—that the proposals would be rejected.One headline states: “Motorists escape bid to lowerdrink-drive limit”. Will the Government agree to adebate in Government time to clarify their policy ondrink-drive limits? The Leader of the House is a greatsupporter of road safety, so I hope he agrees to such adebate, and confirms that the Government will be positiveabout reducing drink-drive limits.


Sir George Young: This is an important issue and ourpriority is to tackle drink and drug driving in the mosteffective way. I listened to the Transport Secretary’sresponse a few moments ago, and I did not detect theequivocation that the hon. Gentleman alleges. TheTransport Secretary said that the report covered a widerange of issues and made 51 detailed recommendations,which the Departments concerned need to considercarefully. He also said that the Government will respondto Sir Peter in due course. However, on top of that, Iagree that it is an appropriate matter for the House todebate.

Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con): Oneof my constituents recently turned up for duty in courtas a witness and spent most of the day there, but wasthen sent home because no other witnesses turned up.He wasted most of his day but, more importantly, thecourt case had to be delayed again. Does my right hon.Friend agree that we need to consider more measures toensure that witnesses are made to turn up when they arerequired, so that cases are not postponed or even put offaltogether?

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sure the hon. Lady isseeking either a statement or debate.

Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Itis important that we use the resources of the courtsystem effectively, so that the sort of waste to which sherefers does not occur. I will contact the Justice Secretaryand share her concerns with him, and see whether theGovernment have proposals for making better use ofthe available resources.

Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab): On 26 May,the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury came to theHouse and said in answer to an urgent question on thefuture jobs fund that Government“policy…has to be informed by the facts, and…advice…from theDepartment for Work and Pensions”.He added that that advice was that the fund“was…not effective and that the money was wasted.”—[OfficialReport, 26 May 2010; Vol. 510, c. 164.]However, when I visited my constituency’s district JobcentrePlus office on Monday, I was told that it was far tooearly to judge the effectiveness of the scheme, becauseno data are yet available. May I suggest that we have adebate on the scheme, so that we can work out whetherwhat we are being told about the DWP’s view of thematter is a reflection of what is happening on theground?

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman makes agood case for a debate. The future jobs scheme costabout £6,500 per place, which is about five times thecost of other components of a similar programme.Many of the jobs were relatively low paid and insecure,and many were in the public sector. The Governmentbelieve that we have better approaches to dealing withunemployment—namely, the Work programme—but Ihope that it will be possible at some point to discuss theissues that he raises. That could happen in the contextof the Budget debate, because I believe that the Workand Pensions Secretary will speak then.

Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): Mr Speaker, as thedefender of the rights of MPs, I am sure that you wereaware of the debate on the Independent Parliamentary

Standards Authority that took place in WestminsterHall yesterday, which about 50 Members attended, andof the excellent speech made by the right hon. Memberfor Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley). Thematter cannot be allowed to remain there; we need totake it forward. The Leader of the House will know thatthe right hon. Gentleman spoke of the“interface between parliamentary privilege and IPSA’s decisions”

and“the privilege of freedom from obstruction in the performance ofparliamentary duties.”

He quoted pages 75 and 143 of “Erskine May”, andreferred to what it says under the heading, “ObstructingMembers of either House in the discharge of theirduty”.

With that in mind, does the Leader of the Houseagree that it is time that we had a Minister at theDispatch Box for a debate, because the right hon.Member for Tonbridge and Malling concluded thatIPSA“is obstructing Members in the efficient and effective discharge oftheir parliamentary duties”?—[Official Report, 16 June 2010;Vol. 510, c. 144-145WH.]

Sir George Young: I attended that debate and heardmy right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge andMalling (Sir John Stanley) make that speech. The debatewas, of course, replied to by a Minister from the CabinetOffice. If any Member believes that there has been abreach of privilege, a procedure can be followed, whichinvolves an approach to Mr Speaker.

Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab):During Transport questions, the Secretary of Statemade it clear that his priorities are encouraging economicgrowth and reducing carbon emissions, yet Transportfor London is proposing massive job cuts and theclosure of virtually every ticket office on the Londonunderground. Those actions will impact directly againstthe Secretary of State’s hopes. May we have a debate onthat and not least on what seems to be a marked lack ofcommunication between the coalition Government andthe Conservative Mayor of London?

Sir George Young: I understand the hon. Lady’sconcern, but the staffing of individual undergroundstations is a matter for TfL, which may be having to dowhat Departments are having to do: coping with theeconomic legacy that we have inherited. Perhaps atsome point Opposition Members will tell us where the£50 billion of cuts they identified before the electionwould have applied.

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Will the Leader ofthe House find time for a debate on the big society?Many community organisations in Harlow are keenadopters of the big society reforms that will do so muchto transform voluntary groups up and down our country.

Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friendfor that question. The Prime Minister’s speech on thebig society has indeed whetted the appetite of voluntaryorganisations up and down the country for furtherdevelopment of that policy. I agree that the question ofhow we engage the resources of the third sector isimportant. Without making a commitment, I shouldlike to find time for a debate if we can.


Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op):Two weeks ago, I asked the Leader of the House if hewould kindly urge the Home Secretary to update us onthe review of dangerous dogs legislation initiated underthe last Government. He said that the Home Secretarywould do so during the Queen’s Speech debate, butunfortunately that did not happen. May I again urgehim to ask the Home Secretary to come to the Houseand update us on the review of that legislation?

Sir George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, andif there has been a discourtesy, I apologise. I will pursuethe issue further, and Home Office questions will beheld on 28 June, when she may have an opportunity toraise the matter again.

Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): What is myright hon. Friend’s thinking in changing the hours ofTuesday’s Budget day to those of a Wednesday sitting?Should we take that change as a pilot for changes tofuture Tuesdays?

Sir George Young: It would be wrong to read toomuch into the changing of the time for the Budgetdebate. After consultation, we took the view that itwould be for the convenience of the House to begin thedebate a little earlier. My hon. Friend makes the pointthat at some stage we will need to look at the sittings ofthe House. We have many new Members and we have tooperate within a slightly different regime, so there is anappetite for intelligent debate about how the Houseuses its time.

Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar)(SNP): The Leader of the House raised the issue of therecess. Midsummer’s day is in four days’ time, butParliament does not start its so-called summer recessuntil five weeks later. May we for once have a summerrecess in the summer, a shorter recess and one that takesplace during the Scottish school holidays, which are, ofcourse, actually in the summer? That could help MPs tobe more available to their constituents at summer events.May we have a debate on the timing of the recess?

Sir George Young: I do understand that for MPs withScottish constituencies the summer recess does not coincidewith the school holidays in Scotland. The hon. Gentlemanreinforces the point made in earlier exchanges about theneed to stand back and look at when the House sits andconsider whether we make the best use of our time.

Mr Phil Woolas (Oldham East and Saddleworth)(Lab): In opposition, the Leader of the House wasalways a supporter of enhanced post-legislative scrutinyand, in particular, of finding time for debates on LawCommission reports. Can he update the House on whatplans he has in that respect, and does he think that thereis too much legislation or too little?

Sir George Young: I think that there has been toomuch legislation. We are determined to have less legislationand better drafted Bills, with proper time allowed forthe House to reflect on them. That will be a transformationcompared to what happened in the last Parliament.

Good governance involves post-legislative scrutiny,as well as the production of draft Bills and a pre-legislativestage. Every Department should produce a summary, afew years after legislation has been enacted, stating

whether it has met its objectives, and Select Committeeshave a role to play in post-legislative scrutiny, as well astheir other tasks. In a word, the answer is yes.

Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab): For several weeks,I have been attempting to obtain support from IPSA tooffer jobs to people who want to work in my constituencyoffice. The failure of IPSA to respond to me by phoneor e-mail is putting tremendous pressure on my office’sability to provide a service to the people of Chesterfieldwho sent me here. Will the Leader of the House make astatement on what support he can give to new Memberswho are attempting to staff their offices, but who arehaving to rely on voluntary contributions to provide aservice to their constituents?

Sir George Young: I am sorry that the hon. Gentlemanhas not been able to provide the service that he wantsbecause of difficulties with the allowance regime. Thewhole object of the allowance regime is to enable MPsto look after their constituents and hold Ministers toaccount. If it is not doing that, it is a serious matter. Iwill ensure that the interim chief executive is aware ofthe issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised and thathe gets a prompt response.

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): The Leader of theHouse said that he wants less legislation, but therecould not be any less legislation than at present, becausehe has announced none. When will we have a SecondReading on one of the many plans for legislation thatthe Government have announced, so that we can scrutiniseit, and when will he set up the European ScrutinyCommittee, so that we can scrutinise their plans onEurope?

Sir George Young: In the Queen’s Speech, we outlined22 Bills for an 18-month Session. We have alreadyintroduced three of them—one in the House and two inthe other place—and I anticipate a finance Bill beforetoo long. I also anticipate two more Second Readingsbefore the summer recess.

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): Will the Governmentarrange, in Government time, a debate on the effects onemployment of Government policies? I estimate thatthe recently announced cuts will cost at least 30 jobs inSlough—a town where unemployment has fallen monthon month since the start of the year. Will the Governmentgive us a chance to discuss the effects of what they aredoing?

Sir George Young: May I return the compliment andsuggest that the Opposition use one of their Oppositiondays to explain where they would have found the £50 billioncuts that were factored into their pre-election statements?They never told us where those cuts would come from,and they would have included some £18 billion of cutsto the capital programme. They said that they would tellus after the election where they would find those cuts,and the time is now ripe.

Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab):Will the Leader of the House arrange for someone fromthe Government to come here and tell us why they areafraid of scrutiny of their behaviour in Europe and whythey have not set up the European Scrutiny Committee,which was the first Committee set up in the last Parliamentby the previous Government? Are they afraid of the


[Michael Connarty]

Euroscepticism generated on their Benches when theywere in pre-election mode, or are they afraid of theESC, which of course won an inquisitor of the yearaward when we had a Labour Government and it had aLabour Chair?

Sir George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemanfor the work that he has done on the ESC. I am awarethat documents continue to arrive from Europe thatneed scrutiny and that, at the moment, there is no ESC.There is no conspiracy along the lines that he suggests.Urgent discussions are taking place along the usualchannels, and I hope that it will not be too long beforewe can establish the ESC. I am sure that whoever chairsit will do a fantastic job.

Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab): In thelight of the Alston report to the United Nations, adebate on the conventions used in the deployment ofadvanced military technology would allow us to debatewhether international law has to be reformulated as aresult of that report. Do the Government believe thatdrone planes should be used for the targeted extra-judicialkillings of suspected terrorists?

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman raises aserious question. I do not know whether it would beappropriate for him to make that point in the debate onthe strategic defence review, but I will certainly pass hisconcerns on to the Ministry of Defence and ensure thathe receives a reply.

Mr Speaker: Last, but not least, I call Mr MacShane.

Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): Thank youfor the introduction, Mr Speaker.

Last night, Europe’s Conservative party leaders andPrime Ministers met for dinner, with the exception ofour Prime Minister, because he is in alliance—as theDeputy Prime Minister puts it—with “nutters, anti-Semites...and homophobes”. May we have an earlydebate on rise of nationalist, populist extremism ineastern Europe, the worries of Jewish communities andthe extent to which the Conservative party—not theLiberal Democrats—are giving cover by their alliancewith these people?

Sir George Young: I am sorry that business questionsare ending on that note. The right hon. Gentleman hasbeen pursuing this issue for many months, but there isno substance in the accusations that he has made aboutour colleagues. I am sure that given more time he couldhave found a better question to ask on the business.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to right hon. and hon.Members for their co-operation.

Public Spending

12.28 pm

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander):With permission, I wish to make a statement on theTreasury’s review of the public spending commitmentsmade by the last Government between 1 January 2010and the general election. In the review, we examined the£34 billion of spending that was approved in their finalfew months of office. The aim was to test in each andevery case whether those commitments are affordable,whether they deliver value for money and whether theyremain genuine priorities for this Government.

The review is now complete, and my decisions onthose commitments fall into three categories—projectswhere spending will be approved, because they are ahigh priority or because the money has largely beenspent; projects that will be cancelled; and projects whoselong-term affordability will be considered as part of thewider spending review process over the coming weeksand months.

A detailed list of the projects that have been cancelledor suspended until the spending review has been laid inthe Libraries of both Houses.

For those projects that offer value for money andmeet the Government’s priorities of fairness andresponsibility, or for those that it is simply too late towithdraw, we have acted quickly to confirm approval inorder to avoid disruption. For example, we have approvedthe funding for essential medicines in the case of a flupandemic, some hospital projects and support to postoffices, as well as for spending on crucial equipment formilitary operations in Afghanistan. The House will beaware, however, that as a country today we have thebiggest peacetime budget deficit in our history. We havea choice: we can act fairly, responsibly and decisivelynow, or we can follow the approach of the previousGovernment—deny and delay—which would end onlyin greater cuts being forced upon us. Given our priorityto get the deficit under control, the Government collectivelyhave looked at each project, and I am grateful for thesupport of Cabinet colleagues in this process.

Some commitments are simply unaffordable, do notmeet Government priorities and will be cancelled. Wehave taken the decision to immediately cancel 12 projectsthat would have cost nearly £2 billion over their lifetime.They include the Department for Communities andLocal Government’s regional leader boards; the Departmentfor Business, Innovation and Skills’ loan to SheffieldForgemasters; the Department for Work and Pensions’low-value employment programmes, including the extensionof the young person’s guarantee to 2011-12 and thejobseekers’two-year guarantee; the Department of Health’sactive challenge routes, county sports partnerships andthe North Tees and Hartlepool hospital project; thelocal authority business growth incentive; and thewithdrawal of Government funding for the Stonehengevisitors’ centre. Many of those are difficult decisionsand, I fully understand, painful ones for some of thecommunities affected—communities whose hopes wereirresponsibly raised by the previous Government. However,they are decisions that a responsible Government mustface up to in these difficult economic times.

Other decisions should be weighed up against all theother significant pressures on public spending withinthe context of the spending review—a spending review

1039 104017 JUNE 2010Business of the House

that the Labour Government delayed because they didnot want to admit that painful decisions had to bemade. For this reason, I can announce that there are afurther 12 projects, with a total value of £8.5 billion,approved since 1 January that we will suspend and referfor consideration to the spending review process overthe coming weeks and months. They include the healthresearch support service; the Kent Thameside strategictransport programme; and the libraries modernisationprogramme. Any other new major hospital schemes willbe assessed in the context of the spending review toensure that they are affordable and represent the highestpossible value for money. Only the highest priorityschemes will be able to go forward. We will do this inthe context of the approach set out in our spendingreview framework, which will include a fundamentalreview of all capital investment plans, to identify thoseareas that will achieve the greatest economic returns.

The Secretary of State for Education has alreadyannounced that he is looking at the whole BuildingSchools for the Future programme and will shortly setout the outcome of this work. That programme hasbeen very heavily overcommitted, and we are in agreementthat tough decisions need to be taken. Departmentshave also independently reviewed projects with budgetswithin delegated limits approved since 1 January, andthey will report the results of those reviews in duecourse. Together, these decisions will significantly relieveburdens on departmental budgets that will be undermajor pressure in the spending review.

While conducting this review, I have discovered yetanother black hole in the books that we inherited. I cantell the House that billions of pounds of spendingcommitments were made for this financial year thatrelied upon underspends or access to the reserve. Therewas no reason to suppose that underspends would haveoccurred on anything like that scale and there is insufficientcontingency in the reserve to cover the remainder. I willtherefore be cancelling at least £1 billion of commitmentswhere there simply is not the money to pay for them. Wewill announce the action that we will take to tackle thisfurther hole in the accounts in next week’s Budget. Asfar as the reserve is concerned, I am sure the House willagree that our priority is that we keep this for genuineemergencies and new pressures that may result frommilitary operations in Afghanistan.

The last Government committed to spend moneythat they simply did not have. They made commitmentsthat they knew the next Government could not fulfiland in doing so cynically played politics with the hopesof our communities. The actions that I have set outtoday show that this Government will take responsiblespending decisions, which, although sometimes difficult,will be guided by fairness and the overriding need totackle the deficit. We did not make this mess, but we willclean it up. I commend this statement to the House.

Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab): Ithank the Chief Secretary for early sight of his statement,which arrived a few moments ago. We were all impressednot to read his conclusions in the newspapers thismorning. I congratulate him on his first statement tothe House as Chief Secretary. I think that it was GeorgeBernard Shaw who said that sometimes to succeed inpolitics one must rise above one’s principles—and fewhave risen so fast and, I now see, so far as the right hon.Gentleman.

I start with a word of thanks to the Chief Secretaryfor finally nailing the myth that Labour generated somekind of scorched-earth policy, of which we heard somuch in the first days of the coalition. The projects thathe has decided to outline this afternoon amount to just0.05% of this year’s Government spending. At thebeginning of the week, we heard from Sir Alan Budd,who told us that the outlook for public finances is£30 billion better than expected, but now the ChiefSecretary, who cannot even claim the defence ofindependence, has smashed the coalition’s claim thatLabour spent unwisely. The House is united in itsambition to see the deficit paid down quickly. Thedefence of our country from the global recession didnot come cheap, and now the bill must be paid, which iswhy we set out with such clarity £19 billion of taxincreases and £20 billion of detailed spending cuts overthe next two years alone.

I, too, have reviewed the spending decisions takensince January, and my thanks go to the Treasury stafffor facilitating this review. I am glad that the decisionsthat we took on green energy, university modernisation,Airbus, Nissan, Ford, the automotive assistance programme,royal research ships, phase III of the Diamond scienceprogramme, the Tyne and Wear metro, the Leeds nextgeneration transport scheme, Manchester Metrolink,the regeneration of Blackpool, accelerated developmentzones, Olympic park restructuring, hundreds of millionsof pounds for the Ministry of Defence, £30 million forchildren’s hospices and three new hospitals have beenreaffirmed.

The country and the Liberal Democrats beyond,however, will be aghast this afternoon at the ChiefSecretary’s attack on jobs, his attack on constructionworkers, his attack on industries of the future and thecancellation of a hospital. What could be more frontline than that? In five minutes this afternoon, he hasreversed three years of Liberal Democrat policy, ofwhich he was the principal author. What a moment ofabject humiliation! He will no doubt claim that themarkets forced his hand. These were the markets inwhich interest rates were falling, not rising, throughoutthe winter and spring. He claims there is no reason whythe Government can assume to carry forward underspendsfrom previous years, despite the fact that, as he wellknows, billions are underspent each year, includinglast year.

It is customary on these occasions to ask the Ministera wide range of questions, but I will give him the luxuryof answering only one, although I expect a straightanswer: how many people will lose their jobs this year asa consequence of what he has just told the House? Donot beat about the bush—tell us how many.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the shadow ChiefSecretary for his response and for welcoming me to mypost. He is right that a number of projects have beenapproved, and Departments will set out details of thoseprojects, or where they are seeking further savings withinthose approvals, over the next period. They are also, ofcourse, reassessing those approvals given within delegatedlimits, as I said in my statement, so there will be furtherannouncements to make on that.

The right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of theOffice for Budget Responsibility’s report was surprising,given that the report showed that, in fact, growth was

1041 104217 JUNE 2010Public Spending Public Spending

[Danny Alexander]

expected to be significantly lower than was forecast byhis Government in the last Budget and that the structuraldeficit—that part of the deficit that can be paid downonly by Government policy action—was considerablyhigher. He set out what he said were Labour’s plans. Welook forward to hearing more detail about that. If he iscommitted to a shared deficit reduction plan, I lookforward to his party finally setting out in detail what itwould take to meet the £50 billion of cuts that itproposed to set out.

As for consistency with the approach of the LiberalDemocrats, which the right hon. Gentleman asked meabout, the position is entirely consistent with the approachthat we took during the election campaign, in commonwith our coalition partners, on ensuring that firm actionis taken to reduce the deficit. That must be the overridingpriority. He said that end-year flexibility is used year byyear to meet commitments, but the volume of commitmentsthat were made under the previous Government is solarge that it calls into question the Government’s abilityto have a reserve at all. Therefore, we have to take actionto reduce those claims in early course, and that is whatwe are going to do in the Budget.

The single biggest risk to jobs in this country is nottaking action to reduce the deficit. If we fail to takeaction to reduce the deficit, we will see jobs lost acrossthe country. We need to restore confidence to the economy.

What we have learned from today’s statement is thatthe shadow Chief Secretary went on a pre-electionspending spree when in office, in the full knowledge thatthe Government had long since run out of money. TheHouse will be familiar with the shadow Chief Secretary’snow infamous letter to his successor, but allow me tocontrast that with the letter that I received on my deskfrom my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil(Mr Laws). The right hon. Member for Birmingham,Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) wrote:

“I’m afraid there is no money…good luck!”

However, my right hon. Friend’s advice was rather morehelpful. On leaving the Treasury, he left me a notesaying:“good luck, carry on cutting…with care.”

Contrast the previous Government’s approach with ours.They raised false hopes by promising the public thatthey would spend money on local projects that theycould never afford to get off the ground, even undertheir own spending plans. We on the other hand havebeen candid about the scale of the task. We have madeit impossible to fiddle the economic figures to suit ourBudgets, and we are taking responsible and measuredaction on historically unprecedented levels of borrowing.


Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. Manyhon. Members wish to get in. We have another statementto follow and there is business after that. I will certainlytry to call as many hon. Members as possible, but if wecan have quick questions and succinct answers, that willbe of benefit to all.

Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con): Is it not prettyclear that some of those projects were hastily scribbledcheques on a long overdue account? Would nottoday’s painful announcement have been completely

unnecessary if Labour had carried out a propercomprehensive spending review last autumn, buildinginto it a sustainable reserve?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman is absolutelyright. If there had been a spending review, we would notbe in this position now. As it is, out of the £34 billion ofcommitments that the previous Government made inthat period, we have had to cancel £2 billion and put£9 billion into the spending review. The choice is obvious:profligacy on the one side, responsibility on the other.

Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab): There will be fury inWakefield and my constituency, where people are expectingschools to be rebuilt and where we absolutely must havethe 70 additional hospital beds to make proper provision.Any cancelled patient operations as a result of today’sdecisions will be laid entirely at the right hon. Gentleman’sdoor. His party have joined with the other coalitionparty in being the party of mass unemployment. Some300,000 building workers are already out of work. Whatis his estimate of the increased unemployment that hewill produce as a result of his statement today?

Danny Alexander: I understand that some of thesedecisions are difficult for communities and that therewill be genuine anger, which the hon. Gentleman hasexpressed. However, that anger should be directed atthose on his own Front Bench who took irresponsibledecisions that could not be afforded. We are now puttingthat matter right.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): Will theChief Secretary accept my thanks for finding the moneyfor the private finance initiative for roads in my constituency?

Danny Alexander: Yes, of course.

Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab): The previousLabour Government agreed launch-aid investment forthe Airbus A350, which will help to secure tens ofthousands of jobs in the UK. Can the Chief Secretaryconfirm that that will be paid in full and that he will notrevisit the matter?

Danny Alexander: As I said in my statement, spendingDepartments will make announcements themselves aboutthe projects that have been approved.

Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): I hadhoped to hear the words “better health care closer tohome” and “St Helier hospital” in the Chief Secretary’sstatement. Can he update us on the position in relationto that hospital project?

Danny Alexander: We have considered a number ofhospital projects against affordability and value formoney criteria. It has been agreed that the Epsom andSt Helier, Royal Liverpool, Royal National Orthopaedicand Pennine acute hospital schemes will go ahead.

Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab): Thereis a curious part in the right hon. Gentleman’s statementon the successor deterrent extension to concept phaselong-lead items on Trident. What is the value of that,and can he explain why he did not tell the House that heis reviewing Trident? Does he not know what he isdoing, or is he embarrassed and ashamed?


Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectlywell that, in the context of renewing the deterrent, thecoalition has agreed a value-for-money review. In thecontext of that, spending £67 million on long-leaditems in advance of the value-for-money review beingcompleted would be utterly irresponsible.

Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con): I thank the ChiefSecretary for outlining Labour’s cuts. Will he take thisopportunity to remind the House just why we face sucha difficult spending round?

Danny Alexander: We are facing a difficult spendinground for two reasons: first, we have the largest peacetimebudget deficit since the war—£155 billion—with an8% structural deficit, which is larger than had previouslybeen estimated; and secondly, the previous Governmenttook irresponsible spending decisions at the end of theirtime in office and that has added to the pressure onDepartments in the spending review. I am seeking torelieve that pressure in today’s statement.

Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab): In the last Parliament,the then Secretary of State for Transport agreed topart-fund the A6 bypass—a road that is important inrelieving congestion on the A6 in my constituency. Willthe Chief Secretary agree to meet me and other Membersof Parliament who have an interest in the scheme, sothat we can discuss with him the merits of the project?

Danny Alexander: A meeting would be better heldwith Ministers from the Department for Transport,who, I am sure, would be willing to agree to such ameeting.

Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con): Will the ChiefSecretary enlighten us as to the number of projects thatwere approved by the previous Government in the monthbefore the general election?

Danny Alexander: A significant number of projects—witha significant cash value—were agreed in the last monthbefore the election, and I will happily give the hon.Gentleman more details later.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): I note fromthe right hon. Gentleman’s statement that a commitmenthas been given on crucial equipment for military operationsin Afghanistan. However, can he confirm to the Housetoday that he will also give a full commitment to theannouncement that I made before the election onthe £30 million for the Army’s recovery capabilities, thecosts of the armed forces compensation scheme and theextension of the veterans’ mental health pilots?

Danny Alexander: As I said in my statement, Departmentswill make clear the projects that have been approved,but protecting spending on front-line services in thearmed services and support for our troops on the frontline in Afghanistan is a priority for this Government.

Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): Doesnot the shadow Chief Secretary’s delay in coming to theChamber for today’s statement characterise the previousGovernment’s delay in taking the tough decisions thatare needed, and did not his response characterise theirrefusal to say sorry for the mess that they left thiscountry in?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman makes a goodpoint, although I would not wish to cast aspersions onthe shadow Chief Secretary’s reasons for the timing ofhis arrival in the Chamber. That would be discourteous.However, it is fair to say that a spending review wasdelayed by the previous Government because they didnot want to face up to the fact that some difficultdecisions had to be made.

Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab):The Sheffield Forgemasters loan would have helpedplace the UK at the forefront of global nuclear productionand enabled Forgemasters to install the country’s first15,000-tonne forging press, thus reducing our dependenceon foreign imports. Is the Government’s decision not apolitical one, made out of spite because South Yorkshirevoted Labour, rather than a decision based on thelong-term interest of UK manufacturing?

Danny Alexander: No, none of the decisions wasmotivated in the way that the hon. Lady suggests. I havereceived representations from Members from a numberof political parties on this matter. The key issues areaffordability and value for money, and that project doesnot meet those tests. However, we continue to be supportiveof it and officials will continue to work with the companyto help it to try to secure private investment, which wethink is perfectly justifiable for that worthwhile project.

Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): In the run-upto the general election, Labour Ministers trotted up theM1 to my constituency to make all sorts of promises onissues that they had done nothing about for 13 years.Does the Chief Secretary agree that, instead of cominghere and feigning anger today, Labour Members shouldwalk out of that door and go to constituencies such asmine to apologise for raising people’s hopes about projectsthat they never intended to fund?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman is absolutelyright. It is easy for people to write cheques when theyknow they are going to bounce. Labour raised hopes incommunities that certain projects would go ahead, forwhich there simply is no money left. As the shadowChief Secretary said, there is no money left, and thatshould have been the approach that guided those decisions,not the need of Members to save their own seats.


Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Questions must beaddressed—and the Minister must respond—not to theformer Government, but to this Government and totoday’s statement.

Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar)(SNP): How much does this review bring into questionprivate finance initiatives or public-private partnershipsthat, at their inception, had bogus public sector comparatorsand have cost the public purse a lot more over theperiod? Will the Chief Secretary also ensure that thereis no threat to the service provided by search-and-rescuehelicopters, despite the suspension of procurement forhelicopters? That service is vital to island communitiessuch as mine.


Danny Alexander: I will say two things to the hon.Gentleman. First, his point about PFI is not within thescope of this statement. However, in the context of thespending review, we will have to look at every single wayin which public money is spent—including the operationof PFI—to ensure that we are getting value for moneyand not spending taxpayers’ money unnecessarily whenthe spending settlement is going to be so tight.

The hon. Gentleman will see, when he reads thestatement in the Library, that the search-and-rescuehelicopter replacement is one of projects whose cost-effectiveness will be reviewed by the Ministry of Defenceand the Department for Transport. Obviously, they willproduce their report as and when that process has beencompleted.

Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): In the light ofthe Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s statement and ofthe fact that this will be a fixed-term Parliament, will heintroduce constraints to prevent a similar spendingspree in the run-up to the next general election?

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemanfor his question, and I understand the motivation behindit. Given the scale of the challenge that we face in theform of the enormous structural deficit and the need tobring down that deficit further and faster than theprevious Government proposed, I suspect that that taskwill consume all our time in the Treasury over the nextfive years, without having to worry about the questionthat he has raised.

Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con): In the run-up tothe election, we could hardly move for Labour Ministersmaking all sorts of spending commitments. Will theChief Secretary tell us how many of them were subjectedto value-for-money tests?

Danny Alexander: Having found the piece of paperthat I was looking for earlier, I can tell the hon. Gentlemanthat a substantial number of those projects were agreedto very close to the election. In the week before theelection was called, the Kent Thameside strategic transportprogramme was agreed, as were the Birminghammagistrates court programme, the Outukumpu project,Building Schools for the Future in Cumbria and theSheffield retail quarter. That was all done in that oneweek before the election.

Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab): The Chief Secretaryhas made a serious accusation in saying that LabourMinisters deliberately agreed expenditure or programmesof action that were not properly funded. If that werethe case, the permanent secretary would have asked fora ministerial letter of direction. Will he place before theHouse the ministerial letters of direction for all theprojects that he has referred to?

Danny Alexander: Having looked at the state of thebooks and seen the plans that the previous Governmentset out—at least in headline terms—to cut £50 billionfrom public spending over the course of this Parliament,I do not see how any Minister could responsibly havemade those spending commitments and expected themall to be met after the election.

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Is the Minister awarethat, under the previous Government, the Departmentfor Communities and Local Government spent £134,000 onluxury sofas? Is not that an example of the obscenewaste that has led to the tough decisions that we have tomake today?

Danny Alexander: I was not aware of that Department’sspending on luxury sofas—perhaps I should have been.It is precisely that kind of expenditure on which weneed to bear down heavily in the context of the spendingreview and through the efficiency and reform group thatwe have established, to ensure the maximum amount ofspace in Departments’ budgets to spend on the front-lineservices that Members on both sides of the Housecare about.

Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab): Can I try toget a straight answer to a straight question? Whatassessment has been made of the impact of thisannouncement on jobs and growth, and will the ChiefSecretary publish that assessment and put it in theLibrary?

Danny Alexander: The position on that is as I set outto the shadow Chief Secretary: the biggest risk to jobsand growth in this country is failing to take appropriateaction to deal with the deficit. That is the context of thisGovernment’s policy. If we continued with the irresponsiblehabits of the previous Government, we would soon bein a great deal worse a position than the one in which wenow find ourselves.

Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con): Doesmy right hon. Friend agree that job losses are the tragicconsequence of 13 years of misgovernment and massiveoverspending?

Danny Alexander: That is at least partly the case. Thechallenge that we now face is how to tackle the fundamentaleconomic problems that this country faces. The mostserious economic challenge that we face is the scale ofthe deficit. We have seen in countries elsewhere inEurope and further afield the consequences of failing toact on fiscal consolidation. If we fail to act, the problemsfor jobs and growth and the prospects for our economywill be a great deal worse than they are today.

Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): In 1979, thethen Government started destroying South Yorkshire’sindustry, and the right hon. Gentleman is truly an heirof that Government. Does he realise that the name ofliberal democracy must hang its head in shame inSheffield, now that Sheffield Forgemasters has no future?His right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister cannow send back his Independent Parliamentary StandardsAuthority travel allowances, because he will never bewelcome in Sheffield or South Yorkshire again.

Danny Alexander: I would say two things to the righthon. Gentleman. If he looks at the programmes in theDepartment for Business, Innovation and Skills, he willsee that a number of grants to industry have beenapproved, having been judged on the tests of value formoney and affordability. Also, as the Government makeprogress over the next few months and years, he will seethat protecting areas that are particularly dependent onthe public sector and that have been disproportionatelyaffected will be a key priority for us.


Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con): Whichindividual project was my right hon. Friend most surprisedto see had been given the go-ahead?

Danny Alexander: It would be invidious to choosebetween some of the projects on the list. I realise thateach of the decisions has difficult consequences for thecommunities affected. My surprise is not at an individualproject but at the general approach to spending that wastaken in the run-up to the general election.

John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op):In the light of the bizarre extension to the successordeterrent programme, will the Chief Secretary tell uswhether the Trident value-for-money review will considerthe overall question of whether the successor to Tridentremains the most effective form of deterrent?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman has no doubtstudied carefully the coalition programme for government,and he will know that we have agreed to proceed withthe successor deterrent to Trident. The value-for-moneyreview will do precisely what it says on the tin: we wantto get the best value for money from the project and notwaste taxpayers’ money unnecessarily on the renewal.

Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con): I wassurprised, but glad, to hear that Treasury staff havebeen able to help the shadow Chief Secretary to theTreasury to review the projects mentioned in the statement.It is a shame that he did not do that while he was inoffice. Will the Chief Secretary consider seconding someof his staff—if he can spare them—to help to educateLabour Members and to get them on the same page asthe rest of the country, given the state that they have leftthe economy in?

Danny Alexander: I agree with the hon. Lady that thepeople of this country are ahead of the Labour party inrealising the seriousness of the economic problems thatwe face. That consensus is now a global one—peoplewill have seen the statement from the G20 summit onthe need for faster fiscal consolidation. That is right,and the Opposition are wrong.


Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind Members to tryto keep to the subject of the statement; the Minister isnot responsible for previous Government policies.

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): If the Chief Secretarythinks that the biggest risk to jobs is the deficit, whydoes Britain have a better employment rate among allother European countries than America?

Danny Alexander: The risk that we face is the factthat we have the largest budget deficit in the EU, withthe exception of Ireland, that we have a very substantialstructural deficit and that growth is lower than forecast.All those things argue for what we are going to do,which is implement a programme to reduce the deficitfaster and further than the previous Government proposed.That is the only responsible course to take; profligatespending of the sort we saw in the final days of theprevious Government is not responsible.

Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con): Doesmy right hon. Friend agree with me that, after theircynical attempts to buy the last election, the crocodiletears of Labour Members do nothing to raise thestanding of this House in the public’s eyes?

Danny Alexander: I share the hon. Gentleman’s hopesfor higher standards in Parliament, but Ministers of theprevious Government ought to have known in the contextof the financial situation that the country faces and oftheir own plans to cut £50 billion from public spendingthat these additional spending commitments and claimson the reserve were simply unaffordable. That chicken iscoming home to roost today.

Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab):I note that £1.2 billion-worth of the cancelled projects,as they are called, are from the future jobs fund—forthe young people of the right hon. Gentleman’s constituencyand mine. I wonder what the consequences will be forthe Scottish budget. Can he tell us what impact therewill be on my constituents in Scotland, or have hisConservative bosses—let us be quite frank—done adeal with the tartan Tories in the SNP in Scotland?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman will knowthat benefit and Department for Work and Pensionsspending is a reserved matter, so does not have a Barnettconsequential. He will also know that the Governmenthave set out plans to establish a Work programme,which will replace those programmes during next year.That will be a more targeted, quicker and effectiveprogramme, based on paying suppliers by results toensure that people get back into work quickly. I welcomethat programme and I hope that he will, too.

Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con): Can the ChiefSecretary confirm the good news for Reading and formy constituents—that the Government are fully committedto the Reading station upgrade, because it offers excellentvalue for money?

Danny Alexander: I have heard what the hon. Gentlemanhas said. It will be for the Department for Transport toannounce the details of projects that have been approved.

Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab): I and thepeople whom I represent will be desperately disappointedthat the new North Tees hospital is not going ahead.My understanding is that it was not promised in the lastweeks before the election, but had been planned, committedto and expected for five years. The decision will have amassive impact on the Tees area, Cleveland and Durham.The hospital was to provide specialist services for thewhole of that area. How does that sit with the promisesmade by Government Members not to cut health spending?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Lady will know that it isa foundation trust which is coming to the Governmentfor additional funding. She may not be aware, however,that consent for the project was given on 10 March2010, so it is within this period. Of course I accept thatthe decision will be very disappointing for people whohave worked on the project for that time—I do not wishto belittle that at all—but in the context of the economicsituation that we face and the decisions that we have to


[Danny Alexander]

make, it is right and proper to judge such projects onthe strict value-for-money and affordability groundsthat we have applied.

Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): Which factorsconvinced the Chief Secretary to cancel the local authoritybusiness growth incentives scheme?

Danny Alexander: It was the fact that there is nosubstantive evidence that it has had any effect on doingthe job that it was supposed to do or set out to do—toencourage local authorities to work with business.

Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab): We havealready heard from the new Prime Minister that thenorth-east of England can expect to suffer hardest fromthe cuts, so I want to know precisely why the North Teesand Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust hospital, whichis in my constituency, is not going ahead, particularly aswe have seen tremendous progress in reducing healthinequalities in my area, and that hospital was going tocomplete the job.

Danny Alexander: In the context of tighter budgets, itis essential that all major hospital buildings must beaffordable and provide value for money. On that basis,the Government decided not to proceed with that scheme.It was assessed against a number of other major buildprojects that were at the same stage of development;those schemes are more urgent. The hon. Gentlemanwill be aware that the previous Government set outplans to halve capital spending over the next few years.We have to make judgments about capital spending inthe context of budgets that are a great deal tighter. Iappreciate that that is disappointing, and I do not wishin any way to belittle the point that the hon. Gentlemanis making quite fairly on behalf of his constituents, butin judging these things we have to apply the value-for-moneycriteria as we have.

Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab): During the generalelection campaign, the Prime Minister said that anyMinister who went to him to propose front-line cutswould be sent back to the drawing-board, so may Isuggest that the Minister goes back to the drawing-board,because that is exactly what he is doing? The people ofthe north-east, in Teesside and south Durham, want theHartlepool and North Tees hospital, which has beenunder development for five years and is clinically-ledbut has been cancelled. On 6 May, people might havevoted for the Liberal Democrats because they thoughtthey stood for something; today they know that theydo not.

Danny Alexander: I understand the hon. Gentleman’sconcerns on behalf of his constituents, but the angershould be directed at Labour Front Benchers, whoirresponsibly agreed to spend money that, as the formerChief Secretary said in his letter, simply is not there.

Mr Phil Woolas (Oldham East and Saddleworth)(Lab): I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look again athis decision on Sheffield Forgemasters. That £80 million,which is spread over some years, is in the form of a loanand has a huge multiplier effect for the nuclear industry,particularly in the north-west. Is he trying to make surethat if the expansion of the nuclear industry takes

place, which I hope it does, the infrastructure for it willhave to come from overseas? Will he look at this again,because he is doing what he has accused the banks ofdoing—not providing loans for investment?

Danny Alexander: I have looked very carefully at thisand all the projects that we are cancelling or suspending.I believe that the decision that we have made is the rightone on value-for-money and affordability grounds. Ihave discussed it with my right hon. Friend the Secretaryof State for Business, Innovation and Skills. In thecontext of the pressures on budgets and the affordabilityand value-for-money criteria that we have applied, I amafraid I am not able to go back and reconsider. Officialsfrom the Department for Business, Innovation andSkills will work with the company to try to ensure that itgets access to a private sector solution. As to the nuclearindustry, the hon. Gentleman will know that the coalitionagreement commits us to no public subsidy for nuclearpower.

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): Thisafternoon, the Chief Secretary has taken a further£1 billion out of the Department for Work and Pensionsand the fact that one of the cuts is to the young person’sguarantee demonstrates how empty is the Government’srhetoric about being concerned about the vulnerable.Moreover, both the Tories and the Liberals voted withthe Government for the legislation in March that providedfor the two-year jobseeker’s guarantee. How can theChief Secretary defend saying one thing in March andanother thing today?

Danny Alexander: Well, there is no money left. Themore important point is that we are cancelling programmesthat we believe are ineffective and replacing them withthe Work programme, which will start during next yearand will be more effective at helping people who needhelp to get back into work quickly. That is an objectivethat we share; I believe our programme will be moreeffective in doing that. The hon. Lady will know that inthe £6.2 billion announcement that we made a fewweeks ago, one of the areas to which money was recycledwas additional funding for 50,000 more apprenticeships.That is valuable additional support to help young peoplefind jobs now.

Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con): Will the ChiefSecretary remind us once again why we face such adifficult spending review? It is clearly something thatthe Labour party has failed to understand.

Danny Alexander: As I said earlier, the reason we facesuch a tough spending round is the overriding need tobring our deficit down further and faster than wasplanned by the previous Government. That is necessaryto restore confidence in our economy and restore balanceto our public finances. It is the overriding priority, andit will restore jobs and growth in this country fasterthan the last Government would have managed.

Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab): I wonderwhether I can help the Chief Secretary by providing theanswer that he failed to provide in response to an earlierquestion about value for money. Will he acknowledgethat over the three years for which the SheffieldForgemasters loan was under consideration, the Treasuryconducted an extremely robust value-for-money exercise?


This Government talk a great deal about consultation,but before the statement I spoke to the chairman ofSheffield Forgemasters, who confirmed that over theperiod of the Government’s review there has been nocontact whatever with the company. Will the ChiefSecretary confirm that fact?

Danny Alexander: What I can confirm to the hon.Gentleman is that we have applied value-for-moneygrounds to this as to all the other projects. With arestricted budget, however, we must make choices aboutwhere we can spend money, and unfortunately we simplycannot afford to provide funds for this project anylonger. As I have said, officials from the Department forBusiness, Innovation and Skills will continue to workwith the company in helping to find a private sectorsolution to the challenge.

Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con): Will the ChiefSecretary remind the House of the size of the structuraldeficit, and perhaps remind Opposition Members thatthese are Labour cuts caused by the state in which thelast Government left the country’s finances?

Danny Alexander: That is not a matter for my judgment;it is a matter for the judgment of the independent Officefor Budget Responsibility, which we established to restoreindependence to the statistics on which budget judgmentsare based. According to the OBR, the structural deficithas risen to 8%, while the overall deficit is £155 billion.That is a vast sum. If we are to restore health to oureconomy we must narrow that gap, and do so quickly.

Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op): When the cuts that the Chief Secretary hasannounced today—which his boss will no doubt announceagain on Tuesday—lead to lower growth, higherunemployment and the collapse of the constructionindustry, with consequential reductions in the Government’srevenue and increases in their benefit bills and, as aresult, an increase in the deficit, what will he cut next?

Danny Alexander: I think that what the hon. Gentlemanand, if I may say so, many Opposition Members fail torecognise is that the country faces a choice: a choicebetween taking the robust action which is needed andwhich we will take to bring responsibility to the publicfinances and reduce the deficit, and failing to take thataction. The risk posed by the latter course is clear fromwhat has happened in other countries. I believe that theaction that we are taking today, and will no doubt takein future weeks and months, is necessary to ensure thatin future we have the jobs and growth that we need.

Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab): Before his right hon.Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) wrote theChief Secretary his “Carry On Cutting Regardless”letter, he came to the House and told Members that hehad been advised that the future jobs fund element ofthe young person’s guarantee did not provide value formoney. The former Secretary of State for Work andPensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton,Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), said thatthat conflicted with what she had been told when inoffice. Will the Chief Secretary now publish both sets ofadvice and place them in the Library of the House sothat Members can make up their own minds about whois telling the truth?

Danny Alexander: What I know is that according tothe Department for Work and Pensions the programmeprovides poor value for money, and that the Workprogramme with which we will replace it next year willgive better, more targeted, quicker and more effectivesupport to the people who are most in need. It will dowhat I hope every Member wants, and help those peopleto return to work.

Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab): In the days whenthe Liberal Democrats were in a separate party from theConservatives, did they not say in their campaign thatthey would not make cuts this year and pull the rugfrom under the feet of the economic recovery? Did theright hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg)make any representations to the Chief Secretary aboutSheffield Forgemasters, and when he stood for electiondid he make his constituents in Sheffield aware that avote for the Liberal Democrats would lead to hundredsmore people in Sheffield losing their jobs?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman has askedabout four questions in one. I will answer the first. Ashe knows, the risks facing the country have changedover the past few months. Any survey of the evidenceacross the world suggests that the risks of sovereigndebt crises are huge in other countries. That is reflectedin the G20 communiqué, which agreed that faster fiscalconsolidation was what was needed in major economies.I think that that is right. Only the Labour party is out ofstep with that international consensus.

Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab): Again andagain, the Chief Secretary, his predecessor and theSecretary of State for Work and Pensions come to theHouse and assert that the future jobs fund is an ineffectivescheme. How can the Chief Secretary say that when theDepartment for Work and Pensions has not collectedthe data concerned? The first cohort of young people totake part in the scheme have only just finished, and thedata are not yet available.

Danny Alexander: According to my information, theprogramme represents poor value for money and is notdelivering on the objectives set out for it, and our Workprogramme—which the Secretary of State for Workand Pensions will be announcing—will give people amore effective, quicker and more direct route back intowork by paying providers by results, and ensuring thatpeople receive the support that they need.

Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con): Hasmy right hon. Friend received one piece of slightlyuseful advice from Labour Members about how to sortout the mess that they created?

Danny Alexander: There was one—

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.

Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North)(Lab): This morning, when I asked the Under-Secretaryof State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes(Norman Baker), for clarification of the Government’scommitment to funding for the reinvigoration of theTyne and Wear metro, I was told to wait for the statementfrom the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Unfortunately,his statement has made it no clearer to the people of


[Catherine McKinnell]

Tyne and Wear whether that vital transport infrastructurewill be given the investment that it needs in order tosurvive—investment that has not been made for30 years—or whether it will be left to die on its feet.

Danny Alexander: The Department for Transport willbe in a position to provide clarity on the approvals thatit has. I suggest that the hon. Lady redirect her inquiriesto that Department.

Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab):On 11 March, the Deputy Prime Minister came toNewcastle and announced an investment of half abillion pounds in wind power in the north-east. Doesthe fact that that project is not included in the list ofcuts in industry, jobs and front-line hospitals mean thatit is going ahead, or was it never intended to proceed inthe first place?

Danny Alexander: The last Government announced aproject for competition in the area. It is still undergoinga process with the European Union involving state aid,approval and so forth. I shall not be in a position tooffer approval or otherwise until that process has beencompleted, but once it has been completed, we shall beable to make an announcement.

Banking Reform

1.18 pmThe Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark

Hoban): With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make astatement about the Government’s plans to reform theinstitutional framework for financial regulation.

The tripartite system of financial regulation failedspectacularly in its mission to ensure financial stability,and that failure cost the economy billions. The Britishpeople rightly ask how this Government will stop ithappening again. That is why our coalition agreementcommitted us to reforming the regulatory system forfinancial services in order to avoid a repeat of thefinancial crisis. Let me now set out in detail the changesto the regulatory architecture that will make that possible.

At the heart of the banking crisis was a rapid andunsustainable increase in debt. Our macro-economicand regulatory system utterly failed to identifycorrectly the risk that that posed, let alone prevent it.No one was controlling levels of debt, and when thecrunch came, no one knew who was in charge. For thatreason, we need a macro-prudential regulator with amore systematic and detailed knowledge of what ishappening not only in individual firms, but across thefinancial system as a whole.

Only central banks have the broad macro-economicunderstanding and understanding of markets, the authorityand the knowledge required to make macro-prudentialjudgments. We will therefore place the Bank of Englandin charge of macro-prudential regulation by establishingwithin the Bank a Financial Policy Committee. We willalso create two new, focused regulators: a new prudentialregulator under the Bank of England, headed by a newdeputy governor, and a new Consumer Protection andMarkets Authority. All the new bodies will be accountableto Parliament, and their remit will be clear so that neveragain can someone ask who is in charge and get noanswer.

First, we will legislate to create the Financial PolicyCommittee in the Bank of England. It will have theresponsibility to look across the economy at the macro-economic and financial issues that may threaten stability,and it will be given the tools to address the risks itidentifies. It will have the power to require the newPrudential Regulation Authority to implement its directionsby taking regulatory action with respect to all firms.

The FPC will be accountable to Parliament in twoways: directly, as is the case with the Monetary PolicyCommittee; and indirectly, through its accountability tothe Bank’s court of directors. The Governor will chairthe new committee. Its membership will include thedeputy governors for monetary policy and financialstability, the new deputy governor for prudential regulationand the chair of the new Consumer Protection andMarkets Authority, as well as external representativesand a Treasury representative. An interim FPC will beset up by the autumn, in advance of this legislation.

Secondly, we will create a Prudential RegulationAuthority as a subsidiary of the Bank of England. Itwill conduct prudential regulation of sectors such asdeposit-takers, insurers and investment banks. The PRAwill be chaired by the Governor of the Bank of England,and the new deputy governor for prudential regulationwill be the chief executive. The deputy governor forfinancial stability will also sit on the PRA board.

1055 105617 JUNE 2010Public Spending

Thirdly, a new Consumer Protection and MarketsAuthority will take on the Financial Services Authority’sresponsibility for consumer protection and conductregulation. The CPMA will regulate the conduct of allfirms, both retail and wholesale, including those prudentiallyregulated by the PRA, and will take a strong proactiverole as a consumer champion. It will have a strongmandate for ensuring that financial services and marketsare transparent in their operation, so that everyone—fromsomeone buying car insurance to a trader at a largebank—can have confidence in their dealings and knowthat they will get the protection they need if somethinggoes wrong.

The CPMA will regulate the conduct of every financialservices business, whether they trade on the high streetor trade in high finance. We need to ensure that thisbody has a tougher, more proactive approach to regulatingconduct, and its primary objective will be promotingconfidence in financial services and markets. The CPMAwill maintain the FSA’s existing responsibility for theFinancial Ombudsman Service and oversee the newlycreated Consumer Financial Education Body, whichwill play a key role in improving financial capability.The CPMA will also have responsibility for the FinancialServices Compensation Scheme, but given the importantrole the scheme plays in crises, it will work closely withthe FPC and PRA. We will also fulfil the commitmentin the coalition agreement to create a single agency totake on the work of tackling serious economic crime,which is currently dispersed across a number of GovernmentDepartments and agencies. Before we set up these newbodies in their permanent form, we will conduct a fulland comprehensive consultation, and we will publish adetailed policy document for public consultation beforethe summer recess.

Our goal is radically to improve financial regulationin the UK, strengthening the prudential regime byplacing it in the Bank of England and delivering thebest possible protection for consumers. During the periodof transition to the new regime, the Government willalso be guided by the following four principles: minimisinguncertainty and transitional costs for firms; maintaininghigh-quality, focused regulation during the transition;balancing swift implementation with proper scrutinyand consultation; and providing as much clarity andcertainty as possible for the FSA, Bank and other staffaffected during the transition. In order to do that, wewill ensure the passage of the necessary primary legislationwithin two years.

I am delighted that Hector Sants, the current chiefexecutive officer of the FSA, has agreed to stay on tolead transition and become the chief executive of thePRA. He will be supported in his work by AndrewBailey from the Bank of England, who will become thedeputy in the new PRA. This is a strong team to ensurea smooth transition.

We all know that the financial crisis has cost taxpayersdearly. The regulatory system needs radical reform tomake the sector more stable and stronger. The lastGovernment could not do that because they were caughtup in a structure designed by the former Chancellor andPrime Minister. The fundamental flaws in that architecturecontributed to the failure in the banking sector andultimately undermined economic stability. The continuingfinancial and economic uncertainty across the eurozonestrengthens the urgency with which we must equip

ourselves with better tools and arrangements to tackleany future financial instability.

We have already paid a high price for the previousGovernment’s failings. We must do all we can to preventthis from happening again, and I commend this statementto the House.

Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op): MayI thank the Financial Secretary for advance sight of hisstatement, and as this is, I think, his first outing in hisnew role, may I congratulate him and welcome him tohis post—and, indeed, wish him well?

While no one can dispute that a failure to regulateeffectively was at the heart of the global financial crisis,the key failure by regulators in monitoring agencies andcentral banks across the globe was in understanding thegrowing systemic risks in financial services. We alsoshould not overlook the failure in bank boardrooms tounderstand what was going on. This was not just anissue in the UK. Does the Financial Secretary acceptthat in some countries the central bank had primeresponsibility for regulation, whereas in others, includingours, responsibility has been shared, and in our casebetween the Bank, the FSA and the Treasury, and thatthe Bank has always had responsibilities for financialstability?

Specifically, who will appoint the new Financial PolicyCommittee? Will individual members have their ownvote, or will that be merely advisory to the Governor?Will FPC minutes be published, and will the Governoror the chief executive of the PRA ultimately be responsiblefor the decision on whether act? Does the FinancialSecretary also accept that there will be concern—notleast among those who were victims of the Bank ofCredit and Commerce International, of which my righthon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)has consistently reminded the House—about the recordof the Bank of England at financial services supervision,and will he now consider publishing part two of theBingham Report?

Will the Financial Secretary not acknowledge toothat the Financial Services Authority today is a vastlydifferent regulator from the FSA of 2007—as, indeed,the Treasury Committee has acknowledged? Will heacknowledge that a significant level of better trainednew staff and the new activism of the FSA in itssupervisory role has led to a bolder, more vigorousapproach to financial services regulation in recent times?

How, in practice, will the Financial Secretary avoidthe very real risk of a loss of energy as regulators nowfocus on their own futures, given that there continues tobe considerable uncertainty and instability in globalfinancial markets? Specifically, can he clarify who willbe responsible for supervision and regulation before2012, and will he acknowledge the profound risk, giventhe proliferation of new bodies he has announced, ofongoing regulatory confusion—of issues falling betweenthe cracks? Indeed, is it not right that there will now beeffectively two different regulators for many financialfirms?

I was surprised by the absence of any reference to theBanking Commission in the statement. Does the FinancialSecretary not accept that proposals to break up bankswould not have made any difference to Northern Rock,a retail bank, or Lehman Brothers, an investment bank,

1057 105817 JUNE 2010Banking Reform Banking Reform

[Mr Gareth Thomas]

and that what is needed is increased capital held bybanks and living wills to manage the possibility offuture banking problems? Will he explain how thedeliberations of this commission on a possible break-upof British banks, such as Barclays or HSBC, can beconducted in a way that reassures the markets and doesnot exacerbate financial instability?

Does the Financial Secretary recognise that the financialservices industry employs over 1 million people andremains crucial to our economic future? Will he ensurethat, whatever proposals he accepts—if, indeed, he doesaccept any from the commission—we do not put ourselvesat a commercial disadvantage compared with othercountries? Specifically, how will the proposals announcedtoday impact on remuneration, and what ongoing effortis there to secure international agreement on bankinglevies again, so that Britain is not at a competitivedisadvantage?

Is it not the case that while the work of each of thenew bodies and the commission will be worthy ofserious scrutiny on their own merits, as the shadowChancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member forEdinburgh South West (Mr Darling), said yesterday,the Government risk creating a system that injectsmore, not less, uncertainty into the City? While thearchitecture of the regulatory system is clearly important,is it not the skills and judgment of individual regulatorsthat matters most at the moment? Surely, it is not wherethey sit; it is what they do.

Mr Hoban: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his newrole and I am grateful to him for his welcome to me.Although I listened very carefully to his remarks, I amnot quite sure whether the Opposition accept our proposalsor whether they are stuck in the past defending to thelast the former Government’s regulatory architecture,which they put in place in 1997. It is time that theOpposition faced up to this problem—do they acceptthat the system put in place by the right hon. Memberfor Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was flawedand needs reform, or are they the last people to defendthe status quo in this country?

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of detailedquestions. Let me address them. He recognised thebuild-up of systemic risk in the economy over thecourse of the past 13 years, but he must acknowledgethat the reforms introduced by his right hon. Friend in1997 took away from the Bank of England the power tomonitor and respond to those risks.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the appointmentsto the Financial Policy Committee, and they will beconsistent with the approach currently adopted towardsthe Monetary Policy Committee. He referred to theBingham report and the collapse of BCCI and, as hewill remember from the exchange between the righthon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling)and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor yesterday, theChancellor is going to look into that matter.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the FSA hasmade progress and that is one reason why we aredelighted that Hector Sants has agreed to lead the FSAthrough the transition period and then to become thechief executive of the PRA. No matter how far the FSAimproves in the execution of its role, the reality is that

the flawed architecture that the hon. Gentleman’sGovernment put in place undermines all that it does.This package of reforms ensures that we have the rightregulatory architecture in place to identify and tacklethe systemic risks to which he referred and ensuresproper protection for consumers so that they will neveragain be let down.

Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con): Is it not clearthat if public money is to be put at risk during afinancial crisis, the only person with the moral authorityto take a decision will be the Chancellor of the Exchequer?Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer should thereforehave the power to assume the chairmanship of theFinancial Policy Committee during a crisis. Will myhon. Friend confirm that that will be possible under thelegislation that will be brought before the House?

Mr Hoban: My hon. Friend makes a good pointabout who takes control in a crisis. My right hon.Friend the Chancellor was very clear yesterday that,given his responsibilities in respect of public finances,he will ultimately be in charge in such situations.

Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton)(Lab): Since the direct causes of the financial crash werecolossal bonuses that drove recklessness, the use offancy structured investment vehicles including sub-primemortgages, the conflict of interest whereby credit ratingagencies and auditing companies are paid by the companythat they are supposed to be assessing and, above all,the overly lax culture of light-touch regulation, whatprecise, specific mechanisms is the Financial Secretaryputting in place to deal with each of those underlyingproblems as opposed to merely shifting around theinstitutional infrastructure, which is all he appears to bedoing?

Mr Hoban: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentlemanfor his comments. He takes a close interest in thesematters. Of course, he will remember that in 2006 theright hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls)praised the system of “increasingly light-touch”regulationand claimed that he had“resisted pressures from commentators for a regulatory crackdown.”

The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton(Mr Meacher) ought to take up some of these historicalissues with his own Front Benchers.

As regards a change to the regulatory approach, weneed to see a move away from the prescriptive, box-tickingapproach that we have seen in a recent years to a systemin which the PRA and the CPMA can make morejudgmental decisions about what is happening in themarkets they supervise and with the prudential decisionsthat individual institutions are taking. If we put judgmentat the heart of the system, we are more likely to avoidsome of the issues that we have seen arise in recentyears.

Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con): MayI warmly welcome the Minister to his role? Will he tellthe House about conversations that he has had withinternational colleagues about the need for radical reformof the regulatory system and the failure of the lastGovernment’s tripartite system?


Mr Hoban: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Therehave been a number of conversations with other colleaguesglobally about the lessons to be learned from the financialcrisis and from the regulatory structures. It is interestingto talk to people in other jurisdictions about their views.Christian Noyer, the governor of the Banque de France,said in July last year:

“Indeed, one of the main lessons of the crisis may be that thosecountries where central banks assume banking supervision tookadvantage of their ability to react quickly and flexibly to emergencysituations.”

Others have expressed a similar view and that is why Ithink that the reforms we are announcing today are inthe mainstream of reforms in financial regulation—amainstream that the Opposition seem quite happy tostay outside, yet again.

Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab): I welcome theevolution of financial regulation. I think that the presentsystem was tested and found wanting, so the movementhas to be welcomed. I want to press the Minister on thesubject of the Banking Commission. It was interestingthat he left it out of his statement and that worries me,because I note that it will take 18 months before itreports. If that is so, it will probably miss the Queen’sSpeech for the following year, which suggests that it willbe three or four years before we see legislation and themuch-needed changes that will deal with the banks thatcaused the crisis. They continue to flaunt their behaviouron bonuses and have continued to hurt small businessby not lending in the last two years. Urgent action isneeded, so why is there this long timetable and why wasthis subject missing from his statement?

Mr Hoban: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman forthat question. He has been a distinguished member ofthe Select Committee on the Treasury and has takenpart in many discussions in that Committee and inPublic Bill Committees when we have explored some ofthese issues. I sense that he is much more engaged in theneed for reform than his colleagues on the Front Bench.

The Banking Commission is important and it is vitalthat we ensure that we learn some of the lessons thatarise from the structure of the UK banking system. Wehave a very concentrated banking structure and threeout of the four principal banks in the UK are universalbanks. We need to understand what risks flow from thatand how best to tackle those risks as well as consideringthe impact of competition in the banking sector. Theappointment yesterday of Sir John Vickers as chairmanof the commission has been greeted with warm applauseacross the business and consumer community. Thereare four other commissioners— Martin Wolf, MartinTaylor, Clare Spottiswoode and Bill Winters—who areequally distinguished in their own fields. The commissionwill provide the opportunity for a proper debate aboutthe structure of banking in this county—a debate inwhich the former Prime Minister and former Chancellordid not want to participate. We think that it is time tohave that debate and when we have had it, that will helpremove the uncertainty about the structure of bankingin the UK.


Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I take the nextquestion, may I ask for short questions and succinctanswers? That will help everybody to get in.

Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con): Iwelcome the Minister’s statement on these much-neededreforms. Will he tell the House how the reforms set outtoday will affect the insurance sector, which shares thesame regulatory regime as the banks but clearly operatesvery differently?

Mr Hoban: My hon. Friend makes a good pointabout the role of insurance. In this crisis, we mustensure that we distinguish between what has happenedto the banking sector and the relative success of theinsurance sector in withstanding the storms of thiscrisis. It is an important sector to the UK economy anda huge wealth generator. We need to ensure that theinsurance sector, when it comes within the remit of thePRA, has the right sort of prudential regulation thatrecognises its strengths and challenges. It will of coursebe regulated as regards its relationship with consumersby the CPMA.

Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): The people of this countrywant to see a bit of humility and payback on the part ofthe banks. One opportunity to do that would be throughthe so-called Robin Hood tax on banking transactions,with the money going to alleviate poverty here and totackle climate change across the globe. Will the FinancialSecretary urge his right hon. Friend the Chancellor tointroduce such a tax and to influence colleagues worldwideto do likewise?

Mr Hoban: I must say that I think that some humilityshould be shown by the Opposition Front Benchers forlanding this country with a system that led to thelongest and deepest recession since the 1930s.

Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con): I welcome the Ministerto his new role. Does he agree that these bankingreforms will help to boost confidence in the Britisheconomy once they are enacted? That will help to keepinterest rates lower for longer, boost investment andcreate jobs.

Mr Hoban: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question.It is important to ensure that businesses have confidencethat where macro-prudential threats arise in future,action will be taken to resolve them. They did not havethat confidence in the previous regime and I hope thatthey will have that confidence following the reformsthat we have put forward today.

Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)(PC): Economic growth in the past decade was drivenlargely by consumption. As a consequence, £1.4 trillion-worth of personal debt is circulating in the UK economy,which means that the human cost of the current recessionwill be particularly severe. Will the new ConsumerProtection and Markets Authority make sure that lendershave to undertake affordability audits so that individualsand families incur only debts that they can service?

Mr Hoban: The hon. Gentleman is right to pick upon this issue. One of the big challenges is ensuring thatconsumers are properly equipped to understand theirborrowing and saving needs, and the Consumer FinancialEducation Body has a key role to play in improvingfinancial capability in order to help people to make theright decisions. Also, there is an obligation on industryto make sure that it provides consumers with the bestadvice possible to help them to make the right decisions.


Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con): I verymuch welcome that direction of travel, just as I welcomedthe decision of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldyand Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), in 1997, to set the Bankof England free to make decisions on interest rates. Willthe Minister clarify whether the Financial Policy Committeewill publish its minutes openly and on a regular basis,and how it will deal with a situation in which it isconcerned about a specific institution?

Mr Hoban: It is important that the Financial PolicyCommittee is transparent in its dealings. It is a greatstrength of the Monetary Policy Committee that it istransparent and that it can be held to account by thepublic for its decisions. We need to ensure that similararrangements are put in place for the FPC, respecting,as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the confidentialityof individual firms.

Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): Will one ofthe new organisations under the Bank of England, theOffice for Budget Responsibility or someone else alertthe Treasury if the housing market starts to get overheatedagain?

Mr Hoban: One of the roles of the Financial PolicyCommittee is to identify threats to financial stability asthey emerge. I would expect the FPC, in its work oflooking at overall trends in the economy, to identifythat sort of risk and to make it known not just to theTreasury, but to the wider public through its regularreports.

Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentlemansay how many people at the FSA and at the Bank ofEngland currently earn more than the Prime Minister?Does he intend to apply the policy in the coalitiondocument? If he decides to pay above the rate of thePrime Minister’s salary, should that element of the paybe performance-related given the gravity of the decisionsthat such people will be taking?

Mr Hoban: There is an issue about pay levels, whichwe will need to look at. I am intrigued by the hon.Gentleman’s suggestion that there should be a greatervariable element in relation to performance, given that acritique of many is that an excessive bonus culture inthe City contributed to the financial crisis.

Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con): Will the Ministerplease explain how today’s announcements will end theconfusion in the markets and make sure that there isproper focus on regulation to end that confusion?

Mr Hoban: The package that we have set out today,which was greeted with a great deal of support lastnight when the Chancellor outlined it to the City, endsany uncertainty. The transition process that we haveoutlined today in relation to legislation, and the teamled by Hector Sants, the current chief executive officerof the FSA, will reassure the City about the direction oftravel on regulatory reform. The new settlement, whichtakes into account macro-prudential supervision, micro-prudential supervision and effective consumer supervision,will ensure that we have the right package of regulatorystructures in future to safeguard the economy and togive confidence to consumers and others in the markets.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): I welcomethe Minister to his new position. I know that CountyDurham will be proud as he is a son of CountryDurham. Has he given any advice to the regulator onthe position of non-executive directors on banks’ boards,particularly regarding their role, remuneration andqualifications? He will know that one problem withNorthern Rock was the fact that the non-executivechair’s only qualification appears to have been that hewas a member of the Ridley family—he inherited itfrom his father.

Mr Hoban: The hon. Gentleman makes an importantpoint about the qualifications of non-executive directors.That is why the FSA has already instituted a process ofinterviewing senior members of staff and directors,before their appointment to boards or positions ofresponsibility, to ensure that the qualifications andexperience that they bring to those important roles ischecked.

Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): Is theMinister seriously contending that had these arrangementsalready been in place, the financial crisis would not haveoccurred? If he is not making that absurd suggestion,will he accept that he cannot promise that such afinancial crisis will not occur again with these arrangementsin place?

Mr Hoban: It is clear that if the Bank of England hadnot lost its power to monitor and act upon the level ofdebt in the economy, it might have been in a position toconsider what was happening in the housing market, toconsider the role that Northern Rock played in fuellingthe asset-price bubble and to take action to cool thatdown. The only person who tried to rule out boom andbust in the past was the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldyand Cowdenbeath.

Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con): Does my hon.Friend agree with the Governor of the Bank of England’sassessment that there was little real reform of bankingregulation under the last Government, and that theOpposition should therefore welcome the measures thatwe are setting out today?

Mr Hoban: I hope that the Opposition will welcomethe measures, but their views were not very clear fromwhat the shadow Treasury spokesman said. In the pastthree or four years, when we have debated the reform ofparts of the banking regulation sector, the problem hasbeen that the then Government were unable to engagein the fundamental debate about whether the architecturewas right. They failed to address that question, and thatled to a new Government addressing that question andputting things right for the first time.

Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab): Will theMinister invite hon. and right hon. Members who areinterested in the future of Liverpool football club to ameeting with RBS officials fully to scrutinise the dealthat props up its leveraged buy-out by two Americanbusinessmen?

Mr Hoban: The board and management of RBS areresponsible for its day-to-day commercial activities.


Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con): Given theglobal nature of banking, will the Minister advise us onhow regulation will proceed on an international basis,bearing in mind the need to maintain as many jobs aspossible in this country?

Mr Hoban: It is important to make sure that debateson regulation are co-ordinated at the global level, andmy right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequerand the Prime Minister take an active role in thosedebates in the G20. I have recently taken part in ECOFIN’ssummit, at which we discussed new supervisoryarrangements in Europe. I am absolutely certain that wewill engage the debate both in Europe and globally toensure that the structure of regulation supervision goingforward is right to make sure that the system is stableand to ensure that decisions that have a fiscal impact aretaken here, by UK regulators, and not in Europe.

Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab): Iwill accept that the banking reforms will make it morelikely that if exactly the same problems happened inexactly the same way in exactly the same countries, wemight be able to spot them, if not to do anything aboutthem. Does the Minister accept that by failing to addressthe institutional failures in the banking system that areoutside regulation—such as pay incentives within banking,the role of the rating agencies, the failure of internationalinformation flows and the lack of transaction costs ininternational financial markets—our country is just asvulnerable as ever to banking failures?

Mr Hoban: I do not agree with the hon. Lady. Thepackage of reforms makes a significant improvement tothe regulatory architecture in the UK, and there isfurther work that we can do at the European and theglobal level to make it more effective. She is right, inpart, to say that institutions need to change their behaviour.We need to look at the structure of banking, which iswhy we will set up the Banking Commission that theChancellor announced yesterday. Those reforms willhelp to improve structure, but let us look at what isimportant. Let us get the architecture right in thiscountry, let us remedy the flawed system that her party’sGovernment introduced in 1997 and let us ensure thatthe Bank of England has the tools to do the job. Thatwill make a significant contribution to improving financialstability.

Point of Order

1.49 pm

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): On a pointof order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the Financial Secretary’saddress to the House today, he made the accusationthat Labour Ministers, possibly including myself, madespending commitments that were not funded. My hon.Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) made thepoint that, if that was the case, I and other Ministerswould have had to put a letter into the accountingofficer—that is to say, the permanent secretary in theDepartment. Could you use your offices to request thatthose letters be produced to go against the accusationthat has been made today?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): That is nota matter for the Chair, as the hon. Member well knows,but he has certainly got his point on the record and I amsure that everybody has taken on board his comments.

1065 106617 JUNE 2010Banking Reform

Building a High-Skilled Economy

1.50 pmThe Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation

and Skills (Mr John Hayes): I beg to move,That this House has considered the matter of building a high

skilled economy.

It is a delight, having spent so many years in theshadows, to come into the light and be able to speak inthis House as the new Minister. Some hon. Memberswill have read today in the press of my endorsement forfloristry and dance. I am wearing this perfectly colouredco-ordinated buttonhole to illustrate the first, but theHouse and you in particular, Mr Deputy Speaker, willbe relieved to know that I shall not be illustrating thesecond, at least not by example.

The performance of the shadow Minister in office,the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan),once the man who called the tune, was rather more of aconga than a quickstep. You know the conga, I have nodoubt, Mr Deputy Speaker. It comprises a group ofhapless individuals linked by routine, hopelessly followingone another on a journey to nowhere.

Adult learning is a subject that inspires in those hon.Members present—I know this is true of hon. Membersacross the Chamber—emotional attachment and personalcommitment. At the same time, it is not a subject inwhich anyone or any party can claim a monopoly ofwisdom, which is why I am interested to hear viewsfrom across the Chamber. However, a new Governmentoffer a new chance of a fresh start, the opportunity tobring change and hope to adult learners. However, noteveryone realises that there has been a change. Sitting inmy office the other day in my new Department, I wassurprised to receive an out-of-the-blue phone call fromsomeone asking for Mandy. I had to break the news tohim that Mandy had moved on. To paraphrase BarryManilow, “Oh Mandy, well you came and you tookwithout giving… but I sent you away.”

Lord Mandelson was right in at least one importantrespect. He made the economic case for skills. Theeconomic case for skills was by far the strongest casemade by the previous Government. It is significant, ofcourse—indeed it is vital—but it is not the only case forskills. The economic case, which I shall deal with first,has been thrown into sharp relief by the economicturbulence, by the rising levels of unemployment andfalling levels of hope, especially among young people,and by the growing numbers of employers finding itdifficult to stay in business. It will continue to occupy aprominent place in public discourse as we move out ofrecession and towards the renewed growth about whichmy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spokerecently at the Cass business school.

Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con): Willmy hon. Friend give way?

Mr Hayes: I happily give way to my hon. Friend, whohas been such a resolute champion of the Open universityin his constituency, which does so much to foster learning.

Mark Lancaster: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Ishould like to invite him to join me in paying tribute tothe Open university. The one thing that has not changedin recent times is the contribution that that institutionhas made to lifelong learning.

Mr Hayes: The fact that I anticipated my hon. Friend’sintervention merely gives it more force. He is right tosay that the Open university plays a critical role in thatregard. I will happily visit that place once again tocement the relationships that I have already formedthere.

The economic case for skills will continue to beimportant because of the link between skills andcompetitiveness. It is well established, and it was madeclear five years ago in the Leitch and Sainsbury reviews.Already their analysis has become orthodox in thedebate about skills and the economy. The essence oftheir case was, and it remains salient, that driven by newtechnologies, the pace of economic and industrial changeis growing, not just here in the west but in Asia andincreasingly in Africa and South America. Once, thosecountries either did not compete in the same markets asthis country or could offer only technologically inferiorproducts. That is no longer the case. The unequalcompetition between high quality and low cost has beenreplaced by what Lord Sainsbury called a “race to thetop”.

Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): In thecontext of international competition, how worried isthe Minister by the letter in today’s The Daily Telegraphfrom senior executives of leading British companies,who warn against the dangers of cuts to universityfunding and the risk that we will be left behind in theinternational competitive league as a result?

Mr Hayes: There is no doubt that the relationshipbetween research and development and the kind ofdynamism that I have described is a profound one. Iknow that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universitiesand Science will take that very seriously indeed in theprocess of framing our policy in respect of highereducation.

I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, SellyOak (Steve McCabe) is sympathetic to the argument, soI may be pushing at at least a half open door when I saythat further education matters too. Building skills fromthe bottom up, re-engaging young people not inemployment, education or training, up a ladder of skillsto the levels that he is describing—levels 3, 4 and 5—iscritical. The hon. Gentleman will understand why todayI want to speak particularly about further education, asthat is my responsibility.

We need to provide workers with the skills they wantand businesses with the skills they need to compete inthis increasingly challenging world. The Leitch analysispointed towards an intensive effort to raise skills in thiscountry, and indeed the House more than once debatedthese matters when the Labour party was in government.It is easier perhaps to say on the Opposition Benches,but I will repeat it from the Government Bench, that Ido not accuse the hon. Member for Cardiff West ofanything worse than a mistake. I do not think thatLabour Members are malevolent; I think their intentionsare broadly the same as ours. I just think they aremisjudged. This is not about malice; it is about error. Iknow that they will want to acknowledge that whenthey speak in the debate. They are big men, and I wantto give them this chance, because I am a generousMinister, to rush to the Dispatch Box to say that theygot it wrong. Wouldn’t we welcome that? Wouldn’t thewhole country welcome it, too?

1067 106817 JUNE 2010 Building a High-Skilled Economy

Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): Are you sureyou didn’t teach drama?

Mr Hayes: Well, I said I was interested in dance. I aminterested in sufficient drama to add to the theatricalityof this place without which it would be poorer.

During the years of the Labour Government, LabourMembers often alleged that the largesse to further educationwould end if we came to power. If the right hon.Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), my opponentand friend, were to wish to repeat his unfortunateappearance on “Celebrity Mastermind”—I do not wantto remind him of that too much—he could do worsethan choose the Thatcher Government as his specialistsubject. We came to realise during our time in oppositionthat the Labour party spent more time speaking about1979 than about the present. They were preoccupiedwith that in their dark years, and perhaps that is notsurprising for a party that usually looks backwardsrather than forwards, whereas the Conservative party iscommitted to progress and taking our country to whereit needs to be now.

As a consequence of that preoccupation with thepast, we were left with another Labour Governmentwho spent until they broke the bank. As a result, evenbefore they lost office, they were already cutting adultskills. Last year’s pre-Budget report said—I have it herefor those hon. Members who have not had the opportunityto go to the Library to collect it—that £300 millionwould be cut from the adult skills budget if Labourreturned to Government. When Members hear complaintsabout the new Government’s performance, they shouldset them in that context. Mandy was first to the table tosay he would cut his Department, and encouraged hiscolleagues to do the same. People are still makingphone calls to my office to try to find him, to askexactly where the cuts would have fallen.

While Labour Members were drifting further andfurther out of touch into a world populated by fictionalnumbers rather than real people, Conservatives weretalking to adult educators and adult learners abouttheir experiences. We were talking to employers abouttheir skills needs and to union learning representativesabout the obstacles they face in creating a learningculture among their members. So that it is unequivocal,so that there is no question and no doubt, let me saythat I and the Government are committed to unionlearn;we celebrate all it does and all that it will continue to dowith our support and encouragement.

As a result of the conversations we had and dialogueswe enjoyed, we learned important lessons about theindispensability of further education as an engine ofsocial and economic change. History teaches us that thebetter educated a nation’s people are, the more economicallyprosperous they are likely to be. Their general levels ofhealth will be better, too. Their communities will bemore united and their family and social bonds will bestronger, and the more they will appreciate the thingsthat money cannot buy, but without which life is colourless.All deserve their chance to see, hear, taste and touchbeauty.

The conviction that education is the key to so muchmore than a wage packet drove pioneers, such as thefounders of the Workers’ Educational Association, whosought to take learning, until then the preserve of theprivileged few, out to the many. The impulse that promoted

better manual skills also created the penny classics thatdid so much to spread the love of English literaturethroughout society, and the growth of choral andinstrumental societies that brought great music virtuallyto the factory floor. The fire that drove adult education’spioneers still burns, and it drives the coalition Government’sprogramme for further education and skills. The challengewe face in rebuilding a system that is fit for purpose isscarcely less imposing than was theirs in building asystem from scratch.

In recent years, the link between skills andcraftsmanship—I am not afraid to call it craftsmanship—the ideal of self-betterment and the pleasures of learningas a means of gaining wider and richer perspectives onthe world have been allowed to wither. But not anylonger: we in this Government will make a bold case forthat relationship—a firm case for the cohesive power oflearning, how it changes lives by changing life chancesand increases prospects both to gain and prosper in ajob, and in all the other ways that I have described.

No one denies that one of the key functions ofGovernment is to create, as far as possible, the rightconditions for economic success, and none would deny,I hope, that adult skills policy is one of the mostpowerful economic levers at any Government’s disposal.But the time has come finally to acknowledge that asocialist model of centralised planning has failed, evenin terms of its own narrow criteria for success. We reallycannot continue the micro-managed, target-driven,bureaucratic regime that for years has dogged furthereducation and damaged our prospects of raising skillslevels.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you and the Housewill not underestimate the scale of the challenge. TheUK Commission for Employment and Skills reportedin “Ambition 2020”, published last year, that on recenttrends we are likely to slip from 18th to 21st in theOECD rankings for intermediate level skills by 2020.Shadow Ministers will be familiar with the report.

Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)rose—

Mr Hayes: I happily give way to the new Chairman ofthe Select Committee, whom I welcome in that role.

Mr Bailey: I thank the Minister for his kind words. Iwelcome him to his position and look forward to seeinghim in our Committee in due course. I congratulate himon his bravura performance—indeed, it has been quitetheatrical at times. He commented on the top-downapproach. I note that his colleague the Minister forUniversities and Science has written to higher andfurther education organisations inviting them to publishemployability statements. Today the hon. Gentlemanplaced a statement in the Library saying that theGovernment would be introducing measures to give“learners the information they need to drive the system, throughthe publication of clear and consistent information.”

If that is not an example of a top-down and potentiallybureaucratic approach, what is it? Could he enlightenus?

Mr Hayes: I want to be generous; as you know,Mr Deputy Speaker, that is in my character. I know thatthe hon. Gentleman is new to the task, but he has been

1069 107017 JUNE 2010Building a High-Skilled Economy Building a High-Skilled Economy

[Mr Hayes]

an assiduous member of the Business, Innovation andSkills Committee, and a frequent contributor to debatesin the Chamber. As such, I hoped he would have knownthat the key plank of my party’s perspective on thissubject—indeed, the coalition’s perspective—is the needto inform and empower learners. It is critically importantthat people get the right advice and guidance, and partof that process is explaining to them the likely employmentoutcomes of pursuing courses of study and training.We are encouraging universities and colleges, and thereformed careers service that we will bring in, to givepeople a very clear understanding of what will happenif they embark on particular routes. What are theirchances of getting a job? What sort of job will it be?What are the wage implications? How might they progressthereafter?

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) rose—

Mr Hayes: I give way to my hon. Friend who in hismaiden speech has already made his commitment toskills, and apprenticeships in particular, very clear.

Robert Halfon: I congratulate my hon. Friend ondoing so much to push forward our policy for 100,000apprenticeships. Why do only just 28% of British workersqualify to become apprentices or gain technical skillscompared to France, where the figure is 51% or Germanywhere it is 65%—the percentage we should reach in thiscountry? What has gone so badly wrong in the UK thatour skills level is so low?

Mr Hayes: That requires not so much an answer as aseminar, but I shall try to summarise in a sentence ortwo what I might say at such a seminar. The problem inBritain has been threefold. First, we have not promotedapprenticeships as effectively as we should. Althoughthe brand is strong among potential learners, employersand the public, it is clear that the previous Governmentdid not believe in apprenticeships as much as we do.[Interruption.] Opposition Members complain but manypeople thought that the right hon. Member for Tottenham’sministerial predecessor—a valued colleague and a goodMinister—did FA for FE and was sent to the FO. I donot know whether Fanny Adams is unparliamentarylanguage, but it is certainly true that in debates with thatMinister I made it absolutely clear that we wanted togrow the number of apprenticeships, yet the LabourGovernment insisted on retaining a strong emphasis onwhat they regarded as their flagship training and skillsproduct—Train to Gain, about which I shall speak alittle more in a moment.

The second point in answer to my hon. Friend’sintervention is that although part of the problem isabout marketing, part of it is about resource. We havedecided to transfer a significant portion of the Train toGain budget to apprenticeships, because we know theskills apprenticeships can confer. We know how longthey take to learn and we know that people want them.We know employers like them. We know what they cost.That cannot be said of the Train to Gain programme, inwhich the previous Government placed so much faith.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)rose—

Mr Hayes: I give way to the hon. Lady, who alwaystakes such an assiduous interest in education matters.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am sure we are all enjoyingthe hon. Gentleman’s theatrics this afternoon, but willhe look at some evidence? In 2008-09, 240,000 peoplestarted apprenticeships, compared to 75,000 in 1997-98,so I do not think it is for Labour to take lectures fromthe Conservatives about the importance of apprenticeships.

Mr Hayes: The hon. Lady must not deceive newMembers—[Interruption.] I know she would not doso—except inadvertently, of course; I take that as read—because newer Members might come to believe hersuggestion—I put it no more strongly than that.

What the previous Government actually did was toreclassify what counted as an apprenticeship. In Franceand Germany, about which we heard a moment ago, allapprenticeships are at level 3, and they once were inBritain. When the Labour Government came to power,they reclassified level 2 qualifications as apprenticeshipsand then trumpeted the fact that there were more ofthem. As both the Labour Front-Bench spokesmenknow, the level 3 numbers remained stubbornly ratherless than was required, than the Government wantedand than employers knew they needed. So we shouldfocus on level 3 apprenticeships if we wish to get a truecomparison both of our previous performance and ofinternational data.

Kevin Brennan: How many of the 50,000 new placesthat the hon. Gentleman is announcing can he guaranteeto the House will be level 3 apprenticeships?

Mr Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is far too experienceda Member to expect me to give on-the-hoof guaranteesof that kind, but what I will say is that I have asked myofficials—my officials—to look closely at the definitionand, indeed, the stratification of apprenticeships. I wantto built the ladder of qualifications that takes peoplefrom re-engagement right up to level 4 and 5.

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman and the House aboutthree things that we will do on apprenticeships. As wellas putting the extra resource in, we will grow the numberof frameworks at level 3 and 4 and we will exploreframeworks at level 5, where there is a demand, I amtold, in meetings with the high-tech industries such asadvanced engineering. The hon. Gentleman will knowsome of the sectors to which I refer. We will look closelyat those level 2 apprenticeships which, with redefinition,can be built to level 3—in other words, some of thehigh-end level 2 qualifications that with further workmay become level 3—and we will think again aboutthose level 2 qualifications that cannot. It is entirelyappropriate that they might be regarded as a foundationto an apprenticeship, but I am not sure that it is rightthat they should be called full apprenticeships. Thismakes comparisons with our international competitorsdifficult, and I am not sure that it does not short-changeemployers and learners. Yes, of course, there is a placefor level 2, but the emphasis will be on level 3, and thatis what the hon. Gentleman needs to know.

Kevin Brennan: Is the hon. Gentleman saying thatsome of the new apprenticeships that he is announcingthat he will create may not be classified as apprenticeshipsin future?


Mr Hayes: No; I am saying that some of the existingapprenticeships may not be classified so, and that thenew money and the new emphasis will be on level 3. Iwant to return to the main text of my speech.

Steve McCabe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Hayes: I want to make progress; I will give waylater. The hon. Gentleman has had one turn, and althoughI am generous, my generosity is not without limit.

I want now to focus on the highly centralised andbureaucratic system that developed under the previousGovernment, whereby funds that could have been usedon teaching and training were actually used detailingplans, complying with targets and formulating schemes.Instead of enabling colleges and other providers torespond to the needs of businesses and learners, Ministersthought they knew what was best. Excessive bureaucracysapped precious energy from our education system. If Imight, as a primer, offer advice again, particularly tonewer Members, that if proof were needed of thatassertion, it is to be found in the report commissionedas early as 2005 by the last Government under theauspices of Sir Andrew Foster. That report concludedthat there was a “galaxy” of oversight, inspection andadministration in the FE sector, and called for preciselythe kind of streamlined and more responsive structurethat we in this Government will now put in place.

Even worse, though, that centralised, target-drivenmicro-management led to a systemic failure in the formof an FE capital funding crisis from which the sector isstill reeling. Members will know that the Learning andSkills Council encouraged bids that would have cost10 times more than the available funds. Across thecountry, 144 capital bids were frozen. Members acrossthe Chamber came to the House to complain about thecircumstances in their localities and the effects on theirlocal colleges, and rightly so. Seventy-nine of thoseprojects had already received agreement in principle.Many colleges incurred considerable cost.

Andrew Foster was once again brought out of mothballsby the Government to produce another report, and hemade it very clear that a top-heavy, bureaucratic systemhad failed. He concluded that the LSC was too slow torespond—“there were straws in the wind, early storm warnings, but theproblem was not crystallised fast enough.”So we will look closely at FE capital. Next week, I shallmake it clear how we will spend on a bid basis withcolleges the extra £50 million that the Chancellor hasagreed to devote to FE capital projects.

Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Hayes: I will give way once more, and then I reallymust make some progress, because a number of hon.Members want to contribute to the debate.

Kevin Brennan: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm thatthe extra £50 million that he describes as capital hasbeen taken from the Department’s revenue spending forskills, and that it will only be for this year, and thattherefore in the long term, in perpetuity, it is a £50 millioncut?

Mr Hayes: I have already celebrated the hon. Gentleman’sassiduity, and his numeracy skills are obvious, too. He isright: the money is being taken from the Train to Gainbudget, and it is being allocated to capital. The justification

for that is the urgency of the problem. Had the Labourparty organised the capital funding in FE in anythinglike a reasonable way, we would not have to take theseemergency measures. That will bring some light to thosecolleges who were for so long, as I was, in the shadows—inthe darkness.

The hon. Gentleman will also know that this istherefore a one-off programme, but we will now look ata longer-term set of proposals for FE capital, and in myestimation even this short-term measure will deliverbenefit to 150 colleges across the country. There will bemore details next week. I know that the hon. Gentlemancannot wait—the whole House is excited—but he must,because I cannot give all the presents out on the sameday; some have to be saved for Boxing day.

There has to be a better way to take advantage of theimmense human capital in the college system, to build ahigh-skilled, high-tech economy. We really must offer anew beginning. That is why I want to move to the fourpoints that lay at the heart of the letter that I wrotetoday, and then to my exciting conclusion.

The letter that I have written today to the principalsof all colleges sets out ways in which we will set FE free.First, I am removing the requirement to complete summarystatements of activity, with a resulting reduction inperformance monitoring of employer responsiveness.Secondly, the Government have already announced theremoval of Ofsted inspections for schools with outstandingperformance. I will work with ministerial colleagues tointroduce the same way of working in the FE sector,removing inspections for colleges with outstandingperformance.

Thirdly, I will remove the regulatory requirement forcollege principals to undertake the principals qualifyingprogramme, not because I do not want appropriatelyqualified principals—I know that there are a range ofdevelopment opportunities and qualifications that canenhance managers’, leaders’ and principals’ skills to runcolleges in the 21st century—but because individuals inour institutions should be free to decide what packageof development is appropriate to support their individualcircumstances.

Fourthly and most importantly, I will enable all collegesexcept those that are performing poorly to move moneybetween adult learner and employer budgets, becausethey, rather than Ministers, know how best to meet theneeds of local learners and employers. All those measuresare intended to increase the power of colleges to determinehow best to manage their affairs in the light of localtraining needs. I want not just to encourage them tolisten to what local people and local businesses have tosay, but to be free to act, to respond and to use thatinformation with a minimum of fuss, delay andadministrative cost.

This is only the beginning—a first indication of theGovernment’s determination to deliver on the promiseswe made to providers when we were in opposition. Weare drawing a line under the mistakes of the past andreaching for a better future.

It is true that our debate takes place in difficultcircumstances and that the public sector will be obligedto make efficiency savings. It is also true, as I saidearlier—I want to be honest about this—that no guaranteescan be offered about future funding. With freedomcomes a fresh challenge, so as unnecessary compliancecosts are reduced, I will be looking to colleges to find


[Mr Hayes]

efficiencies. They would expect that, as would the House.That will include encouraging colleges to find morecost-efficient ways of conducting their affairs, such asby merging back-office functions and streamlining theirprocurement processes. If the Government had donethat earlier—when Labour Members controlled the pursestrings—we could have made more progress to matchand beat the performance of the competitor countriesto which I referred that have outpaced us on apprenticeshipsand driven up the skills of their work forces to an extentthat we have not. The Train to Gain programme waspart of the problem. I know that former Ministers areobliged to defend it, but they know what the NationalAudit Office said about its dead-weight cost. Theyknow that assessment was too often dressed up astraining and that the brokerage service at the programme’sheart was, at best, only a partial success.

Before my appointment as Minister, I was fortunateenough to enjoy a long apprenticeship as shadow Minister.Over those years, I held countless meetings with collegeprincipals and visited innumerable colleges throughoutthe country. Everything that I said in opposition, andeverything that I say now in government, has beeninformed by the views and opinions of the sector. Wewill continue that dialogue about shaping further educationin this country—alongside the needs of business andindustry, and combined with the Government’spriorities—in a way that delivers opportunities to a newgeneration of learners.

The stakes are high. The ability of our economy toadapt to rapidly changing circumstances depends in nosmall measure on the capacity of workers to adapt.They need to be sure of the promise that new skills andknowledge will lead inexorably to new and better chancesin life. My aim—and my commitment—is to make goodon that promise for the next generation.

Today, a start has been made, but there is much moreto do to build a country with the skills that we need tocompete, a country ready to elevate the practical, and acountry where learning is valued for its own sake andfor its economic, social and cultural benefits: proud,confident learners, colleges free to respond and a dynamic,highly skilled economy—Britain being the best that itcan be.

2.23 pm

Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): May I start byapologising to the House for the fact that I will not beable to be present for the wind-ups? I have alreadyinformed the Minister and you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I genuinely welcome the Minister to his post as skillsMinister on his first outing since the formation of thenew Government. Given his flowery rhetoric, it waskind of him to provide a visual aid in his lapel, which weall appreciated. He was somewhat ungenerous in hisopening remarks, but that was slightly uncharacteristic.I know that he is a lover as poetry, and I hope that thespeech that we have just heard will not be typical of hisministerial speeches, given that it contained no poetry. Iam also a lover of poetry, so perhaps I may cite a linefrom Yeats:

“Those that I fight I do not hate”.

That is certainly true of the hon. Gentleman, but as hemight know the rest of the poem, I should emphasisethat I love my own side.

When we were in government, we said that themanufacturing of items constructed out of compositematerials probably represented part of the future forBritain, but few of us anticipated that it would bepossible to meld the Conservatives and Liberal Democratsto manufacture a composite Government. We can onlybegin to speculate about how quickly the already visiblefissures in that composite construction will form intocracks, and then progressively and inevitably lead tocritical failure.

The Minister is extremely fortunate to inherit hisportfolio, because he has the opportunity to build onthe Labour Government’s tremendous record of achievingso much when we were in power, provided that hisDepartment does not continue to be the Chancellor ofthe Exchequer’s whipping boy in the frenzied search forcuts far beyond those necessary to bring down thedeficit at a sustainable rate.

Let me briefly outline why the Minister is fortunate toinherit our record on skills. The performance of furthereducation colleges and other providers has improveddramatically over the past decade. The satisfaction ratesof employers and learners have risen. Since 2001, about3 million adults have improved their basic skills andachieved a national qualification. Since 1997, morethan 2 million people have started apprenticeships, whichrepresents a massive increase in apprenticeship startssince the Conservative party was previously in power.Completion rates for apprenticeships have also morethan doubled.

Despite the Minister’s trashing of the Train to Gainprogramme—although I note that he has not completelyaxed it—employers and workers report strong satisfactionwith the scheme. More than 1 million people have beenable to start learning programmes at work that lead to aqualification. That has reduced staff turnover, improvedproductivity and engaged more than 140,000 employersin training. Earlier this year, I was proud to be able tomeet Chris Scott, a process operator at William BlytheLtd, a chemical manufacturer in Accrington, who, bycompleting his level 2 NVQ—yes, level 2—in businessimprovement techniques, became the one millionth learnerfrom the Train to Gain programme to gain a qualification.I should also mention the record number of students inhigher education, although my right hon. Friend theMember for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) will say moreabout that later.

Robert Halfon: The hon. Gentleman talks about theimportance of Train to Gain, so why did the previousGovernment cut £1.3 million from the Train to Gainbudget for Harlow college?

Kevin Brennan: It would be remiss of me if I did notwelcome the hon. Gentleman to the House. I also paytribute to his predecessor, who is a former skills Minister.I shall talk about the priorities for skills spending later.However, I note that although the current Minister hastried to cut the Train to Gain budget and to trash theprogramme comprehensively, he has not yet completelyabolished it.

I am especially proud of the work that we did ingovernment with the trade unions. Despite Conservativehostility, as even the Minister might admit, we introduced


the union learning fund, which is now worth £21.5 milliona year. As a result, there are now more than 23,000 unionlearning reps. They get to the parts of the workplacethat other trainers and providers sometimes do notreach, and they helped nearly 250,000 workers intolearning last year. Latterly—I give this Minister and theMinister for Universities and Science credit for this—thateven won praise from the Minister for Universities andScience for its effectiveness and efficiency. One day, theskills Minister might be able to mention the unionlearning fund and the trade unions in a speech and getthe odd “Hear, hear!” from the Back Benchers behindhim, rather than the blank looks that he got when hetalked about them today.

The highly successful transformation fund for informaladult learning has also brought about a sea change inpeople’s perceptions of themselves, and has helped togenerate a marked increase in participation, particularlyamong those in the lower D and E socio-economicgroups, and that is a legacy of the previous Government’sof which I am proud.

There was huge investment of over £2 billion inbuilding the colleges of the future, although the hon.Gentleman rightly mentioned the problems with theprogramme. That programme transformed the places inwhich people learn. He will have the pleasure, as Minister,of visiting many of those colleges and seeing thetransformational impact of the capital investment inour further education colleges that took place under theLabour Government. He may also remind himself thatnot a single penny was spent on further educationcapital for colleges in the final year of his party’s lastterm in office. So there is a substantial platform onwhich to build, and a clear strategy for the future wasset out in the skills White Paper last November.

Mr Hayes: Given the spirit that has permeated ourexchanges thus far, and indeed today, I know that theshadow Minister will want to welcome the extra £50 million.He was slightly critical when he said that it was to betaken from revenue and was a one-off, but he knowsthat that was needed and will be welcomed across thesector. Will he just say a word of welcome for that?

Kevin Brennan: I am always happy to argue for moreinvestment and capital for our FE colleges, but later Imay return to the issue of the £50 million and whether,overall, the Department should be welcoming the wayin which it has been pick-pocketed by the Treasury overthat measure.

As I say, there is a substantial platform on which tobuild. The skills White Paper, which, as the hon. Gentlemanknows, was published last November, set out prettyclearly the skills challenges for the next decade and aclear set of proposals to meet that challenge, includingan ambition to ensure that three quarters of peopleparticipate in higher education or complete an advancedapprenticeship by the age of 30. Included in thoseproposals were: the expansion of the apprenticeshipsystem to build a new technical class by doublingapprenticeship places for young adults; apprenticeshipscholarships; and the focus of the skills budget on theareas from which future jobs will come. I make noapology for that, although I agree with the hon. Gentleman’sremarks about skills being wider than simply an economicmatter. I make no apology for focusing on the areasfrom which future jobs will come.

The proposals also include: a joint investment schemewith sector skills councils; more national skills academies;skills accounts, to which I think the hon. Gentlemanreferred; user-friendly public ratings for colleges andproviders, to which I think he referred in his writtenstatement today; better skills provision for those onout-of-work benefits; promotion of apprenticeships asa priority in public procurement; reducing the numberof publicly funded skills agencies by over 30; and focusingresources on key economic strategic priorities. A strongrecord of achievement and a clear and widely welcomedstrategy for the future—that is the strong legacy bequeathedto the hon. Gentleman as Minister with responsibilityfor skills in the new Government.

Mr Hayes rose—

Kevin Brennan: I am sure that the hon. Gentlemanrises to acknowledge that.

Mr Hayes: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentlemantoo often, and I will give him some poetry, if I get achance, in a later intervention, but he talks about thelegacy that his party left. I just want him to be clear withthe House about where the £300 million reductions in“funding not directly supporting learner participation and lowerpriority adult skills budgets”

would actually have fallen; that is in the pre-Budgetreport that his Government published.

Kevin Brennan: I am slightly surprised by that comment,because the hon. Gentleman seemed at first in hisspeech to be criticising us for making those necessarysavings, but later to be saying that we should have madethem earlier. I am not quite sure why that suddenlybecame the point on which he wanted to intervene.However, he can intervene as often as he likes; I amhappy to give way to him on any number of occasions,as he knows.

What does the hon. Gentleman propose to do withthe strong, powerful and compelling legacy that I havejust outlined to the House? First, his Department iscutting by 10,000 the number of university places thatwould have been on offer this autumn. That is despitehe and his colleagues persistently claiming—and actuallybringing my colleagues and me to the House, when wewere the Ministers, to boast about the fact—that theywere committed to creating an extra 10,000 universityplaces over and above what the Government werecommitted to through a sort of “buy now, pay later”student loan early payback scheme, which we arguedwas entirely bogus, and which appears to have beenwiped from the collective memories of the GovernmentFront Benchers during their coalition reprogrammingcourse.

Perhaps when the Under-Secretary of State for Business,Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingstonand Surbiton (Mr Davey) winds up, he can tell us whathappened to the pet scheme to conjure up more studentplaces for free. The Minister for Universities and Scienceexplained in the House on many occasions how it wouldwork, despite our scepticism. Has the Treasury finallyexplained to him and his colleagues what we told himall along—that it was Mickey Mouse maths and wouldnot work? I think that the Under-Secretary agrees thatit is Mickey Mouse maths—he did when he was inopposition.


[Kevin Brennan]

What else have the Administration done on skillsapart from announcing cuts to university places andbudgets? They have tried to soften the Department’spain of being the Chancellor’s whipping boy so far inthe £6 billion in-year cuts package by recycling £200 millionfrom the skills budget—from the Train to Gainprogramme—into additional apprenticeship places costing£150 million, and, as the Minister outlined, into capitalfor further education colleges of £50 million. The Secretaryof State bragged about that yesterday in the Chamber.He tried to give the impression that it was year zero andthat he was the first Minister ever to come to theDispatch Box to announce anything about spending onfurther education capital and apprenticeships.

On capital, the Secretary of State has been done overby the oldest Treasury trick in the book—convertingrevenue into capital. He claimed that he kept back£200 million from the package when he is doing no suchthing. The £50 million on capital, as the Minister generouslyadmitted in his remarks, is for this year only. TheChancellor has picked the Secretary of State’s skillsbudget pocket for future years to the tune of £50 millionper annum and that should be acknowledged.

The Secretary of State should have made the case forcapital separately, if he wanted to make such a case tothe Treasury in the spending review. Instead, he hasallowed the Treasury to deny the skills budget £50 milliona year from next year onwards—in perpetuity—evenbefore the Budget and the spending review. That is alittle naive. He has been had and he ought to haveknown better.

Let us consider the apprenticeships proposal. Thereare no stronger supporters of apprenticeships than me,Labour Members and the previous Labour Government.No Government did more than the previous Governmentto rescue apprenticeships from the almost criminalindifference of the previous Tory Government, whoallowed apprenticeships to fall to only 65,000 and acompletion rate of only a third.

The Secretary of State should be more candid aboutthe proposals. He is not trying to do the difficult, butmost important things on apprenticeships. He is afterthe low-hanging fruit—and I hope he will think carefullyabout that—because he hopes to claim a quick victoryon apprenticeship numbers. For the benefit of the Houseand all concerned, let us be clear about what he isdoing. Despite his trying to give an impression to thecontrary yesterday, he is not creating new trainingopportunities apprenticeships for the youngest and mostdifficult to place. He is not—as we pledged to do and hemust still deliver, unless he wants to tell us that he willabandon the policy; I do not think that he will—tryingto create more advanced apprenticeships for youngadults. He is not aiming to support a particular numberof new jobs. He is transferring funding in the trainingand skills budget from one form of funding for thosewho are in work into another—good, but moreexpensive—form of training, which he knows isoverwhelmingly likely to be taken up not by employerslooking to take on new young workers who are currentlyout of work, but by those who will train a smallernumber of older workers currently in work than theywould have done under Train to Gain.

Now that is fine—it is a legitimate decision for theGovernment to make—but the Secretary of State shouldnot try to give the impression that the announcementand the programme is likely to result in 50,000 new jobopportunities for young people, or even new jobs forolder workers.

Mr Hayes: We cannot allow this to stand, can we? Ihope that I wear the weight

“Of learning lightly like a flower”,

in the words of Tennyson. I also hope that that learningmight inform the thinking of the House on apprenticeships.Of course some of the new apprenticeships will be adultapprenticeships and some will be for young people, andof course some will be about upskilling and some aboutreskilling, but to suggest that the people involved willsimply be those currently taught under Train to Gain isnonsense. The hon. Gentleman knows what the NationalAudit Office said about that scheme: 25% dead-weightcost.

Mr Speaker: Order. May I say to the Minister that theerudition of his intervention was equalled only by itslength? Although it is a joy to listen to his mellifluoustones, I hope that not all such interventions will be ofequal length.

Kevin Brennan: It is a joy to listen to the Minister, andI am glad that he at last came up with some poetry andquoted Tennyson’s words that one should wear learninglightly. Perhaps I could come back with some AlexanderPope:

“A little learning is a dang’rous thing;Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring”.

The vast number of people who will take up theMinister’s proposals will already be in work, and theywill be in the older, not the younger, age bracket. Hemay prove my prediction wrong in future, but he doesnot have a rule to ensure that the apprenticeships are foryounger workers—under 25s—or one to ensure thatapprenticeships are for new starts only. If he wants totalk about dead weight, he should calculate the deadweight of his proposal in respect of the training thatwould have happened anyway.

The Minister also needs to tell us how he will drive upapprenticeships elsewhere—in the public sector, for example.How will he use procurement to help that? Unless heshows leadership—I say this to him candidly andsincerely—and knocks heads together in the Government,that will not happen. All he will get from his colleagueswill be that one-note symphony that we have heard sofar from the Government, like the vuvuzelas in theWorld cup, with their saying that nothing can be doneon public sector apprenticeships because of cuts. Thatis what he will be told. My advice to him is this: heneeds to fight, fight and fight again against Treasuryorthodoxy on behalf of apprenticeships if he wants tomake an impact as a Minister.

It is clear that the Minister’s enjoyable and occasionallyflowery rhetoric—if he will forgive me for saying so—hidesa prosaic reality in the Department for Business, Innovationand Skills. The Secretary of State really wants to be incharge of the banks but has been walked all over by theChancellor of the Exchequer in that ambition and, inan age-old Treasury way, has had his pocket picked overFE, skills, capital and revenue; and the Universities andScience Minister, who really wants to be the Secretary


of State and deeply resents the Liberal Democrat succubuswho now has his job, has, in his absent-minded, dual-brained, batty, professorial way, carelessly mislaid 10,000university places since the election. It is no wonder thatin the confusion, the Treasury has been able to bamboozlea Department that has two heads and three brains. Nowwe have proposals for capital and apprenticeships thatare not all that they seem.

If we are going to build Britain’s skills for the future,we need strong, united leadership from the Department,not weak, divided leadership hidden by the Minister’sbaroque oratory. His words are fine for now, but unlesshe starts standing up for skills, his flowery rhetoric willwilt under the heat of political reality.


Mr Speaker: Order. As I think the House will beaware, the debate is heavily subscribed, and I thereforeimpose a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, toapply with immediate effect.

2.44 pm

Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con): I amgrateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speechas the first Member for the new Milton Keynes Southconstituency. I regret that I do not have any poetry toshare with the House this afternoon, but I am pleasedto contribute to this debate on building a high-skilledeconomy. The motto of Milton Keynes is “By Knowledge,Design and Understanding”, and my constituency hasalways been at the heart of learning and technologicalinnovation.

Before I turn to those themes, let me first pay tributeto my predecessors. I use the plural deliberately because,thanks to the work of the Boundary Commission, Ihave two. The bulk of my constituency was in theformer Milton Keynes, South-West seat, representedfor the last 13 years by Dr Phyllis Starkey. I got to knowher quite well, having been her opponent in the 2001and 2005 elections, as well as in the poll last month.Over the 10 years in which we were political sparringpartners, it is fair to say that there were few policies onwhich we agreed. However, I pay tribute to her for herservice to Milton Keynes. To represent such a diverseand dynamic constituency for more than a decade is nosmall achievement. I also know that she had a strongreputation in this House for pursuing her causes withtenacity and determination.

My other immediate predecessor is, I am delighted tosay, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton KeynesNorth (Mark Lancaster). He was a diligent and well-regarded representative for the two wards that I haveinherited from him—Danesborough and Walton Park—and I look forward to continuing his good work. Indeed,we are planning to work very closely together to providea seamless service to the whole of Milton Keynes. Inthese financially challenged times, we are endeavouringto save on the public purse by sharing a constituencyoffice.

Hon. Members may think that they know aboutMilton Keynes, but I would like to use this speech tochallenge a number of misconceptions. In an economicdebate, it would have been neat to follow the widely heldview that Milton Keynes is named after the twodistinguished economists, Milton Friedman and John

Maynard Keynes, but that is not the case. The city takesits names from the historic village of Milton Keynes,which is in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

It is true that Milton Keynes is a new city that is justover 40 years in age, with plenty of modern housingestates, and the roundabouts and grid road system withwhich hon. Members may be all too acquainted if theyhave not followed the logic of the layout. However, thatmodernity belies a rich history stretching over manycenturies. Stony Stratford, for example, is an ancientcoaching town on the Watling street roman road. TheHouse may not know that the origin of the phrase“cock and bull story” lies in Stony Stratford. On thehigh street, there are two hotels—the Bull and theCock. Legend has it that, as travellers stopped to breaktheir journeys between London and cities in the midlandsand north, the ale flowed freely and stories becamemore and more embellished before being relayed, intheir exaggerated state, to their destination. I pledgethat my contributions in this House will have a sounderfactual base.

Bletchley, which forms about one third of myconstituency, is of course the home of Bletchley Parkand the code breakers, whose brilliant work certainlyshortened the second world war and saved many hundredsof thousands of lives. Indeed, it is not too much of anexaggeration to say that their work changed the outcomeof the war and, had they not succeeded, we might nottoday enjoy the freedom of speech that we do. I amdelighted to report that, after many years of neglect,important restoration work is being carried out at BletchleyPark, under the expert guidance of its director, SimonGreenish, and I shall do what I can to ensure that therestoration project is completed.

I also wish to use this opportunity to pay tribute tothe former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member forKirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), for what hedid to right the wrong against the brilliant code breakerand mathematician, Alan Turing, a national hero whowas so persecuted for being gay that he ultimately tookhis own life. While the right hon. Gentleman and I sharelittle political agreement—although, in the interests offull disclosure, I should declare that I was christened byhis father—I pay tribute to him for making that nationalapology for the wrong done to Alan Turing.

Bletchley Park is also the home of the modern computer,which is just one of my constituency’s major contributionsto the UK’s high-skilled economy. That tradition hascontinued with the Open university, which is also locatedin my constituency. Many hundreds of thousands oflives have been transformed by the Open university, andit has long-embodied the vital principle of lifelonglearning, reskilling people as their careers evolve andgiving a second chance to those who have, for whateverreason, missed out on a more traditional form of highereducation. The new vice-chancellor of the Open university,Martin Bean, is making an excellent start in preparingand updating the university to meet the ever-evolvingchallenges that lie ahead. His appointment is significant,because as a former senior director of Microsoft, hismove from a high-end private company to the world ofeducation illustrates the vital links that must exist betweenthe two if the UK is to sustain a high-knowledgeeconomy.


[Iain Stewart]

Milton Keynes is home to another pioneering modelof higher-level learning that I believe will play a majorpart in the skilling of our economy—University CentreMilton Keynes, under the wise leadership of ProfessorKeith Straughan. When fully established, this excitingnew concept will enable young people to access top-qualitylearning close to home and integrated with their learningat work. It is a model of partnership working and cameabout as a result of demand from the local community,local employers, civic partners and the voluntary andcommunity sector. Will the Minister, as well as visitingthe Open university, visit UCMK? I am sure that he willfind a lot there that fits with the Government’s agenda.

I have long believed that to unlock the full potentialof people in the UK, we need to break down some ofthe barriers that sometimes exist between higher andfurther education, and the needs of skilled employers.To ensure that the UK can beat both our traditionaleconomic competitors and the fast-rising challenge fromemerging economies, we need much greater flexibility inour education system, and in that Milton Keynes isleading the way.

Milton Keynes has a high-skilled economy, with manyexciting new projects, such as the electric car schemebeing piloted there. However, our success does not restalone on its dynamic economy. For a relatively youngnew city, we have a fantastic, positive, can-do attitudeand enjoy a rich tapestry of civic society, with morethan 1,200 voluntary and charitable organisations. Thatspirit is embodied by Milton Keynes’ successful bid tobe a host venue should England be successful in stagingthe 2018 World cup. And let this Scotsman put it on therecord that I want England to triumph in South Africaand to go on to host the tournament in eight years.

After my electoral disappointment in 2001 and 2005,I could easily have moved on and sought a securerpassage to this place, but I did not want to. Havingmade Milton Keynes my home, I wanted to be theMember for that area, and I feel honoured to be given achance to represent it in the House. I began my speechby paying tribute to my immediate predecessors, but Iwould like to conclude with a reference to anotherformer Member—Bill Benyon, who is the father of myhon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon)and was Member for the Milton Keynes area for 22 yearsuntil 1992. Nearly two decades after he retired from thisHouse, he is still remembered with great warmth andaffection by many of my constituents as a kind,compassionate and hard-working man who believed inMilton Keynes and did whatever he could to championthis exciting new city on a wider stage. I hope that, inmy time in the House, I can achieve a similar record ofservice.

2.53 pmSteve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab): I congratulate

the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart)on his maiden speech—a Scotsman supporting England,hey?

“Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I stumble over the proprietiespeculiar to the House”.—[Official Report, 24 July 1991; Vol. 195,c. 1202.]Those are not my words, but the opening salvo in themaiden speech by my predecessor, whom I shall citemore later, on 24 July 1991. Such observations are as

true today as they were 19 years ago. Although I haveonly been in this place for a few short weeks, I havealready started to take notice of the vagaries of theHouse. For example, I have noted that when a Memberbegins a speech with the words “I will be brief”, anextensive and loquacious contribution is guaranteed.Similarly, when the words “This doesn’t really needsaying” are uttered, it is odds on that an explanation ofwhat it was that did not need saying will be given, insome detail, to those to whom it did not need explainingin the first place.

Mr Speaker, you may well have been able to discernfrom my accent—if not my haircut—that I am from thehome of John, Paul, George and Ringo. However, it isalso the home of Gerry Marsden, The Farm and ChinaCrisis, to unashamedly mention just a few of my personalfriends. Liverpool boasts too many politicians, musicians,comedians, poets, broadcasters, artists and so on tomention individually. Otherwise, my maiden speech maywell have been one of the longest ever recorded.

It is also possible to find a Scouser at every level ofour armed forces. One of my constituents, Craig Lundberg,who was blinded in an attack by insurgents in Iraq, is aninspiration to others. Like many Members from allparts of the House, I would like to pay tribute to allthose in our armed forces who carry out such dangerousand commendable work on behalf of us all.

I represent a constituency that, uniquely, boasts twopremiership football clubs within its boundaries. Inour football-mad city, the achievements of Everton andLiverpool have a direct effect on the fortunes of ourcity. Historically, we have been no strangers to on-fieldsuccess. However, for one of our clubs it is nowfortunes of the financial kind that threaten its veryexistence. I urge hon. Members to sign early-day motion197 on the issue, as the Minister concerned previouslyrefused my request for a meeting with the Royal Bankof Scotland.

I should perhaps declare at this point that I am adyed-in-the-wool Liverpool fan and a season ticketholder at Anfield. However, I would honestly say thesame things if Everton FC had been the victim of aleveraged buy-out that had endangered its future survivaland caused so many problems for my constituents livingin close proximity to its football stadium. England’smost successful football club is slowly being drained bythe greed of two American asset strippers, and this ishaving a negative impact on regeneration projects forthe whole area. Unfortunately, the beautiful game doesnot always attract those with beautiful intentions.

One of the great socialist philosophers of the lastcentury—the great Bill Shankly—may have been mistakenwhen he said that football was more important than lifeand death. However, supporters of both of our sportinginstitutions at least understood his passion, and theywill not stand idly by without being engaged in thefuture of their respective football clubs.

The reason Mr Shankly was uncharacteristically wrongis that our city unfortunately recognises more than mostthe life-and-death results of poor stadium safety andineffective policing—primary causes of the tragedies atHeysel and Hillsborough. I can assure my constituentsthat I will campaign on their behalf against any plans towater down ground safety standards, and that I willfight tooth and nail to protect the inquiry set up toexamine the Hillsborough disaster. I would like to thank


my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (AndyBurnham), on behalf of all the Hillsborough families,for pushing so hard to get the process started.

My predecessor may have been from the blue half ofMerseyside, but he was certainly from the politically redhalf of this Chamber. It is traditional for Membersmaking their maiden speeches to highlight the contributionsof their predecessors. Some are faced with the unenviabletask of waxing lyrical about a political opponent whomthey may recently have put to the electoral sword.Others may have replaced a colleague in controversialcircumstances, while some may have been complicit intheir predecessor’s downfall. I am pleased to say thatnone of those scenarios applies in my case. Put quitesimply, I would not be in this place without the support,encouragement and friendship of Peter Kilfoyle.

Peter will go down as one of the great parliamentarians.He was widely respected in all parts of the Chamber,despite—or perhaps because of—the fact that he wasindependent of mind and voted with his conscience,sometimes controversially, as on the issue of Iraq, butalso in his spirited opposition to the scrapping of the10p tax rate. Peter’s opposition to the Iraq war was notmet with universal support on the Labour Benches atthe time, but it appears that some of my right hon.Friends who are in the race for the Labour leadershipare also now expressing reservations about that policy.As coalition Members will find out, hindsight is awonderful thing.

In a world of political self-aggrandisement, PeterKilfoyle sacrificed career advancement for ideologicalprinciple. It is refreshing that there are still men andwomen whose moral judgment and values override thedangled carrot of elevated office. I can only aspire tofollow in Peter’s footsteps. He dedicated 19 years to theservice of this House and to his constituents in Liverpool,Walton. He also achieved his aim of doing justice to hispredecessor, the late Eric Heffer, who gave 27 years tothe same cause. I certainly have my work cut out if I amto follow two such political giants. I wish Peter’s lovelywife Berni all the very best in coming to terms withhaving him under her feet 24/7.

It is an unbelievable privilege to have been elected bythe people of the area in which I have lived all mymarried life, and I am delighted to represent them inthis place. I do not intend to let them down. I am proudto be a Scouser and to represent Walton, where mymum was born. One of the best things about makingmy maiden speech is that my mum’s name, DorothyRotheram, will now be recorded in Hansard in perpetuity.

I actually thought I had something in common withthe Prime Minister when someone mentioned that he,too, had been brought up on an estate. On furtherexamination, however, I discovered that his estate wasnot that similar to ours after all. I make no apology forstating on the record that I intend to be a strong voicefor the people who elected me to the safest seat in thecountry, and for the city I love. I plan to be a constantthorn in the side of the present Government, and toensure that Liverpool is not disproportionately affectedby funding cuts, just as it was the last time Tories sat onthe Government Benches.

Both of my predecessors had connections with theconstruction sector, and I am delighted to keep up thattradition. I am guessing that I am among only a tinyminority of people in the Chamber who have completed

an apprenticeship. I started my working life as anapprentice bricklayer, and my son Steven is an apprenticeelectrician. I am passionate about the building industryand about apprenticeships. The last Labour Governmentbreathed new life into apprenticeships, which had beenall but killed off by the previous Conservative Government.A high-skilled economy is not just about graduates, andI therefore welcome the Government’s road-to-Damascusconversion on that matter. I will campaign for parity ofesteem between vocational and academic training routes.

As a serving Liverpool councillor, I would like to puton record my congratulations to Councillor Joe Andersonand my colleagues, and I wish them all the very best inthe months ahead. My predecessor concluded his maidenspeech by highlighting to the then Conservative Governmentthat unless they took steps to tackle the social issues ofthe day, they would not be forgiven. Coalition Membersshould heed such lessons from history.

3.3 pmCaroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North)

(Con): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me thisopportunity to make my maiden speech today and, inso doing, to contribute to this debate on building ahigh-skilled economy. I congratulate the hon. Memberfor Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who is fortunateto be able to boast of two premiership football clubs inhis home city. Sadly, in Southampton we can no longerdo the same. I should also like to congratulate my hon.Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (IainStewart), who made an excellent contribution, enlighteningus on the motto for Milton Keynes and challengingsome of the misconceptions that even those who arerelatively close to his constituency might have held.

A debate on a high-skilled economy is particularlypertinent to Romsey and Southampton North. InChilworth, we have the excellent university of Southamptonscience park, where 14% of the employees are graduatesof the university. It contributes more than £370 millionannually to the regional economy. I was fortunate tovisit one of the companies on the park just this week,and I can certainly attest to the importance of a high-skilledwork force, given that they were testing high explosives.

My next comments are far removed from the high-techworld of Chilworth, as I turn to the heart of theconstituency, Romsey town, several hundred years ago.On the edge of the town, being renovated this year, isBroadlands—the stately home where the 19th centuryPrime Minister Lord Palmerston was born. Broadlandshas been described as having a grandness that personifiesthe swaggering confidence of Palmerston. I can assurefellow Members that there will be no swaggering fromme today.

Although Palmerston was born in Romsey, he neverserved as its Member of Parliament, so I will not paytribute to him as a predecessor—and anyway, goingback to the 19th century would be somewhat stretchingthe point. He did, however, have an interesting politicaljourney as a Tory, a Whig and, indeed, a Liberal. It isinteresting to note that he has been described in somebiographies as having too strong a character to beoverwhelmed by liberalism.

I would like to pay tribute to two predecessors in theRomsey constituency. Michael Colvin served theconstituency of Romsey and Waterside from 1983 to1997, and the Romsey constituency from 1997 until his


[Caroline Nokes]

untimely death in 2000. Michael was a good man, afarmer who understood the rural areas of the constituencywell. He was a former Grenadier Guard, and waspassionate about championing defence issues. He wellunderstood the military issues relevant to the school ofArmy aviation in Middle Wallop, and he was also aparish, district and, indeed, a county councillor inHampshire. As a serving borough councillor in thesame district that he served, I can attest to that being agood apprenticeship for Parliament.

Also committed to Romsey was my immediatepredecessor, Sandra Gidley. She worked hard for theconstituency and was well known for her commitmentto the NHS and to women’s issues. She is, of course,also well known for having dragged Mr Speaker to hisChair last year.

The recent election saw significant boundary changes,and further parts of Southampton are now included inthe new Romsey and Southampton North constituency.It now includes the Ford plant at Swaythling. Southamptonis well known as the home of the transit, and Ford iscommitted to using innovation and technology to makeBritain’s best-selling light commercial vehicle as greenas possible. It has been successful, and its ECOnetictransit has the lowest CO2 emissions in its class.

Even in an area where we are fortunate to have goodschools, an excellent university and companies like Fordcommitted to Britain’s manufacturing base, there is stilla disconnect between what employers want and theskills of our school leavers. It is critical that the two arematched, and that our education system works withemployers to make sure there is no skills gap.

Having a strong and productive work force is aboutmany things, and one of the key strengths of the Romseyand Southampton North constituency is the quality oflife and the quality of the natural environment. As aremedy for stress and tension, there really is nothingbetter than some of the countryside and open spaces inthe constituency. If the restorative qualities of the RiverTest could be bottled, there would be a far reduced needfor pharmaceutical products. We also have a smallcorner of the New Forest national park in the constituency.Although the park and its authority do not come withoutsome level of challenge, it is at least an area where dogwalkers and native ponies still prevail.

The River Test, one of the finest trout rivers in theworld, runs north to south through the constituency,and it has been appreciated over the years by primeministers and presidents from across the globe. It has afine tradition of fly fishing, and a wonderful tranquillityand beauty, which can give amazing solace.

Even in the more urban parts of the constituency,there are pockets of open space that enormously enhancethe quality of life. Residents in Swaythling have workedhard to preserve and maintain Monks Brook. One ofour local wildlife photographers delights in sending mepictures of adders and slow worms from this tiny patchof countryside right next to the motorway. In Bassett,there is the sports centre, Daisy dip and the golf course,and I appreciate how hard the city council works tomaintain these areas and secure their future.

Romsey has a real gem with the Memorial parkproudly flying a green flag for the second year running—andwe have our fingers crossed for an announcement next

month about its third. It is home to the communityorchard, the bandstand and a team of volunteers fromthe friends of the Memorial park who make sure thepark is one of the best in the region. There is also one ofthe pair of Japanese field guns that Lord Mountbattenof Burma brought back to Romsey at the end of thesecond world war.

Other parts of the constituency, however, are not aswell protected as those public open spaces, and it isinevitably of concern that some areas are at risk ofbeing swallowed up by development. I welcome thenews from the Government that regional spatial strategiesare to be consigned to the dustbin. We cannot allow thegaps between settlements to be eroded so that localcharacter is diminished as neighbourhoods coalesceand individual identity is lost. The residents of Halterworth,those close to Hoe lane in North Baddesley, and theresidents of Redbridge lane in Nursling have a commitmentfrom me to ensure that local strategic planning really isput back in the hands of local people.

Of course, building a high-skilled economy is not justabout the urban centres of the constituency. There aremany beautiful rural villages in the north, where problemsare inevitably caused by the lack of high-speedbroadband—or indeed any broadband at all—but wherethere is also a good strong farming tradition. The factthat agriculture is traditional does not mean that it isnot high-skilled; far from it. Those skills manage andmaintain our countryside and, very important, keep usfed. While focusing on the high-skilled, we must ensurethat we do not let Britain’s farming tradition wither.

Let me end on a lighter note. Romsey is claimed to beone of the most haunted parts of Hampshire. FlorenceNightingale allegedly still walks the corridors of her oldhome at Embley Park, and both Romsey abbey andWherwell priory are said to be haunted by nuns. One ofthe best known ghost tales is that of two Roundheadsoldiers who were hanged from the iron bracket outsidethe former Swan Inn. The building now houses the localConservative club. One managed to cut himself loose,and then ran to his death in an alleyway in the town.Apparently he can still be seen repeating his failedescape attempt. However, although the bracket remainsto this day, I can assure Members that it has been somewhile since there has been a public hanging in Romsey.

3.12 pm

Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): Letme begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Romseyand Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on anentertaining and well-informed maiden speech. I amsure that she will make a great addition to the Houseand will serve her constituents well. I also congratulatethe hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart)and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton(Steve Rotheram). I must tell my hon. Friend that I amanother Scot who hopes that the England side doeswell—but I look forward to hours of arguments aboutfootball in the years ahead.

I welcome the Minister of State, Department forBusiness, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member forSouth Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), to hispost and wish him well, although I see that he has justleft the Chamber. I thought that his speech was awonderful performance. I have concluded that if the


pressures of government grow too great for him, as theyinevitably will at some point, he will have a great futurein amateur dramatics.

I was pleased to hear the Minister’s plans, some ofwhich I think deserve consideration. For instance, I wasglad to learn that he plans to look at the careers servicewith a view to possibly revamping it. I was surprisedand worried to read in a briefing that I received fromEdge—the independent foundation that promotesvocational qualifications—that in response to a surveyconducted last year, more than 50% of secondaryschoolteachers admitted that their knowledge ofapprenticeships was remarkably poor.

Mr Hayes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman forhis tribute and for the information that he has justprovided. The same survey revealed that teachers knewless about apprenticeships than about any other qualificationapart from the Welsh baccalaureate. I have nothingagainst the Welsh baccalaureate, but the hon. Gentlemanwill understand the point.

Steve McCabe: I am glad to learn that the Ministerhas taken that information on board. As I have said, itworried me to read it, and also to read that manyapprentices who were surveyed said that very littleinformation had been given to them about apprenticeshipseither by secondary schoolteachers or, more importantly,by careers specialists. It seems pretty obvious to methat, if we are interested in promoting apprenticeships,we shall have to convey some basic good information toyoung people. Both the careers service and the informationavailable to secondary schoolteachers must thereforeimprove.

I am not quite sure what the Minister was attackingin his comments on level 2—I am not sure whether thatwas code for a cut in numbers down the line. It seems tome that £50 million could buy an awful lot of opportunitiesfor young people, and if that sum is taken out of thebudget in the years ahead, perhaps the Minister has toprepare the way by telling us that he will downgradecertain qualifications and opportunities.

I welcome, however, the Minister’s acknowledgementthat level 2 can provide a very useful foundation. I wasstruck by the statistic in the CBI report, “Ready togrow”that 32% of employers found it remarkably difficultto recruit people with the necessary intermediate skills.It seems to me that those people will never be availableunless we can provide them with a basic foundation tostart with, and the general definition of level 2 is that itprovides people with a solid grounding and a basic setof skills from which they can begin to build and developtheir chosen careers.

I do not particularly want to quibble with the Ministerabout the definition of apprenticeships, but level 2 isvery important in getting some young people on thepath. Whatever the Minister’s comments today aboutlevel 3 were intended to mean, I hope he will bear inmind that it is essential that youngsters have a route in,and that the only way that we will be able to provideemployers with people with the requisite skills is bygiving young people that starting point.

I also welcome the Minister’s plans to set furthereducation colleges free, although I am not sure how freethey will be if they are starved of funding, as it strikesme that that can be a fairly empty form of freedom, andI noticed that there was very little detail about exactly

what this freedom will amount to. I would like FEcolleges to be encouraged to develop programmeapprenticeships—they already have a great deal of skillin that respect—and those apprenticeships are a way ofenabling young people in particular to begin theirapprenticeship at a time when it may be quite difficultfor them to find an employer to take them on. Employers,particularly small businesses, are struggling to developapprenticeships at present because of their fears aboutthe economic future.

Mr Hayes rose—

Steve McCabe: I will happily give way to the Ministeragain.

Mr Hayes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman forgiving way for a second time.

For the sake of clarity, let me repeat something that Ihave already said: I am writing to every Member todescribe these freedoms to which the hon. Gentlemanrefers, and they are all things that have been specificallyrequested by further education representatives in numerousconversations that we have had with them over a periodof years.

Steve McCabe: Well, the detail is obviously in theletter then, and I look forward to reading it.

I was slightly disappointed that the Minister did notmake any specific reference to small businesses. If wewant to grow meaningful apprenticeships, small businessesare the obvious sector that we need to target, but we allknow that they have difficulties in dealing withapprenticeships. I was glad to hear that the Minister isenthusiastic to cut through the red tape, but when I talkto small employers, they tell me that they need help indeveloping apprenticeships; they need help with thebasic training and assessment. That is the other side ofwhat needs to be done. One side is to encourage youngstersby ensuring they have the necessary information and bypromoting apprenticeships, and the other side is tomake it possible for small employers in particular totake on young people.

I wonder whether the Minister has considered theidea of group apprenticeship schemes, which I understandhave been particularly successful in Australia. I believethat there are some pilot schemes in this country. Theessential idea is that the apprentice is employed by agroup and is sent out on placement to various employers.It then becomes possible for a group of small employersto get together and to save on the administrative costsand overheads. A number of youngsters can thereforebe placed on an apprenticeship scheme and get realpractical experience with employers.

Has the Minister any plans to consider universitytechnical colleges? There is one in the Birminghamarea, at Aston, and I think there are about four around thecountry. That model seems to bring universities togetherwith employers. In the engineering and manufacturingsectors in particular, it encourages the development of asteady skill development path. It builds on vocationallevels through to level 5, and the previous Governmentsought to encourage it. I would like to know whetherthe Minister has plans to pursue it.


Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): Is my hon.Friend aware of other initiatives coming out of universitiesthat also help to build the high-skill economy? I cite, forexample, Wendy Sadler’s scheme out of Cardiff university,of which my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friendthe Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), will beaware. They have used “Science made simple” to reachout to 250,000 youngsters, getting them to understandscience and how they can have a career in science andfind employment through science in high-tech and high-quality jobs. Universities have a unique role in reachingout to young people before they make their careerchoices, perhaps involving universities or apprenticeships.

Steve McCabe: If we are going to create jobs for thefuture and to have a generation in work rather thanunemployed, all such initiatives should be encouragedand explored. I agree with the Minister—I do not thinkthat any of us has ownership of these issues—but it ispretty important that we get it right, because we haveone chance.

Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab): Does my hon.Friend agree that one of the difficulties with apprenticeshipsis finding an employer to take the apprentice on for thethird year or even in some cases for the second year? Inthe benign balmy days of a sophisticated LabourGovernment who had the economy moving forward,that was quite easy, but now, as the chill winter ofConservatism starts to freeze the economy from allcorners, might it not be an idea for us to revert to whatthe Conservatives did the last time that they were inpower and introduce schemes such as the ManpowerServices Commission scheme, the youth opportunitiesprogramme and so on to provide some support andencouragement to employers? It is easy to take on anapprentice in the good times, but very hard in the badtimes.

Steve McCabe: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend.Employers need help and encouragement, and theonly people who can provide that are the Government.If we are going to get this to work, that is what has tohappen.

The Minister struck a note of optimism today. As Isaid to him in an earlier intervention, I do not thinkthat that is the view of the senior executives who wroteto The Daily Telegraph today—they struck a note ofanxiety and pessimism about cuts in university fundingand about being left behind in international competition.It was difficult to see the Minister’s optimism when itcame just after the speech from the Chief Secretary tothe Treasury, in which he told us that he was axing theyoung person’s guarantee.

I wish the Minister well, but I warn him that this isgoing to take more than warm words. The last thing weneed to see is a lost generation that does not even get thechance of work. That is the legacy that the ToryGovernment of the ’80s left us, so I hope that he willlearn from the mistakes of the past.


Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Order. I knowthat hon. Members will wish to respect the conventionsassociated with maiden speeches, as we are privileged tohave a number of them this afternoon.

3.25 pm

Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): I welcomeyou to your position, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank youvery much for inviting me to make my maiden speechthis afternoon. This is quite a nerve-racking occasion,but I feel a little more relaxed now that we have beentalking about football, which I know a lot about. Likethe hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram),who is a red through and through, I am a blue throughand through: I am a fan of Huddersfield Town, whoplay in blue and white. There are some similaritiesbetween our clubs—for example, the great Bill Shanklybegan his managerial career at Huddersfield. I am notsure how many other similarities we will have over theyears, but I look forward to talking to the hon. Gentlemanabout football for many years to come.

I should like to praise Conservative Members whomade their maiden speeches earlier. Again, I will mentionfootball, because my hon. Friend the hon. Member forMilton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) is one of thoseMembers and I certainly enjoy travelling around MiltonKeynes trying to find the football ground. My hon. Friendthe hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North(Caroline Nokes) also spoke, and I wish Southamptonfootball club good luck in the forthcoming season withoutthe deficit of 10 points that it had last season.

I want to pay tribute to two of my predecessors.Speaking of football, it was at Millwall football club,three weeks ago, that I ran into Graham Riddick, whowas the Member of Parliament for Colne Valley between1987 and 1997. While I was cheering on the Terriers inthe play-offs down at the New Den, I looked along theterracing and lo and behold there was Graham Riddickcheering them on too. It was great to catch up with himand he gave me many words of advice and encouragement,so I thank him for that.

I should also like to say a few kind words about mydirect predecessor, Kali Mountford, who spent a lot oftime helping me and my office manager by talking usthrough all the casework that she so pleasingly handedover to us—she looked very relieved as she did so. Ipraise Kali for her work with the Anthony Nolan bonemarrow trust, which she has promoted in recent years.As a result of her hard work there, I have signed up tothe trust and I encourage all hon. Members and membersof the public to do so. That campaign was motivated bythe death of a campaigning journalist from The HuddersfieldDaily Examiner, Adrian Sudbury, and I congratulateKali on highlighting it. She has suffered from poorhealth in recent years and I wish her and her husbandIan the best of luck in the years to come.

Colne Valley is not the best name for a constituency,because those coming from south of Watford, for example,think that it is related to a town called Colne in Lancashire,but it is not. We are in West Yorkshire, and we are proudto be Yorkshire folk. The Colne valley itself is one ofthree main areas of the constituency. It has some lovelylittle mill towns on the River Colne, including Marsden,Slaithwaite, which we call “Slawit”, and Linthwaite. Ialso have some of Huddersfield’s suburbs, from leafysuburbs in Lindley to more densely populated areassuch as that of my Kashmiri population at ThorntonLodge.

Then we get to the valley where I live—the Holmevalley, which includes my village of Honley, as well asBrockholes and the big market town of Holmfirth. It


really is a beautiful part of the world with lovely countryside,stone walls, lots of sheep and lots of traditional folk.That brings me to Cleggy, who has had a bad time in thepast month. He has had an absolute nightmare—[Interruption.] No, not that Cleggy: I am talking aboutCleggy from “Last of the Summer Wine”, who, alongwith his pals Compo, Foggy and Nora Batty, is no morebecause the BBC has ditched the long-running televisionseries that graced our screens on Sunday evenings onBBC1. That gentle comedy about Yorkshire folk, usuallygoing downhill in a bathtub, was very much a mainstayof our television and it helped to promote tourism inmy constituency. In Holmfirth, which is just a mile upthe road from where I live, we have a Compo’s caff andthere is a Wrinkled Stocking café just two doors downfrom my new constituency office, so we will really missthat opportunity to promote tourism.

All that brings me to the subject of this debate: thehigh-skilled economy. Many people say to me—otherMembers of the House probably hear this too—that wedo not make things any more, but I am proud to saythat in my constituency we do. It is not on a largescale, but I have a number of enterprising, entrepreneurialand innovative businesses that have set up, sometimes inold mills, to create products that have a niche marketand that are exporting around the world. I shallmention just a few. There are little engineering companiessuch as Dathan in Meltham, which produces specialistgear cutting equipment that is used in the Formula 1motor racing industry. Allsops precision sheet metalwork, which uses the latest laser-guided cutting tools, istaking on apprentices. It is not on a massive scale, but ithas more than 100 employees and it is looking toexpand.

I also have David Brown Gear Systems in Lockwood,which I visited with the then shadow Minister forUniversities and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Memberfor Havant (Mr Willetts), before the election campaign.It has its own in-house training scheme called the GearAcademy and it is training some wonderful youngstersup to work on making gear equipment. Those gears arenow being used not only in our submarines but in thewind turbine industry. I also have pharmaceuticals,with Thornton and Ross on the River Colne. I have anice cream factory, Longleys Farm, which makes themost wonderful ice cream. It has just opened a new icecream parlour in Holmfirth.

Talking of “Last of the Summer Wine”, we even havea vineyard now—a real live Yorkshire vineyard. A wonderfulenterprising young couple called Ian and Becky Shevelinggave up high-flying careers, bought a lovely plot of landand planted their vines. They have just produced theirfirst bottles of rosé and have obtained planning permissionfor a tasting centre and an eco-lodge. That will helppromote tourism and we shall have real bottles of winefrom the area of “Last of the Summer Wine”. That isfantastic.

It is these sorts of little enterprises that we, in ahigh-skilled economy, must try to promote. We have tocut the red tape; we should support them with lowertaxes; we must give them the skills in the work force andthe local infrastructure so that their workers can liveand work locally. We have got to support local ruralpost offices. In my village of Honley, I have a mostwonderful couple, Brenda and Duncan Bodenhem. Thepost office is not only their livelihood but their way of

life. They organise the Christmas lights; they help all theold people come in and out; they do dry cleaning. Theydo not provide just the usual post office services.

Post offices, especially the rural ones, are struggling,and our post office network was decimated in the lastdecade. It is important that we support them, becauseonce they are gone, they are gone. We also need tosupport things such as rural bus services, so that peoplecan live in my rural communities and work there aswell. We need to support the health centres and healthservices. I am trying to get full maternity services backin the area of Huddersfield. That is really important.

I am proud to have been elected the Member ofParliament for Colne Valley. It is a beautiful part of theworld with some enterprising businesses and a fantasticfootball team in Huddersfield Town. We also have justdown the road in Huddersfield the birthplace of rugbyleague, so I have to mention the Huddersfield Giants,who are striving hard this season. They are having a bitof a poor run at the moment, but I hope that they willturn the corner.

Before I sit down, I should like to say that many of ushere in this House, especially the new Members, havebeen through a gruelling and hard-fought electioncampaign. I and all my family and friends went througha lot to get me here. I know that the Speaker himselfhad a bit of a tough election campaign. The hon.Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) had astraightforward election campaign; his is the safest seatin the House. I would love to know what that feels like,having stood in a three-way marginal.

I was lucky to have my right hon. Friend the PrimeMinister visit my constituency—not so lucky to havethe Deputy Prime Minister—during the election campaign.I finally pay tribute to my fantastic campaign team.John Travis was my campaign manager. I have a fantasticfamily. My parents live just up the valley from me. I paytribute to them. My mum and dad have never walked somuch in all their lives. It takes about an hour to deliverto just three cottages because they have such longwalkways. It is a privilege to be here today, but I amitching to get back up to the constituency this evening.The office is up and running, and I am looking forwardto being out in Holmfirth and through the valleys overthe weekend, representing the people who sent me here.There is a lot to do and I hope that I can do it withvigour and vim and cheer on Huddersfield Town topromotion next season.

3.34 pm

Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): Ipay tribute to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (JasonMcCartney) for his maiden speech. He had no need tobe nervous; it was an extremely entertaining and informativemaiden speech. I thank him for his kind commentsabout his predecessor, Kali Mountford. On the LabourBenches, we think of Kali with great affection, so wethank him.

I am pleased that mention has been made of the“Skills for Growth”White Paper, which has been importantin defining our skills needs for the next few decades. Asthe Minister knows, the White Paper put particularemphasis on vocational skills and argued for a dramaticexpansion of advanced apprenticeships, particularly foryoung adults. It also argued for the skilling of adults


[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

who are already in employment and those seeking work,and for improving the quality of provision in our FEand other institutions.

At the same time, “Higher Ambitions” set out equallychallenging demands for our university sector. It askeduniversities to work with the Higher Education FundingCouncil for England to devise new funding incentivesso that we could deliver higher education programmesthat were more acutely related to the needs of theeconomy, and to work with the UK Commission forEmployment and Skills to identify where new programmeswere needed to meet areas of low demand. It set out theneed to improve the relationship between universitiesand businesses and, crucially, to build better relationshipsbetween universities and regional development agencies.I noticed that the Minister was very quiet on thatsubject today, but as the Government are about todestroy the whole RDA framework, I should be interestedto hear what he has to say about how universities andFE colleges will work with whatever structure is set upto ensure that regional development continues.

Mr Hayes: The hon. Lady will want to know that weare entirely committed to ensuring consistency—indeedsynergy—between the economic development functionsof local authorities and the work of colleges and otherproviders. If she is straightforward, I think she willacknowledge that according to the Public AccountsCommittee and the National Audit Office, RDAs werenot terribly effective in some of the work they did.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I hear what the Ministersays, but the new Government still have some way to goin setting out more generally how they propose to buildon Labour’s progress in upskilling and reskilling ourpopulation, and particularly in outlining how some ofthe more strategic objectives on skills shortages will bemet at regional level. That may not be easily deliverableat local authority level, so the Government have somemore thinking to do about our regions.

The progress made under Labour was recognised bythe UK Commission for Employment and Skills in itsnational skills audit, published earlier this year:

“Significant progress has been made in raising the qualificationslevels of the workforce and stimulating supply over the last tenyears, so that compared to other OECD nations our supply ofhighly skilled people is likely to place us 10th in the OECDby 2020.”

When Labour left office we were on track to move upthe OECD league table in terms of the advances we hadmade in skilling our population. There is thus a considerablechallenge to the Government to maintain that progress.

Similarly, recent publications from Universities UKand the Russell group comment on the strength of theuniversity sector, while arguing that if current standardsand quality are to be maintained investment must continue.We may hear something about that in the Budget nextweek, but it remains to be seen whether protection willbe given for education not only pre-19, but post-19, sothat we continue to be internationally competitive.

Not only did the Labour Government invest heavilyin education generally, including further and highereducation, but that investment was accompanied by astrategy to widen participation, to raise aspirations andto ensure that all young people who felt they could

benefit from a university or a level 4 education had thechance to do so. I have not yet heard from the newGovernment whether they will continue to have thathigh level of aspiration for our young people. TheLeitch review very much led us in that strategy. TheMinister mentioned the review in his opening speech,but he did not mention whether this Government wouldkeep the very demanding Leitch targets, which statedthat 90% or more of the working-age population shouldhave a level 2 qualification, 68% should have a level 3qualification and over 40% should have a qualificationat level 4 or higher. I would be interested to hearwhether the Minister thinks those targets should stayin place.

Good progress was being made towards reachingthose targets when Labour left office. The LiberalDemocrats have often said—I often heard this duringmy election campaign—that although Labour had madeadvances in reskilling the population, those had beenconfined largely to the better-off. Interestingly, datafrom HEFCE show clearly that that is not the case. AHEFCE publication earlier this year, which looked attrends in young participation in higher education amongdifferent groups in England, stated that to overcomegaps in the data on disadvantage at an individual level,the study that it used looked at levels of disadvantage inlocal areas, taking figures from 8,000 census wardsacross England. The authors of the study also selected arange of indicators, and they said that, looking acrossthe indicators, they had to conclude that since themid-2000s young people from disadvantaged areas aresubstantially more likely to enter HE, that most measuresof the gap in participation between most and leastdisadvantaged areas had fallen, and that the majority ofadditional entrants to HE have come from moredisadvantaged areas. That means that Labour was notonly upskilling the population, but it was extendingaccess to higher education to those that had not previouslybeen able to benefit from it. That is another substantialchallenge for the new Government: they must—and wewill be watching whether they continue to do so—extendopportunities and widen participation in the way thatLabour did.

The audit that I mentioned earlier also talked aboutthe importance of increasing skill levels further andidentified key areas where there are skill shortages: inmanagement and leadership, in professional skills, atthe technician and equivalent level, at intermediatevocational levels and care services, and in customerservice and general employability skills. It is importantthat we continue to make good those skill shortages.

The audit also identified key sectors where we need tobe improving the skills levels of our young people andwork force in the future if we are to remain internationallycompetitive. It was interesting to see the areas that hadbeen outlined, which I think are familiar to all of us inthe Chamber. They have been identified as low carbon;advanced manufacturing; engineering and construction;financial and professional services; the digital economy;life sciences and pharmaceuticals; the creative sector;care services; and retail, hospitality, leisure and tourism.

Our university and FE sectors are in a sense alreadyembracing this brave new world, because they havealready started to think of new ways of deliveringcourses that give much greater flexibility. I pay tributeto New College Durham for pioneering professional


apprenticeships, for leading the drive for good-qualityHE in FE, and for developing partnerships between HEand FE. I would welcome a visit to the college from theMinister, because he could meet the staff and see someof the fantastic work that is going on.

The Minister talked about international competitivenessin his opening speech. If we are to remain internationallycompetitive, we must keep our levels of reskilling high,which means that we will need to know how manyyoung people and individuals in the work force arebeing skilled and reskilled. If we are not skilling sufficientpeople, we will need to put additional measures in place.That will mean that we will have to retain some targets,so I would like to hear the Government’s thoughtsabout that.

3.45 pm

Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con): I am grateful for theopportunity to make my maiden speech and to followmy hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes South(Iain Stewart), for Romsey and Southampton North(Caroline Nokes) and for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney),and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (SteveRotheram), who set such a high standard. To pick upthis afternoon’s running thread of football commentary,I am reminded by the presence in the Chamber of theright hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) thathe, the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames)and I fought a by-election in June 2000 against thebackdrop of a major international football tournament.I will not put hon. Members through the pain of remindingthem of the outcome; suffice to say that I hope we last agreat deal longer this time.

In common with many new Members, I am consciousof the enormous honour that the people of Battersea,Balham and Wandsworth paid me by electing me astheir Member of Parliament. It is a particular pleasureto be making my maiden speech during a debate onskills because I spent my whole working life with theJohn Lewis Partnership, which takes its commitment totraining extremely seriously.

Over the centuries, Battersea has evolved from avillage on the Thames famed for its market gardens, andparticularly for its asparagus and lavender—hence LavenderHill—into a 19th century industrial hub criss-crossedby railway lines. The railway lines are still there, but theheavy industry is largely gone. The factories along theriver have been replaced by residential blocks. Theconstituency now has a younger average populationthan most and it is bustling and diverse. Indeed, itprovides a London base for many hon. Members.

Much of the change over the past four decades waswitnessed at first hand by John Bowis, the previousConservative MP for Battersea—a good friend who wasa great support to me throughout my campaign—andby my predecessor, Martin Linton, who has lived inBattersea for many years and represented his area firston the council, and then for 13 years as its Member ofParliament. Martin worked hard on behalf of hisconstituents and was greatly assisted by his wife, Sara.He showed passionate commitment to the causes closeto his heart. As a councillor, he was closely involved insetting up the justly renowned Battersea arts centre, andthe arts repaid him amply at the recent election when astar-studded array of actors urged people not to votefor me.

As a Member of Parliament, Martin championed,among other things, the cause of the Palestinian people.He worked tirelessly in an effort to secure the release ofthe last former British resident in Guantanamo Bay,Shaker Aamer, whose wife and children live in Battersea.I hope that the new Government will make progresstowards a successful conclusion for Mrs Aamer and herchildren, and I am sure that my predecessor would takesatisfaction in such an outcome, given his sustained andenergetic campaign.

Championing the unfashionable cause is very muchin the Battersea tradition. The area has long nurturedradicals of all kinds, including many of the abolitionistevangelicals of the Clapham sect and John Burns, thefirebrand union leader and MP. In the early 20th century,Battersea gave Britain its first black mayor and one ofthe first Asian Members of Parliament.

When I was selected to fight the constituency, someonewho was not local to the seat asked me, “What’s thereother than a dogs home and a power station?” Ofcourse, there is much more to the constituency thanthat. We have some wonderful green spaces—Batterseapark, Clapham common and Wandsworth common—morethan 125 listed buildings, an energetic civic life and aneven more energetic social life. Despite its name, ClaphamJunction, which is one of the most famous stations inthe world, has always been firmly in Battersea. We weregraced for years by Young’s, one of London’s oldestbreweries, and we are now home to one of its youngest:Sambrook’s. Battersea has also been the proud home ofthe London Regiment of the Territorial Army for manyyears.

Many of the radical social changes over the past150 years in Battersea can be seen in the history of theBolingbroke hospital in my constituency. The hospitalwas founded as a result of the energy and compassionof a great Victorian, Canon John Erskine Clarke, anotable Battersea vicar. He identified a need for ahospital for what were then described as the artisanclasses of Battersea, who were prepared to pay, eitherwholly or in part, for their care. In 1880, the BolingbrokeSelf-Supporting Hospital and House in Sickness opened,funded by a host of local beneficiaries and by publicsubscription. It was expanded and adapted over theyears and was brought within the NHS, and it remains amuch-loved local institution. Although it was earmarkedfor closure in 2006, a tenacious local campaign wasconducted, led by the hospital’s League of Friends—agroup, made up mostly of women, which, for over100 years, has exemplified the very best of Britishvolunteering. Its members have quietly and consistentlygiven their time to fundraise, and to provide supportand succour to patients and their families.

However, the Bolingbroke closed its doors as a hospitalin December 2008 and now awaits its fate. Many of usin Battersea hope that the next chapter in its life storywill be as a school. For the parents involved in theNeighbourhood School Campaign, supported byWandsworth council, the free schools legislation offersthe best chance of realising their dream of a new statesecondary school for south Battersea. A new schoolwould be enormously important, giving further choiceto parents in my constituency, irrespective of theirmeans—an important factor in an area that has a lot offamilies on low incomes. I therefore particularly welcomethe coalition’s plans for a pupil premium and more


[Jane Ellison]

apprenticeships, and its determination to boost theprivate sector. All those things will greatly assist themany young people in my constituency for whom life isa struggle against the odds from the start, and for whoma good education and a skilled job are an essential wayof getting on in life.

I return briefly, if I may, to the Battersea Dogs Homeand the Battersea power station. The world-famousdogs and cats home celebrates its 150th anniversary thisyear, having been founded by the redoubtable Mrs MaryTealby at a time when life for the human poor of thiscity was very harsh, and for the unwanted animal evenharsher. The home remains on the front line of animalwelfare in London and beyond, and has a key role toplay in policy development, particularly in contributingto the debate about dangerous dogs and their often evenmore dangerous owners.

Battersea power station first provided energy to Londonin 1933. Its opening was accompanied by protests aboutpollution and widespread derision of Sir Giles GilbertScott’s now iconic exterior design—perhaps a salutaryreminder to us about not rushing to judgment on newbuildings. The largest brick building in Europe, thepower station was listed in 1980 and last generatedelectricity in 1983. It has lain dormant ever since, asplans for its future use came and went. Most recently itstarred in “Ashes to Ashes”and, of course, the Conservativemanifesto launch, but most people in my constituencywant to see the power station star in the regeneration ofthe Nine Elms area of east Battersea.

With over 200 acres of development land, right herein the heart of this great city, and merely a mile fromthis place, Nine Elms hopes to welcome the new Americanembassy and the underground in the next 10 years. Thescheme will also mean the redevelopment of the NewCovent Garden market, the largest fresh-produce marketin the UK. It is a thrilling, once-in-a-lifetime opportunityfor Battersea and for London. I know that there aresceptics, but I hope that they will be confounded, thatNine Elms will become an exciting new riverside quarter,and that the power station will live again.

When completed, the redeveloped Nine Elms areawill host thousands more homes and businesses. Thatwill also make my constituency bigger, so no need forboundary changes in Battersea. The construction of thenew east Battersea is itself a fantastic opportunity. Ifone glances inside the derelict turbine halls of the powerstation, or at the art deco fittings in the control room,one is reminded of the care that was taken in itsconstruction. As the daughter of an engineer, I feelpassionately that the renewal of the power station andthe wider area is a chance for hundreds of apprenticesto hone their skills. I want many young people from ourarea to get their chance for training and employment inthe transformation of east Battersea, so that they canlook with pride on their area and say, “I helped to buildthat.” This morning I visited the Astins institute, set upand run by a private sector company with a view todoing just that and equipping people with those skills. Ihope that the Government will urge all employers totake their skills training responsibilities very seriously.

Battersea is also home to the South Thames college,an excellent higher education college passionate aboutequipping its students with the skills to take their

opportunities in life. The Minister of State, Departmentfor Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend theMember for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes)visited South Thames last year, and many of the measuresmentioned today will be very much welcomed in thatquarter, and in other further education colleges aroundthe country.

A great parliamentarian, Benjamin Disraeli, vividlydescribed the two nations of Britain in 1845. In someregards, they are still with us, but it is my hope andbelief that the coalition Government’s programme willretain at its core the goal of creating one nation, inwhich all young people can discover and fulfil theirpotential.

I pledge to do my very best for my constituents and tobe a good parliamentarian. I commend the motion tothe House.

3.55 pm

Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab): I welcomeyou to the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, and congratulateyou on your elevation to such an important role. I alsocongratulate the hon. Members for Milton Keynes South(Iain Stewart) and for Romsey and Southampton North(Caroline Nokes) on their maiden speeches. I particularlycongratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (JasonMcCartney), who, I note, has managed to get his officeup and running, a feat that has defeated me so far—welldone on that. I also congratulate the hon. Member forBattersea (Jane Ellison). I note your reference to animalwelfare, which is a passion I share, and I hope that, ifand when the time comes, you will join Labour Membersin voting against any attempt by your party to reintroducefox hunting in our country.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Could the hon. Gentlemanplease direct comments through the Chair? If you say“you”, it refers to me.

Chris Williamson: I beg your pardon and thank youfor that correction, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will endeavourto ensure that I do not make that mistake in future.

Building a high-skilled economy is vital to the futureprosperity of our country. I represent a constituencythat is founded on a high-skilled economy. In a previousspeech in the Chamber, I referred to the occasion whenJeremy Paxman said, “Why can’t everywhere in Britainbe like Derby?” That is because we have been successfulin Derby in developing a high-skilled economy. We werefortunate in having Rolls-Royce and Bombardier, whichhave done so much to create a high-skilled economy, inthe city. The country could learn a lot from Derby.

We have invested heavily in the city, thanks to supportfor training from the previous Labour Government. Wehave an excellent university and two new colleges, whichundertake extremely important vocational training,preparing young people for the world of work. We built13 new schools under the Labour Government andemployed many new teachers and teaching assistants,who are essential to developing a high-skilled economy.

However, the Conservative party’s policies are takingthe country in the wrong direction if we want to developa high-skilled economy. The Conservatives are makingthe same mistakes that were made in the 1980s, whenthe previous Conservative Government systematically


undermined and destroyed manufacturing—the bedrockof the greatness of our nation. They took awayopportunities for young people to move into work andget the training that they needed.

Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con): In a debate thattook place yesterday, the Minister for Universities andScience pointed out that manufacturing had collapsedeven further under the Labour Government than under18 years of the Conservative Government. I quote frommemory, but it went from some 22% to 18% of GDPbetween 1979 and 1997, and had decreased to some11% by 2009.

Chris Williamson: The hon. Gentleman is being alittle unfair. He fails to recognise the huge expansion inthe service sector. We can play with statistics, but in the1980s, there seemed to be a clear policy of underminingmanufacturing in this country. The car industry wasdestroyed and the steel industry was undermined.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): LabourMembers consistently harp on about how Conservativepolicies in the 1980s affected manufacturing, but willthey say something about the damage done to industryby the aggressive trade unionism of the 1970s and1980s, and might they take the plank out of their owneye before they look at the mote in ours?

Chris Williamson: Labour Members harp on aboutthe 1980s because of what happened then. The policiesof the previous Conservative Government damaged thecar industry and shipbuilding, and manufacturing rightacross the piece in our country. It is completely wrongto blame trade unions for the systematic destruction ofmanufacturing in this country.

Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD): Will the hon.Gentleman comment on the actions of Red Robbo,who closed down the old Austin Rover plant in the 1970s?

Chris Williamson: Again, hon. Members on theGovernment side of the House are demonising tradeunion activists, but Derek Robinson, to whom the hon.Gentleman referred colloquially as Red Robbo, wassimply arguing for more investment in the car industry.He was saying that if the car industry did not get thesupport that it needed, it would fail and be overtaken byour competitors in Japan and Germany. His predictions—dare I say?—actually came true, because the car industryin our country was completely destroyed as a result ofConservative policies.

The Conservatives are making the same mistakes notonly in policy pronouncements, but in practical matters.Only this morning, the Transport Minister made it veryclear that there will be no further orders for rail transportrolling stock. Many people in my constituency work forBombardier, which is the last train manufacturer in theUK, and they were relying on the possibility of securingthe Thameslink contract. However, it now seems, afterwhat the Transport Minister said this morning, thatthere is no prospect whatever of Bombardier securingthat contract this year. That will certainly lead toredundancies and make it much more difficult for youngpeople in training colleges in my constituency—if theyhave been given that opportunity—to get the real jobsthat are crucial to securing a high-skilled economy, asmy hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (StephenPound) said.

Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD): The hon. Gentlemantalks about the British train industry and constructionin this country, but does he think it was a good idea thatthe previous Labour Government placed so many ordersfor extra carriages in Japan?

Chris Williamson: Clearly, we live in a global economy,in which orders are placed with different companiesaround the world—Bombardier won some contracts,but some went abroad—but the fact is that the TransportSecretary said this morning that there is now no prospectof Bombardier getting the Thameslink contract.

Stephen Pound: Does my hon. Friend agree that onetragedy of current British manufacturing and skills isthat contracts occasionally have to go to countries suchas Japan, which has invested more in Bullet train technologyand other high-speed train technology, and that thatunderlines precisely the point he is making?

Chris Williamson: Absolutely—my hon. Friend makesa pertinent point. If we were to follow the lead of someof our competitor nations by investing appropriately inskills, we would put our country, our young people, andthe people who work in those sectors, in a much betterposition to secure their long-term future.

The parties opposite have also made proposals forthe regional development agencies. The RDAs haveplayed an important role, and the East MidlandsDevelopment Agency has made an important contributionto supporting industry in the east midlands and inDerby. That has helped to create the job opportunitiesand the growth that are so desperately required.

We must not indulge in a race to the bottom. TheGovernment seem to want us to move to a low-wageeconomy, but there is no future in that for this country.We simply cannot compete on that basis, because wewill never match developing nations such as India,China and others and the wage rates paid to workersthere. We must invest in those high skills that Derbyexcels in through companies such as Rolls-Royce andBombardier. That is why I regret the announcement thismorning about Bombardier, which will almost certainlylead to redundancies. If we do not support such companies,they could go elsewhere, because they are global, andthey will simply bid for contracts from their Europeanbases.

If there is a market failure, it is essential for the stateto intervene and smooth out the difficulties, such asthose afflicting the country as a result of the worldwideeconomic downturn. If we do not do that, it will causesignificant problems for the economy—and for youngand old alike. No jobs for people means lower taxrevenues to support our public services, and we will endup in a downward spiral to disaster.

4.7 pm

Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD): Like other hon.Members, I wish to congratulate the hon. Members forRomsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), forLiverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), for Colne Valley(Jason McCartney), for Battersea (Jane Ellison) and forMilton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) on their maidenspeeches. I made mine a few weeks ago. Like the hon.Member for Liverpool, Walton, I did an apprenticeship,and it is some 52 years since I turned up in my brand


[Gordon Birtwistle]

new boiler suit and boots at a large engineering companyin Accrington called Howard & Bullough, then theworld leaders in machines for textile making. Regrettably,it is no longer with us, like so many other companiesfrom that time.

I agree that it is critical to build a higher-skilledeconomy. We need to deliver the skills that will deliverthe jobs of the future, in engineering, chemicals, medicines,nuclear technology—both commissioning and new build—and the internet. Such high-tech, high-value jobs willdeliver the products and services that are needed roundthe world. Only 12 months ago, when I was leader ofBurnley borough council, we heard that Rolls-Roycewas developing a new engine for a new range of airliners.Hon. Members may not know it, but over the next25 years the single-aisle aeroplanes such as the Boeing737s and Airbus 320s will all be replaced. The cost ofreplacing these will be in the region of $3 trillion. Thepower packs and engines required for those aeroplaneswill cost in the region of $600 billion. That is a hell of alot of work for the people who produce the aeroplanesand the engines and power packs to go with them.

I approached the leader of Derby city council and wevisited Rolls-Royce, where we asked the main boardwhether these engines would be developed in the UK. Itsaid not and that it was hoping to develop them inGermany, Singapore and the far east. It also said thatwherever it develops the engine it will most likely buildit—$600 billion of work that could have been done inthis country now might go abroad.

I asked the Rolls-Royce board whether there was afinancial inducement to building the engine overseas,and it replied, “No, there is no financial inducement. Infact, it will cost us more money to develop this engineoverseas.” The question went back, “Then why are youdoing it?”, and the question was put back to us, “Canyou deliver 3,000 to 5,000 qualified, highly skilled graduatesto design, build and develop this engine?” The answerfrom all present was, “Unfortunately, no.” Rolls-Roycereplied, “If you can’t deliver the skills we need, we haveno alternative to going abroad to develop this engine.”Some $600 billion of work over 25 years! That is anappalling situation and an indictment of the last 30 yearsin the development of the skills of engineers and techniciansthat we need in this country. It has to stop, and I amdelighted that we are at least starting to deliver whatindustry needs for the future jobs of this country.

The town I represent has just got a brand new collegeon its university campus—a campus that is dedicatedto advanced manufacturing. The borough councilinvested more than £150,000 in a brand new, high-techmachine shop, which I would like the Minister to visit. Iinvited Rolls-Royce representatives to come and see thisnew machine shop. They came all the way fromBarnoldswick, and while they were there, they had aconversation with the people from the university ofCentral Lancashire and decided that because the newadvanced engines would nearly all be made from carbonfibre, particularly in the cold engine section—the hotengine section will obviously still be made from metal—theywould like to work with the UCLan campus to developit. The university has therefore purchased an autoclaveto develop carbon fibre turbine blades for Rolls-Royce.That is the advancement that this country needs andthat will stop some of the work going abroad. We need

to support colleges in acquiring the equipment thatcompanies around the country need and in developingnew technologies, and I am delighted that this hashappened.

UCLan campus academics have developed what theybelieve to be the most efficient wind turbine in theworld. It is only small—about 1 metre across—but theyhave found that it has the most advanced centre bearingin the world. We approached a local company, and itagreed to put £1 million into the development of thewind turbine to make it big enough to use onshore. Ithas a 15-metre autoclave in its factory and can makecarbon fibre blades for the wind turbine. Through theborough council, I asked the previous Governmentwhether they would support the development of thewind turbine, a vast number of which will be neededover the next few years. As everybody knows, we do notmake wind turbines in this country—we buy them fromabroad—but unfortunately the previous Governmentdid not want to support the scheme, so it has died andthe wind turbine is sat in an office in Burnley, waitingfor someone to support its development. It would costabout £4 million, but would create thousands of jobsand save having to import wind turbines from abroad.The local company was willing to take up some of theloss, but unfortunately the scheme was rejected. That isvery sad in these days.

We need to invest in new developments and in thepeople to deliver them. We cannot stand by and lookback; we have to move forward and provide the skilledpeople of the future, and I hope that what we are doingwith the 15,000 apprentices and what we are proposingto do about advanced manufacturing will deliver thepeople of the future, doing the jobs of the future andproviding the work of the future.

4.15 pm

Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op):I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.This is the first time I have had the privilege of speakingin the Chamber while you have been in the Chair. May Ialso congratulate all those new Members who havemade their maiden speeches today? I have not heardthem all, but I have certainly heard most of them, andon the basis of what I have heard those Members aregoing to make a significant and worthwhile contributionto the Chamber while they are here.

This debate, above all, is supremely relevant to myconstituents. West Bromwich West is a traditionalmanufacturing constituency that suffered enormouslyin the 1980s from the policies of the then Government.Unemployment rocketed, which resulted in the creationof a generation of people who saw no prospect ofemployment, and a culture of low aspiration, lowexpectation and low skills and training. Members saidearlier that we should not live in the past. That is quitecorrect. On the other hand, it is important that we lookto the past and learn from the mistakes that were made,so that we do not replicate them.

The mass unemployment in my constituency in the1980s and the substantial reduction in the manufacturingsector resulted in a skills gap that, despite all the effortsof the Labour Government, has not fully been closed.Even as the economy and employment opportunitiesimproved, there was still higher than average unemploymentin my constituency, and employers complained to me


that the skills they needed still did not exist locally. Thereason was that in the 1980s, as the economy went intorecession on two occasions and manufacturing collapsed,no efforts were made to pick up those who had beenmade unemployed and retrain them with the skills to fillthe opportunities that would subsequently be created asour economy grew out of recession. The result of thatwas a drag on the local economy throughout the past 10years of the previous Government, as they implementedpolicies that led to economic growth.

What we must not see is the recent recession and thefragile growth that we have seen since then operating inthe same way. It is fair to say that the previous Governmentrecognised that a recession provides an opportunity forthose who cannot immediately get jobs or who havebeen thrown out of their jobs, given the right support,to get the appropriate training and skills that they havehitherto not had the opportunity to get, so as to equipthem for the new jobs that will be created in the future.That I know was what was behind the previousGovernment’s approach to dealing with the problemover the past two or three years.

The current situation presents an enormous problemin that respect, although I would not pretend that it hadarisen entirely as a result of the cuts that have beenannounced over the past two or three weeks. There werepotential problems beforehand, particularly with thenumber of young people wanting to go into highereducation and the places not being available. However,it was the previous Government who made provisionfor 20,000 new places and who put a particular emphasison providing the budget for the key STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—which arevital if we are to equip manufacturing to take us out ofrecession. I have not heard any guarantees that thisGovernment are going to ring-fence the funding forSTEM subjects in universities to ensure that this area,which is so vital to our future, is sustained. This isparticularly important because a number of universitiesare already reporting that, because the provision ofthose courses requires higher capital investment, theycould be the first on the list to be removed. We couldtherefore be undermining our scientific, engineeringand mathematical potential in vital sectors, at a timewhen it is so necessary to get us out of recession.

I also want to talk about a subject that I have notheard mentioned so far—namely, the educationmaintenance allowance. In constituencies such as mine,where people have low incomes and, historically, lowaspirations, the provision of that allowance is essentialto give young people the confidence to go into furthereducation and, eventually, higher education. With theincrease in competition that is likely to arise for thelower number of university places—it might not belower in absolute terms, but it could be lower, relative tothe demand for them—there is a danger that youngpeople from low income and low aspiration backgroundscould be crowded out of the competition for the scarcenumber of places. That will make the EMA strategicallyeven more important than it has been in the past, if weare to ensure that university opportunities are open topeople from all backgrounds and incomes.

Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con): I wonderwhether other hon. Members receive complaints aboutthe education maintenance allowance, as I do. I, too,

represent a constituency where there are people on verylow incomes, but I get a lot of complaints that theallowance is badly applied and often abused.

Mr Bailey: Certainly in its early days there were somecomplaints, but they have not been reflected in myconstituency. I had a meeting with the principals of mythree local further education colleges only two weeksago, and they stressed to me and my neighbouringConservative MPs the important role that the allowancesplay in keeping young people between 16 and 19 ineducation in our area. I want to emphasise to theGovernment that they need to sustain the EMA as partof the infrastructure necessary to ensure that theirstated policy of open opportunity for young people inuniversities can be maintained.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (KevinBrennan) mentioned the transfer of money from Trainto Gain into apprenticeships and capital for colleges. Iwant to make one comment on Train to Gain. I find itodd that, if it is so bad—the National Audit Officecertainly had criticisms of it—it has not been abolishedand the money transferred elsewhere lock, stock andbarrel. The Government seem to have created a hybridsystem. My experience of speaking to local employers isthat Train to Gain was extremely beneficial, and there isa whole raft of statistics that substantiate their claimsfor the programme. Train to Gain was also essential formany companies that had introduced short-time working,to help them to sustain a level of income for theiremployees to prevent them from going elsewhere orleaving the jobs market altogether, and to prevent thecompanies from losing their skills.

I also want to say a few words about bureaucracy.When Labour was in government, it was a constanttheme among the Conservatives that we were stranglingeducation with top-down bureaucracy. Certainly, whenI went round schools, I heard complaints about excessivepaperwork and bureaucracy, and I cannot pretend for amoment that we were able to solve that problem. I amconcerned, however, that despite all the coalitionGovernment’s brave words, they seem to be heading thesame way.

Earlier, I drew to the attention of the Minister ofState, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills,the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings(Mr Hayes), a statement he placed in the Library todayabout getting FE colleges to give“learners the information they need to drive the system, throughthe publication of clear and consistent information about performance,quality and standards.”

That sounds like fairly top-down instruction, a recipefor extra research that has no particular relevance to thepeople being educated, and a whole lot of form fillingand publications that will siphon off money that couldwell be used in other directions. I sympathise with theMinister up to a point, because it is a perfectly laudableobjective, but the new Government have to realise thathaving laudable objectives and ensuring that they aretranslated at the local level involves some sort of impositionand resources that have to be calibrated and calculatedto ensure that they are worth while.

I am coming to the end of my comments, but let mesay that in my new position as Chairman of the appropriateSelect Committee, I look forward to talking to Ministersand interviewing them on their policies. I wish them


[Mr Bailey]

well, as this matter is absolutely vital not just to myconstituents but to young and unemployed peopleeverywhere and to this country’s future and its positionin the global economy. Investment in skills is as importantas investment in plant and machinery, and it has theadditional benefit of improving the lives of those whoare prepared to get involved.

4.26 pm

Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con): First, let me sayhow delighted I am to see in the Speaker’s Chair aneighbouring MP who has given me so much supportover the years. I should like to pay tribute to other hon.Members who have made their maiden speeches today:the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram)and my hon. Friends the Members for Milton KeynesSouth (Iain Stewart), for Romsey and SouthamptonNorth (Caroline Nokes), for Colne Valley (JasonMcCartney) and for Battersea (Jane Ellison). The last isa good friend; she stood in my constituency back in 2005,and she is still remembered fondly in the local area.

To stand here and make my maiden speech is atremendous honour, particularly in the light of thosewho have previously represented the constituency ofPendle, or, as it was formerly known, of Nelson andColne—men such as Sidney Silverman, David Waddingtonand, for the past 18 years, Gordon Prentice. In fact,while researching for my own speech, I learned thatSidney Silverman’s maiden speech back in 1935 lasted22 minutes and was on the merits of socialism. I amdelighted to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I canboth make a maiden speech and dismiss the merits ofsocialism within 22 minutes.

It is traditional to start a maiden speech by payingtribute to one’s predecessor, and despite the fact thatGordon Prentice was my opponent in the recent election,I have no hesitation in doing so. Gordon Prentice was aprincipled politician and committed to many causes. Hewas an independent thinker who rebelled against thelast Government on issues such as tuition fees, the Iraqwar and post office closures. He was an active BackBencher and I feel that Gordon demonstrated to wenewer Members that we do not need have to hankerafter ministerial office to achieve something in theHouse.

As I said in my acceptance speech just five weeks ago,it is the greatest honour of my life to be elected torepresent Pendle. Located in the hills of the Pennines innorth-east Lancashire, and some would say beyond,Pendle offers some of England’s finest countryside,including Pendle hill, from which my seat takes itsname, as well as beautiful villages and busy towns.

The area is rich in history, not only with the story ofthe Pendle witches, which brings many visitors to thearea, but with our industrial heritage with the Leeds-Liverpool canal, numerous mills and other incrediblefeats of engineering. The old industries of cotton andtextiles have now all but disappeared, but the industriousspirit of the area remains as strong as ever.

Next weekend, my constituency plays host to one ofthe biggest events in the UK’s cycling calendar, with thenational road race championships taking place throughthe villages of Roughlee, Barley and Newchurch. It is agreat opportunity for us to showcase some of our

award-winning villages and boost the local tourismtrade, which is an increasingly important part of thelocal economy.

Pendle is a place of contrasts, where we have severedeprivation next to relative affluence. It is a place wheremosques sit side by side with mills, highlighting thelarge number of my constituents who came originallyfrom Pakistan or Kashmir. One of the first issues withwhich I had to deal as a Member of Parliament was thesenseless murder of three of my constituents, the Yousaffamily. They were gunned down while tending a familygrave in Pakistan. Their killers are yet to be brought tojustice, and I am committed to doing whatever I can toensure that the family obtain justice through the Pakistanicourts. On that issue as well as many others that affectmy constituency, I will be at the forefront in pressingMinisters and holding the Government to account, sothat the people of Pendle always know that they have astrong voice here in Westminster.

The M65 ends in my constituency, in effect creatingone of the biggest cul-de-sacs in the country. As aresult, most of those who wish to travel cross-countryby road take alternative routes. We also lack rail connectivity.I pay tribute to the work of SELRAP—the SkiptonEast Lancashire Railway Action Partnership. That group’saim is to reconnect Colne and Skipton, Lancashire andYorkshire and the north-west and the north-east, and Iapplaud its efforts.

We have some of the lowest house prices in thecountry. There is a high rate of empty and unfit homes,as people have moved away from the area and absenteelandlords have bought homes and sometimes entirestreets. It is clear to me, representing as I do some of thecheapest streets in Britain, that regeneration work remainsvital to the long-term sustainability of the area.

We lack an accident and emergency department sinceours was transferred from Burnley to Blackburn—whichis 15 miles away—under the last Government, despitethe protests of local people. The local primary caretrust now wants the children’s ward to be transferred aswell, but I am encouraged by the assurances of theSecretary of State for Health that NHS service changesare now subject to review. I look forward to him visitingBurnley General hospital tomorrow, along with myhon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle),who made an excellent speech a few moments ago.

The people of Pendle are hardy folk, and we face upwell to whatever situation we find ourselves in. That isprobably best typified by one of Pendle’s most famoussons, whose memorial in Colne is close to where I live:Wallace Hartley. Hon. Members who are not familiarwith the name will, I am sure, be familiar with the story:Wallace Hartley was a violinist, but he was also thebandmaster of the Titanic on her maiden voyage.

I am proud to represent a seat where a higher proportionof the work force are employed in manufacturing thanin any other constituency in England, and I am delightedthat manufacturing is back on the national agenda. Iwas also delighted to read in the coalition agreementthat rebalancing the economy is a key Government aimand that the Government are committed to boostingthe provision of workplace apprenticeships.

More than 8,000 people in my constituency are employedin manufacturing, producing everything from Silentnightbeds in Barnoldswick to the biscuits that are sold in


Harrods, which are produced in Nelson. It was a realpleasure for me, as a candidate, to visit so many of thosefirms over the past four years. It was a particularpleasure to take my right hon. Friend the Member forTatton (Mr Osborne), now Chancellor of the Exchequer,to visit Rolls-Royce and Weston EU—two great Britishcompanies, working in the vitally important aerospacesector, that also have fantastic apprenticeship schemes.They are real companies providing real jobs that generatesignificant value added for the United Kingdom. Thatbrings me to the topic of today’s debate: the need for usto build a high-skilled economy.

Last Friday, I had the pleasure of visiting Nelson andColne college. The college has a long-standing traditionof academic excellence, and since 2005 it has twice beenjudged “outstanding” by Ofsted. It provides academicand vocational sixth-form education for about1,700 people—the vast majority of young people in myconstituency—but I believe that among the things thatmake it so special are its unique pre-professionalprogrammes and its outstanding apprenticeshipprovision, with success rates well above the Lancashireand national rates. Its tailor-made employer provisionincludes 14 individual apprenticeship frameworks tomeet the needs of local and regional employers.

It would be far better to address the current skillshortages in the economy by supporting colleges suchas Nelson and Colne and fostering their links withbusiness than by pursuing the last Government’s attemptto ensure that 50% of students went to university.However, we must also recognise that four out of fivepeople who will be working in 2020 are already in thework force. Given the damage done to occupationalpension funds by the last Government and the probableincrease in the state pension age, people are likely to beworking for much longer than ever before. So we musthave a strategy that ensures that training is not justfocused on young people but provides incentives toemployers to support lifelong learning and celebratesthe good employers who are already doing that.

We also need a fair deal for British manufacturers, sothat we can continue to be a world leader in sectors suchas aerospace. British industry has been hampered bytoo much tax and regulation for too long. We know thattough times lie ahead because of the legacy left to us bythe previous Government, and that will make building ahigh-skilled economy even harder. However, I lookforward to working with the Government to address thechallenges that we face, while never shying away fromspeaking out on behalf of the hard-working people ofPendle.

4.35 pm

Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con): May I congratulateboth you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your appointmentand the other Members who have delivered their maidenspeeches this afternoon? In preparing my notes for thisspeech, I turned, as I am sure colleagues also did, to theguidance; I noted that it says that it is best to be briefand non-controversial and—at least on this occasion,Madam Deputy Speaker—I shall try to be both.

It is, of course, a great privilege to be elected to theHouse, particularly for me as I represent the constituencythat bears the name of my home town. That makes meboth a Lincolnshire yellowbelly and a meggie. The

explanations behind those terms are somewhat dubious,and although I appreciate that Members are on tenterhooksto know them, I shall leave that for another day.

Members and others who have been fortunate enoughto visit Cleethorpes—which, as they will all be aware, isthe premier resort of the east coast—are referred to bywe locals as “trippers”, and they are the lifeblood of thetown’s economy. The constituency is, of course,much more than Cleethorpes itself. It runs from thedelightful market town of Barton-upon-Humber inthe north through many villages in the Barton andFerry wards of north Lincolnshire and on into north-eastLincolnshire and the major industrial centre ofImmingham, which together with Grimsby has, whenmeasured by tonnage, the largest dock complex in theUnited Kingdom. The seafaring traditions are strong,and Cleethorpes and Grimsby are, in effect, one town.Although there is an historic rivalry between them, theyare bound together by their connections with the sea.The Humber estuary itself is a site of special scientificinterest, and there is also a beautiful hinterland takingin many of the villages on the edge of the Lincolnshirewolds—an area that has been designated an area ofoutstanding natural beauty.

Cleethorpes is also the home of Grimsby Town footballclub, which therefore, strictly speaking, always playsaway from home. The club has had a difficult fewseasons of late, but I am proud to be a lifelong Marinersfan, and I am confident of better times ahead. BillShankly has been mentioned on two occasions thisafternoon, and it is perhaps appropriate in a debateabout training to mention that he served what might becalled his managerial apprenticeship at Blundell Parkbefore going on to higher things. I cannot quite rememberthe early ’50s, but I did live within shouting distance ofthe terraces of the football ground. The area is alsofortunate to be served by an excellent combination ofnewspapers, which together help to create the identityof the area. There are two dailies, the Grimsby Telegraphand the Scunthorpe Telegraph, and a weekly, the CleethorpesChronicle.

Having given Members a snapshot of the constituency,I wish now to pay tribute to my predecessor, ShonaMcIsaac, who represented Cleethorpes for 13 years,during which time she worked diligently on behalf ofher constituents and tirelessly for the causes in whichshe believed. Having worked for almost 16 years for myhon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh),I know well that many individuals have cause to thanktheir Members of Parliament for taking up cases, tryingto correct an injustice or bringing an issue to the attentionof those in authority. On their behalf, I thank her forher efforts in that respect. She was, of course, bitterlydisappointed to have lost her seat but was gracious indefeat. I wish her well for the future.

Cleethorpes, although it has been pushed from oneconstituency to another over the years, has had somenotable, interesting and perhaps even colourfulMembers in the past. Before Shona McIsaac cameMichael Brown and before that Michael Brothertonand Jeffrey Archer.

I referred earlier to my hon. Friend the Member forGainsborough, who has just completed nine years as adistinguished Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.I had the privilege of working as his constituency agentfor 16 years, and he started me on the path that has led


[Martin Vickers]

me to the House: 10 years ago, after addressing theCleethorpes Conservative luncheon club, he suggestedthat I might try to become the candidate.

Today’s debate focuses on building a high-skilledeconomy and that is of particular importance to myconstituency, with its large concentration of industryalong the Humber bank. As the new Member for theconstituency of Cleethorpes, I shall aim to build on thework of my predecessors and the work done by localauthorities, industry and the many different agenciesthat come together to reinvigorate and redevelop anarea with which I have been associated throughoutmy life.

We must develop further a high-skilled economy thatwill benefit my constituency and the whole country. Wecan then progress out of this economic downturn morefully. We need to set the foundations for the futuresuccess that our young people deserve. It is our youngergenerations who will be the backbone on which thefuture of businesses relies. My fellow Lincolnshire Member,the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovationand Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for SouthHolland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), described thisin his opening remarks as a major challenge. I welcomethe Government’s pledge to increase the quality andquantity of apprenticeships that will be available.

I hope that such pledges will further the work offacilities such as CATCH—the Centre for the Assessmentof Technical Competence, Humber—and training providerssuch as HETA, the Humberside Engineering TrainingAssociation, which operate there. During the electioncampaign, the Minister for Universities and Science,who was then a shadow Minister and is now, I ampleased to say, a member of the Government, visitedthe CATCH facility in Stallingborough and I think itfair to say that he was suitably impressed. It is a jointventure between the public and private sectors, and ithas an extremely good success rate in securing permanentpositions for the young people who train there, educatingand training today’s school leavers, so that they becomenot a lost and forgotten generation but a driving forcebehind the economic recovery that remains the key aimof Government policy.

With its industrial history and foundation along theHumber bank, the people of my constituency are hard-working people. Cleethorpes has a number of challengesand obstacles to overcome to secure the support andfunding that is needed to ensure that the Government’svision of a fair and highly skilled economy is brought toall the constituencies of our country. As the Member ofParliament for the constituency, I hope to act as somethingof an ambassador, bringing together all the elements ofthe constituency—whether private, public or third sector—that will help to build the future success of our economy.If we work together, I am confident that my constituencywill enjoy a brighter future.

4.43 pm

Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con): I offer you mycongratulations on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker.I also congratulate all those who have made maidenspeeches this afternoon, not least my hon. Friend theMember for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who spoke

eloquently about his constituency and, like many othersthis afternoon, on the subject of football. As someonewhose wife—who is in the Gallery today—is a fan ofLiverpool football club and has, in my opinion, a ratherworrying keenness for Steven Gerrard, I, like my hon.Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney),will be trying to make the early acquaintance of thehon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram).

I am proud to address this House for the first time asthe first Member of Parliament for Central Devon. Myconstituency was formed from parts of five others, so itcould be said to have five predecessors, two of whom Iam pleased are still Members of the House. First, thereis my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridgeand West Devon (Mr Cox), who has set the higheststandards in looking after his constituents—standardsto which I aspire. Like most lawyers, he has never beenslow to offer me wise counsel, but unlike most lawyershe has very graciously never charged me a penny for it.There is also the Minister for the Armed Forces, myhon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey).Although he is not a member of my party, he is oftenheld by my constituents who were previously representedby him to be a bit of a Tory at heart. I am sure that thatwill be a good qualification for his new role as aMinister in our coalition, and I wish him well.

There are three other predecessors who are no longerMembers of the House, the first of whom being AnthonySteen, who served as the Member for Totnes. I havefound him to be immensely courteous always and sometimesmarvellously eccentric. He is a compassionate man whohas done a great deal of good, not least through hiswork addressing the dreadful situation of human trafficking,and I am sure that he will be missed by the House.Secondly, Richard Younger-Ross was the previous Memberfor Teignbridge, and a very hard-working and assiduouslocal Member of Parliament.

Lastly, and for me most importantly, I pay tribute toAngela Browning, the former Member for Tiverton andHoniton, who was held in great affection on both sidesof the House. She could not have been more supportive,generous and helpful to me. She was hugely respectedby her constituents, regardless of their political leanings,and I am delighted that she has now been elevated tothe other place. In the coming months, I shall try to liveup to these illustrious forebears, to be inspired by theirexample and to contribute to the House as they havedone.

Central Devon is one of the most beautiful constituenciesin the country. It is also one of the largest, coveringsome 550 square miles, including a third of Dartmoornational park, numerous beautiful and scattered villagesand several fine market towns such as Okehampton,Hatherleigh, Chagford and Crediton, where, someOpposition Members might be pleased to learn, ErnestBevin was schooled. They are welcome to come andvisit, but strictly out of election time if they do notmind. Other market towns include Buckfastleigh,Ashburton, Bovey Tracey and Chudleigh.

My constituency is steeped not only in beauty but inhistory. In my home town of Ashburton, a once importantstannary town occupied with the trading of tin, therestill exist two venerable and ancient offices—portreeve,the representative of the monarch, and master bailiff.Both of those offices stretch back to the early 9th century,well before even your illustrious office had been conceived,


Madam Deputy Speaker, and indeed to a time when theground on which we now stand was little more than amarshy outcrop of the River Thames. I offer mycongratulations to Mrs J. Distin, Ashburton’s newlyelected portreeve, who is the 1,189th holder of thatoffice, and to Mr W Shapley, our master bailiff.

Although Central Devon is an area of outstandingbeauty and interest, it is not without its challenges andhardships. It is a constituency in which agriculturematters, so events that hurt agriculture have a majorimpact upon my constituents. In 2001, the foot andmouth outbreak was centred around the market townof Hatherleigh, with devastating effects. The pall ofsmoke that hung over that part of Devon from cattlebeing burned on their pyres will never be forgotten.Today, there is the challenge of bovine tuberculosis,which costs 30,000 cattle a year in this country andcauses untold misery to Devon’s farmers. I am pleasedthat this issue is receiving the vigorous attention of ourGovernment.

Many other serious issues affect my constituency,including the underfunding of our schools comparedwith other parts of the country. Devon is ranked 148th outof 151 local education authorities in terms of centralGovernment funding. There are many reasons why thatposition is too low. I will continue to press on thismatter for the sake of our local children, who have aright to a fair share of education funds.

In this debate I wish to focus on schools, not leastbecause I have a strong belief that the greatest gift thatany young person can receive, after a loving family, isthat of a good education. For those who choose thevocational path, it is vital that education be providedwith the same energy and vigour as that afforded to themore traditional academic routes. I welcome the statementof my hon. Friend the Minister of State responsible forskills and lifelong learning that there will be an extra£50 million of capital expenditure for further educationand an extra 50,000 apprenticeships. He should becongratulated, as we should remember that educationand skills are important not just in and of themselvesbut to the life chances of our young people.

Education is the great highway of social mobility—forindividuals to move on and up, in many cases escapingpoverty and deprivation in the process. I say that assomeone whose mother and father left school at ages15 and 14, and whose life was transformed by thewinning of a free place at a grammar school. Thegreatest opportunity ever provided to me, that schoolbecame the foundation on which the rest of my life wasbuilt. I would like to see others have the opportunitythat I was privileged to receive.

I have long admired the ideas and the reformingpassion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Statefor Education and my hon. Friend the Minister ofState. They have fully understood the force for goodthat education and skills can represent, but they havedone more than that. They have truly understood thedisgraceful and inhumane waste that is represented bycontinued educational failure—the appalling destructionof life chances, especially among the least advantaged.It is they who have understood the extraordinary powerof choice; that choice will drive up standards; thatparents know better than bureaucrats; that giving powerto those who otherwise just have to take what they aregiven is the key to raising up the less advantaged; that

future generations must be sustained not just by hopebut by taking control of their destinies; and most importantof all, that there is an age-old truth that the quest tocreate a stronger and better society cannot be left to theplanners, to the bureaucracies, to the well-meaningarchitects of the state, but must be gifted to those forwhom the consequences of success or failure are mostkeenly felt.

The Government’s radical agenda for education andskills will represent a vital journey—a true quest forequality, of a kind not that seeks to push down to somelowest common denominator, but that seeks to raisepeople up by providing choice and opportunity forevery young person, irrespective of wealth, colour, race,creed or social background.

I thank the House for its indulgence and wish theGovernment every success in their vital endeavour.

4.53 pm

Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con): I feelprivileged to have this opportunity to make my maidenspeech; I might say that I feel 21 all over again. However,it is a real pleasure to do so during a debate that is sofundamentally important to my constituents. Myconstituents in Newton Abbott have a real issue, andthat is deprivation. We need regeneration, and skillshave to be the route to regenerating the local economy,but before I move to that, let me pay tribute to my twopredecessors, whom I share with my hon. Friend theMember for Central Devon (Mel Stride).

Mr Richard Younger-Ross was very much loved byhis constituents. He was a hard-working Member, andhe pushed forward a number of issues that I shall alsopush forward relating to the inappropriate water chargesin the south-west and the A380 bypass, which hascontinually deprived our economy of the growth that itneeds. My other predecessor was, as my hon. Friend theMember for Central Devon expressed, a colourful character.I reiterate my hon. Friend’s comments about the realgood that Anthony Steen did in putting human traffickingon the agenda. I am pleased that he is carrying on withthat work.

Let me give the House a little of the colour andflavour of my constituency of Newton Abbot. If Icould give the Boundary Commission some advice, itwould be this: next time, can we change the name?Many people have told me that as they do not live in thetown of Newton Abbot they feel completely disfranchised.

My constituency is two thirds urban and a thirdrural. There are four towns, and until recently one ofthem, Kingsteignton, was the largest village in the country.My towns have interesting histories, but they have sufferednot just during the most recent recession but over thepast 50 years because there has not been the investmentin the south-west that it deserves. Newton Abbot had aproud history in engineering. In the days of the railways,in the 1950s, it was very prosperous, but I am sad to saythat only one large company—Centrax—is left. It is aproud example, but we need more.

Teignmouth is a typical fishing village. We still have asmall port, so there is a real challenge in making fishingsustainable. At present, our trawlers have to land atBrixham, a neighbouring seaside town—indeed, myoriginal family home town—but that does not help myconstituents.


[Anne Marie Morris]

Dawlish is absolutely beautiful. I encourage any Memberwho comes to my part of the world to pay it a visit. It isa typical tourist seaside resort, with some of the mostbeautiful views. It is probably best known for its longstretch of railway. I am sure Members have seen advertsshowing the waves coming over the train. It is extremelypicturesque, but things have changed and across myconstituency tourism and retail are the main generatorsof economic wealth. Members will know as well as I dothat they do not pay very well.

As the south-west is a beautiful part of the world, wehave attracted a lot of retired people, and 30% of thepopulation are more than 60 years of age. That presentsa challenge, because there is great disparity between thecost of living and average income, which is why certainissues are particularly acute—water rates, for example.Many things need to be done.

I turn to regeneration and the vital role of the skillsdebate. One of the most important things is to helpchildren to aspire. At the beginning of the Parliament, Iheard a new Member make a very moving speech abouthow important it is that kids aspire, and in whatever webring forward I should like to see a method for makingthat happen. It is partly about role models, so bringingin second careerers, perhaps people from the forces, isabsolutely the right thing to do. We need those rolemodels. We need to involve local businesses in schoolsmuch earlier. Simply introducing the connection in thefifth form—as it was in my day—is too late; it needs tostart earlier. If we can do that, we shall make a bigdifference.

We should try to improve quality and variety ineducation along the line—primary, secondary and tertiary.There has been a focus in tertiary education on what Ican only describe as the intellectual professions, such aslaw and accountancy. There has not been a focus oncareers as plumbers, engineers and electricians. Thoseare all valid careers that require no less intelligence, justintelligence of a different variety. I should like somecolleges to be the technical colleges that we all knew andloved when we were younger. They should look atproper hands-on training. When I visit colleges I amdistressed to find that because of health and safety andall the other rules and regulation, education is all aboutbits of paper, not about students getting their handsdirty. Getting one’s hands dirty is an extremely goodand valuable thing. There is a skills college in mycommunity. I want it to be properly funded so that itcan become a proper technical college, but we are onlyhalfway through the process, so the Minister on theFront Bench will be hearing from me about that issuegoing forward.

Then there is the issue of linking tertiary educationwith jobs, and for my money it is absolutely crucial thatwe give apprenticeships a real chance. When I talk topeople with small businesses in my community, theysay, “Anne Marie, one of the challenges is that wecannot afford to take on apprentices, because at themoment all of the burden falls on the employer and it isa huge burden.” I am therefore very pleased to see newinitiatives from the new Government that will share thecost of apprenticeships. I welcome that 100%.

Of course, we must not forget those who are comingto their second, third and fourth career—often thosewho have been made redundant, through no fault of

their own. When I talk to people who have just beenmade redundant, I see that one of the challenges isgetting extra training, which is really difficult. There is alot of training out there, but it is very hard to findbecause there is no route map; and there is also not asmuch funding available as there used to be. So I amdelighted to hear from our new Government that theyare to streamline that and make it far more accessible.

For me, the skills agenda is a real opportunity for myconstituency. It is a way of helping it to regenerate, andthat is absolutely key. If I do nothing else in my term inthis Parliament, I will work to regenerate Newton Abbot;to regenerate the four towns; to regenerate the villages;to make sure that farming, which my hon. Friend theMember for Central Devon has already mentioned,has a real future; and to put the south-west back on themap, because it feels very much the poor relation andthat is not right. I will be here, banging the drum tomake sure that is not the case, until I finally leave thisHouse.

5.1 pm

Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con): I amvery grateful for the opportunity to make this, mymaiden speech, today. I understand that maiden speeches—first speeches in Parliament—are very like your firstchild: easier to conceive than to deliver.

Rossendale and Darwen, the constituency I have thehonour of representing, was previously held by Ms JanetAnderson for 18 years. During that period Ms Andersonwas a hard-working constituency MP, and will be wellremembered by many people in my area. She will especiallybe remembered for her pioneering support and work forlocal Sure Start centres, and I take the opportunity topay tribute to her.

Rossendale and Darwen was formed in 1983, and thefirst Member of Parliament was David Trippier—nowSir David Trippier—who I am sure is well rememberedby many people in the House. Sir David still resides inthe village of Helmshore, where my wife and I have ourcurrent home. This is apt, as Helmshore is the geographicalcentre of the constituency, with the Robin Hood beingthe actual heart of the constituency. For those Membersin the House who are avid readers of our two localpapers, the Rossendale Free Press and the LancashireTelegraph, that is not Robin Hood’s well, where I proposedto my wife; it is the Robin Hood public house at thecentre of our village, where the beer, and the welcome, issecond to none, especially on a Friday evening.Rossendale and Darwen, being nearly 220 square miles,is formed of four separate towns—Whitworth, Darwen,Bacup and Rawtenstall. Each of these towns is separatefrom the other, and they are independent in both spiritand mind while being similar in many ways. Each isboarded by the lofty west Pennine moors, hemmingthem into deep valleys, with houses and mills alike withsteep mountains rising above them; and streams rushthrough glens, giving the power that once drove the eastLancashire textile mills.

There are also many villages in my constituency, withsmall, close-knit communities, such as Belmont, Weir,Turton, Hoddlesden and Tockholes. Those villages doggedlycling limpet-like to the hillside during the winter months.Last winter, some were cut off from the outside worldfor several weeks. In the summer months, the villagesare marked by horses paddock grazing, and I am sure


that the village of Edenfield, in the electoral division ofEden, conjures into Members’ minds the appropriatevisions of pastoral bliss and long summer evenings.

It is not the landscape, beautiful as it is, that bindstogether this area of east Lancashire, but the characterof the people who live in Rossendale and Darwen. Thefirst Member of Parliament to be killed in the secondworld war was from the village of Stubbins in Rossendale.Captain Richard Porritt, a member of the LancashireFusiliers, was killed in Belgium on 26 May 1940, and heis remembered in the Chamber with a shield to the rightof your Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last November,I had the honour of attending a Remembrance Sundayservice in Whitworth with two current members of theLancashire Fusiliers just back from Afghanistan, wholaid a wreath and cross in memory of their seven fallencomrades. Many families in my constituency continueto have a strong connection with our armed forces. Ibelieve that we in this country have the finest armedforces in the world and I shall do all that I can tosupport them and their families while I am a Member ofthe House.

It is apt that I am making my maiden speech during adebate about building a high-skilled economy because Ibelieve that Rossendale and Darwen can be in thevanguard of rebalancing our economy to that of ahighly skilled industrial economy. Rossendale and Darwenwere at the centre of the first industrial revolution.Rossendale was the centre of the world’s slipper trade,while Darwen was the birthplace of wallpaper, andboth were major centres for the textile industry. Suchwas Darwen’s importance to the cotton trade that it wasvisited by Mahatma Gandhi in 1931 so that he couldwitness the effect of the Indian Congress party’s boycottof Lancashire cotton mills.

This white-hot flame of innovation that led to theinvention of wallpaper and the introduction of the firstpower looms still burns in the breast of every youngperson in my constituency, and we must do all that wecan to foster their full potential. I applaud the Government’scommitment to investing in workplace apprenticeshipsto ensure that our young people, especially in Rossendaleand Darwen, have the correct menu of skills to continueour strong tradition of local manufacturing. There arestill many well-known manufacturing companies in myconstituency, such as J&J Ormerod kitchens in Stacksteads,James Killelea steel in Crawshawbooth, Crown Paintsin Darwen and WEC engineering in Darwen, which wasvisited by my right hon. Friend the Prime Ministerimmediately before the election. All those well-knownlocal manufacturing businesses provide high-skilled jobsfor our young people.

The rebalancing of our economy is a key aim of theGovernment, as is set out in the coalition agreement.With a fairer and more balanced economy in which weare not so dependent on the financial services industry,and in which economic opportunities are more evenlyshared among our regions and industries, I optimisticallypredict that Rossendale and Darwen will prosper andbecome a regional manufacturing superpower.

5.8 pm

Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con): I am gratefulfor the opportunity to deliver my maiden speech. Icongratulate all new Members who have spoken soelegantly and eloquently, particularly my hon. Friend

the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry),whose maiden speech was well conceived and comfortablydelivered.

I represent the constituency of Hastings and Rye. Ofcourse, it is only us who call our areas constituencies. Tomy constituents, the constituency is home, where theylive and where they bring up their families, and I willnever forget that. Some six weeks since the generalelection, I still get a little lost going from one room tothe next, and between staircases and lifts, but I remainimpressed, humbled and not a little relieved to be inthese historic corridors and as part of this historiccoalition.

Part of my responsibility is to live up to the exampleof the previous Member of Parliament for Hastingsand Rye, Michael Foster. He was the epitome of a goodconstituency MP. He was immensely popular, not justbecause of the individual acts that he did for localresidents, but because of his high visibility locally andhis successful lobbying of the then Government foradditional funds for the town. Unfortunately for him,his popularity grew in inverse proportion to that of hisGovernment, but I recognise that, through his service,he set a very high bar—one that I shall try to reach and,hopefully, at some stage exceed.

The fruits of Michael Foster’s success are evident inHastings. We have a new train station, further educationcollege, and university centre, and two new state-of-the-artoffice developments. However, physical regeneration hasnot yet translated into economic regeneration. Ouroffices are still largely empty, the train services are stillpoor, and on the index of multiple deprivation, Hastingsremains 29th from the bottom. We have some of thelowest wages and highest unemployment in the wholecountry, let alone the south-east. Cynics might be forgivenfor thinking that Labour’s regeneration has been atriumph of style over substance so far. The make-up isin place, but I am afraid that the wrinkles are still verymuch there.

But deprivation is only one part of Hastings, andHastings is only one part of an area of contrasts andvariations. My constituency feels very much like amicrocosm of the country, with urban and rural areas,with farmland adjacent to idyllic estates, and with idyllicvillages next to deprived wards. We are the custodiansof England’s most famous date—perhaps more famousthan 6 May 2010.

Let me introduce colleagues to the wonderful aspectsof my constituency. Hastings, Rye and the village ofWinchelsea were all parts of the Cinque ports, whichwere put together in the 11th century to keep outseafaring invaders, and for the mutual benefit of tradeand fishing. Each place has its own unique character. Iurge Members to spend their summer holidays with us.They can enjoy local produce, the source of modernEnglish history, top-quality entertainment, fresh airand exercise; and for the more sedentary among us,there are fish and chips and slot machines. They caneven walk in genuine dinosaur footprints, which mayappeal to some Labour Members.

Tourism is an essential ingredient of what we have tooffer. Hotels and boarding houses boast that they havebeen popular with visitors since 1066. Visitors, of course,have not always been so popular with them. We havefantastic beaches, wonderful countryside and arguablythe world’s most remarkable heritage. We have flourishing


[Amber Rudd]

language schools, visited by students from all over theworld, and a community that welcomes them with openarms, not to mention open tills, because we need thebusiness.

Like many towns, we suffer from the coastal problemof being at the end of the line. Looking at previousmaiden speeches over the past 40 to 50 years, I see thatthere has been a recurring theme: transport. The A21 toHastings needs renewing and improvement. Our survivaland prosperity depend on access. There is no pointhaving wonderful facilities if people cannot access them.It unquestionably puts off employers and tourists, bothof whom we need, that it is so difficult to get to our partof the world. I am talking of a constituency where43% of the work force are in the public sector. We arelike an island. We know what way the tide is going; weneed to attract the private sector to try to take up someof the unemployment. I fear that much of the moneythat has already been spent in my constituency will failto improve the economy if we do not do somethingabout that. For too long, we have been the underprivilegedcousin of the south-east. Many of my constituents havesuffered terribly from an economy that has simply leftthem behind.

I have two important considerations for my constituencyof Hastings and Rye. The first is transport. I recognisethe particular financial situation in which we findourselves—there must be cuts; we have inherited adifficult legacy. However, I urge Government FrontBenchers not to make them to vital infrastructure projects,on which everything else depends. In my constituency,they are: a link road to open up the area to more jobsand more employers; improvements to the A21, andbetter rail transport. We must be accessible to prosper.Conservatives understand above all the importance ofenterprise and encouraging private sector growth sothat families and communities can grow on their own.

We have discussed the high-skilled economy, and Iagree that we all need that for our country to advance.However, I would like to draw hon. Members’ attentionto a very old trade. In Hastings, we have the largestbeach-launched fishing fleet in Europe. In Rye, we havean important port and fishing fleet. They have beentreated shamefully in the past 15 years. In the 1990s,there were 44 fishing vessels leaving Hastings, now thereare 20, and the fishermen eke out a precarious living.Those men earn their living in a traditional, honest andenvironmentally friendly way, battling with the sea andthe dangers of the deep. However, the common fisheriespolicy, as enforced by the Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs, has made their lives impossible.In 2005, there were prosecutions of those fishermen.The role of Government must be to help people, not putthem out of business. Their way of life needs bailingout. Our Fisheries Minister understands the issue andthe urgency and has visited Hastings twice, but wecannot wait for a full renegotiation of the commonfisheries policy. We need change now, with the codseason approaching and difficulties ahead of us. Weneed a Government who protect our fisheries and ourfishermen. I urge particular consideration of coastaltowns.

The Government recognise the importance of promotingprivate sector growth. I hope that we can demonstrate

that in Hastings and Rye by supporting better transportlinks and securing a fairer deal for fishermen. All weask is a fair wind and an even keel.

5.17 pm

James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con): Thank you,Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to addressthe House for the first time. It is a nerve-racking moment,made all the more so by following the excellent contributionsfrom hon. Members throughout the debate, withconstituencies ranging from Central Devon to Pendle,and Hastings and Rye to Rossendale and Darwen. I amtherefore grateful for the courtesies that the Houseextends to new Members during their maiden speech. Ipromise not to detain the House too long.

Sitting in the House as Conservative Member for aconstituency in the north-east of England makes mesomething of a rare specimen, thought almost extinctjust over a decade ago, but I assure hon. Members thatwe are showing encouraging signs of life and energyonce again.

I follow in the footsteps of Harold Macmillan andTim Devlin, as well, of course, as my most recentpredecessor, Dari Taylor. Ms Taylor represented Stockton,South for 13 years, during which time she worked hardfor her party and gave energetic support to the charityCardiac Risk in the Young.

All Stockton MPs follow in the footsteps of JosephDodds, the first Member of Parliament for the seat. Hewon it when it was first enfranchised in 1868. He builtup one of the largest majorities in the country in thenext 20 years, having won only narrowly when he wasfirst elected. Unfortunately, towards the end of hiscareer, there were what might be termed financialirregularities, and he had to resign his seat after beingmade bankrupt. However, that was reported rathermore generously in the press of the time than might bethe case today. I hope it will not be taken amiss, or asnot in the spirit of the new politics, in which those of uson this side of the House are so energetically engaged, ifI say that Joseph Dodds was, of course a LiberalMember for Stockton-on-Tees.

It will be my aim over the coming years not only torepresent the good people of Stockton South and itssurrounding towns and villages, for whose support andconfidence I am grateful, but to wave the flag forTeesside. My predecessor, Tim Devlin, said in this House23 years ago:

“It persists in the minds of southern folk who think that wenortherners all live in back-to-back houses and keep whippets.”—[Official Report, 4 November 1987; Vol. 121, c. 972.]

Although some progress has been made in addressingperceptions of the north, there is much still to do. Ihope to play my part in ensuring that such perceptionsare challenged and corrected. In my own constituency,we have vibrant towns such as Yarm and Eaglescliffe,which showcase the very best that this country has tooffer. There are also things that must be done: InglebyBarwick needs more school places, Thornaby’s regenerationis not yet complete, and Stockton itself has a high streetwhich, although not in my constituency, must be thefocus of local efforts to secure real and lasting improvement.

The economy of the north-east of England is, andhas for many years been, dependent on the publicsector. I hope that over the coming years our privatesector might take on a more significant role, and I trust


that the Government will make promoting and sustainingthat private sector one of its key aims in these difficulttimes. By building on the skills that we in the north-eastregion have, with our manufacturing and engineeringheritage, I believe that we can build a stronger economy,regionally and nationally, which will benefit manygenerations to come.

Teesside as a whole needs to re-establish its trueidentity. Half of my constituency has been in Yorkshire,half in Durham, all was once in Cleveland, and all wasalso once in Teesside, and now, confusingly, we are toldthat we are in the Tees valley, although I have yet to findthe Tees valley on any standard highways map. InStockton South we have Durham university and Teessideretail park, but we are served by Cleveland police andTees Valley Unlimited, and we celebrate Yorkshire day.Should any hon. Members find that perplexing, I invitethem to visit that wonderful part of the world, especiallyover the summer recess—I can assure Members on bothsides of the House that even in the north-east, we doindeed have a summer. Of course, they could fly directinto Durham Tees Valley airport—or at least they couldhave done when we had a direct service, which is anotherissue I hope to address and be involved with over thecoming years. Those of us who were born and raised inStockton can occasionally be heard to joke that we donot have a county. That joke has worn thin over theyears and I hope the new Government recognise theanomaly and work with myself and others to addressthe current confusion.

The people of Teesside are hard working and industrious,and there are all the signs of real success and wealth,but all too often, as is the case in so many other places,they sit next to pockets of real deprivation and need.We must raise the sights of those who have looked downat the ground for too long, and realise the true potentialhidden beneath the surface of the terrible jobless figuresand levels of personal debt which, for far too manyfamilies, have become the norm. It is by training andeducation that that can be achieved. My part of thenorth-east has suffered more than most during therecent recession, with the mothballing of our localCorus plant at Redcar, and the recent announcementthat Garlands, a previously highly successful local company,has gone into administration, so we must ensure thatour voices are heard loud and clear from both sides ofthe House.

Our local entrepreneurs, such as Sir John Hall, DuncanBannatyne and Steve Gibson, are key drivers for oureconomy, not just in the region but far beyond. We mustsupport individuals like them, from the smallest newbusinesses to the largest and most successful of enterprises.I want the north-east to be known as a place wherebusiness can be done. We have the skills and the spirit;we just need the chance to prove what we can achieve.

Throughout history, the north has been a powerhousedriving this country forward. Since the days of theindustrial revolution, Teesside has played its part—SydneyHarbour bridge was made from our steel, and our coalpowered the engines of empire. My constituents havesent me here to tell that to the House, to speak out for agreat place and to support the Government in theirwork to tackle many of the problems that we now face.

The people of the north-east will look to the Governmentand to their representatives in the House to ensure thatthe transition to a new economic model is successful,

and that jobs and livelihoods are protected. We want togrow, succeed and impress. I am confident that the newGovernment will listen to what the people of the north-easthave to say, and I look forward to working to secure abright future for its people.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your indulgencein calling me this afternoon, and in particular I want tothank the people of Stockton South for putting theirconfidence in me and sending me here to speak to youtoday and on however many other occasions I have thepleasure to address the House. It is a real pleasure toserve the constituency in which I live and in which I wasbrought up. I look forward to serving, and to workingwith Members on both sides of the House to ensurethat the voice of the north-east is always heard here inWestminster and elsewhere.

5.25 pm

Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con): It is kind of you,Madam Deputy Speaker, and generous of my hon.Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton),to allow me to speak. I know that the clock is againstme, but I am no stranger to that. For many years, Iworked in television so I am used to the ticking armand the fierce direction of a floor manager and directorwho told me, in no uncertain terms, to shut up. I alsoworked as a criminal barrister for 16 years, so I am alsoused to someone firm in the chair telling me in evenfirmer terms to shut up, and on those occasions I neverargued.

This is a great opportunity to pay tribute to mypredecessors and to give a short explanation of theconstituency that I have the honour and privilege torepresent. I know that my hon. Friend the Ministerknows the answer to the question that many ask aboutthe exact location of Broxtowe. It does not exist on anymap, but I urge all hon. Members to look at Nottinghamon the internet. If they zoom in to the western side, theywill see a stretch of land between the city and the borderwith Derbyshire. I urge those who travel up the M1 tocome off at junction 25 or 26 and experience Broxtowe.It is a fine place, as my hon. Friend knows because hismother is one of my constituents. She lives in the villageof Bramcote.

Many people would say, on visiting Broxtowe, that itis part of the urban sprawl, but last bank holiday Ispent two days walking—I had sore feet afterwards—acrossthe constituency to enjoy the green belt. In that time, Isaw all the places that I am so very proud to represent,including Beeston in the south and more green areasaround Greasley, Giltbrook and Kimberley in the north.

I wish to pay tribute to another place in myconstituency and thereby pay tribute to my predecessors.It is a hamlet called Cossall, which lies in beautifulrolling pastures. It has a fine tradition of mining, andD. H. Lawrence’s fiancée had the joy of living there, butan unfortunate legacy from the mining industry is thethreat of open-cast mining. The first Member of Parliamentto represent Broxtowe—it was created in 1983—wasSir Jim Lester, who was well known and much loved inthis House. He was followed by my immediate predecessor,Nick Palmer. Both men have many attributes in common,and I hope to share those in the years to come. Theywere moderate and reasonable in their politics, theyworked hard for the people they represented, and both


[Anna Soubry]

joined in opposing any plans for open-cast mining inthat beautiful green land. I seek to emulate both in mytime in this House.

During my time here, it will be an honour and privilegeto represent the people of Broxtowe, as others have saidabout their constituencies. There are many new Membersand we bring diverse experiences to the House, but weall hope to play a real part here. We will challenge andhold the Government to account, and we will askquestions whenever we can, but most of all we willrepresent our constituents. Many of us were selectedmany years ago and getting here has been a long journey,so we are well aware of the responsibilities that we allbear. We will take great joy and pleasure in representingour constituents and do our very best for them bybringing forward the causes that they all hold dear.

5.29 pm

Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): Madam DeputySpeaker, may I welcome you to the Chair and wish youvery well in your new role in the House? The House hasbeen at its very best this afternoon, and I have enjoyedall the contributions, particularly the maiden speeches.The subject of education and skills always brings outthe very best in Members. Indeed, for many of us, fromwhatever party represented in the House, it is the reasonthat we came into public life, and we have seen thattoday.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton KeynesSouth (Iain Stewart) on his contribution. He spokewarmly of his predecessor, Dr Starkey, who is rememberedfondly on the Labour Benches, and of Milton Keynes’great heritage in higher education. I was pleased to visitthe new university centre in Milton Keynes, and I hopethat he continues to support it in its work to extendaccess and widen participation in that area. Of course,Labour Members are particularly fond of, and are keento remember, the great Open university and the heritageof Jenny Lee and the Wilson-era Labour Government.

We heard a fantastic and wonderful speech from myhon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (SteveRotheram), who I know was a very effective mayor ofLiverpool during its year as capital of culture. Heincluded many of the football references that we hear inthe House. He obviously has big shoes to fill—many ofus remember Peter Kilfoyle fondly—and I particularlyenjoyed his reference to growing up on an estate; andthose of us who grew up in very humble circumstanceswish him well in his endeavours to remind the Housethat there are many people a long, long way from thisChamber.

We also heard an eloquent and articulate speech fromthe hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North(Caroline Nokes). I hope that she will not be overwhelmedby liberalism, as she referenced in her speech. I am sorrythat I was not in the Chamber to hear the hon. Memberfor Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), who made manyfootball references, so I will look at them in Hansardtomorrow. He spoke warmly of his predecessor, whowas well respected on the Labour Benches.

I know the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison)because she stood against me in Tottenham in 2000. Shewill remember that back then I looked a little more like

Denzel Washington, but 10 years later I look a lot morelike Forest Whitaker. She has championed the Conservativecause in London. I wish her well in her seat, and it isgood that she mentioned Battersea Dogs Home—aninstitution of which we in London are very fond.

The hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson)made me want to rush up to north-east Lancashire. I donot claim it is an area of the country I know wellenough, but I thought he gave a very eloquent speech inwhich he reminded us of that city’s manufacturingheritage.

The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers)also gave an eloquent speech. He was very kind abouthis predecessor and reminded us that we must continueto rediscover the importance of our industrial heritage—theHumber clearly played an important role in our history.

The hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride)could have got a job with a tourism agency in speakingabout his constituency. His effective speech reminded usnot just of the industrial nature of so many of the areasthat we represent, but of the importance of agricultureand the skills that we need to support agriculture in oureconomy.

Let me pay tribute to the hon. Member for NewtonAbbot (Anne Marie Morris), who made a warm andpassionate speech. She placed a great emphasis on rolemodels—an issue that I have also championed in theHouse—and again, the beauty of the area that sherepresents came across.

The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (JakeBerry) also paid an eloquent tribute, not just to hisconstituency but, importantly, to our armed forces.Historically, they have always played an important rolein this country, by providing so many men and womenwith skills that have not just served our armed forces,but gone on to serve the wider community once thosemen and women left the armed services.

Like the hon. Member for Central Devon, the hon.Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) remindedus of the importance of seaside areas and the work thatwe must continue doing, particularly in the south-east,where there remain acute pockets of deprivation.

The hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton)is a tribute to the north. He is keen to keep Stockton onthe map, as his predecessor was, despite the boundaryissues affecting his constituency.

I was not surprised that the hon. Member for Broxtowe(Anna Soubry), being a barrister, managed to cram alot into her speech in the time available. I look forwardto her contributions in the Chamber over the yearsahead.

Let me turn to the returning parliamentarians. I amgrateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham,Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for reminding us of the roleof group training associations in extending apprenticeshipsand helping small businesses in particular to take partin our wider apprenticeship schemes.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham(Roberta Blackman-Woods) has tremendous expertisein higher education issues, but she also reminded us ofthe importance of the Leitch targets. I hope that whenthe Minister winds up we might hear something aboutwhether the Government remain committed to thosetargets.


My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (ChrisWilliamson) was right to remind the House that Derbyremains an exemplar city, owing to its unique combinationof both skills and manufacturing. There is much thatwe can learn from the success of that part of thecountry over the most recent period. We all want toreplicate that success in different parts of the country.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for WestBromwich West (Mr Bailey) on his election as Chair ofthe Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills,and on his thoughtful speech. We all look forward tohearing more from him in these debates over the comingyears.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (GordonBirtwistle) on his advancement of the cause of UCLanuniversity in his constituency and on reminding us ofthe industrial heritage of his area and the importance ofcompanies such as Rolls-Royce.

We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member forBridgend (Mrs Moon), in an intervention. Importantly,she reminded us not just of the role of universities—shespoke about Cardiff—but of the many spin-out companiesthat emerge from universities, taking skills back into thecommunity, as people graduate and create companies.They are illustrations of the huge success of “Sciencemade simple”.

Let me come to the contribution of the Minister ofState, the hon. Member for South Holland and TheDeepings (Mr Hayes). I have had exchanges with himacross the Chamber for about four years—first in myrole as the Minister for Skills and then as the Ministerfor Higher Education. I look forward to the debatesthat we will have over the coming months. He hasalways described himself as a high Tory. As a consequence,he has an elevated—some might say levitated—status inthe Chamber. I know his constituency well; I rememberit fondly from my days as a Peterborough cathedralchorister. I suspect that he can be found on a Sundayengaging in amateur dramatics in the village halls aroundSpalding, playing Hercule Poirot or even Miss Marple.

Mr Hayes: Or a mix of the two.

Mr Lammy: Indeed.I was disappointed not to see a reference to higher

education in the motion and not to hear much from thehon. Gentleman about its importance. It is my view—Ihope that it is his—that a world-class university systemis central to a high-skilled economy. I grew up in Tottenhamduring a very difficult time in our history—and as anethnic minority in troubled and difficult times—and Iam very proud of all that we have done to widen accessand extend opportunities for poorer and non-traditionalfamilies and for ethnic minorities across the country. Itwas a huge achievement for the Labour Government towiden participation to 44% and to enable more youngpeople and more black and ethnic minorities to go touniversity than ever before.

When we look at constituencies in inner-city Liverpool,Birmingham and Manchester and at the pockets ofdeprivation in the cities, towns and villages that we haveheard about today, and we see young people—whoseparents would never have dreamed of going to university—going into higher education, we realise the majorcontribution that the Labour Government made to ourhigh-skilled economy. It is important that that shouldcontinue.

It is a great shame that the Minister for Universitiesand Science, the right hon. Member for Havant(Mr Willetts) recently referred to students and youngpeople as a “burden on the taxpayer”. Students arenever a burden on the taxpayer. Underlying his statementis a certain view of the state and a suspicion of thecontribution that the state makes to advancing thecause of a high-skilled economy. We will take everyopportunity to challenge such assumptions over thecoming months.

The Minister of State, the hon. Member for SouthHolland and The Deepings has announced the creationof 50,000 apprenticeships, but he is not in oppositionnow, and he must remember that he does not have those50,000 apprenticeships until he has delivered them. Thepeople who will actually deliver them, however, are inbusiness and industry. Achieving that will take a lot ofhard effort over the coming months, because I do notthink that he is suggesting that the money that he hasset aside will pay the salaries of those young apprentices.He is still expecting business to do that. So, at themoment, he has delivered only one apprentice: thepublic apprentice, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Iwish the Minister of State well, but we will be lookinghard at the detail over the coming months, and he willexpect me to penetrate fiercely some of the hyperbole inhis comments.

5.44 pmThe Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business,

Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey): It is a greatpleasure to welcome you, Madam Deputy Speaker, tothe Chair. You and I debated with each other over manyyears while you were a Minister, and I particularlyremember when you were Paymaster General. I knowthat, given your knowledge of the tax system, you willbe looking forward to chairing a debate on the FinanceBill to take you down memory lane.

This has been a high-quality debate which has beenconducted in a cross-party way, as different right hon.and hon. Members have made positive contributions.As my hon. Friend the Minister said in his openingremarks, he is listening to the contributions of allMembers. We have also heard about football and havealmost had an exercise in VisitBritain as we have gonearound the country.

I will not be able to talk about every maiden speech,but their overall quality was superb. When I made mymaiden speech, I was rather more nervous than thosedelivering the self-confident and assured maiden speechesthat we have heard today. If I may, I shall take a tourd’horizon of those speeches. We had cock and bull fromthe hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart);we had a Conservative club haunted by Roundheadsfrom the hon. Member for Romsey and SouthamptonNorth (Caroline Nokes); and we had a Yorkshire vineyardfrom the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney),as he talked about the “Last of the Summer Wine”.

Two hon. Members showed great perception in howto represent their constituencies. I am thinking of thehon. Members for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and forRossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), as they listedtheir local newspapers in their speeches. I have alwaysfound that when I talk about the Kingston Informer, theKingston Guardian, the Surrey Comet and Radio Jackie,it is always a very good way of representing one’sconstituents.


[Mr Edward Davey]

As I mentioned earlier, we also heard about football,as Members talked about the various football clubs intheir constituencies. I have to make a confession—I ama Kingstonian fan because they play in Kingston, and Iam also an AFC Wimbledon fan, as the club shares theKingsmeadow ground. I have to say to the hon. Memberfor Milton Keynes South that although he has theMK Dons, we have the real Wimbledon playing in myconstituency. I also have to confess that, although I wasborn in Nottingham and my first team is Notts County,I am also a Liverpool fan. Let me explain why. I was theonly member of the class who was a Notts County fanduring the Clough years, so I had to support one teamthat was giving Nottingham Forest a hard time.

I therefore particularly enjoyed the speech of thehon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), as I knowher constituency fairly well. I have never lived there, butI used to go to Nottingham university boating lake. Iwill not go any further into that, but we had some nicetimes there. As a student, I worked in Boots, which hasa factory in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and duringmy student vacation I helped to make pork pies forNorthern Foods. I am not sure whether politiciansshould confess to making pork pies, but when studentswere making them, complaints from consumers wentup—I hope that it was nothing to do with my skills.

As Members from both sides of the House addressedthe substance of today’s debate, we heard about howthey and organisations in their constituencies are playinga critical role in improving our country’s skills. The hon.Member for Milton Keynes South was quite right totalk about the Open university. As we debate highereducation, the model of the Open university is one thatpeople will want to replicate. I speak as a former student,now a fellow, of Birkbeck college, where part-timeeducation is also key. We really need to engage in a moreflexible approach to higher education, and the Openuniversity has a lot to contribute in that respect.

We heard about the university of Southampton fromthe hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North,and we also heard how a number of Members had beenapprentices. We heard from the hon. Member for Liverpool,Walton (Steve Rotheram) about his time as an apprenticebricklayer. We heard from my hon. Friend the Memberfor Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) about his apprenticeshipas a textile machine manufacturer.

That is why this Government are so proud, in theirvery earliest days, to have put extra money into theapprenticeship scheme, and to have set a target of50,000 new apprenticeships. The right hon. Member forTottenham (Mr Lammy) seems to jest—how could webe so bold as to want to create 50,000 newapprenticeships?—but we are very proud to have setthat target. The right hon. Gentleman appears to considerit unachievable, but I can tell him that I have discussed itwith my hon. Friend the Minister and with officials,and we are certain that we will meet it and do better astime goes on. I hope that in due course, when we haveachieved our aim, he will pay this coalition Governmentthe credit that they deserve.

Mr Lammy: I wonder whether the hon. Gentlemancan tell us when we will see those 50,000 apprentices.

Mr Davey: What I have noticed about the targets setby the previous Government—which the right hon.Gentleman mentioned in his speech—is how often theywere not met. The Government set target after targetwhich they then failed to meet. The right hon. Gentlemanspoke of the targets that they set for apprenticeships,but they set those targets and never met them. We willmeet our target, and I believe that we will meet it withinthe next 12 months. I hope that the right hon. Gentlemanwill soon eat his words.

We heard an awful lot today about the importance ofmanufacturing industry. I believe that the Government’sskills programme will ensure that it receives the supportthat it deserves, at the basic skills and education level.Labour Members may complain about the state ofmanufacturing industry, but they have a poor record inthat regard themselves. The hon. Member for WestBromwich West (Mr Bailey), the new Chair of theBusiness, Innovation and Skills Committee—I welcomehim to his post—made a thoughtful speech on thesubject, but I think he should bear in mind that whereasin 1997 manufacturing represented 20% of the UnitedKingdom economy, by the time the Labour Governmentleft office the proportion had fallen to 12%.

Mr Bailey: Will the Minister not acknowledge thatone of the reasons for that was the huge increase in theservice sector? It did not reflect an absolute decline inmanufacturing.

Mr Davey: Of course that is true of many moderneconomies, but I think it ill behoves the Labour party tocriticise this Government in their early days, given thatits own approach to manufacturing industry was not toturn the tide and go against the trend.

Although we have a huge amount in common, whenLabour Members talk about the skills agenda theysometimes forget some of the record of which theyshould be less proud. I am thinking particularly of thequangocracy that grew up around the skills agenda.There is currently a patchwork quilt of quangos involvedin that agenda. Members may be interested to learnhow the position has changed. In government, theLabour party did not just create the existing quangos,but created quangos, abolished them and created newones, all within 13 years. The fact that that instabilityand reinvention happened time after time shows thatthe Labour Government never really had a true vision.They constantly spent large amounts on new quangoswhile failing to get some of that money to the grassroots—to our communities. A lot of money was wastedthen.

When the last Government set up the Learning andSkills Council, I was sent strategy after strategy by thataugust body. At first I thought that I had a real duty toread every single page, but when I visited the LSC andtalked to its representatives, I realised that most ofthose strategies would never come to anything. I amafraid that that happened time and again. Hugeamounts were spent on quangos, reports andconsultancy, but less money went to the companies andlearners who needed it. We believe that the need torationalise the quangocracy in learning and skills is akey issue, and we will deal with it. We will do so whilealso having to look at the spending issues in this area,and there will be huge challenges. I do not think there is


anyone in this House or involved in FE, HE or theeducation system in general who does not realise thatwe face difficult choices in this area, but we are absolutelyclear that we will do our best in the money that we havegot into apprenticeships and into the capital programmefor FE to ensure that the priorities get the funding theydeserve.

Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab):As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned apprenticeshipsagain, can he tell the House whether, in the 12 monthshe is talking about, if we take together what he and hiscolleagues are proposing on Train to Gain andapprenticeships, more learners will be funded by theGovernment or fewer?

Mr Davey: That is interesting. We have to comparethat with what the previous Government were planning.When we looked at the funding issues facing us, and thevery difficult choices, we saw that the previous Governmentwere planning £340 million of cuts in adult furthereducation and skills this year. That is actually happeningthis year, and I hope the colleges and students—and theemployers—who are having to deal with the financialsituation imposed by the cuts realise that the peoplewho are to blame for that are sitting on the OppositionBenches.

Mr Lammy rose—

Mr Davey: Before I let the right hon. Gentleman in,let me say that I hope that when he gets to his feet headmits to the House that it is under his previousGovernment’s plans that we are seeing a 3% reductionin funding rates for college-based provision, a 10%reduction for 25-year-old and over apprenticeships anda 6% reduction in other work-based learning. This iswhat we are having to deal with, and it is creating hugeproblems, as he ought to know.

Mr Lammy: It is the hon. Gentleman who is ingovernment so I think he ought to answer the questionput by my right hon. Friend the Member for

Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden): will therebe more or fewer learners as a result of the announcementsmade today? The House has a right to know.

Mr Davey: Well, one of the things the House needs tounderstand is that we have a different approach to FEand HE. We do not believe we can sit here in Whitehalland have a centralised system that we micromanage,and that we can then suddenly guarantee that there willbe x new trainers, x new learners and x new places, asthe right hon. Member for Tottenham and his friendsused to do. That is why they failed so often: they took acentralised, top-down approach.

We will ensure that our approach is employer-led andlearner-led. That is why we are working with businessesto make sure our schemes and proposals get the supportthat they will need from those areas. That is a verydifferent approach. We know that, as we meet thechallenges ahead of us, the private sector will have to beinvolved and be working with the Government. Far toooften, the private sector was too much of an afterthoughtin how the right hon. Gentleman and his colleaguesplanned their skills agenda.

Change is inevitable and, as Dr Johnson said:“Change is not made without inconvenience, even from worse

to better.”

So there will be difficult choices. We will not shy awayfrom them, but when we have to make those difficultdecisions, it will be the employers and learners who areuppermost in our mind, not the bureaucrats and thequangos and the consultants, where all the money waswasted under the last Government.

We have had a constructive debate. I say on behalf ofmy hon. Friends and fellow Ministers in the Departmentthat we are keen to listen, even to ideas from formerMinisters who may at last realise that many mistakeswere made and want to begin to confess. I hope thatthrough working across parties and with the SelectCommittee and new Members, we can revitalise andinvest in the skills our economy so desperately needs—

6 pmMotion lapsed (Standing Order 9(3)).


Transport Infrastructure (Nottingham)Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House

do now adjourn.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)

6 pm

Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab): MadamDeputy Speaker, I am very grateful for this opportunityto raise issues that concern not only my constituents butthe wider Greater Nottingham conurbation and ourregion. May I say what a pleasure it is to see you in theChair today? I also thank my hon. Friends the Membersfor Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and for Gedling(Vernon Coaker) for coming along to lend me theirsupport.

Nottingham is very fortunate to have one of the bestintegrated transport systems in the country, but that didnot happen by chance. It happened because there waspolitical will, because the city council worked closelywith partners in the county and with local businesses,seeking to build consensus wherever possible, and becausewe are fortunate to have great people working in the cityto deliver our collective vision.

Indeed, the Department for Transport has designatedNottingham as a centre of excellence for local transportdelivery. More recently, the council received a comprehensivearea assessment green flag for public transport improvementand was described as “getting better and better”. However,it is not those warm words that I want the Minister toattend to today, but the real achievements that makeNottingham’s case for further investment compelling.

Over the past five years, Nottingham has containedtraffic growth and congestion levels. There has beenincreased public transport use, fatal and serious accidentshave been reduced and we have encouraged many morepeople to walk or cycle rather than to jump in their cars.I am proud of our record, but we know that there is stillmuch more to do if we are to have a transport systemthat is fit for purpose in the years ahead—one thatsupports economic growth rather than hampers it andencourages greener, eco-friendly choices.

When it comes to investment in infrastructure, short-termism just will not do. We have to think and plan forthe long term and that is why Nottingham has beendeveloping three key capital projects to make the city aneven better place to live and work, to attract inwardinvestment, to create jobs and to get the local economymoving. These projects will regenerate neighbourhoods,link socially disadvantaged communities with trainingand job opportunities, improve the environment andcut carbon emissions. I know that they are not justobjectives that the Minister will welcome but the statedpriorities of the coalition Government, so I am veryhopeful that he will give a positive response.

Let me say a bit more about the three projects onwhich I am anxious that he should focus. The A453 linksNottingham to the M1, the A50 and East Midlandsairport. It is the main trunk road from Nottingham toBirmingham and is a vital link in our transport network.According to the most recent data, the A453 is the mostcongested road in the country. Delays are particularlybad at peak times and the 9-mile stretch betweenNottingham and Kegworth is rated as the worst sectionof the national strategic road network, with the averagevehicle delay doubling in the last five years. Delays canbe expected of almost 15 minutes per 10 miles travelled

outbound and more than 10 minutes per 10 milestravelled inbound. In 2007, the East Midlands DevelopmentAgency commissioned a study that found that the costof congestion to Nottingham businesses came to£160 million a year, so it is no surprise that three yearsago partners in the region agreed that it was the toppriority for regional funding allocation. That was confirmedagain in 2009.

There is also a human cost to the congestion. Drivingthrough Clifton, one sees far too many flowers at theroadside that are a reminder of the A453’s terriblesafety record: accidents are 33% higher than the nationalaverage for rural roads and 23% higher than the nationalaverage for urban roads. Between 2003 and 2007, therewere 167 personal injury accidents of which two werefatal and 31 serious. Residents and business leaders, citycouncillors, district councillors and county councillors,and Members on both sides of the House all agree thatthe A453 desperately needs improvement.

Nottingham has been waiting for something to bedone for almost 30 years. The latest scheme will providea “civilised road”—one that provides extra capacity, butis sensitive to the needs of Clifton residents who livealongside it. Planned improvements have been delayedtwice before and we need it more than ever—so please,Minister, do not disappoint us again.

I read in the Nottingham Post that the Lord Chancellorand Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. andlearned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has already,as he put it, “had a go” at the Secretary of State forTransport regarding this matter. I hope that the Ministerwill work with his colleagues in the transport team tosecure the scheme’s future and, if necessary, to makerepresentations to the Treasury on behalf not just of the270,000 people who live in the city or the 750,000-pluspeople in Nottingham’s travel-to-work area, but of thepeople who will be filling the 20,000 new science andtechnology jobs that we hope will be created in the cityby 2020.

The second element of Nottingham’s plan for a modern,integrated transport network that I want to raise withthe Minister is Nottingham express transit phase 2—turningour tramline into a tram network. Tramline one openedin 2004, and its success has exceeded expectations,attracting 10 million passengers a year. Yes, it requiredconsiderable investment, and, yes, the construction workwas disruptive, but I urge the Minister to come for aride across Nottingham on the tram to see at first handwhat a difference it has made. I urge him to come andsee the park-and-ride sites, including those at Phoenixpark and Forest recreation ground, which are full tobursting every day. Some 3 million car journeys havebeen removed from the city’s roads and there has been a30% increase in public transport use in the north-westcorridor of the city. I like our buses, and they are a vitalpart of the mix, but on their own they cannot achievethat level of modal shift—getting people out of theircars and on to public transport. For the A453 schemereally to work, even with a widened A453, we need asignificant proportion of the people who are comingtowards the city to transfer to public transport at apark-and-ride site on the edge of Clifton.

I urge the Minister also to come and see the regeneration,inward investment and sustainable development thathave been achieved along the line one route. Perhaps hewill even share my enjoyment regarding the inspiration

1131 113217 JUNE 2010 Transport Infrastructure(Nottingham)

it has provided to small local businesses. I admit thatevery time I pass the snack bar in Hyson Green calledTramwiches, it makes me smile.

Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op): Myhon. Friend mentions Hyson Green in my constituency.Does she agree that as phase 2 of the tram project is aprivate finance initiative, funded in part not so much bygrant but by revenues generated from some quite toughdecisions having been taken about workplace parkinglevies and so forth, it is potentially less burdensome onpublic borrowing levels because of the re-phasing potential?As a consequence, it might be a good candidate whenranked against other schemes that the Minister isconsidering.

Lilian Greenwood: I thank my hon. Friend for thathelpful intervention.

NET phase 2 received approval because it will deliverfor the city and the conurbation. It will take a further3 million car journeys off our roads and will provide atleast 50% of the additional capacity needed to avoid thetransport gap that threatens the economic vitality ofthe conurbation. There will be 2,500 extra park-and-ridespaces, better integration with the railway station andhugely improved access to and from the south and westof the conurbation. It will link people, some of whomlive in wards in which 60% of the population do nothave access to a car, with the Queen’s medical centre,which is the city’s main hospital, as well as with bothour universities, with local college campuses and with2,000 workplaces, including 20 of the city’s 30 largestemployers. It will also promote equality of opportunity,as line one has done, by improving transport access forthe elderly, the disabled and those on low incomes.

Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con): Will the hon. Ladyplease explain which wards in the city council willbenefit from the tram but are those in which she says60% of people do not have access to public transport?

Lilian Greenwood: The wards are those such as CliftonSouth in the city and places such as the Meadows,which I wanted to talk about. The Meadows and Cliftonare two areas of my constituency that suffer from significantsocial disadvantage, including high unemployment, lowskills and low educational attainment. Clifton also hasa disproportionate number of pensioner householdsand a large retirement village. The tram will transformthose communities, regenerating their neighbourhoodcentres and offering full accessibility for people withmobility difficulties, including wheelchair and motorisedscooter users, and it will provide a vital link to workplacesand training providers. But most important, it willbring jobs. The Centre for Economic and BusinessResearch projected that between 4,000 and 10,000 newjobs would be created by NET phase 2. All this, and ahugely positive impact on the environment—cleaner airand a healthy cut in carbon emissions—make this schemewell worth investing in and excellent value for money.

I am delighted to know that the Minister is a fan oflight rail, and I know that he is fully briefed on Nottingham’stram. I certainly welcomed his comments earlier in theweek at the parliamentary tea for light rail when he saidthat local funding was a matter for local people. Heknows that the local funding for Nottingham is secure.

The mechanism is in place. So I hope that he will givehis backing and the backing of his Department for thisexciting expansion of light rail in the UK.

Last but not least, I want to draw the Minister’sattention to the Nottingham hub—the £67 million stationimprovement project to be jointly delivered by the citycouncil and Network Rail to transform our railwaystation into the sort of modern transport interchangethat the city needs. Everything is in place between thecity council and Network Rail. The only piece of thejigsaw that is in doubt is the contribution from EastMidlands Development Agency. We in Nottinghamvalue EMDA and the important role that it has playedin the city and the region. Securing its future is adiscussion for another day, but we hope that the changesto regional development agencies will not be allowed toundermine this project and the opportunity to create awonderful new entrance to the city.

Earlier this week the Prime Minister spoke about thereview of spending commitments and said:

“Projects that are good value for money and consistent withthe Government’s priorities will go ahead.”—[Official Report,16 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 868.]

I know that we in Nottingham can demonstrate thatour plans meet this test. Can we afford to go ahead withthese schemes? The real question is, “Can we afford notto?”and the answer is most definitely no. These transportschemes are absolutely vital to the economy of GreaterNottingham and the East Midlands region. They willdeliver on jobs, on regeneration, on cutting unemploymentand on improving access to training and skills. Theywill help us to meet the targets for a greener low-carbonfuture. They represent excellent value for money. If weneed to be a bit more flexible on what we are asking for,tell us. We will be, but do not leave us stuck in the slowlane when it comes to economic growth. It would beshort-sighted and very costly to delay these well-thoughtout, well-planned projects for the sake of small savingsnow.

As I draw my remarks to a close, I would like to askthe Minister the questions that people in Nottinghamare asking me. Have the Government produced ananalysis of the impact that delaying or cutting theseprojects will have on local and regional economic growth?What criteria will the government use to assess whichmajor projects to continue funding? When will thedecisions be made and who will be making those decisions?

Finally, will the Minister accept my invitation tocome to Nottingham to see the congestion we face onthe A453, to enjoy a trip on the tram, to look at theexciting plans for the railway station and to hear fromresidents, businesses and councillors from all partiesabout why investing in our infrastructure is vital for thefuture of Nottingham?

6.13 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport(Norman Baker): I begin by congratulating the hon.Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) onsecuring this debate on transport infrastructure forNottingham and the surrounding area, and on thecomprehensive and persuasive way she put her case thisafternoon. I am aware that she made her maiden speechin the House a few weeks ago and mentioned both theA453 and the Nottingham tram. I am now pleased to be

1133 113417 JUNE 2010Transport Infrastructure(Nottingham)

Transport Infrastructure(Nottingham)

[Norman Baker]

responding to her first Adjournment debate on a subjectthat is clearly of great importance to her, to other hon.Members and to her constituents.

No one doubts that an effective and efficient low-carbontransport infrastructure can help to support economicdevelopment and help to tackle climate change.Unfortunately, securing these outcomes in our currenteconomic climate is challenging to say the least, but Iam confident that we can meet these challenges and stilldeliver transport infrastructure that works for economyand the environment. I draw the hon. Lady’s attentionto the coalition Government’s statement, to which shereferred in her opening remarks, in which we have madeclear our commitment to a modern low-carbon transportinfrastructure as an essential element of a dynamic andentrepreneurial economy. She may also have noticedthat light rail is specifically mentioned in the agreement.But we have also identified the pre-eminence of thedeficit reduction programme at this time. The decisionsthat we take and the speed with which we are able toimplement transport improvements will need to bedetermined in the light of the comprehensive spendingreview.

The hon. Lady asked about the criteria for assessingmajor projects, and I shall come to that point in amoment. She asked when and who will make decisions.Initially, the Treasury’s comprehensive spending reviewwill tell us how much money the Department has incrude terms, and we shall then use the criteria to takethe decisions. I am conscious of the uncertainty not justin Nottingham but across the country. We want to get amove on and give people clarity as soon as we possibly can.

The Department for Transport is playing a full partin the spending review that will report in the autumn.We have already announced a range of measures aimedat delivering reductions in spending. On 24 May, theChancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary tothe Treasury gave details of savings of £6.2 billion inGovernment spending in 2010-11. The Department forTransport is contributing to those savings, which hasmeant taking difficult decisions on funding and deferringdecisions on schemes, including the A453, until afterthe outcome of the spending review.

Last Thursday, the Department for Communitiesand Local Government published further details aboutlocal government savings, including £309 million thatthe Department for Transport had identified in respectof local transport. In making those reductions, however,we have maximised flexibility for local authorities toreshape their budgets according to local priorities andto identify where efficiencies can be found. Given currentfinancial constraints, it is essential to ensure that anynew infrastructure is affordable and offers value formoney.

On the criteria for assessing major projects, the hon.Lady may be interested to learn that my Department iscommitted to reforming the way decisions are madeabout which transport schemes to prioritise across thecountry. We are looking at the formula used to assesstransport schemes so that the benefits of low-carbonproposals are fully recognised. We hope that work willbe complete to coincide with the outcome of thecomprehensive spending review so that we can takesensible decisions at that time.

Before I respond to the hon. Lady’s specific points, Iacknowledge Nottingham city council’s high reputationas a transport authority. It has successfully managedmajor innovative projects, including the building of thetram. It is a beacon council for accessibility and hastaken great strides in managing congestion in the area,as the hon. Lady pointed out. By August 2009, vehiclejourney times during the morning peak had been reducedby almost 7% on baseline figures.

The Greater Nottingham transport partnership providesa good example of bringing together the private andpublic sectors to promote understanding of and supportfor the integrated vision contained in the joint localtransport plan. From that partnership has come the“Big Wheel” marketing campaign, which has workedsuccessfully to influence the use of sustainable transportoptions.

Nottingham City Transport picked up the winningnew customers award at the 2009 UK bus awards, andin May this year the biggest, and first area-wide, statutorybus quality partnership was launched. Nottingham hasseen year-on-year increases in bus and tram use. Thereare now 47 million bus passengers per year in Nottinghamand 10 million tram passengers. With that base fromwhich to work, I am confident that Nottingham CityTransport is in a strong position to respond to thedifficult financial climate we are now facing.

I understand the concerns expressed on both sides ofthe House about the decision to defer spending for theA453 scheme until the next comprehensive spendingreview period. I do not want to introduce a note ofdiscord, but I point out gently to the hon. Lady that theprevious Government had 13 years to do somethingabout the road, but did not. She might bear that inmind as we consider how to go forward.

Following consideration of the scheme orders for theA453 at the public inquiry in 2009, the inspector’sreport was submitted to the Secretary of State forconsideration. However, no decision on the inspector’sreport and the scheme orders can be made until there isclarity about the availability of funding for the schemefollowing the forthcoming spending review. As the schemeis subject to statutory procedures, I hope the hon. Ladywill understand that I cannot for reasons of proprietydiscuss the merits of the A453 project in the Chamberthis evening. I can assure her, however, that the schemewill be given due consideration alongside other proposals.Her comments and those of other Members are noted.

On the proposed tram extensions, the Governmentannounced last week that we would consider schemesfunded through the regional funding allocation processas part of our commitment to review the way fundingdecisions are made on which transport projects to prioritise.However, as the hon. Member for Nottingham East(Chris Leslie) said—I nearly called him the hon. Memberfor Shipley—the Nottingham project is slightly different.The extensions to the Nottingham express transit tramscheme are proposed to be funded almost entirely throughthe private finance initiative. The Government, throughthe Treasury, plan to make an announcement shortly onhow we are dealing with PFI schemes, and it may bethat more clarity can be given on the tram scheme atthat point.

I would just say that the feeling I have picked up fromspeaking to Members on both sides of the House is thatwhether people were for or against the tram, there is



acceptance—the route has been planned, it has beenaccepted, it has been established, and the issue now isreally one of cost and finance rather than anything else.

Chris Leslie: It is entirely correct that it feels verymuch as though we have come so far—on the planningprocess, the commitment of all the legal fees and theconsultancy fees, getting through the planning inquiriesand so on—that it would be such a shame to decide notto progress at the eleventh hour, particularly when, as Isaid before, this scheme may not be so burdensome inits public borrowing aspects as perhaps others would.

Norman Baker: I do understand that point, and I amsure it is frustrating for Members all across the House,looking at various schemes in their own patches, to seethis delay. I stress that it is a delay, rather than acancellation—simply a deferral of schemes. We do wantto get decisions as soon as we possibly can on all theseschemes, but as to whether the PFI is good value formoney, that is above my pay grade—it is a matter forTreasury Ministers to decide, although obviously thecomments that the hon. Gentleman and others havemade will be picked up and relayed to my colleagues inthe Treasury.

I should record that the tram has been successful,carrying 38 million passengers—well above the projectedfigures. That is also a matter to take into account inlooking at the future. So I can assure the hon. Memberfor Nottingham South that the Department understandsthe potential for trams, in the right conditions, to delivera high-quality public transport alternative to the car. Ibelieve that, as she rightly says, we have underplayed thepotential of trams, and light rail in general, in thiscountry. I am conscious that proposals have failed inthe past, usually on the basis of high cost. She may liketo know that I have asked officials to look at the reasonsfor the high cost of tram schemes, and to see whetherthere are any ways to reduce those costs to make tramsa more affordable option in the future, particularlygiven the likely pressures on budgets following thespending review. That work is being carried out in theDepartment, coterminous with the work carried out inthe Treasury, so that when the smoke has cleared, lightrail will be in a position to benefit, potentially, from thenew arrangements post-review.

As I mentioned earlier, the Department is takingforward work to deliver the coalition agreementcommitment to ensure that low-carbon benefits of schemesare fully recognised in the transport appraisal decision-making process.

The hon. Lady mentioned the workplace parkinglevy, and of course it has been seen that the tramextensions proposed are closely linked to the plans for aworkplace parking levy to be implemented in Nottingham,although of course there is no requirement for them tobe so and it is open to the city council, in the event thetram did not go ahead, to introduce that levy if itwished to do so. Workplace parking levies are one of arange of measures available to local authorities forimproving local transport and tackling congestion.Nottingham city’s plan to implement a levy is very

much in accord with the coalition’s localism agenda,and I want to make it quite clear from the Dispatch Boxtonight that whatever individuals in the House thinkabout that levy, our view is that it is entirely a matterfor the local authority to decide whether that goesahead or not; it is not a matter for the Government tointervene in.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the Nottingham railhub and improvements to Nottingham station. I knowthat work is in hand to develop plans and prepare forimprovements in Nottingham railway station and thesurrounding areas under the Nottingham hub scheme.That includes work to complete the necessary agreementsto enable the scheme to proceed. I should deliver theusual health warning about the current financial climate,which the hon. Lady is well aware of, and the fact thatwe cannot offer assurances at this particular time abouttaking forward a scheme, although I would just say thatshe should refer to the contribution from the regionaldevelopment agency—that obviously if the scheme couldbe reduced in cost in some way, that makes it morelikely to proceed. I hope she might take that messageback to colleagues and others in Nottingham. We dobelieve in the Department, however, that it is a goodscheme, which has the potential to deliver wider benefits,including the regeneration and employment benefitsthat the hon. Lady mentioned, in addition to improvingtransport links in Nottingham.

It is clear that we face a challenging period. Toughdecisions to tackle the UK’s budget deficit have beennecessary, and they are ongoing. I appreciate, however,that it is not easy for people to see schemes withconsiderable local support, and that have been indevelopment for many years, being put on hold andgiven an uncertain future. The Government have identifiedthat the most urgent priority is tackling the deficit, andthe Department for Transport must play its role in thatprocess. The Department will be in a position to identifymajor investment that can be supported only after theGovernment’s spending review has been concluded. Ina period in which we face tight financial restraint, it isessential that we take a step back and consider whichschemes should be prioritised. That is the only way wecan put ourselves in a strong position to make the bestuse of available funds and to establish a strong base forthe future development of the transport system.

I would not want the hon. Lady to go away from thedebate with a negative impression, however. We facechallenges, but we have a strong approach to addressthem, and the Department wants to work to deliveroutcomes that meet national and local needs, and toimprove the country’s transport infrastructure. We arekeen to use whatever tools we can to achieve that.

I thank the hon. Lady for the invitation to visitNottingham, which I shall be happy to accept because atram ride with her is an irresistible suggestion. I lookforward to seeing some of the excellent schemes thatNottingham city has been delivering.

Question put and agreed to.

6.26 pmHouse adjourned.



Westminster Hall


[MR MIKE WEIR in the Chair]

Alternatives to Child DetentionMotion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting

be now adjourned.—(Mr Goodwill.)

2.30 pm

The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green): I amdelighted to have the opportunity today to draw attentionto the issue of children in immigration detention. TheUK’s policy of detaining children with families in orderto effect their removal from the UK is an area oflong-standing concern for many organisations that takean interest in immigration and asylum, and for organisationsthat work on behalf of children. Those concerns aresignificant, and the Government have, very early on, setout their commitment to ending the detention of childrenfor immigration purposes. We want to replace the currentsystem with something that ensures that families withno right to be in this country return in a more dignifiedmanner.

To help bring that about, the UK Border Agency isleading a comprehensive review of present practice onthe detention of children. It will look at the actual levelsand at how to prevent such detention by improving thecurrent voluntary return process. The review will alsoconsider good practice in other countries, and will lookat how a new family removals process can be establishedthat protects the welfare of children and ensures thereturn of those with no right to remain in the UK. Itwill come as no surprise to you or to the Chamber,Mr Weir, that in the current climate the review will alsohave to include value for money as part of its remit.

The review has already begun and its phase of collectingviews and submissions will run until 1 July. It will takein the views of a wide range of partners, experts andorganisations that represent the interests of children tocreate viable long-term solutions. Earlier this week, Iwent to Glasgow to discuss the matter with manyvoluntary groups. They made extremely useful inputsinto the review, so we will be repeating those meetings inall regions and in other countries of the UK over thenext few weeks.

The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund ishelping the review by co-chairing a working groupmade up of a range of non-governmental organisations,and I am grateful to the fund for agreeing to do that. Weare seeking to identify how the UK Border Agency canfulfil its role while taking the right account of children’ssafety and welfare. We are carrying out the review asfast as humanly possible, so that the detention of childrenfor immigration purposes can end and a practical alternativebe put in its place.

I should emphasise that the UK Border Agency isfully determined to replace the current system withsomething more humane, without compromising on theremoval of people who have no right to remain in theUK. We are talking about alternatives to detention andnot about ending removals. Until the review is completed,

current policies will remain in place, with one exception.As Members will know, the detention of children overnightat Dungavel immigration removal centre in Scotlandhas been ended as a precursor to such a practice endingacross the UK. Currently, a very small number ofchildren—fewer than five—are being held in immigrationdetention, but before we close Yarl’s Wood for thedetention of families we need to find effective alternatives.

Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab) rose—

Damian Green: I will of course give way to the newlyelected Chairman of the Select Committee on HomeAffairs.

Keith Vaz: I thank the Minister very much for lettingme intervene. I welcome this review, which is very muchin keeping with the report the Select Committee producedlast November. One of the recommendations was forthe then Government—clearly, it is now for the newGovernment—to look at the role of local authorities.Will he confirm that local authorities will be consulted?The Committee was concerned that councils weresometimes not aware of children in their jurisdiction,and that that led to some children absconding andcouncils simply not being aware that they had gone.

Damian Green: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentlemanfor that intervention, and I take the opportunity formallyto congratulate him on his election—his reappointment,rather—as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee.I can do so with a due degree of objectivity because Iwas not allowed to vote in the election, so he can neitherthank nor blame me. I am sure we will have manyconstructive exchanges in the coming years.

To address the right hon. Gentleman’s point, thesimple answer is yes. I mentioned earlier that I had hada meeting in Glasgow at which the city council played asignificant, helpful and constructive role. The purposeof the consultation is for it to be as widespread aspossible. As he said, local authorities will have statutoryresponsibilities for such children and will therefore haveviews about how best we can and should proceed, so Iwill very much welcome their input into proceedings.

The challenge is to develop a new approach to familyremovals that remains cost-effective and delivers thereturn of those who have no right to remain in the UK.I hope I will not be constraining the review if I identifysome of the factors involved; indeed, I hope this willhelp those who wish to contribute. It is already clearfrom the initial stages of the review that there is not asingle, simple remedy: it is not just about ending detentionat the stroke of a pen. There may have to be—I thinkthere will have to be—a number of changes at differentpoints in the system, each contributing to the overallaim. Clearly, there is a need to achieve faster and betterdecision making on family asylum cases; we are alreadytaking forward work on that. We are told there is a needfor greater confidence in the initial decision that is madein asylum cases. I take on board that message; indeed, Imay even have transmitted that message to Governmentin the past.

In a recent report, the UK Border Agency’s independentchief inspector, John Vine, commented favourably onthe commitment to quality, and the UK is felt by manycountries to have good systems in this regard. Members

211WH 212WH17 JUNE 2010 Alternatives to Child Detention

[Damian Green]

may know that in 2007, the provision of early legaladvice was piloted in Solihull, in the west midlands, totest whether collaboration between the legal representativeand the UK Border Agency decision-maker led to betterinformation at the initial decision-making stage, so thatbetter quality decisions could be reached. The findingswere unclear, so we are working with the Legal ServicesCommission and key asylum partners to test thoseprinciples across an entire region of the UK BorderAgency. It is called the early legal advice project, and itis an example of collaborative working and trying newthings that I hope will characterise this area of alternativesto detention for families.

Another thing to consider is the need for bettercontact management and more active discussion of afamily’s options if their claim is rejected and their rightto appeal a decision has been exhausted. Discussionswith a family might need to be backed up by improvedsupport from NGOs, partners and other workers. Theoptions open to families at present include some verygenerous assisted return packages, but the take-up ratefor families is low compared with that for single asylumseekers. There is, therefore, a need for better marketingof those assisted return offers. Marketing may soundlike an odd word in this context, but I use it because weshould not be forcing the take-up of such offers. Betterexplanation and promotion of the offers is clearly needed;they are real offers to provide help and assistance whenall the other options have been exhausted. To illustrateone apparently small but important point, the assistanceincludes help with excess baggage so that families cantake with them belongings purchased in the UK. Theywould not be returning home empty-handed, and wouldhave more to show for their migration journey and fortheir time in the UK.

I think that everyone involved would also like to see aclearer and more evenly managed process after applicationsand claims to remain have been turned down. Thestarting point—and what I hope will become thestandard—would be a much more clearly identifiabletransition from a voluntary departure to an enforcementapproach that is shaped by the family’s own approachto their situation. The UK Border Agency would thereforeset removal directions while the family is in the community,giving the family time to submit further representationsand to apply for a judicial review if they wish to do so,as well as giving them time to make plans for theirreturn. The arrangements would place a greater emphasison self check-in or escorting to the airport. That approach,which already exists but possibly in a less clear way thanit ought to, gives families every chance to comply withthe need to return home without enforcement action.Making it much clearer to families—and their helpers—where they stand at this stage of the process seems tome to be necessary.

Other changes to processes may be called for, butinevitably some families who have no justification toremain in the UK will always refuse to leave voluntarily,despite all the encouragement we give them to do so. Achanged approach should, and I hope would, minimisethe number of those families, but there will remaindifficult cases where solutions will have to be found andwhere enforced removals are likely to continue. Thatapproach could involve separating different members of

a family and reuniting them before departure, so thatsome family members stay in the accommodation theyare used to. However, I recognise that that approachwould be hugely contentious and has its own practicaldifficulties. Therefore, in some cases we may still have tohave recourse to holding families for a short periodbefore removal—where keeping the family together isseen as being in the best interests of the children, whichof course must be the paramount concern.

I hope it will not come to that. The Government andthe UK Border Agency would much prefer that familieswho do not require humanitarian protection or refugeeprotection return to their home countries voluntarily.That is a responsible approach in a world where thenumber of people who choose to live in another country,for a variety of reasons, is continually expanding. Noteveryone’s journey will be a success in economic terms;not everyone’s journey will be lawful. We believe thatthe Government should respond in a responsible, fair,dignified and humane way to this reality.

Keith Vaz: I thank the Minister for giving way to mefor a second time. Will he comment on the report inThe Guardian today that the Government are consideringa reintegration centre—basically, a detention centre—ofsome kind in Afghanistan for families who are due to beremoved from this country? Is that report correct, orwrong?

Damian Green: I would always hesitate to describe areport in The Guardian as being completely accurate.The proposed centre in Afghanistan is not particularlya British Government project; indeed, the previousGovernment raised this idea with other EuropeanGovernments and with international agencies. The proposedcentre’s purpose is, effectively, to have a retraining centre—are-entry centre—in Afghanistan, which the right hon.Gentleman will know is the source of many unaccompaniedasylum-seeking children in this country, so that there issomething for those children to go back to that willenable them to lead a better life in Afghanistan. Isuspect he agrees with me that it would be much betterfor those young men to have a decent life and somehope in life in their own country. If they can have thosethings, that will stop many of them making dangerous—insome cases, sadly, fatal—journeys halfway across theworld to try to reach Britain or other European countries.

So the basis of the report in The Guardian, for all thatI said in my initial response to the right hon. Gentleman’sintervention, is true, but it is being presented in a luridlyand unfairly hostile light. The centre is an effort to helppeople. I suspect that the hon. Member for HackneySouth and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), the Oppositionspokesperson, will agree with that, because she was ingovernment when the then Government originally suggestedthis process. It is a constructive and creative response tothe problem of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children,and to present it in any other light is straightforwardlyunfair. It is a constructive idea and I hope it comes tofruition. The tender for the operation is being examined,and we hope to make an announcement in the next fewmonths about what will happen next.

This is a real, worldwide problem and as I was saying,we believe that the Government should respond in aresponsible, fair, dignified and humane way to the realityof what is happening around the world today. The

213WH 214WH17 JUNE 2010Alternatives to Child Detention Alternatives to Child Detention

review into ending the immigration detention of childrenis an important part of that. Obviously, we will not takeany firm decisions until the review has completed itswork and we have taken into account the views that areput to us. I hope that during this debate, more ideas willbe put forward that the Government can feed into thereview, which may therefore give us what we all want tosee: a fairer and more humane system that ends thesystem of detaining children for immigration purposesin this country.

2.45 pm

Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): I begin by congratulatingthe hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) on hisappointment as Minister for Immigration. I attendedmany debates with him in his Opposition capacity, buthe has finally made it and now has the opportunity toput into practice all the good proposals for which heargued so strongly as the Opposition spokesperson.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member forHackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) for all thework that she did as an Immigration Minister in the lastGovernment. She was always very firm in defence ofthe Government’s policy, but she was also very willingto listen to Members of this House when they raisedmatters of concern with her. I am glad that she hasretained her position as the Labour party’s spokespersonon immigration in opposition, because of course sheknows everything—where all the bodies have been buried,figuratively speaking.

I welcome most warmly the Government’s decisionto conduct a review of the whole question of thedetention of children in the immigration system. It maywell be that during the general election campaign, theMinister read the reports of the Home Affairs Committee.If so, he will have seen our report published on 24 November2009, “The Detention of Children in the ImmigrationSystem”. In a sense, he has prefaced that report in thecomments that he has made today. He has also rehearsedsome of the arguments that are used for keeping childrenin detention, while rejecting those arguments. Of course,one cannot prejudge the outcome of a review, but Iwould be most surprised if the Government, havingbegun a review on this very important subject, came tothe conclusion that everything was okay as far as thedetention of children in the immigration system wasconcerned.

Nearly 1,000 children a year are detained in theUKBA’s immigration detention centres. On average,such children spend more than a fortnight—15.58 days—indetention, but detention for up to 61 days is not uncommon.On 30 June 2009—the last date for which the HomeAffairs Committee had information on children indetention—10 of the 35 children in detention at thattime had been held for between 29 and 61 days. TheCommittee noted that the cost of keeping a person indetention was £130 a day; therefore, keeping a family offour in detention for between four and eight weeks costsmore than £20,000.

During our very brief inquiry into this area, Membersof the Committee visited Yarl’s Wood. We felt thatthere must be an alternative that can be used to dealwith the Government’s proper function, which is toensure that those who have lost their immigration casesand who have not been granted leave to remain in this

country, either as asylum seekers or in any other context,are removed. I think that all of us, on both sides of theHouse, accept that there cannot be an indefinite rightfor people to stay here after all the legal processes havebeen exhausted. What we must find is a humane way todeal with families, particularly children, who are kept indetention before their removal.

We went to Yarl’s Wood after hearing serious allegationsabout its operation, and what we found was a muchmore humane regime. Ultimately, of course, Yarl’s Woodremains a prison; one cannot walk in and out withoutbeing checked through. When the Select Committeearrived, we produced all our identification and were putthrough those checks. I am not sure whether the Ministerhas had an opportunity to visit since taking up hisoffice; I am sure that the shadow Minister visited atsome stage. Some the reports of conditions in Yarl’sWood were lurid, and it may well have been like that inthe past, but certainly nothing like that was obvious tous when we visited. The staff made an effort toaccommodate families and children. We saw an impressivenursery/school that had been built. It did not deal withanyone over the age of 10; it dealt with young children.

Unfortunately, our visit was somewhat marred by theHome Office officials’ terrible anxiety about the SelectCommittee visit. They tried hard to keep us away fromthe people being detained there, which was totallyunnecessary. The point of Members of Parliament visitingan institution such as Yarl’s Wood is to ensure that wespeak to the people there about their circumstances.What we found was that people were more anxiousabout the progress of their immigration case than aboutany of the ways and means by which they were detainedthere. I hope that, even before the review is continued,the Minister will take on board the fact that people indetention need access to proper and appropriate legaland immigration advice. I left the detention centre withabout five or six cases, which I immediately passed on tothe relevant constituency MPs.

It was depressing to see children being kept in suchcircumstances. Of course the Serco staff did their bestto ensure that they were kept happy—there was a littleshop, for example. We talked to a couple of the kidsabout what it was like being there. Though it is acceptablefor a very short period, it is still a prison, it is stilldetention and their freedom is still restricted. The reviewis therefore timely and important, and I hope that it willbe concluded as quickly as possible. As I missed the firstfew words of the Minister’s opening remarks, I am notsure whether he has a timetable. The Government areundertaking a lot of reviews, and although I do nothold that against them—any new Government wants toreview everything that happened before—we needtimetables. Under the current system, however, it isimportant that people should be clear where they standas far as their future is concerned.

I raised with the Minister the question of the localauthorities’ involvement. We took evidence from theLondon borough of Hillingdon, because it containsHarmondsworth centre and Heathrow airport—thoseput into detention after coming off a plane and thoseabout to be removed are held in close proximity toairports. One of the Select Committee’s recommendationswas that the Government’s future building programmesshould take proximity to airports into consideration.We were concerned to find that the local authority did


[Keith Vaz]

not seem to know how many children were being detainedand that it was not notified when children left detention.That is why we recommended that local authoritiesshould be informed every seven days of how manychildren are being detained in their area. That would bequite a simple process for UKBA, so it is surprising thatthose facts and figures are not available. I hope that, inthe interim—before the review is published—we willlook at what we can do to get that information to localauthorities. That must be easy for UKBA to do, so Ihope that it will be done.

I do not want to detain the House long, given that theGovernment seem to be doing everything that the SelectCommittee asked them to do. My final point is ageneral one to which I will keep returning as long as Ioccupy the Chair of the Select Committee. I want to befair to this Government as I was fair to the last one, andthe former Minister will remember that on every occasionwhen we discussed immigration, I raised the same issue:the state of the backlog in the administration of theHome Office.

I see that the hon. Member for Croydon Central(Gavin Barwell) is here today. I am not suggesting for amoment that we should move the Home Office awayfrom Croydon, as I am sure that a lot of his constituentswork there and that Lunar house and all those otherfine buildings contribute greatly to Croydon’s economy.However, it is not acceptable for us to go on as thoughthe backlog will only be here until next year. The SelectCommittee is due a letter from Lin Homer setting outthe state of the backlog, and of course progress hasbeen made in the past 13 years, but I asked the thenMinister for Immigration, my hon. Friend the Memberfor Oldham East and Saddleworth (Mr Woolas), whetherhe would like to be the first Immigration Minister inhistory to leave office having cleared the backlog. For aslong as I have been a Member of Parliament—23 yearsnow—there has always been a backlog. When I was firstelected, there were sacks of unopened letters in Lunarhouse, simply because the volume of correspondencewas so great.

I know that the Minister has written to right hon. andhon. Members about how we deal with constituencycases. Looking around the Chamber, I think that all ofus here have a smattering of immigration cases, somemore than others, and the shadow Minister is probablythe biggest consumer of her former portfolio thananyone else here. It is all very well to tell Members towrite to officials at Croydon and to come to Ministersonly as a last resort, but we all get the same letters back,drafted by the same person. Miss Homer, as directorgeneral and chief executive, takes ultimate responsibility—this is not a personal issue; it is just business, as theysaid in “The Godfather”—but the fact is that all theletters are the same. We do not expect the Minister todraft his own letters, but we get the same informationwhether we write to Miss Homer or to him. UKBAkeeps telling us that we must wait until next year for thebacklog to be cleared.

That is the problem for children in detention. If onlythe system actually worked and gave us quicker results,even if those results did not please people and the casesstill went through judicial review. I declare an interest:my wife is an immigration lawyer and I worked in a law

centre before I was elected, and the process does, ofcourse, make work for lawyers. People apply for judicialreview only if they have no other option, but at present,they apply for judicial review at the end of a three-yearprocess. If we had dealt with their cases more quickly,some asylum seekers would not have had their children.Some of the children in detention are there becausetheir parents’ cases have taken so long to be concluded.

In the spirit of a new Government with a freshapproach, I say that eliminating the backlog and dealingwith immigration cases quickly is the best way to solvethe problems of needing to build more detention centresand to keep children in detention. I know what theMinister will say: “You were in office for 13 years. Whyhasn’t this been solved?” Believe me, I and others havebeen asking Governments for the past 20 years to dosomething about it.

Administrative delays have become an essential partof immigration policy, which means that people in thiscountry are working illegally because they are waitingfor their cases to be concluded. People come to meevery week—tomorrow I will see another 50, and onaverage I deal with 60 immigration cases a week—whoare desperate to work but cannot because they arewaiting for UKBA to deal with their cases. Some casestake between six and seven years to be concluded.Dealing with those issues must go hand in hand withthe Government review.

The Minister’s biggest battle will be against the ChiefSecretary to the Treasury and ultimately the Chancellor,but the Home Affairs Committee will be on his sidearguing, as it has done in the past, his case for moreresources for UKBA and to clear the backlog. UKBA isfull of good and decent people, but the system needschanging. We have constantly asked for greater expenditurebut, obviously, no Minister for Immigration has eversaid in a debate, whether in Westminster Hall or themain Chamber, “Please can we have more money?”That would breach the convention of Government. TheSelect Committee will say that for him.

Even in the current climate, providing resources willsave the Government millions and millions of poundsspent every year on detaining people, including familiesand children, and forcibly removing those who havebeen here for seven or eight years. Let us not get intothat situation. Let us deal with cases as quickly andefficiently as possible so that we do not have to detain orlock up children any more. We can allow people theirchance of a fair hearing before the courts and eventuallybefore the Minister, and then the results that theGovernment put forward must be accepted.

3.1 pm

Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con): Like theright hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), Icongratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on hisappointment. I have known him for some time and,given the values that I know he has, I think that he willbalance the need to reform our asylum system, toensure that people who do not have a right to be in thecountry return home, with compassion for those whocome here seeking sanctuary. It is a great privilege tofollow the right hon. Member for Leicester East. Hereferred to his work in the previous Parliament asChairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairsand its report on the issue before us today.


Immigration and asylum, which are too often conjoined,are important in my constituency. The right hon. Gentlemanreferred to the UK Border Agency in Croydon Central;its significant presence has a number of effects on myconstituency. First, a large number of people are goingthrough either the immigration or the asylum process,which has been the dominant issue in my casework inthe four or five weeks I have been an MP. Secondly, asthe right hon. Gentleman implied, a significant numberof UKBA employees are my constituents, so there aresome interesting letters from people about their experienceof working in the system and how it might be improved.On another occasion, I might share some of those viewswith my hon. Friend the Minister.

Thirdly, there is a significant impact on our localauthority, and the right hon. Gentleman talked aboutthe issues. The London borough of Croydon, as a socialservices authority, has responsibility for more than 700unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. That compareswith about 300 children from Croydon, so its socialservices role is very different from that of many otherlocal authorities. Finally, immigration and asylum is abig issue with residents. Croydon has seen significantdemographic change over the past 10 or 20 years. I ampleased to say that in most parts of my constituency,and most parts of the town, relations between differentcommunities are good. However, in a few areas therehas been significant activity from the British Nationalparty. I am pleased that it did not make the predictedbreakthrough at the recent local elections.

Immigration and asylum was also a significant issuein the general election campaign. I suspect that otherright hon. and hon. Members here today have beencontacted by Citizens for Sanctuary during the generalelection and asked to sign the sanctuary pledge. It gaveme far and away my most uncomfortable moment duringthe campaign because I strongly feel that it is inappropriateto detain children, but, given that the party manifestodid not contain a specific commitment to end the practice,I felt that it was inappropriate for me to make a pledgewithout confidence that it could be delivered. The issueis important to me personally and to my constituency. Iknow that my hon. Friend the Minister has visitedYarl’s Wood on several occasions and has spoken publicallyabout how distressing he found seeing children who areeffectively behind bars.

The evidence in favour of changing the approach ofthe previous Government has been mounting for sometime. The first UK study of its kind on the subject waspublished on 15 October last year in “Child Abuse &Neglect: the International Journal”. A team of doctorsexamined 24 children detained at Yarl’s Wood immigrationremoval centre. They found that the majority wereexperiencing mental and physical health difficulties relatedto being in detention. The Royal Colleges of Paediatricsand Child Health, of General Practitioners and ofPsychiatrists, and the UK Faculty of Public Healthproduced a long and detailed report. Dr Philip Collins,a forensic adolescent psychiatrist representing the RoyalCollege of Psychiatrists, said:

“The harsh reality about this country’s immigration policy isthat we are significantly damaging the mental health of many ofthe children and young people who end up—through no fault oftheir own—being detained in a prison-like environment by theUK Border Agency. The evidence is clear: this policy directlyharms the mental health of children and young people. That iswhy the Royal College of Psychiatrists calls on the UK Governmentto end this practice without delay.”

On 17 February this year, we had the report of Sir AlAynsley-Green, the former Children’s Commissionerfor England:

“Children continue to report that they find the process ofarrest and transportation distressing. Increasingly, children areseparated from parents when transported to the centre. Most arenot told what will happen to their belongings and pets left behindand many have difficulty contacting friends.”

While acknowledging that healthcare standards improved,the report states that significant areas require attention,saying that“a mother informed the nurse at 11.20 pm that her five year oldchild had fallen earlier in the playground. The child could not lifther arm and was not seen by the GP until 2.05pm the next dayand went to A&E at 7.02 pm,”

the next evening, and was found to have a fracture.There is also the report of Her Majesty’s inspectorate

of prisons, which, to be fair to the previous Government,noted that conditions, services and support for children,including a new school and better health care, haveimproved:

“However, given that the fact of detention adversely affectedchildren’s welfare, inspectors were concerned that their detentiondid not appear to be exceptional or necessary, given that half thefamilies detained were later released under temporary admission.”

As I say, the evidence that the policy the previousGovernment pursued was wrong has been mounting forsome time. It must surely be possible to balance theneed to remove those with no right to be in this countrywith the need to protect the welfare of children. I wasglad to see in the coalition agreement a commitment toend the detention of children, which takes on the HomeAffairs Committee’s recommendations and, arguably,goes a little further. My hon. Friend the Minister hasannounced that the review is under way. I hope that thehon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch(Meg Hillier) will confirm that the official Oppositionwill reconsider their approach.

I have a few questions for my hon. Friend before Iclose. The right hon. Member for Leicester East touchedon the first: how long will the review take? I understandthat while it is being carried out, some detention willcontinue but a time scale would be helpful. In hisopening remarks, my hon. Friend ran through the optionsthat will be considered as part of the review; one waspotentially separating families so some family memberscould remain in their home. I was pleased to hear thathe recognised that that would be contentious. If wemove from detaining children to breaking up families, itcould be a case of out of the frying pan, into the fire.Will the Minister tell us more about the pilot schemelooking at possibilities away from detention that UKBAhas been running in Glasgow? The initial results showedthat there had been some success, with people voluntarilychoosing to return to their country of origin.

Will my hon. Friend tell us a little about the casemanagement approach that a number of other countrieshave adopted in recent years to end the practice ofdetention? He talked a little about that in his openingremarks, but I understand that the policy that has beenpursued in Sweden, for example, has reached the pointwhere more than three quarters of families now voluntarilyagree to return to their place of origin.

In conclusion, I thank you, Mr. Weir, for the opportunityto speak in the debate. I was extremely gratified to seethat the commitment to act on this issue was in the


[Gavin Barwell]

coalition agreement. I am also gratified to see that theMinister has already acted to set up a review, and I lookforward to hearing how he intends to take it forward.

3.10 pm

Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington)(Lab): I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak inthis important debate. The issue is important not onlybecause of the numbers of children who are detained,but, sadly, because it symbolises how far the LabourGovernment had gone, in some aspects, from the idealsthat motivate many millions of the party’s supporters.

When I raised the issue on the Floor of the Houseabout two years ago, I was one of the first people to doso. I have visited Oakington detention centre and Yarl’sWood, and I have had two debates on the Floor of theHouse about children in detention. As hon. Memberswill have heard earlier, and as they will certainly haveread in the documentation, no reputable organisationdefends this practice, which almost certainly puts us inbreach of the European convention on human rights.All reputable organisations—whether it is United Nationsorganisations in this country, Save the Children, theRefugee Council or Liberty—are united in oppositionto this practice.

The practice of detaining children is wrong in principle.What are we doing detaining children in custody whenthey have committed no crime? Hon. Members mightbe surprised to know that when I discuss the issue withfriends and colleagues in foreign legislatures—even thosein third-world countries—they are surprised that Britain,of all countries, detains children indefinitely. Whenlooking at these issues, we must always remember thatthe history of empire means that people look to Britainto set an example, but we are not setting one on thismatter.

Detention was wrong in principle, and it was almostcertainly in breach of a number of human rightsconventions, but it was also wrong in practice. I knowthat because I have visited the detention centres. Ministerswill tell us about the improvements, and they will tell usthat everything is the parents’ fault because they shouldhave left when they were supposed to. However, whenwe go to the detention centres to meet the families andthe children, particularly if we have children ourselves,it is brought home to us on a level that we cannot putdown on paper—even in excellent reports such as thoseby the Home Affairs Committee—what it means tochildren to be detained and deprived of their liberty.However wonderful the facilities, the children cannotrun outside as far as the eye can see. As far as they areconcerned, they are behind four walls. They have almostcertainly been brought into detention in traumaticcircumstances, such as after a morning raid, and theyfind themselves locked up for reasons they can scarcelycomprehend—and locked up, in their view, is what theyare. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for HackneySouth and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who will speak forthe Opposition, I have actually visited the detentioncentres and the children. Detention is a restriction ofchildren’s liberty, and they face the trauma that that entails.

There are also issues about the conditions, some ofwhich were dealt with by the Labour party when itwas in government, but some of which were not. At

Yarl’s Wood, in particular, there is an inflammableatmosphere. We have just had riots, and there have beenall sorts of problems. Most recently—earlier this year—women were on hunger strike. Part of that inflammableatmosphere has to do with the underlying tension aboutthe fact that children are detained at Yarl’s Wood.

Party colleagues will say that the parents chose not togo home at the first time of asking, so they are responsiblefor their children’s being in custody. Whenever I raisethe issue on the Floor of the House, I hear that it is notthe Government’s fault and that the parents are responsible,but where in the practice of justice and in the way inwhich this country is run are we in the business ofpunishing children for what their parents have done?

Keith Vaz: There is another issue, which I raised in myspeech. Why do people have to wait so long for theircases to be dealt with? Does my hon. Friend agree thatdealing with cases in a more timely fashion and clearingthe Home Office backlog would help to make the systemmore humane? She is absolutely right about the detentionof children, but the reason why we have so many cases isthat they are not being dealt with quickly enough.

Ms Abbott: My right hon. Friend has great experienceas a constituency MP. He probably does more immigrationcasework than any constituency MP, and he has beendoing it for 23 years. Added to that is his experience asthe Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. He makesan excellent point: the delays help to create an intolerablesituation for people trapped in the system.

I am one of the longest-serving Members of theHouse present today, and I remember when detentioncentres were introduced. The House was told that theywould be used only for short periods while we fast-trackedcases and deported people. Had the House been toldthat children, in particular, would be in these centres formonths—there have even been cases of children beingin them for nearly a year—it might have taken a verydifferent attitude. A system that was meant to be usedfor short periods of detention while people’s cases werefast-tracked has turned into one—I have visited thedetention centres myself—in which people and theirchildren are held in limbo. That is one of the things thatmake this practice so unacceptable.

As I said, the detention of children is wrong inprinciple; it is wrong because it is an infringement oftheir liberty. It is also wrong because, in a way, we aremaking children and families suffer for the issues in oursystem, and the delays are very much part of that. Weset a very poor example to other countries and otherjurisdictions if we cannot construct a system in which itis not necessary to detain children.

The purpose of the detention centres, apart fromexpediting removals, was to act as a deterrent. Therehas been a strong feeling over the past 13 years that thegrimmer and more exacting we made the regime forasylum seekers and immigrants, the less likely they wereto come here. However, people must recognise that, forbetter or worse, the push-factors behind people migratingand seeking asylum are very great, and the idea thatturning the screw one more time will see numbers drophas proved false.

We need to focus as never before on having an efficientand speedy system, because my right hon. Friend theMember for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and I have spent


23 years struggling with the delays. In the long run, wealso have to deal with the circumstances in people’scountries of origin that make them think, in theirdesperation, that they will chance their arm by comingto this country.

After 23 years of immigration and asylum casework,I would add that we also need to deal with some of theso-called immigration and legal advisers who prey onour constituents and give them false advice and falsehope. Often, it is not the would-be immigrants or asylumseekers who put themselves on the path of collisionwith the authorities, but the advice they get from peoplewho are feeding off them and making money out ofthem, even though they have little money to spend.

In the immediate term, we need to deal with theongoing inefficiencies in the system and bear down onsome of the lawyers and so-called immigration advisers.Although we are obviously very constrained, we alsoneed, in the very long term, to create the right conditionsin people’s regions of origin so that it is not necessaryfor them to flee here. That is the way to deal with thesystem.

Successive bodies and individuals have tried to getpast Governments to deal with this issue. It was aparticular preoccupation of a previous Children’sCommissioner and it is a preoccupation of the chiefinspector of prisons, Anne Owers, who did a comprehensivereport on the issue two or three years ago. As I said,every reputable organisation that has looked at this hassaid that the detention of children is wrong in principleand detrimental to children in practice. Medical workhas been done on the consequences of the stressfulsituation for children, and it is very alarming. I havesaid before, including to my hon. Friend the Memberfor Hackney South and Shoreditch, when she was aMinister: how can we, the politicians, agree to keepchildren in circumstances that would horrify us if theywere proposed for our own children?

It must be wrong to punish children for the allegedinfractions of their parents. There must be a better waythan that. The way, of course, as the hon. Member forCroydon Central (Gavin Barwell) said, is not to splitfamilies but to bear down on the aspects of the system—whether the advice that is given or the speed with whichcases are dealt with—that lead to people being in such aplight. What has been happening is wrong. There mustbe a way forward that does not involve splitting upfamilies.

I have raised the issue time and again in the Houseand in questions, and I have visited detention centres,not because there are votes in worrying about thechildren in those centres but because I felt that what washappening was wrong, and that there must be a betterway. It gives me no pleasure to say that it has taken anew Government to take a fresh look at the question. Ihope they will not let the tribulations of office and itspractical difficulties deflect them from ending what hasbeen this country’s shame: the detention of innocentchildren in detention centres.

3.21 pm

Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): Thank you,Mr Weir, for calling me to speak for the first time inWestminster Hall. It is a great honour to follow the hon.Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington(Ms Abbott), who spoke as powerfully as ever on the

issue in question. It was a great pleasure to hear herspeak at the Liberty annual general meeting on Saturday;she spoke movingly about many issues, and I wish herthe best of luck with her forthcoming selection process.I shall not say that I support her, as that might do hermore damage than anything else.

I am delighted that the debate has been obtained,because the issue is very important. I have always feltthat a good test of the underlying morals and values ofa country is the way it treats people who cannot defendor look after themselves, and the most vulnerable peoplein society. That description applies to all sorts of groups,and child detainees are one of them. We fail the testincredibly badly in relation to them; we can talk anothertime about how well we do in other respects. It is amatter of great shame to this country that we treatpeople so badly.

The topic of the debate is alternatives to child detention.The main alternative that I can think of to detaining1,000 children a year is not to detain them. That, aboveall, is what I want to say. We simply should not detainthem. The suggestion that we should detain the familybut not the children is at least as bad. We should noteven consider something that tears families apart atwhat is often a difficult time for them. That leaves thequestion of what we can do with the children in the casein question, and before I discuss that I want to explainwhy I am concerned about the issue.

Cambridge has a great history as somewhere that isvery multicultural and tolerant, with people from variousbackgrounds, and a number of people there have beeninvolved in various ways with detainees. I might mention,in relation to the remarks of the hon. Member forCroydon Central (Gavin Barwell), that the Conservativecandidate in Cambridge was one of the Conservativeswho signed the sanctuary pledge; ours was one of veryfew constituencies where every candidate did so. I amdelighted that we did, and I wish it had happenedelsewhere.

We are also very near the Oakington detention centre,which has a sad and sorry history. Children are not themain focus there, but recently it hit the news because ofthe death of one gentleman in detention in April. I amcurrently dealing with a case of serious assault there.The hon. Member for Hackney North and StokeNewington has been there to look around. I spoke toher earlier about my request to do so too: that visit wasscheduled, but has now been delayed. I fear that myspeaking here today means that it will be delayed further,but I look forward to the chance to see it.

Keith Vaz: On that point—I know the hon. Gentlemanwas not here for some of the earlier speeches—when theSelect Committee asked to make a visit it took a longtime to get that sorted out. When we got there, I think10 Home Office officials attended, and only about threefrom Serco. There was a total of about 15; the room wasfull. Is it the hon. Gentleman’s wish, as it is my hope,that the new Government will perhaps let us in moreoften, if we ask?

Dr Huppert: It is indeed a problem getting in; mypredecessor, David Howarth, tried to get in and wastold that it was not possible for him to do that. It issomewhat worrying if there are institutions in thiscountry in a state such that MPs cannot be allowed in tohave a look.


Ms Abbott: I urge the hon. Gentleman to be persistent.I had to be, but we cannot have MPs in effect beingbarred from going to such institutions. Otherwise, weare left to wonder what they are trying to hide.

Dr Huppert: Indeed; I plan to be persistent. I acceptthe fact that unexpected circumstances sometimes meanthat things must be cancelled. One deferral is fine, but ifthe arrangement keeps being deferred I shall be moreconcerned, and shall certainly raise the matter here.

To move on to the issue of children, we heard earlierfrom the hon. Member for Croydon Central about theeffects of detention on mental health; we have heardabout its effects on physical health and overall well-being,and about the future that we are providing for thechildren in question. It is hard to see how any of thatfits with the UK Border Agency’s statutory duty undersection 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and ImmigrationAct 2009 and the way in which it is supposed to treatchildren, or with article 37 of the UN convention on therights of the child, which states that detention shouldbe used only as a last resort and for the shortest possibletime. It would be hard to say that that is being carriedout.

Another issue is the advice and help that the childrenand their parents get. I had planned to speak for longerand to discuss legal aid for Refugee and Migrant Justice,but early-day motion 191 on that topic was discussed onthe Floor of the House today, so I shall not take up timewith it now; nevertheless, it is essential that we providethe right support to people.

The way in which we deal with age-disputed childrenis also a real issue. With very young children things areclear for all concerned. They are children, and there isno doubt. They should not be detained. We need toprovide much more family-friendly and child-friendlysolutions. There is a concern about children who claimto be, say, 17; it is hard to tell whether such a claim ishonest. We need a clear, fair process to try to establishthe age of those people. In many cases it will not behard. We need a clear routine that appears fair and doesnot seem—as in so many cases that I have been madeaware of—like arbitrary justice, with decisions beingmade semi-arbitrarily, based on various factors, aboutwhether the truth is being told. It is hard on teenagerswho are already in very difficult circumstances to tellthem that there is no way for them to interact sensiblywith the process.

The question was raised earlier whether we shouldpunish children for the sins of their parents. I do not seeseeking sanctuary in this country as a sin or somethingworthy of punishment. It is worthy of rapid decisionsabout whether people are genuine sanctuary seekers,who should be coming to this country—and we shouldopen ourselves as we would hope other countries would,to support people in need—or whether there is somethingfalse about the story, in which case things are different.In any event, punishment is not the route. Trying tocontrol the people coming to this country by being asnasty as possible to them while they are here is notworthy of this country. There are other issues that mustbe dealt with, and international development is clearlythe right process for that, as has been mentioned.

The UK Border Agency needs to work faster. I amconstantly coming across cases that have taken years toprocess, and that gives rise to questions about how

fairly and rapidly the system works. The aim must be toreach a decision quickly and fairly about whether peopleare genuine sanctuary seekers, so that if they are notthey go, and if they are they can stay. At the moment, ittakes far too long. Competence is a serious issue inrelation to the UKBA in several wider respects, whichhave even affected people who came to work for me inmy former profession, from such places as the USA.There is something fundamentally wrong, in my experience,with the way the agency operates.

We need to end child detention as quickly as possible.I am delighted that that is in the coalition agreement. Itis a fantastic aspect of the coalition that we can finallyend such an awful thing. We owe the people of thiscountry better than child detention, and I look forwardto our fulfilling our aim in that respect.

3.29 pm

Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,Mr Weir.

I have some questions for the Minister, and to helphim respond fully it may help him if I go through thembefore I make any other comments, and pick up on hon.Members’ points. As to Dungavel, what, currently, willhappen if a family in Scotland are required to leave thecountry—to be deported? Where are they sent, and howis that dealt with?

The Minister spoke about local authorities, and workingmore closely with them. I wonder whether the Governmentare planning to work with all local authorities equally,or whether they will build on the existing model thatapplies to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Itis a slightly different model, and involves specialist localauthorities that are particularly adept at dealing withthese challenging issues.

What discussions has the Minister had with localauthorities to make them aware of the situation regardingchildren liable to be removed, and of how the processwill work? I know that it is early days, but I wonderwhether he could give some guidance, because I am surethat the Local Government Association and individualauthorities will be keen to know how it will workpractically.

I am also interested to know how the Governmentpropose to work with community organisations. Wehear a lot about the big society. Like many people, I amkeen to know what it actually means. I shall touch onsome of the work with community organisations thatwas under way while my party was in government, but Iam keen to hear a bit about the Government’s plans.Perhaps, if the Minister is unable to answer here andnow, he could provide some information in writing indue course.

This debate is about alternatives to child detention. Ihave had the opportunity to speak to those who areresponsible for the project in Glasgow. I do not knowwhether the Minister managed that on his visit toGlasgow this week, but I am pleased that he is goingaround the different nations of the UK to discuss thematter. What progress has there been on the Glasgowproject? To date, has any family actually left voluntarilyas a result of that very intense intervention, which Ibelieve involves two social workers working with around


four families at a time? I wonder whether there has yetbeen a success story, because, sadly, there had not beenone as I left office, but I have great hopes that theproject can deliver some results. It is still early days, butI would be keen to hear an update on it.

The Minister mentioned the assisted voluntary returnspackage but did not absolutely pledge that it will continue,although I did not hear him say that it would not. Iwould be keen to hear some clarification on the futureof the package, particularly in the current financialsituation. It is a reasonably generous package of up to£5,000 per individual, and I wonder whether theGovernment plan to keep it at that level, and whetherthe Minister has a hotline to the Chief Secretary to theTreasury, who is his right hon. Friend these days, toensure that that money will be there to enable thealternatives to progress. I welcome the fact that theMinister is cautious about the separation of families,and I shall touch on that in a moment.

An interesting issue in this area is the impact onhuman trafficking. Clearly, children are trafficked. Ifthey are never detained, there is a risk that that couldbecome a pull factor for those who have mal-intenttowards children. In constructing the review and takingaccount of views, is there any particular oversight ofthat threat, so that as the review progresses and proposalscome forward, it is considered, and there are notperverse outcomes which none of us in the Housewould want?

On that, would the Minister pledge to monitor theimpact on children in what we might call private fostering?As the previous Minister, I was responsible for this area.There were occasions when adults were detained but thechildren would be elsewhere, and it could take sometime to locate the children when the parents and familythemselves had decided to separate. That lays openterrible potential risks to children in terms of childprotection and safety. Again, if the review is well doneand well constructed, the matter could possibly bedealt with, but there is a potential perverse outcomewhich the Government need to be aware of and planagainst.

Has the Minister had any recent legal advice aboutsection 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and ImmigrationAct 2009 on the duty of care for children, as mentionedby the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), andits impact on the review? There has been previous legaladvice, but I wonder whether the Minister is seekinglegal advice about the impact of that legislation.

There has been some discussion of the importance oflegal advice, with which I certainly agree. I wonderwhether any further action has been proposed, either aspart of the review or separately, on improving legaladvice, which has dogged all of us as constituencyMembers who deal with casework but also anyone ingovernment who has to deal with these challenges. Doesthe Minister have any thoughts on that?

The current proposal is to continue some detention,but, according to the coalition agreement—I stand tobe corrected if I have misunderstood it—there is anintent to hold a family with children for between 24 and72 hours only. What would happen in the current situationif a family with children who are already in detentionlaunch a judicial review at the 11th hour? Will theMinister ever continue to detain the family? Does he

rule that out, or do the Government not currently havea definite position? I hope that because I have given himnotice of questions, he will be able to answer them fully.

We heard some useful contributions from Members.My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East(Keith Vaz) has spoken many times on this subject. Ishould point out that the backlog has been a bugbearfor us all as constituency MPs, and for anyone in theHouse who has any interest in the matter, but it hasreduced. As a constituency MP and in my previous role,I have seen that and can testify to it.

I do, however, share a concern with my right hon.Friend about resources. Will progress go backwardsnow, given that there will be tight controls on andreductions in Government spending? Let us be honest:we are interested in this issue, but many people up anddown the country would not see it as a priority. Iwonder whether it is a priority of the current Governmentto make resources available to ensure that the backlogcontinues to go down, and that there is support forthose going through the system so that they can get theright advice.

My right hon. Friend rightly highlighted the fact thatthe backlog does not help the situation regarding detention.Families who see other families staying for a long timebecause they have been caught up in the backlog are ledto believe that there is not a real prospect of theirleaving.

Keith Vaz: I do not want to prejudge my hon. Friend’smemoirs detailing her period in government before theyeventually come out, but is it the case that the HomeOffice did not ask for more resources, or was it just notgiven more resources? Was there a plea to the Treasurythat if there were more resources, more could be doneabout the issue?

Meg Hillier: I worked with two Home Secretarieswho were robust in defending the Home Office’s needfor resources for several areas, but, as the Minister willfind out in his new role, resources are always challengingin a Department such as the Home Office. There aremany priorities, and every time resources are put intoone area, there is a risk that another area will bubble up,as I believe he with his greater experience dealing withthese matters in Parliament will know.

Resources were always an issue, but it was not assimple as that. Often, local authorities did not wantcases decided as quickly as they could have been becauseof the challenge of then housing and providing forfamilies. There had to be some negotiation so thatfamilies who were able to stay were properly providedfor in local authorities.

Ms Abbott: Would my hon. Friend agree that delays,which bear on child detention, are part of a process thatfeeds on itself ? The more delays there are, the morepeople have shoddy legal advisers who tell them, basically,to play for time. If at some point we could bear down onthe delays, it would save us money in the medium term.

Meg Hillier: I believe that my hon. Friend wouldagree that, as constituency MPs, we have seen reductionsin the delays. I certainly am seeing that, and the figuresthat the Government can provide will show that theyhave reduced. Yes, as she rightly says, there is a self-propelling, negative cycle.


[Meg Hillier]

The hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell)raised some questions about the Opposition’s position,and I shall make that clear. Actually, the approach ofthe Government is very much the approach that wasunder way as the previous Government left office.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North andStoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said that she has visiteddetention centres and seen what goes on there. I, too,have visited them, and that was one reason I was keen,as the Minister then responsible, to have a review and towork with organisations that had an interest in thematter. As I communicated to her and, in particular, tothe hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (AlistairBurt), who is now the Under-Secretary of State forForeign and Commonwealth Affairs, and who was veryinterested in the matter, I was frustrated that a greatdeal of energy was being spent on argument anddisagreement, not solutions. Any solution would nothave solved the problem overnight. Do Members notthink that in the past 13 years the Government wouldhave stopped detention overnight if it were that easy? Itis not that easy, and that is the reality of government.

Ms Abbott: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Meg Hillier: Could I make some progress, please? Letus be clear that Yarl’s Wood also houses foreign nationalprisoners, not just families with children. We should getit into the debate that families with children are not theonly people housed there.

I worry that my hon. Friend has forgotten ourconversations in which I explained my plans to revisitsome of the issues surrounding children in detention.Some work was done by previous Ministers responsiblefor immigration to improve support for unaccompaniedasylum-seeking children, create expert local authoritiesthat were able to deal better with those children, andcreate a children’s champion within the UK BorderAgency.

At the end of last year, my hon. Friend the Memberfor Oldham East and Saddleworth (Mr Woolas), who inthe past had focused more widely on the issue of childrenin the immigration system, spoke to me about his desireto see a particular ministerial focus on the issue ofchildren in detention. He asked me to take on thatresponsibility. As I have said, I wanted to look at thewhole picture, and I began that process by meeting anumber of organisations involved, and the hon. Memberfor North East Bedfordshire and the former Memberfor Bedford, because of their particular interest in thismatter. Out of that meeting, held under the ChathamHouse rule—I will not name those who were there,although hon. Members would not be worried aboutthat—we came up with the view that early legal advicewas important, and that the early legal advice projectalready under way needed to be boosted. I subsequentlymet the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund andensured that we worked closely with it, because of itsdesire to see a difference in that area. That was a helpfulpartnership and I also worked with local groups.

Ms Abbott: I remember our conversations with greatclarity. My hon. Friend is a good friend and colleague,but we took diametrically opposed views on the issue of

children in detention. I thought that it was wrong, and Ihave always thought that. One argument is that there isa problem because this is not an easy matter, but thereal Home Office position was revealed in many statements,which claimed that ultimately, children in detentionwere not the responsibility of the Government but thatit was the fault of their parents. Behind that lies anarrative on immigration that suggests that the morepunitive the system is made, the less likely people are toabuse it.

Meg Hillier: I disagree with my hon. Friend. PerhapsI could remind her that we both agreed that we shouldnot let the better be the enemy of the good. I wasattempting to improve the system, and I am pleasedthat we are now seeing further steps along those lines. Abetter take-up of assisted voluntary return was a particularissue, and I pushed hard for third parties to do that. TheGovernment felt that it was not always appropriate ifsuch matters were dealt with by the person who wasdeciding on the immigration claim, and I hope that thatwill be a major part of the review. Excess baggage is nota new issue, but it is an equally important one to helppeople settle back. We need a clearer process in whichpeople know from the beginning what the options are,and work on that with community groups has beenimportant. Removal directions should be provided inthe community. Those things are all part of the planand the intense work that the UK Border Agency wasbeginning to undertake, prior to the election.

The previous Government were learning from thebest models from abroad, and the new Government arecontinuing with that. However, we must recognise thateven those models from abroad—in Australia and Sweden,for example—allow for children to be detained underdifficult circumstances. I refer the House to an Adjournmentdebate from 10 February 2010, in which I flagged upsome of those issues, although at that point I had notmet a number of the groups.

I wish this approach well, as it is the way in which theprevious Government attempted to deal with the situation.However, it was not easy, and I am a little puzzled.Today the Minister reiterates an announcement of theend of children being detained, and he re-announces awelcome review that was already under way. In hisopening speech, he clearly highlighted the likelihood ofdetention immediately prior to a flight. I refer back tomy point about what would happen in the case of a latelegal challenge; that is a issue that needs to be tackledand supported by the whole legal process. The Ministeralso mentioned the Afghanistan centre for Afghanteenagers, and I wonder whether that marks a divisionin the coalition, especially given the remarks made bythe hon. Member for Cambridge.

3.44 pm

Damian Green: I am grateful for the unanimoussupport for this policy from all sides of the Chamber.

Ms Abbott: First and last time.

Damian Green: Absolutely. This is the second timethis week that something has happened to me that Isuspect will never happen again. I attended the Citizensfor Sanctuary summer party where, as the new Ministerfor Immigration, one expects to get brickbats, but instead


I was given a bouquet. I suspect that that will be the lasttime, so I thought that I would enjoy it while it lasted.This debate is a metaphorical conclusion of that experience.

I am grateful to hon. Members from all parties fortheir contributions. The only comment that verged onthe slightly churlish was the conclusion reached by thehon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch(Meg Hillier), who was attempting desperately to findsplits in the coalition. I am extremely pleased and proudto be advocating our policy, which was in the LiberalDemocrat manifesto. The hon. Lady will toil in vain ifshe seeks to find splits in that area.

A number of important practical points were raisedand questions asked in the debate, and I will now dealwith those. First, let me say that I was remiss in notthanking the hon. Member for Hackney South andShoreditch for all the expertise and personal kindnessthat she showed when she was in government and I wasin opposition.

The right hon. Member for Leicester East (KeithVaz) rightly mentioned the review by the Home AffairsCommittee. As he said, he recognises many of the ideasthat the Government have put forward, as many werementioned in past reviews by that Committee. I lookforward to further expert contributions from the Committee.He also went through some of the statistics for childrenin detention, which I think bear greater examination.He mentioned the figure of just over 1,000 for thenumber of children in detention in 2009. If that annualfigure is broken down, one finds the slightly depressingfact that the numbers go up as we go through the year:the figure for the third quarter is higher than that forthe second or first quarters.

As the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditchsaid, the central difficulty is about what should be doneat the end of the process if a family simply refuses to go.Detention under the system that we are getting rid ofwas not necessarily effective. Of the 1,068 children whodeparted from detention in 2008-09, only 539 wereremoved and 629 were released back. There are clearlydifficulties with the efficacy of removal and with takingaway detention as an option—something that we aredoing for all the reasons that have been advanced duringthe debate—but even with detention, more childrenwere released back into the community than were removed.The old system was not particularly effective, and I amgrateful to the right hon. Member for Leicester East forstating the actual figures, as they illustrate that facttellingly.

Meg Hillier: Will the Minister confirm that thosewho were taken out of detention were never broughtback into detention so as to be removed from thecountry again, or indeed removed from the country byanother route?

Damian Green: I am not entirely sure that I understoodthat question. Is the hon. Lady saying that those whowere eventually removed had never been detained andthen released, and then detained again and later removed?Is that what she is saying? The honest answer is that I donot know. I was not the Minister at that time. She was.If she says that that is the case, I am grateful for theinformation.

Many hon. Members have mentioned Yarl’s Woodand other detention centres. I have visited Yarl’s Woodon several occasions, and in my experience the regime

got markedly better over the years. Last time I visited, afunctioning school was in operation and so on, and itwas a much more humane place than it had been inprevious years. I pay tribute to the Ministers who wereinvolved in supervising that, as well as to the staff of theUK Border Agency who made sure that it happened. Isuspect that we have all had the same experience. However,even when that place was in its most humane phase, itwas still disturbing to see children locked up behindbars. That is one of the things that impels our policy.

There was mention of children at Harmondsworth. Imay have misunderstood the right hon. Member forLeicester East, because it is my understanding thatthere are and were no children held at Harmondsworth.If I have misunderstood, I apologise, but I thought thathe had said that there were.

Keith Vaz: When we visited, there were no childrenthere. I was just visiting Harmondsworth.

Damian Green: I am grateful for that clarification.The position was not entirely clear.

The point was rightly made about access to localauthority services. Local authority social services areembedded at Yarl’s Wood; they are there permanently.

My final point about the statistics is that the figurewas more than 1,000 and it is now five, so we are doingour best, even in the interim phase while the review isgoing on, to keep the numbers to an absolute minimum.

Various Members on both sides of the Chamberbrought up the issue of delays, which lead to problemsin the system. I think that I was being invited by theright hon. Gentleman to give a new time scale for theend of the legacy. Given all his experience, he willexcuse me from making such commitments in my secondouting at the Dispatch Box, but he will know, fromhaving sat through many of these debates with me in thepast four years, that like him, I have been very exercisedby the problem of delay.

I dare say that those who were Ministers in theprevious Government would not dissent from the basicproposition that the long delays embedded in the systemlead to many of the associated problems that we see.Bearing down on those delays and getting rid of the oldlegacy, as it has been called, as fast as possible is clearlya high priority. That will have beneficial spin-offs throughoutthe asylum system and, indeed, the wider immigrationsystem.

At various stages, the debate drifted into a generalimmigration debate, and it is perfectly reasonable thatthe same points apply in that context. The fewer delayswe have, the more likely we are to avoid the problemsthat we have seen, although it is a fair point—it wasmade by Ministers in the previous Government and willbe made by me—that not every delay in the system iscaused by the system. Not every delay is caused by theborder agency. Some delay is caused by the legal processesthat people have the right to go through and do gothrough.

Ms Abbott: On the question of delays, one thing thatsuccessive Ministers in the previous Administrationnever understood is that if we, in a panic—usuallyoccasioned by the tabloid press—bear down on oneaspect of the system, all that does is displace pressure to


[Ms Abbott]

another aspect. That is why we were never successful indealing with delays overall. We bore down on onething—Romanian ladies in headscarves—and then gota bulge of children who claimed to be 18 but were not.So I beg, in a non-party political way, for a strategic,all-embracing approach. That in the end will producethe desired result.

Damian Green: I agree with that point and will seekto take the friendly advice that the hon. Lady offersacross the Chamber in that regard.

Gavin Barwell: Does the Minister agree that one ofthe other reasons for delay and one that causes greatfrustration to UKBA staff is the difficulty of returningpeople to certain countries? Will he work with colleaguesat the Foreign Office to see whether we can secureimproved arrangements in that regard?

Damian Green: Absolutely so. The whole Governmentare working very hard to ensure that those who have noright to remain here are returned to their countries oforigin. My hon. Friend, who has huge expertise alreadyin this matter, representing Croydon Central, will havenoticed that when the Government and the UK BorderAgency have some successes in that regard, it is notuniversally popular. We are being criticised this weekfor resuming returns to Iraq, but that has to be part ofthe process; otherwise, the process will silt up.

Let me make some progress, as I am conscious of thetime and there are many questions to answer. A pointmade by various hon. Members, including my hon.Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell)and the right hon. Member for Leicester East, wasabout resources. The right hon. Gentleman will beaware of the state of the public finances left by theGovernment he supported for 13 years. As a result,there will be difficulties. All I can sensibly say is that themanagement of resources is as important as the quantumof resources. That is one of the things that the newGovernment are most eager to get to grips with as fastas possible, and we shall be doing so as part of thegeneral spending review.

Various hon. Members, including the hon. Memberfor Hackney South and Shoreditch, asked about theGlasgow pilot. She will know that it encourages refusedasylum seeker families to return voluntarily by providingintensive support, which is focused on helping familiesto confront issues that delay a return and building upskills to prepare for a voluntary return. Thirty-twofamilies have been referred to the Glasgow pilot; 11have been accommodated there. I am afraid that nothinghas changed in that regard since the hon. Lady leftoffice. No families have elected to return voluntarily totheir home countries, and enforced departure has takenplace of three families who were initially accepted intothe project. However, she and I need not despair at thispoint, because one of the things that I learned when Iwas in Glasgow earlier this week was that the fact of

that project has spread awareness of assisted voluntaryreturn much more widely among the variouscommunities—she will be aware that there are largenumbers of such families there—which in itself has ledto a significant surge in applications for voluntary return.The availability of that process and the information onit is quite heartening in terms of the wider review that Iam conducting. The more aware we can make familiesof the existence of voluntary return, the more they seemto be interested in it. It is a difficult set of options beforethe Government, but that is one of the hearteningpoints that should be made.

I will attempt to answer all the questions the hon.Lady asked. On Dungavel, in the one or two cases thatoccur now, the families are moved to Yarl’s Wood, sothat is the only place where they are being held. Theproblem is lessening slightly as I progress through thisspeech. I have now learned that only three children arein detention at the moment at Yarl’s Wood. She asked,as others did, about local authorities. Clearly, the localauthorities with the most expertise, whether we aretalking about Croydon, Kent or Hillingdon—the onesthat people would expect to be involved—will play asignificant role in the review, but I take her point thatother local authorities will need to be informed.

The hon. Lady asked about community organisations.One reason for trying to get out as much as possible isto engage not only the national end of the variousorganisations that are most concerned with either thewelfare of children or, specifically, families in the positionthat we are discussing, but the organisations on theground around the country, so that they can contributetheir considerable expertise to the review.

On assisted voluntary return, the hon. Lady makesthe point that we are living in a time of spendingstringency. All I can sensibly say at this point is that, asshe knows, in the long run nothing is as expensive asdetention. Building and maintaining detention centresis more expensive than providing people with packagesto return voluntarily, so if all goes well, the net effect onthe public purse will also be beneficial.

The hon. Lady asked about the legal advice that I amreceiving. All I can say gently is that I do not rememberher ever sharing the legal advice that she received fromHome Office lawyers when she was standing at theDispatch Box. That was a very good habit of hers,which I intend to take up.

I am grateful to all hon. Members who contributed tothe debate. It has been extremely constructive. This isnot necessarily an easy problem to solve, but we allagree that it must be solved. We cannot go on with thesystem that we had in the past. The final big questionwas when we shall finish the review. The report will beon my desk in the early weeks of July, and I shallproceed with all possible speed after that to come to afull conclusion.

Question put and agreed to.

3.59 pmSitting adjourned.


Written Ministerial

Statements


BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS

Further Education Colleges and Training Organisations

The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovationand Skills (Mr John Hayes): I am pleased to informParliament that the Government are announcing todaya series of measures aimed at boosting economic recovery.These measures will give further education colleges andtraining organisations greater freedom to deliver theeducation and training that employers and individualsneed, and to raise opportunities for lifelong learningthrough a system that is freed of unnecessary bureaucracy,and driven by empowered, informed learners.

The main measures are:All colleges, except those which are performing poorly, to begiven new freedoms to move money between budgets. This willallow them to respond quickly to local demand.Working to bring colleges into line with schools in respect ofOfsted inspection, so that colleges which achieve outstandingresults do not face inspection unless their performance drops.Refocusing £150 million of resources to expand the number ofapprenticeships available; and £50 million to support FE capitaldevelopment;Giving learners the information they need to drive the system,through the publication of clear and consistent informationabout performance, quality and standards.I will be writing today to all colleges and training

organisations about these and other changes, which willhelp them to focus on meeting the demands of employersand learners in their areas.

The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation andSkills will also be writing to the chief executive of theSkills Funding Agency—the body responsible for fundingcolleges and training organisations—confirming hispriorities for the adult education and skills budget in2010-11, including the refocusing of £150 million to payfor a 50,000 extra apprenticeship places this year, and£50 million for new capital grants to colleges. A keygoal will be to strengthen the supply of qualificationsthat are valued by employers; and to secure high-qualitytraining opportunities to help unemployed people getthe skills they need for work-readiness and sustainableemployment; as well as encouraging an increasing numberof people to participate in adult and community learning,both to re-engage those disenchanted by previouseducational experience and to offer people opportunitiesto enrich their lives through learning.

Underpinning these changes, we are seeking to empowerlearners so that they can drive the learning and skillsdelivered by colleges and training organisations. Aprofessional and impartial advice and guidance servicewill be available to support learners. Publication ofclear information about the performance of collegesand training organisations will allow learners and employersto make well-informed choices. This will include informationabout learner success rates, learner and employersatisfaction, and the destinations of those who leavelearning. As a result of the freedoms that we are announcing

today, colleges and training organisations will be able torespond quickly and flexibly to their choices, offering awide range of programmes that drive both high-techinnovation and new enterprise and support adultrecreational learning.

Over the coming months, the Government will belooking at a wide range of other ways to removeunnecessary bureaucracy from the system, and we willbe making further announcements in due course.

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Houses in Multiple Occupation

The Minister for Housing (Grant Shapps): Today I amannouncing the Government’s intention to amend theplanning rules for houses in multiple occupation (HMOs)which were introduced on 6 April 2010.

I understand the concerns of local people who seetheir neighbourhoods being damaged by undueconcentrations of HMOs and the significant impactthis is having on their quality of life. However there arealso many areas where HMOs are not causing problemsand indeed provide an important supply of low costhousing. I believe that the planning system needs totake account of both these differing circumstances andallow for local solutions rather than continue with thepresent “one size fits all” approach.

The current rules impose a blanket requirement forplanning permission in order to change use from adomestic house to a HMO. When introduced, it wasestimated that these rules could result in an additional8,500 planning applications per year and could lead to areduction in supply. This goes against the recommendationsin successive reports on the planning system thatGovernment should reduce the number of planningapplications for minor development. It also runs therisk of losing low cost housing in areas where it isneeded most.

I believe that we need to move away from this kind ofcentralised, regulatory approach which has dominatedplanning in recent years and create a system whichencourages local people to take responsibility for shapingtheir communities. Decisions should reflect local prioritiesexpressed through the local plan, rather than nationallyimposed rules.

I therefore intend to amend the HMO rules to allowchanges of use between family houses and small, sharedhouses to take place freely without the need for planningapplications. However, in those areas experiencing problemswith uncontrolled HMO development, local authoritieswill be able to use their existing direction-making powersto restrict this freedom of movement by requiring planningapplications. This change will allow the free developmentof smaller shared housing, which is a vital componentof our private rented sector, unless there is a seriousthreat to the area.

My officials will work through the detail of theproposed changes with interested partners to ensurethat the new rules work for local people without placingan unnecessary burden on businesses.

My aim is to have the revised arrangements in placeby 1 October 2010.

53WS 54WS17 JUNE 2010Written Ministerial Statements Written Ministerial Statements

DEFENCE

Defence Vetting Agency: Key Targets Financial Year2010-11

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence(Mr Andrew Robathan): Key targets have been set forthe chief executive of the Defence Vetting Agency forfinancial year 2010-11 to deliver national security vettingto defence customers. Delivery of vetting to its repaymentcustomers will be to similar standards as set out in theirjoint business agreements.Key target 1: External validation of quality of defencevetting cases

To achieve at least a 98% satisfaction rating with 200 casesindependently selected and reviewed from a random sample ofsecurity check (SC) and developed vetting (DV) cases completedin the preceding 12-month period.Key target 2: Delivering excellent customer service

To maintain customer service excellence accreditation.Key target 3: Completing routine cases for defence customers

a. 85% of counter terrorist checks (CTC) within 30 calendardays.

b. 85% of SCs within 30 calendar days.c. 85% of DVs within 100 calendar days.

Key target 4: Completing priority cases for defence customersa. 95% of CTC/SCs within 10 calendar days.b. 95% of DVs within 30 calendar days.

Key target 5: Completing aftercare cases for defencecustomers by

a. Taking into action all aftercare incident reports within sevencalendar days of receipt.

b. Taking into action 95% of scheduled aftercare within 30calendar days of the scheduled date of review.

c. Taking into action (where appropriate) 95% of securityappraisal reviews within 21 days of receipt.

The timeliness key targets represent net performancethat exclude delays outside of DVA control.Key Target 6: Delivery of the Cerberus project in linewith planning tolerances.

a. Manage third party suppliers to provide their side of theCerberus interfaces by September 2010.

b. Achieve an operational capability for e-forms and casemanagement system by December 2010.

c. Achieve roll-out in line with plan to vetting customers byMarch 2011.

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

EU Environment Council

The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change(Chris Huhne): I represented the UK at the EnvironmentCouncil in Luxembourg on 11 June, together with LordHenley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs. Stewart Stevenson, Ministerfor Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change inthe Scottish Government, also attended.

The presidency presented progress reports on theproposal for a regulation on biocidal products, therestriction of hazardous substances (RoHS) directiveand the waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)directive.

The Council agreed conclusions on forest protection,and water scarcity and drought. A number of memberstates intervened to stress the importance of adequately

preparing forests for climate change, and the presidencyhighlighted the need to reconcile increasing water scarcitywith rising demand. Ministers also agreed conclusionssetting out the EU position for the forthcoming meetingof the parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety inOctober, and conclusions in support of the “Rio+20”UN conference on sustainable development. Lord Henleystressed the importance of concrete outputs from theconference which recognised the need for sustainability,the importance of ecosystems services and internationalgovernance in line with future climate change arrangements.

Under any other business, the UK and Germanyraised the forthcoming meeting of the InternationalWhaling Convention (IWC). Lord Henley emphasisedthe importance of IWC reform to ensure conservationof whales, and stressed the need for the EU to showleadership and consistency in opposing commercial whaling.The French raised an AOB item pushing for a moratoriumon the authorisation of genetically modified organisms;the UK welcomed the progress made by the Commissionand stressed the importance of ensuring proportionateand efficient regulation, but argued against a moratorium.

The lunchtime discussion focused on internationalclimate change. The presidency gave a presentation onthe outreach activities undertaken by the presidencyand the Commission during the past six months.

The Commission presented their communicationanalysing the options to move beyond 20% greenhousegas emission reductions and assessing the risk of carbonleakage. In the policy debate that followed, memberstates welcomed the communication as providing asolid evidence base for further discussions on this issue.I intervened to underline the key message of thecommunication that the costs of moving to a 30%target are significant but manageable, and that theyhave reduced since 2008. I expressed my hope that theEU would show leadership by increasing our target to30%, and insisted that unless we do so it is very hard toimagine that we will be able to remain on the trajectoryof keeping global temperature increase to within 2°C.While a number of other member states’ interventionssupported these arguments, others highlighted the reducedcapacity in the European economy for the investmentwhich would be required to meet a higher target. TheCouncil agreed conclusions on the communication whichnoted the need to return to the issues no later thanOctober 2010 and welcomed the Commission’s intentionto conduct more detailed analysis.

Lastly, the presidency presented a progress report onthe proposed regulation on reducing CO2 emissionsfrom light commercial vehicles (i.e. vans), which wasnoted by the Council.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Veterinary Medicines Directorate and VeterinaryLaboratories Agency

The Minister of State, Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice): The 2009-10annual report and accounts for each of the followingwas laid before Parliament today:

Veterinary Laboratories AgencyVeterinary Medicines Directorate


HEALTH

NHS South West

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley):I have asked Sir David Nicholson, chief executive of theNHS in England, to initiate a review into the approachand behaviour of the NHS South West in relation toRoyal Cornwall Hospitals Trust, in particular, to thedismissal of John Watkinson and, by association, thetrust’s position in relation to the provision of uppergastro-intestinal (GI) services in Cornwall.

John Watkinson was dismissed from his role as chiefexecutive of the Royal Cornwall NHS Trust in April2009. He took his case to employment tribunal, whichhas recently published its judgment that he was unfairlydismissed.

In the opinion of the employment tribunal, JohnWatkinson was unfairly dismissed because he made a“protected disclosure” covered by the Public InterestDisclosure Act. The disclosure was linked to thereconfiguration of upper GI services in Cornwall. Theemployment tribunal also found that Royal CornwallNHS Trust acted as it did as a result of pressure fromthe South West Strategic Health Authority (NHS SouthWest).

Verita, a specialist company that conducts independentinvestigations, reviews and inquiries has been commissionedto undertake this review.

The Terms of Reference for this review will be;to examine all the SHA’s interactions with the Royal CornwallHospitals NHS Trust in relation to the dismissal of JohnWatkinson and, by association, the trust’s position in relationto the provision of the upper GI services in Cornwall. Inparticular, to determine:the chronology of events and decisions made in the running upto the dismissal of John Watkinson;what involvement NHS South West had in his dismissal andwhether or not this was motivated by the reconfiguration ofupper GI services or otherwise; andwhether the SHA acted appropriately, proportionately, in keepingwith its role and within its statutory responsibilities.

The review should not duplicate the review of theupper GI service configuration which was recently carriedout by the independent reconfiguration panel, nor anysubsequent appeal of the employment tribunal’s decision.However, it may consider these and any other relevantbackground evidence to make its determinations.

The findings of the review will be published later thisyear and I will update the House on the outcome of thereview and my response.

TRANSPORT

Rail Franchising

The Minister of State, Department for Transport(Mrs Theresa Villiers): The Department for Transportwill shortly begin a consultation exercise on the futureof rail franchising policy. This consultation will provideindustry partners with the opportunity to comment onthe Government’s approach to rail franchising and whetherbidders for longer franchises would be able to offerinvestment in improvements to trains and services. Itwill also allow the industry to set out its proposals forimproving the efficiency and value for money of railfranchises, for both taxpayers and fare payers. I will setout further details to the House in due course.

To enable the next Greater Anglia and Essex Thamesidefranchises—which are currently in the process of beingre-let—fully to reflect the changes resulting from thisreview of policy the competitions for these franchises,which were started in January 2010, are to be cancelled.

It is currently expected that a new competition for theGreater Anglia franchise will be advertised by the endof the year, after the consultation responses have beenconsidered, with the Essex Thameside franchise followingin autumn 2011.

It is also expected that there will be some consequentchanges to the procurement time scales previously publishedfor the InterCity East Coast franchise. Rail services willcontinue to run as normal on all affected franchises. Aprior information notice (PIN) setting out the Department’sproposed future rail franchising programme will beissued in due course.


Petitions


PRESENTED PETITION

Petition presented to the House but not read on the FloorBlockade of Gaza

The Petition of the West Wiltshire Palestinian SupportGroup and residents of the Chippenham Constituency,

Declares that Israel’s blockade of Gaza is illegal andinhumane.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House ofCommons urges the Foreign Secretary to call on Israelto end its blockade of Gaza.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by DuncanHames.]

[P000836]

OBSERVATIONS

WORK AND PENSIONS

Carer PovertyThe Petition of Mr Darren Osborne, Carers Poverty

Alliance, Carers Poverty Protest and others,Declares that carers allowance should be paid at a

level that gives carers the dignity, quality of life andrecognition this hard working group deserves within the

benefits system; that all carers who provide 35 hours perweek unpaid care for a relative, partner or friend of anyage with a long term illness or disability, or who iselderly and frail, be paid an increased allowance regardlessof means or receipt of any other benefits, including thestate pension; further notes that carers should not beforced to live on a limited income, nor should they haveto self fund their caring role, by living off their limitedsavings; that for these and other valid reasons, carerswho provide over 35 hours of care per week shouldreceive an increased carers allowance exempt fromassessment for all other benefits and believes that this isin the public interest.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House ofCommons urges the Government to pay increased carersallowance, exempt from all other benefit assessment, toall carers who provide over 35 hours of care per week.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by BobSpink, Official Report, 2 March 2010; Vol. 506, c. 916.]

[P000746]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Work andPensions:

The Government are aware of and fully appreciatethe hard work and dedication of all those who provideunpaid care for relatives, partners and friends.

The Government are considering a wide range ofissues as we develop our plans for welfare reform and acommission on long term care will consider the positionof carers in this context.

13P 14P17 JUNE 2010Petitions Petitions

Written Answers to

Questions


CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

Departmental Manpower

Stewart Hosie: To ask the Secretary of State forCulture, Olympics, Media and Sport how many (a)special advisers and (b) press officers are employed byhis Department at each Civil Service pay grade. [1281]

John Penrose: With regards to the number of specialadvisers employed by the Department, I refer the hon.Member to the list of special adviser appointmentspublished by the Prime Minister on 10 June 2010,Official Report, column 33-34W.

The Department employs 11 press officers. Thebreakdown by civil service pay grade is shown in thefollowing table:

Grade Number of press officers

Grade A1 3Grade B2 8Total 111 Former Grade 6/7.2 Former SEO/HEO/HEO (D) and equivalent grades.

Departmental Official Hospitality

John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State forCulture, Olympics, Media and Sport what budget hisDepartment has allocated for entertainment, includingalcohol, in each of the next three years. [1323]

John Penrose: The 2010-11 budget, inherited from theprevious Government, allocated £155, 478 to hospitality,which includes entertainment costs. We are now lookingat ways to significantly reduce this. Similar budgets forthe following two years will not be set until after thenext Spending Review in the autumn.

All expenditure is incurred in accordance with theprinciples of Managing Public Money and the Treasuryhandbook on Regularity and Propriety.

Football

Mr Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State forCulture, Olympics, Media and Sport if he will takesteps to encourage each professional football club toallow a representative of a registered footballsupporters’ trust to sit on its board of directors. [2924]

Hugh Robertson: While it is for the football authoritiesto run our national game, the Government will encourageThe Football Association, premier league, and footballleague to work closely together to improve the governanceand regulation of the national game. This includesexploring better ways to involve supporters in theirlocal clubs.

Football: South Africa

Mr Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State forCulture, Olympics, Media and Sport whether (a) he,(b) other Ministers in his Department and (c) officialsof his Department will attend the World Cup in SouthAfrica. [2153]

Hugh Robertson: I attended the England v. USAmatch and travelled economy class on both legs of thejourney. No officials attended. The Secretary of Statewill attend the England v. Algeria match and traveleconomy class for both journeys. The Secretary of Statewill be accompanied by one official. I met with variousmembers of the FIFA family during my visit to discussEngland’s bid for the 2018 World cup, one of theGovernment’s top priorities for sport. The Secretary ofState is planning to do the same.

Should England progress to the quarter finals andbeyond, as I very much hope they will, we will lookagain at what attendance is necessary.

Gambling

Mr Lammy: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture,Olympics, Media and Sport what (a) telephone calls,(b) meetings and (c) correspondence (i) he and (ii)other Ministers and officials in his Department havehad with representatives of the gambling industry since11 May 2010. [2957]

John Penrose: In the course of the usual engagementwith our sectors I, and officials in my Department, havemet and spoken with a wide range of organisations andindividuals since 11 May. This includes representativesof the gambling industry. However, we do not keepcentral records of all telephone calls, meetings orcorrespondence with industry and other representatives.

WORK AND PENSIONS

Employment and Support Allowance

Dr Whiteford: To ask the Secretary of State for Workand Pensions if his Department will take steps to trackand monitor claimants who apply for the employmentand support allowance and are found fit to work; andfor what reasons these claimants are not currentlytracked and monitored. [2626]

Chris Grayling: The Department are planning researchto investigate the paths of individuals who are found fitfor work, whose claim for employment and supportallowance is withdrawn or whose claim is ended beforethey receive a decision at the work capability assessment.The Department is also developing administrative dataand management information to routinely monitor theoutcomes for all employment and support allowanceclaimants, including those that moved off the benefit.

Dr Whiteford: To ask the Secretary of State for Workand Pensions what changes he plans to make to theemployment and support allowance system; and if hewill make a statement. [2628]

Chris Grayling: The Department published an internalreview of the Work Capability Assessment in March2010. This review outlined possible areas for change—weare currently considering its findings and recommendations.

489W 490W17 JUNE 2010Written Answers Written Answers

We will reassess everyone on incapacity benefits tosee if they are fit for work. Those who are capable ofwork will be moved onto jobseeker’s allowance. Peoplewho need more support while they prepare for work willget that help on employment and support allowance.

We have committed to introducing the work programmeby the summer of 2011. The full scope and shape of thishas not yet been finalised, however we recognise thatpeople moving onto jobseeker’s allowance from incapacitybenefit or employment and support allowance may faceparticular difficulties. The employment support we offerwill reflect this.

Employment Schemes

Mr Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for Work andPensions what the budget for the Single Work Programmeplanned by his Department will be in 2010-11; and whatthe previously planned total expenditure on all currentback-to-work schemes providing targeted assistance tobenefits claimants seeking employment was for 2010-11.

[2161]

Chris Grayling: The total budget set aside to deliveremployment programmes in 2010-11 was £2,432 million.This budget has been adjusted in-year to reflect savingsof £320 million announced as part of the Government’srecently announced £6 billion efficiency savings, givinga revised overall budget of £2,112 million.

The Government have committed to introducing theWork Programme in the first half of 2011. The WorkProgramme will be a single integrated package of supportproviding personalised help for everyone who findsthemselves out of work regardless of the benefit theyclaim, and the budget will be set as part of the forthcomingSpending Review negotiations.

Employment Schemes: Lone Parents

Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Workand Pensions what his policy is on training JobcentrePlus personal advisers on the circumstances and needsof lone parents under the Single Work Programme.

[2492]

Chris Grayling: The administration of Jobcentre Plusis a matter for the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus,Darra Singh. I have asked him to provide the hon.Member with the information requested.

Letter from Darra Singh:The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question

asking what the policy is on training Jobcentre Plus personal advisersin the circumstances and needs of lone parents under the SingleWork Programme. This is something that falls within theresponsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of JobcentrePlus.

The role of Jobcentre Plus under the single work programme isnot yet defined.

However, the current learning routeway for Personal Adviserscontains over 60 hours of learning specifically for dealing withLone Parents. These events are delivered in a variety of trainingmedia including classroom facilitated events, open learning ande-learning.

The learning includes modules on building customer commitment;building and maintaining lone parent networks; dealing withmyths and stereotypes about lone parents; overcoming challengesand providing ongoing support in their transition to work.

The learning also provides information on childcare and sourcesof financial help for lone parents.

It is our intention to review and, if necessary, adapt thislearning once we know more about the single work programme.

I hope this information is helpful.

Employment Schemes: Voluntary Organisations

Andrea Leadsom: To ask the Secretary of State forWork and Pensions what assessment he has made ofthe effectiveness of voluntary job clubs in helpingpeople into employment. [2256]

Chris Grayling: Job clubs, such as those in Towcesterand Brackley, offer local solutions to address unemploymentwhich are led by local communities, organisations andvoluntary groups.

Where operational, they offer unemployed people aplace to meet, exchange skills, make contacts, and findopportunities to help in their search for employment.

Building on the job club model, the coalition Governmenthas set out a clear commitment to support the developmentof local work clubs.

Funeral Payments

Gordon Banks: To ask the Secretary of State forWork and Pensions what recent representations hisDepartment have received from professionalorganisations on the funeral payment. [2090]

Steve Webb: We have had representations from theNational Association of Funeral Directors (NAFD),the Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors(SAIF) and some of their members. They raise a numberof issues about the operation of the scheme.

Future Jobs Fund

Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State for Workand Pensions what advice he has received from hisDepartment on the (a) efficiency and (b) cost-effectivenessof the Future Jobs Fund; and if he will publish all suchadvice received. [2299]

Chris Grayling: The release of advice to Ministerswould prejudice the free and frank provision of adviceand the free and frank exchange of views for the purposesof deliberation and will not, therefore, be provided.

Jobcentre Plus: Rapid Response Service

Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Workand Pensions what plans he has for the Jobcentre PlusRapid Response Service. [2495]

Chris Grayling: Our intention is to retain the RapidResponse Service in its current form for the 2010-11financial year. However, in common with all departmentalprogrammes, the longer term future of the service willbe considered as part of the forthcoming comprehensivespending review.

Maternity Leave

Mr David Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State forWork and Pensions what estimate he has made ofthe number of women who took paid maternity leavein the last five years for which figures are available;what the average number of weeks paid maternity leavewas in each such year; and what the average paymentwas in each such year. [2928]


Chris Grayling: The Department for Work and Pensionsis responsible for statutory maternity pay and maternityallowance. The Department’s estimate of the numbersof women who received these payments for each of thelast five years is outlined in the table.

Estimated numbers of women receiving statutory maternity pay and maternityallowance since 2005-06

Estimated number

2005-06 360,000

2006-07 370,000

2007-08 390,000

2008-09 390,000

2009-10 400,000

Note:Data are based on estimated numbers of starts or new cases in Great Britain.Source: Department for Work and Pensions data.

It should be noted that these figures are likely to bean underestimate of the numbers of women who tookpaid maternity leave. Some women may have receivedpaid maternity leave via occupational maternity payschemes provided by their employer but did not qualifyfor statutory maternity pay or maternity allowance. Noestimates are available for this group.

No estimates are made for the average number ofweeks of paid maternity leave or average payments.

Social Security Benefits: Stirling

Mrs McGuire: To ask the Secretary of State for Workand Pensions how many and what proportion ofthe working age population of Stirling constituency areclaimants of (a) jobseeker’s allowance, (b) employmentand support allowance and incapacity benefit, (c) carer’sallowance, (d) disability living allowance, (e) widow’sand/or bereavement benefit and (f) other income support.

[2523]

Chris Grayling: The available information is in thefollowing table:

Working age claimants by client group in Stirling parliamentary constituency:November 2009

Claimants

Percentage of theworking age

population

Job Seeker 1,760 3.2

Employment and SupportAllowance and Incapacity Benefits

3,830 7.0

Carer 510 0.9

Others on income related benefit 190 0.3

Disabled 470 0.9

Bereaved 150 0.3

Notes:1. Statistical Group is a hierarchical variable. A person who fits into morethan one category will only appear in the top-most one for which they areeligible. For example a claimant of Disability Living Allowance andJobseeker’s Allowance would appear in “Job Seeker”, not in “Disabled”.2. From November 2008 the “incapacity benefits group” includes Employmentand Support Allowance (ESA). ESA replaced Incapacity Benefit and IncomeSupport paid on the grounds of incapacity for new claims from 27 October2008. Prior to this the “incapacity benefits group” referred to claimants ofIncapacity Benefit (including credits only) or Severe Disablement Allowanceincluding people claiming Income Support on the grounds of incapacity.3. Caseload figures are rounded to the nearest 10. Percentages are rounded toone decimal place.4. Working Age Client Group data has been used as this excludes overlapswhere people are in receipt of more than one benefit. Data published at:https://www.nomisweb.co.ukSource:Department for Work and Pensions Information Directorate: Work andPensions Longitudinal Study. Mid 2008 population estimates produced byGeneral Registers of Scotland.

Wales

Jonathan Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State forWork and Pensions with reference to the Chancellor ofthe Exchequer’s announcement of 24 May 2010 andpursuant to the answer of 7 June 2010, Official Report,column 69W, on public expenditure: Wales, if he willprovide details of his Department’s non-devolved publicexpenditure savings that will be incurred in Wales, includingan estimate of the financial savings. [2939]

Chris Grayling: The requested information is notavailable due to disproportionate cost.

DEFENCE

Afghanistan: Peacekeeping Operations

Mr Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State forDefence whether the doubling of the operational allowancefor armed forces personnel serving in Afghanistan is apermanent measure; and to what date the doubling ofthat allowance will be back-dated. [2777]

Dr Fox: The doubling of operational allowance is apermanent measure and is effective from 6 May 2010.In doing so we have fulfilled a key measure in ourcoalition programme for government.

Mr Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State forDefence what estimate he has made of the cost to thepublic purse of doubling the operational allowance forarmed forces personnel serving in Afghanistan. [2781]

Dr Fox: The cost of doubling the operational allowanceto all those eligible to receive it is £57 million per year,based on current force levels.

Air Misses

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State forDefence what (a) near misses and (b) dangerousincidents involving military aircraft were reported ineach year since 2007. [2618]

Nick Harvey: The number of hazards, observations,near misses and reportable incidents involving militaryaircraft that have been reported in each year since 2007are shown in the following tables. They have beenbroken down by aircraft type. To provide further detailsof each of these events would, however, incurdisproportionate cost.

A new system for capturing all flight safety eventsacross the Defence aviation community, known as theAviation Safety Information Management System, wasintroduced in 2009. This improved system has resultedin an increase in reporting.

Hazards/observations/near misses by aircraft type, 2007-10Aircraft 2007 2008 2009 20101

None2 0 0 13 46Alpha Jet 0 0 0 0Andover 0 0 0 0Apache 0 0 10 10Agusta 0 0 3 3BAE 125 0 0 4 2BAE 146 0 0 1 1


Hazards/observations/near misses by aircraft type, 2007-10Aircraft 2007 2008 2009 20101

Bell 0 0 5 1C17 0 0 10 13Chinook 0 0 18 11Defender 0 0 0 4DesertHawk

0 0 4 0

Dominie 0 0 1 1Firefly 0 0 6 0Gazelle 0 0 2 3Griffin 0 0 4 5Harrier 0 0 13 18Hawk 2 0 11 15Hercules 0 1 7 16Hermes 0 0 18 7Islander 0 0 1 2Jaguar 0 0 0 0Jetstream 0 0 0 1King Air 0 0 6 2Lynx 1 1 10 7Merlin 0 0 23 21Nimrod 0 0 10 1Other 0 0 6 10Puma 0 0 20 13Sea King 2 0 16 19Sentinel 0 0 1 8Sentry 0 0 1 7Squirrel 0 0 3 6Tornado 0 0 27 41Tristar 0 0 3 16Tucano 0 0 11 22Tutor 0 0 8 9Typhoon 0 0 5 14VC10 0 0 9 12Vigilant 0 0 0 2Viking 0 0 2 0Total 5 2 292 3691 Up to and including 31 May 2010.2 ‘None’ covers those incidents where an aircraft was not involved egduring either maintenance of an aircraft component not fitted to anaircraft or involving a piece of Aircraft Ground Support Equipment.

Events in the table above are described as hazardsand cover those circumstances which have, or couldhave, resulted in an occurrence, or could throw light onthe cause of an occurrence. An abridged definition ofan occurrence is an unplanned event associated with theoperation of an aircraft.

Reportable incidents by military aircraft type, 2007-10Aircraft 2007 2008 2009 20101

None2 24 71 34 45Alpha Jet 8 6 4 3Andover 1 1 1 3Apache 72 134 125 86Agusta 8 10 10 15BAE 125 6 6 2 2BAE 146 6 2 5 5Bell 18 43 57 23C17 36 34 43 25Chinook 299 310 314 172Defender 40 32 10 17DesertHawk

0 0 71 57

Dominie 22 14 8 7

Reportable incidents by military aircraft type, 2007-10Aircraft 2007 2008 2009 20101

Firefly 17 15 6 0Gazelle 44 45 15 12Griffin 91 67 110 56Harrier 79 172 219 111Hawk 294 242 187 119Hercules 342 329 152 114Hermes 0 25 21 9Islander 11 13 15 20Jaguar 13 2 1 0Jetstream 11 11 12 2King Air 21 31 38 17Lynx 337 470 252 125Merlin 310 420 557 297Nimrod 177 122 29 22Other 16 21 55 18Puma 113 130 117 57Reaper 0 9 2 1Sea King 448 475 441 246Sentinel 13 17 20 8Sentry 67 42 22 13Squirrel 107 84 59 39Tornado 578 439 344 224Tristar 79 77 54 27Tucano 136 156 234 112Tutor 67 73 92 43Typhoon 153 187 202 89VC10 96 93 46 31Vigilant 23 62 33 24Viking 13 10 7 16Total 4,196 4,502 4,026 2,3121 Up to and including 31 May 2010.2 ‘None’ covers those incidents where an aircraft was not involved egduring either maintenance of an aircraft component not fitted to anaircraft or involving a piece of Aircraft Ground Support Equipment.

A reportable incident is described as an occurrenceinvolving an aircraft which results in the aircraft sustainingcategory 1, 2 or 3 damage; or in a person receiving aminor or slight injury; or which discloses a flight safetyhazard or potential hazard. As the MOD damagecategorisation system does not apply to civilian registeredaircraft, the occurrence is to be classed as an incident ifthe damage is repairable by the contractor’s aircraftmaintenance staff at the aircraft operating location.

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State forDefence what AIRPROX incidents have taken place inthe last five years; and what the (a) location and (b)aircraft type was in each incident. [2619]

Nick Harvey: There were 832 reported Air ProximityHazard incidents between June 2004 and June 2009. Iam placing details of these incidents, including the date,aircraft type and location, in the Library of the House.Investigations into Air Proximity Hazard incidents afterJune 2009 are not yet fully completed.

Details of all incidents are published in bi-annualreports by the Air Proximity Board on its website:

www.airproxboard.org.uk

In the information I am placing in the Library of theHouse, I am also including a reference for each of theincidents to the relevant report. By publishing the causes,


risks, trends and lessons learnt from all Air Proximityincidents, whether they are military or civil, the aim is tominimise the possibility of re-occurrence.

An Air Proximity Hazard is formally defined as anincident in which, in the opinion of a pilot or controller,the distance between aircraft as well as their relativepositions and speeds have been such that the safety ofthe aircraft involved was or may have been compromised.

Armed Forces

Laura Sandys: To ask the Secretary of State forDefence what steps he is planning to take to observethe principles of the military covenant. [2667]

Mr Robathan: We have made it clear in our Programmefor Government that rebuilding the military covenant isone of the highest priorities for Defence.

We have published a series of concrete measures toachieve this including in areas such as health and education.Work has begun on how to put these measures intopractice as soon as possible.

Armed Forces: Health Services

Mr Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State forDefence what timetable has been set for completion ofwork with Help for Heroes on the purpose-built centrefor injured soldiers in (a) Catterick, (b) Tidworth, (c)Colchester and (d) Edinburgh. [2818]

Mr Robathan: The Army Recovery Capability waslaunched on 11 February 2010, in partnership withHelp for Heroes and the Royal British Legion. This newcapability marks a further step forward in the supportto our armed forces and will ensure the best possiblecare and management is provided to our wounded, sickand injured personnel.

The provision of four purpose built Personnel RecoveryCentres is a key element of the Army Recovery Capability.The centres will provide a day centre facility for allrecovering personnel and a residential base for thosewho need it, whether their recovery is focused on areturn to duty or a transition into civilian life. Eachcentre will be located inside or close to Army sites,enabling access to Army facilities and support from theArmy, including existing medical, educational and othergarrison facilities.

The Pathfinder centre, in Edinburgh, opened on17 August 2009 in partnership with Help for Heroesand the veterans’ charity Erskine Homes. This centrewill provide the capability until the three other PersonnelRecovery Centres open. Current plans are for the Colchestercentre to open in September 2011, the Catterick centreto open in April 2012, and the Tidworth/Bulford centreto open in April 2012.

Ian Mearns: To ask the Secretary of State forDefence how much funding his Department allocatedto the development of Defence Medical RehabilitationCentre Headley Court in each of the last five years; andif he will make a statement. [2820]

Mr Robathan: Funding for the treatment of woundedpersonnel at the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centreat Headley Court has been, and will continue to be,

made available to match clinical requirements, includingsurges in casualty numbers. Our future budgetary plansassume a continuing need for additional investment infacilities and staff at Headley Court. Comprehensivefinancial data for the past five years are not readilyavailable, and could be obtained only at disproportionatecost.

Headley Court has received steadily increased investmentin facilities and staff over recent years. The unit’s operatingcosts, including estate management, are about £20.4 millionin the current financial year, as compared with some£10.7 million (actual costs) in 2005-06. Significant newfacilities brought into service over recent years, at anadditional total cost of about £7.5 million, include a30-bed ward annexe (May 2007), a 58-bed staff andpatient accommodation block (January 2009) and thenew Centre for Mental and Cognitive Health (openedin spring 2009). For many years the Headley Courtestate, which is owned by a charitable trust, has alsobenefited from additional funding of projects by thattrust and other charities.

In addition to funding the projects just listed, it wasannounced in May 2008 that an extra £24 million incapital funding over the next four years for a HeadleyCourt development programme. Over the first two years(i.e. up to June 2010) this funding has been mainlyapplied to the MOD contribution to the Help for Heroesrehabilitation complex, which recently came into service,and a utilities upgrade for the whole site.

Armed Forces: Housing

Mr Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State forDefence what timetable has been set for completion ofwork on supported housing for service leaders inCatterick. [2817]

Mr Robathan: Construction work began on 18 January2010 on the training and housing centre, ‘The Beacon’,in Catterick, North Yorkshire, and based on currentestimates, work is due to be completed by the end ofApril 2011.

Armed Forces: Wales

Dr Francis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defencehow many members of the armed forces were born inor are domiciled in (a) Aberavon constituency and (b)Wales. [2904]

Mr Robathan: The information is not held in theformat requested.

Ascension Island

Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State forDefence what discussions he has had with the Secretaryof State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on hisDepartment’s outstanding bills relating to AscensionIsland. [2532]

Nick Harvey: The Secretary of State for Defence andSecretary of State for Foreign and CommonwealthAffairs have discussed the dispute over the Ministry ofDefence’s annual property tax liability on AscensionIsland. The MOD is continuing to work towards securinga cross-government sustainable financial future forAscension Island.


Atomic Weapons Establishment

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State forDefence what the objectives are of the business reviewunder way at the Atomic Weapons Establishment.

[2043]

Peter Luff: A number of reviews are currently underway at the Atomic Weapons Establishment. All haveprimary objectives aimed at ensuring the maintenanceof a safe and credible UK deterrent, and the maintenanceof an efficient and effective deterrent capability to achievemaximum value for money.

Defence Equipment: Sales

Dr Murrison: To ask the Secretary of State forDefence what the monetary value of receipts from theDisposal Services Authority has been in each year since1993. [2349]

Peter Luff: Data on the monetary value of receiptsfrom the Disposal Services Authority for the last fiveyears is as follows:

£ millionGross sales Direct costs of sales Net sales

2005-06 61.4 27.2 34.22006-07 99 43.5 55.52007-08 88.6 37.4 51.22008-09 88.1 41 47.12009-10 62.5 33.2 29.3

Data prior to Financial Year 2005-06 is no longeravailable as this is the first full financial year that theDisposals Sales Agency was set up and transferred intothe Defence Logistics Organisation (subsequently DefenceEquipment and Support).

Dr Murrison: To ask the Secretary of State forDefence what the monetary value of receipts from theedisposals service has been in each year for whichfigures are available. [2350]

Peter Luff: Information on the monetary value ofreceipts from the website edisposals service is not recordedseparately by the Disposal Services Authority (DSA).The items sold under edisposals are disposed of bycontractors who also use other disposal routes. Theyare required to declare their total income to the DSAbut not to breakdown the source of the sales .

Dr Murrison: To ask the Secretary of State forDefence what the monetary value was of goods sold to(a) Government departments, (b) non-departmentalpublic bodies and (c) other public sector organisationsby (i) the Disposal Services Authority and (ii)edisposals in each year for which figures are available.

[2352]

Peter Luff: It is not usual for the Disposal ServicesAuthority (DSA) to dispose of MOD items to otherGovernment departments because the items are generallyof a military or specialist nature, or are unattractivebecause of their age or wear and tear. Exceptionally,however, during 2009-10, DSA sold surplus medical

equipment to Portsmouth NHS Trust for the value of£630,435 during the financial year which ended on 31March 2010.

No other sales were made directly by DSA toGovernment departments, non-departmental public bodiesor other public sector organisations.

Dr Murrison: To ask the Secretary of State forDefence what the annual operating cost of (a) theDisposals Services Authority and (b) edisposals hasbeen in each year for which figures are available. [2353]

Peter Luff: Total operating costs from 2005-06 for theDisposal Services Authority (DSA), including e-disposalsare as follows:

£ millionFinancialyear Direct costs

Otheroperating costs

Totaloperating costs

2005-06 27.2 15.1 42.32006-07 43.5 20.4 63.92007-08 37.4 7.1 44.52008-09 41 3.1 44.12009-10 33.2 6 39.2

Departmental Consultants

Dr Murrison: To ask the Secretary of State forDefence for how many days persons employed onconsultant contracts worked for his Department, itsagencies and the armed services in the last 12 months;at what cost to the public purse; how many people havebeen so employed on consultant contracts for morethan (a) two, (b) three and (c) four years; and if hewill publish the daily rates upon which such personshave been engaged in (i) the current financial year, (ii)2009-10, (iii) 2008-09, (iv) 2007-08 and (v) 2006-07.

[2986]

Mr Robathan: The Ministry of Defence (MOD) contractsfor External Assistance with consultancy companies todeliver a specific output at an agreed price. The Departmentdoes not involve itself in how the company deploys itsstaff in order to deliver the output and does not,therefore, hold such details.

MOD expenditure on External Assistance has beenreported to Parliament since 1995-96. For the years inquestion expenditure by MOD including its agenciesand the armed forces was as follows:

£ million

2006-07 1292007-08 1202008-09 106

The figure for expenditure in 2009-10 will be placedin the Library of the House in the next few months andthe figure for 2010-11 will be placed in the Library afterthe end of the financial year.

Wherever possible MOD tries to use its internalresources to meet its needs rather than bringing inoutside assistance.


Departmental Mobile Phones

Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State forDefence which Ministers in his Department have beenissued with (a) a Blackberry, (b) an iPhone, (c)another make of mobile telephone and (d) a personaldigital assistant supplied by the Department. [1434]

Mr Robathan: The Secretary of State for Defence hasbeen issued with a Blackberry and the Minister forDefence Equipment, Support and Technology has beenissued with a Nokia mobile telephone.

Departmental Official Cars

Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defencewhat his policy is on the use by Ministers in his Departmentof cars allocated from (a) his Department’s pool and(b) the Government car pool which are manufacturedin the UK; whether Ministers in his Department areentitled to request the use of a car manufactured in theUK; and if he will make a statement. [2412]

Mr Robathan: No Minister in the Department has anallocated pool car.

The Government’s policy is that Ministers may makeuse of the Government Car Service (GCS) under theterms of the recently announced Ministerial Code. Ministerswill be entitled to use cars from the GCS pool asneeded. UK manufactured cars make up a relativelysmall proportion (around 16%) of the current GCSfleet, most of which comprises low carbon emissionhybrid vehicles manufactured abroad. Changed rulesfor allocation of cars and the need to reduce the cost ofoperating the GCS mean that vehicle replacement islikely to be restricted in the immediate future, necessarilylimiting the options for reconfiguring the fleet withoutincurring additional cost. For reasons of efficient andeconomic fleet management, it is not practical for Ministersto specify a particular vehicle or type of vehicle for ajourney in a pool service car.

Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State forDefence how many meetings his officials have had withLockheed Martin on the procurement of the JointStrike Fighter in the last six months; and what wasdiscussed on each occasion. [1392]

Peter Luff: Ministry of Defence officials of the JointCombat Aircraft Project Team, including US-basedofficials seconded to the JSF Programme Office, meetregularly with Lockheed Martin and the US Departmentof Defence—approximately on a daily basis. Thesemeetings take place either in person or via video conferencefacilities. The majority of these meetings take place at aworking level and cover a wide range of matters relatingto the project.

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State forDefence what recent assessment he has made of theeffect on costs of delays in the Joint Strike Fighterprogramme. [1393]

Peter Luff: As the only Level 1 partner in the JSFprogramme, the UK has been closely engaged with thechanges recently made by the US and is fully aware ofthe impact in terms of performance, cost and time.

There is no impact on the performance of the aircraft.There is also no change to the cost of UK’s contributionto the JSF development programme which is fixed bythe Memorandum of Understanding signed with theUS in 2001. The aircraft already purchased for OperationalTest will continue to be used for that purpose and in thetimescales originally planned.

Our plans to purchase further JSF are incrementaland have always been based on the programme reachingtechnical maturity levels and being affordable withinthe overall resources for Defence. We will review ourfuture purchase plans accordingly and as part of boththe Strategic Defence and Security Review and normaldepartmental planning process.

Lynx Helicopters

Mr Carswell: To ask the Secretary of State forDefence if he will review his Department’s contract forthe Lynx Wildcat project to ensure it represents valuefor money. [2695]

Peter Luff: Under the Strategic Defence and SecurityReview work has been set in hand to review all majorequipment and support contracts to ensure the futureprogramme is coherent with future defence needs andcan be afforded.

Military Aircraft: Helicopters

Mr Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State forDefence what the change has been in the number ofhelicopter hours available to commanders in the lastthree years. [2819]

Nick Harvey: The number of funded helicopter hoursavailable to commanders for training and operationalflying for the last three financial years is shown in thefollowing table:

Financial year

Aircraft type 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Lynx Mk 3/8 11,200 10,440 9,260Sea King Mk 5 4,122 4,135 4,399Sea King Mk 7 3,601 3,770 3,686Merlin Mk 1 9,380 9,380 9,380Sea King Mk 4/6 11,186 12,502 12,504Apache 14,400 16,500 18,500Lynx Mk 7/9 18,599 15,500 15,500Gazelle 10,935 5,988 4,450Chinook Mk 2 15,912 16,500 18,503Merlin Mk 3 7,550 7,000 8,400Puma 12,000 9,756 7,250Sea King Mk 3/3a 9,180 9,721 9,720

The reduction in flying hours for the Puma is as aconsequence of fewer airframes being available due tothe Puma upgrade programme. Gazelle hours are reducingas this aircraft is being withdrawn from service.


Ministry of Defence Guard Service: Manpower

Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of Statefor Defence how many people are employed in hisDepartment’s Guard Service. [2084]

Mr Robathan: On 31 May 2010 the Ministry ofDefence Guard Service had 3,615 guards and guardmanagers, and a further 66 staff in management, training,administrative and support roles, making a total of3681 staff. The Ministry of Defence Guard Servicecovers over 200 sites across Great Britain.

Nuclear Weapons

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State forDefence how many (a) US personnel visited theAtomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) and (b) AWEstaff visited US establishments under the terms of theUS-UK Mutual Defence Agreement in each of the lastthree years. [2045]

Mr Gerald Howarth: The total number of personnelvisiting the Atomic Weapons Establishment and USinstallations under the terms of the UK-US MutualDefence Agreement in each of the last three years is asfollows:

Number

UK visitors to the US

2007 5912008 5222009 527

US visitors to the UK

2007 5482008 8062009 518

RAF Kinloss

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State forDefence what steps he is taking to keep wildlife off therunways at RAF Kinloss. [2623]

Nick Harvey: RAF Kinloss has a bird control contractin place to provide a bird scaring service and uses radarto monitor carefully the movement of migratory birds.In addition, the natural territorial instincts of a carefullymanaged herd of resident deer discourage other deerfrom entering the site.

RAF St Athan

Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State forDefence when he expects to complete negotiations onthe development of the Defence Training College at St.Athan. [1721]

Nick Harvey: The contract negotiations with thepreferred bidder, Metrix, are ongoing. The core of thecommercial deal is planned to be completed by the endof the year under current plans. This is important to thefunding process because it will enable banks to examinethe essential elements of the draft contract and hencesupport the process of due diligence. Work will continue

until all aspects of the contract, including funding,reach an acceptable conclusion. I will update the Housewhen negotiations are finalised.

War Pensions Committees

Mr Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for Defencewhat plans he has for the future of the regional WarPension committees; and if he will make a statement.

[2643]

Mr Robathan [holding answer 15 June 2010]: Therole of War Pensions Committees (WPCs) has evolvedsince they were established in 1921. To ensure theyremained relevant for the current ex-service communityit was decided to review the structure and function ofthe WPCs.

The WPCs are now known as the Veterans Advisoryand Pension Committees (VAPCs), and a pilot schemeis being established to assess an informal broadening oftheir role to include, most notably, support and advicein relation to the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme.On completion of the pilot, in June 2011, a full evaluationwill be carried out and a decision on the future role ofthe VAPCs will be made.

NORTHERN IRELANDDepartmental Official Cars

Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State forNorthern Ireland what the (a) make, (b) model and(c) place of manufacture is of the car allocated for theuse of each Minister in his Department. [1487]

Mr Paterson: The Northern Ireland Office (NIO)currently has access to two cars from the GovernmentCar and Despatch Agency as required for official business:

(a) Jaguar (b) model XJ Sovereign, and manufactured in (c)the United Kingdom.(a) Toyota (b) model Prius T3, and manufactured in (c)Japan.

The current use of ministerial cars is the same as theprevious Administration but is currently under review.

Departmental Pay

Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State forNorthern Ireland how much was paid in bonuses tocivil servants in his Department in 2009-10. [2177]

Mr Paterson: Figures for the 2009-10 financial yearare not yet available. I will write to the hon. Memberwhen they become available.

Departmental Reviews

Andrew Miller: To ask the Secretary of State forNorthern Ireland pursuant to the answer of 8 June2010, Official Report, column 137W, on GovernmentDepartments: reviews, what reviews his Department isundertaking; and what the (a) purpose and (b)timescale of each is. [2579]

Mr Paterson: The coalition agreement sets out indetail the Government’s future plans, including the keyreviews they will be undertaking. My Department willbring forward detailed information about these reviewsin due course.


WALES


Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for Waleswhat her policy is on the use by Ministers in herDepartment of cars allocated from (a) her Department’spool and (b) the Government car pool which aremanufactured in the UK; whether Ministers in herDepartment are entitled to request the use of a carmanufactured in the UK; and if she will make a statement.

[2398]

Mrs Gillan: I refer the hon. Member to the answergiven by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Statefor Transport on 14 June 2010, Official Report,column 291W.

Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Waleshow many (a) civil servants and (b) special advisers inher Department are entitled to the use of (i) a car witha dedicated driver, (ii) a car from the Government carpool and (iii) a taxi ordered through a departmentalaccount. [3191]

Mrs Gillan: Nil.Prisons: Construction

Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Waleswhat discussions she has had with Ministers andofficials of the Ministry of Justice on the siting of aprison in North Wales. [2250]

Mrs Gillan: I recently wrote to my hon. Friend theMinister for Prisons (Mr Blunt), outlining my strongsupport for the siting of a new prison in North Waleswhere there is currently a shortfall in the number ofprison places.

I understand that the Ministry of Justice is currentlyconsidering the various sites that have been recommendedfor a potential prison in North Wales. I will workclosely with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice toensure that implications for Wales are fully taken intoaccount in the decision process.

EDUCATION

Departmental Billing

Stewart Hosie: To ask the Secretary of State forEducation what percentage of invoices from suppliersto his Department were paid within 10 days of receiptin (a) March and (b) April 2010. [1272]

Michael Gove: Since November 2010 the Departmentfor Education has had a Shared Service Agreement withthe Department for Works and Pensions (DWP) whichincludes the Purchase to Pay function.

(a) The percentage of invoices paid within 10 days of receiptin March 2010 was 96%.(b) The percentage of invoices paid within 10 days of receiptin April 2010 was 96%.

Departmental Official Residences

Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State forEducation whether any domestic properties in the giftof the Government have been allocated to the use ofMinisters in his Department. [1789]

Michael Gove: No Ministers in the Department forEducation have been allocated any domestic propertiesin the gift of the Government.

Departmental Public Expenditure

Ed Balls: To ask the Secretary of State for Educationwhat his policy is on maintaining present levels offunding for schools, Sure Start and 16 to 19 educationin 2011-12. [1308]

Michael Gove: Funding for schools, Sure Start and 16to 19 education have been protected in 2010-11. Nodecisions on spending in 2011-12 have been made, andthey will be made at the spending review in the autumn.It is our priority to protect frontline services whiletaking steps to address the unprecedented challenge weface on deficit reduction.

Departmental Reorganisation

Tom Blenkinsop: To ask the Secretary of State forEducation how much it cost to rename hisDepartment. [2051]

Michael Gove: The re-naming of the Department forEducation cost £5,250.

Departmental Responsibilities

Ed Balls: To ask the Secretary of State for Educationfor which policy areas each member of his ministerialteam is responsible. [1293]

Michael Gove: I refer the right hon. Member to thelist of ministerial responsibilities which can be found onthe Department’s website at:

http://www.education.gov.uk/team

Flags

Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State forEducation what his policy is on flying the Union flageach day from each official building for which hisDepartment is responsible. [1817]

Michael Gove: The Department for Education fliesthe Union flag every day of the year.

HEALTH

Breast Feeding

Mr Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Healthwhat recent estimate has been made of the proportionof mothers who breastfeed their babies (a) in theStrelley/Broxstowe Sure Start area and (b) nationally.

[2830]

Anne Milton: Currently Strelley Sure Start area issupported by the Nottingham City primary care trust(PCT) and Broxstowe Sure Start area is supported bythe Nottingham County PCT. The following table showsthe number of mothers who initiated and sustainedbreastfeeding at six to eight weeks in both the PCTs andthe national average.


Breastfeeding initiation and prevalence at six to eight weeks in 2009-10Percentage

NottinghamCity PCT(Strelley)

NottinghamCounty

PCT(Broxstowe)

Nationalaverage

Breastfeedinginitiation (Out turn2009-10)

69 75.9 72.7

Breastfeedingprevalence—percentage of infantsdue a six to eightweek check (Quarter4 2009-10)

44.2 39.9 45.2

Carers: Finance

Laura Sandys: To ask the Secretary of State forHealth if he will undertake a review of the level ofsupport provided to carers with particular reference tocarers who are pensioners. [2665]

Mr Burstow: In the following months, the Governmentwill be carrying out a “refresh’ of the previous Government’sCarers Strategy, focusing upon identifying the deliveryof those actions that will have the greatest impact uponthe lives of carers of all ages, including older carers. Wewill provide further details in due course.

Coroners: Children

Dan Rogerson: To ask the Secretary of State forHealth how many qualified paediatric pathologistswere practising in each coroner’s district in each of thelast five years; how many pathologists are being trainedto carry out specialist examinations on deceasedchildren; what plans he has to increase the numbers ofqualified paediatric pathologists; and if he will make astatement. [2981]

Mr Simon Burns: The Department does not collectinformation on the number of qualified paediatricpathologists in each coroner’s district.

Specialist paediatric pathologists are not separatelyidentified within the NHS Workforce Census and theDepartment does not collect data on the number oftraining places commissioned in this sub-specialty.

At present, there are no plans in place to increase thenumber of qualified paediatric pathologists.

Mental Health Services

Esther McVey: To ask the Secretary of State forHealth what steps his Department is taking to increasethe use of preventative measures to reduce the numberof people developing mental health problems. [2876]

Mr Burstow: We will be assessing our priorities carefullyand will announce details on mental health policy indue course. Our focus will be on making services patient-led,based on the best clinical evidence, responsive to patients’choice and management of their own care, and deliveringbest ’health’ outcomes.

Palliative Care: Finance

Chris Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Healthwhether the capital allocation of £924,116 granted toNottinghamshire Hospice to support the end of lifecare strategy will be made. [2962]

Mr Burstow: My right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretaryto the Treasury has announced today the outcome ofthe review of spending approved since 1 January 2010.As part of this review, capital allocations have now beenapproved for the 116 hospices which were announcedby the Department in April 2010 as having been successfulin applying for a share of the £40 million hospicecapital grant for 2010-11. This includes NottinghamshireHospice.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRSDangerous Dogs

Martin Horwood: To ask the Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs how much hasbeen spent seizing and kennelling dogs under section 1of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 by (a) theMetropolitan Police and (b) police in England in eachyear since 2005. [2683]

Mr Paice [holding answer 16 June 2010]: A breakdownof the cost to the Metropolitan Police of kennellingdogs under the Dangerous Dogs Act 19911 in each yearsince 2005 is provided in the following table:1 The figures in the table provide a breakdown ofkennelling and care costs for all dogs, not just dogsseized under Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act1991. However, over 85% of the dogs seized by theMetropolitan Police are done so under Section 1 of theDangerous Dogs Act.

Cost to Met Police of kennelling dogs

£

BoardingVeterinary

fees Transport Total

2005-06 148,922.00 250.00 0.00 149,172.00

2006-07 403,185.18 1,340.00 0.00 404,525.18

2007-08 834,251.41 1,370.00 0.00 835,621.41

2008-09 1,253,401.03 17,677.89 5,198.00 1,276,276.92

2009-10 1,750,215.27 245,657.56 93,177.74 2,089,050.571 The figures in the table provide a breakdown of kennelling and care costs forall dogs, not just dogs seized under Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.However, over 85% of the dogs seized by the Metropolitan Police are done sounder Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act.Source:Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Status Dog Unit

The cost to police forces across England of kennellingdogs under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in each yearsince 2005 cannot be provided because these figures arenot held centrally.

The cost to the Metropolitan Police and to policeacross England of seizing dogs cannot be providedbecause use of police time is not recorded in this way.


Andrew Miller: To ask the Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to theanswer of 8 June 2010, Official Report, column 137W,on Government departments: reviews, what reviews herDepartment is undertaking; and what the (a) purposeand (b) timescale of each is. [2582]


Richard Benyon: The Coalition Agreement sets out indetail the Government’s future plans, including the keyreviews it will be undertaking. DEFRA will bring forwarddetailed information about these reviews in due course.

Eunomia Research and Consulting

Andrew Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs what the (a)title, (b) cost including value added tax and (c) subjectwas of each project commissioned from theconsultancy Eunomia by (i) her Department, (ii) theWaste and Resources Action Programme and (iii) theEnvironment Agency since 2001; how much has beenspent on Eunomia by each organisation in that period;and whether Eunomia is currently working on anyprojects for each organisation. [2977]

Richard Benyon: Since 2001, DEFRA has spent atotal of £2,464,622.14 on projects commissioned fromthe consultancy, Eunomia. Due to the wide rangingnature of work, it would involve a disproportionate costto identify individual projects, which have includedmany areas of work across DEFRA. Eunomia currentlyhas a contract with DEFRA and the Department forCommunities and Local Government to draft a protocoland guidance to improve the interface betweenenvironmental permitting and planning permission.

Data for individual projects are however available forthose commissioned by the Waste Resources ActionProgramme (WRAP) and the Environment Agency.

Table 1 lists the title, subject and cost of workcommissioned from Eunomia by WRAP. These areinclusive of VAT.

Table 2 shows completed outturn project expenditureto Eunomia by the Environment Agency between 2001and 15 June 2010.

Currently, Eunomia is engaged on a single project forthe Environment Agency, approved expenditure detailsof which are given in Table 3.

Table 1Title Subject Cost (£)

Investment of growth Investment for growth inthe third sector

44,502.76

1st round R and Dseminars

1st round R and Dseminars

7,157.20

UK market development UK market development 7,108.75Promotion cost model Development of a

promotion cost model2,167.88

Compost supply Evaluation of compostsupply and demand insouth-east (incl.London) and eastEngland

39,798.49

Peer review Peer review: sink andsewer report

1,883.07

ROTATE specialists Appointment of externalspecialists to support thework of ROTATE (2004-2006)

59,441.89

Kerbside good practice Kerbside good practiceguide

58,457.95

Mixed plastic collection Mixed plastics collectionpractice anddissemination

80,068.48

Collecting gate fees Collecting gate fees pilotstudy

40,806.54

Table 1Title Subject Cost (£)

Gate fees survey1 Gate fees survey1 83,860.50R and D trials Improved segregation

technologies3,046.57

Project monitoring Technical support—added value markets

5,184.01

Confidence in compost Research to examineissues associated with theuse of quality compostin agriculture

2,083.00

Use of compost inEurope1

European review: use ofcompost in agriculture1

31,015.62

Technical advice onTAD and AD

Technical support onanaerobic digestion

5,090.75

Options food waste Options food wasteprocessing into aproduct

40,355.13

Anaerobic digestion andTAD

Food waste 23,270.25

Speakers costs development anddelivery of a trainingresource for the UKorganics waste recyclingindustry

2,633.32

Organics programmedevelopment

Advice on MBT 3,591.82

Peer review Review of LCAestimator

13,879.69

Landfill bans research The environmental,economic and practicalimpacts of landfill bans

115,939.97

External assessors Regional marketdevelopment fund—round one

5,349.78

ROTATE NorthernIreland

Kerbside options for theadditions of biowastecollections

33,516.98

Consultancy support toROTATE

Appointment ofconsultants to supportthe work of ROTATE(2006-08)

201,621.77

Food waste collectiontrials

Local authority foodwaste collection trials

21,572.66

Kerbside benchmarking Benchmarkingperformance of kerbsidecollection

3,758.21

Stillage vehicle project Kerbside recyclingvehicle design and buildproject

1524.44

Local authoritysupport—PFI projects

Support to Dorset WastePartnership

28,986.88

LA support1 Local authoritysupport—consultancyadvice (2008-10)1

269,138.38

ROTATE NorthernIreland1

Support for localauthorities in NorthernIreland1

86,649.56

Commercial food waste1 Collections of foodwaste from businesses1

38,140.10

Procurement guidance1 Review of the availabilityand type of wastecollection serviceprocurement guide1

19,864.00

Food waste trials Surrey 22,415.88

Food waste trials Guildford 2,226.07

Support to food wastecollection

Support to food wastecollection programme

6,837.97

Compost standardsconsultation

BSI PAS consultationand dissemination

34,344.09

Grand total 1,427,290.411 These projects are currently live.


Table 2

Area of Environment Agency Project titleDate purchase orderapproved Value (excl. VAT) (£)

Environment and business—businessperformance and regulation— industryregulation

Expert advice on using damage costmethodologies to help us makeregulatory decisions. The contractorswill review existing methods and data,determine whether they are appropriateto use for various regulatory purposes,produce guidelines for their use withworked examples and comment onlimitations and uncertainties.

14 December 2009 12,000.00

Evidence Economics Review of Sustainable Consumptionand Production Network (SCPnet)activities, 2007-10

10 December 2009 9,032.03

Environment and business—land andnatural environment—land quality

To review the cost benefit section of H1and provide recommendations forupdating

17 March 2008 6,000.00

Subtotal excl. VAT 27,032.03

VAT at 17.5% 4,730.61

Total incl. VAT at 17.5% 31,762.64

Table 3

PO Number (Ref) Area of Environment Agency Project titleDate purchase orderapproved Value (excl. VAT)

30260099 Environment and business—business performance andregulation partnerships

Waste protocols project—financialimpact assessment of a qualityprotocol for waste wood

4 December 2009 127,755.10

Subtotal excl. VAT 27,755.10

VAT at 17.5% 4,857.14

Total incl. VAT at 17.5% 32,612.24

Of this figure, £22,358.92 (exclusive of VAT) has been spent and invoiced as of 15 June 2010.

Floods: Sandwich

Laura Sandys: To ask the Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will requestthe Environment Agency to report on the status andtiming of the commencement of work on flood defencemeasures for Sandwich, Kent. [2662]

Richard Benyon: The Environment Agency is developingtwo flood defence schemes for the towns of Sandwichand Deal. Construction is expected to start in 2012,subject to other priorities for funding at the time. Bothschemes are planned to be completed by 2015.

Basic information about all schemes can be found onthe Environment Agency’s website:

www.environment-agency.gov.uk

at:www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/118129.aspx

Hunting

Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs whether sheplans to hold a public consultation on the effectivenessof the operation of the Hunting Act 2004. [3133]

Mr Paice: There are no plans to hold a publicconsultation on this issue.

Nanotechnology

Mr Hepburn: To ask the Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policyis on nanotechnology; and from what budgets fundingis drawn for implementation of that policy. [2472]

Mr Paice: We need to understand and manage anypotential risks to the environment and maximise theenvironmental benefits which nanotechnologies mayoffer. DEFRA’s Research & Development budget includesfunds specifically for research into the environmentalimpacts of nanomaterials.

Mr Hepburn: To ask the Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs how much herDepartment plans to spend on nanotechnology in thenext five years. [2473]

Mr Paice: In the current financial year £591,000 hasalready been committed for research into the environmentalimplications of nanomaterials. Departmental budgetsfor future years have not yet been decided.

Mr Hepburn: To ask the Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans shehas for the future role of nanotechnology in herDepartment’s policies. [2474]

Mr Paice: Nanoscience has the potential to drivepositive developments across many sectors of the agricultureand environment agenda. DEFRA will continue itswork to promote the responsible development and safeuse of nanotechnologies by prioritising research intothose nanomaterials which pose a higher potential riskto the environment, in particular those which are currentlyavailable or close to the market. We will also continue tocollaborate in national and global initiatives to developtools to detect nanomaterials in the environment andassess their effects.


Poultry: Animal Welfare

Mr Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policyis on implementing the EU prohibition onconventional battery cages for laying hens in January2012. [1457]

Mr Paice: The welfare of laying hens is protected inEngland by the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England)Regulations 2007 and by similar legislation in NorthernIreland, Scotland and Wales. The legislation implementsEU Directive 99/74/EC, which among other welfareadvances bans the use of conventional cages for layinghens from 2012.

The Government remain committed to the conventionalcage ban coming into force on 1 January 2012 and tosupporting industry during this transitional stage. Wewant to ensure that those UK producers who havealready made significant investment to comply with thelegislation, by converting out of conventional cages, arenot disadvantaged if other countries do not meet the2012 deadline.

Dan Rogerson: To ask the Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs when the ban onbeak-trimming of laying hens will come into force.

[2674]

Mr Paice [holding answer 16 June 2010]: TheGovernment have accepted the advice of The FarmAnimal Welfare Council, an independent advisory body,that a complete ban on beak trimming of laying hensshould not be introduced from 1 January 2011 (as iscurrently in legislation), but should be deferred until itcan be demonstrated reliably under commercial conditionsthat laying hens can be managed without routine beaktrimming.

The Government’s consultation on the proposedamendments to the Mutilations (Permitted Procedures)(England) Regulations 2007, to remove the total ban onbeak trimming allowing for the routine beak trimmingof day old chicks intended for laying to be carried outusing the infra-red technique only, closed on 14 April.Consultation responses are currently being considered.

Jim Fitzpatrick: To ask the Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs when she plansto decide on whether to ban beak-trimming for layinghens. [2765]

Mr Paice: The Government have accepted the adviceof The Farm Animal Welfare Council, an independentadvisory body, that a complete ban on beak trimmingof laying hens should not be introduced from 1 January2011 (as is currently in legislation), but should be deferreduntil it can be demonstrated reliably under commercialconditions that laying hens can be managed withoutroutine beak trimming.

The Government’s consultation on the proposedamendments to the Mutilations (Permitted Procedures)(England) Regulations 2007, to remove the total ban onbeak trimming allowing for the routine beak trimmingof day old chicks intended for laying to be carried outusing the infra-red technique only, closed on 14 April.Consultation responses are currently being considered.

River Lymington: Ferries

Mr Swayne: To ask the Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessmentshe has made of (a) the most recent estimate ofadverse effects on the Lymington River Ramsar site byferry operators and (b) the UK’s compliance with theEU Habitats Directive. [976]

Richard Benyon: Responsibility for assessing the impactof the “W”class ferries rests with the competent authority,in this case Wightlink. In undertaking this assessmentthe competent authority is required by the Conservationof Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 to have regardto the advice of Natural England. DEFRA has noformal role in the assessment process.

Natural England’s most recent formal advice to DEFRAwas that, in its view, no measurable harm or damagethat would constitute an adverse effect on the integrityof the site had occurred since the “W” class ferryoperation started on 25 February 2009 and, moreover,that any impacts arising from the operation of theseferries up to the spring of 2011, when works needed tomitigate the impact of the ferries are planned to start,would be insignificant and not likely to result in anymeasurable harm or damage.

I understand that Natural England remain of theview that provided Wightlink commences delivery ofthe mitigation measures by the spring of 2011, noadverse impact on the site from the operation of thenew ferries will have occurred.

Mr Swayne: To ask the Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she willappoint a competent authority for the purposes of theimpact assessments and environmental assessments tobe initiated by Wightlink on the Lymington River;

[977]

(2) what account she has taken of recent High Courtrulings in the determination of a competent authorityfor projects in the Lymington River; and if she willmake a statement. [2214]

Richard Benyon: Wightlink is regarded as a competentauthority in relation to the operation of the ferriesbecause it falls within the definition of such an authorityin regulation 7 of the Conservation of Habitats andSpecies Regulations 2010 (which came into force on 1April). There are no provisions in these regulations thatenable Wightlink to be replaced as the competent authority.

I am not aware of any court rulings that suggest thatthese regulations should be amended to provide a powerfor the Secretary of State to determine who should beregarded as a competent authority in a particular case.

Water: EU Law

George Hollingbery: To ask the Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps herDepartment is taking to (a) ensure compliance withthe EU Water Framework Directive and (b) to protectfreshwater resources. [2984]

Richard Benyon: The EU Water Framework Directive(WFD), which was transposed in 2003, raised the barand introduced more challenging objectives for our


aquatic environment. It takes a more holistic approachto managing our waters, looking at the water within thewider ecosystem and taking into account the movementof water through the hydrological cycle.

The WFD contains two key objectives: to aim toachieve good status in all water bodies by 2015 and toensure no water body deteriorates below its currentclassification. Where it is not possible to achieve goodstatus by 2015, the WFD provides two further planningcycles (2015-21 and 2021-27) to achieve that objective,although this is subject to strict criteria.

In order to achieve the objectives we are required toput in place River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs)which we achieved by the deadline within the WFD.

The first RBMPs were developed in consultationwith interested organisations and individuals and werepublished on 22 December 2009. The plans set out howwe will work towards meeting the WFD objectives andinclude over 8,500 investigations to be completed by theend of 2012. This will provide the evidence we requirefor further action within the first cycle and subsequentcycles to protect our freshwater resources.

The actions contained within the first plans will seemore than 9,000 miles of rivers in England and Walesimproved.

The Environment Agency protects freshwater resourcesby preventing deterioration from their current WaterFramework Directive classifications. The Agency plansfor and delivers sustainable licensed abstraction of waterfor economic and social needs and issues effectiveenvironmental permits to protect water bodies thatreceive discharges. The Agency also identifies andimplements actions to improve the water environmentincluding redressing the impacts of existing abstractionlicences that damage the environment.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

Anguilla

Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State forForeign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to theanswer of 8 June 2010, Official Report, column 96W,on Anguilla, what decision has been reached in thework which has been undertaken with the governmentof Anguilla on the amount that government mayborrow in each of the next three years. [2511]

Mr Bellingham: I refer the hon. member to the answerI gave him on 8 June 2010, Official Report, column 96W.No new agreement on Anguilla’s borrowing over thenext three years has yet been reached.

British Overseas Territories: Equality

Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State forForeign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to theanswer of 8 June 2010, Official Report, column 98W,on British Overseas Territories: equality, whether allnew Overseas Territories constitutions will includeexplicit provision for freedom from discrimination onthe grounds of sexuality. [2292]

Mr Bellingham: In any future constitutional reviewnegotiations, the Government will continue to encouragethe Overseas Territories to include, specifically, sexualorientation as a ground upon which discrimination isprohibited.

Where the Government have agreed a new constitutionsince 1999 a Bill of Rights is included in the Territory’sconstitution reflecting at a minimum the rights andfreedoms set out in the European Convention on HumanRights and the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights, which prohibits discrimination on groundsof sexual orientation.

Climate Change: International Cooperation

Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State forForeign and Commonwealth Affairs what publicdiplomacy work on climate change is being undertakenby his Department; and if he will make a statement.

[2338]

Mr Bellingham: Our network of embassies and HighCommissions are active in promoting publicly the benefitsto Britain and the world of a transition to a low carbonhigh growth global economy.

They are involved in encouraging inward and outwardtrade and political visits and are working with NGOsand the media throughout the world to encourage thegrowing consensus amongst wider civil society thataction on climate change should be taken.

High profile examples include the creation of a mapshowing the potential consequences of dangerous climatechange and a four degree rise in global temperaturewhich was released in seven languages globally.

Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State forForeign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps hisDepartment is taking to promote a low carbon, highgrowth global economy; and if he will make astatement. [2339]

Mr Bellingham: Our network of embassies and HighCommissions are actively engaged in setting out theurgency with which dangerous climate change shouldbe tackled and the benefits to Britain and the world of atransition to a low carbon high growth global economy.

This includes working with business leaders in theUK and worldwide including via the World EconomicForum to make the case for action and highlight theopportunities for green economic growth, and supportingthe case for active use of carbon capture and storagetechnology globally.

We also work with vulnerable and developing countriesto help raise their voice in support of an ambitiousglobal climate change deal which would underpin a lowcarbon economic transition worldwide.


Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreignand Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on theuse by Ministers in his Department of cars allocatedfrom (a) his Department’s pool and (b) theGovernment car pool which are manufactured in theUK; whether Ministers in his Department are entitledto request the use of a car manufactured in the UK;and if he will make a statement. [2416]


Mr Bellingham: FCO Services, a Trading Fund of theForeign and Commonwealth Office operates a smallpool of vehicles and security cleared drivers used mainlyfor transportation of diplomatic bags and other classifiedmaterial.

No Ministers currently use this pool of vehicles.Ministerial use of such cars would be governed by the

relevant guidelines set out in the ministerial code andwould be based strictly on operational need. The makeand model of car used and its country of manufacturewould be dependent upon availability within the pool.

In relation to the use of vehicles from the Governmentcar pool, I refer the hon. Member to my hon. Friend theMinister of State for Transport’s (Mike Penning) answerof 14 June 2010, Official Report, column 291W.

Departmental Official Hospitality

Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State forForeign and Commonwealth Affairs what receptionshave been hosted by his Department since he came tooffice; and what the cost was of each. [1730]

Mr Bellingham: Government Hospitality has arrangedone reception for the Foreign and Commonwealth Officesince the new Government were appointed. The DiplomaticReception in honour of the Official Birthday of HerMajesty the Queen is traditionally held in early June,hosted by the Secretary of State, for members of theLondon Diplomatic Corps and key departmental contacts.This year the reception took place on 8 June, at a cost ofapproximately £22,968, compared with a cost of £28,000in 2009. Any expenditure on business hospitality is keptunder rigorous scrutiny to ensure value for money andeffectiveness and that it is incurred in accordance withHM Treasury guidelines.

No central records are held of other receptions hostedacross the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or atmissions overseas, and to provide it would incurdisproportionate cost.

Government Hospitality: Wines

Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State forForeign and Commonwealth Affairs how many bottlesof wine in the Government wine cellar were personalgifts from a serving French President to a servingPrime Minister; and what the estimated monetaryvalue is of each. [2297]

Mr Bellingham: Government Hospitality currentlyholds 15 bottles of wine that were given as gifts toformer Prime Ministers by the President of the FrenchRepublic or the French Prime Minister. GovernmentHospitality does not record the value of gifts receivedby the Prime Minister’s Office. The wines will be usedon appropriate occasions in the future.

Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreignand Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in theLibrary a copy of the entries in the Government winecellar database. [2307]

Mr Bellingham: The Government Hospitality (GH)wine database is an electronic management tool used byGH to record the use of stock in the Government wine

cellar. It also records details of usage, pricing, chargingprices, market values and comments by the GovernmentHospitality Advisory Committee for the Purchase ofWine on individual products. The database is not releasedinto the public domain because of the likely impact onGH’s commercial interests and those of its suppliersand future ability to obtain value for money.

Iran: Human Rights

Mrs Ellman: To ask the Secretary of State forForeign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will supportproposals to establish a human rights monitoringmechanism in relation to Iran, with particular referenceto people of the Ba’hai faith; and if he will make astatement. [2976]

Alistair Burt: The Human Rights situation in Iran isdeplorable and has deteriorated markedly since thedisputed election result in June 2009. We are also deeplyconcerned by the situation of the Baha’i in Iran, includingthe trial of the seven Baha’i leaders. We continue toconsider with international partners the most effectivemeans of holding the Iranian authorities to account ontheir human rights record. This includes calling forvisits by the UN special rapporteurs and seeking earlyimplementation of the recommendations of Iran’s UniversalPeriodic Review agreed in June.

Iran: Sanctions

Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreignand Commonwealth Affairs what steps at the UnitedNations he (a) has taken since his appointment and(b) plans to take in the next six months in response toallegations of (i) arming and (ii) funding by Iran ofHamas; and if he will make a statement. [2916]

Alistair Burt: Iranian support in the form of armingand funding of Hamas, and other Palestinian RejectionistGroups, is unacceptable. It undermines internationalconfidence in the Iranian regime’s intentions, and is atodds with the regime’s claim to the international communitythat it supports stability in the Middle East.

Hamas continue to pursue an ideology of violenceand directly undermine prospects for peace in the region.We call on them to take immediate and concrete stepstowards the Quartet principles.

A number of issues related to the Middle East arediscussed on a monthly basis at the UN. The UK willcontinue to push for the full implementation of UNSecurity Council Resolution 1860 which aims to preventthe illicit trafficking of arms into Gaza. We will continuegiving our full support to the UN Sanctions Committeein pursuing and investigating sanctions violations.

Mr Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State forForeign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessmenthe has made of the effectiveness of sanctions againstIran by the United Nations Security Council. [2993]

Alistair Burt: We assess that sanctions so far haveslowed down Iran’s progress on the nuclear programme,including by increasing the difficulty of procurement ofsensitive items that could be used in the nuclear programme.The latest sanctions resolution makes the choice betweenthe benefits of re-engaging on the nuclear portfolio and


the cost of ignoring international opinion starker, andwill strengthen the voices of those in Iran who recognisethe bleakness of Iran’s future if it does not change itspolicy.

Mexico: Oil

Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State forForeign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discusswith the Government of Mexico plans to amend lawsgoverning drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. [1382]

Mr Jeremy Browne: My right hon. Friend the ForeignSecretary has no current plans to discuss with theMexican Government the amendment of laws governingdrilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.

Our embassy in Mexico City has been in contact withthe Mexican Government regarding possible future jointprojects with Mexico’s state-owned petroleum companyPEMEX in the Gulf of Mexico. The embassy willcontinue to liaise with the Mexican Government onthose plans and to identify possible opportunities forUK companies.

Overseas Students: Scholarships

Mrs Hodgson: To ask the Secretary of State forForeign and Commonwealth Affairs which Britishembassies operate a bursary scheme for foreignstudents to study in the UK. [2265]

Mr Jeremy Browne: The Foreign and CommonwealthOffice offers Chevening scholarships to most countriesexcept the EU and the US; Marshall scholarships to theUS; and Chevening fellowships globally, including theEU and the US. In 2009-10 Chevening scholarshipswere offered through 112 British embassies or highcommissions and through the governor’s offices in threeOverseas Territories.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

British Constitution

Mr Bain: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whetherhe plans to bring forward proposals for the adoption ofa written constitution for the United Kingdom. [2164]

Mr Harper: The British constitution is not, as it is inmany countries, codified in a single document, althoughmuch of it is already written. It is made up of a complexweb of statutes, conventions, and a corpus of commonand other law. It is also informed by an interweaving ofhistory and more modern democratic principles. Thereare no current plans to bring forward proposals for theadoption of a codified constitution for the UnitedKingdom.

Cabinet Committees: Nuclear Weapons

Mr Watson: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whenhe next expects the Cabinet Committee on NuclearDeterrence and Security to meet. [236]

Mr Letwin: I have been asked to reply.

The National Security Council has agreed the formationof a sub-committee to consider issues relating to nucleardeterrence and security. The date of the first meetinghas not yet been finalised, but it is anticipated it willtake place shortly.

Departmental Pay

Tom Brake: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister howmuch was paid in bonuses to civil servants in hisDepartment in (a) 2008-09 and (b) 2009-10. [2183]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Memberto the answer given by the Minister for the CabinetOffice on 15 June 2010, Official Report, column 416W.

Parliamentary Privilege

Mr Bain: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what thescope will be of his proposed review of the law onparliamentary privilege; and if he will make astatement. [2169]

Mr Harper: The Queen’s Speech outlined theGovernment’s intention to publish a draft Bill on reformingparliamentary privilege. The draft Bill will set out reformsto the law on parliamentary privilege to clarify itsextent and application.

Royal Prerogative

Mr Bain: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whetherhe plans to review the operation of the executiveprerogative powers of the Crown. [2170]

Mr Harper: There are no current plans to review theexecutive prerogative powers of the Crown.

Voting Rights: Prisoners

Rachel Reeves: To ask the Deputy Prime Ministerwhat plans he has to introduce rights to vote atelections for prisoners. [2772]

Mr Harper: The Government are considering afreshthe best way forward on the issue of prisoner votingrights.

CABINET OFFICE

Departmental Information Officers

Mr Watson: To ask the Minister for the CabinetOffice what budget has been established for theproposed Coalition Press Office. [595]

Mr Maude: The Cabinet Office Board and Ministersare reviewing budgets in line with Government priorities.

Departmental Internet

Mr Watson: To ask the Minister for the CabinetOffice what the URL is of each website managed by(a) his Department and (b) each non-departmentalpublic body and agency for which his Department isresponsible. [2361]


Mr Maude: The information is as follows:List of URLs for the websites managed by:

(a) Cabinet Officewww.cabinetoffice.gov.ukwww.civilservice.gov.ukwww.data.gov.ukwww.number10.gov.ukwww.hmg.gov.ukwww.fundingcentral.org.ukwww.commonsleader.gov.ukwww.leaderofthelords.gov.ukwww.lordswhips.org.uk

(b) Non-departmental public bodies and agencies forwhich Cabinet Office is responsible

http://acoba.independent.gov.uk/http://lordsappointments.independent.gov.ukwww.civilserviceappealboard.gov.ukwww.public-standards.gov.ukwww.thecompact.org.ukwww.iraqinquiry.org.ukwww.capacitybuilders.org.ukwww.improvingsupport.org.ukwww.civilservicecommissioners.orgwww.publicappointmentscommissioner.org

It is our aim to reduce radically the number ofwebsites.

Departmental Press: Subscriptions

Mr Watson: To ask the Minister for the CabinetOffice pursuant to the answer of 3 June 2010, OfficialReport, column 52W, on purchasing of PR Week, forhow many staff members Chartered Institute of PublicRelations membership fees are paid by his Department;and if he will make a statement. [1945]

Mr Maude: I refer the hon. Member to the answergiven on 3 June 2010, Official Report, column 52W.

Departmental Security

Mr Watson: To ask the Minister for the CabinetOffice what steps are taken to protect the security ofthe (a) mobile telephone, (b) personal digital assistantand (c) computer equipment issued to staff in No. 10Downing Street. [2593]

Mr Maude: There is a range of technical, proceduraland people-related measures put in place to protect thesecurity of mobile telephone, personal digital assistantand computer equipment issued to staff in No. 10Downing Street in line with Government security policyand standards.

Departmental Travel

Mr Watson: To ask the Minister for the CabinetOffice pursuant to the answer of 3 June 2010, OfficialReport, column 50W, on departmental travel, if he willpublish the disaggregated figures which are available;and when he expects the budget profiling exercise to becompleted. [1944]

Mr Maude: The budget profiling exercise will becompleted after the Cabinet Office Board and Ministershave reviewed the options for revised budgets, in linewith the new priorities for the Government.

Electoral Register: Greater Manchester

Andrew Gwynne: To ask the Minister for the CabinetOffice what estimate has been made of the number ofpeople eligible to vote not registered to vote in (a) theCounty of Greater Manchester, (b) the MetropolitanBorough of Stockport and (c) the MetropolitanBorough of Tameside. [2313]

Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within theresponsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I haveasked the authority to reply.

Letter from Stephen Penneck, dated June 2010:As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I

have been asked to reply to your question asking what estimatehas been made of the number of people eligible to vote notregistered to vote in (a) the County of Greater Manchester, (b)the Metropolitan Borough of Stockport and (c) the MetropolitanBorough of Tameside. (2313)

ONS does not have the data required to answer your question.Data are collected on the number of UK citizens resident in localauthorities who are registered to vote, but no data are collected onthe number of people who are eligible to vote but who choose notto register.

The ONS population estimates are of the resident populationand will include some people who are not eligible to vote.

Foreign Workers: EU Nationals

Mr MacShane: To ask the Minister for the CabinetOffice how many EU nationals working in the UK (a)entered and (b) left the country in each month sinceMay 2004. [1888]


Letter from Stephen Penneck, dated June 2010:As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I

have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questionconcerning how many EU nationals working in the UK (a)entered and (b) left the country in each month since May 2004.(1888)

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) publishes annualestimates of migrants entering and leaving the UK. The attachedtable provides estimates of migration by KU citizens, where themain reason is for work related reasons, for each year since 2004.These estimates are based on the International Passenger Survey(IPS). The IPS is a sample survey and cannot provide monthlyestimates of migration.

Please note that the migration estimates provided only coverthose visiting or leaving the UK for periods of twelve months ormore. They will therefore exclude those entering or leaving theUK for less than twelve months. Also note that not all thosetravelling for work related reasons will find work in the UK.Similarly, those who travel for other purposes may subsequentlywork.

These estimates are of numbers of moves each year rather thannumbers of people. For instance, an individual could enter in oneyear, leave just over a year later and then enter again a year afterthat. They would appear three times in this table.


Long-Term International Migration, estimates from International Passenger Survey: annual data, 2004-08Citizenship by main reason for migration (work related reasons only)

United Kingdom (thousand)All work related1 Definite job1 Looking for work1

Year Citizenship Estimate % Estimate % Estimate %

Inflow

2004 British 37 11 15 19 22 13Other EU25 65 14 51 16 14 29

2005 British 48 13 23 21 25 15Other EU25 86 12 62 14 24 22

2006 British 31 14 16 18 15 21Other EU25 83 12 55 15 28 20

2007 British 32 12 14 19 18 17Other EU27 125 11 93 13 32 19

2008 British 42 12 23 17 18 17Other EU27 99 11 70 13 29 19

Outflow

2004 British 63 9 40 11 22 16Other EU25 17 19 8 28 9 27

2005 British 71 9 52 10 20 15Other EU25 21 21 13 28 7 30

2006 British 81 9 57 11 24 14Other EU25 25 21 9 28 16 28

2007 British 74 8 53 10 21 17Other EU27 35 16 14 22 21 23

2008 British 90 10 72 13 19 12Other EU27 53 16 26 17 27 27

Notes:1. Migration between the UK and the Republic of Ireland is included in IPS estimates for 2008 but excluded for previous years.2. Conditional formatting has been applied to the standard error percentages. A migration figure with a standard error of >25% is not consideredto be reliable and is in italics.standard error% = —————— x 100estimate

Ministers: Codes of Practice

Mr Watson: To ask the Minister for the CabinetOffice pursuant to the answer of 3 June 2010, OfficialReport, column 51W, on Ministers: codes of practice,how many Ministers have (a) returned and (b) notreturned letters to his Department confirming that (i)they have read the code of conduct and (ii) that theirpersonal circumstances are not such that they breachthe code. [1947]

Mr Maude: As usual, a list of Ministers’ relevantinterests will be published. This will be done in duecourse.

Non-departmental Public Bodies

Mr Watson: To ask the Minister for the CabinetOffice pursuant to the answer of 3 June 2010, OfficialReport, column 52W, on non-departmental publicbodies, if he will publish the names and addresses of allnon-departmental public bodies and agencies in asingle location. [2267]

Mr Maude: I refer the hon. Member to the answer Igave on 14 June 2010, Official Report, column 332W.

Office for National Statistics: Publications

Mr Watson: To ask the Minister for the CabinetOffice if he will make it his policy to ensure that allnational statistics are published in a machine-readableopen format. [1934]


Letter from Jil Matheson, dated 11 June 2010:As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your

question asking if the Minister for the Cabinet Office will make ithis policy to ensure that all National Statistics are published in amachine readable open format.

Current policy on the release of National Statistics, as outlinedin the Code of Practice for Official Statistics, states that statisticsshould be disseminated in a form that enables and encouragesanalysis and re-use. Also, that datasets and reference databasesshould be released in formats that are convenient to users.

Recently, the Office for National Statistics opened up accessfor web developers to over two billion data items right down tolocal neighbourhood level, incorporating data from across theGovernment Statistical Service.

The official statistics Publication Hub provides a single pointof access to all published National Statistics and, in support ofthe drive to improve public accessibility to data, we continue towork closely with the Cabinet Office to feed National and Official


Statistics directly to data.gov.uk via the Publication Hub. Indeed,a significant proportion of entries on data.gov.uk are OfficialStatistics.

We are continuing to invest in improving the accessibility ofofficial statistics and consider this an important part of theofficial statistics agenda.

Public Sector: Manpower

Mr Redwood: To ask the Minister for the CabinetOffice how many employees there are in the UK publicsector. [2128]


Letter from Stephen Penneck, dated June 2010:As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, 1

have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questionconcerning, how many employees there are in the UK publicsector. (2128)

Estimates of employment for the UK public sector are publishedon a quarterly basis by the Office for National Statistics. Thelatest date for which information is available is March 2010.

The number of UK public sector employees as at March 2010was 6.090 million.

Wales

Jonathan Edwards: To ask the Minister for theCabinet Office with reference to the Chancellor of theExchequer’s announcement of 24 May 2010 andpursuant to the answer of 7 June 2010, Official Report,column 69W, on public expenditure: Wales, which ofhis Department’s non-devolved public expendituresavings will be incurred in Wales; and what estimate hehas made of the likely financial savings. [2966]

Mr Maude: The information requested is not availablecentrally and therefore is available only at disproportionatecost. The Cabinet Office’s share of the public expendituresavings has been recorded in the HM Treasury COINSdatabase.

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Air Conditioning

Gordon Banks: To ask the Secretary of State forCommunities and Local Government what proportionof air conditioning systems operating at over 250kilowatts had been inspected for energy efficiency by 4January 2009; and what proportion of such systemsoperating at over 12 kilowatts had been inspected onthe most recent date for which figures are available.

[2610]

Andrew Stunell: The information is not currentlyavailable. Air conditioning inspections are not currentlylodged onto the England and Wales non-domestic energyperformance register on a mandatory basis.

Gordon Banks: To ask the Secretary of State forCommunities and Local Government what assessmenthe has made of the adequacy of arrangements for localauthority trading standards officers to monitor theinspection of the energy efficiency of air conditioningsystems. [2611]

Andrew Stunell: This Department has calculated thatan additional 171 trading standards officers would beneeded across England and Wales to enforce compliancewith all energy efficiency regulations including the inspectionof air conditioning systems. Additional funds wereallocated to local authorities to recognise the new dutiesimposed by the Energy Performance of Buildings(Certificates and Inspections) (England and Wales)Regulations 2007.

Gordon Banks: To ask the Secretary of State forCommunities and Local Government what estimate hehas made of the average cost to businesses ofcompliance with the arrangements for inspecting theenergy efficiency of air conditioning systems. [2612]

Andrew Stunell: This Department has estimated thatthe average cost of air conditioning system inspectionsover a five year period would be about £600 for complexsystems and about £75-£100 for packaged units.

Gordon Banks: To ask the Secretary of State forCommunities and Local Government what estimate hehas made of the likely reduction in emissions from theuse of air conditioning systems arising from fullcompliance with regulations for their inspection. [2613]

Andrew Stunell: The Regulatory Impact Assessmentof Energy Performance of Buildings Directive Articles7-10, The Energy Performance of Buildings (Certificatesand Inspections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007estimated that there would be savings of approximately930,000 metric tonnes of carbon during the period from2008-20.

Fire Services

Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of Statefor Communities and Local Government whether heplans to continue with the FireControl project; whatassessment he has made of the effects of the project on(a) the quality of service offered by control rooms and(b) the staffing levels of control centres in (i) Englandand (ii) the West Midlands. [2773]

Robert Neill: The previous Government’s FiReControlproject has been subject to delays and increasing costs.

We are looking closely at this project to establishwhat we can do to improve the situation. We are committedto ensuring value-for-money for the taxpayer, improvingresilience and stopping the forced regionalisation of thefire service.

We will carefully consider the implications of anydecisions before announcing the next steps.

Responsibility for providing an effective call handlingand mobilisation service remains the responsibility oflocal fire and rescue authorities, including ensuringadequate staffing levels.

Housing: Regeneration

Gordon Birtwistle: To ask the Secretary of State forCommunities and Local Government what the cost tothe public purse has been of the Housing MarketRenewal Pathfinder programme in each year since2008. [2926]


Andrew Stunell: Totals for 2007-08 to 2009-10 aregiven in the following table:

HMR funding (£ million)

2007-08 4052008-09 3812009-10 346

The Housing Market Renewal Programme was includedin the £6.2 billion of savings from Government spendingin 2010-11 announced on 24 May. The budget for2010-11 announced in December 2009 has been reducedby £50 million. The mechanism by which this reductionis achieved will be subject to consultation and individualallocations for 2010-11 will be confirmed after theemergency Budget is completed on June 22.

Land Use: Agriculture

Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State forCommunities and Local Government if he will issuerevised planning guidance to prevent the developmentof the best and most versatile farmland in all butexceptional circumstances. [2493]

Robert Neill: The Government will publish and presentto Parliament a simple and consolidated national planningpolicy framework setting out our national economic,environmental and social priorities. An announcementon how we propose to take forward the national frameworkand the implications for specific areas of planningpolicy will be made in due course.

The protection of a valuable national resource suchas good quality farmland is clearly an appropriate topicto include in the national framework.

Local Authority Business Growth Incentives Scheme

Chris Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State forCommunities and Local Government what plans hehas to replace the Local Authority Business GrowthInitiative. [2965]

Robert Neill: The Government have confirmed that itwill provide incentives for local authorities to deliversustainable development, including for businesses. Weare considering how we will take this forward.

Local Development Frameworks

Laura Sandys: To ask the Secretary of State forCommunities and Local Government if he willundertake a review of local development frameworksin light of the ending of regional spatial strategies.

[2664]

Robert Neill: The Secretary of State has alreadysignalled the Government’s intention to revoke the regionalspatial strategies and he has written to all local planningauthorities and the Planning Inspectorate to remindthem that this emerging policy is a material considerationin dealing with applications and appeals. We will beproviding more details on our proposals and the implicationof the abolition of regional spatial strategies, for localdevelopment frameworks soon but it is our intentionthat local authorities should be able to revise their localdevelopment framework to reflect this change.

The coalition agreement also included a commitmentto radically reform the planning system and giveneighbourhoods far more ability to determine the shapethe places in which their inhabitants live. In the light ofthis we will review some elements of the local developmentframework system itself to ensure it reflects our policyon decentralisation and a simpler planning system.

Local Government Finance

Chris Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State forCommunities and Local Government what assessmenthe has made of the future of the local area agreementprocess following changes he announced to RewardGrant Funding; and if he will make a statement. [2964]

Robert Neill: We are committed to a radical devolutionof power and financial autonomy to local governmentand community groups. The future of local area agreementswill be considered in this context and we will makefurther announcements in due course.

Local Government Finance: Barnsley

Angela Smith: To ask the Secretary of State forCommunities and Local Government what estimate hehas made of the likely change to his Department’scapital investment allocation for Barnsley in (a) percentageand (b) cash terms in 2010-11; and if he will make astatement. [2974]

Robert Neill: The announcement on 24 May set outthe immediate savings of over £6 billion that needed tobe made as down-payment on the public deficit. Wecontinue to review the position on all budgets and anyfurther decisions on funding for 2010-11 will be taken atthe Emergency Budget on 22 June. A full review ofcapital projects will be undertaken once the final fundingposition for 2010-11 is clear.

Angela Smith: To ask the Secretary of State forCommunities and Local Government what estimate hehas made of the likely change to his Department’saggregate external finance allocation for Barnsley in(a) percentage and (b) cash terms in 2010-11; and ifhe will make a statement. [2975]

Robert Neill: I refer the hon. Member to the writtenministerial statement which my right hon. Friend theSecretary of State laid in the House on 10 June 2010,Official Report, columns 15-17 WS.

Local Government: Manpower

Andrew Gwynne: To ask the Secretary of State forCommunities and Local Government what his most recentassessment is of the effect on staffing levels of (a)Tameside metropolitan borough council and (b) Stockportmetropolitan borough council of the implementation ofthe local government savings programme. [2850]

Robert Neill: We have asked local authorities to makea contribution of £1.166 billion to the £6.2 billion ofcross Government savings in 2010-11 to enable theGovernment to take immediate action to start to tacklethe fiscal deficit. Local government are free to maketheir own decisions about where savings are found. Wehave ensured that councils have the flexibility to takedecisions locally on how to deliver the savings neededwithout impacting on essential frontline services.


Mayors

Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State forCommunities and Local Government when he expectsto announce the 12 English cities which he is topropose should have an elected mayor. [2861]

Robert Neill: I refer the hon. Member to the answer Igave her on 10 June 2010, Official Report, column239W.

Non-domestic Rates: Empty Property

Grahame M. Morris: To ask the Secretary of Statefor Communities and Local Government whether heplans to retain the £18,000 rateable value below whichempty property rates are not payable; and if he willmake a statement. [3151]

Robert Neill: We will keep this matter under review.

Planning

Joan Walley: To ask the Secretary of State forCommunities and Local Government whether theGovernment plan to implement the draft PlanningPolicy Statement on (a) Planning for a Healthy andNatural Environment and (b) Planning for a LowCarbon Future. [2659]

Robert Neill: The Government will publish and presentto Parliament a simple and consolidated national planningpolicy framework setting out our national economic,environmental and social priorities. An announcementon how we propose to take forward the national frameworkand the implications for specific areas of planningpolicy will be made in due course.

Social Rented Housing: Finance

Jonathan Reynolds: To ask the Secretary of State forCommunities and Local Government pursuant to theanswer of 10 June 2010, Official Report, column 454,on affordable housing, whether the £170 million offunding announced by the Government for socialrented housing is in addition to funding agreed by theprevious administration. [2930]

Andrew Stunell: Given the unprecedented size of thebudget deficit we have had to identify savings acrossGovernment. We have identified £6.2 billion of savingsthis year as announced on 24 May. As part of thisTreasury identified some £500 million by recycling efficiencysavings, and have used £170 million of this to safeguarddelivery of social rented homes.

The previous Government made commitments thatwere not fully and securely funded. This includes a total£780 million towards housing priorities including towardsthe Housing Pledge. In order to address this, andemphasising Government’s commitment to housingprovision, Government made £170 million available tosafeguard delivery of around 4,000 otherwise unfundedsocial rented homes to start on site this year, protecting3,500 jobs and prioritising provision for the most vulnerable.

The HCA will not enter into any new or furthercommitments against its uncommitted budgets until theposition is clarified at the Budget on 22 June. We areworking with colleagues in HMT to secure the necessaryfunding at Budget and the HCA will continue withcommitted programmes as usual.

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS

Accidents: EU Law

Siobhain McDonagh: To ask the Secretary of Statefor Business, Innovation and Skills what progress hasbeen made in complying with the European Unionrequirement under Article 18 section 2b of Regulation(EC) No. 765/2008 of the European Parliament and ofthe Council, with regard to reporting of injurystatistics; and if he will make a statement. [2699]

Mr Prisk: Discussions have been taking place in theEuropean Commission’s advisory group (the SeniorOfficials Group on Standardisation’s ad hoc MarketSurveillance Group) involving BIS officials, the Commissionand other Member States with a view to developing aconsistent approach towards implementation of thearticle 18(2b) provision. They have highlighted the needfor the Commission to take the lead in developing aEurope-wide consensus on the correct understandingand application of the provision. We understand thatthe services of the Commission are sympathetic to thisapproach and would like to take it forward possibly viaa multi-annual programme for market surveillance.

This Department will play a full part in helping toestablish a consensus and in doing so will take accountof other developments taking place in the United Kingdomand across the European Union on the collection ofinjury statistics.

Advantage West Midlands

Christopher Pincher: To ask the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills how many people areemployed by Advantage West Midlands; how manypeople compose the non-executive Board of AdvantageWest Midlands; and what the total cost to the publicpurse of payments to (a) employees and (b) Boardmembers is to date. [2852]

Mr Prisk: The following tables show:(a) Number of and cost of employees

Number/£

Number of employees headcount(full-time equivalent (322))

346

Cost (£) 18,358,000

Staff numbers are as at the snapshot reference date 31March 2010 and cost is for the financial year 2009-10.Costs for payroll employees are defined as pay bill i.e.salary, ERNICs and pension; and

(b) Number of and cost of board membersNumber/£

Number of board members(including chair)

15

Cost (£) 231,412

Board member costs are from the 2008-09 financialyear and include chair pension costs and board travelexpenses. Board members now receive a remunerationof £8,666 per annum for minimum of two days permonth with no pension entitlement.

The chair receives a remuneration of £81,718 perannum for three days a month and receives a pension.

Under the RDA Act 1998 an RDA board must have15 members with the majority being business positions.


Apprentices

Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills (1) how many people in(a) Wigan constituency, (b) the North West regionand (c) England started an apprenticeship in each ofthe last five years; [1648]

(2) how many people in (a) Wigan constituency, (b)the North West region and (c) England started anadvanced apprenticeship in each of the last five years;

[1649]

(3) how many people in (a) Wigan constituency, (b)the North West region and (c) England started a higherapprenticeship in each of the last five years. [1650]

Mr Hayes: Table 1 shows the number of Apprenticeship(Level 2) Programme Starts, table 2 shows the numberof Advanced Apprenticeship (Level 3) Programme Startsand table 3 shows the number of Higher LevelApprenticeship (Level 4) Programme Starts in WiganParliamentary Constituency, the North West GovernmentOffice Region and England for years 2004-05 to 2008-09,the most recent year for which full year data is available.

Table 1: Apprenticeship (Level 2) Programme Starts by Geographyfor 2004-05 and 2008-09

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

WiganParliamentaryConstituency

260 250 290 380 300

North West 23,600 20,400 21,700 23,800 23,600England 135,100 122,800 127,400 151,800 158,500

Table 2: Advanced Apprenticeship (Level 3) Programme Starts byGeography for 2004-05 and 2008-092004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09


140 120 130 170 160

North West 9,700 9,200 10,500 11,700 12,900England 53,900 52,100 56,900 72,900 81,300

Table 3: Higher Level Apprenticeship (Level 4) Programme Starts byGeography for 2004-05 and 2008-092004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09


— — — — —

North West — — — — —England — — — 100 200Notes1. Figures for Wigan Parliamentary Constituency are rounded to thenearest ten. All other figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.2. Figures are based upon home postcode of the learner.3.’—‘ Indicates a base value of less than five for ParliamentaryConstituency and less than fifty for Government Office Region andEngland.4. The England figure contains a small amount of counts where thepostcode of the learner is outside England and also learners where thepostcode is not known.Source:Individualised Learner Record

Information on the number of Apprenticeship startsby Parliamentary Constituency, Local Authority,Government Office Region and for England is publishedin a quarterly statistical first release (SFR). The latestSFR was published on 24 March, and revised on 22 April:

http://www.thedataservice.org.uk/statistics/sfrmar10

Robert Halfon: To ask the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills how many of theapprenticeship places announced since May 2010 are tobe allocated to each region; and if he will make astatement. [3286]

Mr Hayes: Our announcement on 24 May that, ofthe £6.2 billion savings for 2010-11, a total of £150million will be recycled to support capacity for 50,000extra apprenticeship places demonstrates our commitmentto high-quality skills.

The Skills Funding Agency operates a national systemto fund post 19 further education and training, thereare no regional allocations. The expectation is thatcolleges and training organisations will look to makeavailable additional apprenticeship places where there islocal demand.

Arts: North East

Grahame M. Morris: To ask the Secretary of Statefor Business, Innovation and Skills what his policy is onthe provision of support to the creative sector in theNorth East. [2272]

Mr Prisk: The creative industries are an importantcontributor to the UK economy. It is essential to ensurethat we create the right conditions for the creativeindustries to be able to innovate and grow.

Better Regulation Executive: Internet

Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills how many ideas forbetter regulation have been submitted to hisDepartment through the Better Regulation Executiveweb pages since 7 May 2010. [2806]

Mr Prisk: Since 7 May 2010, 13 suggestions havebeen received through the Better Regulation Executive’ssuggestions tool, which is now located on the BusinessLink website (as at 15 June 2010).

Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills how many unique visitshave been made to the Better Regulation Executive webpages since 7 May 2010. [2807]

Mr Prisk: Since 7 May 2010, there have been 31,830individual sessions on the Better Regulation Executive’sweb pages, now part of the Business Link website (as at15 June 2010).

A ‘session’ is defined as a series of clicks on the site byan individual visitor during a specific period of time. Asession is initiated when the visitor arrives at the site,and it ends when the browser is closed or there is aperiod of inactivity.

Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills how much it cost hisDepartment to maintain the Better RegulationExecutive web pages in the latest period for whichfigures are available. [2808]

Mr Prisk: The Better Regulation Executive’s webpages are now incorporated into the Business Linkwebsite.


Hosting for the Better Regulation Executive’s webpages (including the impact assessment library and thesuggestions tool) currently costs £6,220 per year (April2010 to April 2011).

Broadband

Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills what definition of theterm super fast broadband he uses. [2831]

Mr Vaizey: Super fast broadband means broadbandof sufficient speed and quality to deliver the servicesthat will lead to Britain having the best broadbandnetwork in Europe. The technology used to deliver thiscould be fixed or wireless but will represent a significantupgrade on today’s fixed and wireless networks.

Broadband: Rural Areas

Andrew Percy: To ask the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills what plans he has toexpand the provision of broadband in rural areas.

[1470]

Mr Vaizey: As stated in the coalition’s joint programmefor Government, we will seek to introduce superfastbroadband in remote areas at the same time as in morepopulated areas. On 8 June, the Secretary of State forCulture, the Olympics, Media and Sport set out theGovernment’s plans for ensuring the UK has the bestsuperfast broadband network in Europe by the end ofthe Parliament. These plans include enabling access toexisting infrastructure to reduce the cost of deployment.Further, the Secretary of State proposed three markettesting projects schemes for superfast broadband inrural areas. The Secretary of State’s full speech can beread at:

http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/ministers_speeches/7132.aspx

As a first step towards this ambition, the Governmentare also committed to making a service level of 2Mbpsavailable in towns and villages still without a basic levelof access. The office charged with delivering this universalservice commitment, Broadband Delivery UK, will beholding an industry event in July to provide furtherinformation on the approach to meeting the 2Mbpsservice commitment and the market testing schemes.

Conditions of Employment

Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills which section of hisDepartment is responsible for policy on (a) Royal Mailand (b) the review of employment law. [2857]

Mr Davey: Officials within the Shareholder Executiveare responsible for the Government’s shareholder interestsin Royal Mail, and officials within the InformationEconomy Directorate are responsible for the regulatoryframework for UK postal services.

Officials within the Department’s Employment RelationsDirectorate and the Better Regulation Executive willconsider the detail of the approach to reviewing employmentlaws, alongside other colleagues from other GovernmentDepartments.

Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for Business,Innovation and Skills what representations he has receivedon his Department’s review of employment law to date.

[2858]

Mr Davey: My right hon. Friend the Secretary ofState and other BIS Ministers have had several meetingswith business and employee representatives to discuss arange of issues, including employment law.

Copyright: Art Works

Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills when he plans toextend the artist’s resale right to the estates of deceasedartists. [2113]

Mr Davey: The Artist’s Resale Right (Amendment)Regulations 2009 delayed until 1 January 2012 theapplication of the Artist’s Resale Right Regulations2006 to the estates of deceased artists in the UK.

Resale right will be payable on sales of works bydeceased artists in accordance with the requirements ofthe 2006 regulations where the contract date for the saleis on or after 1 January 2012.

Debt Relief Orders

Dr Thérèse Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills if he will review theeligibility criteria for the establishment of a debt relieforder for the purposes of removing the criterionrelating to funds held in a pension fund which are notaccessible prior to retirement. [2903]

Mr Davey: A consultation issued in March, which isavailable on The Insolvency Service’s website, invitedviews on this issue. Debt Relief Orders are aimed at themost vulnerable, and the consultation asked whetherthose with a pension fund should be eligible for thisform of debt relief. I will consider this issue in the lightof responses to the consultation.

Departmental Mobile Phones

Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Business,Innovation and Skills which Ministers in his Departmenthave been issued with (a) a Blackberry, (b) an iPhone,(c) another make of mobile telephone and (d) a personaldigital assistant supplied by the Department. [1419]

Mr Davey: The Department has issued the followingMinisters with Blackberrys:

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business,Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Universities andScience (Mr Willetts)

My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Business, Enterprise,Deregulation and Better Regulation (Mr Prisk)

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Statefor Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs (Mr Davey)

My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Statefor Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)

My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Skills andLifelong Learning (Mr Hayes) has been issued with amobile phone.

The Department does not issue iPhones or personaldigital assistants.


Higher Education

Mr Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills which universities eachMinister in his Department has visited since theirappointment. [1896]

Mr Willetts: My right hon. Friend the Secretary ofState for Business, Innovation and Skills has visited theuniversity of Glasgow.

I have visited the university of Birmingham andOxford Brookes university.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Businessand Enterprise has visited Coventry university.

Manufacturing Industries: Government Assistance

Jonathan Reynolds: To ask the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills what steps he plans totake to support the manufacturing sector. [2869]

Mr Prisk: The Government fully recognise theimportance of manufacturing, and its role in achievinga balanced economy. Working with business we want tocreate a supportive environment for growth that willencourage innovation, exports and business investment.In particular we will consider the implementation of theDyson Review and how this can help make the UK theleading high-tech exporter in Europe. We will decide onthe best framework for manufacturing policy shortly,recognising that we are living in a world of financialconstraint.

Northwest Regional Development Agency: Wigan

Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills pursuant to his answerof 10 June 2010, Official Report, columns 234-36W, onthe North West Regional Development Agency:Wigan, which of the projects have been allocatedfunding on (a) an ongoing and (b) a single grant basis.

[2814]

Mr Prisk: All of the grants outlined in my earlieranswer are single, time limited grant agreements, someof which may be spread over several financial years.The exception is funding to the Coalfields RegenerationProgramme (Bickershaw Colliery Estate managementcosts) which forms part of the ongoing costs associatedwith the project.

Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills to which projects in theWigan local authority area the North West RegionalDevelopment Agency is considering allocating fundingin financial year 2010-11. [2855]

Mr Prisk: For 2010-11 the following project hasreceived concept agreement but has not yet been fullyappraised or approved:

Parsonage Colliery Phase.

For 2010-11 the following pre-pipeline projects areunder consideration by NWDA. No corporate decisionhas been made, and there is no confirmation whetherthese will proceed further:

Project Nice;

Wigan On Side Centre, Mesnes Park;Turnpike Centre, Leigh; and365-E Land Martland Park, Wigan.

Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills which projects in theWigan local authority area have been allocated fundingby the North West Regional Development Agency infinancial year 2010-11. [2856]

Mr Prisk: The information is as follows:

Project name LA districtForecast spend

2010-11 (£)

Wigan: Martland Park Wigan 40,000Wigan: Bickershaw Colliery, offPlank Lane, Leigh

Wigan 6,768,502

Wigan: Sandyforth Farm Phase2 restoration

Wigan 62,810

Wigan-Leigh Sports Village Wigan 14,684Computonics Ltd (SFI) Wigan 362,160Chemviron Carbon Limited Wigan 30,000Octagon Communications Ltd Wigan 16,000Martin Yaffe International Ltd Wigan 174,572Leigh Town Centre Masterplan Wigan 50,000Bradford Pharma Ltd 2nd App Wigan 46,052Value Works Ltd Wigan 182,850Nutrisport Ltd Wigan 168,900Business Start Up (Phase II)—Wigan

Wigan 9,175

XpertRule Software Ltd Wigan 65,962Flavours & Essences Ltd Wigan 90,000Optima Interiors Ltd Wigan 39,683atg UV Technology Limited 2 Wigan 58,074

Post Offices

Stephen Gilbert: To ask the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills how many post officebranches have become Post Office Essentials branchesin the last 12 months. [2828]

Mr Davey: Post Office Ltd’s Essential model is a pilotformat that incorporates a range of Post Office servicesinto an existing retailer’s offer. Post Office Ltd is currentlyoperating 48 Post Office Essential pilots.

Stephen Gilbert: To ask the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills what criteria are usedin determining whether to change post office branchesinto Post Office Essentials branches. [2829]

Mr Davey: I have asked David Smith, the managingdirector of Post Office Ltd, to respond directly to myhon. Friend and a copy of his reply will be placed in theHouse Libraries.

Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills if he will extend theNetwork Subsidy Scheme beyond 2011. [3284]

Mr Davey: The Government fully recognise the importantsocial and economic role of post offices in the communitiesthey serve. The Government are committed to making asocial network payment to support the network in2011-12, subject to state aid clearance from the European


Commission. The Government are working with PostOffice Ltd on funding requirements for the networkbeyond 2012.

Post Offices: Bank Services

Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills what his policy is onestablishing a Postbank. [3285]

Mr Davey: We have been clear in “The Coalition: ourprogramme for government” that we will ensure thatPost Offices are allowed to offer a wide range of servicesin order to sustain the network, and will look at the casefor developing new sources of revenue, such as thecreation of a Post Office Bank.

Regional Development Agencies

Rachel Reeves: To ask the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills (1) what savings hisDepartment requires (a) Yorkshire Forward and (b)each other regional development agency to make in thenext three financial years; [2822]

(2) what guidance he has given to regional developmentagencies on the areas in which they should considermaking budgetary savings; [2823]

(3) what (a) process and (b) timetable has beenestablished for regional development agencies to submitproposals for implementing budgetary savings; [2824]

(4) whether Ministers are required to approve individualproposals for budgetary savings proposed by regionaldevelopment agencies; [2825]

(5) what priority each regional development agencyhas given to expenditure on (a) research and development,(b) manufacturing and (c) support for redundancies intheir proposals for implementing budgetary savings;

[2809]

(6) what plans each regional development agency hasto publish its plans for implementing budgetarysavings. [2810]

Mr Prisk: No final decisions have been made on theallocation of the £270 million budget savings betweenthe regional development agencies. We will be writing toRDAs about the allocation shortly. We will then workwith the RDA network to minimise the impact onpriority programmes. Stakeholders and delivery partnersinvolved in affected programmes and projects will bekept fully informed as specific decisions are made.

UK Trade and Investment: Finance

Mr Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State forBusiness, Innovation and Skills what fundingallocation his Department made to UK Trade andInvestment for (a) 2009-10 and (b) 2010-11; and whatallocation it plans to make for 2011-12. [2990]

Mr Prisk: UKTI is a non-ministerial GovernmentDepartment, funded from the Department for BusinessInnovation and Skills (BIS), the Foreign andCommonwealth Office (FCO) and with its own Vote.FCO resources primarily funds people based overseas,

BIS resource funds UK based people and UKTI’s ownresource pays for grants and third party delivery ofservices to business.

BIS funding for 2009-10 was: £44.2 million. Theoriginal budget allocation for 2010-11 is £42.9 million.However, the final budget for 2010-11 may be reviseddownwards as a result of the Government’s recentlyannounced Departmental savings. Budget allocationsfor 2011-12 will be set as part of the Spending Reviewprocess, which is anticipated to conclude in autumn2010.

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE


Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Energyand Climate Change what the URL is of each websitemanaged by (a) his Department and (b) eachnon-departmental public body for which hisDepartment is responsible. [2366]

Gregory Barker: Websites managed by the Departmentof Energy and Climate Change are as follows:

Website address

DECC corporate site www.decc.gov.ukCHP Focus http://chp.decc.gov.uk/cmsOil and Gas Portal www.og.decc.gov.ukEnergy Infrastructure Portal https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/EIP/

pages/help.htmNational Policy Statementsconsultation

https://www.energynpsconsultation.decc.gov.uk/

Managing Radioactive WasteSafely

http://mrws.decc.gov.uk/

Planning Renewables www.planningrenewables.org.ukPILOT www.pilottaskforce.co.ukUK Renewables Service www.ukrenewables.comAVOID: advice on avoidingdangerous climate change

www.avoid.uk.net

Electricity Networks StrategyGroup

www.ensg.gov.uk

RIMNET www.rimnet.gov.ukEnergie Helpline www.Energiehelpline.co.ukACTONCO2 http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk/

actonco2/home.htmlCORWM www.corwm.org.ukHFCAAT www.Hfccat-demo.org

Websites managed by the DECC NDPBs and agenciesare as follows:

Website address

Nuclear DecommissioningAuthority

www.nda.gov.uk

The Coal Authority www.coal.gov.ukThe Carbon Trust www.carbontrust.co.ukOf gem www.ofgem.gov.ukEnergy Saving Trust www.est.org.ukCommittee on Climate Change www.theccc.org.ukCivil Nuclear Police Authority www.cnpa.police.uk/Committee on RadioactiveWaste Management

www.corwm.org.uk

Energy Technology Scheme www.eca.gov.uk/etl



Andrew Miller: To ask the Secretary of State forEnergy and Climate Change pursuant to the answer of8 June 2010, Official Report, column 137W, onGovernment Departments: reviews, what reviews hisDepartment is undertaking; and what the (a) purposeand (b) timescale of each is. [2587]

Gregory Barker: I refer the hon. Member to theanswer given by the Leader of the House of Commonson 8 June 2010, Official Report, column 32WS.

The Department will bring forward detailed informationabout reviews in due course.

Nuclear Power: Finance

Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State forEnergy and Climate Change how much the UK paid incontributions to the (a) International Atomic EnergyAgency and (b) Euratom Supply Agency in the last 10years. [2344]

Charles Hendry: The UK has paid a total of 116.95million euros and US$ 84.42 million to the InternationalAtomic Agency over the past 10 years. The UK doesnot make any direct contribution to the Euratom SupplyAgency.

Trade Unions

Mr Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State forEnergy and Climate Change what plans he has toconsult trade unions in his Department on costreduction plans. [604]

Gregory Barker: The Recognition Agreement (September2009) between the Department of Energy and ClimateChange and the recognised trade unions, the Public andCommercial Services Union, Prospect, and the FirstDivision Association, clearly sets out the agreed processesfor consultation.

The formal DECC Consultative Council meetingsare held twice annually, normally in September andFebruary. DECC Consultative Council has also appointedsub-committees to discuss particular issues which maynot be appropriate to the main HQ Consultative Council.

Additionally, the DECC senior management teammeets frequently and less formally with the trades unionsthrough the year to address any emerging issues as theyarise.

WOMEN AND EQUALITIESRape: Defendants Anonymity

7. Luciana Berger: To ask the Minister for Womenand Equalities what discussions she has had withministerial colleagues on the implications for women ofproposals to extend anonymity to defendants in rapecases. [2706]

10. Caroline Flint: To ask the Minister for Womenand Equalities what assessment her Department hasmade of the implications for women of proposals toextend anonymity to defendants in rape cases. [2709]

Lynne Featherstone: The Prime Minister and DeputyPrime Minister have, with the whole House, made clearthe desire to increase the number of successful rapeprosecutions and send more rapists to jail, as well asprovide the best possible support to victims of thisappalling crime. The Government regard rape as a veryserious crime which should be prosecuted in all caseswhere sufficient evidence exists.

We will bring proposals to Parliament when all theoptions have been carefully considered. Our considerationof the options will include an equality impact assessment.

Asylum

8. Simon Kirby: To ask the Minister for Women andEqualities what recent representations she has receivedon the granting of asylum to lesbian, gay, bisexual andtransgender persons under threat of legal sanction intheir country of origin. [2707]

Lynne Featherstone: The Government have receivedrepresentations on this issue in the context of the recenthearings at the Supreme Court. The Home Secretaryhas also met with Ben Summerskill from Stonewall andreceived a copy of their recent report, “No GoingBack” about the experiences of lesbian and gay peoplein the asylum system.

We will stop the deportation of asylum seekers whohave had to leave particular countries because of theirsexual orientation or gender identification puts them atproven risk of imprisonment, torture or execution.

Equal Pay Act

9. Caroline Lucas: To ask the Minister for Womenand Equalities if she will bring forward proposals tomark the 40th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act 1970;and if she will make a statement. [2708]

Lynne Featherstone: Last month I made my firstspeech as a Minister for Equalities at an excellent eventorganised by the Fawcett Society and others to markthe 40th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act.

As the Queen’s Speech made clear, we are committedto promoting equal pay for women. We are currentlyconsidering options, and we will make an announcementin due course. We agree that progress on equal pay isneeded, and we made clear in the Queen’s Speech thatwe will work to promote equal pay for women, as wellas remove barriers to flexible working. We are currentlyconsidering our next steps, and we will make anannouncement in due course.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSIONFood: Procurement

Dan Rogerson: To ask the hon. Member forMiddlesbrough, representing the House of CommonsCommission what steps the House of CommonsCommission is taking to set high standards of animalwelfare for the in-house procurement of food. [2927]

Sir Stuart Bell: The House of Commons Cateringand Retail Services recognises its responsibility to carryout its procurement activities in an environmentally andsocially responsible manner and operates a Sustainable


Procurement Policy, which covers all key componentsof the purchasing operation including animal welfare.The policy seeks to work within the guidelines set outby the Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative, andin doing so endeavours to contribute to the Government’sSustainable Farming and Food Strategy. A copy of thepolicy will be placed in the Library.

Former Members: ICT

Andrew Stephenson: To ask the hon. Member forMiddlesbrough, representing the House of CommonsCommission what guidance was issued to hon. Membersin the last Parliament who have not been returned to theHouse on the retention and disposal of ICT equipmentpurchased with funds from their allowances as hon.Members; and if he will make a statement. [2919]

Sir Stuart Bell: Guidance entitled ‘DissolutionArrangements’ was issued to all Members of the previousParliament. The full document can be viewed at:

http://intranet.parliament.uk/Documents/intranet/assets/dissolution-arrangements.pdf

Paragraphs 2.4 to 2.6 relate to the retention anddisposal of ICT equipment purchased with funds fromallowances as hon. Members.

TREASURY

Annuities

Mr Swayne: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequerwhat proposals he has to reform the requirement topurchase annuities at the age of 75 years; and if he willmake a statement. [1141]

Mr Hoban: The Government are committed to removingthe requirement to purchase a pension annuity by age 75.Further details, including information on when theGovernment intend to implement these proposals, willfollow in due course.

Banks: Pay

Gordon Banks: To ask the Chancellor of theExchequer (1) whether he plans to restrict access tobonus payments in excess of £30,000 per annum foremployees of banks in receipt of public funding; [2527]

(2) whether he plans to reduce bonus payments to(a) employees, (b) directors, (c) chief executives and(d) chairmen of banks in receipt of public funding.

[2528]

Mr Hoban: The banks in which the Government is ashareholder are managed at arm’s length and on acommercial basis by UK Financial Investments Ltd(UKFI).

UKFI will continue to work with Government investeebanks to ensure that incentives are properly linked tolong-term value creation.

Business: Thanet

Laura Sandys: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequerhow many businesses (a) were registered, (b) werenewly registered and (c) ceased to be registered forvalue added tax in South Thanet in each year since1997. [2669]

Mr Gauke: Between 1997 and 2008, the number ofbusinesses registered for VAT at the start of the year, thenumber of businesses registering for VAT and the numberof businesses deregistering for VAT in Thanet South areshown in the following table.

Registrations De-registrationsStart of year

stock

1997 195 165 1,7751998 175 150 1,8051999 170 150 1,8302000 195 150 1,8502001 150 165 1,8952002 200 150 1,8802003 235 170 1,9352004 225 165 2,0002005 200 185 2,0602006 220 175 2,0702007 210 145 2,1152008 — — 2,175

These figures came from the report ’Business Start-upsand Closures: VAT Registrations and De-registrations’,published by The Department for Businesses Enterpriseand Regulatory Reform in November 2008. This reporthas now been discontinued. An extended series coveringthe last two years could be produced only atdisproportionate costs.

Departmental Translation Services

Ian Austin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequerwhat (a) documents and (b) other information forwhich (i) his Department and (ii) its associated publicbodies are responsible are published or provided in theUK in languages other than English; for what reasoneach such publication is required to be made availablein a language or languages other than English; andwhat estimate he has made of the cost to the publicpurse of the translation work so incurred in the latestperiod for which figures are available. [1775]

Justine Greening: The documents translated for peoplein the UK who do not speak English, and where availableestimated costs, are as follows:HM Treasury

HM Treasury translates documents into other languageson a case-by-case basis as requests are received.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer set out inAugust 2008, Official Report, column 737W. Since thenthe following documents have been translated:

Press Notice 108_08 translated into Welsh in November 2008at a cost of £95.00.

Chapter 1 of pre-Budget report 2008 translated into Welsh inDecember 2008 at a cost of £764.74.

The executive summary of the document ‘Reforming FinancialMarkets’ translated into German in August 2009 at a cost of£253.09HMRC

HM Revenue and Customs conforms to the legalrequirement to provide Welsh language services inaccordance with the Welsh Language Act 1993 andHMRC’s own Welsh Language Scheme. Documentsand information that have been translated into languagesother than English are:

All of the most frequently used publications are translated intoWelsh.


Marketing campaigns involving the Welsh language media aretranslated into Welsh.

Direct marketing products are translated into Welsh wherethere is a Welsh language notifier on the customer record.

A selection of regional press ads for Contact Centre Directorateabout the change in opening times of the Enquiry Centres weretranslated into Welsh. The additional cost of translation andtypesetting is absorbed by our Welsh Language Unit. Communicationsand Marketing incurred no cost for the translation.

Child Trust Fund fact sheets have been translated in Arabic,Bengali, Chinese, Gujarati, Tamil, Urdu and Polish.

The information on estimated costs could be obtainedonly at disproportionate cost.NSI

NS&I translates all of its (1) brochures into Welsh tostock at Welsh Post Offices, (2) after sales communicationsinto Welsh upon request and (3) has a Welsh Languageportal which is an abridged version of the Englishwebsite on the NS&I website to meet it commitmentsunder the Welsh Language Act. NS&I does not providetranslation into any other language. The cost to NS&Iof producing such translations in the latest period forwhich figures are available are:

2009-10: £8,505.97

VOAIn line with its commitment to the Welsh Language

Act, the VOA publishes a range of leaflets and forms inbilingual English/Welsh format. These are used withcouncil taxpayers and business ratepayers. The informationon estimated costs could be obtained only atdisproportionate cost.DMO

Nil response.GAD

Nil response.Royal Mint

There are occasional requirements to translatecorrespondence for non-UK customers but the costsincurred are modest and are usually tied to commercialcontracts which earn revenue for the Royal Mint.

This was the arrangement under previousAdministrations and has not changed.

National Assembly for Wales: Finance

Jonathan Edwards: To ask the Chancellor of theExchequer if he will publish details of the calculationsthat underpin the consequential changes to the fundingof the National Assembly for Wales as announced on24 May 2010, with particular reference to (a) the

population ratios and (b) compatibility factors employed;and if he will make a statement. [2770]

Danny Alexander: The consequentials of the £6.2 billioncuts announced on 24 May 2010 were calculated throughthe Barnett formula in the usual way. The consequentialcut for the Welsh Assembly Government was subsequentlyreduced by £1.4 million following confirmation of a cutto the Olympics budget, which is UK-wide and thereforenot comparable for the purposes of the Barnett formula.Details of the operation of the Barnett formula were setout in the Statement of Funding Policy published bythe Treasury in October 2007.

VAT: Construction

Gordon Banks: To ask the Chancellor of theExchequer whether he plans to reduce the level of valueadded tax on building repair and maintenance work.

[2533]

Mr Gauke: All taxes are kept under review and anychanges are announced by the Chancellor as part of theBudget process.

HOME DEPARTMENT

Alcoholic Drinks: Crime

Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department how many (a) premises and (b)independent retailers (i) nationally, (ii) in the EastMidlands and (iii) in Leicester have been fined for thesale of alcohol to persons under the age of 18 years ineach of the last five years. [2573]

Andrew Gwynne: To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department how many (a) premises and (b)independent retailers in (i) Tameside and (ii) Stockportwere fined for the sale of alcohol to persons under theage of 18 years in each of the last five years. [2849]

James Brokenshire: Data on the total number of finesissued by the courts and the average fine amount for“selling alcohol to persons under 18” broken down bycriminal justice area within England and Wales, foreach year between 2004-08 is provided in the followingtable. Data held on the court proceedings databasecannot be broken down by individual area and it is notpossible to separately identify those fines given to premisesor independent retailers.

Number of fines imposed for selling alcohol to a person under 181, by criminal justice area2 2004-08

Criminal justice area 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Avon and Somerset 0 9 5 0 5

Bedfordshire 5 9 22 1 0

Cambridgeshire 1 7 18 10 8

Cheshire 14 0 6 5 7

Cleveland 7 10 6 11 6

Cumbria 0 3 1 1 3

Derbyshire 13 5 6 7 15

Devon and Cornwall 4 3 4 0 0

Dorset 2 7 0 0 3

Durham 2 0 0 0 6


Number of fines imposed for selling alcohol to a person under 181, by criminal justice area2 2004-08Criminal justice area 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Dyfed-Powys 6 1 13 3 3Essex 0 7 10 12 2Gloucestershire 1 4 8 2 7Greater Manchester 116 73 98 25 27Gwent 11 12 11 8 7Hampshire 6 7 0 4 4Hertfordshire 5 1 35 20 2Humberside 4 1 2 3 0Kent 10 9 2 1 6Lancashire 10 60 17 20 22Leicestershire 4 14 28 47 8Lincolnshire 2 0 1 2 5Merseyside 9 8 12 17 17Metropolitan police 126 198 176 120 59Norfolk 3 0 0 2 1North Wales 4 10 4 7 7North Yorkshire 12 0 11 9 1Northamptonshire 0 6 10 3 4Northumbria 32 53 17 4 9Nottinghamshire 0 9 23 3 4South Wales 23 39 54 23 17

South Yorkshire 0 7 9 2 4

Staffordshire 2 10 14 15 11

Suffolk 0 3 2 0 1

Surrey 8 9 15 2 6

Sussex 1 0 16 10 4

Thames Valley 9 5 12 11 1

Warwickshire 25 6 1 1 0

West Mercia 3 13 5 4 2

West Midlands 36 54 42 43 30

West Yorkshire 17 7 6 6 1

Wiltshire 1 6 4 4 1

Total England and Wales 534 685 726 468 3261 Licensing Act 2003 S.146 and 147, Licensing (Occasional Permissions Act 1983 Schedule (Sec 3) para 4 (1), Licensing Act 1964 S.181A(1) asadded by Licensing Act 1988 S.17 Licensing Act 2003 S.147 as added by Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.2 In this table sentences at the Crown court are categorised according to the police force that prosecuted the offence which is not necessarily thearea of the sentencing court.Notes:1. Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates court for April, July, and August 2008.2. The answer given here relates to the total number of fines imposed for the offences listed above it is not possible to separately identify thosefines given to premises or independent retailers as this information is not recorded on the Courts Proceedings database.Source:Justice Statistics—Analytical Services, Ministry of Justice Ref: SENT(JSAS)169-l0 14/06/2010

Average fine amount imposed for selling alcohol to a person under 181, by criminal justice area2 2004-08£


Avon and Somerset * 186.7 * * *Bedfordshire * 386.1 370.5 * *Cambridgeshire * 308.6 307.2 158.0 675.0Cheshire 209.6 * 296.7 * 1,050.0Cleveland 171.4 184.5 225.0 295.5 1,005.0Cumbria * * * * *Derbyshire 217.7 * 300.0 422.9 483.0Devon and Cornwall * * * * *Dorset * 205.7 * * *Durham * * * * 328.3Dyfed-Powys 248.3 * 441.5 * *Essex * 278.6 622.5 550.0 *Gloucestershire * * 308.8 * 447.1Greater Manchester 228.7 227.7 259.2 366.0 335.7Gwent 181.8 222.5 313.6 209.4 250.0Hampshire 290.0 257.1 * * *Hertfordshire * * 235.0 370.3 *


Average fine amount imposed for selling alcohol to a person under 181, by criminal justice area2 2004-08£


Humberside * * * * *Kent 336.0 363.3 * * 633.3Lancashire 160.5 200.8 269.4 264.5 152.5Leicestershire * 291.1 249.1 306.6 482.5Lincolnshire * * * * *Merseyside 195.0 165.0 161.7 202.1 203.5Metropolitan police 285.9 283.0 314.0 470.7 505.9Norfolk * * * * *North Wales * 238.5 * 312.9 239.3North Yorkshire 185.4 * 150.0 269.4 *Northamptonshire * 316.7 425.0 * *Northumbria 241.6 208.0 520.0 * 337.8Nottinghamshire * 194.4 253.7 * *South Wales 193.9 240.4 318.5 267.4 260.6South Yorkshire * 117.9 155.6 * *Staffordshire * 195.0 154.6 173.3 271.4Suffolk * * * * *Surrey 278.1 316.7 356.7 * 413.3Sussex * * 173.4 322.5 *Thames Valley 218.9 * 290.8 441.8 *Warwickshire 102.0 101.7 * * *West Mercia * 290.8 * * *West Midlands 271.4 203.2 373.9 403.7 304.7West Yorkshire 260.9 260.7 385.0 358.3 *Wiltshire * 288.3 * * ** = Figure suppressed as number too small to give meaningful average.1 Licensing Act 2003 S.146 and 147, Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983 Schedule (Sec 3) para 4(1), Licensing Act 1964 S.181A(1) asadded by Licensing Act 1988 S.17, Licensing Act 2003 S.147 as added by Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.2 In this table sentences at the Crown court are categorised according to the police force that prosecuted the offence which is not necessarily thearea of the sentencing court.Notes:1. Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates court for April, July, and August 2008. 2. The answer given here relates to the total number of finesimposed for the offences listed.Source:Justice Statistics—Analytical Services, Ministry of Justice Ref: SENT(JSAS)169-10 14/06/2010.

Andrew Gwynne: To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department how many charges there were foralcohol-related offences of antisocial behaviour in (a)Tameside and (b) Stockport in the last 12 months; andhow many of these were of those under the age of 18years. [2848]

James Brokenshire: The court proceedings databasedoes not contain information on charging.

Departmental Databases

Mr Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State forthe Home Department how many databases managedby her Department hold information relating to at least100,000 people. [2536]

James Brokenshire [holding answer 15 June 2010]:The core Home Office and its Executive agencies currentlymanage 31 such databases in operational casework areasfor a range of public services, including personal applicationsby members of the public.

As part of the Government’s recently announcedspending review, all Government ICT enabled programmesare being reviewed to consider possible mergers,decommissioning and/or abolition of appropriate databases.

Detention Centres: Children

Richard Harrington: To ask the Secretary of State forthe Home Department how many children were detainedin the course of immigration proceedings in (a) 1997and (b) the most recent year for which figures areavailable. [2879]

Damian Green: The requested information is notavailable. The published statistics on persons detainedas at specific dates in 1997 related to asylum applicantsonly and did not separately identify children.

The latest published statistics show there were 30 peopledetained solely under Immigration Act powers recordedas being less than 18 years of age as at 31 March 2010.In 2009, 1,065 children entered detention solely underImmigration Act powers; this information was publishedfor the first time in 2009.

This information relating to 2010 is available in tables3.5 to 3.8 of the Control of Immigration: QuarterlyStatistical Summary, United Kingdom, January to March2010 and the information relating to 2009 is available intable 9.2 of the Control of Immigration: QuarterlyStatistical Summary, United Kingdom, October toDecember 2009 available in the Library of the Houseand the Home Office’s Research, Development andStatistics website at:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration-asylum-stats.html


I recently announced a review into the detention ofchildren for asylum purposes so it can be brought to anend this summer. We have already ended the overnightdetention of children at Dungavel.

Entry Clearances: Overseas Students

Mr Lammy: To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department how many student visas have beenissued to (a) EU and (b) non-EU students inacademic year 2009-10. [2952]

Damian Green: Under the Immigration (EuropeanEconomic Area) Regulations 2006, EEA nationals andtheir family members have the right of free movementwithin the territory of EEA member states. They maytherefore come to the UK to seek work, take up employmentor study without applying for Leave to Enter. No studentvisas are therefore issued to EEA nationals.

The total number of student visas issued to non-EEAnationals in the Financial Year 2009-10 was 288,010.This figure is based on the Control of Immigration:Quarterly Statistical Summaries which have been publishedon the UK Border Agency’s website,

www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk

Most non-EEA nationals who were issued with visasin 2009 in order to study in the UK in the currentacademic year would have been issued with visas duringthe summer months, and would therefore be included inthe total for the financial year given above.

Identity Cards

Alan Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department what plans she has for the futureallocation of identity cards to foreign nationals. [1079]

Mrs May [holding answer 8 June 2010]: We arecontinuing to use biometric residence cards, in accordancewith EU law.

Alan Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department (1) what estimate she has made ofthe likely level of savings to the public purseconsequent on the cancellation of the identity cardscheme, taking into account the cost of contracttermination, in the next three years; [1080]

(2) what estimate she has made of the savings to bemade consequent on the cancellation of the NationalIdentity Register, taking into account the cost ofcontract termination, in the next three years. [1082]

Mrs May [holding answer 8 June 2010]: It is estimatedthat exchequer savings of approximately £86 millionwill be realised from cancelling ID cards and the NationalIdentity Register over the next four years. Further savingsin the region of £134 million will be realised by haltingthe introduction of fingerprint biometric passports,although these further savings are currently the subjectof commercial negotiation with suppliers to protect thetaxpayer’s interests.

Alan Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department what her most recent estimate is ofher Department’s expenditure on identity cards sincethe inception of the national identity scheme. [1081]

Mrs May [holding answer 8 June 2010]: Between2003 and March 2006, the Home Office spent a total of£41 million developing the policy, legislation and businesscase for the introduction of identity cards.

Responsibility for identity cards was transferred tothe Identity and Passport Service (IPS) on its establishmentin April 2006. Between then and March 2010, IPS spenta total of £251 million on projects to establish identitycards, second biometric passports and other relatedprogrammes.

Meg Hillier: To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department how many identity cards had beenissued to foreign nationals on 31 May 2010. [1244]

Damian Green: No identity cards have been issued toforeign nationals. However as at 31 May 2010, a total of222,490 biometric residence permits had been issued toforeign nationals.

Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department how many people in Wiganconstituency have been issued with an identity card byher Department. [2888]

Andrew Gwynne: To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department, how many people in (a) the UK,(b) the North West and (c) Greater Manchester haveapplied for an ID card. [3279]

Damian Green: The Identity and Passport Service isnot able to provide information relating to particularconstituencies or regions for identity card applications.However, as of 11 June 2010 there have been just fewerthan 15,000 identity cards issued in the United Kingdom.

Illegal Immigrants: Northern Ireland

Sammy Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department how many illegal immigrants havebeen discovered working in Northern Ireland in each ofthe last five years; how many such people have beendeported; and what the average length of time wasbetween discovery and deportation in such cases. [2769]

Damian Green: The numbers of immigration offendersthat have been arrested for working illegally in NorthernIreland in the last five financial years are:

14 in 2005-06;eight in 2006-07;44 in 2007-08;eight in 2008-09;41 in 2009-10; and

two in 2010-11.

These data are normally used for managementinformation only and are not subject to the detailedchecks that apply for National Statistics publications.These data are therefore provisional and may be subjectto change.

The number of people that have been deported andthe average length of time between discovery anddeportation in these cases are not data that are readilyavailable. The information captured is recorded on twoseparate databases and there is no unique identifier thatis shared between the two systems.


Immigration Cases: Appeals

Andrew Percy: To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department, at what proportion of generalimmigration cases the Secretary of State has not beenrepresented at appeal stage in the last 12 months; andwhat steps the UK Border Agency takes to protectchildren in such cases. [1472]

Damian Green: The representation rate at all appealsheard in country The representation rate at all appealsheard in country is currently 69% up to June 2010.

We can identify certain types of appeal case involvingchildren from our database e.g. unaccompanied asylumseeking children. We are not able to identify from thedatabase all types of cases. We aim to represent theSecretary of State at all asylum cases and usually achievebetween 90-95% representation rate.

Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and ImmigrationAct 2009 requires the Home Secretary to makearrangements to have regard to the need to safeguardand promote the welfare of children. To this end statutoryguidance has been issued to UKBA staff on how toapply this duty and training on identifying child welfareand protection issues is provided for staff whose workinvolves decisions that affect children.

UKBA has appointed a Children’s Champion who isresponsible for advising the Chief Executive and UKBABoard on all issues to do with child welfare and childprotection.

Immigration Controls

Chris Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department when she expects to decide the levelat which the cap on non-EU economic migrants to theUnited Kingdom will be set. [1674]

Damian Green: We believe that immigration is toohigh and needs to be brought under control. An annuallimit on economic migration from outside the EU ispart of a package to deliver this.

We will hold a short and focused consultation withbusiness and other interested sectors before taking thefinal decision on both the implementation mechanismsfor the limit and the level at which it should be set.

Immigration: Gurkhas

Andrew Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department how many former members of theBrigade of Gurkhas who have chosen to settle in theUK since the change in the immigration rules are aged(a) below 40 years, (b) between 41 and 50 years, (c)between 51 ad 60 years and (d) above 60 years old.

[2650]

Damian Green [holding answer 15 June 2010]: TheUK Border Agency does not routinely analyse managementinformation on the individual ages of former membersof the Brigade of Gurkhas who exercise their right tosettle in the UK. To do so would incur disproportionatecosts as this would involve a manual check.

Language Analysis Testing

Andrew Percy: To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department for what proportion of asylumcases the UK Border Agency had used languageanalysis testing when such testing was suspended on 31March 2010; and what plans she has to reintroducesuch testing. [1471]

Damian Green: Management Information shows thatthe UK Border Agency carried out 2,735 languageanalysis tests on asylum cases between 2 February 2008and 31 March 2010.

Management Information also shows that duringthis period there were 52,531 principal asylum applicationssubmitted. However, it is not possible to say definitelywhat proportion of those cases were subject to languageanalysis testing because some individuals who underwenttesting will have submitted their asylum applicationbefore 2 February 2008.

Please note that Management Information is notprovided under National Statistics protocols and istherefore provisional and subject to change.

The UK Border Agency is undertaking a review oflanguage analysis techniques in order to assess costsand benefits. On conclusion of this review, a decisionwill be made on whether and how to resume the process.

Motoring: Fines

Mrs Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department, how much has been levied in finesfor exceeding the average 50 mph on stretches ofmotorway where a 50 mph limit is in place on the basisof the average speed camera monitoring on (a)Mondays to Fridays when road works were beingundertaken and (b) Saturdays and Sundays when roadworks are not taking place in the latest period forwhich figures are available. [2525]

James Brokenshire: The information requested is notcollected centrally.

Data on fixed penalty notices for speeding as well asdata held by the Ministry of Justice on court issuedspeeding fines do not include information on the individualcircumstances under which the fines were issued.

Passports: Biometrics

Roberta Blackman-Woods: To ask the Secretary ofState for the Home Department what assessment shehas made of the effect on the number of jobs of theGovernment’s policy not to proceed on the next phaseof biometric passports. [2522]

Damian Green [holding answer 6 June 2010]: There iscurrently an ongoing process of restructuring in theIdentity and Passport Service (IPS) to reflect cancellingof identity cards, the decision to halt Second GenerationBiometric Passports and the IPS contribution to budgetsavings. IPS continues to work to finalise revised structures,consult trade union representatives and update andsupport those directly involved. So far we have announcedthat 60 temporary staff at our Durham office have beenreleased three months earlier than expected.


Passports: Databases

Alan Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department (1) what categories of informationcurrently held on the National Identity Register shedoes not plan to hold on the UK Passport Database;

[1379]

(2) what her plans are for the future of the UKPassport Database. [1380]

Mrs May [holding answer 9 June 2010]: The IdentityDocuments Bill presented to Parliament on 26 May2010 confirms the commitment in the Coalition Agreementto scrap ID cards and destroy the National IdentityRegister. The information contained on the NationalIdentity Register which is additional to that held on theUK passport database includes fingerprints, NationalInsurance Number, details from identity card applications,changes to names and address following issue of thedocument, and personal questions and answers allowingsuch changes to be made securely to an individual’sentry on the National Identity Register. The 2006 Actprovided for up to 50 pieces of personal information tobe stored from each person on the National IdentityRegister.

The existing UK passport database will continue tosupport the issuing of passports and to hold the sameinformation as that currently requires.

Passports: EU Countries

Alan Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department if she will bring forward proposalsto provide a cheaper and more compact alternative tothe British passport for travel within the EU. [1909]

Mrs May [holding answer 14 June 2010]: We currentlyhave no plans to provide an alternative to the Britishpassport for travel within the EU.

Poaching

Andrew Percy: To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department, what plans she has to tacklepoaching; and if she will consider the merits ofestablishing a task force on the issue. [2433]

James Brokenshire: Poaching can have a significanteffect on our rural communities, and on the environmentmore generally. It is an issue that needs to be addressedby police forces at a local level.

A network of Police Wildlife Crime Officers throughoutthe 43 forces in England and Wales provides the backboneto investigating wildlife and environmental crime, includingpoaching.

Poaching is already one of the priorities of the NationalWildlife Crime Unit, which exists to support policeforces and their wildlife crime officers in their effortsagainst wildlife crime. It is funded by the Home Officeand DEFRA, as well as the governments of Scotlandand Northern Ireland, ACPO (the Association of ChiefPolice Officers) and ACPOS (ACPO Scotland).

The National Wildlife Crime Unit’s priorities aretackling badger baiting; CITES (Convention onInternational Trade in Endangered Species of WildFauna and Flora); Bird of prey persecution; Poaching;

protecting nesting bats; and protecting freshwater pearlmussels. The Unit has a police officer dedicated tosupporting the police forces of England and Wales intackling poaching.

There are already strict controls in force on theexport from the UK of endangered animals and plants.These controls are based on EU legislation that implementsthe 1973 Convention on the International Trade inEndangered Species (CITES) and requires all EU memberstates to impose CITES controls both at import andexport. Any illegal CITES protected animals or plantsintercepted at UK ports and airports are liable toseizure by Officers of the UK Border Agency.

Police: Manpower

Alan Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department what estimate she has made of thelikely change to the number of police officer postsfollowing the changes to her Department’s budgetannounced on 24 May 2010. [2432]

Mrs May [holding answer 15 June 2010]: Decisionsabout the number of police officers, police communitysupport officers and other police staff engaged by eachforce are matters for the relevant chief constable andpolice authority.

The Home Office has protected the front line byfinding most of the savings needed from its own budgetsand those of its non-departmental public bodies. As Isaid in my written ministerial statement on 27 May2010, Official Report, columns 12-16WS we are confidentthat the savings which amount to less than 1% ofexpected spending in 2010-11 can be made whilemaintaining a front line policing service. It is for eachchief constable to use their expertise and decide whatmakes most sense for their force, but we are clear thatthe savings can be achieved by driving out wastefulspending on support functions, reducing bureaucracyand increasing efficiency in key functions; leaving thefront line strong and secure.

South Africa: Football

Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department, how many Crown ProsecutionService staff are being funded by her Department toattend the football World Cup final in South Africa;how much has been spent on (a) travel, (b)accommodation and (c) other expenses for staff; and ifshe will make a statement. [2925]

James Brokenshire: A senior Crown Prosecutor, expertin UK football legislation, has been deployed in SouthAfrica, with the English police delegation, for the durationof the England football team’s involvement in thetournament. Their role is to liaise with South Africanauthorities in accordance with an agreement with theSouth African Ministry of Justice. This has becomestandard practice since Euro 2004 when uncertaintyregarding fast track judicial arrangements put in placefor that tournament led to criticism, both in the mediaand courts here, about court verdicts on England fansconvicted of violent disorder. As a result the EuropeanUnion Handbook on International Police Co-operationfor Football Matches recommends that participatingcountries should consider deploying prosecutors in host


countries to assist liaison and clarity. The South Africanauthorities have put in place comparable fast trackcriminal justice arrangements for dealing with foreignoffenders during the 2010 World Cup.

A key role of the Crown Prosecutor in South Africawill be to provide authoritative witness statements regardingthe judicial process and the strength of any evidencepresented against any England fan convicted in a SouthAfrican court. This will assist the police and courts hereto determine whether or not football banning ordersshould be sought against the individuals convicted ontheir return. The Home Office is funding the prosecutor’stravel, accommodation and expense costs. I will write tothe hon. Member once the final costs are known.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

British Overseas Territories: Overseas Aid

Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State forInternational Development how much aid he plans toprovide to each UK Overseas Territory in 2010-11.

[2294]

Mr Andrew Mitchell: The following funding allocationsare those agreed under the previous Government foreach UK Overseas Territory in 2010-11:

£

St Helena 28,580,000Montserrat 23,260,000Pitcairn 3,260,000Tristan da Cunha 450,000Turks and Caicos Islands 750,000Cross Territory 2,700,000Total 59,000,000

As with all Government spending plans, these aresubject to review.


Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State forInternational Development what the URL is of eachwebsite managed by (a) his Department and (b) eachnon-departmental public body and agency for whichhis Department is responsible. [2370]

Mr Andrew Mitchell: We are currently working toconsolidate websites managed by the Department forInternational Development (DFID).

DFID manages one corporate sitewww.dfid.gov.uk

which has three subdomainshttp://blogs.dfid.gov.ukhttp://projects.dfid.gov.uk

andhttp://consultation.dfid.gov.uk

In addition we own research for development (R4D)http://www.research4development.info/

and the website for the Developments magazinehttp://www.developments.org.uk/

both of which are managed under contract and willconverge on the main site in due course.

DFID also has responsibility for the IndependentAdvisory Committee on Development Impact

http://iacdi.independent.gov.uk/

whose future is under review.The Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in the

United Kingdom (CSC)http://www.cscuk.org.uk/

is DFID’s only non-departmental public body (NDPB).


Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State forInternational Development what his policy is on theuse by Ministers in his Department of cars allocatedfrom (a) his Department’s pool and (b) theGovernment car pool which are manufactured in theUK; whether Ministers in his Department are entitledto request the use of a car manufactured in the UK;and if he will make a statement. [2418]

Mr Andrew Mitchell: I refer the hon. Member to theanswer provided by the Parliamentary Under-Secretaryof State for Transport on 14 June 2010, Official Report,column 290W, on departmental official cars.

Developing Countries: Children

Mr Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State forInternational Development whether he plans tocontinue the previous Administration’s work to publishand disseminate a toolkit on inclusive education forchildren with disabilities in developing countries. [2260]

Mr Andrew Mitchell: In “The Coalition: our programmefor government”, the Government committed to

“focus on the rights of women, children and disabled people toaccess services”

in developing countries. We are taking that agendaforward.

We will shortly be issuing a Guidance Note on inclusiveeducation for children with disabilities in developingcountries, developed with practitioners and experts inthis field. This will be disseminated to country offices,development partners and international non-governmentalorganisations and will be available on the DFID website.

Developing Countries: Climate Change

Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State forInternational Development what progress his Departmenthas made on developing guidance with the multilateraldevelopment banks to screen development expenditurefor climate risks; and if he will make a statement. [2341]

Mr Andrew Mitchell: The Department for InternationalDevelopment (DFID) is working closely with themultilateral development banks (MDBs) to ensure theirdevelopment expenditure takes account of the risksposed by climate change. We use our financial resources,policy expertise and position as a shareholder to achievethis. For example, DFID has provided technical assistanceto the MDBs to support research on the risks of climatechange in developing countries, and to help governmentsfactor these into national strategies and programmes.The Government have also been a strong voice in callingfor each MDB to have a climate change strategy, agreed


with their shareholders. We are working to ensure thatthe targets and commitments in these strategies are met,including through regular discussions with MDB staffand at the executive board of the MDBs. We are alsoworking to ensure that projects supported by the MDBscan deliver sustainable development gains in the contextof a changing climate. For example, DFID funds thePilot Programme for Climate Resilience, which aims togenerate lessons to improve MDBs approach to adaptationand sustainable development in poor countries.

Developing Countries: Fossil Fuels

Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State forInternational Development how much his Departmenthas spent on overseas projects for the extraction andtransport of fossil fuels through (a) the World BankGroup, (b) the European Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment, (c) the European Investment Bank and(d) other Government-funded financial institutions inthe last five years. [2340]

Mr Andrew Mitchell: In the past five years, theDepartment for International Development (DFID)has not given earmarked funds to the multilateraldevelopment banks (MDBs) expressly for investmentsin projects for the extraction and transportation offossil fuels.

DFID has provided capital and funding for the MDBswork which have been pooled with resources from othershareholders and donors. The banks have supportedsome fossil fuel extraction and transport projects usingthese common resources and have provided the followinginformation on the value of commitments to such projectsmade in the years 2005-09:

US$ million

World Bank Group1 3,609EBRD 861EIB 94Other2 1,4021 World Bank Group includes International Bank for Reconstructionand Development, International Development Association andInternational Finance Corporation2 Other includes the African, Asian, InterAmerican and CaribbeanDevelopment Bank Groups, CDC and the Private InfrastructureDevelopment Group.

EU Aid

Tony Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State forInternational Development what proportion of hisDepartment’s budget is spent through direct paymentsto the European Union; and what steps he is taking toensure the value for money of such expenditure. [2255]

Mr Andrew Mitchell: In 2008-09 20% of Departmentfor International Development (DFID) expenditure wasspent in direct payments to the European Union (EU).These funds were managed by the European Commission(EC). I have recently set out details of DFID’s review ofall funding of international agencies including the EC.This review will test each organisation to ensure the UKis getting maximum value from its aid money. This willinclude an assessment of the relevance of each body tothe UK’s objectives on poverty reduction and theirability to deliver results on the ground.

Museums and Galleries: Finance

Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State forInternational Development what funding programmesfor galleries and museums in the UK he plans to reducein (a) 2010-11 and (b) 2011-12. [2296]

Mr Andrew Mitchell: The Department for InternationalDevelopment (DFID) has no programmes that providefunding for galleries or museums.

St Helena: Airports

Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State forInternational Development whether he plans toprovide funding for an airport on St Helena. [2293]

Mr Andrew Mitchell: We are currently consideringthe question of access to St Helena. I will inform theHouse of any decision that is made.

TRANSPORT

HGV Charging

13. Nigel Mills: To ask the Secretary of State forTransport what recent assessment he has made of themerits of revising the system for heavy goods vehicleroad user charging. [2722]

Mr Philip Hammond: The Coalition Programme forGovernment, commits us to the introduction of a newsystem of HGV road user charging to ensure thatforeign heavy goods vehicles contribute to the upkeepof UK roads that they use and ensure a more levelplaying field with UK hauliers.

Heathrow Airport

14. Gavin Barwell: To ask the Secretary of State forTransport what recent assessment he has made of themerits of expanding capacity at Heathrow airport; andif he will make a statement. [2723]

Mrs Villiers: We recognise the importance of Heathrowas the country’s international hub airport and a vitalpart of our national transport infrastructure. Our visionfor Heathrow is to make it better, not bigger, and I shallbe pursuing this through the South East airports taskforceannounced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary ofState in his written ministerial statement on 15 June2010, Official Report, column 48WS.

18. Miss Begg: To ask the Secretary of State forTransport if he will make it his policy to ensure thatslots at Heathrow for flights from UK regional airportsare retained. [2727]

Mrs Villiers: We recognise the importance of airservices from UK regional airports and the role theyplay in local economies. However, there are difficultquestions here that need careful consideration sinceairlines face competitive pressure to use their slots forroutes which are the most commercial.


Speed Cameras

15. Richard Harrington: To ask the Secretary of Statefor Transport what his Department’s plans are for thefuture funding of fixed speed cameras; and if he willmake a statement. [2724]

Mike Penning: The Government will not provide anymoney to local authorities to put up new fixed speedcameras. If authorities want to put up new fixed camerasthey are free to do so using their own resources. Westrongly encourage authorities to put resources into themost effective road safety measures.

Traffic Congestion: Glossop and Tintwistle

16. Andrew Bingham: To ask the Secretary of Statefor Transport if he will prioritise funding for a solutionto traffic congestion in Glossop and Tintwistle. [2725]

Norman Baker: In his written ministerial statement tothe House on 10 June 2010, Official Report, column35WS, regarding major schemes the Secretary of Statefor Transport made it clear that the Department willnot be able to identify those major investments that canbe supported until the conclusion of the Government’sspending review in the autumn.

Therefore at this time I am afraid that I cannotprovide any assurances on funding for a solution totraffic congestion in Glossop and Tintwistle.

Tyne and Wear Metro

17. Catherine McKinnell: To ask the Secretary ofState for Transport whether he plans to proceed withthe proposed upgrade of the Tyne and Wear Metro.

[2726]

Norman Baker: The Tyne and Wear Metro upgradehas been re-examined following the announcement bythe Chief Secretary on 17 May to review spendingapproval granted since 1 January this year.

High Speed 2

19. Alec Shelbrooke: To ask the Secretary of State forTransport what plans he has to consult those whoseproperty is affected by the preferred route for HighSpeed 2. [2728]

Mr Philip Hammond: The Government are committedto carrying out a full public consultation before anyfinal decision is taken regarding the route of any newhigh speed line.

Community Railways Initiative: North West

Mr Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State forTransport what plans his Department has for the futureof community rail partnerships in the North West.

[2729]

Mrs Villiers: We recognise the valuable work done bycommunity rail partnerships. We look to train operatorsand communities in the north-west to progress practicaland innovative ideas for supporting local railways, includingimprovements to stations and links to them.

Electric Vehicles

Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State forTransport what recent assessment he has made of themerits of designating electric vehicle charging points asregulated assets. [2329]

Norman Baker: The coalition agreement set out acommitment to mandate a national charging networkfor electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. Achieving thisvia the regulated asset base is one approach. We areconsidering a full range of options, but no decisionshave yet been taken.

Transport: North West

Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State forTransport what applications for grants from (a) Wiganmetropolitan borough council and (b) other localauthorities in the North West region are underconsideration by his Department. [2758]

Norman Baker: In November 2007 Wigan Metropolitanborough council were awarded funding of £400,000 forboth 2009-10 and 2010-11 to carry out bridge strengtheningon their roads. They subsequently requested that thisfunding be increased by £750,000 due to increases in thecost estimates for works on the Atherton Central StationBridge.

Sefton borough council have made an application toincrease the funding awarded to them in February 2009to carry out maintenance on the detrunked A565 andhave sought funding to support maintenance on theA5058 Miller’s Bridge.

The Department for Transport officials’ contacts withboth authorities regarding their requests are continuing.

This Department is considering a claim submitted for£5.3 million by Cumbria county council for fundingtowards the costs of carrying out repairs to damage totheir local highways caused by the flooding in November2009.

All local highway authorities in England have beenadvised of their allocation from the £84 million fundingto assist them to repair their roads damaged by thiswinter’s severe weather. Authorities have been requestedto confirm that they accept the terms and conditions ofthe grant. The confirmation is to be accompanied bysupporting documentation to show that the relevantdelegated authority exist to accept the terms and conditionof the grant.

The Department is not currently considering anyfunding bids for local authority major schemes and willnot be doing so at least until the conclusion of thespending review.

Transport: Worcestershire

Harriett Baldwin: To ask the Secretary of State forTransport whether the amount of funding fortransport provided to Worcestershire county councilwill remain at the planned level of £46 million to 2016;and if he will make a statement. [2768]

Norman Baker: The amount of funding provided toWorcestershire county council by the Department forTransport is subject to the Spending Review. This willconclude in the autumn, and will set spending limits forevery Government department for the period 2011-12to 2014-15.


Wigan

Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State forTransport what grants his Department has allocated toWigan metropolitan borough council in each of thelast five years. [2841]

Norman Baker: Details of grants allocated to Wiganmetropolitan borough council by the Department forTransport for the past five years can be found on theDFT website at:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/localauthorities/funding/fundingstreams/

In addition, a proportion of the £13.5 million cost ofthe Greater Manchester wide Urban Traffic Controlmajor scheme has been spent in Wigan, and the followingcycling training grants have been allocated to Wiganmetropolitan borough council in the past five years:

£

2007-08 14,3432008-09 20,1602009-10 48,0002010-11 60,000

JUSTICE

Coroners: Children

Dan Rogerson: To ask the Secretary of State forJustice (1) how many inquests into child deaths weredelayed due to staff shortages in each coroner’s districtin the last five years; [2982]

(2) what the average time was between the death of achild and a post mortem examination being carried outin the latest period for which figures are available.

[2983]

Mr Djanogly: The Ministry of Justice does not centrallycollect or hold the requested data and could provide itonly at disproportionate cost.


Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justicewhat the URL is of each website managed by (a) hisDepartment and (b) each non-departmental publicbody and agency for which his Department isresponsible. [2371]

Mr Djanogly: The URL of the departmental websitefor the Ministry of Justice is:

www.justice.gov.uk

The following list gives other websites managed byMinistry of Justice and its non-departmental publicbodies and agencies as at June 2010. The Ministry ofJustice is committed to a programme of websiterationalisation in line with the recommendations of theVarney review, and this will result in a reduction in thenumber of these websites. The Ministry aims to have nomore than 20 websites remaining in use by 31 March2011.

URLs of websites managed by the Ministry of Justice andits non-departmental public bodies and agencies—June2010.

www.30yearrulereview.org.ukwww.adjudicationpanel.tribunals.gov.ukwww.administrativeappeals.tribunals.gov.ukwww.adr.civiljusticecouncil.gov.ukwww.ahmlr.gov.ukwww.ajtc.gov.ukwww.appeals-service.gov.ukwww.appsi.gov.ukwww.asylum-support-tribunal.gov.ukwww.belfast-gazette.co.ukwww.carestandardstribunal.gov.ukwww.ccrc.gov.ukwww.charity.tribunals.gov.ukwww.cica.gov.ukwww.cicap.gov.ukwww.civiljusticecouncil.gov.ukwww.cjsonline.gov.ukwww.cjsss.cjsonline.gov.ukwww.claimsregulation.gov.ukwww.cofrestrfatir.gov.ukwww.communitylegaladvice.org.ukwww.consumercreditappeals.tribunals.gov.ukwww.costsdebate.civiljusticecouncil.gov.ukwww.courtfunds.gov.ukwww.dspdprogramme.gov.ukwww.edinburgh-gazette.gov.ukwww.employmentappeals.gov.ukwww.employmenttribunals.gov.ukwww.estateagentappeals.tribunals.gov.ukwww.estudo.co.uk/jsb/www.familyjusticecouncil.org.ukwww.fhsaa.tribunals.gov.ukwww.frontline.cjsonline.gov.ukwww.gamblingappealstribunal.gov.ukwww.gazettes-online.co.ukwww.generalcommissioners.gov.ukwww.grp.gov.ukwww.hmcourts-service.gov.ukwww.hmica.gov.ukwww.hmprisonservice.gov.ukwww.ico.gov.ukwww.imb.gov.ukwww.immigrationservicestribunal.gov.ukwww.independent.gov.uk/azellerodneyinquiry/www.independent.gov.uk/7julyinquests/www.independent.gov.uk/iapdeathsincustody/www.informationtribunal.gov.ukwww.jcpc.gov.ukwww.jsboard.co.ukwww.judicialappointments.gov.ukwww.judicialcomplaints.gov.ukwww.judicialombudsman.gov.ukwww.judiciary.gov.ukwww.juror.cjsonline.gov.ukwww.justice.gov.ukwww.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-prisons/www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-probation/http://justiceawards.cjsonline.gov.ukwww.landregistry.gov.uk


www.landstribunal.gov.ukwww.lawcom.gov.ukwww.lcjb.cjsonline.gov.ukwww.legalaid60.org.ukwww.legalombudsman.org.uk/www.legalservices.gov.ukwww.legalservicesboard.org.ukwww.legalservicesprovidertraining.co.ukwww.legislation.gov.ukwww.london-gazette.gov.ukwww.lsrc.org.uk

www.maps.cjsonline.gov.uk

www.mhrt.org.uk

www.moneyclaim.gov.uk

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

www.officeforlegalcomplaints.org.uk/

www.official-documents.gov.uk

www.olso.org

www.opsi.gov.uk

www.oqps.gov.uk

www.osscsc.gov.uk

www.paroleboard.gov.uk

www.partyfundingreview.gov.uk

www.pensionsappealtribunals.gov.uk

www.possessionclaim.gov.uk

www.ppo.gov.uk

www.privycouncil.org.uk

www.probation.justice.gov.uk

http://procurement.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/

www.publicguardian.gov.uk

www.reserveforcesappeal.tribunals.gov.uk

www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk

www.sendist.gov.uk

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

www.sentencingcouncilmembers.co.uk

www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk

www.siac.tribunals.gov.uk

www.siac.tribunals.gov.uk/poac

www.statutelaw.gov.uk

www.supremecourt.gov.uk

www.transporttribunal.gov.uk

www.tribunals.gov.uk

www.victimscommissioner.org.uk

www.ybtj.cjsonline.gov.uk

www.yjb.gov.uk

Departmental Manpower

Stewart Hosie: To ask the Secretary of State forJustice how many (a) special advisers and (b) pressofficers are employed by his Department; and at whatcivil service pay grade in each such case. [1256]

Mr Kenneth Clarke: I refer the hon. Member to myright hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s written ministerialstatement on 10 June 2010, Official Report, columns32-34WS. As of 10 June 2010 there have been twospecial advisers employed by the Ministry of Justice,one at band 1 and one at band 2.

As of June 2010, there were 40 press officers employedby the Ministry of Justice. Of these 24 were band C,nine were band B, six were band A, and one is SCS.


Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for Justicewhat his policy is on the use by Ministers in his Departmentof cars allocated from (a) his Department’s pool and(b) the Government car pool which are manufacturedin the UK; whether Ministers in his Department areentitled to request the use of a car manufactured in theUK; and if he will make a statement. [2420]

Mr Blunt: I refer the hon. Member to the answergiven by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretaryof State for Transport (Mike Penning) on 14 June 2010,Official Report, columns 290-91W.


Andrew Miller: To ask the Secretary of State forJustice pursuant to the answer of 8 June 2010, OfficialReport, column 137W, on Government Departments:reviews, what reviews his Department is undertaking;and what the (a) purpose and (b) timescale of each is.

[2592]

Mr Kenneth Clarke: As outlined in the coalitionagreement and following the normal practice ofGovernment Departments on developing policy proposals,my Department will:

examine the sentencing framework in order to ensure thatsentencing policy is effective in deterring crime, protecting thepublic, punishing offenders and cutting reoffending;develop an approach to legal aid which balances financialconstraints with the wider public interest;review libel laws in order to provide a proper balance betweenthe protection of freedom of speech and the defence of individualsagainst defamation; andestablish a Commission to investigate the creation of a Bill ofRights in order to protect and extend liberties.

In addition my Department is:reviewing its arm’s length bodies in order to increase accountabilityand reduce the number and cost of public bodies;considering the judicial appointments process in order to improvethe timeliness and quality of the end-to-end appointmentsprocess; andsupporting David Norgrove, who will undertake an independentreview of family justice, examining how the current system canbe reformed to better support children and parents.

I will bring forward more detailed policy proposalsabout these areas in due course.

Feltham Young Offender Institution and Remand Centre

Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Justicehow many complaints made by children about thequality or quantity of the food in Feltham YoungOffenders’ Institution were received in the last 12 months.

[2491]

Mr Blunt: From June 2009 until June 2010 there wereseven formal complaints to staff from young peopleabout the quality or quantity of food in HMYOI Feltham.


Homicide: Sentencing

Mr Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State forJustice what powers he has in relation to (a) recommendingand (b) amending minimum life sentences for offendersconvicted of murder. [2305]

Mr Blunt: There are no powers for my right hon.Friend the Secretary of State to recommend a minimumterm under a life sentence imposed for murder. Thedetermination of the minimum term is the responsibilityof the judge in all cases.

There is a residual power under section 103 of theChildren Act 1906 to amend the minimum term imposedunder a sentence of detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure,the mandatory sentence imposed for murder where theoffender was under the age of 18 when the offence wascommitted. Under such a sentence, once half of theminimum term has been served the offender can applyfor a review of the tariff. The review is conducted by theHigh Court and, in practice, the Secretary of Statehonours the recommendation made by the court in allcases.

Ministerial Visits

Mr Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice(1) which probation services Ministers in his Departmenthave visited since their appointment; [2192]

(2) which prisons each of the Ministers in hisDepartment has visited since their appointment. [2193]

Mr Blunt: I am the Parliamentary Under-Secretary ofState responsible for the National Offender ManagementService (NOMS) which covers prison and probationservices.

I have visited the following prisons and probationservices since my appointment:Prisons

HMP Wormwood Scrubs, London, 20 May 2010HMP Frankland, Durham, 28 May 2010HMP Coldingley, Woking, 4 June 2010HMP Feltham, Feltham, 19 June 2010.

Probation servicesCommunity Payback Site, London, 20 May 2010Hammersmith and Fulham Probation Office, London, 20 May

2010Durham Tees Valley Probation Office, Darlington, 27 May 2010

Surrey Youth Justice, Woking, 4 June 2010.Hammersmith and Fulham Youth Offending Team, 10 June

2010.

No other Ministers in the Ministry of Justice havevisited a prison or probation services since appointment.

Prison Sentences

Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Justicehow many (a) men and (b) women have been receivedinto prison each year on indeterminate sentences forpublic protection (IPPs) since IPPs were introduced.

[2609]

Mr Blunt: The following table gives the receptionfigures of prisoners on indeterminate sentences for publicprotection in all prison establishments in England andWales in each year since 2005 when they first came intoeffect:Annual receptions1 of prisoners on indeterminate sentences for public

protection, in England and Wales2005 2006 2007 2008

Total 420 1,570 1,747 1,315Male 400 1,530 1,704 1,277Female 20 40 43 381 Excludes police cells.Note:Indeterminate sentences for public protection came into effect on5 April 2005.

The figures can be found in the published OffenderManagement Caseload Statistics, Table 6.17, a copy ofwhich can be found in the Libraries of both Houses andwhich can be found at the following website:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/prisonandprobation.htm

These figures have been drawn from administrativeIT systems, which, as with any large scale recordingsystem, are subject to possible errors with data entryand processing.

Prison Sentences: Wales

Mr Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justicehow many men of (a) between 15 and 17, (b) between18 and 20 and (c) over 20 years were sentenced tocustody by courts in Wales in the last 10 years. [2505]

Mr Blunt: The requested information is shown in thefollowing table.

Males sentenced to a custodial sentence1 in Welsh criminal justice areas2, by age, 1998 to 2008

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20083,4

Immediate Custody

Age 15 to 17 443 481 424 369 368 349 380 323 373 269 261

Age 18 to 20 1,073 1,155 1,077 1,134 1,055 906 1,002 890 852 838 832

21 and over 4,054 4,262 4,074 4,197 4,404 4,062 4,396 4,162 3,734 3,697 4,125

Total 5,570 5,898 5,575 5,700 5,827 5,317 5,778 5,375 4,959 4,804 5,218

Suspended SentenceOrder

Age 15 to 17 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Age 18 to 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 292 393 367

21 and over 219 207 181 203 173 160 177 553 1,766 2,239 1,913


Males sentenced to a custodial sentence1 in Welsh criminal justice areas2, by age, 1998 to 2008

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20083,4

Total 219 207 181 203 173 160 177 598 2,058 2,632 2,280

n/a = Not applicable. Suspended sentence orders are only available for offenders aged 18 and over.1 Includes both immediate and suspended custodial sentences.2 In this table sentences at the Crown court are categorised according to the police force that prosecuted the offence which is not necessarily the area of thesentencing court. Sentences may be given at a court outside the prosecuting police force’s area. Those prosecutions brought by agencies other than the police arecategorised according to the criminal justice area of the sentencing court. As part of the rollout of the Libra case management system in magistrates courts during2008, a change was made to the categorisation by area. Sentences given at courts using the Libra system are categorised according to the criminal justice area ofthe court while others are categorised in the same way as the Crown court. By the end of 2008, all magistrates courts were using Libra. Police forces do notprosecute minor offences (those that are sentenced at magistrates courts) outside their areas. Only around 0.01% of sentences at magistrates courts were affected in2007 and 2008.3 Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates court for April, July, and August 2008.4 Following the introduction of the Libra case management system during 2008, offenders at magistrates courts can now be recorded as sex ‘Not Stated’ as well as‘Male’, ‘Female’, or ‘Other’. In 2008 1.5% of offenders sentenced were recorded as sex ‘Not Stated’. Direct comparisons by gender may be no longer be valid.Notes:1. These figures have been drawn from administrative data systems. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subjectto the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system.2. This data has been taken from the Ministry of Justice Court Proceedings database. This data is presented on the principal offence basis. Where an offender hasbeen sentenced for more than one offence the principal offence is the one for which the heaviest sentence was imposed. Where the same sentence has been imposedfor two or more offences the principal offence is the one for which the statutory maximum is most severe.Source:Justice Statistics—Analytical Services, Ministry of Justice

Probation

Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justicewhat plans he has for the future of the Critical PublicProtection Case Notification Scheme; and if he willmake a statement. [2978]

Mr Blunt: I have decided to continue to operate theCritical Public Protection Case Notification Schemeand have recently written to all Members, inviting themto receive information about the release of particularoffenders into their constituencies. The scheme allowsfor Members to be informed of the robust arrangementsin place to manage those offenders on their release fromcustody and to make further enquiries. As the vastmajority of such offenders are released initially intoApproved Premises, formerly known as probation andbail hostels, notifications will mostly be sent to Memberswith an Approved Premises in their constituencies.

Rape

Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Justicehow many victims of rape in England and Wales whosecases resulted in a conviction in each of the last fiveyears were aged (a) under 18 and (b) under 25 years atthe time of the attack. [2497]

Mr Blunt: The Ministry of Justice does not holdcentrally, details of the age of the victim other thanwhere the offence is specified separately in law. I cantherefore provide details of the number of defendantsproceeded against at magistrates courts and found guiltyat all courts for rape (including attempted rape) ofpersons aged (i) under 13, (ii) under 16 and (iii) 16 andover, England and Wales 2004 to 2008 (latest available),which are shown in the following table.

Court proceedings data for 2009 are planned forpublication in October 2010.

Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts of rape1, 2, England and Wales 2004-083, 4, 5

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Offencedescription

Proceededagainst

Foundguilty

Proceededagainst

Foundguilty

Proceededagainst

Foundguilty

Proceededagainst

Foundguilty

Proceededagainst

Foundguilty

Rape andattemptedrape of aperson agedunder 13

84 7 237 74 285 124 300 134 317 179

Rape andattemptedrape of apersonunder 16

1,124 351 963 320 815 292 720 300 611 294

Rape andattemptedrape of aperson aged16 and over

1,481 393 1,626 402 1,467 447 1,343 439 1,467 449

Total 2,689 751 2,826 796 2,567 863 2,363 873 2,395 9221 Includes: Rape and Attempted rape of a female or male.2 Includes: Conspiracies, charges of participation in offences as accessories after the fact and charges of participation in offences by impeding the apprehension orprosecution of the offender.3 The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of twoor more offences the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, theoffence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.4 Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted fromlarge administrative data systems generated by police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitablelimitations are taken into account when those data are used.5 Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates’ court for April, July, and August 2008.Source:Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice.


Rape: Defendants Anonymity

Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State forJustice which (a) organisations and (b) individualshave informed his Department that they are in favourof anonymity for rape defendants; and if he will makea statement. [2158]

Mr Kenneth Clarke: As of 15 June 2010, our recordsshow that no organisation had informed the Ministry ofJustice (MoJ) that it favoured this proposal and noorganisation had informed the Ministry that it opposedthe proposal. Three correspondents have written to theDepartment in support of the proposal. It would not beappropriate to release their names.

Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Justiceif he will place in the Library a copy of each piece ofwritten evidence he considered before deciding to bringforward proposals to extend anonymity to defendantsin rape trials. [2979]

Mr Blunt: The Director of Analytical Services in theMinistry of Justice has been asked to compile all theavailable research and statistics relating to this issueinto an independent report and publish this beforesummer recess.

Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Justicewhat meetings he has had with (a) members of thejudiciary and (b) organisations representing victims ofcrime on proposals to grant anonymity to defendantsin rape cases. [2980]

Mr Kenneth Clarke: I have as yet had no such meetings.

Reoffenders

Mr Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justicewhat assessment he has made of the effectiveness ofintegrated offender management schemes in reducinglevels of re-offending. [2194]

Mr Blunt: Integrated offender management (IOM) isdeveloping locally as a partnership approach to themanagement and rehabilitation of offenders who causethe greatest harm in their area. Currently there is limiteddirect evidence to assess the effectiveness of IOM inreducing levels of reoffending, although it builds onoffender based approaches such as local prolific andother priority offender schemes and the Drug InterventionsProgramme, for which there is positive indicative evidenceof their impact on re-offending. Feedback from areassuggests that IOM has been effective in generatingpartnership working in responding to offenders needs.

Mr Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justicehow much funding he has allocated to commence newintegrated offender management schemes in (a)2010-11 and (b) 2011-12; and how many such schemeshe expects will commence in each of those years. [2195]

Mr Blunt: Integrated offender management is a locallyled strategic approach to managing offenders and assuch the Ministry has not allocated any direct funding

to commence new integrated offender managementapproaches in 2010-11 or in 2011-12. We are aware thatsome funding for integrated offender managementapproaches has been provided locally.

As IOM is a local strategic approach, the pace ofdevelopment of IOM will be by agreement betweenlocal partners and will develop at different rates indifferent areas. All probation trusts without an IOMapproach report that one is planned or being developed.

Mr Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justicewhat integrated offender management schemes wereoperating in England and Wales as at 1 May 2010.

[2196]

Mr Blunt: Six pioneer areas that have operated IOMover the last two financial years are continuing todeliver IOM without continuing central support. (Avonand Somerset, Lancashire, London, Nottinghamshire,West Midlands and West Yorkshire)

Recent inquiries of probation trusts by the MOJrevealed that the majority of areas are adopting anIOM approach with the remaining areas planning toadopt such an approach.

Sentencing Guidelines Council

Mr Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State forJustice what his plans are for the future of theSentencing Guidelines Council; and if he will make astatement. [2310]

Mr Blunt: The Sentencing Guidelines Council wasabolished on 6 April 2010 and was replaced on the samedate by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.The Council has an important role in ensuring consistencyof sentencing and I am looking forward to workingwith the Council.

Wales

Jonathan Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State forJustice with reference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer’sannouncement of 24 May 2010 and pursuant to theanswer of 7 June 2010, Official Report, column 69W, onpublic expenditure: Wales, if he will provide details ofhis Department’s non-devolved public expenditure savingsthat will be incurred in Wales, including an estimate ofthe financial savings. [2940]

Mr Kenneth Clarke: The Ministry of Justice haveidentified £325 million in year savings to contribute tothe £6.2 billion across Government. Each area of theDepartment is contributing to the delivery of thesesavings (including arm’s length bodies). These savingswill be achieved by reducing discretionary spend, reducingcapital and IT spend and stopping or deferring plannedchange programmes. When identifying these savings wehave sought to ensure that they will not adversely affectservices.

None of the major MoJ capital projects that arebeing deferred are based in Wales. Some of the reductionsin discretionary spend, ICT and recruitment spend willbe proportionately allocated to services in Wales.


ORAL ANSWERSThursday 17 June 2010

Col. No.TRANSPORT ........................................................... 1001

Airlines (Industrial Action).................................... 1003Concessionary Bus Fares ....................................... 1004Dartford Crossing .................................................. 1002East London Line (Extension) ............................... 1009Heathrow Airport .................................................. 1001Mainline Electrification ......................................... 1008Manchester Metrolink (Extensions)....................... 1011Roads..................................................................... 1008Speed Cameras....................................................... 1012Subsidised Bus Services.......................................... 1010

Col. No.TRANSPORT—continued

Topical Questions .................................................. 1013Transport Services (Expenditure Reductions) ........ 1005

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES.................................. 1016Flexible Working.................................................... 1021Parental Leave........................................................ 1018Parliamentary Representation................................ 1016Science and Technology ......................................... 1021Violence Against Women ....................................... 1019

WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENTSThursday 17 June 2010

Col. No.BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS ............. 53WS

Further Education Colleges and TrainingOrganisations..................................................... 53WS

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT .. 54WSHouses in Multiple Occupation.............................. 54WS

DEFENCE ................................................................. 55WSDefence Vetting Agency: Key Targets Financial

Year 2010-11 ...................................................... 55WS

Col. No.ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ..................... 55WS

EU Environment Council ...................................... 55WS

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURALAFFAIRS............................................................... 56WSVeterinary Medicines Directorate and Veterinary

Laboratories Agency.......................................... 56WS

HEALTH................................................................... 57WSNHS South West.................................................... 57WS

TRANSPORT ........................................................... 58WSRail Franchising..................................................... 58WS

PETITIONSThursday 17 June 2010

Col. No.PRESENTED PETITIONS ...................................... 13P

Blockade of Gaza .................................................. 13P

WORK AND PENSIONS ......................................... 13PCarer Poverty ......................................................... 13P

Col. No.

WRITTEN ANSWERSThursday 17 June 2010

Col. No.BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS ............. 530W

Accidents: EU Law ................................................ 530WAdvantage West Midlands ..................................... 530WApprentices ............................................................ 531WArts: North East .................................................... 532WBetter Regulation Executive: Internet .................... 532WBroadband ............................................................. 533WBroadband: Rural Areas ........................................ 533WConditions of Employment.................................... 533WCopyright: Art Works ............................................ 534WDebt Relief Orders................................................. 534WDepartmental Mobile Phones ................................ 534WHigher Education................................................... 535WManufacturing Industries: Government

Assistance .......................................................... 535W

Col. No.BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS—continued

Northwest Regional Development Agency:Wigan ................................................................ 535W

Post Offices ............................................................ 536WPost Offices: Bank Services .................................... 537WRegional Development Agencies............................ 537WUK Trade and Investment: Finance ....................... 537W

CABINET OFFICE................................................... 520WDepartmental Information Officers ....................... 520WDepartmental Internet ........................................... 520WDepartmental Press: Subscriptions ........................ 521WDepartmental Security ........................................... 521WDepartmental Travel .............................................. 521WElectoral Register: Greater Manchester ................. 522WForeign Workers: EU Nationals ............................. 522W

Col. No.CABINET OFFICE—continued

Ministers: Codes of Practice .................................. 523WNon-departmental Public Bodies ........................... 523WOffice for National Statistics: Publications............. 524WPublic Sector: Manpower....................................... 525WWales ..................................................................... 525W

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT . 525WAir Conditioning ................................................... 525WFire Services........................................................... 526WHousing: Regeneration........................................... 526WLand Use: Agriculture ........................................... 527WLocal Authority Business Growth Incentives

Scheme............................................................... 527WLocal Development Frameworks ........................... 527WLocal Government Finance ................................... 528WLocal Government Finance: Barnsley .................... 528WLocal Government: Manpower .............................. 528WMayors................................................................... 529WNon-domestic Rates: Empty Property.................... 529WPlanning................................................................. 529WSocial Rented Housing: Finance ............................ 529W

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT .......................... 489WDepartmental Manpower ...................................... 489WDepartmental Official Hospitality.......................... 489WFootball ................................................................. 489WFootball: South Africa ........................................... 490WGambling............................................................... 490W

DEFENCE ................................................................. 494WAfghanistan: Peacekeeping Operations .................. 494WAir Misses .............................................................. 494WArmed Forces ........................................................ 497WArmed Forces: Health Services .............................. 497WArmed Forces: Housing ......................................... 498WArmed Forces: Wales ............................................. 498WAscension Island .................................................... 498WAtomic Weapons Establishment............................. 499WDefence Equipment: Sales...................................... 499WDepartmental Consultants..................................... 500WDepartmental Mobile Phones ................................ 501WDepartmental Official Cars.................................... 501WJoint Strike Fighter Aircraft................................... 501WLynx Helicopters.................................................... 502WMilitary Aircraft: Helicopters ................................ 502WMinistry of Defence Guard Service: Manpower .... 503WNuclear Weapons ................................................... 503WRAF Kinloss.......................................................... 503WRAF St Athan ....................................................... 503WWar Pensions Committees...................................... 504W

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER ................................. 519WBritish Constitution ............................................... 519WCabinet Committees: Nuclear Weapons ................. 519WDepartmental Pay .................................................. 520WParliamentary Privilege .......................................... 520WRoyal Prerogative ................................................... 520WVoting Rights: Prisoners ........................................ 520W

EDUCATION............................................................ 505WDepartmental Billing ............................................. 505WDepartmental Official Residences .......................... 505WDepartmental Public Expenditure.......................... 506WDepartmental Reorganisation ................................ 506WDepartmental Responsibilities ............................... 506WFlags ...................................................................... 506W

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ..................... 538WDepartmental Internet ........................................... 538WDepartmental Reviews ........................................... 539W

Col. No.ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE—continued

Nuclear Power: Finance ......................................... 539WTrade Unions ......................................................... 539W

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURALAFFAIRS............................................................... 508WDangerous Dogs .................................................... 508WDepartmental Reviews ........................................... 508WEunomia Research and Consulting ........................ 509WFloods: Sandwich................................................... 511WHunting ................................................................. 511WNanotechnology .................................................... 511WPoultry: Animal Welfare ........................................ 513WRiver Lymington: Ferries ....................................... 514WWater: EU Law ...................................................... 514W

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE..... 515WAnguilla ................................................................. 515WBritish Overseas Territories: Equality..................... 515WClimate Change: International Cooperation .......... 516WDepartmental Official Cars.................................... 516WDepartmental Official Hospitality.......................... 517WGovernment Hospitality: Wines............................. 517WIran: Human Rights............................................... 518WIran: Sanctions....................................................... 518WMexico: Oil ............................................................ 519WOverseas Students: Scholarships ............................ 519W

HEALTH................................................................... 506WBreast Feeding ....................................................... 506WCarers: Finance...................................................... 507WCoroners: Children ................................................ 507WMental Health Services .......................................... 507WPalliative Care: Finance ......................................... 508W

HOME DEPARTMENT .......................................... 544WAlcoholic Drinks: Crime........................................ 544WDepartmental Databases........................................ 547WDetention Centres: Children .................................. 548WEntry Clearances: Overseas Students ..................... 549WIdentity Cards ........................................................ 549WIllegal Immigrants: Northern Ireland..................... 550WImmigration Cases: Appeals .................................. 551WImmigration Controls ............................................ 551WImmigration: Gurkhas ........................................... 551WLanguage Analysis Testing..................................... 552WMotoring: Fines ..................................................... 552WPassports: Biometrics ............................................. 552WPassports: Databases.............................................. 553WPassports: EU Countries........................................ 553WPoaching ................................................................ 553WPolice: Manpower .................................................. 554WSouth Africa: Football ........................................... 554W

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION.............. 540WFood: Procurement ................................................ 540WFormer Members: ICT........................................... 541W

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.................... 555WBritish Overseas Territories: Overseas Aid ............ 555WDepartmental Internet ........................................... 555WDepartmental Official Cars.................................... 556WDeveloping Countries: Children............................. 556WDeveloping Countries: Climate Change ................. 556WDeveloping Countries: Fossil Fuels ........................ 557WEU Aid .................................................................. 557WMuseums and Galleries: Finance ........................... 558WSt Helena: Airports ................................................ 558W

JUSTICE................................................................... 561WCoroners: Children ................................................ 561W

Col. No.JUSTICE—continued

Departmental Internet ........................................... 561WDepartmental Manpower....................................... 563WDepartmental Official Cars.................................... 564WDepartmental Reviews ........................................... 564WFeltham Young Offender Institution and Remand

Centre ................................................................ 564WHomicide: Sentencing ............................................ 565WMinisterial Visits .................................................... 565WPrison Sentences .................................................... 566WPrison Sentences: Wales ......................................... 566WProbation ............................................................... 567WRape....................................................................... 568WRape: Defendants Anonymity................................ 569WReoffenders............................................................ 569WSentencing Guidelines Council............................... 570WWales ..................................................................... 570W

NORTHERN IRELAND .......................................... 504WDepartmental Official Cars.................................... 504WDepartmental Pay .................................................. 504WDepartmental Reviews ........................................... 504W

TRANSPORT ........................................................... 558WCommunity Railways Initiative: North West.......... 559WElectric Vehicles ..................................................... 560WHeathrow Airport .................................................. 558WHGV Charging ...................................................... 558WHigh Speed 2.......................................................... 559WSpeed Cameras....................................................... 559WTraffic Congestion: Glossop and Tintwistle ........... 559WTransport: North West ........................................... 560W

Col. No.TRANSPORT—continued

Transport: Worcestershire ...................................... 560WTyne and Wear Metro ............................................ 559WWigan .................................................................... 561W

TREASURY .............................................................. 541WAnnuities................................................................ 541WBanks: Pay ............................................................. 541WBusiness: Thanet .................................................... 541WDepartmental Translation Services ........................ 542WNational Assembly for Wales: Finance................... 543WVAT: Construction ................................................. 544W

WALES...................................................................... 505WDepartmental Official Cars.................................... 505WPrisons: Construction ............................................ 505W

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES.................................. 539WAsylum .................................................................. 540WEqual Pay Act ........................................................ 540WRape: Defendants Anonymity................................ 539W

WORK AND PENSIONS ......................................... 490WEmployment and Support Allowance .................... 490WEmployment Schemes ............................................ 491WEmployment Schemes: Lone Parents ..................... 491WEmployment Schemes: Voluntary Organisations.... 492WFuneral Payments .................................................. 492WFuture Jobs Fund................................................... 492WJobcentre Plus: Rapid Response Service................. 492WMaternity Leave..................................................... 492WSocial Security Benefits: Stirling ............................ 493WWales ..................................................................... 494W

Members who wish to have the Daily Report of the Debates forwarded to them should give notice at the VoteOffice.

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. Correctionswhich Members suggest for the Bound Volume should be clearly marked in the Daily Report, but nottelephoned, and the copy containing the Corrections must be received at the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later thanThursday 24 June 2010

STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT GREATLY FACILITATES THE

PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE VOLUMES

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

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES

DAILY PARTSSingle copies:

Commons, £5; Lords, £3·50.Annual subscriptions:

Commons, £865; Lords, £525.

WEEKLY HANSARDSingle copies:

Commons, £12; Lords, £6.Annual subscriptions:

Commons, £440. Lords, £225.Index:Annual subscriptions:

Commons, £125; Lords, £65.

LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request.

BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session.Single copies:

Commons, £105; Lords, £40.Standing orders will be accepted.

THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is published separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standingorder.

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 automaticdespatch of the Sessional Information Digest.Single copies:

£1·50.Annual subscriptions:

£53·50.

All prices are inclusive of postage

Volume 511 ThursdayNo. 17 17 June 2010

CONTENTS


Oral Answers to Questions [Col. 1001] [see index inside back page]Secretary of State for TransportMinister for Women and Equalities

Legal Aid Payments [Col. 1023]Answer to urgent question—(Mr Kenneth Clarke)

Business of the House [Col. 1030]Statement—(Sir George Young)

Public Spending [Col. 1040]Statement—(Danny Alexander)

Banking Reform [Col. 1056]Statement—(Mark Hoban)

Building a High-Skilled Economy [Col. 1067]General debate

Transport Infrastructure (Nottingham) [Col. 1131]Debate on motion for Adjournment

Westminster HallAlternatives to Child Detention [Col. 211WH]Debate on motion for Adjournment

Written Ministerial Statements [Col. 53WS]

Petitions [Col. 13P]Observations

Written Answers to Questions [Col. 489W] [see index inside back page]